OPINION: A Plea to Catholic Obama Supporters, Part II

Professor Robert Stackpole continues his discussion of the US Presidential campaign by considering "lies and Proportionate Reasons."

BRITISH COLUMBIA (Catholic Online) - The case for Barack Obama made by his Catholic supporters usually begins with the attempt to dispute Sen. McCain's Pro-Life credentials. Next, they hunt for an "intrinsic evil" supported by McCain that could count as "proportionate" to Obama's strong support for abortion rights, thus at least balancing the moral scales between the two, and making a vote for Obama morally permissible.Let's walk through these arguments one at a time, and see if they stand up to close scrutiny....

1.McCain and the Republicans are disingenuous; they actually have no real intention of seriously restricting abortion any time soon.

This point was most clearly stated on the blog "The Hopeful Populist" by Matt Talbot, in response to my three articles on the election. Mr. Talbot charged the Republican leadership with deceiving the American public about their true intentions:"There is plenty of reason to be sceptical of Republicans' true commitment to opposition to abortion.... They've had [6] years [of control of Congress and the Presidency]. Remember the big push to pass a constitutional amendment protecting all life from conception until natural death? Neither do I....I'm convinced it's because they don't want actually to settle the abortion question -- first because there is a clear majority of public opinion that abortion should be legal, in at least some circumstances, and thus actually outlawing it would present huge problems for them in terms of backlash.... Secondly, because that would deprive them of an issue they can use to get elected. 'Just give us the chance to nominate one more justice, and then -- then! -- we'll finally be able to outlaw abortion. I know you Pro-Life liberals hate our other policies, but you're morally obligated to vote for us because of this over-riding issue.'Disingenuous in the extreme, in my view...."

I responded to Mr. Talbot's charge of dishonesty as follows: "The trouble with this conspiracy theory (that is, Republican leaders conspiring to keep the abortion issue going in order to keep religious and social conservatives voting Republican) is that, like most conspiracy theories, however plausible it may sound to the partisan mind, there is no evidence for it, and in fact, it contradicts the facts. The facts are that everyone knows that the present Supreme Court has only four votes for overturning Roe v. Wade: it would take one more conservative judge, replacing a liberal judge, to tip the scales decisively in that direction. But the Bush administration did know that they had enough votes after Roberts and Alito to pass a bill outlawing partial birth abortion--which they did, after p.b. abortion failed a test case before the court. Thus, I submit that when the Republicans were fully at the helm of Congress and the Presidency, they did what they could on this issue. Moreover, when/if the balance of power on the court does decisively shift against the Roe v. Wade decision, then I am sure a Republican Congress would not immediately seek a national ban on most abortions. They would prudently wait for several dozen states that will probably line up to tighten their abortion laws on their own, and see how that fares. If they see that Pro-Life momentum is thereby picking up around the nation, then and only then would they seek a national ban, or a constitutional amendment. This is not because of a sinister conspiracy to keep the abortion issue on the boil (for which there is no evidence), but for precisely the reason that Mr Talbot suggests, of which Republicans with any brains are well aware: it is no use passing a national, comprehensive ban on abortion when roughly 50% of the public is pro-choice. It would be Prohibition all over again. Let the states tighten things up first and then see where public opinion is, and take it from there. That's not a conspiracy: that's just political prudence, taking things one step at a time."

2.The record of McCain and Palin shows that they actually have very little real commitment to the Pro-Life cause: McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research, and Palin refused to pass restrictive abortion laws as Governor of Alaska.

We need to be clear that Sen. McCain's support of embryonic stem-cell research is restricted to cases of extracting stem cells from so-called IVF "spares," in other words, embryos that will not survive anyway. This is essentially the same position taken by Pres, Bush. While morally objectionable, it is hardly cause for believing that McCain will not be a relatively Pro-Life president. In every other respect, his voting record in the Senate is solidly Pro-Life.There is also indication he is now moderating even this position.

In a recent article on Catholic Online, Catholic Obama supporter Doug Kmiec provided another variation of the "McCain is not as Pro-Life as he seems" argument:"Given the length of time that Mr. McCain has exercised the levers of legislative power, is it not the least bit disturbing that during that entire almost 30 year period Senator McCain did not offer and actively champion a Human life Amendment? Indeed, to the contrary, it was John McCain who previously stated: "I'd love to see the point where [Roe v. Wade] was irrelevant, and could be replaced because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly, in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."

Prof. Kmiec's cynicism here is misplaced. McCain was only stating the obvious: as long as roughly half of the women in America are Pro-Choice, the kind of repeal of Roe v. Wade that would immediately outlaw abortion throughout the land (such as the Human Life Amendment) would be widely disobeyed, and would result in a huge rise in dangerous, illegal, back-street abortions. That is also why hardly anyone in the Senate over the past 30 years has made any real attempts to pass a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which would never pass through Congress and the state legislatures anyway. A Human Life Amendment can be the ultimate goal (as it has been in every Republican platform since Ronald Reagan) without being the first step to take. That is not being soft on abortion: it is just common sense.

Meanwhile, Gov. Palin simply recognized that the continuing existence of Roe v. Wade as the law of the land prevented Alaska (or any other state of the union, for that matter) from enacting stringent restrictions on abortion. According to the New York Times, however, throughout her career Palin has supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and require parental consent.

3.McCain does in fact support "intrinsic moral evils" proportionate to Obama's support for abortion rights, such McCain's support for embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), CIA torture, the unjust war in Iraq, the neglect of the need for health care for the poor, and avoidance of the global warming crisis.

On the ESCR issue, please see #2 above. ESCR involves a relatively small number of deaths per year, and certainly nothing even remotely comparable to the 1-2 million legal abortions per year in America. The form of ESCR supported by McCain is certainly an intrinsic moral evil, but hardly proportionate to Obama's support for continuing and expanding abortion rights. In addition, Senator McCain has recently indicated some change in regard to his apparent support of embryonic stem cell research.On CIA torture, McCain has clearly and consistently opposed the only form in question that is actually life threatening: namely, "water-boarding." The other forms of interrogation practiced by the CIA may or not be immoral, but they are not even remotely proportionate evils on par with the legalized killing of over a million unborn children in their mother's wombs each year.As for global warming, McCain has not avoided the issue; it is one of the main reasons he supports the expansion of the use of nuclear energy to help solve the energy crisis: because nuclear energy is much cleaner with respect to carbon emissions than the use of fossil fuels. Whether or not one agrees with McCain's overall global warming policy, one can hardly accuse him of ignoring the issue. He was widely criticized in the Republican primaries precisely for his commitment to take government action to address the problem.As for the health care issue and the war in Iraq, please see the statistics quoted by Jeff Muris earlier in this article (Pt. 1), and please see the articles that I wrote (one on each of those two issues) for Catholic Online in August.

The charge by Doug Kmiec in his recent article for Catholic Online that "no one has even begun to calculate the cost of John McCain's drastic proposal to dismantle the present health care relationship with employers and to tax the value of health care to employees" is simply not true (again, please see my article on this issue for Catholic Online). Reasonable estimates are that his plan would expand health care coverage to roughly half of those now without it (who now number 42 million Americans, not 50 million as I mistakenly stated in my article). McCain's plan is certainly not good enough, but it moves significantly in the right direction.

The charge by Doug Kmiec that McCain supported Pres. Bush's veto of extending SCHIP "which had sent more than six million children from low income families to the doctor" is certainly disturbing, and I share some of Prof. Kmiec's moral outrage on that issue. But the matter also needs to be put in perspective. As some of the readers of my articles have pointed out to me, health insurance should not be confused with health care. Most people with no health insurance (including children) receive a degree of health care through hospital emergency rooms, which are legally bound to treat them whether they have health insurance or not. That minimal health care safety net for the poor is inadequate, of course, and I am glad to see that both candidates are proposing major initiatives to try to make health insurance more widely available to the poor, and to make it portable from job to job. At least in the short run, Obama's health care plan appears to get the job done better than McCain's. But where in all this is the moral equivalent of supporting (as Obama does) the legal right deliberately to put to death over one million innocent, unborn children every year?

4.Whether or not one can vote for a pro-abortion presidential candidate is merely a matter of "prudential judgement" on which Catholics can legitimately differ. There is no clear "right answer," or at least we cannot be certain of having the right answer on such matters, and so we are not in danger of committing a sin one way or the other. The Church teaches that the only sin one could commit in this regard would be to vote for a candidate precisely because of his/her support for an intrinsic evil such as legalized abortion.

In reply, we need to make some distinctions.First, it is true that faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree on such matters of prudential judgement. The truths of the Faith are not at stake here as long as in one's prudential calculus, one adheres to the teaching of the Church's magisterium that in matters of voting and good governance, the highest priority should be placed an abolishing intrinsic evils such as legalized abortion and institutionalized racism. Otherwise, one is in direct violation of a central principle of Catholic moral teaching: the inherent value and dignity of every human life. (By the way, from what I have read, and however much I may passionately disagree with Doug Kmiec on his support for Sen. Obama, I do not see how he can be accused of violating the principle just stated, however askew his reasoning may be in applying it to the facts of the case).

Second, it is not true that we can never be certain in matters of prudential judgement: if that were so we would have to shut down most of the law courts in America! "Guilty" verdicts are only supposed to be rendered when a judge or jury is convinced, by a prudential judgement, that someone is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Catholic tradition calls that "moral certainty:" when a preponderance of evidence creates an overwhelming probability of truth. To turn a blind eye to a moral certainty on a matter of life and death certainly can be a grievous sin against the virtue of prudence.

Which brings us to our third point: it is not true that matters of prudential judgement do not involve any risk of sin. In fact, we can commit a sin against the virtue of prudence, for example, by refusing to let someone drive us home from a party when we know very well we have had too much to drink. In the law we call such gravely imprudent acts at least "reckless endangerment" of the lives of the innocent.In the case of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, of course it would be a grave sin, a formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil, to vote for a pro-abortion candidate precisely because of his support for legalized abortion. But I am in dialogue here with Obama supporters who sincerely wish to be Pro-Life, so direct and deliberate cooperation with evil is not the issue here.

If we are voting for a pro-abortion candidate in spite of his/her support for abortion then we must have "proportionate reasons" for doing so, the Church says: namely we must be sure that the other candidates in contention in the race support other intrinsic evils that are at least proportionate to the intrinsic evils supported by the candidate for whom we intend to vote. Obviously, the only thing proportionate to an intrinsic evil is another intrinsic evil, and in fact, one of similar or greater magnitude. If we ignore this principle of moral reasoning, we are at the very least committing a sin against the virtue of prudence in voting for a pro-abortion candidate, a candidate who supports a deliberate, life-destroying violation of the dignity of the human person.

In other words, we are participating in an act of reckless endangerment, by assisting in the endangerment of the lives of innocent people at risk from the policies of our preferred candidate. We are, so to speak handing the keys to the drunk driver whom we know very well will endanger the lives of the innocent on the road.(NB: in this analogy the drunk driver is, of course, Sen. Obama, whom I hope and pray is invincibly intoxicated by the deceits of the feminist lobby on this issue, and not deliberately hard hearted toward the lives of unborn children).

Thus, I restate the case: where in all of Sen. McCain's past record or present policy statements can one find support for intrinsic evils even remotely proportionate to the legal support for the killing of 1-2 million innocent, unborn children every year, whose most fundamental human right of all, the right to life, has been deliberately taken away from them? If you cannot clearly name and fairly cite those proportionate evils, then you cannot vote for Sen. Obama without violating the dictates of conscience.Please see #3 above. I challenge the Catholic Obama supporters to push aside all the distracting partisan rhetoric on both sides of the present campaign, and give this question a straight answer. If you cannot do so, do not kid yourself: you may very well commit a sin on election day, at least against the virtue of prudence.

The Church's magisterium is absolutely clear that in our situation the question above is the main question on which our vote in this election (pitting as it does a relatively Pro-Life against a strongly Pro-Abortion candidate) should depend. Again, I have appended to the end of this essay a series of statements by the Church's teaching authorities that clearly demonstrate that this is so.

Doug Kmiec quoted in his recent essay the US Bishop's document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" to the effect that we must bear in mind the totality of the Church's social teaching when we cast our vote, a totality which includes a preferential concern for the plight of the poor, the sick and the immigrants, as well as a preferential option for peaceful means of resolving world conflicts. In this Prof Kmiec is entirely right, and I tried very hard to honor that totality of the Church's social teaching in my three articles on the election issues of abortion, health care, and war and peace that appeared last month on Catholic Online. I am not a Neo-Con, precisely because I believe that in some respects, the Neo-Con political philosophy does not mesh with the Church's authentic social gospel. From what I can see,and in my opinion, Sen. Obama is more or less right on the death penalty (though not that different from Senator McCain who also supports it), on gun control, and, on balance, on health care, and on increasing the present tax rates on the wealthy too, while Sen. McCain is more or less right on parental choice in schooling, on "gay" marriage, on reducing the tax burden on businesses, on the "surge" and how to finish the war in Iraq, on preconditions for direct, head-of-state level negotiations with aggressive foreign dictators, and on balance, on energy policy too. Prof. Kmiec and I could probably go back-and-forth on such issues all night.

But again, I am left with the over-riding question of this essay, and the over-riding question of this whole campaign (Deacon Fournier's "800 pound gorilla): where in any of this is the moral equivalent of support for the legal enabling of the annual slaughter of upwards of a million innocent, unborn children in their mother's wombs? In my final installment I will go "In Search of the True Unborn Lifesaver: Obama or McCain?"

***

Dr. Robert Stackpole is an Associate Professor of Theology at Redeemer Pacific College and the Director of the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy

---

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

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online