So, is Your Church Pro-Life?

In his September 2008 article, “Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes,” David Kirkpatrick examines a demographic that Obama and McCain are urgently courting this election season: Catholics. Not only do they make up a third of swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, Catholics, “once a reliable Democratic voting bloc,” are also suffering bitter divisions over abortion. What Kirkpatrick deems “a struggle within the church over how Catholic voters should think about abortion” has polarized them. But abortion’s divisive power and the allegiances it may prompt to either McCain and Obama are unsurprising in context of the issue’s volatile nature. More noteworthy, perhaps, is the polarizing influence of Catholic leadership on the issue abortion, especially in the context of a more unifying religious-political leadership throughout America’s history.

Kirkpatrick details efforts by Catholic clergy in Pennsylvania to mobilize parishioners into a political force. He asserts that many bishops are openly pro-life and have thus denounced Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, produced “nonnegotiable” voters guides that espouse five social issues Catholics must support (abortion opposition is, of course, included), and commended McCain’s position on abortion. However, some bishops have modified their views since 2004, and now “explicitly allow Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights if they do so for other reasons.” Other organizations, such as Catholics in Alliance for Common Good, may look past abortion to social justice, the economy, and war. In areas such as Scranton, PA, there have been countless meetings with, events for, and endorsements made of the two presidential candidates by clergy and influential bishops.

The tradition of Church leaders advancing political agendas is hardly new. In the introduction of his book, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, William Martin traces the merging of religion and politics from America’s Puritan colonialists through the Great Awakening and the Great Revival. Martin’s emphasis on the nation’s fervently religious roots supplements his analyses of religious leaders who have sought to unite faith and governance in order to win “lost souls” (p. 4) throughout history. Charles Finney, a Northern leader in the Great Revival, sums it up best: “true Christians…are ‘bound to exert their influence to secure a legislation that is in accordance with the law of God.” (p.5) Martin’s portrayal of the Great Awakening and the Great Revival emphasizes that revival preaching unified Christians, giving them “a sense of community with others of like belief,” (p.5). Though the 20th century saw many splits in Christianity, the ultimate political goal of Christian fundamentalists by the middle of the century was “to establish an association that could represent evangelical believers in all denominations,” (p.23).

For Catholics today (especially compared to many white evangelicals) no such unification over issues seems to exist. Kirkpatrick’s argument suggests that a partisan wedge, supplemented by “diocesan newspapers and weekly homilies,” has emerged over which issues to support. Furthermore, by suggesting that the “faithful” adhere to the Catholic Answers voter guide, or that those who focus only on abortion ignore the Church’s full doctrine, clergy from both sides of the debate create divisions deeper than political party. They reinforce a divide between the perceived faithful and the unfaithful, the “true Christians” and the untrue ones. Is this trend emerging within other religious groups as well? Is politics the new litmus test for faith? I certainly hope not.