Roman Catholics for Obama and Catholic Social Teaching

A careful examination of the website of the controversial group Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 will yield a sense of doubt in their reasoning and rhetoric. The site employs a “Blueprint for Change,” which outlines Senator Obama’s presidential plans and the policies that he advocates. The group then reviews it in light of the seven principles of Catholic Social Teaching. For the most part, they don't do a bad job and demonstrate very well that Obama's policies are consonant with the social justice teachings of the Church.

What I find interesting is the way they gloss over Barack Obama’s failures on the right-to-life issues, particularly abortion. They quote him talking about reducing the abortion rate, though it is disguised behind standard pro-choice rhetoric. There is no mention of the fact that he has a 100% NARAL abortion rating and that he constantly opposes legislation that would even restrict, regulate, or seemingly help a woman make an informed "reproductive health" choice, which he supposedly advocates. Furthermore, there is no mention of his opposition of a bill that would protect born-babies that survived abortions from legal and medical protection.

Essential facts that a faithful Catholic should consider is not given attention. Rather, they gloss over the right-to-life issues and talk about every other issue—all of which are pressing, relevant, and important in their own right—and show that Obama does not contradict the Catholic moral framework on those issues. Agreed, he doesn’t. Though, he does go against Catholic teaching on abortion, on embryonic stem-cell research, and even on euthanasia. And these vital issues cannot just be dismissed as irrelevant.

Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice—the pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-contraception advocacy group of dissenting Catholics—a few months ago endorsed Barack Obama as the best abortion candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Strikingly, Kissling criticized Hillary Clinton for not being “radical enough” on the issue of abortion and for having failed the “pro-reproductive rights” movement by failing to cover abortion in her healthcare plan reform as First Lady and during her 2008 presidential bid. Moreover, Clinton had not sought to restore public funding of abortion which was signed away by her husband during his presidency after she became a U.S. Senator. And Barack Obama is the man to "right" the "failures" of Clinton in regard to abortion being considered healthcare and public funding of abortion.

Barack Obama is entirely antithetical to the Catholic position on the sanctity of life issues and as Kissling suggested far more radical than Hillary Clinton. Obama has promised a pro-choice litmus test on the Supreme Court appointments when we’re a single Justice away from being able to overturn Roe v. Wade. Obama wants to cover abortion through universal healthcare, and thereby, employ tax-payer dollars to publicly fund the procedure. Obama furthermore wants to pass the Freedom of Choice Act and roll back every pro-life law since 1973 regulating abortion—eradicating the fruits of the pro-life movement over the last 35 years in one fatal blow.

Now given this reality, they somehow conceive that Obama will lead America toward “creating a culture of life.” Such a statement begs some attempt at qualification. They don't even try. I think it's obvious why. Granted, I’m personally not against voting for a pro-choice candidate in principle, there may be “proportionate reasons” to justify such a vote, or perhaps even, the election is between two pro-choice candidates. But, I don’t find their arguments—or lack of them—convincing. They don’t even criticize their candidate in the slightest; they don’t even seem to think it’s necessary. Obama is, by their regards, the "Catholic candidate." Well, I’m Catholic and I disagree. Obama is bad business for Democrats in my view.

Roman Catholics for Obama '08 should at least be willing to deliver constructive criticism, in no uncertain terms, that Obama falls short on Catholic teaching and that his disagreements are morally unacceptable and that Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 does not condone his positions. It is obvious that neither a possible-Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party will see any reason to change their “pro-reproductive rights” policies if they can expect uncritical support from even those that disagree with them.

I’ll draw a different picture here that is stark in contrast to what you will find on the group’s website currently. Say, Roman Catholics for Obama ’08 firmly believed that the Bush Administration and the Republican Party has not delivered on their promises and rhetoric in regard to vital issues that concern Catholic voters and that there are insurmountable concerns given the state of the economy, the wars in the Middle East, an energy crisis, thousands upon thousands of home foreclosures that conservatives are not rushing in to deliver aid, a broken healthcare system, a dire need for education reform, growing poverty, a dire need to restore positive moral standing in the international community, and a need to “green” our policies and cities, etc., and that Catholics can (and perhaps should) vote for Barack Obama despite his pro-choice position.

But there advocacy would not stop there. They could (and would) launch a national campaign of Catholics writing letters in bulk to the Obama campaign (and his Administration, if elected) requesting that he discourage the Freedom of Choice Act because it isn't change and it isn't common ground, add a more inclusive pro-life plank to the Democratic Platform on abortion, that he adopt a more moderate position on abortion that reflects the majority American opinion that allows for legal restrictions, that he work to find common ground with people on the opposite side of the aisle by supporting the Democrats for Life of America's 95-10 initiative to reduce abortion by 95% in 10 years, to support the Pregnant Women Support Act—a comprehensive bill to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term—in addition to making the Adoption Tax Credits permanent and expanding SCHIP medical coverage to pregnant women and unborn children. Furthermore, he could be asked to endorse the Right To Know Act enabling women to be provided accurate information about abortion and human life development to ensure women make an informed decision.

The list goes on and on of what can be recommended. This way the group would appear far less dubious. Granted, many Catholics may reasonably disagree. But it would make a world of difference if they at least addressed his record on abortion and admitted that it is bad and in response, invoked a campaign to ensure maximum protection for the unborn while safeguarding policies they believe is essential to the common good and positive change in America.

Is that too much to ask for?