Trapped between Obama and a hard head?

Maybe I'm just a little hard of ethical hearing, but I listened pretty closely to John Carr's speech today at the annual Catholic Social Ministry Gathering in Washington, and I found myself still a little confused. Seems Mr. Carr, who is a dependably able and witty public speaker, was dancing a little faster than usual around the nuances associated with the USCCB's "Faithful Citizenship" statement. I have never been completely sure what that parade of political guidelines has told me in the past about whether or not Catholics can ever vote for a pro-choice candidate and this year is no exception, only more so.

Carr properly implored us to thoughtfully examine our collective consciences before committing to a candidate and assured us that no bishop was going to tell us who to vote for, but repeatedly returned to the FC statement, which includes pretty hard to mis-parse sentences about cooperating with "grave" and intrinsic evil," like abortion or the Iraq war.

What's a confused Catholic to do? This one, a well-known lazy journalist type, finally went the unusual extra step of ACTUALLY READING the document. With an eye to helping you avoid such a tragic fate, I include the pertinent paragraphs below:

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, 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.

35. 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. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

Other quick notes from the gathering:

Speaking on a recovering New Orleans and the persisting, pernicious effects of American's original sin of racism, Xavier University's Dr. Norman Francis, said: "If a foreign nation had done to us what we have done to our high schools, we would declare that an act of war."

And Megan Sweas adds these observations on a session discussing "justice and peace in Israel/Palestine":

Stephen Colecchi, director of International Justice and Peace for the USCCB, started his presentation on Israel/Palestine by answering the question of why Iraq isn't a priority for the bishops this year. "Congress is totally stalemated on Iraq," he said. "They exhausted themselves last year." One glimmer of hope, though, is a House Resolution calling for a responsible draw down of troops, international involvement, humanitarian aid and reconstruction, as well as progress on the Israel/Palestine Question.

The bishops, however, want to spend their time advocating on issues for which they think they can make a difference (why they don't touch more sensitive issues around Israel/Palestine such as the security wall or Israeli funding).

It's interesting that they find hope in Israel/Palestine issue in the sense that they think they can get something done with it. Colecchi said the leadership is weak in Israel, Palestine, and the United States ("a lame-duck president" in his last year), but that might allow for conversation between the parties. There is also hope following the Annapolis talks, especially because they involved leaders from so many Arab countries.

We also had the chance to chat with Caritas Internationalis General Secretary Lesley-Anne Knight and hope to e-video broadcast that interview soon on this site. Stay tuned!