"Proportionate Reasons": Not That Complicated
Archbishop Myers in the Wall Street Journal.
All this "proportionate reasons" stuff increasingly strikes me as a no-brainer. What it means, at least in this election, is: you can't vote for John Kerry. It doesn't matter how much Bush bothers you, how much you dislike his tax policies, how much you want nationalized health care, how much you oppose the war in Iraq (or the war in Afghanistan). You can't vote for Kerry. You don't have to vote for Bush. You can vote for a third-party candidate. You can write someone in. You can abstain. But you can't vote for Kerry. John Kerry is an enthusiastic supporter of a grave evil. (Several, actually, but let's just stick with abortion for now.) If elected, he would work to expand and entrench that evil in the fabric of our national life. Catholics have an obligation to resist such an expansion of the Culture of Death or, failing that, at least not to assist it. Unless there are serious and real (dare I say proportionate?) reasons for doing so. Which there aren't in this case. The difference between Bush and Kerry on the other issues just isn't that stark. Whatever your reasons for wanting to pick Kerry over Bush, they just aren't proportionate enough. (Sorry.)
I've no doubt this seems like an awfully extreme answer. You're thinking, Surely there's more wiggle room in "proportionate reasons" than that. The Church can't be saying that we have to put all these other important issues - war and peace, poverty, health care - aside and vote only on "life issues". It's a complicated world; there are lots of issues to weigh. Another four years of Bush would be a disaster for the country. Abortion is important, but it can't be a deal-breaker when there's so much else at stake.
I'm sorry, I just don't think so. Let me put it this way: imagine, for a second, that you really believed what the Church teaches about human life. Not just recognized as true intellectual propositions, but really believed down to the core of your being. That from the moment of conception, an embryo or fetus is every bit as human as you or I. That deliberately killing such people is a type of murder, an awful and sad crime for all involved. Now remember that there are over 1.3 million such murders every year in the United States, all entirely legal and protected by the Constitution. And there's a candidate for the presidency who's pledged to only appoint justices who will preserve the constitutional protection of this right to kill. What are disputes over medical savings accounts or nationalized health insurance, in light of this? What is the income tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, in light of this? Indeed, what is Iraq policy, in light of this?
Let me put it a different way. Suppose the Supreme Court announced tomorrow a constitutional right to honor killings, perhaps on free exercise grounds. Husbands, fathers, brothers, could now stone their female relatives to death if they believed them to have brought dishonor to the family through adultery, premarital sex, whichever. Suppose further that this gruesome practice becomes so popular that over a million women are stoned to death every year. There are two political parties in this America: one dedicated to overturning the "right to honor killings", the other determined to defend that right. My question is: how bad would the former's positions on the other issues have to be before you voted for the latter? Would wanting to drill in ANWAR be enough? How about a really lousy tax plan? A healthcare plan that would triple everyone's medical bills? How about leading us into a war on shoddy intelligence? What would it take to get you to vote for the pro-stoning candidate? What's your price?
All this "proportionate reasons" stuff increasingly strikes me as a no-brainer. What it means, at least in this election, is: you can't vote for John Kerry. It doesn't matter how much Bush bothers you, how much you dislike his tax policies, how much you want nationalized health care, how much you oppose the war in Iraq (or the war in Afghanistan). You can't vote for Kerry. You don't have to vote for Bush. You can vote for a third-party candidate. You can write someone in. You can abstain. But you can't vote for Kerry. John Kerry is an enthusiastic supporter of a grave evil. (Several, actually, but let's just stick with abortion for now.) If elected, he would work to expand and entrench that evil in the fabric of our national life. Catholics have an obligation to resist such an expansion of the Culture of Death or, failing that, at least not to assist it. Unless there are serious and real (dare I say proportionate?) reasons for doing so. Which there aren't in this case. The difference between Bush and Kerry on the other issues just isn't that stark. Whatever your reasons for wanting to pick Kerry over Bush, they just aren't proportionate enough. (Sorry.)
I've no doubt this seems like an awfully extreme answer. You're thinking, Surely there's more wiggle room in "proportionate reasons" than that. The Church can't be saying that we have to put all these other important issues - war and peace, poverty, health care - aside and vote only on "life issues". It's a complicated world; there are lots of issues to weigh. Another four years of Bush would be a disaster for the country. Abortion is important, but it can't be a deal-breaker when there's so much else at stake.
I'm sorry, I just don't think so. Let me put it this way: imagine, for a second, that you really believed what the Church teaches about human life. Not just recognized as true intellectual propositions, but really believed down to the core of your being. That from the moment of conception, an embryo or fetus is every bit as human as you or I. That deliberately killing such people is a type of murder, an awful and sad crime for all involved. Now remember that there are over 1.3 million such murders every year in the United States, all entirely legal and protected by the Constitution. And there's a candidate for the presidency who's pledged to only appoint justices who will preserve the constitutional protection of this right to kill. What are disputes over medical savings accounts or nationalized health insurance, in light of this? What is the income tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, in light of this? Indeed, what is Iraq policy, in light of this?
Let me put it a different way. Suppose the Supreme Court announced tomorrow a constitutional right to honor killings, perhaps on free exercise grounds. Husbands, fathers, brothers, could now stone their female relatives to death if they believed them to have brought dishonor to the family through adultery, premarital sex, whichever. Suppose further that this gruesome practice becomes so popular that over a million women are stoned to death every year. There are two political parties in this America: one dedicated to overturning the "right to honor killings", the other determined to defend that right. My question is: how bad would the former's positions on the other issues have to be before you voted for the latter? Would wanting to drill in ANWAR be enough? How about a really lousy tax plan? A healthcare plan that would triple everyone's medical bills? How about leading us into a war on shoddy intelligence? What would it take to get you to vote for the pro-stoning candidate? What's your price?
<< Home