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.
Well. Doug Kmiec and Nicholas P. Cafardi pimp for Obama the Baby Killer. Such words spoken before an election have consequences.
“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”
—Luke 17:2
With this as his beginning, the author (Cafardi) acknowledges that he is a conflicted idiot. It is NOT possible to be a "committed Catholic" and endorse someone who supports abortion that the author describes as "unspeakable evil". The two positions are polar opposites and incongruous.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Mr. Cafardi is publically admitting that he is a brainless moron incapable of thinking for himself. And, oh, by the way, he's also a Catholic!!
I don't buy it. Either he's lying about supporting the Obamessiah, or he's lying about being a "committed Catholic". I believe he is lying about the latter.
#1 in the top ten list of rules....
Thou shalt not kill you foolish leftist.
I note in his lengthy rationalization that he opposes the war against islamic terrorists in Iraq. There seems to be a strong current of such opposition in “traditionalist” Catholic circles. New Oxford Review, for example, became a strong proponent of that opposition. It led that magazine’s editorial staff, as well as some people I know personally, to severe political derangement. Mr. Cafardi seems to have suffered the same problem.
My thoughts exactly.
Also, the fact of 1.3M human lives being snuffed out a year by abortion makes it a worse evil that the other things the author lists.
The fact of a part-black man apparently not minding that two thirds of those being snuffed out are infact black, ranks pretty high as an evil, IMHO. The fact that many black advocates who lecture the rest of us about supposed inequalities don’t mind (or even note!) these black children being aborted in holocaust fashion is a wholly different type of evil (organized, large scale, and for profit). Well, a holocaust.
But this guy can go on being “Catholic.” Go vote for your perfectly-in-favor of abortion candidate. We wouldn’t want to ‘burden’ anyone with the facts.
Pro-Life Catholic Leader Says Nicholas Cafardi Wrong on Obama, Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 1, 2008
Cafardi bases his endorsement on two points — claiming the pro-life movement has “permanently” lost the abortion battle and saying voting for Obama can be justified on other political issues.
Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, tells LifeNews.com he takes exception to both claims.
“If you think the battle against abortion has been lost permanently, then you are asserting that the battle for America and civilization itself have been lost,” Pavone says. “So don’t trouble yourself one way or another about this election.”
“In a case like that, as the bishops state in Living the Gospel of Life, the American experiment would ‘no longer be worth conducting,’” Pavone says.
Pavone also rejects the view that Catholics can support Obama based on other issues apart from abortion — saying “this analysis overlooks the fact that permitting abortion makes the common good impossible.”
“You cannot be right on other issues while undermining their foundation,” Pavone says — expressing the notion that other rights and freedoms are worthless if someone is killed before birth via abortion.
Pro-life advocates say that Catholics like Cafardi need to be reminded just how pro-abortion Obama really is — that his policies will result in 35 more years of 50 million abortions with his pledge to only appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.
Obama has promised to sign legislation that would overturn every pro-life law across the country and cause 125,000 more abortions a year.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4389.html
The kind of relativism this man applies comes from a mindset that probably cannot be changed. Bush is a criminal because he wanted to take down a regime that had 17 UN sanctions, was not abiding by his terms of ending theGulf War, was exterminating his own people, and building a nuclear bomb.(Thanks to the Israelis 20 years or so ago, or Iraq would have one). Further, terrorists have been blowing up and beheading innocent people. "Enhanced interrogation" has saved countless lives.
It is far more moral to vote for a man who believes in taking life from a baby who has managed to survive abortion; who has subverted our Republican/democratic way of life by training organizations to subvert the vote (arguably one of the lynchpins of a free republic); One who is a self proclaimed racist (Dreams of my Father); who probably has dual citizenship and does not consider being American a big deal; who is closely tied to two reknowned Communists, several criminals, and a "christian" pastor who damns America and white people.
Yep, absolutely no problem here.
vaudine
It depends on the meaning of “proportionate.”
What is proportionate with killing millions of innocent babies every year and the intention of making that permanent for our lifetimes?
One might have an argument if McCain were also an extreme abortion supporter, or proposed to murder several million innocent people every year. But otherwise, not.
BZZZT! Nick is going through the motions. On can not be a "devout and orthodox Catholic" and support abortions. He does, even if he refuses to admit it. Writing this column to encourage others to think as he does is pretty bad.
No other issue comes close. 1.5 million babies will certainly die next year unless Roe v. Wade is overturned.
While it is true that abortion will remain legal in many parts of the country, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, still, many hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved. Obama's policies won't save any lives --but take more lives.
War, torture and ignoring the poor is equivalent to murdering babies. Right.
And, while some pro-abortion people try to say we push the truth by calling abortion the murder of babies, that is exactly what Obama pushed for; the killing of babies that were born in spite of an attempted abortion.
What kind of Catholic Bishop relies on decisions by Man and Government to guide him in regards to his faith?
I have a 5-year-old son with more intelligence than this guy.
but abortion would not be illegal in the united states with simply overturning Roe. Many, if not most, states would have it in one degree or another.
And abortion was legal in some states, including the worst offender by far, California, before 1973.
Similar sentiment in an early 20th century context:
“I’m Jewish, staunchly anti-Final Solution, but I support Hitler”.
I think some good Catholic should forward the professor's email to the Archbishop asking if this reasoning is correct.
That ought to get a reasoned discussion going.
My wife and I have been "recalibrating" our understanding of him this week. We're trying to put the pieces together. I can tell you that he worked very hard when he was on the sexual abuse board. He was absolutely furious about the bishops covering for abusive priests. He's a regular church-goer. I know that he is opposed to abortion. You'll have to take my word on that.
So how can I explain this? I can't. It's an extraordinary and uncharacteristic lapse in judgement. I have to admit that if I didn't know him personally, I would simply dismiss him as a CINO, as many here have.
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.