Fidelis Debuts CatholicVote.com

From Fidelis:

CHICAGO – Fidelis announces the launch of a new website - CatholicVote.com – to educate and inspire Catholic voters this fall and beyond. The site includes a powerful video designed to encourage viewers to prioritize the issues of life, faith, and family. In addition to the video, the site contains resources on how to register to vote, research on candidate positions, documents from the Bishops and an invitation to join in prayer.

The highlight of CatholicVote.com is a powerful 3:30 minute documentary on Catholic contributions to American public life. The video connects the fight for civil rights, human dignity, and the family throughout the history of our country. The dramatic conclusion of the film urges viewers to “Vote Your Conscience.”

“The U.S. Bishops have stated that ‘responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation,’” said Brian Burch, director of CatholicVote.com. “We launched CatholicVote.com to provide Catholics and all people of good will with the tools to both educate and inspire their fellow citizens as they prepare to vote in November.”

“Our goal with CatholicVote.com was to develop something that could complement the many excellent voter guides, statements, and resources developed by other organizations. Our hope is to not only win over the minds of voters, but also the hearts of American Catholics and Christians,” said Burch.

“There’s no reason Catholics should be silent about the wonderful contribution Catholics have made to American life. Catholics have a rich heritage of fighting injustice and helping the poor and the defenseless. As Archbishop Chaput says so wonderfully in his new book Render Unto Casear, we serve the nation when we live our Catholic beliefs in political life,” said Burch.

Catholics play a major role in American politics. Since 1976, winning the Catholic vote meant winning the White House except in 2000, when Al Gore won both the Catholic vote and the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush.

“At 67 million strong, the Catholic vote is critical to American elections,” said Burch. “Catholics vote in higher numbers than the rest of the population and they live in important swing states like Michigan, Ohio and Florida.”

“We encourage all Catholics to take a look at CatholicVote.com,” said Burch. “At the site, you can register to vote and join other Catholics in prayer. You can also read up on the issues, and most importantly, send the video to your friends. There is plenty of evangelization to be done when it comes to voting.”

CatholicVote.com is a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy. The website does not endorse any candidate for office.

Delegates to Knights of Columbus Convention Adopt Resolutions Challenging Catholic Office-Holders

I received the following email from the Knights of Columbus earlier today:

Knights of Columbus convention delegates adopt resolutions challenging Catholic office-holders on abortion, affirming marriage as union of one man and one woman

(Quebec City, Quebec) - Delegates to the annual international convention of the Knights of Columbus today adopted a resolution opposing "any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide and other offenses against life."

The delegates also challenged "our fellow Catholics who are elected officials to be true to the faith they claim to profess by acting bravely and publicly in defense of life, affirming with Pope Benedict XVI that 'there can be no room for purely private religion.'"

The resolution stated that the organization reaffirms its "commitment to building a culture of life by promoting policies that favor the family," and reaffirmed the organization's "long standing policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event persons, especially public officials or candidates for public office, who do not support the legal protection of unborn children."

The resolution on life issues follows by several days the opening convention address by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, in which he called on Catholic voters to "stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians," and encouraged them to "say 'no' to every candidate of every political party who supports abortion."

Delegates also adopted a resolution calling for "legal and constitutional protection . . . for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

The resolution declares that "marriage is a natural institution based on ancient human values that have evolved over time into a unique and deeply rooted social, legal and religious institution," and that it "reflects the natural biological complementarity between man and woman which predates the state and which is woven into the social and religious fabric of every major culture and society."

Marriage between man and woman "provides the most favorable environment in which to protect the rights and the best interests of children," the resolution stated.

Convention delegates adopted resolutions dealing with other public policy issues as well, including building a culture of life, religious liberty, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, decency on the Internet and in the media, Catholic education, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The texts of all the resolutions can be found at:

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/resolutions/index.html

For complete coverage of convention events, go to the "Convention Central" web page at:

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/index.html

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"

(Hat tip: Fumare)

Professor Hadley Arkes writes at The Catholic Thing on the "madness" of Prof. Doug Kmiec's Obama love:

Is it a certain madness, a certain distraction of mind, induced by the sudden onset of summer heat? The polls in early June find Barack Obama notably behind among Evangelicals and whites, but--wonder of wonders--actually holding a slight edge, of a point or two, among Catholics.

Some of our readers know that I was associated with the drafting of the “most modest first step of all on abortion,” the bill to preserve the life of the child who survived an abortion. It was called, in that awful legislative style, the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act. When it finally passed the Congress in 2002, not a single Democrat in Congress voted in opposition. But Barack Obama, as a Senator in Illinois, actually led the opposition to the comparable measure in that state, and as the chairman of a legislative committee managed to kill it. How does one explain then this close division among Catholics, with a tilt actually in his favor? And what is the worse account: that most Catholics in the country simply do not know about his radical, pro-abortion position, or that American Catholics by now have heard about Obama’s position, and they don’t especially care?

The latter account would surely mark the graver state of affairs. And the signs seem to be pointing in that direction, as seen in the positions reported recently for two prominent Catholic academics, both thoughtful, sensible people, moving in those circles I move in myself. Douglas Kmiec, a good friend, had been Dean of the Law School at Catholic University and Cathleen Kaveny, is a professor of law at Notre Dame. Kmiec joined a meeting of Catholics with Obama and pronounced him a “natural for the Catholic vote.” Kmiec became persuaded that Obama, radically pro-choice, would nevertheless be open to serious measures for “reducing the number of abortions.” Kaveny could hardly be unaware of Obama’s position on abortion, and yet she thinks that other parts of Obama’s program would fit a Catholic vision--most notably, "ending the unjust war in Iraq, providing decent jobs, ensuring affordable health care for all, and working for comprehensive immigration reform."

On the matter of reducing the number of abortions, imagine that there is a wondrous scheme for diverting women from choosing abortions: Let’s suppose that, in counseling centers, we find that playing “You’d be So Nice to Come Home To” had the wondrous effect of stirring 90 per cent of the women not to abort their babies--especially if the music is accompanied by the offer of a DVD player. Surely it would be a boon to save those lives, but we should tremble at what the move reveals about the terms of principle on which we live our lives together. For what is left intact is the understanding, deeply absorbed by our people, that there is nothing less than a “right” to order the killing of an innocent human being for reasons that need not rise beyond convenience or whims, and with no felt need even to offer a justification. To offer this state of affairs as a gain is to celebrate a law that has the most pronounced effect in misshaping the souls of our people.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Catholics and McCain

Recent stories on McCain and the Catholic "vote".

McCain “categorically rejects” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements

In an interview with the Associated Press the Republican presidential candidate said, "We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics”.

John McCain rallies Catholics as he prepares for general election

Austin Ruse from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) raised the issue with the Arizona senator by asking him whether he had considered changing his position on embryonic stem cell research given the dramatic scientific advances of the last two months. McCain responded to Ruse’s question by saying that while he is “very encouraged” by the advances, he has yet to see “sufficient scientific evidence” to change his support for the practice. He added that he will continue to examine the issue and receive briefs on any progress being made.

It is my prayer that Senator McCain will see the light on ESCR and change his position.

Joe Feuerherd vs. The Catholic Bishops

Three inter-related stories addressing the issue of voting and the upcoming U.S. presidential election:

• Not all political issues of equal value, says Bishop DiMarzio Catholic News Service. February 13, 2008:

  A "hierarchy of values" exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.
  

  "Our faith must inform our political decisions," he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish "between moral evil," such as abortion, "and matters of prudential judgment," such as tuition tax credits.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio made the comments in an address Feb. 7 to a crowd of 500 at the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn's annual dinner. His remarks drew on the U.S. bishops' 2007 document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility." . . .
  

  In his talk, the bishop referred primarily to issues in New York state. He described as "a most radical abortion bill" legislation proposed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and known as the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.
  

  The bishop said it would legalize partial-birth abortion, a procedure which he noted the late U.S. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., described as "near-infanticide."
  

  Bishop DiMarzio said the measure would "disenfranchise parents of their right to play a central role in the most significant decisions of their minor children" because it prohibits parental notification, and it would also expand access to over-the-counter pharmaceuticals "that destroy human life."
  

  "In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.
  

  "Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio also questioned legislative efforts "that would undermine the family by redefining marriage." He said that "pandering to a small but well-funded special interest group, our leadership in Albany would undermine the institution that is the bedrock of our society."
  

  Saying that the business of government is to protect the common good, the bishop asked how the state benefits by extending "the benefits of marriage" to same-sex couples.

  And what of the war in Iraq?

  Turning to the war in Iraq, Bishop DiMarzio said Pope Benedict XVI "has made no secret of his personal opposition" to the conflict, "in which 4,000 servicemen and servicewomen have died, 50,000 have been wounded and the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand, Iraqis have been crushed."
  

  Many theologians contend that a pre-emptive war cannot be justified in Catholic teaching, he said.
  

  The current debate over troop surges or withdrawing troops or timetables for withdrawal, however, "is a matter of prudential judgment," he said.
  

  In viewing the range of issues elected officials and candidates might take on the national and local levels, Bishop DiMarzio said that support for anyone who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine."

  
  
  

• On a similar note, the bishops who head Kentucky's four Catholic dioceses urged the state's Catholics to take a close look at life issues when voting this year. Catholic News Service reports:

  "All human laws must be measured against the natural law engraved in our hearts by the Creator," said the bishops in a pastoral letter, "Reverence for Life: Conscience and Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format]
  

  "Our religious beliefs affirm basic human rights and obligations that are essential to the fabric of our social life. In particular, respect for human life is numbered among those basic values that underpin the very foundation of civilization," they said.
  

  "What we profess in defense of the sacredness of unborn human life harmonizes with our historic legal tradition founded on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they said. "Abortion on demand does not."
  

  "Reverence for Life" was issued Jan. 22, the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that legalized abortion virtually on demand.
  

  Signing the pastoral were Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville and Bishops Roger J. Foys of Covington, Ronald W. Gainer of Lexington, and John J. McRaith of Owensboro.

  Without bothering to "name names", the Bishops addressed the common fallacy found among those who are "pro-choice":

  The claim political candidates have made that they are personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to impose their beliefs on others was condemned by the bishops as "an evasion," "a moral contraction" and "self-deception."
  

  "No one can be excepted from the logical step to translate moral opposition into effective strategies," they added. "If there is a lack of public consensus to effect full legal protection (for the unborn), no one can be excused from working toward creating consensus as a first step."
  

  The bishops said, "We do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc, nor do we desire to instruct Catholics on how to vote either by endorsing or opposing candidates," but "we do uphold our right and duty to provide moral analysis of the major issues confronting society."

  
  
  

• Also this week, National Catholic Reporter journalist Joe Feuerherd boasted of his vote for Obama, decrying the "right wing lurch" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Cardinal Sins: "I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?" Washington Post February 24, 2008):

  Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That's right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you're probably punching your ticket to Hell.

  he bishops have raised the stakes: It's not only lawmakers and candidates who risk damnation, 98 percent of the U.S. bishops agreed last November, but the voters who put them in office. "It is important to be clear," the bishops said in a 44-page statement titled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format] "that the political choices faced by citizens[emphasis added] not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, put those high-minded sentiments into plain English earlier this month. Support for a candidate who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine," he told the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn.
  

  To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics.
  

  Feuerherd also took the opportunity to attack the oudated convictions of not only the USCCB but Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, John Paul II:

  This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture.

  and closes by proclaiming his moral superiority:

  So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

Related Discussions

• How the Left will tackle McCain", by Deal Hudson. InsideCatholic.com February 24, 2008 | (As Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia points out, the Right have been tackling McCain along similar lines as well, so the McCain Campaign had better pay attention.
  
• Morally Justifying Immoral Voting Behavior The Cranky Conservative February 25, 2008.
  
• Conscientious Voting: Doing injustice, by Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review February 25, 2008.
  
• National "Catholic" Reporter reporter: "bishops be damned" by Carl Olson (Insight Scoop): "Is it really 'bad religion' and 'bad civics'? Not according to Pope John Paul II, . . ."

Catholic Discussion of USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship"

Back in November I had posted the link to the USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship" with a request for your thoughts -- it didn't seem to provoke many comments, which may speak to either to a lack of interest, a lack of readership. Such is the reception of most USCCB documents.

At any rate, following is a brief compilation of responses to said document culled from the web:

• Reaction from Fr. Neuhaus:

  “Faithful Citizenship” is a carefully considered reflection on political responsibility, the difference between “intrinsic evils” and prudential judgments, and the ways in which conscience is rightly formed. Several news stories have highlighted that the bishops left “loopholes” or created “leeway” for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That is not true. The document repeatedly and emphatically gives top priority to the protection of innocent human life in instances such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.
  

  But, of course and of necessity, it also says: “In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”
  

  The “conscience clause” is not a loophole but speaks to a solemn obligation. It is clear Catholic teaching that one must act in accord with conscience, even if one’s conscience is misguided. At the same time, one is obliged to form one’s conscience according to moral truth. It is also the Church’s teaching, reiterated in this document, that acting according to a rightly formed conscience is a matter that impinges upon one’s eternal salvation.
  

  It is obvious that some Catholics are, if not pro-abortion, at least of the view that opposition to abortion is trumped by other matters they consider more important, such as an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, their preferred health plan, or a Democratic victory in the presidential election. If knowingly and with full intent they collaborate in the intrinsic evil of abortion, they may say that the conscience clause provides them with a loophole. In such an instance, as “Faithful Citizenship” rightly underscores, they are provided only with the choice to surrender their soul’s salvation.

  
  
• Praise and Criticism for Lengthy US Bishops Statement on Catholics and Political Responsibility, by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman and Steve Jalsevac. LifeSiteNews. Nov. 16, 2007.
  

• Deal Hudson:

  Given that this document was written by a committee, I think that outcome is encouraging. It's too bad that a long list of prudential issues, commonly supported by the Democratic Party, are included, but that is to be expected until there are serious changes at the USCCB. . . .

  But the document has some serious theological muscle, which should be appreciated in the pro-life community.

  
  
• "Does it matter anyway?" Curt Jester November 14, 2007:

  This document does handle moral issues that are intrinsically evil much better and it is also much clearer what they are compared to other issues. The pro-life focus is quite evident throughout. It was of course mentioned in previous years, but there was much more confusion in regards to lesser moral issues. Last time around they even mentioned supporting Affirmative Action which I don't see is consistent in Catholic teaching by correcting one evil by using the same evil to racially discriminate against others. The first section of the document is fairly decent, but it demonstrates why documents written by committee are seldom very good. The last third though made me think that someone I had accidentally clicked onto a link and landed on a Democratic Party talking points page. All problems seemed to have a government solution (and Federal at that) and while subsidiarity is mentioned at the front of the document it is noticeably missing in essence in the rest of it. While many of the responses to these issues are prudential ones they are consistently ones championed by Democrats except perhaps on school choice.
  

  The real question though is does the document really matter? What was the last time to saw any Bishop's document at your parish and how likely will it be that many if they saw this semi-large document would read through it in the first place.

  
  
• Impressions of "Faithful Citizenship", by M.Z. Forrest. Vox Nova November 16, 2007:

  The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong. It purports itself to be voting guide, but it is pretty much a restatement of the USCCB’s domestic policy agenda. I don’t have a problem with that policy agenda, but I also don’t see any particular party’s candidates opining to bring back racism or remove the last vestiges of it. (This doesn’t mean someone can’t make a second or third order argument over the matter. That kind of reasoning has its own problems that I won’t go into here.) One thing the guide doesn’t do is provide manifest conclusions over which candidates, as in putative ones informed by watching American elections over the past two dozen years, one should seek to elect.

  
  
• "Voting and Salvation: Thanks, but No Thanks" - Michael ("Catholic Anarchist" Iafrate) responds to what he reads as an inordinate emphasis placed on the act of voting.
  

• Archbishop Chaput Not Satisfied With Proposed New USCCB Document on Voting, by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia October 31, 2007:

  . . . if the Holy Father, in the context of addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square, has chosen to describe certain public policy issues as being "not negotiable", surely a new USCCB document addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square should at least make note of the fact, right?

  
  

Salon: "Are You There, God? It's Me, Rudy"

From Salon.com:

Dec. 10, 2007 Late last spring, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence opened his mail to find an invitation to a local fundraising event for Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Tobin made national headlines when he responded to the invitation by penning a column for the Rhode Island Catholic about Rudy Giuliani's abortion views, chastising the former New York mayor for saying he believes abortion is morally wrong yet supports reproductive choice for women as a matter of public policy.

"Rudy's public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing," wrote Tobin. "[His] preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics, we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard."

Catholics, who cast almost a quarter of all votes nationally, and higher shares in swing states like Ohio, are one of the most important voting blocs in the American electorate. In fact, in every presidential election since 1972 the winner of the Catholic vote has won the overall national popular vote, something no other religious group -- Jews, evangelicals, Protestants -- can boast. If Republicans nominate him, barring a surprising late surge from Democrats Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, Giuliani would be the only Catholic in the general election. And part of Giuliani's supposed "electability," a selling point to the party faithful, is that he would draw support from "Reagan Democrats" in crucial, and heavily Catholic, Democratic and swing states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Polls of likely Republican primary voters have long shown that Giuliani is a favorite among Catholic Republicans. But if Giuliani's electability in the general election hinges in any way on his co-religionists, he may be in trouble. Problems with Catholics like Bishop Tobin were not hard to predict. It was inevitable that during Republican primary season, some conservative and observant Catholics would raise questions about Giuliani's checkered marital history and his stands on abortion and gay rights. But if he is the nominee next fall, he will also have to contend with three other Catholic constituencies in the general election -- less-observant Catholics, politically moderate Catholics and Latino Catholics -- all of whom may find fault with him for very different reasons.

[Read more - "It's becoming ever more clear that Rudy Giuliani suffers from John Kerry syndrome"]

Rich Leonardi examines "The Pro Lifer's Dilemma" next Fall and the suggestions of Russel Shaw, George Weigel and Archbishop Chaput:

What say you? Could you explain pulling the lever for a "President Guiliani (or Romney)" to Christ and abortion's 47 million victims?

USCCB: "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship"

Here is the document in question:

• Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [.pdf format]
  
• The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship summary statement Bulletin Insert. November 14, 2007.
  

It asks four essential questions:

1. (1) Why does the Church teach about issues affecting public policy? -
   
2. Who in the Church should participate in political life?
   
3. How does the Church help the Catholic faithful to speak about political and social questions?
   
4. What does the Church say about Catholic social teaching in the public square?
   

What did you think? -- Read and discuss.

Cardinal O'Malley: Catholics Backing Pro-Abortion Democrats "Borders on Scandal"

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

The Boston Globe reports:

BALTIMORE - Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani

A topic that seems to be on many a Catholic mind this week is the potential emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP presidential candidate in 2008. A self-proclaimed "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" Catholic, conservative voters are finding themselves faced with the moral equivalent to Senator Kerry (also a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" Catholic) on their side of the political isle.

Fr. Pavone on the Permissability of "Voting for the Better of Two Bad Candidates"

Last month, Michae Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) noted his disapproval of Fr. Frank Pavone's response to the question of what to do when the two major parties’ candidates are pro-choice, but a third party candidate is anti-abortion?? (More “Republicatholic” hypocrisy, courtesy of Frank Pavone May 13, 2007) -- In response to which, Fr. Pavone maintains that Catholics must distinguish between "choosing evil" and "limiting evil":

. . . just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that's the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good. . . . by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Michael omits from his post the fact that Fr. Pavone was taking a cue from Cardinal John O'Connor (no slouch on the pro-life front, he). Pavone continues, citing from the Cardinal himself:

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem,

“Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

Michael Iafrate's reaction to Pavone is to brand him a hypocrite, although he has not actually established this to be the case. In fact, Fr. Pavone has held this same position (with respect to voting when faced with two leading "bad' candidates) back in 2000:

“Because voting is not a canonization,” he continued, “we may morally vote for a less perfect candidate who is actually electable at the present moment, rather than a better candidate who does not have the base of support to actually get into office. Our vote is our way of participating in actually moving our society forward, rather than a forum for ‘making statements.’ Statements can be made in a thousand other ways. But there is only one way to elect people to offices in which they can make a difference.”

I believe Fr. Pavone makes an important observation here about the viability of a given candidate -- a principled vote for the 'better' third party candidate with no political viability will result in the election of one or another candidate (and party) who will set the agenda and policies for the country. Last month I had devoted a post to exploring this very decision ("To Vote or Not to Vote?" Catholics in the Public Square April 21, 2007) and the ramifications of voting for a candidate with no realistic chance of success or even abstaining from voting altogether.

Moving on, Michael Iafrate's assertion that Catholic Answers teaches that "Catholics are obligated to vote for pro-life/anti-abortion candidates (typically Republicans) and may not vote for pro-choice/pro-abortion candidates (typically Democrats)" is not exactly true. A look at Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics reveals an answer that is very much along the lines of Fr. Pavone's and Cardinal O'Connor's:

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

Senator Brownback - Consistently Pro-Life or Sell-Out?

In the third debate among GOP candidates, Wolf Blitzer posed the question to Senator Sam Brownback of whether he would be able to vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate. Here is the exchange in full:

SEN. BROWNBACK: [...] I am pro-life and I’m whole life. And one of the things I’m the most, the proudest about our party about is that we’ve stood for life. We’ve been a party that has stood for a culture of life, and it was in our platform in 1980 and it continues today.

And with that respect — and I have respect for my other colleagues — that’s why I don’t think we can nominate somebody that’s not pro-life in this party because it is at our core. We believe that every life is beautiful, is sacred, is a child of a loving God, from natural — from conception to natural death, and that applies not only here and in the womb, it applies to somebody that’s in poverty, it applies to the child in Darfur.

And that philosophy, being pro-life and whole life, is something I think can really help move us forward as a country and as a party.

MR. BLITZER: Senator, if Rudy Giuliani got the Republican presidential nomination, would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I — that question came up at the first debate, and I stated that this is something that we as a party have struggled with. I have great respect for the mayor. I don’t think we’re going to nominate somebody that’s not pro-life.

MR. BLITZER: Would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I can support and will support the nominee of our party, but our party has stood on principles. It’s a party of principles, it’s not a party of personalities.

Michael Joseph of Vox Nova / Evangelica-Catholicism expressed his disapproval of Senator Sam Brownback, characterizing the Senator's response as a compromise of his moral principles, at the same time asserting that the "more Catholic and more democratic action" would be to vote for a third-party candidate (Brownback Backpedals Vox Nova June 6, 2007):

. . . All of Fr. Pavone's talk about ending abortion definitively in America by consolidating the pro-life vote ends here. He introduces a manufactured category to the matter: "realistic choice." So as a Catholic, I do not need to vote pro-life as long as that vote goes toward a "realistic" candidate? Is "realistic" an emergency moral category whose glass is broken in the event that a Republican nominee for president is pro-choice? "Realistic" releases me from any moral obligation to vote pro-life? I should not feel compelled to find a pro-life third-party candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience? I should not do the more Catholic and the more democratic action of voting for a third-party? I should allow practical politics to trump pro-life principles? Why, then, can I not just vote for a "realistic" pro-choice candidate anytime, even if there is a "realistic" pro-life candidate in the race?

Fr. Pavone exacerbates his double-talk by suggesting that a pro-choice candidate could be an "acceptable" candidate. If both candidates are pro-choice, one may be more "acceptable" than the other. Really, Fr. Pavone? And how so? Is there another behemoth non-negotiable issue that can overshadow a candidate's public desire to protect right to the murder the unborn? Perhaps socialized medicine? Perhaps tax-cuts? Perhaps immigration reform?

In "Worthiness to Receive Communion, General Principles", Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

(Cardinal Ratzinger's position -- not to be distinguished with proportionalism -- is explored and defended by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin: What Ratzinger Said Sept. 9, 2004). I think that the collective voice of Vox Nova are rather too hasty in their rush to castigate Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone as hypocrites guilty of "pro-life backpedalling" whose only desire is that Catholics vote Republican. Based on a closer analysis of Brownback and Pavone's own words and stated reasoning, this is simply not the case.

Steve Dillard and Catholics Against Rudy

Responding to an piece on Catholics Against Rudy on Vox Nova this week (Catholics Against Rudy: All the Way?, by Michael Joseph Vox Nova June 12, 2007), Steve Dillard conveys the position of his organization Catholics Against Rudy (formally launching in July 2007):

(1) My comment that, "You cannot, in good conscience as a faithful Catholic, vote for Rudy Giuliani," is limited to the GOP presidential primary. . . . I certainly believe that there would be "proportionate reasons" to vote for Mayor Giuliani in the general election against a pro-abortion democratic candidate (e.g., Clinton).

(2) Yes, if Giuliani "were to earn the Republican nomination," which I agree is "a very likely scenario," Catholics Against Rudy will "continue its campaign beyond the Republican primaries" That having been said, for the reasons noted above, our arguments against his candidacy will have to shift gears a bit. While there clearly are not "proportionate reasons" that would permit a Catholic to vote for Giuliani in the GOP primary, the same cannot be said for the general election, and, as such, our arguments will shift from the theological to the prudential (e.g., that Catholics should not vote for Giuliani because of the long-term harm that would result from having a pro-abortion leader as the head of the only pro-life political party).

(3) For all of the reasons noted above, Catholics Against Rudy "will . . . make good on its campaign and advise Catholics to choose a pro-life third-party candidate," while at the same time respecting those Catholics who, for other prudential reasons (e.g., supreme-court vacancies), elect to choose the lesser of two evils.

Before I go on, I would like to publicly commend Steve Dillard for his patience and Christian charity, having been the recipient of a great deal of verbal abuse and unjust accusations in Vox Nova's combox. The accusation that Catholics Against Rudy would be an organization "utterly beholden to the Republican Party" is unjustifiable and patently ridiculous on its face. Thanks to Michael Joseph for displaying the courtesy of amending his post.

In Conclusion

Like Senator Brownback, I hope and pray it will never come to pass that Giuliani will be the GOP presidential nominee. Unfortunately, I fear that Brownback is far more optimistic about the integrity and conviction of the Republican Party than I at this time. While the Giuliani campaign has been met with increasing opposition among conservative Catholics, the amount of attention bestowed upon him by other Republicans is disconcerting, not to mention what one would describe as fawning adulation from the likes of FoxNews pundit Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry of the National Review (in what Jay Anderson appropriately described as a "Rudygasm").

A conscientious vote for Giuliani against, say, Hillary or Obama is perhaps defensible from a Catholic point of view (or at least not prohibited). I honestly can't predict my decision come November 2008. For the moment, I think it is clear that we as Catholics should collectively put our effort into opposing the nomination of Rudy Giuliani -- not only for the sake of accurately presenting Catholic teaching in the public square, but for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Republican party in future elections.

The Republican Party has recognized in its platform that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." Would it be worth it to elect a "pro-choice" politician at the cost of sacrificing or making a mockery of that very position? Would it not be a slippery slope, in fact "widening the Republican tent" to allow for the election of more "pro-choice" politicians in the future? -- The Democrats have worn the "pro-choice" mantle for decades. Let's curb this headlong rush to join them.

* * *

This post is written in the attempt to work out my thoughts on the issue and a clarification of the positions of Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone; I welcome the feedback of my colleagues and readers and their reactions. Let the discussion begin.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. -- President Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation

General Reading

• Anti-Rudy Catholics Plan Their Assault, by Rebecca Sinderbrand. New York Observer May 27, 2007.
  
• The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership, by Robert P. George and William L. Saunders. Crisis 18 no. 4 (April 2000): 17-22.
  

Responses to This Post

• Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia June 13, 2007).
  
• Response from Morning's Minion [see also: "Can Catholics Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians?", by Morning's Minion. Vox Nova May 23, 2007].
  
• Does Voting for Giuliani Make You a Pro-Life Fraud?, by Michael Denton. For the Greater Glory June 13, 2007.
  

To Vote . . . Or Not to Vote?

Abortion Ruling Is All About Alito. Pro Ecclesia Friday, April 20, 2007. Jay makes a good point here:

Andrew Cohen laments at The Washington Post:

This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other. The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 begat the nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Justice Alito's ascencion to the High Court last year begat today a landmark abortion ruling that anti-abortion advocates have pushed to get for years. You can spin this any other way you want but in the end it comes down to a simple matter of personnel. Justice Alito was willing and able to go in the law where his predecessor, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. And, as a result, doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure. As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut might have said: so it goes.

To which Jay comments:

Let me repeat and emphasize the one thing on which I agree with Cohen: "This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other."

Back in 2004, the Catholic philosopher Alisdair Macintyre expressed the opinion that The Only Vote Worth Casting in November was . . . no vote at all:

. . . the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.

Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish.

Other Catholics have expressed similar dissatisfaction with the present administration and the GOP in general. Last November, Catholic apologist and fellow blogger Mark Shea wrote dismissively of the choice in the mid-term elections as one between "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", and voted for a third-party candidate, so as to express his dissatisfaction with what he habitually refers to as "the torture party" or "the Stupid Party" (who he presumes operates under the motto: "We Exploit Pro-lifers Every Four Years by Pretending to Care about Human Life").

There is an element of truth to Mark's criticism of the GOP. After all, Hadley Arkes had his own bone to pick with the Bush Administration shortly after the 2004 election, characterizing the outcome as "Bush's Second Chance" (First Things April 2005). At the same time, I think that a blanket condemnation of the GOP such as made by Shea -- even in jest -- does a disservice to the many Catholic (or Protestant) Republicans who do work tirelessly to pass pro-life legislation. (I see that I'm not the only one noticing the bitterness and cynicism emanating from Catholic & Enjoying It these days).

Honestly, if this post sounds conflicted, it's because I am. There's a lot of discussion lately about a crisis of identity within the GOP -- the candidacy of "pro-choice Catholic" Rudy Giuliani being a present symptom. And I think we would be in something of a predicament were Giuliani to actually be the presidential nominee. Were that to happen, do you make the attempt to save the GOP by working from within? Or do you "opt out" and resign yourself to criticizing from afar?

Which would have the better chance of reforming the party or doing some good in the long term?

Like my colleagues, the prospect of a Giuliani presidential nomination is a fearful one. But I also have strong difficulties with the decision to abstain from voting, or to cast a principled-but-ultimately-ineffective vote for a third-party candidate which no clear chance of electoral victory. I would be greatly concerned were religious conservatives to embark on a "protest vote" en masse, because in either case, the outcome is the same: one hands over the victory to the Democrats, and those who are arguably more likely to do greater damage, rolling back any legislative pro-life gains made by Republicans. Consider:

• According to the Washington Post, crisis pregnancy centers have received 60 million in federal funding since 2001 ("Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs" "Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues" March 22, 2006. One knows what would have happened under a Kerry presidency -- and one can reasonably predict what would occur under Hillary Clinton or Obama.
  

• Consider also the heavily contested the Mexico City Policy instituted by President Reagan, requiring "nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The policy was repealed by President Clinton on his first day of office, and then reinstated January 22, 2001, by president George W. Bush. Senator Kerry in turn vowed to revoke it, were he elected president. Again, whoever is elected to the presidency, his action would likely adhere to the example set forth by his party.
  

• Consider what might have happened had Christians, despite their concerns about the Bush administration, embraced a position of non-engagement and "opted out" of the election in 2004 . . . and those Supreme Court judges appointed by President Bush were intead appointed by a certain "pro-choice Catholic" senator from Massachusetts? -- Would we have anything to celebrate this past week?
  

Food for thought and discussion.