I don't think anybody's going to deny you Communion because of it. I wasn't aware, however, that you've emigrated to Louisiana though.

Todd, you're wrong.

Bishops in the 60s did withhold communion from public racists, and did excommunicate them.

So should they also insist that the Kerrys and the Bidens the Pelosis and the Kennedys not present themselves for communion based upon their public support for abortion.

tom in ohio

Really, Todd?
Apparently you aren't up on the Civil Rights Era, when several racist politicians were excommunicated by their bishops.

That said, if the bishops have listed "racism" as an "intrinsically evil act," I would like a definition thereof.

For example, Tom Howard once said on a _Mother Angelica Live_ interview that the only time he ever walked out of Mass was when he heard a priest preach, in a seminary, that Jesus was guilty of the sin of racism (the whole "dogs eat the scraps" conversation).

I understand the point of Dr. Donohue's piece, and the political and moral parallels to Catholics in both the antebellum and segregated South who supported slavery and, later, segregation to those who now endorse the "pro-choice" position are obvious.

However, I am troubled by taking terms that can be defined very broadly, including practices that have previously been allowed and even promoted by the Church and/or the Bible, and then calling them "intrinsic evils."

The Old Testament is full of "racism." It's popular today to discount it and say that somehow that was not really God ordering Israel to commit genocide, but to say that fundamentally undermines the whole Bible: suddenly, we can pick and choose what we think "really came from God."

It is pretty clear what an abortion is. The only ambiguities in regard to "abortion" are "life of the mother" situations (the distinction between killing the baby to save the mother and doing a procedure to save the mother which harms the baby as an undesired side effect). That is why even the most strictly anti-abortion countries, except Malta and the Vatican, allow abortions to save the life of the mother.

"Racism," however, could cover a broad spectrum of attitudes, ideas and actions, not all of which are intrinsically evil or mortally sinful. Some "racism" may be the prudential action in a situation (for example, as my relatives and friends keep reminding me in my quest for affordable housing, living in a neighborhood where one is likely to encounter crime, Satanic music, drug use and other unfriendly behaviors may not be the most prudent decision for a Catholic family).

This article inspired me to finally take a look at the _Forming Consciences_ document, and there is much in it to question. "Divorce" is mentioned once, and only as one of several "policy issues" like taxation, and not as an intrinsic evil. "Contraception" is not mentioned at all. Sexual discrimination is identified as a grave evil: so, according to the U. S. Bishops, the Church is guilty of a grave evil by saying that women can't be priests. Religious discrimination is another grave evil, according to this document, so I guess if we could afford a nanny or a private tutor, the bishops would say we're morally obligated to hire a Wiccan or a Muslim or a Hindu to help raise our children.

Donohue's parody of Obama Catholics like Kmiec and Cafardi is right on the mark. In a similar vein, I suggested a "John McCain Pacifist" website when I saw that the Matthew 25 Network had created a "Pro Obama, Pro-Life" website. The implied question of Donohue's piece is that self-contradictory support of a racist is shocking so why isn't it shocking for a pro-lifer to support Obama.

is a fool's errand. The best way to follow Church teaching is not to accept the categories put forth by politicians, but to live as CATHOLICS - therefore, to reject abortion. If Catholics would simply concentrate on living as Catholics that itself would revolutionize the so-called abortion debate in this country.

"The implied question of Donohue's piece is that self-contradictory support of a racist is shocking so why isn't it shocking for a pro-lifer to support Obama."

Is a pro-choice candidate or voter an abortionist in the same sense that David Duke is a racist? I don't think so.

Parody is hardly Donohue's strong suit. Parody contains truth.

Here is the truth of Donohue's parody for those who missed it.

Donohue is a Catholic.
The Catholic Church considers racism an evil.
By endorsing David Duke he endorses his racism.
This contradicts the teaching of Donohue's Catholic faith.

Now all you need to do in substitute Kmiec or Cafardi for Donohue and abortion for racism.

Racism is a belief about specific groups of people as inferior.

Pro-abortion is a belief about a specific group of people as, well, not possessing human rights. That's a kind of inferiority is it not?

Or you could say pro-abortion is a belief about a specific group of people not really being people, the ultimate kind of inferiority.

Mr. Donohue's parody notwithstanding, the bottom line for Catholics is the following.

You CANNOT be both a Roman Catholic and pro-choice. The two are mutually exclusive.

As for the argument that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother, it is absurd! What mother would not give her own life for that of her living child. A child still in her womb deserves no less consideration.

It is sad to think that a mother would ever have to make that choice, but the life of a child MUST ALWAYS come first and it is for the rest of us to accept God's will.

We must turn away from this culture of the self and understand that we are part of something greater than ourselves and that we must commit ourselves to it.

Peace.

I love Mr. William Donahue and respect his faithfulness to the Church and willingness to pay the price of standing up for our Church and our Catholic, I once believed, American values, often alone, in the PUBLIC Square of Journalism.

However, this morning when the KKK image next to his "parody" title appeared I must admit, I shuddered! Why, because I have actually heard the words he writes in this piece; from "regular Americans". Why, because I fear that the hostility that this campaign has brought to the surface will erupt, and violently, no matter which way this election turns out.

Thank you Deal for further stating the meaning behind this piece (for those who aren't as bright or thoughtful as Donahue). The LIFE issue, protecting the unborn, over 50 million beautiful American lives have been destroyed by us as a nation, ISmore serious than racism..... which is not easy to arrive to without thoughtful consideration. Just because we have failed to reverse ROE v WADE and protect the unborn like we did for the black slaves and for women's equality doesn't mean that it isn't THE CORRECTION that needs to be made if our nation is to survive as a GOD-fearing, LIFE-giving NATION!

I agree, if we elect someone who doesn't get this we can be sure, especially this time around, that we will become just like the rest of the world, GREY with Compromise, instead of the BRIGHT BEACON on the Hill, Shining a FULL Color Spectrum of Promise through the prisims of our long held and revered CORE American Family Values.

If there is no longer the sanctity of Human LIFE at its conception, and no longer agreement that the Family is the cellular structure of our NATION that needs to be restored, we can countdown to the dissolution of our FREEDOM as Americans. We will be sold into a GLOBAL Government System, where God is NO LONGER acknowledged.

This article brought me to my knees again this time with the realization of JUST How much is at stake. Some shudders are worth having, I guess.

I applaud Bill Donohue for being the faithful Irish Catholic Pugilist with words that he always is. This parody piece he wrote cuts right through to the absolutely incomprehensible effort of both Doug Kmiec and Nick Cafardi to pretend to promote - with a strained "moral" argument - their support of a candidate who has pledged to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" as one of his first acts upon assumong the Presidency. Racism is intrinsically evil. We all rightly recoil when we consider anyone who is faithful to the truth as taught by the Church concerning its intrinsically evil nature ever attempting to make a "moral' argument that a faithful Catholic could ever justify supporting a candidate who endorses such an evil. However, that is PRECISELY what Doug and Nick have done with their claim that one can be Pro-Life and endorse Senator Obama. Doug argues it isn't his "intent", Nick sounds very similar. You cannot "cure" choosing an evil end by relying on some kind of good intention.

This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. If a mother's life is in danger and an unintended consequence of saving her is the death of her unborn child, it is not abortion, and we should not refer to it as such. The principle of double effect is at play here. And the child's life in these circumstances does not "come first." In such tragic circumstances, decisions must be made on a case by case basis.

Maybe, Alek, but part of it might be semantics. Yes, direct, intended abortion is wrong, but that's not always what is at play when the life of the mother is at stake.

Also, a good many pro-life people, including Alan Keyes (and me, for what it's worth), think that the State should not force a mother to give up her own life for that of her child, even in a direct, intended, "my-life-or-my child's" situation. Wanting topreserve one's own life is a fundamental instict. I'm surprised you seem to ignore that so blithely.

Well maybe now we can end this nonsense thinking that we must be in agreement on every single position a candidate takes to have them worthy of our support. I support David Duke as far as his stance on Israel and Zionism and their impact on US foreign policy go. Likewise, I agree with Patrick J. Buchanan on his disdain of US imperialism. I don't agree with a whole lot else with these two, but on those points they make quite a bit of sense.

Mother of Two Sons, are you sure that every single liberal is a totalitarian communist? Are you sure that American traditionalism is nothing but light and goodness? Lance, are you sure that David Duke's stance on Zionism is based on anything besides antisemitism? Don't extremists lure people by seeming to make sense?

Thank you for allowing me to ask questions.

For the record, I participated in a Life Chain with my parish in spite of the demagoguery and propaganda of certain traditionalists activists. I was pleased to see that none of the people in the vigil screeched or threw blood. It was about time that I did something for the unborn. Now it's time for everyone--not just legislators--to do his and her part.

Did your boy Hagee help you write this?

The "parody" parallel breaks down in that David Duke offers nothing else to consider. He may as well have said "anti-Holocaust for Hitler". Even Hitler can be said to have rescued the 1930's German economy and built the autobahns. Cafardi's article was a serious effort to balance the consequences of a vote for McCain on the single issue of abortion, (which as Cafardi says, will have a negligible effect on the number of abortions in this country) with the many other issues in which Obama can arguably make the country and the world a better place. There is no parallel in Donohue's parody of the other reasons to vote for Duke, hypothetical as it is.

Recall that overturning Roe doesn't prohibit abortions, it only makes it a state issue.

If you are a single issue voter, then the discussion is pretty much done. If you want to consider how important ending the Iraq war is, improving our relationships with the rest of the world, returning to the leadership of the free world, and having a better economy so we can continue to support the Church and its Christian efforts, you have a little more thinking to do.

God bless us all, of every faith and then some.

Brian Gallagher

I am from Louisiana. I had to make that choice

On one side was the "racist" he said he had changed his ways
"Pro-life" David Duke

On the other was the Pro-Choice corrupt Edwin Edwards. The word was strongly sent out to Catholics we could not vote for Duke

It is amazing the double standard on this intrinisc eveil stuff

The "seamless garment" on life issues proposed by Cardinal Bernadin is incorrect. There is a hierarchy of truths. Killing innocent babies is worse than killing in war, rascism, etc. Just look at the numbers: 1 million(?)per year aborted vs. 4000 dead in Iraq. Not to belittle the sacrice of our soldiers and their families. But to compare the two look at the numbers. what does this have to do with the parody ? Hierarchy of truth: abortuion is WAY worse than racism.

Bill Donohue is exactly right on the money here. Hypocrisy is not just alive and well on college campuses, it is alive and epidemic in parishes across the country. At my own parish, Our Lady of Lourdes in Massapequa, NY, thanks to a new and liberal minded Pastor (Msgr. Jim Lisante) we have a parish divided by people who know better and people who want the church to move into the 21st century; thus attempting to "re-write" Catholic Doctrine. Now, one may argue that this is a situation solely related to "internal Church business", however, in our situation this is clearly a case of "double-standard" hypocrisy. Msgr. Lisante has deemed it acceptable to employ the director of the blasphemous off-Broadway play: “My Big Gay Italian Wedding” as our Music Director (Mr. Peter Rapanaro). What is going on in this diocese and how does the appointment of someone who thumbs their nose up at Church teaching set a good example for Catholics? Further, how does this comply with the any Diocese's Child Protection Policy? Is this NOT hypocrisy of the highest order? Does this Monsignor support Gay Marriage? Does he condone homosexuality and sodomy as an acceptable, "look the other way", lifestyle while he is supposed to lead this flock of parishioners according to the Catholic Catechism??? Is it more important to fill pews or classroom that it is to speak the truth? One has to wonder. This same colorful character, Peter Rapanaro, recently had the honor of being inducted in the prestigious Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem by none other than Cardinal Edward Egan of NYC. They bestow an honor of this type on a man who openly promotes the gay lifestyle? This statement by Cafardi, is the perfect example of the double standard that is rampant in the Catholic Church and, therefore, funnels down to the Catholic college campuses. The "fish stinks from the head down" so to speak, it is up to the Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, et al to LEAD Catholics set Catholic professors, like Cafardi straight. They are not doing so and, therefore, you have academics like Cafardi, who feel absolutely "right" in taking a position such as this, supporting a "PRO-ABORTION" candidate for President; who but William Donohue would have the fortitude to step forward and publicly tell him he is wrong? Where is Cafardi's Bishop or at the very least, a parish priest? We need people like Donohue to fight for what's right and not just "look the other way"!

Check out: www.modernpriest.blogspot.com or www.peterrapanaro.com to find out more about this Monsignor and Peter Rapanaro.

Duke or his opponent? The problem with choosing between the lesser of two evils is that they are both still evil.

The classic "pro-abortion apologist posing as a sympathetic pro-lifer" line is: "I don't personally believe that abortion is the right choice, but I don't believe that I can impose my (religious) beliefs on someone else." In fact, this is almost verbatim what Obama's running-mate said when asked to justify his abortion stance as a Catholic. (The main-stream media gave him a pass on it.)

Using Mr Donahue's comparison, imagine any Democrat saying, "I don't personally believe racist behavior is the right choice, but I don't believe that I can impose my beliefs on someone else." Now, to take the comparison further, substitute in "enviromentally exploitive", or "homophobic."

He or she would be shown the door post-haste.

Do we really need people like Donahue? Hasn't Donahue attacked Jews and mocked "gooks"? Liberal sites and 'blogs provide plenty of evidence for such a claim. If you have evidence to the contrary, go ahead and show me.

Racism is a root cause of abortion as championed in the writings of Margaret Sanger: genocide of unworthy economically poorer races to procreate, as inspired by Hitler's Arian race concept. She speaks against Creator God who tells His children to populate the earth.

Alveda King, of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. family, says that the new Civil Rights issue is that of aborted-murdered children's God-given intrinsic right to life beginning in the womb of their mothers.

Obama has tried to attach himself to the character profiles of several great men in America's history; Dr. King Jr., former Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. As deceased, these men may not rise up in protest literally, but their infamous words bear testimony against the deceivers of this world of which Obama is the most current example.

Fine moral character can not be procured by rubbing up against the Greats of this Land for it is something earned & lived through principle. Considering a broader world view, the ancient Chinese Emperors used to warn their sons & heirs that what the Father did not give to them they were not to attempt to take by force.

If we vote for life, for the candidate that will least exploit it, then we will kill 2 birds with 1 stone; abortion (infanticide) and racism. It is a simple choice for God's Way.
Heed the Holy Spirit, Catholics.

Rose*

"If you have evidence to the contrary, go ahead and show me."

He who makes the claim should at least provide a concrete example, and not just direct people to "Liberal sites" out there somewhere.

But it's all ad hominem anyway, so my suggestion is to deal with the analogy he provides alone.

Re: 14) Are you sure?
October 07th, 2008 | 12:45pm
Lance, are you sure that David Duke's stance on Zionism is based on anything besides antisemitism? Don't extremists lure people by seeming to make sense?
Written by Brian Cook

----

I think the fact that David Duke supports truth-tellers regardless of stripe (Norman Finkelstein, Walt & Mearsheimer, etc.) speaks well of his actual agenda. I think there are racists involved in the anti-immigration movement for instance, but that does not negate the fact that immigration and border control are serious issues that need to be discussed.

Here is a good piece on how anything involving David Duke is framed.

http://tinyurl.com/534jnf

What would suffice as evidence that someone hasn't said something? Sorry, framing the argument as "show me evidence to the contrary" doesn't fly.

I am the Supreme Commander of All Honeybees. Show me evidence to the contrary.

Jesus Christ is called the Prince of Peace. I've yet to hear anything about Peace from McCain. How can we support a candidate who promotes war and jokes about bombing countries and killing thousands of innocent babies in one fell swoop??

Barack Obama wants to help the poor. When I was in Catholic school our mantra was to help the poor. At their Catholic school my daughters are now practicing in helping the poor. All the nuns in all the convents in the world help the poor. Comprehensive sex education and free birth control for poor, single moms is how to help the poor. Daycare for poor, working moms is how you help the poor. Outright banning of abortion only kills women, who will ultimately take matters into their own hands.

And a side note to Alek Taylor: I bet you don't have young children who need their mother alive.

God Bless America. We are a free nation with freedom to worship. Other religions practicing their religion in our vast, awesome country will not diminish my Catholic faith in any way.

Dear Fran,

Leaving aside your ridiculous caricatures of McCain's positions (whose positions on many issues I actually oppose), Fran, how can you claim to practice the fullness of the Catholic faith when you directly advocate a number of positions diametrically opposed by Holy Mother Church in your emotion-based comments above? Contraception is a valid way to help poor women? Really? Outlawing abortion would kill women? Really? Let me guess: because doing so would force desperate women to use coathangers on themselves or get back-alley abortions from shadowy medical practitioners, right? If you honestly believe these canards and have so completely bought into the anti-life mentality of our modern secular culture, then your Catholic faith has been seriously diminished already. Contraception violates God's law and natural law by separating the unifying and procreative dual nature of sexual relations within a loving marriage. It makes women (and men) slaves to one another's disordered sexual desires, rather than partners in complete self-giving love for one another that is a sacrosanct gift from God and His way of allowing us, as sinful creatures, to participate in His creative power.

Back to your political arguments, it is vital that we resist painting laughably ridiculous caricatures of those whose political positions we may disagree with. Much as it's not fair to call Obama a "pro-infanticide" politician, it's certainly not fair at all to claim that McCain supports bombing and war at any cost, and with an eye towards killing innocent babies.

How can we have any hope for dialogue, politically and faith-wise, if we begin from such skewed and dishonest frames about those with whom we disagree?

I'm sure if there are blogs or sites out there claiming Mr. Donohue has attacked Jews or "gooks," that any citations have been taken hugely out of context.

When pointing out anti-Catholic attacks, Donohue often uses examples of the same behavior/comments being directed at another group, such as Jews or Muslims. He often shows through such examples that such acts would not be tolerated toward other groups, but when directed toward Catholics or Christians, many turn a blind eye.

So it's very possible that some site could take such an example out of context and claim that Donohue attacked Jews or used the word "gooks." That is why, in this day of "cut and paste" that you need to find the original source.

BTW, Andy, what are the duties of Supreme Commander of All Honeybees? It sounds like an interesting gig.

Apparently this commenter has not examined the resumes of the liberal Supreme Court Justices very closely. Some of them span three centuries, and they are holding on for one reason; to be replaced by a Democrat Congress to make certain Roe v Wade is safe to kill millions more innocent babies.
Obama promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act as his first act in office, overturning all restriction on abortions passed in the states. He would appoint pro-death Supreme Court Justices.
Catholics who vote for Obama are helping continue the abortion holocaust, which at 50 million since 1973 far outstrips the Nazi Holocaust, and those of Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao.
What do some of you find confusing about these facts?

Fran,
"free birth control for poor,"
Yes, "help the poor by exterminating them," the mantra of the Democratic Party.
As already noted, contraception is intrinsically evil. I'd hate to think that any Catholic school is teaching in favor of "free birth control fo rthe poor."

Also, Jesus may be "called" the "Prince of Peace," but Jesus Himself said, "I came not to bring peace but the sword and division." The peace of Christ is not the peace of this world. The peace of this world comes from compromising morality. The peace of Christ comes from knowing that, even when the whole world is against you, you are on God's side.

Racism as it is understood in contemporary America connotes an irrational prejudice and dislike of people of another race. That is not a fitting description of David Duke. David Duke honors people of European American descent and wishes to see them restored to their rightful place wherever they may live. He has never advocated violating the constitutional or civil rights of racial minorities living within formerly white nations.

His message to white people is a positive one and sorely needed to counter the rampant anti-white racism found in the schools, the media and even "our" government. This is no different than the NAACP or La Raza serving the interests of their people. However, it's honorable for non-whites to engage in identity politics yet dishonorable and hateful for whites to to do likewise. It's funny how Christians, in this case a Catholic, abhor racism and only cite David Duke as if white people are singularly guilty of this practice. Jesse Jackson regularly spit in white people's food as a restaurant worker and called New York City "Hymie town", yet he is respected by the political establishment. Why? In 1992 black rapper Sister Souljah advocated killing white people for a full day. I could go on.

David Duke is important because Christianity and especially the Catholic Church has abandoned Europeans and Americans of European descent. Contemporary Catholicism has absolutely no answers to today's racial problems and no spine to address them. The crusaders are no doubt spinning in their graves at this pathetic spectacle.

I'd guess Mr. Donohue did not anticipate that his parody would provide a platform for a real Duke supporter. This is, perhaps, an example of how complicated the world and such issues are. Again, single issue voters, life is simple for you, or am I missing something? At the end of the day, you have to vote for one candidate or the other. The perfect candidate is unfortunately on the ballot.

With all due respect to the sensitivity of this subject,

The Congress will likely stay in Dem control, and were McCain to win, he would have to find a SC judge who could get approved by a Dem Congress. It's possible, but unlikely, that a judge committed to reversing Roe would get such approval without deceiving the Senate Judicial committee. As I understand it, even Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Allito might be hesitant to find a complete reversal.

And again, even if Roe were reversed, it would mean abortion was a state issue. In 1996, 50% of US abortions occurred in just 4 states, 90% in the top 25 states. Do you think that these states would then make abortion illegal?

If 46 million abortions are performed worldwide annually, and 1.3 million are in the US, and the 25 states with the fewest abortions outlawed them because Roe was overturned, and women seeking an abortion did not travel to another state, then we are looking at a 10% reduction in the US and .3% worldwide. Again, with due respect to the tragedy of the frequency of abortion, which one of us is confused?

Pro life efforts may have a greater impact channeled into improving the quality of life of the children who are born into this world, and once genocide, starvation, hunger and abuse of children walking the earth is mitigated, abortion may look like less of a choice to a pregnant woman. In the US, efforts to help women choose life may also be more effective in reducing the number of abortions than trying to outlaw them completely.

Just a few thoughts for your consideration.

Obama might as well be Sidney Poitier with a script.
Compelling, award winning, thought provoking... yes.
Presidential??? Maybe. Maybe not.

Take away the script and you have something else entirely.

If McCain wants taxpayers to take over $100,000 of ever American mortgage as of the debate tonight, I'm done. This is a fake election. McCain is in the tank with Obama. I wonder how much resistance McCain's one puny Senate vote can obstruct a Dem controlled congress hell bent on destroying a Culture of Life, not to mention Wall Street brought to us by Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Obama, and crowd betting against the failure of the nation in business and the war on terror!

I'm selling Wall street tomorrow. I see the Dow going to 6000 before we're done. Whatever I have left, it's gotta last me 4 years.

Morons, all!!!

How is it that abortion can be The One Shining Issue that takes precedent over all others?

No good Catholic can vote for Obama because he supports abortion, but a good Catholic can vote for McCain, who supports the use of torture?

If you vote strictly according to Catholic teachings all the way down the line, then the only conclusion you can arrive at is that you cannot vote for anyone.

In answer to your first question (and perhaps you meant it to be rhetorical, but nonetheless it deserves an honest answer), as per Church teachings and the guidance of the US Catholic bishops, abortion and life issues like ESCR and euthanasia are the MOST IMPORTANT of the issues that a faithful Catholic must consider when choosing whom to vote for among many candidates. Yes, it's true that these aren't the only issues, not by a long shot, but they take precedence over other issues involving social justice.

As for McCain, he supported and still supports the Iraq War and the War on Terror, but it's a calumny to claim that he supports the use of torture. He was a victim of torture himself, and he has strongly opposed the abuses of enemy combatants held in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In fact, he's been one of the Republicans out in front on that issue and something of a real thorn in the side of Bush and his Administration on the torture issue.

As for voting for nobody, that is certainly an option that Catholics may choose, but I would argue that it's not an effective one. Imagine if all faithful Catholics of voting age in the US chose not to vote at all in this national election in November; I can predict with a high degree of certainty that issues on many state ballots would pass easily, and many of those issues directly contradict Church teaching (e.g., same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, etc.)

Neither Christ nor the Church ever promised that being a faithful Catholic would be easy. Our modern culture is becoming increasingly secular, anti-Christian, and anti-life, but we are weak Christians indeed if we choose to remove our voices from the public square. Catholic voters have a responsibility to inform ourselves well about political candidates' positions and about Church teachings and guidance in regard to voting, then to cast our votes in a way that shows we are thinking with the Church, not as secular people who happen to be Catholic only in our private lives.

Much prayer and discernment is needed, and I second the beautiful suggestion from another article on this site that we all pray the Rosary and commend voters' decisions to Our Lady so that life may win out in the end.

Dan, abortion is not the "one, shining issue." Contraception is. Read _Mater et Magistra_ and _Evangelium Vitae_.
And abortion will never be illegal as long as contraception is legal: the Supreme Court acknowledged this.

There are more issues than abortion. There is socialized medicine: I do not believe that a pro-life person can or should support socialized medicine, which is a death sentence to people with serious health conditions. Actually talk to someone from Canada, the UK or Australia-as I have--about what it's like for people with serious health conditions in their countries.

There is the International Criminal Court: while the ICC is active, the US can at least stand firm in not ratifying it (although that doesn't matter). The Republicans, either in congress or the presidency have been the ones keeping the ICC treaty from being signed.

There is the "hate speech" act. As soon as the Democrats regained control of Congress, they sent a hate speech bill to Bush's desk that's stronger than the one in Canada (and Canada, meanwhile, is trying to figure out how to extradict Canadians residing in the US for things they post online).

There is Obama's belief system. People criticize him for being allegedly a secret Muslim (somethng he himself seems to have confirmed), or for being a radical Evangelical. Yet the reality is that Obama is a New Ager: he says his God is "inside", that Jesus is not the only savior but just one of many expressions of God. That is the most dangerous of all.

I doubt McCain would do much good for the pro-life cause. I have hope that he could, but I doubt it. But I *know* that Obama will pass the Freedom of Choice Act and the "hate speec" Act, setting back all pro-life legal "advances" of the past 35 years and then making it illegal to speak against abortion or and other acts that the Left has adopted as Rights.

As for Mr. Dithers, I *think* he is continuing Dr. Donohue's facetiousness by a paallel to the "McCain isn't any better" argument, or at least he's providing a wonderful example of it.

Dan,
"McCain, who supports the use of torture." Dan.

Really, new to me! All I have ever heard McCain do is condemn torture. This is a man that lived this horror for 5 1/2 years! Can you show me an example to support your claim? If not, please correct yourself.

Cory

Sorry, I should have clarified my comments.

In October 2007, John McCain denounced waterboarding. When asked if waterboarding were a form of torture (in response to Giuliani's equivocation on the subject), he said, "Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak."

Yet, in February 2008, McCain voted against the Feinstein-Hagel-Whitehouse Measure, which would have prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Specifically, it would have restricted the CIA to the Army Field Manual rules on questioning detainees, which "forbid eight methods including waterboarding, forced nudity, electric shock, use of dogs and mock executions."

This is what I was referring to when I spoke of McCain supporting the use of torture.

Additionally, as was mentioned in Cafardi's original article, McCain supports the continuation of what the Pope has called an "unjust war" in Iraq. Many deaths have occurred and will continue to occur because of it.

The point that I am getting at is that it's silly to point at one issue and say that no other issue matters and this one overrides all. It's a complex decision, and it does not help to oversimplify it. I mean, should a "good Catholic" that believes strongly in the sanctity of marriage automatically disqualify McCain for having been divorced, and vote for a third-party?

I do not believe one can make useful decisions in such a lurching manner. There are many factors to consider, and it is a disservice to us all to pretend that the decision should be made so flippantly.

Dan,

While it is unfortunate that McCain's first marriage failed, many people on this site are forgetting that it was not a Catholic, sacramental marriage, and therefore he is less culpable. One look at his family now will tell you he has learned.

Also, while the Pope has called the Iraq war "unjust", that is not an infallible statement of doctrine. Certainly it is a weighty and probably correct statement, but it is not to be considered doctrine. Aside from that, the USCCBs document on forming consciences for faithful citizenship says that where an unjust law exist, we should try to vote for the candidate with the best chance to change it. Now that does not mean pulling out of Iraq. It means letting our troops finish the good work they have (finally, since the surge) been able to accomplish. They are even close to getting electricity now. Pulling out on a timeline is just telling the insurgents to wait to come back, instead of setting up an infrastructure so the Iraqi government and people are stable enough to withstand them.

McCain is not perfect, but the issues he is weak on are not as serious as Obama's. I also don't see how people still think Obama is better on peace or the economy. Being gunshy does promote peace. Redistributing wealth does not grow the economy, and it also bad for human dignity.

Pro-choice politicians reject the basic principle that purposefully killing innocents is never acceptable. To support them is to support that rejection (and it's enshrinement in law).

To incorrectly judge a war to be just is NOT to reject the principle that purposefully killing innocents is never acceptable.

The Bishop of Scranton, PA has just written a pastoral letter laying out this argument. It's worth checking out.

Mr. Donahue,

This piece was absolutely brilliant. I've linked it in my own blog. If you're interested, last week I wrote a piece about why abortion matters more than any other issue. It's obviously not as eloquent as anything you've written, but here it is anyway, if you're interested: http://tinyurl.com/4y6wga

Grace and Peace,
Michael Hallman

Dan,

It is important to note that the current and previous Pope have stated that the <i>invasion</i> of Iraq was unjust. That is something very different from deciding what is the just and proper course of action now that we are there. This pope has been suggested several times that it would be very problematic for the United States and allied troops to leave Iraq in a situation which allows for violent chaos, particularly given the Holy Father's concern for the plight of Christians there. So it is simply incorrect that insinuate that because the invasion was unjust, the only just move now is to withdraw our troops now. That just simply is not true.

So let us take it as given that opposition to abortion does outweigh all other factors for consideration.

There are other third-party candidates for president that support the right to life for the unborn, and also unequivocally reject torture and unjust wars. (One example would be Chuck Baldwin, the candidate for the Constitution Party.)

Why, then, is the conscientious Catholic not compelled to vote for a candidate such as Mr. Baldwin over a candidate such as Mr. McCain? The reason is simple: pragmatism. The realistic voter realizes that Mr. Baldwin has effectively no chance of winning the presidency, and so the choice is made to "hold one's nose" and vote for Mr. McCain, even though his ideals may not be completely in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

In the light of this, I think three important questions should be asked:

1) Will a vote for one of the major-party candidates reasonably result in the outlawing of abortion in the United States?

2) Will a vote for one of the major-party candidates reasonably result in the end of a needless war that was started unjustly?

3) Will a vote for one of the major-party candidates reasonably result in the end of torture as an interrogation technique by the United States?

To the first question, I answer no. With a sitting Republican president and a majority Republican Congress from 2000 to 2006, no significant progress was made in this area. It seems almost absurd to think that Mr. McCain could make headway on this issue with what will almost certainly be a Democratic majority.

To the second question, I answer yes. This issue is one of the key differences between the two candidates' platforms.

To the third question, I answer yes. Mr. Obama has voted to end any "enhanced interrogation tactics" used by the CIA, while Mr. McCain has voted against such a measure.

So I do believe that when faced with a choice between voting for a candidate who professes support for the right to life (but will be unable or unwilling to do anything about it), versus voting for a candidate who would likely have the ability and desire to end both the war in Iraq and the practice of torture by the U.S. goverment, the pragmatic Catholic can vote for Mr. Obama in good conscience.

Dan:

Your point is well-argued, but I must disagree with the political calculus.

The critical error is here:

Actually, significant progress was made in this area; namely, the pro-life evangelical president nominated, and managed to confirm over Democrat opposition, two pro-life (Catholic!) justices, thus keeping the balance at 5 pro-choicers to 4 pro-lifers...with the 5 being markedly older and closer to retirement than the 4.

Now the Supreme Court is the only way to make any progress at all on this matter. For a president has no legislative authority at all, and even a solidly pro-life Congress could not outlaw abortion, for of course the Court would overturn any such bill.

Now an overturn of Roe v. Wade would be the single greatest victory the pro-life movement could hope for. For while it would not render all abortions illegal, it would allow the states the leeway to do what some of them already want to do, and make some abortions illegal. The outlawing of only the very latest-term abortions, in only half the states, would save around 10,000 lives a year.

The next president will, in 4 years, nominate 1-2 Justices. (In an 8-year term, it'd be 2-3.) If those Justices are selected by Obama, say goodbye to those ten thousand lives annually. (Hmm. Should commemorate their loss each January 20th, reflecting the start of Obama's term? Or November 4th, to reflect the day that the choice of certain Catholics helped make it possible?)

For of course Obama has promised Ginsberg-style Justices. Replacing the aging pro-choicers with youthful ones will perpetuate Roe v. Wade for roughly another twenty years. (That's two hundred thousand innocents.)

And McCain? His "admired" Justices are uniformly pro-life: Thomas (pro-life Catholic) and Scalia (pro-life Catholic) with kind words for the other two pro-life Catholics.

Replace just one of the aging pro-choicers with a justice of the type McCain claims to admire, and you have a good shot to save those two hundred thousand innocents.

So it's not about making abortion illegal any time soon. You're quite correct: That's not foreseeable in the next decade. (And may God have mercy on us.)

But when something far more likely would still save such a large number of lives? This is no time for the sin of despair, Dan. We have a sporting chance...and every hero of faith in Scripture did more with far less.

The abortion genocide is certainly worse than the racism scourge, but the satire still strikes home. Well done.

R.C., I must disagree.

Firstly, the most direct way to outlaw abortion is to simply pass a constitutional amendment doing so, which would effectively place the issue out of the hands of the Supreme Court (regardless of who is serving on it). This is doubly important because without an amendment banning the practice, I do not believe that any significant change in the number of abortions would occur; the statistics would likely slide from the states that don't allow them to the states that do. However, seeing as how the passing of such an amendment was not accomplished (or even seriously attempted) with both a pro-life Republican President in office and a Republican majority in Congress, it would appear that this window of opportunity has closed.

Second, I would argue that it is not reasonable to believe that a Democratic majority would confirm an avowed pro-life candidate. For example, with regard to Justice Thomas, it is worth noting that he specifically and conspicuously avoided declaring any such position prior to his confirmation, saying only that:

Defining abortion position would prejudge abortion cases. (Sep 1991)
Personally views back-alley illegal abortions as torture. (Sep 1991)
Never discussed Roe v. Wade in law school nor since. (Sep 1991)
Privacy is protected; no comment on application to abortion. (Sep 1991)
Overruling previous cases is a very serious matter. (Sep 1991)

These flimsy, pandering statements are hardly a ringing endorsement for the right to life. It wasn't until June of 1992 that he came out and stated that he believed Roe v. Wade should be overturned (he assumed office in October of 1991). So even with a Republican president, there is no guarantee that a pro-life justice would be confirmed; the best you could reasonably hope for is that they have not stated a position on the matter, and that they turn out to be pro-life (but then again, you might end up with another Justice Souter).

Therefore, I think my original argument still applies: electing Mr. McCain is not likely to make any significant change in the legality of abortion, while electing Mr. Obama is likely to make a significant change in the use of torture by the United States government and in the course of the Iraq War (or abstaining from starting any new unjust wars). The pragmatic Catholic should therefore feel justified in voting for the candidate that is most likely to have the biggest realized improvement.

Note that I have specifically avoided comparing the candidates in terms of other policies; while the candidates differ on exactly whom and how much they will tax, their approach to healthcare, their solutions to the problems with the economy, etc., I think it is fair to say that those issues are largely political (to be made according to your personal values) and not fundamental questions of morality that the Church has expressed a specific stance on.

Dan:

Wow. A reasonable argument. (Indeed, it's the first such that I've heard which ended with a Catholic voting for Obama.)

I don't, in the end, agree, because there are bits of your argument to which I can't muster assent, or even much credulity. But I thought I should commend the fact that, in your analysis, each portion actually led logically to the next. I apologize to any readers who might feel slighted by my saying this, but...that's not something I see much among Obama supporters.

I still disagree with your conclusion, because there are items which, though I grant that you believe them, I can't make myself quite believe.

Item #1:

Well, sure. But since it's considerably harder to get a constitutional amendment passed than to get two more conservative justices confirmed...and since you're dubious about the possibility of that, I don't see it being a viable argument.

One way to put that is: Just as you see my pro-life support of McCain-Palin as a desire for unachievable greater good defeating a possibility of achievable lesser good, so would I regard the use of political capital to get a pro-life constitutional amendment passed (instead of just getting more conservative justices on SCOTUS) as being a desire for an unachievable greater good defeating a possibility of an achievable lesser good.


I would interpret that as G.W.Bush making the same calculation as I just described: He didn't want to use all his political capital on a crusade doomed to fail, and have none left to get his nominees past an evenly-divided Senate (where Specter, Snowe, Chafee, and a few others tended to side with Democrats).

I mean, let's say that G.W. had made the attempt to pass a pro-life amendment at the Federal level. In fact, let's say he succeeded -- utterly impossible since he never had either a House or a Senate made up of 2/3rds Republicans, and of those, some would defect on the life issue, and the number of pro-life Democrats in Congress who'd replace them can be counted on Frodo Baggins' injured hand -- but let's say he succeeded. Now it goes to the states, where a 3/4ths ratification is required. Out of 50 states, that's 38. So, 12 "no" votes won't sink the amendment, but 13 would.

Off the top of my head, I can count the following states as absolutely for-sure votes against: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. That's 15 for-sure "no" votes...unless you want to argue that any of the states I just listed would vote "yes."

If not, then: Case closed.

Dan, I like how you write and you seem a reasonable fellow. But it sounds as if you're blaming Bush and the Republicans for not attempting a pro-life amendment, and think that "merely" succeeding, in an evenly-divided Senate (!) at getting two pro-life (!!) Catholics (!!!) confirmed is not enough, and represents being less-than-ardent pro-lifers.

If so, I don't think you can then turn around and say we should give up getting pro-life justices on SCOTUS because it's too much work for too little hope of reward. That sounds inconsistent, to say the least.

...continued...

...continued...

As did Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But the prior history of each nominee left little doubt. The kinds of confirmation-process pandering you describe with such evident distaste are sadly part of the game: But does anybody think Ginsberg is wishy-washy on her support of legalized abortion because she wouldn't come out and say it in the confirmation hearings? No? Why then, should we express disappointment that Thomas' answers in the hearings were "hardly a ringing endorsement for the right to life?"

And it seems to me that your statement demonstrates not only that pro-life justices can be confirmed, but how. If you're arguing that this sort of "I'll avoid saying what I really think" methodology is too distasteful to use, that's a whole other conversation. But it has been used, successfully. (One can't say that about a pro-life constitutional amendment.)


This, I agree with. And my judgment is that, given the stakes, it's more than worth the risk. Apparently, about 1-in-3 Justices nominated by conservative pro-life Republican presidents turn out to be wolves in sheep's clothing. Still, I like those odds better than the ones under Obama. I'm unaware of any left-nominated justices who've turned out thereafter to be pro-life.

I think your best argument is this:

...which is to say: If a state outlaws some abortions, all the folks who want one will drive to a state that permits them.

If that's actually true, it dismantles my argument. And I don't know for sure how true it is, so my argument is in jeopardy, here. (Don't let anyone tell ya' I don't argue fairly and honestly!)

Now, pro-abortion groups constantly decry how "counties in the U.S. don't have an abortion provider anywhere in them" as representing a huge obstacle to obtaining an abortion. One would think, therefore, that having no such facility in a whole state is an exponentially larger obstacle, and that some large proportion of those women would end up carrying to term and giving the child up for adoption.

Now the numbers I used previously were intentionally conservative. I estimated that only late-term abortions would be outlawed, and in only half the states - so, 2-3% of abortions in 50% of states, for around 15,000 abortions a year being outlawed (give or take).

When you consider the impact of that over, say, 20 years of 1-2 Obama nominations versus 1-2 McCain nominations, that's a heck of a lot of innocent lives. But if you're correct that many/most of those outlawed abortions might "slide" to adjacent states, then...the number drops.

Does it drop by enough to make it pointless?

I suppose that depends on how many innocent kids it takes before something is "not pointless."

I won't engage in any specious reasoning about "it only takes one precious, invaluable human life." It's true in the abstract, but it has no meaning in this kind of argument.

So here's how the discussion breaks down:

1. How different are McCain and Obama on torture?
2. How much of a difference would that make, in the lives of captured terrorists, over an 8 year period?
3. How many innocents rescued from abortion would it take to overwhelm the importance of Item 2?

If the number of innocents in Item 3 is more than our best guess of how many outlawed abortions don't "slide" to other states, then your argument wins.

Otherwise, it loses.

...continued...

Dan, here's my final analysis; it'll sum up why I don't, in the end, find your argument persuasive.

You intentionally confined your objection to McCain to things directly addressed in Catholic teaching (rather than including things where Catholics can disagree and remain obedient Catholics). So, you highlight McCain not being as strong against torture as Obama.

Now McCain's the most anti-torture of the Republicans, so far as I'm aware; so I find it surprising you were able to make a case against him on this. But in order to give you some leeway, I'll go this far: Despite McCain's words, I judge a terrorist is more likely to be waterboarded with McCain in the White House, than with Obama.

I'll even hazard a guess at the numbers: With Obama in office for 8 years, I'll guess that 0-2 terrorists get waterboarded (I'm allowing for both disobedience to the White House, and for Obama to change his mind in a "ticking-bomb" scenario). With McCain, I'll guess that 0-20 will. (In each case I judge the lower end of the range to be more likely than the higher end. I used eight years, not four, in order to exaggerate the difference between the two possible administrations.)

Let's say that the number for Obama is 1, with official disapproval, and the number for McCain is 10, with tacit approval and lots of public pooh-poohing like G.W.Bush used. (I doubt McCain would go that far, but I'm giving your argument as much benefit of the doubt as I can.)

Okay. Now consider the abortions. To give additional benefit of the doubt to your argument, I'll only grant four years on when dealing with the abortions.

The justices who're likely to retire are Stevens and Ginsberg, both reliably pro-choice. McCain "admires" Thomas and Scalia, both reliably pro-life. Let's say that McCain gets 4 years, nominates 1 pro-life judge, and 1 judge who was supposed to be pro-life but turned out to be a Souter.

That changes the life/choice balance of the court from 4/5 to 5/4. (It also reduces the likelihood of state laws on gay marriage being struck down, plus a bunch of other property-related issues that could go quite badly, but I'll exclude those.)

Let's say there's only a 50% chance of getting a "life" case about abortion before the Supreme Court, and only a 50% chance that all 5 pro-life justices decide it's time to reject Roe.

And, let's say that of the 15,000 abortions made illegal each year, 14,000 of them would "slide" to adjacent states. (Am I not giving you plenty of benefit of the doubt?)

And, though I think the damage done by Obama nominations would last a quarter-century, let's limit our estimates to a shorter period: 10 years.

So here's what we're weighing:

A 50% chance of a 50% chance of saving 10,000 lives over 10 years...against (I estimate) the chance of saving 0-18 terrorists from being waterboarded, over 8 years.

Or, if you multiply it out: 2,500 innocent lives versus the human dignity of 18 (or less) non-innocents.

See why I just can't bring myself to agree with you, Dan?

Perhaps you'll say it's not a 50% chance of a 50% chance, but a 10% of a 10%? Okay, now it's 100 innocents against the 18 terrorists.

Perhaps you'll say it's not 18 terrorists; that deep-down, former POW John McCain wants to waterboard 100 terrorists. (Despite his going against his own party on the subject -- and in an election year when he badly needed the votes of a base he'd already irritated numerous times, too!)

Okay, now it's 100 innocent lives versus the dignity of 100 captured terrorists.

I'm still not seeing it, Dan.

And you can't say I didn't give your argument a pretty fair hearing.

Respectfully,

R.C.

Hmmm. That is a fair argument, though I believe we still differ sharply on our perceptions of the likely net impact of Mr. McCain assuming office.

However, given that the McCain campaign appears to be in a state somewhere between "crash" and "burn," at this point I might recommend for any conscientious Catholic to vote strictly on principle down the line, and hope that a third-party candidate (such as Mr. Baldwin) garners enough votes to make it past the magical 5% barrier and have a shot at the next election. One wasted vote is as good as another, I suppose.

How about this?

You are a Catholic.
The Catholic Church maintains that killing is evil.
By endorsing John McCain you endorse killing, since McCain favors continuing the Iraqi War.
This contradicts the teaching of your Catholic faith.

Don't tell me that the Iraq war is a just war. It was a pre-emptive war. Iraq did not attack us first. Even if you argue that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks (it was not), STILL most of the people we killed in our little "shock and awe" game were innocent civilians.

We can go on and on like this forever. You can back McCain because you oppose abortion (even though it is not in McCain's power to directly stop it), I can back Obama because I consider the war in Iraq unjustified, and therefore a grave sin.

Bottom line: Obama can end the war. McCain may not be able to stop abortions. If I thought for a moment McCain absolutely could and would end abortions, I would vote for him. But I don't think he can.

Right on the Mark is correct in noting that the analogy for a Catholic between Obama on abortion and Duke on racism is apt. Kudos to the author as well!