As a priest, with some years of pastoral experience, I have been asked by more than a few how Catholics, bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity could in conscience vote for Sen. Obama. Pondering an answer, reading the official documents from the Holy See, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops -- not necessarily the letters or remarks of local bishops or pastors -- I was about to draft a short answer to the question. However, as my pot was simmering, I came upon an interesting point of view, a possible answer to the question.
This morning’s read of Whispers in the Loggia announced that Fr. Andrew Greeley is critical but resting and showing signs of quick improvement from a fall suffered exiting a cab following a presentation in suburban Chicago. Linked in the article is a very interesting article that the prolific writer just a few days ago, the day after the recent presidential election, entitled "Why so many pro-life Catholic back Obama."
Fr. Greeley is not writing a novel here. He is to the point. At the outset he refers to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement on the evil of abortion and the added footnote about cooperation in evil. Let me quote Fr. Greeley for a moment on the subjection of cooperation.
Sometimes such cooperation can be "formal and direct," as when one votes for a pro-choice candidate because one deliberately agrees with and supports that position. Other times, however, the voted does not approve of the candidate’s position on abortion but votes for him because of other "proportionate" reasons. Then the cooperation is "material and indirect."
The Chicago priest-sociologist-novelist questioned what reason or reasons there might be for the position. He is clear: A candidate may not reject abortion but he/she supports "most of the other Catholic positions on life." Greeley gives as examples: condemning unjust wars, death penalty, torture, kidnaping, and cruelty to immigrants.
The Chicago priest-sociologist-novelist questioned what reason or reasons there might be for the position. He is clear: A candidate may not reject abortion but he/she supports "most of the other Catholic positions on life." Greeley gives as examples: condemning unjust wars, death penalty, torture, kidnaping, and cruelty to immigrants.
Some bishops and priests, making publicly clear the division among bishops and priests over the matter, maintain that there can be no "proportionate reason." He acknowledges there opinion but states "it goes beyond Catholic ethical demands.
Continuing on, Greeley notes that a similar position might have to back away from all politics "since there are very few political leaders who support the whole list of Catholic life issues. "Opposition to abortion," he states, "does not by itself exhaust the moral obligation of the Catholic social ethic."
So, this may be one possible response to those who have questioned "How could they?"
