Answering the Question About Kerry and Abortion

Yesterday, I posed the pointed question: "Can a Catholic with a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life look into the sepulchre of John Kerry’s putrified record of accommodating death, all the while claiming communion with the Church, and then turn away to pull the lever next to his name in the polling booth?"

Today, Michael Perry responds: "Unless Greg claims that no Catholic who chooses to vote for Kerry has 'a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life,' Greg must answer his own question in the affirmative. If Greg does claim that no Catholic who votes for Kerry--not Mark Roche, not Cathy Kaveny, not Peggy Steinfels, and so on--has 'a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life,' . . . well, I'll leave that claim for others to judge."

As I had confessed at the end of yesterday’s posting, Michael could justifiably complain that by answering with a question of my own I thereby was evading the question Michael had asked in his earlier posting, which was whether anyone truly would claim that the argument against Kerry was so iron-clad, so irrefutable, so ineluctably connected to Church teaching, etc. that a Catholic casting a vote for Kerry would thereby either be behaving irrationally or engaging in serious sin.

All right, Michael, you have me. I find myself unable in light of my own fallible human reasoning, my incompetence as being a sinner myself, and my obvious lack of any ecclesial authority to judge a fellow Catholic who proclaims fealty to the cause of life and yet casts a vote for Kerry as, on the basis of that act alone, having committed grave sin or removed him or herself from communion with the Church. Would I see such a vote as imprudent and foolish? Yes. Mendacious? Presumably no (as only God can read the heart).

But where does that lead us? How does that acknowledgment advance the discussion? To admit that a position may not be so utterly absurd as to be frivolous is not an affirmative argument in its favor. To say that someone who seriously undermines the cause of life by casting a misguided vote has not thereby sinned is no reason to fall in line behind that person.

Instead, what I’ve been trying to emphasize in my postings is that these side disputes about personalities and who is chief among sinners are distractions. The central point is that the culture of life remains under assault in this society and thus when we undertake the most fundamental act in a democracy of electing our leaders, we are called as Catholics to make very sure that we have done our homework and that we know exactly what we are doing. It is right and appropriate that we be challenged as to whether our political choices comport with Church teaching and flow from a well-formed conscience. Those who are tempted to vote for Kerry because of extreme antipathy toward Bush are obliged at least do the admittedly disturbing task of fully examining the evidence regarding Kerry's anti-life affiliations and actions. They should give solemn consideration to the potential harm, both to the political pro-life movement and to the Church’s continuing witness, that may attend the elevation of the hero of the abortion industry to the highest office held by any person, by any Catholic, in the nation.

In my experience in talking with many such persons and reading the words of more, those who say they are planning to vote for Kerry as the lesser of evils often seem ready to do so in almost willful ignorance of the full ugliness of his record, apparently because they don’t want to be troubled with stark facts that might dissuade them from that course. They want to pretend he is just another reluctantly pro-choice politician weakly unable to break from the Democratic Party line. The evidence is much more disturbing. The op-eds and essays making apologies for the reluctant Kerry supporter, to which we have been directed on this blog, are of the same nature, never forthrightly confronting full enormity of Kerry’s record.

Thus, I return to the tough and unpleasant question with which I ended my last posting and begin this one. If someone can honestly and in good conscience answer the question with a vote for Kerry, I can only shake my head and say I do not understand.

If the tragedy of a Kerry presidency does unfold, I also will have to accept my own responsibility in having failed to speak with sufficient intelligence and clarity, although I shouldn't flatter myself into thinking that my words could have made that much difference. Still, in my own small way, I will continue to work with others in bringing Kerry's record of enthusiastic accommodation of death and eager affiliation with the death-dealers out of the shadows. I hope that the truth will speak for itself and the more it is revealed the less likely that Kerry's coronation will proceed.

Greg Sisk