Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Council.
As noted below, Barack Obama just announced his National Catholic Advisory Council, which includes Commonweal columnist Cathleen Kaveny and me (and other Commonweal contributors, such as David O’Brien and Richard Gaillardetz). Diligent readers of dotCommonweal won’t be terribly surprised by my participation on this committee. After a few weeks of deliberation and consultation–the campaign might call it hemming and hawing–I decided that my support for Obama should take a more formal role. (None of us will be paid; and our institutional affiliation is for identification purposes only.) What does that mean for my job as moderator of this blog? Well, pace Bill Mazzella, I won’t be recusing myself entirely from keeping an eye on dotCommonweal. But I will refrain from posting Obama-related items, although you may see me sounding off on others’ political threads from time to time. You know me… As always, I’m looking forward to your feedback.
I do have support Hillary and do have a blog. http://hillaryisthewoman.blogspot.com/
But I do not identify myself as speaking for any group, organization or as a member of that group.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/obama-event-coordinator-g_n_95749.html
I admit to being troubled by the concept of a “National Catholic Advisory Board” in a political campaign.
My uneasiness has nothing to do with the participation of Grant or Cathy Kaveny, whom I don’t know personally, but who have revealed themselves on this blog as people of intelligence and integrity. My uneasiness also has nothing to do with the fact that Grant’s post is about Barack Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Group; my reaction is the same for John McCain’s Catholic advisory group and would be the same if it turns out that Hillary Clinton has a similar group.
I have several concerns, in no particular order of importance. First, mixing politics and religion is a recipe for trouble, IMO. The Obama and McCain Catholic advisory groups are top heavy with politicians. I don’t think this is an accident. As we all know, the “Catholic” vote has had political importance in recent presidential elections, and it may have importance again in the 2008 election cycle. I may have missed it, but has any of the three candidates established a “National Mennonite Advisory Board” or a “National Sikh Advisory Board?” I may be jaded, but the creation of national advisory groups that are “Catholic” seems to me to be nothing more than a sophisticated ploy for what every politician always desires: votes. I think that on the whole Obama’s Catholic advisory group reflects a centrist-liberal composition, while McCain’s reflects a centrist-conservative composition. Obviously, this was likely the result of intelligent design on the candidates’ parts. That leads me to my second point.
Catholics come in all shapes, sizes, and political stripes. Can any “Catholic” political advisory group be truly catholic when it comes to advising a candidate about Catholic issues? IMO both the Obama and McCain Catholic advisory groups are delimited by the words “Obama” and “McCain” in the names of the groups. Understandably, the candidates want to attract advisors who, if not on all fours with the candidate on issues, are at least in agreement on many issues.
Finally, I note there are no clerics participating in the advisory groups. That’s not surprising, but it seems to me, then, that the advisors were selected for the advice they will give on social issues. If that is the case, then the question arises whether Catholic Social Teaching should ever be aligned with either Democratic Party policies or Republican Party policies. In my view, Catholic Social Teaching should be used to judge those policies, not become intertwined with them. Neither Obama, Clinton, nor McCain is in agreement with all the major principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Perhaps the advisors who have joined candidates’ advisory groups hope to nudge their candidates in the direction of adopting the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. That would certainly be a good thing, but I have to wonder if such an effort is outweighed by the perception a candidate is trying to create in establishing a Catholic advisory group that he or she is deserving of the Catholic vote.
Except for the National Leadership Committee (which includes politicians from across the country), I’m struck by the number of East Coast Catholics on the other committess and by the number with Irish names. Does Obama realize that many, many Catholics live in other parts of the country and are not of Irish descent?
The NYTimes has the story about why the Catholic vote is being avidly sought by the Dems. Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/us/politics/15catholics.html
Ms. Olivier: Gallicho isn’t an Irish name–or so he claims!
Is this like the Milk Advisory Board, which helps people see the advisability of drinking milk?
Thanks for the link, Margaret, to the NYT’s article.
As the two quotes from the article that follow make clear, at least to me, trying to fit Catholic Social Teaching into the political positions and policies of the DP and the RP is like trying to fit the proverbial square peg into a round hole:
“The church itself has teachings that, taken as a whole, do not fit neatly into either party — often to the left on poverty, health care and economic justice, for example, and to the right on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.”
“‘The Republicans are just hoping and praying he’ll say something about abortion and gay marriage, and the Democrats are terrified he will,’” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow and political scientist at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “‘But at the United Nations he will also say a lot of things to the left of Hillary and Obama.’”
I think the members of the various Catholic advisory groups have their work cut out for them.
(I don’t know about anyone else, but I miss hearing Fr. Reese’s insightful voice on a more regular basis.)
I think Sen. Obama is fortunate to have you and the other Commonweal contributors to advise him. I would like to see Obama come up with a better healthcare proposal, this an important right.
I disagree that arriving at political conclusions on the basis of Catholic social teaching is impossible. It’s all about prudent judgment. It seems to me that, even now, Catholics, even those who are Dem and Rep, are in a consensus about the ends to be achieved, but disagree about the means. Healthcare is a perfect example. It is impossible to imagine that anybody would oppose all having access to healthcare, especially preventative care, which is far less expensive than waiting until it is critical, even life-threatening. We differ as to means. I even think on the issue of abortion that there is a Catholic consensus about the morality of abortion, we differ about the means of dramatically reducing these procedures, even reducing to the level at which they are only performed under the principle of double-effect. This difference is put in bold relief given our constitutional constraints that must influence any conclusion.
I really do think that the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document for this particular year is very good in this regard.
I’m honored, Grant, that in response to my post in this thread at 1:14 p.m., you solicited Fr. Tom Reese for an article (“Reforming the Vatican”) in Commonweal, thoroughly vetted the article. prepared it for publication, and posted it as the lead article on the Commonweal website a few hours later.
Maybe you will be able to move Obama into closer alignment with CST. ;)
On my first day at a Northern New Mexico parish’s RCIA, one of the instructors announced his dislike for Joe Biden. I found this political haranguing out of place in a setting of religious and spiritual education. I rearranged my RCIA to another parish.
On the other hand, it looks like the current climate does indeed pervade our every waking moment, and so be it, I’m glad for the National Catholic Advisory Board.