It seems to be a question that will always be with us: When is it proper to link our Catholic beliefs with our politics? Catholics on the left frequently argue that we have an obligation to back the social welfare programs associated with the Democratic Party because of Christ’s insistence that we care for the least of our brethren.
James Fitzpatrick's novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
They will also use Christ’s words and passages from papal encyclicals to rally opposition to the application of American military power in the world arena. Catholics on the right call for political activism on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriages and pornography. Some call for the Church to excommunicate Catholic politicians who take a “pro-choice” position on abortion.
What is curious is that both those on the left and on the right object to the other side’s mixing of politics and religion. Both sides argue that the other side is guilty of “using” Catholicism for political objectives, of placing ideology above their loyalty to the Church. Both charge that hypocrisy, cynicism and Machiavellian calculations are at work, rather than sincere moral concerns. Catholics on the left were scornful of those who acted as if it were the United States' role in the Cold War to stop the spread of atheistic Communism. Those on the right reacted similarly to the claim that Catholics were obliged to work for peace through unilateral nuclear disarmament.
So when is it proper to use political means to achieve our moral objectives? Is it ever proper to seek to “remake all things in Christ” through the ballot box? Are there times when we are entitled to speak out against fellow Catholics for ignoring their moral beliefs because of their political positions?
On some issues, the picture is clearer than others. For example, no matter how hard I try, I can’t get a handle on what it is that Catholic politicians tell themselves when they take the “personally opposed but” position on abortion. The only reason to be “personally opposed” to abortion is the conviction that the procedure takes an innocent unborn life. But if you are convinced that this is what takes place in an abortion, there is no plausible way to simultaneously concede some else’s right to take the life of the child.
To test the proposition, consider the reaction to anyone who said he was personally opposed to slavery, but would not interfere with anyone else’s right to own a slave; or who was personally opposed to wife-beating, but reluctant to impose his moral views on men who want to give their wives a beating once in a while. At least pro-abortion zealots are consistent in this regard. They are not “personally opposed” to abortion. They see nothing wrong with removing “fetal tissue” because they are convinced (or so they tell us) that it is not human life.
On the other issues of our day, I would argue that it is harder to find a “Catholic position.” On most of the disputes that divide Americans, there is room for us as Catholics to debate and disagree, leaving us free to apply our prudential judgement to the question at hand. We should respect the right of those who disagree with us to do the same. We can question their political judgment as vociferously as we care to, pointing out what we think will be the harmful consequences if they get their way at the polls. Making moral judgments about the state of their souls is another matter. That crosses the line.
What issues am I talking about? Well, for example, not everyone who votes against a poverty program is displaying an indifference to the plight of the poor. There is no reason to assume they are not convinced that the program in question is wasteful, inefficient and likely to do more harm than good to those who are its recipients. It is not only conservative Republicans these days who admit that welfare programs created a dependency mentality in many of the urban poor.
Similarly, those Catholics who favor “tax cuts for the rich” are likely to be convinced the cuts will stimulate economic growth and create new jobs, jobs that will help the poor more than any government program ever could. The same could be said for those who oppose an increase in the minimum wage. They may sincerely believe that there is a connection between a higher minimum wage and rising unemployment. You disagree? That is your right. But if you shake your head and argue that tax cuts will not lead to new jobs and that minimum wage laws do not have a downside, you are revealing your political convictions, a bias, if you will. You are entitled to that bias, of course. But there is no fair way to accuse those on the other side of “lacking compassion for the poor” because they interpret the economic data differently than you do.
Affirmative action is another example. There is no “Catholic position” on this question. There is room to debate whether programs designed to provide greater opportunity for minorities achieve that goal, without being unfair to the white majority in the country. There are no doubt racists who opposed affirmative action programs for base motives. But to assume that racism is at the heart of the complaints against the reverse discrimination implicit in affirmative action is muddle-headed and unjust. Black economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have been arguing against affirmative action programs for decades.
There is also room for debate over whether we should go to war with Iraq. A Catholic is obliged to listen to the Church leaders who call for a peaceful resolution of the confrontation. Who would not want to see the dispute settled peacefully? But, if after taking the time to ponder the requirements of the just way theory as it would apply to military action against Saddam Hussein, and weighing the dangers of permitting the Iraqi dictator to develop weapons of mass destruction, a Catholic concludes that war is necessary, he has done nothing immoral. He is free to come to the conclusion that an application of American military power is called for. Of course, a Catholic who does not see it that way is entitled to challenge this conclusion — to make the case that war is not necessary or just. The injustice is in assuming that those who favor military intervention in Iraq are “war mongers.” That would be as unjust as assuming that the Pax Christi demonstrators who march outside the U.S. Army’s School for the Americas are communist agents.
Do tax cuts promote economic growth and stimulate job creation? Do affirmative action programs unfairly penalize white students who had nothing to do with past injustices committed against blacks? Would a war with Iraq help stabilize the Middle East and free the Iraqi people of a cruel dictator? As long as plausible arguments can be made pro and con on these questions, there is no fair way to accuse those who disagree with us of lacking “compassion” or acting without regard to the teachings of the Church. Not unless your objective is to gain political advantage, even at the price of distorting the truth.
