Amy Beisel’s Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) column in
the Catholic Standard & Times [Dec.14,
2006] considers the integrity of voter’s guides for the faithful. After kind
words for a new guide, endorsed by Network, the nuns’ social justice lobby
group with Congress, by Pax Christi, and by other
Catholic groups, the bishops’ spokesperson faults it.
Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for
Conscientious Catholics, quotes the then Cardinal
Ratzinger, saying: “Catholics have the right and the duty to recall society
to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone
in this regard”. The guide then asserts:
“This duty requires us to build the essential conditions for a culture of
life, to end affronts to human life such as poverty, abortion, torture, and
war, and ensure freedom and opportunity for all. It is deeply interwoven with
our broader obligation to promote the common good of all humanity.” p.3
Ms. Beisel cautions: “Catholics should be wary of groups who
claim to represent authentic Church teachings. Some guides contain compelling
points to consider. But some may be misleading or confusing.” She then says: “one
advocacy group’s guide says: ‘We need to understand that our Church’s social
teaching calls us to consider a broad range of important issues—on everything
from poverty to war, human rights, abortion and the environment” [From, Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for
Conscientious Catholics]. That is true and a
good point, [says Amy], “but the guide goes on to say: “Since we seldom, if
ever, have the opportunity to vote for a candidate with the right positions
on all the issues important to Catholics, we often must vote for candidates
who may hold ‘wrong’ Catholic positions on some issues in order to maximize
the good our vote achieves in other areas.” Amy Beisel’s
reaction: “That statement incompletely depicts the moral decision-making
process. By making all important moral issues of equal value, it does not
take into account that some moral “wrongs” pose a greater and more immediate
threat to our society than others.” [CS&T, PCC Column, 12/14/2006, p.4]
In 2004 many local pastors placed in church pews Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, sent
out by Catholic Answers, a lay group in San Diego. It urged the faithful to
vote exclusively on a litmus test of five non-negotiable issues. [From a
current poster in a suburban church, I learned that this
“pamphlet that guides Catholic Voters on how to vote according to Catholic
doctrine on the five biggest moral issues of our time” was available in 2006.
It will surely surface again in 2008.]
Are
Catholics being coached to be couch potatoes, sitting on the side-lines while the give and take of public discourse on
the issues swirls over their heads? It happened in 2004. Have we learned
anything? Or is it our public duty, as Cardinal
Ratzinger told us, “to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life
and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard”? Should our attention-span limit itself to just five issues? Is it
credible, as has been asserted, that a 10% decrease in the number of people
living below the poverty level would result in a 30% drop in the number of abortions? Does the nuclear arms race
pose a lesser threat to our well being than fetal cell research? Should social
security reform, the economy and medicare
be discussed at a candidates’ forum with senior citizens as well the death
penalty and euthanasia? Are
modern total-warfare, torture, and immigration reform as debatable questions
as human cloning? Do gay couples damage society more than gun
violence in our city streets? [The five italicized issues are the only ones
the Catholic Answer guide considers
of concern for Catholic Voters.] Shouldn’t we expect Biden, Brownback,
Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Romney, Thompson and the other contenders to raise and debate all
these issues with us as interested participants?
Unsure
of the signals in the PCC spokesperson’s message, I can only surmise that Ms.
Beisel’s mixed review of
the Network-Pax Christi Common Good guide is a subtle sabotaging of it. Her silence concerning the San Diego Catholic Answers’ guide of 2004, if construed as an
endorsement again, can only cause dismay among the faithful who look to their
leaders for sound guidance.
P.S.: I
have written to Amy Beisel at PCC, the several
diocesan bishops of PA, and to the CS&T on this issue. After inquiring
at 222, I was told that in 2006 the local
archdiocese refused permission for pastors to distribute any guides from
outside sources including the two discussed here and Father Frank Pavone’s guide from Priests
for Life. The only literature approved for parish distribution was
the questionnaire sent to the candidates from PCC and one from the
archdiocese. Neither questionnaire, however, included queries on the Iraq war
and on other peace and justice issues which Catholic
Voters care about.