This is an astute and illuminating article that helps to almost make sense out of the surprising support Obama is getting from some prominent pro-life Catholics.  But I interpret George Weigel as being skeptical about their unlikely position’s validity nonetheless.  And rightly so, for I think the paradoxical position held by the RC intellectuals he cites: Douglas Kmiec (Pepperdine U. law school), Cathleen Kaveny (Notre Dame), and Nicholas Cafardi (Duquesne U. law school), is not just “counterintuitive,” it’s just plain illogical nonsense.

The subtitle of the Newsweek article is an important question, and unfortunately Weigel doesn’t dwell on it: “Should abortion be THE litmus test for political support?”  That is, granted that Obama’s record on the abortion issue is horrendous and notorious, is that the only issue that counts?  Is it the one and only litmus test that applies for pro-life Catholics?

And I think the answer to that intriguing question should be NO, there are other key litmus tests too.  But unfortunately, on many other issues Obama fares little better than he does on abortion (by the moral standards of Catholic teaching, whether Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox).  Most obviously, Obama is just as ultra-liberal and unnacceptable on the issue of “gay marriage” as he is as an infamous supporter of abortion on demand.

Now granted, a consistent, seemless robe pro-life position (ala the late, great Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago) would also entail being anti-capital punishment (Obama comes off well there).  And Roman Catholics have reason to be concerned to protect the welfare of the massive number of Hispanic immigrants flooding into this country (and Obama comes off well there too).  And Pope John Paul II (the Great) did sharply criticize the Iraq War as unjustified (and Obama comes off well there too).

But none of those things, including the RC Church’s strong “preferential option for the poor” since Vatican II, is enough (in the eyes of this non-Roman Catholic) to outweigh Obama’s grossly anti-Catholic stands on abortion and gay marriage.  The other matters involve prudential judgments, where some leeway for different opinions is permissible.  But there is just NO WAY Obama’s blatantly anti-Christian stands on abortion and gay marriage (which are NOT matters of prudential judgment, but of foundational principles) can be squared with Catholic teaching, it seems to me.  Or downplayed and overcome by other issues where RCs may find Obama much more congenial.

Normally, I find George Weigel very convincing and compelling.  But in this case, I think he lets RC intellectuals like Kmiec (a former Mitt Romney campaign leader) off the hook too easily here.  And I think part of the problem here is that all three pro-Obama figures that Weigel highlights in this brief article (Kmiec, Kaveny, and Cafardi) are university professors.  It’s one thing to play Devil’s advocate, perhaps in a Socratic fashion, as an intellectual exercise.  It’s another thing altogether to exercise practical leadership within the Church, where it’s important that those who blow the bugel sound a clear signal to the troops.

There is no doubt about it.  The fact is that LOTS of Roman Catholics seem prepared to vote for Obama, and that nomical or cultural Catholic, Sen. Joe Biden.  But they ought to have a guilty conscience over it.

David Handy+

Very guilty!

Fr. Handy, #1, at the risk of playing semantic games, I do not think of looking at abortion as a litmus test or a single issue, it is, rather, a threshold issue.  I think this is more accurate way of describing such a grave issue.

Fortunately, we live in a world where there are not many threshold issues which present themselves, but we all have them.  You would never vote for someone who thought the state should gas Jews, Homosexuals and Gypsies.  Nor would you vote for someone who wore a white sheet and burned crosses in the yards of African Americans.  Those are threshold issues. 

Yet, even so, there are times when we are faced with opposing candidates who do not cross the threshold.  In such an instance, I like the advice offered by the Catholic Conference of Bishops:

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

From Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States at ¶38.

William (#3),

I find your position congenial, and I’m not interested in playing semantic games.  But perhaps you could clarify a bit more just what you mean by a “threshold issue.”  I assume you mean that such an issue establishes a threshold or minimal standard that a candidate must meet to be acceptable.

I too find the statement of the NCCB (National Conference of Catholic Bishops) helpful when facing the dilemma of no major candidate crossing that minimal threshold.  Alas, life does at times present us with the distasteful but necessary choice between the lesser or least of evils.

David Handy+

Anyone who supports Obama knowing what he stands for cannot be legitimately called prolife. They have descended to the “prochoice” rhetoric of “personally opposed, but…”.

Fr. Handy, #4, yes, I think you state it very well when you write: “But perhaps you could clarify a bit more just what you mean by a ‘threshold issue.’ I assume you mean that such an issue establishes a threshold or minimal standard that a candidate must meet to be acceptable.” 

Thank you.

Following up on the “threshold” notion, the same RC Bishops document also explains:

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

From Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States at ¶42.

Pro-Life Catholics For Obama?

Er…Vegans for Beef-Stroganov? 
Peta for Fur Coats? 
John Birchers for Communists?

How bizarre!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfJe8hQ8ha0

I can and do understand the crucial role of the president, especially with regard to appointing supreme court justices.  But surely the answer to a Barack Obama election is to work all the harder for pro-life legislators?  I have read, even of Democrats who are standing for election with such credentials, which, if true, would make such a campaign handily non-partisan.  Nothing can happen without Congress, and surely the election there is far from finished.

I think I posted this link earlier:
An article by Randy Alcorn titled:
Not Cool: Obama’s Pro-abortion Stance, and Christians enabling him.

It gives and interesting perspective on the same topic.

I can and do understand the crucial role of the president, especially with regard to appointing supreme court justices.  But surely the answer to a Barack Obama election is to work all the harder for pro-life legislators?  I have read, even of Democrats who are standing for election with such credentials, which, if true, would make such a campaign handily non-partisan.  Nothing can happen without Congress, and surely the election there is far from finished.

That might help at the margins and incrementally at that.  But the problem is that the USSC has appointed itself as the legislature on this matter.  Only reversal by the enacting legislature - the Court itself - can repeal Roe now.

# 11 - Jeffersonian - yes, but surely no appointment to the USSC can take place without the approval of the Judicial Committee of the Senate?

It is well worth the time to watch Senator Obama’s address to Planned Parenthood which is available on YouTube.  His passion and determination for abortion-on-demand without restraint is striking in view of the coolness which he has shown in the debates.  Will this become the “aha” insight into a man about whom many still wonder?

# 11 - Jeffersonian - yes, but surely no appointment to the USSC can take place without the approval of the Judicial Committee of the Senate?

Or the entire Senate for that matter.  I see your point, but the Senate can only approve nominees, not directly influence the overturn of Roe.

Yep, and we’ve seen how the Democratic Senate treats conservative, constructionists nominees for the courts, haven’t we(*Cough*Bork*cough*)