KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
March 16, 2004
TOPIC:
READERS SOUND OFF ON THE
VOTER'S GUIDE
Dear Friend of Catholic
Answers:
As I note at the end of each
E-Letter, I'm not in a position to answer (let alone solicit!) comments.
Writing this E-Letter is not my full-time job, and I want to keep it that way.
Still, many people reply to
what I write here, and I read each e-mail that comes in. A very few I answer
myself, and a few others I forward to our staff apologists. The majority of the
messages I just read and try to learn from.
The February 24 E-Letter was
mainly about Catholic Answers' "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics."
Let me share with you a few of the comments I received.
NOT INCLUSIVE ENOUGH
David Ewing had these
comments:
"While I am adamantly
opposed to all the mortal sins you listed, I cannot in good conscience vote for
the current administration and/or their cronies & subordinates. Whereas
they do hold to Church teaching in their moral/sexual positions, they
completely ignore--if not repudiate--teaching about helping one's fellow man,
the environment, international cooperation, etc. Why not give any emphasis at
all to those important issues, Karl? Are they of no import? Or are you, when it
comes to politics, just a right-wing Fundamentalist with a rosary?"
Before I answer Mr. Ewing (I
respond to his last question at the end of this E-Letter), let me present
comments from others readers who have opinions similar to his.
Bob Storch wrote:
"Your simplistic five
'non-negotiable' Catholic issues is not smart voting. ... The right to life
extends beyond the womb. Where do candidates stand on the death penalty? The
right to life extends to the quality of life. Where do candidates stand on
education and health care? The right to life extends to the dignity of work.
Where do candidates stand on jobs, trade, and taxes? ... Narrowing the voting
process to a simplistic five-issue check-off is not smart."
Lynn Norris said
"ditto":
"Your assertion that
'serious' Catholics should vote for a candidate based solely on any one of the
five issues outlined (important though they are) is truly frightening. There
are numerous critical moral issues that require conscientious examination and evaluation
by people of faith when deciding who should get their vote. ... Your suggestion
that some Catholics are voting 'dumb' based only on the five issues on the list
is offensive to 'serious' Catholics."
Ronald J. Jebaily said
pretty much the same thing:
"This time you have
gone over the top. Single-issue voters are dumb by definition, and Catholics
who vote only on a candidate's pro-life v. pro-choice position are dumber
still, because we are raised on the whole of the Church's social teaching. It is
the fallacy of our time that abortion is the last remaining sin. Our Catholic
faith should inform our complete value structure so that we can make effective
political choices with regard to all the issues facing us, including
abortion."
Each of these four
correspondents labors under one or more misunderstandings.
1. The "Voter's Guide
for Serious Catholics" doesn't tell the reader which candidates to vote
for but which to vote against: Candidates who are wrong on any of the five
"non-negotiables" should be eliminated from consideration. Then
choose from among the remaining candidates based on other issues. No matter how
good he may be on "jobs, trade, and taxes," a candidate who favors
homicide (which is what four of the five non-negotiables are) shouldn't get
your vote.
2. So far as I know, no
candidates for any offices are running on platforms that favor racism, which is
why that issue wasn't included among the non-negotiables. But assume there were
such candidates. Would you argue that it would be permissible to vote for them,
on the theory that they might be right on all the issues except race?
Of course not. You would say
their pro-racist position should exclude them from consideration, since racism
is a vile thing. As vile as racism is, the killing of innocent people in such
things as human cloning and euthanasia is worse.
By crossing off our lists
the racist and the candidate who supports any of the five non-negotiables, we
don't become one-issue voters, because we go on to take into account other,
lesser issues. What we accomplish with this methodology is to declare that some
things are beyond the pale and that candidates who want to vie for our votes
need to qualify themselves minimally by passing a certain threshold.
3. Issues such as education,
health care, the environment, jobs, trade, and taxes are all important--but on
them Catholics are permitted a wide liberty. On the five non-negotiables, there
is only one possible position for a conscientious Catholic to take: complete
opposition. The Church mandates no such uniformity on these other issues.
Consider taxes. How should
the tax code be structured? Should we stick with the current system, should we
go back to much steeper rates, or should we change to a flat rate for everyone?
There is no "Catholic position" here, since any of those systems can
qualify under Catholic principles. You may argue in favor of soaking the rich,
and I may argue in favor of doing away with income taxes entirely (or the other
way around), and neither of us exceeds the bounds of Catholic principles.
Consider jobs. Should we
institute government-created jobs, as was done during the Depression? Should we
foster jobs by lowering corporate tax rates? Should we give tax breaks to small
businesses to help them get off the ground? Any of those positions may be
advocated by a Catholic--or opposed by a Catholic. Again, the Church doesn't
mandate a particular arrangement--this is true even though particular prelates
may argue for one solution or another.
Consider education. Should
more money be spent on public schools? Should less? Should some arrangement,
such as vouchers or tax credits, be made available for private, including
religious, schools? Should home economics classes be scrapped? Should the
phonics system be used? Again, a Catholic is free to support or to oppose any
of these positions. There is no Catholic party line. Nothing in the creeds
tells us whether "Huckleberry Finn" should be assigned reading or
whether students should be mandated to attend physical education classes.
4. The voter's guide did not
give any "emphasis" (to use Mr. Ewing's word) to these other issues
because they aren't black-and-white the way the five non-negotiables are. They
are at a different level morally.
No one ever claimed that
"abortion is the last remaining sin," to use Mr. Jebaily's phrase.
But abortion is such a heinous sin that people advocating it should forfeit our
votes. If a candidate is wrong on such a basic issue, what trust can be put in
his judgment when it comes to a lesser matter, such as what tariff rate, if
any, should be applied to sugar? We would not reward a racist with our vote, so
why should we reward someone who is wrong on abortion or the other
non-negotiables?
5. The complainants seem to
operate from a "seamless garment" approach, but that approach, over
the last two decades, failed to advance the Church's teaching on the lesser
issues while giving nominally-Catholic politicians "cover" to do
nothing at all on the non-negotiables. In theory the "seamless
garment" sounds great. In practice it has been a failure.
The fact is that issues are
not all on the same level morally. Whether a child dies through abortion is
more important than whether a child gets a free school lunch. Moreover, there
is an official Catholic position on abortion, but there is not one on free
school lunches. One can favor or oppose a school lunch program and be
considered a good Catholic, but one can't favor abortion and be so considered.
6. Finally, to answer Mr.
Ewing's most pressing question: No, when it comes to politics, I am not
"just a right-wing Fundamentalist with a rosary." I am a Catholic
with a rosary.
NAMING NAMES
Nancy Weiland had a
different complaint:
"You state you will not
'name names.' I feel very strongly that in order to bring about change, you
cannot be vague or oblique. Most people need to be hit over the head before
they truly understand the message and what's at stake, and in order to do that,
you really must 'name names'!"
Tracey Kelly went much
further:
"Man, oh man. ... I
stopped reading 'cause I was getting really disgusted. ... I don't care what
reasons you chose not to mention specifically what politicians or parties were
against very basic Catholic and Christian principles ... the bottom line is the
same. ... If you don't have the guts, how can you be an example for those you
are trying to persuade? I'm sick."
Perk up, friend! No need to
get ill over this. Let's think things through.
Our voter's guide makes it
clear that the principles it conveys should be applied to all political races,
not just those at the national level. Catholic voters should demand the same
accountability from candidates who are running for state and local offices as
they do from those running for national office. After all, those running for
lesser offices, if successful, will be running for greater offices in the
future.
In this election year
thousands of offices are up for grabs, and tens of thousands of names are
appearing on ballots. The "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" is
only ten pages long. To "name names" fully, we would need to print
not a booklet but a phone book. That's not in our budget.
Maybe my correspondents are
thinking chiefly in terms of a few national races. Would there have been room
to evaluate the candidates, say, for president and maybe a few senatorial
races?
Sure, but that would leave
readers with the false impression that they have done their duty when they have
applied the five non-negotiables to those races. We wouldn't want that to
happen. We want readers to hold all candidates, no matter how obscure the
offices, to the same standards, for the reasons given in the guide itself.
WHY WASN'T CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT LISTED?
Chris Harris smelled a plot:
"I'm rather
disappointed in your litmus test (oops, voting guide) for
several reasons, but
foremost: It appears to me that you purposely omitted capital punishment from
your list of non-negotiable issues, expressly so the person who is currently
President of the United States (who is very much pro death penalty) will pass
your litmus test! Please tell me this is not so!"
Okay: It is not so. There
was no effort to fashion a list that would allow a particular politician to
"pass" or to get off easy.
As I discussed in the March
2 issue of the E-Letter, contrary to what many people think, the Church does
not demand opposition to capital punishment--so, yes, we "purposefully
omitted capital punishment" from the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics,"
but for a very good reason.
Mr. Harris is at liberty to
oppose the use of the death penalty and to oppose candidates who support it.
Other Catholics are at liberty to support the use of the death penalty and to
support candidates who support it. Capital punishment just isn't something that
qualifies as a non-negotiable issue, no matter how strongly a particular person
may feel about it.
PRO MULTIS or PRO OMNIS?
Jackie Gere had a question
but not a complaint:
"I wanted to let you
know that I love the voter's guide. I ordered 100 to distribute. I do have a
question on the title. Why isn't it a voter's guide for all Catholics? Would
you please explain why you chose to put the word 'serious' in the title? I
anticipate that as I distribute the guides I may get questions on this."
Whew! I appreciate getting
off the hot seat for a moment. Here are the reasons:
1. The only Catholics who
will apply their faith in the voting booth are, almost by definition, serious
people.
2. "Voter's Guide for
Catholics" sounds bland. The title sounds better, maybe even a little
intriguing, with "Serious" in it.
3. The title flatters the
potential reader by implying that he is serious. This makes it more likely that
he will read--and use--the guide. (Imagine the effect on the booklet's
distribution if the title had been "Voter's Guide for Airhead
Catholics.")
Until next time,
Karl
********************
Already we have lots of
sign-ups for the third annual Catholic Answers apologetics cruise.
This year's cruise runs from
October 2-9, starting in Montreal and ending in Boston.
Join Jimmy Akin, Rosalind
Moss, Tim Staples, Thomas Howard, Bishop Colin Campbell, and me for a week of
beautiful fall scenery and invigorating large- and small-group events,
including daily Mass, rosaries, and fun on-shore excursions.
For more information, go to
http://catholicanswerscruise.com
********************
To subscribe to Karl
Keating's E-Letter, send an e-mail to eletter@catholic.com and write
"SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line or go to
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters.asp.
********************
If you do not wish to
receive Karl Keating's E-Letter, send an e-mail to eletter@catholic.com and
write "CANCEL" in the subject line.
********************
To change your e-mail
address, send an e-mail to eletter@catholic.com and write "ADDRESS
CHANGE" in the subject line. Important: In the body of the message, be
sure to give both your old and new e-mail addresses.
********************
Karl Keating's E-Letter is
sent to many thousands of friends of Catholic Answers. While I welcome comments
and suggestions sent by e-mail, I regret that time constraints make it
impossible for me to compose individual replies. Thanks for your understanding.
********************
To learn more about the
Catholic faith and about Catholic Answers, visit us at http://www.catholic.com.
********************
The content of this E-Letter
is copyright 2004 by Karl Keating.