Moral Values and the Election
October 27, 2006, 4:45 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
The presdient is using the New Jersey Supreme Court decision giving state constitutional protection to same sex couples as an attempt to rally family values voters to the polls. Is it going to work this time, or are the war, torture, gas prices, corruption in the government, etc. going to eclipse gay marriage (and abortion) in the minds of most voters? What do you think?
George Bush’s quick comments on the New Jersey judicial decision will rally some Americans to forget the Iraq quandary and vote for him. 1) Gay marriage is a strong concern among some voters. 2) Only Jim Lehrer on PBS names and honors on a regular basis each soldier killed in Iraq. And we know that PBS is not our team. So let’s vote for the team that fights a real issue, gay marriage.
Joe
Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people all the time….
It will not work this time. The question is how badly will the gop go down. If Kean loses in NJ, then defeat will be total.
Polls seems to indicate that many people would like to vote against Bush. His tolerance of reckless spending by the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans and his stubborn perseverance in the mismanagement of the Iraq affair make him an attractive target. Unfortunately he is not up for re-election. The scandals in the House seem to make it likely that the Democrats will win control there. The Democrats seem also to have a good chance to win in the Senate, but narrowly and given the way the Senate works they will need to be nice to Joe Lieberman. The loss of the Senate, should it eventuate, will be down to annoyance with Bush.
No one would ever mistake any quality that Bush has for moral leadership. It will be interesting to see what he vetoes in the next two years and what he does not. I suspect the future will be no prettier than the past.
In my rural county, which is overwhelmingly Republican and full of people losing their jobs and having to make do with self-employment, the overriding issues are health care, health care and health care.
During the last presidential election, people in my parish, also overwhelmingly Republican, said they were firmly against the war but felt they had to vote for Bush b/c of his stand on abortion.
I also hear from insiders in the local GOP that meetings have become somewhat ugly, with hard-core Bush supporters on one hand and moderates on the other.
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow in particular has garnered support for ex-military people, and she seems to be one who will get crossovers from Republicans. You won’t see signs for her in yards, but you don’t see signs for her opponent, either.
What I find interesting is listening to people talk about the upcoming presidential race.
I hear many Democrats say they would vote for John McCain over Hillary Clinton. And many Republicans say they would consider voting for Barak Obama if the Republicans don’t offer a major leadership change.
As a Democrat mostly (I will split my ticket again this year), I continue to be depressed about the lack of solid Democratic candidates. Obama gives a great speech, but so does Mario Cuomo, and great speeches do not make a viable political candidate.
Too many evangelicals are turne off. The politics are clearer now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/washington/28belief.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1162055506-PUppc+Z7gvyUgSukWg9jJg
At the bishop’s conference in Baltimore beginning November 13, the Bishops will consider a document on Eucharistic reception. Therein, Catholics who do not follow “the definite” moral teachings of the Church are asked not to receive. I can feel the screws tightening, even if this is after the election.
I can also hear all kinds of debate here on moral teaching on war, capital punishmen t and the usual.
GWB’s gay marriage speech was politics as usual.
I think it’s the case that there’s a wave out there, not pro-democrat, but anti-republican driven by disgust at a war considered unjust to begin with and a quagmire now, and also a vaneer of good old boys, scratch each other’s back by the party controlling executive and legislative branch.
But, Robert, aren’t we NOW supposed to abstain if our actions are at odds with Church teaching?
I don’t know about other Catholics, but my m.o. has always been to abstain if I wasn’t sure, at least until I’d sorted things out with the priest.
Is this document of reception something new?
Details or a link?
Jean,
Practically 2/3 of Catholics or more disagree with Rome and practice birth control. Rome and most of the bishops say that we can sort this out in the “internal forum.”
Which is another way of saying that Rome does not know what she is talking about.
On that basis very few married couples would be receiving.
Of course celibates have no problem at all.
While we are on moral values, how about these compelling words on the Iraq war justification from Linker’s book on Neuhaus’ theocons.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43576/
Quite disturbing.
War, torture, corruption. Aren’t these real political issues that political decisions (such as who to vote for) should be based on?
What part of gay marriage legislation might force a Catholic priest to conduct a sacremental marriage for a homosexual couple? It does not interfere with our religious rights, so why should a voting decision be based on it?How does the legality of abortion affect your right to believe that it is morally wrong and to therefore abstain from seeking an abortion?
I hope that voters use their vote responsibly and make decisions based on real issues with the goal of improving the lives of as many as possible.
I think that it’s hard to sustain the same level of fear as successive states ratify the right of gays to receive equal marital/civil union rights, particularly to motivate those who are on the fence or generally too apathetic to vote, even if they had things their way they could outlaw the specter of gay marriage. Those who were not motivated by the Vermont or Massachusetts decisions will not be motivated by this one. Those who were already motivated to vote based on this issue were presumably already motivated to vote before the decision. Those who might be motivated to vote will perhaps remember that the Republican majority in the House and Senate had the chance earlier this year to vote for a constitutional amendment that would essentially confer a federal definition of marriage that could not be overridden by states, and that would supersede contrary judicial decisions in New Jersey and elsewhere, and somehow, could not find the will to do so.
At the end of the day, I don’t think gay marriage has the staying power of abortion as an issue.
Also, the demonization of gays is bad for the future of the Republican Party. A great many of those who are 25 and under are deeply turned off by it.
I think more and more people are seeing the gay marriage issue as just a ploy for the Bushies and their Capitol Hill allies to retain political control.
Regarding following one’s conscience vs. obeying official Church teaching on moral issues, even the CCC acknowledges in one paragraph that a person must ultimately follow his/her conscience — even if it is wrong. In another paragraph, the CCC acknowledges that following an erroneous conscience is not necessarily wrong. Given this possible quandary, who’s to say? I say no one except the individual in his/her relationship with God who can read the human heart like no one else. Would Jesus really refuse to see a sinner? Of course not. Does it stand to reason, then, that Jesus would refuse to receive a person who believes in good faith — after studying the official Catholic position on abortion, for example, that it is not always a sin? Of course not.
Regarding the upcoming bishops’ meeting, if they approve a document asking people who do not accept “the definite” moral teachings of the Church to refrain from receiving communion, so be it. It would amount to no more than a request and would not affect the official position of the Church in the CCC about the ultimate supremacy of conscience. In light of the Church’s tax exempt status in the United States, the bishops dare not tell such people they must not receive communion, “recant,” and/or confess their supposed sin in the confessional — unless, of course, they want to risk revocation of their non-profit status from Uncle Sam. Thank God we live in a free country not controlled by the Church!
I found this essay helpful in thinking about the use and abuse of “conscience” in Catholic moral teaching.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0505/articles/pell.html
The “family voters” who might be rallied to the polls by the threat of a gay marriage/ civil union legislative decision would presumably be willing to give other items (war, torture, corruption, incompetence) less weight in their assessment of candidates. I imagine such people exist, and vote, but there must be fewer of them each day. The tide is clearly running against them. And the hyping of this particular issue right now seems desperate and hysterical, like the nasty ad campaigns on which so much money is currently being wasted.
Jean, what about the role of conscience> And what does “definite” moral teaching mean -do they mean “authentic”. viz. whatever Rome says today?
In the long run, we all follow our conscience trying to deal as best we can with the complexities (desopite those who think by the book is the way.)
I agree strongly that SSM issue is a political ploy that some will just repeat that, because the Church opposes, is a major issue and one quite determantive in how one votes. That view strikes me as unusally purblind to the major issues touching the folks of this Republic’s lives!
George Cardinal Pell of Australia. What more can one say?
I prefer Ratzinger’s view of the conscience, to wit, that only the pope knows for certain what we should believe in the moral sphere.
Either way, I’ll listen but not kowtow. If I agree with the good cardinal of the Church or with the current pope, it will be as equals, not as a moral peon.
But, of course, one could expect “mlj” to see one’s salvation in moral kowtowing to churchmen on high who “know better.”
If life were only that simple — as in black and white :)
Joe:
I guess that means that I get to disagree with the “churchmen” about the morality of the Iraq war, torture, and the death penalty.
Robert writes: Jean, what about the role of conscience> And what does “definite” moral teaching mean -do they mean “authentic”. viz. whatever Rome says today?
In the long run, we all follow our conscience trying to deal as best we can with the complexities (desopite those who think by the book is the way.)
Jean says: Robert, I think we are on the same page here. I don’t know what “definitive” teaching is either. And I don’t reject the role of conscience. It’s one of those faculties that improves with use.
I’m just saying I don’t see a problem with encouraging people to use their consciences more, and to refrain from taking Communion until they’ve talked with the priest or made an honest confession.
Good show, Joe! Non serviam!
Bob says: “I guess that means that I get to disagree with the ‘churchmen’ about the morality of the Iraq war, torture, and the death penalty.”
And Joe says: “Yes, unless you discover at some point more convincing arguments to the contrary.”
I believe God is with us on our life’s journey. We encounter all kinds and stripes of “teachers” along the way. If we are lucky, we increasingly discover truth. Otherwise, we get mired. Perhaps only God knows for sure. Thus, we must always be ready to listen and to evaluate new information/argumentation from various sources including the Church. Ultimately, God wants us to decide as best we can. If God did not want us to decide, so much for the role of conscience.
The Church informs. We decide. If we agree with the official line, we both may be right — or wrong. Church leaders have been wrong before.
Good Blog. Here’s a question that’s been bothering me for a time. The issue is best stated as a couple of questions of whether one’s conscience is supreme. And I want to assure everyone that I’m NOT trying to be a smartass; its just that these questions, to me, best illustrates the dilemma:
Is the conscience of a satanist supreme? Or better yet, suppose that “still, small voice” tells one to kill a person? Is the conscience supreme? Does the conscience swamp out all other considerations? And if not, why not?
It’s hardly an adequate answer to Mr. Schwartz’s question, but I find it useful to think of conscience as imposing obligations on us as well as privileges. Also as something that needs to be formed in some sort of dialogue with the larger community.
If the “still, small voice” were telling me to kill I’d best talk to my wife, a friend, or the parish priest (not an exhaustive list) before I pulled the trigger.
Dom Christopher Butler is one of the less remembered bright lights of Vatican II. He was famous for his explication and defense of conscience, notably in the matter of “Humanae Vitae.” Such honestly may have cost him a red hat. He is reputed to have written on conscience even more extensively than J. H. Newman.
For more about him see the October 14th issue of The Tablet and http://vatican2voice.org/index.asp
Bob,
I would think the “conscience” of satanist isn’t conscience in the Catholic sense. Conscience is not just what I think I want to do or that I think is right, which is influenced by my passions and can be influenced by satan as well. Conscience is the interior voice that prompts us to do the Good, and speaks Truth in the face of those passions and other influences. It isn’t something we create – it comes from without – it’s a seed planted by God that we have to nurture.
The most corrupting thing in the church, even tho it maintained discipline, is the command under obedience. Can someone show if Jesus, even distantly, ever made a big thing about this.
Conscience was right over Augustine and the Donatists. “Force them to come in.”
Conscience was right over the crusades.
Conscience was right with Luther over the indulgences and other abuses.
Conscience was right with Galileo and Copernicus,
On the Chinese Rites issue.
Conscience says that Romere should be canonized over Pius IX, or JPII.
It is ridiculous to opine a killer or rapist as having a conscience. That is a sickness and delusion, not conscience.