Obama fan Cafardi out at Franciscan University

Good for both Cafardi and Franciscan University at Steubenville (FUS)!

FUS is proudly orthodox. The students (and the parents who send them there) are entitled to receive an education that is consistent with Catholic moral teachings and taught by professors who cheerfully and joyfully support the magisterium of the Church.

There are so many lukewarm "Catholic-in-name-only" universities and college in the country that I am sure that Cafardi will have no problem getting another job. Indeed, leaving FUS will make him -- along with the annoying Douglas Kmiec -- a hero to the cultural establishment in this country.

Last I checked, FUS is a private university that should be able to make decisions not subject to approval by either the government or the body politic. With all due respect to anyone commenting here on the matter, it is no one's business but that of the good people at FUS.

"Last I checked, FUS is a private university that should be able to make decisions not subject to approval by either the government or the body politic. With all due respect to anyone commenting here on the matter, it is no one's business but that of the good people at FUS."

Reaganite--agreed that it is not the government's business. That is not the issue.

It is my business, as a Catholic, because I think it's deeply harmful direction for orthodox Catholics to take. And I am one.

I don't doubt at all that Franciscan U asked for his resignation. And by the way this has nothing to do with doctrinal orthodoxy. It is not heretical (even by Catholic standards) to endorse a political candidate IN SPITE of his pro choice position. Many conservative Catholics may consider such a move imprudent, but this is not the case of someone being a dissenting Catholic. That Franciscan U. does not allow any diversity of opinion about these speaks volumes to what they are about. They are not about educating young people. They are about indoctrinating and brainwashing young people. I say this based on my general experience with Franciscan U. graduates that I've known personally.

Altobello,

As a Catholic, I think it's even more harmful direction for orthodox Catholics to capitulate to infanticide, whether openly declaring for "choice" or by less open ways like putting pro-aborts in power and then deluding themselves and others that they can use their (non-existent) influence to eke out a handful fewer child murders, and that this pleases God.

I don't like the Republicans at all, but a sense of proportion is needed. Abortion is such a grave evil (what is it 45+ million murdered kids since R v W?) that it trumps any Catholic's sense of personal discomfort because they don't like the option of not voting for party X. It is a profound evil that has corrupted our society throughout, and it pains me that self-described orthodox Catholics have become numb to it.

1. I can well believe that FUS asked for Cafardi's resignation. FUS is not quietly and thoughtfully orthodox (like St. Thomas Aquinas, sifting through arguments in his study) but rather loudly and proudly orthodox (like St. Nicolas punching out Arianists at church councils). That kind of orthodoxy is certainly a welcome change from the happy-clappy nunsense that dominated the Church in the 1970s and 1980s, but it doesn't have a lot of patience with nuance.

2. Archbishop Chaput - who is perhaps the leading exponent of calling Catholic politicians to account - has stated that one can vote for someone like Obama if one is prepared to explain the reasons why to aborted saints in heaven. Messrs. Kmiec and Cafardi have tried to do just that. I tend to think that their reasons are insufficient; I won't be joining them in voting for Obama. But I also think that in flatly opposing abortion and in trying to explain their support for Obama they have done all that they need to do to stay on the Barque of Peter. I wouldn't throw them in the water and am saddened to see that others would.

For those worried about the Church becoming a stooge of the Republican party, please note the all important line "school says it did not request Cafardi's resignation."

This was an individual's own choice, probably based on his conscience that he could not work for someone that did not align with his world view (e.g. his view of pro-death v. the Church's view of pro-life). Good for him for acting on his beliefs, if only more orthodox Catholic took that approach you would see far more action on behalf of buisness too shore up their practices, and government to shore up its policies.

Also note, that there are many faithful Catholics praying, and hoping that the Dems see the light on issues that are non-negotable (e.g. Abortion, Marriage). Let's pray all policians see teh truth in these important matters.

Doesn't anyone think that this line of reasoning does a huge disservice to the man himself? All of the people on here arguing that he was "obviously" pressured to resign are doing two things. 1. They are calling the man a liar. 2. They are assuming that it doesn't make sense that perhaps the man loves his school, and therefore doesn't want to be the cause of controversy or difficulty for it.

Instead of tsk tsk'ing the school without evidence, why not applaud a man who, whether you agree with him or not, voluntarily took a big hit in order to protect his institution while also staying true to his ideals.

"This was an individual's own choice, probably based on his conscience that he could not work for someone that did not align with his world view (e.g. his view of pro-death v. the Church's view of pro-life)."

I think we need to infer a little bit of cloak and dagger here. It may just be inferred that he was expected to resign. Sometimes you don't have to say anything. Also--there were massive protests of his presence on FUS's board. Some have suggested (see Inside Catholic) that Cafardi was so put off but the protests that he resigned.

What I find hard to believe--Cafardi declared his support for Obama. Then--he went through a list of all his board memberships and decided which ones were and were not compatible.

It would be one thing to favor McCain over Obama on the basis of a single issue if there was any reason to think that McCain would be substantially different from Obama. But there isn't any, really; even by Republican standards McCain is hardly what one would call strongly pro-life, and since the Republicans have prevented or stopped exactly 0 abortions since Roe v. Wade was decided, there is little reason to think that even a, rhetorically, pro-life Republican would actually do something once elected. Since McCain isn't even strongly pro-life in his rhetoric his actual governance would not be too much different from what Obama would do. Neither one would, I think, if elected, make any significant difference to the status quo.

Marc said: "Second, I think whenever a Catholic endorses a candidate he should make it abundantly clear that it is a measured endorsement which considers the good and bad of the candidate. . . . He should take pains to make it crystal clear that the candidate's support of abortion rights is unacceptable, but that the other candidate's views and record shows no hope of actually improving the situation which allows consideration of other issues to move up in importance."

I think Cafardi has done this; have you read his endorsement of Obama?
Here it is: http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058

Joe Magarac,

That's hilarious, do you or whatever subgroup of Catholics think aborted fetuses are saints in heaven? So there's, like, just millions of them? What about all the ones aborted naturally by women's bodies? Are there souls up there in heaven who _aren't_ saints? Is there a hierarchy of saints and non-saints?

Amazing, amazing stuff!! :D

-O

I'm not a Catholic, or even a Christian, but I grew up in a Catholic community and I have some knowledgable sympathy for this issue.

The simplest take on this is Reaganite's. I do not hesitate in agreeing with him.

Freedom of speech, let alone diversity of ideas and opinions, is not absolute. It does not mean being able to say anything anywhere. The sandbox metaphor works here for me: one does not have the right to invade someone else's sandbox, but one does have the right to make a new one and stand in it. The balance to that is those who have sandboxes do not have the right to prevent others from making their own.

My impression is that Cafardi is a man of principle, making a difficult decision in an atmosphere of issues fraught with tension. I would hypotheticate his possible thoughts: Obama's intended policy on choice is non-negotiable, but Cafardi's supporting him for other issues does not prevent him from engaging Obama on choice policy and working to mitigate it.

"But I hope that it never gets to be a given that Catholics vote for a particular party."

You mean, Elmo, you hope it never goes back to being a given? :) My Catholic ancestors all voted Democrat (at least the past several generations); it was the only Catholic thing to do, according to them.

I think a pro-life voter has it tough in this election; we can vote for McCain without really supporting him, or we can vote for a third-party candidate to show our general disgust with the Republican party, or we can stay home and imbibe a variety of intoxicating beverages and hope the hangover doesn't last four years--but I don't see how any pro-life voter can vote for Obama. Catholic voters, however, are not all pro-life voters. At a school like Franciscan U., though, one would thing a board member like Cafardi would realize that his choice to vote for Obama wasn't necessarily something he needed to publicize.

Erin's post says it all.

That said, I have said before: I no more believe that Obama...the unplanned bi-racial Hawaiian Luau between unmarried students in 1961(for God's sake)... who then more than now had almost zero odds of being a pregnancy taken to term...is cast-iron 'pro-life' any more than I believe McCain is genuinely and devoutly 'pro-life'. In either case they are at best moderates who must acknowledge their base for better or worse. Mark my words.

What aborted saints in heaven?

From the Council of Lyons II:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.”

Here's a rather interesting take on this:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.htm#florence

For the record I'm not Roman Catholic and I reject Augustine's views of sin and grace, but I think this article is basically correct in assessing the historical opinion of the Roman Catholic Church (not the modernized post-VII position).

"See ... that was my reaction too. Why do this endorsement publicly?"

Victor, I've been wondering about that myself. I'm starting to think that among the conservative intellectuals there is a sort of backlash against the notion that conservatives, especially Catholic conservatives, should vote as pro-life voters and that pro-life voters should vote Republican. I have to wonder if they see themselves as the noble opposition, reminding the rest of us that the Republicans are Flawed and Evil too even though they're not Flawed, Evil, and Pro-Abortion.

The problem is that nobody ever said that Catholics, even Catholics who take the duty to protect our unborn brothers and sisters very seriously, had to vote Republican. I vote pro-life before I vote Republican, and have never knowingly cast a vote for a pro-abortion Republican even if that meant writing somebody in or leaving certain lines blank on my ballot. Had McCain selected Ridge or Lieberman as his running mate, I'd have joined other pro-life voters in a veritable sandstorm of shaking-the-dust-off-of-our-feet for this round, and I suspect there are quite a few Catholic and other pro-life voters like me. Even now I haven't decided whom to vote for; since Texas will go to McCain I don't feel obligated to vote for him.

So when a handful of Catholic intellectuals decides to Teach Us a Lesson by rushing to microphones to declare their support for Obama, I can't help but think they're reacting to an imaginary threat of a monolithic unified Catholic voting bloc that the Republican party will be able to count on to support any little wars or insurrections they can dream up over the foreseeable future; clearly they're unaware how much virtual ink has been spilled by *other* Catholic intellectuals this election season as they debate whether or not it's even morally possible to vote for McCain given his embrace of ESCR; some of these are convinced that a vote for McCain constitutes mediate remote material cooperation with evil without a proportionate reason.

It's hardly the case, then, that we need solemn reminders by *other* Catholic intellectuals that principles should come before party--especially when they, from my viewpoint, undermine that whole notion by voting for the single most pro-abortion candidate who has ever run for the presidency. I have no idea what principle that proves, except the principle that posits that abortion is irrelevant and we should just move on as a nation to weightier issues of greater national import--a principle I have to reject, what with the forty-five million dead American babies, and all.

Joe, that's a very simplistic approach to the question. The church teaching on the spiritual fate of unbaptized infants is far from crystal clear. Some theologians hypothesized "limbo" - a state of happiness, but deprived of the beatific vision.

Recently the Church has said that limbo is not definitively taught to exist by the Magesterium.

John Paul II in his encyclical The Gospel of Life strongly suggested that aborted (and miscarried, stillborn, etc.) children are saved by the mercy of God. He didn't explain how this was so, but there's a tradition regarding baptism by desire that could explain it. Others argue that the aborted are analogous to martyrs, killed because of a rejection and hatred of the Church's teaching on the human dignity of all human beings, and witnesses for that proposition.

Finally, I think there are several studies done to show that current restrictions on abortion (inclduing parental notice laws, informed consent laws, and funding restrictions) do result in fewer abortions. Obviously then, removing these restrictions will tend to increase the number of abortions -- otherwise, there'd be no reason to remove them, if they had absolutely no practical effect. That is precisely why Obama is promising to sign the Freedome of Choice Act to remove these restrictions.

Sally,

I know the teaching (whatever it really is) is more complicated. I was just responding to the claim that if we do vote for a pro-choice candidate, that we would have to justify our reasons to the aborted infants in heaven when we get there. I was objecting to this being stated as a fact, since Roman Catholic theology, at best, only allows for the hypothetical possibility that unbaptized infants may be in heaven (or perhaps in limbo).

To Joe, ossicle, and others -

I was just passing on Archbishop Chaput's statement that one must have a proportionate reason for supporting a pro-choice candidate (that outweighs the gravity of their pro-choice position). He said:

"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."

Agree or disagree, but take it up with him. It's above my pay grade.

I am a pro-life Republican who plans to vote (with utter futility) for John McCain. I wish all Catholics would vote for the pro-life candidate this year rather than the pro-choice candidate. I don't think Kmiec's or Cafardi's position make much sense. That said, I am pretty much disgusted with the supposed scandal over Nick Cafardi and how some Catholics are trying to turn, as you say, the Church into the Republican Party at Prayer. Nick Cafardi is one of the good guys. He is generally sensible. (He also has written the only book on the sex abuse scandal that actually had anything serious to offer other than cheap polemics and masturbatory outrage.) On the other hand, FUS is a shithouse university whose diplomas are not much of more value than the paper they are printed on. If I had a choice to hire an undergrad from Any Jesuit College on the one hand, or FUS on the hand, guess who wins? Although Cafardi may disagree, getting expelled by the professional orthodox Catholic set isn't really such a threat: getting thrown out of FUS, in my not so humble opinion, is considerably better than getting thrown out of a leper colony.

It is all so foolish since, realistically, the chances of pro-lifers making any difference politically in this election given the tsunami of the financial crisis right now are zero. How typical for conservative Catholics to burn their bridges so cheaply.

The federal government pre-empts state laws all the time, and this is explicitly what FOCA does

No, they don't, read the Constitution. It's not completely dead, yet. The courts have held many laws unconstitutional on the basis of their stepping on state authority. The Federal government does not have carte blanche to override state laws on a subject.

Um, ok. Well, I actually teach constitutional law, and there is no question that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce (which inlcudes commerce in abortions) (Art. I Section 8), and that Congrss can pre-empt state laws that conflict with Federal Laws (Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution).

If you want, you can try to persuade the court that abortions aren't included in commerce, but that battle was lost in 1937.

Rawlins, there's a place in politics where pragmatism and principles collide, where we don't vote so much to do something as to be someone, to be the kind of person we can still look at in the mirror the next morning without wincing, to know that we didn't sell out our eternal verities for the short-term gains Candidate A or Candidate B has promised us with tears in his eyes and his fingers crossed firmly behind his back.

Those who honestly, sincerely believe that a vote for McCain is a vote to reduce abortion and vote for him accordingly have my respect, though I'm not sure I believe it myself. Unless I believe it before election day, though, I choose to vote for my principles first, even if my "vote" means leaving the presidential race alone when I go to vote.

There may be people who honestly, sincerely believe that a vote for Obama isn't a vote for more and more abortion, too, though I find that an even greater stretch than a vote for McCain. I only know that even if the godlike hype about Obama had any semblance to the truth I couldn't vote for the man under any circumstances whatsoever; somebody who thinks of an unplanned pregnancy/baby as a punishment and who can say so coldly that it's a burden to a woman for her child who has survived his abortion to be rushed to the NICU instead of being left to die isn't a man whose principles even operate in the same universe as mine.

Ossicle,
I had a miscarriage years ago, and yes, I do think that the fetus I lost is now a soul in Heaven.
Regarding the attacks on Kmiec and Cafardi, I find them disturbingly partisan. Surely the pro-life cause would be better served by having faithful Catholics and pro-lifers (people like Bob Casey) in both major parties. I've worked in Republican politics myself, and take a somewhat jaundiced view of the party's stand on the issue. There are sincere pro-lifers in the party leadership, but there are also utterly cynical types whose only interest in the abortion issue is that it is a means to power. I think that the attacks on Kmiec and Cafardi are going to turn a lot of people off, and will not help the pro-life cause.
CatherineNY

The ‘Republican Party’ does not care about abortion.

So what's stopping the Democrats from switching to pro-life?

Um, ok. Well, I actually teach constitutional law, and there is no question that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce

Then you should know that they can only regulate interstate commerce, not commerce in general, and that the Supremes have been taken a dimmer view lately of Congress abusing the interstate commerce clause.

You know, Favog, Bill Clinton's first act as President was to rescind the Mexico City policy; while he was in office Clinton also supported the FACE act and an earlier version of FOCA. Obama is an enthusiastic supporter of FOCA and has promised that the first thing he'll do as president is sign it. So I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the "evil pro-lifers are in cahoots with the Republicans to enable them to a) wreak environmental havoc, b) grow the military-industrial complex, c) deregulate everything in sight so they can get rich off of the poor, or d) all of the above" template being floated around these days.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats have gone out of their way to make it impossible for a person with a decently functional moral compass to vote for them for some thirty-odd years now (oh, Candidate "B" is such a nice fellow, really, absolutely wonderful, except for that bit where he thinks it's lovely to get a baby three-fourths of the way out of the baby's mother's birth canal and then stab the little tyke in the base of the brain with a pair of scissors, and then--this is the tricky part!--expand the scissors just enough to insert a vacuum tube into the dead kid's skull and suction out the brains so the rest of the little corpse can be removed easily; but other than supporting that just absolutely to the hilt, Candidate B is the perfect fellow for the job!) etc. Since I can't imagine under any circumstance wanting to hand power to a person so devoid of humanity as to support anything of the kind, you'll forgive me if I fail to shed sobs of guilty anguish over the fact that I have never in my life voted for a Democrat--though I'd gladly vote for a pro-life one, if only for the novelty of the thing.

Now, where I think some people get confused, as I said earlier, is that they think the statement "I refuse to vote for Democrats" means "I enthusiastically and slavishly support anybody with an "R" after his name." Conservatives are a fickle lot, and pro-life conservatives especially so; I've happily voted for what Mark Shea calls "doomed quixotic third-party candidates" when I distrust an "R's" commitment to life issues. As I may yet do this time around. But Democrats? Sorry; if they want my vote they'll have to stop turning to stone or disintegrating into ashes or whatever they do when someone says the words "pro-life" before I'd even consider it; and then, you know, they'd have to stop acting like the primary purpose of their party is to funnel as much cash as possible to NARAL and Planned Parenthood so the hits (on unborn humans) can keep on comin'. Currently, support for all abortions imaginable is the only party principle that's not negotiable, so I can't imagine a future where Democrats would give a voter like me a--forgive the term--viable choice.

When I say "abortion is commerce" - that's a shorthand for saying that it is a commercial transaction, involving a fee for a service. Congress can regulate commerce. The local nature of the transaction, for reasons explained above, does not deprive Congress of the power to regulate abortions on the grounds that they aren't "interstate commerce". As explained, local commercial transactions have been considered to be "interstate commerce" since 1937, and therefore such local commercial transactions can be regulated by Congress (which includes the power to pre-empt state laws that contradict the federal law).

All this argument is about is whether FOCA can pre-empt state laws that restrict abortions (in the few instances in which the court says such state laws are constitutionally permissible).

Yes, Congress can do so, for the reasons I have cited. Obama says it's (FOCA is) the first piece of legislation he wants to sign into law.

And revoking these state laws with the FOCA statute will result in more abortions taking place.

Sorry to bore all you guys with this commerce clause stuff.

And revoking these state laws with the FOCA statute will result in more abortions taking place.

Fine, if you really think that voting for McCain will make a difference then vote for him, but be prepared to be disappointed, again. If any FOCA type legislation lands on McCain's desk he will most likely sign it as readily as Obama will. And in four years you will be back to sounding like an abused wife, "but he says he really loves me and wants to change and that this time he really means it". Whether or not a FOCA type bill would get past the Supreme Court is an open question, since they pay so little attention to what the Constitution actually says, but it would make little if any difference in the number of abortions performed in any event.

If you want to end abortion, fine, so do I, but expecting politicians to do it is foolish. At best politics lags societal change, if it reflects it all. If you want to end abortion then first of all be consistently pro-life, including protecting and advocating for the lives of adults. It amazes me the number of "pro-lifers" that don't have a problem with unjust wars, or torture, or capital punishment or the state taking huge chunks out of someone's life for a triviality. But most of all, live it, in your life, in your church, in your communities, in your institutions. The problem isn't abortion per se, but a culture that both fears and worships death; change the culture. You change culture by changing the way people think, not by voting for president. You change culture by infiltrating institutions, starting from the bottom and changing them. You change culture by producing more attractive alternatives than the other guys offer. Produce better philosophy, better theology, better communities, better art, including better popular art. Most of all, live a life in a community that other people are attracted to and want to emulate. Just don't think a vote for one presidential candidate or another is going to have any effect whatsoever.

Joe wrote: "That Franciscan U. does not allow any diversnity of opinion about these speaks volumes to what they are about. They are not about educating young people. They are about indoctrinating and brainwashing young people."

EXCUSE ME???

As one of these "indocrinated and brainwashed" students, I will tell you right now that I am recieving an inredible education. I am forced to THINK about my stance on issues such as life and why I believe what I do. Since becoming involved in the pro-life movement here on campus, my understanding of a human life and my duty to protect it has been strengthened.

While it is true that the majority of students here are pro-life and conservative, that is because we have CHOSEN this school because of its Catholic identity-- not because we are brainwashed. Franciscan University supports the teachings of the Catholic Church-- that abortion is an intrinsic evil and we cannot participate in it.

The issue with Cafardi is that he is openly supporting a canidate who is blatantly pro-abortion. This is a form of participating in abortion and is out of line with Church teaching. The issue is not that Cafardi is voting Democratic over Republican, but that he is giving up on the fight for life and going along with the evil of abortion. That is something that we, as a Catholic school in practice as well as in name, cannot allow.

It seems that some of our educators and others have forgotten about the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit. Despair and Hopelessness that the Holy Spirit cannot provide help to those in need, is the basis for this sin, which includes admitting defeat on the abortion issue and other moral decisions we must support. Our Lord told us about this unforgiveable sin, we did not make it up! Once again, we are witnesses to Liberal Intellectual Rationalization for taking anti-Christian and anti-Catholic positions on clear morally correct decisions. We cannot simply check our Faith in at the door like a hat and coat. Either our Faith is with us at all times, or it is merely a faith of convenience.