Is Father Newman correct?

[chris_molter]

You’re arguing angels dancing on a head of a pin here. Father Newman was dealing with a pastoral issue, not an abstract one.

You still haven’t addressed how you know he didn’t personally instruct his congregation as to Catholic teaching on this subject.

I do know, for a fact, that he DID instruct his congregation. That doesn’t mean that his statement regarding material cooperation wasn’t incomplete.

It’s with the interest of honesty and accuracy that I’ve critiqued Fr Newman’s statements which were, he admits here, composed hastily and not intended as a detailed study of the issue:

firstthings.com/blog/2008/11/16/what-happened-in-south-carolina

I will, although you’ve ignored similar requests I’ve made.

Read this:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1073

God love that man! Still, I missed the part where he contradicted my specific claim.

Yes, of course, but unless the handle was BenedictXVI and the IP address was in The Vatican, it’s just somebody’s opinion, right?

Even if it was, it still could just be someone’s opinion depending on His Holiness’ intention. Same thing with Abp Chaput.

It doesn’t even matter if I agree with it. The issue is Church teaching.

I know. That’s what I’m talking about.

No, I get the feeling that you’re handing ammunition to the enemy, to extend your analogy. You can quibble over whether or not that’s formal cooperation or not, but to pretend that invincible ignorance will protect the vast majority of the 54% of Catholics who voted for Obama once they face Christ hurts, not helps, our brothers and sisters.

Welllll, considering I’m just reiterating stuff from JPII and Cdl Ratzinger, you can blame them for handing ammo to the enemy. Better still, blame the guys that misinterpret Church teaching to say “hey, Ratzinger said it’s ok to vote pro-abortion if we think it’s ok!”

(ok, here you go, captain linky…)
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Anyway, I’m sure a good percentage of those 54% aren’t even Mass attending Catholics (IIRC), so my argument wouldn’t even apply to them. I agree that few Catholics would fall under my point, but those few still should have their rights as laity respected and not be lumped in with those who formally cooperated with abortion. You and I may think they’re foolish and deluded, but ultimately they ARE on our side.

Indeed, read AgingCatholic’s posts and PM me if you’d like as to whether or not you believe in your gut AC is invincibly ignorant or knowingly rejecting Church teaching on abortion.

I’ve given the courtesy of asking directly, but AC just dodges it.

Well, I’m not sure I have the stomach for TWO arguments in one day, but I’ll go back through and read up.

 

[Teflon93]

I do know, for a fact, that he DID instruct his congregation. That doesn’t mean that his statement regarding material cooperation wasn’t incomplete.

It’s with the interest of honesty and accuracy that I’ve critiqued Fr Newman’s statements which were, he admits here, composed hastily and not intended as a detailed study of the issue:

firstthings.com/blog/2008/11/16/what-happened-in-south-carolina

Okay, but remember this response:

Question 2. You say that voting for a pro-abortion politician, when there’s a plausible pro-life alternative, amounts to “material cooperation with intrinsic evil.” In speaking with the diocese spokesman today, he mentioned that this is church policy insofar as people vote deliberately and intentionally while knowing what’s at stake. Does this reflect your view (that a deliberate act, as opposed to an unknowing or ill-informed one, is what amounts to “material cooperation”)?

Reply 2. An uninformed vote is an irresponsible vote, and so I hope that no citizen would ever cast an uninformed vote.** In this election, there was no way an informed voter could not be aware that Senator McCain is pro-life and Senator Obama is pro-abortion, and those who chose to vote for Senator Obama, whether because of or in spite or his position on abortion, nonetheless voted for a pro-abortion candidate who has pledged his vigorous support for the Freedom of Choice Act which will abolish current legal restrictions on abortion in every state of the Union, including parental notification requirements and the existing “conscience clauses” which allow Catholic doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and hospitals to refuse to be involved in any way with abortions**. For this reason, no matter what the intention of the voter, support for Senator Obama was necessarily material cooperation with his clearly stated goal to extend the private and unrestricted use of lethal violence against unborn children throughout this nation and to export the same abroad as part of our official foreign policy. The other issues in this campaign (health care, education, immigration, education, and the war on terror) are all prudential matters over which reasonable people may disagree, **but abortion is not the same. In the teaching of the Catholic Church, abortion is murder; it is evil in itself and can never be made good or even morally neutral by any intention or circumstance. **A Catholic who gets an abortion, a Catholic who encourages or pays for an abortion, and a Catholic who performs or assists at an abortion are, by the fact of the abortion, automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. This automatic penalty does not apply to any other form of murder, and the reason is that abortion is usually murder in secret and it lays the axe to human life at its root. President-elect Obama intends to do everything in his power to make this hidden murder (which has since Roe v. Wade cost nearly 50 million American lives) a fundamental right protected in law and enforced by the coercive authority of the federal government, and anyone who voted to give him this power will be complicit in the legal holocaust which will follow.

I think Father Newman’s reasoning is pretty clear.

 

[Teflon93]

God love that man! Still, I missed the part where he contradicted my specific claim.

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

.

I’m sorry, but I have heard no justification for pulling the lever for Obama which is more than a flimsy alibi. Perhaps you have. I certainly would not want to confront the poor souls slain in utero in the afterlife had I voted for the most proabortion presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Even if it was, it still could just be someone’s opinion depending on His Holiness’ intention. Same thing with Abp Chaput.

Umm, Catechism?

Welllll, considering I’m just reiterating stuff from JPII and Cdl Ratzinger, you can blame them for handing ammo to the enemy. Better still, blame the guys that misinterpret Church teaching to say “hey, Ratzinger said it’s ok to vote pro-abortion if we think it’s ok!”

Or you could properly categorize your objection by emphasizing where Father Newman’s absolutely right, couldn’t you?

Anyway, I’m sure a good percentage of those 54% aren’t even Mass attending Catholics (IIRC), so my argument wouldn’t even apply to them.

In which case they’re in a state of mortal sin for not attending Mass and need to get to Confession anyway.

Unless you want to hand them the alibi that maybe they all simply don’t know they are required to attend Mass.

I agree that few Catholics would fall under my point, but those few still should have their rights as laity respected and not be lumped in with those who formally cooperated with abortion. You and I may think they’re foolish and deluded, but ultimately they ARE on our side.

Or they could suck it up, stop whining, and recognize the greater good instead of fuming in the pews. Got news for you—their slighted feelings pale in comparison to the deaths of 1.3 MM babies.

They’ll get over it. And if they don’t, they’ll have another reason to go to Confession, right?

Well, I’m not sure I have the stomach for TWO arguments in one day, but I’ll go back through and read up.

Thank you.

 

[chris_molter]

I’m sorry, but I have heard no justification for pulling the lever for Obama which is more than a flimsy alibi. Perhaps you have. I certainly would not want to confront the poor souls slain in utero in the afterlife had I voted for the most proabortion presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Nope, I haven’t either. But you and I would be harder to convince than many other Catholics.

Or you could properly categorize your objection by emphasizing where Father Newman’s absolutely right, couldn’t you?

I could, but you’ve already done that No need repeating what’s been said already.

In which case they’re in a state of mortal sin for not attending Mass and need to get to Confession anyway.

Exactly. Those Catholics have bigger problems than just voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

[quoteUnless you want to hand them the alibi that maybe they all simply don’t know they are required to attend Mass.
[/quote]

I doubt lapsed Catholics care if they have proportionate reason to miss Mass or not.

Or they could suck it up, stop whining, and recognize the greater good instead of fuming in the pews. Got news for you—their slighted feelings pale in comparison to the deaths of 1.3 MM babies.

They’ll get over it. And if they don’t, they’ll have another reason to go to Confession, right?

I’m sympathetic to your approach, but I don’t think it’s going to convince anyone that’s on the other side, or even close to the fence, that we’re right and they’re wrong. It’ll just alienate them further.

 

[Teflon93]

I’m sympathetic to your approach, but I don’t think it’s going to convince anyone that’s on the other side, or even close to the fence, that we’re right and they’re wrong. It’ll just alienate them further.

Those who need to be alienated, anyway.

Remember Matthew 18—we must first confront them, bring them before the Church, and if they still reject Church teaching, it’s heathen man and publican time.

St Paul taught that that was precisely what was needed, for some will not understand the importance of obedience until they lose the comfort of community.

The first step, though, is to clearly state Church teaching.

Isn’t it interesting how vigorous the opposition is even to this first step?

 

[sodak]

I am sorry, I am constrained by what the Church actually teaches, perhaps you could look at the following and correct my understanding.

First point, it is never licit to support an attack on human life. Next, it is noted that John Paul did introduce the concept of limiting the harm, but the document continues to explain that the concept cannot be used to compromise on other moral principles. We know this is the correct interpretation of JPII’s principle, because he approved the Doctrinal Note.

Well Teflon beat me to it, I had to work today. Read his arguments and the firstthings link, that should answer your questions.

You demonstrate why people don’t trust statistics. Namely, that they are so frequently abused.

Being a mathematician, I love statistics, even though my specialty was Operations Research. Statistics that are abused are very easily seen through.

I am not one of those medical doctors who is convinced that I am automatically a good scientist, however I did my residency in orthopedic surgery at a research hospital and both my fellowships were directly involved in research. I also participated in numerous medical research projects while in practice. If you would like to discuss this as a matter of math and statistics, I would be happy to oblige.

Glad to hear of this. My wife and I both work in medical research, and most physicians are convinced they know more about everything than anyone else in the room.

Since Teflon covered the math, then answer this. Since Obama is certifiably pro-abortion, when a Catholic knows this, is it a mortal sin for that Catholic to vote for Obama? Yes or no.

 

[clmowry]

I’ll offer up some food for thought here. This is from Chris Altieri, a PhD candidate at Pontifical Gregorian University (blog: fidetrat.blogspot.com/):

I think his analysis is the best I’ve seen so far.

I also agree with one of the commenters on Mark Shea’s blog who provided this superb insight:

Unfortunately, in this age of moral relativism, if you give an inch, everybody takes a mile.

While you and the PhD candidate are technically correct, the possibility that supporting a Pro-death candidate may not be sinful starts out as the eye of the needle which we can soon drive a truck through.

This is a whole lot like the possibility of “invincible ignorance” as a path to salvation.

Sure it’s “possible” therefore, see look, the church teaches we don’t need Christ to be saved, so why waste our time with evangelization.

Basically no one, not the Church or a priest or you or I can ever claim that anything is sinful, well unless of course we are claiming that claiming something is sinful is itself a sin which will always be popularly allowed.

If there is the possibility that a particularly vehement supporter of abortion might succeed in his promise to reduce poverty (despite the fact that the policies he suggest have never done anything but precisely the opposite) and this might possibly decrease the number of abortions by some unknown amount (despite the fact that the women receiving abortions do not note money as the reason for the abortion 79% of the time) then despite the fact that I also know he also promises to pass a law which will force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions well then my vote is certainly not sinful.

I mean I have thought it all through.

I know we loose 1.2 Million children of God a year because they are inconvenient.

But I wouldn’t want anyone to give up their right to uninhibited sexual pleasure.

I know that the newly elected leader of the free world thinks this mass slaughter is a right that we need to make sure women always have, I mean after all who am I to say that a woman should be “punished with a baby”.

But this candidate is going to bring about change and change is what’s important, well as long as it’s not a change in the right to kill babies.

But what’s important, is of course that we make it clear that there might be a good reason to help elect someone who will help insure another 30 million or so innocent babies have the right to a painful death during his presidency.

But heaven forbid somebody should let me know that my vote was, most likely a direct rejection of Catholic teaching, because, well that would be judgmental and nobody has the right to hurt my feelings.

Frankly, I wish the Church would flat out say: “A vote for a pro-choice candidate is ALWAYS a mortal sin. If there is not a pro-life candidate on the ballot, then write one in!”

It seems obvious to me with the mode of thinking prevalent in today’s society that anything short of this kind of a statement will quickly be translated into: “Vote for whoever you want, little moral issues like abortion shouldn’t affect your vote at all.”

Chuck

 

[Teflon93]

And since such violence has been done in this thread to the very concept of the dictates of conscience, let’s seek clarity from the Catechism there as well:

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

• **the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”**56

• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore **“it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”**58

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. **This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”**59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. **

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.** It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience**.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

Far from being a refuge, ignorance is a deathtrap, particularly in matters of natural law, written as it is on the heart of every man.

Note also that willful ignorance condemns.

 

[Teflon93]

AC, do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Yes or no?

Remember this?

 

[Teflon93]

It seems obvious to me with the mode of thinking prevalent in today’s society that anything short of this kind of a statement will quickly be translated into: “Vote for whoever you want, little moral issues like abortion shouldn’t affect your vote at all.”

Chuck

And it must be noted that my wife loved this post more than any of mine.

 

[FM927]

Catholics are NOT the only people who live in the USA!
If we as catholics are against abortion, then we as catholics should NOT have abortions. Just because the president is pro-choice, does that mean that everyone else should feel the same way? NO! Your personal conscience is what is important here.
This is a free country, so how can we impose our religious beliefs on everyone else? One would think that everyone is more concerned that since this is nationally approved, what matters more is the money that will be spent on legal abortions than all the innocent lives that will be lost. We all know that that is not true but to people who are pro-choice it may seem so.

 

[DebChris]

Catholics are NOT the only people who live in the USA!
If we as catholics are against abortion, then we as catholics should NOT have abortions. Just because the president is pro-choice, does that mean that everyone else should feel the same way? NO! Your personal conscience is what is important here.
This is a free country, so how can we impose our religious beliefs on everyone else? One would think that everyone is more concerned that since this is nationally approved, what matters more is the money that will be spent on legal abortions than all the innocent lives that will be lost. We all know that that is not true but to people who are pro-choice it may seem so.

When I discuss the abortion issue with people who are not Catholic, I do not mention my faith. It does come up because of the assumption that if you are against abortion, it must be because you are Catholic.
It is not only Catholics who oppose abortions, even if it is members of the Church who are most known for being on the front lines of this battle front.
If we look at Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution is based, we see have the statement that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The first of these stated rights is life without which it is impossible to enjoy any of the others. Stated simply, without life there is no liberty.
If life does not begin at conception, then when does it begins? Does the zygote that forms at conception become anything other than human? If it cannot be anything other than human, then how can the taking of that human life be justified?
What is being argued is not simply a matter of religious belief, it is a matter of human rights. Would the issue continue to argued if the Court had upheld the right to life with its decision?

 

[sodak]

Catholics are NOT the only people who live in the USA!
If we as catholics are against abortion, then we as catholics should NOT have abortions. Just because the president is pro-choice, does that mean that everyone else should feel the same way? NO! Your personal conscience is what is important here.
This is a free country, so how can we impose our religious beliefs on everyone else?

The same way that we keep murder illegal. Or slavery. This argument is quite easy to counter.

 

[Teflon93]

Catholics are NOT the only people who live in the USA!
If we as catholics are against abortion, then we as catholics should NOT have abortions. Just because the president is pro-choice, does that mean that everyone else should feel the same way? NO! Your personal conscience is what is important here.
This is a free country, so how can we impose our religious beliefs on everyone else? One would think that everyone is more concerned that since this is nationally approved, what matters more is the money that will be spent on legal abortions than all the innocent lives that will be lost. We all know that that is not true but to people who are pro-choice it may seem so.

None of which stopped pro-abortion Americans from forcing their religious views upon Catholics, did it?

None of which is stopping Barack Obama by seeking to force Catholic hospitals—one-eighth of U.S. hospitals—to perform abortions against their religious beliefs and conscience.

We’re a free country—so why is Barack Obama forcing Catholic doctors to kill babies?

 

[Teflon93]

The same way that we keep murder illegal. Or slavery. This argument is quite easy to counter.

Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution. So why can’t someone keep a slave or two if they want to? How dare the federal government ban slavery!

Flashback to 1840 and the same people arguing the same arguments for abortion would undoubtedly be doing the same thing for slavery.

 

[TMC]

On every one of the many “voting Obama is evil” threads people have post clear thoughtful quotes from the USCCB, the Vatican, from Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that show that 1) there are many important Catholic issues, abortion is not the sole issue, or the only intrinsic evil at stake, and 2) voting for a candidate in spite of (and not because of) his support of an immoral policy (even intrinsic evil) is remote material cooperation that is justifiable.

It is possible to argue that McCain was clearly better by engaging in a discussion of the issues, but attempts to do so are generally shouted down. Most (although not all) of the Obama-evil crowd is not content (or willing? or able?) to argue why McCain would have been better, and refuse even to admit that some of his policy positions go against Church teachings. Instead they insist that the Church mandates their choice. Why?

This refusal to engage on the issues and the blatant denial that Cardinal Ratzinger meant what he said, or that the USCCB and Vatican documents mean what they say, is not convincing anyone. Accusing people that profess to be pro-life and Catholic of being abortion supporters and false Catholics is uncharitable and counterproductive. The major problem in the pro-life movement today, IMO, is that the effort has been reduced to standing toe to toe and yelling insults at each other. Now we don’t even bother to fight with the other side, we fight with each other. Despite pro-life majorities, South Dakota and Colorado both had pro-life ballot measures voted down because the pro-life community in each state fought amongst themselves! We won’t defeat hate and hard hearts with more passionate hate and harder hearts. It doesn’t work that way.

I’m not sure what my point is - except that I am disappointed that it seems to be impossible to discuss this here in any real way.

 

[FM927]

TMC, I get your point which is what I was trying to express and may have NOT done such a good job explaining.

 

[Teflon93]

The case for McCain is quite simple. I made it above using the 2007 Senate legislative record alone.

In addition to that, Obama promised that the 1st thing he’d do would be to push for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions against their consciences and Church Teaching.

Obama has also promised an abortion litmus test for judges, including Supreme Court appointees.

McCain, having done neither, would move into the “lesser evil” category for this reason if no other.

The real here is that pro-Obama Catholics are by and large open neither to Church teaching nor reason on this point. Neither will they admit, by and large, to being opposed to either.

You will note in my posts that I have quoted the Catechism extensively, Catholic bishops, studies, statistical data, the legislative record of the candidates, and the candidates’ own pronouncements.

What precisely have you seen in the posts of AgingCatholic and other pro-Obama Catholics which displays a comparable interest in the truth of this issue or the Church teaching on it?

Remember, as Archbishop Chaput has noted, we will have to justify ourselves to the victims of abortion for our decisions.

I can justify myself easily for my McCain vote:

1. McCain has a strong pro-life record (0% from NARAL); Obama has the strongest possible pro-abortion record.
2. Obama has stated on the record that he doesn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby”.
3. Obama promised that the 1st thing he would do as President would be to get the Freedom of Choice Act passed, which would remove all state abortion restrictions in place today (parental notification, etc) as well as force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions.
4. The Catechism states that human life MUST be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception; yet Obama opposed even the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have saved from death by neglect babies fortunate enough to survive abortion.
5. McCain sadly supported in 2000 embryonic stem cell research. I however was justified in voting for him as a) the numbers of embryos does not approach the 1.3 MM abortions per year (a number which will climb under Obama as abortion restrictions are removed); b) adult stem cell research has already accomplished far more than embryonic stem cell research was promised to do, meaning embryonic stem cell research is likely the scientifically less promising path and will be abandoned in the future regardless; c) Obama supports embryonic stem cell research as well, therefore having no advantage over McCain on this issue.
6. McCain as President indicated he would select pro-life judges who interpret the Constitution strictly; this offers the single best opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and allow states the opportunity once again to protect the unborn.
7. A number of bishops and priests came out prior to the election and argued persuasively that I could not vote for Obama because of his radical pro-abortion agenda.

Let it not be said that the case has not been made.

 

[Vonier]

What exactly is there to discuss? These calls for discussion have puzzled me from the first.

There’s no nuance here. The Catholic Church opposes abortion, calling it an intrinsic evil. We as Catholics believe that, not because the Church say it’s so, but because everthing we’ve been taught by the Church and everything we believe as Christians tells us it is so.

Knowing what we know about abortion we cannot vote for someone who supports it, considers it a basic “right”, will vote to support it with public funds, will further it’s murderous grip on the unborn in our country. If we do, we enable that evil.

I sure wouldn’t want to stand in front of God someday trying to spin out some of the inane moral equivalencies I’ve heard peddled to justify voting for pro-abortion candidates. I wouldn’t try that “I’m smarter than you so I get the nuance here” argument either.

Father Newman is correct.

 

[rossum]

On every one of the many “voting Obama is evil” threads people have post clear thoughtful quotes from the USCCB, the Vatican, from Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that show that 1) there are many important Catholic issues, abortion is not the sole issue, or the only intrinsic evil at stake, and 2) voting for a candidate in spite of (and not because of) his support of an immoral policy (even intrinsic evil) is remote material cooperation that is justifiable.

It is possible to argue that McCain was clearly better by engaging in a discussion of the issues, but attempts to do so are generally shouted down. Most (although not all) of the Obama-evil crowd is not content (or willing? or able?) to argue why McCain would have been better, and refuse even to admit that some of his policy positions go against Church teachings. Instead they insist that the Church mandates their choice. Why?

This refusal to engage on the issues and the blatant denial that Cardinal Ratzinger meant what he said, or that the USCCB and Vatican documents mean what they say, is not convincing anyone. Accusing people that profess to be pro-life and Catholic of being abortion supporters and false Catholics is uncharitable and counterproductive. The major problem in the pro-life movement today, IMO, is that the effort has been reduced to standing toe to toe and yelling insults at each other. Now we don’t even bother to fight with the other side, we fight with each other. Despite pro-life majorities, South Dakota and Colorado both had pro-life ballot measures voted down because the pro-life community in each state fought amongst themselves! We won’t defeat hate and hard hearts with more passionate hate and harder hearts. It doesn’t work that way.

I’m not sure what my point is - except that I am disappointed that it seems to be impossible to discuss this here in any real way.

Given that Mr Obama will be President for the next four years, and possibly for the next eight, it would surely be better to look at what is the best way forward in the situation we actually have, rather than the situation you would like to have.

Mr Obama is “pro-choice”; he wants women to have a choice for themselves. Hence you could think of ways to help women chose not to have an abortion rather than to have one. Arranging more places for adoptions, easing the economic cost of raising a child for the poorest and similar ideas will all probably be acceptable to an Obama administration and will help to reduce the number of abortions in future. Don’t spend your energy shouting at each other or wishing that things were different from what they actually are. You cannot change the past, you can change the future. Spend your energies helping to expand an adoption agency or easing the costs of raising a child so fewer women will feel the need to chose to have an abortion .

rossum