During my early growing-up years in the Boston suburbs, I used to believe Catholics had to be Democrats. To a person, the adults known to me belonged to that party, and anything else seemed unthinkable in my young worldview.
In teen age it came as a shock for me to discover many members of my church, especially those living in the Midwest, were actually Republicans. That seemed to me almost unnatural.
Later on, when I first studied Catholic social teaching, the issue became more complicated. I wondered how Catholic Republicans could reconcile the doctrines of their party with those of the church.
I never expected to see the day when, as happened in recent national elections, Catholics were almost evenly split between the two parties. In fact, members of my own extended family became Republican, in their voting habits if not in their voter registration.
Feelings connected with this question arose last month, when the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston spoke out in criticism of the Democratic party.
In an interview with Boston Globe reporter Michael Paulson, Sean O’Malley said: “I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues.”
What struck me was how narrow O’Malley’s assertion was. The “gospel of life” addresses many concerns ─ war, economic deprivation, and capital punishment, among others. Why is abortion such a privileged issue?
And why are today’s Democrats a particular target? We should note that one of the leading Republican candidates for the presidential nomination is strongly pro-choice and perhaps not otherwise dedicated to the gospel of life.
O’Malley’s hard line differs from that of his fellow American bishops. In response to a statement they made, one knowledgeable commentator, Thomas Reese, spoke to the New York Times. “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?” he asked. “What they are saying is, Yes.”
I myself am strongly against abortion. I think that everything possible should be done to help individuals to avoid that option.
At the same time I am against criminalizing abortion. Even though I regret the loss of unborn human life, I certainly do not want to send women to prison, or even to court. This I hold even if they have chosen what I regard as a highly undesirable and, at least sometimes, immoral course of action.
To my mind, criminalizing abortion represents a self-defeating and unwise policy that many Democratic and Republican elected officials have correctly resisted.
To focus Catholic teaching on this one issue strikes me as a serious mistake. Threatening Catholic politicians with exclusion from the Eucharist, as some bishops have done, makes it worse.
We should remember, too, that no law can ever eliminate abortion. Instead, to criminalize abortion inevitably creates a gulf between rich and poor. In fact, some current data show that abortion tends to be more prevalent in countries where it is forbidden.
A psychiatrist friend strongly committed to Catholic doctrine and practice has told me of her experience during medical training in New York when abortion was illegal.
She personally observed what others have noted ─ that wealthy women had access to safe abortions, while poor women were limited to dangerous and sometimes lethal procedures.
The day after the Paulson interview, his paper published an op-ed by my old friend David O’Brien, Professor of Roman Catholic Studies emeritus at Holy Cross in Worcester. In his article O’Brien rejects O’Malley’s “unwise assault” and explains the reasons why a wider view must be adopted.
Catholics who vote for politicians who support abortion rights do so, O’Brien argues, because they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. In taking this stand, they are being accountable to voters.
The same writer argues that the cardinal and his fellow bishops must take responsibility for the advice they have given to voters in national elections. He explains this responsibility emphatically.
“Voters who made antiabortion politics their priority must share responsibility for disastrous domestic, foreign, and military policies that violate almost every tenet of Catholic social teaching,” says O’Brien with devastating accuracy.
In his conclusion, O’Brien calls for the two sides to find common ground, a realistic possibility, though a limited one. Abortions can be reduced in number by actions shown to be effective.
Like my friend, I freely admit the mistakes of the Democratic Party in its treatment of pro-life politicians like Bob Casey, the late governor of Pennsylvania.
At the same time, I cannot feel that the church’s credibility is increased by Cardinal O’Malley’s pronouncements.
The cardinal could have spoken words helpful to people trying to weigh issues of life and death in this political season. I, for one, regret that he chose to send out heat rather than light.
Richard Griffin