The two professors in my previous post articulated for me something I couldn't put my finger on in all the lengthy run up to November 6, 2012. Namely, the technical term intrinsic evil was hijacked for political purposes. But if one attempted to challenge the premise that the only issue in the election was one of intrinsic evil, and the only intrinsic evil which counted was abortion, one was immediately accused (without trial or judge) of being in favor of abortion or abortion rights.
Let me say again, that I stand with my church in opposing abortion as a horrific evil, which has tragically killed tens of millions of innocent lives in the womb. I further believe that opposition to abortion is not merely Catholic teaching, but a matter of universal human rights. The right to life is imbued in our nature by the Creator for all time and all people, and as such, abortion will someday come to be seen as the evil it is for all human beings, born and unborn.
The presumption by some Catholics, and other Christians, was that the issue equaled the candidate. To vote for candidate Obama was to vote for abortion. To vote for candidate Romney was to vote against abortion. Here's the way it was presented to me:
***If I vote for Obama, who is on public record in support of Roe v. Wade and the legal "right" to choose to abort an unborn child, I will ensure that abortion remains legal. President Obama will choose judges, and when one or more Supreme Court justices retire in his term, justices who support Roe v. Wade.
***If I vote for Romney, who is on public record opposing abortion (since 2001), then there is the possibility that Roe v. Wade will be one day overturned in his four years in office.
As I thought about this, I came into a road block. Some thoughts hindered my acceptance of this clear demarcation. One, as a voter I was voting for a person, not for an issue. "Abortion" (or any other issue) is not on the ballot. Candidates for office and in office have to deal with dozens, hundreds, of issues, not just one. Two, we have had pro-abortion presidents and anti-abortion presidents over the past forty years. The anti-abortion presidents and their administrations have brought us no closer to overturning Roe than the pro-abortion presidents. Three, if I play out the President Romney scenario in greater detail, I don't like the ending.
To wit:
***If enough anti-abortionists vote for Romney, he becomes president. President Romney will work in his administration for all policies which oppose abortion. He may have the opportunity to nominate one or two U.S. Supreme Court justices, if they retire or die during his term. In his process of deciding whom to nominate, he may choose judges who have demonstrated their opposition to Roe v. Wade through their previous decisions, or through their "judicial temperament."
If a President Romney does nominate one or two justices for the high court, the Senate (currently 55 Democrats, 45 Republicans) may agree with his choice(s) and confirm his nomination(s). When these justices sit on the court, a case may make its way to the Supremes which allows for a vote to overturn the sitting law (1973) of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Such a Supreme Court, at some time in the future then may throw out these two horrible pro-abortion decisions, and, opposing judicial reach, call for the various states to legislatively decide on whether or not to re-criminalize abortion (the pre-1967 situation).
All 50 state legislatures then take up the issue of whether or not to re-criminalize abortion. How may decide to outlaw abortion? Three, or five, or ten? (Alabama? Mississippi? North Dakota? Pennsylvania?) How many enact laws giving back to women the "freedom" to choose to abort the children in their womb?
At this point, it seems to me in this scenario, we are back to the same place in law we are now in the United States, with the exception of a couple of outlier states--that women alone have the right to decide if they wish to choose to kill the unborn child within them.
I don't like the string of "maybes", and I don't like the ending, which is back where we started, or worse.
Does this mean I am advocating voting (conveniently, after the election) for Obama? No. It only means that the "abortion is the only intrinsic evil" issue in the election doesn't make sense to me. Which, as I read the Vatican's documents, and the Faithful Citizenship documents of our country's bishops, is exactly what they say. All the issues, including abortion, are in play. And my decision and the decisions of hundreds of millions of voters are determined by conscientious, wisdom-seeking, church-guided prudential decision-making.
Further, such a simple connection fails to take account of the historical fact that our church has existed in a wide variety of political environments--tyranny, persecution, being the only official religion, and our own ways of democracy. The faithful and the church leadership have to engage the state in every form, in every era. Even now the USCCB is working, through lawsuits and, I trust, lobbying, to overturn the onerous HHS mandate, as well as advocating for many pieces of legislation to promote human life, marriage, the family, and oppose poverty, injustice, racism, and war.
It is my crazy idea that every Catholic stops and says, do we really want more polarizing fights among ourselves? Can we do better as a community of faith? Can we see that the goal of church teaching is not the election of a particular candidate, but coming closer to the in-breaking of the reign of God? Can we listen better than we shout? Can we think better than we accuse?
Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment