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 3:32 pm
I’m a regular reader of Mark Shea’s blog, and truly can’t understand why he provokes such such fevered reactions among some of his regular readers. He can be passionately long-winded, yet always reasonable (in my view), on topics he feels strongly about (such as the torture issue). And he is quick to apologize when the situation warrants it, which says a lot about his character.
On the election, I honestly can’t say I ever understood him to advocate the view that Catholics should sit out the election. He’s clear about his own reasons for doing so, but he’s also clear that he is speaking for himself.
That said, I think it’s a mistake to abstain from voting. It’s a hard-fought right and privilege to have the freedom to do so, and I suspect that spending a few hours in another part of the world where citizens do not enjoy that right would make one appreciate it all the more.
Finally, one of these guys IS going to be elected. That is a fact. In my case, since I can’t in good conscience vote for Obama (because of his stance on the critical life issues), then I have an obligation to cast a vote for McCain. Yes, it’s the old lesser of two evils situation. But not voting for either will not do ANYTHING to advance the lesser of two evils outcome.
There are no perfect candidates. It’s always going to be a matter of adding up the pros and cons and deciding which issues have primacy before casting a vote.
September 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Patrick,
I’m relatively new to this blog. I’ve posted a few comments here and at times have created a stir. Once again, I am going to take issue with you. You claim that “good Catholics” simply cannot vote third party or sit out because it would be co-operating in evil by default–allowing the lesser evil to be voted out. Here is where you are totally wrong. One cannot have an opinion unless one has facts to support that opinion–otherwise you just have speculation or preference. That, Patrick, is the very first rule in rhetorical debate. Therefore, let’s look at the facts of Catholics and voting. I have literally wrestled with my conscience here–not whether to vote for Obama over McCain–but whether I’m morally obligated to vote for McCain.
1) I’m going to quote from 2 places in the CCC. “The duties of citizens”
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common goo make it MORALLY OBLIGATORY to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country: “Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.” Rom 13:7 “Christians reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners…They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws…So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.” Ad Diogentum
2242. The citizen is OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. REFUSING OBEDIENCE to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds it justification in the distinction between SERVING GOD AND SERVING THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Matt 22:21. “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29. “When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.”
From reading this, yes, Catholics do have a moral obligation to vote. However, Catholics are also obliged to follow their conscience when voting and to place God above man.
2) You claim that not voting for John McCain will put Barack Obama in office. I don’t see in any circumstance where this could be true. One would have to assume that a) a President were elected on popular vote alone and b) voters were evenly divided with half voting for one candidate and half voting for another. This is clearly presumption–that one knows the outcome before hand.
3) I find no suggestion that a Catholic is morally obligated to vote for the person they think will win. In other words, one can not rule out voting 3rd party in America simply because that person has no reasonable chance of winning.
4) To insinuate that Catholics voting 3rd party or abstaining from voting this year are hiding is absurd and inflammatory.
5) Priests and Bishops who charge Catholics with a “sin of omission” should be admonished for distortion and scandal. I have read parts of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. It is quite complicated and I often have to have my husband who has a MA in Philosophy help me to understand what I am reading. From what I understand, a sin of omission is one in which a person apathetically refuses to or in incapable of knowing doing that which is good, thereby allowing evil to happen. This issue is not black and white, in fact St. Thomas addresses several instances and attempts to explain what is and what is not an act of omission. Not voting in an election might be considered violating one’s duty and therefor an act of omission. However, voting for a third party in an election, by this definition, clearly would not be. By voting for a third party candidate that is fully pro-life, one is not omitting anything but fully participating and examining one’s conscience. Voting FOR a candidate who supports a grave evil is, by definition, a sin of transgression.
In other words, Patrick, many Catholics, after wrestling with their conscience, believe that voting for Barack Obama since he supports infanticide would be a sin of transgression. They also believe voting for John McCain who supports fetal stem cell research is also an act of transgression. Therefore, following their fully formed conscience, they will vote third party. They also believe that assuming one candidate will appoint specific judges is a sin of presumption, and therefore not an acceptable argument for supporting a candidate that supports and intrinsic evil.
I find NO EVIDENCE that voting for John McCain is a “good” Catholics duty or moral obligation.
You are certainly entitled to your “opinion”, but it is not an opinion formed on truth or evidence.
Father Pavone is a wonderful man and I know he feels it is his moral obligation to bring and end to abortion. However, he is, frankly, distorting a document to silently coerce Catholics to vote for a particular candidate. Even if one is to accept that not voting for John McCain is an act of omission, as Christians, we all have free will.
September 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm
CV,
I hope you don’t think that this is a “fevered reaction.” It is certainly not intended to be. I tried to make my case for not sitting on the sidelines the best I could.
As for your contention that he is not advocating, well yes and no. He is not saying you must do what I tell you. But he is repeatedly making the case that voting for McCain is an objectively evil act. He is not saying it is an evil act only for him, but for everyone. That is advocacy in my opinion.
I think highly of Mark’s character. When many on the reactionary right tried to apologize for torture he stood up and repeatedly made the Catholic case. It was the right thing to do and I applaud him for it.
In this instance, I think he is trying to find a nuanced middle ground and thus is playing right into the hands of the party of death.
I know that Mark is Catholic first and party second. With that said I think his political leanings make the “no vote for either” a more attractive option for him. Again, not mind reading, just a guess. Unfortunately, this Solomon like approach will actually split the baby in half.
September 19, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Marie,
Honestly I hesitate to even respond because you seem to want to put words in my mouth, but I will try anyway. To your points.
1. I agree with everything in the Catechism.
2. I never said not voting will put Obama in office but rather it increases the likelihood. It does. Period. I am extrapolating the effects Mark’s position if all Catholics took the same view. I think you know this but decided to use the straw man of an election coming down to one vote. I wasn’t suggesting that it anyway so your argument is meaningless on this point.
3) Voting a 3rd party when that 3rd party has no chance rather than the partially pro-life contender increases the likelihood that the pro-death candidate will win. It does. See number 1.
4) Didn’t say all Catholics are hiding, did I. Some are. Since I didn’t say it, accusing me is absurd and inflammatory.
5) Well, you have read parts of the Summa, so I guess you ae the authority on when Priests and Bishops are causing scandal. Exactly how many pages do you have to read to become an authority?
September 19, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I’m always amazed when people take a “double effect” approach to electoral strategy. Saying “I’m not going to vote for either A or B, but rather for C” does not mean there is zero net effect in the race for either A or B but rather there is the effect of a lost vote for which ever of either A or B would have been voted for had C not been an option.
It works out like this. Suppose two candidates are locked 50-50 in voting for a state. If 10% of the voters for candidate A vote instead for candidate C, candidate B now wins with the very same 50% of the vote he had before. While that vote was not directly for candidate B it had the indirect effect of increasing his likelihood of winning. Abstaining from voting all together has precisely the same effect.
Now, for Mark Shea’s particular case in a state where the outcome is not even remotely in doubt given how blue WA is it could be argued that even if he voted for candidate A, A would lose by such a large margin it wouldn’t matter anyway. That’s a luxury people in states such as mine where there is only a few percentage point spread do not have.
Mark, at the very least, should be very careful not to make his situation wherein his third-party vote is, thanks to the electoral college, effectively a non-issue seem to apply broadly. If we need to make the point further, Bush won New Hampshire in 2000 by 7211 votes. That’s one large or two medium parishes’ worth of people, and we don’t even have butterfly ballots. In a contested race one can never say he or she is voting for none of the above – it just doesn’t work.
September 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Another thing about McCain and ESCR— The science has pretty much passed the politics on that one..
First adult stem cells were all the rage, now they cured diabetes in a mouse without using ANY STEM CELLS AT ALL–just the mouse’s own pancreatic cells.
So I would argue that ESCR is about to go the way of the dodo…. simply because the moral ways are cheaper and work better! (Hmmm… God designing us so that the licet therapies work better than the evil ones? Who’d have guessed?)
Meanwhile, you have Obama, who makes HILLARY look like a pro-lifer.
No way I’m sitting this one out. (Though my husband wants to vote third party because of McCain’s Teddy Roosevelt/ really-un-libertarian tendencies…… )
September 19, 2008 at 5:18 pm
My entire family is from Seattle and Ron Paul has a huge following there. And yes if you want to experience liberal land just visit Seattle. But there are a few great Catholics there. It’s like finding a needle in a haystack though.
September 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm
In my mind, not voting is cooperating with an objective evil.
If it makes you feel any better, I think you and Mark are both wrong. Jone says that voting binds under venial sin whenever a worthy candidate is opposed by an unworthy one, and might bind under mortal sin if one’s vote is necessary to elect the worthy candidate. However, it would be difficult to describe McCain as a worthy candidate. So Mark is wrong that voting for McCain is an objective evil – it’s not, it is remote material cooperation with evil that can be morally justified in some circumstances; it would be formal cooperation if done with the intention of voting for McCain because one agreed with his stance on ESCR. And abstaining from the vote is not cooperation with evil at all; and it would only bind under sin if McCain were a worthy candidate; and furthermore, it might only bind under mortal sin if one lived in a battleground State and one’s vote were actually necessary, such as if one lived in a battleground State.
Hope this helps.
September 19, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I am casting my vote for McCain, for all the reasons listed above. I agree with the general idea that if anything is going to happen politically to end abortion, it starts with the Supreme Court. I don’t think I am going out on a limb by thinking that any justices that Barack Obama nominates will be utter abominations, whereas John McCain probably gives us a better than 50/50 shot at having someone at least moderate on abortion.
I don’t see how voting on those odds on this defining issue (however slim) is an intrinsically moral evil. I just can’t wrap my head around Mark Shea’s logic. It’s a hopeful shot in the dark, which, given our present cultural and political situation, is the most we can hope for (short of a miracle).
That said, I also don’t think that the individual act of voting for a quixotic 3rd party candidate is an objectively moral evil. Also, while I believe it is seriously misinformed, I don’t think lobbying for others to do the same constitutes an intrinsically evil act on the part of that person.
That said, I do believe that what Mark Shea is encouraging people to do (not vote for McCain) will result in more evil than if McCain is elected. I don’t know that voting for this or that candidate (or not at all) for sound reasons carries so much moral weight that they deserve descriptors such as “intrinsically evil.”
There are plenty of well-meaning people out there who think they are helping a cause but in reality are hurting it. In this case, I believe Mark Shea is one of them. But I don’t think he is doing anything evil.
September 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Patrick,
I certainly don’t mean to put words in your mouth. However, you seemed to suggest that Catholics who either don’t vote for John McCain are either closet liberals or shurking their responsibilities. If I misread you, I apologize. I do re-iterate that there is no reason a Catholic cannot vote for a 3rd party candidate. I mention the Summa above, not because I find my intellectual ability superior to any priest or bishop, but precisely because I actually tried to read it. Priests and bishops have been known to distort facts and documents to support their own agenda. When I heard recently that “good” Catholics have to vote for the lesser of two evils (in this case John McCain) and that if we don’t vote we are guilty of the sin of omission, I HAD to find out why this is so. Upon reading and discussing the Summa with several people far more intelligent than I, I concluded that this is actually false. And it is quite possible that the clergy who are insisting this to be so, may be causing scandal—encouraging faithful Catholics to violate their formed consciences by voting for a candidate who, among other things, supports the destruction of embryos for science and abortion in cases of incest, rape and health of the mother. If we had only two candidates on the ballot, Catholics certainly can in good conscience vote for that candidate vs. the one who is pro-death. However, Catholics do have a 3rd choice. That candidate will probably lose, but that is not relevant. Catholics are not obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils—to say so is potentially scandalous.
There are plenty of Catholics who will vote for McCain–and that is morally acceptable. We CAN vote for the lesser of two evils—but we are not obligated to do so.
There are plenty of Catholics who will NOT vote for McCain because they can not in good conscious vote for him. They will vote 3rd party and that too is perfectly acceptable.
IOW, Catholics are not morally obligated to vote the lesser of two evils. To suggest such is scandalous.
Does this mean Obama might win? Possibly. Does it mean that those who voted 3rd party or abstained are somehow culpable—not necessarily. You attempt to persuaded Catholics on this argument, and logically speaking it is weak and invalid.
September 19, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Patrick,
FWIW, I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned a “fevered reaction.” 🙂 There are, however, some regular commenters on Shea’s blog who seem to freak out every time he expresses an opinion contrary to their own. My attitude is, it’s his blog and he can say what he wants. His opinions are always carefully considered and well worth listening to, IMO.
I’m not sure I’d call his position on (not) voting in this election “advocacy,” however. I can honestly say that even after reading him regularly I couldn’t hazard a guess as to what his political leanings actually are.
But I’m with you on the likely end result on this one (i.e. splitting the baby in half…an inappropriate metaphor if there ever was one.)