The Bishops and the elections

Several bishops have been addressing the elections recently, and there’s more coming out weekly. That’s good, since they’re now three weeks out, and there are huge issues at stake. And also because Catholics certainly get confused about political responsibility and the place of conscience in voting.

Cardinal George’s column this week has really made the internet rounds, for one.

Conscience is not an excuse for doing something irrational. We are to form our consciences according to the social teaching of the Church and use that formation to make political choices. This is not easy, because principles are clear but practice often is clouded by confusion of fact and the distraction of various forms of self-interest. The first and most essential principle of Catholic social teaching is the dignity of every human person and one’s basic right to life from conception to natural death. Respect for human dignity is the basis for the fundamental right to life. This is a non-negotiable principle that is supported by our beliefs but is logically independent of our faith. Many non-Catholics think a society dedicated to the common good should protect its weakest members.

I’m glad he brought up the “non-negotiable principle,” because the Church teaches that they exist, and that’s a document all Catholics should read.

Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

Catholic Answers puts out a voter’s guide, listing the five non-negotiables:

The issues are abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual “marriage” – all of which must be universally opposed by the Catholic voter.

And the Catholic politician. Back last February 28, a group of 55 Catholic members of the House of Representatives issued a “Statement of Principles” claiming a “commitment to the basic principles at the heart of Catholic social teaching,” but refusing to accept the Church’s opposition to abortion. They claimed “the primacy of conscience” as their excuse. Cardinal George has a clear response.

A Catholic politician who excuses his or her decision to allow the killing of the unborn and of others who can’t protect themselves because he or she doesn’t want to “impose Catholic doctrine on others” seems to me to be intellectually dishonest.

 That’s the main trump card of this argument, although the Church teaching should be enough for Catholics. For on reason alone, follow the argument through to its logical conclusion and it doesn’t hold up.

The protection of every innocent human being’s right to life is a principle of reason, even though it is also a stand supported by Catholic moral teaching. Everyone understands, by way of example, that the state should protect property by forbidding stealing. This is a matter of the common good. It is not imposing Catholic morality on anybody, even though the Church teaches that stealing is a sin. Our present legal system protects stocks and bonds, as well as dogs and cats, more than it protects unborn human beings. This is contrary to the common good.

But one would have to be intellectually honest to admit this.