Published: October 30, 2008

“[Abortion and Catholicism] has been my obsession since the 2004 election. This subject has created a great amount of polarization within the Catholic community,” said Amelia J. Uelmen, the leader of a discussion entitled “Abortion and the Catholic Vote,” which was held on Oct. 16 in Fordham’s School of Law.

Uelmen, who is the director of Fordham’s Institute on Religion, Law and Lawyer’s Work, began by reading an excerpt of her essay “It’s Hard Work: Reflections on Conscience and Citizenship in the Catholic Tradition.” According to her essay, a large Catholic “apologetics” organization called Catholic Answers Action (CAA) published the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” in 2004. (An apologetic is one who explains and defends aspects of the Catholic religion, according to catholicapologetics.net). Uelmen explained that the CAA guide identifies five “non-negotiable” issues in the Catholic faith: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage, which are all classified as “intrinsic evils.” The guide asks the voter to first inquire about where the candidates stand on these issues and, second, to vote for the candidate who has the “correct view” on these matters.

CAA expects that serious Catholics will not compromise on any of these issues, which are, in its view, inarguably evil or immoral. Uelmen said that the mere recognition of “intrinsic evils” is not enough to diminish them. “Defining abortion as an intrinsic evil does not answer the question of how we can reduce abortion in our society,” she said.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement on Catholic social teachings in relation to politics in 2003, entitled “Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility.” Uelmen said, “For the bishops, voting is not a two-step process,” referring to CAA’s guide in comparison to the bishops’ document. “For the bishops, decisions about voting require intense reflection,” she continued. “I’m not endorsing anybody. Both parties have a lot of work to do. That said, there is still a lot that we as citizens can do.” Uelmen said that the voter must ask, “What will be this candidate’s capacity to influence the issue [of abortion]?”

“The voter is wrong if their intent is to recognize abortion as a right,” said a student audience member. Uelmen replied, “I think that’s right. The language of pro-choice in itself is wrong. If you really believe that this is a human right, then you should be horrified.”

“I think there is a sort of trend lately where the discussion isn’t about whether [the fetus] is a human being or not, but rather that it is about the woman’s right,” another audience member stated.

“Last election, I was tired of hearing about this single issue, and [I was] upset that it overshadowed other issues which are more important to me as a citizen and as a Catholic,” added a third student. “In my experience, Catholics don’t talk about these [other] issues.”

“How do I balance whether [something] is a greater moral issue [than abortion] that would justify voting for a candidate who is pro-choice?” a student asked Uelmen.

“I think the bishops were walking a tightrope,” Uelmen stated. “It’s hard to sift through the issues and figure out what is important. We’re a society that does cost-benefit analysis and throws human life away based on that.” She continued, “If someone has a perfect pro-life policy but has zero experience in foreign policy, for example, is that enough? The category of intrinsic evil is limited. Just because something does not fall into that category doesn’t mean that it is less important.”

Uelmen said that there is still hope of figuring out how to reduce abortion in American society “if we start from the premise that there is an agreement on the fact that abortion is a horrible thing for humanity.”