The Vote of 2012: An Aside

When I posted my first blog in this short series, I got a little bit of backlash. Not of my writing or ideas, but of someone else's. The criticism was of the original idea that inspired the post. Where did the idea for the 5 Non-Negotiables come from, and what were the criteria were for deciding on them? Why was it that the first four, issues of "honoring life from conception to natural death," were unbending, but other issues of life, specifically the death penalty and war, were not? Isn't it hypocritical to value life in some instances, like abortion, but not in others, like war?

I think it's important to take a moment to address these comments here before I continue with my original plan for this series. I'll let these documents speak for themselves. As for my opinion on the subject, I understand the objection. They make a very compelling argument, and truth be told I was all but convinced. But after additional research, I am sticking to my guns. Here's what I found:

The idea of the 5 NNs originated from the book A Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, published by the group called Catholic Answers Action. You can find the original publication in it's (rather short) entirety at this site. But to answer the issue brought up by my readers, I need only quote a few paragraphs.

This excerpt comes from the Appendix of the 2006 version of this publication. It was a late addition to the text, after some controversy with a liberal Catholic organization after the 2004 publishing. For a more complete history, read the section of this Wikipedia article called "The Voter's Guide Controversy." Suffice to say that this appendix was created to counter the criticisms of this and other groups.

"This voter's guide focuses on five non-negotiable issues. These were selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics, giving voters the opportunity to influence these issues... Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies. This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty. Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances." (emphasis added)

The guide references two passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC 2309 discusses the strict terms under which a nation could wage just war. It also stresses the importance of prudential judgement on such an issue. CCC 2267 states that in the case of an unquestionably guilty party and when lethal means are the only sure way to "defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor," there could be "recourse to the death penalty." On the other hand, it quotes the Blessed Pope John Paul II in saying that these exceptions are"are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

It also includes a quote from Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger)

"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel and aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." 

And with this, I leave the 5 NNs behind. They will not be my focus for the rest of the series - as I said before, I plan to move forward with discussions on education, taxation, poverty, immigration and the enviroment. All of these fall into the category of "wiggle room." To finish cleanly, I feel compelled to say that this is one of those posts I didn't want to write. I didn't want to disagree with the people making these comments - one of them I call "Daddy," and little girls NEVER want to think anything but the best of dad. But, out of obligation to anyone out there who might be listening, I wanted to put up what I found. And, of course, it was important for me too. I'm doing this to find where I stand - that's the whole point. I know that Dad doesn't mind if I disagree with him. After all, he raised me to question authority. :-)