Election '08 pro-life dilemma - Second Class Fireman or First Class Arsonist

Not showing up at the polls and voting for the most moral of two candidates is an immoral choice. This fall, like it or not, the most moral choice on the Presidential ticket will likely be John McCain.

From a recent Scott Klusendorf post:

…John McCain will be the GOP nominee. Now what? Some conservatives have reportedly formed a suicide voters pact, meaning they'll vote for Hillary just to punish McCain. This position is stupid. It's also immoral. It puts one's emotions ("I hate McCain") above our moral obligation to save as many lives as possible given current political realities… For me, I vote to limit the damage. Greg Koukl is right: A second-class fireman is better than a first class arsonist.

So that is the pro-lifers Election '08 dilemma - Second Class Fireman or First Class Arsonist. Is this really that hard of a choice? I'm all for keeping the pressure on the Republican party regarding pro-life, pro-family issues which I think is THE purpose of the Huckabee candidacy. But, to not vote??

All this falls under the centuries-old theological designation – sin of omission. A sin of omission is the failure to do something one can and ought to do. Moral people tend only to think “sins of commission” are evil. Which is a greater evil? Throwing a person in a lake who can’t swim, or standing on the side with a life preserver and not doing anything with it while they drown? There is a fine line between sins of omission and sins of commission.

My sense is the Church is in for a great wake up call the day God rises up to judge the shedding of innocent blood because of our complicity in it due to the sins of omission – not voting, not pressuring legislators, not using our pulpits and churches to gather needed signatures, not praying, not volunteering, not writing checks, not receiving women in crisis pregnancies and adopting children. We are delusional to think the bloodguilt is only on the hands of the abortionist.

How will God judge Germany? Is the innocent shed blood of six million Jews satisfied now that a few Nazi leaders were put on trial and hung? The shock of the holocaust is that so many Germans looked the other way and failed to do anything to prevent it.

Sins of Omission are something for which we will have to give account: ""They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did NOT do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'."

From Fr. Frank Pavone's most recent post:

What’s this I hear from some people that they might “sit out” the Presidential election because they aren’t comfortable with the likely choice of candidates? Since when are elections supposed to make us “comfortable?” Since when do we exercise that right to vote, for which people fought and died, only when it’s easy and clear-cut, and our choices are just the way we want them to be? At Mass we pray, “I confess to Almighty God…that I have sinned…in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…” What we fail to do can make us just as guilty as what we do. A sin is a wrong choice, and to decide not to do something is just as much of a choice as to decide to do something. A sin of omission is still a sin - and we are still responsible for the results. What, then, makes us think that we are more responsible for the results of voting than for the results of not voting? A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good, and to limit the evils that threaten it. And in the pragmatic matter of elections, what matters is not how closely a candidate measures up to my preferences and convictions. Instead, it’s a question of who can and will actually get elected. It does little good if the person I felt most comfortable supporting doesn’t get to actually govern and implement those positions I like so much…. If we fail to use that tool, however, and as a result the person who gets elected is far worse and does far more damage than the other person we did not like, then we still share responsibility for the damage that will be done. …we may find that we don’t like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on “better” rather than “best.” The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That’s the shift that some fail to make. And we are still responsible for what we fail to do.

The issues pro-lifers face nationally this November are the same issues facing South Dakota pro-lifers. Can we vote for a less than perfect piece of legislation or, is that a compromise? We need to ask is it moral to vote "no" or not vote at all? Given the reality in South Dakota (voters rejected a total ban on abortions in 06), the only moral choice is to vote for this new legislation. When we do nothing we pass up the opportunity to do something and we commit the sin of omission.