One and not the other

Recently here at St Thomas we had a “Engaging Truth” event sponsored by the Catholic Studies department. In this particular event, the topic was, “How should Catholics vote?”
It was an interesting event with a Faculty panel of three professors with varying views on what a good Catholic should do.
As expected, the first professor, being a philosophy teacher, talked about the moral implications of voting as well as natural law. The second professor was a theology teacher who feels strongly about the position of the church on the issue of human life. The third professor was a theologian who disagrees with some of the conclusions Catholics seem to often reach regarding voting.

This trio made for interesting debate. It was almost as if the first two professors where against the third one. The third professor believes that as a former Catholic republican, the republican party has failed to deliver on their promises. He believes that the republican party is only pro-life in name and not in deed. He feel like he has been tricked into choosing republicans solely because of their stance on pro-life issues when they have no intention of doing anything about it. He feels like pro-life is a trump card that republicans use to ‘get the Catholic vote’ while going about their anti-gospel policies. He believes that unless the republicans do something great, like overturning Roe vs. Wade, it is not worth voting for them. He believes that the negatives associated with voting for republicans outweigh the pro-life stance. He also does not like the current stance of the democratic party. He promotes voting third-party or abstaining.

The second of the three professors jumped all over that saying that the republicans have shown progress in a campaign which is called ‘The Culture of Life.’ She believes that voting republican is more than a ‘Roe vs. Wade’ or ‘anti-republican’ choice. She says that the pro-life issue is the number one issue that trumps all other issues by a large magnitude. She says that as Catholics we are morally obligated to vote solely on the pro-life vs. pro-choice stance. She sited several documents from the Vatican that supports these claims.

The first professor mainly addressed voting itself. He said that as Catholics we are morally obligated to vote and that abstaining is not a choice. He talked a little bit about the ‘Culture of Life’ and how it is supported by Natural Law. He said that all people, Catholics and non-Catholics, can know the truth of Natural Law and are subject to it. He says that ignoring it or rejecting it does not make it invalid or make it disappear. Like it or not, Natural Law is a part of life and should be cooperated with and not risen against. He also presented several Church documents supporting his position.

In the end, I believe that all of the professors had excellent points. I also believe that the third professor was misled in some of his understandings about Catholic teaching. I can only hope that he does not disagree with and reject Church teaching. I am specifically referring to his promoting of third-party voting or abstaining for voting. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches that we are morally obligated to vote. But it does not say how we should vote. Should we vote Kerry or Bush?
While none of the panelists (many others as well) like either candidate, we are obligated to pick someone. So who should we pick? Topics like ‘Material Cooperation’ came up regarding how morally responsible we are as voters if our choice for president does something immoral. The first two professors put so much weight on the pro-life and Culture of Life issues that they say any morally conscious Catholic MUST vote for Bush. The third professor obviously disagreed saying that pro-life is not that weighty of an issue.

I have been thinking about what the third professor said, and I don’t agree with his position on voting third-party or abstaining. We all agreed that it would be detrimental to this society as Catholic Americans if Kerry gets into office. But are we really FORCED to vote for Bush. Well, here is how I see it:

Kerry has about the same percentage of pre-votes as Bush. So far the pro-life Catholic vote has gone toward Bush. So if the Catholics, rightfully not liking Bush’s other policies, jump ship from the Bush camp, we are pretty much handing Kerry the presidency. So it looks like NOT voting for Bush equates with supporting Kerry for president.

So it is more important to vote for Bush or against Kerry? I think these are two very different things. Some will vote for Bush because they think he can make a least a few good changes, other will vote for him because it would be worse for Kerry to be in office. But I think that to abstain or vote third-party will produce the worst case scenario.

Whether I like it or not, it looks as if I am to be a responsible, morally conscious, Catholic American, my vote will have to go to Bush.