Response to Russ Hittinger

Dear Russ,

I write this in some haste--and more abstractly than I would like.

Let me begin with a (perhaps needless) clarification: I have not argued that a faithful Catholic--which for present purposes I define as a Catholic who accepts the magisterium's teaching on the morality of abortion--should vote for Kerry (or for Bush). Rather, I have argued that the kindred arguments for doing so that have been made by Mark Roche, Cathy Kaveny, and Peggy Steinfels are not unreasonable arguments for faithful Catholics to make.

In particular, it is my judgment that faced with a choice between four more years of a Bush-Cheney Administration and four years of a Kerry-Edwards Administration, a faithful Catholic could reasonably decide that, all things considered, and in the longer run, the domestic and/or foreign policies of a Kerry-Edwards Administration would be less destructive to human life--to all the human life that is at stake--than would be the policies of another Bush-Cheney Administration. That is, a faithful Catholic could reasonably conclude that the most effective way to express "solidarity" with all human life--with all our brothers and sisters, born and unborn--is to vote for Kerry-Edwards. Such, at least, is my judgment. John Langan's essay, which I posted last week, is quite relevant here. I suspect that the fundamental reason why some insist that the decision/conclusion is *not* reasonable is that they evaluate the national and international policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration much less harshly--in particular, as much less hostile to human life, in the longer run--than others of us do.

(Imagine that it is a long time ago, the issue is slavery, and there are two candidates for the presidency: Candidate A opposes slavery on moral grounds and will work to abolish it. Candidate B does not oppose slavery on moral grounds and will not work to abolish it. However, B's economic policies happen to be subversive, in the longer run, of the institution of slavery, while A's economic policies happen to be, in the longer run, not at all subversive of the institution of slavery. Assume too that there is good reason to believe that notwithstanding A's moral opposition to slavery, neither A nor anyone else will be able to achieve a legal ban on slavery. (A does not plan to start a civil war over slavery.) Assume further, however, that B's economic policies will very likely result, within a generation, in the withering away of the institution of slavery. In my judgment, a faithful Catholic could reasonably decide to vote for B, notwithstanding the fact that A is morally opposed to slavery and would try to abolish it and B is not morally opposed to slavery and would not work to abolish it, as a way of expressing "solidarity" with the victims of slavery.)

I will not vote, next Tuesday, for another four years of Bush-Cheney. Between now and next Tuesday, I will decide whether to vote for Kerry-Edwards. If Kerry-Edwards prevails, faithful Catholics who voted for Kerry-Edwards will face this challenge: What to do, over the next four years, to maximize the chances that the national and international policies of the Kerry-Edwards Administration will be policies that, in the longer run, are more congenial to human life--to all human life--than the policies of another Bush-Cheney Administration would have been. In any event, my judgment is that there is room for a reasonable difference of judgments, among faithful Catholics, about how to vote next Tuesday.

Now, against the background of Vince Rougeau's posting today, let me ask readers of this blog to compare Russell Hittinger's challenging posting today with the Bradley-George piece in National Review Online. The former is an invitation--a fraternal invitation--to constructive dialogue; the latter, with its peremptory "We are reasonable and you are beyond the pale!" tone, is anything but an invitation to constructive dialogue. The latter, unlike the former, nourishes the worst features of our public discourse in this lamentable season of degraded politics.

All the best,

Michael