Logo

Talking points

Monday, September 15, 2008
Talking points
The presidential candidates make their case for the Catholic vote

1. How would you go about creating a culture of life in the United States, specifically with regard to the issues of abortion, stem cell research, and capital punishment?
John McCain: On abortion: I believe strongly in our moral obligation to stand up for human dignity. We must remember that our freedoms are not only defended by our diplomacy and military power but, very importantly, by the decency and respect with which we treat one another, and by our belief that as our dignity is entitled to respect, so are we obliged to respect and defend the dignity of others.

I am proud of my 25-year pro-life record in Congress. I oppose partial birth abortion and support the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step, however, in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion—the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.

The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need.

On stem cells: Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases—hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. The compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease, however, cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

On capital punishment: I support the death penalty for heinous crimes in which the circumstances warrant capital punishment.

Barack Obama: On abortion: No one is pro-abortion, and I respect that people of good faith will disagree on this issue. I strongly support a woman’s right to choose. I also firmly believe that women do not make these decisions casually and that they are ultimately in the best position to make this decision with their family, their doctor, and their pastor.

At the same time, much more can and should be done to address the underlying factors that may lead a woman into the difficult situation where she feels she has to make this decision. For example, we should be working aggressively to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby the need for abortions. We have to ensure the availability of comprehensive health- and age-appropriate sex education. Abstinence is part of that, but there needs to be a full range of components, and government can’t do it all.

I’ve said regularly that parents have to step up to the plate; they need to turn off the television and instill in their kids a sense of the sacredness of sex. We also must commit to supporting women who choose to have a child. We can do this by ensuring the availability of and access to pre- and postnatal care, providing parenting education, and increasing support for adoption and foster care services.

On stem cells: Many of us have friends or family members who could benefit from more robust stem cell research, and I’m sorry that President Bush has fought this potentially life-saving research, which I have long supported along with many Republicans. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and more, and as many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research.

At the same time I believe that stem cell research needs to be conducted with the highest ethical standards. I co-sponsored stem cell legislation in Illinois that established review of this research by the Illinois Department of Public Health. In the United States Senate I co-sponsored legislation that would ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that the donors would have to provide written consent for the use of these embryos. I also support greater research to explore the viability of adult stem cells and cord blood.

On capital punishment: Throughout my career I have worked strenuously to ensure that the death penalty is only administered fairly and justly. That’s why I joined with law enforcement and civil rights groups to reform a broken system in Illinois that had sent 13 innocent men to death row. But I do believe that there are some crimes that are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty. We also have to work with victims and victims’ families to ensure they are receiving the support and counseling they need when recovering from a violent crime.

2. Catholic social teaching proclaims a preferential option for the poor. In a time of increasing economic woes, what policies would you put in place to protect the poor and the working poor of this country?
McCain: I will make the eradication of poverty, which ensnares more than 36 million Americans, a top priority of the McCain administration. A strong and vibrant America, one in which people can move up into the middle class, put their kids through college, work hard, and one day retire in dignity, is critical not only to our economic future but to the very security of our nation.

As president I will set aside the needs of the special interests to advance the interests of the American people, especially those 12 million impoverished children who deserve every opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

I believe we must help Americans who are hurting from soaring gasoline and food costs. We can help lower gas prices by reducing our dependence on foreign oil through the use of domestic drilling and higher fuel economy standards. I’ll institute a summer gas tax holiday to provide real, immediate relief to hard-working Americans who are struggling to fill up their tanks.

I will overhaul unemployment insurance and make it a program for retraining, relocating, and assisting workers who have lost a job. The unemployment insurance system created in the 1950s needs to be modernized to meet the goals of helping displaced workers make ends meet between jobs and moving people quickly on to the next opportunity.

Comments (35)

Respect for Life and voting

I can not believe that those who support Obama and pro-choice views are also considering themselves faithful Catholics. How is it that you are so confused?

We really need a candidate who respects life, from its natural beginning to its natural end, who also can put together a platform that would conform to Catholic social teaching. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. So, the next best option is to vote for the pro-life candidate. All the other problems can be resolved, but once you extinguish a life, you can not bring it back.

Why are there so many Christians who fall under the misguided notion that everything else takes precedence over saving life? After all, all we have truly in this world is life. It is life created by God and given to us as a gift.

I refuse to be deluded by convoluted arguments about this, that and everything else that fools others into thinking that it is somehow ok to sell out the unborn so that we can get a few concessions from a political candidate who is probably never going to follow through on his promises anyway! The goodies promised by a politician are not proportionate enough to justify the killing of the unborn. Read the book "Render Unto Caesar" by Archbishop Chaput. He does a great job of explaining this.

Please be true to your Catholic Christian faith and true to God's teachings. Vote pro-life. There is no excuse not to do that. If you vote for candidates that are in favor of abortion, then you really shouldn't present yourself at communion. You know this, right? You are guilty by a sin of omission. You omitted acting morally when you voted to support someone who supports the killing of life.

Kevin Clarke's picture

Communion and abortion

Kelly,

Thanks for your post. Though I hesitate to intrude on our site visitors' discussions, I think there has been a great deal of confusion and unnecessary consternation on this issue of voting for pro-choice candidates and the impact on receiving Communion among Catholics. I encourage everyone to review USCCB guidelines at http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf  which notes in part:

"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity."

To paraphrase, Catholics may vote for a pro-choice candidate after reviewing the gamut of positions of concern to Catholics as long as they are not voting for that candiate expressly as an endorsement of their pro-choice position, and although individual bishops have spoken to this matter, the church institutionally has only asked that Catholic politicians who are publicly pro-choice refrain from Communion. I think it is fair to say that a Catholic who voted for a candidate because he or she were pro-choice would be under a serious obligation to consider whether or not they could receive Communion (under the usual requirements of self-reflection we must all undertake before receiving Communion), but the church does not require expressly that they refrain.

In a 2004 letter to American bishops as Cardinal Ratzinger, it was Pope Benedict himself who outlined the position which has largely been adapted by the USCCB (and noted below), when he wrote: "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 remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."  

I believe the pertinent paragraphs from Faithful Citizenship are:

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

36. 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.

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Let's pray for understanding and clarity

Kevin -- Let's ALL read the statement from (then) Cardinal Ratzinger: "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 remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
<> There is no room to rationalize as you have tried.

The fact that more than one million innocent, unborn babies are aborted in the USA each year is an irreversable tragegy and causes great sadness. There is nothing -- repeat nothing that would or could be "proportionate" to such a grave loss of life. No economic hardship or foreign policy or any other issue can ever be considered more important.

<> Let us all pray that our country will have the grace from God to CHOOSE LIFE, regardless of the outcome of the election.

Bryan Cones's picture

So what does "proportionate" mean?

Jack, I think you've made Kevin's point for him. Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly says such "remote cooperation . . . can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." Proportionate in this case does not necessarily refer to the evil of abortion, but the likelihood that a candidate's position will actually result in fewer abortions. Catholics supporting Obama are arguing that his policies will result in fewer abortions because his policies will provide more assistance to women in crisis pregnancies, whereas John McCain's will not. That is an argument based on the "proportionate good" that may result from the election of Obama, despite the fact that he supports Roe v. Wade.

I imagine that your argument is that McCain's policies, perhaps his appointment of a Supreme Court justice who would provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe, would result in a greater good, which is also legitimate. But I disagree with you when you say there is no room to "rationalize." There is room to weigh the proportionate goods and evils that would result from the election of either candidate, a task we all must take on according to the judgments of our consciences.

Bryan Cones

Obama's Own Word Explain The "Prortionate" Evil He Intends

Bryan - The proportionate evil of the deaths of the nearly uncountable unborn will be Sen. Obama's first priority if he becomes the President. In his own words, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act which will permit even more abortions and infanticide -- the unthinkable LACK of protection of babies born alive during a botched abortion. (This action really goes against the natural law.) These are not my words .. these are his own words. Watch the YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

In any case, we all hope a pray that love and protection of the unborn will be first in the hearts of the mothers who will probably continue to be given a choice. We hope they are given the grace and courage to Choose LIFE.

Obama

As a faithful Catholic, I cannot support Senator Obama for I fear that this country cannot endure if we continue to pursue a policy of disrespect for human life and human dignity. Ironically, we are beginning to carry on this disrespect under the flag of human rights and social justice.
Senator Obama is a good speaker who presents himself well but he is also a man who has very little experience and seems to have a marxist/socialist philosophy. This is probably why he has shady people like Ayers in his background and why he also attends the Rev Wrights church as black liberation theology is consistent with this socialist bent. None of this bodes well for America.
Senator McCain, on the other hand, has a history of good character, pro-life with the exception of a embyronic stem cell vote which he, hopefully no longer feels the need to support and a man who does, indeed,know the workings of the senate and who the go along to get along people are. He has shown that,in the event we have to send troops into a war, he knows what is needed to win (his vote against sending the marines into Lebanon and his push for the surge in Iraq come to mind).

lets get serious ..

those who voted against Lincoln were not pro-slavery either.they were pro-choice...blacks were not human as is the fetus and were the property of the owners..ie the 'mom' also lets never tak about the worlds largest most cruel terrorist nation..China..both of these puppets never hit what this roague nation is doing..poisoned food stuffs,dangerous toys...want a glass of nice cool milk .nafta defenders..sure no way right...Obama is honest in his Marxism ,he has been taught to look down on the common people..McCain is like a temite eating away at the tree of liberty...waves the flag,grunts and grins and is no different..also silent on China,and the loss of millions of made in America jobs...oh yes.lets now bail out wall street with tax payer money...I bought a lemon last year,this auto just conks out daily..will the readers send me some money please to bail me out.......checking my front mail box..

lets get serious

Do you have anything coherent to say? You seem to rant on in a stream of tangential thought. Why should we take you serious??

Genocide

Stastics show that minority females (African American and Latinas specifically) are having abortions more often and frequently than Caucasian females. It puzzles me that a minority himself, Obama is not on the "PRO-LIFE" side period. Without a doubt, Obama should be trying to direct "PRO-LIFE" campaigns towards females of his own race, at the very least, if for no other reason than to stop the self imposed genocide.

"No one is pro-abortion" I

"No one is pro-abortion"

I absolutely applaud Obama for starting out with this comment. To say that "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion" is misleading political rhetoric, and I am very impressed that Obama understands that women don't actively choose to abort their child on a whim or just for the sake of killing but (mostly but not always, unfortunately) because of societal and economical pressure. Society and the government practically penalizes women who do may the right *choice*, and he clearly understands that it is more effective to address the issues underlying the rate at which abortions occur from the lack of proper healthcare for mother and child and an economy which makes it nearly impossible for a woman to build a life for them without physical, financial or mental repercussions.

McCain is naive if he thinks that overturning Roe v. Wade is all that it will take to eradicate abortions. I also think it's very interesting that he praises community service organizations who provide the very things that many pregnant women need when his own party mentioned Obama's years in his 20s serving the community with such biting sarcasm.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.

More information about formatting options