AmericanPapist Comments
It seems to me that Greeley is just trying to ease his conscience. He asks how he could impose his moral view on abortion on others. I ask in return "How could he not?" If we believe that torture is morally wrong do we not vote for candidates who believe the same thing? If we believe that the death penalty is morally wrong, do we not vote for candidates who agree? Why is abortion any different?
Isn't this the same argument that social justice Catholics make when neo-conservative Catholics disagree with bishops on issues like immigration or global warming? That it's okay to disregard their teaching etc? I'm not comparing global warming to abortion but my point being that lay Catholics of both political ideologies use this line of reasoning to support their (distorted) beliefs.
As an aside, I think that in a sense Greeley is correct that people who identify themselves as Catholic (but are not frequent adherents) are not going to listen to the bishops while those who are frequent adherents certainly will. The only difference is now there are a lot more of the former and a lot less of the latter.
Greeley has long been my personal litmus test of the degree of my own willing to focus on what was written, rather than on who wrote it...wish I had time to elaborate.
Isn't this the same argument that social justice Catholics make when neo-conservative Catholics disagree with bishops on issues like immigration or global warming? That it's okay to disregard their teaching etc? I'm not comparing global warming to abortion but my point being that lay Catholics of both political ideologies use this line of reasoning to support their (distorted) beliefs.
Not really because I'm not aware of bishops instructing the faithful on specifically how to deal with global warming or immigration. That is, abortion is objectively evil. We have to treat immigrants humanely and take reasonable care of the environment, but voting against x policy on immigration or global warming is not objectively evil.
Fr. Greely is being really disingenuous on this one.
First, when a poll measures "Catholic attitudes and voting," how does it identify the respondents? Anyone who was baptized? Or do they filter out those who rarely attend Mass or receive the sacraments? This is an important distinction in a social research context. It's not terribly surprising that a large number of non-practicing Catholics included in such a survey would not be paying too much attention to what the Bishops say about anything at all, let alone voting.
Second, Fr. Greely's suggests that the outcome of an election would not "be affected in the slightest" by the Bishops' teaching. Does he remember how close the 2000 election was? That a shift of a few hundred votes in Florida would have put Gore in the White House (shudder!)? Any honest political analyst will tell you that at the presidential level, elections in the last few cycles have been all about persuading the middle 3 to 5 percent. Even "slight" impact, therefore, can change the outcome of an election, as Fr. Greeley probably knows, even if he won't say it.
Finally (at least for now), Fr. Greeley probably also knows even if voters will not say that a Bishops' teaching had any impact, they do take into account when a candidate is a flip-flopper, a phony, or a hypocrite. Thus voters probably do hold it against a Catholic candidate who makes a show of attending Mass and then votes and acts contrary to Church teaching, especially if that candidate's sincerity is in doubt on a range of issues.
Commenting by HaloScan
