Both presidential campaigns are calling this election a choice between two starkly different visions of America. At least on that score both are right. The crucial question has to do with the role and scope of government, especially in the economy.
President Barack Obama contends that he wants to rebuild the economy “from the middle out,” rather than from the top down. Like his party, the president believes that the federal government has a limited but indispensable role to play in regulating commerce and the financial industry, protecting the environment, funding education, providing health-care coverage, and maintaining a safety net for the elderly and those who cannot provide for themselves. He would raise taxes on top earners to do this.
Mitt Romney, like his party, would severely limit the role of government in the economy and opposes any expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he wants to shrink it. He thinks the economy is built from the top down, and that the so-called job creators need to be rewarded and encouraged by lowering taxes and curtailing government regulation. He argues that the private sector is better equipped to meet the needs of the poor, and the federal government should play no role in providing health care to those who are currently uninsured. In addition, of course, Romney and Obama have opposing views on abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and critical aspects of foreign policy.
Advertisement
Obama and Romney have chosen running mates who reflect their political philosophies. Curiously, both vice presidential candidates are also Roman Catholics, the first time this has happened in American history. Like Vice President Joe Biden, Congressman Paul Ryan is a regular churchgoer who speaks openly of the role Catholicism has played in his life and in shaping his political convictions. Both men have suffered tragedies that evidently deepened their faith—Ryan was only sixteen when his father died, and Biden’s first wife and infant child were killed in a car accident. Yet despite the obvious sincerity of their Catholic faith, both men’s moral and political views reflect the positions of their political parties more than those of their church. In a venerable Catholic tradition, Biden has been an advocate for the poor, the elderly, and the marginalized, and a strong defender of the role of government in cushioning the harshness of modern economic life generally. Yet he has also been a staunch defender of abortion rights, and recently a champion of same-sex marriage. Ryan is a prolife firebrand who would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and a firm opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet his views on the morality of capitalism, influenced by the eccentric philosopher Ayn Rand and the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, are very hard to reconcile with Catholic social teaching. Pursuing one’s self-interest is the first principle of any just moral order, according to Rand and Hayek. Catholicism places our obligations to others foremost in any moral or social calculus.
How can these two ambitious politicians profess the same creed, one that places the poor and the disenfranchised at the center of our concerns but also defends the sanctity of every human life from the moment of conception? This is not an easy question to answer. There is a good deal of mutual incomprehension on the part of Biden’s Catholic supporters and Ryan’s, each side pointing to the log in the other’s eye. What can explain the reasoning of a Catholic who supports abortion on demand or that of a Catholic who thinks that helping the poor undermines their moral agency and weakens their resolve to help themselves? (It goes without saying that both candidates are committed to the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons, something their church rejects completely.)
There are cynical explanations for why Biden and Ryan champion the causes they do, but cynicism is too easy. The presence of these two Catholics on the presidential tickets reminds us of how complicated political choices always are, how often politics involves unpalatable tradeoffs, and how difficult it is to translate religious conviction into law and public policy. It also reveals once again that Catholic social teaching has no natural political home in the United States. Neither party can make room for both Catholicism’s communitarian social teachings and its traditional sexual morality. Ideally, then, Catholic Democrats and Catholic Republicans should serve as moral leaven in each party, and it is a great shame that neither Biden nor Ryan seem capable of contributing to that effort. The nation faces enormous challenges at home as well as the real danger of yet another war in the Middle East. Something more than posturing and paralysis is needed from Washington. Faith must help deepen our sense of shared purpose, not divide us further.
[I apologize in advance for offering the following as an addendum, as opposed to incorporating it in the original reply. I wish that I could simply have edited the above comment -- alas, this is not allowed by the CW online software].
I want to address the following comment of Patricia:
"...only a heretic would take marching orders from anyone but Christ and His Chruch, and that includes JFK..."
The President (and Vice President) of the United States swear(s) to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Period. This is the reason why JFK felt compelled to reassure the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Had JFK addressed the same group, and stated that he'd be taking his marching orders from "His Church" (capital "C"), he'd have lost the election, and deservedly so. As I noted earlier, were it not for JFK, it's doubtful that we'd have today a majority Catholic Supreme Court and Catholic Vice Presidential Candidates of two opposing political parties.
Personal morality and personal religion should be respected, but it is a slippery slope to impose one's own religious belief on others, especially in matters of personal, family, and religious freedom.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Mr. Weisenthal has set forth a well reasoned and thoughtful analysis of the health care/contraception/abortion, (HCC&A) debate. It remains a core teaching of The Church that ultimately onle the individual conscience dictates one's faith and salvation. Christ never told anyone "I saved you" but said repeatedly "your faith has saved you ". The ability and resources to exercise freedom of conscience and religion in HCC&A matters is the core of the liberal Cathoilic religious /political freedom position. If the Bishop's/Conservative Rebublican position on HCC&A were to become the law of the USA, then the wealthy, (as they did before Roe) will get their contraceptives and abortions in those "European style socialist countries" such as Italy,and why not Rome? The poor in the USA would continue to suffer with no real religious/political freedom to sin. Again, I repeat, is there a camel and a needle here somewhere?
I am breaking a long time promise to myself never to reply to an online essay from this or any other publication or to reply to comments thereon. However, I do not believe that the editors essay is fair in arguing that both Vice- President Biden and Representative Ryan can be equally criticized for failing to be in step in matters with Catholic teaching - Biden on his recognition of a woman's right to choose and the rights of homosexuals to marry and Ryan's denial of the repeated calls by the Church through various encyclicals to a message of social justice in all aspects of our lives. I believe that Biden's positions on issues of personal choice in a diverse society cannot be criticized to the same extent as Ryan's stance on public policy issues which deny totally the teachings of the Gospels calling for social justice for all and instead rely on the atheistic economic priciples of Rand and Hayek .
Larry's comments recognize this distinction between issues of public policy and personal choice and are right on the mark. He recognizes that Mr. Ryan in his public policy statements most clearly articulated in his budget rejects the repeated messages of the Gospels and the the encyclicals in its willingness to cut programs to the poor, the homeless, and the jobless as well as eliminating the ACA and thus, denying millions of people affordable health care. Patricia in suppoting Ryan's stance on economic policy on the grounds of "subsidiarity" ignores that he has been roundly criticized in the USCCB's statement on April 17 finding the budget to be "unjust and wrong" . See Huffington Post 04/18/2012 " Catholic Bishops Say Ryan BudgetFails Moral Test". It has been further criticized by over ninety members of the Georgetown University facuty in a letter to Mr. Ryan pointing out that he missates the principles of "subsidiarity" as a justification for his budget. In the letter, the theologians and scholars , note that in apppealing to the " Catholic Teaching on 'subsidiarity ' as a rationale for gutting governement programs, you are profoundly misreading Church teaching. Subsidiarity is not a free pass to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices" ..... According to Pope Benedict the XVI: 'Subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa.' ". The full letter with signatures can be found at www.huffingtonpost.com2012/04/24paul-ryan-challenged .
I beleive that Larry has it just right when he states that " Religious freedom involves both rights and obligations-most particularly the rights to personal religion and personal conscience and the obligations to respect the personal religions and consciences of others.... Personal morality and religion should be respected but it is a slippery slope to impose one's reluigious belief on others especially in matters of personal, family and religious freedom." Vice-President Biden recognizes that as a public servant governing a country of diverse religious beliefs and where Roe v. Wade is the law of the country on the issue of abortion and many states have recognized same sex marriage he needs to recognize the rights of all citizens to be governed in these matters by their conscience.
Patricia how important is the eight commandment. When you say that Obama has taken away the work componenet of welfare you should check your facts. Actually the request by the governors had to include a plan to increase employment of welfare recipients. Repeating mis-information is bearing false witness.
Don where in the teachings of the Catholic Church is this found?
It remains a core teaching of The Church that ultimately onle the individual conscience dictates one's faith and salvation
What the church does teach is that our individual conscience must be WELL FORMED from faith and prayer, guided by the Holy Spirt, guided by the authorative teachings of the church (not what the culture, feelings, or our personal opinions dictate (Catechism # 1745). References can be found in the following link.
http://www.cuf.org/FamilyResources/conscienceformation.asp
But in fairness to you, from your post, you appear to admit to not following the Catholic Church of Rome but rather your own "liberal/political" position, whatever that is. You certainly have the right and free will do do so. My point is that it's very unfair to use it in an agrument against official Catholic Church Teachings, which is what is under discussion.
Tom you appear to be just as misguided, biased or clueless. For starters, Ryan is a devout Catholic, has denounced any "following" of Rand's atheistic philosophy, and is approved by his own Bishop, the only one to whom he is accountable. Do you really thing you will advance your agument by citing liberal professors, Huffpo, and liberal Bishops? Com' on, we aren't stupid here. I also linked the reference for Father Barron, a holy Catholic Priest in good standing, who totally agrees that Ryan is on targert with the teachings of the Catholic Church. He even gives the chruch references in his short talk; suggest you take a listen.
And Larry, I have so many disagreements with you post not sure where to start.
You may think that Kennedy was "Catholic Progress", but the reality is, JFK may well be the most responsbile person for taking God out of the Public Square, and the bogus "separation of church and state" only in play because of a 1947 anti-Catholic KKK bigot on the Supreme Court, Hugo Black. Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin explains it well (start at the 1:50 minute mark)
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-separation-of-church-and-state-came-from-an-anti-catholic-bigot/
Had JFK not caved, it's almost a given that many Catholics would not be as liberal as they are. It wouldn't make any difference if we had Catholics on the courts or holding political office, as long as Catholics voted like Catholics, in accordance with Church Teachings. If JKL was successsful in anything, it was in leading Catholics away from their Church. This is one of the best articles ever written on the topic.
http://www.colleen-campbell.com/articles/020107JFK.htm
All said, one can still fully practice the faith as POTUS, without any fear of a Theocracy. Last time I checked it was we the people who elected our representatives, which is why voting matters so much, and why we, especially as Catholics, are called to such an awesome and critical responsibility. Who we elect determines who or what kind of government we get, consequently, what kind of laws get passed. Like or not, Congress is nothing more than a reflection of us. We put them there, and we can vote them out. The president is only one part of how our country is governed. What is amazing is that as 60 million strong, if American Catholics actually voted per church teachings, we could shape this country far more than any Catholic President.
Larry you also compare a Muslim law of burning a Quran against a Christian law of abortion, both with 13 year olds. You again only make a stronger case as to why Christians need to be the light in the world. Christainty is based upon Jesus Christ, the savior of world, God incarnate, Muslim Law based upon one mortal man. Who's going to protect the 13 year old in America when she burns a Quran? If we are lucky, it will be the same people who protect all human life, because all human life is sacred. I made it more than clear that very few parents who had a 13 year old daughter pregnant from a rape would not have her aborted. Again, HOW we vote determines the law of the land. Even if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion would simply go back to the states. Short of the 2nd coming of Jesus, I think it's probably fair to say that we won't be "Christain Theoracrized" in America any time soon.
We will get the culture and the laws that reflect us, how we vote or don't vote. That still doesn't exempt Catholics from the responsibility of voting in accordance with church teachings, even more so as we see more and more examples of losing our religous freedom. What we should all fear is a secular society; a guarantee for tyranny of which we are quickly approaching.
All said, the bigger war is not who wins the elections, or even how many babies are aborted, or how many hours we worked the soup kitchens. Anyone who has read the bible knows how it ends, we win!
Jesus taught that life was more important than anything, and to render to Ceasars what is Ceasars, and to God what is Gods. Human Life belongs to God and to God alone. It's not ours to destroy, thwart, contracept, or use for experiments. To do so, we do not only at our own peril, but at the peril of our nation, and most of all, at the risk of our eternal salvaton.
Perhaps that sounds a bit harsh, but it's true, it's what Jesus taught. Mother Teresa often taught that we don't have to be successful, just faithful. We all know which party has abortion and gay marriage as a party platform, and we know what the church teaches. To try to rationalize an intrinsic evil like abortion away with lesser social justice inequalities is to quite honestly, be deceived. We certainly all have free choice, albeit, not without consequences.
If there was every an election to "stand up and be Catholic", this would it.
I apologize for my typos (wish this software had an edit function), and my sins (Patricia Branigen).
Patricia
Give me a break! Ryan is not pro-life. The only life he is interested in reverencing is pre-birth life.
Abortion may be in the party platforms, but it's not on the ballot. We don't elect Supreme Court justices, and court we now have may be heavily Catholic, but it's also politically conservative, so unlikely to reverse an earlier decision.
Other issues, like the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, SNAP -- these are all much more accessible to the political process.
Thank you to Larry Wiesenthal who said it better than I could.
I think Larry and Patricia make good points. Here are mine:
1. It was mentioned that as Catholics we should follow the Gospel of Christ, as well as all the teachings of the Catholic Church. This should be our guideline, when we go to the polls to vote for a Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional candidate. Unfortunately, what is missing from these suggestions is reality and the moral dilemma each Catholic faces with their social political decisions. No one issue defines a candidate, whether Presidential or Congressional. Some are pro-life, but believe that termininating a fetus, that is threatening the life of the mother with certaintly, while the fetus cannot survive under any circumstances (in or outside the mother), is morally justified (the Phoenix case). Some are pro-choice, but are against gay marriage.
Within both parties, there is no complete consensus on every issue. This reflects the Catholic populace as well. Most Catholics believe in the fundamental principles of our faith, but differ on certain moral issues (e.g., contraception, abortion under certain circumstances, gay marriage, and the right of the diovorsed and remarried to have access to the sacrament of reconciliation and Eucharistic reception under specific circumstances...even Cardinal Ratzinger offered a solution to this problem, but as pope has not).
For these reasons, Cardinal Ratzinger also wrote, one must use their practical reason and the concept of proportionalilty when makine political voting decisions.
2. All Catholics are not "infected" with the ills of the liberal secular world, like a cancer destroying our ability to function. Let's discount the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit for those who are serious and faithful Catholics. This does not mean that a liberal secular world (e.g, the West) does not influence human behavior or that it does not distort our practical reason. Indeed, Western society has grown more promiscuous and there is a tendency to minimizes evil. However, Catholics are not losing the game of salvation. We must resist the tendency to see the world as evil to the point where the good is totally lost. God made the world and us, and called it good. I refuse to "write off" Catholics because they disagree with certain moral teachings of the Church for good and just reasons (philosophical, theological and anthropological). Those that disagree are not all invincibly ignorant, have a distorted reason or are infected with the evil of the secular world. They are not unfaithful. We are all part of the body of Christ and when most of His body disagrees with some Church teachings, then this is a time for serious reflection.
3. I applaud the decision of the French nun who was raped to carry the child to term and care for it with unconditional love. However, in a rape case, it is morally permissible to take the "morning after pill" based on a negative pregnancy test within a few days of the incident. Think about this teaching. A pregnancy test can only detect pregnancy after implantation, not before! Conception is possible and the fertilized ovum will not implant. This teaching is highly controversial and inconsistent with the negative injunction against any form of abortion (including the use of contraceptive pills that supposively act in the same way by making the lining of the uterus inhospitable to implantation). Unreasonable, contradictory or morally justifiable? You make the call.
In conclusion, we must follow Cardinal Ratzinger's suggestions when it comes to voting for politican candidates. We will never find a "perfect" candidate. The policies, as best we known them, of Obama and Romney present Catholics with a moral dilemma. We can only pray for enlightenment, educate ourselves about each candidate, and choose the candidate that we believe will do a better job in solving our economic and fiscal problems, and creating opportunities for all, in particular the poor and the middle class.