Biblical Basis for Liberal Politics

Yesterday afternoon, iconoclast and keen skeptic Spartacus sent out an email I was intrigued to read and think on: 

—–Original Message—–
From: “Spark” le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:30 PM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Jesus Was a Socialist 

Post election ‘08 and so many “Christians” are still having panic attacks over the “S word” (Socialism). The sad thing is, Obama is not a socialist, so they are worrying themselves over nothing. 

What’s so wrong about being a socialist anyway? Let them try to wrap their heads around this concept:  

JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST 

Think about it. 

I found the following article quite interesting: 

By David Chandler

 

[Originally published in the Tule River Times "Left in America" column.]

 

The “Religious Right” (Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, etc.) gets so much media attention for its conservative political activism that a casual observer would think conservative Christianity somehow equates to conservative politics. This is not the case. In fact many people with left-leaning political views find a solid basis for their positions in the Bible. There are many sides to this topic, but we will limit our focus to attitudes toward the rich and the poor.

 

America is as much an economic phenomenon as it is a nation. It is built on a system whose driving force is the profit motive. Our economy blatantly rewards greed. In classic economic theory greed is good. A person who is motivated by greed will create, as unintended byproducts, benefits for everyone, such as employment and the development of new goods and services. Let the rich get richer, the saying goes, and the benefits will “trickle down” to the rest of us. “A rising tide raises all boats.” Under a pure capitalistic system, the government keeps hands off and allows the market to decide how the money flows. The problem is, as we have found in this era of deregulation, the money flows to the top. [The original article contained a variant on the graph shown on the L-Curve web site.] Tampering with the market system to redistribute the wealth or assure that the poor are protected is labeled “socialism.”

 

[Take a moment and have a look at the data and analysis on the above website!]

 

By these standards Jesus was a socialist.

 

Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,” (Luke’s version). To the rich he said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” and “go, sell what you have, and give to the poor.” When the rich turned away from him because they couldn’t follow his command, he observed, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

 

For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. In the parable of the last judgment, he welcomes the righteous into heaven, saying, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” When the righteous answered that they didn’t recall doing any of these things, he said, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

 

We are to “forgive our debtors” and “give to everyone who begs from you.” But don’t handouts contribute to moral decay? Jesus was more concerned about the moral decay in those who are so attached to their wealth that they would hoard it for themselves. In our better moments, most of us recognize that giving does not corrupt. We sacrifice to give good things to our children, and do our best to provide them with years of carefree existence as they grow up. We do this to give them a sense of security and a foundation for growth. People who have been devastated by misfortune, or for whatever reason are down and out, may need even more help because they may not have what it takes to recover on their own. Many of us will help a friend in hard times, even though we know we will never be repaid. It is when dealing distantly with people in the abstract that we fall back on the “moral decay” argument.

 

What’s wrong with trickle-down economics? Every time I hear that phrase I think of the story Jesus told about a rich man and the beggar Lazarus “who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table.” Needless to say, the story ends with Lazarus going to a better place than the rich man. Trickle-down theory is about crumbs. Those who say we should settle for crumbs would make us a nation of beggars.

 

Greed may be a driving force for the economy, but Jesus saw it is as destructive to community. Greed may leave a few crumbs behind for the poor, and it may do some unintended good, but it destroys compassion. Compassion is in short supply in our society today, where workers are being downsized in the name of efficiency, prisons are being expanded to insulate society from its underclasses, and the middle class is abandoned by the rich to fight it out with the poor for the table scraps.

 

Jesus’ response to economic inequality is very direct: we are to share the wealth. I once heard a talk about world hunger. The point was that we produce far more food than is needed to feed everyone on earth. The problem is not lack of supply; it is maldistribution. Many people are simply too poor to buy the food they need. This talk gave me a new perspective on the story of the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus was out in the desert followed by a huge crowd. The disciples were concerned that it was getting late in the day and they didn’t have enough food to feed the crowd. My suspicion is that Jesus sensed there was plenty of food in the crowd, but whereas some had plenty, others had nothing. Sensing an opportunity to make a point, he instructed his disciples to take their five loaves and two fish and distribute them freely to the crowd. By the sheer audaciousness of this act he induced those with food to join him in giving it away. The result is everyone was fed that day with twelve baskets left over. If Jesus simply did a magic trick and made food appear, what’s the point? Whoopee! He’s divine. He’s not like us. But if, by his act of giving away all he had in the face of the overwhelming crowd, he demonstrated the power of a sharing community, he achieved a real miracle! Sharing is a lesson we especially need to learn today.

 

[Note: I don't buy into the assertion that at Jesus' and the Apostles' example and encouragement, everyone threw together their own fish sandwiches; my mind and heart can easily wrap around the concept of the miraculous. But this matter of faith/belief is tangential to the issue of Jesus and socialism.]

 

Is concern for the poor to be simply a private matter to be handled by charity, or does it have anything to do with politics or government? The Bible calls upon the rulers to create a just society. In a democracy, we are the rulers. We have the power to make the rules. The actions of the nation are extensions of our own actions. By our active participation or passive consent, we share responsibility for what our nation does in our name. We have inherited a system that works efficiently to produce tremendous wealth, but fails to distribute that wealth equitably. It neglects the poor and it corrupts the rich. On both counts it destroys community. A decent life for all is a matter of simple justice, not charity! There are remedies that will make the system work better in the interests of all the people, but it takes active political involvement to bring them about.

 

Is this “bleeding heart” liberalism? You bet it is! Jesus is the definitive bleeding heart, and he calls us to follow him. 

For anyone who has studied and meditated on the life and teachings of Jesus – or even someone merely vaguely familiar with them – the argument and rationale are inarguable. This perspective on Him is awesome. 

So being the socially-conscious Christian I am, I forwarded the article to a couple very conservative Christian friends to see how they might respond. This can be likened to poking a very short stick deep into the tiger’s cage. Surprisingly, Anon E. Mouse answered very quickly – generally I don’t hear from her when I send “left-wing” stuff her way… although I do rather regularly receive from her plenty of garbage from the other end of the spectrum, most of which I delete… unless I feel like poking another stick. 

—–Original Message—–
From: Mouse, Anon E. [mailto:AEMouse@SOL.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Aging Child
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socialist 

No, Gene, Jesus did want us to help (key operative word) our fellow man, I cannot believe that He wanted us to give and give to those who do nothing but take and won’t do a days work for a days wages.  I see nothing wrong with the Puritan work ethic.  I don’t get paid for doing nothing yet part of my wages go to those not willing to work. 

I can testify from personal and professional knowledge that Ms. Mouse is indeed a hard-working woman. She has a big heart, too… it just doesn’t bleed a whole lot. Still, since she was kind enough to clarify further her feel for this issue, I felt I needed to counterpoint: 

—–Original Message—–
From: Aging Child [mailto: AGeneChilde@YouWho.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:00 PM
To: ‘ Mouse, Anon E.’
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socialist 

Hi, Anon! 

I hope all’s well by you guys (and kids and pups) at the farmstead. 

I don’t disagree with you there, but how are we to tell… say, if faced by a total stranger hitting us up for a buck? Or someone passed out on the street? We just don’t know, and this may be where we are told in the Bible not to judge. We can’t ignore the needy because some small percentage of their number are lazy, or/and parasitical. 

Go straight back to Jesus’s bare words, and look also in Acts – where people in the early-Church community were designated to take care of the poor and widowed – and at the Letter of James (especially the second chapter) – where Christian faith without these deeds is, bluntly, called “dead”. Jesus didn’t put injunctions on His calls to us to see to the needy among us. At least, not in every Bible I’ve read. 

If there is a need, we must fill it, or be hypocrites as Christians. And just feeding the poor isn’t enough, nor is even helping them make ends meet. Retraining the unemployed for new types of work is often called for (e.g., Detroit and the Rust Belt), and implementing some functional means of bringing these people back into a productive segment of society. This is the old push of “A hand up, not a handout“, with which I agree. 

The Puritan work ethic is quite sound, but what about where there is no work? And there’ll always be parasites, but why shut everybody out due to the handful of bad apples? I think you and I agree that there has to be accountability for those who receive assistance… let’s just not make the problem all the more dire. 

Disappointingly, yet typically, Anon did not respond further – I’m assuming she left work early yesterday and had today off. Just so he could see what was going on with the original article, plus to elicit a read from the farther left, I’d bcc’d Spartacus on my note back to friend Mouse; I followed up with a note to him: 

—–Original Message—–
From: Aging Child
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:22 PM
To: “Spark” le Klaus
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socializer 

Yow! 

Coincidentally, I was listening to Neil Young’s “Sugar Mountain” while reading this article. I forwarded it (the email, not the MP3 track) right away to “Anon E. Mouse” and a couple other conservative friends (including brother Sarge, who tends to favor the Repugnicant ticket, and the tired old Reaganesque tinkle-on economics). 

I’m mulling blogging this – will allow me to resume some religion-ruminations I’d like to put up soon. Any thoughts/background you’d care to add? You’ll have the soapbox for this posting. 

Regards,

Freddy Engels 

I’d hoped to lean on his greater depth of knowledge/familiarity with economic and political issues. And Sparks never disappoints; he wrote back this evening (something’s off with his email-clock, though): 

—–Original Message—–
From: “Spark” le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:18 PM
To: MT2mb
Subject: Re: Jesus Was a Socialist 

“I don’t want my hard earned to go to a bunch of lazy, good for nothing deadbeats!“ 

That is the automatic, guaranteed reaction when mentioning even the mildest, semi-socialistic ideas to any of the right wing persuasion. How about trying to think a little bit out of that worn out old box before reacting with that worn out reactionary response? Not everyone who is in need of help is a lazy, good for nothing bum. For the past 40 or so years, wages for the middle and working classes in the USA have either stagnated and/or declined (adjusted for cost of living). During the same period, income for the wealthy has more than tripled (adjusted for cost of living). Today the average American worker is working longer hours for the same or less money (adjusted for cost of living), and with fewer benefits than he/she did 30-40 years ago. The concept of “job security” is a joke. The risk of your job being outsourced, downsized, etc is great. Losing one’s job, having yourself or a family member come down with a serious illness is a dire catastrophe in this economic climate. Yet with all this, American productivity measured per worker has never been higher. That doesn’t sound like a bunch of lazy deadbeats to me! Why should working Americans be denied a fair piece of the pie?  

Had the minimum wage kept pace with the cost of living, it would be over $20 per hour today. Conservatives are fond of talking about family values–what kind of family values can you have when mom and dad are out working 16 or more hours per day because the minimum wage jobs they have don’t provide a living wage? And God help them if they develop a serious disease. 

It is so easy for those ensconced in the middle class to dismiss those making less than them as “lazy deadbeats”. Tell that to the former factory worker whose job was shipped overseas. Tell that to the single mom working at Walmart (part time with no bennys) and KFC, barely making it from paycheck to paycheck.  

Hell–tell it to my sister–she worked for over 20 years as an electronics assembler. The pay wasn’t great, but at least she got some bennys for her family. Her husband worked as a heavy equipment operator, which is basically a seasonal job (when the ground is frozen, not much earth gets moved, though he did pick up extra $$ plowing snow, doing odd jobs, etc). From early Spring to late Fall, he made good money, but no benefits. Between the 2 of them, they were able to live modestly with their young daughter. “Between the 2 of them”–that is key–neither one of them made enough $$ to provide a living wage on just one income–it took their combined salaries to make it. 

Then the electronics job folded (shipped overseas to maximize profit) and her husband left her for another woman. My sister is no dummy and no lazy slob–while working her assembly job for all those years, she also took on the responsibility of helping the purchasing manager. Based on that experience, she was able to get a job as an assistant purchaser at another company, and started going to night school taking biz classes. Then that job folded (company went belly up). Through a friend, she got a similar position down in [another state]. Then that job died (the company moved its manufacturing operations overseas to maximize profits). Now things were really dire. She looked everywhere for a job–but employment opportunities are few and far between for a 40+ year old woman. She was reduced to going on food stamps, and getting whatever other assistance she could (and after Clinton gutted the federal welfare program, that wasn’t much at all–certainly not enough to live on). Our family helped out where we could, but we are not exactly rolling in the dough either, so we were limited in what we could do. Finally, she was able to take advantage of a state program and enrolled in a re-training program. It took her 5 years to get her associate degree in medical office technology because she couldn’t go to school full time (she had her daughter to take care of). She graduated cum laude and with a handful of glowing letters of recommendation from her profs and from the company she interned with–and couldn’t get a job after over a year of looking–how many companies are going to hire an almost 50 year old woman when they can hire some 21 year old kid?  

She finally took a job hounding people who are delinquent on the credit card bills (something she doesn’t have to worry about because she declared bankruptcy a long time ago, therefore she has no credit card). The job is psychologically punishing and heartbreaking–she has to call people on the phone and ask them for money, people who are tapped out and can’t make ends meet. She can’t stand it, but it is the best paying position she was able to find–and even so, she is about a paycheck away from total economic disaster. She is now part of “the working poor”. She still has to rely on foodstamps and local food banks. We pooled some $$ together so she could get a better car after her junker’s tranny died and she needed $500 for the repairs. If she doesn’t have a car she is sunk. She lives in a crappy little trailer on the outskirts of town, her next door neighbor is a drug dealer, and she prays that her daughter (who is now 18) will find a boyfriend and move out, because that would at least lower her living expenses–can you imagine the guilt and anguish that kind of thinking has caused in her? 

There used to be concepts ordinary Americans tried to base their lives on, such as “the common good”, “the Golden Rule”, “social justice”, “basic fairness”, and “simple decency”. It is abundantly clear those concepts are foreign to those on the right, people motivated by greed and fear. 

I believe people have a right to accumulate wealth for themselves and their families, but I don’t believe anyone has a right to make an obscene amount of $$ while others, who are just as hard working and worthy, struggle from paycheck to paycheck just because the economic structure is stacked against them. That’s what it really comes down to–a system which is structured in favor of the wealthy. Is that right? Is that just? The working man contributes just as much to this society as the CEO, but he certainly isn’t compensated fairly for his efforts. The essence of Socialism is social justice–all the rest is just details for the remedy. 

Since I’d bcc’d Sparkle on that note to Mouse, he now has her email address. He’s also a gentleman, and likely did not bcc her on his email to me… although I’m scared to ask. But I think I’ll forward it her way myself; I suspect she’ll simply delete. 

She’s also on my list of professional references – no need to provoke her, either. Tiger’s cage, short stick… but underemployed. Uh –

Almost right on the heels of Anon E. Mouse (snapping and barking at them as usual, no doubt) this morning, Spartacus sent me his own reaction to Barack Obama’s victory: 

—–Original Message—–
From: “Spark” le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:09 AM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Post Election Day Thoughts 

Today, for the first time in a long time, I am proud to be an American. I am proud because the majority of Americans were finally able to see past the politics of fear and divisiveness and had the courage to vote for the politics of hope. I am proud because the majority of Americans were finally able to see past the color of a man’s skin. 

Our long national nightmare of the past 8 years is not yet over, and we will be living with its awful repercussions for a long time to come.  If President Elect Obama is to accomplish anything, hyper-partisanship must be set aside in a spirit of working for the common good. Still, his victory is a reason for hope. He is an intelligent man, and the composure he demonstrated in the face of the vile campaign waged against him gives us some insight into how he will conduct his presidency. 

Though the election is over, our work is not done. The rising tide of fascism has been checked for the moment, but we must not delude ourselves into thinking it is receding. We the people need to keep speaking out against injustice. We need to demand that the rule of law be restored to America, that the US Constitution be returned to its rightful place as the foundation upon which our democracy rests. We need to demand that those who broke the law be brought to justice, no matter what office or position in society they hold. Until it is demonstrated that no one is above the law, lawlessness will continue to run rampant in our government and in our society. 

In 1980, the profound and prolific author Robert Heinlein published a best-of book, Expanded Universe, in which – amid a wide range of his short stories, and a number of sobering assessments of the United States, and the world – he uses a short-short story to paint a particularly sunny future scenario for this country, which he loved greatly. This little piece is “Over the Rainbow – “, and follows on a coldly, realistically doom-and-gloom essay ironically titled “The Happy Days Ahead”. 

In this story, the United States in Heinlein’s near-future finds itself with an African-American president (female, in his story), who faces down party-machine sexism, racism, condescension, and the howling of critics left, right, and center. She quickly sets into motion, into law, a sweeping series of initiatives that address and tackle a whole range of issues very much like those we face today: drugs, the aforementioned racism, environment, power, the economy, the proliferation of vague laws, inter-party squabbling, threats of assassination, international relations, technology, illegal immigration, and more. 

The results – the president’s achievements – are stunning… and very much within our reach today, nearly thirty years later, so much further down the problem-road than the good admiral Heinlein was propounding on. In his story he includes a couple (fictitious) newspaper-articles representing the media’s response – initially, and after a deep breath and closer look – to the wonderful turn-of-the tide the new president guides us into and through. 

One of these “articles” has a great closing line that would serve well today, too… especially against the sour-grape flavor of friend Ms. Mouse’s Shapiro-article. Tuning in on a refreshing spirit of reconciliation and optimism beginning to seize that near-future United States, the article concludes: 

Let’s back them to the limit! Let’s all be Americans again!

First into my inbox this morning with reaction to last night’s fantastic election victory for Barack Obama was, interestingly, long-time friend, colleague, and unrelentingly conservative whipping-girl Anon E. Mouse. She sent me the following ludicrous essay straight from this morning’s Wall Street Journal:  

—–Original Message—–
From: Mouse, Anon E. [mailto:AEMouse@SOL.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: No truer words were written  

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

 

According to recent Gallup polls, the president’s average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

 

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”

 

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

 

The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

 

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

 

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

 

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, “We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”

 

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman’s low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

 

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman’s presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years — and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

 

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

 

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

 

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry’s legal team during the presidential election in 2004. 

Wait a minute… wasn’t Ms. Mouse disparaging the Democrat[ic] party, just this past June, for being crammed full of lawyers? Now she’s quoting one? (I know, picky-picky…) And what’s with that über-pedestal of a subject-line? So Shapiro’s work is more true and free of error than, say, the preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, or the Bible? 

Anyway, I wrote right back to her: 

—–Original Message—–
From: MT2mb
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:18 AM
To: ‘Mouse, Anon E.’
Subject: RE: No truer words were written
Importance: High  

Respect for the office of President / Commander-in-Chief should be expected of every American, yes. But respect for the actual man or woman who holds that position must be earned… and W’s judgments, actions, and very manner, have utterly failed to earn him that. 

More opinion, from someone at his side for many years: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/scott-mclellan-former-pre_n_103790.html?view=print 

Blind obedience, and blind loyalty, to any person is not just foolish; it is downright dangerous, and potentially disastrous for any country, any people. No, thanks. 

P.S.: Here’s a quote from one of John McCain’s heroes, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.” 

Gene 

For a further reality-check (well, okay – mostly for amusement), I’d bcc’d friend and fellow-ranter Spartacus for his take… and stepped back: he’s got fangs. He responded briefly and bluntly (pardon the pun): 

—–Original Message—–
From: “Spark” le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:25 AM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Re: No truer words were written  

Regarding the Shapiro article–can you say “delusional”? 

Poor misunderstood Dumbyah–I guess his brilliance was so great very few on the Left OR Right could appreciate it. And to compare him with Harry Truman?! Back in our younger days I think we all would have loved to have some of that sh!t Shapiro is smoking! 

As Sparks says: ‘nough said.

When hate fails, there is only hope

Stick it, look 'em in the eye, and stare 'em down!

Watching the last-minute flurry of Presidential-campaign ads (and some more local ones) this evening, I was sickened at the stark contrast between John McCain’s (and Sarah Palin’s) ads and stump-speeches, and Barack Obama’s. But why was this contrast so sickening? And it hit me: McCain and team are pushing fear-fear-fear, while Barack sticks to messages of hope and determination. 

The Republican campaign-style has tumbled shamefully and embarrassingly to all negatives – despite Senator John’s insistence otherwise at the final debate a couple weeks ago. He is (and she is) aiming to frighten voters into pulling his lever (or hanging his chad), while Barack and Biden are giving us something very positive to reach for instead. 

Looking at Barack once more from a Catholic viewpoint, I found a couple more interesting articles this afternoon, both from the National Catholic Reporter… I resource I’ll admit I haven’t referenced in quite some time. (I like the articles there I’ve reviewed, though the somewhat-weak editing grates on me, and I suspect the overall editorial slant is a bit too far to the left – i.e., away from Church tradition – for me.) 

First, here is the full text of “Catholic ‘Common Good’ Notions Embedded in Obama Policies“, posted on Saturday by writer Vincent Miller, “an associate professor in the theology department at Georgetown University, where he teaches courses in Catholic theology, and religion and culture“: 

As the campaign draws to its close, John McCain and economic adviser Joe the Plumber have reached into the Cold-War closet for one last desperate round of attacks: painting his opponent as a “socialist” bent on the “redistribution of wealth.” 

This strange attack is based on Joe’s ignorance of the Federal tax code, which will remain progressive should either candidate win. Joe’s ignorance is excusable; McCain’s is not. He certainly knows the tax code, and the idea of a “graduated tax on big fortunes” was championed by none other than McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, as a tool to fight… socialism. 

Such election-year silliness rests on a deadly serious foundation, however. Decades of anti-tax and anti-government ideology preached by the Republican Party have left us desperately unprepared to debate the role of government in this time of crisis. 

The only government action we can conceive is cutting taxes. A surplus? Cut taxes. An economic slowdown? A tax rebate. The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? Warn of tax cuts that favor the middle class at the expense of the wealthy. We desperately need a better vision. 

For all the political attention lavished on Catholics in elections, the Catholic vision of government always gets ignored. Catholic social thought sees government as having a necessary positive role in society. Yes, as those well-paid Washington think-tank Catholic pundits always insist, the Catholic vision of government is limited, respecting the roles of local communities and families. 

But government must also do its job: provide for the common good and assist in those things local communities cannot do for themselves. For more than a century, popes have argued for a just distribution of resources, living wages for workers, labor rights, and regulation to yoke the power of capitalism in service to the common good. 

Perhaps the catholic notion of the common good lacks a voice because few Catholics know much about it anymore. Generations grew up in union households hearing, “Pope Leo says workers have a right to unionize.” Such knowledge has long faded. The Bishops’ Conference and many individual bishops continue to promote the full range of social teaching, but their voices are outside the media glare garnered by the minority who offer a reliable single-issue focus on abortion. 

(The mention of Pope Leo here is a reference to the writings of Popes Leo XIII (and Pius XI), and their application through the stunningly sensible economic theory of Distributism, which I’ve been wanting to lay out here for some time. Please take a few minutes at least to skim the Wikipedia article on the concept.) 

Our instincts for the common good have been dulled by an economic system that reduces us all to individuals. Gone are mutual-aid societies, local credit unions, and even company pensions. We’re all on our own now, masters of shrinking 401(k) accounts. We turn to credit cards in rough times, rather than sharing with family and neighbors. Standing alone with our tax cuts, we are all going down the tubes together. 

Despite our ignorance, the relics of the common good still speak from the past. It echoes in the common-man architecture of the New Deal: the fieldstone-and-mortar picnic shelters and lodges in our parks, the town halls and libraries across our nation. 

I had a great-uncle whose childhood was shattered by the Depression. His unemployed father drifted away, leaving his mother to raise him in poverty. He landed a job with the Civilian Conservation Corps, building retaining walls and shelters along the Skyline Drive in the Shenandoah National Park. It paid his mother’s bills, but it also let him build something for the generations. At the end of his life he still lit up when he spoke of that work, and took joy when he met someone who had visited it. 

Common goods help us understand the common good. It’s encouraging to hear Barack Obama proposing more than tax cuts to address the economic crisis: investments in our crumbling infrastructure and schools, national initiatives in clean energy, and energy independence. 

Obama has consistently offered a deeply Catholic vision of government and the common good. Perhaps he absorbed it in his work as a community organizer funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. It was masterfully expressed in his acceptance speech: “Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that’s the essence of America’s promise.” “Government cannot solve all our problems, but it should do what we cannot do for ourselves.” 

Curiously his campaign has not used this in Catholic outreach. Alas, perhaps it’s because the common good is such a foreign language in America today. To win this election, and to govern in this time of crisis, Obama will have to throw his shoulder into three decades of impoverished thinking about government. Let’s hope he succeeds. 

If you’re not applauding, you’re not paying attention. 

The second article was written by NCR editor-at-large Tom Roberts, and posted this past Friday, “White Catholic Support Grows for Obama“: 

Within days of the general election, as the abortion debate flares in some Catholic circles, two prominent surveys show that Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s support among white Catholics has grown significantly since September, and that less than a third of Catholic voters are making their decision based on the issue of abortion. 

According to a report released October 30 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, surveys show that support for Obama from white, non-Hispanic Catholics has grown from a 13 point deficit in late September to an eight-point lead in late October. 

The Catholic vote is a much-sought-after swing vote because Catholics regularly choose the winner of the popular vote, regardless of party. John Green, a senior fellow at Pew, said that the largest shift toward Obama came among white Catholic independents, “with only modest changes among white Catholics who identify as Republicans or Democrats.” 

Green said that independent white Catholics may have been moved toward Obama by economic issues, the same factor accounting for growing support for Obama among other sectors of the population. 

According to Green, Catholics have swung between parties for the past 20 years depending on candidates and issues, “and they almost always end up on the winning side. A lot of analysts look at white Catholics as a key barometer of where the election is going.” 

This year, the Catholic vote has been rather mobile. “Back in January 2007,” said Green, in a long interview statement released by Pew, “a majority of white Catholics said they preferred a generic Democratic president over a generic Republican president. 

“Later in the year, when specific Republican and Democratic candidates were mentioned, white Catholics shifted around, sometimes favoring a Republican candidate and sometimes favoring a Democratic candidate. The recent shift among white Catholics toward the Democratic candidate fits well within this overall pattern of change.” 

But this may not be the last of the switches. Green said he would not be surprised, for instance, if some white Catholics shift toward Republican John McCain on election day. 

Green speculated that Obama was able to attract white Catholics when John Kerry was unable to do so in 2004 for several reasons: the faltering economy; his comfort at talking about his faith; and the fact that he is conversant with the Catholic social tradition. 

He also said that Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq is one of the positions “white Catholics may find very cogent on religious grounds.” He also credited the recent “revival of a ‘religious left’ in national politics. 

“A final difference between 2004 and 2008 may be the more intensive campaigning within the Catholic community on behalf of Obama. New organizations, such as Catholic Alliance for the Common Good, have been very active alongside older groups such as Pax Christi and Catholics for Choice.” (See previous NCR stories on new Catholic groups.) 

(Note: I absolutely do not support or endorse Catholics for “Choice”; a good Catholic cannot be pro-abortion.) 

Still, for some Catholics, Obama’s support for legal abortion is too large an impediment. 

While it is unknown whether this may be a year in which other issues, including the economy, will override Catholic objections to Obama’s abortion position, polls seem to suggest that may be the case. 

In recent weeks a number of Catholic bishops (some observers put the number as high as 80) have made a major push to raise abortion as the primary issue on which Catholics should base their votes. The attempts by some who have written columns in their diocesan newspapers, or issued personal statements, appear to defy the point made in their collective pastoral statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which rejects a single-issue approach to voting. 

According to a recently released poll by the Le Moyne College / Zogby International Contemporary Catholic Trends project, however, only 29 percent of Catholics say they would be unlikely to vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on abortion rights, but with whom they agree “on all issues except for abortion.” 

According to Dr. Matt Loveland, Le Moyne sociologist, “In essence, less than a third of Catholic voters appear to vote solely on abortion attitudes; but those who do, tend to favor ‘pro-life’ candidates.” According to the poll, said Loveland, “44 percent of Catholics believe a ‘good Catholic’ could not vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights, but that 53 percent say a good Catholic could.” 

(The poll was a telephone survey of 1,000 people with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 points.) 

On a key Catholic social justice teaching, a keen concern for the poor (which some see as at odds with this year’s political emphasis on the middle class), the survey showed that only 38 percent of Catholics agree, somewhat or strongly, that government policies should privilege the interests of the poorest Americans over middle- and upper-class Americans. Four percent were undecided, and 58 percent disagreed. 

“Church teaching on this issue seems to run counter to recent popular sentiment against ’spreading the wealth,’ said Loveland, who added that “it looks like many lay Catholics agree with ‘Joe the Plumber’ on this issue.” 

On other issues, the survey found that 60 percent polled believe a good Catholic could vote for candidates who support embryonic stem-cell research; 55 percent agreed good Catholics could vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty. 

“On the other hand,” said the report, “majorities say that good Catholics should not vote for candidates who support same-sex marriage (54 percent), euthanasia (59 percent), and human cloning (76 percent).” 

For the record, I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, and likely to human cloning as well. On the issue of same-sex marriages… a bit more undecided. But more on these issues after this silly season is over.

This evening, for the first time ever, I switched off the saintly Father Benedict Groeschel just a few minutes into his weekly live program. I was so angry at his take and insistence that Catholics – that Christians – cannot vote for any candidate who supports access-at-will to abortions (regardless of any other position said candidate may hold). After fifteen minutes I cooled down enough to switch him back on, and listened to the rest of the program. 

I truly love and admire this holy man, but I absolutely cannot follow behind him on this; in any other issue, I’m there, and most unworthily. Not this. I am totally opposed to abortion, but – as I’ve been decrying loud-and-strong the last few weeks – I simply will not jump into metaphorical, political bed with the Repugnicant… er, Republican candidate for President because he espouses the same view. Nor his confrères. 

If Barack Obama’s claim is true, that Senator McPain – excuse me; I’m hitting the wrong keys again – that Senator McCain’s voting record of the past eight years shows him lockstep with George Duh-bya ninety percent (or even just, say, sixty percent) of the time… then we can’t expect an immediate about-face into a whole now world of “change” and freshness. McCain says, “Look at my record!” And that’s what troubles me… among much else in his campaign. “Troubles”? Frightens! 

So if he follows in the footsteps – i.e., the dance-steps laid out and painted by the Repugnicant-party machine – of the current badministration, then we can expect even more Hell-in-a-handbasket. I’m not talking abortion now; I’m talking favoring the corporate world at the expense of the individual, and of the environment. 

The Washington (DC) Post of this past Friday, October 31, carried the front-page article I reproduce in full below, with the article’s own hyperlinks (and punctuation). We cannot let our next president follow through on the abomination our “Commander”-in-chimp is already shoving through the pipeline at us… and rotsa ruck overturning these slaps to our faces, and further runiation of our economy, or rights, and our very world: 

A Last Push to Deregulate
White House to Ease Many Rules

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008; A01

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

“They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office,” said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration’s penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge “a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: “This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we’d prefer our regulations stand for a very long time — they’re well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind.”

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered “economically significant” because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush’s regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress — now out of session and focused on the elections — left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget’s regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush’s aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush’s inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.

“Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible,” said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. “Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, ‘Let’s pull back as many of these as we can.’ “

Clinton’s appointees wound up paying a heavy price for procrastination. Bush’s team was able to withdraw 254 regulations that covered such matters as drug and airline safety, immigration and indoor air pollutants. After further review, many of the proposals were modified to reflect Republican policy ideals or scrapped altogether.

Seeking to avoid falling victim to such partisan tactics, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten in May imposed a Nov. 1 government-wide deadline to finish major new regulations, “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules, which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period. Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second deadline of Dec. 20.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that Bolten’s memo was meant to emphasize the importance of “due diligence” in ensuring that late-term regulations are sound. “We will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process,” she said.

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with administration deliberations.

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration officials promised to “get the rule done by the end of this month” and that the outcome would be a big improvement.

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts‘ Environment Group said the administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation groups. “This thing is fatally flawed” as well as “wildly unpopular,” Crockett said.

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA’s estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These rules “will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses,” said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But Scott H. Segal, a Washington lawyer and chief spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said that “bringing common sense to the Clean Air Act is the best way to enhance energy efficiency and pollution control.” He said he is optimistic that the new rule will help keep citizens’ lawsuits from obstructing new technologies.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that “we strive to protect human health and the environment.” Any rule the agency completes, he said, “is more stringent than the previous one.”  

God help us all.

Father John Dietzen, retired pastor of Holy Trinity Parish in Bloomington, Illinois (and ordained over fifty years), has long written a syndicated “Catholic-answers” column with the Catholic News Service, titled “Question Corner”.

One recent column has bearing precisely on what I’ve keenly felt, and posted here several times of late, vis-à-vis “single-issue” voting by Catholics (and others who are anti-abortion) – in particular, when that position against abortion is held by a political candidate whose other positions (and/or record) are gravely unacceptable.

I reproduce here Father Dietzen’s column in full, as posted on October 10, 2008, at the website of The Observer, newspaper of the (Catholic) Diocese of Rockford, Illinois. This is the kind of backup and authority I’ve looked for to bulwark my stance (but not a rationalization!). I’m still no wiser than members of the clergy, and of professed relgious orders, who maintain the single-issue approach. But I do stand with some authority.

Now, Father Dietzen: 

Disclaimer: Copyright 2007 [sic] Catholic Diocese of Rockford. All contents of the The Observer Web Site are: Copyright 2007 Catholic Diocese of Rockford and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. 

Q. If two candidates from opposing parties both have pro-abortion positions, how is one to vote? Do we just stay at home? How about if one is pro-life about abortion and one is pro-choice? Are we morally bound to choose one over the other? (Pennsylvania)  

A. My mail is heavy these days with questions like yours from Catholic voters (and some from other denominations), wondering how to work their way through the moral obligation to vote responsibly.  

The question must be resolved on basic Catholic moral principles of cooperation with evil. In Catholic tradition there are two kinds of such cooperation: formal, and material. Pope John Paul defined formal cooperation in this context as “a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (Gospel of Life, No. 74).  

In other words, anyone who cooperates in any way in an evil action because he or she agrees with and intends the evil act, is a formal cooperator in the evil. Such participation or intention is never morally lawful.   

Material cooperation an action which may enable a sinful act but does not directly participate in it, and does not concur in the evil intention of the perpetrator. Material cooperation could cover anyone from a nurse who is present at a “mercy killing,” for example, to a bookkeeper or someone who scrubs the floor where the killing happens.  

Obviously there are degrees of such cooperation, depending on how close or necessary that individual cooperative act is to the evil being done.  

Material cooperation, therefore, is not automatically sinful, but is lawful for a proportionate reason. What that proportionate reason might be depends on the seriousness of the evil, and would weigh such factors as how important one’s action is to achieve a good or avoid an evil, and relative benefits of one option over another.  

In November, 2007, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops applied these principles to difficult choices Catholics have on how to vote:  

“(I)t is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or racism if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” In other words, intending to support abortion or racism would be formal cooperation and a grave evil.  

Turning to material cooperation, the bishops continue: “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons.” (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, 34-35)  

In July 2004, Washington [DC] Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, presenting a task force report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited a letter from then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, applying that distinction to voters. A Catholic would be guilty of sinful formal cooperation in evil, said McCarrick, “only if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion.”  

At the time, as Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote, specifically referring to abortion, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted if there are proportionate reasons.”  

This past July, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney was asked in an interview whether a Catholic could in good faith vote for a Democrat. His response, “There’s nobody running for office at any level who is with the church on every single issue. We have to weigh the various goods and consider what’s best for our people, and then each of us has to decide who is better going to represent the many concerns we have.”  

Whether one agrees with them or not, these are weighty authorities whose guidance can be safely followed in such moral judgments. Their insights can help resolve many questions about conscience formation, which, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, is “a lifelong task” (No. 1784).  

Furthermore, all this is simply good traditional ethics. Without going through all these moral technicalities, I believe most people of good will, Catholic or not, almost intuitively use this process for making important moral distinctions and decisions.

The same September 18, 2008, issue of the Baltimore-archdiocesan newspaper that yielded yesterday’s base-article also carried a reader’s letter; I reprint it here in full as published (with the usual tweaking of punctuation; I withhold only the writer’s name). 

Disclaimer: © 2008 The Cathedral Foundation, Inc., 880 park Avenue, Baltimore MD 21201 (correspondence to: PO Box 777, Baltimore MD 21203), 888-768-9555, Mail@CatholicReview.org 

Beware of single-issue politics 

In your Sept. 11 issue, you published three articles on abortion: criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her statements about when life begins; the Republican Party platform which “decried the practice of abortion and repeated its call for a human-life amendment to the U.S. constitution”; and George Weigel’s column posing abortion questions to Senators Obama and McCain. 

(Weigel I do like and regard highly… outside of the political fray.) 

I believe the Bush administration is responsible for the last eight years of economic havoc: the widening gap between rich and poor, rising unemployment, increasing food and fuel prices, home foreclosures, a roller-coaster stock market which is eroding the life’s savings of millions, and a national debt that is beyond anyone’s imagination. 

I understand you[r] desire to uphold and advance the Church’s moral teachings, but I submit that we should not lose sight, in this political season, of its teachings on economic and social justice. The Republicans should be held accountable for their record on those issues. The Republicans promote single-issue politics; this tactic has succeeded for them in the past. Let’s not give them their way again.  

Last week regular contributor Spartacus sent me a link to an October 20 article at TruthDig, “End of a Catholic Commandment?“, that looks at the reality of many American Catholics’ not falling in line behind certain too-rigid members of the Church’s clergy who stress thumb-up/-down on abortion should be the litmus test of our vote-determination. 

I am not in the clergy, though I hope to be… at the very least, a member of a professed/avowed religious order, Deus et ecclesia volent. I am not a theologian. I am not a politician, legal expert – Church or civil law. I do not profess greater wisdom and/or deeper spirituality than any members of our clergy. And perhaps I do err in leaning on my open-eyed discernment and reasoning, over exclusive, blind obedience to the pulpit, in selecting the women and men whom I will honor with my vote on Tuesday (if not sooner). But – to jarringly quote Martin Luther (very different circumstance!) – God help me, I can do no other. 

Don’t panic; the Church has my full obedience in matters of faith, morals, and teachings. My disagreement is only with this specific interpretation of one’s civil – and, yes, spiritual – duty to vote and give say in the political process. 

Back to TruthDig: here’s the full article; the author is E. J. Dionne (I’m familiar with him through his work with the Washington Post, and appearances on NPR): 

Disclaimer: © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group 

It has become commonplace in American politics: Certain Roman Catholic bishops declare that the faithful should cast their ballots on the basis of a limited number of “nonnegotiable issues,” notably opposition to abortion. Conservative Catholics cheer, liberal Catholics howl. And that is usually the end of the story.

 

Not this year. Catholics, who are quintessential swing-voters and gave narrow but crucial support to President Bush in 2004, are drifting toward Barack Obama. And this time, some church leaders are suggesting that single-issue voting is by no means a Catholic commandment.

 

In an interview on Monday, Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, said his fellow bishops have long insisted that “we’re not a one-issue church,” a view reflected in their 2007 document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship“.

 

“But that’s not always what comes out,” says Zavala, who is also bishop-president of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi USA. “What I believe, and what the church teaches, is that one abortion is too many. That’s why I believe abortion is so important. But in light of this, there are many other issues we need to bring up, other issues we should consider, other issues that touch the reality of our lives.”

 

Those issues, Bishop Zavala said, include racism, torture, genocide, immigration, war, and the impact of the economic downturn “on the most vulnerable among us, the elderly, poor children, single mothers”.

 

“We know that neither of the political parties supports everything the church teaches,” he added. “We are not going to create a culture of life if we don’t talk about all the life issues, beginning with abortion but including all of them.”

 

Zavala was careful to say that he did not want to take issue with any of his fellow bishops. But his view contrasts with that of others in the hierarchy.

 

Earlier this month, for example, Bishop Joseph Martino of the Scranton (Pa.) Diocese issued a letter warning that “being ‘right’ on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life.” He added: “It is a tragic irony that ‘pro-choice’ candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of ’social justice’.”

 

Bishop Zavala’s desire to speak out with an alternative view is a sign of how much has changed in four years: progressive Catholics are now as organized as conservative Catholics were in 2004. At Web sites such as prolifeproobama.com, they are arguing that the abortion question does not trump all other concerns.

 

The impact of the new Catholic politics could be substantial. Catholics are often a decisive electoral group partly because church membership ranges from upscale to working-class whites, a large community of Latinos, and a significant number of African-Americans.

 

Catholics typically make up about a quarter of the electorate, and they are strategically located. White Catholics are important in such swing states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while Latino Catholics make up a notable share of the populations of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida.

 

Polls have varied in measuring the Catholic shift toward the Democrats, but Obama seems to be running ahead of John Kerry’s 2004 performance. According to the network exit polls, Bush carried 52 percent of the Catholic vote to 47 percent for Kerry. By contrast, a mid-October Pew Research Center survey showed Obama leading John McCain among Catholics by a margin of 55 percent to 35 percent.

 

Washington Post surveys over the same period have found more modest Catholic gains for Obama. A Post tracking poll released Monday showed Obama and McCain splitting the Catholic vote at 48 percent each. Obama’s Catholic share probably stands somewhere between the Pew and Post numbers. But even a split among Catholics could mark a sufficient improvement over Kerry’s performance to tip key states the Democrat’s way.

 

In many respects, Catholics simply reflect the country as a whole in moving toward the Democrats because of frustrations with the economy and the Bush years. But the Catholic debate entails a very particular argument over what counts as a commitment to life. To an unexpected degree, this election could hang on the struggle of Catholic voters with their priorities and their consciences.  

 

I was almost jumping out of my chair as I read the article and dug out some basic links, and poked around further – this is what I’ve been saying! Dionne puts it far better than I can; I feel… not vindicated, but relieved. I’m not looking for vindication amid my uncomfortable awareness of disagreement with men (and women) I regard quite highly. The backup, though, is just what I need. What we need: as Catholics… and all Americans. 

Amen. 

Next up: a Catholic clergyman-columnist weighs in from mid-America. 

Here’s a long-due followup, folks… and I still don’t have all the info on the matter as I want. 

I reprinted here a few weeks ago an article on over-the-line words by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whom I regard and respect highly. And I mentioned that “I have a later article (9/18/08) that states Pelosi did agree to meet with Niederauer.” I’ve been hoping for further backup to follow on that, but haven’t seen anything… so here’s what I’ve got so far. Catholic News Service (CNS) first posted this article on September 10; I caught an abbreviated version in an archdiocesan newspaper. 

The text is reprinted (i.e., copied without permission – though with apologies to any legalities-stickler) directly from the CNS site; I’ll stick my neck out further by including first the copyright information. I’m doing so because I want to get this article out, and honestly, to a few more sets of eyes, and not leave the Speaker hanging, so to speak: 

Copyright (c) 2008 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.3250 

Further personal disclosure: Joe Biden may be considered a friend of the family, in that my late uncle and aunt (who lived in Delaware for decades) would over many years visit and meet with him with some regularity, and their daughter – my cousin, of course – worked closely with the Senator on his presidential bid, and (I assume) is still professionally associated with him. 

I also disagree with his slight weaseling out of his own “Meet the Press” question: it’s not just personal judgment, Joe. (I do, still, quite look forward to his taking the helm as vice-president in January. He is good… and, yes, a politician.) 

Here follows the article; readers may notice that some of its text repeats portions of Dan Morris-Young’s earlier article: 

Pelosi agrees to meet archbishop; Biden remarks also draw criticism
By Catholic News Service

SAN FRANCISCO (CNS) — Responding to an invitation to meet with him to discuss church teaching on abortion and other topics, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would “welcome the opportunity” to meet with Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco “to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to church teaching on other significant matters.”

In a letter delivered to Archbishop Niederauer Sept. 5, Pelosi offered to “meet at your earliest convenience” to discuss a statement by the archbishop that said Pelosi’s remarks were “in serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church” on abortion, the beginning of human life and the formation of conscience.

But the furor that arose after Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Aug. 24 that church leaders for centuries had not been able to agree on when life begins received further fuel Sept. 7 when Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, responded to a similar question on “Meet the Press.”

Biden, who like Pelosi is a Catholic, said he accepted Catholic teaching that life begins at conception but did not believe that he could impose his beliefs in the public policy arena.

“I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” he said. “But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”

Biden’s remarks drew an almost immediate response from Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley of Denver, who said in a Sept. 8 “notice to the Catholic community in northern Colorado” that the Delaware senator “used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can’t ‘impose’ their religiously based views on the rest of the country.”

But, they said, “all law involves the imposition of some people’s convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law.

“American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year,” the notice added. “Other people have imposed their ‘pro-choice’ beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades.”

Archbishop Niederauer said in his Sept. 5 statement that he regretted addressing the issue so publicly, because Pelosi — a Democrat who represents the San Francisco area — has been a dedicated public servant who has promoted some legislation that is in line with the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

“But the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable,” he added.

Archbishop Niederauer told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper, Sept. 9 that his office would be “comparing calendars” with Pelosi’s office to schedule a private meeting.

The archbishop said reaction to his statement had been “mostly positive.”

“People have said they feel it said what needed to be said,” he added.

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairmen of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life and doctrine committees, respectively, had criticized Pelosi Aug. 25, saying she “misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.”

Since the first century, the church “has affirmed the moral evil of every abortion,” the two chairmen said.

The two chairmen also issued a lengthy critique of Biden’s comments Sept. 9, saying that “the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.”

The first question is when human life begins, they said, adding it is a matter of “objective fact,” taught in embryology textbooks, that life begins at conception. The second, “a moral question, with legal and political consequences,” is which human beings “should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed,” they added.

“We have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not,” Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori said. “Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.”

The U.S. bishops’ Administrative Committee, meeting in Washington Sept. 10, endorsed the views expressed by Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori and said, “As the teachers of the faith, we also point out the connectedness between the evil of abortion and political support for abortion.”

The full body of bishops will “discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters” when they meet in Baltimore Nov. 10-13, the Administrative Committee said.

Archbishop Niederauer said many Catholics “have written me letters and sent me e-mails in which they expressed their dismay and concern about the speaker’s remarks.”

“Very often they moved on to a question that caused much discussion during the 2004 campaign: Is it necessary to deny holy Communion to some Catholics in public life because of their public support for abortion on demand?” he added.

Church leaders should be cautious when making judgments about who is worthy of receiving holy Communion, he said.

“The practice of the church is to accept the conscientious self-appraisal of each person” when he or she approaches for Communion, Archbishop Niederauer said.

Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., took a stronger position in a statement issued Aug. 26.

“Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to this most fundamental moral teaching of the church place themselves outside full communion with the church,” he wrote in his statement, “and they should not present themselves for the reception of holy Communion.”  

(I will have more to say on this issue – from my viewpoint as Democrat, liberal, and penitent Catholic.)

In the “Meet the Press” interview, Pelosi said specific considerations must be undertaken during each trimester of a child’s development before an abortion can be performed.

“This isn’t about abortion on demand. It’s about careful, careful consideration of all factors … that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God,” she said, adding that her goal is to make abortion safe and rare while reducing the number of abortions nationwide.

Though critical of Pelosi’s statements and stands on abortion and other life issues, Archbishop Niederauer described the member of St. Vincent de Paul Parish in San Francisco as “a gifted, dedicated and accomplished public servant” who “has stated often her love for her faith and for the Catholic Church.”

In her response, which Pelosi released to the media, she thanked the archbishop for his “gracious remarks regarding my love for the Catholic Church and my Catholic faith.”

Contributing to this story was Dan Morris-Young in San Francisco.