Faithful Citizenship Document: a problem that needs to be remedied, and what you can do to help…

On July 14, the Catholic Advocate’s Deal Hudson & Matt Smith released the following statement regarding the quadrennial Faithful Citizenship document. In it they decry the fact that no substantial changes are foreseen to ambiguous language found within the 2008 document which allowed Catholic voters to believe they can vote for pro-abortion politicians under certain circumstances. This overview from the Catholic Advocate is followed by a sample letter we hope you will adapt, adding your personal opinions and concerns, when you write to your Bishop to express your concern about removing the ambiguity of their “Faithful Citizenship” document at their upcoming meeting in Baltimore this November.

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” If tradition holds, a new version of “Faithful Citizenship” is due to be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November.

We’re told that no substantial edits are being made to the 2008 version of the document, so that we can expect the 2012 version to be roughly the same as its predecessor.

If so, this is a problem and needs to be remedied. The 2008 version of “Faithful Citizenship” contains several passages (Sections 34-37) that are capable of overly broad interpretation. Groups like Catholics United and Catholic Democrats cherry-picked the following passage from Section 35 for prominent display on their web sites and in their printed materials.

“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, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” [emphasis added].

This passage was also cited in discussions of “Faithful Citizenship” held across the nation’s parishes in 2008. Anyone who objected to the implication of this passage could have been met with an equally confusing citation from the previous paragraph, Section 34, which states:

“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 such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” [emphasis added]

In other words, a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as he or she did not intend to support his pro-abortion position. What is a person to say to that? No one is capable of judging another person’s intention. The practical consequence of this statement is clear: Catholics can vote for any pro-abortion politician they want — all they have to do is have the right intention.

“The following passage, Section 36, adds to the confusion about whether or not a Catholic voter can or cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician:

“When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” [emphasis added]

A Catholic voter, therefore, can vote for pro-abortion politicians as long as they do not “advance” that “morally-flawed position” but would “pursue other authentic human goods.”

These sections contain three loopholes allowing Catholic voters to support pro-abortion politicians:

1) If they do not intend to support that position (34), or

2) if there are offsetting “morally grave reasons” (35), or

3) if a candidate will pursue “authentic human goods” rather than the “morally-flawed” position he holds (36).

After positing these loopholes, how can the bishops expect Catholic voters to make sense of the following paragraph, Section 37:

“In making these decisions,it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.” [emphasis added]

Why should a Catholic voter feel the weighty obligation to oppose “intrinsically evil acts” when the bishops themselves provide three different loopholes to put that concern aside?

There is one question the bishops should answer in the 2012 version of “Faithful Citizenship”:

What are the “grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons that would justify a Catholic voting for a pro-abortion candidate?

The answer to this question will clarify the confusion caused by Sections 34-37.

During the 2008 campaign, many individual bishops attempted to address the confusion of “Faithful Citizenship.” Bishop Robert Vasa, for example, pointed out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life. Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insisted there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”

The document can be clarified by the full body of the USCCB at the November 14-17, 2011meeting in Baltimore.

If the bishops republish the 2008 version “Faithful Citizenship” for the 2012 election — without changes — they will be providing Catholic voters another carte blanche to cast their vote for any pro-abortion candidate they want. The incoherence of Sections 34-37 do not serve the building of a culture of life in our nation.

Deal Hudson is president of Catholic Advocate in Washington, DC; Matt Smith is vice president.

***************************

Sample Letter to Your Bishop

Below is a sample letter we hope you will adapt, adding your personal opinions and concerns, when you write to your Bishop to express your concern about removing the ambiguity of their “Faithful Citizenship” document at their upcoming meeting in Baltimore this November.

Date

Bishop

Address

City, State, Zip

Quick link to find your Bishop:

http://new.usccb.org/about/bishops-and-dioceses/diocesan-locator.cfm

Dear Bishop ____________ ,

Peace be with you, and thank you for your service to our Holy Roman Catholic church.

I am a practicing Catholic (alternates: weekly or daily communicant, woman religious, priest, etc.) in your diocese.

I am very concerned about the ambiguity in the 2008 “Faithful Citizenship” document, leading many pro-contraception & pro-abortion groups to persuade Catholics to vote for candidates who support their agenda, in complete contradiction to church teaching.

“Among the many “social conditions” which the Catholic must take into account in voting, the above serious moral issues [abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage] must be given the first consideration”. 

Those were the words of Cardinal Burke, made when he was still Archbishop of the diocese of St. Louis, instructing Catholic voters in his Diocese.

All Catholics deserve such clear and unequivocal leadership from their own Bishops and Priests, many of whom defer to the “Faithful Citizenship” document from the USCCB.

To help strengthen the document, I urge you to place “Faithful Citizenship” on the agenda of the upcoming U. S. Bishops’ meeting in November and ask you to promote discussion of this critical issue, seeking to remove the ambiguity in the existing document.

Sincerely yours,

Name

Address

City, state, zip

One thought on “Faithful Citizenship Document: a problem that needs to be remedied, and what you can do to help…”

  1. My concern is the veracity of the candidate who claims to be pro-life but does nothing to implement legislation to prohibit the use of abortion. I feel it is something that should be addressed by the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The rush to judgement now when the Republican candidate has no plan or initiatives to safeguard the life of the unborn child seems ridiculous.They are more interested in getting the support of the Catholic voter. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traditionly supports the Republican Party. The primary interest of the Republican candidate is to repeal the social legislation of the current administration which had been attempted by several previous administrations. The cuurent push on the morality of an individual Catholic voter does not seem to be the answer to the dilema. The civil right to life of the unborn child should have been addressed by a Constitutionaal Amendment a long time ago rather than the morality of abortion. No candidate can legislate morality on the general public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s