What is a "Couch Potato" Catholic?

To be completely honest, I do not know what the exact definition of "Couch Potato" Catholic is.  I only know that I have been labeled as one!

It all started when I tried to cite a document from the USCCB.  Two fellow Catholics were arguing about voting on an online forum.  The first Catholic had noted that he would be using a write in vote for President because of the issue of abortion.

A second Catholic then stated that doing so would be "complicency with evil" (sic).  As the two went back and forth it was mutually agreed that, from a strict Catholic teaching point of view, all the major party candidates for President and Vice President in the US in 2008 had public positions on abortion which were/are "evil" (or at least, as John Paul II proclaimed,  related to a "grave moral disorder" - EVANGELIUM VITAE #62).  This is an assessment I agree with as well.

For better or worse, our teaching on abortion is absolute.  So any acceptance of abortion (McCain, Palin, and Obama) is at odds with the Church.  Further, the Church has stated that Catholics in political life have a moral obligation to oppose laws which permit 'attacks on human life'.  So Biden's personal acceptance of the Church's position but resistance to public promotion of that same position in secular law is also problematic.

Interestingly, Palin has also publicly expressed a reluctance to impose her beliefs on issues like abortion on others.  However, even though she was reportedly baptized as a Catholic, I am not sure if she currently qualifies as a 'Catholic politician'.

In any event, where my two fellow Catholics continued to differ was that the first one felt he was not compelled to vote for evil in any form while the other argued that not voting for the "lesser" of two evils was, itself, a promotion of evil.

At this point I (unwisely) interjected that the USCCB document on "Faithful Citizenship" addresses this exact situation:

36.  When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.  The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

 

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. 

In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Based on this, I contended that since even non participation is expressly identified as a potentially licit response, voting for a write-in or 3rd party candidate who holds a position in keeping with the Church is quite likely licit as well.  After all, #36 begins "all candidates", not 'all viable candidates'.

To put it mildly, neither the quote nor my comments were well received.  I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it is "couch potato Catholics" like myself who undermine the work of "real" and "serious" Catholics and allow evil to rule the earth...

Oddly, my own approach to voting is probably closer to my detractor's.  I tend to vote somewhat pragmatically; attempting to promote good and limit harm.  I guess the difference is that I do not see that approach, or my specific choices, as inarguably right.  In fact, I see something admirable in "standing with God regardless of the odds", as our write-in peer put it.

If that dooms me to life on the sofa, so be it.  I just hope that there is snack food and baseball on a HD TV...