In today’s New York Times , we read: ” Obama’s View on Abortion May Divide Catholics “:
Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party’s platform and powerful constituencies. Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight.This year, the party is considering giving a speaking slot at the convention to Mr. Casey’s son, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who like his late father is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion rights.
The Times goes on: “Mr. Casey’s appearance would be an important signal to Catholics, especially those who follow church teachings and oppose abortion.” But is it a signal of any substance, or just a display? Apparently, it is “part of Mr. Obama’s strategy to emphasize that there are other issues on which they can base their votes.” But, for a voter who considered abortion the voluntary termination of human life, does any other issue currently match the gravity of the abortion issue?
I applaud the the Times for looking to Archbishop Charles Chaput, in comments he references here on the First Things website , for an answer:
In a column earlier this year, Archbishop Chaput wrote that Catholics could support a politician who supported abortion only if they had a “compelling proportionate reason” to justify it. “What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue?” the archbishop wrote. “It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”
The Times acknowledges this is “a tough standard for Mr. Obama, or any supporter of abortion rights, to meet.” But without a moment’s hesitation, the Times throws the reader way back to left field: “Republicans are gearing up campaigns to depict Mr. Obama as a radical on the question of abortion, because as a state senator in Illinois he opposed a ban on the killing of fetuses born alive.”
Fetuses born alive. Now that’s creative. What anyone else would call live, born, breathing human beings, the Times here calls “fetuses born alive,” putting Obama’s truly radical position on abortion in a softer light. It remains to be seen whether that convinces Catholic voters this November, but my guess is it will take more than symbols and nice talk.
