I can’t think of a topic that has provoked as much mail — some of it quite angry — as my contention that it is illogical to assert a moral equivalence between Catholic politicians who are “pro-choice,” but in favor of increased spending on poverty programs, against the war in Iraq and opposed to capital punishment — and those who are pro-life, but opposed to increasing federal spending on social programs, supportive of the Bush policies in Iraq and in favor of capital punishment.
There may be reasons for a Catholic to vote for “pro-choice” Democrats, but this notion of a moral equivalence between them and pro-life conservatives is not one of them. Those who make the claim are either muddle-headed or engaged in a con job.
Some of those who have written to me may be Democratic Party activists cynically maneuvering to push their agenda. But there are others who strike me as sincere. They protest that there is no way to buy into the notion that Rome leaves room for us to apply prudential judgment on the war in Iraq, capital punishment and the need for more spending on poverty programs. Some have sent me statements from the pope on these issues, insisting that his words permit no equivocation. I have even been accused of being as much a “cafeteria Catholic” as the liberals who dissent from Rome on issues such as birth control, women priests and liberation theology. Ouch…
Well, I no longer have to defend my position on my own. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has come to the rescue. A letter that Ratzinger wrote in June to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has recently been made public. The letter makes clear the difference between the way a Catholic must respond to the pope’s pronouncements on abortion and the way we must respond to his positions on issues such as capital punishment and the war in Iraq. (The existence of this letter was reported by the Italian daily La Repubblica, and subsequently confirmed by informed sources at the Vatican.)
The central theme of Ratzinger’s letter was whether Communion should be withheld from pro-abortion politicians. But in the course of dealing with that issue, Ratzinger also explained why the Church’s teaching on abortion is different from its position on capital punishment and Iraq. Said Ratzinger,
Ratzinger saw no need to go into detail about why it is not inherently immoral to “be at odds with the Holy Father” on capital punishment and the war in Iraq. He was speaking to bishops. One can assume that they understand why room must be left for the application of prudential judgment on these matters, but not on abortion. But, judging from the letters I receive, there is a need to say more on this topic for many ordinary Catholics who cannot see the difference.
Here is the key: On the question of abortion, there is no possible way for a Catholic politician to say that he is following the teachings of the Church, while at the same time defending legal abortion. If you admit that you are committed to keeping abortion legal, you are saying that you intend to do nothing to stop the killing of millions of unborn children.
In contrast, on the question of capital punishment, it is possible for a person to maintain that he accepts the pope’s teaching that capital punishment should be applied rarely and only when absolutely necessary to protect society — while at the same time calling for it in a certain case. In other words, a Catholic who sincerely ponders the pope’s guidelines on capital punishment, but nonetheless comes to the conclusion that the death penalty is appropriate for a particular crime and a particular criminal, is not ignoring the Church’s teachings. He is applying them. There is no reason to assume otherwise. Where does one draw the line on “rare” and “absolutely necessary”? It is a question that can be debated in good faith.
The same logic holds on the war in Iraq. Catholics are obliged to accept the just war theory: that war should be a last resort, waged with proportionate means, against an identifiable evil and with great care to protect the lives of non-combatants. That is a matter of faith and morals. It is not debatable for a Catholic. But we are free to use prudential judgment to conclude that the Bush administration is doing all those things, to conclude that the United States is proceeding within these guidelines in Iraq; i.e., to conclude that Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat to world peace, that we gave him more than enough time to comply with the United Nations’ mandate, and that American forces are going to the proper lengths to minimize civilian casualties.
You say what? You say such logic is preposterous? You are entitled to come to that conclusion; to conclude that the Bush administration acted precipitously, that Saddam was a regional despot we could have lived with and that the number of civilian casualties caused by our military strikes is unforgivable, and that the war is being waged for oil and Halliburton’s interests. You are entitled to argue the facts of the case, to use prudential judgment to conclude that the war with cannot be supported by the terms of the just war theory.
But coming to that conclusion does not entitle you to question the morality of those whose prudential judgment leads them to the opposite conclusion. Not unless you are a mind reader.
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.)
