By Bob Sullivan
Part III of my discussion with Deacon Omar F. A. Gutiérrez, in which we continue speaking about Catholic participation in public life:
Editor's note: See part one here; part two here; part three here.
In Layman’s Terms: Let’s say a Catholic politician with average intelligence is provided with sound Catholic theology, reliable scientific evidence, and sound reason, yet he or she continues to promote something like abortion. This hypothetical Catholic promotes abortion as a good, supports taxpayer funding for abortion, and works to increase access to abortion, while claiming to be a faithful Catholic. Would it be fair to say that this Catholic politician is acting with intentional contradiction to Church teaching, therefore demonstrating a rejection of the faith?
DG: So again, just to be careful and clear, I’d like to point out that there are various kinds of Church teaching which require different responses from a Catholic. Cardinal Ratzinger produced a helpful set of distinctions in Donum Veritatis. Not every public policy issue is a matter of divine revelation like the divinity of Christ. Therefore, it would be uncharitable to accuse a Catholic of “rejection of the faith” as though they are “apostates,” which, when it comes to public policy, is almost certainly not an accurate accusation/judgment.
Along those lines, then, we should make a further distinction between judging actions and judging intentions. Abortion and euthanasia are certainly sure matters of Church doctrine which, though not divinely revealed, flow logically from divine revelation. The Catholic you describe who consistently promotes them as goods which ought to be legal and even funded, such a Catholic would be – and I’ll use the language of the Code of Canon Law 750 paragraph 2 – rejecting “propositions which are held definitively” and would be “opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church,” doctrines that he or she is bound to “firmly embrace and retain.” Such consistent and regular opposition to defined teaching could very well be a sign of his or her rejection of the role of the Magisterium and, by extension, of divine revelation. But judging those actions is different than judging intentions, which I bring up because you use the word “intentional.”
Objectively, yes, this Catholic you describe is doing evil. However, what is in their intellect or will and so what is intentional is a different matter; and I am loathe, because of the seriousness of such a charge, to judge that they are “demonstrating a rejection of the faith.” I am also reticent to do so because Catholics are often more than willing to condemn their neighbor to hell for voting the wrong way. Just two examples are Fr. James Martin who suggested in a 2017 Tweet that Republicans were going to hell for voting for the tax bill or Fr. James Altman saying that to be a Democrat is to go to hell. Both priests violated the Lord’s clear teaching against judging souls.
Therefore, before making the jump between external actions to interior intentions that make one culpable, I would say that friends, family members, pastors ought to address such serious matters directly with this Catholic you describe, as Mathew 18:15-17 suggests, before one concludes that he or she has rejected the faith.
ILT: My last question dealt with the politician, what about the Catholic voter who votes for such a candidate over a pro-life contender? This hypothetical Catholic voter actually believes what the Church teaches about abortion (that abortion is an intrinsic evil and is wrong in every circumstance), but he or she likes other aspects of the “pro-choice” candidate’s platform (or has a severe aversion to much of the pro-life opponent’s platform), so the voter decides to vote for the “pro-choice” candidate in spite of the fact that said candidate has promised to expand access to, and funding of abortion, and is likely to follow through with efforts in that regard if elected. What does the Church say about this?
DG: What the bishops teach in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is wonderfully clear and helpful. While they say that, yes, a Catholic may in some circumstances vote for a pro-choice candidate, one may not do so if the reason they are voting for the candidate is because they are pro-choice; and, more to your point, voting for that candidate would be justifiable only for “truly grave moral reasons” and not for “partisan preferences.” (n. 35)
What would “partisan preferences” look like? Well, a Catholic’s dislike for a candidate’s personality, the way they choose to address poverty, or their policies that touch on international trade would strike me as partisan preferences since, say with poverty, there may be several prudential approaches to lowering the poverty rate.
What would count as truly grave moral reasons? The bishops say that policies which touch on intrinsic evil should carry more weight with the Catholic voter and should have “a special claim on our consciences and our actions.” (n. 37)
Therefore, by voting for a pro-choice candidate, a Catholic should ask themselves whether or not he or she is ending or ameliorating other intrinsic evils? But that’s not all. While there are other intrinsic evils apart from abortion, the bishops do say in their introductory letter to their document that abortion is still the “preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed.” This means that the “truly grave moral reasons” that could justify a vote for a pro-choice candidate must be remarkably and especially grave as they must counter the killing of the innocent millions.
ILT: Next time we’ll consider whether a Catholic can simply opt out of public life.
