Catholic Bishops Issue Voter Guide
The Church does not tell people how to vote. Nor does it endorse any political party. There is often room for legitimate differences of opinion because it can be difficult to judge which policies – and especially which packages of policies – will contribute best to making “human life more human” (Pope John Paul II).
In this way, the New Zealand Bishops properly remind Catholics what is normally forgotten in paristan politics. Normally, there is no Catholic party, there is no one specific Catholic choice for a given election. We must take each election, each vote, not along partisan lines, but in light of Catholic sensibilities. But how we do that will differ person to person; our understanding of how to vote will differ as we reason out for ourselves who we are going to vote for (or not vote for). Certainly we can not vote for someone because of an anti-life position, but we can (as the Church has consistently said) vote for them in spite of such positions, if we find sufficient reason to do so. We must not condemn people who make prudential decisions different from our own. Only if, in answer to why they voted for someone, they provide an illegitimate reason for their vote (he’s for abortion, and I like that) can a judgment be made. Of course, prudential decisions have always been a part of democratic elections, and will always be.
In our form of democracy, the party system presents us with manifestos that are a package deal. Not every part of the package might be to our liking, or even to the liking of some candidates. And so strategic voting and coalition considerations can be called for. Part of that strategic voting is to put into parliament people of personal integrity and values, which brings us back to values, starting with our own values as members of the Catholic community.
For the whole voter guide, go here.
A local ordinary would, however, be entirely within his right to inform the people who they could NOT vote for in good moral conscience.
It looks to me like the authors of this website just want to vote for democrates, and they want the rest of us to validate that opinion. Waste of space.
Mark Windsor
It seems to me you view things along partisan lines and read your own bias into others.
Great find, Henry. The approach is quite similar to the US bishops (i.e. Catholic) and yet out of step withe the dualistic outlook of many American Catholics (see Mark Windsor’s comment for evidence of this).
And look at the language they use to talk about abortion: Our responsibility to protect unborn children includes considering the legal framework for abortions, and also supporting pregnant and single mothers, and ensuring all children are welcomed and supported. What is the position of political candidates on the protection of unborn children? What do they say about the social and economic circumstances which contribute to higher or lower rates of abortion?”
In other words, the social and economic circumstances are just as important as, and intimately entwined with, the legal framework. Tell this to the American National Right to Life Committee that welcomes people who support the use of nuclear weapons, opposes universal health insurance, and embraces people who have supported forced abortions and sex slavery.
MM
It’s the common approach from voting guides I see throughout the world, if offered by the bishops. An it indeed shows how the pro-life position, even in regards to abortion, far exceeds getting the baby born (but, as I just mentioned to Gerald, many pro-lifers complain about welfare mothers!).
I hate to pick at a mostly deep and insightful document. However, it reads:
Psychologists point out that a father’s love and a mother’s love are different and that each contributes differently to a child’s development. The Church continues to recognise and respect the need for a child to receive both kinds of love.
What political views on same sex couples conflict with this wisdom?
This seems to blithely pass by the question of the social ills that cause children to be place for adoption from which a handful might end up with two guardians of the same gender. Do the New Zealand bishops have nothing to say about divorce, industrial fatalities, unwed motherhood, spousal abandonment, drug addiction and the other unfortunate occurances that cause children to be placed for adoption?
A local ordinary would, however, be entirely within his right to inform the people who they could NOT vote for in good moral conscience.
Actually, I agree with this. Historically, Catholic bishops–especially during the late Patristic and medieval ages–have done so. Although I realize that I am not arguing for the right, but only appealing to common practice.
Policraticus
But you know as well as I did, if some US Bishop said “You can’t vote for McCain” or “You can’t vote for Obama” arguments would be made as to why it is not in his authority to make such a decision. Just look at how Botean was treated when he said those under his jurisdiction cannot join in with the Iraq war!
Henry,
I’m not so sure about that. The rights of a local ordinary are pretty extensive, and anyone who objected to the ordinary making those statements would have to do some fancy dancing to avoid being called Americanists. And anyways, those are the folks who would be most likely to defend that position (in general)
LCB
Look to the responses to Botean and you will see what I mean.
Kurt,
I found these statistics for New Zealand:
http://www.nzfamilies.org.nz/download/ changing-face-of-families.pdf
I wonder how single parents feel when they hear these kinds of statements from bishops about families–especially divorced people who would like to remarry so their children would have two parents.
I wonder, also, if there is any data comparing single-parent families with mothers, single parent families with fathers, same-sex female couples with children, and same-sex male couples with children. I know there have been comparisons of households with male and female single parents, but I kind of doubt there is enough data out there to say anything meaningful about same-sex couples raising children.
All the psychologists in the world declaring that being gay is not a disorder would not change the teachings of the church, so I wonder if they aren’t being disingenuous by citing psychologists regarding same-sex marriage.
A local ordinary would, however, be entirely within his right to inform the people who they could NOT vote for in good moral conscience.
Actually, I agree with this. Historically, Catholic bishops–especially during the late Patristic and medieval ages–have done so. Although I realize that I am not arguing for the right, but only appealing to common practice.
Was there supposed to be a little similey face with that? Patristic and medieval bishops putting out voting guides and instructions? Did they do podcasts of their directives or put them up on YouTube?