Michael Perry's Question and the Catholic Voter

Michael Perry refers us to two essays by Father John Langan and Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, which he describes as making the case that a conscientious Catholic legitimately could vote for John Kerry for President, despite his record on abortion. He then asks whether anyone still would still insist that a Catholic cannot vote for Senator Kerry, and, if so, asks that interlocutor to clearly explain how and why the positions taken in the two essays “are not merely arguments that you reject, but unreasonable arguments that any faithful Catholic must, in good conscience, reject.”

I don’t read either Father Langan or Ms. Steinfels as actually making the case that a conscientious Catholic could vote for John Kerry. So it is difficult to rebut that which is never quite said.

Father Langan’s essay never mentions John Kerry, much less suggests how a good Catholic should or may vote in a particular election. Instead, he offers strategic thoughts about how best to advance a culture of life and also questions whether completely outlawing abortion is a necessary and appropriate means to that end. While I find much to praise, much to dispute, and much to think about in Father Langan’s essay, it sheds little light ultimately on the peculiar John Kerry problem. Father Langan never suggests that a politician who loyally has carried water for the abortion industry is worthy of support by any Catholic. In fact, his rebuke of “Catholic politicians [who are] the more or less willing subjects of an unholy orthodoxy imposed by pro-choice pressure groups” left me thinking that he might draw the line against a professing Catholic political figure who has assiduously courted and ingratiated himself directly with the abortion industry.

Ms. Steinfels certainly does use the name “John Kerry” in her essay, but not often and not with any attention to detail or affirmative endorsement. Instead, the essence of her essay is an argument why a Catholic ought not vote for President Bush (as she devotes the lion’s share of discussion to the President’s purported flaws, with precious few words left for Senator Kerry). She concludes the essay by casting her lot with John Kerry, but she seems to do so only by default (thereby forgetting that there are more than two choices in any election). In sum, Ms. Steinfels at most makes the case for reluctantly supporting a generic candidate with vaguely pro-choice views (and wrongly assumes that John Kerry fits this bill), when the alternative choice is unpalatable.

Ms. Steinfels, like so many who insist they genuinely are pro-life but that John Kerry nonetheless is the lesser of two evils, assiduously avoids more than a glance at Senator Kerry’s complete record in all its ugliness. These reluctant Kerry supporters direct all their fire at President Bush, while giving Senator Kerry a pass by characterizing him somewhat innocuously as pro-choice or somewhat less than perfect on abortion. How can one reach the conclusion that one politician is a lesser evil than another if the respective evils are never fully explored? Why are so many ready and eager to catalog in fine detail the asserted misadventures and failings of the Bush Administration, while unwilling to scrutinize the publicly-available record of legislative votes, speeches, political rallies, endorsements, and campaign contributions made or received by Senator Kerry over the course of decades. Like so many others, Ms. Steinfels in her essay never forthrightly examines John Kerry’s depressingly miserable record on issues of life.

Indeed, Ms. Steinfels largely avoids the abortion issue as practically unimportant in this election, saying that the climate for legal abortion is unlikely to be much affected in the next four years, in either direction, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. But consider John Kerry’s support for public funding of abortions, his promise that his first act as President will be to restore abortion funding to international organizations, his litmus test of support for Roe v. Wade for Supreme Court nominees (thereby limiting his choice to those who are publicly identified as pro-choice and thus probably strongly so), his promises to veto legislation placing any limitations on the abortion-license, etc., etc. Making the assumption that a President Kerry would not make any difference for the worse is a most dangerous gamble and a gamble with the lives of unborn thousands.

Ms. Steinfels argues that “[t]he law will only change when the culture changes and women change their minds about abortion.” If by “change,” she means a complete and final end to the tragedy of abortion (ignoring the constructive interim steps of limitations, notifications, waiting-periods, counseling, non-funding, etc.) , surely she is correct. But electing a pro-abortion Catholic who for decades has exhibited public contempt for the Church’s consistent witness to life seems an odd way to move the culture. Indeed, those of us troubled by the prospect of a President Kerry fear most greatly the potential impact upon the fragile but meaningful maturing in public understanding and respect for life that have occurred over the last several years. The scandal of the most prominent Catholic in the nation standing four-square against his own Church on the pre-eminent issue of our times, without repercussion and while holding up the cover of support by other prominent Catholics, could be devastating. The damage to the Church’s witness for life could take decades to reverse.

It is for these reasons that I simply would ask all of us to take a hard look at John Kerry’s record as a sycophantic acolyte of the abortion industry, happily accepting the donations of abortionists, eagerly joining rallies organized by those who not only advocate for abortion rights but perform the deadly deed. To be sure, during these latter days of the campaign, John Kerry has hinted that he may be personally opposed to abortion, although he cannot bring himself even to say that directly, instead engaging in such circumlocutions as saying he has respect for those who have another view or that his views on abortion are an “article of faith,” by which he means something to be utterly ignored in his public life. Even now, he has never spoken words of unequivocal condemnation of abortion, he has never agreed that abortion is an intrinsic evil (and that those performing abortions thereby are directly complicit in evil), he has never disassociated himself from his abortion industry allies and financial backers. When it comes to abortion, the words of Kate Michelman, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America (which I’ve quoted before) linger: “Even on the most difficult issues, we’ve never had to worry about John Kerry’s position.”

In the end, 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?

By leaving the question dangling, have I dodged Michael Perry's question? Well, so be it. I'm answering a question with a question.

Greg Sisk