He was a Catholic from nearby, and he knew well who Doug Kmiec was and what he had said. Men like Kmiec and Cafardi would do well to read the Catechism’s words on putting a stumbling block (scandal) before their brethren before they speak so imprudently (CCC, 2284-2287). I had to explain to this fellow that unfortunately, there are many men and women who do not live their faith and put forth positions that contradict the Church’s unwavering and constant Tradition.
He said that he, too, was opposed to abortion. I encouraged him that if he continued to do political work to try to help bring about reform from within his own party, that they may set aside (to their political advantage) their cruel alliance with Planned Parenthood. I told him also to look into the Freedom of Choice Act (something he had only “heard of” but didn’t know anything about), which would annihilate all state rights regarding restriction of abortion. (Blogworthy aside: FOCA, nothing to fight against, Kmiec, Cafardi?)
At this point I urged him to recall the 2000 and 2004 elections. Had either Al Gore or John Kerry been pro-life, they would have defeated George W. Bush with relative ease. However, because of the Democratic Party’s obstinacy in clinging to this issue, they had lost back-to-back presidential elections. I urged him to try and make a difference with his own party.
To my surprise, he neither tried to get away from me nor did he try to persuade my vote, but continued in the conversation. In fact, we talked for somewhere between 15-20 minutes. I even passed on two phone calls from my wife.
I talked about the relationship I developed with my daughter while she was still in the womb, saying “Daddy loves you,” rubbing her feet as they poked out of my wife’s stomach. And how she not only recognized but was enraptured with my voice on her birthday.
He was genuinely curious how I could be a single-issue voter, not out of some sort of indignance, but it was as though he was really trying to understand. It turns out that his sister approaches voting the same way I do – from a Catholic perspective. So by understanding me, I think, he perhaps was better understanding where she is coming from. I think this is why we had such a good rapport. In any case, I was glad to be of service.
And so I explained to him that nearly all voters have a particular issue that concerns them the most, whether it be education, or health care, or the war. And to assert that Catholics like me are single-issue voters is not true either, but that we are concerned with all issues, but recognize the primacy of abortion over all others because of the gravity of its nature. “If you were living in Germany during the Holocaust, and you knew about it, would it not be your primary issue?” Further, I could not be so self-interested as to vote to bring about a better economic situation for myself and my family when the voiceless innocent are dying. I have to be their voice.
He then asked about the Iraq war. While grievous that so much life has been lost because of something we as Catholics would not consider a “just war,” the war hardly compares with the evil of abortion, which is the destruction of the most innocent of lives, I said. Moreover, not that one’s life is more important than another’s, all are valuable, but it’s hard to compare the Iraq war with 52 million abortions per year worldwide thanks in large part in particular to Western liberals exerting pressure overseas through their powerful international organizations. Abortions for economic aid in your third-world nation. “Is this not right?” I asked him. “Yes.” Me, taken aback: “It is right?” Correcting himself: “No, I thought you meant, ‘Is this accurate?’ But no, it’s not right (moral).”
This was a Democrat with a good head on his shoulders. Here was a man wearing an Obama button with true hope. I invited him in for coffee, but he declined saying it would keep him up all night.
P = ~P ?
“But how can we legislate our morals. Someone else may have morals that are totally different from ours.” (Deep down, I love to hear this question! I can’t get enough of this question!) “That would violate the principle of non-contradiction – that two things cannot be and not be at the same time in the same manner. For instance, I cannot be dead and not be dead at the same time. So the same reality of abortion cannot be immoral to one person and moral to another. This would defy the philosophical laws of logic (i.e., perhaps the most basic one: P cannot equal ~P). If abortion (or whatever issue) is relativized in such a way, then the whole moral order collapses and in fact, there is no such thing as morality. But try living with a reality in which you cannot say, ‘Murder is immoral.’ Not a very pleasant idea.”
He agreed. We talked about other things and had a very civil conversation – I haven’t been witness to such a cordial conversation in this whole election process. We both could have talked for much longer, but he had other names on the list. As he parted, I said that I knew I probably hadn’t changed his mind on whom to vote for in this election (and it didn’t matter if I had, because he had already cast his vote), but hoped that he would next time and if he wanted to talk some more to come back. I will be praying for this fellow.
Really, Who is Barack Obama?
People just don’t know this Obama for whom they are about to vote (or in some cases, the man for whom they have already voted). With one side of his bifurcated tongue he says the question about when life begins is “above my pay grade.” With the other side of his bifurcated tongue, he says that the first thing he will do in office is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Barack Obama is the most radical and merciless pro-abortion candidate for president in the history of the Democratic Party. This is not hyperbole. It’s the sad truth.
He said earlier this year, “We are our brother’s keeper … We are our sister’s keeper.” The ironic thing about that quote is that the first one who uttered “am I my brother’s keeper?” was Cain, who had just spilt his brother’s innocent blood upon the earth. Cain thought he wasn’t his brother’s keeper, after all, his brother was dead. But it was it was the blood of the innocent Abel that cried out to God. Barack Obama seems to have a thing or two to say to Cain. Barack Obama—the hero of PPFA, who opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act—seems to believe that he can stand before God and wag his finger at Cain.
But I think God could just as easily say to Barack Obama as he said to Cain: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Gen. 4:9-10). Those who slay the innocent (Planned Parenthood) have no better friend than Barack Obama. So Obama’s stumping does not convince me. His quote is right, but what good is it really if he proclaims it standing on the very earth he plans to continue to soil with more innocent blood?