Obama Backers Smack Back at Catholic League

It is impressive that the Catholic Advisory Board has responded so quickly, sensibly, and richly to Donohue's attacks.

The Catholic League's press release was written in a spirit of division: decrying certain of Obama's supporters as "dissidents," as if the Church were a Soviet regime, and in a chillingly Stalinist choice of words, advising a "purge" of Obama's supporters that Donohue deems as insufficiently Catholic.

Obviously this runs counter to Obama's message of reconciliation and bridging divides. Moreover, it runs counter to the way Obama has conducted his campaign—in stark contrast to the negativity and fear-mongering of McCain's campaign. Needless to say, the call for unity and mutual respect is a Catholic goal as well.

It would be unfortunate if Donohue, as David Gibson imagines, writes off the late Cardinal Bernardin's notion of a "consistent ethic of life" as so much liberal hot air. (The same goes for the "common good," which far from being a liberal Catholic invention, appears 20 times in Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno.) On the contrary, and in line with the recent Bishops' statement, Bernardin invites Catholics to consider a range of life issues, not just the issue of abortion.

As Doug Kmiec recently put it, he endorses Obama because he is attracted to the idea of "working with a new president who honestly concedes the abortion decision poses serious moral issues which he argues can only be fully and successfully resolved by the mother facing it with the primary obligation of the community seeing to it that she is as well informed as possible in the making of it." In his words, contrary to McCain's position, "Senator Obama’s emphasis on personal responsibility, rather than legal bickering over potential Supreme Court nominations in my judgment, best moves this issue forward."

The range of life issues includes, in the Bishops' words, "Option for the Poor and Vulnerable," "Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers," and "Caring for God’s Creation." This is exactly what Obama's tax and health policies, and his plan for curbing our addiction on fossil fuel, boldly address.

Of course, the range of life issues also includes war. (Bizarrely left out of Donohue's "all three major public policy issues.") Kmiec rightly denounces the Iraq War as an "unjust, preemptive" war that "deprives families of some of our most self-sacrificing yet often least advantaged young men and women and drains our economy in a 3 trillion dollar fashion, crippling our practical ability to be the force for human good that Americans want their country to be." Benedict and John Paul II expressed their unambiguous opposition. Jesuit seminaries did the same. Yet of the candidates, only Obama voiced opposition early on.

Meanwhile, Hillary speaks of obliterating Iran. McCain voices commitment to a long-term conflict, despite his publicity machine's best efforts to do damage control. As the New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg (who was at the January meeting in question) concludes after witnessing more than a mere sound bite: "McCain himself (if not the public) is on board for as much war as it takes—two years, five years, ten years, a hundred years—in order to make possible a permanent American garrison on Iraqi soil."

It would be quite a stretch to align these ideas with the Bishops' calls for peace, with the teachings of the Church, the anti-war statements by either John Paul II or Benedict.

The Advisory Board realizes all of this, and it is no surprise why they, along with an ever-increasing number of younger Catholics, proudly support Obama.

[cross-posted]

These "Liberal" Catholics, don't agree with the Gospel truths and certainly use "partisan politics" to get what they want. Re-read their letter. These people indeed want a form of secular communism to be the law of the Ameerican land. They desire to corrupt the Church in full, just as they have society at large. Obama demands abortion on demand. His views on marriage and his declaration of the Apostle Paul define him as either a very ignorant "Christian" at best, or, of course a Humanist as a matter of fact. Mr. Donohue is defending the faith of the Saints and the Gospel of Christ Jesus. Catholics are Christians first and foremeost. These democrats want an entirely new and altered Gospel in place of declared and immutable truth. Jesus and the Apostles have already stated the error of these kinds of people. They speak like unrepentant tax collectors without and sodomites wanting ultimate rule once more. Hopefully Mr. Donohue, will do as the Apostles did and stand against the false teachers and evil people that desire a corrupted Gospel put into place to drive out the real Gospel. Humanism is what Obama and the Democrats peddle. It is provably a "different Gospel" than the faith delivered only once to the Saints. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. The Apostles struggled against the kinds of people represented by these Obama Catholics many, many, many times. Let this declaration represent them Democrats: "I don't want them PUNISHED with a BABY!!!!!!" Abomination is present totally in that proclamation.

"insufficiently godly"

What has the political process devolved to??? A round of "Nearer To God Than Thee", apparently.

So much for the "no religious test to hold public office" 'promise', eh?

Recovering ex-P,

When you say:

So much for the "no religious test to hold public office" 'promise', eh?

That bar against a religious test refers to the Constitution VI, of course: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That prohibition is typically taken to refer to the state, i.e. the government can't apply a religious test to potential officeholders.

But do you think voters should be beholden to that same prohibition? By all indications--Bush's bond with evangelicals, Obama's difficulties with those who falsely believe him to be a Muslim, etc.--voters don't hold themselves to that standard. But should they be expected to?

"Sons of Molech"?

That's a good one.

"But do you think voters should be beholden to that same prohibition? By all indications--Bush's bond with evangelicals, Obama's difficulties with those who falsely believe him to be a Muslim, etc.--voters don't hold themselves to that standard. But should they be expected to?"

Voters will vote on whatever strikes their fancy - sex, race, "a guy like me who I could sit down and have a beer with" (like they did with Bush).

But it really ticks me off when the media (i.e. CNN's infamous "Do you believe every word in the Bible? "debate" question) insists on applying this "religious test".