More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."
Andy McCarthy of National Review Online suggests his nominees could surprise many of his pro-life backers:
# Matt Talbot Says:
I’m not ashamed to say I choked up a bit toward the end of Obama’s victory speech in South Carolina last night. This guy has charisma coming out of his ears.There hasn’t been a rhetorician with his skills on the scene in at least 40 years. America is going to be an engaging place to follow politics if he gets the nomination and wins the general election.
# Morning's Minion Says:
Obama’s rhetoric is stunning. No public figure since Bobby Kennedy has spoken so eloquently, so hopefully, about uniting and bringing out the best in people.
# Matt Talbot Says:
There are actually a lot of parallels between RFK in his time, and BHO in his. Both are running as unifying candidates in a badly divided electorate, an electorate that was and is looking for an alternative to the status quo; both are running against an unpopular and unjust war…
Most of Vox Nova's posts on politics and/or the 2008 presidential campaigns have focused their criticism on the Republicans (and the evils of the Bush administration, in particular) -- perhaps, in their thinking, to make up for what they perceive as a dearth of criticism from other "conservative Catholics" in St. Blog's Parish. In the past several weeks, the members of the Catholic blog Vox Nova have raised serious (and, in my opinion, valid) concerns over the pro-life credentials of John McCain on ESCR. They have complained how Catholics have been "duped" by the GOP.
By comparison, the only two posts of which Obama is the subject have treated him with what one might call "kid gloves," and taken an approach that I can only describe as "laudatory."
Why does this get under my skin? -- We are talking about a candidate who for all his talk of unity has fought tooth and nail to exclude a rather significant portion of human beings -- of whom the "right" to murder he has obstinately advocated (going above and beyond even NARAL) to the point of opposing life-saving medical treatment to babies who survived an abortion, which no amount of praise or shouts of “Yes, we can! Si, se puede can conceal.
In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers."I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.
Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."
"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],'" he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."
I don't mean to suggest that Catholics should be wedded to the GOP, but if one voices their support for Obama, at least endeavor to explain how a candidate with a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood would merit Catholic support. I posed this question at Vox Nova and received the following reply from Gerald Campbell:
And again:
As for the unborn, this is an intellectual and practical challenge that has yet to be seriously engaged — by anyone, anywhere — on either side of the debate. This issue has been framed, and deliberately so, as a political wedge issue. Its logical structure is thoroughly contradictory and self-defeating. It insures that political chaos will endure and remain self-perpetuating. It is a debate that only serves the interests of Power.Pro-life advocates believe they have a practical solution to the mounting tragedy of the unborn. But, in fact, no such solution exists. For over a half century, this debate has been frozen in time while the rate of abortions have increased day after day, year after year, decade after decade. This is the tragic fact. No solution stands on the horizon. It is time to stop and think. [...]
At bottom, the behavioral crisis facing this country — as reflected in homelessness, violence, substance abuse, gangs, abortion, family dynamics, and so forth — is a spiritual crisis. It is a function of the failure of the individual to realize intrinsic relationships, e.g., love, compassion, understanding, mercy, etc. . . .The logic inherent in the atomistic individual leads directly to wide-spread spiritual alienation. This alienation is the root cause of dysfunctional behavior. The formal cause of human behavior is always spiritual.
In my work and testimony to the Congress, I speak of the “unmet need to belong.” This is not a psychological or sociological need, although it has psychological and sociological implications. It is an existential need. Individuals will do whatever it takes to find a way to belong with others, even if that involves sharing heroin needles, murdering another individual, or indulging in a life of power and wealth.
The question that must be faced by the national leadership is how to address a spiritual crisis. Policy is limited by the very fact that it is mechanical in nature. Are their other ways to impact the dynamics of a society?
Remember, the person is intrinsically relational. It cries out to belong with others in love and community. Isolation and aloneness strikes at the spiritual core of the human person. Indeed, spiritual alienation is the definition of Hell. Given that, all Americans would benefit from an inspired call to transcendent purposes which only they can realize in their interaction with one another. Such is the central dynamic of human community as existentially conceived.Watching Obama closely, one can already see such dynamics at work. . . . there are signs of a new political imperative appearing in the body politic. A new kind of politics is beginning to emerge, one that transcends the narrow and fragmenting dynamics of interest group politics. To be sure, we have been conditioned to believe that interest group politics is all there is. But it is not. There is also a politics that inclines individuals to noble purposes and thereby reduces the fragmentation and atomization of society.
What kind of dynamics would be unleashed across the country? In American institutions, in communities and schools, in families and neighborhoods? I think such transformation is something that would greatly benefit America and strike at some of the behavioral dysfunctions we see all around. This is the audacity of hope.
The USCCB, for example, takes a particualr interest in the "wedge issues" and "the narrow and fragmenting dynamics of interest group politics," in providing a good checklist of legislative pro-life issues in the 110th Congress -- on which practical decisions can and should be made, and policies enacted. Suffice to say I can predict where most Republican candidates would stand, and what they will do when legislation passes their desk. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for any Democratic candidate.
In fact, we can be certain that if Obama is elected he will do everything in his power to roll back even the incremental pro-life advancements that were implemented under Republican administrations and supported by the USCCB. Given what he has already promised Planned Parenthood and pro-choice lobbyists: he will encourage and implement where possible public funding for abortions (for instance the repeal of the Mexico City policy); as a means of reducing abortion, he will expand the distribution of contraceptives in public schools and encourage their use through sex education; he will oppose any restrictions to late-term abortions, and ensure that Roe v. Wade is unapposed. (Obama on abortion and birth control GlassBooth.org).
Related
Senator Obama, in one of the debates with his opponent during his last campaign, asserted that "no one is for abortion". I've asked here many times, but I would still like to know, the practical difference, in terms of voting records, of a politician like Obama who is "personally opposed, but", and a hypothetical "pro-abortion" politician. Given that Obama, while a state senator, three times opposed legislation that would have protected babies who had been born alive from being aborted anyway, I can't see that there would be much difference.
However, while we try to heal that indifference, I think not only of the persons involved in having an abortion (e.g., mother, doctor) but of the need of government to secure justice for the one about to murdered. And so I admittedly vacillate between seeing abortion as a moral issue that can only be solved by true humanism and concern for the root causes of indifferences and seeing abortion as a legal issue for the one about to be murdered who could be protected by policy. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not stop abortion; the social and individual evils cannot be stopped by mere legality (which is why I do not condemn another Catholic who may support a pro-choice candidate). But when I think of the person who is killed, I am possessed by an overwhelming feeling that legal protection must extend to him/him regardless of the situation and environment in which the decision for an abortion is made.
My left-leaning Catholic friends apparently need to be reminded that Senator Obama, for all of his pretty words, is a radical proabort.If you honestly think that you can vote in good conscience for a man who is arguably more proabortion than NARAL, then you’re deluding yourself, and playing with fire in the process.
Back in November 2007 a "diverse group of prominent lay Catholics" called for "a more civil tone to political discussion in America's public square:
“Civility should be a guiding principle in our public life,” the statement says. “Civility and its potential impact on the fabric of the Catholic Church should be of concern to all faithful Catholics, both clergy and lay people.”"The statement directly addresses controversies over Catholic politicians whose positions on various polarizing issues conflict or give the appearance of conflicting with Church teachings,” said Ambassador Thomas P. Melady. “Some voices have been shrill. The language at times has been offensive. The level of dialogue and conversation in too many instances has not met the standards that one expects in a country trying to establish worldwide standards for all democracies."
This past week, another group of influential Catholics released a formal response to the statement. Catholic News Agency reports:
"Rather than giving pro-abortion Catholic politicians a pass, we should vote them out of office and encourage them to repent,” said Austin Ruse, the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) on Monday. Ruse made his comments as he and 95 other influential Catholics responded to the “Call for Civility” in politics statement released last November.The November 2007 statement calling for more civility in politics was made after some pro-abortion Catholic politicians expressed their opinion that they should be treated more civilly by their fellow Catholics over their political positions.
The 96 signers of the response statement about political civility say that while not all of the signers of the November statement intended it, the net effect of the “‘Call for Civility’ would be to silence the pro-life and pro-family movements. We oppose this effort root and branch.”
He led the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955 - 1956) and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1957), serving as its first president. His efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. Here he raised public consciousness of the civil rights movement and established himself as one of the greatest orators in U.S. history. In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other non-violent means.
In a profile of the "100 Most Important People of the Century", Time magazine explains why we as Americans should be grateful for the prophetic witness of Dr. King:
Three decades after King was gunned down on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., he is still regarded mainly as the black leader of a movement for black equality. That assessment, while accurate, is far too restrictive. For all King did to free blacks from the yoke of segregation, whites may owe him the greatest debt, for liberating them from the burden of America's centuries-old hypocrisy about race. It is only because of King and the movement that he led that the U.S. can claim to be the leader of the "free world" without inviting smirks of disdain and disbelief. Had he and the blacks and whites who marched beside him failed, vast regions of the U.S. would have remained morally indistinguishable from South Africa under apartheid, with terrible consequences for America's standing among nations. How could America have convincingly inveighed against the Iron Curtain while an equally oppressive Cotton Curtain remained draped across the South?Some additional resources on Dr. King:
. . . In New York, a few months before his death, we had lunch, together with Young and Al Lowenstein, an activist who would later be murdered by one of his protégés, and King turned philosophical about the limits of political change. It was a leisurely and convivial lunch. The restaurant had been alerted that “the famous Dr. King” was coming, and the waiter assumed that the white man in the clerical collar must be he, and so throughout the lunch addressed me as “Dr. King.” It both astonished and amused that one of the most famous people in the world was not recognized, and King enjoyed it immensely, taking the opportunity to smoke cigarettes throughout lunch, a regular habit that he usually indulged only in private. Among many other things, we talked about the abiding wisdom of Reinhold Niebuhr and the need to recognize the distinction between the morally imperative and the historically possible, agreeing also on the moral imperative to press the historically possible. It was the last time I saw him. . . .
It is well worth reading, addressing the positive and negative aspects of Dr. King's life and legacy, including his unfortunate sexual philandering:
Then and now, I think it possible and necessary to make a crucial, albeit not unambiguous, distinction between the very broken earthen vessel and the treasure of truth that vessel contained and so powerfully communicated.
And what of Dr. King's legacy today? -- Alveda King, neice of Dr. King, believes that civil rights leaders have by and large neglected their commitment to the least among us: (Illinois Leader January 15, 2004):
"I can remember the days when Jesse Jackson was pro-life, and he went across the country calling abortion genocide. I don't understand how he took that turn or why. I personally believe that any leader, especially African-American leaders -- and I can say this because I'm African-American -- should be compelled to remember the days of slavery and to remember their responsibility toward the children we call the unborn. They are real people too, and they actually have civil rights."As Mrs. King put it in an essay on her website: How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children?:
My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., once said, “No one is going to kill a child of mine.” Tragically, two of his grandchildren had already been aborted when he saved the life of his next great-grandson with this statement. His son, King once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother.
In a 1977 essay for the Right to Life News, civil rights leader and colleage of Martin Luther King, Jr. Jesse Jackson stated that "How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue". Speaking at the March for Life, he mused: "What happens . . . to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience."Jesse Jackson would later do an "about face": shortchanging his moral conviction for a chance at the Democratic nomination for president in 1984 and 1988 (See Jackson's Reversal On Abortion (Washington Post May 21, 1988). He later became something of a "spiritual advisor" to President Bill Clinton and -- not suprisingly -- announced his support for Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
BlackGenocide.com is a project of the African-American pro-life ministry Learn ("Life Education And Resource Network"). Founded by Rev. Johnny Hunter, it "publishes extensive data and research information on the racist origins of Planned Parenthood, it's founder, Margaret Sanger, and the American Eugenics movement." BlackGenocide.com
seeks to bring attention of the Black community to the horror of abortion and what is in their mind the paramount "civil rights" issue of today (often butting heads with the NAACP, which has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the need to reduce abortion within the Black community). Consider these horrifying statistics:
In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", Martin Luther King said, "The early church brought an end to such things as INFANTICIDE." What would Martin Luther King say to the church today?The Rev. Jesse Jackson once said:
"That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us 'niggers'. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified".
Jackson's massive flip-flop on the abortion issue is further proof that his political future is far more important to him than are his principles.
With 1/3 of all abortions performed on Black women, the abortion industry has received over 4,000,000,000 (yes, billion) dollars from the Black community.
Catholics made up 38% of the vote in New Hampshire. Senator McCain and Governor Romney each garnered 38% of the Catholic vote there.
Catholics overall made up 29% of the vote in Michigan. Governor Romney won 41% of the Catholics who attend Mass weekly vote compared to 36% for Senator McCain. McCain won 36% of the Catholics who attend less than weekly vote compared to 35% for Romney.
Catholics made up only 12% of the vote in South Carolina. Senator McCain won 35% of he Catholics who attend Mass weekly vote compared to 28% for Governor Romney, 18% for Senator Thompson, and 14% for Governor Huckabee. McCain also won 58% of Catholics who attend mass less than weekly compared to 20% for Romney.
Looks like Catholics are really only looking at McCain and Romney.
(Data from CNN Exit Polls.)
On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we recognize that each life has inherent dignity and matchless value, and we reaffirm our steadfast determination to defend the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our country remains committed to upholding that founding principle.
Since taking office, I have signed legislation to help protect life at all stages, and my Administration will continue to encourage adoption, fund abstinence education and crisis pregnancy programs, and support faith-based groups.
Today, as our society searches for new ways to ease human suffering, we must pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects the sacred gift of life and upholds our moral values.
Our Nation has made progress in its efforts to protect human life, and we will strive to change hearts and minds with compassion and decency.
On National Sanctity of Human Life Day and throughout the year, we help strengthen the culture of life in America and work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2008, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The First Things blog On the Square has published a portion of Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput's January 11, 2008, presentation in New Orleans titled “Catholic Identity in the American Public Arena”:
When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens. Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November ...(emphasis added)
***
2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.
3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.
***
5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice—and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.
6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.
***
8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.
9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life—which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.
[More]
From the Cardinal Newman Society:
On Wednesday, January 9th, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama addressed a large crowd at Saint Peter’s College, a Jesuit Catholic institution in Jersey City, N.J., generating considerable media attention to his campaign.“It’s irresponsible for a Catholic college and its leadership to host a political rally for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate,” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society. “Such events curry public attention at the expense of public morality. In so doing, they demonstrate reckless disregard for the most vulnerable human lives and contribute to the general decline of Catholic higher education.”
The president of Saint Peter’s College, Dr. Eugene J. Cornacchia, endorsed the event in a prior press release, welcoming Obama “as we would welcome any presidential candidate who wishes to discuss and debate the ideas and events that are shaping our history.” The college worked cooperatively with the Obama campaign to provide links for media registration and public participation. According to the Obama campaign website, 1,074 individuals registered for the event as a result of the Saint Peter’s College link.
The Cardinal Newman Society has protested similar events in the past, citing the U.S. bishops’ 2004 mandate that Catholic institutions should refuse speaking platforms and honors for abortion advocates. Obama supports Roe v. Wade, partial-birth abortion and embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against parental notification and for increased contraceptive funding for teenagers.
"The Man Comes Around" - Catholic Republican Bobby Jindal was sworn in as governor of Louisiana today. RedState.com has the details.
The text of the email can be found here. This looks to me like someone who really doesn't like Governor Huckabee who is using the anti-Catholic bias card to try and stir up some discontent and anger among Catholics. Will it work? We'll see Tuesday.
Disclaimer: I am not a supporter of Governor Huckabee.
Deal Hudson discusses Huckabee's failure to attract Catholic voters (InsideCatholic.com January 9, 2008):
The Catholic voter problem that surfaced in Iowa has followed Gov. Mike Huckabee to New Hampshire. In Iowa, Huckabee received strong support in predominately Evangelical counties, but his support fell sharply in counties with large numbers of Catholic voters.There was no improvement in New Hampshire for the former governor of Arkansas. Sen. John McCain attracted the most Catholic support, 38 percent, while Huckabee received only 8 percent. In other words, McCain garnered almost five Catholic votes for every one going to Huckabee.
Huckabee did almost twice as well with Protestants as he did with Catholics -- but not as well as McCain, who received the most Protestant votes (40 percent). McCain nearly attracted the same number of self-identified born-again voters as Huckabee, 30 percent to 33 percent.
It's clear that Catholics, thus far, have not been charmed by Mike Huckabee.
Deacon Keith Fournier, a Huckabee supporter, has been covering the campaign for Catholic.org -- on December 15th Fournier was granted an exclusive interview with Mike Huckabee wherein he spoke on a range of issues including Catholic social teaching, Huckabee's efforts to advance the "culture of life," foreign policy in Iraq, school choice and immigration.
On December 29th, in a follow-up, Deacon Fournier asked the Governor directly about this and about another issue of importance to our Catholic Online readers and viewers:
DEACON FOURNIER [...] Your interview with Catholic Online is one the highest read stories in our history.However, shortly after its publication, you spoke at a Church in Texas, on a Sunday morning. Of course, there is nothing unusual about that.
What caught the attention of many of our readers and viewers was a concern that the Pastor of the Church has written some material that insults the Catholic Church and has been labeled by some as anti-Catholic.
Our readers understand that you, like all of the candidates, are running for the Presidency. In other words, we know that you seek to govern the whole Nation and, of course, you must reach out to all Americans.
However, there has, unfortunately, been a history of anti-Catholicism in this Nation that we all love.
Your campaign quickly noted the presence of Catholics in many of the top positions of your campaign staff.However, the issue and the concern raised by your visit, has not gone away.
Would you comment upon your visit and on your views concerning Catholics in America?
GOVERNOR HUCKABEE: “I am invited to speak at thousands of diverse venues each year. My willingness to address a group says nothing about whether or not I agree with every tenet, policy or belief espoused by a group.
To be honest, I have never thought about having “a view” about Catholics in America.
Rather, I have enjoyed strong, personal relationships with many Catholics over the years and I would hate to think about my life without those relationships having been there.
For more than a decade, I marched side-by-side with Catholic Bishops in Arkansas’ annual March for Life.
Throughout my years as Lieutenant Governor and Governor, I enjoyed a very close relationship with leaders and members of the Catholic Church in Arkansas.
My pro-life record is largely the result of this close working relationship.
My relationships with Catholics predated my entry into politics. When I was pastoring a Baptist church in Texarkana, I had the opportunity to work closely with the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word at the St. Michael Hospital near my church. I was always welcomed warmly by the sisters when I visited the sick.
As a pastor, I held joint services with my neighboring Catholic congregation, was invited to speak in Catholic churches for special services, and had regular breakfast meetings with the Bishop of the Arkansas Diocese, Bishop Peter Sartain, now in Illinois.
Those early years of ministry showed me the value of working with caring people whether or not every one of our religious tenets line up exactly.
In short, if I held any animosity toward Catholics, I don't think Justice Scalia would have ever taken me up on my invitations to go duck hunting.
As I mentioned before, many of my top-level staff and closest advisors are Catholic, including my national campaign manager, national campaign director, my policy advisor and my campaign’s chief operating officer.
Thanks Christopher for another good round-up posts this time on Sen. McCain.
As many know Sen. McCain's pro-life voting record is quite good except for the glaring example of voting for and supporting embryonic stem-cell research. Christopher posts the following from McCain's site.
Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced TechnologySome have said with the very pro-life Sen. Brownback supporting Sen. McCain that the Senator now has a more restrictive view on ESCR than what he once held. The question is what does the above statement mean in the real world. If he is actually against human cloning and the intentional creation of human embryos than how does this effect actual research?
Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.
For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.
As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.
Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.
Back in December Senator John McCain announced a "Catholic leadership team" to advise his campaign:
"As Catholics, we are proud to announce our support for John McCain, a genuine American hero with a conservative record who has what it takes to lead this country," said U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of Catholics for McCain.The roster of the leadership team consists of:Former Governor Frank Keating (R-OK), also National Co-Chair of Catholics for McCain said, "John McCain can uniquely appeal to Catholics with his strong, 24-year pro-life record, his stand for traditional values and school choice, his proven leadership in defending America, and his demonstrated ability to appeal to independent-minded voters. These are exactly the type of qualities that Catholic voters will be looking for in 2008."
In a joint statement, Governor Keating and Senator Brownback added: “In this election, with so much at stake, we need a leader who will help transform history to extend and uphold the rights and dignity of each and every child of God. John McCain is that leader.”
John McCain expressed his appreciation and stated: "I am very pleased to have the support of this distinguished coalition of Catholic leaders. I am proud to stand side-by-side with Catholics on many of the most critical issues of our day: defending the sanctity of human life, upholding traditional marriage, expanding educational choice, and defending America from the threats that we face around the globe. I have fought my entire life to protect religious freedom and human rights around the world. I look forward to working with these Catholic leaders in the weeks and months ahead as we take our shared values to the White House."
Catholics For McCain National Co-Chairmen
Catholic Students For McCain National Chairman
I am shocked and amazed to find Catholics claiming that John McCain has a good record on pro-life issues. These Catholics must be, no doubt, quite ignorant of political processes, for John McCain is a strong supporter of embryonic stem cell research, one of those “non-negotiables” we often hear about in Catholic circles. He has voted for every measure that seeks to provide funding and enhancement for embryonic stem cell research while a Senator for Arizona. He has joined with Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama in supporting such legislation–the three have identical voting records on stem cell research.(See Vox Nova for a discussion of this issue).
Via On The Issues.org, John McCain's legislative record on abortion and ESCR:
McCain opposes embryonic stem cell research that uses cloned human embryos, but supports research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments. In 2006, McCain supported a trio of Senate bills designed to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research, ban the creation of embryos for research and offer federal support for research using embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics.
Here's McCain's position on stem cells, according to his 2008 Presidential Campaign website:
Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced TechnologyStem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.
For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.
As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.
Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.
Back in November I had posted the link to the USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship" with a request for your thoughts -- it didn't seem to provoke many comments, which may speak to either to a lack of interest, a lack of readership. Such is the reception of most USCCB documents.
At any rate, following is a brief compilation of responses to said document culled from the web:
“Faithful Citizenship” is a carefully considered reflection on political responsibility, the difference between “intrinsic evils” and prudential judgments, and the ways in which conscience is rightly formed. Several news stories have highlighted that the bishops left “loopholes” or created “leeway” for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That is not true. The document repeatedly and emphatically gives top priority to the protection of innocent human life in instances such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.But, of course and of necessity, it also says: “In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”
The “conscience clause” is not a loophole but speaks to a solemn obligation. It is clear Catholic teaching that one must act in accord with conscience, even if one’s conscience is misguided. At the same time, one is obliged to form one’s conscience according to moral truth. It is also the Church’s teaching, reiterated in this document, that acting according to a rightly formed conscience is a matter that impinges upon one’s eternal salvation.
It is obvious that some Catholics are, if not pro-abortion, at least of the view that opposition to abortion is trumped by other matters they consider more important, such as an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, their preferred health plan, or a Democratic victory in the presidential election. If knowingly and with full intent they collaborate in the intrinsic evil of abortion, they may say that the conscience clause provides them with a loophole. In such an instance, as “Faithful Citizenship” rightly underscores, they are provided only with the choice to surrender their soul’s salvation.
Given that this document was written by a committee, I think that outcome is encouraging. It's too bad that a long list of prudential issues, commonly supported by the Democratic Party, are included, but that is to be expected until there are serious changes at the USCCB. . . .But the document has some serious theological muscle, which should be appreciated in the pro-life community.
This document does handle moral issues that are intrinsically evil much better and it is also much clearer what they are compared to other issues. The pro-life focus is quite evident throughout. It was of course mentioned in previous years, but there was much more confusion in regards to lesser moral issues. Last time around they even mentioned supporting Affirmative Action which I don't see is consistent in Catholic teaching by correcting one evil by using the same evil to racially discriminate against others. The first section of the document is fairly decent, but it demonstrates why documents written by committee are seldom very good. The last third though made me think that someone I had accidentally clicked onto a link and landed on a Democratic Party talking points page. All problems seemed to have a government solution (and Federal at that) and while subsidiarity is mentioned at the front of the document it is noticeably missing in essence in the rest of it. While many of the responses to these issues are prudential ones they are consistently ones championed by Democrats except perhaps on school choice.The real question though is does the document really matter? What was the last time to saw any Bishop's document at your parish and how likely will it be that many if they saw this semi-large document would read through it in the first place.
The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong. It purports itself to be voting guide, but it is pretty much a restatement of the USCCB’s domestic policy agenda. I don’t have a problem with that policy agenda, but I also don’t see any particular party’s candidates opining to bring back racism or remove the last vestiges of it. (This doesn’t mean someone can’t make a second or third order argument over the matter. That kind of reasoning has its own problems that I won’t go into here.) One thing the guide doesn’t do is provide manifest conclusions over which candidates, as in putative ones informed by watching American elections over the past two dozen years, one should seek to elect.
. . . if the Holy Father, in the context of addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square, has chosen to describe certain public policy issues as being "not negotiable", surely a new USCCB document addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square should at least make note of the fact, right?
The 2008 Presidential Race has brought about some rather amusing discussions (and positions) among Catholic conservatives . . . this from December 2007:
Here is the N.Y. Times link and an excerpt:
Mr. McCain was greeted by about 150 supporters at the Dubuque airport when he landed in Iowa on Wednesday evening, including Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a former candidate whose endorsement lent him a boost among evangelical Christians in the state.
N.Y. Times, 1/3/08.
Who is Republican Kansas Senator Brownback? He is a Catholic who converted from evangelical Protestantism. He is very pro-life and pro-marriage. Brownback's own personal journey to Catholicism from a bout with cancer is quite impressive. My first choice for President in 2008 was Brownback, but he has since dropped out of the race. My personal choice now is McCain. Here is a link to past Catholic Analysis posts mentioning Brownback that give you the background to understand the significance for us Catholics of Brownback's endorsement of McCain for President in 2008.
Posts
All Comments
During the 2008 election, CPS was pleased to contribute to the efforts of both Catholics Against Rudy and Catholics Against Biden, in light of the deviations of both from Catholic teaching on abortion.
Our present contributors are Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate; Stephen Dillard (of Southern Appeal; Jeff Miller aka. The Curt Jester; David Schrader of Catholics for Bush and Christopher Blosser of Against The Grain.
The CPS Blogroll
Bloggers to the political right, left and center covering topics of mutual interest.
PLEASE NOTE: listing does not necessarily imply an endorsement of a blogger's opinions on various issues.
After AbortionOrganizations
The Acton Institute
Catholic Action Network
Catholic Answers
Catholics For the Common Good
Catholics in the Military
CatholicVoter.Net
Courage Apostolate
Ethics & Public Policy Center
Fidelis
Federalist Society
Human Life International
Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture
One Nation Under God
Priests For Life
Thomas More Law Center
News Resources
Catholic News Agency
Catholic News Service
Catholic World News
CNN.com
Google News
LifeSiteNews.com
New York Times
Yahoo News
Zenit News Service
Periodicals
National Catholic Reporter
National Catholic Register
The Hill
Crisis Magazine
National Review
Weekly Standard
