Voting, Practicality and Moral Absolutes
In recent articles and essays released by the Priests for Life organization, the group discusses and promotes what it believes to be authentic principles for "practical voting." They lament that due to a lack of participation by Christians in the voting process, our national policies have become less and less Christian.
The main focus of their attention, however, centers on the moral dilemma faced by Christian voters in political races where neither of the two major party candidates is "perfect." In one piece they conclude by stating that voters may choose to support the "imperfect" candidate "whom is clearly closer in his/her convictions to the Gospel"; and they can do this without being "compromised, dirty, or ...tainted."
At face value, such an assessment seems harmless and accurate. But with a closer look it is clear that the wording and reasoning here is not altogether acceptable. Following one dictum of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, we agree that "given such a grave situation," as we face today with decriminalized abortion, "we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception."
In this light, our first objection to PFL's reasoning has to do with their consistent selection of the benign adjective "imperfect" to describe these particular men and women running for public office. Is it not true that every single person that has ever run for public office is "imperfect"? This most general classification serves to veil the gravity of the positions these candidates hold. What Priests for Life really means here is that these races include two major party "imperfect" candidates who both happen to support the legal slicing and dicing of preborn boys and girls. Both of these individuals believe and promise to uphold some degree of a bigger person's right to slaughter little babies.
It is the position of Priests for Life that conscientious Christians shouldn't feel "compromised, dirty, or ...tainted" when they vote for such a person to assume the reigns of public power. Their one qualification is that the voter should perceive their chosen candidate as being "closer" in their "convictions to the Gospel" than their opponent.
What does this mean? Can we classify some pro-aborts as being closer to "the Gospel" than other pro-aborts?
Moral Absolutes
Christianity confirms and adopts basic universal ethics that can be grasped by the light of reason alone. One fundamental precept in this universal "natural law" is that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The Catholic Church calls this a "moral absolute." The dignity of the human person and indeed the entire objective moral order is dependant upon this principle. Should this principle be denied, even in "exceptional" cases, the result is a radical break with the Christian (natural law) worldview and a venture into the malaise of moral relativism.
Therefore, pro-abortion candidates who either support child killing broadly, or only in "exceptional" cases, are at radical odds with the truth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed they reject any objective external limits to the power of government by professing that civil law can legitimately deprive little boys and girls in the womb, or anybody else for that matter, of their inherent right to life. In denying such natural and divine limits, they affirm the culture-of-death by asserting that human life is negotiable, and that man does not have to honor the law of God. They join the harangue of the so-called "enlightenment" with the likes of Nietzsche, Voltaire and Marx, shaking their fists with the defiant chant, "God is dead!"
In one PFL column, the author's presentation continues to further obfuscate the issue by stating that a vote for such a culture-of-death candidate "is not a vote for canonization, nor is it a declaration that one agrees with every position the candidate takes." Yes, indeed. Though Christians and all people of good will are not obliged to require a high level of saintly perfection from candidates who they place in power, they do have a right to expect that such candidates will not favor the slaughtering of innocent people, particularly the killing of preborn children. Voters have a right, and arguably a positive obligation, to only place candidates in office that will honor this most basic duty of government: to ensure the protection of all innocent human beings. This is not a quality of high personal sanctity, but of mere human decency, and a bottom-line requirement of all sane, mature adults.
The sad fact is that Christians have continually compromised this truth and principle over the course of the last few decades by being drawn into the false conflict between two major parties that exhibit support for the same general policies. The "lesser evil" continues to become progressively worse as time goes on, and with each passing day the carnage of children grows.
Why don't our public policies reflect Christian principles? Simple. Christians continue to support politicians in both major parties (some who are endorsed by big "pro-life" organizations) that are positively committed to the legal slaughter of at least some preborn children. These policies are radically opposed to the truth of Christianity and the basic requirements of civil government.
How can we turn it around? Christians and all people of good will need to commit to never again support a candidate for public office who abdicates his or her most basic responsibility to protect innocent human life. Such candidates should rightly be rejected as being unqualified to serve, and disqualified from receiving just one Christian dime, vote, or recognition of legitimacy in our publications.
Yes, this may require voting for a third party candidate or writing in a name in the short run (heaven forbid!); for our commitment to truth must exceed our loyalty to a particular political party. Truth is eternal. Political parties are not. If a political party is not willing to accept its responsibility to honor the basic truth of human dignity, the moral absolute that innocents can never be intentionally killed, it has no right to exist and should not be empowered by Christians to do so.
Christian policies are not present in our government because Christian voters, and their leaders, fail to insist upon such policies with their votes. It is perfectly legitimate and indeed praiseworthy to reserve one's vote only for candidates who understand that slaughtering babies is always morally and legally wrong. Only in this way is it possible to reestablish the integrity of government.
So, what are we waiting for?
Patrick Delaney is a former Director of Associate Relations at American Life League, Stafford, VA. He holds a Master's of Divinity degree in sacred theology and is currently in the process of completing his thesis for an additional MA in Moral Theology. The subject of his paper is the question of imperfect legislation.