A canon lawyer has joined the Kmiec crusade to ensure that Catholics feel good about voting for Obama. This piece in the National Catholic Reporter was written by Nicholas Cafardi, a civil and canon lawyer, and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law about how he is Catholic, anti-abortion yet still supporting Obama.
Start tearing your hair out now.
I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?
As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops’ National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.
Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls “intrinsically evil acts” does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.
Last November, the U.S. bishops released “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.
Obama’s support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That’s a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle — permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.
OK. Is all your hair pulled out yet. Well, nobody told me that abortion battle was over. Man, this guy declares defeat faster than Obama in Iraq.
After years of hard work to get judges on the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe V. Wade and getting it possibly to just needing one more justice, we find out that it was all for nothing.
He says that even if Roe is overturned and some states restrict abortion, people will travel to other states which don’t restrict abortion. Let’s follow the logic. So, according to him we should probably make all drugs legal as well because as long as people can travel they’re going to get drugs.
Pope Benedict and the bishops have made it crystal clear that abortion is not a single issue to be compared and contrasted with other issues like immigration or the War on Terror.
He continues:
There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that “we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.” He favors a “comprehensive approach where … we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.” And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.
Obama worked all of that into his party’s platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.
Yeah. They don’t talk as much as reducing because they talk about “the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.”
I’m the first to say I’m not crazy about McCain. But Obama would deliver a hard blow to the pro-life movement as he may get to appoint two justices in just four years. But no Mr. Cafardi I would not say that we lost the battle even then. There’s something you obviously don’t understand. When it comes to the sanctity of life we won’t stop. Ten years. Twenty years. A lifetime. Two lifetimes. We won’t stop advocating our position for life. We won’t declare defeat if defeat means acquiescence in the face on unspeakable evil. Ever. Because we know that if there is no right to life, no other right truly exists.
September 30, 2008 at 9:16 pm
To my mind, a person who is content to declare that the fight against abortion is over cannot honestly claim to oppose abortion.
This guy is making excuses; he doesn’t oppose abortion. He has negotiated a peace on a non-negotiable issue. It’s very convenient for him to excuse himself from the obligation to oppose abortion on the basis that the cause is lost; this way, he need only claim to oppose abortion. He doesn’t even have to vote against it.
Another lying CINO for Obama.
September 30, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I was talking to a guy I know who is voting for Obama. When I talked about abortion he said Roe V. Wade isn’t going anywhere. That may be true, but I cannot justify to myself, or even more importantly to God and unborn children, voting for a man who would by executive order remove all restrictions on abortions. I cannot vote for a man who thinks it’s OK that a 13 year old go in for a surgical procedure without her parents’ consent. Kids can’t even get Tylenol at school without their parents’ giving it to them and he seriously thinks that parent notification laws are a bad idea???
September 30, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I’d expect more logic from a canon lawyer. Why would he assume that Obama’s methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies are likely also in conflict with Church teaching, which is just as firmly (and just as clearly, whatever Pelosi and Biden say) against condom use and birth control/abortifacients? Now, I have no idea what McCain thinks of these, but I am reasonably certain he’s not a big fan of ‘comprehensive sex education’ in kindergarten, so I find that a bit more reassuring.
There may in fact be an argument to be made for voting for Obama in spite of his stance on abortion (and his even less defendible, if possible, stance on the born alive issue). That argument would have to show conclusively that the good outweighs the bad by a significant margin- not two to one or even fifty to one to justify voting for someone who would essentially eliminate all barriers to abortion. I was shocked to read another article stating that Obama’s removal of these barriers was outweighed by his commitment to unspecified other things that would somehow (magically?) reduce the number. This is, of course, patently ridiculous. In Russia, there are basically no boundaries to abortion, not even to cost. The result? Most children conceived are killed before they take a single breath, and the population is shrinking so fast the government has felt compelled to offer national holidays for the purposes of procreation.
sounds like a great future… sure… just keep telling yourself that somehow other things outweigh the most horrific of all crimes, the murder of children….
~Zee
September 30, 2008 at 10:18 pm
“While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle — permanently.”
So much for that little virtue called hope. If evil has won permanently why even be Catholic?
September 30, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Darn those public-school teachers!
Dear Brian — stay with it; the Faith IS the Truth, even if bishops and canon lawyers and some few priests have lost it.
— Mack
September 30, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Amazing. If you’ll forgive my mixed metaphors: First, give in to the Culture of Death, and then begin to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Has this guy ever read his Old Testament? In which the same cycle repeats over and over again, so even us thick fallen persons can “get it”?
If we have lost the abortion battle permanently, then our civilization is doomed: practically, philosophically, morally. Just like the Roman Empire.
But for those whose pesky friends-and-relations who still think Obama would somehow miraculously “reduce” abortions, I have two resources to suggest:
Doug Johnson on “Obama’s abortion reduction scam”
Justin Cardinal Rigali on behalf of the USCCB on how FOCA would increase abortions
Miserere nobis, Domine!
September 30, 2008 at 11:31 pm
While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle — permanently.”
So much for that little virtue called hope. If evil has won permanently why even be Catholic?
Aye. I’m trying to imagine him writing the screenplay for Lord of the Rings:
Aragorn: “Ohh the orcs have valid cultural aspirations and we can’t win anyway. Let’s pull our forces off the Anduin, submit our differences to a multilateral peace conference chaired by Saruman and start a Goblin Studies program at the University of Osgiliath.”
October 1, 2008 at 12:57 am
After reading Prof. Cafardi’s essay, I submitted the following as a comment at the National Catholic Reporter site, but four hours later, it still had not appeared. I wonder if was “moderated” out of existence.
Professor Cafardi asserted, “Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions.”
This claim in part of a post-nomination marketing strategy by the Obama campaign, but to work, it requires deflection of attention away from the fact that Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of abortion-related policy changes that, if implemented, would greatly increase the numbers of abortions performed.
The pro-life movement has won enactment of literally hundreds of state laws related to abortion — laws that save many lives, despite the severe limits imposed by the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion rulings. Studies by both pro-life researchers and pro-abortion researchers agree about this effect, although of course the pro-abortion side uses different language to describe it. These laws include informed consent laws (some of which now require the woman seeking an abortion to be offered ultrasound images of the unborn child), waiting periods, and parental notification and consent laws.
All of these laws, and any other law that would “interfere with” access to abortion, would be nullified by the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), a proposed federal law that Obama has cosponsored. This bill would invalidate virtually every federal and state limitation on abortion, including all parental notification and consent laws, waiting periods, and limitations on public funding of abortion. As the National Organization for Women put it, it would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
On July 17, 2007, Obama stood in front of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lobbying-political arm of the nation’s largest abortion provider, and pledged, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
Cardinal Justin Rigali, in a September 19, 2008, letter to members of Congress, explained with great clarity the sweeping power of the language contained in the FOCA:
“First it [the FOCA] creates a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons. No government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this newly created federal right. Second, it forbids government at all levels to ‘discriminate’ against the exercise of this right ‘in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.’ For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”
Rigali added: “We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion. . . . We cannot reduce abortions by insisting that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must also support abortion. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.”
Obama also advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment, the law that since 1976 has blocked almost all federal funding of abortion. In other words, he wants to repeal one of the most successful “abortion reduction” policies ever adopted. By even the most conservative estimate, there are more than one million Americans alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute (linked to Planned Parenthood) and NARAL admit that the Hyde Amendment (and the similar policies adopted by many states) have resulted in many, many babies being born who otherwise would have been aborted — indeed, the pro-abortion groups periodically put out papers complaining about this effect. According to a 2007 NARAL factsheet, “A study by The Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage have abortion rates of about half of those women in statesthat fund abortion care with their own dollars. This suggests that the Hyde amendment forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.”
In 1993, there was debate in Congress over whether to continue the Hyde Amendment. The Congressional Budget Office (at that time under Democratic control) wrote, “Based on information from the Centers for Disease Control and from States that currently pay for abortions using state funds, the federal government would probably fund between 325,000 to 675,000 abortions each year [if the federal government resumed Medicaid funding for abortion]. The increase in the total number of abortions would be smaller, however, because some abortions that are currently funded by other sources would be partially or totally paid from federal funds . . .”
Although Speaker Nancy Pelosi and most other Democratic congressional leaders are hostile to the Hyde Amendment, the law has been extended anyway because President Bush issued a letter in early 2007 saying that he would veto any bill that weakens any existing pro-life policy (see http://www.nrlc.org/Records/PresidentBushToPelosiProLifeVetoes.pdf). However, because the Hyde Amendment must be renewed annually, things could change quickly under a president determined to re-establish federal funding of abortion on demand.
Obama has also pledged to make abortion coverage part of his proposed national health insurance plan.
Obama even advocates repeal of the national ban on partial-birth abortions, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007 on a 5-4 vote, in a ruling that Obama harshly criticized. Indeed, one of the major purposes of the “Freedom of Choice Act,” according to its prime sponsors, is the nullification of the ban on partial-birth abortions.
Let me close with with just more example of the phoniness of the Obama “abortion reduction” sales pitch. Across the nation, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. A very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to such funding), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: “Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?” The Obama campaign’s written response was short, but it spoke volumes: “No.”
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.nrlc.org
legfederal–at–aol-dot-com
October 1, 2008 at 2:02 am
Sizzle, sizzle, unending screaming, agony forever…another hideous horror movie? NO! IT’s the scene of HELL with those who KNOWINGLY SUPPORT MURDER and violate God’s commandments. I caution “Catholics” who support Obama and other abortionists, that they will need to explain their vote to Him.
The really should recall Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”
If this doesn’t strike fear into him and other abortion apologists, nothing will…for to destroy what God has consecrated is perhaps a sin of the greatest magnitude.
Pray for his and others’ conversion.
October 1, 2008 at 4:57 am
He seems to have conveniently left out another battle against an intrinsic evil. Same-sex ‘marriage’.
Or have we lost that one too?
I’m going to keep fighting till I’m 6 feet under.
October 1, 2008 at 2:49 pm
We’ve lost the abortion battle – permanently… so vote for Obama! That just about sums it up: it’s a choice made entirely from despair. “Hope and change” don’t mean what this guy thinks they mean.
October 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I’m highly disappointed in this logic.
This kind of thinking leads me to an image of…of… a pretzel.
They’ve tied themselves into an intellectual KNOT.
This KNOT leads those with this mindset in one of two directions:
1) “I’ve decided not to vote…” therefore allowing for those to suppress the Christian vote, a winning ticket.
Or
2) “I’ve decided that Obama is the real pro-life candidate, therefore leading to a winning ticket.
Either way…well…you know the outcome.
In an interview with Archbishop Chaput, author of ‘Render Unto Caesar, he mentions a moment of error on his part.
When voting between Ronald Reagan (who had a pro-life platform) and Jimmy Carter (with his bible quotes), Chaput chose Carter.
He totally admits to his error. After all since Carter’s admin., has abortion been eliminated? How much has it decreased?
His error of logic is the same as those headlined in this post.
October 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Declaring the war on abortion over – that they’ve won – is a ploy by abortionist. They hope we’ll believe they’re right and are now changing the discussion using the “war is over” as their starting point. You’ve seen the arguments…
We need to reduce the number of abortions…
The Republicans haven’t/won’t/can’t do anything…
We need to reduce poverty first…
And my favorite…. it’s above my pay grade to define when life begins…
Sarah Palin was a real threat to them – Let’s not loose her in this upcoming battle – we can win the war. I do not surrender.
October 1, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Reading this article I felt like crying. Here in Canada we’re so far “advanced” that the unborn child has no protection whatsoever with the possible exception of a “wanted” child. Nada. Nothing. In no circumstances. We already in effect have a FOCA! Professions in nursing, pharmacy, social work, teaching, medicine etc. will soon be unavailable in nearly all or all the provinces to those with a conscientious objection to abortion, homosexuality ‘rights’ of any sort including same-sex marriage ,etc.
May God help you dear neighbours to the south to be courageous and faithful. Doubtless it won’t help our country and those of us here who still have an informed conscience about these things; but such fidelity may help America from going completely down the slippery slop of utilitarian materialism.
I already fear saying things out loud. I fear for my children who want to serve as nurses, doctors, pharmacists or… Priests, school administrators, teachers, religious, and even journalists here have been dragged before “human rights tribunals” and made to pay huge fines and recant or risk going to jail.
Look well to the north. Do you really want what we’ve got?
October 2, 2008 at 4:14 am
THANK YOU for this post! Keep goin’, brother.
October 2, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Paul said This guy is making excuses…
You are absolutely correct. Any Catholic who uses the cloying catch-phrase “There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.” has not only swallowed the cool-aid on the subject but is in fact IMHO guilty of the sin of ommission (of course God will be the judge there).
As long as there are express their views publicly, vote their conscience, and most importantly, support politicians who oppose abortion and would work to criminalise it then we have absolutely NOT lost the war on abortion.
On a far more cynical note: why is everyone here kvetching and surprised that this statement is coming from a canon lawyer when it could have just as easily come from an American bishop? The bar has been pretty low these past 20 years.