the Greater Nomadic Council

The following is the best summary I've ever read of an answer to your question. It’s from The Word from Rome, a weekly dispatch published by the National Catholic Reporter, a notoriously liberal weekly newspaper:

Archbishop Raymond Burke’s ban on pro-choice Catholic politicians from communion (in a decree Burke issued while bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin), plus the frontrunner status of pro-choice Catholic Senator John Kerry as the Democratic nominee for president in the United States, has renewed debate over the relationship between morality and politics.

One crucial aspect of the debate pivots on this question: Is there any room, however slight, within Catholic tradition for a Catholic politician to both uphold the church’s teaching on the immorality of abortion, and yet not actively promote its legal prohibition?

Two noted Catholic thinkers in Rome, one a moral theologian and the other a philosopher, say there might be. Both emphasize, however, that the circumstances under which such a distinction could be justified must be carefully circumscribed, and do not necessarily describe any actual politician’s circumstances.

I put the question to Fr. Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian at Rome’s Redemptorist-run Alphonsian Academy, and Fr. Robert Gahl, a philosopher at the Opus Dei-run Santa Croce University.

Here’s the hypothetical: Suppose a Catholic politician was firmly convinced of the church’s teaching on abortion, and was personally involved in efforts to oppose abortion at the social and cultural level. The politician, for example, might give money from his own resources to support unwed mothers, might volunteer at counseling centers to help pregnant women explore options other than abortion, and would make public his opposition to abortion in all circumstances.

At the same time, this politician is genuinely convinced that legal prohibition will backfire, causing an escalation in unsafe procedures whose impact will fall disproportionately on the poor, and may even result in more abortions as women are scared away from exploring their options for fear of legal fallout. In other words, the politician believes that effective prohibition of abortion may not be achieved through civil legislation.

Is such a position defensible on the basis of Catholic moral principles?

“That position could be argued,” Johnstone said, emphasizing that he did not necessarily agree with it. He noted, however, that such a stance would be virtually impossible to reconcile with recent magisterial documents such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.

“A politician may never foster laws that open the way to more abortions,” Johnstone said. “But if a person is convinced that attempts to eliminate abortion by law are not feasible under present circumstances, and genuinely pursues other social means to accomplish that end, that could be judged coherent with Catholic moral thinking,” he said.

Gahl agreed, but placed two conditions.

First, the politician would have to make publicly clear that abortion is gravely evil and that the eventual goal is abolition. Second, the judgment that legal prohibition won’t work would have to be expressed as a “contingent, provisional” analysis, not as a general principle. In other words, the politician cannot propose legal tolerance of abortion as a norm, but merely as a concession to a particular set of circumstances.

“Abortion is a violation of a fundamental, if not the fundamental, human right,” Gahl said. “The purpose of law is to promote justice and to defend the weak, and any politician must desire that law do this. Otherwise the very idea of law would be emptied.”

Both Johnstone and Gahl emphasized that the burden of proof would be on the politician who wishes to argue that attempts to promote prohibition would be ineffective in a given context.

Gahl also stressed that a Catholic politician cannot base such a view on the notion of tolerance. “The right to life is a principle so fundamental that it precedes all tolerance,” he said.

Nevertheless, both men said there is a conceptual distinction, though not a separation, between moral analysis and political strategy. The latter involves prudential judgment, and there may be times and places when the aim of eradication of abortion cannot be achieved with legal means.

This remains to some extent a theoretical discussion, since the profile sketched above does not appear to exactly fit the positions of any of the politicians currently at the center of the debate over the distinction between personal morality and public policy.

I’ll give my own response after reading the article to which you link but for now I’d say one problem is that Kerry has not articulated a conviction that abortion ought to be eliminated. Rather he seems to champion the right to abortion as a good thing in and of itself (see his appearance at the recent March for Women’s Lives).

Thanks for the reply. That explanation is pretty much what I was looking for. As for Kerry's stance, it's clear that he differs from the Catholic doctrine on this issue. I just wanted to know if it was theoretically possible for a Catholic to be both against anti-abortion laws and uphold the church's teachings. One thing the article doesn't make clear is if Catholics can be generally against anti-abortion laws if they're convinced they will not help. It seems like that as long as you make it clear that the goal is no abortions, you can also be against anti-abortion laws as counterproductive, but that you have to constantly reevaluate the merit of that stance.

I also have another, more general question if you don't mind. Is deviation from well-established Catholic positions always so difficult for Catholics or are some positions held to be more important than others? In other words, when can a Catholic differ from church doctrine and still be considered capable of receiving communion? Is it possible? One point the Alas, a Blog entry makes is that this is a difference of means, not ends. How much leeway do Catholics have in determining that for themselves?

As an Anglican (or in fact an "Anglo-Catholic"), a denomination whose theological positions don't differ too much from Roman Catholic, I would say that excommunication is an active measure. A priest can say to a communicant, "you are excommunicated." This formally means you aren't entitled to communion, but it also means you aren't a member in good standing of the "communitty" (note the similar words). If you haven't been specifically "excommunicated", then you are at least legally entitled to communion. However, if you have some type of bitterness or long-standing disagreement with members of the community, it's up to you to resolve them before you can take communion in good conscience. I've known Anglican/Episcopal/Anglo-Catholic priests who threatened to excommunicate church members in the Deep South during the Civil Rights movement for opposing integration of the churches.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the message of the Founder is that legalisms of any sort are foreign to Christianity. It's what's in your heart that matters. As a non-Roman "fellow traveler" in many of these areas, I'm disinclined to think legalistic arguments in either direction have much merit. The Roman position on excommunicating politicians who don't advocate policies in conformance with legalistic doctrines is on the fact of it silly, and probably not in accordance with what the Founder had in mind.

At the risk of flouting blog-decorum, below is the entire comment I made at Alas on this issue. I think this will help alot:
--------------------------------------------------

As a Catholic, I thought I would throw out some big facets of this argument I see are missing.

You wrote the following very early on in this diligent entry, and, unfortunately, failed to get at the very heart of this matter do to errors found herein:

"So if all Catholics must be against abortion, doesn't it follow that all Catholics must be pro-life? I'd argue not. For a Catholic to support the pro-life position, she would have to believe that supporting the pro-life position, in the current political climate, is the policy that would lead to the greatest reduction in abortions. But there are legitimate reasons to doubt that's true."

***
You defined several terms but failed to define "support". This is the crux of the matter. Many Catholics are aware that people can vote for a pro-choice candidate for serious reason despite his stance on abortion. If that is what you mean by support then sure you can support a pro-choice candidate given an alternative that is more dangerous to the common good (only you would be hard pressed to find an issue more threatening to the common good--but they are out there).

If you mean support as in active campaigning than the same rules apply, however a Catholic can not unequivocally endorse such candidates as good in themselves, but only better than an alternative, because simply put...you can't lie. It is that simple. Good politicians, good stewards of the common good do not actively seek the slaughter of innocent life. And just as before it must be true that the candidate is indeed better than the alternative in light of the terrible reality of abortion.

I am sure that some overly clever long-term strategies might convince some Catholic pro-life voters to vote in good conscience for the pro-choicer, but that is a question of imprudence and ignorance. Those good hearted people can vote in good conscience but their consciences are misinformed.

The problem is this. Abortion is not like the weakening of the nation-state, or a slow slide into paganism. It is an immediate humanitarian crisis. The babies are currently being murdered. If a nationwide gang decided that their Friday night custom would be to indiscriminately behead 12 year old girls with blond hair, we could not in good conscience develop clever long term solutions without also doing all that you can to call attention to the horror and injustice in the present moment. Catholics must BE pro-life, and vocally so. Catholics can never BE pro-choice. They can't say pro-choice is good, march in a pro-choice rally, unreservedly praise a pro-choice candidate (beyond truth there is also the sin of scandalizing many others who would be likely confused into thinking you were advocating and thereby participating in premeditated murder and genocide...something nearly absent in our do your own thing state of mind these days).Catholics are not in every circumstance forced to vote pro-life, but according to reason the halt of abortion is the most immediate domestic concern of the Catholic.

Again, "support" is the question. A Catholic can in no way support abortion, prudence and the virutes guide the rest: don't lie about politicians, be honest with your friends and associates when recommending candidates for this or that reason, be sicere that you are voting justly and not fixing your will on comfort or convenience, or full rebelion from the will of God and the Church regarding support for abortion.

Thus, there is no case to be made for the publicly known pro-choice Catholic, nor for the pro-choicer at heart. The only case to be made is the case for the unwanted unborn who die by the hundreds each day because of our overly nuanced approach to justice, mercy, and love.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the comment, Matt. I do have a question though (imagine that). I understand that a Catholic cannot be pro-choice. However, though the article piraeus posted seems to answer this, couldn't a Catholic, in good conscience, support a candidate that is pro-choice if they are convinced that support will reduce the number of abortions performed and they are vocal about the reasons for that support? I'm not sure I've framed my question well, but it seems like your response and the article piraeus posted are in disagreement so I'm trying to understand if that's the case and if so, why. Thanks.

Matt, I wonder if you would find a similar argument in the rejection of the death penalty. I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons, but even if the system were perfect--proven to be a deterrant and cost-effective (a particularly distasteful argument)--I would oppose it for the immediate threat to human life. I hope this isn't too off topic, but for me I think this particular argument is applicable.

At the risk of furthering the digression, one of the major objections I have to the death penalty is the fact that it is and always will be imperfect. Since you cannot guarantee that no innocent person will be executed due to the very nature of the system, the punishment itself is unjust. Of course, that's not my only objection, but it is one of the primary ones.

Mallarme:

I said "I am sure that some overly clever long-term strategies might convince some Catholic pro-life voters to vote in good conscience for the pro-choicer, but that is a question of imprudence and ignorance. Those good hearted people can vote in good conscience but their consciences are misinformed."

Furthermore, this means that a Catholic can do just as you've said (vote pro-choice but be loud about the reason for the vote, namely to stop abortion somehow) without committing a sin, as long as they are vocal so as not to cause scandal. I do think that this is not the right thing to do because of the simplicity of the act. When you vote, you do not vote for a movement, are a grand arch-tectonic plan. You are supposed to be voting to decide whether this candidate is a good steward of the country and your district or state. It is unreasonable, given the twists and turns of circumstance, to think that anyone can cast votes in this clever manner and succeed in their long term effort. We are not gods, we account for the future in that way. The true nature of the vote, mentioned above, does not ask us to think in this manner, nor does republican government want us to think in this way. Statesman-like considerations of this archetectonic magnitude are for the duly elected statesman, not the voter, whose job it is to pick qualified stewards who are of sound enough moral character and ability to do this well. One is faced with the hilariously simple consideration that the pro-choicer won't do any other terribly misguided things besides the pro-choice implosion agenda the pro-lifer might desire. Not to mention someone (ideally a good Christian/Catholic/just plain human) would have to answer this question: is it not so that when a politician espousing a given position wins an election that in the eyes of the public the position is in some way legitimized and aggrandized, thus wouldn't you be doing a disservice to your fellow citizens by aiding in their malformation via the state?

The answer to your question is yes they can, but it is most likely a very bad idea that leads them to vote pro-choice.

To David re: death penalty

I oppose abortion, as does the Catholic Church, on different grounds than "the immediate threat to human life".

One is faced with the hilariously simple consideration that the pro-choicer won't do any other terribly misguided things besides the pro-choice implosion agenda the pro-lifer might desire. Not to mention someone (ideally a good Christian/Catholic/just plain human) would have to answer this question: is it not so that when a politician espousing a given position wins an election that in the eyes of the public the position is in some way legitimized and aggrandized, thus wouldn't you be doing a disservice to your fellow citizens by aiding in their malformation via the state?

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your response made me think of another question, though. I understand that a vote for a pro-choice candidate, despite the voter's intentions would seem to legitimize those policies. What about voting for an anti-abortion candidate who supports pro-choice laws as the best way to reduce the number of abortions and is clear about the reasons for that support? Since that sort of strategy is, as you said, the politician's job and given the much higher visibility politicians have to explain their reasoning for their votes, would that then be acceptable? Or do you completely reject the idea that it's possible for a Catholic to support pro-choice laws in a moral way? Sorry to keep asking these sorts of extremely hypothetical questions, but I'm largely ignorant about Catholicism and am just trying to understand the thought process used to make these sorts of decisions.

The answer is in the humanitarian crisis that is a reality (cf my beheading blondes example above). Such a scheme is immoral because it means the same as the following translation: I am against the murder of babies, thus in order to solve the long term problem of the slaughter of innocent babies I am going to support the short term and immediate slaughter of some innocent babies now.

If you belive abortion is murder you cannot take such a clever stand.

P.S. It is for this reason that Catholics ought to be and are automatically excommunicated (no bishop required...nothin' but willingly and knowlingly choosing to...)for directly advocating, acquiesing in, supporting, having, or performing an abortion. As a politician, you become directly responsible for an abortion if you advocate allowing the citizens in your stewardship to have abortions and get aborted.