| Judging the Candidates |
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
Diocese of Brooklyn
|
THE TABLET
September 6, 2008
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
Candidates for political office regularly speak out on moral issues.
This is certainly acceptable since our Constitution upholds the
separation of church and state. The separation envisioned by our
founding fathers was intended as a protection for the free exercise of
religion. In his letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury in 1801
Thomas Jefferson concluded that the First Amendment was intended to
prevent the establishment of a state church as was the case in some of
the original thirteen colonies.
The wall of separation, as some have interpreted it, protects the church
from intrusion by the government; however, it does not separate religion
and faith from politics, much less conscience from the action of a
citizen. Values drive public policy. Unfortunately, it seems that in our
society today, values that stem from one’s religious beliefs have less
importance than values that arise from ideologies. We will see many
examples of this as the election comes closer.
At a recent candidates forum sponsored by the Reverend Rick Warren, the
pastor of the Saddleback Church in California, which boasts a
congregation of 40,000 each Sunday. (The Diocese of Brooklyn has an
average Sunday church attendance of 240,000.) Pastor Warren was able to
summon the candidates, separately of course, to answer a series of
questions. After a coin was flipped to determine questioning order, he
first spoke with Mr. Obama and then with Mr. McCain.
There were two questions, from the transcript of the televised question
and answer period, that I believe are of critical importance for
Catholic voters to understand. The first question is: “At what point
does a baby get human rights?” Each candidate had an opportunity to
answer this question. Mr. Obama believed that this was a scientific and
theological question and the answer to which was “above his pay grade”.
Specifically, his answer was, “Well, I think that whether you are
looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific
perspective, answering that questions with specificity, you know, is
above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue
of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles
with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and
ethical content to this issue.”
Mr. Obama went on to say that he is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion, a
distinction which is hard to make. But he tried to seek common ground by
promising to reduce the number of abortions, citing that our current
President, who opposes abortion, has not been able to reduce the number
of abortions during his tenure. When asked if he had ever voted to
reduce abortions in his own tenure in the Senate, Mr. Obama was not able
to respond directly and recognized that if “you believe that life begins
at conception, then
—
and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on
that because that is a core issue of faith for you.
The issue that life begins at conception is probably the issue which
most confuses people. It is not through a belief or a tenant of
religious faith that we know that life begins at conception, but rather
by a scientific fact, a fact which over the past 150 years has been
proven by scientific research. That the fertilization of an egg begins
the life process, which will result, barring any unforeseen
circumstances, in the birth of a child, is an irrefutable scientific
fact. Whatever the various stage of human development, zygote or fetus,
the creation of the fertilization process is human at all times. Here is
the crux of the problem for our society, a human being gains human
rights when his or her life process begins. And the slippery slope is
that when you can end a life at the beginning, if a logical process is
followed, you can also end a life in its final stages.
When Mr. McCain was presented with the exact same question, his response
was more direct. He stated, “At the moment of conception.”
Certainly, it is important that we compare the answers and voting
records of both candidates on this critical issue of conscience for all
Catholic voters.
Another question along these same lines was presented to Congresswoman
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, on Meet the
Press, on Sunday, August 24. She was asked by the moderator, Tom Brokaw,
“If Senator Obama were to come to you and say, ‘Help me out here, Madame
Speaker. When does life begin?’ what would you tell him?” She responded
by saying that she was an ardent, practicing Catholic and had studied
this issue for a long time. She cited the teaching of St. Augustine from
the early centuries of the Church and seemed to be evasive regarding
when life began. Rep. Pelosi went on to say in regard to Roe v. Wade
that, “Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child—first
trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third
trimester. There’s very clear distinctions.”
I am not sure what the distinctions she was trying to make,
unfortunately she sounded confused. Mr. Brokaw tried to correct her
saying, “The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly
that…(life begins at the point of conception).” Rep. Pelosi countered
that, “And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again,
over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” What I
believe, Rep. Pelosi was referring to is the fact that when scientific
knowledge was not available to the Church and there was theological
discussion regarding the point of animation, when does a fetus become a
person? However, the Church in the First Century, in the most ancient
Christian document known as Didache stated that “You shall not kill the
embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.” This is
quoted in the Catholic Catechism. The truth of the matter is that the
Church has always been clear about its prohibition of abortion. Despite
questions that surrounded the moment of animation the Church imposed
various penalties depending on the time of an abortion. We should all be
outraged that Speaker Pelosi would claim to be an ardent and practicing
Catholic while espousing views that distort history and are contrary to
the teachings of the Church.
It is unfortunate that elected officials, even when they recognize that
they are dealing with an issue of public policy which touches on
questions with profound consequences, sometimes equivocate and try to
find loopholes in order to support political positions. It is hard to
believe that any Catholic in this country today could not understand the
Church’s clear teaching that abortion is always wrong under any
circumstance and that life begins at the moment of conception.
A second interesting question that was posed to Senators Obama and
McCain was simply stated, “Define Marriage.” Mr. Obama responded by
saying, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
Now for me as a Christian
—
for me —
for me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” When
next asked, “Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that
definition?” he responded, “No, I would not.” When asked, “Why not?” Mr.
Obama answered, “Because historically
—
because historically we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.
It’s been a matter of state law that has been our tradition.”
On the other hand, when asked for the definition of marriage Mr. McCain
responded, “A union
— a
union between man and woman, between one man and one woman, that’s my
definition of marriage.” He went on to say that he would favor a
Constitution Amendment defining marriage, if the Federal Court decided
that his home state of Arizona had to observe what the state of
Massachusetts had decided, believing that these decisions should be the
province of each state.
It has been said that all comparisons are odious; however, comparing the
positions of candidates is exactly what we must do in the current
political debate. It is never easy to follow the reasoning of another
person, much less the reasoning of political candidates who try to play
to the crowd. Clarity and being definitive, however, are two
characteristics of politicians that should be most admired.
As we put out into the deep waters of the upcoming Presidential
election, we are called upon to be attentive to what the candidates
espouse and to their respective parties’ platforms, and to judge each in
light of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
|
|
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com
|
|