Moral leadership in elections.

"In the long run what really count are moral foundations." This observation from last month's editorial "Is it moral to vote liberal?" leads to a further question about moral leadership. Where do we find it? Who exercises it? What do we do when it fails to have any effect? Let us restrict ourselves this month to the source, and to its exercise by Catholic religious leaders.

Where should we look for moral leadership? Where else but with the man and woman of Christian faith, in particular that faith which is protected by tradition and authority? The Church -- of which Christ is the Head -- has safeguarded the Word of God in the Sacred Scriptures. That Word is the foundation on which we build and the standard by which we measure. The Word is Truth and this Truth applies to all humanity.

Our times

The difficulty of our time is that in public life Western democracies are turning their backs on this Truth in a particularly sinister way, different from antireligious rebellions in the past which were often imposed upon people against their will. Secularism, on the other hand, rejects the absolute standards and moral foundations of the Christian faith by persuading people to build new structures which make legal what is evil. Pope John Paul calls it building structures for a Culture of Death. So far, that culture's most horrendous victory is legalizing the killing of children in their mothers' wombs.

There are other examples such as justifying nuclear weaponry, for example, but neither their justification nor their effects are as concrete, as unnatural, and as directly opposed to the Ten Commandments as the justification of contraceptive abortion.

But what about moral leadership in these matters? Some say they can't hear the Church speak out. If so, it's the result of not listening.

The position of the Catholic Church on contraception, abortion, sexual license, racism, genocide, protection for the poor, the right to a just wage, and many other items is known by a great many people, Catholic or otherwise, even by those who refuse to follow these guidelines. Take the example of abortion as a political issue.

Abortion and the vote

In 1968 the Canadian bishops opposed the changes proposed by Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau by declaring that "abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes," repeating words of the Second Vatican Council (Globe, Feb. 8, 1968). In October 1970 they declared that they opposed "a civil law that favours abortion."

In May 1972 the Ontario bishops wrote, "Human life, even unborn, should have the protection of civil law" (A matter of life and death). Bishops of other provinces made similar statements.

From then on different groups began to enquire from parties and candidates where they stood on the issue. In March 1973 an interdenominational Coalition for Life was founded for political action by the laity.

In 1974 the Vatican declared that, whatever the civil law may decree, a citizen "may never obey an intrinsically unjust law . . . may not take part in any movement to sway public opinion in favour of such a law, nor may one vote for that law" (Declaration on abortion, Section 22).

In the election year of 1977, the late Bishop James Mahoney of Saskatoon, SK., in a statement distributed in 100,000 copies by the Knights of Columbus, stated,

"Those who defend abortions . . . or who refuse to make a clear commitment to defend the rights of the unborn or the aged and the ill . . . disqualify themselves from public office, no matter what their other qualifications may be. Conscientious citizens may not support such politicians any more than they could support racists (and) hate peddlers . . ."

The theme was taken up a few months later, June 5, by the Bishop of Kamloops, B.C., Adam Exner, who endorsed Bishop Mahoney's position: "Refuse to support any candidates for public office who are anti-life and anti-child. In conscience before God, one cannot support such candidates." In 1979, with another federal election on the horizon, he wrote,

"In conscience before God, one may not vote for a candidate who proposes policies and programs of action that are clearly immoral, that is, clearly contrary to the designs and laws of God. By voting for such a candidate, the voter becomes an accomplice in (these) evil policies and programs. . ."

After a long list of possible issues to be discussed, the Bishop added, "The single greatest moral issue in Canada today . . . is the issue of human life." All the above statements were widely reported in Catholic weeklies and often in the daily press, on radio and TV as well.

In September 1983 the Conference of Catholic Bishops repeated that "a law which allows abortion is radically immoral." In August 1984, Adam Exner, then Archbishop of Winnipeg, repeated what he had said before about abortion being a decisive issue in deciding whom not to vote for. The letter was signed by all six Manitoba bishops (Hermaniuk, Dumouchel, Hacault, Exner, Robidoux and Daciuk).

These representative Canadian voices have been reinforced by such American bishops as Cardinal O'Connor of New York and Bishop John Myers of Peoria, Ill. Bishops of other countries, too, are warning Catholics not to vote for pro-abortion politicians (see British bishops, page 8). In 1995 Pope John Paul repeated that resistance to such evils is a moral duty.

Again, all of them point out that "pro-abortion" includes those who say, "I am pro-life, but . . . I can't impose my views on others."

In short, the voices of the Church can be heard if only you care to listen.

Next: the individual Christian, and what if no one else listens.