Impression of Faithful Citizenship
My short reaction. It is too long. Focus for the most part has been on 3 paragraphs. There’s even more than a few who have focused on just a couple of sentences of the document. No one appears to have had trouble finding exactly what they want to hear in this document and that is a problem. The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong. It purports itself to be voting guide, but it is pretty much a restatement of the USCCB’s domestic policy agenda. I don’t have a problem with that policy agenda, but I also don’t see any particular party’s candidates opining to bring back racism or remove the last vestiges of it. (This doesn’t mean someone can’t make a second or third order argument over the matter. That kind of reasoning has its own problems that I won’t go into here.) One thing the guide doesn’t do is provide manifest conclusions over which candidates, as in putative ones informed by watching American elections over the past two dozen years, one should seek to elect. For those so inclined to debate this point, we can take exit polling next November and see which candidate people who based their votes on Faithful Citizenship chose. For those not mired in relativism and who believe in truth, there will be a candidate next fall who will be objectively better than the other candidate.
Or maybe there won’t be. Maybe we will just choose between two candidates who will take courses that any prudential man can choose to follow. Perhaps the Pary of Death and Party of Pertpetual War, Amen, Party are just figments of an overactive imagination. Judging by the reactions, I don’t think so. The real problem and the elephant in the room is that there really is no agreement. I am sure there are plenty of bishops who would be perfectly happy adopting Priests For Life’s Voting Guide. Since I’m somewhat cognizant, even after a few drinks, I would know from that guide who to support in the next election, particularly once we are done with the primaries. I’m pretty comfortable asserting that there are a number of bishops who find the Republican platform outside its abortion plank and a few other positions to be completely repugnant. If one wanted to abuse Faithful Citizenship and just do an issue comparison, there is no question which party one should support in the next election.
Maybe like Soloman, we should split the baby right in the middle. Half the Catholics should support the Republicans, the other half should support the Democrats. Of course, if we are really talking about the life and death of babies, we should try to act in some form of solidarity. I’m open to a more explicit answer, and I think there are a number of Catholics who are. Until that time, there are two candidates that I would consider offering my vote. The others would involve too much of a cooperation in evil for me.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I’m sure the vast majority of bishops find the Republican party platform outside of abortion and a few other positions to be completely repugnant. Cafeteria Catholics they are not.
I’m looking forward to reading FC after finishing a major assignment, but as things stand now, perhaps the most moral course of action for Nov. 4 will be to spend the day at a homeless shelter, pregnancy care center, or some other charity.
Stephen I guess I think staying home is not the solution. This is what I don’t get. We have not even had the first vote in a Presidential Primary. We shall have party primaries next year. Why are people jumping to staying home on Nov 4 when we haven not even gotten through primaries yet. There are good quality people running. There is time in many races to get Quality people to run. I guess I am having a hard time buying the “staying at home argument” when people should be out there advocating their ideas and getting them out in the public square for discussion. The primaries are a great place to do this.
No one appears to have had trouble finding exactly what they want to hear in this document and that is a problem. The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong.
I had the same impressions about the Bishop’s document on Iraq, which — at first glance — manages to agree AND disagree with Democrats and Republicans on the question of pulling out of Iraq.
Christopher, I think that is correct in many ways. I find the document on Iraq by the US Bishops to be demanding we ask questions that many are not used too.
Faithful Citizenship does not purport to be a voting guide. The bishops are very clear about that and it should not be judged as such.
Faithful Citizenship does not purport to be a voting guide. The bishops are very clear about that and it should not be judged as such.
Where do the bishops say that?
Just to clarify, its not that I want to stay home. It is simply the case that, as things stand now, the likely (though by no means definite) candidates are Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Our choices, then, are voting for a pro-abortion candidate or voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Taking that into consideration, along with the fact I do not believe that in either case are their sufficient grave moral reasons to hold my nose and vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I am likely to stay home.
If it comes to Rudy vs Hilary, we should vote Rudy to make sure the party stays in control at the top level. He won over Pat Robertson and will get more religious support if he gets nominated and promised strict constructionist Judgs to the bench. Hopefully he won’t jetison that promise like his first 2 wives but we should support him IMO.
“Where do the bishops say that?”
At his press conference, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, whose committee drafted the document, stated: “This document is a summary of Catholic teaching; it is not a voter guide.” The press release at USCCB’s site makes that same point, as does, I think, the document itself.
Numerous statements made by USCCB officials and bishops regarding the last statement also make it clear that it is not intended to be a voting guide.
If it comes to Rudy vs Hilary, we should vote Rudy to make sure the party stays in control at the top level.
This is sick, considering the only issue on which the Republican party resembles Catholicism is the abortion issue.
ctd – They must be using the term “voter’s guide” in a very narrow way then. I’m not sure what their point is in saying that FS is not a voter’s guide, if only to emphasize that the Church (unlike Catholic Answers) does not tell people how to vote. But they do inform consciences, so in that sense it is, of course, a voter’s guide to Church teaching.
Considering that Faithful Citzenship is held up as authoritative as opposed to other voting guides, I’m not persuaded that the bishops are avoiding the creation of a voting guide every four years. When controversy erupted in several dioceses over the distribution of Catholic Answers Action’s voting guide, bishops and pastors were more than happy to call it a voting guide.
Christopher,
I haven’t had a chance to review the latest document on Iraq, but I wouldn’t be surprised if what you say is true.