Posts Tagged ‘Christian’
I have often pointed out that my own position on abortion — to be against it — is actually a scientific one. I do regard, as any true Catholic does, the Holy See, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition as authoritative. However, the case as it has been revealed to us in science is more powerful as what has been mandated by the church (something I don’t think is coincidence — God knows humans’ issues with believing that which we cannot see). Today, Lisa Miller in Newsweek reports that there was a small, but steady message coming from a seemingly strange pro-life group in response to one of her recent articles on abortion: atheists.
Just as pro-life Christians argue that life is sacred because it’s given by God, pro-life atheists insist that human life is intrinsically valuable without God’s help. “I think there is nothing beyond this life—but life in and of itself is unique and special,” explains Matt Wallace, a UPS package handler in North Carolina who started an online group for pro-life atheists in 1999.
Actually, as one of those pro-life Christians, my argument comes more from the atheistic point of view she describes. I’d even say most of the pro-life activists argue from that standpoint, too, so Miller may want to re-consider her generalizations. My strict conscience on voting, however, does come from my religion, and the authority from the Church that we should not cooperate materially with intrinsic evils or have to answer for it at the end of our life. Those are two distinct actions, though (opposing abortion and voting) — I use my vote as one of the “tools” to fight abortion and other intrinsic evil as Christians are morally obligated to do.
One of the points I think that is overlooked in this article, however, is that about the actual decision of Roe v. Wade. While Miller hits on it briefly as it relates to Christopher Hitchens, her article ignores the great number of people who don’t consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice, or even consider themselves pro-choice, yet oppose Roe v. Wade because of what it is: a poor decision made by an activist court. There is a large group of people who agree with the results brought on by Roe v. Wade who would rather see this brought about by legislation. They are, of course, unmotivated to try to bring about a change (due to indifference or actually preferring the current state of this debate), but still opposed to the decision.
All in all, there are many ways to become pro-life. Most often, without a miraculous conversion to faith, this is going to be brought about by science. Even this pro-lifer thinks that the case made by science is the most convincing (but I’m only human).
Share on Facebook
David Warren of sympatico.ca has a fantastic article pointing out the audacity of an American electorate that would make a man’s first “steady” job be the President of the United States. He points out that, more than anything, it shows the loss of Christianity in our country:
Deeper than this: Obama has presented himself from the start as a messianic, “transformational” leader — and thus played deceitfully with ideas that belong to religion and not politics. That he has done this so successfully is a mark of the degree to which the U.S. itself, like the rest of the western world, has lost its purchase on the Christian religion. Powerful religious impulses have been spilt, secularized.
In this climate, people tend to be maniacally opposed to the sin to which they are not tempted: to giving Christ control over the things that are Caesar’s. But they are blind to the sin to which they are hugely tempted: giving Caesar control over the things that are Christ’s.
We are about to take a very scary plunge, indeed.
Share on Facebook
Douglas Kmiec tries, today in the L.A. Post, to fleece pro-life voters by saying that because Obama hinted in the last debate that abortion should be used as a last resort that all of a sudden, because of that, he is no longer “pro-choice” and that Christian (he says Catholic) can vote for him in good conscience.
So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes, but as I found when I publicly endorsed Obama, you’ve then got “some ’splain’n’ to do.” It’s a matter of conscience, but had Obama proclaimed himself to be pro-choice and said nothing more, it would have been problematic. But there are those additional words about appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby.
Um, excuse me, but we aren’t stupid. Obama never, either, denounced abortion as something that is evil and is always wrong. He even said “we are going to disagree” when McCain had already spoken to the fact that abortion is wrong, and surely he didn’t expect that McCain disagreed with the assertion that we should do all we morally can to eliminate unwanted pregnancies (as in education, adoption, etc.). Clearly his point about disagreeing had to do with the fact that he thinks it is a mother’s choice to kill her child while McCain does not.
Some might ask, isn’t John McCain, the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer,” still a morally superior choice for Catholics? Not necessarily. McCain’s commitment, as he stressed in the debate, is to try to reverse Roe vs. Wade. But Republicans have been after this for decades, and the effort has not saved a single child. Even if Roe were reversed — unlikely, in my judgment — it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion. A Catholic serious about preserving life could reasonably find Obama’s educational and material assistance to mothers the practical, stronger alternative.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of what money is spent on anyone, and as it turns out McCain is much more charitable when it comes to these issues, the act of killing an innocent life is what is wrong. We can debate until our faces are blue about how best to support those who are going to carry out unwanted pregnancies as well as how we should go about preventing them, but that is totally immaterial in the argument of whether abortion is right or wrong and who you can vote on if you are rightly aimed and that is your strongest conviction. That part of the debate is not a moral issue on the same playing field as life and death. And, in case you didn’t notice, sir, the voter is completely at the mercy of the Supreme Court on this issue, one that should be decided by legislation from *elected* officials. Yes, we would have many more battles to come, us pro-lifers, after the decision was overturned. Many states would be legislating to legalize abortion immediately. However, at least our elected officials are accountable to us. Our SCOTUS justices are not. That should scare pro-lifers as well as the pro-death contingent (because how do you know what issue will be held hostage next?).
Catholics know how to pick presidents. In the last nine presidential contests, Catholics have been with the popular vote-getter every time. Where are the Catholics lining up in 2008? A recent Zogby poll has the national Catholic vote as a dead heat within the margin of error. If Catholic past is prologue, this election will be far closer than general polling suggests, and Obama’s few additional words in the final debate may prove to be his political salvation.
Obama’s words did nothing for any of us pro-lifers, and Mr. Kmiec’s words are even more outrageous. We aren’t stupid, and we will be turning out on November 4th to vote for John McCain.
Share on Facebook
To illustrate just how important the Democrats were to Catholics, she relates the question she asked a Catholic friend: “If Jesus were running as a Republican and Satan as a Democrat, whom would you vote for?”
“My friend hesitated a bit and said, ‘I suppose I would have to vote for Satan,’ ” she said.
In my lifetime I have seen the scary trend of people becoming more passionate about politics than even their own religion. Their own religion. Today we get a perfect case in point from Charles Lewis:
The two women talk about the race between John McCain and Barack Obama, and how the issue of abortion is playing into it. Both look strained when they discuss how they might vote. The issue runs so deep Ms. Conway believes voting for a pro-abortion candidate like Mr. Obama — something she might reluctantly do because she wants to end the war in Iraq — is likely an offence against God.
“If I do end up voting for Obama, then I’ll go to confession after and tell the priest my sin,” she said.
Note the fact that she is admitting that voting against the War in Iraq is not an offence against God (although — as someone might explain to her — sinning and then going to confession when you aren’t truly sorry for it is a worse offence against God than the sin, itself, and is in fact a sacrilege). It is quite phenomenal, and not in a good sense, that we can be so divided over our thoughts and beliefs about making our country better, that we are willing to go to hell in order to get our way. It is something that secular society promotes by eliminating God from all of our decisions so that they and we, alike, can consider ourselves a god over something. For when the Christian voter votes according to their religious beliefs — the first filter in a series of filters through which we ought to be looking through to make all of our decisions, political and otherwise — they are deferring to God’s will instead of their own, and God’s will is something that the media have no control over.
The same can be said for the Christian voter who votes according to party lines (or union lines) in each election. Republican, Democrat, or independent/3rd party, it doesn’t matter — not all candidates in either party are created equal, and none of us — even Pope Benedict — is perfect. No matter who we vote for, we are voting for an imperfect human being. Yet, when some people are going to the polls they will only look for the letter in parenthesis next to a candidates name, rather than exploring what they stand for through the filters of religion, life issues, and family.
Think about this the next time you go to the polls. If you are generous, think about the most defenseless group among us; think about the unborn. If you are selfish, think about your own salvation.
As for the Bishop’s letter and the influence of the Church in this election year, she considers it best to just ignore it.
“It’s Catholic guilt conscience. And Catholic guilt conscience is a terrible thing.”
It is indeed a terrible, terrible inconvenience when you are so busy worrying about yourself.
Share on Facebook
