How Catholics Should Vote

The Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput tells us that Joe Biden should not present himself for communion, and that Barack Obama is the most pro abortion candidate since Roe v Wade was first decided. What are we to make of such a statement. Well, he's the Archbishop so I guess the discussion is over, and he has settled the issue if not for all Catholics at least for all Denver Catholics.

The one redeeming feature of the Archbishop's comments is that he says he is making the statement as a private citizen and not as the head of the Archdiocese. The problem of course is that he is not a private citizen, and his remarks are taken by many as the official words of the infallible church in action. Just as General Colin Powell cannot be misconstrued as a private citizen when he crosses party lines to support Barack Obama for president, so the head of a major Archdiocese making a statement is not the same as a statement coming from 'Joe the Plumber'.

Yet, we also saw Barack Obama and John McCain enjoying dinner together with Cardinal Egan of New York the other evening. They had both been invited to the traditional Al Smith dinner, and both candidates were warmly received by the New York Archbishop and Cardinal. Cardinal Egan had many positive things to say about both candidates. Nothing occurred which would have intimated that it was O.K. to vote for one of the candidates but not the other. If anything, as an event recognizing the famous Democratic governor of New York, the assumption was that there were a lot of Democrats there, both clerical and non-clerical. So who is more important, the New York Cardinal or the Denver archbishop?

Additionally, in a September 18 article in the National Catholic Reporter, Archbishop John Favalora of Miami is indicated as having said that the Church can not be compared to a "party boss" and will not tell people how to vote. These comments were made in the process of rejecting a consortium of conservative Christian ministries to directly promote certain candidates who espouse specific scriptural values. The Archbishop points out that there are many ways to interpret scripture, and he also acknowledges the importance of the constitutional separation of Church and State as it relates to maintaining the Church's tax exemption.

The different voices within the Church might suggest to some that we need to develop in this country a uniform set of rules for what is acceptable in the political arena. I would submit, however, that we need to do precisely the opposite. What is demonstrated here is how tricky it is for a religious leader to insert themselves into a political discussion. Political decisions need to be made by politicians and the voters, not clerics. As the Archbishop of Miami noted, the Church should appropriately state its positions on moral issues, but it must be remembered that having a moral position on an issue is not the same as translating ones point of view into a political or legal policy. Clearly one cannot simply adhere to one specific religious leaders' comments as normative without personal reflection. We live in a world and a country where we are called individually to discern what the best course of action may be, and as Archbishop Favalora says, it is not up to the Church to determine how Catholics vote.

Let's look at the circumstance of the 2008 election. Suppose we reject a candidate who could help solve our economic crisis because of his position on abortion. We also reject a candidate who could help solve the energy crisis, the health care crisis, and who could lead America positively through the many foreign policy crises we face. Of course we don't know if any candidate can do any or all of these things, but isn't that exactly what each voter must decide for themselves? When a religious leader determines what issue should decide the campaign and how voters should vote on this issue, they demonstrate their lack of understanding of democracy and how our government operates. If nothing else, Archbisop Chaput has demonstrated what not to do.

Embracing one issue politics regarding abortion suggests that there is no other issue besides abortion worthy of consideration. This is a distortion of the 2000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church. It demonstrates that those religious leaders who promote such a position are fixated on the topic of abortion, but it does not mean that the Church itself shares this fixation. The Church is involved all over the world in many critical issues for its members and for non-members alike. Such issues include war, peace, poverty etc. These issues matter. To say that none of these issues should influence one's vote in an election in the United States of America, demeans the importance and the critical role that our country as well as the Vatican play in the affairs of the world. When you compare these matters with the limited influence the President of the United States will have on this country's abortion policy, the one issue voter seems foolish or naive.