THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

This is taken from my election countdown calendar.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

“And I suspect that what you’ll see, Toby, is there will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses.”

George W. Bush, talking to reporters along the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast, Gulfport, Mississippi, August 28, 2006.

Pic by Joao Silva for NYT

My previous post caused a gentle stir amongst those near and dear to me. They understand my angst and can sympathize with my reasoning, but they remain convinced that it is wrong to vote for one who is not pro-life. One, a very close friend indeed, would go so far as to insist that it is a mortal sin. Suffice it to say that my fans were fewer in number than my foes.

Debates of this nature are preferably cut-and-dry, but this one appears to be more open-ended. While the Church takes an unwavering position on abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research, it is rather tolerant of those who would vote in favor of a candidate who does not share those value, requiring only that the reasons be proportionate to the weight of the weightier matters.

Let me here quote Priests for Life. This quotes is concerned with the general principles laid down by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in regards to the Catholic laity, Catholic politicians, issues surrounding the “right-to-life,” and participation in the Eucharist.

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

All of this is well and good. Coming from an unabashedly pro-life organization, this would appear to be quite reliable. The difficulty, though, rests with the conditions wherein such an endorsement or vote is permitted. The issue is with “proportionate reasons.” It is at this very place where the cut-and-dry begins to fray.

Let’s consider the numerous elements of Catholic Social Doctrine I mentioned in my earlier piece: military interventionism, the arms race, immigration, international trade, taxes, health care, agriculture, the environment, energy independence, and many others. The “many others” should include the Living Wage, labor associations, universal destination of natural resources, equitable distribution of land, and still yet many others. The point being that there are many “many others” involved here by which the voter must weigh in.

Could one contend that the hierarchy of values would make finding “proportionate reasons” for voting for a pro-choice candidate virtually impossible? Maybe. But it comes down to the value they place upon the other “right-to-life” issues within every sphere and every stage of human existence, from the cradle to the grave. Other social matters may find themselves on a lower rung of the Catholic Social Doctrine ladder but cumulatively they may hold more gravitas. In any case, it is a matter of perspective.

Does such a theory lend itself to social relativism? Far from it. Admitting to the complexity of such decisions is simply facing reality as it is. By the same token, though, the Catholic understands that there are limits beyond which one may not go. As I have said elsewhere, we have been provided not only a pasture free from poison, but a fence by which we are protected, both from ourselves and those without. This lays the foundations whereupon our decisions are to be made, but it falls well short of what Fr. Robert Sirico may describe as a political straitjacket.

In any case, even if one satisfy the demands of “proportionate reasons” and were to vote for a pro-choice candidate, they would still be involved in “remote material cooperation.” The same may also be said of those who vote for “pro-life” candidates who advance anti-life policies. This makes the decision process much more difficult, but that is nature of ethics and elections.

With all this having been said, I wish for to see Catholics begin discussing these “other” life issues. My prayer is to witness a vibrant discussion amongst those who are tired of the status quo, yet cautious about progress. In any case, weighing these matters on the scales of Catholic truth and justice would do us all, and the world, a huge favor.