November 20, 2009
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 5/12/08 |
|
The question will inevitably arise for the distinguished group of Catholics supporting Obama as to how they can defend his preference for infanticide in cases where a child survives a botched abortion. The fury Obama's Catholics vented toward Donohue will only force them to face that question sooner than they may have expected. It's clear to me how it will be answered: It won't. Obama's Catholics are already attempting to reframe the abortion issue in their favor. They will do everything they can to divert attention from the fact that their candidate is actually the most extreme pro-abortion advocate ever to be nominated by a political party for president of the United States. The letter to Donohue reveals the arguments Obama's Catholics will use to evade the question of infanticide: ► Vocal anti-abortion Catholics are partisan and divisive. Their letter states that the abortion issue is "one that is too often hijacked by partisan operatives who seek only to divide voters." This is perhaps the strangest argument, coming as it does from Catholics who have publicly endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. They are attempting to win voters for Obama, to convince Catholics to vote for a Democrat. That's a partisan act, dividing voters into those who vote for Obama and those who don't. So why would they accuse pro-life Catholics of dividing voters? The only logical reason is that they assume Catholic voters should think as they do. Obama's Catholics see their camp as the true home for Catholic voters, and any Catholic who votes Republican is like the prodigal son who has strayed into a foreign land. ► Republicans have done nothing to lower the number of abortions. The letter goes on to ask, "But what have nearly three decades of Republican promises to end abortion accomplished?" Last January the Guttmacher Institute reported that between 2000 and 2005 the number of abortions dropped 9 percent to their lowest level since 1975. The downward trend in U.S. abortions has provided fodder for the fundraising letters of NARAL and Emily's List. Meanwhile, Obama's Catholics pretend Republicans have had nothing to do with this trend. ► Obama's overall strengths outweigh his support for abortion and infanticide. The letter lists issues from the U.S. bishops' conference document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." These issues include health care, unjust war, racism, discrimination, torture, hunger, and immigration. The letter from Obama's Catholics states, "Across these issues Sen. Obama offers much to the well-formed Catholic conscience." This line contains the essence of what has come to be known as cafeteria Catholicism. It's as if the Obama Catholics are hoping to serve large enough helpings of health care, immigration, and opposition to the Iraq War to fill the stomachs of Catholic voters so they won't notice that Senator Obama supports the "intrinsic evils" of infanticide and abortion. ► Obama's policies on health care, poverty, and sex education will reduce abortion. "Senator Obama has reached out to Americans on both sides of this issue and embraces practical proposals designed to reduce the number of abortions in this country." I wonder how many pro-lifers feel that Obama has reached out to them. Aside from that, why didn't the Obama Catholics make any note of Obama's 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, promising that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act? How can Obama's Catholics expect us to take their arguments seriously when their candidate goes out of his way to make a promise like that? They say that Obama "recognizes abortion represents a profound moral challenge," but the only challenge he appears to recognize is doing away with any federal or state restrictions on a woman's "freedom of choice." What's going on here is obvious: Obama's policy agenda was set without any concern for lowering the number of abortions. His priorities were made clear when he spoke to NARAL and Planned Parenthood. ► Moral equivalence exists between Republicans and Democrats on Catholic social teaching. Of all the arguments posed by Obama's Catholics, this is the most insidious. They write, Like many other Americans, we have watched as many candidates brought to office on a so-called pro-life platform insisted on policies that have left the lives of millions more of our brothers and sisters at risk from war, uncontrolled pollution, deeper poverty, and growing economic equality. There are two claims embedded in this rhetoric: First, Republican pro-life candidates are not truly pro-life across the board. Somehow, a member of Congress who, for example, promised to sign pro-life legislation-- and did -- is not really pro-life if he supported the Iraq War. We will be hearing much more of this in the months ahead. In an attempt to create the impression of moral equivalence between the parties, a second claim is made that a huge imbalance exists between the single concern of a pro-life Republican and the multitude of concerns of a pro-abortion Democrat. Obama's Catholics talk as if a Republican never had a thought about healthcare, immigration, poverty, taxation, and so on. There will be a moment in the 2008 campaign when Senator Obama will be asked about infanticide in front of a national television audience, but there is no answer he can give that will satisfy Catholic voters with a well-formed conscience. Obama's Catholics will not be able to respond either, because there is no answer -- and they know it.
Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, March 2008). Readers have left 100 comments. ...him being in the pocket of the Abortion lobby, The Republican Party offers me little, either. The control of the GOP by Evangelical Protestants and Economic Libertarians is off putting to me. I actually agree with the Democrats on a number of economic issues, but I find their social platform abhorrent. I have no home in either party. Written by David W. I have exactly the same struggle. I won't vote for Obama, but every election it seems the options get worse.  Written by Janet Nicholas Cafardi: pro-abortion activist and canon lawyer for the USCCB and other Catholic institutions. http://tinyurl.com/5f63jo The bishops' THIRTY-FIVE-YEAR strategy of ignoring pro-life Catholics' pleas for action sure is paying off, yessirree! Written by Fr. Joseph Fr. Joseph, What is the basis of your name calling? Is there something that you know that the rest of us don't which puts you in a position to judge Nicholas Cafardi? We should have a very high bar for attacking fellow Catholics. Written by John The approach by the Obamatholics, as evidenced by folks like Douglas Kmiec, Gerald Campbell, "Catholic Democrats", et al, is NOT to say they support Obama IN SPITE OF his abortion position (as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship seems to require), but is to "BAPTIZE" Obama's abortion position: (1) so that "pro-choice" is suddenly an acceptable position for Catholics to support (rather than acknowledging it for what it really is: political support for legalized abortion-on-demand); and (2) to give the impression that supporting Obama will actually FURTHER the pro-life cause. Written by Jay Anderson I get so sick of that false dichotomy. Just because the Republicans are bad doesn't mean we vote for the worse of two evils. As for the rest of their klaptrap, what about their positions on divorce, contraception and homosexual "rights"? They openly endorse Obama's "sex education" positions, meaning that they are endorsing contraception. Written by JC We do not have to vote for Obama, or Clinton.. We have a faithful Catholic running for president, Alan Keyes . We should give him careful consideration. He is on the ballot! Get the facts, and decide for yourself. God help us all! Ellen from Buffalo,NY Written by Ellen from Buffalo,NY Mr. Hudson, You have certainly crafted a compelling narrative that Obama supports infanticide. But in reality, I don't think there's been a more ridiculous charge in this campaign. You've taken what was a procedural vote and extrapolated from that single vote that Obama supports infanticide. That's simply disingenuous and serves what is your obviously partisan agenda. Quite frankly, your work with the Republican party and Karl Rove disqualifies you from making such objectified statements as "They [Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council] are attempting to win voters for Obama, to convince Catholics to vote for a Democrat. That's a partisan act, dividing voters into those who vote for Obama and those who don't." In fact, you've tried assiduously for years to convince Catholics that voting for Democrats makes them the outcast, the prodigal son. The fact remains that there is no Catholic party in the United States. Neither party perfectly meets the demands of Catholic teaching. In a pluralistic society that is unattainable. This is why the USCCB or the Vatican cannot and will not meddle in partisan politics in the US by endorsing candidates. That said, as Catholics we are called to vote with an informed and reasoned conscience. This is what the Obama council clearly and thoughtfully laid out in their response to Bill Donahue. Instead, Catholics must make a choice. The Obama council's position is that they will not vote for Republicans based on that party's nominal opposition to abortion, one issue, and ignore how they believe that Democrats are far more serious and competent on most of the other issues outlined by the USCCB. What's more, the Council have said they believe Obama would govern in a way that appreciates the grave moral question of abortion. Yes, abortions have decreased in the early part of this decade, but they have also started to increase again during Bush's 2nd term. Have you considered that trhe Council actually believe that Obama's administration would better address the causes of abortion and perhaps make more progress on that issue than the Republicans have? No, you haven't considered that idea because you are a partisan messenger. Well, the Obama campaign will not operate on those terms anymore, not this time, not this election. That's what's motivating so many Catholics to support Obama and that's why I support him. Written by Colin I see the term 'Obama Catholic' in the same light as 'square circle' and 'unmarried husband'. It just doesn't work. Written by Francis Wippel ...why not support someone else who doesn't, or at the very least supports less evils than the main party candidates running this year? If Catholics voted with their consciences, we wouldn't be stuck with this mess! Instead we all keep making compromises, and on both sides of the political fence. There is a host of grave moral evils that both candidates support...and Catholics have the gaul to endores either one of them??!?!?! The question should NOT be "can I vote for Barack Obama?" The answer is an obvious "no." Whether it be his incredibly ridiculous and radical support of abortion in all its forms, his embracing of gay marriage, his "stance" regarding military action against pakistan, and "bittergate" (which proved he has no problem with lying to get elected), he's clearly not worthy. The question should be "Is John McCain worthy of my vote?" And, based on his public statements about the conditions of going to war (IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS STANCE ON THE CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ), his support of embryonic stem-cell research, half-hearted opposition to (aka support OF) abortion (he makes Sen. Casey look pro-life). Neither candidate possesses the correct attitude about the death penalty - rather than making it a question of "is it necessary given our circumstances?" BOTH agree that the punishment fits the crime - a stance completely contrary to Catholic teaching. Apparently, both also feel the same way about euthanasia - something Cardinal Ratzinger specifically warned us not to support in the infamous 2004 letter! WHY ARE ANY CATHOLICS SUPPORTING EITHER CANDIDATE? There are STILL third-party candidates who support our values far better than either McCain or Barack. Chuck Baldwin is one of them; Ron Paul, though not perfect (his attitude about immigration is too far right-leaning to accomodate the Catholic position), is at least still technically running for his nomnination, and he's another who fits the criteria. If any one can find someone even better, I'd be open to the suggestion. "A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth." Pope Benedict XVI I would also encourage everyone to read Pope Leo XIII's 1899 encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae - it condemns the "toning down" of church teaching that has led us to this predicament, and teaches us that we cannot compromise Church teaching for the sake of converts. Why doesn't this apply at the voting booth? Voting for either McCain or Barack is such a compromise, IMO, and, at least tentatively, that means that I am now compelled to say CHUCK BALDWIN 2008! Written by Andy K. You accuse Deal of being a single-issue voter when you are using a single USCCB document (which certainly doesn't carry the weight of Tradition or the magisterium either in its current Living capacity or in its past forms)to determine how you will vote? Church teaching tells us that the following are wrong inherently and must be opposed vigorously: -abortion -euthanasia -gay marriage -stem cell research -racism - unjust jus in bello(such as targeting civilians in warfare) - pornography - contraception - death penalty as punishment - immigration policies that separate families - unjust wars Why are so many Catholics Vigorously endorsing him and extolling him when he's clearly an abominable candidate that adheres to so many of these evils? The ONLY way you could vote for Obama conscientiously is to demonstrate that McCain is somehow WORSE. Now, McCain does indeed subscribe to some unnegotiable evils, which isn't to be ignored. But the Catholics who support/have supported Obama have done with rhetoric that he's "the obvious choice" implying that he's somehow really worthy of our vote from the outset. Such a claim is utterly ridiculous. Additionally, the bogus claims that the Democrats "care about the poor" while Republicans don't is ludicrous in the extreme. It would be different if McCain (or any Republican) openly said things like "I'm against homeless shelters" or "the poor should die on the streets." That's not the case. Furthermore, the Ratzinger 2004 letter, along with the writings of numerous Saints, Bishops, and Cardinals both living and dead, demonstrate that some issues CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN OTHERS. Abortion carries the most weight (read Mother THeresa and even liberals like Cardinal Bernadin if you want proof). Ratzinger said Euthansia is next on the list. Furthermore, APPLICATION OF WAR AND THE DEATH PENALTY are not of the same weight, and one can even LEGITIMATELY DISAGREE IN INSTANCES OF ITS APPLICATION. It baffles the mind how Obama-supporting Catholics can support him. It really does. He opposes so much Catholic teaching in so many areas, and somehow he's supposed to be qualified to receive the Catholic vote? Preposterous. Written by Andy K. Mr. Hudson, wouldn't your time be better spent defending the Catholic Church against the hate-filled rhetoric spewed by Reverend Hagee instead of demonizing Catholics? Oops! I forgot that you're a member of McCain's Catholic Committee specifically charged with helping McCain "counter the negative perception that came with Hagee's backing." Colin, thank you for writing everything you wrote above but especially... "You've taken what was a procedural vote and extrapolated from that single vote that Obama supports infanticide. That's simply disingenuous and serves what is your obviously partisan agenda." Colin, the fact you stated above is indeed being conveniently ignored or morphed to suit an obviously partisan agenda. When I was growing up, there was one Catholic Church. Catholics didn't demonize each other. It's disheartening to read the mean-spirited comments posted at insideCatholic.com by Catholics against Catholics. Sure makes me grateful that God is my only Judge. Written by Just Saying ...which is why I am casting a third party vote. I grow weary of people lecturing me about "wasting my vote." A vote cast in protest or good conscience is not a wasted vote at all. The Republicans seem to be more interested in power than in actually coming through on their platform. The dismissal of Ron Paul (and I am not a Paul supporter by any stretch) has convinced me that the GOP is like the Democrats in that they will not tolerate anyone who "deviates from the script." I actually support a government role in the economy, not full blown socialism but I do believe in the government's regulatory capacity. I'm not a party man, nor do I foresee myself becoming one. As for "Obama Catholics"...I understand the argument they are using, but given that more weight has been given to Life issues and even Rome has stated they are primary, I fail to see how supporting Obama makes sense without hair splitting, equivocating or whitewashing his record. He is probably the most "pro-choice" candidate the Democrats have ever fielded...its mystifying. Written by David W. Hi Colin. You ask: "Have you considered that trhe Council actually believe that Obama's administration would better address the causes of abortion and perhaps make more progress on that issue than the Republicans have?" I sincerely wonder how Obama's administration will address the reason most-often cited by those who procure an abortion - convenience. Even the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) has stated that the most-often noted reason for abortion is a mother's convenience. How does any administration begin to address this? It's a sad fact that many women simply can't be bothered with a pregnancy. And I don't think MORE sex ed is a solution either. Nor is the push for more condoms or contraception since over 50% of the women seeking abortion are said to have been using contraception at the time of pregnancy. I can't vote for Obama. His position on abortion is simply unacceptable to me as a Catholic. I'm not thrilled with McCain either and I don't know what lever I'll pull this fall, if any. But please know that just because I STRONGLY oppose Obama does not mean that I don't take seriously the entire body of Catholic Social Teaching. However, just on numbers alone, we must consider abortion first. Written by Nerina Bellinger It's nice to see that I'm not alone. I'm not that big on the economic libertarianism of Ron Paul either (economically, I describe myself as "subsidiarist"), but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the two pro-death senators we're getting from the main parties. At least he's not blatantly against any nuance of Catholic moral teaching. I was actually a Huckabee supporter during the primaries. In retrospect, I think that there were 4 (maybe 5) candidates in the field that Catholics could support (as they didn't violate any Catholic moral teachings). They were: Ron Paul Mike Huckabee Sam Brownback Alan Keyes Duncan Hunter (?) - not quite sure about his stance on the application of war in general, which is why he gets this designation The rest were all blatant compromises of the basic prnciples of our Catholic faith; we're paying the price for not supporting them now :( As for the argument that I'm "throwing away my vote" by casting it for a third-party, well, I don't see how "odds of winning" have anything to do with the decision at the ballot box. Do we throw away our vote when we vote for someone who can't win? I'm from a very "blue" state where a truly Catholic candidate never stands a chance; should that stop me from voting for him if he's on the ballot? Of course not! Written by Andy K. "You've taken what was a procedural vote and extrapolated from that single vote that Obama supports infanticide." That is not factual, as I understand it. On the issue of requiring doctors to give medical aid when babies survive an abortion, which NARAL did not even oppose, I have read in several places that Mr. Obama first used procedures to keep the measure from coming to a vote, then he voted "present" twice and finally "no" once. Now, I haven't checked the Illinois legislature and committee records, so perhaps this is erroneous. Written by broed Colin wishes to disqualify Deal from the conversation because he is an unapologetic supporter of Republican candidates and is helping McCain. Typical of those who fail to address the bottom line issue. Abortion kills people. The Democratic candidates support the idea that the law permit this atrocity. These are the same folks who with great indignation condemn Pius XII for not stopping the Holocaust single handed. so today I ask Colin and all those who call themselves practicing Catholic ( i.e. able to and regularly receiving Holy Communion), and who are supporting the Obama what are you doing right now - this week - to stop the killing? Are you giving money to right to life? Helping a pregnancy care center? Picketing in front of an abortion mill? Speaking against abortion at the local high school or college campus? Organizing divine mercy novenas to pray for the conversion of abortionists and other health care workers who perform abortions? Collecting diapers for maternity homes and PCCs? Calling your legislators and asking them to support pro-life legislation? Using whatever influence you have to educate, instruct and encourage others to be pro-life? I could go on and on and on.... Or do you not really care? Did your weekend allow you to relax and kick back? Did you take Mom out for Mother's day? Did you simply enjoy the good life we all have been blessed to have? Meanwhile in an abortion clinic near you this weekend including on Sunday, babies were being killed - 7000 nationwide - and Obama could care less. 7000 babies dead. so you want to pick on Deal because he is a Republican. So what. If what is said is true, then it applies. We need to get serious. Too many babies have died. Written by John Jakubczyk Obama's Catholic supporters did not mention "Obama's support for infanticide" for two major reasons. One, if the hyperbolic and reductive language of the phrase did not give it away, the issue is entirely manufactured, much like the idea of a "Catholic problem." Two, Obama's Catholic supporters are unlikely to regurgitate Republican talking points; rather, they are guided by consciences grounded in Catholic teaching and informed by their own experience and understanding. Several other distortions can be found in Hudson's entry. (1) He characterizes the board's response to Donohue as furious venting, when a glance at the actual text reveals a measured and respectful, if firm, engagement. Neither side should waste time mischaracterizing the others' arguments. (2) To claim, as the board does, that the abortion issue is frequently "hijacked by partisan operatives who seek only to divide voters" does not translate to Hudson's claim that "vocal anti-abortion Catholics are partisan and divisive." It takes more than a few logical leaps to get from point A to point B. (3) Also, Hudson finds their argument (which he strategically excerpts) to be "strange," his (strange) euphemism for "hypocritical," even though the board is doing that exact opposite of hijacking the issue: they baldly state their stance and attempt to articulate how, in their eyes, it fits in with their support for Obama. There is no strangeness here and certainly no hypocrisy. We have all seen this become a political football and the advisors, like me, are exhausted. Written by Roque Strew (4) Suggesting that the Guttmacher Institute's figures have anything to do with Republican promises means suggesting that there is some sort of cause-effect relationship. No data bears this out, and Hudson should know better than to partake in this kind of fact-fudging. (5) Hudson says the downward trend in abortions has provided fodder for NARAL fundraising letters. The implication is that the aim of these groups, which Republican insiders like Hudson and Donohue frequently try to associate with Obama, is abortions for the sake of abortions, that the groups see a rise in abortions as some kind of triumph. A cursory check of the facts (and likely, these phantom fundraising letters) dispels these perverse depictions. (6) Hudson finally trots out the tired "cafeteria Catholics" charge, using the board's quote with regard to the Bishop's Faithful Citizenship statement: "Across these issues Sen. Obama offers much to the well-formed Catholic conscience." Again he implies this is a deceptive tactic, a smoke screen to hide the fact Obama "supports ... infanticide and abortion." The advisory board, in Hudson's eyes, are indeed "hoping" that this deception will work, according to Hudson's mind-reading powers. I would again argue that this phrase—that Obama supports infanticide and abortion—is deceptive in the extreme, as no candidate, and certainly no citizen, supports infanticide and abortion. Hudson's language is purposely charged to elicit the maximum emotional effect; this is not argument. (7) Hudson interprets a straightforward observation—"many candidates brought to office on a so-called pro-life platform insisted on policies that have left the lives of millions more of our brothers and sisters at risk from war, uncontrolled pollution, deeper poverty, and growing economic equality"—as an insidious attempt at "moral equivalence." The fact is that, yes, many of the voters who style themselves "pro-life" do not apply this philosophy to issues beyond abortion: namely to an unjust, preemptive war or, say, the vast number left without health insurance. Hudson's imaginative reading: "a huge imbalance exists between the single concern of a pro-life Republican and the multitude of concerns of a pro-abortion Democrat." They say nothing about a huge imbalance, only that attention ought to be paid to more life issues apart from the grave life issue of abortion. Certainly it doesn't follow that "Republican never had a thought about healthcare, immigration, poverty, taxation, and so on"—which is why the board never says this. To reply to the poster who referred us to Cardinal Bernardin. Like Cardinal O'Connor on the right, Bernardin "made statements strongly condemning abortion but rejecting the idea that bishops should prescribe specific political choices for Catholics, an approach in keeping with a longstanding policy of the conference of Catholic bishops." O'Connor said he "would not explicitly recommend that other Catholics vote for or against particualr individuals on that basis. The final choice in the voting booth, he said, 'is the kind of thing that we have to leave to the individual consience to worry its way through.'" Written by Roque Strew Wow, soooooooooooooo many things wrong with your comments (I'm curious as to how the various posters will respond), but I'll tackle the one referenced to my post specifically: "To reply to the poster who referred us to Cardinal Bernardin. Like Cardinal O'Connor on the right, Bernardin "made statements strongly condemning abortion but rejecting the idea that bishops should prescribe specific political choices for Catholics, an approach in keeping with a longstanding policy of the conference of Catholic bishops." O'Connor said he "would not explicitly recommend that other Catholics vote for or against particular individuals on that basis. The final choice in the voting booth, he said, 'is the kind of thing that we have to leave to the individual consience to worry its way through.'" Bernadin never failed to give specific guidelines as to which issues received priority in these decisions. He was indeed an advocate of never publically endorsing any candidate (which is to his credit), but the PRIORITIZATION OF ABORTION IN THE VOTING DECISION IS ALSO EVIDENT IN HIS SPEECHES AND WRITINGS. I'll start with a simple quote-for-quote: "Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence. Today the recognition of human life as a fundamental value is threatened. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of elective abortion. At present in our country this procedure takes the lives of over 4,000 unborn children every day and over 1.5 million each year." Abortion does indeed involve the direct TAKING of a human life - as Catholics, you believe this to be the truth. Obama's proposed policies go directly against this teaching in the most perverse ways. Likewise, economic/healthcare issues involve the SUSTAINABILITY or "preserving life." You can't vote for Obama for his better economic/healthcare policies when he goes against the more basic issues as elaborated in Bernadin's statement above. In light of these facts, why do you continue to support him? Written by Andy K. Why has no one addressed the fact that we are ONE Justice away from having a pro-life majority in the Supreme Court? Let's face it: McCain would appoint a pro-lifer and Obama wouldn't. The end. Oh, and why has no one made the point that the Church has said as a Catholic you CANNOT vote for someone who supports abortion? Written by MB From the Times (see link): But Cardinal Bernardin distinguished between this broad moral vision, ''with political implications,'' and a particular political strategy. Although the bishops had underlined the abortion issue, he said, they had not given Catholics any political blueprint for resolving it. Cardinal Bernardin said there was no conflict between his outlook and the possibility that voters who considered ''a range of issues as well as a candidate's integrity, philosophy and performance'' might ultimately decide to make abortion the decisive issue in their political choice. - - - - - There's a quote for you, Andy. K, with citation. This is exactly why I continue to support him, because in the great Cardinal's words, his "integrity, philosophy and performance" form a picture in my mind of a deeply thoughtful, deeply conscientious candidate. No one's saying he perfectly conforms to the Magisterial teaching, but that (and similar) expectation is plainly unreasonable. Again, in light of Benedict's 2004 memo (already invoked here), I am not voting for Obama _because_ of what can be considered a permissive stance on abortion. I have other, proportionate reasons. If Bernardin and Benedict can see the reasonableness of this position, I pray that you can, as well. I don't ask that you subscribe to them. Best wishes, Roque Strew Written by Roque Strew First off, I don't see the link with citation you mentioned in your post. I would (and I'm sure others would as well) appreciate if you would post it, although I am willing to "take your word for it" that Cardinal Bernadin did say that. But I digress. Now we finally get to the crux of the matter: the "proportionate reasons" as outlined in Cardinal Ratzinger's (now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI) famous 2004 letter. You contend that Barack Obama's "integrity, philosophy and performance" (as by Cardinal Bernadin) qualify as a "proportionate reason" as per "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles." Here's the problem: that letter also states how Catholics can disagree about issues such as "the application of the death penalty, war, and other issues. Reading on, Abortion and Euthanasia are issues we CANNOT disagree. That's all reiteration for anybody who bothered to read it, but it has important implications. If Catholics can legitimately disagree on war and the death penalty, it implies that they are NOT PROPORTIONATE TO ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA. If war and the death penalty (life issues if there ever are any!) aren't proportionate, then how on earth is the "integrity, philosophy, and performance" of a candidate proportionate? More importantly, how can you validly claim that Barack Obama possesses such positive traits when he clearly violates so much of basic Catholic moral teaching? As I stated earlier, it is NOT just the abortion issue that makes him ineligible (though he is so incredibly opposed to the church's teaching on the issue that abortion alone could indeed disqualify him from Catholic support); he supports gay marriage. He supports the death penalty not because it is necessary for safety, but because "in cases where the crime is so heinous...the community is justified...in meting out the ultimate punsihment"(see the Democrats for Life website for the full quote). There is only one way a Catholic could even remotely consider Obama as a worthy candidate, and that's by making the case that McCain is somehow WORSE. Both sides have to play this card, though, because McCain is also gravely offensive to a well-informed conscience. He may not be AS WRONG on the abortion issue as Obama, but it is only now under pressure that he says he's willing to appoint pro-life judges and support the overturning of Roe V. Wade (in other words, he's insincere). He has defended abortion as "necessary" in his speeches. He supports federally funded slaughter of innocent life in the form of embryos. His statements regarding the conduct of war in general demonstrate that he doesn't apply the just war theory when making such a decision, and he shares Obama's morally objectionable reasons for supporting the death penalty. Both sides of the political fence know that their candidate is absolutely revolting to Catholic moral sense, and both sides inevitably resort to attacking the opponent because it's the only way to answer the objections! Again, I ask, how is it remotely possible for Catholics to support these guys on the basis that they are good candidates?!?!? Written by Andy K. Roque Strew, I appreciate your reasoned and reasonable commentary. Personally, I am especially grateful to be living in a democracy and not a theocracy. Counting my blessings. Written by Just Saying Wow, you write one thing critical of Obama, and the Obamabots come out, huh? Colin writes: "Have you considered that trhe Council actually believe that Obama's administration would better address the causes of abortion and perhaps make more progress on that issue than the Republicans have?" Actually, yes, I have considered it. Let's see, Obama promised NARAL that his FIRST ACT of presidency would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (read: enshrining a national law that allows abortion, taking away states rights to prohibit or even limit abortion once and for all). Go back to moral equivalency class. Written by Andy has never voted for a pro-abortion bill. The only thing he has ever said re: being for abortion was saying it is not appropriate to overturn Roe. v. Wade at the moment (because women would continue to get abortion, just illegal and unsafe ones). Implied by this is the notion of incremental change. Part of the argument for this is that you need to change the people's attitudes about abortion and the contraceptive mentality as much as , if not more, than the outlawing the act itself. As for McCain supporting euthanasia, please substantiate the claim. I've never seen or heard anything the suggests he does. I admit his stance on ESCs is troubling but he has expressed willingness to reconsider now that the science has evolved. So that leaves us with what, poverty and war. At this point the jus ad bellum arguments are over and we are dealing more with the jus in bellum (and post bellum, hopefully soon; not a real category, I know but I think it should be). Again with poverty. The church does not say that the government is or should be the solution to poverty. Some would say the principle of subsidiarity, a cornerstone of Catholc social teacher, demands that the government (especially at the federal level) is not the solution. Either way, reasonable people can disagree on this issue (as well as on the issue of war and to some extent on the death penalty). Reasonable people cannot disagree on the issues of abortion, and marriage. It's clear that no candidate is perfect. Bush isn't the perfect candidate from a Catholic perspective. That said, there is no perfect candidate. McCain is not the lesser of any evil, he is pure and simply the better candidate from a Catholic perspective Written by Blake Blake, McCain's beliefs about jus ad bellum (and in bello) are applicable in ALL elections. Just because the Iraq invasion has already occurred doesn't make his position on just ad bellum any less relevant. If we had a supreme court with 9 perfectly catholic judges and a congress full of perfectly Catholic congressman, would that suddenly make the candidate's stance on abortion any less valid? No. Same goes with any stance on any non-negotiable moral issue; going against a basic principle of morality DISQUALIFIES you from consideration. On the issue of jus ad bellum, it's quite clear that McCain is quite far from the Catholic view. Also, try to sugar coat McCain with the "pure" label all you want, but his record on abortion is distressing, not encouraging. He has called abortion a "neccesity" in his speeches, has not backed down from his "family conference" comments regarding a family member who wanted to get an abortion, supports it in cases of rape and incest, and, my goodness, he even supports stem-cell research! Furthermore, a 75 percent rating from NRLC certainly means that he DID NOT vote for life in every chance he had. Do not forget that Santorum said "anybody but McCain" BECAUSE of the abortion issue. He is not fully pro-life. Not even close. As for euthanasia, read this article by Ann Coulter (no idol of mine): http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter011800.asp Frankly, I'm THIS CLOSE to writing Sen. Brownback and Sen. Casey (the respective heads of McCain's and Obama's "Catholic" committees) about this. Both of their candidates are so incredibly atrocious that I'm ready to puke. Maybe Deal Hudson and Rogue Strew could extend it to them for me... Alan Keyes finally woke up to this when he washed his hands of his party this year; I think that Senator Santorum will soon follow - it was his Arlen Specter betrayal (and his undying support for the GOP stated agenda over his Catholic faith) that cost him his senate seat, and it's Casey's flip-flop with the Mexico City Policy (never mind the fact that he's a drone of Chuck Schumer that supports contraception) that will cost him his, no doubt to some pro-choice Republican or The "Ed Rendell" wing of the Pennsylvania Dems that are angry about his failure to endorse Hillary, his state's favorite (including among Catholics!). Catholic politicians that truly claim to subscribe to Catholic teaching (aka the Caseys and Santorums of the world) had better learn to shape up. If they had more courage, the U.S. would be a truly Catholic nation. Alas, courage is what they apparently lack, and we are all paying the price for it. Written by Andy K. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." John McCain isn't perfect. But his 24-year record on life issues is very good and is extremely compelling. A vote for Keyes might as well be a vote for Obama. Written by Billy Valentine Why do so many who call themselves Catholic loose sight of the simple fact that life from conception to natural death is one of the basic tenets of Our Catholic Church? Without life, there is nothing. Any politician, from any party, who will not defend life should not be supported by a Catholic. The Holy Father reminded us of this during his recent visit to our country. So many of the previous posts can only be called sad, as the writers twists themselves like a pretzel in an attempt to justify supporting a candidate who supports abortion, euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. My thanks to Deal for keeping this topic in front of us, knowing the negative response he will get. Written by Authentic Catholic Colin did not respond to my question. The other Obama apologists ignored it while attempting to misstate Benedict's comments on proportional reasoning, and away went the conversation back to the whether McCain is pro-life enough for one's vote. Lets get serious. Andy, with all due respect, Alan Keyes is not going to get elected president. Voting for Alan may soothe one's conscience and allow one to claim the so called moral high ground - but that is not how politics and the process work. If Alan had such a following, why did he not start three years ago, develop a serious campaign and get all who claim he is the one to get him the votes? Because he never has been a serious candidate. so a vote for Alan is a vote for Obama. I think we would agree that a vote for Obama is not a good thing. So now we have 'our friend' John McCain, who seems to be able to get people rather upset for a lot of reasons. I have known Senator McCain for over 25 years. I tell him when I think he is wrong and thank him when he votes correctly. Over the 25 years as a congressman and senator, he has voted wrong ( not directly addressing campaign finance reform) 3 times 2 dealing with ESCR funding and 1 on fetal tissue in '92. NRLC made the campaign finance reform votes a part of their scoring which dropped his rating. but remember President Bush signed the bill and the SCOTUS upheld most of it. Now I did not like the bill. I opposed it. We lost.That's life. now there are more important things to address. But John knows that he needs the pro-life movement to win and to his credit he is listening to pro-life leaders as we explain the advances of adult stem cell research and the waste of money and ethical bankruptcy that is ESCR. He has pledged to appoint judges who will respect the rule of law and Constitution and the right to life. He has been through experiences that have tested his mettle and he knows the value of human life. Finally when his wife brought home a little girl who needed medical attention, he welcomed this child into his family with open arms. That's being pro-life. In November there will be two choices for voters; one promotes abortion, supports abortion and infanticide, supports the agents of death who sell abortion, wants to reverse all the incremental protections that we have passed ( small though they be) and have the government paying for abortion through government mandated health care, and will appoint pro-abortion judges. His name is Obama. The other will appoint good judges, supports reversal of Roe v. Wade, will not spend tax dollars to pay for abortion, will uphold our Mexico city policy and may be willing to expand it to the federal government. He supports adoption alternatives, opposes "same sex" marriage and wants to reduce the size of the federal government and control spending ( all family friendly ideas). His attitude on immigration is closely aligned with Catholic beliefs. He sent some of his children to Catholic school and respects the teachings of the Catholic Church. His name is John McCain. Is it even a close question? Written by John Jakubczyk http://youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o Written by MB What is sad to me is that people of differing views, people who call themselves Catholics, so readily (and with such apparent relish) resort to ad hominem attacks (Obamabots?), schoolyard taunts (go back to class?), affected sadness/pathos for those with whom they disagree. This might be considered the diametric opposite of the imitation of Christ. (By the way, disagreement is not inherently "negative response"; it's just disagreement.) I hope Andy K. realizes that America is a democracy, a pluralistic melting pot deeply grounded in the liberty of conscience, and that it is more than a little unsettling for him to talk about what it will take for American to become a "truly Catholic nation." I say this as a practicing Catholic. To rewind a little, you conflate my statements in what I assume is not a willful misreading. I said why, in Bernardin's terms, I'm attracted to Obama. Then I said why, in Benedict's terms, I can justify it. I did not say that the "other, proportionate reasons" _are_ his "integrity, philosophy, and performance," exactly. Since you seem to appreciate quotes, this is from Benedict's memo: "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." Again, Andy, your characterization of his words doesn't seem to accord with the text. Somewhere among your all-caps declarations and exclamation marks, I think you said there are no proportionate reasons with respect to abortion and euthanasia. It seems that your view would make Benedict's last sentence nonsensical: other and proportionate reasons would be ameliorating, says Benedict, but according to Andy, those reasons don't actually exist. Quite a conundrum! Believe me, I sympathize with your disgust with abortion. It is atrocious in the extreme. It's true that Catholics must accept this view. There is room, however, in determining the best way to address this, and I sincerely believe that neither criminalization nor overturning Roe is unambiguously, self-evidently the best cause to throw our time and energy behind. (By the way, the link you're looking for is found on the small globe at the bottom of my post.) Written by Roque Strew ...is "God's Party." Both parties carry aspects of the Catholic ethic, but that is all. I've been thinking about this for some time...do the two parties actually solve any problems? Written by David W. I'm not saying McCain's beliefs about Jus Ad bellum don't matter. I am saying that as far as Iraq is concerned, it doesn't matter any more. I think a man whose son is in the Marines and who has served on the front lines himself is not going to be one who sends Americans to fight and die on a whim. Obama claims (in one speech prior to Iraq, at least) that he was against the invasion (although he equivocates and at one point said his position was not that much different than President Bush's... change my ass). Congrats to him... his opinion frankly doesn't matter because he didn't have access to any of the intelligence that Sens McCain, Clinton et al had. To say his judgement is better is frankly comparing apples to oranges. As Sen Clinton so aptly put it, she and Sen McCain have substantive histories on issues (like them or not), all Obama has is a speech. Don't forget to do a little research on Obama's plan to "extract" the troops from Iraq (he plans to merely lower the levels to ~75000 and then leave a "strike force" - whatever that means - behind). Now for my rant on just war theory in general... I think the JW theory evolved in a time of the Westphalian state system. We are in post-Westphalian period in history. Arbitrary national borders don't matter any more, especially when rogue actors run wild while the "sovereign governments" do nothing. If the sovereign governments cannot control their own borders and the non-state actors are a threat to the US, then the US is obliged to face down that threat. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Iraq, but it is a flaw in the framework. On an unrelated note, I do agree that it is naive to think one party has the market cornered on Catholic teaching. To say that Democrats don't care at all about babies in the womb is as asinine as saying Republican hate poor people. The difference I see is about these candidates and McCain's record is much more in accord with Catholic teaching than Obama's. There is no denying this fact. On a host of issues, McCain is better. He is not perfect. Sam Brownback, remember (along with McCain) pissed off the Repubs because of his stance on immigration. Perhaps he is the ideal Catholic candidate (I would argue that Brownback is a genuine Catholic candidate... Santorum is not and I could say some less than pleasant things about him personally - as I know a bunch of his former staffers - but I won't). That said, Republicans selected John McCain. This whole "I'm taking my toys and going home" business is counterproductive. Until we have a vibrant multiparty system, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is essentially a wasted vote. Hooray for standing on principle but sitting on your thumbs on election day is a waste and as Catholics, we are called to civic action. Written by Blake You accuse Deal of being a single-issue voter when you are using a single USCCB document (which certainly doesn't carry the weight of Tradition or the magisterium either in its current Living capacity or in its past forms)to determine how you will vote? — Andy K.There was once a time when Catholics considered matters of religion too elevated to mix with politics. Alas, those days are gone. But as for me, I would be very angry indeed if any politician claimed the force of the magisterium or of Tradition as justifying political positions. Church dogma is too important to be inserted into such discussions. I know abortion is a very important issue, but let's be sensible here and not throw around terms like this. No political party is on the side of the magisterium and that's that. I was an Obama supporter at the beginning. I assumed with his evangelical background that he was at least neutral on the issue of abortion. The evidence to the contrary has caused me to rethink my position seriously. The problem is that I have been very unhappy with the performance of the Republicans the last few years. I lost my home to Hurricane Katrina and the Republican response (it was not limited to Pres. Bush) was wholly unChristian. The Iraq war is a huge mistake and is costing us, and will cost us, many lives and damage our nation's prestige in the world. The Republicans have to held responsible for that. I am strongly convinced that global warming is real, and with an advanced degree in science I think I am in a position to come to that informed conclusion. Disagree if you like, but explain how you are going to fix things if you are wrong. The Republicans are flat-footed on this issue and we cannot afford to play around with it any longer. I want an environmental activist in the White House and I don't believe McCain is that man. This concerns me. If predictions are true global warming could result in serious droughts and famines worldwide, especially in poor nations. As Catholics we have a moral responsibility to consider this issue seriously. As for abortion, I want to vote for a candidate who will take steps against it, but we have to be careful about deception. Some politicians use abortion as a golden shield to protect themselves from other irresponsibilities. A devious politician can pledge to be pro-life, but that should not give him a pass on everything else. I worry about automatically giving my vote away on the issue of abortion. It makes for very bad politics and could cause a world of damage. I still don't know who I will vote for and intend to take the abortion issue very seriously, but I have trouble justifying throwing everything else overboard for this one issue. You can't vote for David Duke just because he is the pro-life guy. I live in a state where, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would be illegal by state law. It is tough to get an abortion in my state. That won't change, Obama or not. Written by Michael Hebert For the record... McCain has been pushing for solutions to global warming (with Sen Lieberman for the last 5 years (against the trends in his own party). He has pushed for a Cap-Trade system. McCain has actually been much more of an activist on this issue than Obama (Obama rarely risks his limited political capital on anything mildly controversial) (what is your advanced science degree in, by the way?) On the issue of Katrina, and as a Houston resident, I can say with some degree of certainty that the biggest problem with the Katrina response was the state of Louisiana - namely Gov Landrieu - and Ray "We're Gonna Make This City Chocolate Again" Nagin. The people of New Orleans have shared some of their "good will" with the city of Houston as they have been largely responsible for the near doubling of the crime rate since Katrina. As sorry as I am that anybody, including you, lost their home in Katrina, if you ascribe to the dictum that all politics is local, let's not be too quick to say Republicans share the large brunt of the blame when say, the governor refused to declare the area a disaster area before the storm hit, which would have nullified a lot of the problems. I agree that FEMA drug its feet and "Brownie" should not have been in charge, but chronyism is alive and well in both parties, as you are well aware as a resident of Louisiana (although current Gov Jindal (R) is working to get rid of a lot of the corruption) Finally, on the issue of Iraq - I only ask what good does it do to punish one party when members of both parties enabled this war (I say this as a member of the military who supported the invasion and supports finishing the job, which may indeed take more time)? Written by Blake Fr. Joseph, — JohnWhat is the basis of your name calling? Is there something that you know that the rest of us don't which puts you in a position to judge Nicholas Cafardi? We should have a very high bar for attacking fellow Catholics. For one thing, Nicholas P. Cafardi signed the letter to Mr. Donohue referenced in Deal Hudson's article (see http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1435 and a PDF of the letter at http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_200805085328.pdf where he is identified as a "Catholic Author and Scholar") Written by Chris John, Thank you for defining your association with John McCain, thereby disqualifying yourself from objectively answering the question of if there is a real choice for Catholics in this election; this way, I don't have to waste space clearing that up for other viewers. There is a real choice and it is not so simple as you want us to believe. As a practicing Catholic, I have weighed the many issues at hand--abortion, among them--and made an informed choice for a candidate based on what my conscience tells me. That candidate is Barack Obama. His steadfast refusal to play the game of politics (e.g., his opposition to the silly gas-tax holiday), his call to unite Americans to take on the challenges of this era earnestly and thoughtfully, his efforts to bring about universal health care, his early and loud opposition to the unjust war in Iraq, his pledge to talk to enemies rather than plunging us further into deadly conflict, his own work with Catholic parishes in Chicago, and his deep faith convictions lead me to believe he's the best candidate for Catholics in this election. Nevermind all those issues, you say. There is only one issue on which Catholics should vote: abortion. I refuse to accept that, and I am justified in doing so by Pope Benedict's and the USCCB's statements (the Pope's has said: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.") I think the issues facing this country that I outlined are of requisite proportions for me to support him over candidates more in-line with church teaching on the issue of abortion. These issues demand the leadership that Obama promises, careful, reasoned, and not ideological. To wit: there are millions without health insurance (whoses lives are at stake, in many cases), a bloody conflict in Iraq from which the United States must responsibly extricate itself, a swelling working poor whose burdens demand a multi-facted overhaul of social policy if they are to have a chance to live a dignified life, a global environmental crisis that threatens to destroy any chance for life to continue for future generations, and an immigration crisis that needs both vigilance and compassion. Obama has taken these issues on and is willing to fight for the solutions; McCain has admitted that these problems exist only in some cases. I will not support McCain in spite of his failure to address those pressing issues. That is what my conscience tells me. That is what I will do. And, that is what my church has said I should do. Written by Colin There's certainly too much at stake to use the election as a vote for a minor candidate like Alan Keyes, as much as I'd love to see him be president, most of all the impact an Obama presidency would have on the Supreme Court. McCain has promised he would not nominate liberal activists who legislate from the bench. One blogger had recently updated his evaluation of the presidential candidates against Catholic criteria, which to no surprise shows McCain well above Hillary and Barack in the tally: http://tinyurl.com/6xrked Granted, keeping a "scorecard" on these candidates is not the perfect method for discerning these candidates, but like the candidates themselves, nothing else would be perfect. Yes, we try to do the best we can, but this evaluation sure helps inform the conscience. My gut feeling told me Hillary was a shade above Barack in meeting the Catholic criteria, and the evaluation just confirms that. For those who don't want to niggle over the finer details distinguishing the candidates, then consider what Pope John Paul II had to say in a directive: "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" (John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, Dec 30, 1988, #38). Lastly, here are Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702 Written by Pax Christi Fr. Joseph, — JohnWhat is the basis of your name calling? Is there something that you know that the rest of us don't which puts you in a position to judge Nicholas Cafardi? I am baffled by your post. Cafardi is working to elect to the Presidency a man who voted in the past to keep infanticide legal, and is rabidly pro-abortion. That makes Cafardi a pro-abortion activist. Where's my "name-calling"? Oh---I also called him a "canon lawyer." Written by Fr. Joseph ...him being in the pocket of the Abortion lobby, The Republican Party offers me little, either. The control of the GOP by Evangelical Protestants and Economic Libertarians is off putting to me. I actually agree with the Democrats on a number of economic issues, but I find their social platform abhorrent. I have no home in either party. — David W.It may be true that YOU, personally, don't feel at home in either party. The big difference between the parties, for a Catholic, is that the Democratic Party is the party of baby-killing, and the Republican Party is not. While YOU, personally, may not agree with Economic Libertarianism, a Catholic is at liberty to agree with it, while a Catholic CANNOT favor legal abortion and remain in communion with the Church. As for Evangelical Protestants...do you have some substantive policy disagreement with Evangelical Protestants, or do you just dislike being around non-Catholics? Written by Fr. Joseph Mr. Hudson, You have certainly crafted a compelling narrative that Obama supports infanticide. But in reality, I don't think there's been a more ridiculous charge in this campaign. You've taken what was a procedural vote and extrapolated from that single vote that Obama supports infanticide. That's simply disingenuous and serves what is your obviously partisan agenda. A "procedural vote" that does not indicate support for infanticide? Then why did Obama give a speech giving, as his primary reason for voting as he did, that acknowledging that a born baby is a "person" would undermine the legal "non-person" status of unborn babies--upon which status the abortion liberty depends? He knew what he was voting for--and he gave abortion as his primary reason. A person who favors legal abortion is a corrupt, wicked, violent, intellectually dishonest person. Thus, in working to elect Obama, you are working for your country to be governed by a corrupt, wicked, violent, intellectually dishonest person. Is it really necessary to ask the question: Is it sinful to work for the election of a corrupt, wicked, violent, intellectually dishonest person? Written by Fr. Joseph Mr. Hudson, wouldn't your time be better spent defending the Catholic Church against the hate-filled rhetoric spewed by Reverend Hagee instead of demonizing Catholics? — Just SayingHere's one reason: Rev. Hagee said that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in Revelation. That is a theological position. It is not "hate-filled rhetoric." I have seen the video in which Pastor Hagee expresses this view. I would not describe his calm expression of his opinion as "spewing." I know one thing: Pastor Hagee would pray with me outside an abortion clinic and support any other pro-life effort. I consider Pastor Hagee far less "hate-filled" and "anti-Catholic" than Cardinal Bernardin--who devised the demonic "Seamless Garment" and a few other weasely bits of rhetoric that have provided handy cover for Catholics who wanted to vote pro-abortion, and needed some pious rationalizations. For more than 25 years, Bernardin's pious drivel has reliably assisted in clouding the issue, to the benefit of countless pro-abortion candidates and the pro-abortion Catholics who vote for them. Written by Fr. Joseph John, — ColinNevermind all those issues, you say. There is only one issue on which Catholics should vote: abortion. I refuse to accept that, and I am justified in doing so by Pope Benedict's and the USCCB's statements (the Pope's has said: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.") And what is a "proportionate reason" for voting for a pro-abortion candidate? The Pope later clarified it: It's if the OTHER candidate running is WORSE--i.e., MORE pro-abortion. Nothing as trivially praiseworthy as "refusing to endorse the silly gas-tax holiday" can conceivably justify voting for a baby-killer. You are more complacent about abortion than a Catholic is permitted to be. Being complacent about a grave social injustice is a sin. Your conscience is afflicted with chaos. Written by Fr. Joseph I consider Pastor Hagee far less "hate-filled" and "anti-Catholic" than Cardinal Bernardin--who devised the demonic "Seamless Garment" and a few other weasely bits of rhetoric that have provided handy cover for Catholics who wanted to vote pro-abortion, and needed some pious rationalizations. For more than 25 years, Bernardin's pious drivel has reliably assisted in clouding the issue, to the benefit of countless pro-abortion candidates and the pro-abortion Catholics who vote for them. — Fr. JosephI'm truly speechless. This is breathtaking. Written by Roque Strew The bickering continues unabated, and still no one from either of the two "mainstream" candidate's camps sufficiently addresses my concerns. Nothing regarding Santorum's remarks or the "family conference" or "seizure homes" (or the war issue!) The Obama supporters continue, meanwhile, to try to find some way of reconciling their support for a candidate who supports the murdering of children even after they're born (to say anything else is an equivocation - he WORKS WITH PARISHES IN CHICAGO?!?!? Only when it gives him publicity, and I know this from experience!). Obviously no one is fully reading by posts (I realize I am not the world's most astute typist and/or grammarian, but my meaning isn't THAT hard to decipher, is it? I'm not being facetious; this is a serious question!), because then they would realize that I was tentatively supporting Chuck Baldwin, not Alan Keyes, for the 2008 presidency. There's a lot that I can (and will, in time) address from the various parties making the case for "the lesser of two evils," but I want to address Micheal Herbert's concerns, because they illustrate all too well the crux of the problem! The candidates, McCain and (presumably) Obama both MULTIPLE support grave moral evils. FACT. I challenge any supporter of either candidate to say otherwise. Meanwhile, other men have also stated that they are running for the presidency who DO NOT retain positions so anathema to our Catholic faith. In the primaries, people like Billy Valentine supported Brownback even though his odds of winning and fundraising were, by all political calculations, nigh impossible. They supported him even as candidates like euthanasia-supporting sudden pro-life "convert" Romney gained the spotlight. By all means and merits, candidates such as Brownback never stood a reasonable chance, either. Why did Catholics support them? Because they knew they were worthy of the job. They didn't aquiesce to the cry of the compromisers, because they knew that their candidate was BETTER. The same circumstances are here before us now, yet off we go again to the races of "but but but...YOUR CANDIDATE SUPPORTS THIS EVIL X" and "but...YOUR CANDIDATE SUPPORT THIS EVIL Y." Why is this even an argument when there are candidates that don't support these evils? You had no problem supporting better candidates in the primaries, regardless of their chances of winning; why doesn't this apply now? I urge all Catholics to read Pope Leo XIII's Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. Compromising by supporting evil is unacceptable when we have better choices available, (read his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI's quote I mentioned in my second post - how is "prevailing opinion" NOT applicable to "electability"?) and that goes for both McCain and Obama supporters. It isn't theocratic to say that Catholic teaching must be upheld in the public square (nor to invoke the Magisterium - something I never thought I would hear a practicing Catholic say), and I am certainly not supporting Barack Obama by casting a vote for someone who holds views so incredibly contrary to his! Where is all of this rationalization coming from? Since when is the "perfect" the "enemy of the good"? Since when is it OK to support evil if you don't have to? Written by Andy K. Colin, Please spell out EXACTLY how an Obama administration plans to bring an end to abortion. I don't want any vague rhetoric, like Obama is so talented at presenting, I want the EXACT steps he has outlined to accomplish this deed. Written by Kathy [/quote] And what is a "proportionate reason" for voting for a pro-abortion candidate? The Pope later clarified it: It's if the OTHER candidate running is WORSE--i.e., MORE pro-abortion. Nothing as trivially praiseworthy as "refusing to endorse the silly gas-tax holiday" can conceivably justify voting for a baby-killer. You are more complacent about abortion than a Catholic is permitted to be. Being complacent about a grave social injustice is a sin. Your conscience is afflicted with chaos.[/quote] Joseph, I believe I laid out ad naseum the (proportionate) reasons for why I support Obama. Please refer to my previous message. I have outlined my position respectfully and carefully, but you have not. I think your other statements cited above, not the least of which is this shocking declaration: [/quote] Here's one reason: Rev. Hagee said that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in Revelation. That is a theological position. It is not "hate-filled rhetoric." [/quote] have disqualified you from a respectful response from me. Written by Colin ...because I know that Obama has no such plan, nor does he care to make one! Not that McCain offers one either, of course. Written by Andy K. You are right, Andy. But at least we KNOW that Obama has already voted against Alito and Roberts for the Supreme Court and I am sure he would do it again if given the chance. McCain has stated clearly the type of judge he would appoint. Obama has, also, publicly pledged his undying support for Planned Parenthood Cone on, Colin, what is Obama's plan????? Written by Kathy If I had a better education in the classics, I would remember which Roman General (or was it one of the opposing generals in the Punic Wars?) said that the way to win the battle is to choose the battlefield. Catholics (and others) supporting John McCain can make a superior case for him on life issues using reason and persuasion. To their detriment, they often elect a more difficult battlefield -- arguing not on the basis of political and legislative policy discourse and reason but on moral obligation. To them, a vote for Obama is not just mistaken, but a sin. The McCain campaign has already shown its strong discomfort with being linked to this type of argument. I suspect they know it is more alienating to voters than convincing. The charges of ‘infanticide’ against Obama from his 2003 Illinois state senate vote are a case in point. A fair discussion of the facts would convince many (pro-life) voters to support John McCain. But the excessive rhetoric and misstatment may well be backfiring. Some inquiring voters have asked the question what has Senator McCain been doing to make infanticide illegal in the five years hence. His defenders rightly note he voted for federal legislation that was signed into law in 2002. The problem is, not voting for a state law duplicating what is already a federal crime is hardly a "preference for infanticide in cases where a child survives a botched abortion" Sure, we might use this action in rational discernment as to a candidate's pro-life commitment. But the overstatement, bordering on dishonesty does more to dishonor the accusers than it does Obama. Written by Kurt How on earth is Hagee's support of McCain (which ONLY comes about after his initial support of Huckabee) a strike against McCain, especially when McCain has disavowed the anti-Catholic comments? How is that any different than Obama (correctly) decrying the bigotry from Jeremiah Wright? Do not the huge monetary donations of PP and Obama's unrelenting support of their agenda count for anything? They sure as heck beat out the rather pathetic support one anti-Catholic pastor... Colin, it is far and away more than the abortion issue that disqualifies Obama. He's wrong on a plethora of non-negotiable moral teachings. Don't reduce it to one issue - that is not Catholic teaching, and it is not what (most) Catholics recognize as his one-and-only obstacle from receiving a Catholic's vote. Written by Andy K. I thank God for Deal Hudson, Andy K., and John Jakubeczyk and their persistent and capable fight against this horrendous evil. I personally am growing weary of this blog discussion with Obama supporters - there does not seem to be a way to communicate what we see is so clearly a modern holocaust. I am grateful that I have the wonderful privilege to preach once a month from now until the election and can address the evil of abortion when appropriate to the Gospel reading. That will be my contribution to this discussion. How is it we can see this evil so clearly and the others do not? Is it because some of can see the work of the personalized evil we used to call Satan and other have been blinded by sophistication and over rationalization, too much reason and too little faith? Please understand, Obama supporters, I am not judging the depth of your faith - Only you can do that, but I do ask myself the question because I cannot begin to otherwise understand your stubborn defense of what is to me an evil so great that it overwhelms all other issues. I believe when I first face my Lord and my God, one of the first questions he will ask me is: What did you do to protect the most innocent and defenseless of my children? Perhaps if that answer is not adequate, none of the rest will matter much Written by Deacon Frank Osgood Sen. Obama's position on some non-negotiable questions is not in step with the church's teaching, yes. The same goes for Sen. McCain, who supports stem-cell research. It is entirely different and inaccurate to say that because of the mismatch between some Obama positions with church teaching, that a Catholic should not support him. Then Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 memo to Cardinal McCarrick, and later the USCCB's Faithful Citizenship document, have affirmed the idea that Catholics can support political candidates if their reasons are proportionate. The Bishops write, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position...At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues" (No. 34). The USCCB fleshes out those important moral issues: the right to life and the dignity of the human person, call to family, community and participation, option for the poor and the vulnerable, dignity of work and the rights of workers, solidarity, and caring for god's creation. As a matter of policy, Sen. Obama promises to address the lion's share of issues encompassed by that list seriously and effectively. His positions dovetail with church teaching on most issues, including an option for the poor and vulnerable, solidarity with immigrants, meeting the health care needs of all citizens, ending the war in Iraq responsibly and quickly, and stewardship of the environment. Those are my proportionate reasons to support Obama, despite his stance in favor of abortion rights. Obama indeed has no enumerated plan to end abortion outright. Does McCain? Earlier, I asked "Have you considered that the Council actually believe that Obama's administration would better address the causes of abortion and perhaps make more progress on that issue than the Republicans have?" In the last 40 years, Democrats have appointed only 2 justices to the Supreme Court. In other words, most justices on that court have been appointed by Republican administrations. And has abortion been outlawed? No. The fact is, we live in a society whose majority public opinion supports at least some abortion rights. If abortion is going to end, it is going to take a serious revolution of public opinion. Obama's Catholic Advisory Council outlined ways that abortion will be reduced under plans that Sen. Obama has announced, such as a renewed responsibility for parents, comprehensive health and sex education, better health care, economic support for women, and promoting alternatives like adoption. Abortion is a disgusting act that should not be permitted, but that cannot be accomplished in one presidential election and is something that can only be achieved by changing the hearts and minds of the American people. Ignoring most other public policy questions while supporting candidates solely because of their position on the abortion issue (or even the issue of gay marriage) is exactly what the Bishops warned against. I have examined the issues in this election. Indeed, abortion is a non-negotiable evil for Catholics. But, there are many grave moral questions in the United States today and Barack Obama offers the best plan to address those challenges. That is why I support him. Written by Colin Why are you bringing up "the Republicans" if Obama and co. are supposed to "refuse to play the game of politics?" Are you equating that McCain with "the Republicans" as if electing him elects an entire body of people? Have you forgotten that in those past "40 years" the Republican party (and the Democrats) were completely different then they are today? How is the actions of various Republicans over the past 4 decades somehow relavent to Mr. McCain's stances today? Have you forgotten that McCain has been demonized by this same Republican party for not being "conservative" enough? I thought that Obama was here to unite, and that talking about "party" politics was just another way to "divide" voters? We don't vote for parties. We vote for candidates. Just another reason to vote third-party in November. Written by Andy K. You keep citing all these other issues from the USCCB that Obama is "right" on. How is McCain WRONG on them? Furthermore, I'm calling your cluff on the "call to family" one right now, because Obama is clearly on the wrong side of this issue in a non-negotiable way. You claim: that "Obama's Catholic Advisory Council outlined ways that abortion will be reduced under plans that Sen. Obama has announced, such as a renewed responsibility for parents, comprehensive health and sex education, better health care, economic support for women, and promoting alternatives like adoption." Well, I'm not going to bother to cite it, as it's common knowledge, but Obama has made clear that his "sex education" plan involves contraceptives...another non-negotiable evil. How is THAT in line with the "call to family" in the USCCB documents? Is that not also completely AGAINST what the magisterium has said is the duty of a parent? Did he NOT call babies a "punishment?" Additionally, you cite immigration and healthcare as reasons to vote for Obama when his policies on these matters are as subject to as much scrutiny and have as many problematic nuances as McCain's. There is nothing in Obama's plan that makes it any better than McCain's. In fact, Obama and McCain were both slammed by their respective opponents in the primaries for having plans that were so close to the middle! Remember the TExas debates when Hillary said that Obama's healthplan "sounds like something the Republicans" wrote up? There's that word again. REPUBLICAN. What do ya know, Obama's close to REPUBLICANS in his health policy. Others have said that McCain is "too liberal" on immigration and healthcare, as well - To close to those "EVIL DEMONCATS" as many a neocon has said in the past. Just how much equivocating do we plan on doing here? How many evils does Barack or McCain have to support before we say that their "integrity, philosophy, and performance" is a moot point? Apparently, supporting a multitude of grave moral evils doesn't stop us (instead, THEY become a moot point!), so, McCain and Obama supporters, what DOES? Written by Andy K. I consider Pastor Hagee far less "hate-filled" and "anti-Catholic" than Cardinal Bernardin--who devised the demonic "Seamless Garment" and a few other weasely bits of rhetoric that have provided handy cover for Catholics who wanted to vote pro-abortion, and needed some pious rationalizations. For more than 25 years, Bernardin's pious drivel has reliably assisted in clouding the issue, to the benefit of countless pro-abortion candidates and the pro-abortion Catholics who vote for them. — Roque StrewI'm truly speechless. This is breathtaking. Roque, I was also rendered momentarily speechless when I read Fr. Joseph's comments concerning Cardinal Bernardin. I've since recovered and here goes... Dear God, please protect our beloved America and the rest of the world from the intolerance and oppression of religious extremism married to political agenda. Help us to open our imperfect minds to the intrinsic value of all reasonable human discourse even when we disagree. And, when we think we can read Your Mind, when we believe that You are on our side, and ONLY our side, bless us with humility and self-questioning so that we can examine our fears and weaknesses. God, please give us the tolerance, charity and wisdom to use our faith in You to increase, not diminish, and to advance, not deter, the opening of all human hearts and minds to Your Infinite Love. Amen. Written by Just Saying You are precisely the audience that Pope Leo XIII had in mind when he wrote Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. As a Catholic who wishes nothing more than the best for everyone, I urge you in particular to read it. I believe it will do you much good :) Also, I appreciate and thank you for your prayer. I will also be offering prayers for you and the other posters here, as well. Written by Andy K. Isn't it quite revealing that few, if any, Catholic Democrats who favor abortion rights are not being allowed to speak on Catholic campuses, including many that aren't exactly toeing the line on Catholic morality? To wit: http://tinyurl.com/5en54l Guess any "plans" they have to reduce abortions have increasingly been regarded as abject failures. Written by Pax "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me' (Matthew 25:40). In the end, this is precisely how we all will be judged. I am a priest out here in the front lines and many of my people will vote Democrat, just because they always have. These are the steady farmers, etc. who believe we are still living in the Kennedy Camelot era (This "special interests groups driven" party is light years removed from the "values driven" party of old). I once asked one of these,"why so many still vote with this party?" The reply came, "because they are out for the little guy." Well, while I did not want to go toe-to-toe with these lovely people, I said to myself, "There is none more 'little' than the ones who are most vulnerable today and counting on us to keep them safe in what once was the safest place in the universe -- our mother's womb." Christ is the GREAT civil rights leader and, in the sixties, we were led by a great minister who "had a dream." The "least" at that time received their due rights and liberties. In this modern holocaust, the unprotected innocents deserve ALL THE EGGS in our basket, just as minorities and women did in the 60s. No matter how ridiculous are the arguments that reduce this modern holocaust to merely one among many problems, it remains utterly true that these ARE the least Christ wants us to give the highest priority. Otherwise, we are barbarians - no higher regard for life than lions who eat their cubs. It is simply AMAZING how deeply the dictatorship of moral relativism has laid hold of our culture. Whether our Maker or our grandchildren, once Roe v. Wade is overturned we're gonna have some splainin' to do (much like those living in Germany in the mid-20th century). Did you side with the abortion industry, Grandpa? Written by Fr. Richard Thank you for those wonderfully insightful comments. As a seminarian, I will try to remember those words in situations where careful pastoral attention becomes nececssary, especially when the topic of voting rears its head. Please pray for this country and for the world. Election 2008 clearly proves we desperately need it. Written by Andy K. Colin, How ironic to "dismiss" my comments because he is my senator. Yet you defend Obama claiming the certain unarticulated "proportionate" reasons for supporting him. Being pro-life is a threshold question for me as i examine a person seeking my support. Does the candidate believe in protecting innocent human life? If he or she does, then I can examine the rest of the candidate's qualifications. I can use "proportionate" reasoning to address issues when there is no bright line to distinguish the candidates - as in two candidates who are both pro-abortion, or a candidate who is mostly pro-life and will win vis-a-vis voting for a totally unelectable candidate who claims to be pro-life. But I digress. Obama is supported by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Catholics for a Free Choice, NOW, National Abortion Federation, and a slew of other pro-abortion groups who make their money killing bbabies. If this is the crew you want to hang with, then its your choice. But I do suggest you check out Obama's speech to Planned Parenthood in which he praised this bastion of child killers (to quote Susan B. Anthony) for their work in eliminating little children. You can find it on Youtube. By the way Colin, you never did tell all of us what YOU are doing for the cause of life. Kurt, I appreciate your comments. I think there are rational, non religious reasons to stop child killing and only vote for candidates who will end abortion. Frankly if I wanted to bring up Obama's religious beliefs, I would ask how any professed Christian could even contemplate abortion. Indeed if I wanted to get really serious, I would quote Jesse Jackson who in 1974 (before he ran for president) called abortion black genocide. I would ask Obama and his supporters to explain the following ( thinks to LDI): Since 1973 over 25% of the Black population has been exterminated by abortion. About 13% of American women are Black, but they have 35% of the abortions. Planned Parenthood operates the largest chain of abortion clinics in the U.S. and almost 80% of them are in minority neighborhoods. Finally, Andy, I did read that you like Baldwin. However the truth is that minor candidates do not win. McCain will be better fro the movement than Obama - that is a given. He is having serious discussions with prominent bio-ethicists on the stem cell issue. Those of us who are involved in the pro-life movement can talk to him. The lines of communication are open. That will be important not just for the campaign but for the next four years. Well I am off to a graduation mass for my niece. Pray for our nation. Written by John Jakubczyk A vote for Obama is to validate that being pro-choice and Catholic are acceptable and agreeable terms. If those liberal pro-choice Catholics are able to convince and persuade a majority of Catholics to vote for Obama who supports infanticide, we will see the end of anything resembling the pro-life caucus of the Catholic Church. More so, we must accept that these Obama Catholics really beleive that it is better to give women the right to choose an abortion than to "have men telling them what to do." To them it is about power, not about the sanctity of human life. Example: many of them would protest the War in Iraq but you would never see them outside an abortion clinic. Why? The real problem within our church is that we have too many priests and nuns who really don't believe that abortions are evil. They are very comfortable with women terminating their pregnancies. There is very little remorse for the lost life and very little consideration or thought given to the justification of murdering unborn children. These priests, nuns and politicans, theologians, et al feel very much at ease with policies and laws that give women the absolute right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason whatsoever during any moment of pregnancy. They give the impression with their unqualified accalades for Obama that it is just a complex moral issue of the day which warrants only further dialogue. What ever happen to their outrage? Written by DJP Those who can't get enough of this subject might want to check out Darwin Catholic's thought-provoking post (check out links to other interesting stuff as well) at: http://tinyurl.com/5bcszu Written by Pax Christi Dear God, please protect our beloved America and the rest of the world from the intolerance and oppression of those who take the Catholic Faith too seriously. Help them to open their imperfect minds to the intrinsic value of all moral positions, so that those who want to kill babies will never be questioned or inconvenienced. And, when they think they can read Your Mind, when they believe that You are on their side, and ONLY their side, bless them with so much humility and self-questioning that they will be incapable of deciding whether You are in favor of or opposed to the killing of babies. God, please give so-called pro-lifers so much tolerance that they will be incapable of objecting to abortion any longer, and just shut up. Amen. Written by Fr. Joseph Washington, DC - Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released the following statement today, announcing that her organization's political action committee proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for president. "Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC is proud to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public office. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians. "Sen. Obama has been a leader on this issue in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both side of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. Sen. Obama supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services. "We are confident that Barack Obama is the candidate of the future. Americans are tired of the divisive politics of the last eight years, and will unite behind Obama in the fall. We look forward to working with a pro-choice Obama White House in January." Keenan also praised Senator Clinton as a pro-choice leader. "Americans have been fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination. But only one can go forward to the general election. It is truly historic for us to have these two outstanding candidates in the race." Written by Fr. Joseph Just for the record, where in that statement does it say that Obama will not "reduce the need for abortion"? The rest of the endorsement is scary enough (I DARE any Catholic Obama supporter to defend his "comprehensive sex education"), but I would appreciate a follow-up to the request. Thanks in advance! Written by Andy K. Did you know that today 4,000 innocent Americans will be executed? If Obama is elected, he will ensure that Supreme Court vacancies are filled by those who uphold this daily holocaust. If McCain is elected, he will ensure that Supreme Court vacancies are filled by those who oppose this daily holocaust. FOUR THOUSAND! EVERY DAY! WAKE UP!! Written by Carson Weber It apparently has to be said again:you cannot vote for Obama and remain in communion witht the Catholic Church. Now that Obama has the endorsement of NARAL, can Obameretics explain the consistency of their position as Catholics without trotting out "social justice"? Written by vincent manning Have never looked at this "insider blogger before. He and his respondents are truly frightening!!! Most apparently think little of nothing of the United States and its system and deeply desire a return to inquisition days. And, of course, the great majority, including the old Republican first, Catholic second blogger thinks, out of ignorance, that abortions would diminish if Roe were overturned. Most, of course,think the repeal of Roe would make abortion illegal to the U S. Wrong. It would only return the issue it to the states. Boy, I surely hope these fanatics never come to power. Pile up the firewood. Jack Written by john m haynes The USCCB states in #28 that abortion and other fundamental life issues are ALWAYS wrong and must ALWAYS be opposed. The council also states that abortion and other fundamental life issues are NOT one issue among many to be considered. How can intelligent human beings, lawyers and college faculty, fail to read the absolutes in the USCCB's Forming Consciences and Faithful Citizenship? Written by Sara Clearly this relates (at least indirectly) back to our discussion of Scalia. You seem to have this attitude that Church teaching can't be reflected in U.S. law (other commentators such as "Just Saying" also seem to share this belief). Why? You do realize that your Catholic faith MANDATES such a position? You are not allowed to believe that abortion can remain "safe, legal and rare" and remain Catholic. Is this clear? Do you need evidence? Written by Andy K. Andy, what do I have to do? Let me put it bluntly. I hate to say it but you have no respect for America, the Constitution, and our justice system. You despise the whole idea of democracy. You despise America because you want it run from the Vatican. Why don't you move there? There would be plenty of people there who would be interested in your soul and body. I am ashamed to talk this way but you give me no choice. Also you should note that if the Church only has members who agree with it on abortion there would be no Catholic church's in America. 20 per cent of their present membership could not keep many church's open. Please understand that as a catholic and American you may say what you like. But to destroy our country to make it a deparment of the Vatican is crazy!!!! Written by john m haynes The 5th and 14th Amendments say that no one can be denied the right to life without due process of law. Abortion is therefore a violation of our Constitution. Anyone who tries to imply that outlawing abortion is tantamount to establishing a department of the Vatican in the US is spouting utter nonsense. Pro-life people come from all denominations and all walks of life which is one of the strengths of the pro-life movement. It is true that overturning Roe will not immediately outlaw abortion but will at least give the people more of a say through their elected representatives in each state. That beats nine judges tying our hands from a legal standpoint. I believe that most states will outlaw abortion to some degree. Written by Sal Rizzo I realize that we're completely derailing the article here, but your latest comment absolutely demands a response. How on earth is demanding a pro-life America in any way against the constitution or the judicial system? Do you honestly think that babies in the womb should continued to be murdered just because some politicians say they should be? I am quite offended by the comment that I have "no respect for America,the constitution, or the justice system." On the contrary, I respect civil, promulgated law greatly - God allowed humans to do so out of love, and I have no problem respecting legitimate authority that makes and promulgates just laws. I draw the line (and all Catholics do) at laws that go against basic moral principles and the Natural Law. Truth is not determined by a majority vote, and to legalize murder (which is what Roe V. Wade did) is such an abrogation. You do realize, of course, that anyone who wants to legalize or criminalize anything is acting on some kind of faith, right? Even if you're an atheist, anytime you want to do ANYTHING, you are acting on some sort of belief. What comes first in your life? God or country? God's moral laws, or manmade laws? I would hope that it's the former to both questions, but your responses in this thread seem to indicate otherwise. Do you understand yet, or should I enlist the help of others who are better at explaining this than I am? Written by Andy K. Andy, as Americans we are obligated to follow the law. You only want to follow the laws you like. What's this about "all catholics". Less than 20 percent of Catholics agree with the Church' absurd position on abortion. Jack Written by john m haynes John, you've been gorging yourself in the cafeteria for too long. You're full of it... Written by Lynda Hi, Sal. You need to be a little more exact . The 14th amendment says no "person" not "no one". Do you believe a dead body is a "person."? No brain waves, no sentiate functions. Should 1 or 2 cell entities be counted in the census? Should the death of a 3 week old fetus be counted in mortality figures. Is a women who overexersizes while pregant causing a miscarriage be guilty of manslaughter? How many people are in a car in this case: Three adults; one of the adults 3 hours from intercourse? Come on think: just don't spout slogans that some one has given you to save youu from reasoning. Jack Written by john m haynes John, if you are unwilling to submit to the Church's authority, what's keeping you in the Church? Why not just trot down the street? There are thousands of Protestant denominations to choose from. You can pick one that fits your ideas of right and wrong. You can be the authority. But if that's the case, why go to any church? You're still Catholic because you have the indellible mark of the Holy Spirit on your soul from Baptism. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Your cross is one of humility. Written by Lynda Please give some deep reflection...not some silly 60 second soundbite time..to your statement about the church's stand on abortion being "absurd." Please, John. Written by kathy Brian "banned" John Haynes - he won't be showing up again until Brian allows it. Speaking of which, how does the "appeal" process work here? Do we contact one of the staffers via e-mail? Written by Andy K. Of course I will oppose Obama-before and sfter the election (if, God forbid, he wins). I also protest against Catholic Democrats who rightly condemn their party's pro-infanticide position but who seem to think that they know without a doubt that God endorses the Democrat platform on other issues as well. I beg to differ. We could mention the Catholic teaching about subsidiarity and the destructive effects of the welfare state on poor families-especially black families. Also,I wonder if Catholics supporting Obama would do so if their hero agreed with them on all the "peace and justice issues", but also favored Jim Crow? Or would a candidate's position on that "ONE ISSUE" make him unacceptable even if he favored Big Government, family-destroying social programs? Written by Robert A. Ted Kennedy is nearing death. There will be a big, splashy, Catholic funeral Mass in Boston or in Washington. There will be a big, splashy memorial Mass in Washington or Boston—whichever city is not the locale of the funeral. At both events, a priest will talk about how Kennedy left this world a better place than he found it, how he cared about the children, and that he was a voice for social justice. Abortion, gay marriage, the campaign of lies about Robert Bork, and Mary Jo Kopechne (still relevant because Kennedy has never told the truth about leaving her to a five-hour, frigid, pitch-black nightmare death in an air bubble in his upside-down Oldsmobile) will not be mentioned. Dozens of pro-abortion politicians will march up to receive Communion. Archbishop O’Malley of Boston, and Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, will have no comment. Written by Fr. Joseph You are so right, Fr. Joseph. It is pathetic. Written by Kathy There hasn't been a home for pro-lifers in the democratic party for years. The GOP is pure and constant betrayal of the pro-life movement. A vote for either McCain or the democratic choices are a wasted vote, their campaigns being pre-selected by the powers of influence that WANT abortion. By buying into this political gamesmanship instead of action and truth, we have come to the most monstrous political choices we have ever faced. This is the year of third party candidates and the 'offbeat' candidates that the current roster thinks are 'crazy.' The challenges our country faces are far too great- endless illegal and unchristian war - even NUCLEAR war, which the Church says is unmitigated evil; and the rise of fascism euthanasia, infanticide, corruption of the innocent, and the destruction of marriage. Catholics who vote their consciences cannot vote for any of the three leading candidates and still happily face God at their own end. For those who think we can justifiably go and nuke Iran, take a look at the Just War Doctrine http://mschaut.wordpress.com/just-war-doctrine/ and re-think matters. It is serious. It is dangerous. Justice has left the earth. Written by Margaret http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tpPetdNGOg Written by Karen L. Margaret: I am not aware that the Catholic Church teaches that it is immoral to use a nuclear weapon. I do know that the Church teaches that indiscriminate bombing of "entire cities with their populations" is a crime. (Cf. Gaudium et Spes.) It would not be intrinsically wrong to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, even with a nuclear weapon. Advocating that someone may, or ought to, carry out such a bombing is NOT morally equivalent to advocating the "legality" of abortion. Written by Fr. Joseph Why has no one addressed the fact that we are ONE Justice away from having a pro-life majority in the Supreme Court? Let's face it: McCain would appoint a pro-lifer and Obama wouldn't. The end. — MBOh, and why has no one made the point that the Church has said as a Catholic you CANNOT vote for someone who supports abortion? Because McCain is not pro-life and will not nominate pro-life justices. If you bothered to study his record this would be more than apparent. Anyone who takes the pro-life issue seriously has to vote for someone other than Obama or McCain! But if you want to vote for one of the two bad choices that the media has given us... one thing is guaranteed: Another 6 million children killed! Written by Michael P. Molloy You are absolutely correct, Michael! Catholics should not limit their choices to these two candidates, Obama and McCain. Neither of them espouse Catholic values, in fact, both of them have some very anti-Catholic viewpoints. I suggest we all campaign and push for Bob Barr. Written by Daniel One thing bothers me about the Catholic opposition to the death penalty. The Bible records that God Himself instituted the death penalty for crimes like idolatry, blasphemy, and sexual relations between stepmother and stepson. Also, the Catholic Church was not so opposed to the death penalty when it came to burning heretics at the stake. Written by Michael Ejercito Obama makes such lofty statements riddled with the promise to reduce abortion nation -wide ; however reducing these figures is not enough when it comes to moral judgement. Absolutly banning this infanticide would otherwise save one's moral soul, while reducing it is just as evil as allowing all to pass. Does he not consider those who were still unlucky enough to be denied a chance at life? The controversial opinions pertaining to abortion should also looked at beyon the religious scope. Though religions may differ greatly from eachother and the the atheistic end of the spectrum, is it not our moral obligation as human begins to protect the sanctity of pure and untainted life? I am sixteen years old if I can reason so well at such a tender age why does most of my country fail to see such reason and moral uprightedness. Written by jaclyn bowes First of all, I'd like to applaud Colin for his perceptive comment. "A Question for Colin" states that more sex education is not the answer. I beg to differ. Speaking from personal experience -- and as an otherwise competent and functional, thinking woman -- I was unaware until I was in my mid-twenties of exactly when in a woman's cycle she was most at risk for becoming pregnant. Assuming that I'm not the ONLY woman who has operated in this vacuum of reproductive knowledge, more and better sex education is, indeed, contributive to "the answer". I find it incomprehensible -- and it makes me want to scream in frustration -- that the Catholic Church is anti-sex education, anti-contraception, AND anti-abortion. Dooming women to ever-increasing family size, or maintaining pregnancies that are dangerous to their physical or mental health shows how out-of-touch the Catholic Church continues to be when it comes to the well-being of its (female) members. Written by Annie I see the term 'Obama Catholic' in the same light as 'square circle' and 'unmarried husband'. It just doesn't work. — Francis WippelI totally agree... it makes as much sense as 'McCain Catholic' for some conservative criticism of McCain go to: http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/ This includes criticism from fellow Catholic/Veteran/Pro-lifer Bob Dornan, who is leading American Life League's efforts on Capitol Hill Written by Michael P. Molloy Unfortunately way too many (and often otherwise intelligent, but unfortunately un-discerning) persons have already drank from the Obama Kool Aid that the media and left wing cover groups (such as factcheck.org) are serving. May God help the USA and Israel after this man takes office. Written by Carl Strohmeyer As a Catholic, I consider abortion a grave affront to the sanctity of human life. But the polarized abortion debate in this country has often been fueled by rancorous political rhetoric that has done little to reduce the number of abortions. If we are serious about preventing abortion, we must address the economic and social factors that are often at the heart of a woman’s tragic decision to end a pregnancy. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward the goal of ending the tragedy of abortion. How wonderful if we could all work on this goal instead of resorting to partisan attacks. Written by Sister Sharon Dillon |
|
 |
