Risking one's soul in the voting booth
Journalist Joe Feuerherd says that according to many Roman Catholic Bishops, he may have put his soul at risk when he voted in a recent presidential primary.
Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That's right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you're probably punching your ticket to Hell.For a church that "thinks in centuries," things sure are moving quickly. Back in 2004, as Washington correspondent for the independent National Catholic Reporter, I covered what Comedy Central's Jon Stewart dubbed the "wafer wars." A handful of conservative bishops warned Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, a pro-abortion rights Catholic, that they would deny him Communion should he attempt to receive the church's most sacred sacrament.
Now the bishops have raised the stakes: It's not only lawmakers and candidates who risk damnation, 98 percent of the U.S. bishops agreed last November, but the voters who put them in office.
He concludes:
Why should non-Catholic Americans care about the bishops' right-wing lurch?Because the bishops can influence a good number of the faithful, many of whom happen to be concentrated in large, electoral-vote-rich states. In the key swing state of Ohio in 2004, for example, bishops vigorously supported an anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the state constitution, which helped drive Republican voters to the polls. Bush won 55 percent of the Catholic vote in the Buckeye State, up from 50 percent in 2000 and enough to provide his margin of victory.
There's little hope, unfortunately, that the bishops will adopt a more pragmatic approach to achieving their aims anytime soon. Younger American priests, the pool from which future bishops will be chosen, overwhelmingly embrace the agenda enunciated by John Paul II.
So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations.
Read: The Washington Post: I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?.
Mr. Feuerherd covered the U.S. bishops and the 2004 presidential race as Washington correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.
Like the writer I'm pro-life and agree that unsavoury right-wing politicians use the issue (which drops out as a deciding factor in voting because neither side will do anything) to manipulate/deceive well-meaning religious voters. The bishops are right that abortion's wrong (on which Christians were unanimous until the 20th century) but don't see that they and their people are being played by the GOP. But what strikes me is Feuerherd, NCR and the WaPo seem to have gone in for good old-fashioned American anti-Romanism, the Protestant paranoia/nativism that burned down churches and otherwise harassed immigrants in the 1840s, with a dollop of snobbery as well. (There's a bit of that self-hatred in dissenting liberal RCs.) Reminds me of a Thomas Nast cartoon.
Posted by John Beeler![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 25, 2008 12:37 PM
P.S. I'm also anti-war.
Posted by John Beeler![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 25, 2008 12:41 PM