It isn't my intent to make this blog a polemic against Jesuits in general, or Fr. Schroth in particular. But in reading some of his entries at nj.com, I came across his rather interesting endorsement of Barack Obama, entitled "Why Obama Now."
Naturally, I thought to myself, "A Catholic priest endorsing Barack Obama. This ought to be very interesting, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama is the most pro-choice candidate in the election." I wondered how Fr. Schroth would successfully reconcile Obama's tireless support of abortion (100% NARAL rating) with the guidance from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on the subject:
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.
But, I read the whole post and abortion is not even mentioned.
Consider also that Obama is not only 100% with NARAL in his voting record in the U.S. Senate, he also has shown hostility to babies who somehow manage to survive abortion, as pointed out in this article by Amanda Carpenter at Human Events, which is appropriately titled "Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL".
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote..Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Naturally, you read things like that and you begin to wonder what beef Barack Obama has with children? I would think, that as a minimum, any Catholic even considering support of Obama would have to have some pretty grave reasons for supporting him, if Obama's position on abortion did not immediately disqualify him from consideration. Considering the reputation -- justifiably earned -- that members of the Society of Jesus have gained for their ability to make coherent, rational arguments, I expected something of substance from Fr. Schroth's post endorsing Obama.
But I guess I was expecting too much. Here's what we got.
This afternoon I came more-or-less face-to-face -- along with 3000-4000 others -- with Barack Obama at his stick-of-dynamite rally here at Saint Peter's College, and now I know clearly for myself why he must become the next president of the United States.I have covered five Democratic National Conventions since 1968 and grew up listening to FDR. These media and personal encounters help us decide who should lead us.
My students and I arrived at 1:30, informed that we had to go in and sit tight until the candidate would arrive at about 3:45. The choir girls from Saint Dominic's Academy down the street sang beautifully. At 4:55, an hour late, partly because he had paused to work the crowd of 2000 outside who could not get in, Obama, to wild applause, jogged up the steps to the podium.
Reason 1: he's dynamite. Actually, in reading that last sentence, I actually retched a little. Obama was receiving wild applause from an audience at a Catholic college. A Catholic college, that, if one actually listens to the Catholic bishops, he should not even be addressing:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
No platforms for pro-choice politicians.
And yet, at St. Peter's, we have this thing. This rather platform-looking thing.
But I guess the Bishops didn't mean a literal platform; they only meant a metaphorical platform. I was not Jesuit educated, so perhaps these fine distinctions elude me.
But back to Fr. Schroth:
You know what he said. He's running now, not later, because now we have been deceived into an unjust war, the planet is in peril, we work harder for less and less, and young men stand on the street corners rather than go to college or do meaningful work. His mother died at 53 of cancer and never saw her grandchildren and should have had better medical care. And he runs because we are a decent and generous people willing to work hard for the common good.
Whether the war was unjust or not can be debated. Whether we were deceived into it (presumably by a malicious Bush administration) or whether the CIA simply got a lot of the data wrong (which would also explain President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's repeated assertions that Iraq had and/or was seeking weapons of mass destruction) can also be debated. Fr. Schroth believes that; I won't argue with him on that point.
As for young men standing on the street corners rather than going to college or work, I am rather struck by the fact that there are far fewer of them due to our liberal abortion laws, which disproportionately kill children who are poor and black. In fact, if Obama is elected President, I rather wonder if he won't eliminate the poverty among our urban youth by simply eliminating our urban youth. The policies he has embraced seem to be making a rather unfortunate head start on it.
And as for that last sentence -- Obama runs because "we are a decent and generous people willing to work for the common good"? Are we to believe his ambition plays no part in this? I would hate to think that Obama is running for President because of any virtue of mine; please, Lord, if that is the case, then let me have more vice.
Why Obama? He is very intelligent. There is no substitute for intelligence. His experience as a community organizer, as well as in the Illinois legislature and the U. S. Senate has given him the political skills to be a true bridge between parties who disagree with one another. This bridge-building, I conclude from reading a lot about him, is a virtual religious conviction. And he has demonstrated this by declining to throw mud in his campaign.
Well, there are a lot of intelligent people out there. I think John McCain is pretty intelligent. And we are told by our betters in the media that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman who ever lived. Mitt Romney seems pretty bright. And despite all their tent-preacher rhetoric, I have to assume that John Edwards and Mike Huckabee are far more intelligent than they let on. As for bridge building, I guess I'd have to say "show me the bridge." It is part of American lore, however, that not everyone who offers you a bridge necessarily owns it. As for throwing mud, well, the election isn't over quite yet.
His instincts on foreign policy are obviously saner than those of the so-called "experienced" people now in power who, for ideological or economic reasons, have dragged us into the Iraq war and can't wait to start another with Iran. Today the United States is universally reviled for its aggressive, domineering foreign policy. He would present a fresh face to the world.
He's agin war. I get it.
He is the only candidate in either party with the courage to address the problem of the young black men on the street corners who drop out of school and drift into lives of crime.
As discussed above, indeed he is addressing it. Indeed he is.
He is the only candidate whom I have heard say parents must turn off the TVs and take away the video games and get their children to read and that the school curriculum must include art, music, and literature.Finally, watching him when he engages a crowd, either from the podium or one-on-one, he appears to be a genuine, idealistic human being, at ease with who he is, both charismatic and humble, who speaks beautifully crafted sentences without a note, which he really believes. He looks people in the eye, he pays attention, he listens, he at least tries to answer. He is what he presents himself to be. We need that.
I'll wager he's even kind to strangers, visits his Grandmother on weekends, and never saw a puppy he didn't want to hug.
But I look at Barack Obama, and I see a guy who will continue the policies that kill a million children a year. Those are hard numbers -- the hardest numbers of all. And unless I am presented with a choice of two candidates whose views are equally evil on the subject of abortion, there is no way I could ever endorse Barack Obama.
I think Fr. Schroth ought to look deep in his heart and ask himself whether he ought to be endorsing him, either. I think he at least ought to offer an argument as to why abortion does not immediaely disqualify this man.