Saturday, 15 November 2008

US election: four links to Radical Catholic Mom

I am afraid I am unable to resist linking to this.

What I really was going to link to whas this, where Radical Catholic Mom gives some idea of what a pro-life Democrat thinks in the wake of the recent American presidential election. I think this post - and dialogue in the comments - does shed some light on the nature of pro-life politics in the United States. Pro-life politics does need to keep a certain distance from the political right - at the end of the day, it is a politics that is open to those of both left and right. And it seems quite right to me to now point out that those who have a chance, though perhaps a small one, of influencing on behalf of unborn children are pro-lifers within the Democrat party. It should also be borne in mind that Radical Catholic Mom is active and loyal to the Church.

Radical Catholic Mom has also posted on "working the polls" on election day. I expect this is a job similar to that of those who work in polling stations in the UK for elections. It is quite fascinating how, for whatever reason, the Americans seem to have committed to voting in this election in a quite unprecedented way. This is a moving post to read. And here, Radical Catholic Mom has posted on some of the reaction she got as a pro-lifer who indicated that she would be voting for Barack Obama.

Voting in any election involves an element of prudential judgement. One might not agree with everything that is in a particular party's electoral position, but one can come to the judgement that it is the correct way to vote. In that case, the vote is cast in support of what is morally acceptable in the party's position, and one should perhaps look for a way to witness against that which one cannot support in its position. At heart, this involves a judgement of conscience - conscience that should, for a Catholic, be informed by the teaching of the Church and careful enquiry about the electoral positions of those standing for election. And it may well be that different people in the same situation will come to different judgements as to how it is prudent to vote - but it is the judgement of prudence that is the object of the act of conscience, not a judgement that a policy proposal contrary to what is known through Catholic teaching is morally permissible.

Bishops clearly have a teaching role in this sort of context, and some of the American bishops exercised that role very vigorously in the run up to the election. I wonder whether their interventions were experienced more as an attempt to direct Catholics how to vote rather than as a part of a forming of conscience of voters?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey, thanks! Appreciate it!

Anonymous said...

zero says
What happens if one party's candidate deems to be pro-lfe but is pro capital punishment when we don't, to my knowledge, have Jesus condemning anyone to death?

Joe said...

Zero

We now have the hazard of seeing the issue only in terms of conservative vs liberal politics - being anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment as a conservative position and vice versa as being the liberal position.

The Church has accepted the legitimacy of capital punishment in the past - but Pope John Paul II argued that, the circumstances that would in the past have allowed capital punishment, do not exist now. Hence his taking a stand against capital punishment.

So how does one vote ....? A question of prudent decision ...