In the wonderful play 1776, we see our founding fathers struggling with declaring independence. One of the subtexts of the entire play is the missed opportunity to rid the country of the objective evil of slavery. The culpability of of the South and the North is captured dramatically in the song “Molasses, to rum, to slaves.”
Even though many of the delegates from the north wanted to do away with slavery, in the end doing away with slavery was not an achievable end due to the delegation from the south refusing to yield to independence if slavery was to be ended. The delegates from the north had to settle for an imperfect good. It was tough to do, but they really didn’t have a choice since the perfect good was not achievable, but a lesser good was.
In the series of votes leading up to independence, there is a running gag in the play in which each State casts its votes for or against independence. Repeatedly, until the final vote, the delegate from New York says “New York abstains … courteously.”
Many Catholics have expressed deep disappointment in the morally indefensible position of John McCain supporting embryonic stem cell research ESCR. The intrepid Jay Anderson sums up my feelings on the matter and the temptation to say “a pox on all their houses” when he wrote on his deep disappointment saying “At this point, I think I’ll take all my marbles and go home.”
Mark Shea goes much further. Mark has been espousing the position that voting for either candidate is an objectively evil act and thus Catholics must abstain from voting.
I think it is an objective evil to support a candidate who wishes to use his office to commit gravely immoral acts such as sign the Freedom of Choice Act or support stem cell research. I make no distinction between candidates who want to cannibalize babies who are big and candidates who want to cannibalize babies who are small. I think anybody voting for either candidate is committing an objective evil.
Shea allows that many think that they are doing something good if they vote for McCain and thus might escape culpability for the evil act, but an evil act it is.
Mark Shea is wrong. The teaching of the Catholic Church and the Bishops does not favor his position. I won’t get into the details here because others have already done a better job than I could ever do, notably Red Cardigan in her post “Perfect vs Good”. If you are unsure on this question, read Red’s post.
So if this argument in favor of doing nothing is not supported by Church teaching why would a good Catholic like Mark cling to such a notion. I have my suspicions on the why but first a few comments of my own.
In my mind, not voting is cooperating with an objective evil. To sit out this election is to increase the likelihood that the most radical pro-abortion, pro-ESCR candidate will be elected to the highest office in the land. You also increase that likelihood that members of a party that have these radical policies of death in their platform will remain in power in Congress.
Further, If Obama is elected, in his office he has the ability to appoint like minded pro-death jurists to the Supreme Court and thus maintain culture of death by judicial fiat for generations.
To vote for John McCain, although his defense of ESCR is morally reprehensible, increases the likelihood that jurists that will allow for the people to impose restrictions on abortion and ESCR via their State legislatures are more likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court perhaps ending the culture of death by judicial fiat sooner and thus more babies will live.
The simple sad fact is that having a president opposed to ESCR is not a possibility this time around. McCain’s support of this horror is why I could not in good faith support him in the primaries. But he is the candidate now. He is the candidate that will most likely result in eventually fewer babies dying, an objective good.
Voting for John McCain also increases the likelihood that members of a party that in its platform opposes both abortion and ESCR will be more in a position in Congress to block actions by the party of death.
There will be other elections and I will always support the available candidate who best supports objective goods and does not support objective evil. But elections are not always between our first and second choices.
Thusly, I think that sitting out the election, since it increases the likelihood of Obama and the party of death gaining power is cooperating with objective evil. Sitting out the election when real lives are on the line is cooperating with evil. I echo Mark’s statement about culpability, but it is cooperation none the less.
I think that everything that I have said thus far is fairly obvious to most and I think it is the position of most Catholics who take life issues seriously. So why would Mark Shea and others promote this contrary view in favor of abstaining?
Well, I think the answer is simple and sad. While Mark is a good Catholic and certainly takes life issues seriously he is not conservative. More to the point, he really really doesn’t like Republicans. His faith will not allow him to go the Doug Kmiec route by openly supporting Obama and the democrats, but life issues aside, I think he would really like to.
Now I don’t pretend to read Mark’s mind, but I suspect that he thinks he has found a convenient Catholic cover for his partisan politics. By sitting it out, he defacto supports Obama and the Democrats without having his hands stained with blood by pulling the lever for him. Or so he thinks.
But as I have stated, I think abstaining increases the likelihood of the culture of death succeeding for generations to come. By maintaining and promoting this false ivory tower Catholicism, he is cooperating with evil. I think Obama and the party of death would be very pleased if Mark Shea and all pro-life Catholics sat it out.
If Obama wins, more children will die. I am convinced of it. I for one cannot look those children in the eye on the day of my death when they ask me “Why did you do nothing?”
Addendum: Being Unfair to Mark Shea. Stupid speculation warrants an apology.
September 19, 2008 at 4:32 am
With Mark Shea, you really need to use a strainer.
He can write an insightful column on Monday and on Tuesday be back backing his head against a wall and waiting for his injection.
I, for one, am not going to vote, Obama, the Abortion King of America and his silver-haired sidekick from Delaware into its highest office. Mark might be excused on account of self-inflicted head injuries. God help him.
September 19, 2008 at 4:40 am
I think there’s some ego involved, as well as a desire to drive traffic to his site. IMHO.
I’m also pretty appalled by all of these untrained (formally) theologians with no pastoral experience (or political, I might add), some of them anonymous (at other blogs and in comments boxes) pontificating on what vote might or might not be an “intrinsically evil act.”
Who do these people think they are?
September 19, 2008 at 4:46 am
Of course Mark Shea is Liberal – he lives in Seattle. He’s a liberal by association. 🙂
Although the above is tongue-in-cheek, I agree with your suspicion nonetheless.
September 19, 2008 at 4:54 am
I use to like reading Mr. Shea.
Then he did some posts– I don’t even remember what they were– where his politics blinded him to a genuinely good man’s virtues. So I stopped reading.
I seldom have need to regret that choice, since the good stuff gets spread around the other sites I visit. ;^)
September 19, 2008 at 5:04 am
My high_school history teacher used to say,
“If you don’t vote, you are voting for the winner”
This is a no brainer.
Obama is the MOST LIBERAL person ever to run for president, hands down.
September 19, 2008 at 5:21 am
First of all, I think you really should read ZippyCatholic’s posts at either his personal blog or at W4. He gives much more explicit reasoning than Mark does and I think Mark would pretty clearly agree with Zippy on these matters, and I personally think Zippy is completely right – given the lack of effect any single vote has in a national election, there is simply no proportionate reason to vote for objective evil.
Second, By sitting it out, he defacto supports Obama and the Democrats without having his hands stained with blood by pulling the lever for him is simply false. I don’t see how it’s possible to claim he is supporting someone for whom he claims it’s objectively evil to vote. Maybe I’m misreading, but it sounds like you’re using the standard fallacy that the Republicans “own” (or are owed) Mark’s (or my vote), and by refusing it, he is effectively voting for Obama. But this can be reduced to absurdity in several ways, one of which is: I could easily claim that in reality, Chuck Baldwin “owns” our votes (and actually, I think you can make a better case for that than that McCain “owns” them), and by voting for McCain, you’re really helping Obama win. Again, though, maybe I misinterpreted…
September 19, 2008 at 6:12 am
In defense of Mark, I don’t buy the theory that he doesn’t like Republicans. While not completely sold, I seem to recall him standing up for Ron Paul during primary season.
One thing to be reminded when reading CAEI, Mr. Shea’s writing style tends toward the hyperbolic. His sense of humor, at least the more subtle of his jokes, tends to get lost in the medium, especially on serious topics such as voting.
I see his (and Zippy’s) points on this issue, but I tend to disagree in the final analysis. I believe a case can be made for a proportional reason to vote for McCain in this election (i.e. ESCR vs. ESCR, abortion, infanticide, and gay marriage).
September 19, 2008 at 6:14 am
I seem to remember Dr. Paul is very, VERY pro-life…. I greatly disagree with his isolationist angles on other things, but I respect that.
September 19, 2008 at 6:57 am
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Shea, in a certain respect, for several reasons. While I strongly disagree with his opinion that to vote for either candidate is to cooperate with evil, I nevertheless even more strongly support his opinion that to abstain from voting altogether is morally acceptable and perhaps even preferable.
Firstly, to vote is to participate in the democratic process, which is inherently flawed. Democracy, or at least the American brand of it which allocates an equal say to clearly unequal persons, is evil. A Catholic monarchy is obviously best, but barring that, one may wash one’s hands entirely of the political process for this reason alone.
Secondly, it is only the recent and very fallible teaching of many bishops that “voting” is a duty common to all Catholics. The Church has never taught this and She never will. In response to those who would argue 1983 CCC #2240 against my opinion, I would most definitively say that positively choosing not to vote for any candidate is indeed an exercise of the right to vote. It differs tremendously from the those who simply fail to vote through sloth or apathy. I would also note that the CCC is not infallible unless the teaching itself already enjoys infallibility. Again, this has never been the case with the “duty to vote” nor can it ever be.
Thirdly, you can most certainly rest assured that there will be several monasteries and convents favourable to Tradition across the United States that on November 4th will not permit those under cloister to break it in order to vote. This is clear to anybody who can imagine what most Traditional religious superiors think of American politics. What is to be said of these holy individuals? Are they “cooperating with an objective evil?” I think not, and to say so is possible blasphemy.
Fourthly, a tremendous respect must be paid here to the delicacy of the devout soul. Whereas some individuals are prepared in this election to choose “the lesser of two evils,” some truly delicate consciences simply could not bear to vote for McCain. This comes back to my point as to why the Church has never and could never teach that one must vote. The Church could not compel a delicate soul to act contrary to conscience when that conscience is acting in total conformity with its teaching not to cooperate in evil. While this teaching also theoretically permits of voting for McCain as the potential “lesser of two evils,” choosing not to vote is a more than legitimate understanding of the teaching not to cooperate in evil, and for the Church to force the faithful to choose between cooperating with Mr. Obama or cooperating with Mr. McCain would be hypocritical.
Lastly, trying to intimidate people to vote for McCain by introducing, contrary to the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, this reprehensible notion of a moral duty to vote is an abomination. No person should ever dare to accuse a person who conscientiously refuses to vote of “cooperating with grave evil.” Such a practice does not seek the good of neighbor or the good of the Church, but simply the perceived good of the Republican Party. If such is your belief, then indeed, vote for McCain as the “lesser of two evils.” I certainly will not be among those who condemn you for doing so. But to command the same of others under pain of sin is nothing less than to use the Church for political gain. You can draw your own conclusions as to what the penalty for that might be…
~cmpt
September 19, 2008 at 7:01 am
…Did you just claim that the democratic republic is an invalid form of government?
And, considering that the Roman Empire got a pass…did so without irony?
September 19, 2008 at 7:17 am
Patrick, I appreciate the link very much, but I don’t think you’re really being fair to Mark here. Mark hasn’t said he’s not voting or that Catholics shouldn’t vote; he’s said that he’ll vote third-party, and I firmly believe that’s a perfectly honorable thing to do even if the voter knows well his candidate could never be elected.
ZippyCatholic’s argument is a bit different, very complex, and I’m still not sure I completely understand it though I am trying to. But I really believe both men are doing what they can to keep the focus on McCain’s ESCR support, lest we all start thinking that short of personally performing abortions there’s no level of “pro-choice” we won’t accept, from our guys, *whatever* our party.
Mark is pretty bipartisan in his disgust for the prevailing two political parties and their cannibalistic shenanigans, which is as it should be; we see too many people on both sides of the aisle ready to put Party before God (and certainly before Country).
But my fear, not for Mark but for myself (since my heart is the only one I can know) is that the temptation to consider myself beyond mere party politics, to view them as a crude but amusing ritual which has no impact on my life, and to shrug over the notion that Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the Presidency while McCain seems not to know his own mind on ESCR and might quite possibly be influenced, swayed, or even bought (crass though that speculation might be) is an extremely strong one.
I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that voting for McCain always and everywhere constitutes mediate remote material cooperation with evil *and* a corresponding absence of any proportionate reason to do so. That’s where the argument starts to seem strained to the breaking-point, to me. But I’m neither trained in moral theology nor an extremely highly educated person, and I’m willing to accept that what I see as a possible error may simply be a nuance of properly-developed moral theology which is beyond my level of comprehension.
I think many people are in the same position I am: believing that the same level of proportionality exists as has existed since the first Presidential election after Roe v. Wade (or at least the first where candidates’ abortion views were known). That is, that a president’s willingness to accept various “exceptions” to abortion prohibitions isn’t significantly different in kind or degree from McCain’s rather wavering and ambiguous support of ESCR. (I still think he doesn’t really know what it is; he keeps using “frozen” as though it were synonymous with “dead.”)
In any case, extending to each other the courtesy of assuming we’re all trying to act charitably and not hide secret partisanship would be wise, I think.
September 19, 2008 at 9:23 am
IMHO, he’s right to a degree.
Voting for both McCain and Obama are intrinsically evil.
But the degree of evil is far greater on the side of Obama (ESCR, abortion, gay marriage) than on the side of McCain (ESCR)
To not stand up is to participate in heresy (or whatever act of evil you like)
I believe that we in good conscience can vote for McCain/Palin (or an argument can be made to vote for him)
There is no possible argument to be made for Obama (that is if you’re a Catholic)
I try to stay neutral in my coverage, it doesn’t always work.
September 19, 2008 at 12:04 pm
One thing you have to give McCain is he is at least willing to change his position. After doing an internet search using McCain and ESCR I found several articles claiiming McCain has “softened” his stance on ESCR and has been influenced by Sam Brownback on the issue.
American Papist has a great post on this with links to Deal Hudson’s article.
I’m willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt and believe he will eventually come around to eschewing ESCR altogether.
September 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You state you can’t read Shea’s mind; do you read Shea’s blog on a regular basis? If you do, how can you even suggest he’d like to vote Dem deep down?
I disagree with Mark on this; I’m probably going to vote for McCain, more to vote against Obama and for Palin.
This is quite possibly the worst, most unfair post I’ve ever read on CMR. You guys do great work. But really — taking on Mark Shea? The same guy that gets abused by the lefty troglodytes at Kos Nova? And instead of working with his material and showing where you think it’s wrong according to Catholic moral theology, simply to suggest he’s a closet liberal? My goodness.
Really?
September 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Folks,
Please understand that I am not taking on Mark Shea. I like Mark Shea. Truly.
With that said, I stand by my case. I think that abstaining (or even symbolically voting third party) is to increase the liklihood that the party that supports abortion and ESCR wins and can maintain and thus can maintain the judicial stranglehold for generations.
Sorry, that is too many lives lost to make a point or maintain some ivory tower purity. That is main point.
A secondary point is Mark’s political leanings. I read Mark every day and I am convinced that life issues aside, that Mark would vote Dem every time. Hey, I could be wrong but I don’t think that I am.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I only vote republican because of life issues. If the Dem party ever became pro-life, it might me a whole different ballgame. But they don’t and until they do I will vote for the party most likely to do something about it when the chance comes. That chance will only come about by tipping the Supreme Court.
Like I said, I think for many this no vote concept is Catholic cover for partisan politics.
Is it unfair to single Mark out in this regard? I don’t know. But since he is the leading and most vocal proponent of this idea, I wanted to vigorously object to this idea.
I am not trying to call anyone out but it makes my stomach turn that Good Catholics are convincing themselves (and others) that they must sit on the sidelines in order to be good Catholics. If you think I am wrong. Fine. No hard feelings. But this is my opinion and I stand by it.
September 19, 2008 at 1:17 pm
See Fr. Pavone’s “And What I Have Failed To Do” http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2008/08-02-25-what-i-have-failed-to-do.htm
September 19, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I haven’t seen this mentioned yet in this conversation, but Thomas has some credible sources who seem to think that McCain might be coming around on the issue of stem cell research.
http://www.americanpapist.com/2008/09/breaking-has-mccain-softened-his.html
September 19, 2008 at 2:28 pm
This should really say it all for Catholics…
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” (73)
-Evangelium Vitae
If we apply the same reasoning that Pope John Paul II uses here to a voter instead of an actual politician, we see that certainly one may vote for an imperfect candidate over a very imperfect candidate. In order for Mark and others to hold to the position of intrinsic evil = no vote, they have to ignore the clear logic in the encyclical of the late Holy Father.
September 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Please note in my previous comment: I am not attempting to say that Catholics MUST vote for McCain, but I am saying that a Catholic CAN morally choose to vote for McCain.
Although a person could morally choose to vote third party, or not vote at all, I think such an act would be imprudent at this particular time in this particular election.
Just wanted to clarify…Thanks
September 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Dave wrote “By sitting it out, he defacto supports Obama and the Democrats without having his hands stained with blood by pulling the lever for him is simply false. I don’t see how it’s possible to claim he is supporting someone for whom he claims it’s objectively evil to vote.”
Dave, I don’t think it is false. Perhaps it is not intentional, but it can be true and in this case I think it is true.
By sitting it out, you increase the likelihood that the more extreme pro-death candidate and party is victorious. If you do something or purposefully don’t do something that leads to this victory, it is indirect support. That may not be the intention, but it would be the result.
Hope that clarifies.