There have been some good answers so far. I’d like to comment on the specific examples you’ve offered because I think they are good ones and I have a point I’d like to make about them … a point that may or may not be shared by some of my self-proclaimed “orthodox” Catholics. First, the Church does teach that once you are baptized Catholic, or accepted into the Catholic faith after a valid baptism elsewhere, you are a Catholic until you die. That is regardless of excommunication OR renouncing the faith. You cannot un-Catholic. Now Catholics like to rate each other and themselves and give them various “pet names” depending on their assumed allegiance to Catholic teachings, but all such distinctions are artificial and the names are personal and not official.
As for politics, others will vehemently disagree with me, but I speak from a position of personal experience in politics, having been elected to county precinct position, on the ballot and all, endorsed by the conservative faction of the Kansas Republican Party, the Kansas Republican Assembly – as opposed to the “GOP Club” which are the more liberal Republicans. I was and still am pro-life, but my eyes were opened as to the dualistic mentality that politics demands and after meeting these people face to face I’ve determined there are a few really good and effective pro-lifers but there are two other kinds, too – the kind where they are faking it, and the kind where they are zealously pro-life but not politically prudent so they don’t end up saving any babies. In fact, in Kansas, the staunch pro-lifers failed to take the chances they had to save at least a few babies at the late infamous Dr. George Tiller’s in Wichita, and I place the blame squarely on them. Even though they blamed the moderates, the fact is the moderate governor promised to sign a late-term abortion bill for Kansas, but the staunch “non-negotiating” pro-lifers refused to pass it with an exception for the mother’s health, so nothing got signed and no babies were saved. The pro-lifers screamed about the “moderates” being anti-life for insisting on an exception which would surely be abused. I told some of them personally, to their faces, that they had better take what they have because incrementalism is how we lost the liberal battle and we can gain it back if we don’t put ideological obstacles in front of ourselves and insist we change everything in one fell swoop or nothing at all. But they didn’t listen to me, because their political strategy was set. They seemed to be more eager to villianize the moderates than they were to save babies. It angers them for me to say that, but it’s true and then of course we got a liberal Democratic governor after that – so no babies were saved until some wacko shot Tiller in the head at his church. Then babies were saved. So my point is that voting pro-life does not necessarily mean babies will be saved.
I personally voted for a pro-choice candidate (Dan Glickman) once, because I met his ostensibly “pro-life” opponent, Roger Grund, at a tax protest event. The man was so thoroughly evil and deceitful it made my skin crawl. He spouted out various ideals, including pro-life, and talked about lowering taxes and other conservative planks. He agreed to handle getting the press out to the federal building during our protest, but instead staged an event for himself that was unrelated to the tax protest effort but he told the press it was related, to get them there. Then, finally since a few media had found out on their own about the protest and still showed up at the federal building, Roger showed up near the end – he went wherever there were microphones and cameras. He was the slimiest, nastiest, above and beyond the stereotype of a dishonest politician. Well, I voted against him. Lucky for our country he died soon after that election. He wasn’t that old, either.
So I’m trying to make the point the politics is not what it seems. Because a candidate is listed under the “pro-life” voter’s guide, doesn’t mean that a vote for that candidate will save babies. Sometimes a vote for moderates rather than “non-negotiable” conservatives is actually life-saving. So I reject that we have a Catholic obligation under penalty of mortal sin, to vote for any particular candidate who claims to be 100% pro-life. If other things are equal or even nearly equal, then sure vote pro-life. But I think it’s evil for Church leaders to bind the people against voting for any particular candidate or voting against another one. And I have no apologies at all after seeing babies die due to the silly behavior of some staunch pro-lifers – even though I told some of them to their faces their strategy would fail. I’d much rather save babies than have a badge that I’m a 100% “non-negotiable” pro-lifer.
Overall, there are few things I disagree with the Church on, and frankly I doubt even the Church teaches it is a mortal sin to vote for a candidate when there was a “more pro-life” alternative. You don’t know what you’re getting in politics. If the Church teaches that, then I reserve the right not to take her advice. When I answer to God for the babies I did or did not save, I don’t suppose the Church is going to be standing there next to me so I can point to them, so I better do what I personally believe is right.
To give you an example of a view you don’t hear much on the “front lines,” I offer you Fr. Richard Rohr’s “
What did Jesus Really Teach?” video clip. He’s a Franciscan, which is one strike against him, and he although I don’t know exactly what he says about gays, he’s purported to support acceptance of gays. Anyway suffice it to say he is called heretical and new age and worse, so I’m not trying to have a discussion about him. I offer this as an example of how varied Catholic leaders are.
Alan
