Circles of Protection

This July, a group of religious leaders, who called themselves the Circles of Protection, posed questions to the 2012 presidential candidates: What will you do to help the poor? Both of the candidates made video responses to the group, and having watched them I will consider the strong points, weaknesses, and relativity to the Catholic Church's teaching for each of the candidates. First, Governor Romney talks of bringing new jobs. He says that by stimulating jobs, the economy will improve, thus improving the poverty situation for many Americans. Romney highlights his 5-point economic plan that he believes will help to create up to 12 million jobs by the end of the year. Romney also states that he will stand with "faith-based organizations" and seek their counsel to help the poor. This statement is in line with the Church's teaching that one's faith must inform their political choices and that Catholics have an obligation to reach out to the underprivileged (even though Romney never formally states his own faith in the video). Some of the positives in the video included Romney's participation with faith-based organizations that help the poor and his dedication to improving the situation of those that live within our country. One of the negatives I found with Romney's video was that he neglected to address issues other than America's economy and hungry. While these are obviously very important issues, it seemed that there was a lack of focus also on foreign policy. Second, President Obama directly stated his own faith position and talked openly about the Bible and its role in shaping our lives. This is in line with the Church's teachings that as Catholics our faith should inform us in all aspects of our life and help us to become a better person, just as Obama believes he has "become a better father and husband." Obama says that he supports the basic dignities of workers, including good jobs, fair wages, healthcare, and retirement. He states his support for the equality of workers and rights to all no matter if they are rich or poor. His support of fair wages, private property (home buying), and healthcare are all in line with the Church's teachings. His support of education is especially in touch with the concept of Catholic Social Teaching, which often educates people in impoverished environments so they can learn about their own dignity and rights. He states that while we have a right to work hard for what we earn and keep that, we also have a responsibility to help others. Obama also brings morals into the issue, just as the Church advises us to do-- to not only think of political issues in a strictly analytical light, but also with compassion. He says that we are "all in this together as one people," which I believe is very much in line with the Church's support of community and dignity of all humans and with Jesus's teachings on loving your neighbor. One of the negatives I found with Obama's stance was that while he seemed genuinely concerned for the issues at hand, he did not directly address his plan to fix them. His direct address of Christian faith could also possibly be seen as a negative, since he did not address those of different faiths. He, too, did not seem to put a focus on foreign policy so much as domestic poverty. I personally found Romney to be more direct and solution oriented than Obama, who seemed more idealistic (however, the Church does talk about how one should strive for ideals). All in all, both candidates had pros and cons. Each has some policies in line with the Church's teachings and some that are not so aligned. In the end, it falls on the shoulders of each individual to inform their own conscience and make a decision based on their own set of morals.