I hesitate to criticize what former Ambassador Flynn has said about the state of the Catholic vote. I don’t want to be a nit-picker or appear peevish. His insights are sound and worth considering. He is on our side. He should be commended for pointing out that the politicians and establishment press pay little attention to the Catholic voter these days, when other segments of our society are courted so actively at election time.
No question, things are not the way they were when politicians feared what Cardinal Spellman or Bishop Sheen might say about a political issue.
But there is a need to do more than simply take note of this phenomenon. We did not reach this state of affairs by accident. We have to ask ourselves why things are as they are why Catholics are no longer a voting bloc with clout, if we are as well-educated and savvy as Flynn says. With all due to respect to Mr. Flynn, a column he wrote for a recent issue of The Wanderer (Jan. 22nd) reflects the problem more than a solution.
Flynn observes that “the media seems to be silencing the voices of Catholics when covering politics and Presidential campaigns,” while at the same time paying attention to “a large voting bloc of evangelical Christian voters who constitute the ‘Bible Belt’.” Precisely. But why is that so? Let’s not be paranoid. There is such a thing as anti-Catholicism. And no doubt a good number of the reporters who cover national politics are secular liberals who harbor a disdain for Catholicism. But, come on: They are just as contemptuous of Protestants living in the Bible Belt. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not treated with any more respect in the press than conservative members of the Catholic hierarchy. Yet, as Flynn observes, their followers are treated as a force that matters.
How come? We know the answer. Falwell’s and Robertson’s followers and other evangelicals vote as a bloc on the issues that matter to them. Catholics do not, certainly not in numbers large enough to make a difference. And sorry the reason why they do not is that they have been influenced by advice very much like that offered by Flynn. Recommendations similar to his are what has led to the fragmentation of the Catholic vote, a dilution of our Catholic political identity. Do not misread me: I do not charge this is Flynn’s intention. But it is the inevitable consequence of taking his advice.
Why? What Flynn offers is a version of the Seamless Garment proposition associated with the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin. Bernadin’s goal was to insure that Catholics did not become “single-issue” voters on the question of abortion. Some charged that his hidden agenda was to give cover to liberal Democratic politicians who were taking the “personally opposed, but” stance on abortion. That may be unfair. There is no way to read Bernardin’s mind.
Regardless, the effect of the Seamless Garment was to make the point that abortion was not the only issue that mattered to Catholics; that we were also committed to social and racial justice, supporting poverty programs and the rights of immigrants, saving Social Security, ending the arms race and capital punishment, protecting the rights of minorities issues such as those listed by Flynn in his column.
I think it fair to say that the Seamless Garment gave the American bishops’ approval to the case being made at the time by “pro-choice” Catholic politicians such as Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy and Geraldine Ferraro. These politicians were able to stand before Catholic voters and insist that they were Catholics in good standing, even though they opposed the Church on the abortion question, because they were “with the Church” on capital punishment, civil rights issues, government poverty programs and the size of the military budget. They were able to conjure up the appearance of a moral equivalence between themselves and their pro-life Republican opponents by arguing that their opponents were “against the Church” on military matters, capital punishment and domestic spending.
Let me repeat: I do not charge Ray Flynn with seeking this moral equivalence. But the fact remains that his list of Catholic issues “respect for human life, protecting the institution of marriage, parental choice in education, protecting Social Security, the poor, economic justice, human rights, workers’ rights, welfare reform and immigration” gives the impression that Catholics are obliged to support the domestic programs associated with Democratic Party. And that is not the case.
Look: There is a Catholic position on abortion. There is no room for debate on abortion. In contrast, a Catholic is free to take the position that lower taxes and an enhanced free market offer a more effective way to alleviate poverty than bigger and more expensive poverty programs; that some form of privatization of Social Security makes sense; that social justice for American workers requires limits on immigration; that Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment leaves us free to call for the death penalty in certain circumstances. There is room for debate on these issues for a Catholic. I am not saying that Flynn disagrees, only that his article does not make these distinctions clearly enough.
Drawing up a long list of “Catholic issues” at election time makes Catholics less of a force to be reckoned with. It serves to weaken our resolve to act militantly on issues where there is no ambiguity, such as abortion. Consider how counterproductive it is to create the impression that being a good Catholic requires that we vote for candidates who will end abortion and capital punishment, oppose homosexual marriage, support generous domestic spending on poverty programs, support a liberal immigration policy, and back the union position on right-to-work laws. Do you see what I am getting at? There may be one or two pols out there who take all these positions, but I can’t think of one, of anyone who takes this curious hodge-podge of Democratic and Republican, conservative and liberal positions. Imploring a Catholic to approach the ballot box in this frame of mind will leave him confused and directionless. It will result in the situation Ray Flynn deplores: Catholics who do not vote as Catholics, a group that is not worth the media’s attention or a candidate’s concern.
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.)