Can A Catholic Be A Democrat?

I think so, but it is also dependent on the Catholic's priorities.

I'm a Catholic and a Democrat; it isn't very easy. A few positions of the Democratic Party platform go against fundamental principles of the moral law and even the mission of the party itself, particularly in protecting the most vulnerable among us. I am in vehement disagreement with more leftist Democrats in regard to these positions. While this is a pressing issue, I don't think it takes away from the fact that the party is founded on sound philosophical principles with a potentiality for good. The problem is that pro-abortion organizations and lobbyists have a monopoly on the party.

The late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin employed the New Testament image of the seamless garment to create a comprehensive ethical system linking many different issues together by focusing attention on the basic value of human life. It shows us how the distinct issues of abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, capital punishment, poverty, healthcare, and other issues are related, with the understanding that not all issues have the same moral weight.

As a Catholic Christian committed to my faith, I try my best as a conscientious American citizen to promote the common good. The Catholic faith offers me "a consistent moral framework anchored in the scriptures and expressed in the teachings of the Church." Our wonderful American Bishops in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship expressed a wonderful synopsis of Catholic Social Teaching (good luck using it as a voting guide). This teaching does not commit Catholics to any political party, but binds Catholics to moral principles based on the Gospel truth. Thus, the Church does offer Catholics "room" to vote for a pro-choice candidate if it is not our reason for favoring that candidate and we must have morally grave—proportionate—reasons to justify our votes. Unfortunately, the "doctrine of proportionalism" is often abused and exercised casually among dissenting Catholics.

Human life is threatened by abortion, war, economic injustice, racial violence, oppression, human trafficking, euthanasia, amongst a myriad of other issues. I believe fully in the protection of all life—minorities, the unborn, the condemned, the enemy, the elderly, the poor. I don't see the value of life of any group as more important than any other group of lives, but I do believe that certain attacks on human life are more detrimental than others.

I don't think labels can fully exhaust my political views or any aspect of my person. Though labels do help us conceptualize. On most issues, I agree with Democrats, so you might say I am 'liberal' or 'progressive.' That's fair. I am a liberal on social justice and economic issues, though, I do think that the free-market should not be handicapped nor do I believe a social program (a.k.a social "band-aids") is the solution to every problem; more importantly, all social programs should begin as close to the root of the problem as possible and not immediately on the federal level or even state level. On many social and moral issues, I am moderate (not necessarily conservative): I oppose abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, and same-sex marriage. But I "dissent" from a number of traditional conservative positions in this arena: I am almost a strict pacifist on war (and torture) without objecting on the Church's teaching that war in certain cases can be legitimate; I simply believe the "Just War" doctrine should be tossed around lightly, which is certainly not the case as of late in my view. I oppose capital punishment. I oppose weakening the collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. A last and final example, I recently learned (from a Republican friend) that I don't support second amendment rights because I applauded a Congress-ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I simply am not convinced that people owning guns that fire off countless bullets in a matter of moments is prudent nor a civil moral right. What's wrong with a simple handgun or hunting rifles? I don't oppose those at all, though, I do advocate some form of gun control.

Quite simply, I don't think any of the positions I take as a Catholic Democrat necessarily contradict my Catholic faith. Ironically, a generation ago, to say, "Catholic Democrat" was almost redundant. Few asked about your politics if you were Catholic; it was almost understood. Today the political landscape would be unrecognizable to Catholics of that time. The Democratic Party has hurt itself by taking a firm "pro-choice" position on abortion. Abortion rights advocated have managed to merge the pro-choice position with pro-women's rights issues, therefore, to dissent on abortion is an attack on the dignity of women. Surely, this narrow-minded thinking has cost the Democrats dearly. (cf. Feminists for Life of America and the case for pro-life feminism).

The Democrats are profoundly in error on the right-to-life issue. But I don't think anyone would disagree that the Democrats despite this can and do legislate many policies that actualize basic principles at the heart of the moral teaching of the Church based on our Gospel imperative: reducing the poverty rate, increasing the quality of education and access to higher education, pressing for universal access to healthcare, supporting anti-discrimination policies, and moving to heal our nation's image in the international community and redevelop our foreign policy. In my opinion, the Democrats are "right" on a number of issues and I don't think these issues are of no consequence; though, I don't believe that the right-to-life can simply be traded off for a wanton series of pro-Democrat votes because "they are right on just about everything else."

The success of the pro-life cause depends upon representation on both sides of the American political discourse. This way we can prevent one side from having a monopoly on certain voting blocs and getting comfortable enough to make empty promises with the confidence that voters will vote for them anyway because the other candidate takes too radical a position. Competition does in fact stimulate progress. In the practical sense, in order to safely secure a pro-life agenda across the political spectrum there must be an end to the "culture war" that is dividing America.

Therefore, I as a pro-life progressive see that it's necessary to change the Democratic Party's platform on abortion to a pro-life platform (eventually) and in the mean time, revert to the "big tent" philosophy where there is inclusiveness and tolerated dissension among the ranks on issues such as abortion, so that more pro-life Democrats run for elected office (cf. Democrats for Life of America) even for the presidency. It won't be easy and it won't be done tomorrow, but it is a worthy cause to fight for. To be a Catholic Democrat does not necessarily entail voting only for Democrats. As a Catholic, as a Christian, I am baptized into Christ Jesus' death and I literally am apart of His Body. Therefore, I am called, as a vessel of grace, to transform the world, which includes the political party I personally see as a vital instrument for achieving a certain end: the moral vision of the Gospel which produces human flourishing.

I expect the same of Catholic Republicans because our goal transcends party boundaries. Just as I don't criticize their preference, I humbly ask that they don't criticize mine, but rather encourage me to live up to the vocation of being a faithful and orthodox Catholic in the Democratic Party. The Church needs us; the world needs us.

Let me repeat: I am Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat.