Establishing a political criterion: my two cents

This post deals wit remarks made by Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M Cap., to NCR's John Allen during this week's USCCB meeting: "I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment." It is, His Excellency went on to point out, "the only criterion." While I am inclined to agree both with Archbishop Chaput and Clarity that the dignity of the human person is the sole criterion, the one from which all other criteria flow, including the common good, I think the statement a tad rhetorical. It does, however, put the issue in bold relief, which, I suppose, is a good good use of rhetoric. After all, thinking in a teleological manner is part and parcel of being a Christian, which means nothing more than thinking in terms of the ultimate of things.

Getting back to the archbishop's remarks, many knowledgeable commentators are saying that his comments are just laying the ground for Catholics to be able to vote for Mayor Giuliani should he get the Republican nomination and do so in good conscience. While I think these pronouncements are both premature and wrong, they do recognize the elephant in the room, namely that we may well be faced with the prospect of two candidates for president from the major parties who favor legalized abortion on demand. Another problem with these rather cynical responses to Chaput's comments is that, while he is an eloquently outspoken proponent for Catholicism is the public square, he is not a partisan, he is not a crypto-Republican.

I also agree that we have to be careful about moral equivalency arguments. To wit, it is more important to seek to further restrict and even ban abortions, except those that may result from genuine attempts to save the life of pregnant mothers, which account for less than 1% of all abortions in the U.S., than to ban the death penalty. Ideally, we do both, but I agree that there is no moral equivalency here. When it comes to the waging of an arguably unjust war in which not only soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors fight, wound, and kill other legal combatants while fighting for a just cause, but also many innocent civilians, whose human dignity and rights get trampled on both due to direct fighting and to conditions created by war, I am not so certain. So, when candidates for president, in an effort to sound tough, begin to speak of imaginary wars and to talk freely about taking pre-emptive military action, an equivalency begins to be established, at least in my mind.

Finally, in addressing the comment "A protest vote does not weigh in on that critical decision" (i.e., best safeguarding the dignity of human life and the overall common good), I agree that voting should never merely be an act of protest. By an act of protest in this case I simply mean rejecting both of the candidates of the two major parties under the banner of anybody but x or y, or a throw the bums out rant. I think this is an individual application of what Fr. Giussani said referring to CL as a whole, about how taking "a position against other positions in the public forum was self-defeating". It is always better for us to articulate our views in terms of what we are for rather than what we are against.

So, if, after careful deliberation, the person voting decides that a minor candidate is "better able to ensure the public good", then, because voting should be a fully conscious and conscientious act, in my view, the voter is duty-bound to vote for that candidate. If s/he does not for fear of not weighing in, I fail to see how that is not compromising or using a utilitarian calculus, which, by-the-way, has never produced a correct solution, even when using proportionate reason. So, if the only way to cast a consciously conscientious ballot is to vote for a candidate who is not the nominee of either the Republican or the Democratic party, then I do not see that as some kind of moral cop-out.

Proportionate reason and utilitarianism

Here's a question, the very one at the root of this new found enthusiasm for voting for candidates who favor unrestricted abortions, it has to do with proportionate reason: What is the difference between proportionate reason and applying a utilitarian calculus?

In posing this question I suppose I am curious about axioms like, politics is the art of the possible and diplomacy is the art of compromise. I am not belittling either of these axioms, far from it, there is some wisdom there and this wisdom finds its Christian roots both in our Lord's admonition to render to Caesar what is Caesar's (Mk 12,17 ; Matt. 22,21; Lk 20,25) and St. Augustine's two kingdom theory, fully expounded in his great work City of God, and reiterated in Fr. Neuhaus' presentation last Saturday.

I suppose in this question, or the general exploration of proportionate reason, I see the crux of all the issues Fred mentions, as well as what our bishops call on us to use when deciding for whom to vote.

Religion and Politics: The case of Governor Romney

I have actually been waiting for Fr. Richard John Neuhaus to publicly weigh-in on Governor Romney's Faith in America speech, which he delivered at the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas on Wednesday evening. He comments on the speech today over on the First Things' blog Observations & Contentions. I have to respectfully disagree with Fr. Neuhaus that Romney's speech was "powerful" or helpful to his candidacy for the reasons I outlined in a post from yesterday entitled Romney's primary problem is not being LDS. Fr. Neuhaus, of course, is the author of an insightful essay, Is Mormonism Christian?. I offer more dealing directly with specific tenets of LDS belief in a post from October- Are the LDS Christians? The red herring that won't go away.

Commenting on David Brooks' NY Times editorial on the speech, Fr. Neuhaus writes that he shares "Mr. Brooks’ aversion to the 'bland, smiley-faced God' invoked by Mr. Romney. But then Mormonism is a smiley-faced religion, which is one among many reasons for not being a Mormon".

All that being written, I do embrace Fr. Neuhaus' four-fold criteria for selecting a president:
"(1) his declared values and proposed policies; (2) his character and credibility; (3) his competence to deliver; and (4) his prospects of winning nomination and election". It seems to be number 2 that Romney needs to work on and his speech on Wednesday, in my opinion, did not help him in that regard, but only time will tell. I think Mormonism is as exotic to most people in the U.S. as Scientology. This, again, is why his speech failed.

Romney’s issue is not at all like that of the nominally Catholic Rudy Giuliani, about whom Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice (of all places) writes: "Married three times, Giuliani simply isn't the Catholic candidate he claims to be. He can't have a confessor. He can't receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, or marriage. While bishops disagree about whether or not a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights can receive the sacraments, there is no disagreement about the consequences of divorcing and remarrying outside the church, as Giuliani did a few years ago." Romney, unlike Giuliani, cannot just wave the teachings of the LDS Church aside, using Mormonism in the way Giuliani uses his Catholicism, especially as it pertains to abortion and marriage. Why not? Well, Mitt Romney has served as the bishop of a LDS ward (i.e., pastor of a local congregation) and as a Stake President (in charge of several wards) and is a very publicly active and devout believer. This differs from a candidate who may come from a LDS background, but who, like Giuliani with his Catholicism, can just say "While I respect the opinions of the leaders of my Church, I don’t adhere to x, y, or z that my religion teaches".

I find it interesting that virtually everybody, including Fr. Neuhaus, insists that when voting the religious commitments of the candidates is not a legitimate criterion for selection. Well, the last time I checked, a voter in the U.S. is free use whatever criteria s/he chooses when casting a vote, including taking into consideration the religious commitment or lack thereof of any and all candidates. In fact, I suspect that for many voters, religious, non-religious, and anti-religious, the religious commitment or lack of it is a factor in their decision-making. Am I writing that it is ideal, or that it should be the biggest concern of the voter? NO! I am merely stating that it often is a factor and that it is not always illegitimate.

The violent bear it away, along with the passive aggressive

(Photograph from Time on-line)

As I was reflecting this morning, I was struck by how weird it is that Benazir Bhutto, a martyr for her people and for democracy, as were her father and brother, was killed between the Feasts of St. Stephen and the Holy Innocents. It is not my purpose to lionize her. No doubt, her two times as Prime Minister had their difficulties, with her second term ending in her exile amidst charges of corruption, which were never proven nor completely dispelled. It also struck me that earlier this year another central Asian voice of freedom and democracy, that of the Armenian journalist in Turkey, Hrant Dink, was silenced by the bullet of a gunman, as was Fr. Andrea Santoro, priest in Trabzon, Turkey.

One of the most ambiguous sayings of Jesus is found in St. Matthew's Gospel, chapter eleven, verse twelve, which reads, in the Douay-Rheims version, which is a translation of the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the sacred scriptures, "And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away". Of course, there is the great Flannery O'Connor novel, published in 1960, the title of which is taken from this verse of scripture: The Violent Bear It Away. Of course, the violent bore our Lord away, to the Cross, but love triumphed over hate, just as it did in the case of St. Stephen, who prayed as the stones rained down upon him, sticking with the Douay-Rheims: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord" (Acts 7,58-9).

Let us pray as we approach the New Year, the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God, the World Day of Peace, that love will conquer hate in Turkey, in Iraq, in the Holy Land, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and everywhere that violence seems to prevail. I think the Holy Father proved a bit prophetic in his Urbi et Orbi address on Christmas Day, in which he said: "On this day of peace, my thoughts turn especially to those places where the grim sound of arms continues to reverberate; to the tortured regions of Darfur, Somalia, the north of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia; to the whole of the Middle East –especially Iraq, Lebanon and the Holy Land; to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to the Balkans and to many other crisis situations that unfortunately are frequently forgotten". During a time in which our country seems to have been born away by the violent, who are not shy about invoking the Prince of Peace, let us pray and work this presidential election year for a more just and peaceful nation, one about which we can feel good, one in which we do not seek to impose our will on others by force of violence, but to propose the truth by example.

Religion and Politcs- 2008

Repetitive, I know . . .

It is worth a post, since I have been hammering away on the subject of politics, to draw attention to a very insightful article, which appeared recently in Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, by Archbishop George Niederauer, our former ordinary here in Salt Lake City, on voting and the USCCB's newest iteration of their quadrennial Faithful Citizenship document.

Here is a sample of the archbishop's insightful teaching. He does a wonderful job of translating this well-written document into everyday language that helps us all bring our faith to bear on our society as Catholic citizens of this great nation:

"Q: What moves the Catholic Church to teach about political issues?"

"A: Jesus Christ in the Gospel teaches us about being fully human, about what is true and good in the sight of God. At the foundation of these truths is respect for the dignity of each person, created in God ' s image, and the value of each human life. The bedrock of Catholic moral and social teaching rests on the dignity and value of life and personhood. It is appropriate and necessary for Christians to bring and apply those essential truths into the public square. As Catholics we are called to promote the well being of all, to share blessings with the neediest in society, and to protect the lives and dignity of all, especially the weak, the vulnerable and the voiceless.

"In addition, Catholics bring important assets to political dialogue: a consistent moral framework based in human reason, the Scriptures and Church teaching, and broad experience in serving those in need. "

During the last presidential election another much circulated document appeared, Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics. This particular guide caused a lot of angst and confusion. Where the booklet veered off course, in my opinion, is by specifying five non-negotiables. While I have no dispute with the fact that the five things mentioned (i.e., Abortion, Euthanasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning and Same Sex marriage) are vital issues facing our nation and ones on which the teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear, it is oversimplified to the point of paralyzing the Catholic voter. This is why the USCCB document, while clear on these same issues, deals with the nuances of both the morality of exercising our right to vote and the political reality in these United States. After all, just think of being a Catholic voter in San Francisco or, for that matter, here in Utah, which is but the polar opposite of San Francisco. As temperate as Bishop Wester's remarks about immigration in a speech he gave earlier this week were, here they seen as radical.

So, my advice is to stick with what our bishops teach, to ask intelligent questions, to bring our faith to bear on our society in appropriate ways, and to exercise sound prudential judgments when casting our votes. Vote we must, it is our moral obligation. Access to the USCCB's document is only a click away.

I would also draw attention to a post, as Sharon has kindly done in the Cahiers Clips section of our blog, on our reading for the second meeting of our School of Community here in SLC last evening, which was Holy Father's wonderful homily from the Mass celebrated on the 850th anniversary of the Austrian shrine of Mariazell, which was the reason for his Apostolic Journey to that country. In this homily, Pope Benedict discusses some of the more fundamental issues for Catholics in the public square.

St. Thomas á Becket

And again . . .


While writing about politics, faith, and murder it occurred to me that today is the memorial of St. Thomas a Beckett, King Henry II of England's chancellor for eight years, who was later named archbishop of Canterbury, thus succeeding to the See of St. Anselm of Canterbury, that great bishop who gave us the most accurate definition of theology- fides quaerens intellectum - faith seeking understanding. In addition to serving as King Henry's chancellor, St. Thomas was his companion, his pal, his drinking buddy, if you will. Despite all this, as a result of his conversion of heart that occurred upon his receiving ordination, which prevented him from being the dupe King Henry thought his old buddy would be, he was murdered in his cathedral in 1170 CE by henchmen of King Henry who took it upon themselves to answer to the now (in)famous question, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Of course, all of this occurred in England prior to the Reformation. For anybody interested in the era of the English Reformation, Professor Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580 is must read. One must not forget T.S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral about the murder of Beckett nor the classic film Becket, starring Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole as Thomas a Beckett and King Henry II respectively.

The violent inflicting suffering and bearing away those working to usher in a brighter day is nothing new, just as Herod killed John the Baptist. As the Holy Father said upon leaning of th assassination of Ms. Bhutto, "peace further removes itself". As Christians we interpret human events in light of reality. This brings me to a quote shared by Sharon yesterday from Msgr. Giusanni: "The Christian looks at all of reality in the same way as a non-Christian, but that which reality tells him or her is different and he or she reacts in a different way". Indeed, upon his ordination and consecration as archbishop, St. Thomas a Beckett had the encounter necessary to enter into reality. He embraced reality.

St. Thomas a Beckett pray for us

On the question of not voting

Yes, again . . . Jack, I like the way you point out that we gave a binary problem here, with a two-party system. This has become an acute problem for Catholics, because many of us thought we could just be Republicans like rooting for a football team. We're not avid sports fans in our house, but we did have to adjust our loyalties when our daughter started going to USC, since my husband went to UCSF and had always rooted for Cal. At least we have to keep track of the score and have some sympathy for bad games.

The Iraq war has been a wake-up call for Catholics in America, I hope. Some of us even feel that prolife voters have been used for ill purposes. This war was condemned by Pope John Paul II forcefully and for specific reasons. It was a preemptive strike, therefore not defensive as required by just war theory. (Our attack on Afghanistan was not condemned because it was considered defensive.) And it could be foreseen that the outcome would be worse than the previous state. Also it put the fragile Christian population of the Middle East in jeopardy. We also went in on false pretenses. All this has been argued elsewhere, so I'm not going to belabor it. The stance of the next president on war will not only affect Iraq, but also our relationship with Iran, South Korea, Israel/Palestine etc. The repercussions are quite serious for the whole world and I believe as momentous as the life issues we face as a society. Still, as my husband points out, it could be safer to have a more hawkish president if the person was reasonable and if our strength was oriented toward peace.

The Church has a lot to say human matters in the world, and fortunately it is easier to find out these teachings and to educate ourselves than it was in the past. Arguably the pope has the best informed and most disinterested (or non self-interested) diplomatic corps in the world (see How the Vatican Works, my review on John Allen's book All the Pope's Men). But more than that, I believe there's a reason we didn't just get a rulebook in the Bible or a catechism to apply for ourselves, but instead we're given the presence of Christ in teachers guided by the Holy Spirit, because He did not leave us alone.