Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Election Reflections

By Michael Perry

[Peter Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal, had some interesting, informative reflections in his column yesterday (NYT, 11/8/08), titled Catholics and Choice (in the Voting Booth).]

Anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. Will that fact be candidly addressed when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meets next week in Baltimore?

After a presidential campaign in which it was widely perceived that the dominant message from the bishops was that Catholics were morally obliged not to vote for a candidate supporting abortion rights, exit polls show that Catholics voted 52 percent to 45 percent for Senator Barack Obama. That was seven percentage points more than the Catholic vote in 2004 for Senator John Kerry, a fellow Catholic.

Hispanic Catholics, a group the bishops often hail as representing the future of the church in the United States, led the way. Latinos voted 67 percent for Mr. Obama, 16 percentage points more than their vote for Mr. Kerry. Latino Catholics, usually more Democratic than Protestant Latinos, almost certainly voted for the Democratic nominee at an even higher rate.

Exit poll figures for young Catholics are not yet available, but much information indicates that they also voted at high rates for Mr. Obama.

If the bishops sweat a little over these figures next week, the reason won’t be worry about their political prowess but about their pastoral and moral effectiveness. By appearing to tie their moral stance on abortion so closely to a particular political choice, have they in fact undermined their moral persuasiveness on that issue as well as their pastoral effectiveness generally?

In 2004, a distinct minority of bishops established the public posture of the church by excoriating the abortion rights advocacy of Senator Kerry and in some cases urging that he or even Catholics who voted for him should be barred from Communion.

The result was disarray among the bishops and a backlash among a considerable number of Catholics. To keep that from reoccurring in 2008, the bishops painstakingly reframed the brochure they issue every four years to guide Catholics in contemplating how to vote.

Responding to complaints that previous statements insufficiently highlighted abortion among the church’s many concerns, the new version emphasized that issues involving “intrinsically evil” actions could not be equated morally with others. Abortion was the prime example, but euthanasia, torture, genocide, unjust war and racism were similarly labeled.

Catholics, the bishops taught, could never vote for a candidate because he or she supported any of these evils but only despite such support—and only for proportionately grave reasons.

There were further nuanced reflections on the complexity of political choices and the place of prudential judgments in applying general moral principles to particular circumstances or to particular candidates. The bishops repeated longstanding disavowals of single-issue politics and of telling Catholics how to vote.

In November 2007, the bishops voted overwhelmingly for the document, titled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” During the election season, most of them publicized it in their parishes and stuck with it in their own statements.

But faced with the prospect of a victory by Senator Obama and particularly disturbed by the support he was getting from Catholics whose anti-abortion credentials were undeniable, many other bishops began to insist on giving their own interpretation. Some estimates place 50 to 60 bishops within this group, almost certainly a larger minority than four years ago. And they were the ones responsible for the public’s perception of the bishops’ role in the election.

Sometimes their declarations were dramatic. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, recently transferred to Rome from the Archdiocese of St. Louis, declared the Democrats “the party of death.” Bishop Robert J. Hermann, the church’s interim leader in St. Louis until a successor to Archbishop Burke is named, invoked “Judgment Day” a half-dozen times in a column leaving no doubt that Catholics should decide their vote on the basis of abortion alone.

Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton, Pa., required all pastors to read a letter from the pulpit stating that abortion superseded all other issues for Catholic voters, and he effectively suggested that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, should not receive Communion because of his support for abortion rights.

“To the extent it was perceived that abortion was the only issue that should determine a Catholic’s vote,” Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany said this week, “I don’t think it was true to ‘Faithful Citizenship’ itself, and I don’t think it resonated with the Catholic people.”

The danger may go beyond not resonating.

Many Catholics may understandably feel that the bishops are talking out of both sides of their mouths: Catholics are not supposed to be single-issue voters, but, by the way, abortion is the only issue that counts. The bishops do not intend to tell Catholics how to vote; but, by the way, a vote for Senator Obama puts your salvation at risk. Catholics are to form their consciences and make prudential judgments about complex matters of good and evil — just so long as they come to the same conclusions as the bishops.

There is obviously a gap between the prudential leeway that “Faithful Citizenship” affirmed for Catholics and the political urgency that some bishops feel about abortion — and already some of the latter are suggesting that the document should be recast again, presumably to make conformity to one’s bishop’s judgment a litmus test for being a faithful Catholic.

In a conversation on Monday, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who had overseen the delicate process of redrafting the document, warned about moving toward endorsing candidates. “It goes against our tradition to do that,” he said. “It hasn’t done any good for the candidate, or for the church or for conscience.”

Bishop DiMarzio lamented the fact that “people want black and white answers” rather than the whole legacy of moral analysis and reflection that “the Catholic Church can offer.” At the same time, it was clear that the possibility that a well-informed, sincere Catholic might use that legacy to vote for Senator Obama strained his imagination.

The election revealed how bitter divisions among some Catholics have become, but it also revealed how many others are just shrugging off the bishops’ teachings.

“I hope the bishops have a frank discussion as we assess how effective we were in communicating our message,” Bishop Hubbard said.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

The Catholic Church Attendance Gap

By Steve Shiffrin

In the 2008 Presidential election, a Catholic church attendance gap (the gap was much larger among Protestants) was evident. Among those Catholics who do not attend mass weekly, Obama prevailed by a 58% to 40% margin. But those who attended mass weekly also included millions of Obama voters. Indeed, Obama came close to winning that vote as well. He lost it 49% to 50 %.  Read all about it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704

Friday, November 7, 2008

NYT: Catholics and Muslims Pledge to Improve Links

By Amy Uelmen

Good news, not only re the event, but also (for the most part) the overarching tone of the NYT coverage.

"Catholic and Muslim leaders worked on Thursday to deflate suspicion between their two faiths, pledging at a high-level seminar here to work together to condemn terrorism, protect religious freedom and fight poverty."  Read more.

Catechesis: response to Patrick, Michael M. and Steve

By Amy Uelmen

Patrick and Michael M., I’d agree that catechesis, and specifically the work of helping Catholics “translate” what CST means for political and social structures is indeed a challenge of the first order. Steve S., based on my own work in adult and young adult catechesis, I’m still holding out in the hope that this work of “translation,” when done in an atmosphere of listening, love, understanding and trust, can still help regular folks in and out of the pews (include students) not only to trace the work of the Holy Spirit in Church teaching, but also to connect the dots between that teaching and their ordinary lives.  More narrowly (and I don’t think anyone on our blog is suggesting this, but just as a general comment), I don’t think we can draw a reliable inference between lack of catechesis and the outcome of the election or the exit polls.  Patrick and Michael M., I see how the CARA data (“only 18% of Catholics "strongly" agree with the statement: "In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the church teachings and statements by the pope and bishops to form my conscience”) can be read as pointing toward a general lack of catechesis, but I also wonder if there’s another dimension to this, too—the comment could reflect not so much a neglect of church teaching, but that their primary vehicle for forming their consciences might not be "document" based (e.g., they may be more drawn to conversation with trusted friends?).  And with this I come back to the beginning: the urgency of our common task not only to help open people’s minds to the depths of CST, but also to help open their hearts to its connection with their daily lives, and to this end, to explore all of the vehicles that can help to reach people where they are.  I think no matter where we come out on the political spectrum, we can work together on that task.

Reflections on the post of Patrick and Michael

By Steve Shiffrin

I take it as a given that the votes of Catholic voters can be accounted for by social and economic factors unrelated to their religion (I do not know this is true; but I will assume it).  This does not rule out the possibility that every Catholic comes to conclusions by his or her understanding of the requirements of Catholicism. I do not know how many Catholics fit that description consciously (the data do not speak to it), but, at the unconscious level, a Catholic background has a powerful pull. Given that, why could sociologists explain the votes (in the aggregate – if they were trying to explain individual votes they would be wrong in tens of millions of cases) by social and economic factors. I think it is because Catholicism as understood by the Catholic population can lead one toward Democrats or Republicans. As a sociological matter, it does not dictate outcomes.
Patrick and Michael note that a large majority of Catholics (unlike, I think, the majority of authors on this site) do not form their conscience according to the lead of the Pope and the Bishops. The majority of American Catholics are, therefore,  characterized by Patrick and Michael as not orthodox, and I think the characterization is reasonable. But I think it would be wrong to say that a majority of Catholics who do not follow the lead of the Pope and the Bishops are not devout.  For the most part, I think they do not follow the lead of the Pope and the Bishops because they do not see the Holy Spirit in many of the statements made by the leaders of the Church. They would not see the problem as a failure of catechesis. They would see it as a failure of Church leaders to understand the Gospel message.   
To be sure, many of those who have made this assessment of the message of Church leaders leave the Church or do not go to mass regularly (these persons may still believe in God and try to follow God’s demands for their lives – claims about a God gap are misleading); but tens of millions are regular participants in the life of the Church. They do not identify the Church with Church leaders (though they have been influenced by them in countless ways, and the Pope plays a special symbolic role); they identify with the People of God. They love the Church – its ritual, the communion of saints, its creed, and most of its social teachings - though it is not precisely the same Church the orthodox love.   

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Importance of Good Catechesis

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I would like to follow Patrick’s post from earlier today to discuss the importance of good catechesis and its eventual impact on the law. Patrick tackled the problem from the perspective of a lack of catechesis; in doing so, he is very much on track. When Catholics lack catechesis, strange things happen. But I find a need to offer a complementary train of thought. Indeed, there are occasions when catechesis has been provided to the faithful who are engaged in the duties of citizenship and public office. However, this catechesis is not good—it is erroneous thereby implanting false doctrine in the minds and actions of some of the faithful who are persuaded by the siren call. Today’s world has a lot of highly educated individuals who—as citizens or as law makers, judges, and administrators—have an extraordinary impact on the law. For some weeks now, Mirror of Justice contributors and readers have seen on this website a great deal of discussion about the role of Catholics in public life and, therefore, the influence of Catholics in the juridical institutions of public life. And, this discussion has given prominence to highly educated Catholics who, nevertheless, are lacking in good catechesis.

And, we have seen in this discussion the diversity of views on important legal and related public policy issues that are of vital interest to all members of society but also divide these societies. This division is patent in the community of citizens who identify themselves as Catholics. Here we must ask a vital question: why does this division exist amongst those who identify themselves as Catholics? Are the principal teachers of the Catholic faithful, the bishops, responsible? I think they will be addressing this question in one fashion or another at their annual meeting next week. But, there are others who claim a role in catechizing the faithful, and many of them are university professors. As we have seen on the MOJ website, several of us have offered our perspectives on the influence—be it good or bad—that university educators have had in informing the faithful about what the Church teaches (or appears to teach) on social and, therefore, legal issues.

The disagreements of MOJ contributors emerge in large part, I think, from the quality of the catechesis of the professors who have clearly influenced the faithful—in other words, is the catechesis of the professors whom we have identified as having an influence solid, or not; orthodox, or not; faithful to the Magisterium, or not. In the present day, discussions about the quality and fidelity to the Church’s teachings are not restricted to the work of American academics. Over the past several weeks, a group of professors from the Ateneo de Manila University, which is affiliated with the Jesuit order, have issued a position paper Download individual_faculty_of_the_admuposition_paper_on_the_reproductive_health1.pdf  on the Reproductive Health Bill, HB 5043, introduced in the Philippines House of Representatives. The president of the University has responded to the position paper.

As we have seen with some academics in the United States, this group of Philippine professors who teach at a Catholic university in their country have departed from the Church’s teachings. This is one issue that presents a grave matter when we consider the influence of the professorate on society at large. But the gravity is intensified by the professors’ declaration that “Catholics can support the R[eproductive] H[ealth] bill in good conscience.” I must respectfully disagree with their contention.

The professors offer a disclaimer that their paper expresses opinions that “do not necessarily reflect the views of other faculty” nor “do they represent the official position of the Ateneo de Manila University nor the Society of Jesus.” However, in spite of their disclaimer, it is clear that they intend the paper to offer catechesis to the faithful citizenry enabling them to support the legislation “in good conscience.” I respectfully suggest that their catechesis is both flawed and irresponsible; moreover, it is in many instances in direct conflict with the Church’s teachings. Consequently, their claim that Catholics can, in good conscience, support the bill is counterfeit.

For example, their paper repeats language—“reproductive health” and “population development”—that is often used by the United Nations Population Fund, which is by the way favorably relied upon in the position paper, to explain and endorse programs sympathetic with abortion access, artificial contraception, and population control. The authors of the position paper make a remarkable appeal to Catholics that the proposed legislation is consistent with Catholic teachings. In doing so, they attempt to reinforce their appeal to the words attributed to St. Thomas More at his trial regarding the protection of conscience. But they fail to mention that it was the State that had tried More for treason against a civil law that, in good and well-formed conscience, he could not support. Moreover, they fail to mention that it was the teachings of the Church that formed his well-formed conscience. The authors also rely on the Decree on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae Personae, to support their argument regarding conscience, but as I have addressed elsewhere, their views regarding conscience and its role are misinformed.

The authors’ catechesis is deficient in understanding the nature of conscience and why it is important to protect it. They consider the view of the autonomous person influenced by their views as the conscience that is worth protecting against the Church and not the State. What they fail to point out is that the bill that they endorse as one that “Catholics can support… in good conscience” would not only undermine but would destroy the protection of authentic conscience that is crucial to any member of the faithful. By way of illustration, the bill alienates the role and legally acknowledged right of parents—which is protected by conscience—in the education of the children on moral and religious matters; moreover, the bill in Section 21 criminalizes the actions of institutions and individuals who, who in the exercise of their conscience, could not do what is mandated of them in order to provide “information” and “services” regarding the “rights” protected under this bill. So what if the schools and hospitals are called “Catholic”! They must do what the State demands and would compel by the force available to the State, should this bill become law. To agree that artificial contraception (“essential medicines”!), sterilization, mutilation, and “other family planning methods requiring hospital services” are consistent with steps that the well-formed Catholic conscience could endorse is evidence not just of a poorly formed catechesis but a malformed catechesis whose corruption is uncontained.

The position paper is a clever but unsuccessful attempt to replace sound catechesis with a deformed instruction. It, the paper, selectively relies on passages of Magisterial documents that are taken out of context. Of course, when placed back in their context, it is patent that the position paper’s reliance on them is grossly misplaced. It would seem that the professors of the Ateneo de Manila apparently would not be too interested in anyone cite-checking the “authority” upon which they rely. Moreover, their critique of the Church’s Magisterium on issues they develop throughout the position paper barely conceals their contempt for good catechesis.

I have mentioned only a few of the problems that the position paper contains. A complete analysis of it, the legislative proposal that it promotes, and the Church’s teachings on the issues the professors address would reveal a great deal about the unreliability of the claim that “Catholics can support the RH bill in good conscience.” It should be patent that the professors’ claim is false. Moreover, if I may borrow from Dorothy when she queried Glenda in The Wizard of Oz: are you a good catechesis, or are you a bad catechesis?... it is clear that with regard to the position paper of the Ateneo-fourteen, it is bad; it is very bad.

RJA sj

For whom the question matters in the first place

By Patrick McKinley Brennan

Michael Moreland and I would suggest that our friend Amy's response (here) is question-begging. She assumes there is some cohort of "politically homeless" Catholics who would like to enact the principles of CST into politics but don't have an easy home in either of the major political parties.  We don't disagree as such, but the point of our post is that that number, from all available evidence, is breathtakingly small. Furthermore, Amy's comments might have the causal chain backwards--rather than Catholics receding into the background of American politics on account of their homelessness, we would suggest that think it's more plausible to say that the disregard of Catholic thought -- in all of its richness -- by both parties (folks will disagree about which side falls shorter) reflects the small number of Catholics for whom the question matters in the first place.  That it apparently matters so little to so many is a fact to be reckoned with.

Catholic Voting: Correct

By Greg Sisk

In my earlier posting, I cited the exit polls suggesting that, while Senator McCain prevailed among faithful Catholics who attend weekly Mass, Senator Obama won the overall Catholic vote. Other recent posts have also adverted to the reported result that the Catholic vote went to Obama this time. I and others appear to have been mistaken in taking such exit poll results at face value. Once again, the exit polls from this election proved unreliable, although somewhat less so than in 2004. While the exit polls at least got the result correct this year, the margins were way off. The exit polls showed Obama winning by 18 points, whereas his actual margin of victory was about one-third of that (here). In a crude attempt to bring those results better into line so that the media could report (and pundits pontificate about) exit poll numbers from various demographic groups, the exit poll results were re-adjusted and weighted to bring the margin down to 10 points, which of course is still about twice the true margin of actual votes cast. As a consequence, we simply cannot say with any certainty whether Obama or McCain carried the Catholic vote, other than to say that it was much closer than the exit polls suggest. Likewise, McCain's margin in carrying the majority of weekly Mass going Catholics presumably was largely than the poll results suggest.

Greg Sisk

Invisible or Politically Homeless?

By Amy Uelmen

Responding to Patrick's post on the disappearance of the Catholic vote, I wonder if the question could be framed like this: in a two party system, where is the space for Catholic "visibility" when an analysis of both parties from a Catholic social thought perspective leaves many Catholics feeling politically homeless?

Voters voting in the tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine and Moral/Political Theology and Philosophy? The clear consequences of lack of catechesis

By Patrick McKinley Brennan

My colleague Michael Moreland and I note Michael Perry's sharing (here) to a NY Times blog post indicating that, based on exit poll data, Senator Obama carried the Catholic vote 54-45 (in 2004, President Bush carried Catholics 52-47). But those of us who care about how the Catholic community contributes to American politics should note that, basically, the Catholic vote is merely tracking the vote of the rest of the population. Whether on account of a generation of failed catechesis or a more general lack of formation in Catholic institutions (parishes, high schools, colleges and universities), the number of Catholic voters whose vote is informed by their faith is a small slice of the national electorate. Catholics behave politically like their neighbors--the partisan breakdown of white working class Catholics, white suburban Catholics, or Latino Catholics is just about what one would predict based on their economic and cultural location. As this perceptive op-ed in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-oe-rutten29-2008oct29,0,2918246.column) pointed out a few weeks ago:
"What we're seeing in these three swing states [Missouri, Colorado, and Pennsylvania] is the end of the Catholic vote, as conventional political strategists traditionally have expected it to behave -- in part because it's now so large it pretty much looks like the rest of America; in part because of its own internal changes. National polls have shown for some time that, although Catholics are personally opposed to abortion, they believe it ought to be legal in nearly identical percentages to the rest of America. Moreover, as a survey by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate found earlier this year, only 18% of Catholics "strongly" agree with the statement: "In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the church teachings and statements by the pope and bishops to form my conscience."
....
What all this suggests is that, in this and coming election cycles, we may see a new model for the Catholic vote, one whose participation more closely resembles that of Jews, 75% of whom are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic, while a devout minority, the Orthodox, tends more strongly Republican. If you break the Catholic vote down in roughly the same pattern, you get something that looks like the current national spread. According to most reliable data, slightly less than one in four Catholics now assist [sic] at weekly Mass and are more open to GOP policies, while the overwhelming majority of their co-religionists have cast their lot with the Democrats' domestic and foreign policies."

Or as Joseph Bottum put it (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/818vklel.asp) reviewing George Martin's book on the American Catholic vote in the pages of the Weekly Standard four years ago:
"Add it all up, and it's hard to see any place that Catholicism makes a difference in American political life. In the ballots Catholic voters cast, in the positions Catholic politicians take, in the pieces Catholic writers publish--in what Catholics do, and what they fail to do--they are ordinary Republicans and Democrats; their faith seems invisible. They are utterly indistinguishable from the general run of citizens. In his famous talk to Protestant ministers in Houston during the 1960 campaign, John Kennedy said he didn't want to be a Catholic president; he wanted instead to be a president who happened to be Catholic. Catholicism in America seems to have since become entirely a Church of little John Kennedys.
....
The fact that Catholic voters are invisible feels wrong to me, somehow--a theological error, a philosophical mistake. The uniqueness of the Catholic vote wants to be true, if only because American history and intellectual consistency alike seem to demand that being Catholic make a difference in how one behaves in the public square. But accurate political analysis, like well-directed pastoral teaching, needs to begin with the truth: The Catholic voter is, alas, a myth."

Of course, those of us who teach at Catholic institutions and write about matters Catholic want there to be a ready audience for this blog, in our classrooms, and in the pages of Commonweal, America, and First Things for an informed and enriching dialogue between faith and politics. But wishing doesn't make it so.

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive