Agape addresses voting, faith

With the 2008 presidential election fast approaching, last Thursday night's Agape Latte, billed "Meeting Jesus in the Voting Booth," provided the opportunity, over coffee and chocolate cake in Hillside Cafe, for members of the Boston College community to discuss how one's religious ideologies might affect their vote for president. Kenneth Himes, chair of the theology department, spoke at the event.

Usually held on the first Tuesday of every month, Agape Latte is a monthly event for discussion sponsored by Campus Ministry and the Church in the 21st Century. All Agape Latte discussions are videotaped and put on the Agape Latte Web site. This additional Agape Latte was cosponsored by the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College.

Amanda Davis, member of the student advisory committee for Agape Latte and A&S '09, sees Agape Latte as an opportunity for students to have conversations outside of the classroom about topics they might not normally discuss. "Agape Latte is meant to foster a dialogue between students and faculty about issues approaching the contemporary Church."

John McGinty, director of the Church in the 21st Century, spoke before Himes about the importance of participating in all elections, but especially this one, with the financial crisis and the two wars the United States is involved in, among other issues. "These are issues that touch upon us as citizens but also as people of faith," McGinty said.

"The exercise of conscientious voting is an opportunity to confront our deepest beliefs and have some encounter with the God we believe in that leads us to a deeper truth and a deeper understanding," Himes said. "While voting is important, let me suggest to you an insight: Democracies do not begin with elections. They begin with conversations. Open, honest, civil political conversations among fellow citizens are needed in order to have an effective democracy."

Himes expressed his pleasure at seeing how many students were in attendance at the event and planned on participating in the election, despite the popular stereotype that all college students are apathetic when it comes to politics. Himes encouraged voters to think about these issues not just every four years when it comes to an election, but in maintaining an ongoing dialogue. He would not say which candidate he was personally supporting.

"It is possible to agree on an important moral value or principle and yet disagree in good conscience on the way the principle is to be applied in the public realm," Himes said. He gave the example of the issue of the forced busing of schoolchildren in Boston a few decades ago. "Mr. A. and Mrs. B. may be equally dedicated to the principle of equal educational opportunity for children of all races but disagree profoundly on whether a compulsory plan of forced school busing is the best approach to securing equal educational opportunity," Himes said. "There is a distinction between moral law and civil law. Citizens ought not to presume that every element of the moral law can or should be translated into civil law."

Himes said that the American bishops of the Catholic Church have issued a statement every four years since the mid-1980s proposing an ethical framework whereby Christians can engage in political life instead of endorsing a particular candidate. The church has been clear that they do not wish to form a religious voting bloc. Himes said this can make voting difficult when a candidate seems to embody some but not all of the values one wants to hold as a faithful Christian. The bishops have also decided, Himes said, that a person who conscientiously decides that no candidate can be supported with his vote is not the same as a person who decides not to vote out of apathy. A particular voter is not morally responsible for all the policies pursued by the winning politician. Himes explained the principle of double effect, that it is precisely sometimes in pursuing a good that we have to bring about a certain measure of harm. In this view, a voter might disavow some of a candidate's policies but still vote for that candidate because of the good he thinks might come out of their presidency.

Himes addressed the issue of voting guides, distributed by some churches to their parishioners, which suggest that all true Christians vote a certain way. "These guides suggest that there are some issues that are non-negotiable. This is simply wrong," Himes said. "The question of how best to embody these moral principles when comparing candidates on a whole range of issues demands prudence. Even Catholic bishops disagree with each other about the best judicial strategy of how to oppose abortion, even though they are clear in consensus on the morality of abortion."

In answering a question from an audience member about abortion, Himes cleared up a common misconception held by some voters, that if the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would be illegal everywhere. If the decision were overturned, it would go back to state legislatures and there would be different abortion laws from one state to another.

Himes noted that there is more room for legitimate disagreement on some issues than others and that there is a range of acceptable opinions compatible with Christian values. He encouraged voters to consider the political climate on each particular issue when casting their vote.

"In the ebb and flow of politics, some issues emerge and others recede in importance," Himes said. "Economic issues now dominate compared to the midterm elections of 2006. There is no guarantee what issues will grab the political imagination. There is no guarantee that who we vote for in November will be the ideal person to address the issues we don't even foresee yet. The responsibility to be an informed, conscientious, and prudent voter continues not just for the month of November but for all of our lives as citizens of a democracy."