Fr Jay Scott Newman tells his parishioners that if they voted for Obama they have put themselves outside the full communion of the Catholic Church, and that they should head for the confessional and get right with God before coming to receive communion. Read it here.
His letter includes this excellent prayer for our new President: God our Father, all earthly powers must serve you. Help our President-elect, Barack Obama, to fulfill his responsibilities worthily and well. By honoring and striving to please you at all times, may he secure peace and freedom for the people entrusted to him. We ask this through Our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever.
Father, I would agree that anyone who votes for a anti-life candidate (at any level of government) puts him or herself outside of the Church and its basic precepts. I wonder though whether this priest or any others who are telling their flocks the same also demands getting right with God for votes cast for other candidates who condone or even promote abortions. After all, many career politicians have been supporting the Roe decision in their legislative votes. Before this election, I don’t recall Catholic bishops or priests telling their people they couldn’t vote for someone who advocates or condones abortion. That said, we should all remember that due to our system, voters usually only have two candidates with a chance of winning. Therefore, voters must, when they go to the ballot box, consider which candidate would best represent them on a wide range of issues, not merely one or two. I certainly agree with the Catholic Church that opposition to abortion is vital. However, there are other life and death issues that presidents and other politicians must handle, and these must be considered too. I don’t buy the argument some make that abortion is worse than military power run amuck. Both are potentially devastating to natural life spans. My decision was not to vote for either Obama or McCain. But I understand why good people voted for each. If I were Catholic and had voted for Obama, I would go to confession and tell the priest that I could not vote only on a single issue: life and death comes in many packages due to many decisions.
Kirsten, I recommend that you read my article on Inside Catholic which discusses the comparison between the evil of the Iraq War and the evil of abortion. Go to Inside Catholic through the link on my sidebar and you’ll find it there.
I wish more priests and bishops would have taken that stance!PS: I am a convert at Liberty University!!!
Thank you, Father. I have read it and others with similar arguments. I remain unconvinced that abortion is more of a sin than wrongful war or other human activities that kill.
Kristen, Just on proportionality alone–we’re talking 40 million deaths versus thousands. Then when you add intentionality? Did you really read the argument? If so, then argue the points, don’t just say, “I remain unconvinced…” That’s a cop out.
What courage, God bless him and all God’s Priests who are not afraid to speak the truth.
WOW!!!! I’ve followed your blog daily since its inception, but was unprepared for this! We actually heard of this homily from FOX News, Neil Cavuto’s show today at 4 p.m. I cannot tell you how proud and blessed we felt/feel to “know” you, and Fr. Newman through you. Once again, thanks so much for your courageous (especially in these times!) witness. May God protect you and be gracious… We will certainly take your lead and pray for the president-elect. And we will continue to pray for all (most especially Catholics) who have poorly formed consciences regarding the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
I suppose the same could be said for those who voted for McCain since he supported an unjust war and its indefinite continuation at the expense of Iraqi Christians.If you voted for either Obama or McCain get ye to the confessional and confess your sin for compromising on either of them!Of course if you voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and supported him as the only viable Catholic choice your conscience would be clear. I mean, I’m just sayin’.This political obsession you’re nurturing is beneath you Fr. It really goes against so much of what you’ve written. I mean, can you see St. Benedict acting as some sort of raving anti-Obama activist?You need to meditate and pray on this. I mean should we all be praying that Obama see the light on abortion? Yes. Should we demonize him as Herod and his supporters as something akin to Nazi sympathizers? No. It’s a very clear and obvious know. It is time to pray for Obama, not to rant about him or demand his supporters seek the confessional.
Are you forgetting that in August 2001 George W. Bush made an executive order on stem cells? Why, when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Whitehouse, pray tell, was embryonic stem cell protection not written into law? Could it be because the Republicans have been a deplorable disappointment to conservatives since Gingrich left (whatever you may think of him)?Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.I disagree profoundly with this. Obama won because of Sarah Palin. Because that choice reflected an ineffective, pretend conservativism that ignores fiscal responsibility and embraces dishonesty and ineffectiveness. This is the woman that supported the bridge to nowhere, until it got yanked, but still took the money for her oil-rich state. This woman was a traitor to fiscal conservative ideals. The fact that you are completely out of touch with the base anger of that choice shows why you’ll never, ever win this argument or win a single heart or mind who wasn’t already won.You have argued in this blog that unjust war does not count because abortion kills more people. Well, I simply disagree surety regarding the scales of justice. Abortion, like it or not, is simply not obvious to some people as an intrinsic evil and the president does not have direct control over abortion. Unjust war is Obvious and the president does have direct control over the military. 99.99% of people can agree that an unjust war is wrong. Only 50% of people can agree that abortion is wrong.I agree that the recent discussions announcing that Obama will likely overturn Bush’s executive order is sad and unfortunate. But where were our brave Republicans in 2001 when this could have been made into a law, rather than an executive order?Republican neocons brought Obama to power with their reckless spending, Palin worship, war mongering, off-shoring, over-zealous union-screwing, and bank deregulation. Neocons are responsible for Obama’s rise to power from start to finish, pure and simple.If you want to know which Catholics are at fault for the pro-choice president look in the mirror, then get ye to the confessional, O ye slow to listen to the pope and condemn the war, O ye beauty queen endorser. You Neocons got him elected. Had you voted even for McCain in 2000 Obama would probably not be in power right now.
I refer readers again to my article on InsideCatholic comparing the Iraq War and Abortion.Not only is the argument about proportionality, but about intention. Put simply, abortionists, intend to kill unborn children. Soldiers do not set out to kill. They set out to obtain a military objective. They are trained not to kill unless necessary.There is also the argument of defencelessness. In combat an enemy combatant can fight back and intends to fight back and is armed. An unborn child can do none of these.Let us not obscure the issue with political posturing. We are opposed to Obama’s radical abortion policies. That’s it.
Totally agree–good for him!
“This political obsession you’re nurturing is beneath you Fr.”Someone needs to alert Marcus that abortion, at heart, is not a political but rather a moral issue. It was a moral issue for nearly two millenia before it became politicized (with the U.S. leading the way in 1973). Would that more of our spiritual directors had the courage to confront the intrinsic evil involved. Lead on, Father!Much as I truly hate war (Vietnam dominated my college years), it will never trump abortion in damage done. The world-wide numbers are mind-boggling. Mother Teresa tried to warn us…the U.S. will never know peace while the horror of abortion is allowed to continue.
Father,Forty million deaths? Well, it isn’t inarguably provable, but let’s grant, for argument’s sake, that the figure is right. Do you really think that war in all its brutality hasn’t killed millions? If the leaders of our world had been more wise and responsible during the 20th century, we wouldn’t have had World Wars I and II, Vietnam, and many other horrible killing fields. Just World War II killed roughly 72 million people (and maimed and terrorized countless more). The first Iraq War (the Gulf War) killed 358 Americans and perhaps as many as 20,000-100,000 Iraqis, depending upon the estimate; quite an inequity there. America, under the second Mr. Bush, decided to spend both human and monetary treasure in Iraq again, initiating an unnecessary war without proper planning for an exit strategy which has cost our military over 4,000 precious soldiers. Please don’t tell me that the violent actions of governments are less important than the individual decisions some make to end pregnancies. While I am absolutely against abortion, I am equally against rash and irresponsible behavior by national leaders that leads to wars and the bitter suffering that accompanies them. Although we have been “fortunate” since World War II in the sense that we have not had staggeringly massive loss of life through any one war, there have been many truly awful, bloody killing fields. Consider Cambodia under Pol Pot (and the massacre of an estimated 1.7 million). Consider the Soviet Union under Stalin (20 million, conservatively, dead in the gulags and other internal prisons, etc.). Consider China under Mao (read the novel Beijing Coma, by Ma Jian, to get an idea of the inhumanity of the Cultural Revolution). Consider Bosnian ethnic cleansing. Consider Afghanistan under the Taliban (read Dexter Filkins’ new book, The Forever War). Consider finally that the U.S. has not ruled out using nuclear weapons in a first strike situation. Initiating a nuclear war could lead to another world war and the highest death toll ever. So, yes, abortion is unacceptable to me. But so is engagement in violence, including war, in many circumstances. We Americans can be strong and defend ourselves without extending ourselves throughout the world and expecting everyone else to bow to our will. Living in the world means respecting other countries’ sovereignty and right to self-determination. Living in the world means doing our best to coexist peaceably. We have a right and a duty to defend against terrorism, but we must do so within a framework that recalls that we are one nation among many. Unborn children have a right to life, I agree. But so do already born human beings, and initiating war cuts off the rights of those people, often in horrifying ways. And, as I mentioned before, many American politicians have been supportive of abortion to some degree ever since Roe. If the Catholic Church now wants to forbid its members from voting for one politician who is pro-abortion, then it should have, all these years. demanded that its members not vote for all the politicians who have been in office for decades, such as Pelosi, Kennedy, and Biden….
Marcus,This is not political.From Fr. Newman today regarding his statements:”It was not an attempt to make a partisan point. In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same.”It is regrettable that the mainstream Democratic party has taken such an extremist stance on the abortion issue and left Catholics few other options, namely a Republican or a candidate with no chance of winning. We should pray for the return of a Democratic party that supports the life of the innocent rather than atrocities numbering greater than 40 million (and counting).I respect your right to “disagree profoundly,” but in all honesty, your stance is quite untenable from a Christian perspective. Rather, such flimsy reasoning is the hallmark of hyper-political, hyper-partisan rhetoric, something that the bishops (as well as Fr. Newman) take great care to avoid.
Jenny,May I just observe that the taking of life, whether it is by abortion or by war, is a moral issue in the sense that we human beings are imbued with the ability to make decisions. We can decide whether we will take life or not, in either situation. But both issues are also political because the federal government is the primary instrument of war-making and has also,through the Supreme Court and subsequent legislation, injected itself into consideration of issues of the unborn. We have to consider these issues from both perspectives, in my opinion.
For anyone interested in a brief history of the abortion issue as it pertains to the Democratic and Republican parties, I highly recommend an article by George McKenna, professor of political science at City College (New York), entitled “Criss-Cross: Democrats, Republicans, and Abortion.”It is truly a tragedy for our nation that one of the two major political parties abandoned those in greatest need of our preferential concern; the weakest among us, the unborn.
Kristen, it is correct to be against both abortion and war. Both are terrible.However, I refer you again to my article in which the proportionality, intention and possibility of self defense are all included in the moral judgement.It’s simple: war (especially unjust war) is bad. Abortion is worse.In war a soldier does not set out to kill. He (and his generals) set out to obtain a military objective. An abortionist and those who procure abortions set out to kill. The intention is different and worse.In war an enemy combatant can defend himself, and chooses (at least to some extent) to engage in war. An unborn child cannot.Even when innocent people are killed in war, that is not the intention. In abortion it is the intention to kill a defenseless human being.I hope you see my point.I am not in favor of war, or the war in Iraq, but I abortion is a greater evil.
Father,I can only say that I disagree that abortion is worse. Both are terribly destructive, in my considered opinion (and I assure you that I am widely read and do not say this without having studied these matters extensively). Soldiers do set out to kill. In the heat of battle, that is all there is. Kill or be killed. The men in the trenches are not concerned about objectives (they leave those to generals) in the midst of the fire fight, but about getting themselves and their beloved buddies through to live another day. There is no shame in that. It is simply a fact of war. In war, sometimes the deaths of civilians are the intention of the enemy. Read about the bombings of London and Desden during WWII, for example. Sometimes more civilians die than soldiers. And often those civilians are children or unarmed adults. So, they are just as helpless as the unborn. Abortion is a terrible scourge. So is war. I’ll leave it at that.
“The men in the trenches are not concerned about objectives (they leave those to generals) in the midst of the fire fight, but about getting themselves and their beloved buddies through to live another day.”kirstin,With all due respect, I think your characterization of the concerns of the “men in the trenches” requires further study. Might I recommend the hundreds (if not thousands) of accounts from the veterans of our many wars.In truth, it is their “objectives” and their love of one another that allows men to persevere amidst the trials of war. When the objective or that love of one another is lost, so is the cause for which the soldier is fighting.
Christopher,I totally agree that their love for one another allows them to survive and forge ahead in wartime. It has been written in many war accounts by soldiers that their primary concerns during a battle are to keep their fellow soldiers who fight beside them alive. My point is that in a fight, soldiers have admitted that they are focused on keeping themselves and their buddies alive, not on the larger objectives of the war at hand. Being shot at or being bombed intensifies the concentration: everything but the moment disappears from consciousness, according to those who have been on the battlefield.
Kirsten, my argument from intention stands.A soldier does not set out to kill and is trained not to kill except when he has to.Even in the bombings of London and Hiroshima, the intention was not to kill innocent people, but to obtain a military objective.An abortionist and those who procure abortion set out to kill intentionally, and not only to kill, but to kill a defenseless unborn child.
Well, then, Father, I must say that if the bombing of Hiroshima can be justified as simply a military objective that something is very wrong. The fact is that war is about purposely killing people; that it might be to achieve a goal doesn’t necessarily mitigate it. And sometimes, the objective is killing people as an object lesson: Truman undoubtedly knew that dropping atomic bombs on Japan would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Japan was ready to surrender before that; only the minor issue of the Emperor remained. The bombing was not a necessary action to end the war, but as some historians have noted, it was a way of serving notice to other potentially confrontational countries (such as the USSR) that the U.S. had a fearsome new weapon.Theoretically an abortionist could say that he/she isn’t doing the “procedure” to kill a baby, but simply to reach the objective of ending a pregnancy that a woman “chooses” not to take to term. The “nonsurvival” of the “fetus” is just an unfortunate consequence — just like casualties of war are an unfortunate consequence of undertaking some kind of military objective. There is no disconnection between objective and consequences in either abortion or war as far as I’m concerned.
Hello Fr. L,I think there is a potential difficulty with Fr. Newman’s stand, if I read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the US bishops from 2004 right:“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.If one were to vote for Obama because of his abortion stance, this would of course be not just material but formal cooperation with evil, and this would require reconciliation before (s)he could present him(her)self for reception of the Eucharist.And Card. Ratzinger laid out conditions (famously elided by Cardinal McCarrick at the time) which could lead to a mandatory refusal of communion:5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). That said, the reading of this directive is that if a voter votes for a pro-abortion/euthanasia candidate for other proportionate – I think the actual terms I have seen used are “grave” and “serious” which I think more clear than “proportionate” – then this is remote material cooperation, which is not a bar to communion per se. Of course, what could possibly be grave and serious enough to offset such a militantly pro-abortion position as (say) Barack Obama’s? I liked Archbishop Chaput’s formula: It would have to be a reason that I could say while looking in the face of those millions aborted when I am translated for my final judgment. It’s pretty had to think of much. My suspicion is that many – most – Catholics who voted for Obama “in spite of” of abortion position really did not have properly informed consciences that allowed them to identify truly grave and serious reasons to vote for Obama in spite of his abortion/life positions. But since it is possible, under Cardinal Ratzinger’s formulation, to have a situation where a vote for Obama would be merely remote material cooperation…I wonder at the prudence of Fr. Newman’s blanket denial of communion. I say all this full of admiration of Fr. Newman’s courageous stand on the Culture of Life, and wishing more of our clerics did likewise – if they had been doing so over the last 40 years, we would not be in the fix we are now. I say it likewise as someone who voted for McCain (albeit with some reluctance given his stand on ESCR and refusal to endorse a Human Life Amendment). But I still wonder if he hasn’t left sufficient room in his policy for the conditions laid out by the Vatican in 2004.Just my thoughts. As always, keep up the good work, and do not lose heart.
Hello Kristin,”Theoretically an abortionist could say that he/she isn’t doing the “procedure” to kill a baby, but simply to reach the objective of ending a pregnancy that a woman “chooses” not to take to term.” No. He is setting out to kill a baby. I think you are trying to get at the principle of double effect here. But it doesn’t work that way.A proper analogy would be a pregnant mother gravely ill with cancer. She is offered chemotherapy which could stop the cancer. But it poses a risk to her unborn child. An unintended side effect of the procedure is to put the child’s life at risk. (This is largely the situation in which St. Gianna Molla found herself.) But in an abortion, the death of the child is not an unintended side effect. It is the direct, willed object of this moral act. And as such, always intrinsicaly evil. No intention can alter an intrinsically evil act.
I believe the truth in Kristin’s way of thinking is beginning to emerge, and I find it is a common but often subtle point of view that our society is beginning to adopt: abortion appears bad on the surface, but deep down perhaps it isn’t so bad. Maybe war is equally bad or even worse.The logic behind their arguements fail. I suspect there are other motives involved in many such cases. With 48 million abortions in the US, that leaves a lot of women who have survived abortion, and even more connected to them in some way. Many are attempting to rationalize a thought process to cope with that sin. A desparate need for rationalization does not demand sound logic.
obpoet,You misinterpret my posts. In no way do I think that abortion “deep down isn’t so bad.” Please note that I said repeatedly that I think abortion is unacceptable.However, just because one thing is unacceptable does not mean that one should compare it to something else and claim it is less acceptable than that. This isn’t a comparative contest. In other words, I do not condone abortion, but I will not condone wrongful war or other improper acts by governments either.
I didn’t want to wade into this… and especially not after a red herring.The Japanese Senate voted to continue the war after the bombing of Hiroshima. The Japanese Senate voted to continue the war after the bombing of Nagasaki. Emperor Hirohito overruled the Senate after Nagasaki and allowed for surrender.Plus, there’s a strong theory that Truman did it in order to end the war rapidly… without Soviet involvement. The Soviets were to enter the war a prescribed amount of time after the European theater was over (per the Yalta conference). The Soviets had already mobilized when Truman sought an immediate end. The theory goes: after the Soviets had divided Europe and set up puppet governments, Truman didn’t want the same in Japan. Thus, by dropping the bomb he would have saved the Japanese from communist oppression, a land invasion, and allowed an economic revival still witnessable today.
athelstane,Abortion is the killing of the unborn, no doubt. However, it can be argued that the objective of an abortion is not directly to kill a child but simply to change the course of the mother’s life. Someone who has an abortion may have many reasons for doing it: perhaps she fears the reaction of the father or her family. Perhaps she thinks she is too young to take on the permanent responsibiity that comes with having children. Perhaps she is told that taking the pregnancy to term will endanger her health. Etc. Do I think such reasoning is justification for abortion? No — except in the cases in which a mother’s physical life is clearly endangered. But just as war uses killing to attain certain objectives, so does abortion. With war, it is usually governmental objectives. With abortion, it is usually personal objectives (except in situations where governments deliberately want to control their population, such as in China). That’s my point.
“Obama won because of Sarah Palin.”That has GOT to be one of the least politically astute statements I have EVER read. People don’t elect the leader of their country on the basis of who is at the bottom of the other side’s ticket.This political obsession you’re nurturing is beneath you Marcus. Or not.
bill,Historians debate many aspects of the end of war with Japan. I’m not going to go into all the arguments because those can be found by reading the voluminous sources directly. All I’ll say is that many have presented a host of facts supporting a position that we did not need to and should not have used atomic weapons on Japan.
“In combat an enemy combatant can fight back and intends to fight back and is armed. An unborn child can do none of these.”Nor can a baby surrender….or maybe the baby has already surrendered, and is killed anyway.
Thank God for Father Newman and others who are not afraid to preach Catholic Doctrine.
Kirstin,to suggest that the main purpose of war is the destruction of human life is deeply insulting to the military that secure your blanket of freedom.CL
Catherine,Not at all. Soldiers are doing their duty, and I have deep respect for them. But decision to go to war (and war is, by definition, the use of killing to force an adversary to capitulate) is not the soldiers’. Their duty as either comissioned officers or enlisted servicepeople is to carry out the orders of their government. It is the governments, whether they be dictatorships or some kind of representational bodies that are responsible for making a decision to engage in any given war. As such, it is the solemn responsibility of any good and trustworthy government to only employ war as an absolute last resort and after proper and complete observance of all processes leading up to it. To do otherwise capriciously puts its own soldiers in harm’s way. Any government that engages in war without all reasonable forethought and restraint is the entity guilty of insulting (and much more) its own people, especially those serving in its military.
Apparently his letter has been removed from the site. I’m disappointed to not be able to read his actual words. He is a courageous man.
For those who are hurting after abortion, please call 877 HOPE 4 ME. I see a lot of equating abortion and war in this blog and I believe that there are those who have had abortions here that may benefit from Rachel’s Vineyard healing retreats. Men as well as women are welcome on retreats.
The obvious answer is to condemn both war and abortion. How people cannot see that is simply mind bending.The approach to war for McCain and Obama would likely be very similar despite what either says on the stump. The potential impact on abortion could not be more starkly different.How long did it take to get to 3000 casualties in the war? It takes one day to curette that many out of the womb.
obpoet,”The obvious answer is to condemn both war and abortion.”There, we agree.
Escerpt from Whispers in the Logia – Newman is slapped down by his diocese:83 year-old Msgr Martin Laughlin, the diocesan administrator — publicly rapped the priest (simultaneously sending his spokesman, Steve Gajdosik, under the bus), lamenting in a statement that, as a result of Newman’s comments, the “moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena”: The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion. The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church. We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.
“Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith.”If only we had held up our end of bargain.
Well done, Fr. Jay Scott Newman! This is one priest who wears the full amour of God!Fr. Newman’s words will be like a sword – separating the timid and hypocritical from the bold and faithful.
What a wonderful beacon of Truth Fr. Newman is for the faithful of South Carolina. May the Lord bless his and your ministry there and enlighten others to defend life valiantly.
Father, I am with you and I also agree with what Fr. Newman stated in his letter as being the truth. I completely agree on your points not only on abortion but of war and the comparisons of both. If we are called to do the greatest good we can, why then should we not focus our efforts on eliminating the greater evil?As Retired US Navy, I sacrificed my youth, my time at home, watching my children grow up and being a part of their lives, I missed births of my daughters, countless birthdays, anniversaries, holidays and it even cost me my marriage. But in good and clear conscience, I did that so my children could live in peace and never experience the conditions I witnessed overseas.Joining the military was MY choice made with full knowledge and a clear conscience and it most certainly was a sacrifice. However, that can in no way be reasonably or intelligently compared to the intentional murder of defenseless unborn children!Why do people today find it so hard to stand up for what is right? Most especially, why do Catholics so openly speak out against the church and her teachings that are, as we believe, divinely inspired? In these past days reading about the divisiveness caused by partisan politics, the election, and most certainly Catholics that openly oppose the teachings of the church, I find myself shaking my head and discouraged. That is until I find a Priest like yourself Father Longnecker, who gives me hope again.Noticing so many recent CINO’s “Catholics In Name Only” that don’t follow the teachings of the church, I once joked that there should be a “test” in order to be a Catholic. But then I realized that as sure as Jesus the Christ is our Salvation, there IS a test!I urge everyone to get back to basics and read the Catechism of our Catholic Church and study. If you don’t agree with the CCC, then you need to ask yourself, are you truly a Catholic?(HINT: The test is RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!)God Bless You All.Bob Cavalcante Jr.
Bob,May I suggest this article to you also: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/aug/29/00011It is said often, but is no less sincere for that: thank you for your service to our country.
Fr Longenecker,A young woman seeking an abortion does not intend to kill an innocent. Her objective is to remain in a child-free state and she convinces herself that the embryo is not a child. The embryo is collateral damage.The intention of President Bush was to unseat Saddam to create a strategic base or the USA in the middle east, to thwart any WMD ambitions Saddam may have had, to better secure our Ally Israel, and to better secure US energy interests. The loss of innocent life was then ignored as collateral damage in seeking the aforementioned intentions.I agree with your proportionality argument to an extent. But I disagree with your intentions argument. I also disagree with a hyperfocus on the presidency. Congress is more accountable on the abortion issue. But more importantly I profoundly disagree with you (& Newman) that Obama was voted for by bad catholics who wished to aid an abet an abortionist. Or that Obama is some sort of Herod figure who would kill all the 2 year olds in a town. Or that Obama harbors an anti-white vendetta of some kind. All of that is so much ranting and hot air!Catholics voted for Obama over the war and the economy. There was a reaction on those two issues thanks to the Neocons. I give you credit for being more vocal than you used to be that the war was wrong, though I still disagree with your whole 'but that is just my opinion' wimpiness on the issue. To me, as I said before, the strength of the presidential office in military matters trumps your proportionality issue. Therefore, despite the massive death toll of abortion McCain and Obama were similar candidates in not a few ways. McCain ranted about boming Iran, protecting Israel at all costs from Iran, yada yada yada. He boasted on his 'straigh talk express' that we would be in Iraq for 100 years. Then he chose a running mate that was a thoroughbred Neocon who was happy to grab as much pork for Alaska as she could get. And he also waffled on the torture issue.With all of that, how on earth can you make the presidential contest out to be some sort of cut and dry life issue for catholic voters?I think you and Fr. Newman are going to get smacked down rather hard for this in the end.
Marcus, yes I agree: two good priests are indeed getting “smacked-down” as we speak, let alone in the end! But you know the old saying: “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.”…and I’m not singing yet!I’ve said for a long, long time that the really serious stuff in our Christian tradition (look to Christ) often ends up taking martyrs to force the rest of us to see the truth. God bless those who get “smacked-down” and God help the rest of us.
Marcus, the argument from intention stands. A woman who goes into an abortion clinic goes in with the express intent of killing the child. There is no other reason she does this. There is no other way she can stay in a ‘child free state’.A soldier in war is trained to complete a military objective and is trained to use any other means than killing in order to do this. He also is trained and takes every effort to avoid the innocent loss of life.An abortionist’s sole purpose is to take an innocent and defenseless life.Stop lying to yourself and others. You’re digging a hole deeper and deeper for yourself on this blog.Abortion is a fundamental issue for Catholics because it is about a fundamental right. The right to life. Take it and all other rights will eventually go.
Father,If an unwillingly pregnant woman could get out of her situation without killing, she almost certainly would. Does she want to “terminate”? Very likely not. But she may think it her only remaining resort, especially if she fears retribution or violence if she carries to term. Is that an excuse? No. It’s an explanation. War is the use of force to compel an enemy to do something. If nations thought they could obtain their goals by diplomacy or foreign aid payments or whatever, they would. When countries declare war, they do so with the clear knowledge that they are authorizing their military to use force up to and including killing the enemy (which may include civilians). There is no question that war is intentional killing.It is true that in a just war the killing of enemies is in no sense murder, but as we all know, the definition of a just war is up for debate. In the case of abortion, anyone who considers a life to begin at conception will define this act to be murder. However, as we all know, there is debate about exactly when a fetus in the womb should be considered a sentient being rather than a blob of dividing cells, so some believe abortion before a certain stage is not murder. So, the intentions of an abortionist or the woman having the procedure may not be as clear cut as some would believe. You may think you know the answers, and that others are ‘lying” but some of the assumptions you make fall under scrutiny.
Kirstin, both you and Marcus (who have been arguing like terriers with a slipper) over the war-abortion question, are now beginning to justify abortion and argue for the permissibility of early abortions.This does not surprise me. I suspected all along that your ‘war is just as terrible as abortion’ argument was another way of saying ‘Abortion is not so bad really.’
Hey, Father. Kirsten and Marcus are not trying to justify abortion (early or otherwise) at all. Instead, they’re asking you not to oversimplify a complex issue. (The issue to which I’m referring is the motive, the mindset, of the woman who seeks an abortion.) You want to convince women not to have abortions, I assume. You want to convince their family members and partners and friends and coworkers not to pressure them to have an abortion, I assume. How are you ever going to do that if you do not acknowledge that a woman who finds herself in a “crisis” pregnancy may very well not be a maniacal, evil person who is gleefully desiring to kill a child, but rather a scared, overwhelmed, often coerced individual who needs to be listened to and supported. It must be pro-lifers who offer this support, for the “counselors” at the abortion clinic aren’t going to do it in any way that respects human life. If you prefer to take a very simplistic approach, however — “Those women are all out to kill babies!” you seem to be saying — very few people will give your counsel a fair hearing; particularly not the vulnerable woman who is in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.
Steve,Thank you. You are absolutely correct. You are very articulate to boot and said it better than I.Father,You are very wrong. I’m not justifying abortion in any way.
“How are you ever going to do that if you do not acknowledge that a woman who finds herself in a “crisis” pregnancy may very well not be a maniacal, evil person who is gleefully desiring to kill a child, but rather a scared, overwhelmed, often coerced individual who needs to be listened to and supported.”Steve, all of us who are in real, serious, on-the-street prolife work know the truth of your quote above intimately and agree with you. But that is a separate issue from the teaching authority of our Church which tells us Catholics that if we have procured, performed or cooperated with an abortion, we have ex-communicated ourselves from our Church. We are obligated to form a moral conscience about good and evil. This particular posting, now 51 comments long, was posted to help us with that precept.
Jenny, I can’t find much at all to disagree with in what you’ve just said, so I’ll nod my head in cyberspace.It seems to me, however, that Fr. Longenecker has expressed exasperation at the temerity of anyone who would dare compare the horror of abortion with the horror of an elective war that kills thousands (possibly more than one hundred thousand people: think Iraqi citizens as well as Americans and British service people). Father seems to believe that the two things cannot be discussed in the same breath, not even in the same conversation, I guess. Yet some on this board (quite rightly, I’d say) have argued that the Church loses credibility when it does not condemn officeholders who take direct and deliberate action to initiate an elective war just as forcefully as it condemns officeholders who make abortions easier (at least marginally easier) for individual citizens to procure.There are far too many people in our country who believe (for a variety of reasons) that they have “no other choice” but to seek an abortion. Far better choices do exist, and abortion is the most destructive choice available — so says just about everyone on this board, I think, including me. However, the person who is pregnant and very poor, or the person who is afraid her father will kick her out of her home at sixteen once he learns she is pregnant, or the person who is fearful of her no-guts boyfriend abandoning her with the two children she already is trying to support — those individuals usually do not think they have a great many choices, nor do they necessarily believe that they are carrying a “baby.” (For the record, I DO consider the unborn child a sacred human life at every stage of pregnancy. But let’s be realistic: most people in our culture do not perceive the unborn life to be “a baby” at eight weeks gestation. Women who have desired to become pregnant, they and their families very likely do consider that a life, a baby. But we’re kidding ourselves if we think everyone views that stage of pregnancy in the same way.)To tie this back to the Iraq War which George W. Bush not only supported but chose to begin: He probably would tell you that he had no choice. He would say that he had to do something. He would be fully willing to justify his war as a “just war” in much the same way as a woman in dire straits views her decision to seek an abortion as “just” and unavoidable. She convinces herself, like President Bush, that no other viable choices exist. Tunnel vision in each case. Bush wore blinders (paying attention to only those intelligence reports which supported the case for war) and apparently convinced himself that he had a rock-and-hard-place situation on his hands. Presto, a just war in his mind. Women who enter abortion clinics probably think of their situations in similar terms. The results are deadly in each case. Somebody ends up dead, no matter how neatly the situation was rationalized.Let’s not let a president off the hook as we discuss what a bad thing abortion is. Yes, abortion is bad. Let’s do our very best, through peaceful and legal means, to end it, or at least reduce it to the largest extent possible. (If a national law were passed to end abortion tomorrow, that wouldn’t really end it.) And let’s also condemn the actions of a president who directly brought about a war that was avoidable and which the Church (John Paul II, among many others) counseled strongly against. If we say that every abortion is an awful event, let us not simultaneously claim that President Bush’s choice to begin an unjustified war was NOT evil simply because “some” wars can be justified. Bush’s choice deserves condemnation just as much as any action of any president who plays a very indirect role in someone procurring an abortion. From a moral standpoint, these two issues indeed are on the same street. They are next door neighbors, or at least right across the street from each other.
STeve, far from not wanting to discuss the war or compare it to abortion, I have published an article on this very topic and posted links to it twice.I do not support the war in Iraq and deplore the killing there, but if you trouble yourself to read my article you will see a cogent argument why the war in Iraq is not the moral equivalent of abortion.It’s a case of being opposed to both things, but being opposed to abortion more, and the article explains why
Steve, in your earlier post do not put words into my mouth. I never said such things about women in crisis pregnancies. I do not blame most women for their choice. I am sympathetic to them. In many cases it is not the woman who chooses abortion, but a father, a mother, a grandparent, an abusive relative or an abusive boyfriend who pressures for abortion.
Father, you’ve said that I put words in your mouth. I think what I did was paraphrase you.A few posts ago (in response to something Marcus wrote), you stated, “A woman who goes into an abortion clinic goes in with the express intent of killing the child. There is no other reason she does this.”You were, it seems to me, placing a heck of a lot of intentionality on the woman. She’s there to “kill the child,” you said. I am arguing that her intentions are likely not that simple. And any effort to reduce the number of abortions in this country must recognize that fact, at least if we hope for those efforts to be successful.
Fr. Longenecker,You keep referring to your article. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation that you spell out in it. But your view is not “gospel.” And those of us who think that the war deserves greater weight have solid arguments for our views also. Marcus is not “lying” to himself. Neither am I. Neither is Steve or anyone else who has concete differences with your interpretation. I hope you can acknowledge that. I do happen to believe that there is ONE TRUTH. But none of us human beings is likely to have total access to it. And even when we refer to religious precepts for our authority, we may not be privy to the complete picture. I hope we can agree on that as well.
Steve,Once again, thank you for incredibly cogent and clear posts. Every times I read a paragraph of yours I nod to myself. You’ve hit the nail on the head!
I am curious to hear how those arguing against war view God’s support of war in the Old Testament. I am unable to come up with a single instance where God supported abortion. Perhaps you know a few examples from scripture.
“Well done! You are an industrious and reliable servant. Since you were dependable in a small matter I will put you in charge of larger affairs. Come, share your Master’s joy!” —Mt 25:21This is very reflective of what the Lord has asked of Father Newman. “Way to go” We are praying for you. We also pray for a Bishop of Catholic faith to come to our aid soon. Thank you for all that you do, Father Newman.
First let me preface this by saying I voted for neither McCain nor Obama. I also read your article on the war and abortion, and have a few questions:First. Is it not a greater to sin to command the killing of innocents under the threat of capital punishment (unjust war) than it is to allow the killing of innocents?Second, with regard to proportionality, the president has very little direct authority to end abortion, yet has a great deal of direct authority to enter war. Our government allows more than 1 million children to be murdered every year, but what if you do not feel that the election of either candidate will alter that number. For example candidate A is elected and X number of babies are allowed to be murdered, however if if candidate B is elected X number of babies will be murdered, but also Y number of people in an unjust war. Wouldn’t this tip the proportional argument? I really feel that the proportional argument can only be used if you could show the number of abortions would change depending on the election.With regard to intention, I agree that the will (intention) does decide whether an action is evil or not, but the intention of most soldiers (although having served, I have known more than I would like, who did enjoying killing) and of most abortionists is not to kill, it is do something else ie make money, secure a target, etc. The killing is only a means to the end and not the end in itself. Both groups have so perverted their conscience that they justify the murders as a necessary and ethical means. So I think you are oversimplifying intention. I really believe that if I was going to choose the lesser evil, I would have chosen Obama. My thinking could be off, but I really tried to think about it as a Catholic, and I am just not convinced by the arguments for McCain. That said, it was so confusing trying to figure out who was the lesser evil, that my conscience was unsure, so I voted third party. However, I still think Obama is the lesser evil, and seeing that he won, it is not just for the sake of my pride that I hope I am right. Christopher Sarsfield
Since so much of this recent storm was generated from false reporting and incorrect paraphrasing, directed at diligent, faithful, well-formed Shepherds standing up for truth and the dignity of life at its roots… allow one to observe that all of Fr. Longenecker’s posts read:”An abortionist and those who procure abortions set out to kill. The intention is different and worse.””An abortionist and those who procure abortion set out to kill intentionally, and not only to kill, but to kill a defenseless unborn child.””Put simply, abortionists, intend to kill unborn children.”Notice the noun doing the action? Abortionist. Marcus posed this view: “A young woman seeking an abortion does not intend to kill an innocent. Her objective is to remain in a child-free state and she convinces herself that the embryo is not a child. The embryo is collateral damage…” to which Fr. Longenecker directly responded, “Marcus, the argument from intention stands. A woman who goes into an abortion clinic goes in with the express intent of killing the child. There is no other reason she does this. There is no other way she can stay in a ‘child free state’…” Now, at least be honest about this: “Those women are all out to kill babies!” = paraphrase of Father’s response to Marcus??? There is no attempt to maintain the integrity of Fr. Longenecker’s thought, or the context in which it was written. Nope. That’s not paraphrase. It is an out of context spin meant to serve a particular justification…hmm, sounds familiar… Fr. Longenecker ended his post to Marcus with, “Abortion is a fundamental issue for Catholics because it is about a fundamental right. The right to life. Take it and all other rights will eventually go.” Including the right to vote, protest war, express your opinion on a blog like this…
To those still worrying the dog slippper…so the price for imagined peace is 4,000 American babies per month?
mindi,A little flip, isn’t that?You are setting up a false tradeoff.
Christopher,Let me see if I can simplify it for you:John Roberts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Do you get it now?
obpoet,No. John Roberts is unproven, and at best will only allow the states to decide. When is some candidate going to step up and say he will protect the unborn. Bush’s policy is let the states decide if they want to murder US citizens. The Supreme Court solution has been going on since 1980. I do not feel that I have to vote for a candidate because he may nominate someone (although he won’t promise to), who might be able at sometime to reverse Roe long after the president as left office.
Christopher,Roberts has rendered opions. That constitutes proof. His idealogy couldn’t be more different from Ginsburg’s.What exactly is it you thing any candidate can do to overturn Roe v. Wade save change the makeup of the court? Anything less than a new opinion from the court will not stand.
obpoet,You remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If you are not willing to do this, you are not pro-life. You can not require someone to vote for candidate based on Supreme Court picks, the process is too long and too uncertain. For twelve years we had Reagan and Bush, and the Supreme Court ploy did not produce results. This was an especially bad strategy this year, when you consider this:McCain has stated that he opposes overturning Roe (of course this was before he needed you to win)His wife in an interview said that McCain was still against overturning Roe (they must have forgot to send her the memo)McCain has said he will not have a litmus test with regard to abortion for a Supreme Court nominee.
Kirstin, go to the Please Read post by Fr. Longenecker under Blessed Cardinal von Graf’s photo, prayerfully read the article linked in that post. Then spend some quality time at http://www.blackgenocide.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/As a veteran soldier, and a mom who was nearly bullied and blackmailed into an abortion at 23,I have to disagree with everything you say about war and abortion. No, not the least bit flip.
…as far as a false trade off…wide-open, aggressive legislation to legalize abortion at all stages of life? Based upon his voting record, that is the one campaign promise we can count on him to fulfill. http://www.fightfoca.com That’s what this whole dog-slipper discussion is about, in case you got lost in your own rhetoric…
Christopher,Again, how do you overturn Roe v. Wade outside the court? Give a legal precident.The appointments of Roberts and Alito is progress, both of whom Obama failed to support with a vote. McCain voted for both. Clearly Obama has the litmus test. The wheels of progress are often slow. Replacing dead or retiring liberal justices with men and women who understand the sanctity of life is the only way to end abortion in this country.
mindi,As you’ll see if you look, I already saw the post to which you refer. I made a comment there.I’m sorry you disagree. I guess we will have to continue doing that — disagreeing.
mindi,Correction. I did not leave a comment in the thread immediately below the one about Cardianl von Graf. I did read Fr. Longenecker’s article however. I’ve discussed my disagreements with it in other posts so I will not repeat here.
obpoet,Congress has the constitutional right decide the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. For example Bush used his political capital to pass the Military Commissions Act. This act said that the federal courts could not hear habeas corpus cases involving foreigners accused of terrorism. I personally detest this legislation, because as a Catholic I believe everyone has a right to have their case heard, but it is constitutional. So Bush could have used his capital to pass a law that said the federal courts could not hear any cases involving state restrictions on abortion. This was Ron Paul’s solution. If pro-life supporters insisted that all candidates they support, would push this, it would force the weak pro-lifers to do something. Right now it is too easy for “pro-life” politicians. They take are support, and then do not have to do anything for it. After-all they have to wait for a change in the Supreme Court. This allows “pro-life” politicians to string us along forever. Well I am sick of playing the part of a cat chasing a string. With regard to McCain, he was a master at this. While getting a 75 rating from National Right to Life, Sen. Santorum tells us he worked behind the scenes to ensure that pro-life legislation never came to the floor for a vote. I am sick and tired of the pretty words “pro-life” politicians give us, while doing nothing to end the slaughter. I want deeds. RES NON VERBUM! I will no longer support any “pro-life” politician that refuses to act in our interest. I view them no differently than I view pro-aborts. “Pro-life” politicians will only start doing things to save babies when they realize that pro-life voters will not be taken for granted. Pro-lifers need to stop voting against people, and insist that they will now only vote for people.
Cristhopher,Roe is already the law of the land. What you speak of would not reverse that mistake.The only solution is a judiciary that respects life at its beginning. Obama seems to have no interest in appointing such people to the SCUSA.
obpoet,That is not the opinion of many legal scholars. BTW this would also give cover to those SC justices that are wishy washy on Roe. They can just say that SC does not have jurisdiction in this area. As I said, it has been used in the recent past. It can not hurt anything, except that the “pro-life” politicians may decide that since being “pro-life” might mean doing something, they should become pro-abortion. I can live with that. Of course many pro-torture, pro-war Republicans might be upset, because they count on the pro-life vote, to advance their own Culture of death.But if you want to hold out hope for the Supreme Court, go ahead, but I won’t help you. I have wasted too many votes trying to pack the Supreme Court.PS remember the definition of insanity: doing the same thing for 30 years and expecting a different result.
Except that the last 8 years witnessed a reversal in the tenor of those appointed to the court. But it is very difficult to know how individual justices will evolve over time, as they age, mature, or become senile. Bush Sr and Regan did not do the best job appointing justices, and Clinton was clearly a disaster. Odd that the least competent President seems to have appointed two of the most competent justices.