What Obama Owes Catholic Voters

Originally posted at Talk to Action.

The Catholic Right-Part, Seventy-three

Some Catholics think President-elect Obama owes American Catholics something for providing him with a 54% plurality. As Frederick Clarkson recently observed there are timid Catholic liberals such as E.J. Dionne who urge the president-elect to somewhat modify his position on issues such as abortion - for example, by not signing into law the anticipated Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), or even anti-abortion related executive orders.  Those on the Catholic Right, are already chastising him to reverse course on his pro-choice position - this is the predominate position among several bishops.

However, my take is that Obama should remain true to his previously stated positions - especially on abortion, contraception and stem cell research. Beyond that, I suspect that many Catholics voted for the former Illinois Senator because they too disagree with the hierarchy in these issues -- and hope that he stands his ground.

As we are well aware, the Catholic Right has heralded the all-or-nothing position of strident Catholic bishops such as Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Bishop Finn of Kansas City and Bishop Martino of Scranton. They demand that the incoming chief executive capitulate to their position of outlawing abortion or they will make life difficult for him and his administration.

But what would an Obama administration owe these demanding clergy?  Polling has repeatedly proven that a plurality of American Catholics pro-choice; perhaps not unconditionally, but at least in most cases. Likewise, they also support embryonic stem cell research in numbers a bit above the national average.  A few oppose abortion under any circumstance and a slightly larger minority believes that it should be available under any circumstance. In any case, however, a significant majority does not want it outlawed.

Perhaps writer James P. Carroll summed it up when he keenly observed that pro-choice Catholics should not argue that they personally oppose abortion but that they openly support it. Instead, Carroll believes the better argument is that abortion is sometimes "the necessary lesser of evils."  

We are dealing in grey areas.  The bishops' black and white solutions for complex issues don't address the realities of a young teenager made pregnant through an act of incest or even by an act of youthful indiscretion.

In such cases conscience becomes a better guide than dogma, as Jon O'Brien, President of Catholics for Choice recently wrote:

Catholic tradition requires Catholics to follow their own well-formed consciences even if it conflicts with church teaching. As the Catechism notes, "a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience."

A clear majority of American Catholics voted for Obama knowing full well where he stood on the issues.  Similarly, a clear majority of American Catholics are pro-choice, as well as being pro-embryonic stem cell research.

Given the choice between the hierarchy's viewpoint and Obama's, Catholics chose Obama's. Accordingly, he should listen to those who voted for him, not a still hostile and increasingly strident hierarchy.