By Bob Sullivan
Part V of my discussion with Deacon Omar F. A. Gutiérrez, in which we continue speaking about Catholic participation in public life.
Editor's note: See parts one, two, three, and four.
In Layman’s Terms: I find it extremely difficult to imagine a realistic scenario where a Catholic could justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life candidate. However, as voters, we are regularly presented with two or more candidates for the same office, who have different approaches to various moral issues in society. Often we have a candidate who is much more active in fighting for the lives of the unborn, running against a candidate who is either vague on abortion or who advocates for abortion, but who is much more active in fighting for the protection of immigrants, the poor, minorities, etc.
It is almost as if the stances on moral issues is orchestrated to pit a pro-life candidate against a pro-abortion candidate, where the pro-life candidate shows a record of being uncaring or at least inconsistent in his or her support of immigrants, the poor, minorities, LGBT, women, etc..., and the pro-abortion candidate looks like St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta on all issues other than abortion. That is hyperbole, but it is the image the campaigns seem to hint at. Where do we, as voters, find guidance on how to prioritize the spectrum of moral issues before us?
Deacon Gutiérrez: In the Bishops’ document on voting, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, they lay out very well how we ought to approach these questions. The first thing to say is that when we talk about being “pro-life” we do have to remember that there are many life issues.
For instance, the Catechism teaches that wealthy nations have a moral obligation to welcome immigrants whose lives are in danger. The death penalty and its abolition is obviously a life issue. Federal funding for a social safety net, is a life issue. In this sense, Cardinal Bernardin’s argument for a consistent ethic of life is exactly right. We as Catholics must be aware of and concerned about all of these life issues.
However, that said, the Church also clearly teaches, as did Cardinal Bernadin, that not all life issues carry the same moral weight. The U.S. Bishops rightly and clearly and consistently teach that when certain public policy questions involve the direct—and that’s the key word there—killing of human persons, then those public policies should be given more attention and so should weigh more heavily on our consciences. They teach that we cannot treat them as just one among other issues, equal to the other life issues. They are more important because human persons are being killed. Naturally, the preeminent issue, as the U.S. Bishops make clear, is legalized abortion.
ILT: Can a faithful Catholic be personally against abortion or same-sex “marriage,” but believe that others should have the right to such things and to receive increased legal protection for such things? In such a case, I’m thinking of someone who says they don’t want to “impose” their personal beliefs on others.
DG: The answer to this question is clearly no. This is because legalized abortion violates the objective moral order, it is intrinsically evil, and it is evil in such a way that we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to end it. As the bishops teach, until abortion is illegal, we can never achieve authentic social justice in our society.
As for “marriage,” there is a moral argument for allowing same-sex couples certain rights which are associated with marriage, for instance, visitation rights in a hospital. However, to provide such rights with the name “marriage” is to violate the objective moral order as well.
The truth is, ultimately, that the desire to refrain from “imposing” one’s beliefs on another person is a vacuous position to hold. We all impose our beliefs on each other every day. Even saying that one does not want to impose their beliefs on another person is an imposition, as it demands that a certain belief-system must be accepted by others.
ILT: I couldn’t agree more. Not only is that a ridiculous position, it is self-defeating. What about those of us who just want to throw in the towel? We are simply tired of the decline of the culture, scandals in the Church, embarrassment by conservatives who have fallen into immoral or radical behavior, and disappointment by frequent losses in the Supreme Court. Can we just check out, refuse to vote, and wait things out until the madness passes?
DG: The answer here is no. The moral obligation to participate, particularly in a representative system like ours, is an important and weighty one. The bishops do teach there can be rare or extreme situations in which not voting could be a valid option. But we cannot “check out” in the sense that we just ignore the world. We were made for community, so we must be involved in our communities.
For those whose conscience is truly troubled by sub-par candidates and cannot bring themselves to vote for either of the major parties, there is often the option of writing in a candidate. In so doing, we fulfill our moral obligation to vote and respect our conscience at the same time. This should not be called “throwing away your vote” by a fellow Catholic since the moral obligation is to vote, not win.
That said, one could argue that because our media outlets have become so corrupt and because there is so much news which is driven by and driving anxiety, it could be prudent for some to check out of the news for a time, out of social media especially, so that we can focus on family, friends, parish.
ILT: Next time, we’ll have the final column in this series.
