What are we to make of this phenomenon? Could it be that there are that many Catholics who have no regard for the rights of the unborn or the Magisterium? Yes, it could be.
According to recent surveys only about half of American Catholics attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis. Which means they hear no sermons, receive no instruction in their faith, read no Catholic literature. They are largely ignorant of the Church’s teachings and feel no obligation to obey the Church’s authorities. When they call themselves “Catholic,” all they mean is that they were baptized in a Catholic church, received their First Communion and were taken to some Catholic services by their parents when they were children. As adults, just about the only time they attend a Catholic liturgy is a wedding or a funeral. It is hardly surprising that “Catholics” who have no contact with the Church are not influenced by its teachings.
When a pollster asks these individuals for their religious affiliation, they say “Catholic” mainly because they think an answer is expected of them. I am not exaggerating for emphasis: Their astrological sign is likely to mean more to them than Catholicism. In the Times poll, this is the group that said they were Catholics, “but not very religious.” (How does that work?) They are the folks who favored Kerry by a substantial margin. In contrast, Catholics who called themselves “very religious” favored Bush by a 23-point margin in the poll. I find this reassuring. It means the people next to us in the pews are far more likely to vote with the rights of the unborn as a priority.
But nominal Catholics are not the only Catholics who intend to vote for Kerry. The polls indicate the Democratic candidate can count on a substantial number (about 40%) of practicing Catholics to vote for him, regardless of his pro-abortion record. What can these Catholics be thinking? Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine, recently wrote that Catholics who back candidates who support legal abortion do so “because they don’t accept the Church’s point of view on abortion. It’s that simple.” I disagree. There is more to it.
In some cases Hudson is right, of course. It is hard to give any slack to those educated and informed Catholic politicians and Democratic Party operatives who manipulate the Seamless Garment argument (just as many observers said would happen) to justify their support for legal abortion. They are hucksters. The “personally-opposed-but” Catholic politicians and their supporters have made an art of the ploy. Even some Catholic Democrat politicians who identify themselves as pro-life play the game to justify their support for Kerry. Consider Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democratic Congressman from Michigan.
Stupak tells us there is no contradiction between his pro-life position and his support for Kerry. “I would like to think that Catholics look at the totality of the person and not just one issue,” he argues. “Catholics are concerned about social economic justice issues just as much as right-to-life issues. Why can’t we pass an extension of the unemployment benefits when we can give away billions of dollars in tax breaks. People are hurting out there.”
Yuck. It is hard to believe that this man really thinks there is a moral equivalence between backing the Democrat’s big-government approach to the economy and defending the rights of the unborn; that he does not understand that Catholics are free to disagree about whether the central planning favored by the Democrats promotes economic well-being more than the more free-market approach of the Republicans, but not free to disagree about whether unborn children should be killed in the womb. We are looking at either an ignoramus or a con artist.
But there is another breed of pro-life Catholic who will vote for John Kerry, one whose integrity it would be wrong to impugn. Even if you think their decision wrongheaded, it is not a decision that implies a disregard for the Church’s teachings on abortion. Permit me to use as an example a now-deceased deacon in a former parish of mine. This man was greatly respected and admired by the parishioners. He was unequivocally pious — and pro-life. He led prayer services and attended marches and demonstrations to repeal Roe v. Wade.
Yet he never voted for a Republican in his life. And never intended to. The man was a member of one of the trade unions in the New York City area. He earned his living as construction worker on the bridges and tunnels that form New York’s infrastructure. When asked why he voted Democrat, his answer was simple. “When the Republicans get in office, I starve.” He could recite numerous examples of layoffs that occurred during Republican administrations. He was convinced that he and his family had a stake in the Democratic Party’s greater willingness to invest in public works.
When asked about the pro-life issue, he would shake his head disdainfully and answer, “Come on…the Republicans aren’t going to do anything about abortion.” I did not know the man well enough to probe him further on this point. Even if I had, I don’t know whether it would have been enlightening. He was not given to lengthy expositions on legal and philosophical matters. But I had no reason to question his sincerity. Moreover, I think I knew what he meant. Let me take a shot at it.
The logic of pro-life Democrats such as this man hinges on their belief that there is little likelihood that the Republicans, at any time in the near future, are going to mount a serious attempt to end legal abortion in the United States; that Republicans do little more than offer lip-service to pro-life causes, and that, as a result, Catholics are entitled to vote for a “pro-choice” Democrat who is more amenable to them on other issues. In other words, they do not challenge the position taken by the pope and the American bishops about the necessity of voting for pro-life politicians, only the notion that most Republicans are truly committed to ending legal abortions. You can question that logic — call it stupid, uninformed, naïve, whatever — but it is hard to see how it can be called morally deficient.
A comparison is in order. Our side argues that “personally-opposed-but” Democratic Catholic politicians support abortion rights because they would not get the votes of the liberal Democratic constituencies they represent if they did not make that compromise. Fair enough. But isn’t it just as likely that a good number of pro-life Republicans are pro-life because they represent culturally conservative voters?
Do I have some prominent pro-life Republicans in mind? No, I can’t read minds. But I tell ya, I can’t think of a single pro-life Republican politician who went down to defeat because he refused to bend on the abortion question. I think it fair to assume that there are more than a few pro-life Republicans who would flip in an instant if they were shown polls indicating that that it was necessary for their political survival. Remember: Mario Cuomo and Rudolph Giuliani did not take “pro-choice” positions before they decided to run for office in New York. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were pro-life when they were running for office in Arkansas and Tennessee.
My point is that it is not unreasonable for someone to question the depths of the Republican Party’s commitment to the pro-life cause. Our side frequently makes the case that an individual is entitled to use prudential judgment on issues such as capital punishment, the war in Iraq and immigration policy. By that logic, we have to respect the rights of fellow-Catholics who question the link between Republican electoral victories and the pro-life cause, including those urban pro-life union members with life-long neighborhood and career ties to the Democratic Party who intend to vote for John Kerry.
If these Catholics are convinced that the Republican Party looks upon pro-life Catholics as a voting bloc to be wooed at election time and ignored for the rest of the year, and that the Democratic Party’s economic platform serves them and their families better than the Republican’s, their willingness to vote for Kerry should not be assumed to reflect a disregard for the Church or its teachings.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
