It is not an easy electoral campaign for practicing Catholics in the USA. Different American bishops have issued radically different statements on the moral responsibilities of Catholic voters. Some bishops have instructed Catholics to consider abortion as the most important moral issue in this year's campaign; others have said, just as clearly, that abortion must be seen as one among many issues.
Let us look at some contrasting statements.
To sin …
Mgr. Rene Gracida, the retired bishop of the Corpus Christi Texas diocese said that "A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."
Of a similar opinion is Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pennsylvania who in a pastoral letter read out in churches said that abortion cannot be considered as just one among many important political issues. The Bishop also strongly rebuked the organizers of a parish forum for handing out copies of the statement of the 2007 document of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops - "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship". "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese," he said. "The only relevant document… is my letter."
A strong position was taken by Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput who charged that prominent Catholics who have endorsed Obama, "have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn."
He said, during the presentation, that he was stating his "personal views as an author and private citizen" and was not speaking for the church.
According to The Tablet of November 1, some 50 out of the nation's 197 active bishops have published articles or given interviews during the run-up up to the election urging abortion as the key issue on which voters should decide which way to vote.
… And not to sin
On the other hand Bishop Gerald Kicanas witheld permission for pro-life activists to hand out in the parishes of his diocese in Tucson, Arizona a booklet written by the Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona who argued that abortion is the paramount issue in this campaign.
Bishop Gabino Zavala, a Los Angeles auxiliary, in an interview with E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post said that Catholics who emphasize the abortion issue are mistaken, because "we're not a one-issue church." He said that voters should weigh all issues that touch on the dignity of human life, including the ways in which economic policies impinge "on the most vulnerable among us, the elderly, poor children and single mothers."
Bishop Zavala's comments were echoed by Bishop Terry Steib of Memphis in Tennessee, who wrote in his diocesan newspaper: "We cannot be a one-issue people." He continued: "I have received letters from well-meaning people telling me for whom I should vote and how I should inform parishioners regarding the candidates for whom they should or should not cast their ballot ... It is not my duty, nor is it my role."
The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns takes a wider look at the election in its voter guide, called "Loving Our Neighbors in a Shrinking World." "Peace. Security. Racial equity. Economic well-being. A healthy environment. Human dignity. These are the basic needs of every human being and of the earth," it says. "We encourage candidates to make explicit their commitment to the global common good."
Ratzinger’s Proportionate Reason
When a similar debate was raging a few years ago in the United the than Cardinal Ratzinger stated in a document titled General Principles, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” (paragraph 3). He continues to state “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Cardinal Ratzinger ends the letter with the following statement: “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.” (paragraph 6)
On the basis of this statement it is argued that it could therefore be legitimate for a voter to support a pro-abortion candidate not for his or her pro-abortion views but because of other views and projects that the candidate may have and which, in the estimation of the voter, would bring forward the common good more than a pro-life candidate would do.
Faithful Citizenship
"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," the U.S. bishops' document referred to above has been used as the basis for greatly contrasting approaches expressed during the campaign. Some bishops note that Faithful Citizenship gives priority to life issues such as abortion and euthanasia; other bishops insist that the document does not call for a "single-issue" approach to voting. Both are right.
The bishops urge voters to avoid "two temptations in public life" that can distort church teaching.
"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity," they say. "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.
"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," they add. "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."
The bishops’ document can be downloaded from http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/church/statements
Conclusion
I take my conclusion from "In the Voting Booth: A Catholic's Guide," by Greg Erlandson of Our Sunday Visitor.
"In a world of prudential judgments, it is quite possible that well-formed and educated Catholics may differ on what is the best choice to make in the voting booth. … But we are called to draw upon the teachings of our faith in coming to our decisions, not party loyalty, self-interests or political slogans."
Being a Catholic each and every moment of your life in a pluralistic society is much more difficult than it is in a traditional Catholic society.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.