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 23, 2008 at 12:13 am
This statement from the bishops of Dallas and Ft. Worth says we are morally obligated to vote in such a way as to “limit abortion as much as we can” – note AS WE CAN: meaning that we have to vote in such a way as to be as effective as possible in the circumstances. 3rd party voting is not effective per se in limiting abortion…
“As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished.” http://zenit.org/article-24028?l=english
October 23, 2008 at 12:19 am
Mack, that is a lonely club – The Discredited Poetry Critic Club.
I’m starting a new club too – “The misunderstood poets.” OH wait. That’s probably got lots of members. Never mind.
October 23, 2008 at 12:21 am
daddy,you stink!
October 23, 2008 at 12:56 am
Deusdonat and Peter,
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas and Bishop Finn of Kansas City, Mo released a joint pastoral letter last month titled: Our Moral Responsibility, as Catholic Citizens.
They wrote, “… we may be confronted with a voting choice between two candidates who support abortion, though one may favor some limitations on it, or he or she may oppose public funding for abortion. In such cases, the appropriate judgement would be to select the candidate whose policies regarding this grave evil will do less harm. We have a responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to eradicate it completely.”
The complete text is available at the Kansas City MO diocese weblog; http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2008/could-catholic-in-good-conscience-vote.html
This should be helpful and appears to support Patrick Archbold’s position.
Tim Lang
October 23, 2008 at 1:31 am
Tim, thanks for the post. I absolutely respect his eminence, Bishop Joseph Naumann and his work against the pro-abortion lobby. And I also respect his judgement on this issue. I also respect the opinions of everyone (save one “anonymous” poster) who has thus posted on this thread. I am not condemning ANYONE who decides it is a legitimate act to vote for McCain. And yes, as a lesser of two evils, I do hope he wins. Sincerely and wholeheartedly I hope this. But at the same time, I’m at the point where I cannot in good conscience commit to voting for him. And like I said, because mine is a throwaway vote (and no offense to New Jersey, but my state is much bigger, populous and overwhelmingly democratic) I do think I have more of a luxury to ponder this and follow my conscience than those in battleground states.
October 23, 2008 at 2:32 am
I used to at least browse through Catholic and Enjoying It until I noticed that everytime I opened Mark’s blog and his comments appeared, the oxygen in the computer room started getting sucked out and the dogs began howling. I think that it has to do with Mark’s being in such rarified air up there on Mount Olympus.
Maybe if Obama gets elected and shuts Mark, et al, down, he’ll be back again with the rest of us fallibles.
October 23, 2008 at 2:58 am
Under an Obama regime, we may all be shut down.
On the other hand, no one reads my poetry anyway.
— Mack the Falll…um…fali…um…poet
October 23, 2008 at 3:36 am
In an attempt to answer your original question about “natural political alliances” and whether I’d vote for Obama if it weren’t for his extreme left positions on the critical life issues…
I’m a registered Democrat living in western PA (we’re the ones John Murtha recently called “racists” and then, in an attempt to backtrack, clarified that what he really meant to say was “really redneck.”! Yeah.)
I come from a long line of working class Catholic Democrats, as does my husband. We have to maintain an affiliation with a major party in order to vote in the primaries in PA, so we have remained Democrats, although we rarely vote that way these days (mainly because the stance of most Dem candidates on the critical life issues prove to be a dealbreaker). I’m a tree-hugging, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, socially conservative Dem who tends to lean to the liberal side of the spectrum on economic issues. However, I have a big problem with my party and it’s war on the culture of life.
All that said, if it weren’t for his radical support for the abortion license here and abroad, would I actually vote for Obama over McCain? No. I am not a huge fan of McCain, but I basically view him as an honest man who has the best interests of his country at heart. Obama, on the other hand, is a highly talented but unprincipled opportunist, in my view. He’s basically a corrupt Chicago ward politician who happens to be a preternaturally good communicator who looks good in a suit. I am in awe of his ability to advance his own career and his extraordinarily successful campaign, but I wonder why he hasn’t been more forthcoming about his college records and activities, I question his past alliances with people like Rev. Wright (20 years listening to that guy!) and unrepentent terrorists like the Ayers, his past admiration for Marxist principles (outlined in his book), his utter lack of foreign policy or executive experience, his thin and questionable voting record, etc. etc. In short, he appears to have no moral core. Soaring speeches about hope and change just don’t do it for me without the record to back it up.
Couple that with the fact that if elected he will preside over a Democratic supermajority in Congress…
So, even given my lifelong “natural political alliances,” I will vote for McCain and not Obama. His extreme left positions on abortion are just the tip of the iceberg, I fear.
October 23, 2008 at 4:47 am
a (misplaced) jersey girl said… 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.
I live in New Jersey and I too plan to vote for McCain/Palin. I'm under no illusions about McCain winning NJ, he almost certainly will not. But I agree with "(misplaced) jg", someone with the appalling lack of morals like Barack Obama in his full support of abortion across the board, would probably have no problem eliminating me if I in any way cease to be a healthy and productive citizen of this nation. I never thought I'd ever say something like that about any past President or anyone running for President. But for all of his suave coolness, intellect & uplifting rhetoric, Barack Obama may just turn out to be this country's worst nightmare.
For me, it is practically a no brainer that to keep Obama from winning the election I must hold my nose and cast my vote for McCain. As a Catholic, I also have the now steady stream of guidance & instruction from those bishops speaking out against abortion (especially Abp. Chaput) and I fully intend to listen to them and act on their advice.
October 23, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Not that it will affect the logic of anyone's argument here, but I thought I'd point out that McCain & Obama do not have the same position on ESCR.
As someone has pointed out, McCain has openly hoped that science will outstrip the alleged "need" for ESCR –he's openly willing to drop support for it.
But that's not my point. While it ain't good that McCain is willing to fund ESCR, he at least imposes a limit: existing frozen embryos. He is not willing to accept cloning or embryo creation for that (or any)purpose.
Sen. Obama supports an unfettered cloning and embryo creation regime not only for ESCR, but for any research purpose.
October 23, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Also in NJ, and I’m pulling the lever for McCain as well. It’s actually possible that this may help.
Will it be a full-throated endorsement of RINOism? I would see it more as a rejection of faux-messianic socialism. If nothing else, I can’t just sit and watch some flim-flam machine politician pose as a faith healer – something that Obama seems to have caught from John Edwards. All that “new chapter in the Bible” and “the oceans shall recede and the planet will heal” and “lightworker” bunkum makes me break out in hives. I always suspected that Government was the god of the far left, but to see them actually anoint their candidate as the Son of Government? UGH.
October 25, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I am always amused that the pro-choice “Catholics” always quote theologians [and “scholars”] but avoid quoting popes. The reference to the DIDACHE [a sort of catechism] as first being published in the 19th Century is cute. They mean printed. It is like saying that if you can’t produce your birth certificate, you don’t exist.
But it was known and referred to by many of the Fathers. The bloggers of the referred site were such Alexander Pope had in mind when he wrote “A little learning is a dangerous thing”.
The best clarification of the subject is the distinction between what is absolutely forbidden at all time and in all circumstances [murder] and what is subject to prudence [how to help the poor, declaring war, the death penalty, and the like].
October 25, 2008 at 6:11 pm
On bended knee, I beg that you give up using “critique” as a verb. It sounds just so “academic” [as in “I’m a scholar [skoller] and you’re not”].
We have plenty of good English words: analyze, dissect, consider, criticize. To “critique” is like Mrs. Malaprop’s “Allegory on the banks of the Nile”.
October 26, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I am starting to suspect, like you guys at CMR, that certain Catholics actually want Obama to win despite his pro-abortion stance. They like Obama so much on other issues that they are eager to “disqualify” McCain because of ESCR. They can’t vote for Obama because of his rabid pro-abortion stance. But they do hope/expect Obama to win if they waste their own vote on a third party candidate or abstain.
Too much mind reading, probably. But I can’t shake the feeling that if they wanted Obama to lose, they would vote for the only guy who stands a chance of beating him. They ridicule that option by saying that you can’t vote “against” someone, you can only for “for” someone. Okay fine, I vote FOR the guy who is AGAINST Obama.