KERRY AND THE CATHOLIC VOTE

OPINION EDITORIALS.COM ^ | OCTOBER 30, 2004 | GREGORY BORSE

[CHARLITE]

Kerry and the Catholic Vote - By Gregory Borse

I have been having a conversation with a friend of mine—a democrat who is also Catholic and leaning toward voting for John Kerry, but who is troubled by his stance on abortion but not more so than by President Bush’s prosecution of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a central front in the War on Terror.

My friend thinks that Kerry’s voting record on abortion does not necessarily mean that it would be wrong to vote for him anyway—given that the Church teaches that voting for one candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected is permissible—for serious reasons—even if that candidate holds views that are counter to Church teaching. She is right about this, I think. Her point is that while Kerry does not want to impose his beliefs upon those who do not share them—through the exercise of his vote on abortion, for instance—his position on domestic policy and on other issues is attractive to her. In addition, it is clear from these conversations that despite the fact that President Bush agrees with her on abortion—and consistently votes to support a position that she herself upholds—his mistakes concerning the War on Terror mean for her that his election might lead to a worse situation for our citizens in terms of that war and our general standing in the world.

First, we must dispel among Catholics the notion that the Church teaches that a vote for a candidate who holds views counter to Church teaching on grave matters like abortion and war is tantamount to incurring ex-communication. The Church does not teach this. The Church teaches that if one holds a position that is objectively contrary to Church teaching and objectively sinful ex-communication can be the result. And this is because ex-communication falls under the realm of penalties that may be incurred, which itself is different from determining subjective morality. For private citizens voting their consciences in the booth on November 2nd, the Church does not hold out the threat of ex-communication. In fact, the Church does not tell us how to vote. Rather, she advises Catholics how to vote and to remain in good standing with the professed beliefs of the Church. Many churches do this—they put out “voter information” cards, for instance, with a list of teachings alongside the public record (insofar as these are available) of the candidates so that voters who are also church-goers can make informed decisions regarding issues that bear upon their faiths.

For elected officials who are also Catholic, the situation is a bit different. Since their votes are a matter of public record by law, if they actively support a practice like abortion—as John Kerry has done and has pledged he will continue to do—through the exercise of their civic responsibilities, then their opposition to Church teaching either in belief or in practice is a matter of public knowledge. This public aspect of their action is what precipitates scandal, and it is this scandal that puts them in jeopardy of ex-communication. This is not to say that John Kerry is or will be ex-communicated. But publicly receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist when one has also publicly acted in a way that is counter to the Churches teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of abortion forces the Church—in administering that sacrament—to participate publicly in an hypocrisy. By giving Communion to such a politician, the Church tacitly endorses that politician’s position, since the act of receiving Communion is a public announcement of the communicant’s full membership in the Church, which itself implies adherence, in faith and in deed, to Church teachings in matters of moral import.

But Catholics who vote in good conscience vote for a candidate whose views are counter, in some ways, to Church teaching, do not automatically put themselves in danger of ex-communication because 1). Their votes are private and known only to them, and 2). The Church holds that one cannot be made to violate one’s conscience in the voting booth. That is, if I vote for a candidate despite his stance on abortion, for grave reasons, I may “materially” participate in the sin of abortion, but since that was not the intent of my vote, my action is permissible. To make this distinction more clear, imagine that one eats in a restaurant that employs illegal aliens at substantially substandard wages: the employer participates in a sin formally, but my eating in that restaurant participates in that sin only materially—again, it is not my intent by eating in the restaurant that I support a practice that is morally wrong.

In terms of the abortion question and Catholics who vote for a candidate who personally opposes abortion but votes to support it, such a situation assumes that the other candidate advocates something that is so much worse than the candidate they vote for that they must, in good conscience, vote for the “lesser of two evils.” It is up to voters of conscience to decide which evil is greater--the War on Terror or abortion.

I am not here excusing voting for John Kerry despite his public support of abortion—even to the extent that he has pledged not to nominate any individual to the Supreme Court who would “change” Roe-vs.-Wade” in “any way.” I think Catholics should give due consideration to voting for a candidate that has consistently voted to support abortion rights--even to the extent of voting against a bill that would eliminate partial birth abortion in the United States. I think everyone should consider that President Bush has been consistent in his stance to protect life in whatever legal way we can. And I think it appropriate to consider as well that John Kerry has consistently voted against laws that would protect the unborn--even to the extent of voting against parental notification laws that would obtain in cases where minors seek abortions. But all voters ought to vote not only with full knowledge of a candidate's public record, but in full knowledge of their Churches teaching on matters of great moral import.

The Church wishes her children to be able to vote in good conscience and to remain “within the fold.” The Church teaches that abortion itself is an act of intrinsic evil—which means that there are no identifiable circumstances under which abortion is defensible.

Last year, not counting abortion, something like four times as many people were murdered in the United States than have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Last month, three more people were killed in Detroit than were killed in Iraq. Counting abortion, the number of deaths in the U.S. is astronomically higher than in hostilities associated with the War on Terror. None of these deaths is excusable—even if they are explainable. Every life counts and, would that we were more like the image and likeness in which we were made, we would too be mindful that “not a sparrow should fall unmarked.”

The key difference between these tragedies, it seems to me, is that those engaged in the War on Terror—whether members of the civilian populations in Afghanistan or Iraq, members of the Coalition, or members of Al Quada or any affiliated group—have been in a position to exercise their own free wills (sometimes for the first time) in terms of how they are to participate in this War. They have volunteered, they have fought with or against the Coalition, or they have simply tried to stay out of the way. But, children who have been victims of abortion had nothing to say either about their coming into existence or about their leaving it. It is perhaps one of the reasons that the Church identifies abortion as “intrinsically” evil, but war as an evil that is also sometimes necessary (see Just War Theory in the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church—specifically CCC 2309 “legitimate defense by military force”). There is no entry in the Catechism for “legitimate” performance of abortion.

Catholics ought to vote according to their consciences and they ought to vote for that candidate that they think best reflects their personal, and faithful, point of view on the issues that are most important to them. If they determine that to vote for a candidate who disagrees with some or another teaching of the Church, they ought to do so with a clear conscience.

But they cannot do this unless and until they actually know what the Church teaches. The great gift of the Catechism, the flowering of the work of the Second Vatican Council, is available to them.

The Catechism is also available to John Kerry. I, for one, wish he would read it.

Mr. Borse holds a Ph.D. in English from Louisiana State University. He is an assistant Professor of English at a two year college in north central Indiana. He is married with four children--two girls and two boys. Interests include media, culture, politics, literature, philosophy, and disc-golf. His articles also appear periodically at ChronWatch.com and TheRant.us.

gregorbo@peoplepc.com

[Raquel]

PING.

[Cicero]

This article is full of false assertions. I'm surprised the WSJ would go with something like this, which is slanted toward letting Catholic kerry supporters off the hook. And right before the election, too.

[airborne]

"...voting for one candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected is permissible—for serious reasons—even if that candidate holds views that are counter to Church teaching"

Nonsense. Try selling that BS to the Pope.

[FITZ]

I don't see how any Catholic --- or anyone who believes that God is the giver of Life, can believe in abortion or support pro-abortion fanatics like Kerry. He doesn't just believe that women should obtain abortions for any reason whatsoever -- he believes the taxpayers should have their money confiscated from them to pay for abortions. He wants the government to ensure people have their abortions.

[Earthdweller]

Even if it does contain some dem slants, if someone on the fence is inclined to believe the "iraq war is wrong" balonie this gives them some real logic to look at.

[Mach9]

This view is NOT correct. Few sins are "graver" (mortal) than voting for a candidate who endorses--especially at the level Kerry endorses--a sin specifically defined as serious, grave, mortal by the Church. The "excommunication" in a sense is automatic: mortal sin is a temporary version of excommunication, relieved only by Penance, which in turn requires a GOOD Act of Contrition. A GOOD Act of Contrition depends, among other things, on a firm purpose of amendment--NEVER TO COMMIT the same sin again. Formal excommunication requires more than Penance for relief. It is patently obvious that Kerry's record proves no firm purpose of amendment, and those who vote for him (OR Republican pro-aborts) cannot receive absolution in Confession if they continue to vote for pro-abort candidates (but of course only God and the penitent know whether the contrition was genuine). Excommunication also frequently involves the problem of scandal. Someone VOTING for a pro-abort candidate, unless he calls a press conference, is unlikely to incur public excommunication; whereas a legislator, whose votes are known, is at least more likely to incur it.

War is outside the realm of Bishops' pronouncements--even the Pope's pronouncements, thusfar. War and abortion aren't comparable. Hitler was not excommunicated for invading Czechoslavakia or Poland or France. Henri 1v WAS excommunicated--but not for warring, performed a grueling penance, and the bull was recalled. What's more--who's excommunicated (if unjust wars WERE excommnicable offenses) when a democracy declares war? Nations can't be excommunicated.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Occasionally, there may be some wiggle room. But the real thing comes down to this:

Who are the most defenseless?

The unborn.

Who will die in greater numbers?

The unborn. One day's worth of abortion in this country is more than our forces have lost in the war. One hundred days of abortion are more dead than even the most outrageous estimates of deaths on all sides in the war. One year of this is over three times the death of the war, and four years of it will be more than 12 times the death of the war.

Everything else is quibbling.

[Cicero]

The question whether or not the Iraq war is justified is a matter of prudential judgment.

Abortion is not a matter of prudential judgment. It is always and intrinsically wrong.

Moreover, kerry has not really said what he would do about Iraq. In all likelihood, he would end up with worse and bloodier wars than Bush. Bush fought the Iraq war with great care and concern for civilian casualties, unlike clinton, for example, who deliberately bombed civilian targets indiscriminately from 20,000 feet.

[FlyingFish]

Everyday is another 9/11 for the innocent pre-born. Nearly 3000 abortions a day in the USA, everyday. 1100 total soldiers lost in Iraq in over one year, fighting for a great cause. So, which is the greater evil here...abortion or the war in Iraq? As a Catholic, this is not even a close call. If the argument was voting for the lesser of evils, Kerry loses hands down.

[TailspinJim]

This inserts in this Saturday evenings Mass church bulletin:

PERSPECITVE: ABORTION VS. TERRORISM

If a candidate who supported terrorism asked for your vote, would you say, "I disagree with you on terrorism, but where do you stand on other issues?"
I doubt it.

In fact, if a terrorism sympathizer presented him/herself for your vote, you would immediately know that such a position disqualifies the candidate for public office- no matter how good he or she may be on other issues. The horror of terrorism dwarfs whatever good might be found in the candidate's plan for housing, education, or health care. Regarding those plans, you wouldn't even ask.

So why do so many people say, "This candidate favors leagal abortion. I disagree. But I'm voting for this person because he/she has good ideas about health care (or some other issue)."

Pope Joun Paul II put it this way. 'Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (Christifideles Laici, 1988).

False and illusory. Those are strong and clear words that call for our further reflection.

[Jim Noble]

Nonsense. Try selling that BS to the Pope

The Pope allows bishops and other ordained clergy to teach exactly this "BS", indeed, he allows them to shout it from the rooftops.

If it's BS, why do you think that is?

[syriacus]

Moreover, kerry has not really said what he would do about Iraq. In all likelihood, he would end up with worse and bloodier wars than Bush.

[sarcasm]

But it is okay for Kerry to have bloodier wars than Bush, since under Kerry many more Americans would be killed, maimed and traumatized.

American lives are less important than others.
[/sarcasm]

A FRENCH START
FOR AMERICA
Kerry / Edwards

[airborne]

If it's BS, why do you think that is?

I apologize. I should not presume to speak for the Pope. It is my opinion that it is BS. IMHO, the wholesale slaughter of innocent, unborn children (thousands year after year) is a much greater sin than President Bush's handling of the War on Terror.

The article states-

It is up to voters of conscience to decide which evil is greater--the War on Terror or abortion.

To me, it's an easy chioce for a Catholic.

[A.A. Cunningham]

There is no entry in the Catechism for “legitimate” performance of abortion.

The Catechism, section 2271 to be exact, addresses "direct" abortion not "therapeutic" abortion which is allowed. Borse ought to try actually reading the Catechism sometime before definitively commenting on it.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

75 Didache 2,2:SCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9:PL 1,319-320.
76 GS 51 § 3.

[kstewskis]

My friend thinks that Kerry’s voting record on abortion does not necessarily mean that it would be wrong to vote for him anyway

doesn't matter what he "thinks." He obviously doesn't understand his own catechism. Abortion trumps war every time.

[Earthdweller]

My thoughts exactly.

[Earthdweller]

My thoughts exactly.

[NYer]

Abortion is the murder of an innocent child .. period! It is inexcusable and indefensible. Kerry has promised that, if elected, he will ensure that any candidate for the Supreme Court, will defend Roe v Wade. The war in the Middle East, with the tragic loss of lives, in no way compares to the constant attack on the unborn child.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
HUMANAE VITAE

Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Coleus]

In the past 16 months. . .
(Each + represents 8,000 human lives)Capital Punishment killed 98 Americans .
War in Iraq killed 100,000 people + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Abortionists murdered 1,750,656 American infants + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life is not defended with maximum determination." -- Pope John Paul II

Catholic Just War