May Church leaders endorse candidates?
According to a story in today’s Washington Post, the Alliance Defense Fund, described by the paper as “socially conservative” and as “a legal consortium that considers itself the antithesis of the American Civil Liberties Union,” is recruiting pastors who on Sept. 28th would all endorse from the pulpits specific candidates for public office, in violation of a 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not “participate in, or intervene in…any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” The idea is to trigger an IRS investigation that the ADF would then challenge in federal court in the hope that the amendment will eventually be declared unconstitutional.
According to the story, “an opposing collection of Christian and Jewish clergy will petition the IRS today to stop the protest before it starts, calling the ADF’s ‘Pulpit Initiative’ an assault on the rule of law and the separation of church and state.” The Post quotes from this second group’s claim: “As religious leaders, we have grave concerns about the ethical implications of soliciting and organizing churches to violate core principles of our society.” Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, offered this distinction: “The federal tax law is clear. Churches are charitable institutions that exist to do charitable things. That does not include politics. Political groups do politics.”
We’ve discussed this point before. Apart from this particular group’s plans in the near future, it seems to me that the issue does deserve judicial determination or clarification.
Hmm. Churches are “charitable institutions that exist to do charitable things. That does not include politics. Political groups do politics.”” Nonsense. Churches don’t just *do* things. Churches proclaim teachings, some of which at different times in different ways can be inimical to other groups’ teachings and doings. Members of the churches generally have the right to profess those teachings. But *actions*(doings) following upon those teachings are sometimes prosecutable. Consider the polygamous cults and their beliefs and consequent actions which are contrary to law).
So just what is forbidden to the churches? Expressions inimical to current laws? Teachings (sayings) that say the laws must be changed? If so it seems we’re into freedom of speech problems as well. Can the freedom of speech of officials of churches be curtailed because their preachings are counter to current laws? Can their speaking be considered a *doing* as well as a speaking and therefore be condemned as unlawful? Hmmn..
Sounds like a tricky issue and I’d say the same – may need some clarification. To me, with no legal background, it seems like perhaps some situations – less formal – would be OK but others not.
Couple of thoughts…First the parochial: I believe some bishops (perhaps most, if they’re smart) have sent pastors specific cautions against affiliating with this group. In the Catholic setting, there’s always a danger that a single parish’s actions could have implications for the diocese.
Second, interesting to note that a June 2008 Calvin College survey shows that only 28 percent of Americans agree that “clergy should be permitted to endorse political candidates during worship services.” Support for political activism by clergy is highest among Latino and black Protestants.
Most informative, however, is this article, “IRS: Bipartisan Tool,” in the spring 2008 edition of Religion in the News. It is by Marc Stern, a church-state expert and general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, who is very well-versed in the topic. Stern traces the oft-misunderstood history of the bans, and their implications. Here’s an excerpt:
http://caribou.cc.trincoll.edu/depts_csrpl/RINVol11No1/IRSBipartisantool.htm
“A tax-exempt not-for-profit organization enjoys two privileges. The less important one is that its does not have to pay taxes on its income. The more important is that gifts to the organization are deductible from the gross income of the donor.
Organizations exempt under these provisions are known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations, after the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that exempts the organizations’ own income from income taxes. (A different section, Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. § 170, allows the donor deduction.)
These privileges come with certain restrictions, two of which are relevant here. The first is that no substantial part of the exempt organization’s work may involve lobbying for legislation; the second, that the organization is absolutely prohibited from endorsing or opposing candidates for elected public office.
The prescribed penalty is loss of tax exemption. The ban applies only to the institution and to its officials when speaking for the organization. It has no impact at all on those officials speaking in a private capacity. And it applies to all tax-exempt groups, not just religious ones.
The lobbying provision is long-standing and dates at least to the 1930s. (An early case denied an exemption to Planned Parenthood.) The ban on political intervention is newer, dating to 1954, and is the product of a floor amendment introduced by Lyndon Johnson, who was then a U.S. senator from Texas.
At the time, Johnson offered no explanation for his amendment, but recent scholarship suggests that he was interested in silencing two militant tax-exempt anti-communist groups that had aided his opponent in his senatorial race that year. Religious organizations were included simply because the amendment applied to all exempt organizations.
Requiring churches and, for that matter, other exempt organizations, to choose between endorsing or opposing candidates and being tax exempt is not, under well-settled law, unconstitutional. Two federal appeals courts have said so explicitly, in 1972 and in 2000. Both decisions upheld revocation of tax exemptions for churches that had openly endorsed a candidate, either on church-owned radio or by taking out an ad in a newspaper.
But people who should know better are often quoted in the press as suggesting otherwise…”
Church leaders can have opinions as citizens, of course. But when they get involved in politics, they expose their churches to political retaliation. I think that the laws against church involvement in politics protect the churches as much as they may promote the separation of church and state.
Ditto.
I hate big culture war stances, because they always seem to forget the potential for backlash. There is no constitutional requirement that churches get 501(c)(3) status. So the backlash could be pulling the blanket exception for churches–and making each individual church (maybe even diocese or parish unit–that would be a horror show) qualify on its own. One of the reasons the status quo has been stable, I think, and that people are willing to grant this enormous financial benefit to faith institutions that aren’t their own, is that they aren’t perceived as lobbying groups in and of themselves.
501(c)(3) status is hugely important to many churches. So is exemption from local property tax. In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court decided (5-4, Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York) that property tax exemption for churches is permissible, though not necessarily constitutionally required. One could imagine some state/local politicians, perhaps grown tired of church participation in politics, deciding it was time to revisit the question of property tax exemption for churches. Among other results of such a development would be new impetus for parish closure in many urban/suburban areas.
Agreed, the mischief this push to revoke the 1954 statute would provoke could have all manner of unintended consequences.
In the end, it may all be designed to gin up a sense of persecution of religion. A better target (to me) would be the use of eminent domain and zoning laws to thwart the building/preservation of houses of worship. Even the most God-fearing towns and cities don’t like losing ratables, even if it is to the Almighty.
My colleague, Lloyd Mayer, is an expert in this area. He has an article on the general topic on SSRN, which should be available to at least some readers of the blog:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991129
“Grasping Smoke: Enforcing the Ban on Political Activity by Charities.”
(Tried to post this before; I apologize if it comes across twice)
Besides the legal issues with respect to the Internal Revenue Code, there is also a pastoral side to this. Our parish, and I believe most parishes, don’t have an ideologically-defined membership (nor should they). If any of our clergy mounted the pulpit and openly endorsed a candidate or a party, division would ensue within the faith community. I’d expect that some members would leave their pews and stalk out in the middle of the service, perhaps never to return.
While it is legitimate and indeed necessary for us as responsible humans to participate in civic and political life, such things should be subsidiary to our participation in the Body of Christ. For a church to endorse a candidate, istm, gets the relationship backward. Churches shouldn’t exist to further politics. Almost it should be the other way around.
Here’s this from the Boston Globe, Nov. 15, 2007: “Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates ‘borders on scandal.’”
So–is this over the line? Seems clearly so to me, but I don’t know of any serious attempt to yank the charitable organization tax status of the archdiocese of Boston. MIght be a good test case…
Apart from the legal issues, what about priests who blog? Fr. Dwight Longenecker (“Standing on My Head”) has made his preference for Sarah Palin more than obvious. He doesn’t need to say anything from the pulpit. And he’s ignored her support for contraception as well as the dubious messages emanating from her own churches in Alaska, all because she’s “pro-life,” and, presumably, because she’s evangelical.
Just want to say a big thank you to David for that very clear and succinct description of American law. It is in effect the same as the one here in Canada.
I assume the IRS monitors it. Does it do so very thoroughly or are they as short staffed on this item as up here?
I am posting this on September 9 (P.M). I can tell you that on all of our diocesan e-mails just this late morning, we received guideline from our diocese warning us (all churches) that as a “501(c) organization, the Church is prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from participating or intervening in any political campaign etc, etc, etc.”
We were also reminded that the USCCB and our state Catholic Conference has also issued guidelines on the political activities of printing up “Voter’s Guides” or of posting campaign literature in church parking lots. They {Voter’s Guides} are only acceptable if printed by the USCCB and absolutely no flyers for cars in the parking lots. So individual parishes may not print their own guides or flyers. Now, if political groups wish to come and distributes flyers on cars in the parking lot—both political parties are to have equal access to the public.”
We also may not use our diocesan e-mail to endorse one party over another—we are not to use it for political endorsements at all. The diocese will monitor (I guess if a parishioner calls in to the Diocese to complain that they are being told whom to vote for).
Just want to note that I recall very clearly in the ’00 and ’04 presidential campaigns, President Bush’s campaign established very close ties to a number of churches (mostly evangelical, I believe) – their strategy was to have a church representative in place in individual churches.
“what about priests who blog? Fr. Dwight Longenecker (”Standing on My Head”) has made his preference for Sarah Palin more than obvious. He doesn’t need to say anything from the pulpit.”
This can be a gray area. As an individual citizen, Fr. Longenecker has a right to participate fully in the political/electoral process.
Where it gets less clear is in his professional capacities as pastor (I’m assuming he’s a pastor or associate pastor?) and as clergy/representative of the diocese.
I’ve posted on this in the past – sometimes the distinctions can be fine. E.g. if, in his blog, he represents that this is his personal opinion, and that he’s not speaking on behalf of the parish or the diocese, he’s probably not out of bounds. If, on the other hand, the blog is hosted by his parish site, or if he represents that he is acting in his official capacity – or in some other way blurs the distinction between the personal and the official – he probably has crossed the line.
Much to my own surprise, I find myself supporting the ADF’s initiative.
Perhaps we need to reassess the wisdom/need of the government to police speeches/sermons from the pulpit. From what little I read on the subject a few years ago, the IRS enforcement effort appears to be rather anemic, anyway.
I think we need to “let the chips fall where they may.” If, for example, I’m a fixed-focus, pro-life voter and my pastor refuses to defend the right to life from the pulpit, I’ll consider stopping my weekly contributions to the parish. By the same token, if I’m a pro-choice voter and my pastor condemns a woman’s right to choose, I’ll consider stopping my weekly contributions to the church.
Maybe in an ideal scenario, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of the relevant tax code provisions, followed by Congress and the President enacting legislation abolishing these same prohibitions. Then we would have the opportunity to see what happens in our churches around the country. Perhaps when all is said and done, people might see the wisdom in renewing the legal provisions to maintain some semblance of peace and order in this contentious area.
Worth a try?
No, we can’t allow the Church to be politicized. People will try and it is hard to stop. But the more politicized it is, the less catholic is it.
Statements by Cardinals George in Chicago and Rigali (along with Bishop Lori) have all but crossed the line into endorsement of the Republican ticket. The document on “Faithful Citizenship…” is irrelevant to these prelates when they believe that abortion must be the central issue. It is more than sad for the Church and will steer many in critical swing states to vote for McCain and Palin. Without some exceptional events in the next six weeks, it’s over.
“Statements by Cardinals George in Chicago and Rigali (along with Bishop Lori) have all but crossed the line into endorsement of the Republican ticket. The document on “Faithful Citizenship…” is irrelevant to these prelates when they believe that abortion must be the central issue. It is more than sad for the Church and will steer many in critical swing states to vote for McCain and Palin. ”
David, I’m sorry, but in the case of Cardinal George, I can’t agree (I’m not familiar with what the others you name have said).
I presume you’re referring to the letter Cardinal George issued in response to Speaker Pelosi’s “Meet the Press” interview, in which . The text of the letter may be found here.
http://www.archchicago.org/cardinal/letter/letters_2008/letter_090308.shtm
I’d point out that there is nothing in it that smacks of a political endorsement; it explicitly states that “the Church does not endorse political candidates”; and it pretty clearly situates itself within the mainstream of Catholic magisterial teaching on abortion.
If a Republican candidate chooses to advocate an abortion policy that aligns with what the Catholic Church teaches about abortion – well, that sounds like a possibly fruitful election strategy for the Republican (as in fact it was in the previous two presidential elections). Democratic candidates are free to take the same position, and in fact at one time many of them did. Would that more would consider it now.
Jim, I disagree. Despite his denial, Cardinal George is sending as clear a message as he legally is permitted and within the letter but not the spirit of the “Faithful Citizenship…” document that a Catholic cannot accept — and therefore should not vote for — someone who tolerates the legal status quo or does not accept his theo-biology about the beginnings of life. Would he also apply this reasoning to any who support the forms of birth control that prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg? Many bishops seem to me to easily opine about this without proposing any truly workable solution in this society. Do they wish a return to the pre- Roe status with different state laws? Abortion wars would foment in every precinct and little accomplished to respect pre-natal life and reduce incidence. His strange phrase, “there is no room for self-righteousness in Catholic moral teaching” may be something that I agree with if it means that Chicago faithful might say “Thank you for your thoughts. I will take them into consideration along with others and vote in good conscience for whomever I think will be the best President.” Frankly, we’ve ben through this before and I am tired of it. As I would be if Pat Robertson, Jeremiah Wright, Reverend Hagee or any religious leader attempts to over-instruct me on how I must vote because of his relgious interpretation.
It would most certainly be interesting to see how churches would survive economically if they lost their tax-exempt status. That would also eliminate the tax exemption on contributions thereto. Then we WOULD see how far committment to one’s church goes.
“Jim, I disagree. Despite his denial, Cardinal George is sending as clear a message as he legally is permitted and within the letter but not the spirit of the “Faithful Citizenship…” document that a Catholic cannot accept — and therefore should not vote for — someone who tolerates the legal status quo or does not accept his theo-biology about the beginnings of life. ”
David, I just don’t see any of this in the Cardinal’s letter. Perhaps you could connect the dots for me by citing specific passages and demonstrating how they constitute a political endorsement. Likewise, I’d welcome a demonstration of how the letter is inconsistent with Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
Jim, understand your point of view but others disagree. Here is a link to one of your Sun-Times ed-op writers:
Shortcut to: http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1154298,CST-EDT-carol10.article
George has a right to express his opinion but I feel that his tone, direction, etc. cross the line. In fact, like this writer, if he is so concerned about life, why has he not responded to his own deposition – does he care more for potential life than actual children who are being abused because of his poor decisions, lack of leadership, inability to apply already existing laws? To me, his credibility is at stake and so his statements directed at faithful Catholic politicians trying to find a common ground and push forward on Christian social issues is hypocritical, at best.
Jim, thanks for your inquiry. I will respond briefly- although this deserves more – and this will be my last entry.
To continue… Biden and Pelosi were stupid to swim in those theological waters when there are watchdog as astute and educated as Cardinal George. However, by highlighing this sole issue with a mandatory letter, he has placed abortion squarely as the central issue for Catholics. It appears that this was the opportunity that he and the other prelates(Rigali, Lori, Chaput, Neidnauer) were waiting for to get this opinion into the election. While George’s letter references the “common good,” the conclusion follows only if one accepts his logic that “One cannot favor the legal staus quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.” I reject that as a conclusion as one may not “favor it” but recognize that it is the best that can be done and that the issue is best addressed through other measures such noted in the Democratic party platform as well as those of the Catholic think tank that made a variety of other recommendations about how to reduce recourse to abortion. George emphasized this in ways that I would bet you will not see regarding other core moral issues.
… RE: “Faithful Citizenship.”… Section 31 notes “Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and the ‘art of the possible.’” This whole dimension of “prudential judgment” -let alone sections on conscience formation- are not alluded to in his brief letter or in the responses of the other prelates. Simply, in my mind, they are making ‘the best ‘the enemy of ‘the good’ and ‘the best’ is in their prescription for a society in which their logic regarding birth control has nearly no credibility and his and others ongoing track record in the sex-abuse crisis hardly increases the esteem in which they are held by many. As I wrote before –”Thank you for your op;inion, Cardinal. I will take your arguments and values into sincere deliberation along with many others when I vote for I beleive the ‘common good’ that is possible for our nation in this election.”
Unagidon, you replied, “No, we can’t allow the Church to be politicized.”
Please elaborate on your reference to catholicity.
Please see this article from NCR Online, Tom Fox, late today:
The U.S. bishops’ administrative committee announced Sept. 10 the bishops’ conference will take up the enduring and vexing issue of politics and abortion in America when it meets in Baltimore next November.
The meeting, which will come one week after the national elections, will take place with an urgency generated by a series of critical statements bishops have made in recent days of major Democratic Party political figures.
The announcement came as the committee, headed by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, added its weight to statements made by Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairmen of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life and doctrine committees. The bishops took on Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, for remarks they have made about abortion.
Rigali and Lori criticized Pelosi Aug. 25, saying that her statements on a recent Meet the Press “misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.” Answering a question on when life begins, Pelosi said: “I don’t think anyone can tell you when life begins, when human life begins.”
When program host Tom Brokaw responded that the church “at the moment feels very strongly that it begins at the point of conception,” Pelosi answered, “I understand. And this is maybe 50 years or something like that.”
The two bishops later issued a lengthy critique of comments Biden made Sept. 9. Biden, who like Pelosi is a Catholic, said he accepted Catholic teaching that life begins at conception, but did not believe that he could impose his beliefs in the public policy arena.
“I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” the senator said. “But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”
Rigali and Lori responded that “the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.”
The first question is when human life begins, they said, adding emphatically it is a matter of “objective fact,” taught in embryology textbooks, that life begins at conception. The second, “a moral question, with legal and political consequences,” is which human beings “should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed,” they said.
The U.S. bishops’ administrative committee, meeting in Washington Sept. 10, quickly endorsed Rigali’s and Lori’s views: “As the teachers of the faith, we also point out the connectedness between the evil of abortion and political support for abortion.”
Meanwhile, Pelosi Sept. 5 responded to an invitation to meet with Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco, her archbishop, to discuss church teaching on abortion and other topics. Pelosi said she welcomed the opportunity to meet with him.
CNS photo: March for Life rally in Washington, D.C.The issue of abortion the manner in which it is addressed by Catholic politicians, dates back the 1973 Supreme Court ruling giving women the right to choose abortion. Until that ruling, political opposition to abortion by U.S. Catholics had been spotty and local.
At the time of Roe v. Wade the issue of contraception was the most prominent moral issue for Catholics, still in the throes of digesting Humanae Vitae, the 1968 papal encyclical, upholding the church’s contraception ban.
The Second Vatican Council, held less than a decade earlier, had little sense that abortion would emerge as the divisive issue it eventually became. The council was unequivocal in its condemnation of abortion, but gave it scant attention.
Writing in the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” council bishops addressed abortion in only a few lines, condemning it with the following words: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”
The word abortion is not mentioned in the forty-five page index of the American edition of the documents issued by the council.
The 1976 U.S. presidential election was the first election to follow the Supreme Court ruling. It was the first in which the bishops’ anti-abortion committee became involved in national politics. The bishops found themselves, meanwhile, attempting to conduct two parallel but seemingly conflicting political strategies. The first was to make abortion the church’s most prominent political concern; the second was to place abortion within a broader pro-life context, encouraging voters to weigh all issues.
Echoes of the tensions involved in trying to satisfy these twin objectives have persisted among the bishops and the wider Catholic populace to the present.
In November 1975, the U.S. bishops released the “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities.” In it they encouraged the development of a tightly organized “pro-life” unit in each congressional district. The plan, in short, committed the bishops to raising the political profile of abortion during the 1976 election and to conducting a grassroots campaign to elect “pro-life” officials at every level of government.
Some bishops, however, worried at the time that the U.S. bishops would look like a single issue group. They pressed for another document and came up with one called “Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year.”
This document was endorsed by the bishops in May 1976 and it expressed their concern that Catholics respond to a longer list of moral issues. The document stated that it wanted “to call attention to the moral and religious dimensions of secular issues, to keep alive the values of the Gospel as a norm for social and political life, and to point out the demands of the Christian faith for a just transformation of society.”
It specifically stated that the bishops “do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc” and that they would not “instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing candidates.”
“The Pastoral Plan” and the “Political Responsibility” statements, taken together, presented the bishops with a political dilemma, one that has echoed through U.S. elections since. On the one hand they wanted to express their moral outrage to stop the killing of unborn life, seen as a primary issue beyond compromise. On the other, they wanted to be clear that Catholics need to weigh other moral teachings that deal with matters of life in contemporary society when they cast their ballots.
Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred and the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent life is always a gravely immoral act. The bishops have never flinched from expressing this teaching. The principle involved has since been applied to other moral issues such as euthanasia and stem cell research.
While the bishops have been clear on the principle, what has been less clear and divisive within the political arena is how Catholic politicians and Catholic voters should react when faced with imperfect choices regarding candidates and political strategies.
Critics of the bishops’ approach to outlaw abortion, starting with overturning the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, argue that their decades’ long campaign to reverse Roe has painted them primarily as politicians, saddled with one political party, while doing little to stop abortions or lower the abortion rate.
These critics have argued that the “anti-abortion” and often conservative politicians bishops have implicitly and sometimes explicitly supported have been less than sympathetic to programs that assist pregnant women and support mothers faced with the choice of having an abortion.
Catholic politicians argue that the issue gets even more complex.
Professing to accept Catholic teachings on the evil of abortion, Pelosi and Biden, for example, have argued – unpersuasively to the U.S. bishops – that politics is the art of what is possible and that in a democracy they are required to weigh conflicting values and work, as they see it, for the wider common good. This could mean, they say, moving to reduce abortions while not outlawing them.
Catholic Democrats coming out of last month’s convention hailed statements in their platform urging just that: work to reduce abortions and to support women and pregnant mothers. The same language was stricken from the Republican Party platform as a sign of weakness in efforts to make abortions illegal.
Every four years the political/abortion issue raises its head as the country faces a national election. Last November, in preparation for this year’s elections, the bishops took up the issue once again. After an extended process of consultation and evaluation, the bishops voted to approve a document entitled “Faithful Citizenship,” the latest stepchild of the bishops’ initial 1976 statement.
“Faithful Citizenship” once again reflects the twin and, to some, sometimes competing strategies, of the bishops. Like U.S. politics itself, the document was the product of a voting process. It was passed by 98 percent of the bishops after amendments aimed at further strengthening anti- abortion language were narrowly voted down.
“Faithful Citizenship,” while not compromising on the moral absolute of the evil of abortion, offers wording that places abortion in a wider social and political setting.
At one point it states: “Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and ‘the art of the possible.’ At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually.”
This wording stems from Pope John Paul II, who wrote in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible.
Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, a nonpartisan organization that promotes the church’s social justice message, praised the document, calling it an “important moral guide.”
“There is no completely pure political approach,” Korzen said, adding that both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have supported expanding stem-cell research, one of the moral “non-negotiables,” based on church teachings that life begins at conception and must be protected at all times.
While the bishops are absolutely firm on the moral issue of abortion, Catholics, including Catholic politicians, continue to be divided in their political responses. This has been the case for more than three decades, and the division is unlikely to be resolved before next November 4th when voters once again go to the polls.
This is long but surfaces another factor – Faithful Citizenship was developed and approved by the majority of bishops. It cites “life begins at conception” as a major factor when making a decision but places it within a larger pro-life context and not as a sole issue. It also comments about “difficult choices in our current political lifes”. But, starting with Pelosi, we now have certain bishops re-interpreting Faithful Citizenship. Not sure that the majority of the bishops would approach abortion and the election/parties the same way. Yes, Sean O’Malley crossed over the line as did George last weekend with his parish letter. Certain other bishops (JPII clones) because of committee positions felt compelled to speak out. Appears we have different approaches within the USCCB. Egan, George, Lori, Chaput and others have a credibility issue which weakens their statements. Although some bloggers do not agree, I take all comments from Chaput with a grain of salt until Egan’s replacement is named – careerism and toeing the Vatican line seem to be evident in these statements. Also, none of these statements lay out any structure or approach to the role a Catholic politician has in this debate – they are just told to enforce the Catholic principle???
High-level politicians, including Barack Obama, are in quest of limiting the American peoples’ access to on-demand, short term financial support. A number of cities and townships are attempting to enforce limitations on where these lawful businesses can operate. Still worse, is that several states, including Georgia and North Carolina, have effectively forced all-out bans on the trade, with several more trying to follow suit. Citizens all around the nation are looking to have their voices paid attention to by aggressive legislation that would eradicate the payday loan industry nationwide; Obama, and other mislead political officials, are pushing for an absolute ban in the name of personal political gain, in spite of the hundreds of thousands of eventual lost jobs in an already difficult economy.