The New York Times has a piece today about Obama and the Dems and their efforts to appeal to Catholic voters who may be turned off by the party’s pro-choice dogmatism. It includes comments from the much-pilloried pro-life, yet pro-Obama, Doug Kmiec. I expect this won’t be the last of these sorts of stories.
On the other side, the Supreme Knight of the K of C (no, not the Colonel), Carl Anderson, gave McCain an all-but-endorsement speech at the Knights’ annual convention this week.
According to the CNS story, Anderson–author of a popular book, “A Civilization of Love,” called for a “regime change” of sorts, namely the “regime of Roe v. Wade” by calling on Catholics to withhold their votes from any candidate who supports abortion.
“It’s time to put away the arguments of political spin masters that only serve to justify abortion killing,” Anderson said.
In apparent reference to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Anderson said change in the country can come only when the practice of aborting unborn children ends.
“We have all heard a great deal this year about the need for change,” he said. “But at the same time we are told one thing cannot change, namely the abortion regime of Roe v. Wade. It is time that we demand real change and real change means the end of Roe v. Wade.
“It’s time to stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians, and it’s time we start demanding that they accommodate us,” Anderson added as the 500 delegates from around the world stood up and loudly applauded.
Anderson said he was not singling out candidates from any political party for criticism. Later, Anderson told Catholic News Service that he decided to focus on the same terminology that Obama is using in his presidential campaign “to get people’s attention.”
“This is kind of the touchstone for this whole election year; I’d like Catholics to think what real change, fundamental change in a Christian sense would mean,” he said.
(Ironically, the Knights convention included a video tribute from President Bush, who would hardly be considered an exemplar of Catholic social teaching.)
I know this post is poking a stick into a hornet’s nest, but the topic of abortion and Catholic voters (and pols) is going to be a persistent theme (and thread) up to November, and beyond.
And that’s probably as it should be. Abortion is a central issue, and addressing it is a political as well as religious enterprise. That said, I struggle to understand the absolute (Manichean?) divide that says it is impossible for a pro-life Catholic to vote for a Democrat, and cites Roe as the reason.
In reality, Roe may well not be overturned, and even if it is it would just move the battle to the states. Abortion is a reality that exists far beyond the borders of Roe, and indeed some of the Catholic majority justices on the Supreme Court say that even if they don’t like the case, they wouldn’t use their Catholic distaste of abortion to inform their decision. Republican presidents have come and gone, Republican congresses have come and gone, Republican (and Catholic) supreme court justices have come, and much remains as it has always been. In fact, the near-total focus on Roe seems to blind many to all the other ways that abortion can be reduced–or the ways that the purportedly anti-Roe party, the GOP, does not support life, in the seamless garment sense or otherwise.
And yet, this issue continues to be used to polarize and divide Catholics (see many posts below). It is a policy debate, a campaign issue, that is used as the yardstick for whether someone can receive communion.
The Dems obviously aren’t perfect by any means. But the old approach seems to sanctify–and immunize–the Republicans on this issue. I have a sense some Catholics, beyond Kmiec, are trying to redress this Republican Captivity. Again, this is a longstanding debate. Is there any new light to shed on why a Catholic should be politically and morally bound to vote for anti-Roe candidates–or at least those who profess such a view with their mouths, if not their hearts?
I would also note Mark Silk’s post over at Spiritual Politics about a new Time mag poll, which shows “values” like abortion and gay marriage are way down the list of voters concerns. That could make the discussion somewhat irrelevant in terms of concrete political action and results-or perhaps should incline us to a more nuanced view of how to pursue certain goals when our ideals are impractical.
posted August 7, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Did it occur to the pro-life Catholic voters that there might just be other things besides the candidate’s stance on abortion which would qualify them for office? Candidates don’t run on a one item agenda. As for the church telling their people who NOT to vote for based on one item…sounds a bit unamerican to me. Who does a Catholic vote for if both candidates are pro-choice? Now that could be a problem.
posted August 8, 2008 at 9:32 am
David hits on the exact point I have been trying to make with my “anti-abortion is the only issue that matters” Catholic friends (I am also an anti-abortion Catholic, but don’t use that as the only issue to determine who to support). We have had Republican appointees as a majority of the Supreme Court for as long as I can remember (in fact, I think going back to the Roe decision). For the first 6 years of the Bush admnistration, we had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Yet, as I understand the numbers, there has been a decrease in abortions during the Bush administration that mirrors the decrease in abortions that occurred during the Clinton administration. In other words, having mostly anti-abortion politicans in office has made little effect.
I reject as inaccurate labeling President Bush as “pro-life.” He is “anti-abortion,” but that is about the only “pro-life” postiion he takes. So, at that point, why should I vote for him only because he is anti-abortion when that doesn’t seem to make much difference on the number of abortions? My concsious calls me, at that point, to consider all of the moral and ethical issues informed by my faith, and, on balance, someone like President Bush does not reflect my values overall.
It is my sense that the United States can only attack the abortion crisis by working for a change of heart among Americans, not by any political or judicial attack. I think the overall reduction in abortions regardless of which party is in power supports that conclusion.
posted August 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“Is there any new light to shed on why a Catholic should be politically and morally bound to vote for anti-Roe candidates?”
How about sticking with the old light, which shines brightly on the fact that abortion (from a Catholic view) is murder?
I don’t know how a person who believes that it’s murder just puts it aside, because hey, time for some “change”.
Now, it might come down to the fact that a person doesn’t actually see the fetus as a life, and therefore abortion wouldn’t be taking innocent life. But if that’s truly what anyone calling themselves Catholic believes, then they best go find another Church, because this one has been pretty explicit about where it stands.
posted August 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm
According to the Catholic Church that I have been a member of since I was about 6 weeks old, the pro-life issue was not solely defined by abortion. I can’t in good conscience support a political party/candidate/cause that believes life begins at conception and ends a birth. Sure a candidate might want to a woman to give birth, but what happens when this same candidate does everything anti-life after that?
posted August 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Should Catholics abandon all other priciples simply because a candidate claims to be anti-abortion?
What about the death penalty, social justice, pre-emptive (non-emptive war), health care for children, poor & elderly, living wages, the environment, social justice, etc?