www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Priest: No communion for Obama supporters

Helen,

That is a very good question and I doubt that I can give a satisfactory answer. Let me try though and give you my reasons for voting for Obama. It is hard to know where to begin so I'll just jump in.

The first thing that I think is important is that there are a number of intrinsically evil policies promoted by President Bush and the Republicans. For example, the use of torture in interrogating subjects. Also, I would add the lack of due process and the indefinite confinement and interrogation of people who may have not even committed any crimes. Second, there is the dangerous expansion of executive power to unconstitutional levels, including illegal spying on citizens. Also, there is the conducting of a "preemptive" unjust war under false pretenses. This includes government deception and lying (both intrinsically evil activities).

Now, in addition to these intrinsically evil activities of the current administration (most of which would have continued under a McCain administration), there are other practical policy issues that affect the daily lives of Americans. The bad economic policies of the current administration (and Republicans in general) leads to more poverty which leads to greater crime and social unrest and more of a demand for abortion. Also, the failure of Republicans to put forth a truly comprehensive health care proposal to guarantee 100% coverage leads directly to thousands of deaths each year. Just to give you one example, in most cases, if you have cancer and you do not have insurance, you don't get treatment. You die! This is an empirically verifiable fact and it happens often. Sure, those without insurance can get indigent care in ER's for acute illnesses, but anything requiring major surgery or long term treatment and it's , "too bad folks, remember me when you get to heaven!" The Republican party as a whole has supported the insurance companies over the best interests of American citizens. I could go on but my point is that Republican policies lead directly to thousands of deaths and ruined lives.

Now, on top of all this, I would propose that the fact that Republicans have promoted bad policies and done such a terrible job of governing actually weakens the credibility of the pro-life movement. Imagine if President Bush had listened to sound advice and not charged into Iraq. He would have had more energy to devote to the prolife cause and he would have had more credibility. But when a "prolife" politician fails in the public eye by supporting bad economic and foreign policies, then their momentum to work for real prolife change is dissolved. We have to remember that the vast majority of people do not really care about the abortion issue (hence why it was almost absent from political discussion this election). The vast majority of people vote on economic and foreign policy issues and so if we are going to be successful in the prolife movement, then we must support candidates who promote sound economic and foreign policies.

This leads me to another point. While it is true that President Bush has put the brakes on some policies that would expand abortion and while it is true that he has appointed justices to the supreme court who would likely overturn Roe v. Wade (though we don't know this for sure)it is also true that President Bush and Republicans in general have done very little to stress the importance of choosing life over abortion. I also would point out that a number of pro-RoevWade justices were appointed by Republicans (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy) and Republicans in congress voted overwhelmingly to confirm other proabortion judges like Ginsburg and Breyer. If the prolife issue was as important to Republicans as the prochoice is to democrats, then we would expect republicans to filibuster and oppose all judicial nominees that are not committed to overturning Roe.v.Wade, but alas this will never happen because deep down, they really don't care. One would also think that if we really believe that prolife is the issue that trumps all else, then we should expect our candidates to use the bully pulpit as often as possible and to stress that nothing is more important than overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, perhaps we should ask each candidate for public office, this question: Is there any issue that is more important than the issue of overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal?

It would be interesting to ask President Bush that question. And this leads me to another point. Republicans have taken the prolife vote for granted. They all know that all that they have to do is say that they are prolife and, in fact, be less prochoice than the other guy. One could argue as a viable political strategy that prolifers should abandon the Republican party, at least temporarily, and then come back only when they supply us with worthy candidates. Such would be long term thinking over short term.

This is my reasoning in voting for Obama. I could be wrong, but I feel that I've voted in good conscience and that my vote was not a sin and my spiritual father has not told me otherwise.

Joe

Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party was the most in line with Catholic teaching. Even if he is a Baptist.

Define torture. Are we torturing 4,000 people to death each day by pouring chemicals on them to kill them or literally pulling them apart limb by limb until they die? If we are not then your reasoning doesn't work.

Did you know that Obama announced that the only executive orders from President Bush he is going to overturn immediately are those relating to abortion? The New York Times website reported over the weekend that he is keeping the rest of them in place – including the warrantless wiretaps.

As a Catholic I can believe that the premeditate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are both just. You are Orthodox? Where do your bishops tell you that all Orthodox must oppose these wars as unjust? Didn’t they liberate 50 million people? Isn’t it good that Hussein is no longer gassing the Kurds or feeding children into grinders before their parents?

This is false and has been proven false. Wealthier countries have higher abortion rates then poorer ones.

Bad economic policies of the current administration? After the 9/11 our economy took a huge hit. And we recovered big time. The mortgage and economic mess can be traced to Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd and other Democrats. They wanted everyone to own a home and forced Fannie May and Freddie Mac and banks to give mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back. Bush demanded that they provide oversight and tighten lending regulations. He was treated as wanting to keep the poor down.

Socialized health care is wrong. There is nothing in the Bible or Church Teaching that says we have an obligation to give the government control of our health care. There is nothing in the Bible or Church Teaching that says we need to support government run, rationed, socialized medicine.

Do you really want Barney Frank and Christ Dood – who brought you this economic mess – to be in charge of your health care?

The rest of your post is just trying to explain away your vote for an abortionist.

Because the Republicans take the pro-life vote for granted you voted pro-abortion?

What does that say?

If a candidate came along and had the greatest ideas for solving our economic ills and for getting the U.S. out of our foreign policy blunders, but says that they are racist against a certain ethnic group (Asian, Black, Hispanic, etc...), would they not automatically disqualify themselves as being a viable candidate to vote for? In my book, yes, because they are showing their true character.

This same reasoning should have been used for the Presidential election. If Obama did have all the answers (far from it), the fact that he is a supporter of murder (abortion), and radically so, disqualified him as a viable candidate in my mind. No other factors matter! Pro-life first, then go down the list on the others issues.

Obviously more people must have disagreed with this analysis.

Mike

Helen, I just want to respond to one point. You ask me:

You are Orthodox? Where do your bishops tell you that all Orthodox must oppose these wars as unjust?

It is not the job of Bishops to determine for everyone which wars are just and which are unjust. It is the job of everyone to determine this for themselves in accordance with a sound moral and political philosophy. I'll just say that I am as convinced of the immorality of the Iraq war as you are convinced of the immorality of abortion.

Also, I would point out that there is a difference between the government directly sponsoring activies (torture, unjust war) and the government failing to make activities engaged in by private individuals illegal (abortion). While the latter is still wrong and it both bad morally and politically, it is not the same as the actual engaging in torture by the government. If the government required people to get abortions then it would be equivalent. But, as my wife (also 100% prolife) points out, no one in government is forcing these women to have abortions. This is not China. And being prochoice is not the same as being proabortion. I do agree that being pro-choice is certainly politically flawed and can be morally flawed as well, but most people who are prochoice do not like abortion. Most people simply believe that the government is not the best entity to decide the question. I think that this is wrong. I think that it is a bad political position to take and for me, a bad moral position to take. If it were up to me personally, abortion would be illegal in most if not all circumstances (I can see the argument for permitting abortion in the case of preserving the life of the mother). But I do think that there are people who are personally opposed to abortion and do not support it, but they do not think that the government should be involved in the issue either. I can understand that position though I don't agree with it. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me on this and I suppose I'm going out on a limb revealing my own personal choices. But unless my Bishop tells me I ought to do otherwise, I am not going to worry about it.

Joe

Hey Lawrence, I considered this option as well. And in fact, I might just vote Constitution party from now on, or write in Ron Paul.

Joe

Mike, I understand your position. But I think that there are other ways of construing the situation. Imagine it is 1850 and you have a senate candidate who is for a Missouri compromise type of solution to the problem of slavery. The candidate believes that slavery is wrong but also believes that it would be impractical to try to take government action to outlaw it. Let's say that he also favors what are sound economic and foreign policies. Now, let's say his opponent is an abolitionist who says that slavery is such a scourge to human rights, that we have no business calling ourselves a free nation as long as there are slaves. Let us also suppose that this abolitionist candidate believes that the fifth amendment to the constitution should be abolished and also favors entering into an unprovoked war with France. Who is the right person to vote for?

Joe

And by the way (I'm going to get politically incorrect here ) it is not at all clear that the Civil War was the best response to the issue of secession and slavery. Great Britain managed to end slavery without a civil war and it is quite likely that in time, it could have been ended without such a war here. Think of the tragic loss of life, enmnity between families, and so forth that could have been prevented had the North been more willing to be reasonable with the south. It isn't necessarily the best thing in all situations to take government action to end an intrinsic evil. Sometimes, it is better, looking at things in a long term view, to permit an evil to occur lest other evils (sometimes greater) follow. I believe that Thomas Aquinas said something to this effect (his example was prostitution).

Joe

Is it then like the case of salvery; the government didn't require people to have slaves, therefore,...?

Yes it is equivalent. And, in fact, it is not clear that advocating abolition to the point of provoking secession and civil war was the most prudent thing to do politically. Politics is not simply about laying down moral absolutes and doing all that is in your power to get others to comply. Politics is the "art of the possible," and very much relies on strategies that involve tolerating evils in some circumstances.

Joe

With all do respect the goverment pays for abortions so they do sponser abortion. I fail to see how you can put abortion as something other than the top issue. Some people wanted Bush to go into Iraq because Sadam had killed hundreds of thousands of people. Right or wrong many felt at the time they were going to help people by getting rid of the dictator. Even if you think we torture those terrorists the shear numbers alone would dictate abortion as a top priority.

True, abortion tops the list but,with all due respect, there are more ways to skin a cat than to sabotage the country with dangerously ignorant leaders,disregard (disrespect)the poor, the Iraqi babies born with birth defects because of our bombs,those whose lives are made a living hell because of our presence in Iraq,and those going down the tubes because of our economy. IF these problems affected us we wouldn't so flippantly decide,that the only way to cure abortion is to sacrifice the rest of the world.The church does not ask us to do that.

I recently finished reading Frederica Matthewes-Green's wonderful book Real Choices:listening to women,looking for alternatives to abortion. There are many things we can do to find solutions to help prevent abortion that could lead to the lack of a need for abortion clinics to even exist.

Indigo

Your statement is clearly wrong. Orthodoxy teaches that abortion is always immoral, that it is an intrinsic evil. It does not teach that the war in Iraq is unjust. You can be Orthodox and support the war as a just war. You cannot be orthodox and say abortion is ok. You are putting your personal convictions before Orthodox Teaching.

This is a cop out. The government pays for a lot of the abortions. If President Obama has his way the government – meaning you and me – will pay for all of them. The government sponsors all these activities from abortion to the just war (it’s only your opinion that the war is unjust – it is not the opinion of Orthodoxy).

That is another cop out. It is good people like you and you wife that it difficult for pro-lifers to win victories. You get bogged down in other issues. If you are not alive you can’t fight those other issues. When President Obama signs the “Freedom of Choice Act” that overturns all laws restricting abortion and even infanticide you will be partially responsible for the increased number of deaths that follow.

If you are not alive then you can’t worry about the other issues.

Disregard the poor? If you want to help them then don’t enslave them to welfare. Give them limited benefits and put them to work. Feed them while you teach them the skills to support themselves. The socialism being pushed by the liberal Democrats is going to kill the country. Look what it did in the mortgage sub-prime mess. Everyone got a loan. Even the people who could not pay them back. Look what happened. Barny Frank & Chris Dodd and their friends in Congress led us to these tough economic times. They are both liberal Democrats who lean towards socialism. They will ruin us.

Curing abortion does not mean sacrificing the rest of the world.

You want to see birth defects in Iraq? Go visit the Kurds. The chemical bombs dropped by Saddam Hussein left them with very high levels of birth defects. It is amazing how some people forget that we have liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and only see America as an evil nation. Such people are wrong.

Have you been a witness for life in front of an abortion death camp?

Have you given of your private resources to funds to help single mothers bear their children and either keep them or give them for adoption?

Have you contacted your Church to see what you can do to get involved?

Have you voted pro-life? If you have not voted pro-life then you voted pro-abortion. Nothing adds up to be more immoral then the murder 4,000 babies each day in America.

Orthodoxy teaches that abortion is always immoral (unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother). Orthodoxy has not doctrinally defined the best political strategy for combating abortion. Orthodoxy also condemns all unjust wars. But Orthodoxy doesn't pronounce (necessarily) whether each war is just or unjust. Individual believers must sort that out in accordance with sound moral reasoning. But all unjust wars are intrinsically evil and so if I do judge a war to be unjust (and I have as much authority to do that as any rational human being) then I must also look at it as intrinsically evil. If I do regard "enhanced interrogation techniques" as torture, then I must hold that such techniques are intrinsically evil.

Also, I have to say that I have some problems with the way many Catholics seem to understand proportionality. It seems that according to some, if I am confronted with two intrinsic evils, then I should judge which one will produce the most harm and oppose that first. Now I don't have a problem with this except that it easily slips into consequentialism (of the Utilitarian variety), especially if we start quantifying the harm done (4.000 babies per day vs. x000 Iraqis killed per year, and so forth). While that is certainly one rational way of understanding proportionality it is not necessarily the only way to understand it. One must also take into account how realistic it is to expect much successs in ending or hindering a particular evil. If stopping the murder of 4,000 babies per day in the U.S. is not a realistically attainable goal (except in the real long stretch) yet stopping an unjust war that kills thousands and stopping certain government activities (torture) is something realistically attainable, then it might be more prudent to attempt to stop these latter things first. We can oppose abortion as vehemently as we want to and yet may not be able to ever do much to stop it. But there are other vital issues that we can solve right now and if we think that these issues will be better addressed by democrats than republicans, then it is not imprudent for the short term to support the democrats.

Joe