Abortion. It is a taboo subject in classrooms, at dinner tables, even in political campaigns. People don't like to talk about it because they know that it will bring up fiery arguments on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides. They'd rather just let the issue fester until there's no avoiding bringing it up. However, we all know it's a major issue in both the religious and political worlds. It has the potential to greatly influence the upcoming presidential election. Both McCain and Obama have now addressed the issue of abortion, and the time has come for the campaigns to convince Catholic voters to see things their way.
As a Catholic myself, I've grown up with the issue of abortion all around me. I read this article thinking it would definitely be a one-sided slam on the Catholics who cling hard to their pro-life beliefs. However, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. David Kirkpatrick presented the case of both the "progressive" and "conservative" Catholics. While he did show that most of the Catholics he talked to would be voting for McCain, he showed the strong efforts made by the grass-roots campaign of Obama to swing voters to their side. He interviewed both Catholics who vote based on the issue of abortion, and Catholics who look at other issues, rather than voting according to a candidate's stance on abortion. I thought it was fair of him to show how important the issue of abortion is to Catholics, while still presenting the fact that there are other issues that affect Catholic voters.
However, there were some instances when I was confused while reading Kirkpatrick's article. For example, he says that the theological dispute of abortion is "playing out in weekly homilies." He doesn't attribute this claim to anyone. Unless he himself is at Mass every week, how does he know this? I felt that he should have specified where this information came from because it must have come from somewhere.
Also, Kirkpatrick discusses how Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both brought up different saints without explaining in what context the politicians discussed them. Where and when did they talk about the saints? Most of all, why? Kirkpatrick never explained what significance this information should have. Did those saints teach some doctrine about abortion that would inspire the debates that supposedly arose between the Church hierarchy and Democratic officials as a result of Biden and Pelosi's comments?
Finally, Kirkpatrick included a comment from one parishioner who said that he would not vote for Obama because he is black. While I believe a comment like that is reason for attention and concern, I don't see its relevance in an article about Catholic voters and the issue of abortion. The comment would have been more appropriate if included in an article about race and the presidential election.
One thing I have to add that I thought was funny in a not-really-funny-kind-of-way is that while both parties want Catholics to vote for their candidate, they don't really seem that interested in being associated with Catholics. Kirkpatrick discusses how McCain met with a cardinal and an archbishop, but his campaign called the meetings "strictly ceremonial." However, the campaign welcomed the comments of the two Church leaders about Democrats and abortion and was happy to receive their support. So I guess the message to Catholics is: give us your support, but please, for heaven's sake, keep your distance.
Overall, I thought this article was fair, but its credibilty was weakened by the annoying presence of holes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?ref=opinion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great insight! I could tell you had really read the article and thought about it. I really like to hear your take on it, with you being Catholic. Good point about the race comment being irrelavent. And I enjoyed the humor you ended with.
Being Catholic as well, I found this article interesting. I like how you included the thanks for your support but keep your distance in your response, because that's how I feel Catholics are viewed sometimes.
The abortion issue is always a touchy subject, but it is usually one that is covered during elections. I like that this article looked at both sides and took both views into account.
I also didn't see the relevance of the reference to not voting for Obama because he's black. That really did not need to be included, even if that is how that person felt.
Mary Beth,
The race comment was really out of left field. It's odd because the reporter buried the statement in the story. So, not only was it out of place, but it even failed to act as an up front attention grabber (its only logical purpose in this context). Did you notice how the Times is careful not to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." I have to respect them for that because a lot of establishments still fail to recognize the loaded nature of the aforementioned.
Post a Comment