Other things.

Richard Neuhaus, editor of the neo-conservative journal First Things, recently chastised the editors of Commonweal, America, Christianity Today, and Christian Century for not practicing dialogue. He himself practices regularly: "We try to pay serious attention to their worlds." But do they pay attention to his? No, they do not. "Each of them...seems to plod along in its own track, maintaining an enclosed universe of discourse."

We have been chastised frequently by the editor of First Things. Like a good many others, we have come to think of Neuhaus's redoubt, "The Public Square," as more "The Public Scold." Yet this time, plodding along in our own narrow way, talking to ourselves, we lifted our heads at this plea for attention. Happily, in that very issue of First Things (February 1997), we found something very much worth talking about: Bishop James T. McHugh of Camden, New Jersey, reflects on "Catholics and the 1996 Election."

The bishop is unhappy that President Bill Clinton took 53 percent of the Catholic vote. He is critical not only of Catholic voters but of the election strategy of the bishops' conference. McHugh thinks that Catholics should "be identifiable in the electorate by voting patterns based on moral concerns, not on party membership or party loyalty. They should support candidates who display moral integrity and whose positions are consistent with Catholic moral concerns." The bishop's views may well reflect the frustrations of many bishops: their efforts to persuade Catholics to vote the church's moral teaching do not produce clear-cut results.

Bishop McHugh also criticizes the American bishops' 1995 statement on "Political Responsibility" for failing to be timely, for excessive length and generality, and for seeming to treat all issues equally. His conclusion: "For too long the Catholic bishops have been passive, withdrawn, or indirect in trying to give leadership." He calls for a message that is "clear, morally compelling, and unyielding."

Is the bishop's analysis right? Look at the 1996 campaign. He does not say that Bob Dole was to be preferred in 1996, though he favorably cites Sidney Callahan's Commonweal column (August 16, 1996) in which she declared her vote for Dole to protest Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion bill. But there were equally conscientious Catholics who, examining Dole's record, felt they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, as the lesser of two evils. And then there were Catholics who in the voting booth couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for either major candidate. And finally there were those who simply stayed home on election day.

If abortion is the defining moral concern for the bishop, was Dole really that much better than Clinton? Can the U.S. bishops truly be described as "passive, withdrawn, or indirect in their leadership"? Is there anyone who does not know where the bishops stand on abortion? They have made "clear and morally compelling" arguments. And who does not know where they stand on euthanasia, racism, care for the sick and dying, for the poor and elderly, for the immigrant and the homeless? Is it an "unyielding" message on abortion Bishop McHugh wants from his confreres? What would that sound like? The end of the regime? Bring down the government? Excommunicate Catholics who vote for candidates like Clinton?

In his comprehensive article in these pages on the Catholic vote (September 27, 1996), David Leege showed how complex, in generational and gender terms, the Catholic vote has become. Leege offered his sympathies and this advice to the bishops: "This has got to be maddening to the bishops; but they must continue to do what they do: offer thoughtful statements about religion and democracy and about the full-range of moral issues in the campaign, while avoiding even the appearance of partisanship."

Another thought for the bishops: Because the gender gap loomed so large in the '96 campaign, shouldn't the bishops try to find a way to talk to Catholic soccer moms?