50 Bishops advocate “single-issue” voting
October 23, 2008, 11:04 am
Posted by David Gibson
…Out of 197 active diocesan bishops. That’s Rocco Palmo’s count in the latest edition of The Tablet. He gathers his numbers from a review of interviews as well as their writings.
OK–do you recognize the difference between saying that abortion outweighs all other issues in this circumstance (an analysis that by definition includes analysis of all issues), and saying that none of the other issues need to even be weighed against abortion? Only the latter is “single issue voting.”
If “single issue voting” means that all those other issues WIN in the balance, then what you are really advocating is *abortion doesn’t matter* voting.
OK–do you recognize the difference between saying that abortion outweighs all other issues in this circumstance (an analysis that by definition includes analysis of all issues), and saying that none of the other issues need to even be weighed against abortion?
Matt,
It seems to me that it is single-issue voting in two senses.
First, these bishops have already weighed all the issues and determined that the only one Catholics must consider in their vote is abortion. The bishops aren’t saying to weigh all the issues. They are saying if you are a Catholic, and you weigh all the issues, you must arrive at the conclusion that abortion is the determining issue.
Second, it is single-issue voting in that you don’t get to weigh the candidates on the issues. What McCain and Obama say about health care, the economy, or defense simply doesn’t matter. You get to weigh the candidates on the issue of abortion.
When the bishops maintain that there is no issue or group of issues that can outweigh abortion, they are saying your vote must be determined by a single issue — abortion.
All you need to know to cast a “Catholic vote” in this election is that Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life (or more accurately, anti-abortion).
“these bishops have already weighed all the issues and determined that the only one Catholics must consider in their vote is abortion.”
I disagree. They are saying that abortion outweighs the other issues in this circumstance.
“No single issue voting” does not mean, in any Church document, that a Catholic or even a Bishop cannot conclude that *in this circumstance* one very important issue outweighs the others.
If that’s what it means (and that seems to be what you think it means), then it means that all the issues have equal weight, and that abortion can never be the overriding issue. But both those conclusions are not compatible with FC and similar documents.
Since Rocco writes ad nauseam about the hierarchy, maybe he could tell us who the 50 are.
The central problem with the bishops is they have a “because I said so” stance. And many Catholics accept this. We need some type of management structure but the process has to be dynamic and be borne of the spirit. The bishops have to be accountable to all Catholics and give solid reasons and receive feedback from theologians and and everybody else. Their considerations must be based on scripture and the life of Jesus. Not fantasy. History shows that episcopal and papal powers was solidified in a very corrupt Christianity in the fourth century.
Proclamation, responsibility and the beatitudes must prevail. Not pompous domination. They have to persuade not dominate.
If Catholics truly see abortion as a holocaust, a slaughter of innocents, a procedure that is never justified in any way or by any means, not for rape, incest, or maternal health, and only to save the mother’s life when the fetus is sure to die (ectopic pregnancy), then all other issues must pale by comparison.
And if those Catholics believe abortion can best be stopped by legislative means, then it can fairly be said that McCain supports more legal restrictions on abortion than Barack Obama. However, I would think that the bishops who are pushing abortion as the overriding issue of the campaign would feel that McCain’s stance and record fall short of the mark regarding Church teaching.
McCain voted against partial birth abortions, laudable, though this procedure accounts for a tiny fraction of the number of abortions.
When McCain ran in 2000, he said he believed that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. There are, of course, no such caveats in Catholic teaching about abortion.
McCain also said in 2000 that he believed that women ought not to be subjected to examination before procuring an abortion in cases of rape. That leaves a fairly big loophole that would allow women to procure a legal abortions simply by claiming to have been raped.
On McCain’s current Web site, he opines that Roe v. Wade is judicially flawed. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, he supports returning the matter to the states. He does not propose or anywhere endorse a right-to-life amendment for the unborn to the U.S. Constitution.
McCain’s current Web site also notes that he opposes creating embryos for the purposes of research, but is silent about using “discard” embryos from fertility clinics for such purposes. In 2000, he supported the use of fetal tissue research.
McCain’s Web site praises the pro-life movement for helping women facing unwanted pregnancies. But he stops short of saying that crisis pregnancy clinics should receive tax money, nor does he propose any sort of public assistance for women with unwanted pregnancies. He continues to “encourage” adoption and foster care, but proposes no funding for either.
One assumes that McCain trusts private organizations and adoptive/foster families to shoulder the responsibilities for unwanted children, despite the current economic crisis.
Current Web site: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
McCain on abortion in 2000:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
“The central problem with the bishops is they have a ‘because I said so’ stance. And many Catholics accept this.”
Really? I don’t think so. These bishops’ cheerleaders are just looking for a hero to worship. If it weren’t their bishop, they’d find some talking head on EWTN or the internet. Bishop Martino and others happen to be in the way.
How many of these bishops are in states where Senator Obama has a double-digit lead? Pennsylvania isn’t even competitive, for heaven’s sake. And the clumsier of the bishops are just alienating and dividing their flock. They lost cred by covering up sexual predators and they are far, far away from earning it back in the eyes of many.
There is no real story with these bishops. None at all.
I consider myself solidly pro-life by all standard definitions of the term. While I am definitely someone who emphasizes the consistent ethic of life, even on the issue of abortion I feel like I would pass muster with most in the pro-life movement: I’ve prayed outside of clinics, I support my local crisis pregnancy center, I attend the March for Life, I write to my elected leaders about the issue, I regularly donate to pro-life charities, I engage in opportunities to educate others about abortion and the teaching of the Church, and I’ve even been part of counter demonstrations at large pro-choice rallies. Yet the candidates’ positions on abortion will not be the deciding factor for me in this presidential election.
I feel awkward belaboring the point of my pro-life credentials, but I feel the need to do so. Again and again over the last few weeks I have heard the insinuation (and sometimes outright accusation) that anyone who would consider voting for a pro-choice candidate must not really be pro-life or must not really believe that abortion is all that bad.
So let me say for the record that abortion is nothing less than an atrocity. As I write this I am holding my newborn daughter in my arms. (Otherwise I would be sleeping!) Five days ago it would have been legal for my wife and I to have had her killed because at that point she was not yet born. That is outrageous. The fact that so many people cling to the belief that human beings suddenly become “people” in a meaningful sense only when they exit the womb, or reach 24 weeks gestation, or whatever other arbitrary point they choose is a testament to the human capacity for self-delusion. Every abortion takes the life of a unique, irreplaceable human person who is made in the image of God.
But abortion is not the only topic on which we are capable of deluding ourselves or avoiding inconvenient truths. The person we elect president will be the commander and chief of the United States Armed Forces, and he will spend far more time acting in that capacity than he will setting abortion policy. As commander and chief he will be in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In a world where Russia is resurgent, North Korea has the bomb, and Iran, Syria and who-knows-who-else are pursuing nuclear technology you better believe that abortion is not the only thing I am considering when I am choosing who I want to be president. A candidate’s foreign policy experience, positions on military policy, approach to diplomacy and personal temperment (and those of their VP) are important factors for me when I am thinking about whose finger I want on the button. Does the candidate support the idea of a pre-emptive nuclear strike as our current president does? Would the candidate continue the current administration’s push to develop more usable, down-scaled tactical nuclear weapons?
Archbishop Burke and other advocates of “abortion trumps all” voting have dismissively said that concern for “peace and justice” issues couldn’t possibly qualify as a proportionate reason for overlooking a candidate’s position on abortion given the 40-50 million human beings who have died through legalized abortion since Roe v. Wade. I beg to differ. Remember that the Church teaches that, like abortion, the development and use of weapons that target whole populations is a grave and intrinsic evil. And unlike with abortion, a single president’s policies on the use and management of those weapons could lead to an overnight holocaust. It has taken 35 years and the decisions of tens of millions of individual particpants in abortion to reach the tragic number Archbishop Burke cites. It would only take the decision of a small handful of people, the president first among them, to dwarf that number in the matter of a few hours. Even if that possibility is remote, it would constitute moral complacency on our part not to consider it when we are choosing the next president. The reality is that we live in a nation that has nuclear weapons targeted at population centers around the world and that itself is in the nuclear cross hairs of other nations. We cannot take that fact too seriously.
Even if the US itself never engaged in nuclear warfare, tens of millions of lives will still depend on the next president’s diplomatic skills and foriegn policy strategy. Imagine waking up three years from now to the news of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel resulting in part from botched diplomatic efforts on the part of the US. As the reports of millions dead scrolled across the TV screen I would feel foolish if I had cast my vote for president based solely on a candidates’ opposition to abortion.
I’ve gone on far too long, but let me at least note that other proportionate reasons for exist for considering a pro-choice candidate. For example, climate change and environmental degradation also have the potential of threatening tens of millions of lives in the forseeable future (drought, disease, displaced refugees, etc).
In general I find Senator Obama’s positions on abortion to be repugnant. I do sincerely appreciate his promise to find common ground on the issue, but when it comes to tolerating (much less using tax payer money to pay for) the killing of innocents there is only some much common ground to be found. I truly hope that he makes good on his promise to work to reduce the incidence of abortion, but unlike some pro-life apologists for Senator Obama I do not think that there is much chance that this will occur. Yet, in spite of Obama’s positions on abortion, and precisely because I am pro-life, I think that there is at least a reasonable case to be made for a Catholic voting in good conscience for him. I hope that our episcopal leadership will stop denigrating “peace and justice” issues and realize that these are pro-life issues too.
David Tenney, thanks again for a powerful posting, and above all mazel tov on the new baby! In light of your new schedule, I trust we’ll be seeing a number of 2:17am posts from you.
One thing your comment brought to mind was the article posted a few weeks back from the San Francisco archdiocesan paper about the mistake that was made in separating the “pro-life” issue from “social justice” work, thereby dividing resources and consciences and Catholics.
And Jean, thanks again for the spadework on McCain’s record. I honestly don’t know what he believes/thinks/or will do. They say different things to different audiences–Palin just told Dobson she supports a federal marriage amendment, something she never embraced before and rejected in her debate with Biden. And so it goes…
–They say different things to different audiences–Palin just told Dobson she supports a federal marriage amendment, something she never embraced before and rejected in her debate with Biden.–
I think the McCain campaign is still trying to minimize Palin damage to the ticket by using her to goad the fundie-gelical conservatives to vote, if not for McCain, then against Obama.
If my fundie-gelical in-laws are a good test on this, Palin has been effective at getting them worked up about socialism (which they equate with hostility to religion) and one-world government. She has also been quite effective with her “not like us” lines, which seems to tap into fears about Obama’s alleged “ties” to Islam.
Telling, I think, is the fact that they don’t have McCain signs in their yards; they have NObama signs.
And, David T., my hat’s off to you for being able to form so many coherent sentences with a newborn in the house. If all pro-life proponents were able to come at this issue from such moral high ground, even a bad lapsed Catholic like me might be persuaded to get on my knees in front of an abortion clinic.
DavidT–thanks for your comments. I agree with you that support for abortion demonstrates “self-delusion.” But DavidG doesn’t like it when I say that, so I’m glad that someone who agrees with DavidG more than I do said it, so it could get aired without chastisement.
DavidT, you suggest that a reasonable case can be made for voting for Obama. But, can a reasonable case be made that a reasonable case cannot be made for voting for Obama? Are the Bishops not only wrong that abortion is the overriding issue in this circumstance, but are they unreasonable in making that conclusion?
Interestingly, Prof. Peñalver is content to dismiss the threat of FOCA despite a president for whom that is a top priority, and overwhelming Democrat majorities in both houses whose leadership supports the measure. He and the other Obama professors don’t even acknowledge the threat as part of the real effects of advocating Obama. Bus His basis for dismissing it is that it never actually happened, and he doubts it will happen. Use of nuclear weaponry also have not happened since World War II. And Obama is not different than McCain on war–he wants Georgia in NATO and is openly willing to invade Pakistan as well as the Sudan. The Democrats not only approved the Iraq war, they ran on anti-war in 2006 and have done zero to limit presidential power–they could have passed a bill requiring Congressional approval before any strike on Iran (a proposal I support), but they did not. Nor are the Democrats willing to offend Israel in any way by limiting what we would be willing to do or allow in Iran. So the argument that Democrats are any better than Republicans on foreign policy is a speculative game of pick-and-choose. Ultimately it goes back to objecting to going into Iraq (which I opposed too). But we can’t unring the bell, and Democrats have proven unwilling to restrict war. (Oddly, McCain does not differ from Catholic teaching on immigration either, or torture, and he and Obama both support the death penalty–but liberal Catholics seem to ignore all that and just knee-jerkingly say that Obama is better because he is a Democrat). In fact, the economy and future wars will all be determined by forces beyond our control and above party lines, or the public will simply not tolerate another war no matter who is in office. Who the president is matters not at all, apparently. But who the president is will mean either a massive increase in abortion by signing FOCA and all the other specific bad policies and judicial appointments at all levels, or it will eman a veto of all those measures and much better judicial appointments.
To say Bishops are out of line in judging abortion to outweigh the other issues in this circumstance is to say they can’t reasonably reach that conclusion, when reason is in fact most applicable to the difference between McCain’s and Obama’s abortion policy as opposed to all these other issues.
” I think the McCain campaign is still trying to minimize Palin damage to the ticket by using her to goad the fundie-gelical conservatives to vote, if not for McCain, then against Obama. ”
I don’t think that McCain’s campaign has much control over Paleon anymore. Let’s face it: she is positioning herself for 2012. I predict that, by the end of the first quarter of 2009, “Palin in 2012″ will become a full-blown campaign with complete support of the RNC.
This campaign was here stepping stone but she, as did Edwards with Kerry, is subtly but definitely abandoning the Noveber 4th ship. This woman actually believes that she would indeed be a great president of the US.
From gollies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties, may the Good Lord deliver us!
MattB,
“Can a reasonable case be made that a reasonable case cannot be made for voting for Obama?”
Absolutely. I believe that it is quite possible for someone to compare the candidates and analyze their policy positions on a wide range of issues and come to the conclusion that Obama is not the best choice in this election for Catholics. But that is just the point- I believe it is necessary to look at a wide range of policy positions and take into consideration the personal characteristics of each candidate. What I’m critiquing is the idea that we need not (and ought not!) look beyond the candidates’ positions on the criminalization of abortion in order to correctly form our consciences for voting.
You also wrote: “To say Bishops are out of line in judging abortion to outweigh the other issues in this circumstance is to say they can’t reasonably reach that conclusion, when reason is in fact most applicable to the difference between McCain’s and Obama’s abortion policy as opposed to all these other issues.”
My argument isn’t primarily that the bishops advocating single issue voting are being unreasonable; it is that they are being un-Catholic. Unlike you, they aren’t saying, ‘In light of the relative equivalence of the candidates’ positions on other important issues, we determine abortion policy to be the most important issue in the presidential election of 2008.’ Rather, they are saying something more like, “Only under the most dire and unusual circumstances could one justify voting for any pro-choice candidate for any major public office in any election on the basis of their positions on other issues.” In doing so they are ignoring the clear teaching of the Church on other issues that demonstrably threaten as many if not more lives than abortion.
I’m thankful that 60+ years have passed since the last nuclear attack. However, given human nature and the state of nuclear proliferation, I wouldn’t be willing to put money on us making it another 60 years without another nuclear strike. (And even if you don’t agree with that judgment: Engine failures might be exceedingly uncommon on commercial airline flights, but would you be willing to fly on a plane if you didn’t have confidence that your pilot was competent to handle an engine failure?)
I’m somewhat puzzled by your assessment that the next president will have less control over foreign policy and war-making decisions than they will over abortion policy. Regarding war, it is true that the president will not control all world events. But it is also true the he will play the decisive role in deciding how we respond to world events (as evidenced by our invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11.) Regarding abortion policy, aside from the Mexico City Policy and other such executive orders the president’s role is fairly limited. His main influence is in picking judicial nominees whom he suspects will vote a certain way on abortion cases if they make it through the confirmation process. A few thoughts in this regard:
Nominations: McCain’s not going to get a pro-lifer past the senate judiciary committee, much less the full Senate given the likely make-up of the next congress. He will have to make compromise picks, and we all know the track record of the compromise picks of previous Republican presidents when it comes to abortion.
FOCA: I’m ready to hit the streets to protest this if/when it comes down the pipe, and every other Catholic who considers voting for Obama should be ready too. Still, I’m not sure we’ll have to. A divisive piece of culture war legislation is not going to be high on Obama’s to-do list when he gets in office. He’s got much higher priorities and he’s a smart enough politician to know that FOCA would derail those. Even if the Dem’s in congress try to ramrod it through, they will not be able to muster 60 votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate. Again, political considerations will kick in and they will move on. What Democrat would fear losing their seat because they failed to pass FOCA? They’ll certainly make a show of bringing up this legislation to satisfy their base, but they’re not going to waste a lot of time or political capital fighting for this given the current situation of the country.
Lastly, I think there are real differences between Obama and McCain on weighty issues where lives hang in the balance: environmental policy, diplomatic strategy, nuclear proliferation, health care, etc. There are also differences in temperment and judgment that bear on their respective fitness for office. Once again I’ve gone on too long, but suffice it to say that on the balance I feel these tip in Obama’s favor. (i.e. The baby just fell asleep so I’m going too!)
cheers!
Incredibly, the bishops are losing even the basic arguments on abortion and are turning off their base because they are incapable of putting the abortion issue in a wider context. Anyone who uses the voodoo language of “the culture of death” has signed off from that wider context. It is a fanatical expression and it betokens an inability to analyze social situations. The culture of ongoing critical reflection that a healthy social doctrine would have created in Catholicism has given way to a culture of sloganeering and monotonous condemnation, with no effort to dialogue with the women condemned.
Palin positioning herself for 2012???? I thought she was angling for a job on Saturday Night Live. Surely show business is her thing rather than national and international politics?
” the idea that we need not (and ought not!) look beyond the candidates’ positions on the criminalization of abortion in order to correctly form our consciences for voting”
This is not what they are saying–they are saying that in the current circumstance abortion actually outweighs the other issues. That is an assessment of all the issues.
Obama’s top priority is FOCA. He has made that crystal clear. He has declared himself an obedient servant to Planned Parenthood, which kills 25% of the aborted babies in this country. People like these Professors who are thrusting FOCA on us through him, in the name of Catholic-pro-life-ism no less, not only are not giving us a reason why FOCA will not actually happen, not only are not actually committing tangible assets to fight it–they are not even acknowledging that it and anti-Hyde and every thing else that Obama will do to massively increase abortion are even on the radar. They persist in describing the choice for McCain as merely anti-Roe-alone, because they have only one goal, to convince Catholics to vote for him, and talking about his abortion extremism doesn’t serve that agenda. They are causing FOCA and all those things, yess including certain pro-abortion judges, and they are effectively denying that Obama’s abortion agenda and his present ability to pass it with the Dem majority even exists. Mark my words: when Obama pushes his abortion increases through next year, this website and the Obama campaigners here will be NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. In fact, I predict they will be defending those polices as not so bad and not that important. Are you telling me that Profs. Kaveny, Penalver, Kmiec will be leading the charge against these things, and that there will be even a chance for those professors to effectively stop those items? I hope it happens. I would like to see them pledge to lead the fight. If you have seen that pledge anywhere, I would be glad to know about it.