Political Labels and Religious Beliefs: The Many Interpretations of "Catholic"

by Matt Spence

In light of the gastro-intestinal discomfort of the most recent high-profile Catholic politician, induced by reading one of the most famous campaign speeches of the only Catholic President the United States has ever known, I thought I would take a moment to discuss Catholics in the public square.  As someone who has spent years working for the Church and also worked on presidential campaigns, in Senate offices and in other political arenas, I have some opinions on the topic...  

 

Liberal.  Conservative.  Social Teaching.  Preferential Option for the Poor.  Life and Dignity of the Human Person.  Democrat.  Republican.  Santorum.  Gingrich.  Pelosi.  Biden...  all "Catholic"? 

 

There are nearly 80 million self-identified Catholics in the United States, which equates to roughly 1/4 of the total population.  I happen to be one of them.  Does this mean that this single factor tells you all you need to know about my political leanings, affiliations and beliefs?  I doubt it.  Does it tell you all you need to know about Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich.  Nope. 

 

Simplification and labeling in mainstream media would have you believe that you can understand all you need to know about Rick Santorum by reading up on what the Catholic Church teaches.  I find this a little bit ridiculous considering Nancy Pelosi considers herself a practicing Catholic and has routinely tried to claim official Church teaching supports her completely opposite beliefs.  She was wrong.  However, this does not mean that Rick Santorum is always right when he talks about faith issues.  He is not.  To quote a quite typical letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (the official decision-making body for the Catholic Church in America):

“The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated,”  

 

                                      Letter to the United States Senate, May 5, 2011. 

Those on the right wing of the political spectrum would simplify the conversation down to Catholics who actually believe the Church teachings and those who choose to profess their own creed while labeling themselves Catholic.  Those on the left wing of the political spectrum would have you believe that all Catholics are free to interpret Church teaching through the lens of free will and that whatever their conscience tells them is acceptable and that nothing is absolute. 

 

They are both wrong.

 

So how does a Catholic who wishes to vote his conscience based on the teachings of his Church bridge the gap between authentic Church teachings on Life issues and the Preferential Option for the Poor and pick "D" or "R"?  I wish I knew.  If I took one of those political leanings calculator quizzes you find online, I think it would break.  If it didn't, it would probably spit me out as a moderate, and I guess in many ways that is true.  But not because I have middle of the road beliefs on everything, but more realistically because if someone were to try to make a scatter plot of my beliefs from liberal to conservative it would be a mess.  Even the Pew Political Typology quiz gets me completely wrong.  My answers were so incomprehensible to it that it placed me in the "Disaffected" group even though I disagree with most of what it states that the group believes... 

 

To me this is just one more illustration of the brokenness of our two-party political system.  Instead of having a political home in a mainstream party that affirms and fights for what they believe, many Catholics feel as though they must choose to prioritize one teaching over another, one aspect of social justice above others.  There are arguments made forcefully on both sides, justice and peace, life and liberty.  When confusion reigns, many look for simplicity, and are led over a cliff.     

 

This brings me back to the public schizophrenia about Catholicism in politics.  Does my adherence to the Catholic faith mean that I am a Santorum voter due to sharing a common faith?  Not any more than it would lead me to vote for Nancy Pelosi if I lived in San Francisco.  You see, no single politician in the bifurcated American political system represents the whole of Catholic teaching.   This is where the labels and the rigid boundaries of political parties fail a Catholic.  It is impossible to reconcile someone who believes in a preferential option for the poor and is wholeheartedly pro-life with the current political structures of American politics. 

 

In truth, there is no single thing that falls under "what Catholics believe".  There are things that the Church teaches.  There are things that significant percentages of self-identified Catholics believe.  There are things that those who regularly attend Sunday Mass are taught believe and there are things that those who regularly attend Sunday Mass actually believe.  It is an inarguable fact that the Catholic Church does a poor job of coherently, consistently and concisely explaining itself.   There's a reason.  The interplay between theology and political ideology is messy.  Which brings us back to Mr. Santorum and President Kennedy.

 

To go back to his Houston speech, Kennedy says:

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

JFK is clearly attempting to balance the two religious clauses of the First Amendment in a time of great fear over a "Papist" in the White House.  He sought to draw some clear lines for those who feared outsized influence from the Vatican.  It worked well enough to win.  Whether it worked in practice is up for debate. 

Our current political climate does not have such clear boundaries.  Whether that is good or bad is the topic of a different post.  What is clear is that what it means to be "Catholic" in the world of politics in 2012 also does not have clear boundaries.  Whether it be abortion, mandated contraceptive access, prayer in schools or any other clash of religious tenets and public policy, there are complexities.  A majority of Catholic voters supported President Obama in 2008.  If Santorum or Gingrich (or Romney for that matter), wishes to flip that around, perhaps instead of bringing on vomit, it would be better for President Kennedy's speech to bring about discourse within the Republican campaigns.  If Santorum or any of the others wish to claim the "Catholic" vote, let him clearly outline his policies regarding the poor alongside his policies regarding the defense of human life.  How would he promote peace?  Is his stance on war in line with that of the Church? 

As if there were such a thing as the "Catholic" vote.  In truth, the only way to know how "Catholics" are going to vote is to wait until AFTER the dust settles and then use statistics.  Even still, I doubt very seriously whether one presidential candidate will receive more than 60% of the "Catholic" vote in 2012.  That "Catholic" label isn't as simple as it may seem.