|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
IS THIS HEADED ANYWHERE?
TOUCHINESS AT "TOUCHSTONE"
A FUTURE VOTER'S GUIDE FROM CATHOLIC ANSWERS
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
We may have solved our "AOL problem". As I mentioned in an earlier E-Letter, for some
reason subscribers whose e-mail accounts were with AOL seemed not to be receiving my
weekly musings, at least not regularly. E-Letters sent to them were "bouncing back" to
our computer. This also may have been the case with those whose accounts were with a
few other Internet service providers.
We have installed a new e-mail distribution program, which we began using last week,
and it may have fixed things. It will take a while to be sure. That's one trouble with
advanced technology: glitches may be evident instantaneously, but solutions may not be
able to prove themselves for weeks.
"WHERE OUGHT I TO BE?"
While on one of his many speaking tours of England, G.K. Chesterton wired his wife,
saying, "Am in Birmingham. Where ought I to be?" Her response: "Home."
I know the feeling. Sometimes I'm not sure where I'm headed. This applies not just to
my hiking peregrinations but even at times to my writings. No doubt my written
aimlessness can be more apparent than I would like it to be.
As you may recall, in last week's E-Letter I started talking about drawing country
boundaries and ended up talking about spiritual and architectural variations within
the Church. One reader, Daniel J. Shoup, sent a four-word (but not forward!) reply:
"What's your point, Karl?"
I don't know that there was a point, Mr. Shoup, other than just to share random
thoughts. And that's the problem with random thoughts: They're random, which means
they aren't organized or unified or unidirectional. ("Backwards reels the mind.")
I felt a little more comfort from Preston E. Ritchie's note: "I really didn't know
where you were heading with this but it all boiled down to one thing for me, your Mama
and Papa must have taught you a lot of understanding and common sense, which seems
rare in these days."
Thanks, Mr. Ritchie. I'll let my folks know that, at least in one man's estimation,
they did not fail entirely. This will be a particular comfort to my father, who turns
80 on June 19.
HOT POTATO AT AN ECUMENICAL MAGAZINE
The June issue of "Touchstone," which describes itself as "a journal of mere
Christianity" (that is, a journal written by tradition-minded Catholics, Orthodox, and
Protestants), has a well-composed editorial titled "Practical Atheism." The editorial
is a defense of the magazine's April issue, "in which the Democratic Party was
characterized as godless and portrayed as having developed in recent years into
something no Christian can in good conscience support."
The characterization did not please all the readers, some of whom canceled their
subscriptions. Apparently the magazine received more responses to the April issue than
to any other in its sixteen-year history.
"You're a religious magazine dabbling in politics--and you shouldn't be." That was the
gist of most of the complaints, but the editors rightly noted that religion ultimately
underlies politics and that there can't be a good politics unless the citizenry
follows good morals.
The editors reiterated that they were not being partisan. They were not favoring one
party over another, or castigating one party over another, because of party
sensibilities. They were talking about principles, especially those regarding the
"life issues." On these issues (abortion most obviously) the Democratic Party has
adopted, well, a party line: If you wish to be a good Democrat, you must be
pro-abortion (and pro- other things opposed by traditional Christian morality).
I don't see how this simple fact can be denied. I was born in Chicago, where everyone
was a Democrat. Well, almost everyone. I had an aunt who claimed to be the only
registered Republican working under "Da Mare" (Richard Daley the Elder). That no doubt
was a slight exaggeration, but only slight.
In those days heavily-Catholic Chicago was even more a Democratic stronghold than it
is today, and no one had moral qualms about joining or supporting the party. This is
not to say the economic and social positions it advocated were wise or prudent, but
they were not self-evidently contrary to the faith.
That was then, and this is now. For some years the Democratic Party has had just one
litmus test: Are you "pro-choice" or not? The editors of "Touchstone" think the party
has fallen so low that it is no longer possible for a conscientious Christian to give
the party, as a party, his support.
(As I understand the editors' position, they say it would be okay to support that rara
avis, the Democratic candidate who is pro-life, even though the formal, national party
structure has been deeply corrupted.)
What about the Republican Party? The editors say, "A Christian may think the
Democrats' social, economic, or environmental programs are superior to the
Republicans', but he knows that the Democrats' moral policies are aggressively
ungodly. ... Our call is not to vote Republican, but to think and act like Christians
in the political arena. We doubt that this can be done with the Democratic Party any
more than it can be done with the Nazis or Communists, for we recognize little
substantive difference between explicit and practical atheism."
Yes, they say, the Republican Party suffers a certain degree of corruption, and some
of its "social, economic, and environmental programs" can be thought to be inferior to
those proposed by the Democrats. But for Christians there is a litmus test, which is
adherence to basic moral principles.
The Democratic Party has failed that test, say the editors, and so must be eliminated
as a possible vehicle for Christians. The Republican Party has not yet failed that
test, but it has real weaknesses and may end up failing it in its turn.
CATHOLIC ANSWERS VOTER'S GUIDE
This "Touchstone" controversy is of particular interest to me now because I am editing
what we are calling, as an interim title, the Catholic Answers Voter's Guide. This
will be our next big project.
In next year's primaries and general elections, we want to encourage Catholics to
understand that their faith urges on them certain moral principles that need to be
taken into account when voting. We are developing plans to distribute millions (yes,
millions) of copies of the Voter's Guide during 2004.
The Voter's Guide will explain what Catholics need to evaluate when casting their
ballots. It will include a checklist that you will be able to take into the voting
booth or, better yet, that you can use as you read through your government-issued
voter's information packet.
Our Voter's Guide will not name names. It will not tell you to vote for this candidate
or against that candidate. But it will tell you what you need to consider if you wish
to vote as an informed and loyal Catholic. You will match the criteria against the
candidates and will strike off the list those who fail to meet the minimums. At that
point you will be free to go with any of the remaining candidates, to the extent they
meet your approval.
The Church takes no position on how high your property taxes should be. One percent of
assessed value? Two percent? No property tax at all? There are economic principles at
work here but not moral principles. The Church, though, is very much concerned about
how you take into account such things as abortion, which has to do with a bedrock
moral principle, the right to life.
It is fair to predict that, if the principles invoked in the Catholic Answers Voter's
Guide are applied, of those candidates who are struck from the list, more will be from
one major party than from the other. Only a political innocent or someone who has not
been reading the papers for the last few decades will be surprised at that. But there
will be many Republicans, not just Democrats, who will not make the cut.
The process I'm talking about--seeing which principles should apply, then applying
them so as to eliminate from consideration certain candidates--will make not a few
Republicans and Democrats unhappy (including, no doubt, some readers of this
E-Letter). Many of us have no particular ties to any party; we may be registered in a
party only as a convenience, not out of affection for the party. But some Catholics
seem to be umbilically attached to one party or another.
Our Voter's Guide will be saying that Catholics should set aside all party
considerations and should look to the views of the individual candidates. Does this
candidate, whatever his party affiliation, fail to meet basic Catholic requirements on
key issues? If so, he's off the list, not someone who can be voted for.
It doesn't matter if he belongs to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or the
Flat Earth Party. If he belongs to your party, whichever that may be, but fails to
meet the minimums, you need to have the political courage not to vote for him. It's as
simple--and, for some people, as frustrating--as that.
|
|
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up