Conscience & the Common Good: Election, October 26, 2012

ELECTION 15

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

The Catholic voter: Conscience and the common good

(PHOTO BY RICK DELVECCHIO/CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO)

Can American Catholics be both citizens and believers at the present moment? With the presidential election and other important choices just weeks away, Catholics from several parishes in the archdiocese met at St. Dunstan Church in Millbrae Oct. 13 to explore that question. The event included discussions preceded by a talk by Auxiliary Bishop Robert W. McElroy that outlined Catholics’ freedoms and responsibilities as they make political choices with an informed conscience.

Parishioners discuss freedoms, responsibilities of Catholic citizenship DANA PERRIGAN CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO

How should Catholics vote?

With the presidential election looming closer with each passing day, the question grows increasingly urgent. In an effort to answer it, a group of 60 or so Catholics from parishes throughout the Archdiocese of San Francisco – led by Auxiliary Bishop Robert W. McElroy – gathered Oct. 13 at St. Dunstan Church in Millbrae for a parish forum called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”

Organized by the St. Dunstan Social Awareness Committee, the forum was named after a document prepared by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help Catholics make political decisions based upon their faith.

“As Catholics, we’re faced with the central question: What does our faith tell us about our approach to very difficult questions as we prepare to vote?” Bishop McElroy asked those seated in the auditorium.

Throughout his presentation, the bishop outlined the principles Catholics should consider when deciding how to cast their votes.

It is necessary, he said, to put aside self-interest in favor of the common good. It is important to know and apply Catholic social justice principles to the issues and candidates: the right to life and the dignity of the human person; the enhancement of family life; human rights – especially the sustaining rights of food, clothing, shelter and health care; the option for the poor and vulnerable; the dignity of work and the rights of workers; solidarity; and caring for God’s creation.

“The church wants you to work it out.

The store-bought conscience doesn’t work.”

PHIL BEGIN

St. Dunstan Parish Social Awareness Committee Contrary to what some believe, said the bishop, the church does not teach that Catholics must cast their votes based solely on a candidate’s stand on abortion. While that issue should be considered pre-eminent, the other issues can also be taken into consideration.

“This is really the hard call for us as Christians,” Bishop McElroy told the group.

Catholics should also consider if a candidate can or will do what they promise, he said.

While the church may take a stand on an issue, he said, it is not affiliated with any particular party and it does not endorse candidates. Because Catholic issues split both parties, it is of the utmost importance for Catholics to listen to and obey their consciences.

“It is God speaking to us at the core of our being,” he said. “It is the sacred space within the heart that is in conversation with God.” It is therefore the task of every Christian, he said, to undertake the lifelong task of forming his or her conscience. The church esteems conscience so highly, that a person with an informed conscience is called upon to obey it – even if it conflicts with church teaching.

The bishop warned, however, to be on guard against rationalization and the “illusion of conscience.”

In a follow-up interview, Bishop McElroy stressed that a properly informed Catholic conscience must

not only avoid rationalizing a predetermined choice but also must give a presumption to the teaching of the church.

Bishop McElroy said politics in the United States had become so divisive that it was now “tribal.”

“I believe we really look at politics now like sports,” said Bishop McElroy, who has a doctorate in political science. “That’s corrosive.

It’s very alluring, but it’s not how the church calls us to look upon citizenship.”

A lot of people, he said, are so turned off by politics that they have given up voting.

“The moral call is to participate,” he said. “The life of a disciple of Christ is to make things better, and that’s true for us as voters.”

Following the bishop’s presentation, those in attendance broke up into discussion groups.

“Honestly, I’m not as knowledgeable as I would like to be on the issues,” said Pearce Ekel, a 25-yearold parishioner at All Souls Parish in South San Francisco. “I came here

to learn how to approach it from the Catholic perspective.”

“You have the candidates and what they’re saying,” said Barbara Penner, a parishioner at St. Dunstan. “But what’s the most important thing to consider? I thought he (Bishop McElroy) gave clarification on how to consider the candidates and issues.”

“It did give me some insight on how to look at the issues,” agreed Jack Cardon, who also belongs to St. Dunstan. “But you roll the dice with some of these guys.”

“A lot of Catholics have assumed positions they don’t really understand,” said Phil Begin, a facilitator of the St. Dunstan Social Awareness Committee that sponsored the forum.

“The church wants you to work it out. The store-bought conscience doesn’t work. You have to make it from scratch.”

“It all comes down to listening to the Holy Spirit,” said Stephanie Capodanno, also from St. Dunstan. “I thought he (the bishop) was showing us how to really evaluate and see what is best for our country and for the world.”

“I thought it was interesting what he said about how our two parties have become tribal,” said Theresa Wills, a teacher at St. Charles Borremeo School in San Carlos. “And I think he was able to make really large issues clear and succinct.”

INSIDE THIS SPECIAL SECTION Conscience guides young Catholic voters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Many Latino voters disillusioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Comparing the presidential campaigns on key issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 California bishops support Props. 34 and 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

16 ELECTION

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

Conscience guides young Catholic voters LIDIA WASOWICZ CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO

On the right, on the left, in the center and swerving among candidates, young Catholic voters converge on one driving principle in the upcoming presidential contest: they look to their conscience – even if it counters a church creed – to direct them at the ballot box.

That they wind up on such divergent paths indicates common faith is no political unifier, at least among Catholics, who comprise nearly a quarter of the nation’s electorate but traditionally refuse to vote as a bloc.

Interviews with 30-something and younger California parishioners reveal an independent streak that, aligned with national trends, has some poring over and others passing over the U.S. bishops’ teaching on civic responsibility.

“The ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship’” document “motivates me to take seriously my obligation as a person of faith and to spend the necessary time forming my conscience in order to vote responsibly,” said Laura Martin-Spencer, 36, of St. Pius Parish in Redwood City.

“It also reminds me there is no easy answer.”

Not so for a parishioner at St. Hilary in Tiburon, who has a simple solution: Vote for President Barack Obama and leave religion out of politics.

“In general, I am not aware of the church’s official stance on many (issues) and, as such, it does not play a part in my decision,” said Katrina, 23, who asked that her last name be withheld to maintain privacy.

She is among the 84 percent of Catholic adults and 90 percent of those under 30 who are unfamiliar with their bishops’ nonpartisan call to “vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods.”

Of those aware of the document, 74 percent paid it no heed during the 2008 race, according to a 2011 Georgetown University survey of 1,239 self-identified Catholics.

Only 1 percent of those under 30 familiar with the document, issued in presidential elections since 1976, deemed it a “major influence” on their political choices.

“I believe this reinforces the need for the work of the Young Adult Council that I’m chairing for the Archdiocese

Laura Martin-Spencer

Maura Lafferty

Jeremy Kahle

“They do not fully represent my values, and I feel that at least part of each of their platforms will negatively impact society – Obama’s stance and voting record on abortion and (former Gov. Mitt) Romney’s track record with budget priorities.”

LAURA MARTIN-SPENCER

Donna Castro

A.J. Ferreira

of San Francisco and the task force writing a pastoral plan for young adult ministry,” said Maura Lafferty, 26, of St. Ignatius in San Francisco, swayed to Obama by the first lady’s speech at the Democratic National Convention that “framed the policies of the current administration in the light of the importance of human dignity.”

Since neither major party nominee adheres to the church-sanctioned line on all four critical matters of human life, family, social justice and global solidarity, Martin-Spencer has found it difficult to make up her mind.

“They do not fully represent my values, and I feel that at least part of each of their platforms will negatively impact society – Obama’s stance and voting record on abortion and (former Gov. Mitt) Romney’s track record with budget priorities,” she said.

Her options: “Choose the lesser of two evils or choose a write-in candidate that is more in line with my conscience but sure to lose in November.”

Struggling with similar misgivings, a member of the Young Adult Council and RCIA program at St. Dominic in San Francisco who read the bishops’ counsel several years ago carefully crafted his Catholic conscience before locking in his vote.

“The Democratic Party’s view on abortion combined with the current

Jonathan Lewis administration’s open hostility toward organized religion and the Catholic Church in particular make it hard as a faithful Catholic to vote for Obama and Democratic candidates, especially because I view the right to life as fundamental to a society,” said Matthew, 37, who asked that his last name not be used to avoid having his comments “come back to haunt” him.

His loyalty lies with the church, which, unlike any political party, maintains consistent teachings and principles, Matthew said.

Seeped in those teachings since birth, Jeremy Kahle, 32, of St. Peter Parish in Fallbrook (San Diego County) is so turned off by the president’s stance on abortion, gay marriage and other “tradition-threatening family issues,” he’s turning to Romney.

Turning aside the same qualms because the president has no legal authority over such matters, lifelong Catholic Donna Castro, 29, of Sacred Heart Parish in Palm Springs is turning in a vote for Obama.

“I’m hoping he’ll do better on the economic front in the next four years,” she said. “(Former President George W.) Bush got us into this hole over eight years so I think we should give Obama equal time to get us out.”

So does Joe Cussen, 28, of St. Agnes Parish in San Francisco, who, al-

though disappointed with Obama’s first term, has graver concerns about Republican austerity measures he fears will deprive the poor of fundamental needs and the middle class of economic growth.

His civic decisions emanate from “a position of faith in a God of love and a God who judges how we treat our sisters and brothers,” Cussen said.

“My faith is at the core of who I am and guides the way that I act.”

Bound to his Catholic roots “about 70 percent of the time,” A.J. Ferreira, 28, of Old St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco, admitted, “Sad as it sounds, the deciding factor likely will not deal with high-brow ideology but with down-to-earth money matters, and on the economic front, Romney wins by a hair.”

Kristina Woodcock, 22, of St. Sebastian in Greenbrae, is also considering economic factors as she votes in her second presidential contest.

The product of Catholic education who graduated from Santa Clara University said she will keep her religious beliefs in check in the polling booth.

“While my Catholic faith has been a major influence in my life, it does not play a major role in my voting,” she said.

Viewing the political scene through a Catholic lens, Jonathan Lewis, 26, of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Mill Valley prays for clarity on which nominee looks best in light of the Gospel and the church’s social and moral teaching.

“As a Catholic, I think every one of us should be a political orphan,” he said, “taking a stance in the name not of a party or of a candidate but of our faith.”

Catholic women and the vote for president VALERIE SCHMALZ CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO

Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden and President Barack Obama are the stars of a 60-second spot that the Susan B. Anthony List is broadcasting as part of a more than $1 million buy in five battleground states in an effort to convince women to vote against the president.

The pro-life PAC ad contrasts Ohden’s story as an aborted infant born alive with Obama’s statements while in the Illinois state legislature where he voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would protect babies such as Ohden.

“It’s going to be a horse race,” predicted Marjorie Dannenfelser, SBA List president, saying every vote will count, particularly in the five battle-

Women’s vote will be influenced by their views of fairness, and that may depend on which candidate makes the better case.

Public Religion Research Institute’s polling found “six in 10 women say one of the biggest problems in this country is we don’t give everyone an equal chance in life.”

ROBERT P. JONES

Public Religion Research Institute ground states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin where SBA List is devoting the bulk of its $8 million advertising war chest.

Dannenfelser said Gallup’s polling over the past 10 years shows a largely unreported change in views of abortion so that “pro-life is the

new normal.” A May 23, 2012, Gallup Poll found Americans tilt pro-life by a margin of 50 percent to 41 percent.

The SBA List is targeting Catholics, women and Hispanics who probably voted for Obama in 2008, Dannenfelser said. Fifty percent of women voted for Obama versus 43 percent for

Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, according to Gallup.

Pro-life votes will count in the 2012 presidential election, but pollsters say the stagnant economy, high jobless rate, and concern about the $16 trillion federal debt, are the biggest factors for most Americans who plan to vote. Polls generally have shown Republican Mitt Romney and Obama in a dead heat, with various polls showing one, then the other pulling ahead.

“Catholic women are viewing this election in much the same way as other women: The economy and jobs rank at the forefront,” said Catholic University of America political science professor John White. “I see very SEE CATHOLIC WOMEN, PAGE 17

ELECTION 17

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

Many Latino voters disillusioned, demoralized ARACELI MARTÍNEZ CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO

Though many Latinos in California are demoralized by the presidential candidates, an increase of Latino voters in the presidential election is foreseen this November.

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials is predicting that 12.2 million Latinos will cast their votes in the November election, up by 26 percent in relation to 2008.

“The 12.2 million figure is tallied based on the growth of the Hispanic vote in the past 20 years.

Among the causes for this rise is the expansion of the Latino population, our civic participation and the investment by the parties to get the vote out,” says NALEO director of election policy Astrid García.

In California the Latino community represents 24 percent of all registered voters. This means there are 3.025 million Latinos registered to go to the polls.

“Though it feels like a boring election, there will be a good turnout of voters and I am under the impression that Latinos will vote for Obama,” says Matt González, former San Francisco mayoral and Green Party vice presidential candidate.

In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll, Obama leads Romney 70 percent to 25 percent among likely Latino voters (and 69 percent to 23 percent among registered voters), a slight increase for Romney from the 70 percent to 25 percent lead the president held a month ago. An Oct. 11 Pew Hispanic Center Latino poll found Latino registered voters prefer Obama over Romney by 69 percent to 21 percent.

Nonetheless, González – who became an independent and works as a public defender in San Francisco – considers that Latinos are not happy with the Obama administration because he has been more aggressive with the deportation of Latinos than President George Bush. “I don’t think this will translate into votes for Romney, the Republican candidate, because he has not been effective in reaching out to the middle class,” he says.

“To understand why Latinos will vote for someone like Obama who has not been good for them, one has to understand mass psychology. And I think that they have two devils and will vote for the less harmful one,” he says.

Latinos like Miguel Araujo, a Mexican immigrant

Matt González

María Ortiz

Francisco Silva

“To understand why Latinos will vote for someone like Obama who has not been good for them, one has to understand mass psychology. And I think that they have two devils and will vote for the less harmful one.”

MATT GONZÁLEZ

Former San Francisco mayoral and Green Party vice presidential candidate and small business owner in San Bruno, feel that Hispanics are so demoralized it may affect the turnout. “In my dealings with people, I have found great disappointment especially due to the intransigence of a candidate like Romney in regards to immigration issues and the lack of leadership of a president that does not want to help us at all and blames Republicans for not granting us immigration reform,” he says. “People ask me what the option is and for the first time I remain silent and I don’t know what to tell them,” says Araujo who also conducts a weekly radio show in San Francisco.

A CNN poll from this month found that the most important issue for 44 percent of Latinos is the economy and for 14 percent it is immigration.

And maybe that is why small business owners like Araujo say that they “have Jesus in their mouths” and fret over plans to help big corporations and businesses. “This will cause people to lose their jobs.”

In 2008 Barack Obama was favored over John McCain by Latinos 69 percent to 29 percent according to the William C. Velasquez Institute.

“This time around the Latino voter is choosing which party is less offensive to them, which will present fewer problems. I have been analyzing the vote since 1976, and for the first time I can see that Latino voters are saying, “Let’s vote for Obama because Romney is really bad for us,” says political analyst Arnoldo Torres.

But he does not expect a large number of Latinos to vote in the presidential election this November.

“In comparison with 2008 it will not be the same,” he says.

And he explains why: “President Obama did not fulfill his immigration promise, he gave us the impression that he would have a relationship with the Hispanic community unlike anything we had seen before and he did not; and the economic problems have had a greater impact on Hispanics than on any other community, we lost more homes – above all other groups. The damage seems to be permanent.”

Facing little Latino support in the polls, Mitt Romney earlier in the campaign said that he would not get rid of Deferred Action, a program announced by the Obama administration intended to halt for two years the deportations of students that were brought here by their parents when they were children. However, he wants to put an end to the program while Congress debates a long-term solution before the two-year visas expire. The former Massachusetts governor says he wants a full immigration reform plan.

Obama, in the second presidential debate, reiterated his support for a comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship.

“The vote is a weapon that the Hispanic community has,” says María Ortiz, a community activist from the San Francisco Bay Area.

“We are a sleeping giant and we have the opportunity to participate and choose national and state representatives in this election,” she says.

Many would like to go to the polls but are still unable to, among them Francisco Silva, a retired worker who is in the process of becoming a citizen after having been in this country for 45 years.

“What would I gain with my vote? I’d participate with my community and with the decisions of Congress,” he says without hesitation.

Matt González is certain that voting for candidates that care about the things he cares about is important for him. “It’s the best way of voting,” he says.

CATHOLIC WOMEN: Economy, jobs at forefront for many voters FROM PAGE 16

little difference between how Catholics prioritize issues as compared with how other voters prioritize issues.”

“The candidates are really going to have to make their case for the economy – who has the better case,” said Robert P. Jones, chief executive officer of Public Religion Research Institute. The nonpartisan nonprofit conducted a poll in mid-August which was published Sept. 20.

Jones disagrees with Gallup’s numbers on pro-life voters, saying slightly more Americans favor legalized abortion in his polling. However, he says just 3 percent of voters say the issue will determine their vote.

In the Public Religion Research Institute poll, 74 percent of Americans polled blame corporations for moving jobs overseas, with 59 percent saying Obama is at least partly responsible for the nation’s economic woes and 65 percent continuing to blame former President George W. Bush, Jones said.

“They’re basically blaming everyone who’s been in charge,” Jones said.

Women now appear evenly divided between the two candidates, 47 percent to 47 percent, based on a Pew Research Center poll released Oct. 8. Gallup showed Obama’s lead among women shrinking to one percentage point.

This is a dramatic change from before the first debate when a Pew poll had

Obama with an 18 point lead among women. Early polling after the second town hall style debate on Oct. 16 showed a slight majority believed that Obama won the debate.

The women’s vote will be influenced by their views of fairness and that may depend on which candidate makes the better case, Jones said. Public Religion Research Institute’s polling found “six in 10 women say one of the biggest problems in this country is we don’t give everyone an equal chance in life.”

Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission parishioner Nancy Lacsamana plans to vote for Obama as she did in 2008.

“I am Democrat, pro-life, anti-death penalty but still feel that I am more in sync with Obama moving us forward than Romney will ever,” said the Brisbane parishioner.

“I don’t want a president who generalizes the poor and those who get assistance because they are out of jobs or have health issues.”

Coming from the other direction, St. Stephen parishioner Connie D’Aura sees Obama’s efforts to require Catholic institutions to provide free contraceptives to their employees, as well as his support for unrestricted access to abortion as unsupportable.

“I do not see the Democratic Party as liberators, but obstructionists,” said D’Aura. “Circumventing my parenting, hiring quality educators, limiting school choice and creating a false glass

ceiling is a problem for me. Romney is my pro-woman candidate.”

Many women’s support for Obama is pragmatic, said Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and an Obama supporter.

“I would argue that it is the sense that women have that a Democratic administration is going to have programs in place that are going to better safeguard their families from the vulnerabilities of life,” he said.

On the other side, the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate has energized a group of women, mostly Catholic, who oppose the president and support the church in its religious freedom battle. Schneck said he supports Catholic University in its lawsuit against the mandate.

The Republicans and Romney joined all the U.S. bishops in opposing the mandate requiring Catholic and other religious hospitals, charities and universities to provide free contraceptives, including abortion inducing drugs, to employees and their dependents. The Obama administration calls opposition to its contraceptive mandate a “war on women.”

“Thanks to President Barack Obama’s contraceptive mandate and Catholic concerns about its impact on religious liberty, Catholic women have emerged as this year’s most coveted

and scrutinized swing voters,” columnist Colleen Carroll Campbell wrote in the St. Louis Post Dispatch Sept. 13.

Among those challenging the Obama “war on women” narrative is the website Women Speak for Themselves, (womenspeakforthemselves. com), co-founded by Helen Alvare, law professor at George Mason University.

“No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake,” the website letter says. “Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. “ Women cannot be categorized as “one size fits all” voters, said Vicki Evans, respect life coordinator for the Archdiocese of San Francisco and a certified public accountant in private practice.

“I don’t believe there is a generic ‘women’s vote’ any more than there is a ‘Catholic vote.’ Women vote based on issues that matter most to them at any given time in their lives,” said Evans.

“It will be economic issues if they can’t put food on the table. It will be social issues like abortion, marriage and family if they are religious or have an activist bent. It will be health care issues if they are elderly or have disabled family members.”

18

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

CITIZENSHIP STRESSES FUNDAMENTAL ETHICAL DEMANDS

In 2002 Pope John Paul II approved a Vatican doctrinal note on “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.” Here is an excerpt.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.

Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good … Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. … Peace is always the work of justice and the effect of charity. It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism … .

7 KEY THEMES ABOUT CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON: Direct attacks on innocent life are never morally acceptable; other direct threats include euthanasia, human cloning, destruction of human embryos for research; oppose torture, unjust war, genocide, racism; overcome poverty and suffering; promote peace CALL TO FAMILY, COMMUNITY AND PARTICIPATION: Protect marriage; respect the family in all its aspects; defend parents’ right to care for children, including choice of education RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Right to life; right to access things required for human decency OPTION FOR THE POOR AND VULNERABLE DIGNITY OF WORK AND RIGHTS OF WORKERS: Right to productive work, to decent and just wages, to adequate benefits and security in old age SOLIDARITY: Promoting global peace and justice; addressing extreme poverty and disease CARING FOR GOD’S CREATION: Moral obligation to protect the planet “FORMING CONSCIENCES FOR FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP,” U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

19

COMPARING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS ON KEY MORAL ISSUES Here are excerpts from background articles by Catholic News Service reporters on the presidential election in light of key areas of Catholic social teaching.

The economy Both presidential campaigns put a lot of emphasis on the economy and claim their respective plans will better help the middle class and create more jobs.

Obama’s job creation plan puts emphasis on short-term efforts to stimulate hiring as well as promote jobs in “green technologies.” His plan also emphasizes increased spending in education to better prepare the nation’s future workforce.

Romney’s job creation plan is centered on making the environment better for businesses through changing current government regulations on businesses and reworking government taxation and spending policies.

Both candidates acknowledge the sluggish economy has a long way to go to improve.

In their quadrennial statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” offering Catholics guidance for election decisions, the bishops say: “The economy must serve people, not the other way around.”

At their spring meeting in June, the bishops voted to move ahead with a draft of a message on work and the economy that is expected to be ready in time for a final vote at the bishops’ fall meeting in mid-November.

Titled “Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy,” the message is aimed at raising the profile of growing poverty and the struggles that unemployed people are

(CNS PHOTO/REUTERS)

A pro-life activist demonstrates in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington in this June 25 file photo.

Life At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., the differences on abortion between President Barack Obama and his Republican presidential opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, were clear.

Speeches in prime time on successive nights touted the president’s support for keeping abortion legal, and videos praised his stands on “reproductive choice” and “women’s rights.”

The speakers included Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law School graduate who has spoken out against religious exemptions to the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate.

At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., there were few speeches that touched on abortion, but candidate Romney pledged in his acceptance speech to “protect the sanctity of life” and the GOP platform states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

“We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children,” the platform adds. “We oppose

using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.”

The Democratic Party’s platform approved in Charlotte says the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

In recent years, there has been much debate about whether Catholics can legitimately support a candidate who does not oppose abortion, if the candidate’s positions on other issues are in line with church teaching.

In a document prepared for the 2012 elections, the Catholic bishops of Kansas answered that question with a decisive no.

“The Catholic faith requires Catholics to oppose abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide and the redefinition of marriage,” said Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City and Bishops Michael O. Jackels of Wichita; John B. Brungardt of Dodge City; and Edward J. Weisenburger of Salina.

“These matters are not negotiable, for they contradict the natural law, available to everyone through human reasoning, and they violate unchanging and un-

changeable Catholic moral principles,” they added.

As a matter of fact, the Kansas bishops said, those issues should not be seen, strictly speaking, as political issues.

“Instead, they are fundamentally moral questions involving core Catholic teachings on what is right and what is wrong,” they said. “Catholics who depart from church teaching on these issues separate themselves from full communion with the church.”

On the issue of assisted suicide, neither candidate has taken a clear stand, although the Republican platform states: “We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.”

The Democratic Party’s platform makes no mention of the issue.

In response to a question about assisted suicide in 2008, Obama said he was “mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia” but thought that “the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we’ve got to think about issues of end-of-life care.”

Assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon since voters approved it in 1994.

It also is legal in Washington state and in Montana.

As president, Obama revoked President George W. Bush’s policy on embryonic stem cell research, which limited such research to cell lines derived from embryos before August 2001. He allowed the National Institutes of Health to expand the acceptable lines to any embryos created for in vitro fertilization purposes and later discarded, if the couple agreed to such research.

Romney’s campaign site calls stem cell research “a great scientific frontier,” but says it “must be pursued with respect and care.”

As Massachusetts governor, Romney vetoed a bill to allow cloning of human embryos.

On the issue of the death penalty, the Democratic platform says it “must not be arbitrary.”

“DNA testing should be used in all appropriate circumstances, defendants should have effective assistance of counsel, and the administration of justice should be fair and impartial,” it adds.

The Republican Party’s platform says, “Courts should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.”

The U.S. Catholic bishops, in their document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” say “our nation’s continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified.”

The Catholic bishops of California support Proposition 34 on the Nov. 6 ballot to ban the death penalty.

(CNS PHOTO/BRENDAN MCDERMID, REUTERS)

People wait in line to meet with job counselors during a job fair in New York Sept. 6. experiencing. It also would advance the bishops’ priority of human life and dignity.

The message would be a follow-up to a Sept. 15, 2011, letter by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, in which he urged bishops and priests across the country to preach about “the terrible toll the current economic turmoil is taking on families and communities.”

In a July reflection titled “The Economy and the Election,” the bishops of Kansas pointed out that even though the Catholic Church doesn’t endorse “specific solutions to our economic challenges,” it can point to the relationship between the economy and morality.

“Unlike issues involving intrinsic evils such as abortion, same-sex marriage and threats to religious liberty

and conscience rights, Catholics of good will may have legitimate disagreements about how to apply church teaching in the economic sphere,” they said.

The bishops urged voters to look to candidates who will practice stewardship and provide a safety net for the poor and vulnerable, and to judge “economic choices and institutions by how they protect or undermine the life and dignity of the human person.”

They also noted that just as individual households should live within their means, the government should also “live within its means as an indispensable part of our nation’s economic recovery.”

“It is irresponsible for those elected to positions of political leadership to fail to address realistically and effectively government debt and unfunded obligations,” the bishops said.

War and foreign policy Despite the contingent of U.S. troops remaining in Afghanistan, observers told Catholic News Service that Obama and Romney rarely mention the war as talk focuses on rebuilding the American economy.

Afghanistan gets scant attention even on the candidates’ websites.

Obama’s reference to Afghanistan is two lines long, promising to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of 2014.

The site, however, credits Obama for the decision to raid Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and “eliminating” the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

Romney’s website offers a longer narrative on the war. But his criticism of the president’s surge and the 2014 deadline to withdraw forces is longer than his plan for addressing Afghan security. “Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders,” the site concludes.

“The truth is that both candidates have avoided talking about Afghanistan because neither has really good answers,” said Michael. J. Boyle, assistant professor of political science at La Salle University in Philadelphia.

Paul Pillar, nonresident senior fellow at Georgetown University’s

(CNS PHOTO/OMAR SOBHANI, REUTERS)

U.S. troops pray during a Sept. 11 ceremony in Kabul, Afghanistan, marking the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the United States.

Center for Security Studies, said he found that the stances of Obama and Romney on Afghanistan diverge only by matter of degree.

“This is one very sign in the national security area that the basic course of American policy will not be appreciably affected by this election,” he said. “We’re on the glide path to have the troops out in 2014,” Pillar said. “The (Obama) administration has left it kind of vague.”

The lack of specificity on Afghanistan by both candidates has implications for broader U.S. foreign policy, Pillar added.

“I think the way we need to approach this election is not in trying to predict this or that initiative, but rather what sort of way the Obama administration versus the Romney administration will react to particular challenges like a 9/11 or who

knows what,” Pillar said. “What will the emphasis be? Will it be one of a more assertive use of military offense in starting wars and more intent on unilateralism or a more restrained use of military force and more emphasis on cooperative endeavors and the use of diplomacy?”

Beyond the military action, the U.S. has an obligation to provide humanitarian assistance and rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq, explained Stephen Colecchi, director of the U.S. bishops’ Office of International Justice and Peace.

Throughout the eight-year war in Iraq, the bishops called for a “responsible transition” under which the U.S. would gradually return control of the country to Iraqis. The last U.S. troops pulled out Dec. 18, leaving behind massive destruction and a country ravaged by violence.

20 ELECTION

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

MORAL ISSUES: The presidential campaigns

(CNS PHOTO/JIM WEST)

Electric transmission lines are seen in 2009 leading away from a coal-fired power plant in China Township, Mich.

Environment

(CNS PHOTO/REUTERS)

Veronica Castro stands with her daughter, Jennifer, in the entrance of their home in Phoenix in May.

Immigration

(CNS PHOTO/LORI WOOD HABIGER, THE LEAVEN)

Catholic parishioners hold up First Amendment placards during a rally for religious freedom June 29 in Topeka, Kan.

Freedom

Given their knowledge of Catholic social teaching on the environment, those who make it their stock in trade to promote stewardship of the earth using Catholic principles say the two major presidential candidates’ positions on environmental issues leave something to be desired.

“Like many issues of concern to the Catholic community, neither President (Barack) Obama nor Governor (Mitt) Romney seem to give climate change or environmental justice the serious attention these issues deserve,” said Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change. “But the same could be said of reducing poverty, ending abortion and the death penalty and so on.”

Holy Cross Brother David Andrews, a senior representative for the Washington-based think tank Food and Water Watch, noted that both candidates are supporters of hydraulic fracturing, a process by which water is injected into rock to release natural gas.

“The organization I work for, Food and Water Watch, opposes hydraulic fracking, wants to ban hydraulic fracking, is opposed to both candidates’ positions,” Brother Andrews said.

“Fracking” is the colloquial term for the process.

Opponents say it has the potential to contaminate ground water and affect air quality.

“So far in the election, the quality of the environment is really not on the map,” said Walt Grazer, a consultant for the National Religious Partnership on the Environment and a former director of the U.S. bishops’ environmental justice program.

“Whether that changes between now and the election, or in the debates, remains to be seen.”

Grazer, though, gave credit to the Catholic bishops for keeping the environment on their national agenda. “They’re right on the mark,” he said.

“They call it a moral issue, protecting the earth and the environment, and then they attach it right away, I think, to issues of vulnerability.”

Obama has called for an “all of the above” energy strategy, which includes fracking, offshore oil exploration and drilling and nuclear power.

The offshore oil exploration segment was delayed, but not dropped, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and massive oil spill in Louisiana’s Gulf Coast in 2010. While nuclear power is on the table, no new plants are being built, and existing plants still have no place to send their radioactive waste.

Romney has touted a “North American energy independence” platform which would include energy from Canada and Mexico in a bid to keep energy costs down. He would eliminate tax breaks for solar and wind power, and has said that, if elected, he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline that would send crude oil extracted from Canadian oil sands through the Plains states and on to the Gulf Coast for refining.

The vastly different approaches of Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on immigration share a common denominator: Both men agree that Obama didn’t accomplish what he intended to when he was elected in 2008, when he promised that comprehensive immigration reform was high on his agenda.

As Obama put it in a Sept. 20 forum on the Spanishlanguage network Univision, his priority after taking office had to be getting an economic slide under control, and that when he could turn to immigration, support he counted on in Congress had evaporated.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, retired archbishop of Los Angeles, who has made immigration reform the focus of his work in retirement, described both Romney and Obama as “totally vague” in explaining how they will tackle immigration.

“The presidential candidates need to give leadership on this issue,” Cardinal Mahony told Catholic News Service, “and they need to explain more fully to the American people how they value our immigrant history, the presence of immigrants in our midst today, and how to bring millions of people out of the shadows of our society,” the cardinal said.

Both candidates’ websites emphasize a range of issues on their Spanish-language pages: the economy, jobs, education and immigration. Romney’s Englishlanguage pages include immigration among the topics covered. Obama’s site includes immigration as a key individual theme only on the Spanish section.

It takes searching through the English page to come up with a lengthy list of links to various articles that define his immigration positions and actions.

In Romney’s appearance on Univision, his talking points on immigration primarily criticized Obama for not doing more, without saying what he’d do differently. Romney promises “a national immigration strategy that bolsters the U.S. economy, ensures our security, keeps nuclear families together, addresses the problem of illegal immigration in a civil and resolute manner, and carries on America’s tradition as a nation of legal immigrants.”

On the campaign trail, Romney has said he opposes the DREAM Act, which would give a path to legal status for undocumented young people who arrived in the U.S. as children. He also has praised Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law – much of which was overturned by the Supreme Court in June – describing it as a model for the nation, in part because it encourages “self-deportation” for undocumented immigrants.

Obama’s campaign site emphasizes his support for the DREAM Act; his creation of a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA; stepped-up deportations of immigrants with criminal records; and efforts to get a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform law.

Over the past several months, the U.S. Catholic bishops and other religious leaders have urged Americans to defend religious liberty in the United States in the face of threats to that freedom, particularly the federal contraceptive mandate.

The mandate has been at the forefront for the American Catholic Church since the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced in January that it would require most religious employers to provide free contraceptive and sterilization coverage, in violation of church teaching.

The mandate took effect for most employers in August 2012 and is scheduled to be implemented for most religious organizations in August 2013.

Religious freedom is a core right, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated during a September visit to Lebanon, saying “religious freedom is the basic right on which many rights depend.”

The U.S. Catholic bishops’ document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” states: “U.S. policy should promote religious liberty and other basic human rights.”

New York Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called for respect for religious liberty in his closing prayers at both national conventions.

He prayed for a renewed “respect for religious freedom” at the Republican National Convention.

At the Democratic National Convention, Cardinal Dolan prayed that God would “renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our founding.”

In April, the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Freedom issued a 12-page statement on threats to religious liberty, including the HHS mandate but highlighting other examples.

The document listed: laws in Alabama and other states that forbid “harboring” of undocumented immigrants; government actions in Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois that have driven local Catholic Charities out of adoption and foster care services because the agencies would not place children with same sex or unmarried heterosexual couples; and changes in federal contracts for human trafficking grants that require the U.S. bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services to refer clients “for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching.”

Both political parties mention religious liberty in their platforms. The Democratic Party platform states the Affordable Care Act “ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans,” adding that President Barack Obama “has respected the principle of religious liberty.”

©CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

©CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

©CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

ELECTION 21

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

Presidential campaigns battle for Catholic support in close contest GEORGE RAINE CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne may have had the best line about the Catholic vote. He said, “It does not exist and it is very important.”

It doesn’t exist in the sense there is no longer a reliable Catholic bloc of, say, European immigrants and their children voting almost solid Democrat, but they’re very important because of their numbers, a truth being played out this political season.

“We are a quarter of the electorate and if Catholics consult their faith beliefs as the bishops want them to, then a candidate has every incentive to appeal to Catholic language,” said Jesuit Father Thomas Massaro, the newly installed dean and professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University in Berkeley. “We are up for grabs.”

Indeed, the Catholicism of Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was a major piece of their debate, and the U.S. Catholic bishops are speaking forcefully about religious freedom threatened by a mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration requiring religious institutions to provide contraceptive services to employees. It was no surprise, then, when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, joining the chorus of critics, said, “We’re all Catholics now.”

Campaign workers for both President Barack Obama and Gov. Romney are working their Catholic sources in a get-out-the-vote effort leading up to the Nov. 6 election, and surrogates are finding their voices in the dogged campaign.

A Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll taken Oct. 4-7 showed Romney leading Obama among likely Catholic voters by a margin of 50 to 44 percent, a dramatic change from a Pew poll taken Sept. 12-16 when Obama was preferred by Catholic voters by a margin of 54 percent to 39 percent. On the other hand, Romney’s lead was much less among Catholics, 47 to 45 percent, in a recent Politico/ George Washington University poll. Overall, the October Pew poll showed Romney with a lead of 49 percent to 45 percent, but there is considerable fluctuation in major polls in this very close contest.

“Neither party deserves 100 percent support from Catholics … The ultimate center of gravity is on the conscience of the individual.”

JESUIT FATHER THOMAS MASSARO

Dean and professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University in Berkeley Meantime, “Neither party deserves 100 percent support from Catholics,” said Father Massaro, because neither party literally reflects Catholic social teaching, particularly on abortion. Ryan, a devout Catholic, parted with strict Catholic teaching when he said the Republican ticket’s position allowed certain exceptions for abortion, when the church says there can be none. For his part, Biden said he personally opposes abortion but doesn’t believe government should dictate its will.

Said Father Massaro, “It is going to have to be up to individual Catholics to look at the full range of issues. If that (abortion) is a sticking point, it is not the only possible issue. There are plenty of other issues” Catholic voters should consider when preparing to cast a vote. “The bishops say this time and time again,” he said, “that they have a special respect for life issues, the beginning of life and the end of life, abortion and euthanasia issues, but they are not the only things. And there are plenty of other life issues – like torture and unjust warfare – that a good Catholic has to look at. The ultimate center of gravity is on the conscience of the individual.”

In 2007, the U.S. bishops wrote “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a call to political responsibility, in which they said they did not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. They added, “Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make

choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.” They said participation in political life “is a moral obligation.”

Indeed, Catholic surrogates for Romney and Ryan are invoking moral outrage at the president.

A group called The Catholic Association, which on its website says is “responding to the call of the Catholic Church for members of the lay faithful to apply Catholic teaching, wisdom and principles to the issues of the day,” is targeting about 6 million Catholic voters in battleground states who regularly attend Mass, according to Politico.

When Romney selected Ryan as his running mate, Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor, and Ashley McGuire, senior fellow, at The Catholic Association, found no fault with the Republican position on abortion. “We believe Gov. Romney has made an excellent choice,” they said. “As a smart, serious Catholic, Congressman Ryan has been steadfast on issues of fundamental principle – defending religious liberty, life, and traditional marriage. In addition, he has been thoughtful and articulate in applying Catholic principles to the other challenges facing America,” they said.

Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, is national co-chair of Catholics for Obama and governing board member of Democrats for Life of America. He said, “Faithful Catholics know that neither of the presidential candidates nor either of the political parties fully support their church’s moral teachings. So, voting this fall requires us to employ oodles of the virtue of prudence.”

He added, “We must fully weigh many factors in making our choices – not equally, since life issues are most important – but still fully.” He said that means asking which candidate’s policies “are more affirming of the dignity of life, strengthen families, prioritize the needs of the poor and vulnerable and cherish God’s creation” among other considerations. Those are the questions “to resolve in good conscience before entering the voting booth,” said Schneck.

Catholic voters, general public place health care among top five issues NANCY FRAZIER O’BRIEN CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON – There are few issues in the 2012 presidential campaign on which the major candidates have more clearly differentiated opinions than health care.

Much of President Barack Obama’s stand on health care is built on provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, has said should be repealed.

“President Obama believes that quality, affordable health insurance you can rely on is a key part of middle-class security,” says the Democratic candidate’s campaign website. “By putting a stop to insurance company abuses, Obamacare is giving millions of Americans peace of mind.”

Romney, on the other hand, says on his campaign website that the Affordable Care Act “relies on a dense web of regulations, fees, subsidies, excise taxes, exchanges and rule-setting boards to give the federal government extraordinary control over every corner of the health care system.”

The Republican candidate told The Associated Press in mid-September he would replace the health care law with his own plan that would still allow young adults and those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage.

Both Catholic voters and the general public place health care among the top five issues that affect their voting decisions.

In a survey earlier this year by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 74 percent of registered voters and 72 percent of Catholic voters named health care as an issue that was very important to their voting decision. Both groups placed a higher priority, however, on the economy, jobs and the federal budget deficit as issues influencing their vote.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate, has become the point man

(CNS PHOTO/BOB ROLLER)

People for and against the administration’s health care reform law demonstrate in late June outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. The major candidates in the presidential election have clearly differentiated opinions on the issue, giving voters distinct choices on how the country should address the controversial issue. for his party on the issues surrounding Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. In a Sept. 21 address to the AARP convention in New Orleans, Ryan said he and Romney “respect all the people of this country enough to talk about the clear choices we face on Medicare, Social Security, the economy, and the kind of country our children will inherit.”

He called repeal of the Affordable Care Act “the first step to a stronger Medicare” and said the law “weakens Medicare for today’s seniors and puts it at risk for the next generation.”

Obama, addressing the same gathering by satellite on the same day, said that despite what the Republicans might say, health reform “actually strengthened Medicare.” He said repeal of the law

would mean billions of new profits for insurance companies.

“No American should ever spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies,” he added.

Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services also have touted the benefits already achieved by the law, including nearly $4.5 billion saved on prescription drugs by closing the “doughnut hole” for 5.5 million seniors and people with disabilities and the free preventive services received by more than 19 million people on original Medicare in the first eight months of 2012.

Another success was heralded when the U.S. Census Bureau announced a drop in the number of uninsured young adults – a decline attributed by the Democrats to the fact that the Affordable Care Act allows those ages 19 to 25 to the remain on their parents’ health insurance policies.

The law mandates preventive services for women, which include well-woman visits, breast-feeding support and counseling, and domestic violence screening and counseling. In addition to these services, the mandate also requires employers to provide contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilizations free of charge to their employees, even if they have objections based on their religious beliefs.

Catholic and other religious leaders as well as secular employers who morally oppose artificial contraception say the religious exemption is too narrow, because it mainly protects those religious institutions that seek to inculcate their values and that primarily employ and serve people of their own faith.

Bruce Berg, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University in New York, predicted that each party will continue to make health care an issue – but without changing very many minds.

“There’s a lot we won’t know until three, four, five years down the road,” as other parts of the law are implemented, he said. After all the changes mandated in the law have taken effect, he said, “then we can have the real debate.”

22 ELECTION

CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO | OCTOBER 26, 2012

CALIFORNIA BALLOT

OPINION

Bishops support Props. 34 and 35 The Catholic bishops of California support Proposition 34, which would replace the death penalty with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, and Proposition 35, which would increase penalties for human trafficking convictions and direct fines

to enhanced victim services and law enforcement. Both are on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Bishop Gerald Wilkerson, auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and president of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops, commented on both propositions.

Of Proposition 34, he said, “As teachers of the Catholic faith, we consistently proclaim the intrinsic worth of the God-given dignity of all human life, whether innocent or guilty. We are all created in God’s image.” He added, “We appeal to Californians to end a failed system of justice and choose life. Violence does not end violence. Killing in the name of the state will not end killing. The death penalty will not give us justice worthy of a good society.”

In 2005, the U.S. Catholic bishops, in their statement “A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, outlined their public policy objections to the use of capital punishment.

The statement noted that the original intent of the death penalty was the protection of society from those who had killed a fellow human being but that in modern times “the state can incarcerate those convicted of a capital crime for the rest of their lives—with no chance they will ever rejoin society.” It also cautioned that “the application of the penalty of death can be irreversibly wrong – as has been demonstrated by many condemned individuals who were later exonerated with DNA testing.”

The California Catholic bishops advocate for Proposition 34 for more than public policy reasons, according to information on the bishops’ website: “As teachers of the Catholic faith, we consistently proclaim the intrinsic worth and the God-given dignity of all human life, whether innocent or guilty. We are all created in God’s image. As ministers to the victims of crime, we recognize the profound anguish of those who have lost a loved one to violence.

We offer them our prayers and the hope of a fuller sense of justice.

Nothing can undo the terrifying memories of violence that have been inflicted, not even taking the life of the convicted killer. Justice demands that those who have committed these worst crimes against us should be punished and society should be protected. A restorative justice should also provide the opportunity for repentance and reconciliation.”

Of Proposition 35, Bishop Wilkerson said, “Human trafficking, which involves the enslaving of individuals in order to use them for financial gain, is an intolerable affront to human dignity.” He said he was calling upon all people of good will to support those who are working to eradicate “this violent and oppressive practice – especially our Catholic women religious, who besides their advocacy for the elimination of trafficking, have provided health care and social services for those rescued from their enslavers.

“Human trafficking, which involves the enslaving of individuals in order to use them for financial gain, is an intolerable affront to human dignity.”

Bishop Wilkerson said Catholics are called to listen to the wisdom of Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II document “Gaudium et Spes.”

The document states that ‘ … (W) hatever is opposed to life itself … whatever violates the integrity of the human person … whatever insults humanity –such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution … all these things … poison human society … Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.”

PROPOSITION 30: Sales and income tax Increase initiative. Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years and increases sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years; allocates revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Fiscal Impact: Estimated increased revenue from $6.8 billion to $8 billion for FY 2012-13 and from $5.4 billion to $7.6 billion in the following five fiscal years. The California Catholic Conference takes no position on the measure but provides comment in its 2011 statement on the state budget crisis, “In Search of the Common Good: A Moral Framework for Addressing California’s Budget Crisis.” The document is online at www. cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/human-dignity/economic-justice/128in-search-of-the-common-good.

PROPOSITION 31: Two-year state budget cycle. Establishes a two-year state budget cycle, demands offsetting revenues or spending cuts for expenditures over $25 million, gives the governor unilateral power during fiscal emergencies, gives counties power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless the Legislature vetoes changes within 60 days and requires performance goals. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state revenues and commensurate increased local revenues, probably in the range of about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14; over time these costs would moderate and be offset by savings from improved program efficiencies. The California Catholic Conference takes no position on the measure.

A

Election 2012: Mission impossible?

s the November general election approaches, America’s Catholic bishops have been walking a fine line as they strive to avoid appearances of partisanship while at the same time wage a highprofile battle for religious freedom and conscience protections.

Recently one archbishFATHER GERALD op insisted D. COLEMAN, SS he certainly could not vote in good faith for any candidate who is pro-choice or pro-abortion or who supports any intrinsic evil. He added that he has deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, or wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom.

The archbishop concluded that while he is not endorsing Romney for president, he absolutely could not vote for Obama.

In 2011, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reissued its 2007 voters guide “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility.” The bishops point out that responsible citizenship is a virtue and participation in political life is a moral obligation. They cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person ... As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life” (CCC 1913-1915).

In terms of our political participation, “Forming Consciences” insists that we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, we should be involved in helping transform the party to which we belong rather than permitting the party to transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths.

The document indicates that there are certain things that are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. We must never do or uphold them either as individuals or as a society. There are certain actions that are so deeply flawed that they always oppose the authentic good of persons. These actions are called “intrinsically evil.” They must always be opposed and never condoned.

“Forming Consciences” gives as a “prime example” the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion or euthanasia. These acts have become pre-eminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself which is the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others. The bishops conclude, “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”

Intrinsically evil acts undercut human dignity and solidarity.

Intrinsically evil acts undercut human dignity and solidarity. The protection of human life in the womb is absolute since this right to life is fundamental to all others.

It is first in a series that initiates the human endeavor. Other actions that are also flawed and oppose the flourishing of human life include genocide (the killing of innocent people in a war situation), trafficking in women and children, rape, incest, adultery, torture, mutilation, slavery, the sexual abuse of a child, racism. No intention or set of circumstances can ever justify or make tolerable the commission of these acts.

A 2006 doctrinal note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith teaches that the Christian faith is an “integral unity.”

Consequently, “a political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility toward the common good.” The exercise of our conscience demands that we oppose all laws and policies that violate the dignity of human life or weaken its protection. In other words, a pro-life platform must protect nascent human life, but must also oppose every other activity that demeans or destroys human life. A pro-life stance certainly condemns abortion and euthanasia, but likewise must condemn torture and the sexual abuse of children.

Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. We cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil. At the same time, “Forming Consciences” teaches that a “voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”

If every candidate holds a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, e.g., favoring all elective abortions, or abortion in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, a voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or – after careful deliberation – “may decide to vote for the candidate less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”

“Forming Consciences” concludes that “the church is involved in the political process but it is not partisan. The church cannot champion any candidate or party.

Our cause is the defense of human life and dignity and the protection of the weak and vulnerable.”

This moral commitment should principally guide our choices when we exercise our right to vote.

SULPICIAN FATHER COLEMAN is vice president, corporate ethics, for the Daughters of Charity Health System.