http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/node/20166
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
In the article, As Election Nears, Roman Catholic Bishops Try to Raise Awareness of the Church’s Opposition to Abortion, Margaret Ramirez discusses the difficulties Catholics are experiencing with choosing a candidate for this November. While some Catholics are holding around the clock candle light vigils praying to end abortion, others are encouraging their friends in faith to not make their decision as a single issue voter. They are challenging them to decide which candidates will offer a “…more comprehensive definition of pro-life and the totality of the Gospel.” On the one hand, McCain opposes abortion but has voted in the past for government funding for stem-cell research. On the other hand, Obama is noted to have a very strong pro-choice stance, but is seeking a reduction in pro-choice programs.
In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II writes about the dignity of all human people and the responsibility we all have to promote this inherent dignity. He states, “Serving the Gospel of life thus means that the family, particularly through its membership of family associations, works to ensure that the laws and institutions of the State in no way violate the right to life, from conception to natural death, but rather protect and promote it” (93). Throughout this encyclical, Pope John Paul II acknowledges that abortion is intrinsically evil. He pushes the idea of promoting life further, to all stages of life. He acknowledges that other abuses against the dignity of the human person – genocide, euthanasia, stem-cell research, etc – as serious issues that cannot be ignored by the global community. Pope John Paul II gives followers a solid statement on Catholic beliefs about life issues, but I believe it still leaves room for questions.
As a Catholic, this leaves me between a rock and hard place. This November, along with many of my fellow Catholics, I am trying not be a single-issue voter. I want to support a candidate who supports human services and welfare reform but it is difficult to justify that through with a candidate who has such as strong record of being pro-choice. Do I vote for McCain because he is pro-choice because Obama has a horrific history of pushing the pro-choice agenda? Should I vote for Obama because of his promise of improving social services for the poorest in the country while McCain’s views appear to push for the continuation of war that has already killed thousands of innocent people? They are difficult issues that I believe all Christians are facing this election. Any thoughts how to approach the Christian dilemmas of single issue voting?
Recent Articles of Interest
1 day ago
Posts
6 comments:
I really appreciate Megan highlighting the dilemma of "single issue voting," as this is something I myself have struggled with. This post does an excellent job of summing up the dilemma faced by Catholic voters. A couple weeks ago, I was talking with a friend about the upcoming election. Although I was explaining that I cannot support Obama primarily because of his intense pro-choice stance, I prefaced my statement with "I'm totally not a single-issue voter, but . . ." The more I was honest with myself, however, the more I realized that that's not true-I have indeed been learning about a myriad of other issues, but I think that I am still to some extent a single issue voter. I am seeking especially through taking our Faith and Politics class to deepen my understanding of as many issues as possible, but at the end of the day, for me it still comes down to whether or not the candidate is pro-life. I just can't bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate, no matter how appealing his social programs and policies on other life-related issues may be. Granted, I know that Kmiec and many others would argue that the tactics supported by McCain would not in fact be very efficacious in bringing about an end to abortion. I know that there is a great disconnect between McCain's pro-life stance and his pro-war agenda, and I admit that this deeply disturbs me. I also question how the Catholic social justice principle of "a preferential option for the poor" fits into his policies. This year's pro-life candidate does indeed raise serious moral concerns in other areas. Nevertheless, I have become firmer in my belief in the need to start respecting life from the bottom up, and I think that whether or not our commander in chief supports abortion does make a difference. Of course, we need to seek the common good and uphold the dignity of life in all its stages. Our commitment to protecting a life obviously does not end once that life has made its way from the womb into the outside world. Still, I think that Obama's stance is rather backwards. Yes, he wants to ensure the quality of life of individuals, but he promises this without upholding or protecting their right to have a life in the first place. As I was trying to communicate this idea with words and hand gestures to a friend the other day, she succinctly articulated what I was seeking to express as "a trickle-up effect of life."
So, back to the problem of single issue voting. It would be irresponsible of us as voters to only be aware of a candidate's stance on one issue. We must educate ourselves so that we understand what we are voting for when we vote, and what we may expect to see if the opposing candidate wins. It is important to have a comprehensive view of a platform. This does not necessarily mean, however, that we will allow certain issues to "trump" the abortion issue in light of the research we may do for each candidate. Placing special emphasis on the issue of abortion does not mean that we only care about unborn babies and no one else; it simply means that we recognize that the issue of abortion should have a certain priority in voters' minds. As Megan reminds us, it is an intrinsic evil. In short, let's be educated. Let's do our homework. Let's know where each candidate stands in all areas . . . but let's not deny any call we feel to still place a bit more importance on the need to stand up for the unborn. We should not feel that we are being irresponsible or overly narrow-minded because we are placing the right to life at the top of our list of priorities.
A note about the stem cell research. I am thankful to Megan for bringing this up. As I read this post, I wondered where McCain falls on this slippery slope. I checked out the Pew Forum's website, and I must confess that though McCain's stance may not be impeccable, it is considerably more acceptable than Obama's. Here is the link http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Stem_Cell_Research
On a side note, I am greatly encouraged by the idea (and I must give fellow PC student Bob credit for this one) that the sorry state of the economy will prevent McCain from enacting his war policies as much as he would have liked.
While I understand that abortion is very important topic, and that the two candidates have very different opinions toward it, I feel very strongly that all the issues must be given equal weight. Let me start with a hypothetical: If a candidate for president ran on the platform that he would be killing 1 million people on inauguration day, but made it clear that abortion is an immoral, intrinsic evil, and must be made illegal at all stages, and his or her opposing candidate was pro-choice, but made it clear that he would not be killing 1 million people, would one still vote for the pro-life candidate?
This trickle up idea that Jen has brought up is interesting. I'd offer a different approach, however. Why can't we respect all life equally at every point in life? This would include issues such as abortion, war, poverty, and the death penalty. It seems to me that Sen. Obama stance on these issues has the human person in mind more than Sen. McCain. So my suggestion and hope is that Catholics should look at the whole of the platform, and make a decision based on all of the facts, rather than looking at just the single-issue.
Single issue voting is why this election has become so polarized. Few issues are as emotional as abortion rights. Both sides have personal pulls designed to fire up both the liberal and conservative bases and help turnout on Election Day.
But here is my cynical take, especially concerning the abortion issue. Let’s assume Republicans get more single-issue voters than Democrats on the abortion issue. Yet, even with a conservative leaning Supreme Court, the Court has declined to pick up any cases that may overturn Roe v. Wade. There is a simple explanation for this: conservatives need single-issue voters to win elections, if Roe is overturned, those single issue voters may start looking at other issues: healthcare, welfare, prescription drug prices for seniors, social security, etc. These issue would persuade some of those single-issue conservative voters to vote for a Democrat. Conservatives need Roe to stand in order to court single-issue voters.
Then, to answer your question, I would not be duped by this successful strategy. I would look beyond the talk and look at which candidates are actually doing something to stop the desire for abortions. Maybe it’s the candidate who advocates harsher penalties for rapists, or perhaps the candidate who funds educational programs to keep underage kids from engaging in sex (abstinence pledges) or engaging in safe-sex (sex education).
Since neither candidate will actually personally do anything to overturn Roe, single-issue voters who feel this is the number one problem in the country should instead support candidates and PACs that focus on eliminating the ‘need’ for abortions.
A common theme throughout the posts, this article, and this election has been about the protection of life. This protection does not come solely from the ending of abortion. If your single issue is the right to life, shouldn’t it also follow that it be a quality life. By this I mean healthcare programs, an end to war, and trying to end unemployment and poverty. These are just as important when considering the life of an individual.
Single issue voting is a dangerous practice in politics. I understand that some individuals feel passionately about one particular issue. Regardless of the one issue, voters are putting blinders by looking at only one topic. Individuals should research the broad range of issues in any election. They should then vote for who bests supports their ideology as a whole, rather just in part. If that candidate believes the same way you do about your one issue, all the better, but not necessary. I think this is a much better approach to voting, rather than looking at specific issues. Neither McCain nor Obama are going to drastically upset the current system with conservative or liberal reforms; McCain is not going to end abortion, nor is Obama going to completely legalize abortion and encourage every woman to get one.
My initial reaction to single-issue voters is indignation but when I think about it, it is fairly clear to me why one issue might drive an individual's political preferences, at least on Election Day. While I understand a person of faith's reservations about voting for a candidate who supports a woman's right to choose, there are so many other issues that affect humanity and American society even more potently. Health care, social-security, welfare and other social programs are incredibly important parts of respecting and protecting life. Even the death penalty, an issue that does not get tied to abortion as often as it should, deals with the issue of preservation of life. War, efforts to eliminate disease and foreign aid to countries whose populations are oppressed by violence, hunger and poverty are all issues that seem more important to humanity than abortion. I do not understand why a broader range of issues that deal with the protection and preservation of life aren't considered as important as abortion. I tend to think that because abortion is a much clearer and more easily understood "life" issue, it is the most potent issue. Single-issue voters don't always know that they are single-issue voters but regardless, it is far too narrow a view of political issues in a world of complexities.
In anaylyzing the comments to Megan, it seems that she has little to go off of theologically. As a fellow Catholic, I too find it hard to decisivly pick a candidate that fits every teaching of the faith; however, I find comfort in the fact that I understand them quite thouroughly. In Pope Benedict's first encyclical, Spe Salvi, he writes that real consideration of a perplexing problem must be done through hope. He writes, "We who have always lived with the Christian concept of God, and have grown accustomed to it, have almost ceased to notice that we possess the hope that ensues from a real encounter with this God." The answer to Megan's dilema is through prayer. This, though, often leaves more questions. Abortion is a very important issue, but God has given all freewill. He does not do anything to intervene. I think that we must win the abortion battle through the changing of hearts and minds rather than conversion. However, I understand that this is still not an ideal because it allows for the murder of the innocent. Other comments are correct, in determining your vote you must consider those that will most fulfill the teachings of the gospel. Take some time to pray about your decision. The seperation of temporal and spiritual worlds is arbitrary.
Post a Comment