A Parable About Politics, Political Relationships, and Moral Accountability

In the hope that my words might help to clarify the nature and dimensions of the dispute playing itself out on the Mirror of Justice, let me offer a parable about politics and political relationships that might help us understand why principled passions may flare and to think about how to define the appropriate boundaries of political positions and affiliations that all faithful Catholics might recognize.

There once were three professing Catholic candidates running for mayor of a city:

Candidate A campaigned on an anti-pornography platform, pledging to devote her tenure as mayor to ridding the city of adult book and video stores.

The other two candidates both stated that they were firmly opposed to censorship on freedom of speech grounds and thus would not use the power of city government to close adult establishments.

Candidate B insisted that he was personally offended by pornography and fully accepted Church teaching on the harms of pornography, but explained that he had concluded that direct censorship was too dangerous for a free society.

Candidate C, while occasionally saying that he too was offended by pornography, was nonetheless willing to speak at the adult film convention, knowingly accepted campaign contributions from the pornography industry, hosted a reception for a well-known pornographer, and opposed even limited regulations on pornography (such as those designed to protect children against inadvertent access to adult material).

Faithful Catholics in that city were divided on how to respond to two of the candidates.

Some argued that the only justifiable position for Catholics was to adamantly resist the evil of pornography. They contended that a good Catholic should, even perhaps must, support Candidate A.

Other Catholics reasoned that, while they may be troubled by Candidate B’s unwillingness to take on the scourge of pornography, his position on other important issues facing the community made him a preferable choice to Candidate A.

A few Catholics even believed that, unlike other evils posing such grave harm as abortion or racism, Church teaching did not demand a single legal answer to every question about pornography. These Catholics concluded that Candidate B’s position was not only tolerable, was not only outweighed by his commendable views on other important issues, but was acceptable on its own merits. (As full disclosure here, I myself have been something of a free speech absolutist in the past, falling into what would be Candidate B’s camp on this issue. Although more troubled about aspects of that position today, I have not yet thought through any change to my longstanding position.)

But Catholics in that city were not without common ground. Everyone agreed that Candidate C was unacceptable. Candidate C’s conduct in knowingly affiliating with purveyors of pornography was shocking and outrageous. By embracing the pornography industry through speaking engagements, campaign contributions, and personal contacts, as well as taking extreme positions on the pornography question, Candidate C had moved beyond the pale and could no longer make any legitimate claim on the support of Catholics concerned for the common good of that society. Surely, all could agree, a professing Catholic who was not merely reluctant to use the force of law to control the dehumanizing and obscene depictions of pornography, but who actually embraced those engaged in production of that filth had thereby disqualified himself from public office.

Now I hasten to acknowledge that the Catholic supporters of Governor Sibelius’s nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services would insist that her political conduct and affiliations with respect to the subject of abortion (and abortionists) are not factually parallel to and thus are not captured by the parable I have told. But that should be the crux of the debate, then, shouldn’t it?

Has Governor Sibelius lent her voice as a speaker at abortion industry events? Has she knowingly accepted (and even solicited) campaign funds, not merely from pro-choice political groups, but from abortionists or abortion industry funds? Is she fairly and morally held accountable for the hosting of a reception, together with apparently jovial photo sessions, for a man who is the most notorious late-term abortionist (nothing short of infanticide) in the nation?

If we were able to come to a point of agreement on what the facts are (and perhaps we cannot), wouldn’t we have to come to common point of evaluation of the moral significance of those facts? And, if not, then what remains of the Catholic witness for the sanctity of human life?

Greg Sisk