Lines in the Sand
In a much-discussed Op-Ed in the New York Times last week (yes, that paper, of all places), James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and a leading player in Evangelicalism, laid it on the line. He warned his political soulmates in the GOP that if they don’t deliver a candidate whose first priority is “a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs” then Evangelicals may create a third party–effectively fragging the Republican nominee–or stay home. Either way, it would ensure the election of a Democrat. Dobson defined those non-negotiable priorities as “the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.”
Dobson’s threat was striking, as much as anything for the fact that if he can’t follow through, then he will have lost in a big way.
What also struck me was how some Evangelical leaders have come to use the power of the vote to influence politics in much the way that some Catholic leaders use their power to distribute communion. As Evangelicals don’t really have excommunication (and witch-burnings are passe) perhaps that is their best recourse for influencing public policy. Evangelicals have proven to be the true swing vote, although that may be changing.
Conversely, now that the Catholic hierarchy has no voting bloc to deliver, are some bishops–perhaps a reflex driven by frustration–quicker to look to ecclesial sanctions to get their point across?
And will both tactics backfire?
I suspect that Dobson will turn out to be a paper tiger. Evangelicalism is not at all monolithic, even if most consider themselves “pro-family” or “traditionalist,” whatever any of that means. (Both terms refer to the family structure of the 1950s, which any social historian will tell you was anything but “traditional.”)
I just wish someone would re-play the infamous episode on Dobson’s radio program (I think it was 2004, but I’m not certain) when Dobson, going on as usual about “threats to masculinity,” actually encouraged fathers to show their penises to their little sons in the shower, just to demonstrate what “a real man” is made of. As with Haggard and so many other “family values” blowhards, when you hear them say “pro-family,” you can click the stopwatch and wait for the scandal.
Now that’s an episode I didn’t know about–but of course I can’t resist, and will try to track it down.
I agree with you about the “paper tiger,” and that’s exactly what I suspect will happen.
Which gets to the other religio-psychological explanation of this line in the sand: Are Dobson (and Company) courting disaster so that they can cover their retreat from Republican politics? The disaster seems inevtiable, certainly as set up by Dobson here.
And if the GOP disses the Christian Right, and the Christian Right can’t make them pay, then Evangelical politicos can say a pox on both your houses and retreat to the status quo ante bellum (as in the Culture Wars bellum). As the GOP found with the Republican revolution of 1994, it can be much more comfortable–and supportive of one’s own moral purity–to be a critic from the outside rather than engaging the messiness of politics.
The issue isn’t votes. The issue is organizational support, having churches pass out voter guides, using key members of congretations to recruit others to work the phones and pass out fliers, register voters, and the like. Though I don’t think his word alone would make all the difference, in general, a lack of enthusiasm among those who are like minded would make life much more difficult for the Republican party. These are not the people who give large sums of money, but they are the bread and butter of implementing campaign and GOTV strategy.
I think it might well backfire–on both the Protestants and the Catholic culture warriors–see my last column on Cardinal Pell’s misadventure. Rudy hasn’t called Archbishop Burke the American equivalent of a “serial boofhead” in the way that Australian politicians went after Pell.
But that doesn’t mean that lots American Christians aren’t shaking their heads at the predicament we’re in now with Bush, and blaming it on people like Dobson, Burke, and Chaput.
I see this more as Dobson chest-beating (or penis-showing, God help us) for the benefit of his base. I think George Bush has effectively lost the ’08 presidency to the Democrats, whose strongest candidates are running behind the Hillary/Obama line.
Whether he controls the GOP, Dobson still maintains currency among a large number of conservative evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and he needs to keep preaching to that choir in order to keep the magazine subscriptions, radio show ads, and what-not going.
The poor man has to make a living for Pete’s sake!
Is it just me, or does it kinda look like Dobson is effectively endorsing Fred Thompson in the primary?
As long as evangelical Christians were making hay with Republicans, Catholic bishops seemed willing to go along for the ride. The tide is changing, however, and it appears that a good number, if not a majority, of Americans do not want sectarian groups to set the agenda for the country. That spells disaster for bot h Evangelicals and the bishops. Their bases no longer matterand neither do ….
I’m not sure Thompson is Dobson’s or the Evangelicals’ guy, Kathy. There are reportedly a significant number of Evangelicals who remain upset about Thompson’s lobbying on behalf of an abortion rights group after he left the Senate.
There are several Republican candidates to Dobson’s liking (Huckabee, for instance), but all of them are either tier 2 or tier 3 candidates.
Funny you mention it– I’ve just written a post on politicizing communion on Vox Nova: http://vox-nova.com/2007/10/08/communion-politics/
David Gibson writes:
“Conversely, now that the Catholic hierarchy has no voting bloc to deliver, are some bishops–perhaps a reflex driven by frustration–quicker to look to ecclesial sanctions to get their point across?”
The thing that struck me when I read about Abp. Burke’s tirade against Rudy Giuliani was that his comments were met by TOTAL SILENCE from his brother 300-plus bishops in the United States. More than that, in an interview with John Allen in last week’s NCR, Cardinal George — heir apparent as president of the USCCB — politely distanced himself (and many other bishops) from Burke’s position, even as he admitted that Burke’s recent article parsing canon law on the Communion/public sinning issue had some credence. (George pointed out that, with Catholic Giuliani on this third marriage without annulments, the issue of his pro-choice stance is trumped by his “public sin” of divorce/remarriage.)
Oh, this is going to be fun!
Here in living color are Dobson’s shower-with-your son-so-he’s-not-gay comments:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Dobson#Masculinity
Frankly, the beating a square peg into a square hole seemed odder still.
Speaking, of beating, here’s Dobson on punishing children:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Dobson#Child_discipline
I’ll stop now. I didn’t realize how much entertainment he could provide.
As for Kathy’s observation, I think Fred Thompson is dead in the water, and dead to the religious right. To be honest, Huckabee might qualify, and maybe Brownback–but the latter is a Catholic convert who holds to what Dobson’s ilk would consider liberal views on some social justice issues.
So I think they know they’re outta luck.
Admittedly I haven’t kept track of the players on my scorecard. But it seems too early in the game to be literally talking about the general election. His tactic here, I think, is to influence his own party in their primary.
Wake up, Catholics who think Dobson and his ilk are so great.
I have posted about this before, and I realize I have crossed the line into crank-dom here, but Fundies are not just disciplining their children but their wives.
If you google “wife discipline” and strain out the overt or borderline spanking porn (which claims to be Christian-based), you will find examples of husbands who keep their wives in line by grounding them or taking away phone and driving priveleges because they’re goofing off during the day and not keeping up the house or cooking or whatever drudge work has been assigned to them.
At my niece’s (Baptist) wedding, the preacher admonished the groom to be the head of the household, and reminded my niece that she gives her consent to this by the very act of marriage.
Only my suspicion that the kids were going through this pro forma to please her parents kept me from throwing a clot and being lucid enough to write about it now.
When Dobson talks about “other inviolable pro-family principles,” this is the kind of thing he’s talking about.
I know relatives in the US who are Republican but see the Christian right as a drag on the party.
I think the Evangelicals have had their taste of Caesar’s sword and have been seduced by it much the way the RC church has been seduced by it in her history.
I am reminded of Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor and wonder why more religious readers don’t reflect much more on that work prior to forraying into politics.
I suppose it is inevitable that in a democratic, pluralistic society many voices will be raised and I certainly cannot fault the Evangelicals for their political acumen.
Still, there are larger, fundamental issues facing the USA not the least of which is its messianic new Israel, manifest destiny, Wilsonian character which figures very prominently with both Hillary and Rudy.
I think Dobson and co. (the theo-cons as well as some liberals) should consider what kind of posture the Church should adopt in this millenium.
Dostoevsky’s work is indeed prophetic for the Western church in that regard.
I dunno, guys. Seems to me that the left tends to weaken itself by this habit of characterizing the enemy as a buffoon or a monster. That may be a good way to raise money from die-hards, but it’s hardly a good military strategy. Take the enemy seriously and you just might win.
Kathy,
You’re obviously not on the GOP’s e-mailing list. Not sure how I got on it, but the near-daily e-mails are good for a laugh every so often. (And the primary *is* about the general election.)
Kathy: As a card-carrying member of the left (yes, I do have a card), I must disagree that characterizing Dobson as a buffoon or a monster is ineffective. Dobson isn’t a monster, but he is a buffoon, and I think that showing him for what he is both entirely legitimate and very effective. I do take Dobson seriously: he’s been a pernicious influence, and so exposing his buffoonery is politically serious. I don’t see why, in the name of some specious “charity” or “Christian brotherliness” we should not call a lot of these evangelical leaders exactly what they are: a bunch of bullying, bigoted lightweights who’ve fallen in love with Caesar — and Mammon, for that matter.
Eugene, if it makes you feel better, that’s fine, but imho it’s not a good strategy. That’s all I’m saying. Hasn’t worked for, like, 30 years.
I’m not trying to rob you, Bilbo. I’m trying to help you.
Many moderate religious believers feel the same way about the insults that the Christian right has been hurling at the rest of us for over ten years. It gets old being called the culture of death.
Be that as it may, the broader trouble is that I see no possibility for any kind of broad Christian cooperation after this debacle.
The power of Dobsonites (I can’t call them fundamentalists or evangelicals or Baptists because it’s some of each and a few more besides) rests in shaping the primary debate that ultimately results in the candidate they like, who then uses code words that the general electorate finds sufficiently non-threatening that they can overlook the primary debating excesses.
The current maneuver is a desperation tactic because for the last few elections (well, really, 2000) they didn’t have to go public like this.
And that’s the other thing: Dobson has only ever really had any impact on one true presidential election, and that was in 2000. Neither the elder Bush nor Bob Dole were particularly beholden to Dobson. An incumbent is almost always favored to win, so I don’t count 2004.
I take Dobson seriously enough, but I don’t think liberals or Democrats or just dyed in the wool libertarian conservatives gain ground by pandering to him or his base. I vacillate between ignoring the man or finding the appropriate Jon Stewart or Onion type level of mockery that would neuter his effects.
But really, I think the take away here is positive: he is having to shout very loud to be heard. That’s an improvement over the immediately preceding state of affairs. (And I would say the same for the bishops — when you have to call reporters and make a big stink about who you are going to dispense communion to, you’re losing ground.) The powerful rarely have to shout. Usually they don’t even have to speak at all.
It’s not how I feel, thanks, it’s what I think will work. Caricature is a sign of weakness.
Kathy, here is one point that I really do think needs to be clarified: When you say it hasn’t worked for 30 years, the truth is, the “Christian right” so-called has not been with us for 30 years, and certainly Dobson’s particular brand of it has gained prominence and true power for less than 20. It’s important not to caricature, that I agree with, but it’s also important not to inflate the presumed power of a particular block of voters (assuming they vote as a block). In many ways, Dobson is trying to push his particular brand of conservatism by capitalizing on other trends (of racially divisive politics, backlash to the 60s, oil inflation, low taxes, etc.) that have occurred over the last 30 years and that have led, generally, to more conservative government (Reagan). It’s not clear to me how far he can push his own agenda by capitalizing on those trends, he has certainly encountered resistance, and it’s also not clear to me that we aren’t in the wake of an anti-backlash backlash. The disparity between Dobson’s asserted ideals and actual practice of the populace especially when it comes to sexual issues has probably never been greater.
A word about the so-called “politicizing” of communion.
The first thing that is striking about this conversation is this delusion that the Catholic hierarchy is somehow in bed with the Republican Party. For more than 50 years the Catholic Church hierarchy in the US was, in fact, joined at the hip with the Democratic Party. Many still are. What has happened is that more and more the Democrats have moved away from the Church on key, and I will say it even though most here don’t like it, non-negotiable teachings of the Faith, that all Catholics, even powerful politicians, have an obligation to heed. When a few, and it really is just a few, bishops have the courage to point this out, they are accused of “politicizing” the Faith.
I have to ask, when did the politicization happen? Aren’t the bishops who turned a blind eye to the problem for all those years because of politics and maintaining their own political influence the ones who politicized the Church? When Cardinal Law prohibited many pro-life groups from meeting or organizing in the Catholic parishes of Boston I don’t recall many people accusing him of politicizing the Church.
Archbishop Burke is not accreting political power to himself by saying what he is saying. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur. Moreover, I doubt he believes on a practical level that what he is saying and doing is in the least likely to change the political climate. It may just be, and it would be nice for people to give him this benefit of the doubt on this, that he says it because he believes it to be right.
Normally, I’d agree with Kathy about demonizing.
However, some people demonize themselves simply by the ideas they espouse (I’ll refrain from Hitler analogies, as that’s not fair even to Dobson.)
Dobson demonizes the left regularly, but, of course, two wrongs don’t make a right.
(Bilbo? Is Eugene a hobbit? The things you learn on this blog!)
Sean,
It’s not that people like Archbishop Burke are supporting Republicans. After all, Giuliani is one of the chief targets. But it’s clear they are involving themselves in politics in ways that Catholic religious figures rarely do.
It’s unfortunate that the thread on Archbishop Burke has aged to page 2 and effectively died, since the discussion was not nearly over (even after 170 messages).
It seems to me pretty much all the teachings of the Church are “non-negotiable,” so I don’t expect the Church to change its position on abortion, but as far as I can tell, there is as yet no well-developed Catholic theory about how politicians in a pluralistic and democratic society must vote. I hope I am not misrepresenting anybody, but in the Archbishop Burke thread, you and Fr. Richardson were both writing from what I would call a “conservative” viewpoint, and it seemed to me you were light years apart.
The question in my mind is this: On what other issues have there been such direct comments from Church officials about politicians, naming names, regarding their stands on public issues? Various people and entities in the Catholic Church speak out generally on lots of issues. For example, John Paul II, Benedict XVI (before and after he became pope), and the American Bishops are all strong critics of the war in Iraq. Which American politicians have been publicly criticized for their support of the war in Iraq (or torture, or the death penalty)?
It drives me batty that Dobson and his cohorts have effectively hi-jacked the words “marriage” and “family” for political purposes, such that neither can be defended in political discussion without being interpreted as code-words for anti-gay/homophobic.
The Church needs a robust voice in the public square, if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of its social-teaching patrimony.
Sean, I certainly agree that Burke thinks that it would be the right thing to do to deny communion in those circumstances where he declares that he would not dispense it. I would not impute that kind of opportunism to him. But a public declaration that if so and so came to my diocese I would make sure he would not receive communion is what constitutes involving one’s self in politics. I’m not contesting his right to say whatever pops into his head; I just don’t confuse this kind of statement with something that I associate with a pastoral role that I normally might expect when an individual Catholic is being discussed. Hence, it’s pure political involvement.
And I certainly second David Nickol’s sentiments about requiring politicians to conform their votes to church doctrine in a pluralistic society where, perhaps, a Catholic politician’s constituency might not even be comprised of a majority of Catholics. (I mean, why not legislate the “real presence” and various other Catholic tenets? Aren’t they as non-negotiable as abortion?) But that wasn’t the subject of this discussion.
< < as far as I can tell, there is as yet no well-developed Catholic theory about how politicians in a pluralistic and democratic society must vote. >>
Hi, David,
I don’t know of any magisterial teaching that addresses it directly. My thought is that the starting point would be the theology of the laity, who are to be the light of the world and salt for the earth.
An officeholder whose faith is alive and well-formed would bring that vigorous faith to all of the activities of a politician: campaigning, fund-raising, lawmaking, policy-making, voting, etc.
I would think that the key magisterial teaching comes from the Second Vatican Council:
“What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature. It is true that those in holy orders can at times be engaged in secular activities, and even have a secular profession. But they are by reason of their particular vocation especially and professedly ordained to the sacred ministry. Similarly, by their state in life, religious give splendid and striking testimony that the world cannot be transformed and offered to God without the spirit of the beatitudes. But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others, especially by the testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope and charity. Therefore, since they are tightly bound up in all types of temporal affairs it is their special task to order and to throw light upon these affairs in such a way that they may come into being and then continually increase according to Christ to the praise of the Creator and the Redeemer.” (LG 31)
Pope Benedict offers some words that may be relevant to this discussion. In Deus Caritas Est, he reflects in paragraph 28 on love and justice, and the proper sphere and role of the church in bringing about a just political order. He suggests that the Church has specific duties and responsibilities, but also proper limits, on its involvement in the political sphere:
“The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.
“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.”
From Deus Caritas Est, #28.a.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
David,
The Church clearly teaches that on some issues such as abortion, there is only one side, even in a pluralistic society.
I think we all know this, and we also know that we can identify many issues on which there is only one legitimate side (thus my slavery and rape examples on the other thread). In fact, the Church’s teaching on abortion really leads to the conclusion that it is genocide. Is there pro-genocide position?
So what is really at play, I think, is not that these politicians have a private belief and a public postition, but that they really don’t agree with the Church’s teaching in the first place but know they can’t portray themselves as Catholics if they say this. In short, they lie.
Although all Catholics are bound to heed the Church’s teaching on just war, how that applies in particular cases is subject to prudential judgment based on facts. This is what the Church teaches. Comparing it to a circumstance where the act is immoral in all cases is spurious.
Barbara,
What the “politicization” arguement fails to recognize is that bishops are always acting pastorally whether they intend to or not. For someone who doesn’t agree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, denying communion seems like taking sides. For someone like me, seeing my Bishop glad-handing fervently pro-abortion politicians while at the same time not allowing pro-life groups to meet in his diocese’s parishes also sends a message – that politics trumps Catholic teaching.
It is not “political involvement” you object to, it is “political involvement” you don’t like.
Sean,
I guess the problem here is that there seems–from what you say–to be only one issue in America today that the Church sees as having one side. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are supporting slavery or rape in the upcoming election. (This is not the place to go into the history of the the Catholic Church and slavery, but it would be interesting.) As I have said, there are many issues on which the Church has unequivocal teachings (divorce and remarriage, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, oral sex, just war, and–it seems to me–capital punishment). But apparently there is always “wiggle room” on every issue except abortion. There seem to be a limitless number of things that are “intrinsic evils” or that violate “natural law,” but there seems to be only one of them that Catholic politicians must cast certain votes on.
And of course there is the Supreme Court, with a Catholic majority, for which the rules seem to be different. Apparently they don’t “make” the law, they just “interpret” it. So they play by the rules of judges (“I don’t like it, in fact, it’s wrong, but it’s what I believe the law says”), and they are off the hook, but legislators who play by the rules of American democracy (“I’m not voting my own personal beliefs here, I’m voting the will of the people who elected me to represent them”) are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.
Actually, Sean, I am pretty evenhanded here. I think it would be wrong for bishops to personally exhort conservative politicians on the death penalty or other issues in a similar manner. Just to be clear, it’s the manner of the rebuke that I find distasteful–the marriage of pastoral and political in a public scolding of individual politicians who must, by definition, weigh extra-catechetical factors when they cast their votes. It does the Church no favors; private exhortation and appeals to conscience would yield much greater fruit.
David,
Again, the principle reason that abortion is different from most of the other teachings is that it involves the destruction of innocent life. Everyone focuses on the “punishment” side of this issue and ignores the “protection” side. I agree that Catholic politicians are not required shouldn’t allow Catholic teaching to dictate (although it should always influence) their votes purely to get others, Catholic and non-Catholic, to abide by them, but that’s not what is at stake here.
As for the distinction with judges, you should thank your stars that they are “off the hook.” We are precisely in the position we are on abortion because of judges who impose their personal beliefs. The difference with elected officials is the remedy. If you don’t like what they do you can vote them out of office. Part of the reason we have a republic is that we expect our legislators to exercise their individual judgments, and most of the great poltical thinkers have set the bounds of “voting the will of the people” at those things that are contrary to the moral conscience of elected official. Read Profiles in Courage
Barbara,
Why must we see this as a form of extrotion or scolding? It seems to me that it is simply a question of actions and consequences. By couching it in terms of political tactics we avoid the real issue. Is public support by a politician of abortion rights sinful? If not, then there really isn’t anything to argue about and why even bother with private exhortation?
On that front, Archbishop Burke did, in fact, privately meet with some politicians (repeatedly) in his diocese to appeal to their consciences and to ensure they understood the teachings of the Church, and in every case they dismissed him out of hand. When is enough enough?
Just an interesting link on the potential effect of highly visible religious powermonging:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/10/roosting-chickens-part-ii.html
It’s the first I’ve read of this study.
There are two issues Sean. First, the soul of the person involved, and in my view, public scolding is simply never appropriate and almost certain to backfire.
The second is affecting policy. My point is that Burke still has two options. The first is to make all the public statements he wants without linking it to communion to an individual, which is basically a publicity stunt. The other is to deny communion at the time it actually becomes an issue, which is clearly his right, but of course, the likelihood of any cameras being on hand to record the event would be quite small.
Does he feel like he’s between a rock and a hard place? No doubt. Read the above study I linked to. Attention seeking by religious leaders like Burke is one reason (and a big one) ) for why the space between that rock and hard place is only going to get narrower.
The scolding is private, and concludes with a warning not to approach the Eucharist. So there shouldn’t be any need for anyone to be turned away at Communion time.
Sean,
Note this excerpt from the opening paragraph of Archbishop Burke’s paper :
. . . Catholic politicians who publicly, after admonition,
continue to support legislation favoring procured
abortion and other legislation contrary to the natural
moral law, for example, legislation permitting the
cloning of human life for the purpose of harvesting
stem cells by the destruction of the artificially-generated
human embryo, AND LEGISLATION REDEFINING
MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE A RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX.
The gravity of the sin of procured abortion and of
the sins involved in the commission of other
intrinsically-evil acts seemed to place the Catholic
politicians among those who obstinately persevere in
manifest grave sin, about whom can. 915 treats.
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
I can guess your opinion about same-sex marriage, but clearly it does not involve taking innocent human life in any way. Would you part company with Burke on this one, and if not, what other “intrinsic evils” are Catholic legislators obligated to oppose?
Sterilization, for example, is considered to be intrinsically evil. If someone were to introduce a bill in the House or Senate outlawing vasectomies, would all the Catholics be obliged to vote against it?
Michael Sandel, in his book titled The Case Against Perfection, points out some major inconsistencies on the issue of stem-cell research. First, he points out that Bush’s decision to withhold federal funding for embryonic stem cell research amounted to saying, “Government will not fund stem cell research because it involves the taking of human life. We will leave that to the private sector.” If it involves the taking of human life, why not ban it altogether? Second, he points out that there is no talk of shutting down fertility clinics, where (from the Catholic viewpoint) both the creation and the destruction of human life routinely takes place. Here is an area that clearly meets your criterion of innocent human life being taken. So I can only conclude that if someone introduced a bill in the House or Senate to outlaw fertility clinics (or perhaps forbid fertility clinics to use such techniques as in vitro fertilization) Catholic legislators would be obliged to vote for it.
Correction to the above.
I should have said: “If someone were to introduce a bill in the House or Senate outlawing vasectomies, would all the Catholics be obliged to vote FOR [not against] it?”
There are two seperate threads here;
!)Dobson and the evangelical right and how much juice they now possess. It strikes me that, except for their true beleivers, more folks are turning away due to the failure of the neocons to deliver on “copassionate” conservatism -John McCain ticked off a few examples at the Dearborn debate.
Beyond that, their values agenda is sorely limited…
which leads me to
2)The Catholic Hierarchy and its influence
On the agenda for the Bishop’s meeting next mont his Faithful Citizenship – a call to a balanced value oriented view of politics. Burke and his ilk (as do some posters here) still want a one major issue approach which”
-turns off a number of Catholics who are already tired of hearing this song altready
-helps keep the useless divide between right to life and social justice groups going
-needs to touch folks who are worried about how they are managing in their daily lives.
Another real problem in hierarchical influence is the insularity of the Bishops – see the current Commonweal article on VOTF. There is really limited interaction with the faithful who in turn pay minimal attention to the hierarchical wisdom.
Both trends above cause even more division in a society that less and less talks with each other – just usually at.
Of course, our political leaders show little courage in changing that.