Concerned Catholics for the Future of America - Open Letter to Obama

November 14, 2008

Open Letter to President-elect Barack Obama

President-elect Barack Obama,

As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.

Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today's world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another

One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one's opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one's own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.

One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.

Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, "But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.'"

As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.

There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.

One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens.
On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, "And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice.
One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.

It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.

If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.

Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush's executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).

Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.

Sincerely,

Deal W. Hudson
Christopher Blosser

Marjorie Campbell
Mark J. Coughlan
Rev. James A. Nowack
Craig D. Baker
Susan DeBoisblanc
Megan Stout
Joshua D. Brumfield
Ashley M. Brumfield
Michael J. Iafrate
Natalie Navarro
Matthew Talbot
Paul Mitchell
Henry C Karlson III
Darren Belajac
Adam P Verslype
Josiah Neeley
Michael J. Deem
Katerina M. Deem
Natalie Mixa
Henry Newman
Anthony M. Annett
Mickey Jackson
Veronica Greenwell
Thomas Greenwell, PhD
Robert C. Koerpel
Nate Wildermuth

New Online Signatures
William Simon
Deacon Keith Fournier
Mary Ruebelmann-Benavides
Jesus Benavides
Steve Dillard
Toby Danna
William Eunice
Mark Shea
Fr. Phil Bloom
Christopher Gant
Robert King, OP.
Peter Halabu
Kelly Clark
Eric Giunta
Mark Gordon
Linda Schuldt
Michael Mlekoday
Bryan McLaughlin
Victoria Hoffman
Jonathan Jones
Jim Janknegt
Marcel LeJeune
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Ken Hallenius III
Zach Gietl
Megan Bless
Kathy Myers
Timothy M. Mason
Kevin Koster
John Anthony D’Arpino
Brian Desmarais
Mary C. Borneman

Venting on Voting

Disclaimer: (1) If I had to vote today, my conscience would not allow me to vote for either McCain or Obama. In other words, I have no political horse in this race. What follows are not political frustrations, but frustration with an unacceptable Catholic approach. (2) This is not directed to any one person in particular, but is a response to a false narrowing of orthodoxy to a particular issue or political ideology. (3) This is very one-sided post, and intentionally so. I am writing directly in response to those Catholics who claim it is a sin to vote for Obama. If I were to come in contact with an abundance of Catholics making similar errors in reference to McCain, I would respond similarly.

I am sick and tired of hearing or reading that Catholics cannot vote for Obama. I do not mean to implicate your everyday Catholic who might be ignorant of the complexities of moral theology or the breadth of orthodoxy or a proper understanding of conscience. Rather, I am absolutely frustrated with Catholics who should know better - priests, deacons, theologians, intelligent and intentional Catholics - who insist upon focusing squarely and exclusively on the issue of abortion. They claim it is sinful to vote for a pro-choice candidate and implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) state that Catholics MUST vote for McCain. In doing so they obliterate the role of conscience in voting, which should be a personal prudential decision made with an informed conscience.

The Church’s teaching on this is clear. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated it in their document Faithful Citizenship:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity... There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil...In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching...As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

It really is that clear. A Catholic may, without committing sin, vote for Obama provided he is voting in spite of, not because of, Obama’s position on abortion. Period. Each Catholic, as an individual person, is responsible for informing himself on the Church’s teaching on the issues, on the candidates’ positions on the issues, on the integrity, qualification, etc. of the candidates. Once the person has informed himself, he should, in prayer, make a decision according to his conscience. No one should tell anyone that it is a sin to vote for either of these two candidates. (However, it would be a sin to vote for Obama because of his pro-choice position.)

Furthermore, these people reduce the Catholic consistent ethic of life to abortion, and in doing so, they brush aside the fact that McCain is simply not a pro-life candidate. 1) He is not against abortion in cases of rape, incest, etc. 2) As far as I can tell, his proposed policy is that the legality of abortion should be left up to the individual states. While this is an improvement over the current state of the law, it cannot be called a pro-life position in any sense of the term. 3) McCain is currently for embryonic stem cell research, which is basically abortion at an earlier stage and for the purpose of research. How can someone really make the claim that he is a “pro-life” candidate?

Everyone should educate themselves on the issues and a Catholic understanding of them. Everyone should educate themselves on the candidates. After reading, learning, praying, and discerning, everyone should feel free to vote their conscience. It is not a sin to vote for either candidate provided you are not voting for them because of their support for an intrinsically evil act.

I may disagree with your prudential judgment. You may disagree with mine. We can talk about it. We can debate it. But we should never threaten anyone with the guilt of sin due to their prudential judgment as a Catholic voter.

Being Catholic in America part VIII - Just War

"War is always a defeat for humanity" and is contrary to Jesus' call to be peacemakers. The Christian always mourns the destruction and death which accompanies war, but the Church has recognized that in some cases the secular world must resort to war. In order to evaluate the involvement of Christians in these regrettable situations to help guide her children, the Church teaches a Just-War Doctrine, which the delineates the preconditions necessary for a war to have a just cause and for the actually fighting to be waged in a just manner.

The Catechism describes the Just- War Doctrine here, see specifically, articles 2307- 2317.

A country can only be said to have a just cause for going to war if all of the following conditions are met:

1 - The war must be a war of defense and the response must be proportionate to the initial attack to which one is responding.

2 - War must ALWAYS be the last resort. ALL other "diplomatic" options must be exhausted.(when has this ever been the case?)

3 - The country must have high likelihood of success in war.

4 - The use of weapons must not cause more suffering/evil than refraining from war would have caused.

Furthermore a legitimate authority must make the decision to go to war and civilians and non combatants must not be harmed. By "legitimate authority" the Church does mean the head of a country or nation-state, but an international authority. In other words, President Bush is not the legitimate authority here, the UN is the legitimate authority.

With this information in mind we can evaluate the recent war policies of our country. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II have both condemned the Iraq war as being unjust. Why might that be?

Contrary to the misinformed opinion of some of people, Iraq had no role in the 9-11 attacks. In fact, for all his flaws, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda, which had no presence in Iraq before the war. Therefore, our invasion was not a defensive response. We initiated the violence. Some will counter that the war is justified as pre-emptive strike against an imminent threat. However, Joseph Ratzinger has explained that the just war doctrine does NOT allow for a pre-emptive war. The Catechism does not allow for such a justification.

Furthermore, in attacking Iraq, President Bush ignored the recommendation of the legitimate authority, the UN, and hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been injured in the war. The Archbishop of Baghdad has noted that daily life for the average Iraqi, specifically Iraqi Christians was safer, less chaotic, and more "normal" during the reign of Saddam Hussein than it is now. Despite the horrors and evils of the Hussein Regime, the argument could be made that the war and overthrowing the regime has produced more evils than leaving the regime in place.

Simply put, the Iraq war cannot be justified based on Catholic principles of peace and justice.

America's current policy of war does not support a consistent ethic of life which demands that we hold all life as sacred and priceless. Iraqi lives are just as important and sacred as American lives. We must remember that we are one Body in Christ, we are the Catholic (Universal) Church, not the American church.

IF we want to live out our universal call to holiness, if we want to be faithful Catholics in America we must not buy into this us (good guys) vs. them (bad guys) rhetoric. War is not the answer and is always a defeat for humanity. JP II taught "there can be no peace without mercy and forgiveness." War does not bring this. It only brings pain, death, suffering, hated, and a false,forced sense of closure. This is why the wars in the middle east, specifically between the Jews and Palestinians have continued and will continue. There can be no peace without mercy and forgiveness. We must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, not bomb them to smithereens.

May God grant us the grace to be witnesses to faith, hope, and love, witnesses to the peace which only Christ can offer, in a society that puts its open in armed weaponry and the strength of men.

Sex and the City revisited

Recently I wrote on two different (Catholic) perspectives on Sex and the City discussed on Vox-Nova. Katerina believed that the show and movie were inconsistent with Catholic/ Christian life and damaging to culture by promoting and sensationalizing immoral actions and attitudes. Radical Catholic Mom, however, that the show was an exaggerated glimpse into the struggles we all have and was indicative of our need for more than selfish desires in order to find fulfillment. Over at Catholic Educator's Resource, Colleen Campbell argues that the show is problematic to say the least. She concludes:

For all their pretensions to envelope-pushing, the movie's producers apparently could not improve on the age-old answer to a woman's romantic yearnings: the very ideal of traditional marriage so often disparaged by the series. Even the promiscuous, materialistic fashion plates of Sex and the City ultimately succumb to the desire to direct their erotic energies into something more enduring than one-night stands and shopping sprees. They want, as most women do, the kind of lifelong love that can survive wrinkles and stretch marks and the dowdier duds of old age.

Of course, such happy endings may prove more elusive for viewers. Decades of bed-hopping and gold-digging look glamorous on television, but in real life, a woman who sleeps with scores of men is more likely to wind up with a sexually transmitted disease and an attachment disorder than a doting husband and storybook marriage. And in real life, a woman who postpones motherhood until well into her forties faces the very real chance that she never will conceive.

The popularity of Sex and the City suggests that many women accept the show's premise that a woman can spend decades treating people like things and things like people without compromising her future prospects for marriage and motherhood. That one TV show could sell that canard to so many women indicates that Sex and the City is more subversive than either its fans or its fiercest critics imagine.

My inclination is to side with Colleen and Katerina. Although I understand RCM's point, I think the majority of the people who watch the show/movie are not as savvy in reading and interpretating media as she is. I think most just see, they are doing it, so can I. Some of the statistics quoted by Colleen in her article bear this out.

The Immigration Issue, Revisited

JB posted on the immigration issue in his series on being a faithful Catholic in America here. I was reading Radical Catholic Mom's blog and saw that she was dealing with this issue in Alaska. She contacted a Representative for her state who is known for standing up for his Catholic values to call him out on his support of a bill that requires everyone to have identification to prove their "legal status" in the country and the state. You can read the post here.

A short excerpt:

I pleaded with Dirk [Rep Lynn's staffer] to use his pro-life principles as an example of how we are to approach the immigration issue. First, don't call them "illegal aliens." I don't give a flying flip if our [government] calls them that. We are Catholics and as such we do NOT believe ANY human is an illegal one, including immigrants and unborn children. Second, WHY WHY WHY are so many millions of people coming here illegally? WHY? When you look into that answer you have to get past the black and white of immigration. Third, if you cannot change your mind because you are convinced, do it because Jesus has some really nasty warnings about what will happen to us rich people who ignore the sufferings of the poor. Do it because we fear God and because we honor the dignity of the person.

Amen.

"Personal Relationship with Jesus"

If you've ever been asked the question, "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?" and didn't know how to respond, I highly recommend this short post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a former evangelical, now Catholic priest. Here's an excerpt:

The problem I had was that I felt more and more that the 'personal relationship with Jesus' was more 'personal' than 'Jesus'. As I grew older and got a wider experience of Evangelical Christianity it all seemed rather sentimental and subjective. Not only were the different denominations idea of the personal relationship different, but every individual's personal relationship seemed as different as could be, and I naturally began to suspect that much of the , 'personal relationship with Jesus' consisted of sincere, but subjective emotions, and that the Jesus people had a personal relationship was often more of a reflection of their own inner desires, their own personality, their religious preferences and what they had been taught about Jesus than anything else.

I then began to meet a few Catholics who seemed to be closer to Jesus than anyone I had ever met, but they never spoke about a 'personal relationship with Jesus.'

Similar is the "Are you saved?" question. Maybe I'll come up with a post one day on how we as Catholics can respond to that one. Let me just say that it's perfectly acceptable to respond that you have hope in your salvation, or that you're working it out in fear and trembling. We dare not make presumptions on the mercy and justice of God.

Any thoughts you'd like to add?