How a Catholic Votes for Choice

It is bad enough that a majority of Catholics voted for Obama; worse is the considerable number of Sunday mass attendees who voted thus; but worst by far is the spectacle of saintly, daily communicants voting for choice! What is the veil of deception that has descended to confuse even very good souls? A variety of dynamics are at work.

Economism. “It’s about the economy!” Even bishops have explained and excused the vote for choice: “It was not a vote for legalized abortion; it was a vote about the economy.” But that already indicates a moral judgment that economic concerns preempt cultural/moral concerns such as protection of innocent life, the family, and religious freedom. Today’s liberalism is a soft materialism rooted in the belief that economic or material concerns are the most important issues in politics. A “pro-life” argument is made that abortions can be reduced by economic measures such as universal health care, better welfare network, and more jobs. There is truth to this argument and there are reasons for backing such policies; but the judgment that such economic issues are the real core issues regarding life and family is a materialistic one. Our ancestors came to this country in poverty and gave us life and faith in conditions of material poverty and oppression, without universal health care, reproductive rights or emissions standards. The legacy of John Paul the Great includes certainty that cultural, moral and spiritual values will prevail over military and economic might. This economism is understandable in the context of American politics because the post-WWII period was constituted by harmony on the moral/cultural front but economic conflict between the business and the working class. The transition in 1973 into a Culture War found most Catholics unprepared. For the last 35 years, most continued in economic-war mode and vote for choice year after year. In a decade or two, there will be no economic distress and no war or Bush to despise, but the economism will prevail and the Catholic vote for choice will be a given. (This materialism is, of course, mirrored on the right by the obsession for low taxes and free markets.)

Privatization. The fundamental liberal principle is that issues of sexuality, family and innocent life belong to the private realm, not the public realm. We see the self-contradiction here as liberals rally for FOCA, the Obama transition team prepares to immediately use tax monies to implement and export abortion and embryo destruction, and the gays are in a fury that the people of California prefer not to governmentally sanctify sodomy.

Defeatism. We hear: “Roe has established abortion as a constitutional right and there is no going back on that now!” The decision by a handful of justices 35 years ago is accepted as Fate. Ironically, the very best heritage of the left, (that of Paulo Freire, Saul Alinsky, and the brave leaders of the union movement in the 1920-30s) is precisely the conviction that social institutions are not set in stone but vulnerable to the initiatives of human freedom. When John Paul visited Cuba, he sat patiently through many hours of Fidel’s lament about how victimized the Cubans were by American imperialism. John Paul then announced, in very few words and without crosstalk towards Fidel, that they were not at all enslaved but were in fact free human agents, in bondage to neither communism nor capitalism, but free in Christ. So are we Catholics free: to overthrow Roe and return the issue to the patient, slow democratic process within each state.

Feminist resentment. Post-1970s liberalism is infused with the feminine accusation against masculinity: “We do not trust you; we want our bodies back; we demand the right to kill our young; you are (with exceptions) violent, greedy, arrogant, preachy, judgmental, insensitive, and superior.” Among pro-life, devout Catholics there is a subtle or soft feminist resentment: “I am pro-life but government (as a masculine, oppressive, not protective institution) should leave the woman alone; male warfare is worse than a woman’s decision to abort; if we (maternally) help the poor, rather than (aggressively) prohibit them, they may choose to have their babies.” Underlying the Catholic tolerance for choice is feminine reaction against the masculine in its propensity for warfare, greed, arrogance, control and judgmentalism. We men are guilty as charged on all counts! This means we are in for some serious repentance; even as we fulfill our paternal duty to defend life and speak truth.

Partisan loyalty and ideological rigidity. The political memory of the Democrat is still inhabited by FDR, the union and civil rights movements, and the war on poverty. Pre-1965, liberal politics was a pure and perfect expression of a Catholic’s faith and love. This synthesis is deeply woven into the heart and mind of the Catholic liberal; it is infused in the neuron pathways, the hormones, and the nervous system. It is an addiction that was positive and wholesome from 1945-65; but then became toxic and destructive after the revolution. It is a pattern that is resistant to recovery or conversion.

Personal disgust and rash judgment. The personal hatred of Bush, Cheney, and even Palin has an intoxicating, disorienting effect. We know that the bigoted or prejudiced person is incapable of handling ambiguity and configures personalities into stereotypes of total good and absolute evil. From the right we saw the silly effort to configure Obama into an anti-American, a Moslem, a socialist. But the loathing for Bush from the left is particularly intense and contributes strongly to the decision of a practicing Catholic to vote for choice. To continue a favored analogy: it is like a fervent anti-Stalinist voting for Hitler; or an anti-Nazi supporting Stalin.

Accommodation. Much of the above is part of a broader, deeper, historic movement of the Catholic population from minority, immigrant status to full fledged membership in mainstream middle class culture. A deep, powerful, unacknowledged desire to be accepted by the broader society has fueled this upward mobility and seduced the Catholic into abandoning or at least downplaying those aspects of their faith that are offensive to the broader culture. Strong as I feel about abortion, for example, I am reluctant to post a “Adopt not Abort!” bumper sticker on my car because I know that a majority of cars I pass on the road in NJ, and a segment of my own family, will react: “Look at the theocratic, fundamentalist extremist!” This desire to participate and be accepted is powerful and largely unconscious. On the left exemplars include the Kennedy family, Father Hesburg, and the more prestigious Jesuit universities; on the right we have the legacy of William Buckley and his rejection of the papal social encyclicals.

Disunity and Timidity of our bishops. At this point in time our bishops are sharply divided, like our society and families. An increasing number of bishops have spoken clearly and courageously. Apparently, an equal number are afraid to rock the boat. Overly irenic, they desire “peace at any price” and fear offending anyone. They advocate inclusiveness for communion rather than “politicizing it,” avoiding the fact that such openness is already political: it signals the laity that advocacy for abortion is an acceptable option. In this policy, they scandalize their flock. As long as our episcopacy is disunited and timorous, the Catholic vote will mimic the general population and largely enable the machinery of murder.

Catholic cooption by the culture of choice over the last thirty-five years is the result of powerful historic, societal, mimetic forces, generally unrecognized by the sincere but deluded collaborators. These include: economism, defeatism, privatization, feminism, ideology, emotional rash judgment, accomadation, and the timidity of our bishops. We are powerless over these forces; but there is one greater than us and in Him we place our trust.