Advertisement
A few weeks back, Jim Galewski wrote in his weekly column about the contradiction of being pro-choice and Catholic. He believes that it is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and take a pro-choice stance. I have seen the bumper stickers that state that sentiment. It makes me wonder: Since those bumper stickers came out during John Kerry’s candidacy and are being referenced again when Joe Biden, a Catholic, is running for vice president, the implied message appears to be: Don’t vote for Kerry or Biden. They are not pro-life. So the question becomes: Who do we vote for?
In the last election cycle, the “pro-life” choice was George W. Bush. George W. Bush committed us to an unprovoked war. Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens are dead. More than 4,000 of our own men and women in the service are also dead, many more maimed for life. I wonder: Where does pro-war fit in Jim’s Catholic litmus test? Is it not anti-life to destabilize a nation and cause the direct death of innocent civilians? Is it not anti-life to fail to ensure the safety of hospitals and health care workers, resulting in the ongoing deaths of many more innocents? Is it not anti-life for people to die not as direct casualties of war but because hospital generators are only operational 12 hours a day, or because the incubators needed for babies carried to term are unusable? What is the definition of pro-life in a pro-war stance?
In this election cycle, by Jim’s assessment, Joe Biden is anti-life. Is John McCain, then, our pro-life candidate? Who is it we should vote for if we wish to sustain all life, including but not limited to the lives of the unborn? McCain advocates a presence in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary. So who is the
pro-life candidate?
The same contradiction exists in the people and institutions who claim to be pro-life and simultaneously pro-death penalty. How does one claim to be pro-life, cradle to grave, and maintain support for an early grave? Whom should a person with pro-life beliefs vote for when one candidate is pro-choice, and one is anti-abortion but pro-death penalty?
If the focus of discerning who is fit for office is on the definition of who is pro-life, at a minimum there should be consistency in the interpretation of valuing all life: unborn or Iraqi, innocent or guilty.
The point of the whole discussion to me is that there is no perfect answer. Every single issue has two sides,
often in direct contradiction of each other. Are you pro-gun or pro-crime? Pro-abstinence only or pro-teen pregnancy? Are you anti-gay marriage or anti-family? Every issue has a divisive line that divides us as a citizenry with a fervor that operates in the very worst interests of our country. When each of these issues is broken down to its basics,
it is about ordinary citizens making personal choices in their own lives. We can be anti-abortion, and anti-birth control, which helps reduce abortions. We can be pro-choice and against the choice to promote abstinence — the values message that, in conjunction with education about birth control, helps reduce abortion. We can claim to uphold life, cradle to the grave, at the same time we support cuts to initiatives that protect the aged, the disabled and the poor. We can be pro-family when the family looks like ours, and anti-family when the family is headed by two mothers adopting a child, or poor single moms on public assistance.
These divisive and single-choice issues have little to do with governance. They have to do with moral decisions made by individuals. Government should be about national security; the building, maintenance and funding of infrastructure that serves the common good; and the oversight of vital services. Government should be about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of all citizens.
Right here in Minnesota, we have bridge troubles aplenty. We have road repair and construction that impedes personal travel and the transportation of goods and services. We have courts that have shut down because there is insufficient funding. We have county and city services that are cutting back, all while economic concerns of our citizens are growing. There is a crisis in care for the aged with long-term care needs.
Nationally, we are losing an economic battle with developing nations because our health care costs are crippling our businesses. We face shortages in our energy supplies and climate change due to prolonged reliance on fossil fuels. We have dams and levees decades overdue in repair and upgrades. Lack of governmental oversight has contributed to the mortgage industry failures, which now weaken our economy. We have yet to eliminate the real cause of 9/11, al-Qaida, in our other war in Afghanistan. For the first time in our nation’s history we have authorized torture, in direct contradiction to the concept of a culture of life. And we have a nation, Iraq, we are now morally compelled to help rebuild.
As Jim Hanzel so eloquently wrote in his Sept. 6 letter to the editor, I too believe “there is more to condemn than abortion.” There are no absolutes in life. Good governance rarely results in absolutes. It more often results in compromise
for the collective common good. There is too much at stake to focus solely on
contradictory moral absolutes any longer.
El Uno wrote on Oct 1, 2008 6:43 PM: