EDITORIAL: Why This Catholic Dreads the Campaign

We now have the candidates of both major U.S. Political Parties before us. We must do all we can to influence them and then, we must vote.

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - The presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, filled the XCEL auditorium in St. Paul, Minnesota on Tuesday evening.

The venue was chosen specifically because it will be the site of this years Republican Convention. Clearly, team Obama is confident.

They spared no time painting their candidate as the future and John McCain as the past. He was introduced to the enthusiastic crowd by a Republican woman who now supports him, having become disillusioned by the Bush Administration.

The Obama speech was the first volley in the General Election campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America; a contest between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama.

This rousing stem-winder of a speech by the presumptive nominee of the Democrats, Senator Barack Obama,was the third speech of an historic evening.

The hard fought Democratic Primary campaign is over. History has been made. The first African American was chosen as the Presidential nominee of a Major Political Party in the United States.

Oh, I know, Senator Hillary Clinton did not concede and did not throw her support behind the inevitable nominee in her well delivered and buoyant speech.

However it is over for her, at least in so far as the Presidential nomination is concerned. She is leveraging her strong showing to secure some kind of role either on the ticket or in the future.Latest reports are that she will suspend her campaign on Friday.

Earlier in the evening, while the results were still being tabulated in the final two Primary contests in Montana (which went to Obama) and South Dakota (which went to Clinton), 200 people heard the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, give a lackluster delivery of another General Election Speech.

He attempted to position himself as a change agent also.

He rolled out the first of what may become many slogans, "A Leader we Can Believe In", as a kind of trial balloon. It was obviously intended as a counter punch to Obama's "Change we Can Believe In" theme.

Sadly, it had no energy. Neither did his speech.

I have written before that Senator Barack Obama has the finest oratorical skills I have ever experienced in a candidate for Public Office. When I have made that observation, some who read my columns have misunderstood an objective observation as some form of support.

That is not the case.

I regret that Senator Obama has stopped his ears to the cry of those whom Mother Teresa rightly called the "poorest of the poor", children in the womb. I have written that if he became the nominee I would do all I can to continue to engage him on this very issue.

I cannot and will not support any candidate who claims to hear the cry of the poor and then stops his or her ear to the child in the womb, the elderly and the disabled.

Now he is the nominee and I will do all I can to address this errant position that he has taken.

He has regularly spoken of and demonstrated in his public interest work a concern for the poor. He needs to expand his message of hope to include giving the hope of birth to our littlest neighbors.

I now encourage the Senator to search his conscience, expand his view of who is included among "the poor" and apply the campaign theme of change to his own position on the fundamental right to life.

I, and many, many others, simply will not vote for any candidate who defends the taking of innocent human life in the first home of the entire human race, the womb, as some kind of "right".It is wrong.

Science has confirmed what our conscience has long known; the child in the womb is our neighbor. It is always and everywhere intrinsically evil to take innocent human life.

Senator Obama is absolutely wrong to support legalized abortion.

It is not enough for him to express his moral concerns in a Compassion forum. He needs to break with the current leadership of the Democratic Party and listen to people like the members of "Democrats for Life" who have embraced the truth on this foundational position. It is more than an issue, it is a framework for every issue.

The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, fares better on the issue of protecting the right to life for children in the womb. He opposes the so called "abortion right" and he recognizes the right to life for our neighbors in the womb.

There is a clear difference between the two candidates on this fundamental human rights issue, the right to life.

Catholic Social teaching is "whole life, pro-life" and so am I. In applying this truth I try to follow a hierarchy of values.

Both of these candidates support deadly research and experimentation on human embryonic life. Senator McCain tries to justify this barbarism with reference to the fact that these human embryos will inevitably die in this unethical research, calling them "spare embryos".

We need to help him see the error of that position.

When human persons become objects to be disposed of for parts, we embrace a new form of slavery where an entire class of persons has become less than human. It is intrinsically evil to "manufacture" human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts.

Because both of these candidates support deadly research on human embryonic life, they are both wrong.

Taking a position against deadly embryonic stem cell research is not to oppose science. Science must always be placed at the service of life, family and the common good. There are other exciting advances using stem cells drawn from adults without killing them and fetal chord blood.

However,"whole life/Pro-life" includes more than opposing the taking of innocent life.

Both of these presumptive nominees support Capital Punishment.They are both wrong.

Catholic Social teaching opposes its use as no longer necessary or justified. This is a different moral analysis than abortion. The church does not say that Capital Punishment is intrinsically evil, whereas it unequivocally teaches that abortion is.

I oppose Capital Punishment. I accept the teaching of both the Catholic Catechism and the modern encyclical letters that it is no longer defensible because it is no longer necessary to protect society or preserve life and it does not promote the common good. Bloodless means are available.

As a former prosecutor, I know that there is simply no doubt that mistakes have been made in its application. We have executed the innocent. So, I believe that mercy should trump justice. Vengeance is never ours.
Both of these candidates are wrong on this issue.

Next,let's examine the candidates stands on the defense of the first society, marriage and the family founded upon it.

There appears to be a difference between the presumptive nominees on their defense of marriage. However, I am really not clear on what it is because neither of them seems to talk much about it.

Marriage must be defended and protected from the current escalating assault against the institution.

Marriage is what it is. There is a word used in Philosophical and theological discourse to speak about the nature of things, "ontology". It refers to the essence of something. There is a certain ontology to what can be called marriage. It is what it is and what it has always been.

Homosexual relationships and the sexual acts accompanying such relationships cannot ever constitute a marriage. They are not capable of being open to the fullness of the love that is at the foundation of the unitive nature of marriage and for which even our bodies are constituted, that is the total gift of self to the other in faithful, lifelong love.

Nor can homosexual acts, or the relationships formed around them, ever be procreative, open to new life in the conception of children. Social groupings built on such relationships are also not families.

What is happening in the movement to establish a legal equivalency between homosexual partnerships and marriage and then use the police power of the State to enforce this aberration is wrong and does not serve the common good.

There is a growing effort to categorize those who still defend marriage as an objective reality as uncaring, bigoted or antiquated. We are not. Redefining marriage and family will not help anyone, including those who are self defined homosexuals. It is ultimately destructive of the social order. Marriage and the family built upon it is the solid foundation of any civil society. It is the first vital cell of that society.

Yes, all persons must be treated with human dignity and not be discriminated against. That includes homosexual persons. However, there are other ways to protect against discrimination than the current effort to redefine the fundamental social institution of marriage, the defining cornerstone of our social order.

Neither of these two candidates supports a Federal Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman. This is vitally important after the debacles in California and New York.

Senator McCain insinuated on the trail that he may change his mind on supporting a Federal Constitutional Amendment if the circumstances made it clear that it was necessary.

Senator McCain, please reconsider. Senator Obama let us know where you stand.

As for the two candidate's positions on the host of other issues, let me address just a few more through the lens of the principles which are set forth in Catholic Social teaching.

There is a fundamental difference between the two candidates on the Iraq War and how to bring it to an end.I have written extensively concerning the initial incursion into Iraq.

I, like Senator Obama, opposed it from the beginning. It was not, in my opinion and in the clear position taken by the last two Pope's, a "Just war".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its Section on the Fifth Commandment, has an excellent summary on "Safeguarding Peace" and "Avoiding War" (See Paragraphs 2302-2317). In that section, the so called "Just War Theory" is well explained.

I rejected then- and still reject - any notion of a "pre-emptive" war as ever being acceptable under any analysis of the Just War teaching within the Catholic tradition. Like all Americans, I believe that prudence and justice now require that we assist the people of Iraq in their hour of great need.

At the outset of the war in Iraq, under the leadership of our last great Pope, John Paul II, the Church opposed the incursion into Iraq. Our current Pope has taken the same position. Anyone who says that the Church did not oppose the initial foray into Iraq is simply wrong, or engaging in verbal gymnastics masquerading as prudential judgment.

However, it seems that I will have to make a choice between the two major wars being currently waged; the one being waged in Iraq and the one being waged on wombs throughout America.Which is worse?

The latter is being defended through a profane counterfeit notion of choice as a raw power over the weak, the child in the womb.It involves the taking of innocent human life. It is utterly indefensible and evil. The former is no longer simply about an initially wrong act, invading Iraq, but how to now disentangle without causing catasrophic suffering to our troops and the Iraqi people.

I am also concerned about other important policy issues.

It is simply wrong that in the wealthiest Nation on earth we still have not solved the very real health care crisis. I personally dread the idea of a "nationalized" solution because big Government has not proven itself to be very efficient nor is it very good at compassion and care. That is part of why I support the "faith based" and community initiative.

Churches and religious institutions are quite good at compassion and care and need to be seen as partners in solidarity! The principle of subsidiarity, which holds that government is best when it is closest to those being governed, and the principle of solidarity, that reminds us of our obligations to one another and that we are our "brothers (and sisters) keeper" find a meeting place in that initiative.

Both candidates seem to agree on continuing this policy.

We must find creative solutions to providing health care for all Americans. We can not delay any longer. The "market" alone will not solve this crisis without effective leadership.Both candidates promise such leadership. I will study their plans carefully.

I have an ever increasing disdain for what is properly called in Catholic Social teaching "economism", an approach to economic issues which somehow posits "freedom" as best advanced through a kind of economic Darwinism.

Freedom is a good of the person. Our market economy is a tremendous vehicle for freedom but it must always be placed at the service of the person, the family and the common good. We simply MUST hear the cry of the poor! I reject the notion offered by Adam Smith that an "invisible hand" in the market is sufficient. If not properly guided, it may strangle the poor.

Expanding economic participation to all is a vital part of making sure that "free" is the adjective before the phrase market economy! That must be true in our international economic relationships as well.

I will listen carefully to both candidates as they get specific on their approach to economic issues.

I am an uncomfortable Republican. I use to be a Democrat before that Party silenced the late, great Governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey. They did so at their convention because he heard the cry of the poor.

I am not a "liberal" or a "conservative" or a "neo-conservative". I am not ready to join any of the current "Third Party" efforts. I have "flirted" with the notion of starting one, based on the great principles of Catholic Social teaching.

I cannot "opt" to "not vote" -as a growing number of people whom I respect are choosing to do.

So, I will vote. Based upon the kind of analysis I offer in the discussion above, I will choose between these two candidates based on my efforts to apply a hierarchy of values.

Here are some other important considerations.

The next occupant of the Whitehouse will choose at least one Supreme Court Justice. That choice will, at least in this Constitutional lawyers mind, determine whether the current "culture of death" hiding under the profane precedent of Roe v Wade will take another generation of our children before they are able to breathe our air and be welcomed into our family.

The next President will be called upon to provide the genuinely moral leadership so desperately needed to prevent the new cultural revolutionaries from eliminating marriage and family from its favored social status by equalizing homosexual and heterosexual relationships outside of marriage and using the power of the State to enforce this new order.

The next President will be called upon to extract our troops from Iraq, while also ensuring that the Iraqi people, who have suffered so greatly from the War and what led up to it, are given the help they need to rebuild from the devastation of the last five years.

The next President will have an opportunity to solve the health care crisis, expand economic opportunity, and continue to open up our market, and our National embrace to the poor in all of their manifestations.

This is an important election.I will continue to follow this campaign with great interest and try to influence both of these candidates through my writing. And, I will vote.

I am deeply disappointed with how this campaign has turned out. I dread the coming General election campaign.

I think this race is a mismatch on a number of fronts, the most obvious of which is the obvious difference between these candidates in rhetorical skills and the enthusiasm of their base supporters.Also, let's face it, the American people are tired of the current approach of those who lead the Republican Party. They do not want the status quo to continue. John McCain's claim to be a change candidate is hardly credible to many.

I will approach this election as a Catholic Christian. I will inform my conscience and act politically in a manner consistent with the Social teaching of the Church.That involves following guiding principles. These principles can be known by all, through the natural law and reason. They are also confirmed by Revelation.

The first among them is that every human life has inherent value and dignity. Every life should be respected, protected, welcomed and honored. The Republican Platform at least, still states it well:

"As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."

"We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

However, saying it is simply not enough!

What happened to the primacy of this plank? How has it been applied? How could this Republican Primary campaign have turned out the way it did?

How did such a clear first principle such as the fundamental right to life get reduced to supporting the candidate who pledged to appoint "strict constructionists", a phrase which itself can be construed in many ways?

I believe that Christians who adhere to the unbroken Christian teaching on human life, marriage, family, concern for the poor and the common good, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, have been used by both major political parties.

It is time to rethink our strategy for social, cultural and political action going forward.

We need to dedicate ourselves to the long term work of building a new society, a culture of life and civilization of love, where the dignity of every human life will be the polestar of all public policy; marriage and family will be protected as the first mediating institution and defended against those who aim to replace and eradicate them; authentic freedom will be exercised in reference to truth and within a moral constitution, and our obligations in solidarity to one another, and most especially those who have no voice, will be given primacy.

We now know the candidates of both major US Political Parties.We must do all we can over the coming General election campaign to influence them on the issues and positions which matter most.

I dread the General election campaign because I am not happy with either candidate. Also, because of my concern that the obvious contrast in their styles and rhetorical abilites will stunt a real focus on those issues which matter most.

However, we must accept the deck we have been dealt and make the most of it. And, we must exercise our "faithful citizenship".

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online