When the dust settles after the election we may want to look back and see just what happened.
Is there going to be a “Catholic vote”? Should there be such a thing? Do Catholics heed what their bishops say about Catholic social teaching when deciding whom to vote for?
Separation of church and state is one of the hallmarks of our republic, and that phrase is stretched and pulled in myriad ways. From “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” we’ve derived tax exemption for religious projects, the provision of religious articles to prisoners who are practitioners of Wicca, a hypothetical “wall of separation” that regulates crèches on civic properties, and, of most concern in an election year, the rule that church officials who wish to retain tax exemption for their endeavors must not endorse or condemn particular parties or candidates.
In recent decades, the bishops of the United States, conscious of their responsibility to teach on moral issues, have wrestled with their need to provide non-partisan guidance, as voters tried to bring their Catholic sensibilities to bear on political decisions. In the most recent election year they produced the latest in a series of documents, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a detailed and nuanced guide to what they considered the key issues in the election.
“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” and its condensed versions set out key themes for Catholics to consider. The first was the consistent ethic of life: the dignity and infinite worth of every human from conception until natural death. This took in issues from abortion and euthanasia to embryonic stem-cell research and capital punishment, unjust war, genocide, torture and weapons of mass destruction. Another was the importance of the family, based in the marriage of a man and a woman ordered to the procreation and care of children. With reference to Christ’s mandate to care for the least of his brothers and sisters came an option for the poor and vulnerable, with the rights of all to food and shelter, education and health care as well as other human rights. The dignity of work and the rights of workers; global solidarity—the responsibility to be peacemakers, to share our bounty with those suffering hunger and illness, provide asylum to refugees, and to stand up for human rights around the world; and caring for God’s creation, being good stewards of the planet on which we live, were all included as elements of church teaching.
The bishops did not say that all these issues had equal weight. It spoke of the “intrinsic evil” of such acts as abortion and said, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” Moreover, “While people of good will may sometimes choose different ways to apply and act on some of our principles, Catholics cannot ignore their inescapable moral challenges or simply dismiss the Church’s guidance or policy directions that flow from these principles.” On the other hand, the document—which was accepted by a majority vote of all the bishops of the United States—said clearly, “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”
Interestingly, as of this writing some 50 bishops of U.S. dioceses—about 25 percent—nevertheless wrote articles or letters or gave media interviews in which they told Catholics that they should not vote for a candidate who supported legal abortion, in some cases specifying that as the Democratic candidate. A smaller number of bishops reiterated the call to consider a range of issues.
It is foolish to think that one can check one’s religion at the entry to the voting booth. A Catholic eating a hamburger does so as a Catholic, and certainly a Catholic casting a vote does so. Whether he or she casts that vote in full knowledge of Catholic teaching on the issues at stake, and whether or not he or she chooses to vote in accord with that teaching, are questions of conscience and questions for sociologists to study and debate.
The bishops who crafted “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” and those who have written and spoken out about the election are taking responsibility for teaching their flocks what the church teaches on the important issues of our day. Is anyone listening?
