Fred Sneesby - Observations on Culture, Faith and Politics

Catholic or Democrat?

October 20, 2006

I was nine years old at the time of the US Catholics’ political coming-of-age in 1961 when John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as the first Catholic president. In heavily Catholic Rhode Island no one quite understood the average US citizen’s fear of interference from Rome or of possible conflicts between constitution and creed, but they were widespread in the country. Even beyond the normal anti-Catholicism found in the USA, thoughtful people were raising questions about the impact of JFK’s faith on his presidency. It is not clear why Richard Nixon’s Quaker background wasn’t an issue or why few previous presidential candidates’ particular faith never underwent the same scrutiny. Perhaps there is something peculiar about being a Catholic that calls for extra caution when it comes to casting ballots.

Somehow, that peculiarity lingers. Serious struggles have come and gone on the marquee of civic life: farm workers’ rights, the Vietnam War, and nuclear disarmament to name a few about which Catholics debated and acted from their faith. The one that has remained for the last three decades, though, is abortion.

There is not a more divisive issue, mostly because both “sides” cling to their positions with such dogmatic certitude. Such intransigence does not require religious belief. In fact, the abortion issue is not a religious matter any more than any other issue is. Civil rights. Foreign policy. Stem cells. Gay marriage. Property rights. Iraq. Taxation. None of these is a religious matter. And they all are.

That is the paradox within the relationship between religion and politics. Political, economic, and social realities can be lived and vetted without reference to religion. For believers, however, everything is religious. Their God is at the center of all that is and their faith illuminates every facet of life. No exception.

For politicians who are believers, this is a major stumbling block. It is, as well, for the average voter who believes. If that politician or that voter happens to be Catholic, the degree of difficulty is raised a few notches. The majority of politicians and voters avoid the possible clash between their religion and their politics by making believe. They pretend that it is possible to think about, form opinions, and vote on public policy without reference to their faith. They place their religion in a compartment separate from the affairs of the world as if their faith has nothing to do with politics and economics and the business of everyday life. They invoke the sacred dogma of “separation of church and state” as if that excuses them from examining their political actions with the eyes of faith. They pretend that in the war of convictions, they can be the neutral Switzerland and somehow conduct a public life sanitized from religious influence. They are fooling themselves.

In our own state, where over 60% of the residents claim to be Roman Catholic, the Democrat Party has enjoyed one-party rule for 65 years. This is the same political party that has, for the last couple of decades, championed abortion on demand. The stance of the Democrat Party is that a person should be able to choose, for any reason or for no reason, to destroy a developing human life up to the point of birth. This is not a splinter on the far end of the Democrat platform; it has become a central plank, perhaps the one position that Democrats will not compromise and which they use over and over again as a political litmus test. At the same time, the position that developing human life deserves the protection of the law is a central “plank” to Catholic moral teaching. It is not a minor issue. It is not one that allows for a wide spectrum of opinion. It, in fact, springs from a fundamental belief in the sacredness of human life, even in the womb.

Now, one can debate the abortion issue without reference to religion. But if a politician professes to be Catholic, he or she really cannot pretend that their opinions and votes about abortion can be decided without reference to his or her faith. I know that many Catholic politicians do, making a peculiar distinction between their “personal” beliefs and their public stances as if they can simultaneously believe in two separate and irreconcilable truths. There are prominent Catholic Democrats in our own state – Jack Reed, Charlie Fogarty, and Patrick Kennedy come to mind – who are perfectly comfortable with this pretense.

Beyond the Catholic politicians, however, whose hypocrisy is easy to see, there are the many regular Catholic voters who identify themselves as Democrat. They must all fall under the same scrutiny. How can they belong to a political party that professes something that is so inimical to their faith? How can they support an organization that is waging a war against a fundamental Catholic belief?

The answer is, they cannot do so honestly. If you would be Catholic, it is very difficult to see how you can also be a Democrat. Perhaps it is justified if you are battling with all your might to change the extreme pro-abortion position of the Democrat Party (something that no Democrat office-holder in Rhode Island is doing). Lacking that, a Catholic Democrat is fooling himself at a very basic level.

JFK, who died well before the abortion controversy erupted and who has been shown by history to have been a less than model Catholic anyway, mollified the fears of non-Catholics by pretty much saying that he would not bring his Catholicism into his presidency. It’s too bad. I think we lost something as Catholics and as citizens.