Is a Practicing Catholic Dishonest in Voting for a Pro Abortion Political Candidate?
Recently, the Office of Family Development of the New York Archdiocese issued a series of Court Proceedings concerning Partial Birth Abortion. The actual testimonies of the abortionists themselves, physicians, nurses and aides, were fascinating for their raw brutality. These processionals described this Medical procedure ( which I subsequently discovered is rarely if ever medically necessary) with unbelieveable coldness and clinical detachment.
The tearing apart of the limbs of the child (called by them "disarticulation"), the draining the brain of its fluid, the crushing of the child's skull with forceps, were described by these professionals as if they were extracting a diseased tooth. Two of them detailed a ghoulish practice of dressing up an intact lifeless body with a baby's bonnet covering the now empty skull so that the evacuated mother might "grieve."
When questioned by the Court whether or not the fetus (everyone seems hesitant to say "the baby") can feel pain during the procedure, whether at 20 weeks or 16 weeks or anytime, the professionals verbally tap danced around the frank inquiry. They retreated into the familiar evasions: Maybe. Perhaps. I don't know. Who knows? One "Professional" replied that he really didn't care since his objective was to terminate the life of the fetus and to meet the wishes of the pregnant woman.
It was revealed that occasionally in spite of the wishes of the mother and the intention of the abortionist, a child survives the savagery and is born alive! One shudders to think of the next step. Does the dedicated Professional now follow through on the wishes of the mother? Especially, if he can keep his actions secret from the Law!
It is the position of the Catholic church that the procedure referred to above is INTRINSICALLY evil, meaning that it is evil in itself and that there is never a moral reason to justify such appalling behavior. It means that, in this instance, there are not two sides. As I and my Jewish family insist, there was no OTHER side to the Holocaust. It was intrinsically evil. Nothing could justify it - - -regardless of slick rationalizations and high powered propaganda!
Likewise, when I Iived in South Africa under an iniquitous regime called Apartheid, there were not two sides. There was only one.
There is no moral justification to brutally oppress a whole people allegedly because of race while, reality wise , allowing "whites" to live off the backs and sweat of the poor. Is there another side? Not very likely! Honesty shouts out to all who would hear that THIS was an evil system of living.
Holocaust ! Apartheid! Partial Birth Abortion !
All three are evil. Intrinsically. Inherently. Surprisingly, the modern liberal will react with horror to the first two evils but not to the third! Why not?
It seems to me that complicity in ANY of these evils is sinful. In my years as a chaplain to the Retired Detectives of the NYPD, I learned from these impressive men that there is a dimension of crime called "aiding and abetting." To support and help some one commit a crime, even in a remote way, is to make one guilty proportionate to levels of involvement. But guilty nevertheless! One can fairly apply this principle, with honesty, to voting for a Pro abortion candidate for public office.
One does not get off the moral hook by crying "I didn't know." I remember well the lessons from the Nuremberg trials when Nazis begged off by saying: "I was only obeying orders." They were guilty nevertheless. How would I become complicit as a voter?
Or implicated? Or sinful? Voting for a blatant Pro abortion candidate is an objective sin since I, implicitly, approve his/her stance by my support! I have aided and abetted evil. It seems to me that to pretend otherwise is to be Dishonest or stupid. Perhaps the latter possibility is preferable since it exculpates through ignorance. Dishonesty carries with it the ring of hypocrisy ! Abraham Lincoln reputedly held the principle that no one has the right to do wrong. Whether he said it or not, it is a solid spiritual guide!
The usual rationales go on in this manner:
his other values over ride this negative
he is the lesser of two evils
I don't want to be a one issue voter
I don't want to throw away my vote
I have always voted Party, not issue
he is good looking
Alan Keyes with his usual incisive logic holds that "evil is evil" and can never have his support. He says that if evil should triumph, God forbid, it will be without his help. The Holy Father,
John Paul II, likewise, urges us to combat the "culture of death" in whatever form it appears. No rationale can justify the inherently evil such as is present in this savage practice. At the same time, one can have nothing but compassion for the women who subsequent to the sadness of their abortions feel the guilt and regret attached to such unfortunate behavior. They have suffered enough and hopefully will experience the boundless mercy of the good Lord. Our battle should be, not with them, but with the legislators who so callously enact the evil legal structures so tempting to the frightened and confused.
Incidentally, should one of our contemporary liberal Catholics have raised the one Issue objection to a Jew in 1938 Munich or to an African in 1950 Johannesburg, he would have understandably suffered a whack on his jaw to lay him flat on his back! The One Issue is the ONLY issue if one is Jewish or black and living under Nazism or Apartheid. I applauded Jesse Jackson when years ago he opined that the BIG question he had for Politicians was simply: How do you stand on Apartheid in South Africa? One issue? Yes - - - - but for non-white South Africans it was clearly the ONLY issue !
I wonder how the child in the womb would assess his forthcoming abortion within the One Issue concept were he to have a chance at the debate? Perhaps if one lives in a bubble sealed off the world beyond the social set in Hollywood or New York, it might be understandable. To know the facts and still try to justify the butchery of these aborted children has to smack, in my view, of dishonesty. The one issue objection is, at best, a red herring and, at worst, hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Is it rationalization that allows a "Catholic" to vote for what is so clearly wrong? Is it ignorance? Or ambition? Recently, a politician claiming to be a "good " Catholic formed by the teachings of Pope Pius XXIII ( there never was a PPXXIII) gave the Keynote address to a large group of Pro Abortion ( and pro partial birth abortion) women. He had previously met with a ranking Catholic prelate for serious discussion of our position, leaving the naïve cleric red faced and humiliated. The "gaffe" about the Pope is symptomatic of the candidate's limited theology which sounds more like R. McBrien than Pope John Paul II.
Are we witnessing a modern version of the old Indian complaint:
"White man speak with forked tongue"? Is it dishonesty we see? Or unconscious unresolved teenage rebellion? Or just plain ole' honest "ignorance"?
But perhaps it is to be laid more at the feet of Catholic leadership than at the door of the "progressive liberal Catholic" politician who never had real guidance or authentic instruction. Perhaps, it is a re-run of the Cardinal Wolsey or St. Thomas More dilemma. Does Henry VIII rear his petulant head again? Perhaps the silence of some of our leaders has been taken by many as agreement or acquiesance. When courageous Bishops like Robert Burke of St. Louis or Fabian of Nebraska or Meyers of Newark, spell out the Catholic principles, they simply make an appeal to Conscience and not to authority. It is not for political control but a reminder for Christians that even politics must be morally coherent.
An apparently poorly instructed Congressman (again allegedly Catholic) ranted at the Pope saying: " I get a different message of what Jesus is teaching me…." Certainly, he is free to communicate his supposed private revelation from Jesus. He is NOT free to misinterpret Catholic teaching or the Moral Law of God and mislead trusting people. But he insists that he is following his " conscience".
But what does CONSCIENCE mean? Is there a "correct" conscience? A malformed one? An underdeveloped one? Does the Moral Law of God and the ten commandments have anything to do with Conscience? Does the Natural law itself matter? Is conscience relative and hardly inherent in reality? Was Hitler following his conscience as he pursued his policy of racial Purity? Can a person have a "private" conscience plus a Public one which governs his professional life? In Bolt's "Man for All Seasons", Thomas More replies to Cardinal Wolsey: "I believe when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties..they lead their country by a short route to chaos." Perhaps, Saddam could speak similarly, relative to his rule in Iraq. Is conscience purely a private and individual matter? Is it Public? Private? Social?
Who decides this complex factor? Am I personally the criterion of morality? Does one have a basic moral obligation to harmonize one's conscience with the authority of God Himself? The facile catch-all that " I was following my conscience" is not necessarily the end of the question.
So how Catholic are these people? That judgment obviously belongs to the Lord alone. But we are justified in challenging manifest complicity in pure evil. So, on the level of the ordinary citizen, do I sin if I vote for a blatantly Pro Abortion candidate? If the voter has any notion of what his vote means, We can confidently shriek YES - --YES - - YES! Archbishop Myers of Newark offers this fairly obvious guideline: "As Voters, Catholics are under an obligation to avoid implicating themselves in the severest of injustices…..the unjust killing of the innocent is foremost." Such a vote (i.e. voting for pro-abortion candidates) is a formal agreement with the evil even if it is not specifically stated. Yet, such an agreement might stem from ignorance or political conditioning or some mysterious drive deep within the human soul. This is why the Church makes the distinction between objective and subjective guilt. Such a vote is ALWAYS objectively sinful. It is the task of Catholic leaders and teachers to expose such objective moral evil and to attempt to enlighten us sufficiently to avoid subjective sin. We have enough to answer without the vile baggage of Partial birth abortion.
Maybe, the abortionists will win, but let us, with God's help, imitate Alan Keyes and say: "Not with my help."