Judging by the headlines this campaign, you might have thought the shepherds were headed one way and the flock in another direction. That's not quite the case, as reports of 50 or 60 or even 100 bishops promoting a "McCain-or-be-damned" approach to abortion and the civil sacrament of voting don't hold up under scrutiny. Still, there's no doubt many more bishops than usual want a more forceful approach to political activity, and that will be an interesting (closed-door) discussion next week when they gather in Baltimore.
The "flock"--some 65 million or so of us lay folk and ordinary religious--also didn't go en masse over the cliff for Obama, though it's pretty clear the bishops didn't have much sway, or if they did, it may have been to push Catholics the other direction. Catholics as a whole went for Obama 54-45, a major swing from 2004, when they went for Bush over (Catholic) John Kerry. But break it down by ethnicity and white Catholics went for McCain 52-47--although, as Mark Silk points out in an excellent analysis (complete with regional breakdowns), Obama did better than Kerry with white Catholics by 8 points. White Catholics also tend to be marginally more Democratic than whites as a whole. (I'd also highly recommend the Mark Silk-Andrew Walsh piece in the Nov. 3 edition of America, on the past and future of the Catholic vote.)
On the other hand, Latinos, who are the future of the church in many respects, went strong for Obama. That's an internal fault line as critical as that within the hierarchy. But, lay people are united in not factoring the abortion issue into their vote very much, as against the advice of the bishops. The economy, war, health care, energy, etc all rated high while "life" issues barely appeared on the radar. That is consistent with past elections. What is also consistent--and what is reflected in the ballot results--is that the bishops get more traction with Catholics (and the public) on gay marriage than on overturning Roe v. Wade. Ballot proposal to limit abortion were defeated in three states, while proposals barring gay marriage and adoption by gay parents passed.
Another warning sign: Young Catholics clearly do not support the political positions of the bishops and others on abortion and gay marriage. It's tough to have a political strategy without voters behind you.
So what now? How does the Catholic Church recover a voice and presence and, to dream, influence, in the public square? Phil Lawler of Catholic World News says, as usual, the problem is dissent, and he vows a "crusade" that he hopes will be joined by outspoken bishops. Tom Reese has a comprehensive analysis at The Washington Post, ending with this:
"A closer look at the exit polls should be as discouraging for left-wing Catholics as for right-wing Catholics. Catholic voters did not embrace either the conservative non-negotiables or the church's preferential option for the poor. They were concerned about themselves and their families. Will the abortion debate rise up again in four years at the next presidential election? A lot depends on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they push through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), then they will have betrayed their pro-life Catholic supporters. This will make it nearly impossible for these people to support them again. On the other hand, if they make a priority the enactment of an abortion reduction bill, then it will be more difficult for the bishops and the Republicans to portray the Democrats as the pro-abortion party."
Another danger for the bishops, however, was pointed out by Al Mohler, a leading voice of Southern Baptists and the "religious right":
"Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door."
That seems to me to be the true risk inherent in the pro-lifers' strategy, in that it is so tied to the GOP that if the party moves toward a more moderate position--that debate is underway--the Catholic leadership could be left without a prayer (not to mention the unborn). "Put not your trust in princes," the Psalmist says. But if you are going to get involved in politics, he might have added, hedge your bets by keeping ties to both parties.
There is much to be said for the thesis that Catholics are "politically homeless." No party will ever represent Catholic teaching completely, of course. But that can also be something of a cop-out. Catholics are in many respects just living in separate houses (or chanceries, as the case may be). Besides, people make politics. So what now?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
What now? Now we work to hold the Democrats responsible for their pledge to reduce the number of abortions and to reach out the help the "least of us" - and we work to make it possible. We are at a new day in America - one where the old lines have fallen apart and it is time for a new definition. The Democrats can be the party of choice for Catholics if they truly make good on reducing the need for abortions and increasing the support for women who choose to continue their pregnancy to term. Pro-choice has to be expanded to include the choice of keeping a child or putting the child up for adoption - not just choosing to abort. On so many other issues the Democrats are more in line with the moral teachings of the church (poverty, healtcare, wars, the environment) that if they can make abortion "legal but rare" they will go a long way toward inviting Catholics to join them. As Catholics, we need to make sure that our representatives in Congress and our new President know this by keeping an eye on what they do and communicating regularly when we see an issue that matters to us. A huge number of people got politically active this year and we need to stay active if we are going to effect real change
"Will the abortion debate rise up again in four years at the next presidential election?"
When did anyone hold Bush 2 or Reagan responsible for keeping their promise of a Constitutional Ammendment?
McCain never vowed to stop abortions. Toward the end of the campaign both McCain and Palin were hedging their words - make it a state decision. If McCain and the other Republicans really wanted to stop abortion they would use a federal law.
Reagan and Bush had a Republican controlled Congress, yet no action.
Republicans are not going to fight for an end of abortions. 60+ percent of Americans belief abortion should be legal. People cannot get elected to Congress with 40 percent of the votes.
Katie is correct about the Democratic views better matching Christian values.
How many more elections are people going to be fooled with false campaign promises.
In 1999, McCain said he would not support overturing Roe v Wade because it would cause women to have unsafe abortions. He flip-flopped after losing the 2000 primary to making general statements that never said "I will end abortion."
Statistics say the majority of abortions are performed on very low income women, yet McCain and other Republicans voted against education and health care to prevent abortions.
Try making Republicans accountable by supporting bills to reduce unwanted babies.
I remember the back ally abortions and all the damage women did to their body in an attempt to abort. Laws will never stop abortions. McCain was correct, people without money to pay doctors for performing safe illegal abortions will have unsafe abortions.
If the Republican Party abandons a anti-abortion position, they will share the Democrats' burden of being responsible for millions of abortions each year.
Young Catholics, if they support abortion, demonstrate the failure of the church already in countering a Culture of Death overall. No suprise, considering the number of closed Catholic schools, the crappy CCD programs offered by ill-trained or educated lay people and the professors at "Catholic" colleges who lack any understanding of Catholic doctrine.
As Americans, we all experience the strong distinction which seems to exist between the ideals and the reality of our government, regarding the blindness of its justice and equality of opportunities. Each political party espouses the highest ideals of moral and civic concern for all America's citizens. Yet, the lived experience is often much different.
In a similar vein, if all that the Catholic Church can offer adults, youths and children are its doctrines as a guide, with nothing else that really inspires them, the people will reject the Church's political statements as they have rejected the Republican platform.
The Church really needs to do major house-cleaning, and soul-searching before it can become the moral "voice in the wilderness" that has people flocking to listen to it. The Church is just as blind to its own sins against Christ's teachings as any secular society. Worse---because the Church should know better!
In the late 1960’s, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court was a Catholic seminarian preparing for the Diocese of Savannah. He had been raised a Catholic in the segregated black life of Savannah, Georgia. In the seminary, however, he encountered much more than the usual role distinctions which are customary in the life of the Church. He met with racial antagonism, racial avoidance and racial name calling. As the world outside the seminary became more sensitized to black demands for justice, the seminary remained oblivious. Thomas left the seminary in frustration and anger. In remembering those years Justice Thomas commented that if the Church had approached racial justice with the energy with which it approaches the issues surrounding abortion rights, he would be a Catholic priest rather than a Supreme Court Justice today.
Just as in political parties, what the Church preaches is not always what it really practices.
I suspect that the US Catholic bishops have a long way to go to have any influence on the Obama presidency. Oh, they will most likely be politely received and given a listen or two, but really influence .... it'll be a long time in happening and the influence will only be exercised by the few, the pastoral and the humble. Doesn't sound much like many of them, does it?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.