Some weeks back I wrote a piece critiquing Mark Shea‘s position regarding voting for McCain. Mark says that voting for McCain is a grave matter and potentially sinful based upon the other criteria for sin. This has resulted in Mark, and I assume a number of others, to go third party or sit on their couches come election day.
Now I took some heat over my post because of the irresistible lure, for me anyway, toward hyperbole and rock throwing. I deserved the heat and unfortunately it obscured some of the more relevant points I was trying to make. So I am going to try make some of these points again, but this time without the screaming and running naked through your living room.
To assist me in this noble endeavor, I am going to enlist some allies who make these points without the histrionics.
First, let me urge you to go read CMR fave Erin Manning in her sober critique of the Shea position. I am going to quote from her, but I urge you to read the entire thing.
So let me try to accurately state Mark’s position so that we can look at it more deeply. Essentially, a Catholic should not vote, under most or any circumstances, for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. The list of intrinsic evil supported by Obama is long and obvious. Not a lot of argument from serious people here. However, Mark contends that even though you may believe McCain generally opposes abortion and is more likely to promote judges whose philosophy increases the likelihood of ending abortion on demand by judicial fiat, his (vocal) support for the intrinsic evil of embryonic stem cell research puts him off limits.
Let me stipulate here that McCains support for ESCR troubles me deeply and it is certainly not to be discounted. However the question is whether a Catholic can vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils. Both candidates support ESCR, so we will end up with a pro-ESCR president either way. Can a Catholic support McCain, lamenting his support for ESCR, in order to limit the millions of abortions that occur in this country every year. Moreover, if a Catholic believes that the next four years may shape the Supreme court for decades potentially leading to many more deaths, they cannot vote for McCain or risk sin. Let me stipulate that Mark does not contend that it is automatically sinful (sin has a number of criteria that must be met) but he does contend that is potentially sinful and a direct cooperation with intrinsic evil.
I hope that did Mark’s position justice. Of course, I think Mark is wrong. So does Erin Manning (Red Cardigan).
With all due respect, I think Mark isn’t really correct, here, on two counts: one, in that he seems to believe that people who decide to vote for McCain are cheerleaders for ESCR or plan to stand back (like that abused wife) and let McCain have his way with embryos without doing the utmost to stop him; and two, that the failure of Republicans to end abortion during their time of political dominance proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they’re all–or mostly, or at least their leaders–evil unborn-hating tricksters who have no intention of ever ending the murder of the unborn on the grounds that if they did we pro-life voters would immediately breathe a sigh of relief and then start voting for Democrats in droves because we really do think they’re the morally superior party, all except for that abortion thing.
…
Our votes are important–but they are just votes. We can’t bring about the Kingdom of Heaven by voting for it; we must never vote against it, though, by voting for actual evil. When faced with two candidates, one of whom will certainly increase evil, and the other of whom may well limit it despite his own weaknesses in that area, we may, indeed, choose to vote to limit evil. It is not an act of stupidity, blind partisanship, or “abused wife syndrome” to conclude this; it is very much in line with the teaching of the Church.
I actually go a bit further than Erin. While I don’t think that it is sinful not to vote for McCain if you are pro-life for the reasons stated above, it is daft.
In my previous post I also tried to explore some of the potential reasons why a pro-life catholic might be tempted to adopt Shea’s position. Again, let me stipulate that I do not know Mark’s reason for his position or anyone else’s for that matter and that I assume that Mark is very sincere in his reticence. But I did wonder if this position is made more attractive to some by virtue of the rest of their politics.
Archbishop Chaput had something to say the other day that I think conveys some of what I am getting at. Archbishop Chaput, is of course referring to Catholic Obama supporters and not the fence sitters, but I think it may still apply. This quote I found over at Sheila Liaugminas’ wonderful blog. She quotes the Archbishop:
The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has never been a comfortable cause. It’s embarrassing. It’s not the kind of social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their natural political alliances. And because the homicides involved in abortion are ‘’little murders’’ – the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives – it’s easy to look the other way.
Now of course, the people involved in our discussion take abortion seriously and could not support Obama because of it. But I have wondered if Mark’s position might be more attractive to some Catholics because of what Archbishop Chaput calls “their natural political alliances?”
Is this position more attractive to those who cannot support Obama because of his position on life issues but would like to support him if this issue was not in play? I cannot answer this for anyone of course, I do not know anyone’s mind or heart. But I do wonder. Do you?
There, I got through this unfortunately long post without hyperbolically accusing anyone of being knee deep in baby’s blood, well except Obama. He might even drink it. Oh darn, I almost made it…
October 22, 2008 at 6:23 am
I’m sorry, but as a Republican who gravely desires the best of our candidates to be put forth (i.e. I’ve never been one to “settle” in any of life’s circumstances) I have to say that Shea makes a very compelling argument. Erin states that for a Catholic to vote for McCain, they can overlook his support for stem-cell research for the greater good, since they aren’t (or shouldn’t) be voting for him strictly BECAUSE of his stance on ESCR. Well…um…isn’t that the exact same thing pro-Obama Catholics say? They can vote for Obama, so long as they aren’t doing so BECAUSE of his stance on abortion.
You’ll have to help me out here because I see a glaring hypocrisy in this line of argument. What it comes down to is each person choosing the lesser of two evils; both of which involve abortion, or the very least reaping benefits from the product of abortion.
Either way, I’m still not decided whether I will vote for McCain or abstain (my vote is a throwaway anyway). But one other point none of the authors has made: If we vote for a Republican simply because he is of the party, what does that say about what WE want from the party? Meaning, if we want a pro-life candidate, yet are WILLING to vote for ANY candidate they put forth, what incentive will they have to put a pro-life candidate up next time? None.
October 22, 2008 at 6:30 am
20% evil vs. 100% evil, it’s real simple math to me 🙂
October 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Joe –
You’re still, in that case, voting for evil. Don’t get me wrong, I come from a battleground state so I swallowed hard, held my nose, and voted for the lesser of two evils (absentee ballot). I’m not happy about it but I recognize, like you do, that Obama is a living nightmare for this country. Just remember that you ARE voting for evil and don’t be surprised when you get it.
Deusdonat –
I completely recognize your dilemma (and this situation matches the concept of the word perfectly). If you are in a state that is already decided based on demographics, I would encourage you rather than throwing your vote away to vote for a third party candidate. Third parties tend to more accurately reflect the views of people who have principles, and any votes they gain are votes that can potentially influence the media perception of the overall outcome of the election. Thus, votes for third parties in a way have more influence than their mathematical impact. If you feel that you are powerless anyway, don’t stay at home, choose a better candidate – like Baldwin or Barr, someone who REALLY represents your ideals.
October 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm
While I don’t think that it is sinful not to vote for McCain if you are pro-life for the reasons stated above, it is daft.
Suppose one lives in a firmly “blue” State such as New Jersey. What then would be “daft” about not voting for McCain? He’s not going to win the State anyway, so why not vote your conscience instead? In fact one might argue that voting for McCain in such a circumstance is remote material cooperation (at least – it would be formal cooperation if one agreed with McCain’s evil policies) in evil without a proportionate reason.
Furthermore, if McCain wins, then he will become the archetype of future GOP candidates. I think we can all agree that he is slightly to the left of the current President. So a McCain win will result in the leftward slide of the GOP, while a McCain loss has the potential to return the GOP to its conservative principles, just as the election of Clinton in 1992 did.
October 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The problem is there that no quorum is needed for a presidential election, it’s just a pure matter of who gets the most votes. I view it as electoral triage, I save who I can, as I can, and in an order that will hopefully do the most good in the long haul.
Obama and his ilk support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and they don’t seem to have much patience for those who oppose it (read possibility of Canadian hate-speech laws).
McCain and his crowd support limited embryonic stem cell research, but none of the other evils listed above.
Considering one of these two will win, and it is not yet clear which, I will support McCain.
October 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“I am going to try make some of these points again, but this time without the screaming and running naked through your living room.”
Oh? Was that you???
But seriously, McCain’s support of ESCR is lackluster at best, which is evident to anyone who actually reads what he said at the Saddleback Church town hall meeting. Obama, on the other hand, is not only pro-choice, he is very much pro-abortion. He wants to remove all restrictions at the state and federal level. He has promised to do this on his first day in office. Anything McCain would try to do, or fail to do, could at least be fought. There is little or no recourse against that which Obama promises to do.
If McCain were “left of the current President,” it is unlikely he would have picked a running mate so far to the right.
I’m in Virginia, a “battleground state.” I will do whatever I have to in preventing Obama from ever becoming President. What choice do you think that leaves me?
October 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm
If McCain were “left of the current President,” it is unlikely he would have picked a running mate so far to the right.
I’m not convinced that Palin is “so far to the right” but even if she were, it doesn’t say much about McCain except that he is smart.
October 22, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Stop with rhetoric and vote Palin/McCain.
Seriously, why is this hard?
Otherwise ABORTION WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS PEOPLE!!!!!
October 22, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Otherwise ABORTION WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS PEOPLE!!!!!”
…which is something we grownups like to call “the old bottom line.”
October 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Even if you are in a non-battleground state, voting for a third party if you are otherwise hoping for a McCain victory is unwise because I think it would look real bad if McCain wins the electoral college vote but loses the popular vote. Remember 2000? This would be that, times about 1,000. And you know what that means: 2,000,000 (Team America fans will hopefully catch the reference).
October 22, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Over at the Witherspoon institute they had a really good analysis on when it is acceptable for a pro-life person to vote for a pro-choice candidate:
http://www.winst.org/publicdiscourse/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.21_Bradley_Gerard%20V._When%20is%20it%20Acceptable%20for%20a%20”Pro-Life”%20Voter%20to%20Vote%20for%20a%20”Pro-Choice”%20Candidate?_.xml
The author also rips to shreds the idea of “personally opposed but politically in favor…”
Good read.. sorry the lnk is so long– they have annoying addresses…
October 22, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Although McCain/Palin is nowhere near an ideal ticket, they will be getting my vote. I vote absentee in Washington State, not what would be called a battleground state, but who can trust the polling data?
I’d never completely sit out an election. There are too many important issues to vote for or against. Washington State has a Physician Assisted Suicide item on the ballot. I can’t imagine skipping a vote on that!
October 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Thanks for the link, Patrick.
Deusdonat, no one *has* to vote for McCain. But the bishops have made it pretty clear that when both candidates support some intrinsic evil, but one supports far greater evil than the other, and in fact the other has promised to limit some of those evils, it is possible to vote for the candidate who will limit evil in good conscience.
McCain and Obama are not equal in their support for intrinsic evil. McCain supports ESCR, though the extent or force of his support is, as others point out, questionable. Obama is the most thoroughly pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the presidency. It makes some sense to vote for McCain to limit the evils Obama would unleash; it is not the same to vote for Obama to limit McCain’s evil unless one improperly elevates issues like war or poverty to the same level as the abortion issue, which several bishops have instructed us we may not do.
Peter et. al., I keep saying this about third-party votes, but no one seems to hear me: the vast majority of the time they are not counted at all! You will not influence the media, the GOP, or anyone else with your third party vote unless a) your state counts and records all such votes; b) your candidate gets at least 1% of the total vote, in some states; c) your candidate gets enough votes to challenge the front runner (in some states); d) your candidate is actually on the ballot (six states don’t allow write-ins at all); e) your candidate has paid the filing fee to appear as a recognized write-in candidate, or f) some combination of the above.
By all means, people who believe their best choice is to vote third-party should do so. But anyone who votes this way under the mistaken impression that it will “send a message” to anyone at all needs to realize that as far as the major parties will ever know, you’re one of those people who simply didn’t cast a vote in the presidential election, for whatever reason.
October 22, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Two thoughts:
I don’t think McCain marks a turn left for Republicans. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, for example, represent the up-and-coming Republican party and a return to traditional conservative values.
Also, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has said that we may never choose a lesser of two evils because we may never choose evil at all. But, we may choose one that will limit evil, as others have said.
October 22, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Peter thanks for your comments. I’m no stranger for voting 3rd party candidates (I voted for Buchanon back in 2000). I have always voted my conscience and this election will be no different. Yes, I believe I DO have this luxury since I live in California, which is overwhelmingly Democrate anyway.
I am unaware of any other Catholic candidates who share my values, be they independent or otherwise. If you have a list I can view I would be most appreciative.
October 22, 2008 at 7:29 pm
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/cfc_archive/articles/TheHistoryofAbortion.asp
This article made me think. What do you think about the history of the Catholic church and their stance on abortion? Do you think this history is not true – and if so can you point me to historical evidence that proves the Catholic church has always been against abortion at all points in the pregnancy? Or – is it true history but they just had it wrong back then?
Thoughts?
October 22, 2008 at 8:40 pm
If every voter in NJ who says “my vote won’t count” actually votes – McCain can win NJ. I plan to vote for McCain/Palin on November 4th. I plan to vote my conscience; which tells me that any person who supports the killing of children supports the killing of me. It doesn’t matter to Obama which side of the birth canal you’re on… if we don’t win this battle we’ll be on to the next.
October 22, 2008 at 8:45 pm
and if so can you point me to historical evidence that proves the Catholic church has always been against abortion at all points in the pregnancy?
The very article you link to basically concedes that point. There is absolutely no refutation of the fact that the Church has always condemned abortion. It’s as though the writer of the article simply hoped that they could put a whole bunch of citations in there and no one would bother to read them and discover that they don’t support the argument they’re making.
As was said at the time Pelosi made her idiotic remarks, the Church has always taught that abortion is a grave sin. There have only been technical disagreements posited by some thinkers about certain matters, and perhaps the degree of the sin, but none have disputed that it is actually a sin, as the very article you link all but concedes by its own lack of evidence.
October 22, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“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.”
-Evangelium Vitae (73)
Now, apply it to voting for a candidate. Voting for McCain is not “illicit cooperation with an unjust ‘candidate’, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
I’m all for the existence of intrinsic evils (I have a bumper sticker that says that), but EV applied to this situation just makes huge sense.
October 23, 2008 at 12:06 am
I’m voting for Governor Sarah Palin, who is more Catholic than many Catholics. Senator McCain is an accessory.
— Mack, Discredited Poetry Critic