the New Pantagruel

Not Voting

The follow letters were received in reponse to Fr. Gassalasca Jape, S.J.’s irregular column, “The Japery.”

Fr. Jape,

I greatly enjoyed today’s entry. [Arguments Against Single-Issue Voting Lack Nuance, Honesty, and Guts 10/29] This paragraph in particular:

“Abortion, properly understood by pagans and religionists alike, pertains to end of life ‘issues,’ like euthanasia; genetic meddling on all kinds of life; economic and ‘social’ justice–and more. How we regard and treat life, especially human life, and the health of the family (the fundamental ordering structure of society) is a basic, foundational political concern that rightly precedes all others. One can vote on it as a ‘single-issue’ or litmus test because it impacts all issues profoundly. A person’s views on ‘abortion’ always tell you a great deal about that person.”

However, as much as I agree with this, I also regard Pres. Bush’s war policy as terribly misguided from the standpoint of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria, which is just as much an issue of how we regard and treat life. While I was never seriously tempted to pull the lever for Kerry, I think to endorse the current war policy (and I have a hard time seeing a vote for Bush as anything but a de facto endorsement) is to undermine respect for life in much the same way.

One could also mention the widely-publicized execution of Karla Faye Tucker (a born-again Christian if I recall correctly) who’s pleas for clemency were mocked by then-Governor Bush in an interview with journalist Tucker Carlson. Whatever you think about the death penalty, that kind of callousness does not speak well of the President’s character or reverence for life.

Whether opting out of voting for a major-party candidate bespeaks apathy or some other vice I’m not sure. But I don’t think it’s as clear as we would like who’s on the side of “life.”

Regards,

Lee McCracken

Fr. Jape replies…

Dear Lee–

I’m always happy to be appreciated–or objectionable, as the case may be. I agree with you completely. Nothing I have written should imply such unqualified support for the present neocon junto as one may read in the pages of certain journals of religion and public life. It is definitely a bad situation, with a choice between different kinds of free-wheeling death-dealers. My colleagues are divided on this election, and I am not all of one mind myself.

Best regards,

+G.J.

It seems to me that the question is really what responsibility we (as voters) have for the candidates for whom we vote. Specifically, when candidates take positions that are morally evil, are we (as Archbishop Chaput would say) morally obligated not to vote for them? And what happens if there are only two candidates, and both take evil positions?

With Mr. Kerry, obviously his stance on abortion is evil, and I would say the same for his stance on homosexual unions.

With Mr. Bush, his stance in favor of Aggressive War clearly violates Church “Just War” teaching, and the Church also condemns the willful use of torture (which Mr. Bush publicly opposes, but privately condones). Detaining people without trial (be they US citizens or foreigners) seems to me not a per se evil, but in its application these past 3 years, I would say that it has become so, because it has been excessive and erroneous. Particularly in a world where the USA is the preeminent power, the effects of these evils are grave indeed.

If one so concludes (as I believe a faithful Catholic must), one then faces a choice: to vote for him who is perceived as embodying the lesser evil, or not to choose between the candidates. Not choosing can mean voting for a third party or not voting at all. If Archbishop Chaput is correct, then we are obliged not to support politicians who advocate a known evil. But even assuming a more moderate position, we’re still obligated to make a prudential judgment as to the likely efficacy of a given vote – we could only cooperate with a material evil for grave reasons.

If I had to vote for one of the two candidates, I believe I’d vote for Mr. Kerry (largely because I don’t think it likely that enough pro-life justices will be confirmed to overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas I see the evils from a continued Bush presidency as unavoidable). But in my case, there is no need to make that judgment. I live in a solid “blue” state, it will go for Kerry regardless. Why should I take an act which may be morally wrong, when taking any such step is unnecessary? That is how I arrived at a decision to abstain.

I cannot speak for others who have reached this conclusion, but I believe such a position is clearly logical (and having Alisdair MacIntyre say so bolsters my confidence!). You may disagree with my conclusion that Bush’s advocacy of wrong acts implicates Bush voters in the same kind of cooperation with evil as Kerry’s advocacy of abortion. You may believe that the sin of abortion is more morally wrong than the sin of aggressive war, or the sin of wilful torture. I don’t know how to weigh these evils, except to ask whether they involve grave matter. I think I agree that failure to help the poor, etc., implies more negligence than intent, and would probably not be grave matter – so I agree that one cannot assume equivalence between that and abortion – but is this also the case with Aggressive War and torture? I would think not.

Regards,

Chuck Roth
Chicago, IL

Fr. Jape replies…

Dear Mr Roth–

There is nothing wrong with your thinking here; it is very admirable, but it is the wrong kind of thinking. What is called for, I think, is a willingness to sin boldly. Archbishop Chaput has put his finger on it: vote for Bush (or whomever) and then to confession. We’re all complicit in the structures of power in which politicians rise. If you’re not going to vote, why not stop using money, get out of the stock market, cancel your insurance, stop using fossil fuels?

Yours–

+G.J.