A Quick Thought on Myers's Statement

I am sympathetic to Archbishop Myers's position, and agree with him that it is probably a mistake to conclude that a candidate's support for abortion rights, and for public funding of abortion, can be excused, or outweighed, by his right stand on, say, social-welfare policy, capital punishment, military action, or health care. That said, I wonder if the Archbishop is right to omit from the candidate-selecting calculus the likelihood that the candidate's right (or wrong) position on abortion will "make a difference" in the real world of policy-making?

For example, I've heard people say (things like) "I will overlook my candidate's wrong position on abortion because there's no hope of changing things in a pro-life direction, but I can still hope for more family-friendly workplace programs or a more peace-oriented foreign policy." Similarly, one could imagine overlooking an otherwise attractive candidate's pro-abortion views in a mayoral or school-board election. It seems to me there should be some room in a conscientious Catholic citizen's decisionmaking for such prudential and predictive considerations. (On the other hand, such a citizen might also want to consider the "message" that an abortion-rights candidate -- particularly an abortion-rights Catholic candidate -- sends, or that a pro-life candidate sends, even in a situation where the legal regime governing abortion is not likely to change).

Now, in my view, it is not the case (except in the most local election) that a candidate's position on abortion makes no difference. Still, I would have liked for Archbishop Myers to address this additional factor.

Rick