On the First Things blog, Archbishop Chaput has responded to the use of some of his prior statements by the group Roman Catholics for Obama. Chaput begins by detailing his support for the RFK and Carter campaigns, and then notes:
In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.
Why do I mention this now? Earlier this spring, a group called “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08” quoted my own published words in the following way:
“So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views.”
What’s interesting about this quotation—which is accurate but incomplete—is the wording that was left out. The very next sentences in the article of mine they selected, which Roman Catholics for Obama neglected to quote, run as follows:
“But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”
On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:
“After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.”
I’m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.”
Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children. I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They’ll need it.
More. (HT: Closed Cafeteria)
May 21, 2008 at 11:51 am
“‘…we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.’ I’m familiar with this reasoning.”
Me too. Sounds like the tragic choice of every election where there is only one business party that has a monopoly over politics and create two factions to balance and maintain their power. As long as we pretend to think that our “choices” are real, we will continue to, as Chaput is doing, struggle to win in a fight that is inherently flawed to begin with. There is no such thing as a Pro-Life politician in the two-party system today because at its core it is principled in self interest.
May 21, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Sam,
so every politicians that proclaims himself Pro-Life is not doing this out of conviction but out fo just self Interest?
May 21, 2008 at 12:07 pm
jh,
Despite their intentions, the structural intentions that a good willed politician has to succumb to either prevent them from being “electable” or marginalize them, or they compromise in order to avoid the previous two. Even the champions of a Pro-Life position (who are usually only anti-abortion) only create a structural balance for the Pro-Choice side of things. In the end the dynamics of power are concentrated in the structure of the self-interested business party we call the Dems and Repubs…
May 21, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Though the Archbishop’s words often makes me wince, this one made me clap.
May 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The Archbishop is right. Unfortunately, we lay people must live in a real world in which there are a lot of less-bad choices that need to be made, in the interests of preserving our society and polity. On every other “respect for life” issue BESIDES the abortion one, Obama is better than McCain, and therefore I will feel compelled in November (if I even vote in the American election, which I have a legal right to) for Obama.
May 21, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sam,
What’s the name of the business party?
May 21, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The excellent Archbishop Chaput is my shepherd here in Denver, and he is a fantastic, ardent and tireless supporter of Catholic values. I applaud him for addressing these contentious issues, and I find great comfort in his assertion that admirable Catholics of good conscience CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate. What bothers me about his response to Roman Catholics for Obama is that he assumes the souls in heaven are on his side. Maybe they are. Maybe they’re not. Maybe he’s going to have to explain to them why he kept pursing a doomed course with a 30 year track record of failure instead of choosing a leader whose policies might have saved lives.
I have an answer for those dear souls. I think it’s the same answer Archbishop Chaput will give the destroyed embryos and innocent victims of the Iraq war: “I honestly believed I was making the choice that had the greatest benefit to mankind. ”
I find Sam’s argument especially compelling. I wish it were made more often. The fact is, our political leaders don’t have the capital to make a real difference on the abortion front because the majority of American citizens are mistaken in their belief that abortion is a sacred human right. Witness South Dakota, where a total abortion ban was overturned by referendum last year. The power of the president to outlaw or restrict abortion is limited to his/her ability to veto anything Congress passes or appoint a Supreme Court justice who may or may not be a true conservative and may or may not have the opportunity to decide on an abortion issue during their term.
Contrast that with the President’s IMMEDIATE power over the course of the war, the deployment of our troops around the world and the response to international crises both environmental and disaster-related. Which is the more compelling POLITICAL choice? Which can a lay Catholic and ordinary citizen affect on their own, and which can only be influenced through the ballot box?
Casting a vote for a pro-choice candidate does not mean I feel other issues are more important than abortion. It means that I have determined my influence to be greater on those other issues. As Archbishop Chaput says, “they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn.”
I can fight abortion even while voting for a pro-choice candidate. I can, I must, and I will continue to do so.
May 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Tienne McKenzie,
I trust that you will then be casting your ballot for Bob Schafer in the Senatorial election this fall then? Since one senator can do little to stop the war and he would be a voice for life on capitol hill?
May 21, 2008 at 2:20 pm
As a quick review of any internet websites or blogs will show, this topic has been so poisoned by statements people have made quesioning others integrity — be it the politicized declaration of “non-negotiable” issues and the matter of denying others communion (and Chaput is not without some fault for poisoning the discussion), the best the bishops and others could do is take a “time-out”. Restoration of civility and a sense of fraternal respect among Catholics needs to come first.
May 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm
ben-
Interesting that you should bring up Schafer. He’s a prime example of so-called “pro-life” politicians who fail to deliver when it matters.
http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5950
I’ll tell you honestly, I am undecided at every level of every race this year. I’m still researching and praying.
May 21, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The Business Party’s name is The Democratic and Republican Party – that is the only viable parties in our country controlled by and controlling “business” or the capital exchange of power, in this case political power.
May 21, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It seems that Schafer is willing to compormise on supporting the Personhood Initiative, which will surely be found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS if passed. Perhaps he is just doing the same sort of calculus on this issue that you are doing to justfy voting for Obama in spite of his record on abortion? As for the Northern Mariana Islands issue, I beleive Bob is telling the truth about what he knew and when he knew it. I’m sure he regrets giving some people his trust.
The point is, that his opponenet is clearly and manifestly in favor of unrestricted abortion, and since the war is primarily an issue for the executive not the senate, pro-life concerns out to trump here shouldn’t they?
May 21, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Restoration of civility and a sense of fraternal respect among Catholics needs to come first.
Let me see. Of these two:
1) The largest mass murder in the history of the human race.
2) Can’t we all just get along?
Which one comes first again?
May 21, 2008 at 6:10 pm
The Archbishop is right. Unfortunately, we lay people must live in a real world… and therefore I will feel compelled [to vote] for Obama.
Wow, what a surprise. But then, since you’ve already sent him a “large cash donation” (because those conservatives are just such meanies), I suppose you might as well follow through. In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
May 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Zippy:
Abortion is no more “murder” than capital punishment or killing in battle is. Which is not to say that it is not–like those two others–USUALLY a grievous moral evil.
However, “murder” in civil law is the unlawful killing, for private motives, of a fellow human being. A foetus is not, by law, a fellow citizen or a person, and, therefore, killing it is not “murder.”
Get a zygote declared a human person or a citizen, and then it will be.
May 21, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I’m not going to discount someone because of their pro-choice opinion any more than I’m going to elect someone solely on the basis of their good record against abortion. Yes, unequivocally, pro-life concerns trump all others. Pro-life meaning, of course, ALL life issues. Not just abortion.
May 21, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“Abortion is no more “murder” than capital punishment or killing in battle is. Which is not to say that it is not–like those two others–USUALLY a grievous moral evil.
However, “murder” in civil law is the unlawful killing, for private motives, of a fellow human being. A foetus is not, by law, a fellow citizen or a person, and, therefore, killing it is not “murder.”
Get a zygote declared a human person or a citizen, and then it will be.”
This is not Catholci Doctrine. Also Suprise the Federal Govt has little to do with State execution. People can ban 95 percent of executuons through the states. People who are fighting for the unborn do not have that option right now
May 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Archbishop Chaput’s comments are very powerful.
Does this mean he is voting for McCain?
I hope not. It would severely damage the credibility of his position.
Nothing he said above suggests that Catholics should vote for McCain.
May 21, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Tienne, your arguments are hideous. You cannot be a servant to two masters; you’ll either love the one and despise the other. Make up your mind carefully as the very salvation of your immortal soul is at risk. What does it profit a man to vote blindly for Democrat candidates and lose his immortal soul?
May 21, 2008 at 8:43 pm
“Archbishop Chaput’s comments are very powerful.
Does this mean he is voting for McCain?
I hope not. It would severely damage the credibility of his position.
Nothing he said above suggests that Catholics should vote for McCain.”
I suspect he will not tell us who he is going to vote for. TO be honest JOhn McCain has been the leading force for the Catholic Social Justice issue of the last decade that being Immigration reform. He has been asking tough questions on GITMO and Torture. He has taken so many stands that have gotten him into trouble and gets no credit for it.
I sweat we could put Sam Brownback up there and it will be the same song and dance. I am not honestly buying it anymore, THe fact that those that are trying to fit a camel through the eye of the needle to supporet Obama by coming up with the same so called reasons we hear every election cycle. Despite the fact that you have someone that has been open to many ssues that fit the Catholic SOcial Justice ethic and in fact took political risk to himself to do it
We have in this race one of the most Pro- CHoice politicians ever. Many Pro-life Republicans saw that threat with RUDY and worked to defeated him. IF the majority of Catholics vote for Obama then I am afraid the pro-life forces on the Republcian side will be weakened.
PErhaps that is what people want
May 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Chaput makes a valid point. While it is certainly licit in Catholic moral teaching to believe that abortion need not be criminalized (I don’t believe it was ever treated on par with homocide in any legal code), this should not be an excuse to do absolutely nothing about abortion. Chaput is right– many, even most, politicians could not care less about the unborn (and that includes many, if not most, Republicans who pretend to, by the way).
But Chaput pushes too far when he makes the link to voting. By all means, we should be working on all elected representatives to take abortion more seriously. If they want to keep it legal, they should at least be promoting measures to reduce its incidence. But here, again, Chaput is too categorical. Yes, he points to the staggering number of abortions each year, but he fails to note that the steepest decline took place over the Clinton years, and it would be difficult not to see some link to the state of the economy, and to the noted reduction in poverty and inequality at that time.
And I think his test is quite easy to meet. Upon meeting the unborn in the next life, it would be patently obvious that Obama’s link to their fate was remote indeed, no matter the offensive rhetoric. But there are so many other issues. As one example: I would like to the Bush-McCain voter how he would deal with the countless victims of cluster bombs when a ban was opposed by Bush, McCain, and Hillary Clinton– and supported by Pope Benedict and Obama. I would ask him how he would address the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, following the actions of a so-called pro-life president. What would the answer be? Sorry, but your death was a price to pay for reducing a million abortions a year, even though we didn’t do that at all, and probably never will using these tactics– how would that pan out? The archbishop is right about one thing– our daily choices have serious moral implications that we often don’t think about.
May 21, 2008 at 9:16 pm
(and that includes many, if not most, Republicans who pretend to, by the way).
Names plaese
No doubt there are some Republican that fit discription But can name some names fo so called anti abortion folks that are really not or not in effect really care. Surely we can come up with a list since this charge is lobbed about wvery other day
In the end what the Church has always said as well as some of it notable Saints. we have seen. As long as their slaughter of the unborn there will be no Justice and will be no Peace
May 21, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Here’s a recap, for those keeping score:
Ben asks Tienne a simple, direct question, and given that a simple direct, answer would expose her initial arguments as hollow rationalizations, she attempts to evade, sidetrack and otherwise squirm out of responding.
And fails miserably.
May 21, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Upon meeting the unborn in the next life, it would be patently obvious that Obama’s link to their fate was remote indeed, no matter the offensive rhetoric.
What about when Obama signs the executive order making it legal to perform abortions on US military bases on foreign soil, where it is now illegal under an executive order signed by Bush? What about when the Obama voter meets, in the next life, with the actual persons who are actually aborted on those military bases? Are they going to agree that Obama’s link to their fate was remote?
May 21, 2008 at 11:40 pm
It may be worth pointing out that, should Obama be elected President, it is a virtual certainty that more particular actual abortions will be authorized directly by his personal executive orders than acts of waterboarding were authorized by President Bush.
I’m just saying.
May 22, 2008 at 7:21 am
This is my first time on this web site, and I appreciate the mostly intelligent and respectful comments.
First of all, obviously this is a complicated issue, and there never been a true Catholic candidate – one who consistently supports the whole range of Catholic concerns in domestic and foreign policy. That, likely, is a pipe dream.
Having said that, I won’t be voting for Obama. I simply cannot vote for someone who openly advocates, not just “abortion rights,” but an ideology about abortion that simply destroys any respect or recognition toward life in the womb at all, and stretches that disrespect even to life outside the womb. There is already a huge push to take away any and all state restrictions on abortion. As president, Obama would support that. Obama would make abortions on military bases legal. His opposition to the Born Alive Act in Illinois is especially ominous: Obama would allow clinic staff to refuse to provide medical care to children who survive abortion. These are children born alive – persons by anyone’s constitutional interpretation. So, Obama would stretch further the definition of non-person who does not merit constitutional protection.
To be sure, there are other issues with which I disagree with Sen. Obama. But there are what I call qualifying issues. Abortion is one of those qualifying issues. If someone supports the willful destruction of innocent human life, they don’t get my vote. Just as someone supporting some form of legal slave trade would not get my vote (don’t laugh – estimates are that some 14,000 slaves are transported into the U. S. every year, and no politician has much to say about it – the day is likely to come when someone will push for some form of legal recognition of this trade, employing the same kind of euphemisms and fatalistic arguments the pro-abortion movement does).
May 24, 2008 at 11:10 am
Nick and HA:
I’m late to respond and apologize for that, but wanted to at least put out there in writing (again) that I don’t intend to blindly vote for anyone, Democrat or otherwise. As the Bishops have said in their “Guide to Faithful Citizenship”:
As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.
Those who vote unhesitatingly for pro-life candidates without considering the spectrum of other issues involved are going against the Bishops recommendation to eschew single-issue voting. You can ascribe whatever motivations you like to my thoughts here, but the fact remains: Each of us ought to put real thought into our decision of which candidates to support. My admission that I have not yet come to a conclusion on the Senate race in Colorado is not evasion. It is indication that I am taking this seriously and do not intend to merely vote on party lines.