Guest Opinion: Obama's Declaration of Dependence, Pt. I

"Ironically, Obama has made "let us be our brother's keeper" a key catchphrase of his campaign." A student of Doug Kmiec speaks out.

LOS ANGELES, Ca. (Catholic Online) - I have been shocked and dismayed that some Catholics have given public support to Barack Obama.

In doing so they have twisted Catholic doctrine beyond the point of recognition, have misrepresented the glorious teachings of the Church to our fellow Americans and worst of all they have invited their brothers and sisters to compromise their faith.

The Church has stated that we have the freedom to hold whatever opinion we have judged to be correct "provided [we are] always disposed to listen with religious obedience to what the Holy See may decide on [a] question."

As Americans we are also allowed a great degree of freedom so long as we do not run afoul of the basic rule of government:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . . ."

Rather than building on these fundamental principles of truth and justice, the candidacy of Barack Obama offers only death, tyranny and despair.

Obama, Cain and McCain: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Genesis 4:9.

"[T]he Lord asked Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' He answered, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' The Lord then said 'What have you done!' Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil!'" Genesis 4:9-10.

This great drama and tragedy, as Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life, An Encyclical Letter of the Servant of God, John Paul II) points out, continues to play itself out today. In communion with God and His Church we continue to ask our leaders and Obama in particular:

"Where is your brother" the unborn child? How could you support killing innocent children? How could you refuse to require medical care for babies who survive abortion and have the audacity to be born alive? What are the answers we and God continue to receive from the likes of Obama when we ask: Where is your brother the unborn? Obama answers:

"I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

In other words, Obama answers "I do not know."

When we ask our leaders to protect our fellow citizens what answer does Obama give? "Those of us, like myself, . . . believe that in this difficult situation [procuring an abortion] it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family." Obama give us the answer of Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Let the woman shoulder the burden, and if she cannot, let her kill her child; after all, am I my unborn brother's keeper?

When we receive these answers, we must be reminded of God's response: "'What have you done!' Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil!'" Genesis 4:10. We must not accept Obama's answer on this issue. The blood of our unborn brothers and sisters cry out to God from the soi1 and no amount of political equivocating will deafen their cry.

Ironically, Obama has made "let us be our brother's keeper" a key catchphrase of his campaign. However, he has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would eliminate all restrictions on abortion, require all insurance companies to pay for abortions and use our tax dollars to pay for abortions.

When he was an Illinois state senator he opposed a law that would have required infants who survived an abortion to receive medical treatment.

In a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, Obama made his position on abortion very clear: "On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

We are told that Obama is a man of goodwill on this issue, that he is open to argument, but he has already told us what the result of talking to him will be, nothing, for he will not yield. We also must not yield to the likes of Obama.

Clearly, his position on abortion shows an intention far removed from the scriptural precept of love thy neighbor. Even more disheartening, some Catholics of prominence have latched on to Obama's use of scriptural language to establish that a vote for Obama is morally licit. But we, as children of light, must reject such an invitation to take part in the works of darkness.

We are told by our fellow Catholics that the pro-choice position is more in keeping with subsidiarity; that there can be compromise on the absolute right to life; that we, in cooperation with Obama, can encourage the use of contraception to reduce abortions; that we should be more pragmatic, that overturning Roe v. Wade will not stop abortion; that we should not be so divisive on this issue (as if we are the villains); that we must consider the Iraq War and fuel-efficient cars; that being pro-choice is not really being pro-abortion; that McCain is so terrible on every single other issue that we can impute to him, without the danger of calumny, a hate of the environment, the poor, the immigrant, the worker and a desire to foment racism against Obama.

This line of reasoning shows severe misunderstandings regarding the nature of abortion--that it is murder. Proposing that the pro-choice position is more in keeping with subsidiarity is ridiculous. Subsidiarity is based on the respect of the human person and his ability to make decisions regarding his own life. Being pro-choice is believing that there are some individuals who have no right to respect of their person. Such reasoning is the height of absurdity.

Some argue that overturning Roe v. Wade will not save a single life; however, it cannot be doubted that such a legal decision will help to end abortions. Any argument to the contrary is disingenuous. Without the constitutional protection of abortion as a right, we will be free to pass laws to outlaw it.

So long as Roe v. Wade remains in place, no amount of heart-changing will allow us to outlaw abortion. Many of those in the pro-life cause recognize the importance of this first step in reforming our laws, including presidential candidate John McCain and, in 2006, Catholic Douglas Kmiec, prior to his endorsement of Barack Obama:

"The genius of the constitutional system is allowing individual states [to] decide these questions [abortion] . . . ." Indeed, like most laws against murder, the laws against abortion would originate in the states. Such an approach is not tantamount to being pro-choice. Instead, it simply recognizes that in our system of government, the primary responsibility for the protection of innocent life, both born and unborn, lies in the state governments.

All those with authority are morally obligated to prevent abortion, as Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)states: "Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action." In America, it is the voter who has ultimate authority because our leaders "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In the voting booth we have the power and authority to choose our leaders, and we have an obligation to prevent abortion. If we take that opportunity to hinder abortion, and instead facilitate it, under paragraph 1868 of the Catechism, we are morally responsible for those abortions our leader has enabled.

Indeed, as Cardinal Ratzinger made clear in a 2004 letter to the United States bishops, the only way to avoid guilt for such a vote would be to have a proportionate reason for voting for that candidate or legislation.

Some have latched on to this "proportionate reason" language and have hung on for dear eternal life to justify their endorsement of Barack Obama. But I must ask, what is the proportionate evil being prevented by voting for Obama that can possibly outweigh abortion?

To be continued...

Gunnar Gundersen graduated number one in the Class of 2007 from Pepperdine University School of Law, where he studied Constitutional Law under Professor Douglas W. Kmiec. He is also a former law clerk of Judge O'Scannlain of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He currently resides in Los Angeles, California.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online