I apologise to
all you non-American readers of this Blog, even though the US election result
will touch all of you in one way or another, negatively or positively, at least
in part. The last 4 years have had a dramatic effect on most of our European
friends that have strained our friendship, but there have been other Asian
countries and Middle Eastern countries that have been deeply affected by the
decisions of the American administration (I may add, under Trump). My sincere
apologies to you all for taking such a turn in my blog but it seems to me to be
a unique election, certainly in my lifetime and I want to share what I think
the Americans should be thinking about and weighing up as they decide which way
to choose. I have already made my choice and sent in my vote (absentee ballot,
way back in July).
Octtober 23rd,
2020
Catholics should vote for
Biden, says former bishops’ conference official
Carr also reports that divisions among the bishops
in 2019 kept them from updating their voter guide to reflect current issues and
the teachings of Pope Francis.
In this combination of file photos, former Vice President Joe Biden
speaks in Wilmington, Delaware, on March 12, 2020, left, and President Donald
Trump speaks at the White House in Washington on April 5, 2020. (AP Photo,
File)
September 17, 2020
By
(RNS) — There are “morally grave”
reasons why Catholics should vote for Joe Biden rather than Donald Trump,
according to a former top official at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
who endorsed the former vice president in an article in the Jesuit
journal America on Thursday (Sept. 17)
The article by John Carr, who worked
for decades as the bishops’ adviser on issues of justice and peace, marks the
first time he has endorsed a political candidate.
Previously, Carr, who is pro-life, has
described Catholics as politically homeless because neither party completely
reflects Catholic social teaching. Republicans were better on abortion while
Democrats were better on social justice.
In his America essay, he criticizes
those who “misuse the U.S. bishops’ Forming Consciences for Faithful
Citizenship’ to insist that it is a sin to
vote for Biden, that Catholics can’t be Democrats or are required to vote for
Trump,” referring to the voters guide the USCCB releases in presidential
election years.
Carr speaks with authority because,
beginning in 1976, he helped the bishops to develop “Faithful Citizenship,”
which has been published for nearly half a century. He knows the document
better than anyone.
Nonetheless, Carr is “convinced that
our bishops, priests and religious have a responsibility to teach, preach and
form consciences,” but “not to tell us how to vote.”
Carr, currently director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public
Life at Georgetown University,
believes “that under longstanding Catholic teaching and the moral criteria in
the U.S. bishops’ statements, President Trump does not merit re-election and
Biden can be supported by Catholic voters.”
John Carr. Photo by Phil
Humnicky/Georgetown University
“I believe Mr. Trump’s character, lack
of integrity and record on racism and Covid-19, among other matters, constitute
‘morally grave reasons’ to oppose his reelection and that Mr. Biden has the
‘character and integrity’ to lead our nation and is ‘more likely to pursue
other authentic human goods,’” he wrote. “I will vote for Mr. Biden for what he
can do to help us recover and heal, lift up those left behind, ensure
healthcare for all and treat immigrants and refugees with respect.”
He said he understands that other
Catholics might come to a different conclusion, and although he is clear in his
choice, it is not without reservation.
“I will not vote for him (Biden) to
support his position on abortion, but in spite of it,” he writes. He is
especially disappointed with Biden’s abandonment last year of the Hyde
Amendment, which forbids the use of federal money to support abortions.
Carr appears to have been swayed as
much by the personalities of the candidates as their positions on issues.
“Character, competence, honesty, and integrity are crucial” in this election,
he writes. “In the end, we vote for candidates, not issues. Who they are and
how they lead is critical.”
Carr recognized that Biden, “like most
politicians, sometimes exaggerates and dissembles,” but “his political
leadership reflects Catholic social teaching and Democratic party orthodoxy,
limited by political pragmatism.”
As someone who “watched Joe Biden for
decades and worked with him on occasion,“ Carr testified, “I have also seen him
stand up on issues of justice time and time again.”
Trump, on the other hand, “seems to be
consumed with himself, lacks empathy and will not accept responsibility,”
according to Carr. “His language on women, people of color, media, political
adversaries, and the military is crude and unacceptable. His dismissal,
dishonesty, and delayed response to Covid-19 brought deadly consequences for
tens of thousands. He seems to view faith as a political tool, not a way of
life; and his past and present behavior seem to violate most of the Ten
Commandments, especially ‘not bearing false witness.’”
However, Catholics should make clear
that their “responsibilities as citizens begin in the voting booth, but they do
not end there,” writes Carr. Ending Trump’s administration is not “a mandate to
end all abortion restrictions, provide federal funding for abortions, or to
undermine religious ministries that serve the poor and vulnerable consistent
with the principles of their faith.”
For Catholic observers, some of Carr’s
most interesting revelations concern the history of the voter guide itself. He
reveals Pope Benedict XVI inspired a major revision of Faithful Citizenship in
2007 to emphasize the role of conscience and prudence. “It is not the church’s
responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life,” wrote Benedict
in his encyclical letter from that year, “Deus caritas est.” “Rather the church wishes to help form
consciences in political life, and to stimulate greater insight into the
authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act
accordingly.”
Carr also reports that divisions among
the bishops in 2019 kept them from updating the “Faithful Citizenship” to
reflect current issues and the teachings of Pope Francis. Carr believes that “a
new and shorter version, more fully embracing the teachings of Pope Francis and
addressing new threats to human life and dignity and even democracy itself,
would be better; but the bishops’ conference lacks the unity, capacity and
sense of urgency to undertake such an effort.”
At the same meeting, the bishops
approved language declaring “the threat of abortion remains our preeminent
priority,” while rejecting language from Francis stating, “Equally sacred,
however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the
abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to
covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and
every form of rejection.”
Carr believes that “the failure to
include the full Pope Francis quote was a mistake and describing abortion as
the pre-eminent priority is an incomplete and overly narrow moral criterion.”
“Just as the unborn have a special
claim on our consciences, so too do those who suffer from the legacy of slavery
and continuing racial injustice have a unique claim on our consciences and
action,” he writes, explicitly mentioning Black Lives Matter.
“When Covid-19 leads to the deaths of
more than 185,000 Americans, when an economic crisis, health and other
disparities disproportionately threaten the poor, vulnerable and communities of
color, I believe the protection of the lives and dignity of all God’s children
should be the moral imperative in this election year.”
“When you are politically homeless, you
need to seek shelter,” he concludes. “We need to work together to find or build
a home. We need to be more rather than less engaged, to find others who share
our values, to dialogue and persuade people to join us. We need to insist that
parties, media and elite institutions see us, hear us and open their doors to
us as we seek to advance the common good. We especially need to avoid righteousness,
cynicism and any judgment or condemnation of others. As the PBS commentator
Mark Shields suggests, it is better to seek converts than to punish heretics.”
Amy Coney Barrett’s
religion is important but irrelevant
People of different faiths, as well as people of no
faith, joined together to support or oppose specific policy goals without
having to share the same motivations. What mattered was agreement on policy
goals, not motivation.
President Donald Trump walks with Judge Amy Coney Barrett to a news
conference to announce Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court, in the Rose
Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington. (AP
Photo/Alex Brandon)
September 26, 2020
By
(RNS) — Amy Coney Barrett’s religion is
important to her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s also
irrelevant.
A conservative Catholic, Barrett was
nominated to the court by President Donald Trump on Sept. 26 to fill the seat
vacated on the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Some who oppose
Barrett’s appointment argue that her beliefs will influence how she decides
cases before the court.
To argue that a person’s religious
beliefs are not or should not be influential in how they approach judicial
questions shows an ignorance of history and politics.
Politics is the way in which we make
decisions binding on the members of our political community. It is all about
“What should we do?” — a moral question by its very nature. Any sentence with a
“should” in it is a moral statement. It is judgment about what is right and
what is wrong.
Should we increase the minimum wage?
Should we withdraw from Afghanistan? Should we have Medicare for all? These are
not only economic or military questions; they are also moral questions.
Not all moral issues are political
issues, but all political issues are moral issues.
A distinction should be made, however,
between personal and social morality. Personal morality affects only the individual
(and perhaps another consenting adult); social morality covers those actions
that impact others. Social morality is the domain of politics. Politics is the
way in which we impose social norms on the community.
Whom I sleep with may be a moral issue,
but it is not a political issue. Whom we execute as a society is both a moral
and political issue.
For much of the history of the West,
people have gotten their notions of what is right and wrong from Christianity,
as mediated by their parents and culture. For the more sophisticated Catholic,
Greek philosophy also played a role, thanks to theologians such as Thomas
Aquinas, who believed that faith and reason could not be in conflict.
At its best, Catholicism fostered a
culture of love of neighbor; at worst, it subjected the laity to the whims of
the clergy.
The Catholic synthesis of faith and
reason was broken by the Reformation, which made Scripture preeminent, and by
the Enlightenment, which rejected religious input.
While both did much to free people from
clerical authority, Protestantism developed its own brand of clericalism, and
attempts to develop a religion-free morality produced totalitarianism on both
the left and the right in 20th-century Europe.
Those who came to America from Europe
brought with them this history and identity. Most continued to base their
morality on Christianity, but many intellectuals were influenced by the
Enlightenment.
American history is full of examples
where religious beliefs influenced how Americans approached political issues,
beginning with the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence (“all men are
created equal”).
The founders of our nation, who were
Christians and Deists, recognized the importance of religion in people’s lives
but also recognized how religious disputes had torn Europe apart. Most believed
that religion as a moral foundation is essential to the operation of a
democracy. As a result, they decided that individuals should be free to choose
their religion and declared that the government should not favor one religion
over another.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett listens as
President Donald Trump announces Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court,
in the Rose Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
People motivated by religious beliefs
were involved in every major political movement in American history, including
abolition, the Civil War, Reconstruction, free silver, labor unions,
Temperance, women’s suffrage, the New Deal, both world wars, civil rights and
more. In most of these movements, believers were on both sides of the disputes.
Many believers also made political decisions first and then found religious or
moral reasons to back them up.
People of different faiths, as well as
people of no faith, joined together to support or oppose specific policy goals
without having to share the same motivations. What mattered was agreement on
policy goals, not motivation. Politics is about getting people to agree even if
for different reasons. Moralists may care whether you do “the right thing for
the wrong reason,” but politicians only care that you do what they want.
This is why Barrett’s religion is
important but irrelevant. Her religion may influence her views of the law, but
the same is true of almost every member of the court. Remember, Ginsburg had a
quote from Deuteronomy on her office wall: “Justice, justice shall you
pursue.”
What matters is how a nominee views the
law, not why she views it that way. What matters are her decisions, not her
motivations.
Both Democrat and Republican senators
know all they need to know about what kind of Supreme Court justice Barrett
will be by looking at her decisions, her writings and her talks. She taught at
Notre Dame Law School for 15 years and has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for three years. They do not need to delve into her religion to decipher how
she thinks.
Senators know, for instance, what she
thinks about Roe v. Wade, the Affordable Care Act, gun control and many other
issues. Whether she belongs to a religious group like the People of Praise,
which once referred to women as “handmaids,” is irrelevant.
It would be a serious mistake for
Democrats to talk about Barrett’s religion because it will open them up to
accusations of anti-Catholicism from Republicans. If Democrats are serious
about appealing to Catholic swing voters, they will not antagonize them by
attacking Barrett’s religion, which is important but irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment