If Obama Were President, What Hope Would Catholics Have Of Creating A Culture Of Life?

Last updated on: October 22, 2008 at 8:27 am by Henry Karlson

If Obama Were President, What Hope Would Catholics Have Of Creating A Culture Of Life? 2008-10-22T08:27:05-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Despite the claims of supporters and critics alike, Obama’s declarations on abortion have been inconsistent. It is not clear whether or not he is playing a political game, trying to find a way to get people from all sides on the abortion debate to support him. He is certainly not a pro-life candidate.[1] But he is also not a pro-abortion candidate, either.[2]He is pro-choice, which, as a moral position, makes little sense. When we see inconsistencies in Obama’s message on abortion, it is quite possible, indeed likely, that we are being shown something more than Obama’s position – we are also seeing what is going on in his mind, and the minds of the American populace at large, on abortion. America is divided over abortion; it is clear that our society is not pro-life, and yet America is not pro-abortion either. America is quite queasy over abortion, but America also dislikes what it sees as legalistic moralism overriding individual liberty. The individual is supreme in America, and as long as that is the case, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to promote a culture of life – because a culture requires more than a collection of individuals, but a community of people in solidarity with one another. As long as we do not think of ourselves as “our brother’s keeper,” we will find excuses for those social sins our society allows to exist.[3]This is the only way we can understand Obama’s position on abortion after looking at what he said in his third debate with John McCain.

Initially, Obama provides a rather straightforward pro-choice position. “But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.” There are two interconnected issues going on with this argument, and we need to examine them separately. First is the position of individual liberty. Obama is clear, the decision for abortion should be in the hands of pregnant women, and no one else. They can and should consult people on the matter to help make up their minds, but ultimately, the decision should be theirs – and theirs alone. No one should force them to have an abortion, nor should anyone force them to keep the baby. Abortion in such a situation is seen neither as good nor bad, but morally neutral. The individual circumstances that a pregnant woman finds themselves in should be the means by which the woman decides to keep the baby or not. Only one who does not find value in the baby itself, value in life itself, can hold even a neutral position such as this; no one who views life as a good can ever suggest that it should be left to the individuals involved as to whether or not to kill it. The logic of this position is clear, and it is clearly wrong, but it does flow from the logic of liberty and individual freedom trumpeted by the American system, and it is understandable how it is being used, why it is being used, and why it is seen as legitimate to many. The second issue in this statement is a matter of Obama’s interpretation of the American legal system.[4]He believes the American legal system ultimately ends up being pro-choice, and he does not think he is in a position to argue against the system as a whole. Like the way people argue for the death penalty, for deporting illegal immigrants, or for free-market capitalism, Obama thinks the best way to keep society going is to work within the system we have: a change in positive law could have dangerous unforeseen consequences, so we are better with the devil we know than what might happen with a radical change in the system. American positive law sponsors the ideology of individualistic liberty, thus the first aspect of his argument is actually being backed by the second, and what is said here for Obama is true for most of America. As long as Americans think positive law should be left unchanged, and individual liberty in all aspects of choice is the highest good a society can offer, there will be no cultural change in regards to abortion; those concerned with abortion should find ways to counteract such positions, while finding a way to keep the positive good behind them as well.[5]

If this were all Obama said on abortion, one could say he held a consistent, although morally unacceptable, position on it. But this is not all he said. When challenged further on the issue, he had this to say: “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception,” and, “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.’ 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.” Here the position initially proclaimed on abortion is completely over-turned. No longer is it merely an issue of individual liberty which must be given the final word – here, we find Obama saying that restrictions on that liberty are possible, and he would be willing to support some of them, if his concerns about them are met. Where is the argument from positive law saying abortion is a right in America? Where is the argument that an individual alone is free to make the decisions for themselves? It is not here. And he points out something more; abortion is not morally neutral; rather, it is “always a tragic situation.” It is for this reason Obama wants to work for its reduction; however, he differs with many as to the method for said reduction – he does not appear to think there is a strong legal case which can be made for it, but he does think a case can be made for promoting social programs which undermine the causes for abortion. Why would anyone be concerned with reducing abortions unless they see there is some moral issue involved, and abortion is not a morally neutral activity? Again, Obama made it clear, abortion is tragic, and so he cannot support it, though he seems to think he can support the individuals who make those decisions.[6]

Thus, in one debate, we find Obama holding to two different positions on abortion: that it is a morally neutral activity which should not be legislated, and that it is a tragic action which can be legislated. Like many Americans, it does not appear he sees the contradiction in the positions. And like many Americans, one could suggest that the problem ultimately comes from a false conception of society itself. He, like most Americans, thinks as long as he has not done a positive evil, such as perform an abortion himself, or such as to cause a poor man to be thrown out on the streets, he holds no personal guilt in the matter. As long as we do not see how society as a whole, and those involved in that society, share in the guilt of actions done in the name of that society, grave intrinsic evils will be promoted by such societies. People will feel themselves separated from such evils. Catholics, who are to work for the common good through solidarity in subsidiarity, should see through such a smokescreen, and work to engage society so that it can at last realize the errors of individualism. But to do so is going to take work, because nothing will distance someone more than screaming at them at how evil they are for actions they do not think they have done: calling Obama a baby killer, for example, will turn him off from what you might otherwise have to say to him, because he will think “I didn’t personally kill any babies.”

So what are we to do? Are we to entirely ignore the guilt that a politician has for keeping to the status quo? Obviously not. One must point out the issue of society guilt and take the blame upon oneself, not point out the blame on others. That will attract the attention of others – when we are willing to confess our own sins, we get the plank out of our own eye, showing it can be done. Then, like St Paul on Mars Hill, perhaps we should learn about the other, find out where they are at, and engage those areas which can fruitfully lead to a change in position. For example, Obama and America are, as has been said, queasy about abortion. Start with that. Start with their own assumptions. Lead the discussion using their own ideologies, and show how it connects to something greater, truer; bring the limited truth they have into the context of the greater Truth. That is the way one engages society, that is the way one transforms a collection of individuals looking after themselves into a culture of life. Take their interests and concerns and show how they relate to a greater whole which, if followed, best realizes those interests. And for many, it is Obama’s recognition that there needs to be a way beyond the impasse, that there needs to be dialogue between those who are pro-life and pro-choice, which leads them to the hope that if he were president, Catholics might actually be able to engage him on issues of life. He already has shown he understands the tragedy of abortion; that would be a good place to begin our dialogue.

Footnotes

[1] Neither is John McCain. But those who are pro-life can argue for which of the two they think will best suit pro-life interests, and there can be differences of opinion here.
[2] This is not to say no one is pro-abortion. For example, those who demand population control like China are pro-abortion. One could also suggest that those who make a living on abortion tend to be pro-abortion, although someone like P.K. Dick in The Crack in Space could imagine an abortionist who is concerned about the ethics of abortion and would like to give up the practice but feel trapped into its practice because of the demands placed upon them by society (which I expect is the case with many abortionists in China).
[3]These sins do not end with abortion. People treat abortion as “someone else’s problem” because they are not doing it themselves and it does not affect themselves directly. The same is true with other grave problems such as worker’s rights or extreme, humiliating poverty. Is not a common reaction to the homeless man or woman on the street is to walk by them thinking, “I didn’t cause the beggar to be like that, so it is not my problem”?
[4] I believe he is fundamentally correct; those who are against abortion often ignore the legal setting and context, and so try to find ways to read it out of American positive law. But that is a flawed approach at best. The same error is to be found in those who try to use American positive law to stop the death penalty. It cannot be found in American positive law. To stop abortion or the death penalty, we are going to need to radically change American positive law. Until then, judges and politicians should be expected to follow what is within the system itself, though politicians could be judged more harshly because they should also be working to find ways to change the structure of society itself.
[5] We do not need a totalitarian system to overcome abortion. But we do need to change society so that it once again works for the common good without losing personal (not individual) liberty in the process.
[6] Is this a political way of saying, “Hate the sin, love the sinner?”

Previous Post

October 21, 2008

Abortion and Racism

Next Post

October 22, 2008 "Hispanic Voters Divided by Religion"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am a precious stone, tested and chosen. Believers will never be put to shame when they trust in me. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A rock A cornerstone A living stone A foundation