In a post below, Morning’s Minion equates Fred Thompson’s lobbying efforts to help “rescind a rule prohibiting abortion counseling at federally funded clinics” to “a nameless Democratic politician supported rescinding the aforementioned rule in the legislature,” and then asks: “Is there much difference between this person and Thompson on these moral grounds?” MM thinks not, but I respectfully disagree.
First, let’s examine the facts. Fred Thompson did the lobbying work in question in the early 1990s. But since that time, Thompson’s views on abortion have obviously evolved a great deal. Indeed, during his time in the Senate, Thompson’s record on ‘Culture of Life” issues was exemplary. And unlike other presidential candidates, Thompson’s evolution on the abortion took place when he was not even contemplating a run for the presidency.
Second, the notion that Thompson’s past lobbying efforts forever define him on the issue of abortion is patently ridiculous. What matters are the policy positions a person holds, and whether the voters find those views credible. But even if one questions Thompson sincerity on the issue of abortion, that is a far cry from the democrats seeking the presidency, all of whom proudly support abortion on demand. Indeed, the Democratic Party is so tied to the proabortion lobby that it cannot even bring itself to condemn partial-birth abortion, which the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan accurately described as “infanticide.”
It seems to me that there is a great deal of effort being made by some folks on this blog, and elsewhere, to convince their fellow Catholics that because the Republican Party is often less than perfect (or ineffective) on abortion and other “Culture of Life” issues this somehow provides “proportionate reasons” to vote for proabortion democrats. One of the central arguments these folks make is that just because you vote for a person who holds proabortion views does not mean that you are necessarily supporting any subsequent proabortion legislation that person ultimately votes to enact. And while that may in fact be true, I find it hard to believe that anyone who takes seriously the Church’s non-negotiable teaching on the evil that is abortion could possibly consider voting for a candidate who is clearly in the pocket of the proabortion lobby (like say all of the dems running for president). As I explained to a gentleman in a recent email exchange:
I understand that many faithful Catholics find it beyond distasteful to vote for Republicans. In fact, as someone who has been active in Republican politics for some time now, I often find it distasteful myself. But it seems to me beyond debate that the GOP is far better on “life issues” than the dems, where there is no room for dissent (e.g. abortion). The same can not be said with regard to much of the Church’s more “progressive” social-justice teachings on poverty, labor rights, etc., where there is a great deal of room for debate on the best means of achieving the goals/aspirations/teachings of the Church. Or even war, where different folks can come to different conclusions about what constitutes a “just war.”
I am also not convinced with the “voting for the candidate and not the law” distinction you are making. The bottom line is that candidates who are elected ultimately do vote in favor or against laws, and if a faithful Catholic knows in advance that the person he/she is voting for will almost certainly vote in a way that is in direct contravention of fundamental Church teaching, I think it is the height of folly to believe that there won’t be moral implications for such an act. That voter may not be intending evil, but he/she is certainly acting with little regard as to whether it will happen, and that’s not something I would want to account for before a holy and righteous God one day. It is for this reason that I abandoned the “how to define torture” debate, and just decided that if an act even comes close to constituting torture, I want no part of supporting it . . . .
Now, none of is this is to say that the GOP is the “party of God,” or that it is impossible for a faithful Catholic to ever vote for a democrat. Indeed, one of the main reasons the democrats regained control of Congress was as a result of running pro-life candidates for office. And as someone who has voted for GOP candidates most of his life, I consider this to be a welcomed political development. Indeed, I would love nothing more than for both parties to show an equal amount of respect for those who hold “Culture of Life” views, and for these issues to be completely taken off the table by the democrats rejecting their collective “Culture of Death” mentality. But to date, the leadership of the Democratic Party has made it clear where its allegiance lies, and it is clearly with the proabortion lobby. And while some believe that the five non-negotiables identified by Catholic Answers during this past presidential election are in fact negotiable, I would like to go on record as dissenting from that viewpoint. If a Catholic votes for a proabortion candidate when there is a clear pro-life alternative, knowing that the candidate will almost certainly support “Culture of Death” legislation, then there are no “proportionate reasons” that would justify voting for that individual. The bottom line is that some issues really are of far greater importance than others, and the notion that a Catholic can vote for a radically proabortion candidate simply because of his solid environmental track record is absurd. I would caution Catholics who are even thinking of voting for such an individual, be it Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, to take their obligation to support a “Culture of Life” seriously, and to reject any suggestion that it is ever acceptable to vote for a pro-death candidate when there is a pro-life alternative.
One other point: The political backstory behind the effort to justify voting for proabortion democrats is, of course, the success Republicans achieved in the last presidential election cycle, with George Bush winning the Catholic vote over the “Catholic” democratic candidate, John Kerry. This is why there is a mad rush by some to manufacture “proportionate reasons” that would allow Catholics, who would otherwise vote for the Democratic Party, to return to their “natural” political home. Fwiw, I don’t think this will happen any time soon unless the GOP is foolish enough to nominate Rudy Giuliani.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In