Religion & Law

Amy, I'm a little confused about how you articulate some of your questions/statements in your most recent post.

First, regarding disqualifying a candidate because of a position on a single issue of intrinsic evil, you say that you "think many people read the ?may? (not ?must?) as leaving room for discretion and prudential judgment."  I guess I'm not sure how one could read the "may" in any other way.  The document states explicitly that although ?[a] Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the vote?s intent is to support that position,? that ?a voter should not use a candidates? opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference to inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity? and that ?a Catholic who rejects a candidate?s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.?  That seems to me pretty strong support for reading "may" disqualify in a way that does not require "must."

Second, if I'm reading you correctly, you appear to posit as one possible pole "the notion that lay people must simply follow how a particular bishop has worked out the prudential application of the teaching in a given social context."  If the Conference itself takes the position, as it does in Faithful Citizenship, that their role is to help people form their consciences and not "to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote", how can it possible be the case that people must vote the way an individual Bishop instructs them to?  That seems to me completely inconsistent with what the document calls for, which is why many people reacted negatively to the statements of some individual Bishops in this campaign.  In the view of many of us, "vote Republican or be eternally damned" is not an exercise in helping people form their consciences.