[Bill,
February 25, 2008]
Will your vote impact your salvation?
Every once in a while the Catholic Church just goes ahead and tells it like it is. In "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops discuss the concept that if you vote for a pro-choice candidate because he or she is pro-choice, you risk eternal damnation.
I've said as much on this blog. So I had to think about whether supporting McCain was to risk my soul. (For example, one reason I reversed my position on waterboarding was it contradicted Catholic teaching. McCain is against torture, so that's good.) But when I vote for McCain, I'm not voting for a pro-choice politician, but for a man who promised to nominate strict constructionist judges in the Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia mold.
McCain has said he wants to send the abortion issue back to the states (I believe). That's an important first step, and the logical next step, in the pro-life movement. As president, McCain's unlikely to be empowered to do more than appoint judges, anyway.
Then we'll fight the battles in the state legislatures. I think voting for him is a realistic decision. I'd like more, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. Building a culture of life will take steps, and McCain has agreed to the next step. I don't think it's rationalization to support him — unless I'm wrong about his position.
And considering a vote for him would be a vote against the whole scissors-in-the-baby's-head, culture-of-death thing promoted by Hillary and Barack, I think it's a reasonable decision to choose the person who will do the most good and least damage on this issue.
In the Washington Post, a former Catholic journalist goes ballistic about the Bishops' document. And Ramesh Ponnuru has a response here in National Review.
*****
UPDATE: Please note the absence of the word "Democrat" or "Republican" in the post. This is NOT meant to be an attack on one political party or the other. There are pro-lifers and pro-choicers in both parties, though granted, it's not evenly distributed. Ideally, both parties would support an ethic of life, and then spend the rest of their time arguing over priorities to form a more perfect union, secure the blessings of liberty, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.
I've said as much on this blog. So I had to think about whether supporting McCain was to risk my soul. (For example, one reason I reversed my position on waterboarding was it contradicted Catholic teaching. McCain is against torture, so that's good.) But when I vote for McCain, I'm not voting for a pro-choice politician, but for a man who promised to nominate strict constructionist judges in the Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia mold.
McCain has said he wants to send the abortion issue back to the states (I believe). That's an important first step, and the logical next step, in the pro-life movement. As president, McCain's unlikely to be empowered to do more than appoint judges, anyway.
Then we'll fight the battles in the state legislatures. I think voting for him is a realistic decision. I'd like more, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. Building a culture of life will take steps, and McCain has agreed to the next step. I don't think it's rationalization to support him — unless I'm wrong about his position.
And considering a vote for him would be a vote against the whole scissors-in-the-baby's-head, culture-of-death thing promoted by Hillary and Barack, I think it's a reasonable decision to choose the person who will do the most good and least damage on this issue.
In the Washington Post, a former Catholic journalist goes ballistic about the Bishops' document. And Ramesh Ponnuru has a response here in National Review.
*****
UPDATE: Please note the absence of the word "Democrat" or "Republican" in the post. This is NOT meant to be an attack on one political party or the other. There are pro-lifers and pro-choicers in both parties, though granted, it's not evenly distributed. Ideally, both parties would support an ethic of life, and then spend the rest of their time arguing over priorities to form a more perfect union, secure the blessings of liberty, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.