What If There Is No Good Pro-Life Presidential Choice in ‘08?

Archives
June 6th, 2007
Mary Kochan

Here's to hoping and praying that one of the pro-life candidates now in the Republican field or who may enter the nomination race, ends up being the Republican Party's nominee. Here's to working and donating to make that a reality.

Speaking of reality, it is a distinct possibility that pro-lifers will end up with no one in the national race who is committed to the sanctity of life.

What then?

Before we talk about this, perhaps we have to ask if we are allowed to talk about this. Are we allowed to discuss this possibility with its moral complexities and political strategy ramifications for the future of the pro-life effort in this country? Or is there something wrong, disloyal, or disobedient to Catholic moral teaching in discussing this possibility?

Some Catholics apparently think there is. In a recent article critical of Rudy Giuliani's moral reasoning on the issue of abortion, a long-time contributor to Catholic Exchange opined that given the choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, he would vote for Giuliani. The author gave a pro-life reason for that choice: Rudy Giuliani has said that given the chance, he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the bench of the Supreme Court.

Now "strict constructionist" has long been considered by those on the Left to be a sort of code word for "anti-abortion." It surely is not when Rudy Giuliani utters it, for he has made it quite clear that he is in favor of the choice to dismember tiny human beings. However, as a legal philosophy strict constructionism certainly favors the pro-life position over against the judicial activism that has brought us virtually unlimited abortion license in this country.

But regardless of the pro-life reasoning behind our author's favoring of Giuliani over Clinton in what is, at this point, a hypothetical match-up, CE began to receive some calls asserting that we or this writer had "endorsed" Rudy Giuliani and demanding that we "pull the article" and/or "publish a retraction." Some of the callers claimed to be regular CE donors threatening to pull their support from us if we did not meet their demands. We told callers that we would pull the article if they could demonstrate that any part of it was inconsistent with Catholic teaching. We even informed them that we have more criticism of Giuliani in the pipeline. They were not satisfied. Instead they accused us of being as "evil and ambiguous" as Rudy Giuliani.

I have to admit that this kind of thing gets my dander up.

An attempt to shut up reasonable discussion among Catholics of positions that are not a matter of dogma, but a matter of prudential judgment, is beneath anyone who claims to be pro-life. And considering the long term support we have given to many pro-life apostolates and the clear consistent pro-life message of CE, we do not deserve this treatment.

There will always be people who make detracting comments about something we publish based on misunderstanding or failure to read carefully. But even when there is genuine disagreement, we are not averse to it. In fact, we at CE endeavor always to bring you all sides of issues where there can be sides. There is no other side, for example, on the question of the right to life of pre-born humans and of the injustice of abortion. There is no other side to the question of whether just laws would recognize that right and defend it against aggression, whether that aggression hides under the label of "privacy," "reproductive rights," "medical care," or any other pretense.

There are however, legitimate disagreements among orthodox, vigorous defenders of the unborn as to the best legal and political strategies for restoring constitutional protections to them. Like most other pro-lifers, Catholic and otherwise, we at CE are sickened by the thought that the unborn might have no one standing up for them in the '08 national election. But the Church does not teach that given only two pro-abortion choices in an election, a Catholic may not vote for either one. For this reason, the possibility raises a number of important questions that we hope will get a robust hashing out in this space. Here are some things that I hope to see addressed by our authors and in the comment boxes by our energetic readers:

What are the details of all policies affecting life issues on the part of both parties and all candidates? This involves looking beyond abortion to embryonic stem-cell research and attempts to legitimize homosexual relationships, among others.

What if the Republican Party lead candidate is not pro-life, but selects a pro-life running mate? Should pro-lifers aim for that given the opportunity?

Would the election of a non-pro-life Republican president reward the Republican Party for abandoning its pro-life constituency, leaving pro-lifers no national policy vehicle?

Would the defeat of a non-pro-life Republican presidential contender (through, for example, an election boycott by pro-lifers) punish the Republican Party for abandoning its pro-life constituency, but yet so weaken the party that pro-lifers would still be left with no national policy vehicle?

What would a national Republican Party defeat mean for the pro-life agenda being moved forward in several states?

Is pro-lifers' reliance on the Republican Party as a vehicle for influencing national policy up for reconsideration, and, if so, what are the alternatives?

If this is a discussion you think concerned Catholics have a right to participate in without other Catholics demanding they shut up or accusing them of evil motives, perhaps you can show your support of CE today with a gift to help keep us online.

Comments

Guest

oh wow, I apologize candeo, I see my comments are being misconstrued, it is truly the written language of the internet because I am not trying to be confrontational, in fact I am promoting charity. It was the comments I read about CE being attacked that prompted me to post what I did. It was in the defense of charity and I do very deeply apologize that my comments did not come across the way I intended. Very sorry about that.
Guest

Tmitchell, I have not even asserted that you would be in error to refuse to vote for either, so why would I attempt to prove it?

As for harm, there is an argument made regarding that in the Fitz article. And a counter argument will appear in the Edge space tomorrow.

As for your quotations, as I said before, they do not speak to the issue at hand, unfortunately.
Guest

Of course angels act, of course Mary acts, but we would never see an angel or Mary come down from Heaven to tell us to take action by using our God given right to vote in order to sustain a culture of death. I do not think we will win this battle by taking the action of voting for a pro-abortion candidate who completely denies his Catholic faith. It makes absolutely no sense! We must fight the battle in others ways, we must take action, yes absolutely. We must join pro-life ministries and volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers and catechize our youth and PRAY PRAY PRAY. Pray the Saint Michael prayer, it is powerful! Pray the Rosary, Mary's intercession is powerful! These are the things we must DO, certainly we cannot sit back and do nothing, but we CANNOT expect our politicians to do it for us.

Do you think pro-abortion candidates can read our minds or even care about the debates we have on this website? No, of course not! They are never going to guess that since we cast our vote for them, that means we want them to do a certain sequence of things that would make it easier for roe v wade to be over-turned or whatever pro-life laws could be passed, etc. (the "things" suggested by everyone on this website who support voting for a pro-abortion candidate on the off chance that the pro-culture-of-death platform or agenda would be magically slowed or somehow thwarted, those that are against Catholics who would abstain in voting for such hypocritical candidates).

Please, would someone reference and quote Church teaching and authority! We must respect and tolerate our differences in opinion, but we cannot tolerate offenses to the TRUTH. And we must also remember that the written word on the Internet lacks vocal inflection and the intent of the writer and therefore we must avoid taking offense. Thank you!!
Guest

When people respond harshly to what we say, misunderstanding our intentions, we should be a good example and respond with charity. And when that doesn't work, we might just have to walk away from the situation and give outselves a chance to reflect.

Perhaps we're all a bit too passionate about these topics – although we must all strive to overcome our passions and pray that the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus will transform our hearts.

We ARE all Catholic, I hope!, FIRST and we all know we need to make decisions based on that faith, that WAY OF LIFE (not simply a preferred method of religious practice), we're all adults and should profess our faith as adults, accurately and with love for neighbor.
Guest

My husband gives me that same excuse, 'abortion is not the ONLY issue'. It is indeed when the Pope himself has said that politicians or anyone who openly support abortion and euthenasia must be denied Communion. Do we as Catholic's truly understand what that means? THE EUCHARIST IS THE SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! IT IS THE BODY AND BLOOD, THE TRUE PRESENCE OF CHRIST! We cannot pretend that abortion is not THE issue in this election because to be denied Communion is the worst thing that can happen to a Catholic. THE WORST! Anyone who does not believe that seriously needs to read the Catechism or talk to their priest or an apologist and get some more information on why we must always receive the Eucharist worthily and with the greatest reverence.
Guest

MKochan, I guess I should have read all comments posted before I began posting, but I was simply replying to posts as I read them and my posts get put at the end (even though the website gives the option of replying to a specific post) so I see how you might think I'm completely confused, but like I said, I respond as I read along.

Charity includes giving the benefit of the doubt and we all need that! One request from you to clarify my comments would have sufficed since I am happy to give you references. I do indeed share your passion for proving what we write!! – I write about that again and again in my posted comments to "Almost". So it is unfortunate, as life often has taught me, that while we sometimes think we are opposed to each other we actually share much common ground.
Guest

Capital punishment is very nearly never necessary in today's world because of the high security prisons and rehabilitation programs available to prisoners. Even in the case of Suddam Hussein, the Church, or some Church official, asked he not be executed because there was no immediate danger to society. Of course, that could be argued either way: either he was a martyr for his cause and inspires people to action or he lives and leads his cause from prison. All I know is that I have most often heard the Church (priests, apologists) speak of capital punishment as rarely necessary to protect society from the criminal and therefore when it does occur now it is significantly evil since there's really no good reason being supplied on a case to case basis. AND we prevent the criminal from the chance to convert and give his life to Jesus and therefore secure his eternal salvation, this is the greater crime. I know, I know, I've never lost a loved one to murder, or been completely unable to forgive, so I shouldn't talk. But that IS the Church's teaching, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive other."
Guest

mkochan, I am uncertain anymore what we are talking about, I again apologize for any comments I made that sounded confrontational (that was never my intent, I was actually defending you and CE in several postings, I guess I should not have tried) and I will leave this discussion board for fear of offending anyone else. I have edited several of my postings that I feel might sound confrontational or otherwise offensive to those not used to the written language of the internet and might misunderstand my intent. I do not want any fellow Catholic to read my comments and believe I am being uncharitable. Again, I apologize that you and I could not discuss without misunderstanding (there was one posting where you mentioned something I did not explain clearly in my comments on "Almost", if you clarify your question, I would be happy to explain further). I hope all goes well with the rest of this discussion.
Guest

Tmitchell, we don't want you to go away. You have a very sensitive conscience to morality and that is good. Please feel free to jump back in any time. God bless you.
Guest

Candeo:

Just to clarify, the point I did make was the CE had NOT taken any position! Therefore, why attack CE over what seems to be an attempt to open dialogue? I hope that many of the pro-life advocates will do there job in electing a true voice for life, so we are not left with this issue to contend with.
Guest

Yes, indeed that is the case and wait until you see tomorrow's article in this space. And meanwhile folks all this online real estate has never been, is not now, nor will ever be free. So don't forget the point that I made at the end of my article. We do indeed need your $upport.
Guest

Mary,

In response to your 2:48 pm post, do you mean that all Democrats are bad, or that the Democratic options for this election are bad? If you are referring to the current candidates, then I would certainly agree, since they are all pro-abortion.

I'm sorry to hear that CE has been attacked for this issue.
Guest

http://www.lifesite.net/elections/moralobligations.html

"Moral obligations of voters and politicians"

This is a definite response to our discussion here. These bishops and priests tell us we must vote pro-life, no other option is available to us as Catholics.

“I will give no support by word or action, that could in any way be construed in favour of any politician, or any political party who professes either a pro-abortion position or takes refuge in a so-called pro-choice position. I categorically reject the evasion, I am personally opposed to abortion, but… ”(Cardinal John O'Connor, Archdiocese of New York, 1984)

Catholic citizens especially should affirm a personal stance that respects and sustains human life and makes it unmistakably clear to all candidates and officials that this will be a determining factor in their choice of candidates. —Bishop James T. McHugh, Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY (“Voting the Gospel of Life,‘ Columbia Magazine, September 2000).
Guest

I meant Claire that all the Dems national candidates are bad from a pro-life position.

I'm glad you came back Tmitchell. Now those are very pertinent quotes. Thank you so much for finding and sharing them.
Guest

Well, that is indisputable. It's very sad that the pro-life Democratic politicians are so few and far between, and never make it to the national level.
Guest

Mickey,

This is incorrect. The Party, per se, does not set the agenda. It is members of the party with the most elected representatives that set the agenda. For example, the chairman of the RNC doesn't make assignments. It is the leadership elected by the elected members of a partcular party. That is an important distinction.

Elected members are free to disagree with the party platform. Many do and there is no consequence.

God is still in control. Doing an honorable thing and only backing an honorable candidate, even if Republicans lose control, is a risk I'm willing to take because I know that God is in control, not the Republicans.

The country didn't collapse under Bill Clinton. People woke up and said, "not in my house" and the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress followed (which they squandered).

Yes we are free to be prudential, but it would be refreshing to see honor and an unyielding support for life being seen as prudental and not just the calculating, pragmatism that masks itself as prudence.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
Guest

Mary,

I don't know web protocol so I hope I am not violating one by interjecting in your conversation.

I wonder if it is because RG is hypocritical and shows a willingness to throw away absolute truth for personal or political gain. Here you have someone who claims to be Catholic and yet openly and adamantly chooses to not comport his thnking, his policies, his actions with that truth.

HRC does not make claims to be part of the Church and a believer in objective moral truth. In that way, as bad as she is, at least she's not hypocritical on that point(though she is on others.

Here's a thought, let's not consider this right now and put as much effort and money into the campaign of Sam Brownback. We may not even have to consider if we work and give enough.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
Guest

I cannot keep up with all of the discussion here, but a point I think is not noticed by many these days is how many catholics, clergy included, use 'proportionate reasons' as an excuse for voting for pro-choice candidates. For instance, the war in Iraq is considered a 'proportionate reason'. Yet after 4 YEARS of war in Iraq, the death toll has not yet equalled the death toll of ONE DAY of abortions. Ostensibly, immigration or environmental issues could be raised as 'proportionate issues' as well. I don't see any catholic public/media source answering these issues, but I hear people using it as an excuse regularly.

In fact, I see a lot of writers running away from these issues rather than addressing them. OSV is a good example. I've pretty much quit reading it as they've failed to make this distiction.
Guest

Of course,abortion isn't the 0NLY issue.However,politicians tend to wax lyrical about issues like jobs,education,health,in order to get themselves

elected and then take a vow of silence when it comes to the awkward issues.For a while they duck and dive,then when they can't run anymore and have to answer they accuse us of one issue politics.Funnily enough,

they are only too eager to play the one issue game when they think it is to their advantage.For example,the war in Iraq.
Guest

terygeorge,

They are able to use "proportionate reasons" without much loud objection only because dead babies can't be heard. These children have been silenced so, Lord help us, we must be their voices.
Guest

I have a few questions when reading these comments. First of all, is it possible for a party to have a platform that the presidential nominee does not support? If Giuliani is nominated by the Republicans, would they have a pro-life, pro-traditional-family platform in spite of him? That doesn’t seem likely.

Second, if we are choosing the one who would do less evil, has anyone checked both Hilary and Rudy on the points raised by Priests for Life? I’m thinking they must tie.

The next question I have is, what kind of Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) are running for the House and Senate? Can we choose congressional candidates who would put through pro-life agendas in spite of a pro-choice president? That would take enough votes, either Democrat or Republican, to override a presidential veto. If RG and HRC truly come out looking like the two who will run, would we do the most for the unborn if we focused our efforts on the House and Senate to limit the damage that could be caused by the new president?

I’d also like to see articles and discussions about the perhaps long-shot but truly pro-life candidates and the "wasted vote" theory. Is it a waste to vote for Sam Brownback or Thompson? What about the Constitution Party? What was its platform in ‘04, and is it one that Catholics could support? If their platform is not evil, then why not vote for them?
Guest

Just read last night that Thompson is basically tied for third place in the polls right now among Republican contenders. They say people like him because he has a Reaganesque feeling about him. There may be more of us out there than we'd hoped, more people who are looking for someone like him.

I hadn't even heard of him until I read the replies to this article.
http://www.a--optic.com Catholic Chump

Why can we not look at this from a baby step approach. Like my favorite movie “What about Bob?” I am an independent voter for one so I do not like when a blog such as CE shows anti any side and pro and side it should talk about the issues. I am voting for the issues too bad Ron Paul (not only against death/abortion he was for fair tax too bad, the man with real change) was not the candidate based on other issues I will not vote or vote Democrat.

Catholic Exchange

NewsWire