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?”
When 0bama signs the Freedom of Choice Act what will their reaction be then? How will Kmiec and others like him explain their feelings at that time? They are doing a stupid thing. Either that or their commitment to the pro life cause is a lie.
The Catholic Church is going to be a big factor for McCain.Clinton got a majority of Catholics both times,Obama will not.At 9am mass today,our priest came out against abortion and euthanasia.He also downgraded candidates that try to use slick language to obscure their positions on life in debates.
All other important questions revolve around "issues," but the difference between liberty and tyranny revolve around the question of whether life and liberty are gifts from a Creator or whether they are grants, or permissions, from other human beings.
Creator-endowed right to life and liberty is the foundation upon which this nation was founded.
If a nation devalues that concept, basing an individual's right to life and liberty on judicial fiat and a woman or girl's decision, then where is the security for liberty for any?
The elephant in the room in this election is the Radical Left's absolute determination that it, alone, will decide who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States! They talk about "change," they talk about war, they talk about everything else, but the "elephant" is the question of the unfettered right of a woman to destroy her unborn child. They can call it "privacy rights," "reproductive rights, or the "right of a woman to choose," but one can see from their hatred of Palin that the so-called "right to choose," is only valid if the woman's choice is to permit taking the life of the unborn. To the Left, this is a declared war on all opposition.
Yes, it is time for John McCain to take off the gloves on exposing the real culprits in the government who forced banks to make risky loans to unqualified people, but for the sake of liberty for generations yet unborn, it is far more important that he clarify the importance of life, and the threat to liberty if Obama carries out the Left's agenda. Soft pedaling this issue, as if it is just a personal preference, overlooks a far more significant principle.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Thomas Jefferson
"The world is different now. . . . And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."- JFK, Inaugural 1961
Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi and many other CINOs think so.
The problem with religion is that it doesn’t change the heart of man within. An individual who has undergone a spiritual transformation (new birth), would never vote for someone like Obama who sanctions the murder of both the born and unborn, not to mention his support for the homosexual agenda. Religion destroys and corrupts, being truly born again changes the heart from within and causes decisions to be made on biblical absolutes, rather than what a man thinks, feels, or wants. Jesus Christ would never vote for a left wing nutcase such as Barak Hussein Obama. No one who has followed the biblical mandate to “put on the mind of Christ,” would vote for him either.
That “Catholic” has been told by BOTH of his bishops (Washington DC, and Delaware) that his support for abortion has rendered him unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion.
Didn’t Kmiec used to be at Sidley Austin, Michelle’s and Bernadine’s old law firm (a long time ago)?
Makes you wonder if something happened at “the firm” which is making Kmiec go off the deep end in this way.
The Catholic Church is going to be a big factor for McCain.”
He hit life and vouchers back to back last night. Big plus for the Catholic vote!!!
According to Wikipedia, one of his 5 children works for Sidley Austin, but it doesn’t say anything about him having done so.
Can you be a Catholic and support the death penalty?
My sister-in-law (the Godmother of my children!) has adopted Kmeic's "alternative," as have my brother-in-law (former seminarian, yet!) and my in-laws. My stance is as yours is: abortion is the gravest of mortal sins, and no one who claims to be Catholic can support Obama. In fact, I've stated that I do not believe that my SIL can continue to stand as Godmother if she continues on her path.
Needless to say, most of the family now considers me persona non grata.
These are dark, testing times. I pray daily that the scales will fall from their eyes.
The Priest at my Church has stated repeatedly in his homilies that we as Catholics have a responsibility to vote for Pro Life politicians. I have seen a couple of obama stickers on cars in the parking lot (only a couple in a very large Parish) and I just can not understand why.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2267 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm)
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Short answer is, yes, Catholics can support the death penalty.
Yes, as a Catholic you can support the death penalty.
Yes. You can also be a Catholic and support or even participate in a "just" war.
Abortion is always wrong because abortion is always the destruction of innocent life.
Bernardine and his "seamless-garment" crowd always gloss over that little word.
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.