Of Priests and Politics

By Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas In case you're not counting, we are now just three months shy of the presidential election. And, in case you have been living under a rock, it has been a very crazy, winding road, which will only get crazier and more winding. From a Catholic perspective, we must be prepared to perform our civic function with an informed conscience. To that end, it's worth the time to highlight some of the weightier issues; there are others that, while important, admit of various prudential judgments, on which people of goodwill can legitimately disagree. We have heard all too often that "religion and politics don't mix." There is some truth in the aphorism, but it also conceals some fundamental truths. Cardinal Newman, with characteristic insight, tackled the issue head-on: clergymen are bound to form and pronounce an opinion. It is sometimes said, in familiar language, that a clergyman should have nothing to do with politics. This is true, if it be meant that he should not aim at secular objects, should not side with a political party as such, should not be ambitious of popular applause, or the favour of great men. . . . But if it means that he should not express an opinion and exert an influence one way rather than another, it is plainly unscriptural. Did not the Apostles, with all their reverence for the temporal power, whether Jewish or Roman, and all their separation from worldly ambition, did they not still denounce their rulers as wicked men, who had crucified and slain the Lord's Christ? and would they have been as a city on a hill if they had not done so?. . .And all this may be done without injury to our Christian gentleness and humbleness, though it is difficult to do it. We need not be angry nor use contentious words, and yet may firmly give our opinion, in proportion as we have the means of forming one, and be zealous towards God in all active good service, and scrupulously and pointedly keep aloof from the bad men whose evil arts we fear. In other words, a cleric is never to engage in partisan politics; he is, however, to assist his people in bringing Gospel values to bear on the formation of public policy. In fact, failure to do so would be a gross abdication of his priestly office. In the past two presidential elections, Catholics had an easier task; the differences between the two major party platforms were stark. They have become more blurred this time around (although still identifiably distinct). Let's be blunt: The current Republican platform is rather disappointing as it reflects unfortunate and, in my judgment, unnecessary compromises. It is an object lesson, however, in the truth of the Biblical verse that admonishes us: "Put not your trust in princes." But though the GOP platform no longer calls for a constitutional ban on abortion, it does proclaim: "We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights." It continues, "After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments)." The last two components are unfortunate and unnecessary compromises. By contrast, the Democrat platform is the most radical in history at every level. Most distressing is its commitment to press for a constitutional amendment to enshrine Roe v. Wade in perpetuity. On a matter promoted by the Church for over a century, the Republican program supports parental freedom of choice in education, as well as religious freedom rights, while the Democrats call for the suppression of both, as has been their consistent policy for decades. Now, let me deal with two of these topics in a bit more detail. First, I wan...