In their Newsweek response to George Weigel's recent article (which has been discussed here at MOJ), Nicholas Cafardi et al. make what they take to be the "Catholic case" for Obama. [Insert here my standard skepticism about this "case".] They conclude with this:
Weigel may also wish to engage in a theoretical debate about hypothetical public support for the funding of abortion, and whether that results in improper moral complicity with an evil act. That is a worthy seminar topic, but we recommend he start by asking the same question of himself in terms of coerced taxpayer support for an unjust and unjustifiable war in Iraq costing over $10 billion a month and thousands of Iraqi and American lives, which Weigel aided and abetted with his vocal support, contrary to the express prayers of the Holy Father he called "a witness to hope."
Now, to be fair, Weigel opened to door to this conclusion with his own conclusion (though not with the content of his main arguments). He wrote:
And should an Obama administration reintroduce large-scale federal funding of abortion, the bishops will have to confront a grave moral question they have managed to avoid for decades, thanks to the Hyde amendment: does the payment of federal taxes that go to support abortion constitute a form of moral complicity in an "intrinsic evil"? And if so, what should the conscientious Catholic citizen do?
I'm not sure what the conscientious Catholic should do. And, I'm happy to leave, for now, the "complicity" question to the "seminar" mentioned by Cafardi. But, as has now been true -- frustratingly so -- of Doug Kmiec and others who share his (current) view for months, the Cafardi response fails utterly to engage the not-at-all seminar-ish argument that Weigel actually emphasized, namely, that it is hard to take seriously the "pro-lifers should vote for Obama because he supports social-welfare policies that -- we hope! -- will result in fewer abortions" argument when those making the argument refuse, again and again, to acknowledge the fact that -- taxpayers' consciences aside -- Sen. Obama supports (and will certainly be able to enact) policies that are *at least* as likely to dramatically increase the number of abortions as his social-welfare proposals (which, let's be clear, the present economic situation will make it difficult to enact) are to reduce them. Indeed, even if the later proposals *are* successful, there is no reason for someone who actually takes the time to consider the consequences of FOCA, the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, the repeal of the Mexico City policy, etc. to think that they will dis-incentivize more abortions than these latter measures will encourage.
If Sen. Obama is elected, it will be a dramatic (and, I fear, permanent) setback for the anti-abortion cause, and not only in the Supreme Court (though it will, of course, be a set-back there, too.) In saying this, I am not denying that there are plenty of ways to reduce the number of abortions. (The problem is, there are ways to increase the number, too . . . and public funding of abortions in developing nations would seem to be one of them.) I wish "Democrats for Life" all the best, and hope that -- someday -- Sen. Obama actually signs onto their agenda. Perhaps it will bring about some progress in other areas of interest to faithful Catholics. I hope so. But, let's be clear-eyed and candid about the thing.
I've always said here at MOJ that I understand full well that many faithful Catholics will conclude that, all things considered, it's better to vote for the pro-abortion-rights Democrat. But, I think these faithful Catholics should not dodge the implications of Sen. Obama's election (the same is true, of course, of faithful Catholics who vote for pro-life Republicans whose views on some other serious matters might be flawed.) If one is clear-eyed and candid, one will not rest one's arguments on statements like "focusing on courts and Justices has brought us nothing" (it has), "there's no hope for overturning Roe" (there is, some, though there would be more if faithful Catholics would stop voting for pro-abortion-rights Senators), "overturning Roe would not, in the end, actually reduce abortion" (it would reduce, even if it would not end, abortions), and "respect for religious freedom requires us to accept a pro-abortion-rights legal regime" (it doesn't).
Amy Sullivan is the author of "The Party Faithful," in which she contends that the Democrats are shrinking the "God gap." We'll see. In any event, in this Time magazine piece -- yet another exploration of the "divisions" among Catholics on abortion -- she writes, "[i]n a hierarchical tradition like Catholicism, debates don't happen very often." Good Lord. What a silly thing to say.
