We don’t like racism either. It’s wrong. People should not judge others based on the color of their skin, their religion or their ethnic background. We should do everything possible to get rid of racism and strive to build a society of racial unity and peace–finding paths of empowerment and equality for all people–especially those who are minorities or members of a racial underclass.
When it comes to black Americans we feel especially strongly that they have had a terrible history of oppression, injustice, racial prejudice and even being killed because of their race.
That’s one of the reasons we’re opposed to abortion–because a silent racial holocaust is going on in America in which more black unborn babies are killed than any other race (by ratio of abortions to live births–black women are more than three times as likely as white women to have an abortion and hispanic women roughly twice as likely)
We can’t understand why a black politician would be in favor of a cruel medical procedure which eliminates ever increasing numbers of black children. This seems like racism and eugenics to us, and we remember that Margaret Sanger–the founder of Planned Parenthood–had exactly this in mind when she set up her murderous organization.
We understand that many black women in crisis pregnancies need help. We’re in favor of offering more and more ways to help them keep their children and give them a chance to live and thrive in America, but before they can live and thrive…they have to survive.
Fr. Longnecker,I posted this on another thread, but it was far down, and I was hoping you would comment on it. I found Fr. Newman’s article theologically awful, but well intentioned. I think it is obscene that Fr. Newman seems to want to bind his parishioners to his very fallible, far from certain prudential judgement. Then he has the nerve to imply that those of us who prayed, studied and looked to the Church for guidance, yet came up with a different prudential judgment are guilty of a mortal sin and have placed ourselves outside of the full communion of the Church. My prudential decision was that when everything is taken into account Obama was the lesser evil between him and McCain. I did not vote for Obama, but still since I came to a different conclusion than Fr. Newman, I must not be a real Catholic. Anyway here is my post in response to your article on war and abortion. I want point out that I am not arguing that war is a greater sin than abortion, I am arguing that when the candidates are compared abortion does not matter as much as war, because abortion will look the same under both candidates: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
Christopher, I don’t usually engage with such long posts–only because I don’t have time, but I’ll try to address your points briefly.1. In a war–even an unjust war–one does not command the killing of innocent people. A soldier does everything possible to avoid even killing enemy combatants, and certainly does not intend to kill innocents. Innocents are killed, to be sure, but even when mass bombing is ordered the intent is not to kill innocents (even though they know this will happen) but to obtain a military objective.2.It is often said that a pro life president cannot do much to stop abortion, but he can do much to restrict abortion. He can stop federal funding. He can allow states to make laws that restrict abortion. He can promote health care and education that restricts abortion. He can appoint pro life judges at supreme court and lower levels to help restrict abortion. A pro abortion candidate, on the other hand, will actually increase the numbers of abortions by removing all restrictions and use federal funding for abortion.3.I am not oversimplifying intention. The abortionist goes into the clinic with one thing in mind: to kill the fetus. He may do so to earn a living or he may do so believing that he is solving a problem for a young woman, but unlike the soldier who kills, there is no other way for him to achieve his objective, and he considers no other way.By the way, Fr Newman did nothing more than teach the Catholic faith. There are plenty of quotes from Archbishops and Ratzinger himself who say the same thing.
“There are plenty of quotes from Archbishops and Ratzinger himself who say the same thing.”Also, John Paul II’s encyclical, “The Gospel of Life” is a defining work.Thank God that the tide is turning as evidenced by this “controversy.” (Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.)It may take a few more election cycles, but pray the day may come when all U.S. bishops stand united in clear condemnation of legalized abortion and the support of any candidate (yes, including dog catcher) who would willingly support such a “clear and present danger to the common good.”
“I think it is obscene that Fr. Newman seems to want to bind his parishioners to his very fallible, far from certain prudential judgement.”Obscene….wow.
“I think it is obscene that Fr. Newman seems to want to bind his parishioners to his very fallible, far from certain prudential judgment.”Don’t cry for us, Argentina.
Fr. Longenecker,I found Fr. Newman’s article awful, theologically awful, and terrorizing, but well intentioned in that he thought he was doing something good, like robbing a liquor store. I think it is obscene, deplorable, and downright nasty, though well-intentioned, that Fr. Newman wants to bind his parishioners to his very (very) fallible, far from certain, poor, but prudential judgment.Regards,Confused Armchair Theologians of America – Boston Chapter
Yes Christopher Joseph, you are right. That is why Fr. Newman had to issue a clarification, changing the common understanding of what he had written originally. It is funny, because all the arm chair theologians are defending a statement and meaning to the statement, that Fr. Newman admits is wrong. That is also why the administer of the diocese had to repudiate Fr. Newman’s note. Fr. Newman attempted to bind his prudential judgments to his faithful. No one can do that. If you voted for Obama, because he supports abortion, you are not Catholic. However, if you voted for Obama because you thought he would limit more evil than McCain, you may have made a poor prudential decision, but if you tried your best there is no sin involved. Unfortunately, Fr. Newman is too impressed with himself, and therefore considers his opinions binding. This is not the first time he has done this, but I certainly hope it is the last.He left the Church with no option but to repudiate his statements. This of course hurt the pro-life movement in this country. He has done harm to an issue I care very much about, and you do his movement no favors by defending his errors.
Christopher Sarsfield,This entire debate is centered around one statement that Fr. Newman made. In an effort to prevent further distortions, I will provide that statement verbatim:”Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exitsconstitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil . . .”Material cooperation with intrinsic evil.Among Catholics, this debate is centered on that concept, and make no mistake, the debate has been heating up among the bishops of the USCCB, one election cycle after another.Many Catholics have weighed in. Many others have chosen not to. Nevertheless, this is a debate whose time has come.
It is amazing the lengths people will go to in order to justify voting for or supporting pro-abortion candidates. It would be frightening to be inside their head for the confusion must be awful. Here’s our Pope on the matter (when he was cardinal):”Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” (“More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?”, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php NOTE: Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and delivered this with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)It’s pretty plain, but I doubt that will help the ‘confused’ who insist that their politics inform their faith, rather than their faith inform their politics.
Gretchen,To make voting for office a one-issue proposition is irresponsible and morally lazy. Christopher Sarsfield,”This of course hurt the pro-life movement in this country. He has done harm to an issue I care very much about, and you do his movement no favors by defending his errors.”I agree with you.
Kirstin, that’s the excuse a lot of Catholics gave for voting for Obama. It doesn’t hold water, though, when you actually look at the voting records of the candidates on other pro-life issues. Priests For Life had a very clear comparison, and on almost every pro-life issue Obama was in direct opposition to the Catholic Church’s teaching. McCain wasn’t perfect, but he was the better candidate on pro-life issues hands down. That is typical of candidates who are pro-abortion–they are usually opposite the Church on most other life issues. And the pro-life candidates are typically more in line with the Church on other life issues. You know and I know it, and everyone else knows it. Your argument is not a strong one.Also, since the Pope and other Church authorities are pretty definitive on the abortion/euthansia issue, I can only surmise that those who refuse to be obedient to the Church’s teachings will continue on endangering themselves, those who advocate for and perform abortions, those who undergo abortions, and not least of all of unborn children being killed in such large numbers. Prayers continuing all around.
Gretchen,You are right. When you look at the quote you give, it does seem very clear cut. However, that is not all the good Cardinal says. He went on to say:“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.”Notice you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate for a proportional reason, like limiting the total evil of a presidency. By the way, this is what allows you to vote for a “Pro-life” candidate that is not really pro-life, like Bush, Reagan, and McCain. All of these candidates had exceptions to being pro-life, without that teaching in moral theology you would not be able to vote for them.Finally, if you notice above I did not vote for either candidate, so I did not need proportional reasons, because I did not cooperate to any degree with evil, unlike you.
kirstin,To classify the abortion issue as “one issue among many,” without considering its intrinsically evil nature and relative harm done is irresponsible and morally lazy.”Don’t like his stand on abortion, but he’s got a great tax plan.” Not exactly what the bishops had in mind.
” . . so I did not need proportional reasons, because I did not cooperate to any degree with evil, unlike you.”Christopher Sarsfield,What is this evil of which you speak?
Anyone who voted for McCain, because McCain supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research. He also supports exceptions for rape and incest. He also rejects the Church’s teaching on a Just War. You remotely cooperated with McCain on all these issues by voting for him. In order to vote for McCain you had to appeal to proportional reasons, ie McCain would be better than Obama, but still bad. I refused to cooperate with evil this year, so therefore will not have to justify my proportional reasons, because I need none.
Father,I still do not agree with your intention argument. For example you use the term abortionist, yet there are very few doctors that only do abortions. You constrain the circumstances to fit you point. For example you say an abortionist who believes he is helping young women, only has one way to achieve his goal, kill the baby. Yet this is not true. Most abortionists are OB/GYNs, and they do more than kill babies. They also deliver babies, screen for cancers, treat hormonal problems, etc. So by their intention to help women, they do not solely rely on abortion. Just as a soldier does not solely rely on killing. That said every soldier (at least Army and Marine) knows that their primary function is to kill people and avoid being killed on a battlefield. So I think you intention proof fails on both counts. The doctor who performs an abortion and the soldier that kills in an unjust war, are both murderers.With regard to gaining an objective, again I do not accept your argument. For example you use an unjust war, and you say that the soldiers intention is not to kill but to gain an objective. Apply the same reasoning to terrorism. The intention of the terrorist is not to kill someone, but to gain some objective. Therefore the man that sends out suicide bombers is not commanding murder, because his intent is something greater. I refuse to accept the latter, so I also reject the former. Both are guilty of commanding murder, because murder is the result of their order, as Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, OH says:”Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion.”
A soldier who kills in an unjust war is not necessarily a murderer.Why do these people spend so much time trying to make equable what are clearly different scenarios?The scenarios are so inherently different, from the bottom up, that the difference can stand alone without referring to quantity and intent and vulnerability and so forth.Matters of pulling out troops and various other stuff that goes into resolving the war in Iraq is nothing compared to what has to go into ending abortion. Nothing. You people are dithering your brains away through pointless equivocal nuance, and you are making yourselves perfect carrion for the devil when it comes high time for him to pull his master-strokes, which we have yet to see. The hate which Father Newman and Father Longenecker have been receiving is but a foretaste of what’s coming.
Mr. Stilwell,Bishop John Michael Botean disagrees with you. (see quote above).
I would like to know what he means by “direct participation” and what he means by “moral equivalent”.In one sense, all things could be said to be morally equivalent, as in all issues of violence carry moral weight.To say that “direct participation” in either war or abortion is a “moral equivalent” is vague in the extreme. For how direct is meant by “direct participation”, as opposed to indirect, must be gleaned from the differing specifics of the two already very different scenarios of abortion and war. Yet the Bishop conflates both with the blanket phrase, “direct participation”, as though there were somewhere a machine with two levers to pull, one saying, “Participate in unjust war!” and the other saying, “Participate in abortion!”. It is unrealistic to say the least.A soldier who pulls a trigger may well be seen as participating directly, when in fact he is an indirect participant – even if at bare minimum he is not the instigator and perpetuator of the particular war. An abortionist may well be seen as an indirect participant, one merely “carrying out orders” when in fact he is a direct participant, for the specialty of his practise is nothing less than that of the procurer of that which a mother has come to him for. On top of that, the particular “field of medicine” a mother has come to him for is concerning the sanctuary of her womb and the living human child therein. An abortion procured is a single war unto itself – instigated, perpetuated, serviced in, and brought to its end. Just one single abortion.Again, it all goes to only emphasize how incomparably different are the two.Apparently I disagree with the Bishop. Nuance that goes into seperating and making distinct, abortion and war, ends up at both their solid realities. Nuance that goes into equalizing the two ends in more and more armchair abstraction – not to mention the most elaborate form of avoiding taking a stand. The fact of the matter is that abortion is not only more evil than the evil of war; it is, like all worst evils, at the heart of a nation. Many nations of course, including my own here in Canada, but one’s nation is one’s nation and there must begin one’s repentance and good works.But what is to be said of those who say that abortion must be fought in other sectors besides the political, and yet themselves cannot seem to get beyond blathering about how it is equal to the Iraq war? They talk about how the abortion war is to be fought first from a non-political basis (which is correct, which is to say we must be pro-life in our bones) yet when it does indeed come down to taking a stand at the cost of their non-political self-image or livelihood all what they can stammer are hypocritical words about the very thing they are avoiding.My notion is this: God has allowed for all the progress the pro-life movement has made in the U.S. to be obliterated – with the election of Barack Obama. He has allowed it to bring about in turn something more pleasing to Him: failures who for once in their lives take a stand on the Truth at the cost of their own livelihoods and reputations, without aspiring to progress which can be materially measured. Of course there have been people who have been doing this all these past years, but I think it will be more so now.
Christopher Joseph,Not it isn’t. Under no circumstances do I support abortion. I have not voted for a pro-abortion candidate in, well, probably forever. But, that being said, when I consider for whom I will vote I do not delude myself that the world is only about abortion. I also take into account the extremely vital issues of war (if you die by war you are just as dead as if you died by abortion), our environment (if we do not care for our planet, we may all die due to our destructive negligence and willful acts of pollution), our badly-handled economy that could lead us into prolonged depression worse than the last and possibly causing unnecessary deaths too, issues of liberty (if we do not guard our liberty, we can easily lose it, possibly leading to persecutions and deaths too), etc. We must be responsible and thoughtful regarding many issues when we vote.
Paul Stilwell,”The hate which Father Newman and Father Longenecker have been receiving is but a foretaste of what’s coming.”These good priests may have received sentiments of hate elsewhere, but comments on this blog have not, as far as I’ve seen, been hateful. Rather, some like myself have simply expressed our differences with certain of their published words. I think both Frs. Newman and Longenecker are simply doing their best to serve the Church. That does not mean everything they say will be infallible or not subject to criticism and disagreement. Anyone who writes a blog complete with an option for comments by readers is subject to challenge. I give Fr. Longenecker credit for accepting comments; it makes for beneficial debate.
I was referring to the hate they have received through e-mail.
Christopher, do tell me the ‘proportionate’ reasons one has for voting for someone like Obama?
Gretchen,First, I voted third party, however I did feel that there was a greater proportional argument for Obama (ie he would limit more evil).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.I would assume that your proportional reason for supporting McCain, was that you really believe Obama will significantly increase the number of abortions in this country. But I do wonder if in your support for McCain, you made it clear to all that you did not accept is rejection of Catholic Just War principles, his support of increased contraception funding, his support of embryonic stem cell research, and his support for murdering babies conceived by rape and incest. I imagine your slogan would have been: Vote McCain: he only wants women to be able to kill some of the children.
And Christopher, may I ask which third party candidate you voted for and what his/her record of voting/support is on pro-life issues?Your proportionality argument does not hold water. Abortion does not just affect the dead baby–it affects the mother, her partner/spouse, any other children, and other family members. Believe me, it does. So, nearly 50 million dead babies with at least double that who are harmed in some way in the US alone. Add to that 42 million dead babies worldwide each year and the sheer number blows away the x and y figuring.And the argument that the president has little to say to effect the number of abortions also doesn’t hold water. FOCA is all that need be said.Also, please don’t assume that McCain would get us into an unjust war–another hypothetical. With reasoning like that, I could just as easily say that Obama will be more likely to get us into an unjust war (see WWII, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc., all examples of leftwing presidents getting us into war).My support for McCain was predicated on the measurement of his pro-life policies as opposed to those of Obama (all else being somewhat equal–socialism vs socialism-lite). Since the 3rd party candidates had no chance of winning, I figure my vote was more effective toward the candidate who was closest to the Catholic Church’s position on pro-life issues and who had a chance to win. That was McCain.Those holding your position must, for the sake of argument, stray into hypotheticals…and that is where you lose the battle.
Chuck Baldwin, I do disagree with some of his issues but his pro-life stance swung me.As to the rest of argument: Whenever you are trying to figure out where a candidate stands and what he will do, you have to deal with hypotheticals, unless you are claiming to be a prophet.And if you are a prophet perhaps you could answer this for me: how many more babies will be murdered under Obama, than would have been under McCain?I struggled with that issue, for most of the election cycle. I really could not see how the numbers would be effected greatly.The percentages of people getting abortions seem to have gone down every year from the high of 33% in 1974 to 20% in 2004. This is for surgical abortions. However, the groups getting abortions have sifted. Abortions have concentrated among african americans and the poor. There is no trend that I can see, that tells me the abortion rate was effected significantly by whether the president was pro-life, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, or pro-abortion Clinton. I do believe though there are no statistics, that abortion by “birth control” has probably gone through the roof in this time period, which very well could wipe out any supposed decreases in abortion.As I said, my best prudential guess, is that the number of abortions in this country will be unaffected by either candidate. However, the chance for war with Iran goes through the roof, when you look at a McCain presidency.Finally, do accept the Catholic teaching on just war, and did you recognize the Iraq war as unjust?
Well, Christopher, I learned something new today–there was a third party candidate named Chuck Baldwin.I certainly do not need to deal with hypotheticals when discussing candidates. There are such things as facts and past behavior (which is the best indicator of future behavior). You are throwing out a straw man argument that someone must be a prophet in order to make a judgment about a candidate. If your logic is to hold water, than you must agree that Obama–from whom we know so little and who has almost no record beyond voting religiously to uphold the legality of abortion, raise taxes, and who wants to begin a vast citizens army–is someone that we MUST hypothesize about in order to divine his future actions. And, following on, based on the actions of Democrat presidents in the past, he is more likely to engage the United States in a costly war than are Republicans.You say the chance for war with McCain would ‘go through the roof’. On what is that predicated? Just what facts do you have to back that up? None. It is purely hypothetical. And, we happen to already be engaged in a war, which President-elect Obama will inherit. He promises to get us out of it almost immediately (after it’s already been won, of course), but we’ll see how quickly that happens once he is engaged on the world scene. He has also stated that we must continue to wage the war in Afghanistan and that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. So, how does that jive with your assertions that McCain is more likely to get us into a war?And, since McCain would’ve vetoed FOCA, I think it safe to surmise that there would’ve been less abortions under him than there will be under Obama. For heaven’s sake, the man voted against saving the life of live-born babies who survived abortion. This is a fact; there is no prophesying here.I do accept the Just War theory that the Church teaches. Read about it here: http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/resources/cis/CIS364.pdf (pages 53-55).And I do not believe that the Iraq war is an unjust war (see the CCC #2308, 2309.Before he was pope, Cardinal Ratzinger argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:”proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained.””I disagree with his statement and I think time has shown that Bush was right. The death and destruction with the war has been less than the death and destruction that resulted from Saddam Hussein, with his murderous policies and war-waging on neighbors. The numbers of war dead and the suffering under Saddam are more than anything the US Army has inflicted.Based on Just War teaching, was the Civil War justified? There are some who say that slavery was already on its way out, that the South knew it and wanted time to make the necessary economic adjustments, and to prepare for the impact of suddenly freed slaves.Just asking.