Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory Special Report: How to vote with a clear conscience.

h e n Am e r i c a n Ca t h o l i c s v o t e , t h e y typically divide into roughly two groups — those who consider themselves “life-and-family issues voters” and those who consider themselves “social-justice issues” voters. A life-and-family issues voter will automatically disqualify candidates with a voting record supporting abortion or homosex- Wual civil unions. A social-justice issues voter tends to be flexible on the life issues and will put more emphasis on war and peace, on poverty and taxes, and on the death penalty. The very existence of these “different kinds” of voters makes us ask what, exactly, is the relationship of all these issues? Are some more important than others? If so, how should they be ranked, and by what criteria?

u c h q u e s t i o n s w i l l matter quite a lot in the upcoming More boldly than in any other magisterial document, Pope 2008 election, and we are likely to see some rather John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, explored and proclaimed Sinteresting dilemmas form in the minds of Catholic this personalist foundation, showing that absolute moral voters. Life-and-family voters will be very hesitant if Rudy norms exist precisely to defend the dignity of the per- Giuliani is the Republican candidate, but some will be son, that the Church’s social doctrine is united with the tempted to support him for other good reasons, not least rest of her moral doctrine by this of which is the defeat of a candidate common foundation, and that even more deficient on life and fam- the phenomenon of martyrdom ily issues and woefully inadequate is also rooted in the dignity of or even dangerous on other issues. the person. In a word, all moral Our purpose here — in this and the next cou- issues are critical, because in all of them the ple of installments of “Gray Matters” — is to gather dignity of the human person is at stake. Hence, their some key intellectual equipment that will be necessary principle can be thought of as a “seamless garment” or items in the Catholic voter’s toolbox when election day a “consistent ethic of life.” comes around. The key piece of equipment we’ll dis- cuss here is the “seamless garment” theory, also called n c e t h e c o m m o n foundation is noted and acknowl- the “consistent ethic of life.” edged, a critical distinction must be made between Otwo different types of issues, which for purposes h e “s e a m l e s s g a r m e n t ” t h e o r y i s a tremen- of convenience we will label “level A” and “level B.” dous idea when properly understood (it often is First, there are issues that yield what are called “abso- Tnot), and also an idea that is tremendously prone lute negative moral norms.” (In biblical terminology, a to misuse. Properly understood, it simply, and pro- “negative moral norm” is something we are forbidden foundly, means that the idea of the dignity of the human by God never to do. For example, several of the Ten person is at the heart of all moral issues. Put otherwise, Commandments God gave Moses in Exodus 20 are abso- regardless of the moral issue being debated, ultimately lute negative moral norms. They begin with the phrase, the debate redounds to the question of the absolute dig- “Thou shalt not . . .”)This means that to violate such nity of the human person. In a word, we have here a highly personalist foundation for ethics. by Mark Lowery, Ph.D.

A special report on Catholic voting from Envoy Magazine www.envoymagazine.com An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory a norm is to violate the dignity of the salvation” (Gaudium et Spes 43). and un-nuanced exhortation to consider human person, always and in every It is the laity who have the unique the “full range of issues.” The follow- circumstance. These negative moral competence to deal with the various ing statement, perfectly acceptable norms remind us — indeed, they com- spheres of the temporal order. The and laudatory in itself, could easily be mand us — to always and everywhere Church respects the legitimate auton- thus misunderstood: We hope that vot- avoid actions that are intrinsically evil. omy of the temporal order (the Church ers will examine candidates on the full The most poignant example is the neg- is not an expert in politics, e.g.), and range of issues and on their personal ative moral norm instructing us never the laity who have expertise are to integrity, philosophy and performance. to intentionally take the life of an inno- work toward making each sphere of A consistent ethic of life should be the cent person. To do so inherently denies the temporal order compatible with the moral framework to address issues in the dignity of that person. Issues such Christian faith. the political arena. (U.S. Bishops, The as abortion, active and passive eutha- Challenge of Faithful Citizenship, 2004, nasia, infanticide, and embryonic stem s Ci t i z e n s a m o n g citizens they from the section “Role of the Church.” cell research all fall under this negative must bring to their cooperation The document cites the CDF document moral norm. Awith others their own special Participation of Catholics in Political competence, and act on their own Life (PCPL) #4, which itself avoids any e c o n d , l e v e l B i s s u e s . Th e s e are responsibility; everywhere and always ambiguity.) The fact is, a candidate issues wherein a moral norm they have to seek the justice of the king- with a perfectly legitimate stance on Sapplies, but not a negative moral dom of God. The temporal order is to one or more level B issues can disqual- norm that prohibits the action in each be renewed in such a way that, while ify himself by taking the wrong position and every instance. Rather, qualified lay its own principles are fully respected, on a level A issue. Listen to Fr. Frank people are obliged to critically examine Pavone’s advice on this point: “Suppose a concrete situation and make a pru- your choices in an election aren’t that dent determination as to whether or great. One helpful question to ask not a norm is being violated. An excel- War and abortion is, ‘How fundamental is the issue on lent example is the phenomenon of the which the candidate is off base? Does just versus unjust war.The criteria for are both critically the candidate embrace any disqualifying just war offer a set of norms, but these positions?’… Some disagreements with criteria must be applied cautiously to a important issues, candidates are legitimate; others are particular war or potential war to deter- not. Some positions are so fundamen- mine whether or not the criteria can but they are tally wrong that they should be beyond be met. The issue of the dignity of the the realm of the optional…. [You might human person is just as much at work, different kinds ask] May we vote for one who, free of or at stake, in such a moral setting as it disqualifying faults, is better than the is when a negative moral norm is appli- of issues. alternative, even if not right on every- cable, but it is harder to determine when thing? Of course.”1 dignity is being violated. Alongside the Note very carefully: It is question of just war, other issues that it is harmonized with the principles not necessarily the case that fall under into this second area include of the Christian life… (Apostolicam the level A issue is more school funding (e.g., the issue of vouch- Actuositatem 7 [Vatican Council important than the level B ers), the rare case where the death II]; see also Gaudium et Spes 42). issue — that is difficult to penalty might be legitimate, the issue Having made the all-impor- weigh and decide, and of immigration policy, and technical tant distinction between A and B the whole point of the economic questions involving hunger, issues, it almost goes without say- seamless garment is population, and third-world debt. ing that the seamless garment to recognize that the Who makes the decision regarding or the consistent ethic of life is one super-issue, the such applications? Qualified members vulnerable to misuse whenever dignity of the person, of the laity have the obligation to do this that distinction is left unmade. affects every issue. as part of their larger vocation of bring- A voter might favor a candi- Rather, they are ing the Gospel to bear on all spheres date’s position on one or several different kinds of of the temporal order. “Therefore let level B issues, and that candidate issues. That is why there be no opposition between profes- might have disqualified himself various attempts sional and social activities on the one on one or several level A issues, to weigh issues part, and religious life on the other.... yet the voter might uncritically against one another The Christian who neglects his tem- justify voting for that candidate turn out to be too fac- poral duties…. jeopardizes his eternal on the basis of an unqualified ile. War and abortion

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 2 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

are both critically impor- Mark Lowery, Ph.D. (Envoy Magazine’s resident moral theologian), responds tant issues, but they are to issues and arguments regarding voting raised by Casimir Dadak, Ph.D. different kinds of issues. The analysis just given is rooted in the natu- MORAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ral law, and therefore is WAR & ABORTION applicable to all human Dr. Casimir Dadak: persons. A look at the Dr. Mark Lowery’s “Gray Matters” column in Envoy’s 7.6 issue, “Catholic Voting and the issues from within the ‘Seamless Garment’ Theory,” in which he discussed, among other things, the question of Catholic Church, presup- abortion versus war is very interesting; however, it was slightly too abstract and some- posing the validity of Catholic doctrine, perfectly times misleading. complements the natural law analysis. Pope First, at the moment, American voters are not facing questions about a hypothetical war, Benedict XVI, when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he but about the actual war in Iraq. Dr. Lowery quotes the then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope was head of the CDF, gave the following clari- Benedict XVI) saying that “not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and fication from the Church’s viewpoint: Article 3. euthanasia” and that, unlike the above two issues, “it may [emphasis added] still be per- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight missible to take up arms to repel [emphasis added] an aggressor.” So, the critical question as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a here is, what “aggressor” are we “repelling” in Iraq? In sum, is this war just or not? After all, Catholic were to disagree with the Holy Father Iraq Body Count, which provides only well documented data on violent civilian deaths (i.e. on the application of capital punishment or on omits fatalities resulting from malnutrition, deterioration in health care, sanitary condi- the decision to wage war, he would not for that tions, etc.), established that at least 82,199 civilians (and counting) have been killed since reason be considered unworthy to present him- the invasion in 2003. I don’t think that this is a trivial number. self to receive Holy Communion. In the above quote, Pope Benedict XVI said that abortion is always evil (therefore, every politician advocating it is automatically unworthy of receiving Holy Communion), but we h i l e t h e Ch u r c h e x h o r t s c i v i l authorities cannot pass the same judgment on the question of war, because there is a chance that a to seek peace, not war, and to exer- conflict meets the just war criteria. However, to imply that a conflict that does not meet the cise discretion and mercy in imposing W just war criteria is NOT on a par with abortion or euthanasia (“level A” in Dr. Lowery’s clas- punishment on criminals, it may still be per- sification) and, instead, belongs to “level B” category (together with such questions as missible to take up arms to repel an aggressor school funding or immigration) is a gross misrepresentation of the teaching of the Church or to have recourse to capital punishment. There on sanctity of life. may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and apply- ing the death penalty, but not however with Dr. Lowery: regard to abortion and euthanasia.2 Here the Dr. Dadak makes an excellent point. In some circumstances a clear-cut answer to a level Church makes use of natural law categories to B issue is available. For instance, a particular war could clearly, with apodictic certainty, fail explain herself and to maintain the reasonable- to meet the just-war criteria. At that point, a politician could disqualify himself based on ness of her teaching, but the authority of the his stance on that level B issue. It is precisely the “consistent ethic of life” that allows us to teaching is rooted first in the authority of the give equal import to level A and B issues. Magisterium. One of the central elements that However, if Dr. Dadak were correct that the Iraq war clearly, with apodictic certainty, must be included in the formation of conscience fails the just-war criteria, we would have just such an instance before us, and John McCain is the exact nature of the Church’s teachings on (or whomever) would be a disqualified presidential candidate. However, excellent Catholic A issues and on B issues. thinkers, well-versed in the moral theology surrounding the Catholic just-war tradition, dis- The A category involves acts that are intrin- agree about whether or not the Iraq war meets the just-war criteria. For one example, see the sic evils, according to the natural law, and are article by Mark Latkovic, in which he argues that the invasion of Iraq was just. For additional taught infallibly by the Church to be so. On links and articles on the just-war theory, including ones related to the conflict in Iraq written the other hand, decisions about the B issues do up to 2007, see http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#additional_wot. not involve intrinsic evil but rather are matters So, we cannot, objectively speaking, automatically “disqualify” John McCain, et al., on that involve prudential application, in concrete the grounds of their stance on the Iraq War, while we can disqualify Barack Obama and Hillary circumstances, of respective sets of objective cri- Clinton, et al., on the grounds of their stance on the issue of abortion. teria. For instance, the Catholic tradition sets Still, if Dr. Dadak, in good conscience, comes to his own conclusion that the war in Iraq forth a number of criteria for judging whether is inherently unjust, he can, in equally good conscience —according to the social principles it is just to wage war, and these are enumerated we are laying out here — see his way to voting for a candidate who is disqualified on some in CCC 2309. The criteria for the death pen- other grounds. He is allowed to do this based on an important principle in Catholic moral alty are not as developed, but Avery Cardinal theology involving “cooperation in evil.” We will treat this below. Dulles has done a faithful job of interpreting CCC 2266-67, noting that bloodless means of punishment are preferable so long as they can

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 3 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory meet, in a concrete situation, the four appeal to policy, procedure, majority In another document, the CDF docu- purposes of punishment: protection, will or pluralism ever excuses a public ment applies the same principles to the deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribu- official from defending life to the great- issue of homosexual civil unions. The tive justice. est extent possible. As is true of leaders document addresses voters first and Hence, it would be erroneous for a in all walks of life, no political leader then politicians: Catholic candidate to state something can evade accountability for his or her In those situations where homosex- like this: “I am with the Church on war exercise of power (Evangelium Vitae, ual unions have been legally recognized and the death penalty but not on abor- or have been given the legal status and tion, which is better than my opponent rights belonging to marriage, clear and who is with the Church on abortion but No public official, emphatic opposition is a duty. One must not on the other two issues.” Likewise, refrain from any kind of formal coop- it would be erroneous for a candidate to especially one claiming eration in the enactment or application say “if the Church expects me to oppose of such gravely unjust laws and, as far abortion, I must also oppose the war to be a faithful and as possible, from material cooperation and the death penalty.” on the level of their application. In serious Catholic, this area, everyone can exercise e c a n n o w apply the Church’s the right to conscientious objec- consistent ethic of life, with the can responsibly tion. (CDF, Considerations Wcorrect distinctions in order, to Regarding Proposals to Give the duties of a Catholic politician. The advocate for or Legal Recognition to Unions U.S. Bishops, in Living the Gospel of Between Homosexual Life (LGL) 32, make just the right appli- actively support Persons 5). The doc- cation.We urge those Catholic officials ument then gives a who choose to depart from Church direct attacks specific directive teaching on the inviolability of human to Catholic politi- life in their public life to consider the on innocent cians: If it is true consequences for their own spiritual that all Catholics well-being, as well as the scandal they human life. are obliged to risk by leading others into serious sin. oppose the legal We call on them to reflect on the grave recognition of homo- contradiction of assuming public roles sexual unions, Catholic politicians are and presenting themselves as credible 734). Those who justify their inac- obliged to do so in a particular way, in Catholics when their actions on fun- tion on the grounds that abortion keeping with their responsibility as pol- damental issues of human life are not is the law of the land need to rec- iticians. (Ibid. 10). The document then in agreement with Church teaching. ognize that there is a higher law, tells us specifically about this particu- No public official, especially one the law of God. No human lar obligation: claiming to be a faithful and law can validly Faced with legislative proposals in serious Catholic, contradict the favor of homosexual unions, Catholic can responsi- Commandment politicians are to take account of the bly advocate for “Thou shalt not kill” following ethical indications. When leg- or actively support (LGL, 1998). The U.S. islation in favor of the recognition of direct attacks on inno- Bishops are very con- homosexual unions is proposed for the cent human life.3 sistent with the 2002 CDF first time in a legislative assembly, the Note well that the argu- document Participation of Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to ment is addressed to Catholic Catholics in Political Life express his opposition clearly and pub- officials as Catholic politicians, (PCPL) #4: “John Paul II, licly and to vote against it. To vote in and as politicians simply. No continuing the constant favor of a law so harmful to the com- politician ought to act con- teaching of the Church, has mon good is gravely immoral. When trary to that natural law, and reiterated many times that those legislation in favor of the recognition of Catholics who have the bene- who are directly involved in law- homosexual unions is already in force, fit of Church teaching a fortiori making bodies have a ‘grave and the Catholic politician must oppose it ought not to so act (that is, they clear obligation to oppose’ any in the ways that are possible for him have an even stronger set of rea- law that attacks human life. For and make his opposition known; it is his sons not to so act). The Bishops’ them, as for every Catholic, it duty to witness to the truth (Ibid.). statement quickly hones in on is impossible to promote such politicians simply: However, no laws or to vote for them.” This special report continues on page 5…

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 4 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

e a r r e a d e r , c o n s i d e r y o u r c o n s c i e n c e Dr. Dadak: informed! Of course, conscience forma- Second, Dr. Lowery assumes that politicians who proclaim a pro-life stance indeed walk Dtion is an ongoing process, and as Catholic the talk. But this is not necessarily the case, and the not too distant past provides a very voters we have a particular obligation to keep good example. The party that proclaims to carry the pro-life banner controlled the presi- this process going. Here is an important point dency and both houses of Congress; nevertheless not much progress had been accomplished to consider. Some non-Catholic politicians in limiting the culture of death. It is not unlikely that in November voters will face a choice will simply proclaim that they are not bound between someone paying lip service to the pro-life cause and determined to carry on the by the truths enshrined in Catholic teaching war (until we win, even if it takes 100 years) and someone who favors maintaining the sta- to which the Church says Catholic politicians tus quo on abortion, but promises to stop the war quickly. How do we choose between such must adhere. While other Catholic politicians two options, which one is the “lesser evil“? employ a different tactic by admitting that they are personally bound by such truths, due to the so-called separation of Church and State princi- Dr. Lowery: ple, they cannot “force” these religious opinions I have two points to make here. First, there would be considerable disagreement in on others and so they are free to avoid con- the pro-life community and leadership about Dr. Dadak’s “lip-service” comment. For forming their legislative or executive activities instance, the appointment of Supreme Court justices who eschew judicial usurpation of to these truths. the political process may be about the most important thing a president can do for the pro-life cause. And second, stopping the war in Iraq immediately might be good, but e h a v e m a d e t h e a l l -i m p o r t a n t distinction many would argue that it would be imprudent, if not evil. So, “the lesser of two evils” between two types of issues — those that rubric could well be inapplicable here. Winvolve intrinsically evil acts (and with which a candidate can easily be “disqualified” Dr. Dadak: from a Catholic standpoint) and those involving This brings us to the central issue; Catholics are banned from supporting any evil, prudential decision-making (we labeled these however small. We are expected to do only good, nothing less. In sum, we are supposed “level A” and “level B” respectively). to vote for politicians whose views are consistent with the Catholic Church’s teaching on I am delighted to note that the U.S. Bishops every major moral issue. The current situation does not offer such a choice and, given made precisely this distinction in a clear way the logic presented in Dr. Lowery’s article, the party that is promoting a program that in their most recent statement on “Faithful is slightly less at odds with Catholic values should get our support. Citizenship.” I urge all Envoy readers to take the time to read this important document (http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/ Dr. Lowery: FCStatement.pdf) Actually, it is assumed in Catholic teaching that at times we may invariably be forced Please note especially that paragraphs 22-23 to unwillingly “participate in evil.” Some careful criteria are available to let us know when are about “level A” issues and 24-35 (and in par- such cooperation is morally licit: ticular 29 and 33) are about “level B” issues. As an important follow-up to the first 1) The cooperation must be material, not formal— i.e., we must not intend the evil. Catholic Voting column, see the sidebar for my 2) The cooperation must be mediate, not immediate. In the latter, one’s coopera- response to a very thoughtful letter. If you are tive act directly produces the evil effect. wondering how Catholic Social Thought can help you form your conscience for the upcom- 3) We are obligated to keep our material cooperation with evil as remote as posing presidential election (indeed for all national sible, and if we fail to do so we commit evil. The criteria for determining proximity elections you are able to vote and remoteness are complicated. Much of the analysis belongs with the individual in), you’ll find some impor- conscience, which must discover “proportionate reasons” for the remote material tant points in that sidebar, as cooperation, and one can expect legitimate disagreement among people serious well as in this column. about living morally. We finished the previous 4) Even remote cooperation could be evil, contingent upon evil foreseeable con- column with the following sequences — the good foreseeable consequences go without saying. question: “Many non- Catholic politicians 5) Finally, even if one’s cooperation is remote, it is important that it not cause will quickly note that scandal. they are not bound by Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in a reply to Cardinal McCarrick, invoked this very prin- the same truths that ciple in regard to voting: might bind Catholic “Nota Bene. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and politicians. And so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately… many Catholic pol- (continued on page 7) iticians will admit

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 5 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

our Constitution, affirmed: “Our liber- unchanging truths about the human ties do not come from charters; for these person. (Living the Gospel of Life 13) are only the declaration of pre‑existing The Bishops — now on a roll! — rights. They do not depend on parch- go on to make a direct application to ments or seals, but come from the Catholic elected officials: king of kings and the Lord of all the Since the entry of Catholics into the earth.” The words of the Declaration U.S. political mainstream, believers have struggled to balance their faith with the perceived demands of democratic plural- The sanctity of ism. As a result, some Catholic elected officials have adopted the argument that, human life is not while they personally oppose evils like abortion, they cannot force their reli- merely Catholic gious views onto the wider society.

doctrine, it’s part of a u s e f o r q u i z question: in light of that they are personally bound by such what we have covered so far, answer truths, but that due to separation of humanity’s global Pthat argument. You can do it! Church and State, they cannot foist these religious opinions on everyone. ethical heritage, The answer — How would you answer both groups from the Bishops: of politicians?” and is America’s This is seriously mistaken on several key counts. First, regarding abortion, u t o n y o u r s e a t b e l t a n d let’s go! founding principle. the point when human life begins is not The Natural Law, as distin- a religious belief but a scientific fact — Pguished from “religion” and a fact on which there is clear agreement “revelation,” shows why Catholic laity of Independence speak of the “Laws even among leading abortion advo- are not “forcing the Catholic faith” on of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and cates. Second, the sanctity of human people. For instance, the conclusion proceed to make the historic assertion: life is not merely Catholic doctrine that all humans (a biological category) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, but part of humanity’s global ethical ought to be treated as persons (a phil- that all men are created equal, that they heritage, and our nation’s founding osophic category) does not depend on are endowed by their Creator with cer- principle (LGL 24). divine revelation, but on the natural tain unalienable Rights, that among The Bishops accurately note that law. Everyone agrees with this when these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit the humanity of the fetus is a biologi- analyzing an issue such as slavery — the of Happiness ...” Today, more than cal fact; when they add that the sanctity failure to cross-apply this conclusion to two centuries of the American experi- of that life is not just Catholic doctrine, abortion is self-serving. ment have passed. We tend to take these they might use the term “natural law,” It is precisely for this reason that a words for granted. But for the founders, since that is what they are referring to. To politician cannot argue that his views on writing on the brink of armed revo- assert this sanctity is to claim abortion must be kept private, so as not lution, these phrases were invested that all humans ought to be to impose his religion on others. Publicly not just with their philosophy treated as persons — hence, defending the truth about abortion has but with their lives. This is a move from the biological nothing to do with the imposition of why they closed with a category “human” to religion. Of course, divine revelation “firm reliance on the the philosophic, ethi- adds a great deal to our understanding protection of divine cal category “human of human dignity, but in a constitutional providence.” The person.” democracy it cannot be the basis for words of the The Bishops go on public law. (Also cf. CCC 2273.) Declaration of to poignantly cross-apply The U. S. Bishops have explained the Independence their argument to slavery and role of natural law in an exceptionally illuminate the sexism: “Most Americans would lucid passage in their 1998 statement : founding prin- recognize the contradiction in the We believe that universal understand- ciples of the statement, ‘While I am personally ings of freedom and truth are “written American opposed to slavery or racism or sex- on the human heart.” America’s found- Republic, prin- ism I cannot force my personal view ers also believed this to be true. In 1776 ciples explicitly on the rest of society.’” John Dickinson, one of the framers of grounded in This special report continues on page 7…

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 6 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

While the fundamental principles of the nat- vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on ural law are self-evident, a struggle often ensues abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in trying to discover each concrete application of in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other those principles. At times the concrete applica- reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted tion is simply difficult to figure out (as in certain in the presence of proportionate reasons” (Catholic World Report, Sept.–Oct., death penalty cases and determining the justice 2004, pp. 30-31). of certain wars) and at times concupiscence easily blinds us to the correct application, especially That statement by Cardinal Ratzinger was widely misinterpreted. To give one rep- when a violation of the natural law is particu- resentative example: “[I]f a Catholic thinks a candidate’s positions on other issues larly convenient. Whatever the case, democracy outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered is an adventure in pursuit of the natural law — sinful” (editorial, Texas Catholic, July 16, 2004, p. 7). In a word, Cardinal Ratzinger’s and it is very messy and very vulnerable. “Real statement was misconstrued to mean that “everyone decides on his own,” and level A pluralism depends on people of conviction strug- and level B issues can be thrown into the mix indiscriminately. Now, it is true to say this: gling vigorously to advance their beliefs by every “Whether or not there is proportionate reason is ultimately a matter for the individual ethical and legal means at their disposal.” The conscience. However, the conscience must be properly formed, and of foremost con- Bishops (LGL #38) cite the great John Paul II sideration in that formation is the distinction between level A and level B issues. in this regard:

It is a tribute to the Church and to the open- Dr. Dadak: ness of American society that so many Catholics In my view, the only solution that in the long-run offers a reasonable chance for in the United States are involved in political bringing abortion and other morally unsound policies to an end is to “waste” our votes life . . . democracy is . . . a moral adventure, on politicians and parties that truly represent Catholic values, in particular, defend life a continuing test of a people’s capacity to gov- not only of the unborn, but also of our soldiers and all other human beings. If large num- ern themselves in ways that serve the common bers of Catholics diverted their votes to such candidates, even if their attempts to gain good and the good of individual citizens. The office were ultimately proven unsuccessful, the Catholic electorate would cease to be a survival of a particular democracy depends not “captive audience” and our values would have to be taken seriously by the major parties. only on its institutions, but to an even greater extent on the spirit which inspires and perme- In the long run no political force could ignore millions of pro-lifers voting for truly pro- ates its procedures for legislating, administering, life candidates and would have to genuinely take up their cause. and judging. The future of democracy in fact As things are now, the pro-life movement wants to defeat the culture of death on the cheap. depends on a culture capable of forming men We hope that some party will do it for us, if only we keep voting their candidates into office. and women who are prepared to defend certain This strategy has proven to be a failure and now is the time to take a proactive stance; we need truths and values. to go out and run for office, even if our chances of winning are next to nil. Christ Himself gave us an example, after all in the short run He lost terribly (and so did the martyrs). However, o w a n i m p o r t a n t principle: the human law, almost 2000 years after the Crucifixion we can say without a doubt that His death has proven about which legislators are particularly to be a smashing success; Christianity is the largest religion on earth. So, standing for office, Nconcerned, cannot encompass the natu- or voting for a proven pro-life candidate may lead to defeat in the short-term, but will surely ral law, but should never contradict the natural succeed in the long-run, if only Catholics start consistently implementing the most fundamen- law. We can apply this principle to a concrete tal precept of their Faith — we must always choose good over evil. issue — homosexual civil unions — with help from Pope Benedict (when he headed the CDF Dr. Lowery: as Cardinal Ratzinger): If you really are going to include not only abortion but also a full gamut of “other The scope of the civil law is certainly more morally unsound policies” in the platform of a 3rd party Catholic candidate, I am afraid limited than that of the moral law, but civil you are trying illicitly to mix level A and level B issues. And practically, how many law cannot contradict right reason without voters will agree with his particular mix? If you focus on the central level A pro-life losing its binding force on conscience. Every issues, however, you have a very legitimate proposal—up until you say “even if our humanly‑created law is legitimate insofar as it chances of winning are next to nil.” The virtue of prudence suggests that we set our is consistent with the natural moral law, recog- sights on projects—even huge and daring projects — that have “reasonable hope of nized by right reason, and insofar as it respects success” (to borrow one of the Just-War criteria). So yes, “go out and run for office,” the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in do it right, build it big, and you’ll have my vote. And, it won’t be a wasted one. favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guaran- Casimir Dadak, Ph.D., is an associate professor of finance and economics at Hollins tees, analogous to those granted to marriage, University in Roanoke, Virginia. to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the Mark Lowery, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of moral theology at the University State could not grant legal standing to such of Dallas in Irving, Texas. unions without failing in its duty to promote

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 7 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory and defend marriage as an institution natural law and the importance of its essential to the common good. (CDF, application in civic life to human law Considerations Regarding Proposals (namely, that no human law should be We need the to Give Legal Recognition to Unions incompatible with the natural law)? Between Homosexual Persons, 6) Does the Magisterium have the right courage and Some might contend that, how- and duty to speak, to the laity and to ever true some or all of the above all people, about the importance of the the honesty to points might be, it is not the role of the laity making this application? Magisterium to interfere in what is the Does the Magisterium have the right speak the truth legitimate domain of the laity. It is the and duty to speak, to the laity and to all role of the laity to be engaged in the people, about certain cases where the about human affairs of the temporal order. Especially human law clearly is incompatible with in an era in which the clergy are often the natural law — such as slavery, abor- life, no matter tempted to overstep their bounds, this tion, or a war that can be judged with role must be protected. In part III of this certainty to be unjust — about which all how high the cost series we will take up this question, and people should take some kind of action proportionate to their respective posi- to ourselves. tions in life and society? (These are The A, B, C’s of Voting Morally “level A” issues, to use our earlier label, Level A issues are those involving an and can also be “level B” issues in some by reason of their particular vocation, instances — see sidebar.) expressly and professedly ordained to action that is always wrong — like abortion or Does the Magisterium have the right the sacred ministry. Similarly, by their state in life, religious give splendid and homosexual acts (and by extension, homo- and duty to speak, to the laity and to striking testimony that the world can sexual unions). Level B issues are those in all people, about moral issues wherein not be transformed and offered to God the natural law must be considered, but which a prudential judgment must be made without the spirit of the beatitudes. But wherein several different stances could the laity, by their special vocation, seek about whether the action is right or wrong — arguably be compatible with the natu- the kingdom of God by engaging in warfare is the most pertinent example, and ral law? (These are “level B” issues, to temporal affairs and by ordering them use our earlier label.) according to the plan of God” (Lumen the Church gives us a set of “just war” criteria Does the Magisterium have the right Gentium 31). to determine if a war is just or unjust. Rarely, and duty to speak, to the laity and to a level B issue can be analyzed with absolute all people, about the advisability of Note well that, as a lay person, you one particular stance on those “level have to be involved in politics, at least certainty; more often than not, there is room B” issues? in some degree, in particular by voting for legitimate disagreement. Hence, candi- Does the Magisterium have the right with a well-formed conscience. To dis- dates can disqualify themselves on A issues, and duty to speak, to the laity and to all cover the correct boundaries between people, about the best political strate- the Magisterium/clergy on one hand, but only rarely on B issues. gies to use when engaging the political and the laity on the other, we then pro- order in regard to either a level A or a vided the following challenge: Answer level B issue? “yes” or “no” to the following ques- to prepare yourselves, readers, I leave tions — in so doing, you will be you again with a question. e t ’s r e t u r n n o w t o a n earlier drawing a very significant line, crit- To discover the correct set of bound- issue: the respective roles of ical to understanding the role aries between Magisterium/clergy and Lthe laity and the clergy, of the church in the temporal laity, answer “yes” or “no” to the fol- especially in the political sphere, and specifically the lowing questions — in so doing, you sphere. We get some political sphere. This time, will be drawing a very significant line, clarification here from we’ll provide answers after critical to understanding the role of the Vatican II: each item in italics. church in the temporal sphere, and specifically the political sphere. A special “What specifically 1) Does the Magisterium challenge: try to explain why you drew characterizes the laity have the right and duty the line where you did! is their secular nature. to speak, to the laity and It is true that those in to all people, about the Does the Magisterium have the right holy orders can at times and duty to speak, to the laity and to be engaged in secular activities, and even have a secular all people, about the existence of the This special report profession. But they are, continues on page 9…

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 8 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

existence of the natural law and the one particular stance on those “level Faith). Two tremendous texts draw just importance of its application in civic B” issues? No, this is the unique task the right lines. Here is the first: life to human law (namely, that no of the laity. human law should be incompatible 6) Does the Magisterium have the right It is not the Church’s task to set forth with the natural law)? Absolutely yes! and duty to speak, to the laity and specific political solutions – and even The Catholic theological tradition to all people, about the best political less to propose a single solution as the consistently notes the importance of strategies to use when engaging the acceptable one – to temporal questions reason in discovering the truth. (If political order in regard to either a that God has left to the free and respon- you have never read John Paul II’s level A or level B issue? Likewise, this sible judgment of each person. It is, encyclical on faith and reason, Fides is the unique task of lay experts. however, the Church’s right and duty to et Ratio, now is as good a time as provide a moral judgment on temporal any!) 2) Does the Magisterium have the right The “GS43” Principle and duty to speak, to the laity and to all people, about the importance Spirited debate about level B issues needs to take place, and we actually get distracted of the laity making this applica- from that debate when we do not have the proper distinctions in place. Heeding unity on level A tion? Yes, laity should regularly be issues will allow a better flourishing of legitimate debate on level B issues. As for this spirited exhorted, right from the pulpit, to fulfill this urgent task! And such debate, Gaudium et Spes 43 reminds us that laypeople, with their various areas of expertise, are exhortation should certainly increase the ones who should apply the principles of Catholic social thought to each sphere of the tem- at election time! poral order, that disagreement among laity is to be expected, no party may claim his view as 3) Does the Magisterium have the right the only “Catholic” one, that the teaching authority of the Church does not have a final answer and duty to speak, to the laity and to all people, about certain cases where to the disagreement, and that the debate be carried on civilly and charitably. So important is the human law clearly is incompat- this principle, for both level B and level A issues, that I suggest it be given an appropriate label ible with the natural law — such so as to place it with the other marvelous Catholic social principles. Until I or someone else can as slavery, abortion, or a war that can be judged with full certainty to think of a short, pithy label, I will call it the “GS43 principle,” after the document and article in be unjust — about which all peo- which it is so well articulated. ple should take some kind of action Here is the pertinent text from GS43 —great to remember when you and a friend disagree proportionate to their respective positions in life and society? (These on a level B issue! are “level A” issues, to use our earlier label, and can also be “level B” “Very often [the layman’s] vision will suggest a certain solution in some given situation. Yet it issues in some instances — see side- happens rather frequently, and legitimately so, that some of the faithful, with no less sincerity, will bar for quick review on A and B see the problem quite differently. Now if one of the other of the proposed solutions is too easily issues.) Yes! Note that we are get- associated with the message of the Gospel, they ought to remember that in those cases no one is ting more specific, but this kind of permitted to identify the authority of the Church exclusively with his own opinion. Let them, then, judgment is clearly within the pur- try to guide each other by sincere dialogue in a spirit of mutual charity and with anxious interest view of the clergy. above all in the common good” (GS 43). 4) Does the Magisterium have the right and duty to speak, to the laity and to all people, about moral issues wherein the natural law must be considered, but wherein several different stances could arguably be compatible with matters when this is required by faith the natural law? (These are “level B” Congratulations on your fine per- or the moral law. If Christians must issues, to use our earlier label.) Yes — formance! Now, let us turn to a few “recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization a great example would be a document Magisterial documents to see these of worldly affairs,” they are also called in which Bishops reminded the laity points confirmed and fleshed out. You’ll see they have done their job — now it is to reject, as injurious to democratic life, of the basic principles used for deter- a conception of pluralism that reflects mining whether or not a war is just. time for you to get to the voting booth and do yours. moral relativism. Democracy must be 5) Does the Magisterium have the right based on the true and solid foundation The CDF’s analysis of the above and duty to speak, to the laity and to of non‑negotiable ethical principles, distinctions is stellar (recall, CDF = all people, about the advisability of which are the underpinning of life in Congregation for the Doctrine of the society (PCPL 3, emphasis added).

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 9 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

at stake is the essence of the moral law, r o n i c a l l y , t h o s e w h o accuse the h e s e t e x t s p r o v i d e ideal guidance Church of wrongfully interfering which concerns the integral good of the for the upcoming election, in which human person. Iwith politics are the very ones who T huge level A issues are at stake (like object strenuously to the policy taken abortion and same-sex marriage). Laity, by Pius XII in regard to the Holocaust! The U.S. Bishops exhort us to not looking over the main candidates and They typically argue that consistent be afraid to take the right stances, even the third party candidates, have the task and repeated intervention should have when the cost is high: (fairly easy and obvious) of figuring out occurred and would have prevented who might be disqualified on a level A much of the horror, while Pius remained First and foremost we need the issue. (Last column I argued that there convinced such intervention would have courage and the honesty to speak the were no disqualifications on level B made the horror considerably worse. truth about human life, no matter how issues, and that remains the case.) Here is the second great text, again high the cost to ourselves. The great Sad to say, the Democratic Party clearly drawing the line of Magisterial lie of our age is that we are powerless has clearly disqualified itself, leaving a intervention at the right place: in the face of the compromises, struc- choice between the Republican party tures and temptations of mass culture. and third party candidates like Alan But we are not powerless. We can make On the level of concrete political Keyes. The Democrats would have action, there can generally be a plu- done well to meditate on this CDF text rality of political parties in which at their convention: Catholics may exercise – especially A Catholic would be guilty through legislative assemblies – their The Church teaches that abor- right and duty to contribute to the of formal cooperation in tion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The public life of their country. This arises Encyclical Evangelium vitae, with ref- because of the contingent nature of cer- evil, and so unworthy to erence to judicial decisions or civil laws tain choices regarding the ordering of that authorize or promote abortion or society, the variety of strategies avail- present himself for Holy euthanasia, states that there is a “grave able for accomplishing or guaranteeing and clear obligation to oppose them by the same fundamental value, the pos- Communion, if he were conscientious objection. [...] In the case sibility of different interpretations of of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a the basic principles of political theory, to deliberately vote for law permitting abortion or euthanasia, and the technical complexity of many it is therefore never licit to obey it, or political problems. It should not be a candidate precisely to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign confused, however, with an ambigu- in favour of such a law or vote for it’” ous pluralism in the choice of moral because of the candidate’s (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obli- principles or essential values. The legit- gation of conscience not to cooperate imate plurality of temporal options is permissive stand on formally in practices which, even if per- at the origin of the commitment of mitted by civil legislation, are contrary Catholics to politics and relates directly abortion and/or euthanasia. to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral to Christian moral and social teaching. standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate It is in the light of this teaching that formally in evil. [...] This cooperation lay Catholics must assess their partic- a difference. We belong to the Lord, can never be justified either by invok- ipation in political life so as to be sure in Him is our strength, and through ing respect for the freedom of that it is marked by a coherent respon- His grace, we can change the world. others or by appealing to the sibility for temporal reality. We also need the humility to listen well fact that civil law permits it to both friend and opponent on the or requires it” (no. 74; C.F., Then, the document returns to “level abortion issue, learning from each and PCPL #2). A” issues — recall that these are issues forgetting ourselves. We need the per- involving an intrinsic evil, and hence a severance to continue the struggle It follows that one clear-cut judgment is available. This text for the protection of human cannot vote in good con- answers question #3 in the above list: life, no matter what the set- science for a candidate backs, trusting in God and with a political platform in the ultimate fruitfulness that includes an unjust When political activity comes up of the task He has called us against moral principles that do not law: “...a well‑formed to. We need the prudence to Christian conscience does admit of exception, compromise or know when and how to act derogation, the Catholic commitment not permit one to vote for in the public arena ‑‑ and a political program or an becomes more evident and laden with also to recognize and dis- responsibility. In the face of fundamen- individual law which con- miss that fear of acting which tradicts the fundamental tal and inalienable ethical demands, postures as prudence itself.... Christians must recognize that what is contents of faith and mor- (LGL 27) als” (PCPL #4).

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 10 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory

As if that were not strong enough, (and Magisterium) and laity that allows might be frustrated at not being able consider this U.S. Bishops text, in which there to be no undue incursion of the to do so, is proof enough. And fur- they are legitimately making a rather Church into the political sphere. In thermore, the layperson’s conscience specific application to the political fact, concretely embodied in the dis- may on rare occasion allow for remote realm: if a candidate’s platform con- tinction between laity and clergy is the material cooperation with a disquali- tains support for an unjust law, on a conviction (the doctrine) that the faith fied candidate — treated just below. If level A issue, a Catholic cannot in good can never be treated as a means to any the priest were to name names, such conscience vote for that candidate. The worldly end, but is an end in itself. remote material cooperation, however Bishops speak directly about the vot- This is precisely why a priest can never rare, would be ruled out. ing booth: engage in partisan politics (regardless of the side of the political spectrum) and e n o w t u r n to the issue of The Gospel of Life must be pro- speak a candidate’s name from the pul- material cooperation with a dis- claimed, and human life defended, pit. To do so would both treat the faith Wqualified candidate. Say you have in all places and all times. The arena as a means to a political end, and usurp a family member or friend who plans for moral responsibility includes not the role of the laity. to vote for Obama based on his stance only the halls of government, but the While the faith is never to be reduced on the war in Iraq and on health care, voting booth as well. Laws that per- to a means to a political end, the faith for instance. Assume there is disagree- mit abortion, euthanasia and assisted always and everywhere applies to the ment with Obama on abortion (if there suicide are profoundly unjust, and we should work peacefully and tirelessly temporal order. The entire set of princi- were agreement, this would be formal to oppose and change them. Because ples — much of Catholic social thought cooperation in evil, which is beyond they are unjust they cannot bind cit- — for such application needs to be the pale). Under what conditions can izens in conscience, be supported, taught boldly, including from the pul- a Catholic materially cooperate with a acquiesced in, or recognized as valid. pit. But a critical line must be drawn: candidate who fails on a “disqualify- Our nation cannot countenance the the application of the principles must ing issue”? continued existence in our society of be left to the laity, even when — espe- Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in a such fundamental violations of human cially when — the application seems reply to Cardinal McCarrick, said the rights. (LGL 33) blatantly obvious. For the Magisterium following: or the clergy to engage in the applica- Is this — combined with the explicit tion politicizes the faith (precisely what Nota Bene. A Catholic would be command cited earlier that a voter may liberation theology does, which is at the guilty of formal cooperation in evil, not formally cooperate with a disqual- heart of the Magisterium’s critique of and so unworthy to present himself for ified candidate — tantamount to a those theologies). Holy Communion, if he were to delib- politicization of the faith (and in turn erately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive a violation of the separation of Church n l e v e l B issues, the above guide- stand on abortion and/or euthana- and State) as well as a usurpation of lines are easily recognized and sia. When a Catholic does not share a the role of the laity? You are about to Oapplied (though many clergy have candidate’s stand in favour of abortion uncover the absolute genius and superi- failed in this regard, thereby engag- and/or euthanasia, but votes for that ority of the Catholic mode of “political ing in a “laicization of the clergy”). candidate for other reasons, it is con- involvement” — something no other On level A issues, it can easily look sidered remote material cooperation, religious group possesses. as if the above guidelines are violated, which can be permitted in the presence It is precisely the careful distinction since a priest can (and must) state that of proportionate reasons. between the respective roles of clergy a citizen’s vote may never be a formal cooperation with a disqualified candi- That statement was widely misin- date. Is this not politicizing the faith? terpreted. To give one representative Is this not tantamount to telling the example: “....[I]f a Catholic thinks a laity exactly what to do in the vot- candidate’s positions on other issues ing booth? outweigh the difference on abortion, It is not, provided no specific candi- a vote for that candidate would not dates or political parties are mentioned. be considered sinful” (editorial, Texas This may appear as a mere technical- Catholic, July 16, 2004, 7). In a word, ity — “we all know Father is telling everyone decides on his own, and level us we may not vote for Democrat A and level B issues can be thrown into George Jones” — but it is not. The the mix indiscriminately. Now, it is true very fact that a priest may be tempted to say this: Whether or not there is pro- to “spell it out in black and white” portionate reason is ultimately a matter and name candidates’ names, and for the individual conscience. However,

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 11 Free Envoy special reports. An Magazine Special Report: Catholic Voting & the “Seamless Garment” Theory the conscience must be properly formed, BE A WELL-INFORMED CATHOLIC VOTER! Check out these important resources: and of foremost consideration in that Free Downloadable Videos: ➤ “On the Separation of Sense and formation is the distinction between ➤“Is it a Sin to Vote for a Pro- State,” by Archbishop Charles level A and level B issues. Abortion Candidate?” by Patrick J. Chaput, www.archden.org/ Consider the following hypothetical Madrid, www.patrickmadrid.com repository//Documents/ ArchbishopChaputCorner/ case as an example wherein proportion- ➤ “Voters Guide for Serious Addresses/OnSeparationofSense& ate reason might exist: if candidate X, Catholics,” Catholic Answers, State_OpenLetterCJC8.25.08.pdf disqualified by his stance on abortion, www.catholic.com ➤ “Conscience and the Catholic actually possessed a certain solution for ➤ “Vote Your Conscience,” Voter,” by Bishop William E. Lori, AIDS and world hunger, and if candi- www.catholicvote.com www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/ date Z clearly refused to consider those ➤ “Vanished,” www.virtuemedia.org/ loripamphlet.pdf television.htm obvious solutions, then one would have ➤ “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” a proportionate reason to vote for can- ➤ “Stem Cell Research,” virtuemedia.org/ by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict didate X. The example borders on the television.htm XVI), www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/ bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm absurd, but makes clear that something Websites: ➤ “Catholics in the Public Square,” by Bishop like the following would not constitute ➤ Catholic Answers Action: www.caaction.com Thomas J. Olmsted, www.priestsforlife.org/ a proportionate reason: Candidate X, ➤ Priests for Life: www.priestsforlife.org magisterium/bishops/olmsted-catholics-in-public- disqualified by his stance on abortion, ➤ Human Life International: www.hli.org square.htm shares my view on the imprudence of ➤ “Is It a Sin to Vote for a Pro-Abortion continuing to wage a war in Iraq, a war Documents: Candidate?” by Patrick Madrid, about which thoughtful people can and ➤ “On Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” by the www.patrickmadrid.com do disagree. Candidate Z considers it U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference, www.usccb. org/prolife/issues/bioethic/bishopsESCRstmt.pdf Please feel free to share this Envoy Magazine essential to continue the war. So, in a special report with your friends and family! word, it is hard to imagine, for this ➤ “Public Servants and Moral Reasoning,” voter at any rate, the possibility of find- by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, Reprints are available in bulk quantities for www.archden.org/repository//Documents/ parishes and groups. For pricing, please call: ing a proportionate reason to vote for ArchbishopChaputCorner/Addresses/PublicServants a disqualified candidate in the upcom- &MoralReasoning9.8.08.pdf 800-55-ENVOY ing election. A final note before you head to the polls: as noted in the last issue of Envoy Magazine: Remember that you are vot- “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is ing not just for the president, but for the next few Supreme Court Justices a war against the child — a direct killing of the innocent child — who will very likely soon be appointed by the next president. And that is pre- murder by the mother herself. And cisely where some of these critical level if we accept that a mother can A issues will really get hammered out. So, vote well! kill even her own child, Mark Lowery, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of how can we tell other moral theology at the University of Dallas and a regular contributor to Envoy Magazine. His e-mail people not to kill address is [email protected]. one another?”

Notes: — Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta 1 Fr. Frank Pavone, Reflections on the Political Responsibility of Christians (www.priestsforlife.org), see pages 31-32. 2 The letter is available in Catholic World Report, August- September, 2004, pages 30-31. 3 Washington D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1998. This document is extraordinarily rich, and much superior to the “Faithful Citizenship” documents of 1999 and 2003. 4 For stylistic purposes, we have modified the original British spelling “favour.”

➤ We need your help! Click here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envoy ➤ Click Here to sign up for additional make a tax-deductible donation. 12 Free Envoy special reports.