In its response to the Call for Civility described in MZ’s post, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute issued a terse statement condemning the initiative. This underpins their objection:
“Some ask for civility now for one reason, abortion. John Paul the Great called abortion the greatest civil rights issue of our time and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently called it the number one political issue of our time. Embryo-destructive research, and homosexual marriage follow right behind, though numerous Catholic politicians also oppose the fundamental teachings of the Church on these issues.”
They go on to dismiss other areas of Catholic social teaching as merely prudential, trumpeting only these three issues. Is it just me, or does this Republicath endeavor seem slightly dated, so 2004? Rather than respond myself to this blatant misreading of Catholic teaching in this area, let me appeal to the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
It begins by noting that with so many voting guides in circulation, Catholics should rely on resources authorized by their own bishops or by the USCCB. That means no Catholic Answers and their dubious five principals! But let me address the issue at hand. One of the main benefits of the USCCB document is its crystal-clear elaboration of intrinsically evil acts, acts that no never be condoned regardless of circumstances. These issues must take precedence. The “incivility statement” does not use the technical term “intrinsically evil”, but seems to be suggesting that its examples of abortion, ESCR, and same-sex marriage are the three most important issues for Catholics, and can never be supported. There’s a problem, however. The USCCB statement provides a different list, and includes abortion, euthanasia, cloning, destructive research on human embryos, genocide, torture, racism and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war. To use somewhat different language, these issues are all non-negotiable. This, of course, does not mean a Catholic can never vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil position (if so, then Catholic voters would have to stay at home!). If a voter supports the underlying position, then he/she is engaging in formal cooperation with evil.
Note that same-sex marriage is not on the intrinsically evil list. Does that mean the Church’s teaching on this matter can be ignored? Of course not, but that also holds true of a great swath of teachings that this group is quite indeed quite willing to ignore. They want to play down the consistent ethic of life, which they simply cannot do. Again, to quote the USCCB:
“The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. All the life issues are connected, for erosion of respect for the life of any individual or group in society necessarily diminishes respect for all life. The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means. Catholics must seek the best ways to respond to these needs. As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught, “[each of us] has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and, finally, the necessary social services.”
The document also criticizes the temptation to use big and important issues like abortion to simply ignore the rest of Catholic social teaching:
“Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity: The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.”
And as for the old “prudential judgment” hobby-horse:
“Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others.”
This is quite clear. While the destruction of human life must always remain paramount, it cannot be divorced from the broader issues pertaining to justice and human dignity. And, as we are well aware, no current US political party offers a viable home for Catholics. This is what makes this kind of Republicath exercise so infuriating: they want to focus the attention of Catholics only on those issues where the Republican party seems more favorable, at least on some superficial level. You will never hear mention of the intrinsically evil act of torture, for example.
Make no mistake, this is a partisan agenda. Remember the history of Austin Ruse on these matters. From a very quick google search, it becomes clear that he enjoys criticizing the USCCB, calls George Bush a “true man of faith”, and has endorsed John McCain because the most important issues are “terrorism and the tragedy of unlimited abortion” (the fact that McCain is the biggest cheerleader for a war opposed by the Church does not seem to matter). Of course, Mr. Ruse and his group can endorse whomever they like. But what they should not do is tell other Catholics to adopt the same stance. When they conclude that they will continue to strongly condemn “the public policy positions of Catholic politicians who support abortion, embryo-destructive research, and homosexual marriage”, and do so not out of partisan loyalty, but because they are faithful Catholics, that is not entirely intellectually honest. The political activities of the instigators of this petition give the game away. If they were really acting as faithful Catholics, they would add to their list, and support the full USCCB agenda on these issues.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In