Loading ...
Though we don’t yet know John McCain’s running mate, it’s clear, I think, that he is the best choice if we want to have any hope of adding strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court, with the aim in mind of overturning Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, I feel that McCain is far from a safe pick on such an issue – that is, the appointment of justices – but even Bush (in some ways, more of a conservative than McCain), who did very well by us in the end (Roberts & Alito), nearly screwed the whole thing up with his initial nominee, Harriet Myers. Even if Obama were really the man to “make America strong again”, with him in office, there’s zero chance of getting the justices we need. This all is, I think, one reasonable, Catholic approach to the coming election: McCain isn’t the perfect conservative, but most anyone will be better than Obama.
But now here is another approach to voting in the fall, which comes to us from the St. John Mary Vianney Latin Mass community bulletin (an apostolate of the FSSP):
Voting is a moral act. We have both a right and an obligation to vote. There are 5 non-negotiable issues for the Catholic voter. These 5 non-negotiable issues are: 1) Abortion, 2) Euthanasia, 3) Fetal stem cell research, 4) Human cloning, and 5) Homosexual “marriage”.
If a candidate supports any of these issues, he is immediately disqualified from receiving the vote of any Catholic. The reason for this is that these actions are intrinsically evil (against the natural law) and must never be promoted by the law. It is a mortal sin to endorse or promote any of these actions or issues knowingly, whether by voting directly on these issues or for candidates that support these issues.
Question: “What about voting for the lesser of 2 evils?” Only if a candidate fulfills the above 5 non-negotiables, then and only then does he qualify to be considered a ‘lesser of 2 evils’ vote. They are non-negotiable issues because the natural law is ‘at stake’. We can always fill in a name and vote that way. We have to remember, Our vote is our voice, and we will be judged on how we voted, not on who won a particular election.
Thus far a priest of the F.S.S.P. Now my initial reaction is that this approach differs from that outlined by Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter around the time of the last election to the U.S. Bishops Conference: in that letter, I thought that Ratzinger was quite clear in his endorsement of the lesser of two evils approach. I thought Ratzinger’s approach was: if both candidates support abortion and, everything else being equal, the one supports euthanizing everyone over 65 in order to make Social Security solvent while the other candidate rejects euthanasia in all cases, even for such worthy ends as a welfare state – one can and ought to vote for the second candidate.
So does anyone know if this non-negotiable issues approach is endorsed by some very reputable authority? It seems strange to me, given Ratzinger’s position; on the other hand, in a happier world where Catholics voted as a conservative block, such an all-or-nothing strategy would really wreak havoc in American politics, and could be a force for good; the Catholic vote would have to be taken seriously.
This type of approach reminds me of the situation in Italy after the loss of the Papal States. For some time, as I understand it, Catholics were prohibited from engaging in any way, shape, or form in the political life of Italy. But by the end of the reign of Leo XIII, certain bishops (such as Giuseppe Sarto) were allowing Catholics to ally themselves, when practical, with other conservatives (with whom, though, the Catholics did not agree on all issues) in order to defeat the leftist parties.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
The Holy Father spoke of three “non-negotiables” in his famous speech to European politicians:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/02/catholics-and-politics-papal-reminders.html
Other interesting pontifical texts in our “Politics-Papal Reminders” series:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/search/label/Politics-Papal Reminders
I think Fr. made a rash statement.
I’m voting for McCain.
NARAL is excited about McCain/Palin . . . .
The quoted opinions are foolish and wrong, and I find it difficult to believe that one of the good priests of the FSSP would promote the same. Is McCain the best vote a Catholic will ever cast? Hardly. But in this case, at this level, sitting out the election or voting for some “noble” 3rd-party loser is the effective equivalent of casting a vote for Obama. End of discussion.
This kind of thinking is exactly what’s wrong with the US currently.
As Catholics, we are also Christians. There is more to casting your vote than which moral prohibitions you want to enforce everyone else to follow.
McCain and Obama both want to prolong war (which kills people), both support capital punishment (which kills people), neither will really provide healthcare for all (which a lack of, kills people) –
So what are we really voting on here? I don’t understand how anyone who considers themselves “pro-life” and Christian can support EITHER of these candidates.
I will vote for Ralph Nader. Who opposes wars of aggression, capital punishment, poverty, and other forms of murder. The fact that he would allow people to make their own reproductive decisions doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that Obama and McCain would actively seek the death and destruction of others. Seems like a simple choice to me.
Christie, if you think Christians have to be opposed to absolutely everything that “kills people,” you’re in quite a predicament, because practically everything kills people. Time kills people. Or, if you only think we have to concern ourselves with those things that humans have the ability to stop, there are still a wide range of things that “kill people” that none of the present candidates want to ban — cars, chocolate, foreign travel, rock climbing, guns, fast food, cigarettes, plastic bags… need I go on?
As Catholics, our job is not to prolong death for all people at any cost. People die — that’s how the world is. We should do our best to care for the poor and the sick, but ultimately we should never expect to find a political system that will ward off all evils. What we can reasonably demand is a political system that, at the very least, does not condone murder. As our present government does, through permissive abortion laws. War, when fought for just reasons, mindful of certain ethical principles, is not murder. Abortion is. If you don’t understand this distinction, I suggest you read more on the subject before the upcoming election, because your present stance (which, as far as I can see, is fundamentally utilitarian) is not consonant with the Christian tradition of thinking about these matters.
“As our present government does, through permissive abortion laws. War, when fought for just reasons, mindful of certain ethical principles, is not murder.”
I think the problem here is that you don’t realize how UN-just all the wars we have been fighting are. The United States has been engaged in illegal, unnecessary War-for-Capitalism nearly non-stop for decades. Our government has also done things like overthrown democratically-elected leaders of other countries and installed authoritarian dictators in their place — all so that American corporations can have their way with other countries. It is purely war for Greed and Power. This kind of thing includes Vietnam up to Iraq and nearly everything in between. This is absolutely positively un-Christian. If you don’t know much about American military history, I really recommend you read up on it – it is truly disgusting and horrifying.
And I’m sorry but I don’t see how anyone who considers themselves Christian can vote for a candidate who is in favor of unjust war, capital punishment, the exploitation of the poor by giant corporations, etc — all because of a single issue like abortion.
I would feel it immoral, simple-minded, and un-Christian of myself to vote for a man like McCain or Obama because of one issue, when I morally disagree with them on almost ALL the others. I have the option to vote for Ralph Nader whom I morally agree with on all issues *except* one. That is who I will vote for.
Well, Christie. It seems rather unlikely that arguing with you about military history would be productive. I’m very familiar with the “all American wars have really been about greed” argument; it’s the kind of dogged and insistent hermeneutic that takes considerable time to dispel. (Not entirely unlike the “all people really act for selfish reasons” claim that some people like to make.)
So I’ll content myself with making two observations. First, in your rhetoric at least, you need to be more careful in your distinctions. Your first post made it sound as if you were not able to distinguish between permitting abortion (which is murder, and always gravely wrong) and failing to provide universal health care (which is neglect at best, but very arguably not even a bad thing, and certainly no Magisterial teaching has directly dealt with the subject.) This is a straightforward double-effect case, in which one action is obviously a much more serious moral concern. Even if the distinction is clear in your own head, you immediately make yourself look foolish when you comment on a Catholic blog sounding as if you don’t know the difference between killing someone and failing to save them.
But secondly: suppose for the sake of argument that you’re right, that virtually all American military activity has been unjust, that capitalism is evil, and that all mainstream candidates are unacceptable because they support these things. That still would not justify voting for a pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-same sex marriage candidate. Nader stands in clear opposition to not just one, but a number of Catholic teachings, and if you find all the other candidates objectionable for other reasons, the correct course is simply not to vote.
http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/pope-iraq-war-has-no-moral.html
Pope: Iraq War “has no moral justification”;
Says Decision Should have been Made by UN
Please read the above.
Seriously, for someone to think the US wars of the past several decades have been “just” wars, it takes a stupifying ignorance of the military-industrial complex and the corporate oligarchs who have hijacked our legislative and executive branches.
Honestly, read any mainstream media from anywhere outside the US and you find a disturbing pattern: nearly every other country in the industrialized world reports news that does not get reported by American mainstream media.
Since the wars we have been fighting have been of benefit to American mega-corporations, and these corporations are the ones who provide the most advertising dollars to our mainstream media outlets, it is not hard to see where motivation for the censorship would come from.
Not to mention media moguls like Rupert Murdoch. This is a man who owns many TV news outlets, radio, newspapers and magazines, and now websites like MySpace, all over the US, and in other parts of the world, a man who openly admits that he wants to control as much of the media as possible, so as to control what people think.
We live in a time where the United States is now in the advanced stages of being a Corporate State. Huge corporations now have over 35,000 Washington lobbyists who lavish money on our elected “representatives” who in turn vote for legislation that enables these corporations to continue to further exploit common people and wreak havoc on God’s creation.
I find it simply unconscionable to either a) vote for a politician who is beholden to the interests of giant corporations, not the will of the people, or b) abstain from voting and sit idly by while I know the war machine keeps going and innocents all over the world are dying because of lies.
Another issue is that these politicians like McCain only take the pro-life stance to pander to religious and moral people whom they know will be essentially single-issue voters. This enables them to do whatever else they want to destroy our democracy because they KNOW we will vote for them because of the abortion issue. This allows them to take our votes for granted. They take a WHOLE SECTOR of the electorate for granted.
McCain’s foreign policy is horrendous. His domestic policy is horrendous. He is of questionable mental capacity (I believe he is already showing signs of senility) and known for his hot temper — and we want to give this man the nuclear codes?? No way!
I will vote for Nader because honestly, in this day and age, there ARE bigger issues than abortion. Issues that affect not only Americans but the whole world. United States foreign policy has been a disaster for innocent people all over the world, and I can’t be a mere spectator and do nothing. And I won’t let someone else’s conscience do the thinking for me. I know what my conscience tells me is right, and I’ll let God be the judge. I couldn’t bring myself to vote any other way.
Well, Christie, I said in my last post that arguing with you about military history would be a fruitless exercise, and surprisingly enough, your last post has not altered that opinion. You’ve said quite enough to communicate the sort of view that you hold, and even to give me a pretty good idea what sorts of news sources have likely shaped your views. I have actually considered writing a post at some point about John Paul II and the UN (which I think he misjudged in a fairly serious way), but not today, and not on a long-defunct thread like this. It suffices to say that Catholics are not obliged to share his high regard for that organization, which never approached anything like a Magisterial pronouncement. Of course, JPII, for all his mistrust of capitalism, never made damning statements even approaching the strength of yours. Still, I will gladly grant that orthodox Catholicism is fully compatible with a mistrust of both American military power and free markets. You may vote for pacifists and (sometimes, with certain qualifications) socialists without committing any sin.
But the candidate you support both favors legalized infanticide and opposes marriage. These are not just minor foibles. Indeed, I find them even more repugnant (if that were possible) in an idealistic candidate like Nader than I do in an opportunistic candidate like Clinton or Obama. With a Democrat, you might sometimes hope that they are more spineless than straightforwardly depraved — like Kerry, they might be “personally opposed” to abortion but in the interests of getting elected, they agree to compromise. That’s not a plausible supposition in Nader’s case. No, I think we have to take him at his word that he wants to radically change the present order and rebuild a just society… and he thinks that new society ought to involve the legal murder of infants and the promotion of an empty contractual view of marriage and family. And this is the man behind whom you want to rally? This is someone whom you, as a professed Catholic, feel comfortable supporting?
Jamie, let me be frank. Geopolitics and economics are very complicated. You don’t understand them at all well. I don’t either, come to that, but at least I have the advantage of realizing how much I don’t know. And while it’s certainly true that foreign and economic policies involve significant moral questions, these are mixed together with incredibly difficult pragmatic questions which neither you, nor I, nor even the pontiffs are competent to definitively settle. That shouldn’t stop us from trying our best, but we have to acknowledge from the beginning that in areas like these, mistakes will be made, people will suffer, and bad things will sometimes happen no matter what we do or don’t do. History gives us abundant evidence of these unhappy truths.
Abortion is much less complicated. Normal people like us could understand it even if the Church hadn’t already laid everything out for us. For a nation to murder its own children is not inevitable. True, we are far from the only society in history to engage in this kind of organized slaughter; some have killed children, some virgins, some the old or infirm, and some members of particular ethnic groups that were somehow inconvenient to those in power. Many different arguments have been given to justify the murder of one’s own innocents, but morally speaking, I don’t think there’s much to choose between them, and somehow I find it extremely implausible that a man who is perfectly satisfied to destroy life when it’s barely begun, and to tear down the strong families in which children should be raised, holds the key to establishing a just society or a harmonious global order.
God will ultimately be the judge, my friend. Perhaps that ought to make you a bit more uneasy than it appears to do at present.