Denver archbishop calls on Catholics for Obama to face the senator’s views on abortion
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

Sen. Barack Obama / Archbishop Charles Chaput

.- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver is calling on the group Roman Catholics for Obama ‘08 to convince Sen. Barack Obama to become pro-life, instead of overlooking his support for abortion in favor of other issues of concern to Catholics.

Recalling his own political involvement in the Bobby Kennedy’s campaign in 1968, his support for Jimmy Carter’s first presidential bid and then his subsequent re-election campaign, Archbishop Chaput explains how he came to his convictions about politics and abortion. 

Archbishop Chaput writes in a column titled, “Thoughts on ‘Roman Catholics for Obama’,” he “eventually got involved with the 1980 Colorado campaign for Carter’s re-election.”

“Carter had one serious strike against him.  The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it.  At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe v. Wade and soft toward permissive abortion.  But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn't aggressively ‘pro-choice’.” 

Chaput acknowledges that Carter “held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the ‘Catholic’ issues than his opponent seemed to be.  The moral calculus looked easy.  I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.”

Yet, Carter lost his re-election bid, and the archbishop notes that “even with an avowedly pro-life Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty and inflexibility of the ‘pro-choice’ lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.” 

What changed Chaput’s mind about his earlier decision to support a “pro-choice” candidate was that he began to notice “that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be ‘personally opposed’ to abortion really did anything about it.  Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand wringing and a convenient excuse -- exactly as it is today.”

“In fact,” the archbishop says, “I can't name any ‘pro-choice’ Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life -- not one.” 

Instead, the situation has become one in which, “In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide,” Chaput says.

Archbishop Chaput writes that the situation will only change when “Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.”

At the beginning of 2008, Archbishop Chaput wrote a column which focused on the role of Catholics in the public square. The archbishop’s January 16 column explained how this type of interaction between Catholic voters and the political parties should take place.

Archbishop Chaput wrote:

"So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can't, and I won't. But I do know some serious Catholics -- people whom I admire -- who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don't keep quiet about it; they don't give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite -- not because of -- their pro-choice views."

“But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.  What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

However, the archbishop points out that Roman Catholics for Obama chose to use only the first paragraph of his explanation as justification for their support of Sen. Barack Obama, an unflinching supporter of abortion.

According to their website, the Obama supporters say that they have faithfully thought and prayed about who they should support and “have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that -- and because of his other outstanding qualities -- despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.”

Noting in his column today that this kind of moral calculus sounds like the same reasoning he used 30 years ago, Archbishop Chaput says, “30 years later we still have about a million abortions a year.” 

While holding out the possibility that “Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate,” Chaput also highlights the February 2008, ‘100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate,’ that the senator received from the Planned Parenthood of Chicago.  

The archbishop closes by saying, “Changing the views of ‘pro-choice’ candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis and pious talk about ‘personal opposition’ to killing unborn children.  I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck.  They’ll need it.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: Rita
Centennial,CO 09/19/2008 09:06 PM EST
In my 60+ years, I have never figured out why the clergy are such supporters of the Republican party when the Democratic party is always about true Christian values and care for others. We heard about abortion for the last two presidential elections with frequently not very veiled references to particular candidates. How did the current presidency change anything on the abortion issue? Pro-life should include issues of God's people dying in war, poverty and for lack of decent affordable health care. Really, one-issue politics is politics with blinders on.
Published by: Ken Hilb
Hammond, In. USA 06/10/2008 06:02 AM EST
A law degree is not required to read and understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All human rights stand upon the fundamental right to life. Catholics for Obama are Catholics for abortion.
Published by: Gil
Tx 05/31/2008 06:16 AM EST
If you feel that strongly about this issue then VOTE ON IT! THAT'S TRUE DEMOCRACY. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE IF YOU THINK WE LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY! BUT OUR VOTES COUNT FOR NOTHING NOW...but
that's the way people who are pro-choice would have it because it's not a
fair system & they're hypocrites to not want a fair chance to let a true Republic & "freedom-loving" people decide for themselves.
Published by: gil_cadena@sbcglobal.net
TX 05/31/2008 06:14 AM EST
Since then, the makeup of the court has changed. Only three justices who were in the majority in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, remain.
Chief Justice John Roberts just completed his first year on the court, after replacing the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Justice Samuel Alito joined the court earlier this year, replacing retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also have been appointed to the court since 1992.
They were both on the court earlier in 2005, however, when the court rejected a similar petition from McCorvey.
Both Cano's and McCorvey's appeals asked the court to reconsider their cases under a federal court rule that allows relief from a judgment because there is new evidence or the previous decision "is no longer equitable."
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled Nov. 8 to hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In the cases --- Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood --- the 8th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, respectively, said the 2003 federal law banning partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is among the organizations that filed amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs urging the high court to uphold the ban and use the cases to reverse Roe.
Published by: Gil Cadena
Tx 05/31/2008 06:11 AM EST
To Laura Bitto (Antioch, California):
The Supreme Court Oct. 10 declined to hear the appeal of Sandra Cano, the Georgia woman who hoped the court would reverse her 1973 victory in one of two decisions that legalized abortion.
Cano was the "Mary Doe" in the court's Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to the better known Roe v. Wade decision. Roe threw out most state restrictions on abortion, but the Doe decision permitted abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.Without comment, the court rejected Cano's appeal of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in January that said federal district and appeals courts lacked authority to overturn the decision in Doe or in Roe.In petitioning the court, Cano's attorneys argued that although medical science and technology have advanced, by refusing to reconsider the validity of the Roe and Doe cases, the Supreme Court has "frozen abortion law based on obsolete 1973 assumptions and prevented the normal regulation of the practice of medicine."
Like the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade --- Norma McCorvey was later identified as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 case --- Cano has said she never really wanted an abortion, but that attorneys looking for test cases about abortion laws pressed her into proceeding. McCorvey and Cano have both become outspoken abortion opponents.
The Supreme Court last directly addressed what it called the "essential holding" of Roe in 1992, reaffirming Roe's key provisions.
Published by: Dorothy Swingle
Zanesville, Ohio USA 05/26/2008 06:47 PM EST
About TIME a priest or Bishop STAND UP for the unborn, where are they????
Published by: Lisa
Illinois 05/21/2008 09:30 AM EST
It shows him to be an honest man who admits to making a mistake in his youth. Who hasn't? His leadership is excellent...I wish we had more of him in the Church.
Published by: Martha O'Brien
DeLand FL USA 05/20/2008 02:26 PM EST
Dear Archbishop Chaput, Please review former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's voting record and stance on abortion. He is a true champion for the right to life for the unborn.

"In fact," the archbishop says, "I can't name any 'pro-choice' Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life -- not one."
Published by: Laura Britto
Antioch, California, USA 05/20/2008 01:53 PM EST
While I can appreciate Archbishop Chaput's opinion on Barrack Obama and his pro-choice stance, I must respond here that it is in the Constitutional protections that a woman has the right to choose. Senator Obama, whether he is pro-choice or pro-life does not make the decisions as to the legality or the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court does that. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain should be in the business of determining the outcome of these rights as deemed by the Supreme Court,(by their subsequent choices of Supreme Court Justices based solely on this issue) in my humble opinion. The running of a country involves more than one issue. There is much to be done in the next 4 years. I hope and pray that if Senator Obama is the next President, that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, in ALL his decisions, NOT just this one.
Published by: Joan L. Roccasalvo, C.S.J.
Bronx, NY 05/20/2008 01:29 PM EST
This is a direct quote from Bill Donohue of the Catholic Defense League.
"Obama thinks abortion ‘presents a profound moral challenge.’ Is infanticide another ‘profound moral challenge’? To wit: When he was in the Illinois state senate he led the fight to deny health care to babies born alive who survived an abortion. That, my friends, is not a moral challenge—it’s a Hitlerian decision.”
Published by: colorado springs
colorado springs/colorado/usa 05/20/2008 12:16 PM EST
After years of Republican politicians claiming the cause of anti-abortion as their own without any change whatsoever in the law of the land, I would prefer NOT to be a "one-issue" voter, and vote for someone who may address some of the causes of abortion, such as poverty, unemployment, racism, and hopelessness.
Published by: Kim Poletto
Englewood, CO 05/19/2008 09:17 PM EST
Once again, talk, talk talk. Now knowing his background with President Carter, it's easier to understand.
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa