Roman Catholics for Obama?

[Acumen]

Question, can a practicing Roman Catholic, in good conscience, vote for a strong pro-choice candidate? 

To provide context to my question, read this small link.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1073

[redkim]

Hi Acumen:

Thank you for bringing up this issue. I always appreciate when topics like this are brought to the forefront because the Church is often accused of being too black and white, and, in some circles, vague on many issues.

While I may disagree with some minor points of Chaput's article (the idea of meeting the aborted in the next life is emotionalism and sentimentality), I believe it presents well the Church's thinking on the problem of politics and abortion.

Chaput is right when he says a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate provided that they are not voting for him/her BECAUSE they are pro legalized abortion (enough with the euphemisms!) AND have compelling reasons not to vote for any other candidate.

The question is: What are the compelling reasons?

Could one vote for Obama if another candidate's record on healthcare reform is abysmal, therefore causing millions more Americans to go without adequate health care? I think a compelling argument could be made.

My personal opinion is that Americans place far too much importance on politics and politicians to right society for us. How many Republicans have we elected in the last 35 years, yet abortion is still legal? I don't know Obama's full platform, but what is his mantra? "Hope" is his mantra and he has millions of young Americans joining his movement. No doubt they have a hope in him...a hope that is ill-placed on any politician.

I first became aware of how ill-placed this hope was back in 2004 when shortly after the election I'd read that some Kerry supporters were in therapy because their candidate lost. And I am not talking about people who worked for his campaign, but just your regular, everyday joe voter. The hatred for President Bush and the support for Obama are much greater this time around, and therefore, imo, the risk for emotional letdown much greater, if McCain were to win.

And so getting back to abortion. We must reduce our dependence on politicians to get rid of abortion for us. It is not going to happen anytime soon. It will continue to be the waltz it always was with give and take.

[Acumen]

Hi Acumen:

Thank you for bringing up this issue. I always appreciate when topics like this are brought to the forefront because the Church is often accused of being too black and white, and, in some circles, vague on many issues.

El brought it to my attention. 

While I may disagree with some minor points of Chaput's article (the idea of meeting the aborted in the next life is emotionalism and sentimentality), I believe it presents well the Church's thinking on the problem of politics and abortion.

Chaput is right when he says a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate provided that they are not voting for him/her BECAUSE they are pro legalized abortion (enough with the euphemisms!) AND have compelling reasons not to vote for any other candidate.

The question is: What are the compelling reasons?

I'm no Catholic, but if the Catholic position is true and abortion is equivalent to murder, then it seems pretty clear to me that voting for a pro-choice candidate becomes no different than voting for a candidate who assents to the murder of innocent children for the sake of convenience.  Again, I'm no Catholic, but it would appear to me that the practicing Catholic ought not to vote for a pro-choice candidate no matter what the situation.  And if there are no viable candidates, perhaps the practicing Catholic should stay home.

[redkim]

Hi Acumen:

Thank you for bringing up this issue. I always appreciate when topics like this are brought to the forefront because the Church is often accused of being too black and white, and, in some circles, vague on many issues.

El brought it to my attention. 

While I may disagree with some minor points of Chaput's article (the idea of meeting the aborted in the next life is emotionalism and sentimentality), I believe it presents well the Church's thinking on the problem of politics and abortion.

Chaput is right when he says a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate provided that they are not voting for him/her BECAUSE they are pro legalized abortion (enough with the euphemisms!) AND have compelling reasons not to vote for any other candidate.

The question is: What are the compelling reasons?

I'm no Catholic, but if the Catholic position is true and abortion is equivalent to murder, then it seems pretty clear to me that voting for a pro-choice candidate becomes no different than voting for a candidate who assents to the murder of innocent children for the sake of convenience.  Again, I'm no Catholic, but it would appear to me that the practicing Catholic ought not to vote for a pro-choice candidate no matter what the situation.  And if there are no viable candidates, perhaps the practicing Catholic should stay home.

The problem with staying home is that we are not exercising our duty to vote. We could, I suppose write in a candidate (Bob Dylan being a good choice. He did once say his favorite politician is Barry Goldwater), but again, that seems to me to be reneging on our duty. I myself have wrestled with this decision to write in a candidate this election season and have come to the realization that it simply isn't possible. Thus far, as far as my vote is concerned, McCain is the best candidate. The circumstances simply aren't compelling enough for me to vote for a pro-legalized abortion candidate.

[Acumen]

The problem with staying home is that we are not exercising our duty to vote.

Nothing compels Christians to vote.  It may be a civic duty, but so what?

We could, I suppose write in a candidate (Bob Dylan being a good choice. He did once say his favorite politician is Barry Goldwater), but again, that seems to me to be reneging on our duty. I myself have wrestled with this decision to write in a candidate this election season and have come to the realization that it simply isn't possible. Thus far, as far as my vote is concerned, McCain is the best candidate. The circumstances simply aren't compelling enough for me to vote for a pro-legalized abortion candidate.

I would only suggest staying home if there were no candidates involved that were pro-life.  We have one, and it stuns me that self-professing Catholics would vote for Obama when he supports such a serious sin.

[redkim]

The problem with staying home is that we are not exercising our duty to vote.

Nothing compels Christians to vote.  It may be a civic duty, but so what?

Our civic duty is important. Our staying home is a vote in the pocket of the other guy.

We could, I suppose write in a candidate (Bob Dylan being a good choice. He did once say his favorite politician is Barry Goldwater), but again, that seems to me to be reneging on our duty. I myself have wrestled with this decision to write in a candidate this election season and have come to the realization that it simply isn't possible. Thus far, as far as my vote is concerned, McCain is the best candidate. The circumstances simply aren't compelling enough for me to vote for a pro-legalized abortion candidate.

I would only suggest staying home if there were no candidates involved that were pro-life.  We have one, and it stuns me that self-professing Catholics would vote for Obama when he supports such a serious sin.

I admit I see no compelling reason to vote for Obama, even from a non-Catholic perspective. I also believe that those Catholics who would vote for him may be doing so out of emotionalism and tiredness from the Republican party.

[fidei in nuce]

In the Catholic tradition, voting is a moral duty.  Certain rights are to be afforded men, because the duty exists; we have the right to vote, because it allows us the to carry out our duty. The decisions of the State order our relationships and that has a moral underpinning. [cf. Pacem in Terris §6, 8 & 14].

I can’t recall the document, but the idea of political power originates with God.  Since He gave it to no one in particular, he must have given it to all men and through all men the representatives are empowered to rule. God—Men—State!

Now as for voting for a pro-abortion candidate, the USCCB document issued in November of 2007 [Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship] makes it clear that you may vote for an anti-life candidates if...

1.All candidates support an intrinsic evil, but one may at least lessen the effect of an existing law.
 
2.You are not supporting that position

3.You deem that candidate less likely to do evil—or voting for the greater of the two goods is the positive wording.

4.Their position may not affect the law [this document is for all elections, but in the presidential election this 4th clause is not possible].

5.The position to not vote at all is called [extraordinary]…due to the moral obligation.

Obama does not enjoy the blessing [aka. Vote] of a properly formed conscience.  Unfortunately he will receive at least half of the Catholic vote.  McCain does not support the life of the child in rape cases, or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.  He is also supportive of embryonic stem cell research…though I understand he may have changed his position on that…not sure!  Some other issues raise the ire of Catholic [or should], but McCain is certainly the candidate that is capable of the greater good of the two or three [Hilary].

[Acumen]

In the Catholic tradition, voting is a moral duty.  Certain rights are to be afforded men, because the duty exists; we have the right to vote, because it allows us the to carry out our duty. The decisions of the State order our relationships and that has a moral underpinning. [cf. Pacem in Terris §6, 8 & 14].

Hmmm . . . rather interesting.  If voting is a moral duty, then not voting must be immoral.  And neglecting to fix our deficient and inaccurate ballot systems are also immoral.

Now as for voting for a pro-abortion candidate, the USCCB document issued in November of 2007 [Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship] makes it clear that you may vote for an anti-life candidates if...

1.All candidates support an intrinsic evil, but one may at least lessen the effect of an existing law.

That doesn't make sense to me.

2.You are not supporting that position

This doesn't make much sense to me either.  By voting for an anti-life candidate, you are supporting that position.  Not only are you supporting it, but you are enabling it.

3.You deem that candidate less likely to do evil—or voting for the greater of the two goods is the positive wording.

Okay, I can buy that, sort of.  Couldn't it be argued that voting for the lessor evil is worse than writing in your own candidate who doesn't support evil positions?  After all, you are fulfilling your duty to vote without supporting evil.

4.Their position may not affect the law [this document is for all elections, but in the presidential election this 4th clause is not possible].

This point would seem moot.  All positions affect the law at some level.

5.The position to not vote at all is called [extraordinary]…due to the moral obligation.

Is this the escape clause?

[fidei in nuce]

First, someone is going to have to show me how you put the quote in a shaded box and respond underneath…anyway!

[Acumen]  Hmmm . . . rather interesting.  If voting is a moral duty, then not voting must be immoral.  And neglecting to fix our deficient and inaccurate ballot systems are also immoral.

[Fidei] To refuse to vote, to contribute to the pursuit of the common good in obstinacy is immoral.  To simply have an inefficient or flawed system is not immoral, unless that is used to corrupt the election.

[Acumen]  “All candidates support an intrinsic evil, but one may at least lessen the effect of an existing law.”  That doesn't make sense to me.

[Fidei]  Think of both candidates supporting abortion [intrinsic evil] and the laws are as they currently are now, but one candidate would support mandatory counseling prior to the procedure, spousal notification or limit abortion to the first trimester, etc.

[Acumen]  “You are not supporting that position” This doesn't make much sense to me either.  By voting for an anti-life candidate, you are supporting that position.  Not only are you supporting it, but you are enabling it.

[Fidei]  If I vote for McCain, I am not supporting his stance on embryonic stem cell research.  Something like that!

[Acumen]  “You deem that candidate less likely to do evil—or voting for the greater of the two goods is the positive wording.”  Okay, I can buy that, sort of.  Couldn't it be argued that voting for the lesser evil is worse than writing in your own candidate who doesn't support evil positions?  After all, you are fulfilling your duty to vote without supporting evil.

[Fidei]   Maybe?  But the moral obligation is not the mechanical process, but the goal of putting the person in office to do the greatest good.  This is not an end-justifies the means, but a prudential assessment of the outcome possible.

[Acumen]  “Their position may not affect the law [this document is for all elections, but in the presidential election this 4th clause is not possible].”  This point would seem moot.  All positions affect the law at some level.

[Fidei]   My local councilman’s position on embryonic stem cell research is not totally irrelevant, but he will have not power, in any fashion, to affect the law…since there is not a local law and no one cares what he thinks higher up.  I did mention that this document was for all elections.

[Acumen]  “The position to not vote at all is called [extraordinary]…due to the moral obligation.”  Is this the escape clause?

[Fidei]  No, but you must recognize the difference between an objectively formed conscience and a subjectively formed one.  The latter may be erroneous.  A person’s conscience may inform them to withhold the vote, but the criterion used is inadequate.  Now that being said, there may still exist a situation where to not vote is the best option, done in masse it would be quite a statement.  I’m sure there are other scenarios, but I sure you get the point.

[redkim]

While the below article is geared primarily toward Italian elections of 2008, I also believe it can be helpful to Catholics and other Christians in determining who to vote for in the US:

What is Dearest to Us


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The immediate duty to act in the political sphere to build a just order in Italian society is not the Church’s task as such, but rather, that of the lay faithful, in accordance with the competencies of each one and under his or her own autonomous responsibility. They must dedicate themselves with generosity and courage to this duty of great importance, illuminated by faith and by the Church’s Magisterium and animated by the charity of Christ.” (Benedict XVI).

1) Whenever we are summoned to vote we are provoked, as Christians, to justify our faith. It is this which has recently been at stake in the way we make our contribution to the construction of society.

As Fr. Giussani taught, what each of us loves comes to the surface when it is tried by the urgencies of living. “If the faith is truly in the foreground, if we truly expect everything from the fact of Christ, or if we expect from the fact of Christ what we decide to expect, ultimately making Him a starting point and a support for our projects and programs” – this will emerge when we face the test, in our judgments and decisions.

So the elections are a unique educational opportunity for us to show what we really cherish and to unmask any possible ambiguity surrounding the roots of all our actions.

2) We do not ask for salvation from politics. We cannot expect politics to do this either for us or for others.
The tradition of the Church has always indicated two ideal criteria for judging every civil authority and every political platform:

a) libertas Ecclesiae. A power that respects the freedom of a phenomenon so sui generis as the Church is for that very reason tolerant towards every other form of authentic human aggregation. The recognition of the role of faith, including its public role, and the contribution it can make to man’s journey is, therefore, a guarantee of freedom for all, not only for Christians.

b) the “common good.” A power that it is conceived as a service to the people has at heart the defense of those experiences in which the desire of man and his responsibility can grow as a function of the common good, through the construction of social and economic works, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, well knowing that no program will enable it to be fully realized because of the intrinsic limitations of all human effort.

3) For these reasons we will give our preference to those who present policies and favor an order of the state which fosters this freedom and this good, and in this way will sustain hope for the future, defending life, the family, our freedom to educate and to perform works that embody man’s desire We do so at a historical moment that requires we should not disperse our votes, to avoid adding confusion to confusion.

In particular, we invite you to look at some friends who, starting from their personal commitment with our shared Christian experience, have already shown in recent years that they are pursuing a policy in the service of the common good, of the subsidiarity and libertas Ecclesiae. We hope they will be able to continue to register the innovations that have invested their lives, like ours, so that in their action they will make the fruit of the teaching received even more explicit: a passion for freedom and for good lived as charity.


Source:

http://www.clonline.org/articoli/eng/elections2008.htm

Clearly the last paragraph is dealing specifically with Italy, but I think we can apply the rest to US politics. What is the article saying?

First, that we should not put any misplaced hope in politics (a slap in the face to the Obama campaign, imo). But also, imo, a clarion call, if you will, that we should not place too much hope that ANY politician will be able to do much to limit abortion. In practicum, he/she can only do so much so long as that terrible decision, Roe v. Wade is still valid.

Second, freedom of the Church (Christianity). What does this mean? It means, quite simply freedom of religion. An example that I can think of off-hand where freedom of religion was in jeopardy was in the case of Catholic Charities being either forced to allow children to go same-sex couples or withdraw from adoption services altogether. Catholic Charities had to withdraw, thus causing many children to be left with even fewer services than they had. Another example that has come to mind is the case of forcing the Catholic Church to provide for artificial birth control in it's healthcare benefits since not all her employees may be Catholic. This naturally can be extended to abortion services as well

Third: the common good. What's important in this paragraph, imo, is not only the common good, but also the concept of subsidiarity. Think faith-based charities and/or community based charities being the first line of defense for people in need, rather than the government.

Hillary Clinton was right when she said "It takes a village to raise a child." The problem is that it takes a village, not a county, not a state and not a country. It is the smallest unit which works best for several reasons, imo:

We know who is in front of us and we can meet their needs
The person is treated as a person and not simply a problem to solve
We are called then to be more giving ourselves, rather than just donating money or letting the government take care of it.
We are confronted with the radical gospel message.