Uelman on Conscience and Citizenship in the Catholic Tradition

I don't mean to bogart Rick's MoJ prerogatives, but let me recommend a lovely article recently plugged on that site: "It's Hard Work": Relections on Conscience and Citizenship in the Catholic Tradition, by Amelia Uelman of Fordham, in the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies. 

The article is a critique of "The Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," a voting guide published by what I take to be a lay Catholic organization.  Uelman argues that the guide's focus on five "non-negotiable" moral issues unduly scants other significant issues, for what she appears to believe are reasons of "raw political judgment."  Although I suspect she might be right about this, I don't think she quite proves her point here. 

But her second criticism -- that the guide confuses the obligations of Catholic elected officials and Catholic voters, and thus misses opportunitites for nuanced and meaningful discussion about how to make right choices in our particular social and political context -- seems quite right to me, based on my poor understanding of the role of individual voters within the Catholic tradition.  Uelman contrasts this with the somewhat greater appreciation of the mix of factors that influence individual political decision-making in the Catholic Bishops' 2007 document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

On MoJ, Uelman describes her paper as "a strong critique" of the Serious Catholics guide, and it is.  But I appreciate her ability to give it fairly respectful treatment and still leave room for readers to disagree about the value of either that guide or the bishops' own document.  I think stronger arguments than she provides can be made for the "non-negotiable" position of the Serious Catholics guide.  But I share her broader perspective that such guides fall short if they fail to fully explore the complications involved in making actual political choices -- such as, to use one of her examples, whether a voter who is so inclined should vote for the candidate who promises to eliminate abortion but is unlikely to do so, or for the candidate who, all things considered, is more likely to actually reduce the number of abortions.

Much depends on one's starting premises, obviously.  But this is a rich and thoughtful piece that should be of interest to anyone interested in the relationship between religion and political decision-making.