Political Morality

POLITICAL MORALITY

“Politics…is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common good.”—Papa Francesco, 2013

“Good politics…respects and promotes fundamental human rights, which are at the same time mutual obligations.”—Papa Francesco, 2019

The moral dimension of politics is poorly addressed in our education system, yet political actions have the capacity to inflict grave and far-reaching moral evil affecting millions and millions. Morality that is taught in our private Roman Catholic schools in particular focuses on the moral actions of the individual and generally neglects to take up the morality of political actions that affect many millions. Politics has far-reaching, dramatic, life-altering effects on masses of people so that political morality demonstrates a structural character. Politics is the enabler and perpetrator of social sin. It is according to this aspect that politics strikes at the very core of our moral life, competing directly with individual allegiance to God’s law.

Our private Roman Catholic education system needs to be reformed so that political ideologies, values, and principles, and how they support, oppose, or intersect with traditional Roman Catholic morality are taken up as essential to the program of study. Included in the coverage should be case studies, and the discussion of grey areas and the contingent character of political actions.

A good example of a case study would be the issue of complicity of German Christians in the Nazi regime’s crimes against humanity, in particular, the Holocaust.

At the time the Nazi party assumed power in 1933, practically the entire population of Germany was Christian, approximately 20 million Roman Catholics and 40 million Protestants. Jews comprised only one percent of the population or 600,000 citizens. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether the German Christians during that period are indeed responsible for the historical transgressions of Nazi Germany.

See: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state 

 

—United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC, “The German Churches and the Nazi State,” Holocaust Encyclopedia

I came across a thoughtful, searching piece addressing, among others, this question of German responsibility:

“The question of how much responsibility ordinary Germans had for Nazi atrocities has haunted Germany since 1945. It has raised questions such as whether there should be such a thing as collective guilt for Germans and prompted a great deal of soul-searching over how much Germans knew about the death camps and massacres on the Eastern front. It is difficult to distinguish clearly between perpetrators, fellow travellers, and bystander—and assess their responsibility. These categories are not as clear-cut as they might appear and they reflect our own moral standards on human behaviour.”

See: http://theconversation.com/wwii-trial-poses-uncomfortable-questions-of-guilt-and-complicity-for-germans-47965

—“WWII trial poses uncomfortable questions of guilt and complicity for Germans,” The Conversation, September 28, 2015

 

As a classroom exercise, the following question could be put to students:

“If you found yourself in the position of a German citizen, Christian, not Jewish or a member of any of the persecuted groups under Adolf Hitler, what could—and should—you have done to resist the Nazi regime? To what extent would you be responsible for the incontrovertible crimes committed under the regime?”

Another fraught issue that Americans have grappled with since Roe v. Wade in 1973 is whether or not to vote for electoral candidates that are pro-choice, including members of the Democratic Party who support the official position of the party, or for that matter, to join the Democratic Party and remain a registered member.

Concerning the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the moral evil of abortion, the categorical proscription is explicit, for example:

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2271)

See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270-2275:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/index.cfm

 

—“Abortion - Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Catholic News Agency

The contrast with the official position of the Democratic Party could not be more glaring and absolute: 

 

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. …We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.”

See: https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

—“Democratic Party on Abortion: Party Platform,” OnTheIssues

 

Not only are the divergent moral proclamations irreconcilable, but it is only logical to conclude that Americans who support the Democratic Party also support the official position of the party and the electoral candidates who co-opt the party’s public statement on abortion.

We would be forced to deduce that Americans who support the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion should not vote for Democratic Party candidates or join the Democratic Party because they would in effect be co-opting the grave sin of abortion. They could even be described as accessories to the crime.

Fortunately, the Roman Catholic Church, specifically, the U.S. church, deals with this issue, plainly and cogently:

“…the bishops make clear that they ‘do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.’ While the bishops offer guidelines to help each individual Catholic form his or her conscience, they also explain that ‘the Church’s leaders are to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote.’

“While the bishops and other church leaders may certainly challenge your political beliefs, it is not their place to tell you to vote for any particular candidate. And what is true for church leaders is certainly true for media commentators and the person who sits next to you at Mass. ‘In the end,’ the bishops tells us, ‘This is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.’”

See: https://uscatholic.org/articles/201603/can-a-catholic-vote-for-a-democrat/

—Father Paul Keller, C.M.F., “Can a Catholic vote for a Democrat?” U.S. Catholic: Faith in Real Life, March 7, 2016

The principle of primacy of conscience is invoked in response to the argument that Roman Catholics should not co-opt, even if implicitly, the Democratic Party position on abortion.

Father Paul Keller, a columnist, helpfully elaborates on the teaching of the U.S. church:

“Even though a particular candidate might want abortion to remain legal, this candidate might also support policies to lessen hunger and homelessness, improve education and healthcare, and strengthen the economy. The Democratic candidate might be more in line with Catholic social teaching concerning protection of the environment, meaningful work, a just and living wage, and care for immigrants and the poor. The Democratic candidate might agree with the Catholic Church concerning the death penalty and torture. A Catholic voter might sincerely believe that the Democratic candidate would more effectively promote peace and justice, both nationally and globally.

“This assessment of a candidate’s political platform works in both positive and negative ways: Catholics may come to the decision that one candidate is more in line with their moral beliefs regarding social teachings, while another, despite his or her position on abortion, may stand for other things Catholics consider to be morally unjust and unacceptable. A candidate’s position on the use of torture and war are valid moral considerations for a Catholic voter. As are any positions, actions, or statements that are immoral, reckless, racist, or incompetent.

“A Catholic is not obligated to ignore the vast majority of a candidate’s political platform and public behavior and vote solely based on whether he or she wants to criminalize abortion—especially if there’s good reason to believe that said candidate doesn’t have the ability (or the intention) to do anything of the sort.

“It is these kinds of moral issues that the bishops are asking Catholics to carefully consider and discern when deciding how to vote. And it is these complicated and varied issues that Catholic voters take into consideration when deciding whether to vote for a candidate based on their position regarding a single important issue. In the end, it is a decision that each Catholic must make according to his or her conscience.” 

 

—Ibid.

Clearly, the U.S. church—and presumably, the global Roman Catholic Church—repudiates the argument that Roman Catholics should be one-issue voters, in particular, the issue being whether or not to co-opt, even if implicitly, the grave sin of abortion.

More official U.S. church materials are available at this link:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

—“Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258-2330,” St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church 

 

As an academic exercise, the following questions could be put to students: 

 

“Under what conditions would you vote or in other respects support an electoral candidate who publicly endorses ‘a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay’? What would persuade you to oppose this type of candidate?

“What moral principles are being invoked by the Roman Catholic Church in this particular case? Do you agree? Why or why not?”