ELECTION, PART 2: Inviting Everyone to the Feast

This is the second of two parts on the election.

In the first part, I summarized the pamphlet put out by the United States bishops called "Forming Consciences for Faith Citizenship," which you can read online at faithfulcitizenship.org. In the language of last Sunday's readings, we might say that the bishops are encouraging us to tend to the rich vineyard of church wisdom and our consciences in order to deepen respect for the dignity of every human person, each made in the image and likeness of God.

In this second part, we'll let Catholic principles guide us through the ballot. First, some brief comments regarding the presidential election and candidates in general. Then, with some apologies for skipping over state and local candidates as well as Los Angeles measures, we'll look at the state propositions. If you're not a California voter but your state is currently grappling with issues of prison reform, caring for the environment, same-sex marriage, or informing parents of their daughter's planned abortion, then you might find the discussion of the California ballot helpful. In fact, there might be some help for anyone struggling with how to prepare to vote, especially for often confusing initiatives. In the language of today's readings, are we going to accept or reject the invitation to feast on our Church's rich wisdom and to make a place at the table of justice for everyone?

Okay, first the sexy issue, President and Vice President of the Unites States. How many of you know who's running? Did you realize that in California there are six pairs of candidates on the ballot? The online version of the voters guide, which you can find at the Secretary of State's website, includes Presidential candidates' personal statements. These can also be obtained by calling the Secretary of State. I've recently discovered a really helpful website called factcheck.org that gives brief, very engaging video responses to the Republican and Democratic candidates' statements in the debates and elsewhere. Many of us are addicted to the endless television, radio, internet, and newspaper chatter about the Democratic and Republican candidates. Might it be helpful for you this week to instead read and reflect on Catholic teaching? Then, to take a few specific questions with you to your media surfing? And to choose your programs, websites, and newspapers carefully?

How do the candidates' past actions and current statements reflect respect for the dignity of every person? The United States bishops end their "Faithful Citizenship" pamphlet with 10 priorities, including the call to end the violence of abortion, assisted suicide, human embryo destruction, the death penalty, imprudent resort to war. Also, support for families, immigrants, the poor, and those without healthcare. The bishops also call us to oppose all forms of discrimination, to care for creation, and to cooperate with other nations to pursue peace and justice. The bishops very explicitly steer clear of bullying us into voting for one party or on one issue. And they say "decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue" (#37).

Okay, how to deal with the 12 state propositions. I have a simple (but not easy) and relatively time-saving 3-step method.

1) I like to start, even before I read what the proposition is about, by finding out who's for and against, especially who's giving a lot of money to their cause. You can find some complex information about contributions on the Secretary of State's website. I found even more helpful the major donors and other supporters for each proposition listed on a nonprofit, nonpartisan site called ballotpedia.org. Neither site can be counted on for up-to-the-minute information.

2) Secondly, I like to have this information about the major donors and other supporters on hand as I then look at the "Quick-Reference Guide" near the beginning of the official voter guide. I write down any questions about facts that I have. What would this proposition actually do? Are there conflicting assertions from the pro and con sides? Here's where it gets hard, right? How do I find reliable answers to my questions? Where not to look is probably ads and partisan voters guides, although if there is a particular group that you trust, their guide might give some insight. The main place I look is the short pro and con rebuttal arguments in the voter's guide. You may not agree with all the principles and conclusions of the League of Women Voters, but they are famous for their thorough analysis. I also take note in this informational step whether the proposition involves the expense of a bond and whether the proposition is a constitutional amendment, which is stated at the top of the "Quick-Reference Guide."

3) The third and most important step I take is asking whether the proposition would advance the Catholic principle of the dignity of every human person. Indeed, the sacredness of all creation. The California bishops have their own list of important issues, which include restorative justice and access to high-quality education. The California bishops quote the U.S. bishops' statement "Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration": "We are convinced that our tradition and our faith offer better alternatives that can hold offenders accountable and challenge them to change their lives; reach out to victims and reject vengeance; restore a sense of community and resist the violence that has engulfed so much of our culture." The California bishops have offered statements on propositions 4, 6, and 8. In fact, they are even urging Catholics to vote in a particular way on these propositions. Of course, our obligation is to study and pray with Church teaching and vote according to our conscience.

There are four propositions that call for the selling of bonds, which generally will ultimately cost taxpayers twice as much as their value. On the one hand, these difficult financial times may mean we need to spend less. On the other hand, bonds allow the state to put off most of the expenditure until hopefully better financial times.

Proposition 3 is $1 billion in bonds for children's hospitals. As far as I can tell, the nonprofit California Children's Hospital Association has so far spent $2 million of the $5 million it has raised to support this initiative. I didn't find any donors against Proposition 3, although its major opponent is the National Tax Limitation Committee. Its claim that hundreds of millions of dollars from a previous bond are still unspent went unanswered in the official voter's guide. A Catholic question for voters, and these aren't rhetorical questions, might be simply to ask whether the cost, which could lessen money available for the poor and others, is outweighed by the benefits of providing more care for poor and other children.

Proposition 12 is $1 billion in bonds for farm and home loans to veterans. I can't find record of any donations for or against. The official arguments against are concerns about the cost and about the need to at least limit the benefits to veterans who were injured in combat or perhaps to those who served in a combat zone. Again, a Catholic question is whether the cost to care for veterans in this way outweighs the potential costs to other needy beneficiaries.

Proposition 1A is $10 billion in bonds for a high-speed commuter train from Anaheim to the San Francisco Bay Area. $200,000 has been contributed to support 1A by the California Alliance for Jobs, a lobbying group that represents construction companies and workers. I don't find record of contributions against. 1A is also supported by the Planning and Conservation League, a nonprofit lobbying arm of the California environment movement. Once again, do the potential costs to other needy beneficiaries outweigh the environmental and economic benefits?

Proposition 10 is also an environmental measure and is $5 billion in bonds for various alternative and renewable energy projects, especially rebates to purchase clean energy vehicles, most especially commercial trucks. $4 million has been contributed in support of 10 by the Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, which is the largest provider of natural gas for transportation in North America. Of course, natural gas is a relatively clean, though not renewable fuel. Once again, is this the best use of tax dollars to benefit the environment and those in need? And, once again, these aren't rhetorical questions.

Proposition 7 is another environmental measure and requires government-owned utilities to increase the percentage of their electricity that comes from renewable energy. Wealthy citizen Peter Sperling has donated $5 million for. PG&E and Edison have each contributed $14 million against. A coalition of environmental groups are also against. They say that 7 would actually slow down progress and would threaten smaller providers. I'm sorry to admit that I'm finding it very difficult to determine how likely that is.

Proposition 2 spells out standards for confining some farm animals. The Humane Society has donated nearly $4 million in support. Food companies have donated less against. Opponents raise questions about danger and the resulting need for more costly, imported eggs. Proponents say current practices are actually more likely to cause disease and that California family farmers support 2. The California Veterinary Medical Association, the Center for Food Safety, and other groups support 2. A Catholic question might be whether 2 promotes care for animals and people both.

Three propositions involve prisons and law enforcement. Proposition 5 would expand the program that diverts nonviolent drug offenders from prison to treatment, including youth for the first time. Businessmen George Soros and Jacob Goldfield each gave $1 and a half million in support. Opponents say many dangerous offenders will be released from prison early. Proponents say that judges can incarcerate rather than treat even nonviolent offenders if needed. A Catholic question might be how we can both provide rehabilitation opportunities for drug offenders and protect the general public.

Proposition 6 would require increasing the funding of law enforcement to at least $1 billion a year. 6 also increases sentences for gang crimes, methamphetamine sales, and other crimes. $1 million was donated to support 6 by billionaire Henry Nicholas, who, as it happens, was last year indicted for felony drug conspiracy. The California Sheriffs and District Attorneys also support 6. The California Teachers Association and League of Women Voters are among the opponents. The League of Women Voters claims that 6 would harm current, more effective approaches to youth violence and make 14-year-olds eligible to be tried as adults. The League of Women Voters also says that "poor residents in public housing will be subject to annual criminal checks, and the whole family will have to move if there has been a criminal conviction." In their statement, the California bishops say they "oppose Proposition 6 because it advances a retributive rather than a restorative justice model for dealing with crime." A Catholic question might be how best to promote the restorative model of justice.

Proposition 9 is a constitutional amendment and strengthens participation of victims in parole hearings and the payment of restitution. Once again, Henry Nicholas is the major donor: $5 million. His sister was murdered in 1983, and he is a strong proponent of victims' rights. The California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California Democratic Party are among those against 9. Also, the League of Women Voters, which says that while the initiative would expand the rights of crime victims, it would undo many of the rights of prisoners and parolees. A Catholic question might be how to protect rights of both victims and prisoners. Also, how can we better provide healing for victims and rehabilitation for prisoners?

Proposition 4 is another constitutional amendment. It requires a waiting period and parental notification before a minor's abortion. James Holman has loaned $1 and a half million in support. Planned Parenthood has contributed $4 and a half million against. It looks like most or all medical associations, as well as the California School Counselors Association, are also against 4. Proponents argue that similar laws in other states have reduced not only abortions but also teen pregnancy. Opponents argue that dangerous, illegal abortions would increase. It's difficult to find the data to properly sort through these conflicting arguments. Opponents claim that Planned Parenthood urges girls to talk to their parents and that most girls do. Proponents also argue that 4 will protect girls from being coerced by predatory, older men to have abortions, while opponents claim that Planned Parenthood diligently reports abuse.

The California bishops urge Catholics to vote for 4 and say that "it is a sensible policy to encourage a minor girl faced with a serious decision like an unexpected pregnancy to go to her parents or family for their love, their wisdom, and their counsel." Opponents say Planned Parenthood clinics encourage girls to talk with their parents but that government can't effectively force communication. A Catholic question might be how whether 4 would lead to less abortions and also protect girls from both the trauma of abortion and the physical dangers of illegal abortions. Whether 4 will help or not, we can also ask how we can give financial support to pregnant women. And further, how we can help poor women in general, who are more likely to have abortions.

Proposition 8 amends the constitution by stating: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Knights of Columbus have contributed over $1 million for, and a third of the $18 million contributed has been from individual Mormons. Several individuals have each donated $1 million to defeat 8. Proponents argue that 8 merely restores the majority vote Californians already cast but that was overturned by a court ruling. Opponents argue that same sex marriage is a matter of equality for all. Proponents can point out that California law states that "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits" as spouses (Family Code 297.5), but opponents say this isn't put into practice. Also, domestic partnership and their rights are not equally recognized in all states. 8 would also mean California won't recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

The California bishops ask Catholics to vote for 8 and say that "the marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father." Opponents often admit that children might best grow up with their father and mother but point out that many same-sex couples give loving homes to children who don't have both a father and mother. Also, marriage could give them the kind of personal, social, and legal support that would benefit their children. In a recent statement, the California bishops seem to be reconciled to the existence of same-sex domestic partnerships. Should they and we be actively seeking legal protections for such partners?

In 2003, the U.S. bishops said: "When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost." Opponents wonder precisely how same-sex marriage devalues the institution of marriage. It seems to me that really the main concern of proponents of 8 is that allowing same-sex marriage will encourage more people to be engaged in homosexual relationships.

Of course, the Catholic Catechism reminds us that all people should be treated with compassion and dignity, that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (no. 2358). Indeed, a Catholic question might be how best to show this compassion. Also, how can society give parents and children greater support?

Finally, Proposition 11, another constitutional amendment, would establishe a commission to take over the legislature's task of redistricting. Something called Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team has donated $2.5 million for. Charles Munger $1 million. The California Democratic Party is among the much less generous opponents. The AARP and the nonprofit, nonpartisan groups Common Cause the League of Women Voters are for the measure. The League of Women Voters believes, among other things, that the measure provides protection from diluting the voting strength of a racial or linguistic minority. That would certainly be a significant Catholic question. Still, opponents include the NAACP Defense Fund and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

How can we invite everyone to the feast of God's love? Through study and prayer. And ultimately, by trusting God's guiding hand. We'll need it on November 4.

ELECTION, PART 1: Tending the Vines of Reason and Charity

"He looked for the crop of grapes, but what it yielded was wild grapes." (Isaiah 5:1-7)

"...they seized him, dragged him outside the vineyard, and killed him...For this reason, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will yield a rich harvest." (Matthew 21:33-43)

How have we failed to properly cultivate the vineyard, and who have we killed along the way? This is the first of a probably two- or three-part series on the election. Next time, I'll focus on the California ballot, especially the statewide propositions.

What if the Christians among us consider scripture and the rest of Church teaching as the vineyard? To help us prepare to vote, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a pamphlet called "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." You can read it online at faithfulcitizenship.org. My suggestion is that you read it this week and put aside your ballots.

You'll have plenty of time to read what the bishops have to say if you abstain from most or all media coverage of the elections, especially your favorite biased election chatter show for junkies. I definitely recommend putting aside -- no, recycling -- all those partisan political mailings that are starting to pour in. And if you've come across a pamphlet called "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," you might want to respectfully recycle that as well. It's a well-meaning but unapproved and misleading guide put out by a private company called Catholic Answers.

When you read "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," you might jot down some of the teachings that are new to you or that you don't normally take into consideration. You might note as well the teachings you disagree with or are unsure about. Your notes can help you focus your further research and reflection. Here's an introduction to the bishops' pamphlet:

The pamphlet begins by reminding Catholics -- all people of faith, really -- of our responsibility to vote: "Our nation's tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life" (#11). "As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong..." (#14). "...no party and too few candidates fully share the Church's comprehensive commitment to the life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death" (#16).

"The Church is principled but not ideological. We cannot compromise basic principles or moral teaching. We are committed to clarity about our moral teaching and to civility. In public life, it is important to practice the virtues of justice and charity that are at the core of our Tradition. We should work with others in a variety of ways to advance our moral principles." (#60)

The bishops state that they're not instructing Catholics how to vote on specific candidates or measures. They remind us that the most basic moral teaching of the Church is that we are obliged to follow our conscience. (Catholic Catechism, #1778). Our conscience is not a mere feeling but a judgment of reason. And we are obliged to work throughout our lives to form our conscience through study of church teaching, close examination of facts about our choices, and prayerful reflection. (#17-18)

At the foundation of the Church's teaching is our recognition of the dignity of every person (#10). And the most immediate corollary is "the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death" (#20). Accordingly, "There are some things we must never do...A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia...direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil...Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified." (#22-23) Are all of these ways in which we kill Christ, the vineyard owner's son?

While numbers are a concern to most of us, and probably should be, it's noteworthy that the bishops don't use number of deaths, explicitly anyway, to compare the relative importance of, say, abortion and unjust war. Also notable is that the bishops' lists, which vary, of those things that "we must never do," leave out the notion that, while some actions may not always be wrong, those actions in certain circumstances are always wrong. I think that at least this omission by the bishops is a mistake. For example, simply because the determination of whether a war is unjust requires a prudential judgment doesn't mean that that judgment, once made, can be ignored. We must never support unjust war.

"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many" (#28). But the bishops warn against the "misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity" (#29). Similarly: "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. Yet a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." (#42) Still, "there may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons..." (#35). And, "a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" (#34). The bishops aren't making it easy on us. They're making us think for ourselves.

Also, "sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and 'the art of the possible.' At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. (#32). "...decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue..." (#37).

Related specifically to abortion, "we promote a culture of life by supporting laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families."

Among other issues, the bishops remind us of the option for the poor and vulnerable (#50) and discuss war: "...The Church has raised fundamental moral concerns about preventive use of military force" (#67) "...The United States has a responsibility to work to reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and to reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction by pursuing progressive nuclear disarmament. It also must end its use of anti-personnel landmines and reduce its predominant role in the global arms trade...We support a 'responsible transition' that ends the [Iraq] war in a way that recognizes the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror, minimizes the loss of life, and addresses the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the refugee crisis in the region, and the need to protect human rights, especially religious freedom. This transition should reallocate resources from war to the urgent needs of the poor." (#68) The bishops might have done well to mention our war in Afghanistan as well.

The bishops also remind us of Church teaching about our treatment of those convicted of murder and other crimes: "Society has a duty to defend life against violence and to reach out to victims of crime. Yet our nation's continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. Because we have other ways to protect society that are more respectful of human life, the USCCB supports efforts to end the use of the death penalty and, in the meantime, to restrain its use through broader use of DNA evidence, access to effective counsel, and efforts to address unfairness and injustice related to application of the death penalty." (#69) "...An ethic of responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration should be a foundation for the reform of our broken criminal justice system. A remedial, rather than a strictly punitive, approach to offenders should be developed." (85)

Finally, the bishops state 10 goals for our participation in public life, noting, though, that they address matters of different moral weight and urgency:

1. Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst -- innocent unborn children -- by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.

2. Keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems -- a million abortions each year to deal with unwanted pregnancies, euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of illness and disability, the destruction of human embryos in the name of research, the use of the death penalty to combat crime, and imprudent resort to war to address international disputes.

3. Define the central institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and provide better support for family life morally, socially, and economically, so that our nation helps parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility.

4. Achieve comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, treats immigrant workers fairly, offers an earned path to citizenship, respects the rule of law, and addresses the factors that compel people to leave their own countries.

5. Help families and children overcome poverty: ensuring access to and choice in education, as well as decent work at fair, living wages and adequate assistance for the vulnerable in our nation, while also helping to overcome widespread hunger and poverty around the world, especially in the areas of development assistance, debt relief, and international trade.

6. Provide health care for the growing number of people without it, while respecting human life, human dignity, and religious freedom in our health care system.

7. Continue to oppose policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination.

8. Encourage families, community groups, economic structures, and government to work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, and care for creation, with full respect for religious groups and their right to address social needs in accord with their basic moral convictions.

9. Establish and comply with moral limits on the use of military force -- examining for what purposes it may be used, under what authority, and at what human cost -- and work for a "responsible transition" to end the war in Iraq.

10. Join with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty, and advance economic justice and care for creation.

We Catholics and other people of faith -- indeed, all Americans -- tend a rich vineyard. Let us be faithful to our task of thoughtfully, prayerfully tilling the soil of our conscience as we prepare to vote., marriage