The USCCB is at it again: they’re telling us how to vote. Without actually telling us how to vote.
Since 1976, the nation’s bishops have issued a voting guide prior to every presidential election cycle. Last week they released the guide for 2012 — surprising Church-watchers by merely re-issuing the pre-2008 document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” with an updated introduction. (You can download the whole thing here.) As the invaluable Rocco Palmo informs us, the bishops approved the guide “by an unusually-lopsided margin of 214-4” back in 2007.
Why the consensus? From one news account of the updated text:
The goal, said one church official familiar with the bishops’ thinking, was “to make everybody a little uncomfortable.” “Democrats can’t ignore abortion and gay marriage,” said the official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, “and Republicans can’t say that’s all that matters.”
In other words, besides emphasizing the role of religion in public life and the responsibility of individual Catholics in politics, the letter brings up issues that each side accuses the other of ignoring. Republican-leaning Catholics say Democrats ignore abortion and gay marriage (if they’re not promoting them!); Democrat-leaning Catholics say Republicans ignore the poor, the immigrants, and the environment. The bishops virtually level both accusations in the voting guide’s new introduction:
Although it has at times been misused to present an incomplete or distorted view of the demands of faith in politics, this statement remains a faithful and challenging call to discipleship in the world of politics. It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote. It applies Catholic moral principles to a range of important issues and warns against misguided appeals to “conscience” to ignore fundamental moral claims, to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters, or to justify choices simply to advance partisan, ideological, or personal interests.
Kind of refreshing to see strong language like that last sentence, isn’t it? I doubt I’m alone in detecting a jab there at both liberals (who “ignore fundamental moral claims,” like abortion and gay marriage, in the name of conscience) and conservatives (who “reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters”).
Anyway, amid the haze of social, economic, domestic, foreign, and environmental concerns, how do we know what to prioritize? A good first step is to think about which public issues are absolute and which are arguable (the terms are mine, not the bishops’, but they use basically the same categories). Absolute = not open to discussion. Rape, slavery, murder… that sort of thing. Arguable = important moral issue, yet open to debate on how best to address it.
First, the absolutes. These non-negotiable issues “concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law,” as the 2004 Catholic Answers voting guide put it. Back to the bishops’ guide: these issues include abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, torture, genocide, terrorism, racism, and targeting noncombatants in war. Just as you sin when you encourage others to sin, you can sin (1.) by encouraging politicians to promote intrinsic evils, (2.) by voting for politicians who promote evils because they promote them, and (3.) in some cases perhaps, by failing to discourage politicians from promoting evils. Note the caveats in #3; this last category involves questions of prudence and vocation. A cloistered nun may not be called to write letters to her congressman, whereas a pro-life activist may be.
On to the arguable issues. I should specify: it’s not arguable whether these things involve pressing moral concerns — the bishops are quite clear that they do. “The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors…is universally binding on our consciences,” they write. Then they add that those needs “may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means.” So the arguable part is not whether but how to address the arguable issues. Among them: poverty, health care, immigration, education, meaningful work, and war/peace. We Catholics can’t ignore these things, but we can certainly argue about how best to care for the poor, provide health care, promote human rights worldwide, reform the education system, etc. Given the huge complexity of all these things, arguments are inevitable!
After explaining these two categories, the bishops warn against “two temptations in public life” that “distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity.” First is “a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity,” turning abortion into “just one issue among many” as though all moral questions have equal weight. Second is “the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.”
In keeping with those warnings: Our activism in the area of absolute, non-negotiable issues should be a given. But especially if you, like me, think that some arguable issues should belong mainly to the private sector, you carry a great responsibility for them, too. You have to discern how to spend your time, money, and abilities in ways that promote human dignity and the common good. You have to evaluate which charities and which government policies do this best. You have to study and think. You have to pray.
9 thoughts on “In pursuit of Catholic politics”
Wow, Anna, thank you! I read that letter and was going to attempt a reply, but you’ve done a much better job than I could have done. Politics are a tricky business, even trickier for a Catholic. There is no party for us!!
Thanks for reminding us that our Catholic faith encompasses our entire life, not just outside of the voting booth.
Fantastic article! I appreciate your analysis, and the open and supportive attitude you’re taking toward the bishops. Too much time these days is spend trashing the shepherds, instead of applauding what good there is (and searching for it even when finding it seems doubtful). Bravo.
Great article! Politics normally gives me such a headache, it seems like no way I turn my vote is wrong or sinful. Thanks for pointing out that all issues are important, yet some are absolute while others are arguable. I was a little wary of the voters guide, but I think I’ll pick it up and go over it with Ryan this week!
Thanks, guys! The whole voting guide is definitely worth your time. And especially with NYC Archbishop Dolan (a strong, vocal, thoughtful bishop judging by what I’ve read, and a holy, generous, and well-liked man, according to my friends who know him) now leading the USCCB, we can expect more great things from the conference.
The American Church can’t legally tell you exactly who to vote for and still receive tax-exempt status. An few evangelical churches actually tried to do this as a protest in the last election and lost their status with the IRS, and then sued and lost.
Have you read Faithful Citizenship? There’s no danger whatsoever of anyone concluding that someone is being told how to vote. Not, of course, that this is the appropriate legal test. But it’s a good try.
For even more fun, I actually bothered to check the veracity of your claim before responding. My search of federal tax decisions from the last two years indicates that your claim about churches being stripped of their 501(c)(3) status is completely false. Yes, there is a coalition of Evangelical churches that make a habit of flaunting the tax code’s limitations on political activity. But there have been neither administrative decisions nor judicial rulings on the topic against any church in the last year. The fact of the matter is that the IRS does not exercise active supervision of churches’ political speech or take the sort of steps you indicate on any regular basis. I am fairly certain, in fact—though not positive—that it has never happened.
When will people realize 1) that the internet allows you actually to look things up before you run your mouth and 2) that it you will come into contact, when running your mouths, with people who actually know the things about which you insist on demonstrating your ignorance.
Colin – Yeah, I knew about the tax-exempt status rules; my opening sentences were meant to be clever, or ironic, or something. My jokes have failed on here (this blog, I mean) before, though, so I should be used to this 🙂
Titus – Ouch, what a scorcher! I think Colin was responding to my opening lines in the blog post, not to the USCCB voting guide. As an entry-level journalist who has spent many hours searching government documents, I commend you for looking all of that up. But please go a bit easier on us poor ignoramuses who didn’t do that this time.
My dear Miss Williams, my derision was certainly not directed at you or your quite impressive journalistic efforts. I don’t see that you made claims about any government action or the content or meaning of any legal document in your post. Nor would I expect you or most other journalists—especially amateur or entry-level ones—to have at your disposal the legal-research tools that allowed me to fact-check Colin’s comment in only a few minutes’ time. All I expect from the average blog writer is that she not invent words, and that the things she writes have some reasonable relationship to reality. You wrote a fine essay that made reasonable claims and contained a cogent discussion. Colin wrote a half-baked comment containing a verifiably false assertion of fact.
In fact, clicking on Colin’s name reveals that he’s a law student: so he should have at his disposal the same legal-research tools that I do. If he can provide a citation to the Tax Court or District Court decision or at least an administrative letter ruling that supports his claims (but that I am reasonably certain do not exist), he will deserve an apology from me. Otherwise, he should learn quickly that making unverified claims is the sort of thing you have to tell your malpractice carrier about.
Pingback: Who is Paul Ryan? | IgnitumToday