The Catholic Vote Gerry OShea
Speaking at
an event co-sponsored by Boston College and St. Anselm College on September 15th,
Cardinal Joseph Tobin from the Newark diocese declared that he had no moral
problem with people voting for former vice-president Joe Biden in the November
election, and he went on to say “I frankly have a more difficult time with the
other option.”
The
cardinal’s misgivings are due mainly to President Trump’s restoration of the
death penalty in clear opposition to Catholic social teaching as well as his
dismissal of Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ signature encyclical, on protecting the
environment. Tobin also identifies with the pope’s statement of disgust at the
maltreatment of immigrant children on the southern border with Mexico: “A
person who thinks only about building walls and not bridges is not a
Christian.”
However, a
strong body of opinion among the church prelates disagrees with Tobin’s view
and, focusing instead on the positions of the two political parties on the
abortion issue, they favor the conservative approach of the president and the
Republican party. These bishops applaud Mr. Trump’s selection of judges
especially for seats on the Supreme Court. Their top priority is to get the
1973 Roe v Wade pronouncement of the court, which permits abortion, overturned.
This would
return the decision on this important issue to each state legislature, some of
whom would allow the procedure while others would make it a crime. A woman who
decides to terminate her pregnancy in any of the states that would deem it
illegal would have to travel to a place where it isn’t banned, provided, of
course, she has the money to take care of all the expenses involved. Before the
Roe decision, poor women resorting to back alley abortions was not uncommon.
Keep in mind that close to 40% of American
women decide to end at least one pregnancy in their lifetime, and about 70% of
those availing of legal termination come from low-income families. Bemoaning
their decision or sermonizing about it won’t help the woman confronting a really
painful predicament.
The bishops
make a strong case from a moral perspective against ending any pregnancy, and
many people on both sides of the issue agree that society is dealing here with
very serious matters.
Presumably,
the goal of repealing Roe centers on reducing the number of abortions. Is there
any evidence that this legalistic approach will achieve that goal? It will
allow states to make it illegal in their jurisdiction, with punitive
consequences for women who disobey such a new law.
There is
another approach which some ethicists, including many Catholic theologians, propound.
They do not see the solution in terms of any legislation or the decision of any
court. Instead, they advocate for robust public policies supporting, for
instance, better housing for the poor, generous childcare help for expectant
and nursing mothers, laws that mandate paid leave from work for a few months
after the baby arrives and expansion of programs that subsidize nutritious
foods for the mother and baby. Following these liberal policy initiatives accords
well with a century of Catholic social teaching and would provide a real choice
for many women to continue their pregnancy.
Would
Republicans, who always favor a niggardly response to funding progressive programs, vote for such measures? Would
they agree to raise taxes to pay for these services? Very unlikely! At present,
they are preparing policies that cut the Food Stamp Program while
hypocritically proclaiming their pro-life credentials.
The Catholic
Church cannot be faulted for its commitment to worthwhile programs to help the
poor. Nuns and priests and brothers lead a massive number of relief programs in
every corner of the world and they should be acknowledged for this admirable charitable
work.
The church
in America has a major leakage problem. About 900,000 members depart each year
to join other religions or to work out their relationship with the creator
without any denominational loyalty.
Just short of an astounding 13% of the American
population identify as former Catholics. This massive shrinkage is especially
worrying because most of those leaving belong to younger age groups. Over half
of millennial babies born to Catholic families in the 1980’s and 1990’s have departed
from their home religion.
The
immigrant church, nearly all Hispanics now, comprising about one third of all parishioners,
provide the only obvious avenue for growth. Most of the people in this group
are devout and loyal to their faith, although a recent report predicted that in
the next decade or so the membership in the various evangelical churches will
surpass the Catholic numbers in the Latino community.
However, the
Catholic count still remains over fifty million or about 23% of the total US
population, and over 75% of them will show at the polls for the presidential
election. Very important from an electoral standpoint is that the three vital
swing states around the Great Lakes, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, have
vibrant Catholic communities. The records show that the victor among Catholic
voters nationwide, especially in these battleground states, has won the
presidency in nine of the ten last presidential contests.
Overall, Trump took the Catholic vote by a few
points and he won the election. The
white voters’ preference for a man who dabbles regularly in racist and nativist
tropes is worrying, and recent polls suggest that the president’s lead among
these voters has diminished significantly.
Racism and all
its negative entanglements are central concerns in the current elections. Pope
Francis addressed the issue in terms of the pro-life agenda: “We cannot
tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim
to defend the sacredness of every human life.”
A few months
ago, President Trump had a virtual meeting with about 600 leaders of the church
community, including a large number of bishops. Cardinal Dolan was the
spokesman for the group and he highlighted his personal standing with Trump by
joking that he talks more often to his friend in the White House than he does
to his mother.
The main topic
on the agenda centered on getting some emergency money to help out the church
schools because of the extra challenges they face due to the corona virus.
However, the president veered off this topic early in the meeting to claim
Catholic support at the upcoming polls, stating that he did more for the
Catholic Church than any president in history. He didn’t explain the logic supporting
this assertion, and none of his
distinguished company saw fit to tell him that encouraging people to re-elect
him falls well outside their ecclesial remit.
On Easter
Sunday, in a highly symbolic act, Cardinal Dolan, aided by virtual technology,
welcomed the president to his mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. It
is hard to miss the irony of a leader openly hostile to immigrants being
welcomed to a cathedral largely built by dollar donations from Irish women who
originated in small farms in poor counties in Ireland like Kerry or Donegal or
Mayo.
When John
Kennedy was elected to the White House in 1960, more than 75% of Catholics
voted for him. This was due in large part to a sense of a tribal group finally
demanding their place in the sun, but it was also indicative of strong support
from Catholic immigrant ethnic groups – Poles, Italians and Irish – who had
benefited from and wanted to affirm the progressive New Deal policies of the
Democratic Party.
Joe Biden
identifies himself openly as an Irish Catholic influenced by the social justice
papal encyclicals, which always highlight the priority that should be afforded
in policy-making to the common good, especially the welfare of the poor, over
the insatiable demands and vapid rationalizations of the wealthy who inevitably
want more and always find dubious ways to justify their greed.
Mr. Trump
has accused his opponent of “hating God.” Mr. Biden is a practicing Catholic
who carries a rosary in his pocket in memory of his son Beau whose premature
death broke his father’s heart. Biden’s record is certainly not perfect but he
scores well on character issues against a philanderer who has been credibly
accused of serious sexual assault by twenty-six women and whose daily untruths
have been counted in the tens of thousands.
There is
little doubt that both candidates will devote much of their remaining time and
attention to the undecided voters – many of them Catholics - in the swing
states because they know that the winner in even two of them, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Michigan, will almost certainly be installed as the country’s
leader on January 20th next year.
Gerry
OShea blogs at wemustbetalking.com
Comments
Post a Comment