c. 2004 Religion News Service

(The Rev. James L. Heft, a Catholic priest, is professor of faith and culture and chancellor at the University of Dayton. He is also president of the Institute of Advanced Catholic Studies at the University of Southern California.)

(UNDATED) When it comes to presidential elections these days, any thoughtful Catholic is politically homeless. Neither party shares fully the Catholic view of the value of life.

This country needs more pro-life Democrats and more social justice Republicans. Even so, Catholic voters can intelligently participate in presidential politics by keeping in mind four observations.

First, there weren’t any Christian governors or princes or kings when the New Testament was written, so there are few specific guidelines for Catholic politicians. Some commands _ 10 of them, along with the great command to love _ are invoked through no specific political directives. Both the Hebrew prophets and the New Testament emphasize, however, caring for the poor.

Over two millennia, Christians have developed guidelines regarding social morality, justice and the common good. Most recently, certain papal documents have stressed the importance of opposing abortion, war as a means of settling political differences and recourse to capital punishment, except in extremely rare cases.

Second, Catholicism is a public religion. Enlightenment thinkers sought to privatize religion and thereby remove its capacity to provoke wars. The Enlightenment also defended religious freedom and emphasized human rights. Those major achievements came at a cost. Privatization of religion doesn’t work well for those who see right and wrong in objective terms.

For example, any Catholic who says he or she personally opposes abortion but would not force that “morality” on others is not thinking clearly. Such a statement either negates the public character of some fundamental ethical teachings or admits that the ethical teachings of one’s religion have no bearing on anyone but oneself. That’s an extreme form of individualism, to say nothing of moral relativism.

Third, Catholic moral teachings are at times in complex relationship to the social world of politics. Abortion, though not mentioned in the New Testament, has been condemned since the second century. It is a very serious matter, literally a matter of life and death. Nonetheless, sincere citizens differ about legislating against abortion for everyone, non-Catholics included.

Opposition to capital punishment and moral judgments on waging war are also central to church teaching, but if any of these three qualify as infallible, it would likely be the long-standing prohibition of abortion on demand. It is easier to evaluate morally than the justice of a particular war.

Also to be taken into consideration is the cultural context of various teachings. What are the social and moral consequences of not having universal health care coverage, of tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, of little support for single mothers and for good public schools in the inner city? Many of these issues affect women who may seek abortions.

Finally, John Kerry, if elected, would be a Catholic president leading a nation in which barely a quarter of the population is Catholic. How should a Catholic president view his responsibilities concerning legislation and the common good?

Despite the repeated cry that morality can’t be legislated, all citizens support outlawing murder, lying and stealing _ all which are prohibited by the Ten Commandments. What cannot be legislated, or legislated with much success, are moral issues on which there is not consensus sufficient to allow effective enforcement. Look no further than the ill-considered effort to outlaw alcohol in the 1920s.

What Catholics can and should be expected to do is to witness to their position in ways that will be persuasive to the majority of people. As leader of a widely variegated nation with passionately held diverse views, the most a Catholic president could realistically do is state his own Catholic convictions on an issue and hope others might be persuaded to agree.

What all this means is that in approaching a presidential election today, especially one in which a Catholic is a candidate, a careful weighing of many factors is not only appropriate, it is required. Using abortion as the litmus test for voting is not enough, even though the morality of abortion for an individual is clear for Catholics.

The way in which the two major parties have divided up the issues, the uncertainty of whether candidates can or will deliver on their promises, and the best way to achieve a broader consensus on morally difficult issues in a pluralistic society, make casting a vote a matter of careful judgment.

The sad truth is that too many voters will not weigh the moral issues, but only the economic issues _ and even then only in terms of whether their personal wealth will be increased.

For Catholics, presidential elections would be simpler if we had more pro-life Democrats and more social justice Republicans.

KRE/MO END HEFT