Sure it’s possible to honorably support different sides of LOTS of issues - minimum wage, speed limits, safety regulations, FDA drug protocols, EPA regulations about parts per billion… honorable Catholics can - and do - disagree about which policy proposal is most appropriate given the wider picture of a federal government in DEBT and running DEFICITS.
Some may honorably say “well sure it’s not really “free” money, but the poor need the borrowed dollars now so to heck with the future generations who will be left holding the bag when this blows up”. They have a point: people hurting now need help now. Others have a point that stealing from Peter to help Paul might not be the best way to help Paul.
But an honest and honorable Catholic can’t in good conscience claim to be so if he/she comes down in favor of abortion. Or slavery. Or the intentional carpet bombing of whole cities.
The hitman who makes his fortune killing people doesn’t become less a monster because he tithes to “help the poor”. Helping the poor is a good thing. But it doesn’t cover the sin of murder.
You can’t choose an intrinisic evil - proposed as a political policy by some candidate or the candidate’s party and still regard yourself as a good Catholic, because good Catholics by definition don’t choose intrinisic evil.
IF the GWOT consisted of US Military forces routinely and as a matter of policy carpet bombing entire towns and cities, then it would be intrinsically evil and any politician or party that proposed, supported, and wished more of this would be evil.
Since the GWOT doesn’t consist of such a policy, it’s not intrinsically evil. Though morality still holds for Jus In Bello obviously. A Just war might involve unjust acts - just as the Police - duly authorized to uphold law and order may also occasionally commit injustices. Those injustices don’t vitiate the whole kit and kaboodle.
But abortion and sodomy are different. Here we don’t have occasional “oops” but political policies and laws that support the direct, intentional killing of the completely innocent and defenseless among us or the direct, intentional support of one of the deadly sins that “cries to heaven for vengeance”.
Abortion and sodomy ARE intrinsic evils - as per the Catholic Church. If you disagree with these moral judgements then you are disagreeing with the Catholic Church and hence…are not “a good Catholic”.
And there is one political party totally in favor of promoting, safeguarding, and expanding BOTH.
So it doesn’t matter if this party also likes the idea of a $1.50 hike in minimum wage or regulations about improving enviromental conditions. Those are nice position and policies, but they don’t absolve the party in question from being in favor of intrinsic evil.
It’s not complicated. What IS complicated is the internal politics of professional Catholic working in chanceries, vicariates, and “catholic” colleges and universities who as a group tend to be Democrats first and Catholics second. These folk lobby the Bishops in no uncertain terms about what they won’t tolerate - and one of those things they won’t tolerate are “ultimatums” about sexual morality. It’s either their way, or the highway as in “let me keep doing what I want OR I’ll make life very miserable for you”.
And so, out comes the overly nuanced, contradictory, vague statements that are the result of committee haggling that allows “all parties” to read into the document that their side is right and their candidate or party is right or at least they can justify their votes…
Now to be most charitable these statements could be construed as the bishops temporizing, stalling to avoid schism while they hope for a change of hearts and minds (or more likely for vociferous opponents to just retire). But then, why bother issuing a statement at all?
I think what happened is they saw the need to give guidance - but it was hijacked by the political correct among them and their staffs who sought to head off any clear, categorical teaching for partisan (as opposed to Catholic) gain. The USCCB being a body that votes, and it’s not hard to see how things can be watered down for the sake of consensus.
In the end, lay people will need to take on fellow lay people in the forum of ideas and settle the dispute. We need to evangelize our neighbors. The easy way out of having a clear statement from the pulpit won’t happen. It’s going to be the messy way of hodge podge coalitions forming, statements, and a plethora of other “means of communication” being employed to change hearts and minds.
And we also need to support our bishops personally - let them know that if they lead according to the heart and mind of the Church we - and many besides us - will follow, stand up for them, back them up, protect them. It might not hurt to volunteer for service at their chanceries…
