Over the past twenty years or so the Republican party has been able to count on winning a large percentage of the Catholic vote because of their stance on the abortion issue. Conventional wisdom has held that, because of John McCain’s pro-life stance, this Catholic support would continue into the upcoming election, but this may not be the entirely true.
In an October fourth article in the New York Times, David D. Kirkpatrick reports that many liberal Catholics are fighting back against the official church policy that voting for a pro-choice candidate is sinful. The main argument of the conservative Catholics is that “Being ‘right’ on taxes, education, health care, immigration and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life.” This argument, put forth by Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania has been the standard policy of Catholics for years, but recently it has come under fire by organizations of liberal Catholics such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. Kirkpatrick mentions that these organizations emphasize a “Broader spectrum of social justice.” The article goes on to provide statistics on the number of Catholics registered to vote, and claims that this movement among Liberal Catholics to push back against the church-wide policy of voting exclusively pro-life has the potential to effect the results in several swing states.
I think that this article is interesting because it shows a shift in the voting patterns of a significant portion of Americans. The article mentions that nearly a quarter of registered voters are Catholic, so a swing from right to left among even a few of these Catholics is very significant. It also is important to note the reason for the shift. Many Catholics are sick of voting against their principles and interests because of one “Non-negotiable issue.” The focus of the liberal Catholic groups on social justice shows a concern for a broader spectrum of issues that has been missing from the Catholic Church for years. Another very significant factor is the historical one. For years now, ultra-religious groups of all denominations have had well-deserved reputations for being very conservative institutions. The fact that many Catholics are now considering issues other than abortion may be signaling an end to at least the Catholic Church’s total support of conservative candidates.
I think that this should be viewed as a good thing no matter which candidate you support. The fact that at least some religious institutions are asking their constituents to look at a wide range of issues rather than pressuring them, sometimes with the threat of eternal damnation, to vote based on one issue, is a positive step forward for the relationship between politics and religion in America. I believe that Jefferson and Madison would have wanted voters to consider their religious beliefs when voting, but would have been appalled by churches labeling candidates unelectable based upon their views on one moral issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I found this article to be enlightening and true in my own life. As a liberal and a prior practicing Catholic it makes me proud that the church has other leaders, besides clergymen, that are speaking out against the conservative views that are taught and supported in most parishes. I feel that there are other social issues that are more relevant in our society than abortion and same-sex marriage, unlike the “conservative Catholic group Fidelis”. I agree with Robert that this is a good thing for the Catholic church. I feel that religious leaders should not use their power and authority to persuade the members of their church to vote in a particular way, but instead, just encourage people to vote, but maybe that is unrealistic.
I think that this issue relates directly to the tax exemption issue refered to in many other posts. If the Catholic church comes out and makes the statement that members cannot vote for a candidate that supports abortion but only one of the major candidate supports abortion, is this any different than endorsing the candidate by name? Should the Catholic church lose tax exemption because they are openly telling people to not vote for the candidate who supports abortion? I think a compelling argument can be made that even the advocating of issues could lead to a church losing tax exemption. On the other hand, this could be a violation of both free exercise and freedom of speech. It seems that the Supreme Court has set up an impossible balancing act for churches, the result of which could lead to more first amendment cases in the future.
I agree with Robert that allowing Catholics to take a more rounded approach to evaluating candidates is a positive thing. However, I disagree with the previous comment that this is the same as endorsing a specific candidate. The difference is that in establishing a stance on this issue, the Catholic Church is taking a stand in ALL elections. If they were to pick a different issue each election as a backhanded way to endorse a candidate that would be a completely different matter. Not to mention the problem that would arise if each of the two candidates supported abortion--how would Catholics vote then?
It is a positive movement for the Catholic church to move away from the abortion issue. Elections are about so many decisions; and moral issues rank towards the bottom of Americans' hierarchy at the moment. It’s interesting that the abortion issue trumps all the other policies in the Catholic church. How a candidate feels on universal health care, education, or poverty should be just as integral to their vote as abortion.
Religion should be divorced from politics. I think members of a particular faith should be able to figure out their own political affiliations. I agree with Jonny that this is along the same lines as the tax emption. If there is an issue that clearly describes the candidates, as abortion does, a religion should not publish which way they stand on that issue. But as Jonny already noted, that gets messy. There is no distinguishing line between politics and religion. I see this move by Catholic organization as important, but not going to change much. Catholics who feel passionately about abortion will continue to vote Republican. More liberal Catholics will vote for the Democrats, as they did in 1960 with Kennedy.
As a Catholic, first time voter I have had a number of discussions surrounding these very topics. The consensus I have found among my friends is one of feeling torn. While abortion is such an important issue, what about other issues such as war and capital punishment, which are also “life” issues. Or the fact that we have had a pro-life president for the past eight years and Roe v. Wade is still standing, as it has been for the past 40 years. I think the biggest lesson to be learned is that there will never be a perfect candidate for Catholics. Through prayer and discussion with a variety of people of different positions, hopefully Catholic voters will be able to vote with a clear conscience in November.
Robert is right to highlight the significance of how the Catholic Church is encouraging voters to “look at a wide range of issues,” instead of just defaulting to the most conservative candidate only because he or she opposes abortion. However, it appears the point is not just a matter of equally examining all the issues at stake. Rather, religious groups are prioritizing their morals. Sara G. is also right in saying elections provoke many decisions, but for some groups, all the issues are moral issues. Abortion may have shifted to the bottom of the list because poverty, which many label as a moral dilemma, is more important to them. As for the historical significance, according to William Martin, author of With God on Our Side, religious groups have been prioritizing and reprioritizing their morals for years. Boundaries and preferences shift according to the current political topics.
I especially enjoyed reading this article and Robert’s post because as a middle class Catholic woman voting in the upcoming election, I have found that the Catholic Church’s emphasis on anti-abortion has willfully overlooked issues that are equally important to me. While I feel like several students welcome the discussions on how to vote in the upcoming election, I avoid them like the plaque. I don’t want to be told which issues are most important to the Church and therefore should be my priority as well. Being a good Catholic is not about following the Catholic Church teachings blindly and narrow mindedly. Its about establishing a relationship with God so that ultimately, you can make your own wise and just decisions. In my opinion, this means considering a variety of issues that affect the poor, the minorities and the marginalized, bringing immigration, the death penalty, healthcare, and taxes (as all mentioned before) to the same forefront as abortion. Neglecting to prioritize these considerations with abortion leads Catholics to give a political advantage to conservative candidates who otherwise do not represent Catholic values, such as providing for the impoverished and leaving revenge to God. Catholics, and any moral person, should be able to think for themselves.
The abortion debate brings up some interesting issues when viewed in context of the Catholic voting record. I have always found it extremely frustrating that many voters --not exclusively Catholics-- often base their vote solely on the issue of abortion. This frustration has developed not out of a strong personal pro-life or pro-choice position, but rather from a pragmatic approach to presidential elections and the abortion issue. The abortion debate was effectively decided in 1973 when the Supreme court handed down their ruling that anti-abortion laws violated a woman's right to privacy. Over 35 years of legal precedence has reinforced this notion that abortion is a right of an American woman-- it is highly unlikely that the United States will ever witness an overturning of the Roe v Wade decision. I'm very supportive of voters engaging issues and taking a stand-- but why base your vote on an issue that's essentially dead? I did note in the article that "abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage" were all "non-negotiable" issues for Catholics-- I support Catholics in voting along the lines of social issues they deem important, but hope that voters will be able to distinguish between social debates that are null and those that could result in a tangible change.
I don’t think that the Catholic faith tells the members of the church that voting one way is a sin. Yes, abortion does go against the Bible, but scaring people to vote one way is wrong. It’s not right to involve religion that much in a political choice. I think that the church is overstepping its bounds by almost commanding that one needs to vote pro-life. At the same time it still depends on the individual itself. I know many practicing Catholics who have extraordinary faith that still votes pro-choice. The church can preach and even threaten its members but in the end it’s still their own individual choice.
It’s important that there is a movement within the church to consider the other issues besides pro-life vs. pro-choice. There are issues that affect their congregations a lot more than just abortion and by throwing those aside the Catholic church isn’t showing itself as the support system it’s suppose to be.
Post a Comment