Religion & Law

Sean Dudley responds to Michael P.'s post, Election Reflections, which reprints a Peter Steinfels NYT op-ed:

In his criticism of the bishops who told Catholics that they could not in good conscience vote for Sen. Obama, Steinfels misreads the bishops? joint statement on faithful citizenship and mistakes spiritual guidance for domination of conscience.

First, ?Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship? states that it can be appropriate to disqualify a candidate based on a single issue.  ?A candidate?s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter?s *support*.  Yet a candidate?s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to *disqualify* a candidate from receiving support.?  Where was the contradiction, then, in proclaiming that Obama?s radically pro-abortion stance alone can and should disqualify him from our consideration?

Second, ?Faithful Citizenship? states that some issues are more important than others, but it does not establish an end-of-season national ranking of the problems we face.  Where was the double-speak, then, in a bishop?s helping his flock to determine the relative weight of various issues?  Moreover, the joint statement announces that Catholics may only vote for a pro-abortion politician if done (1) despite the pro-abortion stance and (2) for proportionately grave moral reasons.  Where was the double-speak, then, in a bishop?s application of these principles to find that the legal termination of 4,000 human lives per day has no moral equivalent and thus should disqualify Obama?

Third, identifying the moral ramifications of a vote for a pro-abortion candidate is part of forming voter consciences, not overriding them.  If a bishop saw no proportionate issue that could counterbalance Obama?s abortion position, making a vote for Obama a soul-endangering cooperation in evil, was the bishop not allowed to guide his flock away from such a spiritual pitfall?

Steinfells seems to read the joint statement as handing to individuals the reins of conscience formation while muzzling the bishops on the matter, leaving the faithful no map for the journey except the joint statement itself.  This misses the fact that ?Faithful Citizenship? paints only in broad strokes and that the bishops charged with the salvation of their flocks should be allowed to fill in the details.