Moral values were much more important to Catholic voters in the presidential election than anyone --- especially the Democrats --- realized, and the Democrats' "short-sighted" view on church-state separation will cost them again if they continue to allow the Republicans to define and dominate the "morality" debate.
Such is the post-2004 election perspective of a lifelong Democrat --- Ray Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican under President Bill Clinton. Flynn --- now leader of Catholic Citizenship, a public-policy organization "committed to social and economic justice, life, human rights and the stability of the family" --- was not at all surprised by the emphasis on "moral values," that Catholic voters placed on the election
An Irish-Catholic native of South Boston, Flynn spoke on politics and the role of Catholics in the political process during a post-election telephone interview last week with The Tidings.
Q: Overall, what was your assessment of the 2004 election, and what role Catholic voters played in the outcome?
A: During the summer, I traveled extensively throughout the country, visiting the so-called battleground states including Ohio a number of times. These states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida, also happen to be the states with the largest Catholic populations.
I said then that it will be character in moral issues that determine the vote, because I believed then, and now, that people in this country are deeply concerned about the moral direction of our nation. Not that they're not concerned about other important issues, including the war in Iraq and the economy at home, but people have finally decided that a strong moral message must be the number one issue.
The politicians and the secular media didn't see it coming. They complained when President Bush suggested that people have the right to express their moral and religious feelings in the public forum, and I think they minimized what effect that might have. But the Catholic vote was certainly heard on November 2.
Q: Did you find this surprising?
A: Well, I've been in politics for 40 years, and I've never heard the lay Catholic voter more concerned about the morality of our nation. Why didn't the politicians and media see it coming? Possibly because lay Catholics were never as determined and concerned to express their moral views in the voting booth as they were this year.
But the results showed that Catholics in 2004 voted for Bush 51 to 48 percent over John Kerry, which is a four percent increase for Bush over how he fared against Al Gore in 2000. And among those who call themselves weekly Mass-attending Catholics, the advantage for Bush was 55 to 44 percent. It's very clear that millions of American Catholics took their values into the voting booth.
Q: Are you saying that the idea of making moral values a key part of the decision-making process has not been taken up by many Catholics in the past?
A: Catholics have been intimidated in the past by the notion, which the secular press has driven home, that what they believe is their own business and that they should not impose their religious or moral views on others. That's how the separation of church and state has been defined in their minds.
But the fact is, we make important decisions on moral issues all the time, as voters and as politicians. I am against the death penalty, and I make a moral judgment on it even though some want to define it as a political issue. When a politician votes on whether to authorize war, that's a moral issue. When he or she votes on cutting food programs for kids, on approving the death penalty, on embryonic stem-cell research, on abortion, these are all political issues with a serious moral component.
So it is short-sighted, in my view, to keep your moral values to yourself when you are deciding on these kinds of things. That has been the Democratic Party's position for a long time, and this year it worked to their disadvantage.
Q: What does that mean, then, for the Democrats, especially with regard to the party's position on protecting the "right to choose"?
A: Well, both the Democratic and Republicans Parties have put what Pope John Paul II calls "the culture of life" into political terms, when in fact it should be addressed in human rights terms. The right to life is the most basic of all rights, and if we value human rights then our policies should reflect that. Once we shift the debate on this issue so that the culture of life is incorporated in the context of human rights, we will have a much better chance of coming together, regardless of our party affiliation.
Q: What is the chance of that happening, especially for the Democrats?
A: The Democrats are in a very vulnerable position, because they have ignored Catholic values as they pertain to the right to life. This election should be a wakeup call to the Democrats that moral values are a very real issue where Catholic voters are concerned. Certainly, Catholics are also concerned about social and economic justice in our society, which the Democrats have long stood up for, but this is a family values-driven electorate, and the Democrats need to recognize it. Until now, the Democrats have walked away from that.
I'm a Democrat; I call myself a pro-life, pro-poor, pro-John Paul Democrat, and neither political party truly reflects all of the values which I believe the Catholic Church stands for. But advancing the culture of life was essential to Catholic voters in this election, even if voters didn't agree with the Bush policies on the war or the economy.
Q: Some bishops during this campaign spoke very forcefully about Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion, and about those who vote for those politicians. What effect did they have on the outcome?
A: I think the bishops were very effective in providing a moral voice during this campaign. My own organization is non-partisan; our main concern was to encourage people to get out the vote and become engaged in the process, which is what the bishops ask us to do in "Faithful Citizenship." When that happens, Catholic voters can make a more informed choice on candidates and issues. And when the bishops make statements, I believe it is very helpful, they help stimulate the debate, and that's why more Catholics turned out to vote this time.
But even though I think people may have listened to the bishops more in this election, in the final analysis they make up their own minds, and decide which position or candidate is more consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. And they do not follow blindly those who insist on separating church and state in the voting booth, when in fact their Catholic conscience guides their decisions.
Q: There were, of course, some Catholics who objected strongly to what some bishops were telling them --- "It doesn't matter what a candidate thinks about other issues if he or she favors abortion." It was almost, in their minds, as if the bishops were saying, "If the candidate opposes abortion, he gets a free pass on the other issues."
A: I don't think that's what the bishops were saying. If a candidate opposed abortion but was also an avowed racist, the bishops would never suggest that this was a worthy candidate for office. It would clearly be inconsistent with Catholic values and moral teaching.
No, the Catholic Church in the U.S. has always spoken up on behalf of the marginalized, the voiceless and the poor in our society, and why wouldn't we? We were oppressed ourselves for decades; we were discriminated against in the job market; we were discouraged from running for public office. So it's only natural that we became, and remain, a leading voice for the poor and the oppressed in America. And we speak up because these are issues of morality, not simply issues of politics. |