Joseph Pecar
Catholic Bishops - - please stand up and be counted
By Joseph Pecar
The Introduction to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's (USCCB's) Faithful Citizenship document says that it "Highlights the role of the Church in the formation of conscience" and "With this foundation, Catholics are better able to evaluate policy positions, party platforms, and candidates' promises and actions in light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church in order to help build a better world." Two pages later in a section titled, "Who in the Church should participate in political life," the document continues, "Participation in political life is a moral obligation" and as Catholics "We are all called to bring together our principles and our political choices, our values and our votes, to help build a better world."
Clearly, the principal, and perhaps for the vast majority of lay Catholics, the only way in which they can participate in political life is by casting their votes. Consequently, for the majority of the laity, the principal use for Faithful Citizenship should be as guidance to form our Catholic consciences so that when a matter of grave moral consequence depends on our vote, our vote reflects the light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church.
When grave moral issues are at stake, the idiomatic phrase "help build a better world" translates into (1) voting to eliminate existing morally-evil policies, programs, and officials that condone or promote them, or (2) voting to prevent morally-evil policies, programs, and officials that condone or promote them from occurring in the future as a result of an election.
That said, I have poured over Faithful Citizenship, and I think even your Excellencies who wrote and approved the document would agree that it is so nuanced that when moral issues are at stake, expecting the laity to use it as a basis for making voting judgments in a specific election is simply hopeless.
What this means is that since virtually the only way that "Joe the layman" can participate politically is by his vote, using Faithful Citizenship is of little or no use at all. Perhaps, as the sole "guide" available in many dioceses, it makes things worse.
Why? Because it opens the door to making voters believe they can vote for infanticide/abortion promoters, based on what they perceive as two "loopholes" in the document. First, Faithful Citizenship states that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of infanticide, abortion, racism etc., so long as (1) they do not intend to support that position (paragraph 34), or (2) there are offsetting "morally grave reasons" (paragraph 35).
For this election, the urgency of clarifying Faithful Citizenship statements is simply that we can now be certain that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-infanticide and pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, will drastically increase the number of deaths resulting from abortion and infanticide committed against abortion survivors. Moreover, it appears as if there are more than enough Catholic votes to prevent Obama from carrying out his promise to Planned Parenthood that his first priority as president would be to pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) — an act that invalidates all state and federal laws on against abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws.
FOCA also eliminates freedom of conscience laws restricting government funding of abortion. It is designed to increase abortions to the financial benefit of the abortion industry ($1B per year), population control, and eugenics ideologues. Attacks of such magnitude on human life will surely undermine our freedoms and society as in past civilizations.
With respect to infanticide, in 2001 Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against SB1094 and 1095 — bills to provide mandatory medical care for abortion survivors. Clearly, Obama is the most radical of all pro-infanticide/abortion partisans. (More details on Obama's infanticide support are found in "The Obama Debate Every American Should See" by Terrence P. Jeffrey, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28926 )
While there may be some disagreement in the order or validity of lower level issues, there should be complete agreement that infanticide/abortion are always at the top of the list because they are always unarguably heinously evil. If that is accepted as true, then as a matter of grave moral conscience, practicing Catholics, other devout Christians/Evangelicals, and devout Jews must not vote for Barack Obama, unless as Faithful Citizenship proclaims, John McCain also supports infanticide and abortion on demand.
But as for the November 4, 2008 election, this is clearly not the case. In stark contrast to Obama's pro-infanticide and pro-abortion stance, I am sure that you know that John McCain reaffirmed at the Saddleback Forum that life begins at conception and has otherwise professed his support for the culture of life.
The tragedy is that despite the fact your Excellencies expected the proclamation of Faithful Citizenship to promote voting decisions that are morally correct and in accordance with the light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church, polls indicate that Catholic voters are more likely to call themselves "pro-choice" (53 percent) than "pro-life" (45 percent).
What is it that might turn this malevolent result around? Certainly what would help and what would be relatively easy to try is to get an unambiguous indication from you Bishops, as Successors to the Apostles, that for this election, it would be a matter of grave moral turpitude for a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama. Since there is no time to write another statement, or even to arrive at a formal consensus among all the Bishops, here is a suggestion.
Assuming that all of the Bishops are going to exercise their patriotic duty and vote, and knowing that 25 percent of the Bishops already have indicated they will be voting for McCain by having openly expressed their moral convictions for rejecting Obama, why not simply ask each Bishop to forego their constitutional right of voting privacy and make public the presidential candidate they intend to vote for?
This would not require a hurried production of a new document. It would not require obtaining a consensus among Bishops. And yes, some Bishops may essentially "vote present" by refusing to make their voting intensions known. But if the Bishops would support an accelerated public disclosure of their voting intentions, then we could all pray to the Lord that a large majority of them would reveal their rejection of the world's most prominent supporter of Infanticide and Abortion. And that would be a non-nuanced, perspicuous moral lesson from the Bishops that all of the faithful could not misinterpret. Moreover, if the Bishops simply reveal their voting preference in a simple list without comment, there should be no basis for attacking the Church's tax-exempt status.
The tally of Bishops' votes could easily be presented on USCCB's Internet site, and most likely dozens of other sites would happily volunteer to host such a site or simply be linked to and replicate the results.
It is my fervent prayer to the Blessed Mother Mary, patroness of this once great country, to inspire all the Bishops to if necessary act on their own, and support the disclosure of their voting intentions in a timely fashion — in time to affect the November 4 election.
© Joseph Pecar
The Introduction to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's (USCCB's) Faithful Citizenship document says that it "Highlights the role of the Church in the formation of conscience" and "With this foundation, Catholics are better able to evaluate policy positions, party platforms, and candidates' promises and actions in light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church in order to help build a better world." Two pages later in a section titled, "Who in the Church should participate in political life," the document continues, "Participation in political life is a moral obligation" and as Catholics "We are all called to bring together our principles and our political choices, our values and our votes, to help build a better world."
Clearly, the principal, and perhaps for the vast majority of lay Catholics, the only way in which they can participate in political life is by casting their votes. Consequently, for the majority of the laity, the principal use for Faithful Citizenship should be as guidance to form our Catholic consciences so that when a matter of grave moral consequence depends on our vote, our vote reflects the light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church.
When grave moral issues are at stake, the idiomatic phrase "help build a better world" translates into (1) voting to eliminate existing morally-evil policies, programs, and officials that condone or promote them, or (2) voting to prevent morally-evil policies, programs, and officials that condone or promote them from occurring in the future as a result of an election.
That said, I have poured over Faithful Citizenship, and I think even your Excellencies who wrote and approved the document would agree that it is so nuanced that when moral issues are at stake, expecting the laity to use it as a basis for making voting judgments in a specific election is simply hopeless.
What this means is that since virtually the only way that "Joe the layman" can participate politically is by his vote, using Faithful Citizenship is of little or no use at all. Perhaps, as the sole "guide" available in many dioceses, it makes things worse.
Why? Because it opens the door to making voters believe they can vote for infanticide/abortion promoters, based on what they perceive as two "loopholes" in the document. First, Faithful Citizenship states that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of infanticide, abortion, racism etc., so long as (1) they do not intend to support that position (paragraph 34), or (2) there are offsetting "morally grave reasons" (paragraph 35).
For this election, the urgency of clarifying Faithful Citizenship statements is simply that we can now be certain that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-infanticide and pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, will drastically increase the number of deaths resulting from abortion and infanticide committed against abortion survivors. Moreover, it appears as if there are more than enough Catholic votes to prevent Obama from carrying out his promise to Planned Parenthood that his first priority as president would be to pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) — an act that invalidates all state and federal laws on against abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws.
FOCA also eliminates freedom of conscience laws restricting government funding of abortion. It is designed to increase abortions to the financial benefit of the abortion industry ($1B per year), population control, and eugenics ideologues. Attacks of such magnitude on human life will surely undermine our freedoms and society as in past civilizations.
With respect to infanticide, in 2001 Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against SB1094 and 1095 — bills to provide mandatory medical care for abortion survivors. Clearly, Obama is the most radical of all pro-infanticide/abortion partisans. (More details on Obama's infanticide support are found in "The Obama Debate Every American Should See" by Terrence P. Jeffrey, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28926 )
While there may be some disagreement in the order or validity of lower level issues, there should be complete agreement that infanticide/abortion are always at the top of the list because they are always unarguably heinously evil. If that is accepted as true, then as a matter of grave moral conscience, practicing Catholics, other devout Christians/Evangelicals, and devout Jews must not vote for Barack Obama, unless as Faithful Citizenship proclaims, John McCain also supports infanticide and abortion on demand.
But as for the November 4, 2008 election, this is clearly not the case. In stark contrast to Obama's pro-infanticide and pro-abortion stance, I am sure that you know that John McCain reaffirmed at the Saddleback Forum that life begins at conception and has otherwise professed his support for the culture of life.
The tragedy is that despite the fact your Excellencies expected the proclamation of Faithful Citizenship to promote voting decisions that are morally correct and in accordance with the light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church, polls indicate that Catholic voters are more likely to call themselves "pro-choice" (53 percent) than "pro-life" (45 percent).
What is it that might turn this malevolent result around? Certainly what would help and what would be relatively easy to try is to get an unambiguous indication from you Bishops, as Successors to the Apostles, that for this election, it would be a matter of grave moral turpitude for a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama. Since there is no time to write another statement, or even to arrive at a formal consensus among all the Bishops, here is a suggestion.
Assuming that all of the Bishops are going to exercise their patriotic duty and vote, and knowing that 25 percent of the Bishops already have indicated they will be voting for McCain by having openly expressed their moral convictions for rejecting Obama, why not simply ask each Bishop to forego their constitutional right of voting privacy and make public the presidential candidate they intend to vote for?
This would not require a hurried production of a new document. It would not require obtaining a consensus among Bishops. And yes, some Bishops may essentially "vote present" by refusing to make their voting intensions known. But if the Bishops would support an accelerated public disclosure of their voting intentions, then we could all pray to the Lord that a large majority of them would reveal their rejection of the world's most prominent supporter of Infanticide and Abortion. And that would be a non-nuanced, perspicuous moral lesson from the Bishops that all of the faithful could not misinterpret. Moreover, if the Bishops simply reveal their voting preference in a simple list without comment, there should be no basis for attacking the Church's tax-exempt status.
The tally of Bishops' votes could easily be presented on USCCB's Internet site, and most likely dozens of other sites would happily volunteer to host such a site or simply be linked to and replicate the results.
It is my fervent prayer to the Blessed Mother Mary, patroness of this once great country, to inspire all the Bishops to if necessary act on their own, and support the disclosure of their voting intentions in a timely fashion — in time to affect the November 4 election.
© Joseph Pecar
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
