George Weigel
Posted on 10/16/2008 1:09:16 PM PDT by NYer
.- Catholic political commentator George Weigel has criticized pro-life Catholics who support the pro-abortion rights Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. Writing for Newsweek magazine, he criticizes pro-life Obama supporters such as Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec and suggests their emergence may portend a “hardening of the battle lines” within the Catholic Church regardless of who wins the presidency this November.
According to Weigel, Kmiec argues that Obama sounds more Catholic on issues such as the family wage, health-care costs and the war in Iraq and “comes reasonably close” to embodying “an alternative way to be pro-life.”
Weigel also summarizes the arguments of Duquesne University law professor Nicholas Cafardi, who claims Catholics have “lost the abortion battle ... and I believe that we have lost it permanently.” Cafardi argues that the Bush administration has committed “intrinsically evil” acts in its policy of abusive interrogations of suspected terrorists, its detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay, and its failures after Hurricane Katrina.
Cafardi also argues that welfare policies under an Obama administration would reduce the number of abortions and provide an “adequate social safety net for poor women who might otherwise have abortions.”
Weigel calls the pro-Obama Catholics’ arguments “counterintuitive,” claiming that Obama “has an unalloyed record of support for abortion on demand.” In Weigel’s view, Obama thinks the U.S. Supreme Court has defined abortion as “a fundamental liberty right essential for women's equality” which requires government-guaranteed access to abortion and financial assistance.
Citing Obama’s campaign web site, Weigel argues that the candidate’s support for the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate “all state and federal regulation of abortion” and also state laws protecting the consciences of pro-life doctors who refuse to assist with abortions. FOCA could even force bills meant to support pregnant women to include support for abortion, he says.
Weigel also charges Obama with supporting federal funding for abortion by opposing the Hyde Amendment that restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion. Obama has also pledged to repeal the “Mexico City Policy” which bans foreign aid for organizations that promote abortion. Additionally, he has reportedly opposed continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.
Obama’s repeated opposition to Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have protected infants who survive abortions, is also a matter pro-life Obama supporters must address, Weigel says.
Continuing his argument, Weigel addresses the “social safety net” policies some pro-lifers support as a means to reduce abortion. He says Sweden, which has “a much thicker social safety net than the United States,” has the same rate of abortions per pregnancies found in the U.S., 25 percent. Weigel also cites Guttmacher Institute statistics claiming a “mere” 23 percent of abortions are performed primarily because of “alleged financial need.”
Contentions that the abortion dispute is over, Weigel says, is countered by evidence that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision remains “deeply controversial” and the court has allowed some laws regulating abortion clinics or banning certain forms of abortion.
“No Clinton-appointed justice contributed to that trend; it seems very unlikely that Obama nominees would extend the trend. In that respect, a pro-life, pro-Catholic Obama vote is not so much a recognition that the legal argument is over but, de facto, a vote to repeal the legal protections for the unborn that have been laboriously crafted in the 35 years since Roe eliminated the abortion law of all 50 states,” Weigel writes in Newsweek.
Weigel also cites Cardinal Francis George’s argument that abortion violates a basic principle of justice:
“In a just society, innocent human life, especially when incapable of self-defense, deserves the protection of the laws. No one who denies that, the cardinal argued, can claim to be advancing the common good.”
Weigel then argues that pro-life pro-Obama Catholics are trying to support a candidate contrary to a first principle of justice on the grounds of “contingent prudential judgments” that “by definition, cannot bear that weight.”
According to Weigel, Catholic bishops are unlikely to remain passive in the face of pro-choice Catholic Democrats who deny or misrepresent Church teaching on the immorality of abortion.
Should an Obama administration govern U.S. abortion policy, Weigel warns, the Catholic integrity of Catholic hospitals will be placed under further pressure.
He concludes his Newsweek column with a speculation:
“Should an Obama administration reintroduce large-scale federal funding of abortion, the bishops will have to confront a grave moral question they have managed to avoid for decades, thanks to the Hyde amendment: does the payment of federal taxes that go to support abortion constitute a form of moral complicity in an ‘intrinsic evil’? And if so, what should the conscientious Catholic citizen do?”
Weigel has been awarded eleven honorary doctorates, the papal cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, and the Gloria Artis Gold Medal by the Republic of Poland. He serves on the boards of directors of several organizations dedicated to human rights and the cause of religious freedom and is a member of the editorial board of First Things. Ethics and Public Policy Center
Speaking of Obama Cathoclsi who’re having a tough time of it right now, Doug Kmiec is making an appearance in Michigan some time soon...
Just more WHITE CATHOLIC GUILT.
It’s a mortal sin for any Catholic to vote for the extreme pro-abortionist, Barack Obama.
I’ll repeat that every day from now until Election Day, so maybe some Catholics will “get it.”
The 0bama Catholics in our area consider things like “mortal sin” to be quaint concepts the Church decided to throw out at Vatican II.
Under America's current abortion law, far more babies have been murdered than terrorists have been interrogated. I can understand a lot of things, but someone who cares more about the treatment of terror suspects than the treatment of babies who are unfortunate enough to have mothers who want them killed is beyond my understanding. I don't even see him advocating for painless abortion. We would not be allowed to kill dogs or cats by dismemberment or saline poisoning.
Well said!, and how refreshing to hear.
I appreciate your stand Palladin, you are exactly right!
“screw the babies, I want a check from the govt!”
“comes reasonably close” to embodying “an alternative way to be pro-life.”
I’d like for the learned professor to explain to me how consistantly voting in favor of dealth, Obama is reasonable close to the Catholic pro-life view? Is killing an unborn child the alternative to life? Well, I guess that does make sense ...
You cannot claim to be a Catholic and support Abortion... If you believe abortion is acceptable, you are not a Roman Catholic. I don’t care how many rosaries you pray a day.
Human Life is precious and sacred and begins at conception, Period. Abortion is Murder and a violation of the 10 commandments. That’s Catholic belief and teaching.. if you feel otherwise, you aren’t Catholic. You can claim to be all you want, but you aren’t.
I think there’s more at play here than guilt. What Kmiec and others like him are doing (by promoting Obama) is illogical and damaging. I think the motivator is not guilt, but desire for power and adulation. Given that Kmiec should know better, I’d assert that the Prince of Darkness has seduced Kmiec. Sound dramatic? Well, look at Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome baby and think about how Kmiec is supporting a candidate who supports the “right†for babies like Trig Palin to be murdered in utero, and then tell me this situation is NOT dramatic. We should pray for Kmiec et al.
i totally agree. i am very glad to see Weigel taking on Kmiec in this regard. i find it unconscionable that Kmiec is giving cover to liberal Catholics by taking this stand.
i don’t think your suggestion is at all dramatic, i happen to agree with you completely.
Is it possible to be seriously pro-life and vote for any Democrat?
Is it possible to be seriously Catholic and vote for any Democrat?
Unfortunately, thanks to the Church’s jettisoning of the Baltimore Catehism in their religious instruction back in the seventies.
Amen!
We have long called them CINOS here at FR. (Catholics In Name Only.)
Exactly right.
What do Catholics hope to gain from voting for Hussein?
They should all take a short trip to Muslim countries and observe how Christians are persecuted. Catholics who vote for Hussein are particularly stupid and should not come back but stay in those countries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.