Refuse to Choose
I was quite struck by John Allen's column this past Friday on the election about the political disenfranchising of so many Catholics in this country because the platforms of both parties make us feel that we must always choose between the lesser of two evils. I, for one, certainly fall into that camp. Here's Allen:
"Here's a thought exercise: In the abstract, what would the political fortunes be in America of a candidate who actually embodied the full range of Catholic social concerns? What would happen if a serious candidate came along who's pro-life, pro-family, anti-war, pro-immigrant, anti-death penalty, pro-sustainable development, and a multi-lateralist in foreign policy concerned with religious freedom and a robust role for believers in public life? My hunch is that such a candidate could be attractive to a broad cross-section of moderates and independents. The machinery of both major parties, however, appears almost designed to prevent such a person from ever being nominated.
After Nov. 4, Catholics on the winning side will start scrambling for various forms of access and patronage from the new administration, while those who backed the loser will start organizing the opposition. In other words, both the victors and the vanquished in American politics know exactly what to do once the smoke from battle clears.
For disenfranchised Catholics, the road ahead is far less clear. For what it's worth, my own reading is that it's no use trying an end-run around the two-party system. If a holistic Catholic sensibility is ever going to cut ice in American politics, it will have to come from one of the two parties being hijacked from within -- the way Reagan moved the goalposts for the Republicans, or Clinton for the Democrats. (Or, if you prefer an overseas example, the way that Blair built "New Labour.")
In that light, it would be an interesting experiment if a network of Catholic policy groups, activists, and intellectuals were to take shape once election season is over, devoted to laying the groundwork for influencing both parties from within. I'm talking not just about making compelling arguments, but doing the hard nuts-and-bolts work of political organizing, including identifying potential candidates and making them battle-ready.
All that would, of course, require time, money, and expertise, and I'm not sure where any of it might come from. In the absence of such an effort, however, many of the best and brightest in American Catholicism are doomed to feel perpetually alienated, forever choosing between the lesser of two evils. While no political system is ever perfect, the question these Catholics are asking is: Can't we do better than this?"
What Allen describes above could only be done by a generation of exceedingly sharp, tough, well-formed, well-networked, and politically creative lay Catholics who can see and move beyond the old shibboleths of liberal and conservative politics in this country. Lay Catholics who are willing to forgo the immediate rewards of the existing system in order to force the parties to change in a direction that supports life across the board. Who recognize that a true culture of life cannot be built in this country without the significant participation of both parties.
Now that would be a work worthy of our most gifted and gutsy people, who simply refuse to sell out.
In the mid 90's, when the Seattle Mariners won, miraculously, their first chance to be in the play-offs - the fan mantra was "Refuse to Lose".*
What if American Catholics simply "refused to choose" between life issues? We are the biggest single religious bloc by far - the 70 million strong political gorilla - and there are many other Christians and people of faith and good will who would be intrigued by and follow our lead. Neither party can win or govern without substantial Catholic support and participation. Why are we behaving as though we simply have to accept the stark, mutually exclusive, alternatives that the current party system spits out at us?
What if we simply Refused to Choose?
*For the baseball-inclined, here"s the rest of the story:
1995: "Refuse to Lose"
1995 was the season that saved baseball in Seattle. Capping a miraculous September surge that saw them end the season tied with Anaheim, the Mariners earned the first post-season berth in franchise history by thumping the Angels in a one-game playoff at the Kingdome. After dropping the opening two stanzas of their five-game ALDS matchup with the Yankees, the Mariners pulled off three straight dramatic wins. In the classic Game Five the M's rallied from an early deficit against Yanks starter David Cone to force extra innings before Martinez brought them back one last time on a two-run 11th inning double, inspiring pandemonium at the Kingdome. Seattle eventually succumbed to a heavily favored Cleveland juggernaut in the League Championship series, but not before throwing a scare into the Indians by extending them to six hard-fought games.

16 Comments:
This is all well and good except for a simple fact. We can debate how to solve lots of problems. You don;t need to have the perfect candidate for everything. That is absurd. We can be pro and anti- a lot of things but three can be political and practical considerations for many things. There can be no support however for the murder of the innocent unborn, for euthansia and for embryonic stem cell research. One can be a good Catholic and debate about a given war.
You might say that one could legitimately debate a strategy for ending or limiting abortion. Perhaps taht is true but one CANNO support an official who feels that murdering babies born and just born is a consitutional right tha must be protected. If Catholics would stand together on the life issues we could then work to solve al the others. I will not sell my birthright for a bowl of porridge which is what the pro-Obama Catholics are doing.
The sad truth is that there is no "Catholic vote" any more. Most self-identified Catholics don't regularly go to Sunday Mass. "Catholic" has become more of a ethnic/cultural label than anything else. We are not 70 million votes; regular church-going Catholics--the only ones who should claim the title of "Catholic"--are probably 17-18 million. It's time to forget the "Catholic vote" and deal with how to win over ordinary Americans, who are mostly relativists, and that is not going to be easy. Emphasizing the health aspects of social problems may be about the only way to reach them (e.g., the devastating effects of abortion on many women).
Jim Cole
For something else thought provoking check out Alasdair MacIntyre's piece on voting here: http://ethicscenter.nd.edu/archives/macintyre.shtml
This is the route I took in 2004, but don't intend to this year because this time around I see no proportionate reason not to support the only pro-life major party candidate.
I think however, the fundamental issue is that Catholics cannot speak intelligently to any effect in the public square anymore. This is not because of how we have moved or because of ideologies alone, but because the culture has abandoned a philosophical system that makes moral and political discourse unintelligible. Its just yelling and since we have the truth (about life, natural law, etc) I don't think we should just yell louder to be heard while seeking political solutions, but should retreat to our communities and embody the truth in them (caring for children, the sick elderly, the poor, etc). Taking that route might mean we can preserve those truths and the tradition of virtue and excellence for some day in the future when they (and we) can reemerge in the public square and reclaim a role in a tired, fragmented, and barbaric world. Of course, this is the path of the Benedictines after the fall of Rome and it worked, but it presupposes conversion and evangelization as well as communities of virtue.
Obviously, I am indebted to MacIntyre's thesis in After Virtue for what I have written above and would encourage y'all to read it if you get the chance. It'll clear up your thinking on the contemporary moral and political malaise in a hurry!
Why not have a "none of the above" option on the ballot? We really need to get this.
Questions about Allen's list:
--"Pro-sustainable development"? What does this mean? In the developed world or developing nations?
-"Pro-immigrant"? Depends on what you mean by those terms. The laity were not at all behind the USCCB position.
-"Pro-multi-lateralist"? Is that necessary for a Catholic approach to government? Would the Church have the US defer to the UN in all things? The Church does respect national sovereignty.
--
I'm not necessarily opposed to a Catholic party, but I don't know that all Catholics would agree on these or other points. We do have prudential judgment on many such matters. So, it's not going to be that easy.
Sherry,
In 2003 or 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger presented "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." I realize it's not a magisterial document. But it's worth reading anyway. Here are his points:
1) The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
2) Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
Based on this ordered hierarchy, it's not clear to me what you mean by Catholics on both sides being ideologues.
Steven Florent
Fr. Peter is right: if one reads "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" it is clear beyond any doubt that cleaving to pro-abortion policies is a deal breaker, while there are prudential issues on which Catholics may and do disagree, including war. It's not going against Catholic teaching to differ on prudential issues.
Sherry,
I realize there are many Catholics who don't fit into the categories I mentioned. I wasn't providing an exhaustive list. And I realize that neocon Catholics and Commonweal Catholics are ideologues. But I think you should realize that where neocon and Commonweal Catholics converge is that they DO embrace political ideologies as the solutions, although these ideologies obviously differ.
But you should also realize that if you're going to live in a pluralistic society, the political option is often going to be more compelling than the religious one because that's the only way one can get any traction in society. Your notion that "serious Catholics" aren't ideologues can be carried down to the level of identifying anyone who votes for a particular party, you know. If, to be a "serious Catholic," I have to either abstain from voting, or go third party, etc., then I say why not go full out for a Catholic party? That is, if you're a serious Catholic. Fr. Aidan Nichols (England) wants a resurgence of the monarchy, he's so disillusioned with the way representatives democracies have behaved (Cf. Christendom-Awake).
Of course, you do realize that refusing to choose, at least initially, will simply leave us out of the equation. And what precisely are we "refusing to choose" between or among? Again, there is a hierarchy here, not simply a variety of "goods" or items.
Steven Florent
None of the categories listed, even pro-life, are going to end all disagreements about when, where, who, how these very general goals are best pursued and achieved in a real world.
None of the categories eliminates the need for prudential judgement.
But we wouldn't be faced with a choice between candidates who *both* clearly oppose large but different parts of the Church's teaching.
Fr. Peter:
The candidate that John Allen described was explicitly "pro-life" which I certainly take to mean someone who would not publicly support abortion and infanticide, much less as a constitutional right.
If not, that would be a deal-breaker as far as I and most others who would be interested in this possibility, are concerned. We are certainly not talking about perfect but candidates who are relatively good across the spectrum of really important issues.
The point is: can we use our enormous size, and communal political clout to change the system so that we aren't faced with torturously gauging and then supporting the lesser of intrinsic evils every single election year ?
Can we be pro-active for a change and begin to shape the political agenda *for good* rather than simply react to or bewail the bad options set before us?
What would happen if a serious candidate came along who's pro-life, pro-family, anti-war, pro-immigrant, anti-death penalty, pro-sustainable development, and a multi-lateralist in foreign policy concerned with religious freedom and a robust role for believers in public life? My hunch is that such a candidate could be attractive to a broad cross-section of moderates and independents."
You mean someone like Sen. Brownback? (He doesn't fit the bill exactly, but he's the closest thing we've seen to it from a major party candidate in a long time.)
Yeah, he did REAL well, didn't he? Catholics really rallied to his cause, didn't they?
Steven:
There are also alot of Catholics who don't fit well into any of the categories you mentioned above (like me and Susan Stabile who commented above - I think) who are very seriously attempting to think with the Church across the spectrum.
And there are Catholics who would basically identify with one of the groups that you mention above but who would gladly embrace political options that didn't set one critical part of the Church's teaching against another.
The ideologues on all sides won't be interested, that's true. But most serious Catholics aren't ideologues.
I second the bravo.
One suggestion is to encourage Catholics to immediately work for change in the party they hold their nose and vote for rather than waiting for the next election cycle. -
-Faustina
Steve:
We aren't talking about the same thing at all.
The creation of a culture of life is much larger than (but would include) the issue of whether or not someone can receive communion. And I'm talking about the larger context.
For a careful and nuanced view of the theological issues by a couple of completely orthodox, world class experts, look again at something I've posted here before:
Voting, Intrinsic Evil, and the Development of Doctrine
http://blog.siena.org/2007/11/voting-intrinsic-evil-and-development.html
I'm simply slammed with work this week before I have to take off for another week on the road, so I don't have time to respond further.
Bravo, Sherry. Interestingly enough, I faciliated a discussion between masses in my parish yesterday on Faithful Citizenship and voting. After many expressed their struggles over the upcoming election, the discussion naturally turned to ways we can attempt to influence politics after the election - regardless of who is elected - to try to obtain a situation where we don't have to settle for "least bad" and can attempt to secure a system where the Catholic thought is more fully reflected across the board.
This is something, of course, that will take sustained and significant effort.
There have been many Catholics who have advocated a robust, multi-party system in the US, seeing the poverty of the solutions advocated by the Republican and Democratic parties. I'm all in favor of a Catholic party, but bear in mind that Catholics themselves are extremely divided. You have the Commonweal Catholics, the neocon Catholics who are more American than Catholic, etc. Interestingly enough, it is the traditional Catholics, the ones everyone despises, who are the most consonant with Church teaching.
Steven Florent
Sherry,
I realize it's greater than the issue of receiving communion (although that encompasses the concept of whether one is or is not on board with Church teaching). And I'm looking at the larger context as well.
But you are mistaken if you think that paragraphs 44 and 45 deal with moral issues of equal consequence. They do not. Cardinal Ratzinger clearly says they are not. The right to life is a first principle of justice that binds everyone, not just Catholics. It's not some peculiarly "Catholic truth," but a truth of reason that can be known by anyone. The five moral issues that according to Church teaching are non-negotiable and are always wrong are: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic-stem-cell research, human cloning, and same-sex marriage.
Of course, torture is a moral issue and is proscribed in the Catechism (2297).
Of course, torture is a moral issue and is proscribed in the Catechism (2297). But
Obviously, there can be just or unjust wars so that is further down the moral scale. Sometimes, whether a war is just or unjust is not obvious. War, according to the Church, must be judged according to the circumstances.
I noticed Bishop Fisher's statement on the non-comparison of two "intrinsic evils." But even if a comparison had been made between abortion and torture (which are classified as intrinsically evil, along with Fornication, Lying, Calumny, Condemning an innocent person, Immorality, Idolatry,
Adultery, Sexual perversion, Theft, Greed, Drunkenness, Reviling, Robbery, Blasphemy,
Any kind of homicide, Genocide,
Abortion, Euthanasia, Voluntary suicide, Mutilation,
Torments inflicted on the body or mind, Attempts to coerce the spirit, Subhuman living conditions
Arbitrary imprisonment, Deportation, Slavery
Prostitution,
Trafficking in women and children,
Degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons), you'd still have to examine the circumstances or intent behind the actions.
In other words, abortion would still be rated at a higher level than torture.
Steven Florent
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home