Christopher Roberts
In 2004, the year of George W versus John Kerry, Villanova historian Eugene McCarraher wrote an article explaining why he didn’t vote. Both candidates were zillionaires who supported the 2003 Iraq invasion, and Gene was frustrated with what he called the party of plutocracy, war, and capital punishment versus the party of plutocracy, war, and abortion.
Once, not voting would have seemed heretical to me. But as I age, as my Catholic conscience hopefully deepens, and perhaps as our country changes, I find abstaining out of principle more understandable. I will still be voting this year, but like McCarraher, I find it impossible to be at home in either political party.
To find my spiritual place in the political world, it helps me to imagine being a peasant in the Roman Empire. The idea that the empire might consider Christian values would have been unthinkably remote. Apparently, all we can do is pray that the emperor will not be evil or crazy.
[hotblock]
But appearances can be deceptive. Princeton historian Peter Brown recalls that pagan Rome had its own charity: citizens carried a lead or a bronze tablet, like an ID card, indicating entitlement to a ration of grain or pork. To be on this welfare was a point of pride, because you were a citizen.
Of course, there were also poor people who were not citizens. In times of famine, they starved. It didn’t occur to Romans to worry about these immigrants, because conceptually, they were invisible. The non-citizens were non-persons and off the moral map.
Twelve years ago Villanova historian Eugene McCarraher didn’t vote because both presidential candidates were zillionaires who supported the 2003 Iraq invasion, and represented what he called the party of plutocracy, war, and capital punishment versus the party of plutocracy, war, and abortion.
In this context, the first Catholics insisted that each human being was created in the image of God. This idea gave the early church a reason to feed everyone, based on need rather than citizenship. Professor Brown explains that over generations, the church brought a new class of people — “the poor” — into western consciousness.
From this precedent, I deduce that whenever we feel politically homeless, our Catholic political vocation is always more generative and interesting than voting and competing for power. Whatever our rulers may do, we still have our faith and our neighbors, and therefore we have opportunities to serve creatively.
My analogy also has obvious implications for today’s immigration debate, but it’s applicable to pro-life issues too. Think of abortion, where we Catholics see the image of God in someone whom the world says is a non-person.
Moreover, the phrase “image of God” occurs in the same verses where God creates male and female and tells us to care for the earth, making the Catholic culture of life beautifully coherent.
Another ancient analogy that helps comes from the book of Daniel. Daniel and his friends were useful to the Babylonian King — they had wisdom which the palace magicians did not — because they conformed their lives to faith. Even while living in Babylon, these Israelites were disciplined about prayers and keeping kosher, which meant that when issues arose where they couldn’t compromise, they were spiritually prepared, fortified for the lion’s den and the fiery furnace.
We too need to be faithful in our daily habits so that we are formed and ready to stand up for the truth. The book of Daniel says that spiritual discipline and political wisdom go together.
That’s why, no matter what else you do on Nov. 8, I recommend fasting or performing some other act of penance. We see in Scripture and the early church that God has a history of forging his people in times of poor political leadership, so while I am not optimistic about this election, I have hope.
I’ll be voting this Election Day, but with lament for the state of our nation, and an awakened sense of my primary identity as a Catholic.
There are many other things that could and should be said about the Catholic conscience and voting. We should consider a candidate’s character. The church teaches us not to vote in support of intrinsic evils like abortion. The church also tells us not to be single-issue voters.
The church reasons that in extreme circumstances, we can support a candidate who supports something like abortion, but only for very grave counter-balancing reasons, and never because of the intrinsic evil itself.
And perhaps most profoundly, if we consider the magisterium of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis, they have been saying for decades that there are habits in modern life shaping us in utilitarian, individualistic, and relativistic ways, and that is why the west now faces a deep cultural crisis.
That means we must go about our works of mercy and cultural renewal with a long-term perspective, remembering what it took to become a moral force in the Roman Empire, and what it took to be faithful in Babylon.
However your conscience impels you on Election Day, I am sure we serve the nation by being Catholics first, Americans second, and Republicans or Democrats a very distant third.
***
Christopher C. Roberts is a parishioner at Our Mother of Consolation in Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia. He is in his final year of studying for the permanent diaconate and is the author of Creation & Covenant, a book about the theology of marriage.
PREVIOUS: To build the culture of life, put more heart in your hands
NEXT: Suffering is part of being human, but we can learn from it
One of my sentences in particular – “The Church reasons that in extreme circumstances, we can support a candidate who supports something like abortion, but only for very grave counter-balancing reasons, and never because of the intrinsic evil itself” – has alarmed some readers. In that sentence, among other things, I was trying to paraphrase paragraphs 35-37 in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which is available online at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action What I wrote was not a veiled endorsement of anyone, but rather an attempt to summarize Church teaching faithfully and succinctly. For the sake of anyone still interested, here the relevant USCCB paragraphs in full:
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably 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.
36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
37. 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 policies promoting 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 responses are way better than the stupid article.
If we are to vote first as a catholic, then we must consider that we may not vote for the progressive agenda which is to replace God’s authority with the authority of the state. Europeans came to America so that they could establish a state under God’s bounty of grace. The progressive agenda puts mankind under the state’s rule. Decide to vote for ‘God and country’, not ‘country and God’, as it is in Europe.
Christopher,
In your article you mention “The church reasons that in extreme circumstances, we can support a candidate who supports something like abortion, but only for very grave counter-balancing reasons, and never because of the intrinsic evil itself.”
That is just not true and frankly, very dangerous and potentially very damaging to make such statements. Abortion is murder of the most vulnerable human being, the unborn. This is never an acceptable means to an end, under no circumstances. Can you please explain the justification of your statement above? That is an extremely dangerous statement to put forth, especially on a platform like this with lots of potential exposure. Pope Francis himself mentioned that abortion can “never” be a means to an end. What “extreme circumstance” could possibly be more grave than chemically disintegrating or dismembering an unborn child in his mother’s womb!?! The “single issue” argument is a straw-man strategy. When that “single issue” happens to be an issue of the most vital importance, then yes, you CAN be a “single issue voter” and in fact are obligated to. It depends on the issue.
I’m sorry, maybe I’m wrong, but the last few paragraphs seem like a veiled argument for a justification to vote for Hillary Clinton. That’s just how it feels to me as a reader. I don’t like any of the candidates myself. But as a Catholic it’s clear to me I can not support the murder of unborn children under any circumstances, no matter what the so-called “counter-balancing reasons” are.
To quote Pope Francis: “”This defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and INVIOLABLE, in any situation and at every stage of development.
“Human beings are ends in themselves and NEVER a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.”
“The church reasons that in extreme circumstances, we can support a candidate who supports something like abortion, but only for very grave counter-balancing reasons, and never because of the intrinsic evil itself.”
What are you saying? What is ‘something like abortion’? Let us all recognize that welcoming the unborn child is a higher priority than welcoming the immigrant – because we are not advocating the killing of the immigrant. But by refusing to welcome the unborn child, we assent to his/her death. Healthcare, education, and social security become very unimportant to people who have been killed. Life cannot be set aside! The only circumstance when a prudential judgment might be exercised in favor of a pro-abortion candidate, is when they are running against another pro-abortion candidate – who is worse. And, in case there is any confusion over which candidates are pro-abortion, Hillary Clinton, Katy McGinty are pro-abortion!
Let our Church speak with far greater clarity when Life hangs in the balance!
Also, we need to look at the early kings of Israel. Those who forgot God, fell.
Have we, in excising God and perhaps His protection, out of our society, excised His buffer zone?
Are we inviting judgment to come in many ways upon us?
What Catholics need further to consider in voting this year is what Kaine of VA brought up in the VP debate.
What I did not get with Kaine was WHY was he so conflicted about enforcing the death penalty as a VA governor (prior to taking office), and yet unwilling to equally look at Catholic teaching on abortion. “Leave it to an individual to make a choice” is seemingly where he, Pelosi, Biden, and some of the Kennedys have come in bifurcating their faith from their public service.
Jesus says we can’t serve two masters. Every person who espouses the Christian faith — Hillary and Obama included — at some point will have to choose whom they will serve the MOST…the Constitution, as they interpret it or Christ.
Feeding the poor and taking care of the poor is only part of it.
I have seen NO politician examine what the performing of abortions does to those who do it and or leave the by-product of botched abortions to die. Can this “mass” be just written off as junk?
Nobody I know wants to put women in jail who are desperate and have had had abortions. Most of my friends who have had them suffer enough (and sometimes it is not until years later).
Many of the people who march in the March for Life are people who “have been there” and want the public to know they wish they had made the other choice. (The press does not by and large cover this event. Why not?)
What many of us really want brought to light is a need for informed consent and a discussion of how what Roe v.Wade tried to make acceptable may in fact have contributed to a searing of our consciences as a society.
And no, I am NOT endorsing Trump here…just bringing up a vital issue.