The bishops' futile election strategy

Brothers and Sisters, It disappoints me that this learned paper must be reminded that for catholics LIFE is NOT a political strategy. Please support the constant teaching of the church and the universal catechism. Your own words condemn you. Grace + Peace with prayers always...

How can you write that there has been "little return" for voting pro-life Presidents? We would still have legal partial-birth infanticide, had a Democrat been elected 8 years ago. Republican, pro-life presidents appointed the judges who voted as constitutional, state bans on the horrific "procedure" of murdering the little ones in the very act of being born.

These judges made a pro-life difference:
Justice Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan),
Justices Antonin Scalia (appointed by Reagan),
Clarence Thomas (appointed by G.H.W. Bush),
Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush) and
Chief Justice John Roberts. (appointed by George W. Bush)

Obama will guarantee a Court that will insure the "right" to abort. How can any Catholic stomach such a horrific pagan amorality?

It is about time that at least one political party, the Democrats, have begun to take the road away from the polar extremes that have divided many for the past generation.

Alas for the Bishops of the Catholic Church. They lost what was left of moral credibility and leadership in their poor response and cover up in clergy abuse crisis.

(Anonymous -- I always find it troublesome when someone offers an opinion, yet doesn't have conviction enough in that opinion to sign it -- with her or his name.)

Let us keep in mind, as the editorial suggests, the big picture of LIFE and its sacredness. In the U.S., it seems to me, we are at a stalemate -- at times a vicious and mean stalemate between two sides -- on the issue of abortion. Cannot common ground be found among thoughtful people on both sides to simply begin working on reducing the number of abortions -- movement on the journey to a culture in which LIFE in all its stages is held sacred. That ultimate goal is the critical element; a collaborative effort can help reach it.

If as a church we never agree to attack the root causes of the problem, we will continue to divide the church. LIFE extends beyond conception. Poverty, poor education, lack of health care are political strategies.

NOT A SIN TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS
I am a Roman Catholic. I attend Mass and receive Holy Communion on a near daily basis. And I choose Barack Oboma.
My choice is made in spite of proclamations on the abortion issue by a few bishops and prelates such as: the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke who declared that Democrats risked becoming “a party of death.” Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania who wrote, “pro-choice candidates have come to support homicide” and according to an October 21, 2008 NCR report, “Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput recently labelled Barack Obama as “the most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years.”
These above cited bishop proclamations have been made in spite of The US Conference of Catholic Bishops November 2007 statement titled for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility. This statement includes, "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."
The Political Responsibility document also reminds Catholics that "all life issues are connected." It includes statements regarding Catholic social teaching which encompass immigration reform, opposing the use of torture, and advocating policies that focus more on the poor.
As a result of the above cited social teachings, “many Catholics can now argue that neither party fits precisely with Catholic social teaching — the Democratic position on abortion is still unacceptable but so are GOP positions on education and health care and the war in Iraq (Amy Sullivan, Time, October 18, 2008).”
Hopefully, the opinions and citations contained in this piece will encourage all Catholics, especially bishops and clerics, to be more objective in their rhetoric concerning votes for Democrats.

The low income women, be they underprivileged mainstream, immigrants, Hispanics or Blacks suffer unintended pregnancies in these United States for several causes. One reason is their wrong interpretation of morality. The low income woman is indoctrinated through powerful dogmas that impede them from opening up to effective contraceptive practices. There is also lacking education, lacking options for spending their time. Some of the low income underprivileged have no condoms at hand when they go to explore their sexuality. Women who have no chance to develop, often end up turning to advertising, television and tabloids as any basic form of education.

The (above) comments of "James P Doyle" and "J" express my views perfectly. When it comes to the Church and abortion, only the harshest voices ever seem to be heard publicly. As your editorial says: "No one among the bishops has had the courage to stand up to such misuse of office and distortion of the documents that the bishops themselves have promulgated over several decades." That's hardly surprising considering the vicious personal attacks that would surely await any bishop (or priest) who dared go against the holy grail of RepubliCatholic orthodoxy that rules most of the so-called Catholic media and blogosphere. The politicized bishops and their authoritarian cohort influence peddlers in the laity such as William Donohue, Deal Hudson, Tom Monahan, Michael Novak, George Wiegel and others of that ilk represent a minority of Catholics. These self-described "Faithful Catholics" and their followers often come across as self-indulgent latter day pharisees with their self righteous name calling, demands for denying communion, etc. etc. Thanks, NCR, for being an oasis of reason and sanity.

If the killing of a million unborn a year is an acceptable trade off for attaining other Catholic social justice goals, then it should be acceptable to kill a million seniors to save medicare and medicaid, or kill a million poor people to eliminate poverty, or a million criminals to eliminate crime.

Once we get used to this killing, it will be easy to implement our Church's social agenda.

Those who would use the abortion as their sole litmus test in deciding upon a candidate would do well to remember that ultimately it the actual number of abortions performed that matters most, not whether it is legal or illegal, criminal or otherwise.

Even if, in some future USA, Roe v Wade has been overturned (I believe it was wrongly decided and should be overturned), it is likely to remain legal in at least 20 states, possibly more. A women really intent on having an abortion could simply cross state lines to get one in a state where it remains legal - inconvenient for sure, but not that difficult with modern transportation.

And even if somehow all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico and the territories were to ban abortions and make performing them a crime, this would not actually end abortions in the US. Our experience of the failure of the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol) and as well as our failed "war on drugs", indicates that a thriving abortion underground will likely arise. Laws are only effective when at least 99% of the people are willing to obey them 99% of the time. Any sizable level of disobedience renders even the most determined law enforcement efforts ineffective, swamping courts and prisons with far more people than they can humanely manage.

Also, remember that criminal laws aren't enforced in advance. Anyone being prosecuted under an anti-abortion law will have already had the abortion. The death of the unborn child will already have taken place. We have murder laws on the books, and yet murders still take place; we merely punish the perpetrators after the fact. Criminalizing murder is a good thing, but it doesn't put an end to murder. It is simply one tool out of many to minimizing the murder rate. Indeed, other tools, like reducing the incidence of poverty, have a far greater impact than even our criminal laws.

Even while working to undo Roe v Wade and seeking to make abortion illegal whereever possible, we should always keep in mind the ultimate goal: finding the best strategies to reducing the actual numbers of abortions performed. Anyone focusing solely on law, will miss the mark.

"The politicized bishops and their authoritarian cohort influence peddlers in the laity such as William Donohue, Deal Hudson, Tom Monahan, Michael Novak, George Wiegel and others of that ilk represent a minority of Catholics. These self-described "Faithful Catholics" and their followers often come across as self-indulgent latter day pharisees with their self righteous name calling, demands for denying communion, etc. etc."

Lots of judgmental descriptions and name-calling there, isn't there? To me, I'm honored and humbled to be included with such a group. To date, nearly 100 Catholic bishops have issued statements in their dioceses - which trumps any USCCB document, by the way, because those documents have absolutely no teaching authority whatsoever - exhorting their flocks to deeply consider the abortion issue as the foundational issue. I applaud these bishops who are teaching the hard truths, knowing that more than half their flock will ignore them, the MSM will skewer them, and so-called Catholic publications will pervert their words. Kind of like John 6, where so many of Christ's followers left Him saying "This is a hard saying - who can believe it?"

I find it insulting that as a pro-life Catholic, I'm automatically considered as being uncaring for the poor and the uneducated and in favor of war. It's the Catholic Church who is out there taking care of the women who choose life for their child regardless of their circumstances, and it's the Catholic Church that is there cleaning up the mess that Planned Parenthood creates with abortion on demand. And when abortion is one day illegal, it will again be the Catholic Church taking care of women and children in need. So go ahead and vote pro-death and pro-abortion Democrat candidates if you desire, thinking that they'll do what's necessary to "reduce abortion" - all you end up doing is keeping your hands from getting dirty while keeping your conscience clean. If you think that expecting the gov't to do what we as disciples are called to do fulfills your obligation to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so on, you may be in for a rude awakening on Judgment Day.

I'm confused. I thought that four years ago the bishops were denouncing the War in Iraq. Wouldn't that have put them on the side of John Kerry and the Democrats?

So it doesn't seem to me that the bishops have a political agenda; they are attempting to focus on Catholic morals and teachings. You may not agree with them, but why condemn them?

What worries me most about Obama is that he wants to put into action the "Freedom of Choice" act, which could make it possible for just about anyone, anywhere, of any age and at any stage of pregnancy to obtain an abortion. That is immoral and cruel. I think that Catholics, even if they are Obama supporters, should call him on that stance and, should he become president, implore him to reconsider his thinking.

As Catholics, we have moral obligations, and as humans, we have the ability to make our decisions formed by a variety of means. In the end, neither the bishops--nor The NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER--will keep people from voting how they choose to vote.

How your newspaper can continue to describe itself as "Catholic" is a mystery to me.

You fail to mention that Senator Obama has stated that one of the first things he will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. With the single stroke of a pen, thousands of additional innocent lives will be lost.

Wow. I am definitely shocked and amazed at this article and the conversations that are going on here.

I am a recent convert to the Catholic Faith. I will be joining the Church this Easter. One of the many things that has led me to the truth about the Catholic faith was Apostalic Succession. The Apostles placed people in the position of authority over the Christian flock. They are now our Bishops and our Priests. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in all truth.

With this being said, regardless of the scandals that have happened in the past, (Indulgences of Tetzel, or coverups of molestation), the sins of the few does not discredit the authority by any means. If it did, then we should all be Protestants again.

Every Gift that God gives us begins with life. If we truly believe that Jesus taught, whatever you did for the least of these, you also did for me, then how can we not defend the unborn - who by sheer definition are the least of us?

Regardless of political strategy discussions and party lines, we have a moral obligation to stand up for what is right. Let's protect the things that we hold sacred now and forever.

Right on!! ALL the areas of pro-life are important, not just abortion.

I hate that because I am a Democrat and vote that way I am told I am less of a Catholic. I am not. The church really needs to step up to the plate and put their money toward programs that educate everyone instead of helping the political goals of one party. I have seen my own church community look at young girls that get pregnant outside the union of marriage with disgust. This is terrible. This poor girl is choosing life over abortion, but she is being judged on other moral choices. People need to decide what to do when someone makes a wrong "moral choice". It is not up to the government to over see this, it is our job as a church community. Life happens! Even to the best of us. Legal or not anyone can have an abortion. Reversing Roe vs Wade will not change that fact. The church needs to take a stand on meeting the needs of the young and the poor, and educating them about sexuality and consequences of premarital sex. And here is a man who wants to work at this goal. We now have a man who is stepping up and declaring:

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.

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation." Barack Obama.

Sounds like a true christian to me! The same old drum has not done the job in 30 years! It is time we try something new, because like Mr. Obama stated: "NOBODY'S PRO-ABORTION." It is time for change!

Marie

The Primacy of Conscience. The recent letter from the Bishop of Scranton to all the churches in his diocese represents but the latest example of what this editorial is getting at. It is unconscionable that a bishop would see it his role to oversimplify the matter of voting by implying or directly stating that an adult Catholic can only vote for the candidate the bishop deems worthy. Unfortunately this kind of approach simply perpetuates an approach to faith that treats adults like children, and aligns the institutional hierarchy with the powerful. And in the process, the chasm between the thoughtful, deep, rich statements of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the pastoral teaching of many local bishops, is appalling.

The Church telling us how to vote is the moral equivalent of selling indulgences.

Once again...

A lot of words for nothing. We grown up Catholics are not that stupid... anymore. The bishops lost all moral authority, when they suborned purgury, hiding and protecting pedophiles. It is no longer easy to tell the good from the bad, because they seem to huddle together. Just like many U.S. politicians, they are protecting their position and their purse, and not doing the peoples' business.

The institutional church is decaying from the inside out. (One might say that of the U.S. Government as well.) The future of the church is home churches and Intentional Eucharistic Communities.

We'll vote for whom we please.

Bernard Law...a name that causes me to vote against anything that the US Bishops have to say.

For years the nagging hope that a Republican President would bring about the beginning of the end for Roe v Wade drove my voting decision. Promises for the most part have been broken. Adding insult to injury is when those same people I voted for because of their supposed pro-life stand go out and campaign for pro-choice candidates as Bush and Santorum did in 2004 for Specter.

Then McCain openly states he supports legal abortion in certain situations, supports embryonic stem cell research, and supported Ginzburg and Breyer. At some point, particularly when over the course of five years I've heard maybe one or two prayers at Mass for the people of Iraq, I question the motives of some Church leaders when they push hard on abortion and voting. Their statements on abortion are certainly on target, but why did they and do they basically ignore the topic of war except to say it may not be intrinsically evil? Back in 2003, our Bishop essentially shrugged off every comment from Rome on the war. But he had a lot to say about abortion in 2004 when election time came along.

Another point that bothers me is something a number of Bishops say and that is the end does not justify the means. So why is McCain then a preferred 'means' in the eyes of some Bishops when he clearly stands in opposition to Church teachings. Obama does as well but he is targeted as the greater evil in some of the things coming from the Bishops and that really is not the case. The result of some statements from a number of Bishops is the developing perception that they are politically motivated

This website and paper is anything but Catholic. If you don't like the teachings of the Church, take the name Catholic off your website. If you want to be associated with the Church Christ founded, you must follow His precepts and teachings as interpreted and promulgated by the Authorities He put in charge of His Church. The infallible magisterium along with the pope are clear on this issue, and your illogical rhetoric will not change that. The Catholic Church is not a democracy and "truth is not decided by a majority vote" (B16). Accept the teaching of the Church as infallible truth, as it is. Your dissension only aids in dividing the Body of Christ, which is lethal to the mission of Christ.

I AM A GOOD AND FAITHFUL CATHOLIC WHO has decided to please a vocal few to refrain from receiving Communion (once a daily event) until after tomorrow when I vote for Obama and the Catholic candidate Joe Biden.

Hey, until a century ago when a Pope encouraged frequent Communion, we hardly ever received, especially not through the whole month of Lent, often not through Advent, often only a few times a year.

I gladly make this sacrifice in the Name of Jesus Christ

your humble one
frere charles

It's a shame that no one has mentioned a fundamental problem: the failure of leadership of the U.S. Bishops. They themselves are divided, and the loudest voices are coming from the extreme right. It's obvious they are afraid, circling the wagons and have no idea of what to do. Thank God that our Catholic tradition - "authentic teaching of the magisterium", for those who like that language - teaches the primacy of conscience. Let's start respecting the informed conscience of our fellow citizens. The unity Christ prayed for is also a non-negotiable command.

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."

The election of Obama will be a death sentence to many poor unborn children, most of them brown and black.

Obama intends to end the Hyde amendment. The Henry Hyde (R-IL) amendment has been credited by liberal athiest Nat Hentoff with saving one million lives by preventing the US federal government from paying to murder unborn children. When Obama defeats the Hyde amdenment the death toll among poor black and brown children will rise drastically. It must have the KKK silently celebrating.

Not satisfied with executing American children with our money, Obama will set his sights on children in foreign lands. Money will flow to the far East, to South America, Asia and Africa to pay agencies to murder the dark skinned children of those lands.

Fifty million dead since Death Roe and they still haven't had enough.

The law of the land reflects society’s values.

As long as the federal law refuses states the power to protect life, it won’t be protected.

If this reflects Catholic value as well, then go ahead and support the candidate that will keep this law in place.

St. John Chrysostom said, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!" God help all those in our church, the clergy, religious and the laiety - who do not defend life and speak up during this election...it is the most important issue (remember the 5th commandment?). A country that does not protect its most innocent citizens (those in the womb) is no longer a great nation, especially under God.

Thanks for all the Catholics standing up for our prudential judgment in voting our consciences. I am no longer cowered by bishops' threats if I do not vote for their Presidential choice. After eight years of George Bush, supported incidentally by these same bishops who tell us AGAIN we MUST vote for candidates like Sen. McCain-they can still do this without weeping?

Two million men are in US prisons and jails, the highest per capital rate in the world. At least 80% plus, are men of color. We cannot afford interventions in the lives of young children who are the most statiscally at risk for jail and imprisonment? According to Frank Rich of the New York Times, the richest 1%, hold nearly 40% of the nation's wealth. And, yet the solution, offered by Sen. McCain--tax cuts for the rich. Providing hope for the working poor will have no effect on abortion rates? When the working poor can count on quality and consistent healthcare instead of expensive trips to the ER, this will have no effect on the rates of abortion?

The early Church Fathers stated clearly that the wealthy had a moral obligation to give to the poor, and not just from their excess. Where are these same bishops in crying out for justice for the poor? One sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance is defrauding the worker out of their proper wages. Where are the bishops in crying out for a just share of productivity for the working man? Where are these bishops in challenging politicians who tell us they plan to cut Medicare, Medicaid and the minimum wages? Where are these bishops in decrying the Bush use of torture? In speaking out against 'waterboarding'?

Michael Peter

Thank you to the Editorial Board of NCR for raising the serious inconsistencies in the statements of some of the US hierarchy and, I would like to add, several Catholic websites and a Catholic tv channels. Their one issue focus and barely veiled support for the Republican Party is deeply unsettling. It raises the question whether Catholics are being called to an ends versus means pragmatism I thought anathema to our Christian beliefs. Abortion is a critical moral issue, but to look the other way on the Party in power's decision to ignore the Pope and the Bishops on the Iraqi war question, to deceive the American people on the reasons for war and on that foundation place in harms way our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis is transparently morally muddled. This doesn't even begin to address the social justice issues of the current economic collapse partially brought about by the Republican party's championing corporate interests at everyone else's expense. The bishops have every right to proclaim their pro life philosophy publicly and expect Catholics to listen and follow their conscience, but the partisan election year politicking of some of the hierarchy is inappropriate and short sighted. It only weakens the credibility of those charged with the temporal governing of our Church at a time when the memory of the mishandling of abuse scandals is still very fresh. Thankfully the priests I have been fortunate enough to listen to in the pews of the parishes I attend have wisely avoided anything approaching a political party endorsement.

To end abortion which all of us agree is an evil, whoever we vote for, we should address the root cause, not legislate. Voting because a politician says he will try to overthrow Roe vs Wade does not actually address the issue on how to prevent them occurring. Another posting on this agrees. WE will do more good in lowering abortion rates if we provide a better social and financial structure as there is clear cause and effect regarding impoverishment and abortion rates. This is clearly not the only cause of abortions, but the highest cited reason for an abortion. If the so called pro life party makes the poor poorer, it is actually increasing the reason for abortion no matter what it says.

It is nonsense to believe that even if Roe/Wade was changed, all 50 states will follow suite. Murder takes place every day despite the law against it.

I challenge the bishops to put their money where their spirits are and endorse McCain openly. It will be very revealing it the tax cost of this means that they don't do this, and quite hypocritical. I don't think they will.

To those who argue on numbers, yes 45 million abortions have taken place since Roe/Wade, but in the same time, MORE people have died from tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition, all of which have cures but which kill the poor not the rich. They may argue that these are disease deaths as opposed to a person choosing to abort, but allowing someone to die (as we are by not doing more on these global issues) is morally equivalent to killing directly.

Soft Spots in our Bishops' Anti-Abortion Agenda

During my twenty-five years of teaching in Catholic seminaries, my uneasiness regarding the issue of abortion never went away. Reading right-wing Catholic pamphlets, I was alerted to "the alarming growth of the abortion industry" and to the unsavory hints that American public life was on the slippery slope toward sanctioning sterilization of the unfit and elimination of the unproductive. My wake-up call came, however, when I became an uncover agent within Planned Parenthood. Here, then, is where my story must begin.

Training with Planned Parenthood

In the early 70s, when the abortion frenzy was first taking shape within sectors of my Church, I decided, as a committed Christian, that talk was cheap and that it was time for me to take action. Having been trained in Catholic Action, I decided to infiltrate the system and to produce change from the inside. In my mind, the Planned Parenthood Federation was the archvillain. I saw this group as responsible for promoting cheap and easy abortions as part of their women's rights agenda. Hence, by way of bringing a religious leaven to this group, I decided to act as a volunteer abortion counselor within the very structures where women were flocking to decide the future of the life in their wombs.

Planned Parenthood provided me with the required four two-hour sessions of training. During this period, no one asked me anything regarding my religious affiliation or invited me to explore my gut feelings regarding abortion. At first I was puzzled by this. But then it became clear that Planned Parenthood was not interested in what I thought or felt; rather, they were focused on whether I was capable of empathetically entering into the mind and heart of a woman coming to me for counseling who was traumatized by "her" unexpected pregnancy.

Next I discovered that I had misjudged Planned Parenthood for "advocating" (even pushing) abortions. Again and again, my trainers enforced the idea that the decision belonged to the would-be mother. I was trained how to assist women whose only difficulty was overcoming the shame and the hesitancy of telling their boyfriends and their parents that they were pregnant. Others needed help because they were in the morass of not knowing who the father was. Still others were unsure whether, for the sake of their child, they could commit themselves to a man whom they judged to be a bad father. Gradually, I came to discover that Planned Parenthood was bent upon respecting the whole panorama of emotional, social, economic, religious, and institutional aspects of deciding how to respond to an unplanned pregnancy. My trainer kept insisting that my task was to allow the would-be mother to accurately assess her "inner resources" and her own "ethical intuitions" in the face of her own condition and that of her unborn child. Even those coming in with a firm commitment to having an abortion, my trainer insisted, needed to be gentle helped to tell their story of how they became pregnant and how they arrived at their choice of abortion. Planned Parenthood knew that a hasty and unreflective decision could later cause much suffering to all concerned. Making a safe place for women to tell their stories was at the heart of what my trainer expected of me.

Then my practice as a counselor began. I was surprised and humbled to have women half my age or twice my age telling me their deepest secrets, and I was very much aware that they were telling me this as a man. Every case was absolutely unique. A 16-year-old got drunk at a house party and decided to lose her virginity in the bedroom with, as she said, "a guy that I didn't even like." An older woman near menopause was devastated by a pregnancy at a time in her life when she was physically exhausted by raising four girls and was counting the days until they were all "out of the house." Each of these women made a slow and painful decision. In the end, both decided to accept the new life growing in their wombs and to rely upon their inner resources to make the best of a less-than-ideal situation.

The Drama Surrounding Amy's Pregnancy

Then an attractive women of 28 whom I shall call Amy came to see me. She told me that she was two months pregnant. A flood of tears followed. She kept berating herself saying, "How could I have been so stupid." Gradually her whole story poured out. She had married her high school sweetheart immediately following graduation. Kevin, their first and only child, was conceived a few months later. Then, unexpectedly, her husband began drinking more. Verbal and then physical abuse followed.

He openly boasted of having sex with other women. After the birth, little changed. He seemingly resented all the time and attention I gave to Kevin. When the beatings continued, I gradually got the courage to escape. I started my life over in another city since no one in my family would believe that the beatings were unprovoked. The folks in a local Catholic Church took me under their wing. They became my real family. First, they found me a place in public housing and helped me get on welfare. Then, they helped me with tuition at a community college. Just as I was completing my associate degree, Kevin started in kindergarten, and I got my first job as secretary to the Dean at the local Catholic seminary. I was riding on cloud nine. I rented a small home near the seminary so I could walk to work. I got off welfare. Small groups of seminarians would often visit me after supper and play with Kevin. Everything was perfect.

Then a heaving rush of tears and repeated laments, "How could I have been so stupid," followed. I kept quiet. From experience, I knew full well that she would continue in her own due time. Anything I might say would just slow down the flow of grief and distract her from the thread of her story.

Then I met Frank, a first-year seminarian. He was a real fine gentleman, and he had a hundred ways of making Kevin laugh. Frank, used to stay on a bit after the other seminarians went back to study. Innocent hugs led to innocent kisses. Frank was so innocent . . . I mean inexperienced. He never had a girlfriend to call his own, so he kind of pretended that I was "his girl." I told myself that I was doing this for his sake. But I was lonely, and finding a man who was gentle and kind--so different from all the other men I have known -was a surprise and a joy for me. I was so needy myself that I couldn't see that I was playing with fire.

More heartbreaking tears. Then she slowly told me of that "tender night" they had their first experience of sex together. "Frank gave no thought to using a condom. Besides, I felt I was in the infertile part of my cycle. But I was sadly mistaken."

So what were Amy's options? As she saw them, they were as follows: (a) Tell Frank and possibly ruin his life and his calling as a priest. (b) Tell Frank the child belongs to another man and bear the weight of the punishment for fornication that was sure to follow:

At the seminary, they'd fire me at the drop of a hat. Then I'd have to move away. Kevin would be heartbroken at losing the only family he ever had. Then, when the baby came, I'd be unable to work and be back on welfare, trying to put my life together so that I could maybe rise up again somewhere down the line.

In the end, she decided to tell Frank that what they did was wrong and that he must never come over again. She decided to have an abortion without telling anyone. But then a new struggle ensued: "Could God ever forgive me if I killed the life in my womb?"

Amy felt trapped. There were no happy solutions. Every choice she might make was strewn with dangers for all concerned. Slowly and tearfully, Amy decided to go ahead with an abortion "in order to protect the life that I've made for Kevin and to keep the respect of my adopted family at my church." As for God, she felt that "somehow God knows how much I have suffered already and, being a kind Father, he wouldn't want Kevin and me to suffer any more." As for Frank, Amy decided that she had been a "damn fool" and that, in the future, she would never again get involved with any man, and surely not with a seminarian.

The Breakdown of my Moral Superiority

Witnessing women like Amy broke down my sense of moral superiority. She came to me confessing her sins, resolving to amend her life, and asking God for forgiveness. I honestly don't know whether Amy felt at peace with herself and her God after her abortion. She never came back. I have no doubts, however, that she confessed her sin to a priest with the same tears and anguish that she had shown me. I can't say, in all honesty, whether she made the best possible choice. All I can say is that, in fear and trembling, she made her choice. In the end, I can only be certain that she was right about God being "a kind Father."

After many hours of reflecting upon Amy, I began to realize that the official Church is anything but a kind father. The official Church has no heart for listening to and making a safe place for listening to women like Amy. The official Church offers moral absolutes and moral condemnations -positions which, I am ashamed to say, I once cherished myself because they confirmed my need for absolutes and gave me a sense of moral superiority. My so-called moral superiority, however, was a terrible sham -an affront to God and to the women like Amy whom I imagined that I was somehow appointed to guide. Following my stint at Planned Parenthood, my blinders were gone. In fact, I saw clearly that if the truth had come out, the seminary Rector would have immediately fired Amy sending her into oblivion. Frank, meanwhile, would have been privately shamed, given a year of probation, and then sent on to be ordained. In the end, therefore, I recognized the awful truth that the moral climate within the seminary would assure that men guilty of fornication were secretly protected while the guilty women were shunned and made to suffer all the public consequences. Even before I began to explore the moral underpinnings of the Church's position on abortion, therefore, I had to acknowledge that I discovered that there had been a moral perversion in my heart and in my Church. Continued at http://www.didache.info/abortion/

I am a little disheartened by this article. I did like how you have broadened for the reader the big picuture of the abortion holocaust and how it goes way beyond the legalities. However, your harsh open critism of our Bishops who are doing the best they can to protect innocent lives should demand at least a charitable disagreement...they are trying to do a good thing in that of protecting innocent life.

I disagree 100% with your basic premise, that being that the Bishops are saying the "only credible way to fight aboriton is voting for candidates who express a wish to overthrow Roe vs. Wade." NOT ONCE HAVE I HEARD OF THAT! Have you ever heard of Project Gabriel, Rachel's Vineyard, Birthright, Pro-life volunteers who pray and council at abortion sights? Do you know how many masses and other prayer services are led by Bishops and ministries in Dioceses across America? Do you know most diocese demand that religious Education programs are required to present the Church's teachings about the gift and responsibility of sex and the call to chastity for all vocations?

Most people of any intelligence and wisdom, would recognize that if the law made abortion illegal tomorrow, unwanted pregancies and the danger of abortion would still be an issue. There would still be a lot of ministry that the Church would need to do. The battle would not be over, and won't be over until Christ returns. Yet to change the laws would be one big step in directly preventing many abortions and from corrupting the consciences of the people of America which is currently saying that something is OK, even a right given to us by "Our Creator", which is in fact an evil.

We can't expect laws to force people to love, to forgive, to serve their neighbor....that can only come from the Holy Spirit, and from one's free choice to sacrifice and lay down their life for another. However, to allow the dirct killing of babies and have the law protect and possible even encourage that act is unacceptable. The other issues of Life...ie poverty, the common good, just wages, the death penalty, the war, euthanasia.....ect need to to be addressed and fought too, and they have been, but in terms of principles, and in terms of gravity, abortion needs to be fought on every front.....education, prayer, outreach, service, and legally. Especially those first few are the job of the Church and we will continue to do those things. However, making laws for the United States of America is the job of politicians and the people of America. It is to this end the Bishops are speaking most strongly. Peace!

Dr. Alan Milavec's response above is more interesting than the editorial. Yes, Planned Parenthood is not the villian some anti-abortion groups would have us believe. Yes, the women who contemplate abortion can be forgiven considering society's judgments regarding their indiscretions. However, is it a fair conclusion to assume that "Amy's" assessment of her circumstances would play out as she imagined?

A seminarian is not a priest. Even a priest can fall in love, but the seminarian, as described, might have been interested in marrying "Amy" and having children with her. He would have broken no vows if he had taken that course. He was not given that chance, because it is assumed that "Amy" would be given all the blame for what happened, that the seminarian would not, or would not be allowed to, leave the seminary, and that "Amy" would have been turned out into the street because she had committed one sin.

It's all speculation that "Amy" had an abortion. Suppose she told her seminarian friend that she was pregnant. Perhaps, they got married and lived happily ever after. Her case does not provide a sufficient basis for developing the argument in favor of early abortion that is found at www.didache.info/abortion. In fact, her case, if anything, argues in favor of notifying the father of the child before an abortion is performed.

The Bishops have an extremely difficult task in presenting a document which guides us in understanding the moral implications of a political act, voting, without at the same time implicitly forwarding a political leaning. On the surface, we are encouraged in the case of abortion to consider the candidate who represents the least potential for intrinsic evil.

Given two candidates who honestly are both pro-abortion to a degree, one seemingly more than the other, a host of other moral considerations have to be taken into account. How many unborn children have been aborted under the two political parties while in power? Who was in power when Roe v Wade was decided? Are promises being made to pro-life voters that are never kept? Who made those promises? It has to be considered that many Catholics have finally given up on one party to take any real steps to curtail or stop abortion. The truth is that the party of 'hope' is experiencing an increase in its pro-choice membership.

Where is the true pro-life leader who will put all political considerations aside as president and actually introduce a complete ban on abortion-regardless of its chances of passage?

The Church and all of its resources, it seems to me, would bring about more change if it were to work to change hearts and minds among the pro-choice crowd by demonstrating the viability of human life at the time of conception. There is no such powerful effort underway, only the election time documents and statements from the Bishops.

Certainly there have to be people who are pro-choice who take that position because they actually believe human life does not exist until birth. No one in the religious community has, to my knowledge, surveyed that issue. Changing hearts and minds and bringing people to a pro-life position is more likely to influence the balance in favor of unborn children than statements that seem to have political overtones, put out only at election time.

Marie R. is right—the father should be notified. Planned Parenthood emphasized this during my formation. Amy, on the other hand, was adamant that nothing would be served in bringing Frank into her decision. As she saw it, her sexual relationship with Frank was “a regrettable moment of weakness” that never could lead to a happy-ever-after marriage. To begin with, she feared that members of her parish would judge her harshly for drawing Frank away from “his calling” as a priest. She feared, too, that as soon as her pregnancy out of wedlock became known, she would be dismissed from her post at the seminary. Frank had no profession to fall back on. She and Kevin would suffer dislocation and renewed poverty. She feared that, some ten years down the line, Frank would resent having been drawn away from his true calling. But, the clincher for Amy, was that she was more than ten years older than Frank and that he was a sheltered student, so naïve when it came to the ways of the world. Hence, as in the case of many other women, she wanted to leave Frank with a positive and nourishing “first experience of sexual love” that would guide him on his way as he grew in maturity and wisdom as a priest.

I do recall that, at one point, I did raise the question as to whether Frank needed a “reality check” as to the consequences of his own sexuality. Amy agreed, but since she felt so guilty that the pregnancy was 95% her fault (“He was so inexperienced.”), she wanted to bear the pain (and guilt?) of her abortion alone and not to bring Frank into a moral mess that would destroy his innocence.

So, I may have seriously failed Amy by not further pressing the point that “the father” should have a place in the decision making process. What do you think, Marie R.? [www.didache.info/abortion/]

I found the description of the training given at Planned Parenthood to be very enlightening. Planned Parenthood is so maligned by so many. This description gave me an entirely different view of this organization. Amy's story was filled with heartache and sadness. Even though she might have chosen to tell the seminarian of her pregnancy, her rationale in not doing so was partly to allow him to continue as a seminarian. Whether this was the right choice none of us really knows.

I personally feel as if the bishops should not continue to embrace Humanae Vitae with regard to artificial birth control. If the bishops spoke out as forcefully on artificial birth control to prevent pregnancy (and for that matter AIDS) as they do on abortion, we would have far fewer abortions. Forty years later, they continue to extol Humanae Vitae even though Paul VI's own commission was overwhelmingly in favor of artificial birth control.

I would be curious to know how many of the very outspoken anti-abortion advocates have adopted babies that been born to unwed mothers. How actively have these advocates worked with poor single women to create a better life for them and for their children. It is one thing to rant on about abortion; quite another to "put your money where your mouth is."

In response to Dr. Milavec's question of whether he seriously failed Amy, I have to do something I do not like to do, which is to make judgments when I do not know everything about the people and the situation. However, I will do this based on what I know.

If one wholeheartedly believes that abortion is not an option, then becoming aware of the pregnancy changes the other options and obligations of the mother-to-be and father-to-be. Whatever the social consequences of the pregnancy are, they must be accomodated.

Amy appears to have shown very little respect for the seminarian as a person at all points. If she seduced him, she was wrong. If she did not seduce him, but merely went along with his advances when she was not emotionally involved enough to want ever to marry him, she was wrong. And, in not telling him that she was pregnant with his child, she was wrong.

A ten year age difference is no excuse for being so controlling as Amy was apparently being in making decisions for her newly conceived child, the seminarian, and her already born son. Quite frankly, I cannot see how she could be so self-centered as to want to avoid all the social consequences of her behavior to the point that she would resort to killing the life that had begun in her.

If one has a relationship with God, then one must suspect, at least, that God has been involved in both the encounter and the fruit thereof. It should be assumed that it was God's wish that Amy and her seminarian friend produce an offspring. Countering Amy's perspective more insistently would not have been an easy thing, but it would have been the right thing, I think, though it might have meant stepping in should she have been dismissed from her job, lost her place to live, and had things change socially for her son.

We all have changes happen to us, and our children respond well or not so well depending on how we manage. So long as we show love to them, then they are sustained even when they lose the companionship of others in their lives. People move and people die. We have to deal with it. Having an abortion might have prevented Amy's son from experiencing some change at one point, but it also prevented him from having a brother or sister with whom he could share his life.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. It is great to hear the same thing I've been talking about since this whole election began. It has been difficult dealing with narrow visioned church people who profess to know more than anyone else regarding voting and what the USCCB guidelines themselves say. Contrary to what our adult director of formation has been telling our RCIA candidates, being a democrat and a catholic are NOT in opposition. If we look back the democratic philosophy is based on biblical/church teaching, social justice, etc.
I voted for Obama, based on the chart provided by the USCCB, which indicated that he had better voting records for ALL the the dignity of life issues. McCain openly supports abortion in certain instances, which in my mind eliminates that issue as a tie breaker. Again, it's a situation of the church trying to take back control, by telling everyone what to do and how to do it. Only this time we are educated and well informed and with that information and prayer, choose to form our conscience. It is sad to hear that some church officials say that if you come to a conclusion that is different from the church teaching, then you have formed your conscience wrong and need to do it again.
The bishops, and the pope are all HUMAN. Which means they can and do make mistakes, and all of their teachings are not for the best.
Thanks again.

Dr. Milovec,

I have written elsewhere that keeping Roe v. Wade legal is important. If abortion is made illegal, society would have a heck of time tracking down and prosecuting illegal abortion. Women who merely experience natural miscarriage would have their natural disappointment turned to outrage at having to defend themselves against charges of having had an abortion. That is more the reality than the delusion that the bishops seem to be under that making abortion illegal will make it unavailable. They believe that putting abortion clinics out of business will end abortion, as though there had not been abortion before its legalization.

Women like Amy are responsible for their choices, but Amy, as you note, was not looking at the big picture, the one that supposedly included religious faith and trust in God. It seems to me that the bishops are failing people like Amy when they do not convey to them that God is a source of strength and courage, even when people are bearing the consequences of their own sinful actions. They instead appear to be attempting to use the power of Amy's and my duly elected government to turn us into unthinking, obedient people breeders.

I still feel that Amy's choices in general were not well thought out. Who, after all, is she to decide that someone would benefit in the long run if she were to provide him with a sexual experience devoid of commitment and consequences? Realistically, is this what a sexually inexperienced, probably twenty-something, seminarian was likely to be looking for with her? It seems that only the pregnancy made her recognize that something was wrong with what she had done. However, everything was wrong with what she'd done. That she would go on to do more wrong without ever becoming aware of how her behavior was not really self-sacrificial is unfortunate.

It seems that very many American bishops have decided to ignore the instruction given them by the then Cardinal Ratzinger when head of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia. **When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."** [my italics].

Common sense - that oh, so uncommon virtue - would seem to dictate that a voter should not expect to find a *perfect* candidate in our democracy (that imperfect world) and should do the best he can to insure the election of the candidate who *overall* represents the principles of Catholic morality and social justice; neither should that voter suppose that a candidate's position of pro-choice necessarily means enthusiastic approval of abortion. Many a program encouraging the expectant mother to bring the child to term might well be "in the political works."

L. Swilley

Yes, once again the US bishops have distinguished themselves.

They have distinguished themsevles as deceitful. According to data from the Guttmacher institute, the most dramatic decrease in abortions occured during the Clinton administration. Not in either Bush administration. AB Burke called the democratic party "party of death". That comment drips hate. Which god is the god of hate? That is the god AB Burke was serving when he made that comment.

Many US bishops tried to convince Catholics that there souls were in danger is they voted for Obama. That was a lie. It is the love or hate that each of us carries in our hearts that determines our salvation, not one single action. These bishops lied to us. Which god is the god of deception? That is the god these bishops were serving when they made those comments.

Abortion statistics have been distorted to make the situation look worse than it is. Why was that necessary. One abortion is too much. Yet, the statistics were distorted. Which god is the god of deception? That is thte god those individuals were serving when they distorted the statistics.

How many times have the Magisterial Authorities lied to us? I've lost count. Who is the god of lies? Which god were the Magisterial Authorities serving when the lied to us?

We have a serious problem, but it is not a democratic administrataion and it is not the abortion issue. The problem we have is that we have members of the Magisterial Authority who are not serving a god, but not the "One True God", and who have rationalized and justified their actions. THAT is the real problem.

If I am in error please correct me, because in my copy of the catechisms, lying is still a sin. Has that been changed?

The last election is proof that the U.S. Bishops(latter day republican sanhedron) are totally out of relationship with the People of God and are not relevant. They have left Jesus' flock for power and control and dinners with the Pentegon.

A daily Mass goer and a person who has worked with delinquents, homeless seniors, food banks, self-sufficiency and spirituality for the poor I believe that Jesus said “I came that you may have life.. life to the full.” We are all challenged daily to die to ourselves for the sake of the kingdom. During the months before the elections I felt harangued daily from the pulpit and relieved when I went to Mass at a nursing homes where the retired priests did not batter. I recently took a class for people who work with youth in the Catholic Church so that the youth will no longer be sexually abused. We were educated about ways that abusers shape the minds of the vulnerable youth by using anger, intimidation, and manipulation among other things. I shocked myself by drawing the comparison that the Catholic hierarchy seems to be using their power without complete truth, transparency, humility and may be have not learned from the lessons of the past. I hate to make this comparison but I wonder if it resonates with other’s experiences. Is it not about educating us all to be discerning Christ followers? To enlighten our minds rather than to try to make us follow blindly. Anonymous because I feel intimidated.