Catholic Ambassador Woes

In his recent article, Eric Gorski of the Associated Press discusses the often-overlooked decision of who will represent United States interests with the Vatican under Obama’s presidency. This issue is vital for a variety of reasons, as Gorski reports. Such reasons include potential disputes between the Vatican and the Obama administration over abortion, fears that dissent between the Vatican and the U.S. could encourage Catholic separatism, and also the careful decision of who the appointee should be. Gorski cites a variety of experts on the issues at hand, beginning with abortion.

In past years, the deciding factors about Vatican ambassadors have been their personal lives. The Vatican can reject any ambassador it feels does not meet the criteria of the position, which includes openly gay individuals or those they might consider to be ‘living in sin’. Though the Vatican looks more at the personal lives of appointees than their stances on relevant issues, all eight of the past ambassadors to the Vatican have been pro-life, including the Democrats. One of the possible first choices is Douglas Kmiec, a Reagan administration lawyer who endorsed Obama during the recent election. Kmiec is a professor of canon law and fluent in Italian, so he could be a valuable choice because he understands the Catholic and Italian cultures and also the issues facing relations between the countries.

While this decision is important, I dispute the notion that Catholic separatism is a real fear. In my research for my final paper, concerning the interesting relationship between the KKK and Protestant Churches, I read George Marsden’s book, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. In this book, Marsden chronicles the factors contributing to the rise of Fundamentalism in late 19th century America, including the great increase of immigration of Catholics. Protestants feared these Catholics would take over their nation, controlled from afar by the actions of the Vatican. The Ku Klux Klan arose partly out of this fear, though the Vatican undertook no real actions to try to establish this sort of control. Based on these historical events, I believe that the most important considerations for the selection of the ambassador are their understanding of both international politics and Catholic traditions and culture. Based on these criteria, the president can make a much better decision than would be possible if he were concerned wholly with the American response of Catholics to the ambassador.

Abortion, Obama, and Evangelicals

Postings on this blog have often focused on abortion, as well as the irreparable divide between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. However, I think most of these posts have overlooked an interesting phenomenon: the rise of young evangelicals, most of whom are the products of the Christian Right. These evangelicals have grown up in Sunday school. Some have gone to Christian schools or were even homeschooled. This voting bloc is the first generation to grow up during the rise of the Christian Right, and their voting patterns, especially on the issue of abortion, are interesting to study as a result.

As this article makes clear, Barack Obama was extremely successful, compared to previous Democratic presidential candidates, in gaining votes among self-described evangelicals. During his presidential campaign, Obama worked hard to court evangelicals, talking about issues they care about: social justice, caring for the poor, the need to end the war in Iraq. He won 42 percent of evangelical votes. However, this so-called “narrowing of the God gap” could be very tenuous.

As Martin shows in his book With God on Our Side, the Republican Party has deliberately lined itself up with evangelical values, particularly on the sanctity of the family and abortion issues (213). This has provided them with a strong and loyal base for the past thirty years. And even now, when it appears that many evangelicals might break ranks with the Republicans, they can still be won back.

While I agree with the authors of the article that the GOP has a very good chance of bringing the young people ‘back into the fold’, I don’t think it will be as easy as they make it sound. The policy changes they call for will require a dramatic shift in the party’s platform, a change that won’t happen overnight. Besides, older Republicans might resist the need to expand their ideals to gain a bigger audience. However, it is crucial for Republicans to realize that a strong stance on abortion, and even other social issues, such as homosexuality, gay marriage, the sanctity of the family, and the evolution debate, while still important, won’t hold as much sway over younger voters.

Your health, hanging in the balance

An article in Monday’s NY Times updated readers on the controversy surrounding a recent Bush Administration proposal. This Health and Human Services Act “would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures [and dispensing birth control and emergency contraception] because of their ‘religious beliefs or moral convictions’”.

The proposed law is being strenuously protested by various groups, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the “National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states”. The EEOC asserts that this “would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion”; other opponents have described it as “unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers”.

Employment discrimination based on religion is already prohibited, and the concept of “religion” in this case can also be interpreted to include moral or ethical values. This ruling basically adds one’s stance on “choice” (as it relates to abortion and birth control) to the list of protected classifications, like gender or race.

The biggest threat from this “healthcare provider conscience” legislation comes from its sweeping implications. Pharmacists could opt not to fill prescriptions for birth control or dispense emergency contraception, which could lead to many patients getting turned away, or being unable to find a pharmacist or a doctor’s office in their vicinity which can meet their needs. This would most directly impact rural and low-income women who have fewer options, for geographical or financial reasons, for getting their prescriptions filled. Also frightening: “the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims”.

Essentially, this law goes so far as to put family planning clinics in a position where they cannot refuse to hire someone who objects on moral grounds to a fundamental aspect of their job, such as dispensing birth control. A person who opposed abortion could apply for a job at a clinic which provided abortion services, and then argue discrimination if not hired.

This proposal appears to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, which requires that an employer make reasonable accommodations based on an employee’s religious beliefs unless it presents an overwhelming burden on the employer’s ability to operate. Additionally, I believe that this proposal gives undue preference to religion in that it provides an unnecessary benefit and protection. A person who is opposed to birth control does not have a fundamental right to get a job at a clinic where they would be called upon to dispense (such as a Planned Parenthood clinic). While many people with such views would not apply for such a job, others would, and could then file unnecessary discrimination lawsuits when/if denied a job.

I would argue against provider conscience rules in general, in that patients seeking legal prescriptions or medical procedures (from birth control to emergency contraception to abortion services) have a legal right to obtain them. Refusal to fill a prescription for something that is legal (regardless of your moral view of it) places an undue burden on the individual seeking treatment. The needs and requests of the patient need to be served, and sending a patient travelling from town to town seeking a pharmacy that will fill her prescription can represent a significant burden. If one staff member at a pharmacy refuses to fill a certain type of prescription, then there should be someone on hand at all times who will. This places a burden on the pharmacy, in order to meet the needs of its customers, which I believe is fair. (Applying this situation to abortion is a much more complex and sensitive issue that I will not delve into here.) This piece of legislation from the Bush administration is unnecessary, dangerous, and ultimately places women’s health in jeopardy.

URGENT! Please read.

We are only days away from the upcoming election. It is imperative for all Americans to understand what is at stake on Tuesday, November 4. To those who caution me and others against being single-issue voters, I would like to say this: You are right, there are many issues at stake, and we should educate ourselves on these issues as much as possible when we choose a candidate. There are times, however, when certain issues become of primary concern because of the emergence of grave threats to the dignity of the human life. Obama has in effect made this a single-issue election because of his extreme pro-choice stance. Human life in its most innocent and vulnerable stage is greatly endangered. If Obama were moderate, it might be possible for a Catholic, or a pro-life person of any religion, to rationalize a vote for Obama. In the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. Catholic bishops have stated, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference and inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidates’ unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (paragraphs 34 and 35). Given Obama’s stance on abortion, it is difficult to find a “grave moral reason” to support him. What “grave moral reason” can a Catholic voter in good conscience present in support of Obama? What issue “trumps” the issue of the most basic human right, the right to be born? Is it the economy? To be honest, while both candidates have different viewpoints, I think that either one could come up with some ways to pull us out of this economic crisis. Is it the war in Iraq? True, McCain has committed to keeping troops there for an undetermined length of time, but Obama, while pulling out sooner, still plans to keep “residual forces” in Iraq. In addition, Obama has expressed support on multiple occasions for the risky move of crossing the Pakistan border in search of Afghani insurgents, with or without the authorization of the Pakistani government. Is healthcare the concern? Let’s not put the cart before the horse. How about allowing people to be born in the first place? I would say that the fact that millions of Americans are being murdered in their mother’s womb is a pretty serious health crisis. Let us not fail to acknowledge that there is a genocide taking place right here in the U.S., every day, in the wombs of women who are deceived into thinking that killing their children will lead to liberation.

Please humor me for a moment and imagine a hypothetical election. It is 2008, and we can choose between 2 candidates whom for now we will call “A” and “B.” Let’s suppose that both candidates have relatively the same stance on abortion, yet they diverge on other issues and tend to follow their respective party’s typical stances. Now say that one of the candidates (candidate “B”) is openly racist and has even supported legislation to protect the rights of the KKK over the years (I choose racism as an issue because it is mentioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops along with abortion as an “intrinsic evil” in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship). If elected, candidate “B” plans to sign off on laws that will virtually wipe away all the gains the Civil Rights Movement has made over the past few decades and use taxpayer’s dollars to support KKK activities. Candidate “A,” on the other hand, has openly condemned racism and would overturn any discriminatory legislation that still exists. Consider now that you are preparing to vote, and you have decided that “B’s” racist stance compels you to reject him/her and vote for “A.” Would you expect to be criticized for focusing only on the racism issue? It would be very strange if someone were to say to you, “Listen, you can’t just look at one issue. Yeah, ‘B’s’ racist, but you have to look at the big picture. Besides, what difference is “A” really going to make?” Such a person may even argue that despite “B’s” history of endorsement of racist legislation, his or her economic policies would lead to more integration and greater financial stability for families of all races. This would in turn result in an increase in understanding between races and a decrease in tensions caused by economic strain that often bring out the worst in us. Would these argument justify voting for a racist candidate? I think not. Now just replace “A” with McCain, “B” with “Obama,” “racism” with “abortion,” and “KKK” with “Planned Parenthood.” Does this give you a different perspective on this year’s election?

This past week in our Faith and Politics class, we examined several very powerful arguments expressed in Robert George’s Public Discourse article “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and George Weigel’s op-ed Newsweek piece “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama.” Both men have an impressive history of experience in matters of faith, politics, and ethics. Both Weigel and George write about Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” his unwavering support of Roe v. Wade, and his commitment to FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. Robert George quotes Obama as saying, “the first thing I would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. ” Weigel does a good job of summing up this act as well as describing significant policies that Obama opposes, so I would like to quote Weigel here:

“According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing "conscience clause" protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama (along with the Democratic Party platform) supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the "Mexico City policy" (initiated by Ronald Reagan and reinstated by George W. Bush, which bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.” Thus, FOCA really is not about choice at all. It is about eliminating the freedom of pro-life taxpayers and healthcare professionals to choose not to cooperate with murder. It is about continuing to deny helpless babies their right to be born.

In response to those who argue that Obama’s policies on other issues would lead to a decrease in abortion by improving socioeconomic status, Weigel offers the following statistics: “Sweden, with a much thicker social safety net than the United States, has precisely the same rate (25 percent) of abortions per pregnancy as America,” and “according to a survey conducted by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, a mere 23 percent of abortions in the United States are performed primarily because of alleged financial need.”

If Obama’s endorsement of FOCA is not enough to cause concern, Robert George describes the various legislative acts supported by Obama that would allow for the creation and destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. Besides the fact that this is extremely unethical, it is completely unnecessary due to the fact that there are a number of successful alternative ways to acquire non-embryonic stem cells. It is incomprehensible why Obama would support such acts. George also notes that Obama has shown a record of opposition to pro-life bills, even those proposed by his own Democratic Party.

George goes on to remind us that we have 5 to 6 Supreme Court justices who are likely to retire within the next four to eight years. While we will have to deal with a President for 8 years at the most, we will have to contend with the Supreme Court justices he appoints until they have reached an age or a health condition at which they are no longer able to effectively perform their duties. The impact of an appointment of a Supreme Court justice will extend far beyond the termination of a presidency. George points out that Obama has “made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama.” McCain, on the other hand, has stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He would likely appoint judges who feel the same way.

There are some who argue that simply overturning Roe v. Wade would make little difference in decreasing the number of abortions. I would like to echo George’s argument, however, and affirm that turning the issue over to the states would allow for greater dialogue on the issue and more pro-life legislative gains than a national blanket-statement from federal Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench. Furthermore, McCain recognizes that overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue to the states is not the only thing that must be done. He explicitly states on his website (under the section “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life”) that a reversal of Roe v. Wade must be accompanied by continued support of “faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to mothers in need” as well as greater encouragement of adoption.

To see a video confirming what has been presented in this blog, please visit this link: http://americaschoicenow.com/

On November 4th, 2008, may we choose life, and may we continue to embrace God’s indescribable gift of life every day of our lives.

I leave you with this verse: “I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” Deuteronomy 30:19

Switching Sides?

I have often heard the phrase, “God is not a Democrat or a Republican.” Nonetheless, some in the Religious Right might say that God would support one party over the other because He would support their stance on key political issues. It was not always this clear cut though, because in the beginning of the rise of the Religious Right evangelicals originally supported Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. However, when it appeared that he was not as conservative as they had hoped, there was a push for them to vote for conservative Republicans. From 1993 to 1996 the efforts of the rising Religious Right culminated in a political cleansing as the Republicans “surged from minority to majority at every level of government” (James Morone, Hellfire Nation, pg 455). Today, many within the Religious Right still choose the Republican Party as their representatives because of their pro-life and pro-family platform.

The article, “Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play” discusses the recent shift in party lines as some Democratic campaigns include anti-abortion stances. Currently, there are twelve Democrats running for the House who are anti-abortion, the greatest number of anti-abortion candidates the party has seen in recent years. As the article contends, the increase in anti-abortion Democratic candidates threatens the Republican domination over “social issues.” Furthermore, there are tensions within the Democratic Party because their platform supports abortion rights and relies on funding from abortion rights groups. However, one Democrat from Pennsylvania responded to criticism by saying she “believe[s] they have a narrow view of what a Democrat is.”

It is clear that America’s polarized two party system promotes narrow views of Republicans and Democrats, and it is even more interesting how religious issues fall into that polarization. Even though it appears that members of the Religious Right only care about “social issues,” this article highlights an understanding that religious people care about a wide spectrum of political issues. Some are willing to vote for a candidate based on both their religious views and their economic views. This willingness to switch political parties shows that religious issues are not the only ones of concern.

On the other hand, is it a problem that people are so willing to vote for someone solely based on their stance on “social” or religious issues even if they disagree with their economic views? If this is the case, it seems better for the Democratic platform to loosen strict adherence to the abortion rights campaign so that the conservative base is more willing to vote for Democratic policies. Lastly, what does it mean that religious issues are an area of compromise? I believe that it shows religion still matters to many voters, and some within the Democratic Party are shifting their stances so that they can reach a conservative constituency. In contrast, others might say economic issues are becoming more of a priority for religious voters, as moral issues move to the back burner.

Cuts to Contraceptive Aid in Africa

The State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development has allegedly ordered six African countries (Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe) to stop giving U.S.-donated contraceptives to the British-based Marie Stopes International (MSI) family planning organization. MSI works with the U.N. Population Fund in China, which President Bush opposes on the belief that it supports China's family-planning program. It seems to further his distaste for the Population Fund he is severing ties with their affiliate. In an official statement the MSI organization responded: "Only the Bush administration could find logic in the idea that they can somehow reduce abortion and promote choice for women in China by causing more abortion and gutting choice for women in Africa," it said. "This senseless decision is likely to have only one clear consequence: the death of African women and girls."

Further estimations by the organization suggest the loss of U.S. support will increase unwanted pregnancies to 157,000 per year, leading to 62,000 additional abortions and 660 women dying in childbirth. Kent Hill, an official of the U.S. aid agency, dispels these claims saying that the same supplies will be available, they are just being redirected through other aid agencies. With this new course, large cities will still benefit. The same cannot be said for rural areas where Marie Stopes clinics are the only resource for family planning.

Op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristoff highlights the paradox of the “pro-life” administration in their latest decision on reproductive health, calling John McCain into the ring -- citing his support of the de-funding on the U.N. Population Fund. He also recounts an interview that asked McCain “whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, [to which] he initially said, ‘I haven’t thought about it,’ and later added, ‘You’ve stumped me.’” Barack Obama is said to support U.N.-led family-planning initiatives.

While the original intentions are good -- refusing to support forced abortion or sterilization in China -- they should not come at the expense of another population. To be clear this is a decision of the Bush administration, however; John McCain’s support does hurt his defender-of-the unborn status greatly. Now just to leave you with an entirely separate consideration, something else to mull over: what a decision like this can do to affect our international relations with the African nations. Is it in the American best interest to prioritize issues in China over Africa?

Single Issue Voting

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?

Abortion in Oregon

This article reports on a recent incident in Oregon. The Catholic governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, hosted a pro-choice event last week. In response, the Archbishop of Portland, John G. Vlazny, called Kulongoski "a source of embarrassment for our church and a scandal for the Catholic community." The archbishop called upon Catholics in Oregon to contact the governor and let him know how they feel.

This is all quite fine, even considering the fact that the archbishop hosts his own annual pro-life event, as it is all part of the political process and nobody is violating anyone else's rights. However, the archbishop implied quite a bit more. He went on to say such things as:

For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the Church.

...grave evil of abortion continues to be promoted as a legitimate moral choice by Governor Kulongoski...

I call upon our Catholic people to express their displeasure to the governor and to remind him of the demands of personal integrity as a member of our faith community in the exercise of his office and public activities.

These statements, and especially the last one, indicate that the archbishop thinks of the governor's position as one from which to enforce Catholic moral values. He implies that it is the governor's duty to uphold the teachings of the Church and to enforce it upon the people, which is completely at odds with the First Amendment. He even says that the governor's integrity is at stake.

From what the archbishop said, he seems to almost be advocating a theocracy. I think that it's important to view his beliefs in light of relevant pieces of history, especially Jefferson and Madison's views of separation of church and state. The archbishop's views can be compared to those of Patrick Henry, who wrote a bill establishing public pay for teachers of the Christian religion, and to Angelina Grimke, who published Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, which advocated following the orders of God over those of the government. But because of the barriers that our founding fathers erected, Jefferson and Madison in particular, these particular ideas never caught on, and neither will the archbishop's. Such ideas that advocate a religiously-run state will always be considered relatively extreme, even among this predominantly Christian nation, due to the moderating force of the separation of church and state.

(Reading the comments is also kind of interesting. Obviously the site caters to a particular population, but the commenters' ferocity is still astounding to me.)

Reverse Endorsements?

Earlier in the semester Gabriela posted about pastors’ inability to endorse political candidates based on the non-profit status of their church. This led to a string of comments and an interesting discussion in class. It seemed to me like the consensus in our class was that if pastors wanted to formally endorse a candidate in their church, they needed to be ready to give up their tax-exempt status. But what about what I call “reverse endorsements," or pastors and churches that condemn voting for a particular candidate either through word or action. For example, there was an article about Sarah Palin’s former pastor who questioned the salvation of citizens who do not vote for George Bush in 2004. Furthermore, an article from U.S. News and World Report discusses how the Catholic Church frequently denies communion to politicians who are pro-choice, including John Kerry in 2004 and most recently Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Many have questioned whether the Catholic Church is overstepping its boundaries with these types of decisions and I question how this action is any different than endorsing a specific candidate. By saying you shouldn’t vote for candidate A, aren’t you saying vote for candidate B?

This is not the first time bishops have denied communion to Catholics over a political issue. In the 1960s, Catholics in New Orleans and St. Louis were refused communion because of their rejection of integration in Catholic schools. The bishops of these dioceses at the time tried to work with the dissenters, but to no avail. Because of their support of segregated schools, these people were not allowed to join in full communion with the church.

These scenarios are not exactly the same, mainly because the events in the 60s did not focus on a single political candidate. However, they both demonstrate the Roman Catholic Church influencing politics and the thinking of the members of the church. This is obviously not an isolated event, so I think the government needs to reconsider its policy on only banning churches from actively endorsing political candidates. In no way do I want to completely remove the discussion of politics from the pew, as I think it is essential to be able to share political opinions with those who have a similar core system of beliefs. However, I think churches, especially those with as much power as the Catholic Church, need to be held in check. Attention should not be brought to specific candidates, whether through word or deed.

American Catholic Voters

In his article "Tough Choices for U.S. Catholics," commentator Jeremy Lott of a UK news website offers his assessment of the dilemma faced by American Catholic voters in the upcoming presidential election. Lott first calls attention the correlation between weekly Mass attendance and the tendency to vote Republican (actually, the 2004 web article from which he draws his claims says that people of any religious background who come to weekly services are more likely to favor the conservative, right-wing candidates in an election). He asserts that “most Mass-going Catholics . . . [are] apt to agree with the prudential judgment of groups like the Knights of Columbus,” who acknowledge the primacy of abortion over “social justice issues” and denounce Catholic pro-choice candidates. Lott goes on, however, to say that despite the significance of the abortion issue for so many Catholic voters, there is one issue especially in this year’s election that may make their decision less clear-cut: the war in Iraq. Lott refers briefly to the just war theory and offers a reminder that voices from the Vatican disapproved of our entry into Iraq. Lott cites Cardinal Pio Laghi (sent by Pope John Paul II as an emissary to the White House), who said that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be “illegal” and “unjust.” He quotes Pope Benedict XVI, who, while still a cardinal, said, “The concept of a ‘preventative war’ does not appear in the catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Lott claims that both candidates “only amplify the worst tendencies of their respective parties.” Basically, Lott sees the plight of American Catholic voters as this: to vote for Obama would be problematic due to his extreme pro-choice stance (the man voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, for crying out loud). To vote for McCain, however, does not completely ease our consciences either, as he has been a strong proponent of “an unjust war in Iraq” and would perhaps involve us in other armed conflicts that are not justified in the eyes of the Church.

I found Lott’s article to be very interesting, especially considering the fact that he has a different vantage point since he is writing from the U.K. While I agree with a lot of what he says and am really able to identify with this article, I think that his view of the American Catholic voter is incomplete.

The main reason that I was drawn to this article was precisely because of the two issues that Lott pinpoints, namely abortion and war. As I struggle to navigate the waters of this year’s presidential election, these are two of the main issues about which I am concerned. While some of Obama’s social policies may seem to exhibit a greater care for “the least of these,” I cannot support his policies regarding his treatment of the smallest of the least of these. As Dr. Seuss proclaims in his book Horton Hears a Who, “A person’s a person no matter how small.” When I look at McCain, however, I grapple with his pro-war stance. I suppose that some McCain proponents would argue that by supporting the war he is in fact securing the lives of Americans at home and somehow helping to improve life for Iraqis, but to accomplish these ends by war seems contradictory to me (besides the fact that we were not justified in entering into the war in the first place). In short, I do not see either candidate as upholding what the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin referred to as a “consistent ethic of life.”

While I strongly identify with Lott’s concise explanation of the problems presented by the candidates’ positions on abortion and war, I do not fully agree with Lott’s perspective of the American Catholic voter, and American Catholics in general. I think that the situation is a bit more complex that Lott makes it out to be. A Time Magazine poll of 600 Catholic voters from various parts of the U.S. published in June showed that 45% of those polled were in favor of McCain, and 44% were leaning towards Obama. The article on American Catholic voters that went with the poll spoke about a trend of Catholic voters to favor the views of Douglas Kmiec, who supports Obama due to economic and social justice issues as well as the war in Iraq (Claire explained this in her post last week). On a personal level, I know several pro-life Catholics who will most likely vote Democratic in this election. While these voters are concerned with the war, I have found that Iraq is not the only issue that, as Lott puts it, may “trump” the priority of electing a pro-life president on their list of concerns.

Also, I sadly feel that Jeremy Lott’s view of American Catholics is too optimistic. He opens his article by trying to identify with the American Catholic voter through this statement:

“Suppose you are an observant but not particularly devout American Catholic. You go to Mass on Sundays and those holy days that you remember. You don't eat meat on Lenten Fridays - though how you curse it. You feel guilty about not going to confession more often. You fish money out of your pockets during most offerings and usually give to the bishop's appeal. Your faith may not move mountains, but it's real, and you take the obligations of your religion seriously. While you're not wild about all the particulars of Church teaching, you don't doubt that it's true.”

Although Lott’s description is of “an observant but not particularly devout” American Catholic, by today’s standards I think the person he describes would indeed be considered devout in our nation. Moreover, while Lott’s claims about the correlation of Church attendance and conservative voting have validity, the percentage of Americans who regularly attend Mass is deplorably rather small. Of the approximately 69.1 million American Catholics (according the USCCB) who comprise about 24 % of the population, only about 25% attend weekly Mass. This works out to only about 5.75% of the population. While this is probably higher than many European nations, it is obviously far from a majority. Furthermore, not all of these people can/will vote as this number includes all American Catholics (not just those who are eligible to vote).

I guess what I wanted to point out was that, while I really relate to the tension presented by Lott surrounding the issues of abortion and the war in Iraq, his perception of the American Catholic voter in this election is a bit simplified and (I am sad to say) optimistic. The percentage of American Catholics who regularly attend Mass (let alone fit with other parts of the description Lott proposes) is grievously small, and even within this group of faithful Church-goers, there is a significant amount of wrestling over several different issues. Personally, I would argue that the low Mass attendance is actually a more pressing issue than the upcoming election. As we have been discussing in class, we first need to “be Church” (to quote theologian Stanley Hauerwas). We are called to enter into a relationship with God and one another and become the body of Christ. Then God can work through us to bring about the peace, justice, and life that characterize His kingdom both in our short time on earth and beyond.

For Ex-G.O.P. Official, Obama Is Candidate of Catholic Values

Whether it be a public figure or common citizen, a vote cast holds equal weight within an election; however, when Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Obama this past year, he represented a large community of conflicted Catholics struggling to find clarity within the important issues concerning this year's election. Can a devout Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate without allowing an intrinsic evil to remain legal within the United States? Moreover, while the Church speaks out against single-issue voting, does this election force Catholics to choose a side solely based upon abortion?
Douglas Kmiec does not think so. During a recent interview, Kmiec gives clear and concise answers in defense of his support for Obama. He remains loyal to Catholic doctrine when recognizing abortion as an intrinsic evil and grave threat towards Church teaching, yet speaks adamantly about the misunderstanding of Roe vs. Wade and it's direct ability to change through either presidential candidate. Hypothetically speaking, Kmiec believes that if the case were to be overturned on a supreme level, the issue would fall stateside and, most likely, reap the same pro-choice outcomes. Further, he goes on to support the level of aid Obama promises as the change he would like to see within the pro-life/pro-choice debate, posing the choice: "A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
Kmiec proposes an excellent choice for all Catholics to seriously consider when casting their vote this fall. While my vote still remains candidate-less, I cannot help but be bothered by the acceptance of abortion as a powerless issue. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil that cannot be rationalized or solved with solutions of financial aid or an easier system of adoption; instead, I believe every Catholic should denounce the right to kill innocent life and remain in search of solutions towards this goal. Is it realistic to vote solely based upon one's principles, fully knowing that actual change may never occur; or is it more important to cast your vote, despite it's opposition to your morals, so as to be a dutiful citizen?

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog, and to what three collaborating professors hope will be a stimulating expansion of our campuses this fall.

There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.

This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.