What’s Wrong with the World

Zippy,

Thank-you for this post!

Although I doubt it given that for such folks, abortion isn't one of those social justice issues; it's just some myth about innocent children being murdered, which is nothing but unfounded malicious rhetoric!

I don't think Kmiec et al go that far, Ari. Nonetheless, Kmiec's pro-life views seem to have eroded quite a bit. In one recent article, Kmiec more or less invokes the old "personally opposed but politically for" shibboleth. But I'm hoping with Zippy that Kmiec et al muster the sense and courage to publicly oppose Obama's pro-abortion policies.

But I'm hoping with Zippy that Kmiec et al muster the sense and courage to publicly oppose Obama's pro-abortion policies.

"Pro-life" Catholics who voted for the most radical pro-abortion candidate in history will need a constant "loud, relentless, and unequivocal" reminder of how abortion statistics under the Obama administration compare with pre-Obama days.

I've thought about this too. It seems to me that even if someone has a proportionate reason to vote for an abortion supporter, he still bears some degree of responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable if unintended effects of his vote. So if McCain had won, I may have borne some responsibility for the embryos killed to the extent that I helped elect him, but I would also have been responsible for all the babies that would have been saved by him not doing what Obama will do.

If we affirm this, it seems to me that Kmiec and crew are in deep doodoo. All of Obama's baby killing was in the open as part of the effects of their advocacy (far more effective than their mere votes). They bear some responsibility for all of that killing, even if they oppose it later.

I think this is the precise nature of the loophole in Faithful Citizenship: people thought that if you did not intend the evil policies, you were therefore absolved from responsibility for helping achieve them. I don't think that's true in the theology of cooperation.

The janitor who cleans the first floor of a hospital that performs some abortions on the eighth floor, is still responsible for the degree to which he helps those abortions. He just might not ultimately be committing a sin by continuing to work there, given offsetting circumstances that make him need to remain in the job.

But no way no how does helping the kind of big time killing that Kmiec helped get offset by anything. And even if it does, he is still not absolved of responsibility. Those things stick with his advocacy. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

Keith's right:

Pro-life Catholics who voted for Obama do, indeed, require that painful and persistent reminder -- as do those pro-life Catholics who didn't vote for Obama -- but who neglected to vote for the only anti-abortion candidate who could have stopped Obama -- and thereby averted implementing the Freedom of Choice Act, and avoided perhaps many millions of innocent deaths, both from that Act and from the Supreme Court appointments that are likely to come from the next administration.

So be sure to include them on your list of pro-life reminder recipients, too, Keith. They need it and they deserve it. But because they are deep thinkers and persons of "principle," I don't know if it will do any good.

Zippy's post reminds me of a great line in Ryan Anderson's recent piece on Kmiec: "[Kmiec's] most recent Obama propaganda piece is titled 'Why Archbishop Chaput's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.' As far as we can tell, Kmiec, a legal scholar who identifies as pro-life, has never written an article titled 'Why Senator Obama's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.' We await such an article."

Suppose
a) FOCA isn't approved by either house, which it hasn't been in almost two dozen years, and
b) the abortion rate declines for Obama as it did for Clinton.

Questions:
1) Would that please any of the combox participants here?
2) Would that acquit those of us that supported Obama?
3) Would you have expected more from McCain, regardless of whether you would have voted for him?

M.Z. Forrest:

Tell me, brutha, what will you do when:
1. FOCA passes in the Democratic controlled House & Senate
2. Pro-Abort Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court
3. Abortion rate skyrockets

You could at least have the courtesy of answering my query before offering your own.

1) I don't anticipate this. I will offer loud and vocal condemnations and will lead efforts to convert House and Senate members to vote against this bill.
2) Perhaps take up smoking again.
3) Such would require an impetus which is difficult to contemplate given that abortion is presently available for anyone that wants one in the first trimester and is excepted for nearly everyone who would desire one in a later trimester.

And let's not forget about Obama's support for the industrial-scale creation of human embryos for research purposes that will be killed in the process.

From the Pew Foundation (subject to revision):

Roman Catholics voted for Obama over McCain 54 to 45 percent.(By comparison, Catholics voted against Kerry, but for Gore.)

White evangelicals voted for McCain over Obama 73 to 26 percent. (They voted for Bush against both Kerry and Gore.)

While white Catholics voted for McCain, the Hispanic Catholic vote turned the Catholic vote to Obama, which is somewhat surprising given McCain's stand on immigration.

"Pro-life" Catholics who voted for the most radical pro-abortion candidate in history will need a constant "loud, relentless, and unequivocal" reminder of how abortion statistics under the Obama administration compare with pre-Obama days.

If you are going to point to statistics, the abortion rate has been trending downward over the last eighteen years. One of the only groups in which abortion is increasing is among older, lower income women who already have children, so Obama's redistribution/socialism may in fact lower that rate. We could very well see the rate drop down to where it was before Roe v. Wade passed.

Also, I am admittedly confused why anybody believes the Supreme Court would allow FOCA to subvert their control. It is fairly clear that they preserve the last word on what does or does not happen to abortion law.

Roman Catholics voted for Obama over McCain 54 to 45 percent.

Generally, I believe the reason being, in spite of the various appeals made by several Bishops & priests on the matter who specifically discouraged voting for Obama, is because of the prevalent notion that Obama stands for "Social Justice" issues.

Why abortion isn't counted as such by these folks is beyond me other than my observing the kind of rationalizing that has occurred amongst them not unlike that in the above performance.

(M.Z., buddy, you're better than this!)

Although, at this point, I would hope (like M.Z.) that our worse fears about Obama's Pro-Abort agenda are just that; we'll just have to wait and see on how far Obama takes his Promise to his Pro-Abort constituency.

Roman Catholics voted for Obama over McCain 54 to 45 percent.

Did this "scientific survey" break out the numbers so as to measure the preference of those who regularly attend Mass? If not, it is just another worthless stat amongst a deluge of useless data.

Kevin,
Here's all the Pew folks have to date on the question of attending worship and voting outcomes:

"Just as Obama made gains among most religious traditions, he also held steady or improved over Kerry's 2004 support among people of all levels of religious observance. More than four-in-ten people (43%) who attend religious services regularly, that is, once a week or more, supported Obama, compared with 39% who supported Kerry. Obama's gains were particularly pronounced among the subgroup who attends religious services most often - that is, more than once a week; 43% of this group supported Obama, up from 35% who supported Kerry in 2004. Obama also received support from nearly six-in-ten voters (57%) who attend church occasionally (a few times a month or a few times a year), while Kerry won 53% of this group. Additionally, Obama was supported by two-thirds of voters (67%) who say they never attend religious services, compared with 62% who voted for Kerry."

Kevin,

I found the Pew Stats here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1022/exit-poll-analysis-religion

EXCERPT:

Though precise figures are not available, early exit poll data suggests that Obama performed particularly well among Latino Catholics. Overall, the national exit poll shows that two-thirds of Latinos voted for Obama over McCain, a 13-point Democratic gain over estimates from the 2004 national exit poll. Meanwhile, Obama's four-point gain among white Catholics (compared with their vote for Kerry) is smaller than the gain seen among Catholics overall. In fact, as in 2004, white Catholics once again favored the Republican candidate, though by a much smaller margin (13-point Republican advantage in 2004 vs. five-point advantage in 2008).

In addition to his gains among the religiously unaffiliated and Catholic voters, Obama also performed somewhat better than Kerry among Protestants. Overall, 45% of Protestants voted for the Democrat, an increase of five points since 2004. Obama's gains were smaller among white Protestants, however, with 34% voting for him, compared with 32% who voted for Kerry. This suggests that much of Obama's gains among Protestants overall were concentrated among non-whites. Interestingly, Obama's gains were among white evangelical Protestants (5 points), a traditionally Republican constituency, rather than among white Protestants who do not describe themselves as evangelical or born-again (no gain).

Nevertheless, a gap persists between the votes of white evangelical Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated population. In 2008, 26% of white evangelicals voted for Obama as did 75% of the religiously unaffiliated, for a gap of 49 points. This gap is slightly larger than the 46-point gap in 2004, when 21% of white evangelicals voted for Kerry, compared with 67% of the unaffiliated.

Draw your own conclusions.

MZ:

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes, I would expect there to be additional differences due to executive orders and such, even stipulating your (a) and (b).

FWIW, you are probably the only Obama supporter I know that I actually do expect to, without additional prompting, aggressively oppose legal abortion and the President-elect's agenda on the life issues over the next four years. There was another possible candidate for that honor, but he ended up not voting for Obama.

In the case of Kmeic, well, I don't expect it but one can hope for it nonetheless. I'm trying to resist any foregone conclusion with respect to Morning's Minion, but one has to admit that the persistent string of "Roe should be overturned, anti-Roe justices must be appointed, abortion is a heinous form of murder and must be made illegal right now, we must rally together and oppose the new President on the life issues" posts we should expect from him at Vox Nova (and any pro-life Obama supporter generally) would be very out of character, and very much worth the price of entry, should it materialize, as I hope it does.

Michael & Ari,
As I suspected, the Pew Poll makes no delineation between practicing Catholics vs. cultural Catholics, rendering it meaningless in; 1) ascertaining the impact the Bishops statements on abortion had on their flocks and 2) gauging the
level of resistance awaiting Obama should he try
to impose a FOCA regime into law.

Kevin,
That's a shocking display of evasion.

Because Obama's support among those who attend religious services more than once a week grew to more than 40 percent, and because those who attend religious services more than once a week in America are made up almost entirely of evangelicals and Catholics, and because evangelicals voted against Obama 73 to 26, and because Catholics voted for Obama 54 to 45, from where do YOU suppose the increase in Obama support among those who attend religious services more than once a week across the nation actually came?

Over the next several days, as the Pew folks have more time to suss out the numbers in greater detail, don't be surprised if you're surprised.

Until then, we'll just have to wait.

Michael,
I need a direct breakout of those Catholics who attend at least weekly Mass and not mere specualtion. Somehting like this;
Hispanic Catholics who are regular Mass-goers -
Non-Hispanic Catholics who are regular Mass-goers-

This should be relatively easy to provide and my guess is McCain carried the 2nd group rather handily.
We'll see.
Thanks,
Kevin

FWIW, Michael, I think you have a good point, and I for one won't be surprised. The number of Catholics who voted for Obama is absolutely scandalous.

Separately, I hope we've seen the end of the "Hispanic immigrants are values-voters who support the GOP" nonsense.

The number of Catholics who voted for Obama is absolutely scandalous.

Uh, the number of Catholics who are actually not Catholic is the real scandal. If belief in the Real Presence hovers around 1/3 to 40%, then I'm not sure why anyone had expectations of a massive prolife vote coming from self-identified Catholics exiting polling stations. Fact is those who truly think with the Church have probably been a minority since at least the Council of Trent. Having said that, no real resistance to the culture of death is possible without the Church and it will be her faithful members that cause the greatest obstacle to the imposition of FOCA.

I enter the day enormously pleased: Zippy, Max and I agree. I rarely enjoy validation at that level or of that extent (wink).

Because white Catholics voted in favor of McCain, it has to be that the Hispanic Catholic vote turned the tide in favor of Obama among Catholics in general. I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that Hispanic Catholics are among the groups highest in frequent attendance at religious services.

I suspect, therefore, that Hispanic Catholics are not voting traditional Catholic values in the way that the Bishops think they ought. As an evangelical myself, I think the Bishops are absolutely right, and that the Hispanic segment of the RC church in America needs somehow to be brought more fully into line. Perhaps the educational ministry of the church needs to be improved in that area and among those folks.

FWIW, Kevin, if I were Catholic, I'd agree with you on the defintion of authentic Catholicism.

Perhaps the educational ministry of the church needs to be improved in that area and among those folks.

Amen Michael, but not just for recent arrivals. Tonight I'll be playing verbal Rugby against the nun who heads up our Religious Education Program and the Youth Minister as we plan out the Confirmation Mentoring Program. It is often emotionally exhausting, but well worth it if we hope to improve the internal structures for evangelization. Progress can be made in shaping the life of one's parish and the perspectives of its staff. I could have been fired years ago for taking kids to prolife vigils, Opus Dei retreats and the like, but deep down I think "progressives" know orthodoxy is the glue that keeps the whole thing together.

I think the idea of defining real Catholics to be rather Evangelical. Among the folks you define as Real® Catholics, I would anticipate most will end up in hell or limbo. And if Real® isn't being defined that way than it is worthless.

The number of Catholics who voted for Obama is absolutely scandalous.

Did any of the exceptionally intelligent folks take into account of the fact of those Catholics who did not vote at all and abstained a la Zippy's Superior Moral-R-Us?

The fact of the matter is that the stats take only into account those Catholics who did vote.

How about those Catholics who refused to do so?

Also, I'd be interested in how these Pew stats were generated and in their sampling techniques.

Sorry, but I'm one of those folks who believe that Stats Can Lie, contrary to the unwavering faith others here have placed on them.

Perhaps it's because of all those intelligent scientists out there who produce (ahem) extraordinarily exemplary stats for their ground-breaking research in order to secure grants that might happen to be why I'm generally skeptical until I see the data, how that data was compiled, their sampling techniques, etc.

After all, stats never lie, right?

Tonight I'll be playing verbal Rugby against the nun who heads up our Religious Education Program and the Youth Minister

I get the feeling these guys must be real liberals.

... I'm not sure why anyone had expectations of a massive prolife vote coming from self-identified Catholics exiting polling stations....it will be her faithful members that cause the greatest obstacle to the imposition of FOCA.

What 'Pro-Life' vote would that be?

The Catholic Morality elites had declared that voting for McCain, the one person who virtually had a solid anti-abortion voting record at the Senate & the only candidate whose win would've consequently prevented FOCA from even being a possibility in the first place, an act of such utter evil.

Can those folks explain to me exactly how an Obama win would not have been an inevitability in the case of a McCain loss, which they actually preferred?

I think in this case, M.Z. is the better person in that, at the very least, he wasn't 'lukewarm'.

And we all know what happens to lukewarm people... something about their being vomited and what not; although, I guess that's all rumour.

I voted for Herr Adolf (I was admittedly swayed by his rhetorical ability and the genuine accomplishments of a poor Austrian paper-hanger who has risen through astute political connections and native ability to a such an eminent position) but I will actively oppose any efforts to kill Jews during a Hitler administration (after all, the murder rate has recently delined and the Party is particularly sensitive to environmental issues). Nuance and mutal understanding are warranted after all when discussing these sensitive issues.

German Catholic for AH

I get the feeling these guys must be real liberals.

Lydia, yep, you've met your share too. Liberal clergy tend to be beaten down, often sub-consciously by the sheer apathy they face everyday from parishioners, parents and the children. It shake one's faith to the core and causes so much folly. So the misguided response is; "lets make Him relevant", either with a gauze of shopping mall sentimentality, or the action figure attire of the Crusading Social Worker. These ill-conceived ploys only deepen the level of apathy within the laity.

The only hope of breaking this cycle is by charitably addressing it - don't scream like I have - and by praying their vocations will be fortified against the world's indifference.

"But I'm hoping with Zippy that Kmiec et al muster the sense and courage to publicly oppose Obama's pro-abortion policies."

Don't hold your breath, Just like with a majority of the Bishops you're not going to hear much.

"Just like with a majority of the Bishops you're not going to hear much."

The time-servers, careerists and pragmatists amongst the Bishops Conference are going to have to go on record starting tomorrow. Compromise or Prophetic Witness. Each Bishop will be make his choice in public view. Prayers are clearly needed.

http://ncrcafe.org/node/2259

One prominent bishop, for example, told a reporter on background that it would be “cowardice” if the conference didn’t tackle abortion and the elections during one of the public sessions.

In the end, the bishops will actually take up abortion and the elections no fewer than three times in Baltimore: during their regional meetings, during a public session, and once more in executive session behind closed doors.