Papal Politics

There was a good op-ed recently from Ross Douthat about the politics of Pope Benedict XVI. And I was surprised that this New York Times-published editorial actually put the juxtaposition of religion and politics in a good light given that the podium of the op-ed page is largely filled with likes of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Maureen Down.

Douthat nails on the head the common phenomena of partisans selective listening and highlighting of certain papal positions and selecting downplaying of them when it suits their purposes. He writes:

When a pope criticizes legalized abortion, liberal Catholics nod and say that yes, they agree, it’s a terrible tragedy ... but of course they can’t impose their religious values on a secular society. When a pope endorses the redistribution of wealth, conservative Catholics stroke their chins and say that yes, they agree, society needs a safety net ... but of course they’re duty-bound to oppose the tyranny of big government. And when the debate isn’t going their way, left and right both fall back on flaccid rhetoric about how the papal message “transcends politics,” and shouldn’t be turned to any partisan purpose.

But the sweet spot which gets neglected is that there's absolutely a position (Douthat calls it "left-right fusionism") which articulates well where critical thinking people of faith should stand when it comes to matters of political platforms. It goes beyond the partisan and increasingly polarized factions that our two-party system has wrought. Or as Douthat writes:

Why should being pro-environment preclude being pro-life? Why can’t Republicans worry about economic inequality, and Democrats consider devolving more power to localities and states? Does opposing the Iraq war mean that you have to endorse an anything-goes approach to bioethics? Does supporting free trade require supporting the death penalty?

He correctly points out the two-party system has created an often unhelpful "bundling" of positions which leaves voters holding their nose while pulling the voting booth lever knowing that there's a handful of positions their candidate holds which are completely at odds with the voter's conscience. Or as my buddy, the Urban Christian, once said during a conversation about supporting candidates which aren't 100% aligned with your personal platform: "It's not a buffet."

The good news is platform breaking is happening in Congress. Recently, 19 members of the House wrote letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remind her that in the midst of healthcare reform, "plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable" and gave notice that they would refuse to support "any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."

Did the letter come from bitter Obama-hating Republicans still smarting from their whipping in the last two elections, trying to hold together a fragile party, representing right-wing religious simpletons who live in rural backwaters?

No. The letter came from 19 Democrats.