The USCCB to the Faithful: Go Ahead and Vote for Obama?
Well, here’s a disturbing story. A bureaucrat in the Diocese of Trenton, New Jersey, Rev. Ronald J. Cioffi, has recently summarized for a group of fellow bureaucrats in his diocese the USCCB’s document which presumes to provide voting guidelines for Catholic citizens: “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
As one might expect from a diocesan apparatchik, Rev. Cioffi is at pains — at least as the article has it — to emphasize that Catholics are not single-issue voters. The abortion issue, in other words, cannot be the sole determining factor directing our votes.
There is no doubt that one must grant him the fact. Yet, in making the point, he espouses the usual, hackneyed, illegitimate moral equivalencies that ruin his case: the war in Iraq, economic issues, racism, etc. — all of these issues, he says, are determining factors in how we should vote in the upcoming election, and he clearly implies that the Republicans are wrong on all of them. This opinion, holding no theological authority, must be rejected.
Cioffi, at least as his views are presented in the article, fails to mention that Republican economic policies cannot be said to be intrinsically evil. In fact, I would argue that a better case can be made for intrinsic evil in the Democrat Party’s economic policies, which are driven by the intention to destroy free association and pre-political communities. The pre-political institutions that are targeted above all by the Democrats? The family and the Church. The entire party platform of the Democrats, economic and social, is oriented toward the ruination of these. They think that everything must be nationalized. They want nothing to stand in the way of the state’s control of the individual. Thus, they hold implicitly (though they can never come out and say it in mixed company) that the family and the Church must be destroyed.
Moreover, it is debatable as to whether the war in Iraq is intrinsically evil; certainly, the war does not compare in intrinsic moral gravity to the mass slaughter of innocent children in the womb.
And I will not even deign to comment on the article’s ridiculous insinuation that Republicans are racists.
Now, I must admit (speaking for myself and not for anyone else on this blog), that I have no interest in reading anything that the USCCB puts together. As a body, the Conference has no theological authority, and, on top of that, their documents strike me as being almost uniformly without theological substance. None of their pronouncements are binding on one’s Catholic conscience, and to that we must be thankful. After all, the statements of the Conference often leave one with the distinct impression that it is run by socialistic bureaucrats and not by the shepherds of the Church. Thanks be to God that it is the individual bishop, in communion with the See of Peter, who has theological authority and not episcopal conferences.
But, given all of that, I want to raise a question: is the document that Coffi expounds really as incompetently articulated as this functionary of the Diocese of Trenton, Rev. Cioffi (and his journalistic compadre), makes it seem?
.jpg)
I’ve read Faithful Citizenship and I think it is the best of these types of documents they have issued over the years. Its main problems is that it goes on too long and towards the end opens up a range of issues.
This document does handle moral issues that are intrinsically evil much better and it is also much clearer what they are compared to other issues. The pro-life focus is quite evident throughout. The first half of the document is pretty good, the last half seems to lapse in Democratic Party government is the solution speak partly.
But the issue of abortion as an intrinsic evil is not set forth as being relative to other issues in any way. This new article is just total spin.
Comment by Jeff Miller — July 31, 2008 @ 8:57 am
I gathered that the article was mostly spin, but I wanted to make a point that does not seem to be made: the Democrat Party’s commitment to abortion rights, to which they brook no dissent, forms a seamless garment with their entire view of government. This upcoming election should not even come close to putting one’s Catholic conscience in a quandary when it comes to choosing a candidate. A Democrat president and Democrat controlled house and senate will attempt to nationalize the judicial and governing policy embodied in the Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals. This is not to say, obviously, that John McCain is a perfect candidate. But his understanding of government is directly opposed to that of Obama: he does not think that pre-political communities should be leveled so that the state can have direct, unmediated control over the individual.
Comment by hierothee — July 31, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
For what it’s worth–so long as Mgr. Malloy is in charge at USCC, their documents will be pretty good stuff.
You may have noticed beginning about 5 years ago, that USCC had a housecleaning. Now, the only suspicious stuff is actually written by Bishops–not the Conference documents.
Comment by dad29 — August 2, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
The document was included in the bulletin at Mass Sunday. I read it eagerly, and thought it delineated the intrinsic vs. non-intrinsic issue relatively clearly.
Not bad for a USCCB document.
Comment by Nathan — August 4, 2008 @ 7:14 am
I quoted from this entry at http://www.korrektiv.org. Thanks.
Comment by Rufus McCain — August 6, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
I totally agree with you that from a Catholic perspective, not voting for Obama is clear. What is not so clear is whether McCain passes Catholic “muster” so to speak. Do we evaluate McCain independently to see if he cuts the Catholic mustard, or is there a certain amount of opposing Obama that allows McCain to slide on certain issues (such as just war/pre-emptive war, ESCR)?
Seems to me we should evaluate his qualifications independently, and not merely relative to those of Obama.
Comment by c matt — August 8, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
I’m not so certain that I believe that McCain being elected will result in fewer abortions. I say this because recently I read the retort “Just like George Bush?”, in response to the comment that “Obama will stand by while millions of babies are aborted”.
Maybe I’m jaded, but I think that perhaps we are being duped by the Republican party, which will never do much of anything about legalized, on-demand abortion. Furthermore, I’m thinking that a vote for Obama will be a vote for the party that says, “We aren’t doing anything to stop abortion” and is telling the truth while a vote for McCain will be a vote for the party that says, “We are valiantly pro-life” when in fact they will not do much of anything when it comes reducing abortions.
It just seems like we’re being used, that’s all. I know, the response is that Obama will actually increase the number of abortions by freeing-up restrictions and McCain would keep the restrictions in place. But do we really know this would happen? I mean, what proof do we have? Weren’t we supposed to see so many changes with a Republican executive as well as Republican majorities in the House and Senate?
What is one to do if he honestly believes that abortion rates will be identical under both candidates? It seems to me that the USCCB document offers some guidance in this case, and it seems to me that a vote for Obama would be morally permissable.
I’ve not made up my mind yet, but this just seems to make sense.
Stephen.
Comment by Stephen — August 11, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Stephen,
You need to research Obama a little more carefully about what he has explicitly said he would do. In a July 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood supporters he promised that the first thing that he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Look into what this act comprises. This is his top priority? President Bush, by executive decree, removed federal funds for abortions from military hospitals, from US AID support, he changed the US delegations to the UN to fight US supplied UN funds from being used for abortion. Obama voted against the infants born alive act.
John McCain is problematic only on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, a problem with consistency no doubt. With respect to abortion, he has a 100% prolife voting record. He will not overturn the executive orders instituted by the Bush administration, he will not sign the Freedom of Choice Act, and he will not once again populate the US delegation to the UN with anti-life, anti-family zealots that we saw in both Clinton administrations.
The question is not simply one of abortion rates. The question is will more babies die because of the direct and intended consequences of Barak Obama. One cannot base his “belief” that the numbers of babies dying will be the same under either administration on any fair assessment of the facts.
One does not need proof that a candidate will do what he promises to do if the consequences are so gravely immoral. One must take Obama at his word and by his record.
I do not see how one can honestly look at the evidence and the words of Barak Obama and conceive that the two administrations will result in the same carnage for the unborn. I really do encourage you to do a more thorough investigation before you make up your mind.
Comment by David — August 11, 2008 @ 5:24 pm