The question I have been hoping some interviewer would ask a "personally opposed to abortion but" politician was almost asked on Sunday, May 13th. Almost. Chris Wallace backed off in an interview with Rudolph Giuliani on Fox News when things started to get really interesting. I would have preferred that it was someone other than Giuliani who was hit with the question. I'll likely vote for him, in spite of his views on abortion, if he runs against Mrs. Clinton. But Rudy deserves some embarrassment. He has been bobbing and weaving like Sugar Ray Robinson on this issue.

What question am I talking about? A simple one: "Why?" "Why are you personally opposed to abortion?" The "personally opposed" crowd never gets asked that. They all tell us they want to respect the "freedom of conscience" of those on the side. But they are never asked to define their side. The reason why you are opposed to abortion is central to this debate.

Giuliani told Wallace that he thinks abortion is "morally wrong," that he "hates the idea of abortion," and that he would tell anyone considering an abortion "not to have it," but to consider the "adoption option" instead. (Even though, when he was running for office in New York City, he used to say that he would pay for his daughter's abortion if she wanted one.) Yet he argues "that in a country like ours, where people of good faith, people who are equally decent, equally moral, and equally religious, where they come to different conclusions about this, … I believe you have to respect their viewpoint. … I would grant women the right to make that choice" to have an abortion.

This is where Wallace tried to get down to brass tacks.  And for good reason. The "personally opposed but" position is illogical. Wallace noted that Giuliani has taken this "personally opposed but" position for decades now. What he wanted to know was something else. What he wanted to know was exactly why Giuliani was "personally opposed" to abortion.

 I can't read Wallace's mind, but I think I know what he was getting at. There is only one reason to oppose abortion: a conviction that it is the taking of a human life. If that is not what happens during the "procedure," why put demands on a woman who would prefer to end her pregnancy? For whatever reason. If "fetal tissue" is largely indistinguishable from a cyst there is no moral dimension involved in cutting it from a woman's body.

My hunch is that Wallace was trying to get Giuliani to say on the record that the reason why he thinks abortion "morally wrong" and why he "hates it" is that it involves the killing of an unborn child. And, after that, hit him with the obvious follow up question: "Mr. Giuliani, if you think that that is what takes place during an abortion, how can you possibly say that you favor laws that permit your fellow citizens to proceed with the killing."

Dum-de-dum-dum. Some simple analogies underscore the point. What would Giuliani say to someone who tells us he is "personally opposed" to slavery, but does not want to interfere with the rights of the "decent" and "moral" people who think otherwise and want to keep a slave or two? To someone personally opposed to wife beating and female circumcision, but who does not want to use the force of law to limit the rights of those "equally religious" people from cultural backgrounds where these practices are considered acceptable?

We could go on. There are "nice" people with advanced degrees who argue for legalized narcotics and prostitution. Some very genteel members of NAMBLA, bow ties and all, think it moral for men to have sex with young boys. Giuliani sees nothing wrong with laws that interfere with their freedom of conscience. Back when Giuliani was a federal prosecutor, he was willing to handcuff and frog walk people from Wall Street to enforce laws against securities fraud. He was willing to send Leona Helmsley to jail for underpaying her taxes. I'm perfectly serious: I have an easier time seeing how someone could make the case for what Leona Helmsley did on her tax returns or for insider trading than for aborting a child.

Giuliani must have sensed what Wallace had in mind. He didn't answer the question. Instead, he filled the air with the usual boilerplate about respecting the freedom of conscience of those who come to moral conclusions different from his own. Wallace tried to get him back on topic by repeating the question: "But what is it about abortion that makes you so personally opposed to it?" No soap. Giuliani slipped the punch and went back to his mantra about the diversity of opinion.

So Wallace moved on to another topic. There is nothing surprising about that. The hosts on these talk shows usually do not press on when a guest makes it clear he is not going to answer a question. They can't grab the guest by the collar and shake him until he agrees to answer. The guest is a guest. My guess is that the hosts think that they've done their job when they make it obvious to the audience that the guest is dodging the question. Which Giuliani was.

I repeat: I can envision a scenario where I will vote for Giuliani. What he is doing is no worse than what Catholic Democratic politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Mario Cuomo and Christ Dodd do on a routine basis. (I'd love to see Nancy Pelosi, who calls herself an "Italian Catholic grandmother," explaining why she opposes killing an unborn child, but does not want her neighbor to be restricted from doing so.) But it is no better, except to the extent that Giuliani's commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges may serve the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Nonetheless, we have to call a spade a spade. Whatever one thinks of Giuliani on the other issues, he is not trying to take a moral or philosophically sound position on abortion. What we are witnessing is a "pro-choice" politician — who, along with his wife, has contributed generously to Planned Parenthood — trying to win the nomination of a political party with a substantial number of pro-life members. Hence the smoke and mirrors.

Catholic voters have an obligation to factor in the likelihood that a politician is saying things about abortion for no reason other than to win their votes. That includes "pro-choice" voters who trot out their assurances about how they are "personally opposed" to abortion. And also "pro-life" candidates who have no intention of doing a thing about abortion once they are elected. Sorry, folks. There are two or three "pro-life" Republicans running for the presidency who strike me as never spending a moment thinking about abortion, except when their advisors illustrate to them to importance of the Catholic vote.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    I would NEVER under ANY circumstances give a PRO ABORTION candidate such as Guiliani or McCain my vote!  I don't care whoe they're running against!

    In my experience, if one is wrong on the abortion issue, ie wrong in his logic, wrong in his acceptance on when life begins, or wrong on his understanding regarding the dignity of all human beings, then that person cannot be trusted with any other decisions.  At best he is naive and at worst SELF SERVING and participating in EVIL and as bad a choice as anybody running for office.

    We people who believe in our Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness" statements MUST stand up for the truth and not expedience!  If Hillary wins, so be it.  The world is in God's hands not hers or Guiliani's. 

    I will, with God's Grace stand shameless before the Throne of Grace on Judgement Day and place myself in the palm of HIS hand….along with all the unborn abort when they COULD fit in the palm of his hand!

    Please pray about your vote.  You must for the sake your soul and the heart of the country.

  • Guest


    I agree that in his article Mr. Fitzpatrick demonstrates the same illogic he criticizes Mr. Guliani for — Guliani is wrong on abortion, but Fitzpatrick will vote for him instead of Clinton. Huh? He's doing the same thing he is disappointed in Chris Wallace for doing, backing off and giving Guliani a pass.  And that behavior is why Guliani (and apparently the Republican party) can get away with this position.

    The "lack of logic" bugaboo is why I did not vote for George Bush in 2004 –because of the ebryonic stem cell research he authorized. The logic was that these forty lines of human embryo cells were already out there, so it was okay to continue to research on them, but not any additional lines. Well, if it's immoral to conduct science experiments on human embryos because it is a human life, then it's immoral.

    Ditto for the rape and incest exception many "pro-life" politicians have in their abortion rhetoric. 

    I voted for a third party guy who stood squarely with what the Church teaches on matters of the digntity of human life.  But I also knew he had zero chance of being elected.

    And we must, therefore, all work much harder to get Senator Brownback in the limelight and out of the single digits.

  • Guest

    Abortion is murder. Everything else is about money. Which one really matters when you stand before God?


  • Guest

    elkabrikr why would you lump John McCain in with Guiliani in abortion?  NARAL rates McCain as a 0 (  John McCain is very pro-life.   He has rated a 0 on NARAL's site since 1994.

  • Guest

    In any GOOD Catholic moral theology book you find that Mr. Fitzpatrick's position is opposed to Catholic teaching.  We cannot, under any circumstances, endorse evil when it comes to murder.  This is not one of those instances where we are permitted to chose the "lesser" of two evils.  As the other comments have put it, "abortion is wrong, period."

    Senator Brownback is our man, and we all need to start spreading the word about him.  With our prayers and support, he can win.  
    Fiat voluntas tua, Domine!
  • Guest

    People do live out what they believe to be true— like all the other candidates, R G's governance would be indicative of  his faith- The Triune God or Mammon?  a choice for evil is still evil   Proportional morality is what led the democrats astray

  • Guest

    I too was confused when I read Mr. Fitzpatrick's comments, his view may lead many "Catholics" astray in their moral thinking and in who they vote for, believing the lesser of two evils is the way to go.  I emphasize "Catholic" because many people call themselves Catholic but are not since they may not understand the Church's teaching or they actually support abortion or think the Pope is wrong on such and such an issue.  In my case, before coming back into the Catholic Church, I opposed the Church's teaching on homosexuality, an easy conversion for me since once I discovered and understood the Church's teaching, it was a very simple matter to repent of my false beliefs.  I feel I can comment on "cafeteria catholics" since I used to, I repeat used to, be one.  

    So now, seeing the Truth, it makes me extremely uncomfortable that persons who claim to be Catholic could ever support abortion or a candidate that supports abortion, no matter how "personally opposed" they pretend to be.  It says right in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you support someone's sin or cause that person to sin, you share responsibility in that sin.  
    This is a difficult issue and it is too easy and morally ambiguous to say we should vote for the lesser of two evils hoping for some good to come from it.  Sure, Bush might have supported embryonic stem cell research, but he did appoint two men to the supreme court who helped to outlaw partial birth abortion.  But what are we to do?  Vote for a real Catholic who has no chance of winning?  Do we not vote at all?  But it is our responsibility as citizens of this country to vote, even the Church can agree with that.  If indeed Guiliani and Clinton are my choices, I will probably not vote for either.   
    I heard once during elections in my home state last year that we as Catholics must take responsibility and run for political office and vote for Catholic candidates.  But too often, we just don't think that we can function as politicians and maybe in today's society we cannot, but then we should work harder to raise awareness of the issues that are important to us.  For instance, I've recently joined the pro-life ministry at my church.  
    We should all have pro-life ministries at our Church and we should share the Church's teaching with everyone we know, in subtle and not so subtle ways.  We should be certain we are doing this before we criticize politicians who pretend to be Catholic or pro-life or authors of articles that tell us he'd vote for one of those politicians.  We should also talk to our fellow Catholic parishoners about why abortion is intrinsically evil and why we cannot be Catholic and support it.  
    Also, we should raise public awareness of the hypocrisy of "Catholic" politicians who support abortion and not just in matter of faith and morals.  If they lie about the basic truths of their faith, how can we trust them to ever tell the truth… perhaps we can explain the concept in language society can understand… I don't pretend to know the exact formula, but maybe something like, "think of something or someone you cannot live without, it would cause you great pain and suffering to lose this person or thing, it is so vitally important to your very existence and your ability to live (however you define a good life), that is how Catholics feel about not killing our children in abortion"  
    You ARE NOT Catholic, (in my analogy, you are not alive) if you do not "have" these "things".  If you are Catholic you believe in the Eucharist, the Trinity and you believe that life begins at conception, that's just how it is, how it's always been and how it always will be.  And if you don't believe these things you are not obedient to the teaching of the Catholic Church, you need to go to confession and seek out help to understand the Church's teaching and maybe even start praying to Jesus, or Mary or the Holy Spirit for faith and guidance.  And if you remain obstinate and opposed to these beliefs, happy in your arrogance, then you are NOT Catholic.  You can pretend all you want, lots of people pretend to be lots of different things, but you really shouldn't receive the Holy Eucharist.
    You should not receive Jesus in the Eucharist because you are lying to yourself, to everyone in that church and to God, since you probably didn't go to confession with a firm intention to change your actions, that's in the Catechism too if we bothered to read it, myself included, since if I had years ago I never would have had to count myself among the "cafeteria catholics".  Thank God, He showed me the error in my ways, but not only that, I then accepted him on his Word, by the grace given me by the Holy Spirit.  Maybe that's the problem, too many people think they can do it all on their own. 
  • Guest

    As a Catholic I'm obliged to vote for the best suited candidate to support life.  In the primary I will have a choice to hopefully make a solid choice for life.  However if the general election offers me only Guliani or Clinton am I not obliged to look at the obvious and try to vote in the candidate most likely to do the least harm?  If more children die with Clinton or Obama in office, and they would, then am I not held accoutable for not having voted for a less deadly candidate?

    I believe Brownback is the best choice but if he does not make the cut then am I not to look at the most likely scenarios and vote to lessen the carnage?


  • Guest

    Let John McCain give you his abortion postition.

    One example is what McCain said when he met with the editorial board of the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999:

    "I'd love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

    This was no more mere inartful wording. Rather, McCain actually offered a rationale for opposing repeal of Roe — that it would "force" many women to have dangerous illegal abortions. This, of course, is a very familiar argument, voiced often by politicians who support the continuation of legal abortion. In short, McCain embraced the "necessary evil" thinking of the pro-abortion movement.

    I see him for what he is:  self serving.  I will no longer give my SUPPORT to these politicians.  We are not guaranteed victory in this world.  We're just called to fight the good fight.  So what if Hillary or Obamaor Guliani win an election.  Their victory is a pyrrhic one!

    Regarding George Bush and stem cell research, I think he took the best  stance available to him given that the cell lines were already under private control.  (Even moral theologians don't have a certain answer to the use of vaccines derived from aborted babies 40 years ago.)

      The Supreme Court has been changed for many years to come because of George Bush and the PRESSURE continually place on him by prolifers!  Perhaps the only positive thing he's done in office is those appointments.  (but that's another discussion!)

    Let's keep praying for guidance and that the hearts of our fellow countrymen will be softened to the plight of the weakest among us.

  • Guest

    Is voting for a "less deadly candidate" akin to preferring venial sins to mortal sins simply because they do less damage?  Well, we can sin so long as it isn't mortal, if it's not one of the "big 10" (the ten commandments are actually more than meets the eye  – see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under "Life in Christ"), then we don't have to bring anything else to confession, or based on our own interpretation we'll pick and choose what's worthy of confession.  

    I simply do not think we can vote "lesser of two evils", I think that's standing on moral ambiguity and that's very shaky ground.  If we vote for the lesser of two evils, we'll be considered "moderate Catholics" by these politicians who will then manipulate us with language and avoid these serious issues like abortion and come at "moderate Catholics" with "experts" who know how to win their votes and they'll just prove that the Catholics will eventually give up their strong moral stance to vote for the "lesser evil" or in their language the "moderate". 
    By the way, "Moderate Catholic" is a ridiculous term (there's no such thing!) used now by some Democrats referring to Roman Catholics who dissent from Church teaching.  That's how they get us to vote for them!  They rely on our weak faith and consent to vote for "the lesser evil!  By the way, if you are a "moderate" Catholic, you approve of abortion for instance, that's called heresy and that means excommunication, not by the Bishop, but you do it to yourself.
  • Guest

    A pro-choice republican is worse than #i#$ on a bull.  I'd rather tell the republican party that if they do not support pro-life, then the other side will win big.  In other words, send me a pro-choice republican and I'll do my best never to have one come down the pike again.  Everything else about the republican party other than pro-life reaks of old, stodgy, stinky cheese and avarice.

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest


    Don't go bad-mouthing cheese on the CE forum!

    We've got rules here, gk!

  • Guest

    To compare venial and mortal sins to voting for the lesser evil is not quite apples to apples.  More to the point, I don't vote for the lesser evil, I vote against the most evil.  I know that will be hard to swallow but if I'm given the situation where I can only vote for Clinton on one side of the ticket or Guliani or McCain on the other and we know the probability of a third party upset, my hands are tied.

    This may or may not be a good analogy but if I were to walk into a situation where I could shoot a gunman knowing he will kill 5 hostages, do I not shoot because killing is wrong and I don't want any part of it or do I try to save more lives by taking one.  I honestly don't know I could take a gunman's life but I know in voting I don't kill anyone and can still save the greater number of lives by placing a vote against the most hostile candidate.

    I may not save all the innocent with a vote for Guliani or McCain. I pray I don't have to make that choice with the likes of Sam Brownback or maybe Fred Thompson to vote for but if that's all I'm left with I'll have to make the choice that saves more lives.  Rather than live with the fact my vote could have kept an Obama or Clinton out of office.


  • Guest

    I think we should just run without a President for a few terms.  After all, it has turned into the who has more money race.  Why bother having Abraham Lincoln when you can have Forbes, Bloomberg …

    It is becoming like baseball, but without the sport.  (bad attempt at humor)

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest

    I realize I am simply a Catholic layperson, perhaps I would be better able to get my point across to you (wgsullivan) by directly citing the authority of the Catholic Church  (all quotes are directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).  I am uncertain how we can argue against it (2000 years of Church tradition).:

    Part 3 Life in Christ – Section 1 Man's Vocation Life in the Spirit – Chapter 1 The dignity of the human person – Article 4 The Morality of Human Acts – THE SOURCES OF MORALITY
    1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
    Part 3 Life in Christ – Section 1 Man's Vocation Life in the Spirit – Chapter 1 The dignity of the human person – Article 6 Moral Conscience – TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

    1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

    1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

    1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

    1789 Some rules apply in every case:
    – One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
    – the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." 
    – charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."  Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."

    Life in Christ – Man's Vocation in the Spirit – Chapter 2: The Human Communion – Article 2 Participation in Social Life – THE COMMON GOOD

    1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."  The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:  (please read 1907 – 1909 at

    Life in Christ – Man's Vocation in the Spirit – Chapter 2: The Human Communion – Article 3 Social Justice – RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON

    1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.   If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

    Part Three: Life in Christ – Section 2 The Ten Commandments – Chapter 2 You shall love your neighbor as yourself – Article 5 the 5th Commandment – RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE

    2273  ‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.'

  • Guest

    Just a snide remark!

    My aunt claims her choice is to vote for the "evil of two lessers"!

    She's almost 80 and disgusted by the entire batch of candidates!

    None of the prochoicers can count on my vote.  But they'll be able to truly count the many votes I'm birthing…in a few years…while they abort, contracept, and sodomize themselves out of existence!

    Good discussion!  Thank you for bringing it into the cloister of my household.

  • Guest

    Excuse my laziness, but the following comment below I copied and pasted from Catholic apoligist Jimmie Aiken's blogsite. In the 2004 elections the same issue of two candidates, neither of whom was pro-life. Here Aiken quotes non other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself:

    “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.”

    So wrote Cardinal Ratzinger in a confidential memorandum titled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles that became public earlier this year [2004].

    Some folks misquoted Cardinal Ratzinger to say that it was OK then to vote for a pro-abort so long as the reason was his/her environmental record, or support for social programs, or opposition to the Iraq invasion, or some other inane issue, even if a qualified pro-life candidate was his/her opponent. His Eminence later clarified his comment by saying that this scenario would only be valid if both candidates were abortion supporters and there wasn't (as they say) a dime's worth of difference between the two.

    Like Mr. Fitzgerald I may just hold my nose and vote for RG if he is the Repub candidate. I'm not thrilled with the thought of havinig to endure four years of militant pro-abortionists like Joyclyn Elders and Donna Shalala using their cabinet posts to promote the culture of death agenda. Four years of RG would be difficult ones for pro-lifers, no question. Four years under ANY of the leading Dem candidates (with Dem majorities in each house, unlike the previous Clinton administrations) would result in a nightmare tsunami of culture of death legislation ($$$$$ for "reproductive services," human embryonic stem cell research, right-to-die legislation, pro-gay, anti-family agendas coming out of the woodwork). Not that RG would be averse to supporting some of that, but at least as a Republican he might be persuaded to drag his feet on this stuff. A Dem in the White House wouldn't give pro-lifers of any stripe so much as the time of day. Please, folks, don't hand Hillary the keys to the White House because you're miffed at a not-Catholic-enough opponent.

  • Guest

    Let us say for the moment that Rudy is just as bad as Hillary on life issues. (I don't think that is true and I do think there are grades of pro abort and pro life) With an election that is between those two (not some other non existent ideal choice), Rudy will get my vote.

    Why you say? Because I want there to be a country here in four years when the next election comes around. We can duke it out again if but only if we are still here. A vote for Hillary (neville chamberlain) Clinton is a vote to surrender our country to the Islamo Terrorists. A world without the United States would be a sad blow to pro lifers all over the world. We are in World War Three and I want someone at the helm who knows it. In case you didn't notice, we have had two serious potentially disastrous terror attacks foiled in just the last month. The United States is the last and best hope in the political arena for an end to abortion world wide.

  • Guest

    I remember the quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger.  I don't know if it is a sin to vote for the "evil of two lessers".  My point is more that the Republican party cannot absolutely count on my prolife vote if they are not THE pro life party.

    Also, on the other issues, I'm not so sure the Rep have done such a wiz bang job on conservative issues: financial or security over the past 8 or so years.  They need to earn votes and not simply wave an elephants rump in my face. If they don't shape up, I might just mistake them for an "ass".

  • Guest

    Lessor of two evils, what is that?  Evil is evil.  A vote for either is wrong in my book.  The only answer is NO MORE ABORTION, period.  We will not except anything less than that. 

    I will never vote for a republican who is a spineless murdering fool, even if it means that the democrats could take control.  The state of my soul is more important to me than the state of our country.   



  • Guest

    Isn't voting for a pro-abortion candidate but being personally opposed to him the same as a politician voting for abortion but being personally opposed to it? -Tom O'Toole, Fighting Irish Thomas

  • Guest

    AT LEAST forbes is pro-life!!!!

    Look, Giuliani is not pro-life in any way.  He is a NY lib who wants to live his life the way he wants to – without moral boundaries.  When is he going to get divorced and re-married again?  Also, 9/11 happened on HIS watch.  HE put the command center in the WTC, which had already been attacked once.  WHY does no one talk about this? It was destroyed in a minute.  Clinton should not have been president, nor should 'rudy.'  He's opposed to abortion on his own body, because he's knows it's a horrific thing to do to a body.  But anyone and his uncle can go ahead and do it.  Yes – why? WHY CAN THEY DO IT. 

    He is a fake phony fraud.  There are some excellent pro-lifers, such as Brownback and Huckabee.  WHY isn't Fitzpatrick highlighting these?

  • Guest

    Let's not give up fighting to get a pro-life person nominated as a major (big-money) party candidate.

    But , let's just think about if no canditate from the big money parties ends up pro-life.  I propose we then encourage all pro-life Republicans and Democrats to vote a true pro-life third party. And, sure, the third party person is going to lose.

    But then the loser of the big-money parties, say the Republicans, will come back and say, "If you had just voted for our guy, then we could have won."

    And the answer is — wait for it — if the candiate promotes the value of human life, then you would have won.

    Otherwise, the Republicans can rightfully look at the pro-life votes just like the Democrats look at the African-American votes. They're a gimme.

    So let's fight for the nomination of a pro-life candate, but also vote only for a pro-life candidate.

  • Guest

    Pro-lifers will lose in the long run by voting for the lesser of two evils as Mr. Fitzpatrick promotes. The Republicans MUST know that their success in the general election is and has been tied to the Pro-life Movement. They must be taught a lesson that they can not win the general election without a united Pro-life Movement. Otherwise all of the influence the Pro-life Movement has gained since Reagan will be lost for a long time. After all what is the difference between a pro-abortion, pro homosexual Republican Party and the Democratic Party? They might as well as merge into one party. If Rudy is nominated it's time to look for a new third party. God will not protect us from the Muslim Radicals or any other threats if we aren't protecting life as we saw on 9-11 which occurred after Bush caved in on Stem Cell Research the month before 9-11.

  • Guest

    When voting aren't we morally obligated to try to affect the best outcome possible? To say you will not vote for a Republican candidate unless they are 100% Pro-Life, but vote for a third party pro-life candidate who has no chance of being elected ignores the result of that vote. If the Democrat Presidential candidate wins in 2008 we will have federally funded embryonic stem cell research, all pro-life legislation will be vetoed, attacks on religious freedom will escalate, and probably most importantly, one more supreme court appointment could tip the balance to a solidly constructionist supreme court. Remember Justice Stevens is 86, and is holding on till a Democrat President will appoint his replacement. Six of the other justices are over 69. Can we in good conscience place a vote that will guarantee those appointments will be made by a Democrat President?

    Unfortunately, the Republican party does not seem to understand that conservatives deserted them in 2006 because the conservatives feel the Republican party has abandoned the conservative agenda, and they voted no confidence in the Iraq War strategy. These conservatives voted for pro-life Democratic candidates. This gave control of the Senate and House to the Democrats. These pro-life Democrats have no power to stop the liberal agenda of the the Democratic party and Nancy Pelosi. Only President Bush's veto has slowed them down.

    To abandon the Republican party in the 2008 will result in the liberal agenda listed in the first paragraph to become law. We must consider how our vote in 2008 will promote Christian issues. To use your vote in 2008 to make a statement of none support for the Republican Party will result in the success of the culture of death and anti-religion. I am working to get Senator Brownback or another pro-life candidate nominated as the Republican nominee, but I will not be able to vote in good conscience for a third party pro-life candidate when that will help the Democrat Presidential candidate win. This was not the same situation in 2006 when even a vote for a Democrat would not effectively promote the culture of death, only, because of President Bush’s veto, although, another supreme court nomination by President Bush would almost be impossible with the Democrat majority in the Senate. The stakes are too high in 2008 just for the future Supreme Court nominations to allow a Democrat to become the president.

    God Bless

  • Guest

    The stakes are too high not to vote Republican, eh?

    Keep in mind: 

    Pro-abort Chief Justice Burger was appointed by Nixon, a Republican 

    Pro-abort Justice Brennan was appointed by Eisenhower, a Republican 

    Pro-abort Justice Stewart was appointed by Eisenhower, a Republican

    Pro-abort Justice Blackmun was appointed by Nixon, a Republican

    Pro-abort Justice Powell was appointed by Nixon, a Republican

    Pro-abort Justice Stevens was appointed by Ford, a Republican

    Pro-abort Justice O'Connor was appointed by Reagan, a Republican

    Pro-abort Justice Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, a Republican

    Pro-abort Justice Souter was appointed by Bush (41), a Republican

  • Guest

    The choice is not  between Sam Brownback and Hillary – it may well be between Rudy, McCain or Romney and Hillary.  Church teaching is clear- we vote for the  one who will do the least harm. If Hillary elected would murder a million babies in utero and Rudy would murder 999,999 you are so right I am voting to save that one baby.  I pray I had a better choice but I will take what I can get.  After all, GW Bush FAVORS abortions in cases of rape or incest but he gave us Alito and Roberts and held off the worst of the culture of death program.  

    I will fight for and take every tiny victory I can get.  This is a political battle.  All the well written statements here opposed to my viewpoint lead to only one conclusion:  Vote for a morally pure a 3rd party candidate.   Go ahead.  But for me, saving that one baby is worth it.  



  • Guest

    "Church teaching is clear"?  JimAroo and others please scroll up to my (tmitchell480) posting: quotes directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church!  I don't understand how giving in to the enemy is a clear Church teaching.  Has anyone ever listened to Father Corapi?  If not, I strongly suggest his teaching entitled "Immortal Combat".  Abortion is a tool of the devil and anyone who condones it or supports it in any way is cooperating with evil!  Plain and simple!  We CANNOT think that by voting for a pro-abortion Republican just because one less baby might die is a moral decision (PLEASE, I BEG YOU, READ WHAT THE CATHECHISM HAS TO SAY ABOUT THIS!).  We are not allowed to do evil so that good might result (IT SAYS SO IN THE CATECHISM, THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!!)  One less baby may indeed die and the law of the land that dictates the open acceptance of immorality (homosexuality and the like) might be prevented (on a very limited scale unfortunately), but our initial decision is still cooperation with the evil or at least the indifference of society and those politicians know it!  There are indeed other ways of effecting law (including calling your local congressman) and it almost does not matter who is in the white house (unfortunately!)  If we truly stand up for what we believe in  and refuse to vote for political hypocrisy, things might actually change (AND IF WE PRAY, THE ROSARY ESPECIALLY! and participate in pro-life ministries and catechize our family and friends).  If we give in to doing evil (voting or condoning the actions of hypocritical polititians who profess personal morals that they proclaim will not interfere with their political decisions) so good might happen, and a very slim chance there is, then we are simply proving that indeed there are "moderate" Catholics who are willing to abandon their morals and the teaching of the Church for the most convenient and "effective" choice, available for our immediate gratification.  We must also realize that in times of trial, we are awakened from our indifference, we are moved to act, we simply cannot rely on the president to do the work for us.  

  • Guest

    Please, if you make a statement like "Church teaching is clear" on such topics as these, could you provide specific sources?  We all need to be certain we actually know and understand actual Church teaching and not a misconstrued notion of what the Church teaches.  I would like to know if my reading of the Catechism is somehow inaccurate, perhaps a bishop or the pope has commented on the topic and I need an update.  This would truly help us all make the necessary moral decisions as we are not theologians (that I know of) and therefore if we are not careful we may lead a fellow Catholic astray by our own misunderstanding of Church teaching.  That is why I make certain to quote the Catechism and well known teachers such as Father Corapi.

    Thank you!
  • Guest

    In response to dennisofraleigh who quoted from Cardinal Ratzinger in 'Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion', 

    “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 favour 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.”

    I found the following guidelines for "Proportionate reasons":

    Mediate Material Cooperation. Mediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances that are not essential to the commission of an action, such that the action could occur even without this cooperation. Mediate material cooperation in an immoral act might be justifiable under three basic conditions:


    1. If there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation (i.e., for the sake of protecting an important good or for avoiding a worse harm); the graver the evil the more serious a reason required for the cooperation;  

    2. The importance of the reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action to the action of the principal agent (the distinction between proximate and remote);  


    3. The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided.

    Moralists have long recognized that under many circumstances, it would be impossible for an individual to do good in the world, without being involved to some extent in evil. Along with the principles of double effect and toleration, the principles of cooperation were developed in the Catholic moral tradition as a way of helping individuals discern how to properly avoid, limit, or distance themselves from evil (especially intrinsic evil) in order to avoid a worse evil or to achieve an important good.

    All of the above is quoted directly from:

    My question is:  how do we know, that by voting for a pro-abortion republican,  we will be protecting an important good or avoiding a worse harm?  And since the former Cardinal does distinguish abortion and euthanasia as effectively different from other issues Catholics may be in disagreement about, and would therefore result in being denied Communion (the Eucharist – the source and summit of our Catholic faith!),  can there ever be good reasons to vote for these pro-abortion candidates (better health care or environmental policies? or the off chance they being in office might save some unknown quantity of lives?)

    I don't quite understand letter b listed above (someone explain it to me if they can, thanks!)  but c seems to suggest we cannot vote for these candidates because it would cause scandal toward our fellow Catholics, especially those not secure in the faith, and a good deal of non-Catholics since they might mistake our complicated moral thought process for an outright support of abortion.  

    Similar to this situation:

    "Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis resigned from the Board of Directors and his chairmanship of the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation. The Archbishop resigned over the Foundation’s decision to have pop-singer Sheryl Crow perform at a fundraiser for the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center." 

    The reason he resigned is because he did not want to cause scandal in the Church because even though he did not support abortion and Crow's performance did not cause abortions or say the hospital supports abortion, she is a very outspoken advocate of abortion and therefore, similar to pro-abortion republicans, could cause scandal when even indirectly supported by someone in the Catholic Church.

    "Crow is an outspoken promoter of abortion on demand and has used her celebrity to promote Missouri’s Amendment 2 that creates legal protection for human cloning and the destruction of human embryos. She does not deserve a platform in a Catholic institution which gives the impression that she is in good standing with the Catholic Faith. She is, in fact, an enemy of the Church and should be regarded as such."

    Some secular media labeled the Archbishop "conservative" which is absurd!  He is Catholic.  That's what Catholic means, to be against the killing of innocent life.  No matter what the personal cost.

  • Guest

    A good article on this issue written by Bishop Thomas J. Tobin

    Note especially:

    "Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position, I think of the sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, who personally found no guilt in Jesus, but for fear of the crowd, washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but I don’t want to impose my belief on others.”

    And more recently, the Bishops of the United States wrote: “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate [the Church’s] definitive teaching on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church.” (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, p. 11)

    And finally…

    "But God, really, I was personally opposed to it, but just couldn’t do anything about it.”

  • Guest

    Republican smublican.  The party holds no value to me other than it being pro-life. 

    If they serve up a pro-choice candidate, I will not vote and cannot vote Republican.  I will think long and hard the day before I vote.  But if our two goofy political parties lose life altogether, I will let the only party I have ever seen stand up for life know they have chosen death.  And they will deserve death and all its dirt generating benefits.  They will know they have made a mistake because they will see/hear/smell/taste/feel my vote gone to the other side.  I'll fight with the only thing politicians actually listen to – a real live election day vote.  And it won't be a third party vote, because there are other issues they could possibly tie that vote to and think they are right.  (Unless there is a party called The Pro-life party led by someone who is actually Pro-life.  Then I'd vote for them.) 

    My vote will not be a poll number, any dipsy-doodle politician can read polls without conscience or soul.  It surely wont be a bumper sticker because people can pass those on the highway with a little more pressure on the accelerator.  And it wont be a bunch of media dogs that writhe on the political legs of these drunk-on-the-power-of-office puppets.  It'll simply be my vote on election day.  If they lose life, they lose votes to their "mortal" enemy and no one else. The smarmy bastids!

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest

    I agree with you (protect the rock).  I believe the Church's teaching on choosing the lesser of two evils only applies when you only have two choices and both are pro choice for instance, you would choose the one that you believe would do the least harm.  But if there's any 3rd party who is pro life (regardless of his chances of winning) we have an absolute obligation to vote for him, because the choice was not just between two evils.  If every prolife person did this from the start, and made abortion the number 1 issue as it should be, we'd be in better shape today.  We can never choose a "lesser evil" if there is a "good" to choose.  And I believe too that the republican party has to see that we will not waver on this issue to "win" an election. 

    We have to choose life and let God take care of the rest.

  • Guest

    There was a choice in the last election.  When the Democrats were given control of Congress they voted for TAXPAYER FUNDING of the breeding of embryos for medical research, which Bush vetoed.

    That's what "the lesser of two evils" means.

    Incidently, the political ads I kept on hearing on the radio before the 2006 election was for increased funding on the prescription drug plan ("Vote for change!"); I don't remember one ad that mentioned Iraq or embryonic stem cell research.  (I live in PA, where Casey Jr. was pushed as a pro-life candidate–so that the Democrats could promote embryonic stem cell research once they were given control of Congress.)

  • Guest

    Don Schenk,

    Not sure how what you post impacts the points already made.

    That the Democrats are worse than the Republicans on life issues is a point of agreement all around.

    Things can be bad or things can be worse. But when there is a choice for good, even if that choice seems to have no chance of winning, we must choose the good.

    When we stand before God, do we want to be judged for having stood up for bad, or for standing up for good? When we yield our principles to support the lesser of two evils, are we not standing up for the bad?

  • Guest

    Don Schenk:

    The last I heard, prudence was still considered a virtue.  I think you should vote on the issues rather than for the party.  But the fact remains that voting for the lesser of two evils, when not doing so will hand control of the government to the greater of two evils, is still called for.