'I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obama

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.

Abortion has become a partisan issue, so much so that I am skeptical about the sincerity of groups like “Democrats for Life”, which “fight for Life” by supporting politicians like Obama. As a Republican, I will not support republicans who are pro-abortion or pro-choice. If the Republican Party nominated a pro-choice Presidential candidate, I'd leave the Republican Party. Pro-life people of all stripes should be on the side of the unborn rather than of any particular party. When Robert Casey Jr, who is ostensibly pro-life, stumps for Obama, the message is clear: I don't like abortion, but the issue is not nearly as important to me as electing a Democrat to the presidency. Casey is a quisling, and I'd say exactly the same about any Republican who supported abortion or pro-abortion policy. (My contempt for Tom Ridge is great.)

Here's a parody from The Curt Jester (Catholic site which does a lot of parodies). Just substitute "slavery" for "abortion" in Kmiec's trying to justify voting for Obama and here's what you get:

I am a Catholic and I am anti-slavery. I deplore slavery and have been an active part of the abolitionist movement. But this November of the year of Our Lord 1860 I am voting for Stephen A. Douglas.

Now I know my announcement will befuddle many Catholics who think that Abraham Lincoln is the only possible choice if you are truly as anti-slavery as I say I am. Some of my friends ask me how can I possibly support Senator Douglas when he was largely responsible for the Compromise of 1850 and supported the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857?

Though Senator Douglas does not regard a slaveholding society as one whit inferior to a free society I think he is the best choice to reduce slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 proves that he is pro-choice on the issue of slavery since the act allowed these new states coming into the union to make up their own mind as to whether slavery should be allowed in their territory. He lets the people in the state decide as to whether slavery is moral or immoral. Surely this will limit slavery and as we work for a more just society more and more slaveowners will decide to reduce the number of slaves they own. Just because Sen. Douglas has invoked racist rhetoric and accused Lincoln of supporting black equality which he believes the authors of the Declaration of Independence did not intend, does not mean that he is pro-slavery. Even supporters of slavery can be conflicted about slavery and whether blacks are equal to us or not and we should work to move to a society where slavery is safe, legal, and rare. Plus it is not true to call him pro-slavery. He is for the choice of slavery and people can decide on their own whether they want to become slaveowners or not. Shouldn't we let people make their own choices on this issue? Do we really want to legislate morality? Now as a Catholic I personally believe that slavery is wrong, but lawmakers need to represent the people.

Catholics should not be single issue voters and let slavery dominate the discussion. Human dignity and the acceptance of the government of human rights is just one issue of many. What about economic and other social justice issues? The election of Lincoln could even lead to civil war. Do we want a president whose "personal" moral code could lead us to war with all of the horrific deaths that could result? Plus if a war does start no doubt someone like Mr Lincoln would infringe on our civil liberties by suspending the right of Habeas Corpus.

This year the best choice to reduce slavery is to vote Sen. Douglas.

Signed Douglas Kmiec

And, the Cafardi guy, if he were alive during the 1860 election season would have said this. (Taken from comment section on the same blog post at The Curt Jester):

"We've already lost on slavery - permanently. Vote Douglas!"

- Nicholas Cafardi

Unless the Catholic Church has changed its teaching since I was in high school (which HAS been a long time, I must admit) it is still a mortal sin to use contraceptives and it is still a mortal sin to divorce and remarry, or to marry a divorced person. Yet U.S. Catholics are doing these things by the millions. They insist, as Catholic politicians do about abortion, capital punishment and war, that the individual’s judgment must be respected. If you claim that all self-identifying U.S. Catholics who practice artificial birth control are not “real” Catholics, church membership has gone down even more than surveys indicate.

Accepting your definition of “real” Catholics, this group might well vote in the same way as they have traditionally—for the pro-life candidate. But the self-identified Catholics who aren’t “real” Catholics, like the author of the article, who I believe are now in the majority in the U.S., will vote on other issues, and they won’t influence an election predictably as they used to. There is no longer a monolithic block of Catholic votes that politicians can try to corral using the abortion issue.

I think that just as we have won permanently on the gun issue, American culture has become permanently dependent on the availability of abortion. Yes, I know that there are still efforts to take away our guns, but how many politicians are running on that issue? Liberals have backed away from it big time because they know they’ve lost. Limitation is all they’re going to achieve, and every inch will be hard won. I think it’s time conservatives acknowledged the same about abortion.

I believe that sacrificing children to Molech is an unspeakable evil, yet I support King Ahaz. It is true that Ahaz took the treasures from the house of God to use in the worship of false gods, and even burned his own son alive as an offering to Molech. I do not support him because he is idolatrous, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed follower of Jehovah?

Despite what some fanatical “prophets” would like the Israelites to believe, the Law of Moses does not consist solely of a prohibition on making human sacrifices to false gods. In fact, there are numerous commandments that must be considered.

Shortly after Yom Kippur, the Judean Levitical Council on Classifying Abominations released a a document that provides several examples of sins: consuming shellfish, failing to wash your hands before eating, burning your children alive, blending dissimilar fabrics, etc. As we can see, morality is much more complex and nuanced than some simplistic mantra that “killing children is bad.”

Ahaz’s fiery infanticide has led some to the conclusion that no faithful Jew can support him. That’s a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that burning children in the name of Molech is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the idolatry battle — permanently. Withdrawing support for King Ahaz does not guarantee the end of infanticide in Judah. Not even close.

Let’s suppose Ahaz were dethroned. What would happen? His son Hezekiah would become king. Hezekiah is barely out of his teens, and said to be sickly. He lacks the executive experience necessary to operate an entire kingdom. There are rumors that he was once seen carrying a pot across the road on the Sabbath. And we could hardly expect that Hezekiah could put a stop to the idolatry. I mean, what is he going to do — tear down all the high places, shrines and altars of Baal? We need to be realistic.

There’s another factor that is often lost amid the inflamatory rhetoric on sacrificing to Molech. There is a difference between being “pro-Molech” and recognizing the right of other people to worship Molech as they see fit, such as by conflagratory filicide. During the most recent four years of King Ahaz’s reign, the number of children being sacrificed to Molech has dropped by almost 18%. While opponents claim this is due to factors such as “artificially reduced child population” or “parents fleeing in terror to other nations”, you cannot argue with results. King Ahaz favors a sophisticated, comprehensive approach to child sacrifce, where burning your children to death is not necessarily the only option. He is also an advocate for adoption, for those who have no children left to burn. In contrast, the self-styled “prophets” intolerantly insist on an immediate stop to ALL human sacrifice, with no evidence of willingness to reach out to Ahaz in a spirit of compromise.

It should also be kept in mind that the perceived need to pacify Molech with the flaming bodies of our young varies on the basis of how the country as a whole is doing. If, for example, King Ahaz’s brilliant pursuit of a military alliance with King Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria is successful in alleviating the Syrian threat Judah faces, does it not make sense that the increased stability means fewer children will have to be burned to turn aside the wrath of Baal, Asherah, Chemosh and Molech? Is this not more practical than the prophets’ all-or-nothing demands?

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 Jew to support the agenda of King Ahaz.

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.