What’s Wrong with the World

One name especially leaps to mind when I read this post: Bart Stupak.

Y'know, there _have_ been pro-life Democrats that got fed up long ago and crossed the aisle and stopped being Democrats of any kind. (Virgil Goode was one such, if my information is correct.) Why hasn't Stupak? Or Bob Casey, Jr.?

Goode isn't Catholic, but interestingly the kid who defeated him started that Obama front group, Catholics for Abortion, or Catholics in Alliance with the Devil, whatever it was called. Virgil was more like the last of the yellow-dog Democrats in Virginia to wake up and realize his party had done got up and left him a long time ago.

The winner of that Congressional election, Perriello, is more the sort of person to whom Jeffrey's title question should be directed. It's noncontroversial that orthodox Catholics don't vote for national Democrats. It's maybe generational that a '50s Democrat like Pelosi can still claim to be a practicing Catholic. Ted Kennedy died, Justice Penumbra died, and one day Nancy too will pass on. 'Bout all you can do, pray for them, and wait for them to die.

But the Perriellos on the political scene are more troublesome, born after Roe, just barely old enough to vote for Clinton or Bush in '92, what's he doing being able to style himself a Catholic?

And Jeffrey alludes to the larger problem: our bishops. On the one hand, the website for the San Jose diocese no longer mentions that dissenter nun's offering of a voter-education program. On the other hand, the diocese is proud host and participant in this year's national meeting of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, co-sponsored by one of the many bureaucracies of the USCCB. Speakers include San Francisco emeritus and noted dissenter Bishop Quinn. Oh, and here's a picture of one of the presenters, which I'm sure isn't representative of anything at all: http://www.achtus.org/2012ElizondoAwards.html Nice tie, there, lady.

Bart is a particularly tragic case. Last talks about him on his personal blog:

http://jonathanlast.com/2012/09/05/a-word-on-bart-stupak/

I sort of agree and sort of disagree.

I don't see any way a practicing Catholic could vote for the Democratic party in America since there are much better alternatives (which really just means ANT alternatives in this case, actually).

But you CAN, in theory, vote for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil. I'll give a link to an article by mark Shea of the National Catholic Register on the subject and quote some of the relevant bits.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-asks-about-the-act-of-voting

Whenever I venture to say that I will not support a candidate who supports grave and intrinsic evil which, according to the Church, is worthy of the everlasting fires of hell, I can generally be assured that a certain percentage of people will feel as though I am sitting in judgment of their vote and telling them heaven and hell depends on whether they agree with my vote. Let me therefore repeat that I neither say, imply, nor believe any such thing. I have no window for peering into other people’s souls and knowing why they do what they do. I agree completely with Cdl. Ratzinger, who wrote in 2004:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

...

Essentially, Cdl. Ratzinger is saying that it is possible for somebody to vote for Obama (or whoever) if they are voting for him, not out of support for abortion and/or euthanasia, but for some other reason they, in conscience, think outweighs abortion or euthanasia or, perhaps, because they even think that other policies by such a politician will effectively reduce the need for abortion or euthanasia. (I myself have trouble imagining such a rationale but it remains a fact that Cdl. Ratzinger is, at the end of the day, saying that just because somebody votes for a pro-abort/euthanasia pol does not mean they are, ipso facto, supporting abortion and euthanasia.)

...

Which brings me to my third point: namely, that while I agree completely with Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter, I also note that it in no way binds me to vote for any candidate who advocates grave and intrinsic evil, whether righty or lefty. It merely tells me that I cannot sit in judgment of somebody else who does so since I do not know their reasoning and therefore cannot say they are disobeying their conscience or the Church as they vote for somebody I would never vote for. That goes not only for those who vote for GOP candidates I cannot support, but for Obama voters, as well. Quite simply, following Cdl. Ratzinger’s guidance, I believe that unless somebody tells me “I voted for candidate X because I hope the grave and intrinsic evils he advocates remain the law of the land!” I have no way of knowing why they vote for him or what proportional reasons they have in mind when they support the guy.

I'd take a look at the article, it's good stuff. Mr. Shea goes on to say that he, personally wouldn't EVER vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, but this is a personal decision by him, not official teaching.

To clarify: I do NOT think there are proportionate reasons to vote for Obama. Absolutely not. BUT-it's unfair to say that a serious, orthodox Catholic CAN'T do it, in my opinion, only that YOU don't think there's any good reason for them to do it.

And by you, I mean you, me, or anybody else-I'm not trying to finger-point at anybody specifically. And in fact I try to convince people that voting for Obama is wrong-but, in theory, they CAN do it. I can't judge their souls-they could still be serious AND orthodox Catholics, if extremely misguided.

To clarify: I do NOT think there are proportionate reasons to vote for Obama. Absolutely not. BUT-it's unfair to say that a serious, orthodox Catholic CAN'T do it, in my opinion, only that YOU don't think there's any good reason for them to do it.

That was a defensible position in 2008, but not in 2012. Obama's actions on religious liberty, and how they intersect with Catholic teachings, combined with waging war illegally, asserting a right to assassinate Americans outside of any legal authority and stated support for gay marriage would outweigh whatever good he might do.

MarcAnthony,

Thanks for that link -- I happen to like Shea even when I find myself disagreeing with a particular argument of his, he is a smart guy who does try his best to stay true to orthodoxy. Anyway, with respect to Cdl. Ratzinger's memo, I think you raise a good point. Essentially what the Cardinal was trying to say is that if there were a pro-choice Republican (sadly they do still exist) running against a pro-choice Democrat, then there might be a reason you could in fact vote for the Democrat (although I agree with Shea that the better course of action would be to not vote).

But given the realities of today's Democratic party, the chances of such a match-up seem exceedingly rare.

Forget the Democrats. How can Catholics support the federal government by continuing to pay income taxes? That is the question Ann Barnhardt asks.

http://barnhardt.biz/

Isn't it a little confusing to restrict the question to something like, "Would it always be against Roman Catholic Church teaching to vote for a Democrat candidate?" It's hardly likely that official Roman Catholic teaching is going to address such a partisan matter.

So that seems to me rather too narrow a question. Especially if applied to Barack Obama, for example. A better question would be, "Is it possible to imagine any situation any more plausible than mass invasion by space aliens in which it wouldn't be plain _wrong_, whatever some particular bishop said, to do so?"

After all, Marc Anthony says that a Catholic who did so would be "misguided." Well, if one is going to exercise one's power to vote, doesn't one have a responsibility _not_ to be that badly misguided?

Looking at Ratzinger's letter, it seems to me that at a minimum a Catholic who voted for Barack Obama and was _not_ violating his conscience because he _believed_ that he had proportional reasons for doing so would then be guilty of a) forming his conscience wrongly and/or b) not exercising due diligence in obtaining information.

So, I hope this doesn't violate the spirit of Ratzinger's letter (but if it does, it does), but if I hear of a sincere Catholic, or for that matter, a sincere Protestant Christian, who is planning to vote for Barack Obama, I'm going to judge him to be guilty of something-or-other, though it may be disjunctive (either this or this or this). And it will almost certainly include having a faulty view of the relative priorities of things. E.g. Not thinking that the life issues and other issues are as important as they really are.

Sidebar: This progg website is collecting signatures to denounce the Catholic bishop who delivered the benediction at both political conventions.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2518/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11575

Funny how leftists who are anguished at breaches in the Wall Of Separation never seem to mind Dem politicians campaigning from the pulpits of black churches.

Lydia is right and Cleopatra's friend is wrong. It is not possible to be an orthodox Catholic and vote for Obama. (I'm not sure it's even permissible to stay home or throw your vote away on Mark Shea's chaste sainted gay dog because Jesus/St Francis isn't on the ballot.)

In the wake of fifty years of happyclappy anti-catechesis, one could claim that your average Catholic, conscience mis- or at best un-formed by boy-loving bishops, nuns-in-pantsuits, loopy liturgists, singer-songwriter Jesuits, is only doing the muddly best he can; but in the same breath one must distribute comfy millstones for the necks of all the aforementioned bishops and their gaggle of goofballs.

But your average pew-sitter is not a self-identified orthodox Catholic. She or he is likelier a cultural, Go Irish!, not too deliberative Catholic, who, as may we all, is slowly being transformed by long exposure to Word and sacrament.

So the problem remains: how do you get that ignorant and probably not overly devout but habitually Democrat-voting Catholic to better inform his conscience? ('You' meaning an active laity, probably, rather than a re-energized, robustly orthodox generation of JPII bishops, given that promising bishops tend to disappoint the way promising Bush presidencies have..)

David,

I was going to make some sort of substantive remarks to your latest 6:05 PM comment, but even though I don't think you are quite fair to Shea, I'm laughing too hard (and nodding my head in agreement) to write anything smart in response.

Your closing question is really the heart of the matter and what basically prompted me to write the post -- there are close to 80 million Catholics in the U.S., which means there must be close to 40 million voters (more or less) -- if they all directed their vote to Republican candidates (for the most part) we could start making on impact on abortion and marriage laws. I hear about these issues a lot on Catholic radio -- not so much at my local parish. That's the problem.

As a theoretical matter, there could be some unusual string of events that make voting for a Dem (say, one who is pro-choice only in the cases where the mother's life is at grave risk), instead of a rabid pro-choice Republican an OK proposition, if a bunch of other details fall just right. As a practical matter, the Dems have been hounding even the only slightly pro-choicers to more and more wing-nut positions, and there is virtually no way a nascent Dem pol can be unaware of the trend. There is very, very slim chance a proportionate good is going to be achieved by voting for a Dem at the national level, unless that Dem is both closer to pro-life than the Republican candidate AND is likely to stay that way, which is pretty tough to project.

So the problem remains: how do you get that ignorant and probably not overly devout but habitually Democrat-voting Catholic to better inform his conscience?

David, I am not sure, but I think it needs to come both from above and from below: friends and family need to be telling such a life-long Dem voter to get with the program and re-think his priorities. At the same time, the bishop and the parish priests need to take an active role in forming political consciences. I have been marveling at the fact that my parish priests have been doing just that: if not weekly sermons, then at least a mention during the petitions. Of course, I live in the 2nd most orthodox diocese, and in a parish that is above the middle mark for that diocese, so our priests are getting more support for their effort than they would get in a lot of places. But they need to be willing to preach the Gospel in season and out. It is no surprise that the faithful are not much better than their pastors, it just shows how far off the rails the priesthood went from the 50's to the 90's.

Andrew E, if I had evidence that Ann Barnyard actually knew what she was talking about, I might be more sympathetic. Christ paid the Roman tax, and the Romans were one hell of a lot more evil-minded than Obama is. They were into all sorts of nasty stuff, like direct idolatry, genocide, torture, etc.

I think Mark Shea has a good and interesting idea about not voting for someone who supports an intrinsic evil. On the other hand, I have to say that given Shea's position concerning proportionate reason, it probably ought to matter in evaluating someone's vote how much intrinsic evil the candidate supports, how ardently he supports it, and how much it is bound into the warp and woof of his overall approach to politics. Also, some support for intrinsic evil is, dare I say it, especially repulsive because more "in-your-face" than other support for intrinsic evil. Someone might fool himself, blameworthily so, into believing that the destruction of embryos for research was somehow "not really killing a human being," but what does one say about a candidate who enthusiastically supports the dismemberment of 8-month unborn children and begrudges life-saving help for infants who survive an abortion?

So while I welcome Shea's line-in-the-sand approach, since I myself have often called for conservatives to draw just such a line in the sand, I also have to say in excuse for my fellow conservatives who have sometimes believed they had proportionate reason to vote for a candidate I did not support, that there are degrees even beyond Shea's specific line.

Tony, Ann argues that our federal government is now fully committed to funding and carrying out child sacrifice on a massive scale. Were Roman citizens or subjects ever required to pay a specific tax for the purpose of subsidizing child sacrifice as is now the case under Obamacare? Leftists like al and Step2 who support a woman's right to kill her unborn child get the kid gloves treatment around here while Barnhardt, who is staring down the manifestly evil Obama regime and professing to do so on explicitly Christian principles, is instantly dismissed. Instead, we get a discussion of whether people who ostensibly worship and serve Christ should lend their political support to a party that, on the whole, clearly serves the antichrist.

Genocide? What about the elimination of what remains of Near Eastern Christianity at the hands of Muslim jihadists with the full political support as well as the tacit assistance from our government.

Alan Roebuck has written about this before, how all our official institutions including the government explicitly hold that bad is Good and Good is bad. And that this wasn't the case even in pagan times. I for one appreciate Barnhardt's alarmism.

Well, I'll use a personal example. I have two Catholic friends that I am reasonably sure will vote for Obama.

At least one of the two is probably a better Catholic than me-not saying much, but true. Goes to Mass, says his prayers, is very involved in charity, believes all the doctrines...not a cafeteria Catholic in any sense of the word. Except that he's going to vote for Obama.

There's not much I can do. He knows exactly why I don't support him and what I think of him. He knows all about the mandate and everything. He simply believes his reasons to vote for Obama are proportionate. Obviously I'm sure everybody here thinks it's ridiculous, but what else can I do? He already knows my reasoning.

It's hard for me, as somebody who knows him very well, to say that he's not a serious, orthodox Catholic. Yes, I think he is completely misguided, and your responsibility before voting is to not be that badly misguided, but obviously he doesn't think he's misguided at all.

Lydia's right-ultimately it's a matter of heavily misplaced priorities.

MarcAnthony,

Thanks for that example. Actually, I don't think the problem with your friend is "heavily misplaced priorities". Again, think about our duty not to cooperate with evil (Democratic policies on abortion and changing the definition of marriage) and Cdl. Ratzinger's memo. Is a vote for Romney also a vote for evil? Certainly, it is problematic that Romney is a squishy convert to both the abortion and marriage issue, but he has said he will actively promote policies that are not evil (i.e. no public funding for abortion and no effort by the federal government to redefine marriage). What does your friend say about which Romney/Ryan policies are directly evil? I can't think of any.

So your friend is not even starting at the right moral calculation and that seems to be the problem.

I realize that the remark about misplaced priorities may have been confusing, so, whether or not this was what M.A. meant to be agreeing with, here is what I meant by it:

Take some economically liberal but allegedly socially conservative Catholic who decides to vote for Obama. Now, most of us (though I'm sure by no means everyone who reads this thread) will agree that Obama's economic and environmental policies (to name only two) plus his yen to bring us the joys of centralized medicine, are *incredibly* misguided ways to try to "help the poor." However, we can surmise that this liberal-ish Catholic has his economic facts all messed up and doesn't know that. I suppose we can argue that in this case these aren't exactly _moral_ facts, though they do involve all manner of blindness (such as the inability to see looming totalitarianism, to name just one). But we'll imagine that this sincere reader of the Catholic Worker is a True Believer that these various centralizing and Euro-style socialist policies are the best way to Do the Right Thing in terms of helping the poor.

Suppose that one is trying to look at it from his perspective. I would say that even in that case, even if we don't start blaming him for all his economic foolishness, all his blinkered-ness toward big government, even *beyond* all of that, there is this really blame-worthy fact: Such a person, we'll suppose, realizes that abortion kills unborn children, that ESCR kills living human embryos, that the HHS mandate is a direct attack on religious freedom, that homosexual "marriage" is an abomination. Those moral facts he _does_ know. And not just in some highly-suppressed tacit sense. This is a "good Catholic," so this person admits all these things.

So where are his priorities? His economic premises are messed up, but let's waive that. Even granting those premises, how can he possibly not realize that those are _precisely_ the areas where people can differ on matters of prudence but that the things Obama supports are not? How can he possibly not realize how much more important the things are that Obama has wrong--wrong by this Catholic's own lights--than the things that, on his premises, Obama allegedly has right?

That's what I meant by misplaced priorities. You can do the same type of thing if we imagine this person as being all confused about illegal immigration.

Lydia,

What gives your argument even more force is the fact that where your hypothetical Catholic thinks Obama is right is merely on the matter of such things as how large the welfare state ought to be. He cannot even make a plausible claim that a vote for a Republican is a vote for the total dismantling of the welfare state, or even a partial dismantling of it, but merely a somewhat different rate of growth in somewhat different areas.

The pro-Obama Catholic loves to argue as though the question really was whether we will have the government involved in "helping people" or not, when in fact the basic principle of government largess he's arguing for is so firmly entrenched that no Republican victory could ever undo it altogether (and that's assuming that there's a single Republican even arguing for that result, when there isn't). A somewhat smaller entitlement state, which nonetheless still devours the vast majority of the federal budget, or even a higher marginal tax rate for the people who pay for it, are pathetically small hooks on which to attempt to hang one's support for men who would literally force the Catholic church-goer to fund abortions through his Sunday offering.

Sure, deciding whether to vote and who to vote for is a prudential judgement. So is deciding to go to war. That doesn't mean a particular choice cannot be unbiguously morally wrong. Voting for Obama is unbiguously morally wrong; as much so as the decision to invade Iraq was unambiguously morally wrong.

I also happen to think there is no proportionate reason to vote for any candidate. But I don't contend that my conclusion - that it is objectively wrong to vote for any candiate - is obvious and unambiguous.

"Prudential judgement" is not code for "ambiguous enough to let everyone off the hook." Some particular prudential judgments are unambiguously, objectively wrong, and therfore morally wrong to choose. Voting for Obama in 2012 is one of them.

"unambiguously", unambiguously. Bloody iPhone.

I agree with all of Zippy's observations on this topic. Albert Mohler's sees this election as a contest between two world views as enshrined in the platforms of the two major parties. http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/06

Sage makes excellent points as well. Our hypothetical misinformed Catholic would really have to believe not only a lot of baloney about various policy matters and their effects, and he would not only have to have his priorities completely messed up, but he would also have to believe the egregiously false implications made by Democrats to the effect that Republicans want to throw The Poor to the wolves and remove "the safety net."

We're ending up describing someone who is a pretty pathetic excuse for a well-informed voter with a well-formed conscience. Unfortunately, America seems to be full of such voters.

Not saying it is correct, but the Catholics I know who plan to vote for Obama see it thusly:

1. The dems/Obama are bad on abortion - given. But they are not voting for O b/c of his stand on abortion.

2. The GOP/Romney are bad on just war - they want to go to war at the drop of a hat, just war principles be damned (not just that the GOP prudentially misapplies JW, but they reject key JW principles themselves).

The way they see it, avoiding #2 is a proportionate reason for tolerating #1, and therefore vote O (tossing in welfare and couple other issues on the scale for O).

In reality, I think they just believe #1 is the lesser evil (which I also believe a lot of GOP/Romney supporters do but in reverse - i.e., 2 is a lesser evil than one - if they even see 2 as an evil). The dilemma I have is that both #1 and #2 disqualify the respective candidate, period. My only out is the fact my state is not even close to a swing state, so doesn't really matter (if only Zippy were on the ballot!).

C Matt's example can be plugged in, mutatis mutandis, to my analysis on misplaced priorities, above.

The gaping and obvious hole in c matt's proposed dilemma is the assumption that there is a great deal of observable daylight between Obama and Romney on "just war." I've never seen any evidence put forward that Obama is a particularly sophisticated student of just war theory as Catholics understand it, nor that he is any less prone to fighting wars, killing people, fomenting revolutionary violence, and so on.

In the present political context, we have four years of evidence, without engaging in any thorny counterfactual speculation, that the Democrats are extremely long on rhetoric where these matters are concerned, and extremely short on substance. The present administration is as enthusiastic about the Democracy Project, and all the endless killing and conflict that entails, as the prior administration. And really, I haven't seen a convincing argument put forward that Obama's war policy (including his drone campaign) is somehow specially sensitive to conformity with just war doctrine.

In short, the idea that Republicans in general are "bad on just war," while Democrats in general are "good" on the subject, is facially ludicrous. People like Nancy Pelosi do not flagrantly and extravagantly reject the Church's teaching on abortion, but then draw themselves up short and carefully pore through their Catechism when the subject turns to war and foreign policy, as though the declarations of the Church mattered to them one whit.

But I don't doubt that c matt's description does describe the reasoning of a great many people in search of some rationalization or other to justify that old Catholic tribal loyalty to the Democrats.

Lydia,

Your 8:09 PM post from yesterday is exactly the kind of thinking I had in mind when I was addressing MarcAnthony. Again, there are certain moral facts we already know and unfortunately, when it comes to public policy, Obama and most Democrats in Congress choose to support the morally wrong position.

Zippy,

Well, you were able to "convert" me on the bomb, but I'm not there yet on Iraq. I'll keep an open mind and poke around in your archives.

c matt,

Even if everything you say is true, the chance of a war is always less than 100%. Our immoral policies with respect to abortion, et. al. are happening now -- so it seems like a flawed process in weighing proportionate "evils" (I don't think the Republicans reject JW principles, but then I may need to read more Zippy).

I have lost faith in both parties and will, from now on, vote for the candidate that best represents me.

As I see it - most people feel the same way about the two parties as I do, but most people have also become convinced that a vote for anything but one of the two parties is "a wasted vote". I have had numerous discussions with people during this election cycle who have all agreed with me in principle but are still committed to vote for one or the other. Now what would happen if everyone who felt that way actually voted for a third party candidate? I think that candidate would win in a landslide!

Political parties have gone by the wayside in the past (always being replaced by another) - why not now?

Sage, yes, I was thinking of making a facetious comment about the obvious debt President Obama's policies owe to Just War Theory, as evidenced by his leadership in Libya and elsewhere, but I decided to let someone else say it first!

In the present political context, we have four years of evidence, without engaging in any thorny counterfactual speculation, that the Democrats are extremely long on rhetoric where these matters are concerned, and extremely short on substance.

My examples were to illustrate the thinking, not that I necessarily agreed with any of it (well, I agree that the Dem's position on abortion is instrinsically evil). Dems being better at "just war" is ceratinly debatable, but I think a reasonable argument could be made that they are closer to it than the GOP, even if the Dems themselves fall short (somewhat similar to the GOP vis-a-vis abortion - they are certainly closer to pro-life, but there are not insignificant numbers who still hold out on the 3 exceptions, and the last GOP candidnate was a supporter of ESCR). Whether the Dems are closer to just war than the GOP is to pro-life is largely irrelevant to the thinking of those Catholics who support Obama. The faact that the Dems are even a little better provides them with the intelelctual toe-hold they are looking for (again, not saying they are correct, only that this is their analysis).

As for "long on rhetoric and short on substance," some would say the same about the GOP wrt abortion. Probably not as bad as the Dem's wrt just war, but there is a definite falling short on the GOP side wrt its rhetoric and substance on abortion.

c matt, I'd argue that the existence of this little thing called Rove v. Wade places some fairly serious limitations on what, in substance, the Republicans can do on the abortion issue. Doubtless there are a great many Republican Party bigwigs who see it as an extremely convenient arrangement--they get to talk big on the issue while snapping their fingers in faux disappointment that the Supreme Court is standing in the way of their actually doing anything very controversial. But does anybody think that any Republican administration or Congress would be even a fraction as aggressively pro-abortion as the current Democrat crowd has been? That anything like the HHS mandate would have been issued under any Republican presidency?

The distance between the two parties on the issue is dramatic, whereas the distance between the parties on issues of war and peace is, at a minimum, highly questionable (and as I said, the difference on the entitlement state, while real, is simply nowhere near as large as Democrats like to pretend).

Rand Paul has been pushing a bill that would simply define "personhood" as beginning at conception. This bill, if passed, would invalidate Roe v Wade in one fell swoop. From what I've heard though, the votes aren't there to pass it. I don't know how many Republican Senators oppose it but I've heard rumblings against it from some so I assume there are at least a few.

They were into all sorts of nasty stuff, like direct idolatry, genocide, torture, etc.

The Romans also lived in a world that was radically different from ours in terms of basic security. We do not live in danger of Mexican barbarians invading Texas and doing what the Germanic and Celtic tribes did to Greco-Roman territories they invaded. Bear that in mind when judging the Romans. They were nasty bastards toward their enemies because their enemies were far more savage and uncivilized than anything Obama faces (except when he decides to expand the theater of drone operations).

Rand Paul isn't going to "invalidate Roe v Wade in one fell swoop" by passing any bill. So long as the Supreme Court insists on finding an essentially unrestricted right to abortion in the Constitution--which is the supreme law of the land--that monstrous decision stands as am immovable barrier to truly consequential political action. That's one reason the liberals who run the Republican Party are fairly satisfied with things as they are. You can keep electing Republican presidents so long as the composition of the Supreme Court is where all the action is.

The Congress can also pass a bill saying that the pornographic pictures in Hustler magazine are not really speech, but that's not going to overturn Supreme Court jurisprudence on that question either.

there is a definite falling short on the GOP side wrt its rhetoric and substance on abortion.

I hear this all the time and I think it is a canard. For all the Republicans failings I think the commitment on this issue is pretty strong and deep, and increasingly so. I also think there is increasing evidence that the public is moving the pro-life direction. I think we should give credit where credit is due, and I think the Republicans have had something to do with it.

Whatever else it is, the pro-life movement of the last thirty-plus years is one of the most massive and sustained expressions of citizen participation in the history of the United States. -- Fr. Richard Neuhaus

For all the Republicans failings I think the commitment on this issue is pretty strong and deep, and increasingly so.

The commitment is at the grass roots level, not the power brokers. I agree the GOP is far better than the Dems (who basically worship abortion), but any progress on the pro-life front by the GOP has been by the grass roots dragging the leadership kicking and screaming to those positions. I recall Bush not wanting to spend too much "political capital" on the issue. Santorum's pro-life creds are probably what cost him - other than that, what real difference was there between him and Romney? Romney is our pro-life candidate?!? The conventional party wisdom was that Rick was "too" pro-life to win the general election. That's you some deep commitment there...

Look at it this way - who is more committed on the abortion issue - the Dems in favor, or the GOP against? Is it even a close contest? Do you doubt that a Dem president would die on his sword before appointing an even suspected pro-life SCOTUS Justice - would a Republican president do the same? What do you think would happen to a Dem pres whose appointee "grew" in office and overturned RvW?

Of course, all that said, I'll concede lip service against with occasional chips at abortion is better than fanatical support in favor of it. But I won't agree the rhetorical/substance gap is a canard. And, unfortunately, that all too real gap is exploited by Catholics searching for a reason to vote Democrat. How many times have you heard them argue that the GOP has not done much substantively in the way of reducing abortion, regardless of the rhetoric?

The distance between the two parties on the issue is dramatic

Given. But the question is the distance between the GOP's rhetoric and its substance, not the distance between the GOP's and Dem's repective positions.

c matt, one's enemies tend to engage in moral equivalence arguments. This isn't good evidence of it. You've offered no substance. Republicans have passed bill after bill in state houses and national only to have them struck down by SCOTUS. At the end of the day this argument seems nothing more than an "are we there yet" and subsequent blame game that we're not and ignores the difficulties of battle and merely expresses dispair and declarations that the two sides are morally equivalent. I just don't see the force of it.

But the question is the distance between the GOP's rhetoric and its substance, not the distance between the GOP's and Dem's repective positions.

I can't understand why that should be "the question" if we're talking about people who are considering voting Democrat and claiming there is "proportional reason"??? Surely ultimately the point for those people is comparing the Rep. and the Dem. candidate, if we assume they can't bring themselves to vote third party or think it would be wrong or useless or something.

Speaking as a Lutheran, I can see plenty of reasons to vote Obama over Mitt.

Mitt supports torture

He supports the Iraq War and that sort of war in the future. He has on his team a lot of Bush era neocons who unapologetic Iraq War supporters.

Obama seems to care a great deal more for the poor and downtrodden. Obamacare is kinder to them. Paul Ryan's plans to cut care for the elderly and to end money for the poor is a good example.

Lastly, Mitt supports things like deregulation of environmental control, and is anti-solar power, and things that would keep America a place our children can inherit with pride.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155212/mitt_romney's_dangerous_foreign_policy_team%3A_nostalgic_for_bush,_hellbent_on_war_with_iran?page=0%2C2

Gosh, Russell doesn't even seem to have read this thread.

Then again, it's possible that Russell doesn't even claim (unlike my hypothetical Catholic above) to know that abortion is murder, that homosexual sodomy is unnatural and should not be promoted, and the like. In which case he merely has a misformed conscience and not misplaced priorities among the things he claims to believe.

What did Jesus ever say against Homosexuals? No I don't think that is a sin, and I hardly think any one is out promoting it. In the Old Testament there are some references to it, but they also stoned to death people with epilepsy. Being homosexual is as normal as left handedness. Its a fact of nature, and not something to hate over.

He supports the Iraq War and that sort of war in the future. He has on his team a lot of Bush era neocons who unapologetic Iraq War supporters.

Obama shuns the democratic activists in Iran and supports the Iranian regime in their quest for a nuclear bomb, which they have declared they will use on us and/or our friends. So if he blunders into war by naivety at least that wouldn't be preemptive/sinful so it's all good or something like that?

Russell,

Thanks for stopping by this blog. When I write my post on "why Lutherans shouldn't vote for Obama" I'll be sure to send you a note. In the meantime, I'd rather not waste time on your "arguments", as they are confused and lacking in rigor.

Mark,

About democratic activists in Iran and not supporting them. They did not want our support, and rightly saw that it would do harm to their cause. Also, the activists never cared about ending the nuclear program.

It is a far fetch to assume that Iran would contemplate national suicide by using bombs on Israel. I know about the theories the right has on that, but the Saddam-Iran War showed that the Iranians are perfectly sane when comes to self preservation.

As for "blundering" into a war with them, that is possible, but he represents the least likely to do that. Mitt's position on Iran, drawing a red line, would guarantee a war. His picks for foreign affairs also would mean more wars elswhere. The same thinking that led to the fiasco in Georgia 4 years ago has not been revised.

Jeffrey S.,

Thank you for your welcome. I did not think though, my pegging Mitt as a war monger needed much more "rigor" than I gave it. Its too obvious by whom he has taken on in foreign affairs, the Cheneyites, that not much more needed said. I would say though, Mitt's characterizing Obama's reset with Russia as "appeasement" is also disturbing, and naming them our #1 foe.

Russell, one reason why it wouldn't be interesting to have a discussion with you in this thread is because you expressly disavow things that Catholics are supposed to believe on social issues. Whether your beliefs are representative of Lutheranism either is a question that could be raised elsewhere, but we can waive that. Since you obviously *don't care* about those social conservative issues that a faithful Catholic must at least to give lip service to, and since the thread is supposed to be about why Catholics keep voting Democrat, your profile as a voter isn't going to help to answer that question.

Lydia,

You are right, I shouldn't be representing Lutheran ideology. I also can take the hint that my opinions are not really wanted, and you all are so kind, that I will leave you alone.

About democratic activists in Iran and not supporting them. They did not want our support, and rightly saw that it would do harm to their cause. Also, the activists never cared about ending the nuclear program.

Russell, I know several Iranian families and I don't think you know the first thing about Iran. Iran isn't like any other ME country, for the good reason that it isn't even in the ME, nor do they speak Arabic as does the rest of the ME. The population is decidedly secular, and the Mullahs are viewed like donkeys and hated.

It is a far fetch to assume that Iran would contemplate national suicide by using bombs on Israel. I know about the theories the right has on that, but the Saddam-Iran War showed that the Iranians are perfectly sane when comes to self preservation.

Their supreme leader is a Pan-Arabist who doesn't care for the country, and who has a belief in a apocalyptic religious vision that drives him by all accounts including his. A man driven by such beliefs would not rule out national suicide. In fact national suicide is what a reasonable person would expect from these beliefs. I honestly don't mean to offend, but I don't think you know the first thing about Iran.

His picks for foreign affairs also would mean more wars elswhere.

If only trying to avoid war made war less likely life would be a lot simpler than it is wouldn't it? Hey, I know another guy with a similarly naive view.

The Iranian citizens are quite that its leaders have and are destroying the nation economically while sending massive amounts of cash to Hezbollah to fund foreign wars.

Sage:

Rand Paul isn't going to "invalidate Roe v Wade in one fell swoop" by passing any bill.

From the text of the Roe v. Wade decision:

"[Texas] argues that the fetus is a ‘person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

"When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other state are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists...But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"

Chucky, you seem to lack an understanding of the interaction of federal law with Supreme Court rulings. Of course, it would be possible for the other federal branches to try to find various ways to defy the judicial branch. I'm not necessarily opposed to constitutional crises in principle. In fact, I'd rather like to see one. But what would or would not be "outlawed" by a federal law that flagrantly defied Roe v. Wade depends upon some rather heavy legal questions concerning whether it is possible for federal statutory law to trump SCOTUS constitutional rulings. Right now the consensus among lawmakers, state officials, and members of the executive branch (no matter which party is in the White House) alike is that SCOTUS rulings are trumps. Hence, on that understanding, federal or state law does not "outlaw" something if the law is allegedly "unconstitutional" according to a SCOTUS ruling. Simply to say that some federal law would "outlaw all abortions" is to speak as though one does not realize that such a law would either be treated as utterly forceless or would precipitate a constitutional crisis.

To beat this dead horse once more the response that "Iran wouldn't contemplate national suicide by nuking Israel" platitude of the anti-war crowd, there was a dust-up a few years ago over quotes attributed to Khomeini by Amir Taheri spurred by a claim by Andrew Sullivan that Taheri used quotes that were "bogus."

Here you can see a gleeful Maximos salivating over the "apparent" misrepresentation, and seemingly confident that it must be true since the neocons are lying and cheating war-mongers.

But Taheri is a stand-up guy that knows what he's talking about, and he showed that it was Sullivan that was misguided. And the claim that the tyrants running expansive and aggressive regimes are merely "nationalists" has a long history. Taheri states the matter succinctly:

What is at issue here is the exact nature of the Khomeinist regime. Is it a nationalistic power pursuing the usual goals of nations? Or is it a messianic power with an eschatological ideology and the pretension to conquer the world on behalf of “The One and Only True Faith”?

Taheri shows the latter is the case. Good luck convincing a nuclear Iran that it isn't in its best interests to bomb Israel. It keeps stating its desire and willingness to do so, and there is no reason to think any other views it hold would rule it out.

Mark,

Leaders say things, like Kruchev saying he'd "burry America". I thought my example about Iran, when reality counts, was as interested in self preservation, as any other nation would be. Iran's views towards Jews, doesn't have a history of them wanting to wipe them out. Iran has a large Jewish population themselves. Couldn't the rift between the countries be something logical, like Israel not treating Muslims in the West Bank fairly?

Lydia:

Chucky, you seem to lack an understanding of the interaction of federal law with Supreme Court rulings.

But what would or would not be "outlawed" by a federal law that flagrantly defied Roe v. Wade depends upon some rather heavy legal questions concerning whether it is possible for federal statutory law to trump SCOTUS constitutional rulings.

Right now the consensus among lawmakers, state officials, and members of the executive branch (no matter which party is in the White House) alike is that SCOTUS rulings are trumps.

Hence, on that understanding, federal or state law does not "outlaw" something if the law is allegedly "unconstitutional" according to a SCOTUS ruling.

Simply to say that some federal law would "outlaw all abortions" is to speak as though one does not realize that such a law would either be treated as utterly forceless or would precipitate a constitutional crisis.

Of course I don't think it does, because Roe v. Wade was a lying farce. However, SCOTUS refuses to say that it was a lying farce, and therefore on their insane interpretation of the constitution, it would be in conflict with "the constitution," meaning "the postmodern creation deemed by Roe v. Wade to be the meaning of the constitution." Don't look at me. I'm the person scheming for ways for the states to defy Roe with the cooperation of a conservative President. However, at least I admit that that would be a very radical thing to try to do, not as easy as simply passing a single federal law.

I can't understand why that should be "the question" if we're talking about people who are considering voting Democrat and claiming there is "proportional reason"

Sorry - that was in response to the specific comment that the GOP's substance is close to its rhetoric, not the general topic of how a Catholic could vote for Dem.

The legislative branch is not subservient to the judicial branch. If you want to claim "constitutional crisis" you'll have to show how redefining "personhood" creates a conflict with the constitution.

Seeing as how the Constitution does not define "person", I don't see how a statute defining it (and there are many that do) could cause a conflict. It would simply cause the Court to re-examine a Constitutional right based upon a former set of circumstances (no definition of fetus as person) under a new set of circumstances (a statute including a fetus as a person under the Con).

a statute including a fetus as a person under the Con

Herein lies the apparent confusion. Defining a fetus as a person under the Constitution would require something called a (drumroll please)...Constitutional Amendment.

Lydia: Of course I don't think it does, because Roe v. Wade was a lying farce. However, SCOTUS refuses to say that it was a lying farce, and therefore on their insane interpretation of the constitution, it would be in conflict with "the constitution," meaning "the postmodern creation deemed by Roe v. Wade to be the meaning of the constitution." Don't look at me. I'm the person scheming for ways for the states to defy Roe with the cooperation of a conservative President. However, at least I admit that that would be a very radical thing to try to do, not as easy as simply passing a single federal law.

The only reason it seems too simple is because Congress has abdicated its enumerated power. We are not an 8 person monarchy (or 9 person if you include the POTUS). The problem is that Congress has been ceding power for over a century now: they gave up the power to 'coin money and set the value thereof' by creating the Federal Reserve, they've given the power of war to the Executive Branch (no formal declaration of war since WWII), they've given the power of legislation to the Executive branch by allowing federal agencies the power of regulation, and they've cowered before the SCOTUS on constitutional matters - rather than framing the interpretation of the Constitution through legislation. It's sad because the Congress (especially the House) is the branch of government most directly accountable to the people. So the most accountable branch of government is gradually ceding power to the least accountable branches!

c matt: Seeing as how the Constitution does not define "person", I don't see how a statute defining it (and there are many that do) could cause a conflict. It would simply cause the Court to re-examine a Constitutional right based upon a former set of circumstances (no definition of fetus as person) under a new set of circumstances (a statute including a fetus as a person under the Con).

Sage: Herein lies the apparent confusion. Defining a fetus as a person under the Constitution would require something called a (drumroll please)...Constitutional Amendment.

How many definitions are there in the Constitution anyway?

Leaders say things, like Kruchev saying he'd "burry America". I thought my example about Iran, when reality counts, was as interested in self preservation, as any other nation would be. Iran's views towards Jews, doesn't have a history of them wanting to wipe them out. Iran has a large Jewish population themselves. Couldn't the rift between the countries be something logical, like Israel not treating Muslims in the West Bank fairly?

Those who hold power in Iran are unchecked by public opinion or other institutions believe the destruction of Israel will trigger the coming of the last Islamic Messiah, which they long for.

Mark
I don't know if The Supreme Leader of Iran harbors a desire to commit "national suicide"', but your discourse has me reaching for the bottle of hemlock. Work your war fetish out on the video screen with Call of Duty.
Thanks,
The Grim Reaper

Reaper, I've always advocating supporting the democratic activists in Iran that Obama spurned, though Russell never noticed. I doubt you did either.

May be of interest,

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2115&context=wmlr

Q: Why are orthodox Catholics still doing activity X?
A: It's a tradition.

How many definitions are there in the Constitution anyway?

None, which is why the claim that a mere statute can somehow set out a "definition of a person according to the Constitution" is an off-the-planet idea, and one I was explicitly arguing against.

Q: Why are orthodox Catholics still doing X? A: It's a tradition.

the claim that a mere statute can somehow set out a "definition of a person according to the Constitution" is an off-the-planet idea, and one I was explicitly arguing against.

I know what you are arguing - that the only way to define something "according to the Constitution" is by an amendment to the Constitution.

My counterargument was that the intent of the statute is not to change the Constitution. I think c matt may have inadvertently set this off by calling it "a statute including a fetus as a person under the Con[stitution]". I don't want to speak for him but the words "under the Con[stitution]" are not really necessary. It is simply a statute to define "personhood" to include unborn human beings. The Constitution applies to all persons regardless of the statute. Like you said, there are no definitions in the Constitution, so all defining of terms is either done by statute or, if no statutes exist, by judicial precedent.

Thomas, nuns can be pretty radical but I wouldn't go so far as to insult their clothing :)

The Constitution applies to all persons regardless of the statute.

No, it primarily applies only to citizens, which from English common law means a birthright citizenship, although the American social compact theory of governance based on the Declaration also involves consent and allegiance.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/12/birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitution

The Constitution applies to all persons regardless of the statute.

No, it primarily applies only to citizens, which from English common law means a birthright citizenship,

Primarily applies to only citizens? That's like something being pure mostly. Chucky's right that the Constitution has provisions that deal with non-citizens, but not all of its provisions do, though no doubt he didn't mean that.

And step2, I don't see what "consent and allegiance" has to do with it. Those who wish to hold, not that you do, that rights are God-given but only apply to citizens are obviously confused. The rights non-citizens were considered to have probably has precedent in the Old Testament understanding of the responsibilities to aliens in the midst of the Israelites. When the Constitution speaks of "we the people," we can't assume it meant citizens. If the Founders meant that they would have said it.

Step 2:

No, it primarily applies only to citizens,

If you are defining "persons" as "citizens", then - because citizenship is based on birthright - an unborn child cannot be defined as a person.

Now that might be a constitutional crisis!

Are you defining "persons" as "citizens"?

I was pointing out the limitations of Constitutional rights as originally intended. Those rights can be and have been expanded to different groups in the past, but in cases that fundamentally change the original intent it takes an amendment like Sage suggested, not merely a new law.

And step2, I don't see what "consent and allegiance" has to do with it.

It is relevant because it shows a basic concern for individual choice.

When the Constitution speaks of "we the people," we can't assume it meant citizens. If the Founders meant that they would have said it.

I assume it because that is who they were addressing. They were not addressing slaves or citizens of foreign lands, they were addressing fellow citizens of the United States.

in cases that fundamentally change the original intent it takes an amendment like Sage suggested, not merely a new law.

So I guess the big question is: does defining "person" to include unborn humans change the original intent?