Posted on 10/01/2008 11:17:38 AM PDT by presidio9
I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?
As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.
Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.
Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.
Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.
Let's suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states -- where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.
McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges who would presumably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is that sufficient reason for a Catholic to vote Republican? To answer that question, let's look at the rest of the church's list of intrinsically evil acts.
Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions.
But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist." McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.
What about torture? "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a euphemism for torture.
How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president's appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils -- an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor -- I can address those evils directly by changing the president.
There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.
Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.
What's more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama's economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain's, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.
Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans' immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.
The U.S. bishops have urged a "different kind of political engagement," one that is "shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences."
I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama's candidacy.
Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops' failures in handling the clergy sex abuse crisis.
He's no idiot. He is evil.
He's a lawyer, did you expect anything different?
Leftover blob of mentally and morally diseased refuse after Vatican II's hijacking by "modernists." To bad, somehow John Paul the Great missed this bit of toxic waste in his efforts to save the church from itself.
We just heard the same bullsh*t about Germany a few days ago. And they don't even outlaw abortion. The sewer left is beginning to generate a lot of methane lately.
Just say no?
true-—abortions would decrease, particularly in some of the more inland states of the midwest where stronger restrictions or outright bans are likely-—states like South Dakota.
there are other measures that could be done too-—for example tax credits for people to give an unplanned child up for adoption. This would make carrying a baby to term more likely especially for poor women.
My Church has a program (they fund it out of the poor box), where they help poor pregnant women pay bills. These little measures, as well as the care shown by the community help convince people to carrying unplanned pregnancies to term.
Oh, I did not vote in that election and I have never lived in Louisiana (where Duke was running for Congress). I just remember it was one election where even Traditional, anti-abortion Catholics openly backed someone who was 180 degrees apart on that.
I cannot confirm this (I have been trying to find the articles I remember reading about this), but I think even the hierarchy of the Diocese were pretty openly supporting Duke’s opponent
I was just pointing out sometimes the pro-life side can be very morally repugnant in many other ways, and one sometimes has to make unpleasant choices between two grave evils
“from the womb to the tomb”.
Actually, the seamless garment argument is probably the best way to describe the Church’s overall stand....at least the stand taken by John Paul II and the Deacon who ran my Catechism class.
Great program your Church is running!
Makes me think he is a liar/fake. A committed Catholic would not be so conflicted. He asks the question as if he is detached from being a committed catholic...in the 3rd person. I don't believe for a moment he is genuine in his catholicism...not for a moment!
I am very proud of my Parish (although pride isn’t the best thing in Catholic life). There are so many good people there working to help others in so many ways. On the worst days, it always reminds me that the Holy Spirit is still working with us.
The St. Vincent DePaul society is also fantastic. Some of the money from our poorboxes goes to them to help people who are having trouble paying for medicine or paying their utility bills.
I read the article in question (it was a hysterical pantload of nonsense), and the author was talking about West Germany a long time ago, when Germany did not allow abortion.
But in all fairness, almost all of Western Europe (even the Netherlands) has very low abortion rates compared to the United States. They must be doing something right.
I am not arguing with the Church’s stand on abortion-—I wholeheartedly agree with it. I think both Joe Biden and Nancy pelosi were dead wrong in their statements about it, and so are any politicians who support abortion.
I was arguing the Doug Kmiec, a person who has spent years fighting the evil of abortion, should not be excommunicated because he favors one candidate in one election. As far as I know he has never supported legal abortions and still speaks out on it. Nothing he has done is worthy of excommunication. He has not misrepresented Church teaching nor has he ever argued in favor af abortion nor has he materially assisted in procuring abortions.
He even headlined the March for Life or something as a speaker.
There is no such thing as “self-identifying” as a Catholic. Either you’re practicing the religion or you’re not. If you’re on the table with you’re feet in the stirrups, you’re stopped practing the Catholic religion.
I wouldn’t attempt to school you on theology and doctrine. Nick sound both troubled and naive to me.
Well, what if someone doesn’t accept your definition (if you’re on the table with you’re feet in the stirrups, you’re stopped practing the Catholic religion) of what it means to be Catholic? Who gets to decide who is a Catholic? Is it someone who accepts the Pope’s pronouncements on contraception or who accepts the Pope’s pronouncements on the war in Iraq? Which is the critical choice, and why?
my husband knows Doug Kmiec personally, i am well aware of his record on abortion. His support for Obama is nonsensical and in my opinion, evil. He gives cover to liberal Catholics and that is unforgiveable. AND his position is not supported by logic. did you hear him on the laura ingraham show? she and another guest, both friends of his of longstanding, were asking him WHY? and he could not legitimately answer. He blathered nonsensically. according to the church’s stand he excommunicates himself with his position, no one is doing anything to him, he is doing this himself. i would truly love to hear him debate this issue with Father De Celles who gave the sermon i linked for you. Kmiec could not possibly hold up against Father’s knowledge of church doctrine, history and logic. Had Kmiec just quietly held this view that he was going to support obama, bad as that is, it is nothing compared to what he HAS done which is WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT, appear in countless columns and on programs, espousing that view. He is giving cover to evil, and it’s the Devil’s work.
Yet the popes in our time have taught very clearly on this as well: the Church has constantly and infallibly condemned abortion as a grave evil — a mortal sin. From the first century teaching in the book called the Didache: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”To the 20 th century teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae: by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors ….I declare that direct abortion… always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” .
...Finally, even if there was “a controversy” in the past, which is there was not, there can is no controversy today. Again, turn to Peter, and see the absolutely unambiguous language of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae that I quoted earlier, and that Pope Benedict XVI quotes over and over again in his writings: “direct abortion…always constitutes a grave moral disorder.” And consider John Paul’s equally unequivocal words later in that same document: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion. .
Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens, Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too? Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems. But some things leave no room for debate. One of these is that it is always gravely evil to enslave human beings as if they were animals. And another is that it is always gravely evil to kill an innocent human life being — particularly the unborn. So, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the American bishops just 10 months before he became Pope Benedict XVI: There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion
I don’t know Mr. Kmiec personally. But I do feel that the most serious issue of abortion has to become a non-partisan issue.
You see if some serious pro-life people go into the Democrat Party, sooner or later the Democrats will have to moderate some of the more extreme pro-abortion positions. For example, I checked out the “Matthew 25” page and on it Obama states he will not support partial birth abortion and that states have every right to pass laws that restrict late term abortions.(whether you want to believe this is true, that is up to you)
Nevertheless, the Democrats are moderating their stated position, and Kmiec got the Democrats to write in their platform things about reducing abortion. This is a first for the Democrats, who have, at least since Casey at the ‘92 Convention, been the party of the big abortion racket.
I want, in my lifetime, to see two pro-life anti abortion politicians debating the issues. I am sick of seeing it as a partisan issue.
If people on both sides are against it, more people will take arguments against it seriously. People who are otherwise prone to vote democrat on issues like the war, labor, taxes etc etc will be more likely to take a closer look at this life and death issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.