When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops published Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship in the fall of 2007, their intention was to give moral guidance to Catholics who would be voting in the 2008 elections. The subject of abortion had a special claim upon the formation of a political conscience. While the document allowed Catholics to vote for a candidate who supported reproductive rights, it could be done only if the intention was not to support such rights and if there were truly grave moral reasons for doing so. Since a majority of the Catholics who participated in the presidential election did vote for a pro-choice candidate, some have expressed the opinion that Faithful Citizenship is no longer relevant to our public life. That view is mistaken. The bishops have made it clear that the document will continue to guide their encounters with politicians. It stands to reason that the laity, whether office holders or ordinary citizens, have similar obligations. Indeed, in Faithful Citizenship, the Bishops recognized that participation in the political process “...goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.”

The hierarchy has long made it clear that church membership involves more than the cultivation of a private piety. The same point was made by the bishops in Faithful Citizenship. They insist that the human person is a social as well as a sacred being. His or her social interactions are not limited to family life or other forms of private association. If our democracy is to prosper, all citizens must take a continuing interest in issues of public policy. No matter what one’s party affiliation, everyone has an ongoing responsibility to promote the temporal common good within the various venues of democratic activity. For Catholics, that involvement must be governed by the social teaching of the church. And for the time being, Faithful Citizenship remains the primary source of such moral instruction.

As a Democrat, I voted for President Barack Obama and I was able to satisfy my own conscience that there were truly grave reasons for doing so. But I am already in the position of having to take a stand against the party leadership on some important issues. It would not be faithful of me to leave it to the bishops to oppose legislation such as the Freedom of Choice Act that will increase abortions, or be silent if executive action following the inauguration would allow embryonic stem cell research. As one bound by the continuing authority of the bishops I have some responsibility to try to defeat such proposals in every way possible.

To be pleased with the electoral results, yet remain sufficiently committed to the teachings of the church to resist some favored party policies, is to put oneself in a position that is difficult as well as unpopular. Yet dissent is essential to the well-being of all organizations, including those having a political purpose. It is some consolation to realize that the responsibility to challenge what is incompatible with human dignity falls upon all Catholics who participate in politics, no matter what their particular party affiliation. Some issues, such as comprehensive immigration reform, may fall especially hard upon the consciences of Catholics who are Republicans, even though a reluctance to act on these matters crosses party lines.