Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I recieved an email recently that came from a couple who had received Steve Kellmeyer’s (via Bridegroom Press) mass mailing about the confusion many Catholics have in interpreting the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  In his mailing, Steve asserts that voting for Obama is a mortal sin.  The couple sending the email indicated that given paragraph 35, it seems that this is not the case.

In short, I would like to have made a bit of a distinction if I had written Steve’s newsletter.  He is correct that it is grave moral matter but I do not think his analysis of the situation included a sufficient analysis of the matter of consent.  Nevertheless, contrary to the assertions of many “Catholic” Obama apologists, paragraph 35 does not allow one to overlook the candidate’s problematic positions on abortion in the context of his campaign against John McCain.

Here is why: first, let’s look at the problematic paragraph:

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.  Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

Unfortunately, paragraph 35 is ambiguous because it can easily be taken out of context.  It must be read in the entire context of the document (especially paragraph 37) as well as from the frame of reference of the Church’s moral teaching.  This is, after all, what the document is intended to reflect.  The authors of this document are trying to apply moral teaching to the problem of voting, especially in ambiguous circumstances.

The reason for the ambiguity is that, unlike Magisterial documents for which one person has final responsibility (a bishop or the Pope), this document is formed by committees, including the entire body of US Bishops in the USCCB.  As with all such genre of document, I think that this paragraph reflects discontinuities and ambiguities given all of the various considerations of the different contributors which had to be accommodated.

The first distinction that must be made is what meant by paragraph 35 when it says “grave moral reasons.” The English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church continues the tradition of reserving the term “grave” in the context of moral considerations, for those acts which have to do with fundamental moral norms.  In other words, the full culpable violation of this class of moral norms would result in a mortal sin (see for example, CCC 1497, 2072, 2272, 2400).

It must be understood, therefore, that this phrase does not mean strongly held personal preferences, or even personal convictions that do not have to do with objective moral norms.  For example, perhaps because of my experiences, I may have a strong affective (emotional) response to a candidate’s position on something that strikes close to home such as his position on cancer research, universal health care, funding for education, foreign policy, etc. While these are important issues, no candidate from any party in recent history has, or is it likely any would today, be able to advocate a position on these types of issues that would fall into the category of a “grave moral reason.”

These types of issues generally fall under the rubric of prudential judgment.  That is, there is much room to judge as to how best to achieve the common good without either’s position being intrinsically evil; albeit some positions may be judged better than others.  This is what is being said in paragraph 37. One cannot equate abortion and, take your pick: healthcare, education, programs for the poor, etc.  The latter are important issues no doubt, and the voter must seriously consider them.  However, none of them outweigh the fundamental nature of the intrinsic evil of abortion.

The result is that paragraph 35 must be read as preparing the way for paragraph 36.  That is to say that paragraph 36 is a more complete explanation about the case of voting for one candidate who is otherwise objectionable, because the other candidate also presents grave moral reasons for not voting for him.  In other words, these two paragraphs together set out the case of when it is permissible to materially cooperate in evil.

Paragraph 34 clearly explains immutably grave nature of one’s formal cooperation in intrinsic evil. The document would have been better served had it also more clearly laid out the Church’s teaching on material cooperation with evil. Material cooperation is when one provides assistance (positive assistance or failure to act when one is obliged to do so) to another in carrying out an evil act. One may never materially cooperate in evil unless the only other options for action bring about greater evil.  This is known as the principle of double effect.  The effect cannot be directly willed but only accepted as an unintended consequence.  However, as I said, this non-intention alone is not sufficient to allow one to arbitrarily select whichever option.  If there is a clear difference in the predicted outcomes, one is obligated to choose the option which results in less moral evil.

Since the question here is whether it is licit to vote for Barak Obama instead of John McCain, let us apply this teaching on material cooperation to their policies.  The main issue in which either candidate presents positions that are intrinsically evil by their nature, is the issue of innocent human life. Some others are less clear but protection of marriage may also be one on which the candidates differ but each have problematic positions.  Both candidates also oppose the Marriage Amendment that will constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman. Both candidates also see no problem with federally funded contraception programs.  These are all fundamental moral evils.  However, the issue of marriage and contraception, while grave, are not as grave as abortion.

No other issue rises to the level of protection of the unborn, including the war in Iraq, because they generally do not involve intrinsic moral evil based upon the stated policies of either candidate.  On these other issues, good Catholics may disagree on the advisability of each candidate’s prudential judgment as to how bring about the greatest good but the differences are not of a fundamental moral nature.  Admittedly, there are some organizations who tout themselves as Catholics who wish to throw red herrings into the debate.  The primary issue raised is the war in Iraq.  However, as no candidate advocates policies that directly account for any of the moral evils that come out of the war, the fact that one judges that US participation should end earlier than the other does not fall under the category of a “grave moral reason.”

Both candidates fail in regard to protection of innocent human life.  While their policies differ in the extent to which they see neglecting one’s obligation to protect the unborn as legitimate, in principle both McCain and Obama agree one may do so.  Both support embryonic stem cell research that involve the destruction of human beings.  McCain is much more restrictive in what he would allow in terms of government funding for future destruction and recent reports are that he is becoming more so.  Obama sees no reason for any restrictions in destroying unborn human embryos.

Similarly, both McCain and Obama support abortion.  However, here the degree to which each does support it, differs considerably.  McCain thinks that abortion should be licit only in matters of rape or incest.  Obama believes that while abortion is a “serious moral consideration” he advocates abortion in all cases.  He voted against the infant’s born alive bill while in the Illinois legislature.  He feared that, even with a neutrality clause that says otherwise, this might somehow be interpreted in such a way that would jeopardize a woman’s “right” to have an abortion.  His reason can be restated to say that he considers a woman’s “right to choose” more fundamental than giving basic care to a baby born alive after a failed abortion.

Moreover, he has promised to overturn every executive decision of the current administration which limits government funding for abortion, has promised to appoint Supreme Court judges who will uphold a woman’s “right to choose,” and has said that his “first priority” as President will be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which will eliminate all federal and state restrictions on abortion, including parental notification.  McCain opposes all of these, has promised to do the exact opposite, and in fact, in spite of his policies, he has a 100% pro-life voting record.

Paragraph 37 of the document says: not only must one judge the candidates by their stated policies but one must also judge what it is that they will likely do.  Looking at the candidate’s voting record is a primary source for this.  The voting records of both indicate that we can expect them to do as they have said and thus we can expect that many more babies will die under an Obama presidency.

Thus, we have a choice between two candidates who advocate intrinsically evil positions and unless we do not vote, which is also a violation of Church teaching about our obligations to society, or vote a write-in candidate (one might argue that this would effectively be material support for Obama) then we are left with a choice between two evils.

Given the Church’s teaching on material participation in evil, one need not deliberate very long in order to judge that one may not licitly participate in the overwhelmingly greater evil promised by one candidate, when the record and promises of the other candidate are likely to be, in much greater measure, in conformance with intrinsic moral norms.  Thus, by voting for Obama one materially participates in bringing about grave moral evil and voting for McCain makes material participation in grave moral evil a relatively low likelihood.

The matter of whether it is a mortal sin or not to vote for Obama is a matter of culpable ignorance.  It is possible that a Catholic can be confused about the situation.  Each person’s culpability will be based upon the willfulness of their ignorance in matters of morality and the positions/records of the candidates, their slothfulness in becoming informed, and their culpability given the scandal of some Church and political leaders who may confuse the issue.  It is likely that not every Catholic who votes for Obama will be guilty of a mortal sin though they will commit grave moral evil.  However, it is also likely that many will be guilty of a mortal sin for such a vote.