Book offers voting Catholics alternative to bishops' 'Faithful Citizenship'

Book offers voting Catholics alternative to bishops' 'Faithful Citizenship' 

Faithful Citizenship claims to be authoritative guidance and is a letter, not a book. An alternative would have to attack its flaws as a consensus statement. An anthology by academics does not cut it for voters, but it could do good if aimed at the Bishops. Such a text needs to analyze and shame the naked partisanship of the letter and explain the issue in terms of what is possible, not what is moral. 

Let's not kid ourselves about the nature of Faithful Citizenship. It was originally drafted by the Office of Pro-Life Activities, probably by Richard Doerflinger. Like me, he is a political hack, not a theologian. Any analysis that leaves that fact out is hopelessly flawed.

There must be a clarification of the rights the unborn already possess (to not be executed) and the nature of not being murdered as a positive right. The consequences of the latter need to be laid out in great detail, as well as its impossibility. There is no way to constitutionally investigate abortion without investigating all pregnancy loss or punishing doctors and not those who hire them. This issue has been settled for 47 years. It is time for the bishops to admit it.

The morality of voting pro-life must be tempered by the impossibility of doing so, at least as far as the criminal law. What is possible is an economic solution. This is what Pius Pope XI requires of the Church. The bishops need a reminder. Direct subsidies are preferred over worker rights. Pope Benedict has made this clear. There is remarkable consensus between the political parties on giving money to families. Opposing subsidies as "socialism" is at odds with doctrine. This must be made clear to Catholic voters.

The question for voters is how much money and how it is targeted. The Democrats win that round. Economic policy is the meat of any electoral choice, so prudential judgment goes out the window, as do questions of conscience. 

These are questions of economics, law and science. The theological question is how one's position on abortion and economics is related to their conception of God. We create God in our image, not the other way around. The dogma of God may be based on revealed truth, but its credal expression is a shared reality based on agreement.A wider knowledge of scripture is showing that the fearsome God of St. Anselm simply does not exist. Our Lord is gentle and humble of heart. His yoke is easy and his burden, light.

Research shows that the availability of contraception, possibly even more than financial assistance, is the best cure for abortion. The science is clear on whether chemical birth control takes a life (it does not). The bishops are simply wrong. An embryologist should be engaged to convince them why. Such a discussion is entirely a matter of natural reason (rather than the authority of the Holy See, which is based on fallacy and superstition). The question of Dogma to be addressed is whether the Church is protected from error in this matter. The answer is no.

Discussing all of this in parish social ministry groups is risky. Speaking truth to power always is. The accompanying discussion should also focus on whether the Medieval governance structures of the Church should be maintained. That answer is no as well, but the people must find their power. It has been theirs all along.