According to a report published in the Memphis Local News, Thursday, October 23, 2008, our dearly Bishop Terry Steib says he “is not telling Memphis area Catholics how to vote in this presidential election, but he is asking them to avoid casting their vote based on one issue.” In furthering his argument, he said “If our conscience is well formed, then we will make the right choices about candidates who may not support the Church’s position in every case.” I cannot agree more with the Bishop’s argument and position. His comments on the forthcoming presidential election is coming on the heels of some Catholic Bishops here in USA urging the Catholic faithful to ignore voting for any candidate that supports abortion. Put differently, the candidate’s position on abortion should be the sole criterion or the prerequisite of getting votes from the Catholics. Two Catholic Bishops in Dallas and Fort Worth co-wrote a letter stating that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Wonderful! According to the Local News Newspaper of Memphis, the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania circulated a letter through the diocese stating that a “candidate’s abortion stance supersedes all other issues. Public officials who support abortion should be denied Communion.
The reason for this write-up is not to argue with the Bishops. My target here is not to enter into dispute with the Church’s hierarchy. I am a simple and a loyal servant of God and the Church. I also want to state here that I do not support abortion. I am a strong believer and a promoter of culture of life. But I have some concerns and worries with the arguments of Bishops of Dallas, Fort Worth and Scranton. First, the two bishops in Dallas and Fort Worth states that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. What they are saying in essence is that anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate is culpable. First, it is important to point out here that what the two Bishops had done appears to be partisanship which the Church’s leadership should not get involved in. It is not the duty of the Church to tell her members who to vote for and who to vote against. At best, the Church can help its members in the discernment process without being overly partisan. What the Bishops of Dallas, Fort Worth and Scranton had done is obviously a public endorsement of a candidate or a group of candidates which is a violation of the American law. Such an act can cause a deep division within the Church because within the Church are members of the Democratic and Republican party who naturally will support their candidates either in presidential election or senatorial election etc. Within the Church are also Independents who listen to the issues being discussed and may be drawn to a particular candidate. When such division occurs, it will in a long run hurt the Church. We can be political without being partisan.
The argument of the two Bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth that “It is immoral to vote for any candidate who supports abortion” can lead to another argument. In 2004, shortly before the presidential election took place before the incumbent president, George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, the present Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger warned in a letter sent to the American Bishops that voting for any politician that supports the 1973 US Supreme Court judgment Roe vs Wade or back abortion rights of women would make the voter immorally culpable in the sin of abortion. In the letter, he speaks of how the people become responsible for the actions of those they choose to support. It is the same argument that the two Bishops are putting forward today. But here is the problem with that logic: Since Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking about how the people become responsible for the actions of those they choose to support, shall we also claim that the Pope should consider himself morally culpable in the many sins of President George W. Bush as the President of United States as from 2004: whether it is the immoral invasion of Iraq or the Guantanamo Bay or his endorsement of torture as instrument of State policy? Can one wildly claim that all the US Catholic Bishops and probably all the Catholics and Evangelicals who supported and voted for President George W. Bush are morally culpable in the many sins and errors of the president in the last four years? Or is it only in the case of abortion that culpability becomes possible?
My contention may be attacked by another argument that a pro-choice politician is a manifest sinner; a known sinner whose moral position regarding abortion is a public knowledge. While he is viewed as such, the one who claims to be pro-life is supported on the basis that he will be a proponent of culture of life. But history and events have proved us wrong. For many politicians, pro-life agenda is just an ideology, an instrument of winning election; a tool to corner votes from Catholic, Evangelicals and Conservatives. While speaking against abortion, they are thinking of another nation to invade and bomb down. Unfortunately, most of us ignore or forget that both abortion and wars or torture ultimately kill. They do not promote life! They violate the sanctity, the integrity and the dignity of human life. Not a few moralists even claim that war is the worst of all human crime and evil.
The position of the Bishop of Scranton that “a candidate’s abortion stance supersedes all other issues” amounts to reducing all the nation’s problems in healthcare, education, infrastructures, economy, jobs, energy, gas hike, immigration, housing etc to just one moral issue- abortion. At a time when the wealthiest and the most powerful nation is seriously threatened by economic collapse, everything should be put on the table. It is not enough to have a President who is pro-life but a president whose socio-political, economic and ethical policies will actually promote life. We need to examine his ethics of war too. In the last eight years, we have had a faith-based presidency; we have had a president who is pro-life. But has the number of abortions in America reduced? No! And I want to state that pro-life begins from the womb to the grave. To say that a candidate’s stance on abortion supersedes all other issues is to profoundly ignore what an average American is going through at this difficult time in history. It is denying the fact that there are millions of people who have no healthcare insurance; it is denying the fact that more than seven hundred thousand people have lost their jobs this year alone, it is denying the fact that many people are presently facing foreclosure; it is a denial of what has been happening in the Wall Street and the anxiety and panic that have gripped our people who stand and watch as their retirement security plunges. Being a pro-life politician is not enough to be elected a candidate for any political office. We have a president who is pro-life; what have we got from him for the past eight years? We have got unjust war in Iraq, huge deficit, rampant loss of jobs, financial crisis etc.
I cannot agree more with my Bishop, Terry Steib who has urged the Catholics in Memphis not to vote for a candidate based on one issue. There are varieties of issues that deeply concern our people. Asking them not to consider those issues is asking them to become irrational. We may never have a presidential candidate who will entirely agree with the Church’s teachings. But looking at varieties of issues, we can come to some sort of agreement in choosing a candidate who agrees more with the Church. Abortion should not be the only issue of consideration; it is just one moral issue. There are other moral issues like war, torture, capital punishment, gay marriage etc. What about socio-political and economic issues? Asking Catholics to vote based on one issue (abortion) is asking them to ignore myriads of problems people are facing presently. It is asking them to pretend that all is well.
I want to respectfully disagree with the argument that voting for a candidate who supports abortion is immoral and any Catholic who votes for such a candidate is culpable. If that argument holds and in fact is true, then the Church in US should come out publicly to confess and apologize for the many sins of President George W. Bush because she supported his election and re-election on the ground that he is pro-life. The Church should be careful when entering into politics. Our chief aim is to educate our people to take a close look at all the issues, to help them form their consciences. We should guard against a direct or indirect endorsement of a candidate. Doing that can cause a painful problem of division and hatred in the house of God.
The reason for this write-up is not to argue with the Bishops. My target here is not to enter into dispute with the Church’s hierarchy. I am a simple and a loyal servant of God and the Church. I also want to state here that I do not support abortion. I am a strong believer and a promoter of culture of life. But I have some concerns and worries with the arguments of Bishops of Dallas, Fort Worth and Scranton. First, the two bishops in Dallas and Fort Worth states that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. What they are saying in essence is that anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate is culpable. First, it is important to point out here that what the two Bishops had done appears to be partisanship which the Church’s leadership should not get involved in. It is not the duty of the Church to tell her members who to vote for and who to vote against. At best, the Church can help its members in the discernment process without being overly partisan. What the Bishops of Dallas, Fort Worth and Scranton had done is obviously a public endorsement of a candidate or a group of candidates which is a violation of the American law. Such an act can cause a deep division within the Church because within the Church are members of the Democratic and Republican party who naturally will support their candidates either in presidential election or senatorial election etc. Within the Church are also Independents who listen to the issues being discussed and may be drawn to a particular candidate. When such division occurs, it will in a long run hurt the Church. We can be political without being partisan.
The argument of the two Bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth that “It is immoral to vote for any candidate who supports abortion” can lead to another argument. In 2004, shortly before the presidential election took place before the incumbent president, George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, the present Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger warned in a letter sent to the American Bishops that voting for any politician that supports the 1973 US Supreme Court judgment Roe vs Wade or back abortion rights of women would make the voter immorally culpable in the sin of abortion. In the letter, he speaks of how the people become responsible for the actions of those they choose to support. It is the same argument that the two Bishops are putting forward today. But here is the problem with that logic: Since Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking about how the people become responsible for the actions of those they choose to support, shall we also claim that the Pope should consider himself morally culpable in the many sins of President George W. Bush as the President of United States as from 2004: whether it is the immoral invasion of Iraq or the Guantanamo Bay or his endorsement of torture as instrument of State policy? Can one wildly claim that all the US Catholic Bishops and probably all the Catholics and Evangelicals who supported and voted for President George W. Bush are morally culpable in the many sins and errors of the president in the last four years? Or is it only in the case of abortion that culpability becomes possible?
My contention may be attacked by another argument that a pro-choice politician is a manifest sinner; a known sinner whose moral position regarding abortion is a public knowledge. While he is viewed as such, the one who claims to be pro-life is supported on the basis that he will be a proponent of culture of life. But history and events have proved us wrong. For many politicians, pro-life agenda is just an ideology, an instrument of winning election; a tool to corner votes from Catholic, Evangelicals and Conservatives. While speaking against abortion, they are thinking of another nation to invade and bomb down. Unfortunately, most of us ignore or forget that both abortion and wars or torture ultimately kill. They do not promote life! They violate the sanctity, the integrity and the dignity of human life. Not a few moralists even claim that war is the worst of all human crime and evil.
The position of the Bishop of Scranton that “a candidate’s abortion stance supersedes all other issues” amounts to reducing all the nation’s problems in healthcare, education, infrastructures, economy, jobs, energy, gas hike, immigration, housing etc to just one moral issue- abortion. At a time when the wealthiest and the most powerful nation is seriously threatened by economic collapse, everything should be put on the table. It is not enough to have a President who is pro-life but a president whose socio-political, economic and ethical policies will actually promote life. We need to examine his ethics of war too. In the last eight years, we have had a faith-based presidency; we have had a president who is pro-life. But has the number of abortions in America reduced? No! And I want to state that pro-life begins from the womb to the grave. To say that a candidate’s stance on abortion supersedes all other issues is to profoundly ignore what an average American is going through at this difficult time in history. It is denying the fact that there are millions of people who have no healthcare insurance; it is denying the fact that more than seven hundred thousand people have lost their jobs this year alone, it is denying the fact that many people are presently facing foreclosure; it is a denial of what has been happening in the Wall Street and the anxiety and panic that have gripped our people who stand and watch as their retirement security plunges. Being a pro-life politician is not enough to be elected a candidate for any political office. We have a president who is pro-life; what have we got from him for the past eight years? We have got unjust war in Iraq, huge deficit, rampant loss of jobs, financial crisis etc.
I cannot agree more with my Bishop, Terry Steib who has urged the Catholics in Memphis not to vote for a candidate based on one issue. There are varieties of issues that deeply concern our people. Asking them not to consider those issues is asking them to become irrational. We may never have a presidential candidate who will entirely agree with the Church’s teachings. But looking at varieties of issues, we can come to some sort of agreement in choosing a candidate who agrees more with the Church. Abortion should not be the only issue of consideration; it is just one moral issue. There are other moral issues like war, torture, capital punishment, gay marriage etc. What about socio-political and economic issues? Asking Catholics to vote based on one issue (abortion) is asking them to ignore myriads of problems people are facing presently. It is asking them to pretend that all is well.
I want to respectfully disagree with the argument that voting for a candidate who supports abortion is immoral and any Catholic who votes for such a candidate is culpable. If that argument holds and in fact is true, then the Church in US should come out publicly to confess and apologize for the many sins of President George W. Bush because she supported his election and re-election on the ground that he is pro-life. The Church should be careful when entering into politics. Our chief aim is to educate our people to take a close look at all the issues, to help them form their consciences. We should guard against a direct or indirect endorsement of a candidate. Doing that can cause a painful problem of division and hatred in the house of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment