A cranky response to a confused Catholic apologia for voting Democrat

Alright, alright, I admit it: I'm a bit cranky today. No reason, really. After all, the new Dwight Yoakam CD, Dwight Sings Buck, is excellent, we've had three days of sunshine in a row here in western Oregon, and the Oregon Ducks still have a shot at the national title (yeah, I know. Just let me dream the impossible dream for another day or three).

It didn't help my mood too much to read an opinion piece, published in today's Idaho Statesman, titled "When I weigh all the issues of importance to me as a Christian, I must vote Democrat" and written by Will Rainford, LMSW, Ph.D., who is "the legislative advocate for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise." As regular readers of this blog know, we try to avoid much discussion of politics just for the sake of politics. That isn't one of the objectives of Insight Scoop, and we know that good Catholics can and do disagree on a host of touchy political issues (i.e., welfare reform, the war in Iraq, the music of Bob Dylan, etc.). But this op-ed begs—cries out!—for a little bit of fisking, for at least two reasons: it is irrational and it is condescending. And (okay, three reasons) it is written by a Catholic who really shouldn't be embarrassing himself like this in public. That said, here goes:

As the legislative advocate for the Roman Catholic Diocese, I am not willing, nor allowed, to tell my fellow Christians how to vote. That is the job of the Holy Spirit, who speaks to us through our conscience, guiding us with a moral compass.

Fine. As long as they understand what a properly formed conscience is, right? And as long as we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit works through the Church, her teachings, and her Magisterium. Do I hear an "Amen"?

I am not afraid to trust people to arrive at the best decision when it comes to political candidates after they have prayed and reflected on who the candidate is that most represents their faith.

That's mighty big of you. Bravo. I'm humbled by your trust.

Apparently, a certain number of Christians feel it necessary to dictate to all of us who to vote for, thereby trumping the voice of the Holy Spirit.

By "dictate" you mean...what? This is a bit hazy to mean anything of value. An example would be helpful....

A Christian certainly can vote for a Democrat. I do.

...but is not going to be given. Congrats on voting for Democrats. I usually vote for Republicans, but have never felt compelled to write an op-ed piece explaining why. Nor do I feel the least bit beholden to vote for this or that party. Heck, I might have to go independent come the '08 election. But enough about my anguished search for political peace.

I choose to vote for Democrats, not because Democrats are pro-choice and supportive of stem-cell research, but in spite of those positions. I support Democrats because they are pro-children and pro-family, seeking to end poverty and hunger.

Or: I know that the Democratic Party upholds abortion as one of the greatest rights ever known to man, but once babies actually are born, the DP does the best job helping them out and protecting their rights.

Sorry. Not convincing in the least. Which is not to say that I'm enamored with everything the Republican Party does, because I'm not. Not by a long shot. But, really, are you suggesting that Republicans, who tend to support some semblance of traditional marriage and family life, are actually "anti-family" and "anti-children"? Are you further suggesting, if we dare wander down this trying road of logic a bit further, that holding traditional beliefs about marriage and family are actually bad for children and families? Finally, does this mean that those who vote for Republicans aren't pro-family or pro-children? Or, conversely, that voting for Democrats, who are quite staunch about their support for abortion, euthanasia, "same sex" marriage and such, is pro-family and pro-children?

Does this make any sense? I'll help you out with the answer: No.

As a Christian, I vote for Democrats because they are working to end the Iraq war, which my moral compass has told me was wrong from the first minute of the invasion.

Fair enough, I suppose. Frankly, I hate this topic because it's impossible to talk about it for more than eight seconds before most people completely freak out. So I'm just going to offer a "bye", since there are plenty of other issues to address. I will note, however, that The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:

The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war' doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good”.[1050 ]

In other words, some wars are "just war." Whether or not the war in Iraq is such is hotly debated. But, re: abortion:

The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia. [par 155]

Concerning the “methods” for practising responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion. The latter in particular is a horrendous crime and constitutes a particularly serious moral disorder; far from being a right, it is a sad phenomenon that contributes seriously to spreading a mentality against life, representing a dangerous threat to a just and democratic social coexistence. [par 233. emphasis added]

I know it's not an inner moral compass, but it seems worth mentioning.

I give money to the Democratic Party in Idaho because they recognize what I know; Earth is God's gift to humanity and we must protect it against the ravaging greed of big business and corporations.

Oh. My. Goodness. The Democratic Party actively assists and supports the killing of unborn children, but its more important that the DP tries to protect "Earth" from Big Business! If you want to rely on the Republicans=Big Business stereotype, then surely I can throw out the Democrats=Big Lawyers and Big Government stereotype, which appears to have a more than passing resemblance to reality. My opinion is that the vast majority of politicians, regardless of party, eat from the hand of Big Something or Another. It is one of the biggest political problems our country faces.

I vote Democrat, because I want expanded freedom for everyone in America, not just people who look like me; that includes people who are gay or lesbian. Oppression and discrimination are not a Christian value. Love of our neighbors, all of them, is.

Conveniently vague. Hey, we're all against oppression and discrimination, but how about some substantive details? Just one example. For instance, do you think it's "oppressive" that homosexuals cannot be "married"? If so, how does this square with the Church's moral teachings about marriage and homosexuality? Love is not shown by telling people they should be able to do whatever they want, but helping them to see that they should do what is good, both for their own good and the good of others.

My job as a Catholic Democrat is to speak issues to candidates.

"Speak issues"? How about just speaking plain English?

I will tell Democrat candidates who I choose to support that I want expanded reproductive health care for women, while at the same time I expect Democrats to reduce the number of abortions taking place.

Uh, that makes no sense whatsoever, especially since everyone and their pet goldfish know that "reproductive health care" is more often than not a fancy term for abortion and contraception. Anyone who expects to Democrats to reduce the number of abortions is, well, drinking the wrong water. How about this from the DP's 2004 National Party Platform statement (PDF document):

"We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Abortion is legal. But it is not very safe, especially not for the child being murdered, and it is not rare. Is that really good enough?

Consider that 75 percent of abortions take place in the context of poverty.

Consider that 100% of successful abortions kill an innocent human being. That context trumps your context. I really, really dislike this "argument from the context of poverty" because it's simply another way of saying, "Poor people can't be as good as not-so-poor people." It's an insult to poor people. It's arrogant.

Or, if I am concerned about the sanctity of marriage, I need to ensure that candidates support families by reducing the destructive pressures of hunger, housing insecurity and lack of health care.

The Church teaches:

A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated." (Catechism, par 2202)

Would you state, for the record, that you believe the sanctity of marriage includes defining it in such a way? Or is this definition oppressive and discriminatory?

When it comes to immigration, I absolutely must support the Democrats. I am taught by Jesus in the gospel to welcome the stranger.

But what about illegal aliens? Sure, they're strangers. And they deserved to be treated justly. And they also should adhere to the laws, just like the rest of us. Is that really so hard to accept? I hate to bust out the Catechism again, (even though it was put together by the Church founded by Jesus), but here goes:

"Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." (par 2241)

Laws. Responsibilities. Obligation. Duties. Phhhhhgh. Boring! Who needs that stuff?

God shows me from before Jesus was born, when Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt,

Uh, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt after he was born. It's in the Bible. In my Bible it is found in Matthew 2:13-15. Page 2 of the New Testament.

that economic and political forces work against the immigrant family, forcing them to flee from their beloved homeland to a strange place fraught with peril.

C'mon, they weren't an "immigrant family" in the modern sense of the term. Political exiles or refugees may be better terms, although they are rather modern as well. And for the record, the reason the Holy Family fled to Egypt was to escape a familiar place fraught with peril, namely, the murderous Herod. Also, the Holy Family returned to their home country after a short stay in Egypt.

When I feed the immigrant, clothe her, house her, and provide her medical care, I am doing so to Jesus. I am not instructed in the Bible to first ask for papers proving immigration status.

Apples and oranges. No, apples and laws. Helping someone out in need is one thing. Helping someone break the law is another thing. Put another way, the United States does not have an obligation to provide for illegal aliens, but it does have a right to monitor and control its borders. Bringing the Bible into this in such a flippant way isn't very helpful, unless you wanted to quote from the Epistle to Titus: "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work..." (Tit 3:1). Of course, Paul always was a grumpy sort of guy, wasn't he?

My job as a Catholic Democrat is to help the candidate understand how to design an immigration system that is fair to both the immigrant and my country.

Here's a suggestion: The immigrant can apply to enter the country and then follow the directives given him by the country. Complicated, yes. But quite reasonable.

When I weigh all the issues of importance to me as a Christian, I absolutely must vote Democrat. I would be betraying the Holy Spirit if I did not.

Yet the Bible doesn't instruct you to vote Democrat. Does it? So is this the sin against the Holy Spirit spoken about by Jesus? Hmmm...

But that is a very personal decision between me, Jesus, and God.

So personal that you wrote a very public op-ed about it.

I would be very disappointed to learn that any Christian merely followed my example and voted as I do.

Me too.

Who do you vote for? Go to your knees and pray. You will figure it out. You don't need me to tell you.

But you have, haven't you?

And you certainly do not need other Christians to tell you.

Nope, now that you've already told us that not voting Democrat is an offense against the Holy Spirit. But what do you say we consider the directives and guidelines given to us by the Church? What about those? Anything? What? Hello?

Comments

[anonymous]

Imagine a diocese with a 68-year-old former Orange County aux. bishop who was raised in Long Beach and attended St. John's Camarillo having such a man as his legislative rep! But perhaps he was hired by the former Boise Bishop - 70 year old St. John's grad and current Orange Bishop Tod Brown.
The church should introduce an impediment to episcopal ordination based on affinity of St. John's Camarillo graduation dates.

[seminarian]

First of all Carl, that was hilarious. But more importantly, it was well put. Don't take this the wrong way, but I kind of like it when you're cranky!

Now Anonymous 7:48pm ... SHUT UP! You seem to be saying that you can't be a good priest if you graduated from St. Johns, and as a student of St. John's I find that HIGHLY offensive. There is nothing going on at St. John's that is so bad that it will prevent you from being a great priest. Could it improve? Yes. Could EVERY seminary improve? Yes. Is there anything about St. John's that is praisworthy? Moral Theology. Moral Theology. And Moral Theology. I'd put our professors up against ANY in the country. Not only do they clearly teach the Church's moral positions, but they clearly teach us, the future priests of the Church, how to EXPLAIN them to the faithful. So, in the future, please don't write off an entire presbyterate (or future presbyterate) for a few bad apples. And if you do, why don't you leave your name attached to it.

[Jackson]

Couldn't those like anonymous point to far more than simply a few bad apples in placing St. John's among the purveyors of poison? Then again, this is off-topic, so forget it.

[LJ]

I haven't seen or heard the new CD, but I never could stand Buck but loved Dwight. Go figure, and Dwight sometimes sounds more like Buck than Buck. Perhaps an opportunity for a musical reconciliation? Thanks for the tip.

[Brian Schuettler]

Go figure, and Dwight sometimes sounds more like Buck than Buck.

This is yet another piece of evidence that the vocal component of a parallel universe has been breached. With this new evidence we can now hypothesize that Dwight IS Buck. Thanks for your valuable contribution to this research, LJ. I can see a possible Nobel coming your way!

**************************************************************************
seminarian:
"And if you do, why don't you leave your name attached to it."

and I guess your name is "seminarian"?

[Mark Brumley]

Carl, you sure are cranky.

[Carl Olson]

Carl, you sure are cranky.

How did you know?! The only reason I'm cranky is that I'm now convicted of my need to vote Democrat... ;-)

[Mark L.]

Um, "seminarian", I think the point "anonymous" was making about St. John's had to do with the particular graduation dates of his two examples and made no comment about the current state of the institution.

And Carl, please, be cranky whenever you want to if it produces pieces like that one.

[Rich Leonardi]

So, in the future, please don't write off an entire presbyterate (or future presbyterate) for a few bad apples.

Actually, he doesn't; he links the quality of an "ordination," i.e., priest or bishop, with the ordinand's graduation date.

[seminarian]

Yes, I realize I jumped the gun now. I apologize. I've come to be a bit overly sensitive about this sort of thing since every serious catholic I meet always asks, "Oh. Why would you want to go there?" Truth is, it was my bishop's call and I had nothing to do with it. I guess I just want everyone to know that the the future is bright for these dioceses based on the quality of the men preparing for orders.

[Brian Day]

But what I want to know is, is seminarian now intimidated? :)

[seminarian]

Nope.

[Mark L.]

How do we get people to understand that, for all the supposedly good things Demoncrats want to do for us, they are only willing to do them for those they allow to be born and those they haven't killed yet? None of their "wonderful" programs matter if you're never born or if they figure a way to take you out before it's time for you to go.

[Mark Brumley]

Seminarian says he is not intimidated. Now I know he is one of us.

[Carl Olson]

I'm intimidated by people who aren't intimidated by people who aren't intimidating. Or something like that.