Every election cycle we get stories about people upset by Catholic voting guides or strong statements from some bishops. The narrative is almost always that “somebody is telling me who to vote for.” The fault is with the bishop or the voting guide.
No doubt one or more of the Israelites griped something to the same effect when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments. “How dare you dictate to me denying my right to (insert favorite sin).”
“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.” (G. K. Chesterton)
Now really it is the case that when these guidelines are given regarding moral principles and voting it is not about telling you for whom you can vote for. It would be more accurate to say they help you to determine who you can’t vote for if the candidate meets some disqualifying criteria. In what is mostly a two party system like ours the idea that one candidate is eliminated does not mean that you must choose the other. This is a prudential judgement and act of your conscience where you might decide to go all Don Quixote instead of just choosing the other dominant candidate with whatever certified lesser evil rating.
Those that do get mad about voting guides and staunch bishop statements have been misdirected from the real problem. The real problem is politicians who endorse and cooperate with intrinsic evils. The fact that with Catholic help we are putting forth morally unqualified candidates is a big part of the problem. In one political season we had usually five non-negotiables listed in voting guides. This time around we added religious freedom. It makes me wonder what intrinsic evil we are going to be adding next time?
The reason people get mad about moral guidelines regarding voting is that they are attached more to their political party than to their faith. Go ahead an put your trust in princes.
One of those bishops that party first Catholics get upset about is Archbishop Chaput who recently said:
“We’re Catholics before we’re Democrats. We’re Catholics before we’re Republicans. We’re even Catholics before we’re Americans because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us,” … “And this has been the story of the martyrs through the centuries,”
One of the indicators of the party first Catholic is that they will quickly diminish whatever flaws their favorite candidate has. The flaws of their candidate fade in the glare of the other candidate’s flaws. This can also happen with those who choose a candidate not because they really like them, but because they have determined they would be a lesser evil that would more contribute to the common good. In the current political situation I have seen this with some Catholic supporters of Gov. Romney and that even though he was nowhere near their preferred candidate, the also seem to gloss over his flaws. That somehow a lesser evil is just really not all that evil.
I bring this up because in my own political examination of conscience I have to keep reminding myself of this fact. Gov. Romney is a seriously flawed candidate who just really is not a social conservative. His answers to social conservatives are reflexive and don’t really show any serious commitment to the pro-life cause or other important issues regarding the family. I would certainly love to be proved wrong. Now President Obama has done some really bad things, but one more that sticks in my craw is having to support Gov. Romney as a deterrent. While I will give my vote to the Governor, I will not give my soul to him in ignoring his flaws and ignoring any intrinsic evils he does support. It is natural that when we support a candidate we really want to like them even in the case when we are really voting against the other guy. This is one reason I really liked Dale Price’s Romney for President. Sigh. He stated his reason for support while not diminishing serious problems with him.
What is frustrating is that if Gov. Romney does win it means that at least for eight years we are stuck with a morally compromised candidate. If he wins he is the GOP candidate next time and the Democratic candidate next time will no doubt be totally morally unacceptable. The candidates we have available is a case of garbage in garbage out as we go from the Primaries to the General election.
I seriously doubt that within my lifetime in a Presidential election I will ever have a choice between two candidates based totally on prudential decisions. Wow wouldn’t that be nice to not have to choose which candidate supports less intrinsic evils when playing Catholic voting guide Bingo.
6 comments
Americans haven’t had a choice for President based entirely on prudential decisions since at least 1976. Personally, I think the most likely scenario for a purely-prudential choice between Presidential candidates is one in which the Republicans to decide to keep up with the Pelosis and drop their less-than-solid pro-life commitment, at which point we might have a Presidential choice in which both major candidates are equally unacceptable from an intrinsic-evil point of view. I see no sign at all that the Democrats might actually wean themselves from the unholy embrace of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and EMILY’s List; I do see substantial evidence that the Republicans, in particular the party establishment, would love to get beyond this troublesome insistence on social right and wrong so as to focus on *really* important issues like the economy. Of course, I would absolutely love to be proven wrong on all counts.
Of course, my scenario above conveniently assumes away the possibility of third-party candidates who might be better on intrinsic evils. It wouldn’t have been too hard in, say, 1848 to make an argument about slavery basically like the one I made above about abortion. The foresight required in the 1840’s to predict the rise of the Republican Party a decade later was surely more than any foresight I have now.
Eternal vigilance… Romney was not my first choice as the GOP candidate but there’s no law that says he can’t be primaried in 4 years and Ryan may be a good influence on him.
The narrative is almost always that “somebody is telling me who to vote for.”
I NEVER tell anyone who to vote for. I might tell them for whom to vote.
because they have determined they would be a lesser evil that would more contribute to the common good.
I don’t think it is logically possible for a lesser evil to more contribute to the common good. The best that can be said is that a lesser evil will cause less harm to the common good.
And in 1856, were Whigs telling people that Fremont was “not a viable candidate” and “If you don’t vote for Fillmore, you’re really voting for Buchanan”?
An excellent retort to the “But Romney is baaaad too!” cry of the Obamanables!
Time for today’s ontological pop quiz! What is this “the Republicans” you mention?
There is no such thing as a blob of undifferentiated Republicanness. There is no Republican Bible or catechism one can point to that describes true Republicanhood. To identify as Republican is to identify with a political coalition, not a religious faith. (Until the widespread examples of Obama-infatuation seen in 2008, I’m now withholding judgment on that. Nobody ever fainted at a Reagan rally.)
Still, all that said, do I wish that everyone who self-identifies with the Republican coalition had as solid a “pro-life commitment” as, oh, self-identified Catholics? Or that political office holders who ran on the Republican line on the ballot were as solid as, oh, heads of Catholic universities? And spoke about it publicly as strongly and unambiguously as USCCB bishops? Alas, those look a lot like trick questions. Sure looks like someone – in jest, no doubt – insists on putting a burden on “the Republicans” that ones own co-religionists find too hard to bear.
Within the Democrat Party the answer to anyone who questions their majority’s pro-abortion stands is “shut up.” In contrast, within the Republican Party the argument over the morality and legality of abortion goes on despite a majority in its coalition being more or less in the pro-life camp. That’s why outsiders see a “less-than-solid pro-life commitment” when lumping all Republicans together and treating “the Republicans” as an aggregate.
Is Romney as squishy as a seamless garment type Catholic? Very likely. Sure I wish he wasn’t pro-life with a few exceptions just as I wish his opponent in the other incumbent party wasn’t everything’s an exception whenever he passes near anything pro-life.
The bottom line this year as I see it is that Catholics who do their duty to vote with an informed conscience will find a vote for Romney to be troubling and a vote for Obama to be apostacy.