Catholics and Politics: What now?
Judging by the headlines this campaign, you might have thought the shepherds were headed one way and the flock in another direction. That’s not quite the case, as reports of 50 or 60 or even 100 bishops promoting a “McCain-or-be-damned” approach to abortion and the civil sacrament of voting don’t hold up under scrutiny. Still, there’s no doubt many more bishops than usual want a more forceful approach to political activity, and that will be an interesting (closed-door) discussion next week when they gather in Baltimore.
The “flock”–some 65 million or so of us lay folk and ordinary religious–also didn’t go en masse over the cliff for Obama, though it’s pretty clear the bishops didn’t have much sway, or if they did, it may have been to push Catholics the other direction. Catholics as a whole went for Obama 54-45, a major swing from 2004, when they went for Bush over (Catholic) John Kerry. But break it down by ethnicity and white Catholics went for McCain 52-47–although, as Mark Silk points out in an excellent analysis (complete with regional breakdowns), Obama did better than Kerry with white Catholics by 8 points. White Catholics also tend to be marginally more Democratic than whites as a whole. (I’d also highly recommend the Mark Silk-Andrew Walsh piece in the Nov. 3 edition of America, on the past and future of the Catholic vote.)
On the other hand, Latinos, who are the future of the church in many respects, went strong for Obama. That’s an internal fault line as critical as that within the hierarchy. But, lay people are united in not factoring the abortion issue into their vote very much, as against the advice of the bishops. The economy, war, health care, energy, etc all rated high while “life” issues barely appeared on the radar. That is consistent with past elections. What is also consistent–and what is reflected in the ballot results–is that the bishops get more traction with Catholics (and the public) on gay marriage than on overturning Roe v. Wade. Ballot proposal to limit abortion were defeated in three states, while proposals barring gay marriage and adoption by gay parents passed.
Another warning sign: Young Catholics clearly do not support the political positions of the bishops and others on abortion and gay marriage. It’s tough to have a political strategy without voters behind you.
So what now? How does the Catholic Church recover a voice and presence and, to dream, influence, in the public square? Phil Lawler of Catholic World News says, as usual, the problem is dissent, and he vows a “crusade” that he hopes will be joined by outspoken bishops. Tom Reese has a comprehensive analysis at The Washington Post, ending with this:
“A closer look at the exit polls should be as discouraging for left-wing Catholics as for right-wing Catholics. Catholic voters did not embrace either the conservative non-negotiables or the church’s preferential option for the poor. They were concerned about themselves and their families. Will the abortion debate rise up again in four years at the next presidential election? A lot depends on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they push through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), then they will have betrayed their pro-life Catholic supporters. This will make it nearly impossible for these people to support them again. On the other hand, if they make a priority the enactment of an abortion reduction bill, then it will be more difficult for the bishops and the Republicans to portray the Democrats as the pro-abortion party.”
Another danger for the bishops, however, was pointed out by Al Mohler, a leading voice of Southern Baptists and the “religious right”:
“Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door.”
That seems to me to be the true risk inherent in the pro-lifers’ strategy, in that it is so tied to the GOP that if the party moves toward a more moderate position–that debate is underway–the Catholic leadership could be left without a prayer (not to mention the unborn). “Put not your trust in princes,” the Psalmist says. But if you are going to get involved in politics, he might have added, hedge your bets by keeping ties to both parties.
There is much to be said for the thesis that Catholics are “politically homeless.” No party will ever represent Catholic teaching completely, of course. But that can also be something of a cop-out. Catholics are in many respects just living in separate houses (or chanceries, as the case may be). Besides, people make politics. So what now?
PS: I would also note this CNS story about Catholic divisions, “Reconciliation after election possible, but expected to take time.”
I think an analysis that concludes that Catholics voted for Obama due to a lack of proper catechesis would be misguided and lead to pointless actions. Catholics know what the Church teaches about abortion and such. What the bishops (and the likes of Lawler) fail to take into account is the complexity of the public square. A sola abortion approach is doomed to fail in the complexity of the lives people and the country lead. People are not freaked out by threats of eternal damnation if they vote for a particular candidate. In fact, I think most Catholics roll their eyes at such bluster and lower their already low opinions of the bishops.
What really drove home the pointlessness of sola abortion was watching a news channel yesterday detailing all the issues and troubles that face President-elect Obama. While each abortion is a tragedy, as a country, we are facing numerous catastrophies, that make blue-in-the-face pronouncements on Roe v. Wade seem as if they are coming from a parallel universe.
“Catholic voters did not embrace either the conservative non-negotiables or the church’s preferential option for the poor. They were concerned about themselves and their families.”
Tie in the income of the bishops and clergy with the elections and you will find them voting differently also. The bishops always rally when their pockets are threatened. Not different than ordinary faithful. I remind that many of the so called crusaders in politics are really making money from their zeal. “A person’s philosophy is determined by her economics.”
The loudest noise from the pulpit is at the “Cardinal’s Annual Appeal.” Listless pastors become unusually animated as the pressure from the Chancery is never more intense. Sadly, most are revealed when money is involved. Follow the money, always.
Since the election and the “single issue” thing is now over (for the time being) we might discuss how we might bridge the democratic gap (small d) between an outright end of abortion in all of its forms (which I think is the Catholic position) and the various smaller steps that we will have to take over time to get there.
Some have claimed that small steps = compromise and we can’t compromise on abortion. I would argue that we can’t compromise on our principles about abortion, but we will have to compromise on how to get there, since while a majority of us may be against abortion, the people against abortion in all of its forms are a minority in our democracy.
David: You omitted one element in the analysis of the Catholic vote: As summed up by Lawlor: “Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54- 45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61- 37%.” What are we to make of that?
A few points -
The statement – “Young Catholics clearly do not support the political positions of the bishops and others on abortion and gay marriage. It’s tough to have a political strategy without voters behind you.” – is exactly why these discussion go nowhere. It is not the bishops “political position” that we are talking about, but teachings of the Catholic Church, pure and simple, and the statements of these bishops with whom you take issue were not a “political strategy” to get voters. In my opinion, many critics of these bishops are projecting their own motivations, which are all about politics, on to these men. They are so wedded to progressive politics that they can’t fathom that these bishops are saying the things they are because they are teaching the Catholic Faith. This assumption of profane motives stifles and real discussion.
Second, catechesis is more than getting information. Anyone who says Catholics attitudes and behaviors regarding abortion and myriad other issues is not connected to very poor Catechisis is gravely mistaken. Just “knowing” the Church’s “position” isn’t enough. My own experience as a catechist has shown me that the majority of Catholic families have no clue what catechesis is. You can’t shove your kid out the car door two or three times a month to go to RE, never go to mass, never pray, never study or even read scripture, and say they are catechized. It just ain’t so. I think Father Komonchak’s observation bears this out. I suspect if you broke it down to daily communicants the division would be greater, and if you could break it down to those who regularly pray and study it would be even greater still.
Forty-five percent of weekly church goers voting for Obama is still a significant number of people jeapordizing their eternal salvation. I would continue to argue that redoubling catechesis as the way to motivate people to vote sola abortion is pointless. This is like the GOP remnant claiming that they way to victory is becoming more conservative and purging moderate voices from the party.
The problem with focusing on catechetical efforts is not the teaching in and of itself, but the style of the messengers (eternal doom) and their disconnect from the lives of those being catechized. The lives of the bishops and a lot of priests are so removed from the people. Bishops and priests do not have to worry about a roof over their head, where their next meal is coming from, the price of energy, etc. in a concrete sense. Sure, they may have to worry in the abstract — it cost money to run a parish or a diocese — but on a personal level, they have no worries.
Also, redoubling catechetic efforts is pointless if people are not showing up. Horse to water. All you are doing is preaching to choir and alienating those who in good conscience disagree on threatening eternal damnation over matters of prudential judgment. One is just minimizing real and honest concerns of people. This is why the message of the bishops is falling on deaf ears — the bishops are not listening to people but are screaming at them.
They are so wedded to progressive politics that they can’t fathom that these bishops are saying the things they are because they are teaching the Catholic Faith.
Sean,
I think the bishops had very little in the way of a political position, and I also think they were doing very little teaching the Catholic faith. An authentic political position would be a lot more complex and nuanced than, “You can’t vote for Obama because abortion is more important than all other issues combined,” and there is a lot more to the Catholic faith than “voting for a pro-choice candidate is remote material cooperation with evil, which you may not do without a proportionate reason, which reason in this case it is impossible to come up with.”
When you tell people who are in fear of losing their jobs, or their life savings, and are worried about being able to take care of themselves and their families, and who oppose the war in Iraq, and who think the Republicans have damaged America itself and its ability to do good in the world, and who are worried about climate change, and the poor, and health care for their children, that they may not even consider these issues when they cast their vote, you have lost touch with reality.
Joe K: That is an important element, worship attendance, and it also shows a divide. I was searching around but I’m not sure where Phil Lawler got his exit poll stats. I’ll email him.
The principal exit polls used by the networks in fact shows weekly attenders divided almost evenly, 49 for Obama, 50 for McCain.
Here is the MSNBC link, which is easiest to read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704
(Indeed, Obama got the “secular” or non-attender vote overwhelmingly, 67-30.)
Overall, weekly attenders of all faiths went for McCain over Obama, 55-43. As the Pew Forum analysis notes (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367) that is an improvement for the Dems, and moreso among those who go more than once a week.
The question (to my mind) then becomes why did worship rates make an impact? Good question, and I do think the usual answer is that (unfortunately, to me) regular worshippers tend to have a more conservative outlook, in the sort of classic conservative sense. But as far as the Catholic situation, it’s hard to parse it out. Studies have shown that even regular worshippers vote on many issues before considering abortion, and this pre-election Zogby poll shows that when asking just about abortion, even 45 percent of weekly attenders say you can be a good Catholic and vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights:
See: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1619
That seems to mirror the nearly 50-50 divide on Election Day. So church attendance is pretty squishy when it comes to issue-voting, and certainly doesn’t seem to reflect the views of some bishops. I can’t say the “hierarchy” in general, because there was no exit poll on them. Who knows, they could have gone 50-50 as well.
Sean, I think we’d be talking past each other, for a couple of reasons. One is that I think the bishops do have a political position–not necessarily partisan–on many issues, abortion included. I do think they want to influence the course of US policy, and I think that’s a good thing, in principle. I think they are very divided in the concrete, and I think their political strategy is just not effective. I think it is often dressed up as simply “preaching the truth,” but where we would also disagree, I suspect, is that I think speaking “the truth” was conflated with supporting one particular political position and party, the GOP on Roe. The tactic of some bishops was a political one–they wanted Catholic voters to adopt a certain party’s approach–I just don’t think it was effective, or the polls certainly show that.
So my question remains, what do we/they do now?
After a recent Benedictine Oblate weekend with a presentation on lectio divina, I’m reading almost everything differently, more open to whatever jumps out at me. And in forming my conscience in preparation for voting, this is what came clearest to mind: troubled pregnant women.
How, really, to help the unborn without understanding, supporting and loving the women carrying them? And who better to guide us in this than Mary, the ultimate troubled pregnant woman? For starters, we can all pray the rosary. With this focus, the rosary has taken on new dimensions and depth and directions for me.
We can also drop the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” division. We Catholics are all pro-life, some more than others, and only a saintly few pro-life across the board. We are all needed in the work Tom Reese mentioned above: providing needed support and services for troubled pregnant women. This is the warm, caring and natural way to reduce the number of abortions. Whether or not the law is eventually changed, we are called now to pray for, understand, love and support troubled pregnant women.
BTW, since the media is also kibbitzing about likely appointments in the Obama administration, how about John Allen for ambassador to the Vatican? Here’s his pitch, interesting piece, in an “open letter” to the President-elect:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/2253
Thanks, Mr. Gibson. I was going to post the link on one of the earlier blogs about our new catholic VP. Ms. Mollie and Jim thought that the letter from George was just fine….my friend used a blunt word to describe it – crude. I went on to lament the fact that too many bishops continue to instruct, order, and command and even George’s letter lacked any type of “call”, direction. It was more polite than anything else (yes, tactful and did offer some type of bridge) but overall it does not compare to the eloquence of Obama’s Tuesday nite speach or even NCR’s mind exercise.
I am at a loss to understand why our bishops/cardinals can not express or capture the excitement of a racial divide being overcome; that as a country this was a momentous event. And, the failure to use any type of prophetic, scriptural, liturgical words, prayers, music….no attempt to call people forward. It is as if they completely forget the church’s tradition, the examples of those who went before us facing discrimination, threats, poverty, etc. Wonder if these “princes” of the church are just too removed from every day reality to get it.
Bill DeHaas, the discussion from earlier threads made some good point. I thought the Cardinal George letter more than a bit “flat,” though he tends to be all about the business at hand, not a gusher of emotion:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-163.shtml
I think the Vatican’s (and the Pope’s) responses were far more helpful, but they are at some remove and thus can afford to be generous.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805616.htm
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805613.htm
But I think Archbishop Wuerl in Washington, who will have the most interaction with the future prez, struck the right tone with the best message:
http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=585&Year=2008
As many have noted, I just don’t think the leadership “gets” it in terms of what this means for so many people, but in a stunning way African-Americans themselves. Dear Lord, we’re such a “white” church still!
I thought this thread came from Peter or even Bill Collier, viz the post election “homeless”Catholic.
I don’t think selfishness was the big factor in the Obama vote -quite the contrary, a vision of the “common good” and inclusion motivated many.
I liked Fr. Kavbvanagh”s new reflection at the America on line today -that maybe we need to get past extremism to get to a chance at a more Catholic electorate.
The point is well made by many here already that beside life issues that means the whole Gospel.
It may also mean rexamining the hot button isues around sexuality(interesting note: Gene Robinson, according to NCR today, conducted a secret retreat for gay priests -he urged Catholics to push for woman’s ordination now, but said gay issues were too”dangerous.”)
Finally, the changing face and browning of America is a real part of this as well -a point we’ve also talked about elsewhere.
Personally, I don’t feel homeless; I feel the need to be more united so that we do not talk past one another.I think we need better formation, not indoctrination so that we can witness in real adult fashion instead of talking past others. And finally, as a Catholic citizen, I’d love to se more political savvy and a lot less harumphing from our hierarchy.
As I said in the thread above, john Allen is right about Obama-BXVI relations. Can’t we think about USCCB -Obama relations in analogous terms?
David,
Why is it that when bishops and cardinals talk about issues of war and peace, poverty, immigration etc. they are teaching and when they talk about abortion is it politicking? I don’t get it.
Sean, I think they are “politicking” (a loaded phrase, but fine by me) when they speak about all those things. I never said otherwise. Partisanship is obviously something different, and to watch out for, as is breaching the establishment clause.
“I am at a loss to understand why our bishops/cardinals can not express or capture the excitement of a racial divide being overcome; that as a country this was a momentous event. And, the failure to use any type of prophetic, scriptural, liturgical words, prayers, music….no attempt to call people forward. It is as if they completely forget the church’s tradition, the examples of those who went before us facing discrimination, threats, poverty, etc. Wonder if these “princes” of the church are just too removed from every day reality to get it.”
I think that Bill DeHaas has struck a chord here: many of our Bisops are simply “out of touch” with their people. They are the Teachers of the Faith in the Church, but a teacher must enjoy the respect of the people he/she is trying to teach. I teach professionally, and I know that if I do not listen to my students, I cannot teach them. This far more essential when the teaching is “prophetic” in nature. Many of our leaders in the Church–Bishops, but also Pastors–lose the ears of those they are trying to reach by issuing ultimatums, condemning people who disagree, telling the faithful who they must vote for (or else risk the loss of their eternal salvation). Their voices are shrill, they become the “clashing symbols” Paul speaks of so eloquently in his Letters. “To speak the truth in love”…yes, but where is the “love”? Where are thr followers of Jesus who dare to wash the feet of those commited to their pastoral care?
“I am at a loss to understand why our bishops/cardinals can not express or capture the excitement of a racial divide being overcome; that as a country this was a momentous event. And, the failure to use any type of prophetic, scriptural, liturgical words, prayers, music….no attempt to call people forward. It is as if they completely forget the church’s tradition, the examples of those who went before us facing discrimination, threats, poverty, etc. Wonder if these “princes” of the church are just too removed from every day reality to get it.”
There is no legal basis for discrimination against African Americans anymore. The injustice that was an egregious rule of law for most of our nation’s history is not any longer. (Just btw, I was reminded recently of this important book http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/sundowntowns.php
which some people might not know.)
It is a glass ceiling that has been broken, not a barrier enshrined in law. Whereas the man who broke it wants to make egregiously unjust and hateful laws against the unborn ever more extensive. This is a man who publicly said that he wants to make sure that his daughters grow up in a society in which they have the option of aborting his grandchildren, for the sake of opportunity. Should bishops be making peace with this policy? Putting out liturgical pamphlets to celebrate the event?
Why is it that when bishops and cardinals talk about issues of war and peace, poverty, immigration etc. they are teaching and when they talk about abortion is it politicking?
Sean,
That is not what I said. I think the single-minded focus on abortion and the arguments over the morality of voting for a pro-choice candidate were neither politics nor teaching. As I said, politics is a complex matter involving compromise and “the art of the possible.” Saying “vote against Obama” scarcely resembles a real political position. And how can you possibly teach about war, poverty, and immigration when your basic message is that they don’t matter in this election, since there is only one issue that it was permissible to vote on?
I think some of the bishops simply hated Obama and couldn’t see past their own personal feelings. A case in point was Bishop Gracida, who said in his radio ad, “A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate.” Even the McCain campaign and John McCain himself repudiated the use of Obama’s middle name in this manner.
Also, nobody pays the least bit of attention to the bishops or even the pope on issues of war and peace.
Liturgical pamphlets? What are you talking about?
Sorry, Bob, they don’t let me begin threads at dotCommonweal. That is no doubt a good thing for all who post here or read this blog. :)
And while I am very happy about the historic nature of the election of the first African-American president, I confess that my political homelessness is not much abated. I still support the DFLA and its efforts to get the Democratic Party to beome a bigger tent on the abortion and ESCR issues, but expanding the tent will likely be an incremental process. I’m more focused now, however, on CEL and CST and how they can be transposed into the political process without regard to alignment with a particualr political party. And in his thread above, Jim Lein mentions prayer and the very worthwhile practical effort of finding ways to support pregnant women and the difficult choices they often face. There’s enough to keep me busy. ;)
“Why is it that when bishops and cardinals talk about issues of war and peace, poverty, immigration etc. they are teaching and when they talk about abortion is it politicking?”
Because certain of our hierarchs have made abortion a political — indeed, a partisan political — issue, even going so far as to tell us that we risk eternal damnation if we vote for the wrong guy! Catholics would have no problem with their bishops teaching, i.e., conveying the official understanding of various moral issues. It’s a different matter altogether, however, when bishops (all or just a few) try to steer the vote to a particular candidate. The hierarchs’ fellow adults, for the most part at least, simply are not going to cottin’ to such episcopal behavior.
The problem with the abortion issue is that there are two polar extremes, and any effort to try to bridge the divide or seek common ground is seen as moral capitulation by the right wing and political capitulation by the left wing. As long as folks — including bishops — stick to positions, they are not going to be able to negotiate. Position trumps shared interests. And we end up with stalemate, name-calling, and threats (by some hierarchs) of eternal damnation.
Abortion will never be outlawed entirely, and a Human Life Amendment — as noted by one of our fellow bloggers — would likely breed disrespect for the law and go the way of Prohibition.
“My way or the highway” will never work in a pluralistic society. Unfortunately, some (right-wing) bishops simply don’t want to acknowledge this truth. Or, God help us, they can’t.
To get back to first things, so to speak, I wonder if we should pose the questions this way:
Must we address internal Catholic (episcopal and lay) divisions before speaking about a Catholic political influence?
How do we do that? Can we? Or will a Catholic culture just go on as it will? Or dissipate? Or is division part of who we are now as American Catholics? On the other hand, two Jews, three opinions, as they say. Yet the Jewish community gets on the same page come Election Day?
Can politics be a way of uniting the Catholic Church?
It takes two to tango. As long as a certain segment of the Catholic population refuses to negotiate the means to reducing abortion, the status quo will continue. Threats of eternal damnation just won’t work.
David, I think this is how you should have ended the thread immediately.
Great questions -muy difficil to answer.
In fact we are a big (universal) Church with a broad swath that Bernadin years ago wanted to bring together in some cohesion and which Law et al thought better to keep divided.
Drift, as Mr. Steinfels noted, or worse, implosion began to happen and I’d say snowball.
Right now, I think Eucharist andour Lord and His Spirit working(overtime) is preventing dissipation.
Right now the Country has an opportunity to become more united and inclusive.
Without a similar movementt o get on board that train by US Catholics, hierarchs and laity, and with a prophetic voice, the drift, and some implosion, but probably not full dissipation will follow.
It takes two to tango. As long as some Catholics put party affiliation before Catholicism, the status quo will continue.
“Must we address internal Catholic (episcopal and lay) divisions before speaking about a Catholic political influence?”
I also think this is a great question, David G. I don’t know if Catholic unanimity (or near unanimity) is possible, but without some substantial degree of cohesion “Catholic political influence” will be nothing more than an oxymoron.
You’ve probably heard the story being reported that the result for Proposition 8 in California may have been significantly influenced by the Mormon vote. We all know there is strong religious cohesion among most Mormons on many political issues, and though their voting bloc is relatively small in general, they can have a significant effect at times on targeted issues. The same holds true for evangelicals, though there are fault lines in the evangelical vote, too. And though the unanimity is as much secular as religious, the Jewish vote on issues that directly or indirectly affect Israel can also be politically influential.
Check out this essay by Damon Linker at The New Republic: “Democrats did poorly with devout Catholics and evangelicals on Tuesday. But does the party need them?”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=36631201-fcf7-42a2-84f0-1f956bf5459d
Lots worthy of discussion here. These topics bear upon some deep issues. Let me try to say something worthwhile about just a few of them.
I begin somewhat obliquely. Suppose we turn the title”Faithful Citizenship” into the question: Faithful Catholic and/or Faithful Citizen? Both historically and conceptually a definitive and absolute resolution of this strange question has proven at best to be elusive. We’d all like to assert that there need be no conflict betwee these two Faithfuls. But the historical record gives us much evidence of the tensions at best and hostility at times between the demands of these two.
One way to resolve the tension between these two Faithfuls is the way of the martyr, the person who literally surrenders life in this world for the sake of eternal life. The martyr has to give absolute prioritty to the next life over this one. Another way to resolve this tension is that of Dostoyevski’s Grand Inquisitor. The Grand Inquisitor gives absolute priority to making life in this world good for himself and his fellow human beings. For most of us for most of the history of Catholicism, something short of these two “extremes” or “absolutes” has been our approach. We have no grand theory to support this approach. Our approach is in some sense “pragmatic,” except that, if we are serious, we’re always trying to make the improvements in our lives on earth that would reduce the tension between these two Faithfuls. This leaves us all, bishops and the rest of us with “dirty hands,” always in need of redemption.
If Peter Brown is right about St. Augustine, Augustine’s rejection of both Donatism and Pelagianism sprang from his refusal of these two extremes. Instead, Augustine recognized that in this life the Church must embrace both saints and sinners. Only God can rightly determine who is saint and who is sinner.
What does all this amount to in the context of this election? First, if Fr. Thomas Reese is right, and I suspect that he is in large measure, Catholics voted largely for self-serving reasons. That means that they were neither particularly faithful Catholics nor faithful citizens.
Second, the “fundamentalist” bishops, e. g., Bishops Merlino, Finn, cannot rightly claim to have Augustine as their model.
P. S. A confession: I do believe that Max Weber’s distinction between two ethics, the ethics of ultimate ends (the ethics that would allow for martyrdom, given the proper circumstances) an the ethics of responsibility (the ethics that calls for caring for the earthly welfare of our fellow human beings) is always germane to serious talk about religion and politics. The decision to follow one ethic or the other in any particular case is always prudential and fallib;e. No one, bishop or otherwise, can make it anything else.
As far as I can see, Linker says the Democratic Party DOES need Catholics and evangelicals, and he suggests that Obama take some steps restore the “safe, legal and rare” language (or similar) and to urge the party not to support FOCA.
Those are good things, of course, that would help break the stranglehold the most strident pro-choice elements have had on the party.
However, I doubt what Linker proposes would be nearly enough to woo those voters for whom banning abortion now and forever is a non-negotiable.
Excellent post and analysis, Mr. Dauenhauer. Appreciate your contributions – you make me stop and think; that is meant as a compliment.
Some bishops need your wisdom.
“Even the McCain campaign and John McCain himself repudiated the use of Obama’s middle name in this manner.”
The election is over. Can’t we stop this nonsense talking-point that using the middle name of the President Elect of the United States of America, given to him legally by his parents and whose factual basis is not in dispute, is inappropriate?
MAT: On the other hand, it might be more productive to stop pretending that people who hissed “Hussein” while trying to frighten potential Obama voters into changing their minds were really just mentioning his middle name because they wanted to be sure everyone knew which Barack Obama they were talking about.
To David Gibson’s questions: Must we address internal Catholic (episcopal and lay) divisions before speaking about a Catholic political influence? …Can politics be a way of uniting the Catholic Church? I’d say no to that last question; I think politics — hierarchy politics and identity politics, as well as U.S. government politics — is what the worst polarization is grounded in. I think the bishops need to be committed to presenting Catholic teaching as a complicated, challenging, radical invitation to conversion and fullness of life. They, and we, need to start worrying how we can be light for the world and stop focusing on policing our own ranks. If Bishop so-and-so consistently speaks with charity and integrity, not about what people have to do in order to earn his blessing as “good Catholics,” but about how his knowledge of the faith helps him understand the challenges we face, people will listen. They might not respond, but at least they’ll get the message. But if Bishop so-and-so thinks his primary duty is to issue ultimatums to his flock, he’ll annoy Catholics who are trying their best, push away Catholics who are already on the fringe, and convince everyone else that Catholicism really is a power-obsessed cult with a lot of silly rules.
I know that’s all vague, and I’m going on too long. But I’ll go on longer. I didn’t think George’s letter was the best possible document, but I wasn’t offended by it (such a low bar!). It didn’t seem designed to curry favor with one faction over another, or to pit Catholics against each other, and it certainly didn’t distort Church teaching. It was congenial and simple. Anyway: I would love for the Church to be a prophetic voice about the evils of abortion, and a lot of other evils too. But these days the loudest voices coming from the Church seem much more worried about keeping Catholics voting together than they do about effecting change in the world. We are politically homeless, but that doesn’t mean we can leave our faith out of the equation. It means you can’t say “Good Catholics must vote for this party” without immediately compromising the fullness of the Church’s teaching and the authority of its voice. We should be in both parties, and third parties, and no party, because they all (or mostly) have some things right and a lot of things wrong, and we humbly believe we can help with that. I think the real cop-out is the shallow claim that any one party is the obvious Catholic choice.
The election is over. Can’t we stop this nonsense talking-point that using the middle name of the President Elect of the United States of America, given to him legally by his parents and whose factual basis is not in dispute, is inappropriate?
MAT,
Obama wasn’t the president-elect when Gracida recorded the commercial. Regarding the “nonsense talking point,” here is an account of John McCain apologizing for remarks made at one of his events, but before he arrived:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/mccain-repudiates-hussein-obama-remarks/
I have no doubt that Gracida intended to convey contempt.
“You don’t lead by hitting people over the head-that’s assault, not leadership.”
Dwight D. Eisernhower
A significant number of US Catholic bishops should have this statement tattooed on their posteriors.
And the good Bp Gracida, by conveying his contempt, is indeed a contemptable man himself.
Mollie Wilson O’Reilly: I didn’t realize I was pretending anything. I don’t know what you are referring to specifically, but I imagine any name which was “hissed” would be “frighten[ing]“.
David Nickol: You honestly don’t see how ridiculous Senator McCain’s comments are? The notion that someone named Hussein lacks integrity is absurd bordering on bigoted.
The whole idea that President Elect Obama’s middle name shouldn’t be mentioned – and it’s not clear to me that we may even mention it to this day – in order to conceal it as to not frighten bigots in an attempt to dupe them into voting for someone they would otherwise not vote for due to their bigotry is surreal. Is General Colin Powell the only person with the guts to say that being named Hussein and of Muslim heritage is nothing to be afraid of and if that’s the only reason to have not voted for (then) Senator Obama one should be ashamed?
Clearly the election is not over. It’s going to be a long four years.
MAT: It seemed plain to me that you’re pretending not to understand what’s wrong with someone like Gracida tossing in that gratuitous “Hussein.” And, for that matter, pretending not to understand the difference between “mentioning” Obama’s middle name (in the style of the RNC speakers: “John…Sidney…McCain!”) and “invoking” it as if it were damning evidence against him. But perhaps I’m giving you too much credit, because you certainly have it all upside-down in that last post. Of course, it all makes sense now: Colin Powell was the only Obama supporter who ever pointed out that being called a Muslim, even erroneously, is not a slur. Gracida’s mistake was taking that for granted, assuming he was speaking to an audience of high-minded Colin Powells. All those Obama supporters who’ve adopted “Hussein” as their own honorary middle name during the past year, well, they just didn’t get that “Nobody Mention The Middle Name, Or We’ll Lose!” memo. And “Vote McCain, Not Hussein” was just a felicitous rhyme. Talk about nonsense.
Mollie”s responseto David’s question was excellent.
Still, I think the “homeless” argument, much raised this year, is kind of hard for me to see – in that sense, we should have ben talking about “homeless” for years.
The Weekemd Edition synopsis this week by Scott simon stresses the political side of the new presidency which, as with all presidents, will create some “homelessness.”
But, there is a clear sense that for many, there’s a new way of looking forward, imagining if you will.
That theme was struck by Ms. kennedy as the keynote to CTA at their annual conference yesterday, including a new Church with an expanded role for women.
At the risk of being highly repetitive, the question will be how united or how fragmented we’ll be.
The same old spin on stuff, say from MAT above, suggests the latter to me.
But, in spite of that, I think real reassement will go on and that’s reason enough to hope.
Bob Nunz: I’m not spinning – just expressing my opinion. I followed the example of the great General George C. Marshall and chose not to participate in the election via either monetary contributions nor by voting – I had no dog in this one.