Texas Bishops Face Protests from Pro-Abortion Catholics

When is the last time a bishop’s statement on abortion resulted in several days of protest from pro-abortion Catholics? The joint statement issued last Friday by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth and Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has done just that. No doubt the forceful clarity of the bishops’ message elicited the outcry.
The protests began on Sunday when the statement was read from the pulpit by Rev. Tony Ruiz, pastor of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in downtown Dallas. Some two-dozen parishioners walked out and went to the local media to lodge their complaints about “political endorsements.”
The next day, the Dallas Morning News carried the story on the front page of its Metro section. “The silver lining was that the article contained a link to the bishops’ statement,” said Karen Garnett, executive director of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee, Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Dallas.
Garnett told me that the subsequent protest on Wednesday afternoon in front of the diocesan chancery attracted the same number of people who had walked out of the Mass at Holy Trinity. Bishop Farrell, who was out of town on Wednesday, has offered to meet with the protesters.
“Too many parishes do seminars on ‘Faithful Citizenship’ that don’t put the life issues first. We’ve been dealing with that problem for 35 years,” added Garnett.
Olivia Franklin, a member of Holy Trinity for 15 years, heard Father Ruiz read the statement. “I’m thrilled that he read it, and I hurried out the door to tell him thank you. This is the truth, and we need to hear the truth.”
Franklin had recently attended four seminars at Holy Trinity on “Faithful Citizenship.” At these sessions she was told “one could in fact vote for a pro-abortion candidate if one was not voting for them for that reason.” She raised objections to what was being taught, only to be told it was just her opinion.
There have been over 40 statements to date issued by bishops this election season. Some responded to comments made by Sen. Barack Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, about the beginning of human life. Others responded to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s appearance on Meet the Press when she, too, misrepresented the Church’s teaching on abortion.
But the biggest problem of this election for Catholics has been the bishops’ own document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” In an otherwise admirable document, there is one section (Sec. 34-37) that has provided an open door for pro-abortion Catholics to drive through and proclaim their support for Obama, a proponent of abortion-on-demand. (I have already written about the effort to use “Faithful Citizenship” to help Obama.)
One of the problematic passages in “Faithful Citizenship” presently being spun by Obama’s Catholic supporters is the following:
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptableposition may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamentalmoral evil.
Bishops Vann and Farrell demolish the arguments of leading Obama Catholic surrogate Doug Kmiec and others, that “Faithful Citizenship” can be interpreted to support Obama in the present election.
Bishops Vann and Farrell explain that voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil like abortion is possible only if 1) “both candidates running for office support abortion or ‘abortion rights,'” or if 2) “another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion.”
Obama’s Catholic apologists argue such a situation exists with Sen. John McCain, citing his support for the Iraq War. Bishops Vann and Farrell reject this line of reasoning in advance, saying “there are no ‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”
Olivia Franklin believes God is using the bishops’ statement and the controversy at Holy Trinity. “For too long authentic Catholic social teaching has been co-opted by the ‘social justice’ crowd, who rail about the death penalty while conveniently ignoring the real death penalty presently being carried out — the 4,000 babies executed daily by abortionists.”

Deal W. Hudson

By

Deal W. Hudson is ​publisher and editor of The Christian Review and the host of "Church and Culture," a weekly two-hour radio show on the Ave Maria Radio Network.​ Formerly publisher and editor of Crisis Magazine for ten years, his articles and comments have been published widely in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and U.S. News and World Report. He has also appeared on TV and radio news shows such as the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, NBC News, and All Things Considered on National Public Radio. Hudson worked with Karl Rove in coordinating then-Gov. George W. Bush's outreach to Catholic voters in 2000 and 2004. In October 2003, President Bush appointed him a member of the official delegation from the United States to attend the 25th anniversary celebration of John Paul II's papacy. Hudson, a former professor of philosophy for 15 years, is the editor and author of eight books. He tells the story of his conversion from Southern Baptist to Catholic in An American Conversion (Crossroad, 2003), and his latest, Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, was published in March 2008. He is married to Theresa Carver Hudson, also a Baptist convert, and they have two children, Hannah and Cyprian who was adopted from Romania in 2001.

  • Kevin

    I’m a recent arrival to Texas and to the Dallas diocese, and I had the chance to meet Bishop Farrell when he celebrated Mass at the University of Dallas for the opening of the academic year in early September. I thank God for blessing this diocese with a faithful and good bishop, one who is not afraid to call his flock to orthodox behavior in our lives as citizens of the world, and not just as Sunday Mass-goers.

    The dioceses here in Texas are filled with many orthodox Hispanic Catholics, many recent immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and they generally seem to be welcoming of the increasing orthodoxy our new bishop so strongly supports. I have the strong sense that the liberal dissenters who chose to protest in front of the Dallas chancery are in the tiny minority, and perhaps they see the writing on the wall and are in the death throes of their own lack of faithful adherence to the clear teaching of Holy Mother Church. Let us hope and pray that many more bishops across the US will teach their flocks to inform their consciences thoroughly before casting their votes on November 4th, and let us pray that the voice of the faithful (pardon the pun!) Church militant may be heard at the ballot box this coming Election Day.

  • Tommy Joe

    This is a tempest in a Texas teapot. The majority of Texans, pro-life and pro-choice, will unquestionningly vote Republican. That’s what they do here. They voted for George W. Bush for governor and president, didn’t they? I’d be shocked if McCain, despite all of his obvious personal and policy defects, didn’t carry Texas by double digits. The impact of the bishops’ letter on the outcome of the Texas vote won’t amount to a hill of beans.

  • Zoe Romanowsky

    I do feel sorry for lay Catholics because Faithful Citizenship is not clear enough if it means to say, as Bishops Vann and Farrell did, that you can not vote for a candidate who supports abortion unless both candidates support abortion or another intrinsic evil outweighs abortion. So many people are, rightly, confused. And if they are not Republican, or they want to vote for a candidate who otherwise has positions they support, it can be tough to know just what the Church teaches here.

  • Kevin

    This is a tempest in a Texas teapot. The majority of Texans, pro-life and pro-choice, will unquestionningly vote Republican. That’s what they do here. They voted for George W. Bush for governor and president, didn’t they? I’d be shocked if McCain, despite all of his obvious personal and policy defects, didn’t carry Texas by double digits. The impact of the bishops’ letter on the outcome of the Texas vote won’t amount to a hill of beans.

    With all due respect to Tommy Joe, I sincerely doubt that these two bishops calculated how many votes they would sway one way or another when they issued these pastoral letters to their dioceses. It wouldn’t matter if every voter in Texas were Catholic, pro-life, and an absolute McCain supporter; the bishops would still be doing their pastoral duty by clarifying exactly what the Church teaches in regards to life issues and political candidates. The USCCB document, as Zoe notes above, left the issue somewhat ambiguous, and these bishops clarified Church moral teachings, thanks be to God.

    I’m disheartened to see many, many commenters on this Web site, among other Catholic ones, seemingly put political interests before moral ones. The tone of many of the comments demonstrates this, and if I find it disheartening, then I can only presume many other faithful Catholic readers do, as well. We are called to live and preach the Word of God first and foremost, and earthly political viewpoints, while a small part of our lives as Christians, shouldn’t take precedence over the teachings of the Church and the call of God to live as His children and love Him first, then to love others as ourselves.

  • Todd

    “So many people are, rightly, confused.”

    The poor, dumb, laity again.

    “I’d be shocked if McCain, despite all of his obvious personal and policy defects, didn’t carry Texas by double digits.”

    Two polls done before the stock market crash had McCain ahead nine and nineteen points. He’s slipped big time in the national polls since then, but I’d say he’s a safe five, seven, maybe nine points ahead.

    Let’s consider the fatigue factor may be weighing in: an interminably long campaign season, tv ads left and right, phone calls and debates and print media and the internet. People want to go to church and they want to hear a spiritual message addressing things that impact them, not an ecclesiastical spin on what bombards them.

    The Texas bishops were two to four months late on their statement. Preach the liturgy, bishops, not the cause.

  • Zoe Romanowsky

    Todd,

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying in your comment above. Is it a reflection of your belief that bishops are to stay out of preaching on moral issues that veer into politics?

  • Todd

    “I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying in your comment above. Is it a reflection of your belief that bishops are to stay out of preaching on moral issues that veer into politics?”

    In this instance, Zoe, I think the bishops just have poor timing. I thought that my previous diocese badly overplayed its hand trying to get the Missouri clone initiative voted down in ’06, haranguing churchgoers to the point of turning them off. I know many of my parishioners were feeling a certain fatigue at political intrusions into the Mass, to the point where the parish council took it upon themselves to address the issue of appropriateness of announcements, homilies, and all in anticipation of the current election year.

    This is the first instance I’ve heard of people pushing back against bishops this election cycle, and this not in a real swing state. Yet.

    Bishops Vann and Farrell may have the right message, but they might be promoting it at the wrong time, and with a poor assessment of how it will be received.

  • WSmith

    In this instance, Zoe, I think the bishops just have poor timing. I thought that my previous diocese badly overplayed its hand trying to get the Missouri clone initiative voted down in ’06, haranguing churchgoers to the point of turning them off. I know many of my parishioners were feeling a certain fatigue at political intrusions into the Mass, to the point where the parish council took it upon themselves to address the issue of appropriateness of announcements, homilies, and all in anticipation of the current election year.

    Todd–

    I disagree with your assessment of the timing of this statement. It is the perfect statement that gives clarity to a document (“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”) that was badly watered down and vague. It’s being delivered at the perfect time, during Respect Life Month, as well as during the political season where we are about to make a decision on who will be our president. Because of that decision, there will be consequences that will be carried forward for decades. If this same message had been delivered four months ago, as you suggest, it would be out of the mind of many and overridden by statements that will continue from those who claim to be Pro-Choice/Death Catholics (a term that continues to confuse me). At lease with this, there is a clear counter to that rhetoric.

    The Bishops are responsible for the souls of the people in their parishes and by letting them know the truth, their parishioners now have no excuse that “they didn’t know what the stance of the Church is” regarding abortion. They also now have clear insight that once they go beyond the issue of life, that’s when they can use their prudential judgment.

    Just because some are tiring of the message doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be heard. It may be that it will finally get through to someone who simply needed it put in very clear terms–as if it hasn’t been clear before this–but we can be deaf to messages of all kinds.

  • SWP

    Todd,

    your callow disregard for what you characterize as being ‘stated to the point of fatigue’ is shameful.

    Until something as nauseous as abortion is corrected, we have an obligation to go ad nauseam in our repudiation of it.

    If there is any Catholic in the pew who is lukewarm about this issue, who has more important matters to attend to, or who opposes the church’s teaching, they must be corrected. This is not the stock market, this is children’s lives at stake!

    You bump on a log! you lazy whiner! Fatigue?!

    Christ is being massacred and you’re checking your watch?!

    Shame on you! May God have mercy on our souls if we all approached our faith with your commitment-

  • elm

    Separating the sheep from the goats.

  • Todd

    “Please always assume the good intentions of the other person, especially when you disagree, and avoid personal attacks. We reserve the right to edit posts to bring them into conformity with our usage rules.”

    Time for some action, my friends.

  • Anna

    Todd,

    your callow disregard for what you characterize as being ‘stated to the point of fatigue’ is shameful.

    Until something as nauseous as abortion is corrected, we have an obligation to go ad nauseam in our repudiation of it.

    If there is any Catholic in the pew who is lukewarm about this issue, who has more important matters to attend to, or who opposes the church’s teaching, they must be corrected. This is not the stock market, this is children’s lives at stake!

    You bump on a log! you lazy whiner! Fatigue?!

    Christ is being massacred and you’re checking your watch?!

    Shame on you! May God have mercy on our souls if we all approached our faith with your commitment-

    I applaud your courage and forthright post.

  • Jason A.

    I think it’s really sad when we are divided, and lets face it this country is divided. For many years, we haven’t had bishops who would speak the truth as blatantly as this.

    It shocks people, particularly those who have held these positions for years. After years of not having our consciences formed, is it any wonder why people are upset?

    Many people think that the good bishops are simply being partisan in their statement. This is not the case. They are doing their job in fighting evil and forming consciences. May Jesus, Mary and Joseph bless them with much good fruit from their efforts!

    We should pray for all involved that they can separate the facts and the truth from their emotions. We need to pray for a change of hearts.

  • Anna

    “Please always assume the good intentions of the other person, especially when you disagree, and avoid personal attacks. We reserve the right to edit posts to bring them into conformity with our usage rules.”

    Time for some action, my friends.

    Why must people be banished at your say so because they express themselves in manly way?

    You must also assume the good intentions of other people, whether you like the way they express themselves or you don’t.

  • Paul

    May I ask at what point, in the development of the consequences of global warming, that results in the loss of life that may approach hundreds of millions does global warming become an intrinsic evil?

  • Margaret Cabaniss

    You must also assume the good intentions of other people, whether you like the way they express themselves or you don’t.

    The responsibility here isn’t just on the reader, folks. Some of the comments on this thread have crossed the line into personal attacks, which our Terms of Use specifically prohibit.

    We understand that this is a sensitive issue, and strong disagreement is fine — even encouraged. But please stick to debating the topic at hand, and keep the personal jabs to yourself.

  • Charles Miller

    Render Unto Cesar by Archbishop Chaput. Fine volume, short, easy reading with the clarity of CS Lewis. Would be of great help to Todd and like-minded, let alone the rest of us.

    Global warming as the moral equivalent of abortion? Uh, no. Shoot, it’s not even established science and we’ve had to change the name to “Global Climate Change”.

    The rest of my comment was self-edited at the risk of being tonally challenged.

  • Anna

    You must also assume the good intentions of other people, whether you like the way they express themselves or you don’t.

    The responsibility here isn’t just on the reader, folks. Some of the comments on this thread have crossed the line into personal attacks, which our Terms of Use specifically prohibit.

    We understand that this is a sensitive issue, and strong disagreement is fine — even encouraged. But please stick to debating the topic at hand, and keep the personal jabs to yourself.

    Perhaps the bump in the log and the whiner sentence was not for the faint of heart but the calls for censorship by a few comments are reductio ad absurdum. The language of Christ himself would not hold to these standards.

    Mark Shea and written similarly expressed things which Inside Catholic has published. Sometimes he’s written similar things in the comments section and enjoyably so. There was a priest on here at one time who used to post, Fr. Joseph, others who were not monotone which I don’t see posting anymore. Could be I’m the only one who feels this way but constant running to the teacher every time an ego gets bruised leaves little zeal for anyone without a flat affect to want to post and read.

    Best, Anna

  • Margaret Cabaniss

    Perhaps the bump in the log and the whiner sentence was not for the faint of heart but the calls for censorship by a few comments are reductio ad absurdum. The language of Christ himself would not hold to these standards.

    Our Lord is welcome to make whatever character judgments he likes. Everyone else, not possessing perfect knowledge of the outlines of another man’s soul, will be held to a different standard.

    Mark Shea and written similarly expressed things which Inside Catholic has published. Sometimes he’s written similar things in the comments section and enjoyably so. There was a priest on here at one time who used to post, Fr. Joseph, others who were not monotone which I don’t see posting anymore. Could be I’m the only one who feels this way but constant running to the teacher every time an ego gets bruised leaves little zeal for anyone without a flat affect to want to post and read.

    I understand where you’re coming from. We don’t want to squelch debate, and feisty enthusiasm and passion are always encouraged — but comments that go after someone personally or attempt to evaluate them spiritually are out of bounds. Ad hominem remarks are tangential to the topic at hand and detract from the atmosphere of good will and charitable disagreement that we’re trying to cultivate here.

  • Rose

    Todd, Preach the word in & out of season; whether convenient or inconvenient (Timothy). Repetition is the key!

    For all Bishop Finn and others tried to educate Missourians on the Ammendment for Embryonic Stem Cell Research; it still passed. This was poorly written specifically to confuse & make the average person think that they were voting for something moral, but it was really slanted toward specific reserach groups ensuring their financial grants to further explore a morally contested method of research. A big “bait & switch” agenda. This topic was an instrinsic evil as embryos (innocent children) would be destroyed in the process & as a product of waste. How tragic & unnecessary!
    Did anyone listen?? It doesn’t seem that enough Catholics got the point or, if they did, it was too little too late. The confusion & ambiguity factor was pure evil at work for those who would properly discern.

  • john

    I welcome all clear statements of the truth by Bishops. Would that they would remind us more often. Understanding that their primary job is to bring souls TO Christ, and not exclude them from the sacraments, I wish them the courage they need to defend their flocks. Let’s pray for them.

    What floors me about non-pro-life Catholics (or Catholics who are unwilling to vote/speak/act to end abortion) is the totally disproportionate emphasis they put on truly “this-worldly” issues. Is your (or my) income tax rate really more important than a million dead children per year? Really?

    Can you imagine if 1,000,000 Americans annually were being denied service at McDonalds because of their hair color, or were denied mortgages based on their race or had to pay higher taxes because of their gender? The outcry of injustice! Democrats and Republicans alike would rush to their aid in all 3 branches of government.

    I’m sure that all serious Catholics see abortion as (at the very very least) an injustice. (Most of us see it as murder) What other injustice routinely, casually inflicted upon 1,000,000 Americans per year are non-pro-life Catholics willing to stomach? They wouldn’t stand for any other (nor should they)! They would never vote for a candidate who would look away as 1,000,000 Americans per year were denied fries with that, or were denied mortgages, or were otherwise discriminated against unjustly.

    I also have a family to support, a job, a mortgage, and uncertainty. Yes, health care is important to me. So is peace. But a million little ones are dead every year. A million children are dead at our own hands! What other economic, political or civil rights issue can possibly be bigger than this? How can I hold this belief as a private opinion without being stirred me to action? What kind of human would I be? What kind of husband, or father? It would make me a rotten (as in foul, decayed, miserable) leader.

  • Todd
  • JC

    Todd,

    For 40 years, we’ve been hearing priests and bishops tell us that we can and should refer to God as “She,” altering the words of the BIble to suit political agendas, allowing laity to serve as extraordinary mnisters of communion when there are able-bodied priests and deacons to do it, allowing charismatic shenanigans to run rampant in the DIvine Liturgy, telling us to vote for socialism, and telling us that the Church is “wrong” on celibacy, women’s ordination and contraception.

    But now that we’ve actually got some orthodox bishops and priests coming down the pike, saying what their predecessors *should* have said a long time ago, now you’re saying that they’re “too late” and that they’re “Fatiguing” people by “over-politicizing the Mass”???

    If preaching that abortion and cloning are wrong is “over-politicizing,” I don’t know what you call 75% of the “hymns” in _Gather_.

  • Sam

    This quote from the actual article (as opposed to the comment boxes) said it best:

    ‘Olivia Franklin believes God is using the bishops’ statement and the controversy at Holy Trinity. “For too long authentic Catholic social teaching has been co-opted by the ‘social justice’ crowd, who rail about the death penalty while conveniently ignoring the real death penalty presently being carried out — the 4,000 babies executed daily by abortionists.”‘

    As a Massachusetts resident (but thankfully not a native), can our bishops speak as forcefully and truthfully as Bishops Vann and Farrell did in Texas and others have done elsewhere? I know many faithful Catholics in this state feel the same way, but our ecclesiastical leadership has too often dropped the ball: Cushing, Medeiros, Law, O’Malley, ad nauseam. Read Philip Lawler’s book, “The Faithful Departed” to see the depressing details of the collapse of Catholic culture in Boston and Massachusetts in general.

  • Ann

    Political endorsements are a danger, in terms of IRS tax status of course, and this particular letter seems to be inching close to one. I can understand if well-meaning Catholics are concerned by that.

    On the other hand, the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is so clearcut. It really says something that a Catholics would find themselves so surprised and shocked when a priest actually dares to speak against it.

  • Sam

    Political endorsements are a danger, in terms of IRS tax status of course, and this particular letter seems to be inching close to one. I can understand if well-meaning Catholics are concerned by that.

    On the other hand, the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is so clearcut. It really says something that a Catholics would find themselves so surprised and shocked when a priest actually dares to speak against it.

    Ann,

    Great points! The only thing I would add is a note of admiration for the Texas bishops Vann and Farrell as well as Fr Rudy for their courage in walking that IRS fine line. If we Catholics end up losing IRS tax-exempt status by a future regime (or not so future if Obama wins) because we courageously spoke out in favor of the unborn, the elderly, the frozen embryonic babies, traditional marriage, etc, then we will have to step up to the plate to support our pastors until this regime (like all the others) falls.

  • Catholic Girl

    Thanks to the Bishops for speaking up for GOD. Reminds me of Saint John, the only Apostle to stand at the foot of the Cross with Jesus. The Bishops make me very proud to be a CATHOLIC. What is happening to some of the Catholics who are voting for a pro-choice — abortion person — These pro-choice Catholic Voters remind me of a parable in Matthew – Chapter 13 — vs 24 -30

    “He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

    While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds 10 all through the wheat, and then went off.
    When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.

    The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’

    He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

    He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.

    Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”

    GOD Bless

  • Pro Life, Catholic and Texan

    And proud to be a Texan! Kudos to the Dallas and Fort Worth bishops! Now Aymond in Austin needs to speak clearly and have his message read from the pulpit! AMEN!!!

  • Beth

    As a Republican and supporter of McCain I need some answers.

    First, with Bush in office the last 8 yrs have the number of abortions been reduced? If so, by how much and by what means?

    How will McCain reduce the number of abortions while in office?
    I know a Supreme Court judge will be appointed during his term. So somehow if Roe v. Wade ever got that far it would be an advantage to have a pro life judge. That is unlikely to happen.

    Be patient with me I am very simple minded when it comes to politics but would like to be able to hold my own should this discussion come up. So please give me some input if you can.

  • William
  • Claire

    Hi Beth,

    You asked some good questions. First, abortions have been reduced by about 8% recently. That may not sound like much, but National Right to Life estimates it is around 100,000 babies per year. It’s on their website. This is probably due to a number of factors. One important factor is increased scientific awareness, like sonograms. They are not just grainy pictures anymore, now you can watch the baby moving! However, the government has had an effect as well. One obvious change is the appointment of conservative judges, leading to the partial birth abortion ban. Bush has also kept the dialogue on this issue open. People who dismiss the work he has done should take it up with the Pope, who has praised his pro-life efforts.

    McCain will appoint conservative judges as well, who may overturn Roe v Wade on constitutional grounds. Even if that doesn’t happen, he and Sarah Palin have already spoken out in their support for children with special needs (80% of children with Down’s Syndrome are killed in this country – yes this is eugenics). There is a very compelling speech by Palin at http://tinyurl.com/3oflu8. She also speaks of the need to keep the courts from blocking discussion on this issue. Two specific policy points where they will reduce abortions are parental consent (teenagers cannot get their ears pierced without permission!) as well as minors crossing state lines for abortions without permission. That one in particular chills me – it is just asking for statutory rape to be covered up.

    Finally, and most importantly, McCain will not sign the Freedom of Choice Act. There is a summary of this bill’s goals o NARAL’s website. The full text is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…8:S.2020::

    It is worth reading through all the boring legal language to see what this horrible law will do. It will make it impossible to challenge Roe v Wade. It will take away the last shred of rights the states have to set limits on abortions. It will make taxes fund abortions. It will pave the way for lawsuits against Catholic hospitals that do not offer abortions, forcing them to close and/or lose funding or tax exemptions. That is also a “peace and justice” issue, since all the other important health care they offer will disappear along with them. Oh, and it’s also a first amendment issue.

    McCain has a 0% rating with NARAL. Obama has 100% with NARAL.

  • R.C.

    A very well-stated argument.

    I would add, also, that left-wing judges/Supreme Court justices are not only a source of evil on the topic of abortion, but on other topics also.

    Euthanasia, gay “marriage”, the right of Catholic adoption agencies to reject adoptions by gay couples, scientific experimentation on embryos, topics regarding obscenity and pornography and childhood sex education…all of these have come before courts in the U.S. and, when they there encountered a left-wing judge, tragedy resulted.

    I don’t find it at all implausible (I’d give it maybe a 20% probability) that an Obama presidency would produce enough of a left-wing tilt to the Federal judiciary that not only will abortion not be curtailed or thrown “back to the states” (most of whom would curtail it to some degree though, sadly, almost none would outlaw it), but, beyond that, in another ten years we will:

    1. Have gay marriage a “constitutional right” imposed from a Federal level upon every U.S. state; and,
    2. Be subject to “hate speech” lawsuits against churches when our pastors publicly teach against homosexuality from the pulpit.

    (The former is more likely than the latter, by means of the “full faith and credit” clause.)

    In short, those who care about right-to-life have ample reason to fear an Obama presidency on that criterion alone. But there are plenty of other criteria, also.

  • Joe H

    I just want to comment on this:

    “Bishops Vann and Farrell explain that voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil like abortion is possible only if 1) “both candidates running for office support abortion or ‘abortion rights,'” or if 2) “another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion.”

    Using this criteria, I can vote for Obama. Why? Because John McCain supports abortion rights. Specifically, he supports a state’s right to choose whether or not it will allow abortion.

    I’ve heard the rejoinder that abortion going back to the states will make it easier for the pro-life movement. Aside from the dubious nature of this proposition, it doesn’t erase the fact that McCain is essentially pro-choice, only instead of leaving the decision to women, he leaves it to individual states.

    Also, my other quick point: Obama is not running for dictator of the US, but president. Our concern should only be with what the powers of his office will enable him to do. Without congressional support, not much. It isn’t there for the extreme pro-abortion agenda. So what is the Church’s position on voting for a candidate who believes in abortion rights but won’t have the political support to expand them?

    Finally, and I’m going on longer than I had hoped, do we really have to choose between a left-wing supreme court that will further entrench abortion rights and a right-wing one that will further expand the powers of the police state? Eight years of Bush has put the Constitution, which he derided as a “god d*** piece of paper”, in jeopardy. What if the next choice is between someone running for dictator who is pro-life, and someone running for president who is pro-choice? Has the Church thought this out? How far do we have to go?

  • Scott J

    Joe H,

    To say that McCain supports abortion because an overturn of Roe v Wade would push abortion back to the states is ridiculous. Would this reduce abortions? Yes, as many states would pass laws to ban or limit abortions further. The freshman Senator has pledged as his first act to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act”, which makes Roe v Wade Federal Law, makes partial birth abortion legal again AND overturns nearly all state laws that put any limits on abortion. Pro-life groups say an Obama Presidency will increase abortions by 125,000 a year. I can argue more successfully that you’re voting for increased genocide then you can that McCain is pro-choice.

    Your 2nd argument that Obama can’t do anything without congressional support is also moot, as it appears there will be a Democratic majority in both houses, a fillibuster proof majority. At the end of this election, we may have a one party government with no checks and balances from an opposing side.

  • Mark

    http://www.newswithviews.com/b…win465.htm

    JOHN McCAIN PRO LIFE? WHAT A JOKE

    By Chuck Baldwin
    August 22, 2008
    NewsWithViews.com

    Once again,

MENU