Religion & Law

Sean Dudley appreciates the opportunity to participate in this discussion with Professors Stabile and Uelmen (here). He says:

In response to Prof. Stabile's recent post, I have to say that I don't recall any of the outspoken anti-Obama bishops demanding that I vote Republican, but only that I *not* vote for Obama.  "Forming Consciences" states that when individual voters are presented, as in this election, with mainline candidates who each support intrinsic evils (McCain supports embryo-destructive research), we may choose (1) to support the candidate whom we perceive as the lesser of two evils that will do the most good elsewhere, (2) to vote for a non-mainline candidate who supports no intrinsic evils, or (3) not to vote at all.

When these bishops said that no proportionate reason could justify a vote for Obama, they left open all of the possibilities available under the document except for voting for Obama, who they said could not be the lesser of two evils in this election.  As I see it, that is moral guidance, not moral oppression, and it is an application of the joint statement, not a departure from it.

If a bishop DID say that we had to vote for John McCain, that statement would conflict with "Forming Consciences."  We should not, however, read a pro-McCain message into every anti-Obama statement made during the election season.  So assuming would evidence a mindset on our part that we were morally required to vote for a main-party candidate, which is itself a departure from "Forming Consciences."  As with the Ten Commandments and the Constitution, a "Thou shalt not" from a bishop leaves open plenty of "Thou mayest"s.