Catholics vs. the Catholic Hierarchy in the 2008 Election

Pundits and analysts from the mainstream, cable, and marginal media all predict that Pennsylvania will play a decisive role, if not the deciding role, in the 2008 presidential election. The McCain and Obama campaigns have crisscrossed the Keystone state, leaving no regular stone unturned for votes in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The famous Pennsylvania “T,” the wide, more or less rural bulk of the state between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, has been of special interest in these closing weeks. In national nightly news broadcasts we have heard more references to Scranton, PA than we have heard in the past fifty years. Like the southern portion of the state, Scranton is culturally conservative with a high population of people from the so-called “manufacturing class,” although industry has pretty much dried up in the last five years.

One would think that with the economy in such bad shape that votes from this area would be the proverbial “low hanging fruit” for Senator Obama. His veep pick is a “kid from Scranton” and his now mildly supportive former primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, “hails” from the city, too. Home foreclosures are high and, in a real test of how difficult times are, the classified sections of the local newspapers are filled with “for sale” ads: Harleys, deer rifles, fishing gear, small boats, and ATVs—the fundamental “liquid” assets of a real “Joe, the plumber.” Very bad economic times, clever campaign slogans such as “Jobs, Baby, Jobs,” and regional loyalty, however, do not trump a very powerful counter-weight to voting Democratic, voter conscience instruction from Catholic bishops.

While the middle and lower portions of Pennsylvania’s “T” are largely non-Catholic, the top of the “T” is heavily Catholic. “Pennsyl-bama” or “Pennsyl-tucky” (sic), as many refer to it, is nearly exclusively “red.” A drive through suburban Harrisburg or York will reveal long stretches of McCain-Palin yard signs, with only an occasional “blip” of an Obama-Biden placard interrupting the smooth flow of Republican brand loyalty. Everything south of Scranton is safe McCain-Palin country or, better said, Palin-McCain country. The problem, however, is in the area of Scranton and north of the city, the critical Catholic vote that may tip the scales and make the winning difference between the evenly distributed urban Pittsburgh/Philadelphia Obama vote and the Pitt/Philly suburban and mid-lower “T” McCain vote.

The general mood of the Scranton Catholic voter can be summed up in two words, disgusted and worried. Voters are disgusted with the Wall Street “bail-out” and the Washington (Republican) over-attentiveness to the “rich.” Scranton Catholic voters are also worried about JOBS. “Disgust” and “worry” leave them leaning Obama, with the hope that he can get the country onto the “right” economic track.

The space between leaning and supporting, however, is solidly blockaded by the Catholic Church, more specifically the Catholic Church’s opposition to Roe v.Wade. In effect, what the Pennsylvania bishops are saying to Catholics is that jobs, the overall economy, health care, education, home foreclosures, Iraq, and all the other issues that motivate voters should be set aside in order to oppose Roe v. Wade. (Here, I am distinguishing between opposing Roe v. Wade and ending abortion. Overturning Roe will not end abortion. It will push the debate into the States, but, even then, abortion, legal or illegal, will not end.) When it comes to deciding between having or keeping a job, keeping a roof over your family’s head, sending your kid to college in the fall, having health insurance, getting out of Iraq or overturning Roe v. Wade, the choice is simple–overturn Roe v. Wade.

This, to be fair, is not an easy sell. While most Catholics oppose unconstrained abortion rights, it is not clear that they will be willing to endure a continuation of the Reagan-Bush-Bush economic plan on the chance that McCain would appoint pro-life judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. This has been the call of the Church for more than thirty years now, with the ironic fact that as poverty has increased under Republican leadership so too have abortions. After the 2004 Bush victory over Kerry, a cartoon ran in local papers in which two men were lamenting the loss of jobs, family members in Iraq, and no health insurance. The “punch-line,” however, read at least gays can’t get “married.”

In this sense, Catholic voters are not “single issue” voters, they are double issue voters—abortion and gay marriage, the two “objective evils” of modern life according to Church teaching. If Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops have their way, one could easily see a 2008 cartoon depicting the same two men with the same laments. The “bright side difference” would be in the possibility that Roe v. Wade might be overturned in a McCain-Palin administration. At the same time, however, a Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain economic philosophy would drive more people into poverty and, presumably, raise abortion rates even though Roe could potentially be off the “books.”

All religions contain “social teachings” and it would be unfair to fault the Catholic Church for promoting its social, political, and moral agenda. What is fair to criticize, however, is the punitive reaction by the Church to those Catholics who do not place the overturning of Roe v. Wade above all other issues. This year, the “line in the sand” regarding Roe has been most clearly drawn. The Catholic Witness, the Harrisburg, PA diocesan newspapers, routinely runs as its first major article an “anti-abortion legislation” piece; the second is usually aimed at legalizing gay marriage or “normalizing” gay partnerships. During “Respect for Life Month” (October) in this election year, Roe has received an extraordinarily high priority. The constant message is not simply that abortion is contrary to Catholic moral teaching; it is that overturning Roe is the single most important issue today.

This approach misconstrues abortion as a problem. Abortion is a solution to a problem, a symptom of something in society and not something that simply can be “fixed” by a juridical decree. Other than assigning “moral” blame to those struggling with an unintended pregnancy, how has the Church addressed the cause of abortion? It hasn’t in any satisfactory or thorough way. Throughout the month of October, all other “social teaching” issues are given minimum space, relegated to later pages, or not published at all. In a sense, “Respect for Life Month,” ends on Election Day in November. Up until that moment of decision, Catholic dioceses across Pennsylvania make an all out anti-Roe push. Newspapers, parish newsletters, Masses, and every other form of communication carry the anti-Democrat message: Voting for candidates who promise to overturn Roe or restrict abortion are the only acceptable option.

Catholic candidates who support abortion rights are to be denied Holy Communion and citizens who vote for these candidates may be denied Holy Communion as well. Above all other issues, it is made clear, Roe must be overturned and if the threat of de facto ex-communication is what it takes to achieve this end, then let it be so. It is one thing to speak against abortion from a religious, moral point of view; it is quite another to demand that Catholic citizens set aside all other moral and political concerns in order to prompt a potential political event, the appointing of pro-life U.S. Supreme Court justices.

My point, therefore, is not to say that Roe is good law or to defend abortion or to challenge the Church’s teaching on abortion’s “immorality.” Instead, I’m questioning the “zero-sum” approach to the issue promulgated by the Church and the spiritual “holding hostage” of Catholic citizens and candidates. The late Bishop of Scranton, James C. Timlin wrote in 2000:

"[A]bortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign.

Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate."

The late Bishop Timlin made it abundantly clear that Catholic voters will be held morally accountable for their votes. According to the late Bishop and to the Church today, there is no “multitude” of issues when it comes to abortion (Roe)—it is the single issue, the only issue. But what about the “morality” or “immorality” of denying the “cumulative effect” of ALL the moral issues?

What about “adding” the “horrible evils” of global poverty (a contributing factor in the worldwide rise in abortions), terrorism, genocide, social and economic injustice, racism, systematic and specific violence, and all the other despicable actions and inactions that diminish and/ or end people’s lives? Is the overturning of Roe v. Wade above these? According to the Catholic bishops, the answer is a resounding YES.

The implications of prioritizing the overturning of Roe are far-reaching. In effect, the Catholic bishops have turned their backs on all other moral issues, rendering them the objects of “lip service.” More troubling, however, is the coercion of Catholic voters by the bishops. Again, one could acknowledge the moral primacy of providing real alternatives to abortion (what the Church should be doing) as a matter of Catholic teaching. What is not acceptable is the retribution in the form of denying Holy Communion to those who do not take this moral axiom into the voting booth. Pressed to its logical end, however, a vote for McCain and, in effect, a vote to increase poverty is a vote FOR abortion. Many Catholics this election year are rejecting the single-mindedness of the Church on Roe. While the abortion issue, in all complexities, is still of great concern for Catholics, it will not trump all other moral issues and political and economic concerns. This is playing out in Scranton, PA and in much of Catholic America.

On Sunday, November 2, 2008, Pennsylvania Catholics, like Catholics all over the United States, will attend Mass. In that Mass they will hear that their jobs, their whole economic future, the war in Iraq, their health care system, their children’s future MUST take a “backseat” to overturning Roe. They will be “commanded” from the pulpit by their parish priest and the bishops to vote McCain-Palin, if not exclusively Republican. Ironically, overturning Roe is a greater moral imperative than ending abortion. So, when people see the number of “undecided” Scranton voters, they shouldn’t think that these are wishy-washy citizens. They are, quite possibly, suffering Catholic voters who are torn between voting for jobs, health care, and other issues and voting for their Church.

If the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania goes to Obama-Biden, it should be read as an all out rejection of the bishops’ staging of the moral primacy of overturning Roe and, perhaps more importantly, the Church’s choosing of sides in American politics. If that happens, Catholics will have their “consciences” again, without the fear of de facto ex-communciation. Lastly, with overturning Roe out of reach, the Church might just turn its attention to addressing the real, material causes for abortion. It might even work to find a remedy that takes into account all the Church’s teachings.

Victor E. Taylor is the author of Religion After Postmodernism: Retheorizing Myth and Literature (University of Virginia Press, 2008). He lives in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.