When it comes to casting one's vote, "sitting out" is not an option and it is not morally acceptable for a Catholic to stay at home on election day.
Fr. Frank Pavone, leader of the Priests for Life, reminds us that there are those who have fought and died in order that the common person might have a vote. Not to mention the fact that all of history has been a struggle over who has power and the very costly toil through which peasants have gained the dignity of a voice. It is no small or insignificant fact that you can go to a local polling place and "transfer [your] power," as Fr. Pavone puts it, to your candidate of choice. America is different in the history of nations. Perhaps Athens compares and even supersedes, but America remains a treasured state. It is the place where every citizen has his/her due power. Any discussion concerning Catholic standards about voting should begin there: you must vote because you are otherwise an affront to all those millions that have never had the chance to influence how they are governed, and have suffered for it. You must vote because it is your duty as a Catholic to participate in preserving the common good, and keeping watch over those who will attain your power. Sitting out does not withhold that power transfer, it merely leaves it up for grabs.
But Father Pavone, speaking from a Catholic perspective, goes on to say that when it comes to elections, pragmatically speaking "what matters is not how closely a candidate measures up to 'my' preferences and convictions. Instead, it's a question of who can and will actually get elected." He further states that "having the right positions on an issue does little good unless the candidate with the right positions actually gets elected." So for Father Pavone, taking into account the probability of a candidate being elected is of superior importance to how closely a candidate resembles your values, at least when it comes to presidential elections.
But how can the candidate with the right positions actually get elected unless the voters actually elect him? The only way to influence whether or not a candidate will get elected, insofar as one has the power to do so, is to either elect him or not, to vote for that person or not. "Having the right positions on an issue" is exactly what matters to a Catholic voter. But Father Pavone suggests that this does little good unless the candidate gets elected. Of course it does little good unless the candidate gets elected! But by all means, the way to get him elected is to vote for him!
Father Pavone does explain that elections are seasonal, and that there is ample opportunity for Catholics to press their influence in the electoral seasons that lead up to a major election. But when it comes to that day in November, Catholics should not vote for a write in, third party, or otherwise insignificant candidate, even ones that uphold Catholic teachings, because these candidates lack the potential to actually become elected. All that Father Pavone is saying here, though, is that serious Catholics are a minority, and have little influence in the overall election outcome in the United States. That is merely recognition of the state of affairs: serious Catholics are in a serious minority.
But come November, is it morally licit for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who has a high probability of being elected, but who takes a position contrary to fundamental Catholic moral teachings, even if he/she is the best of the lot? Is the one taking the least immoral stands or the one with the least possible chance of implementing immoral legislation the right candidate for the Catholic vote? Or are there standards which a Catholic voter must not compromise on in order to vote morally?
It is true that come November, there will only be two, perhaps three possible candidates for America's highest public office. But to me, this indicates a broken system, a system in which rigmarole primaries and caucuses taking place in states I don't live in, heavily influenced by media coverage, dependent upon the power of millions of dollars, shaped by popularity, and driven by two political giants we call parties, leaves the average voter stripped of his/her voting power long before November.
And though this system is worth fixing, the discussion here concerns the practicals of voting within that system. Father Pavone expects one to accept that there will be only two or three possible candidates for election in November, and to choose the least immoral. But if each of them takes stands contrary to Catholic moral standards, how can one licitly vote for any of them? And if sitting out is not an option, isn't a third party, write-in, or other viable candidate with a record corresponding to the high moral standards of the Catholic view worth voting for? How else will the minority Catholic voting block be heard? If candidates are assured of our vote come November, once we get over their immoral stands, then what would compel them to change their stances? What will compel candidates to court the vote of serious Catholics if in the end, serious Catholics aren't so serious?
When we do go to transfer our political power to a candidate in November, as Catholics we must remember those fundamental moral issues which cannot be compromised. We are not speaking of the economy, or tax policies, or health care policies, or whether or not Iraq was a good idea, or what is the best way to care for the poor. We are talking about those intrinsically evil things which American political rhetoric has reduced to the level of coffee house chatter. It is good to remember that Catholic teaching is not a political agenda, but it is decidedly a religious agenda, and therefore a human agenda. Abortion is always wrong, not because of any political point of view, but because it kills humans. Creating a human being, renaming it "embryo", doing some experiments with him/her, and then throwing him/her into the trash is intrinsically evil. Sexual acts outside the context of a covenantal marriage of a man and a woman are intrinsically evil, whether they are committed by two men, or two women, or a man and a woman, or me, or anyone.
These issues, and others, guide the Catholic vote, even in November. If they do not, or if they can be set aside in order to choose the least harmful candidate, we have already lost the reason why serious Catholics are different than serious non-Catholics.
What if candidates for the presidency faced the problem that Catholics won't vote for them unless they aligned themselves with these high moral standards? What if they faced the problem that neither Catholics or Protestants would vote for them unless they align themselves with these high Christian standards? Would we start seeing more candidates that represent the values that we hold dear? If we can't prove that these issues are serious enough that they determine whether or not one votes in favor of a candidate, then we have no political leverage, and even less influence.
Fr. Frank Pavone does amazing work and his organization Priests for Life is an irreplaceable stronghold for the pro-life movement. This article is meant to take issue with one aspect of his public addresses, albeit a significant one. No doubt the pro-life cause and other morally crucial movements within our country will be victorious through the prayers and efforts of such men as Father Pavone. His blog where I have quoted him can be found here: http://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/
0 Comments:
