CNN, during a report on Thursday’s "The Situation Room," mislead its viewers by reporting that a new document issued by the Catholic bishops on voting stated that "the candidate who supports abortion rights shouldn't necessarily be counted out for your vote." Besides this misrepresentation, the report also highlighted the issue of denying pro-abortion politicians Communion. CNN correspondent Mary Snow reported that some "critics" state that "the Communion question was created by extremists, and they hope they're shut out of this election cycle." Speaking of "shutting out," conservative and faithful Catholics were not featured at all in the report. Instead, Snow played two sound bites from prominent liberal Catholics.
Video (2:26): Real (1.79 MB) or Windows (1.50 MB), plus MP3 (1.11 MB)
One such liberal Catholic is Jon O’Brien, president of the Ted Turner-funded organization "Catholics for a Free Choice." Before becoming president of this organization, O’Brien used to work for the International Planned Parenthood Federation. "Catholics for a Free Choice" is no mainstream Catholic organization. In December 2001, they marked World AIDS Day by running ads on the Washington, DC-area Metro system that accused Catholic bishops of causing the deaths of innocent people due to "banning condoms."
Besides the sound bite from O’Brien, the report, which aired 40 minutes into the 4 pm hour of "The Situation Room." featured a clip from Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit who resigned from his post as editor of the liberal Catholic publication "America" after Pope Benedict XVI was elected in 2005. Fr. Reese’s sound bite: "If there are serious moral reasons for voting for a candidate who is pro-choice, then it would be legitimate for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate."
Both Reese and CNN do not actually quote from the new document, which was approved by the bishops’ conference on November 14. The document was actually unequivocal on the abortion issue. Two excerpts from the document, which were featured in a press release from the conference, stand out. "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life…is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed."Also, "a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." In the longer form of the document, the language is even stronger.
A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
As you might expect, CNN left out that last part from its report. The impression it wants to leave is that the bishops "opened a door to supporting abortion-rights candidates."
The full transcript of the report from Thursday’s "The Situation Room:"
WOLF BLITZER: Right now, some Catholic bishops want you to know this. The candidate who supports abortion rights shouldn't necessarily be counted out for your vote. It involves some new guidance for Catholic voters. Mary Snow is watching all of this unfold in New York. Mary, it shows us some flexibility. What's going on?
MARY SNOW (on-camera): Well Wolf, you're right, it does. Catholic bishops say they're not supporting any candidate or party in 2008, but they are asking Catholic voters to apply moral principles to a host of issues, issues like abortion, the war in Iraq, and immigration.
SNOW (voice-over): It's a message about politics from the pulpit. U.S. Catholic bishops met and approved guidelines for Catholic voters. High on the list, opposition to abortion, which the church calls 'intrinsically evil.' But the bishops opened a door to supporting abortion-rights candidates. Father Thomas Reese, a Catholic scholar, who attended the conference, explains that bishops are telling voters to weigh their decisions on a number of moral issues, such as war.
FATHER THOMAS REESE, S.J., GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: If there are serious moral reasons for voting for a candidate who is pro-choice, then it would be legitimate for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate.
SNOW: But the bishops didn't mention is whether abortion rights Catholic candidates should be denied Communion. In the 2004 presidential election, then-Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry was thrust into a firestorm when a Catholic bishop in St. Louis said he would deny Kerry Communion. That same bishop recently suggested in a newspaper article that he'd also deny Communion to Republican Rudy Giuliani. Besides Giuliani, other Catholic presidential candidates supporting abortion rights: Democrats Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich. Some critics say the Communion question was created by extremists, and they hope they're shut out of this election cycle.
JON O'BRIEN, CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE: I think there's nothing worse, there's nothing that turns the Catholic people off as much as when we see the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, something that we believe in very strongly, when we see an attempt to try to politicize that by denying Communion.
SNOW: Along with abortion, the Iraq war was also high on the list. Bishops urged the U.S. for a quick transition to end the war in Iraq.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW (on-camera): The bishops' conference has been issuing guidelines like this since 1976, but this was the first time the full body of 200-plus bishops considered the document. Wolf?
BLITZER: Mary Snow watching this story. Thank you Mary. The Ccatholic voters, by the way, make up a large block of voters out there. In the last presidential election, 27% of all voters were Catholic. In 2000, they made up 26%. As for who those Catholics actually voted for, the last time around, 47% of Catholic voters backed John Kerry, 52% backed President Bush. And looking for the same numbers for the 2000 election, 49% of Catholics voted for Al Gore, 47% voted for George Bush.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hypothetical Situation
November 16, 2007 - 12:56 ET by taterI've been thinking about this since the majority opinion is it will be Guiliani and Clinton in the general election.
Both are pro-choice advocates so by what was said I shouldn't vote for either of them (or go with a third party candidate who is pro-life)...but on the other hand I would not want Hillary in the white house because of obvious reasons. Voting for Guiliani would help to prevent this. Maybe I should ask a priest about this, but if this situation were to happen I don't know what I would do.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
You don't need a priest, just ask Abe
November 16, 2007 - 13:23 ET by mattmIn 1845, Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to a Williamson Durley* regarding the split between the Abolitionists and the Whigs over the fact that Henry Clay held slaves, thus losing the election because of the loss of the Abolitionist vote...
This is a great object lesson that we'd do well to learn. If a President Giuliani would appoint constructionist justices, which Rudy says he'll do, who would overturn Roe v. Wade, thus sending the Abortion issue back to the several states where it belongs, wouldn't that be a good thing? Whoever the GOP nominates will be a better choice than any of the current Dem candidates...
The Left is counting on a GOP split. We can't afford to let it happen.
BTW I'm not advocating for any particular candidate...
*The first line of paragraph three should read "I will not argue further..."
Nice Article...
November 16, 2007 - 13:27 ET by taterI replaced what Lincoln said in terms of slavery and put abortion in instead...if Guiliani would stop the expansion or extention of abortion rights such as appointing constructionist justices, then I could vote for him (given it's him vs. any Dem candidate). I guess voting for Guiliani in that way I would be supporting a lessening of abortion right, but I would still feel better voting for someone who opposes abortion.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Me too, but a President
November 16, 2007 - 14:10 ET by mattmMe too, but a President can't enact his will by fiat, and even the legislature is hampered because of the mis-use of the Constitution via Roe v. Wade (It's almost an exact parallel to the disastrous Dred Scott decision), so the only recourse is either to amend the constitution or overturn Roe v. Wade.
It seems pretty obvious that
November 16, 2007 - 13:30 ET by RainsfordIt seems pretty obvious that the bishop would, in the case of Hillary v Rudy, seem to favor Rudy, as he would be more likely to nominate a pro-life justice then would Hillary, whose chanes of doing that are 0. It seems like the bishop is letting us know that we can select a candidate whose position may not be favorable, if it prevents and even greater evil from rising, at least that's how I understand it.
what to do?
November 16, 2007 - 13:41 ET by lotrAllow me to provide some input here. I've had some cathechisis on this dilemma, I believe from a Catholic voters guide, namely that in less-than-ideal situations such as this, one may also take into account the party platform and electability. This was an issue back in 2000 when Pat Buchannan was in the race. He was (is) more staunchly pro-life than Bush, but electiblity counted in Bush's favor. Remember, we ended up with 8 disasterous years (in terms of abortion politics, at least) of Clinton-I because 12% of voters voted for a 3rd party candidate (who had a far greater chance of winning than any 3rd party candidates today, including Nader). While the current race is seemingly bleaker (i.e., neither major party candidate being pro-life), then it may be desirable to vote instead for the Republican party platform. I believe this is one reason why Pat Robertson endorsed Guiliani.
Catholics should request Snow's dismissal
November 16, 2007 - 13:32 ET by PSPCplThis is no different than Dan the Man's so-called "investigative" report on President Bush's service record. This was a blatant manipulation and mis-representation of the facts by a reporter. She should suffer no less a fate than Dan the Man did.
another round to the liberals
November 16, 2007 - 14:06 ET by candanceAbortion has gone from a life-or-death struggle to fringe political dissention, and it only took them three generations.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
I'm not that pessimistic
November 16, 2007 - 19:07 ET by WingletDriverI'm not so sure that the pro-life cause has ended or that it is even flagging. In all honesty, I think it is growing because there are a great many very pro-life young people out there. This is probably because parents who are pro-life have many more children than those who are pro-abortion (go figure).
The fact that CNN, the LAT and the rest of their ilk still feel they have to defend abortion and pro-abortion candidates at every turn (and defend them by lying) let's you know how truly important it is. If it were as irrelevent as they are pretending it is, why bring it up?
Bottom line: We are winning because they are killing their future. Let's just hope they don't kill ours too.
No door was opened
November 16, 2007 - 15:46 ET by KC MulvilleCNN played it as if the interpretation of the rule under mitigating circumstances should be interpreted universally. They reported the exception instead of the actual rule. It's another example of why they call it the drive-by media.
It's as silly and disingenuous as saying:
By the way, the Jesuit (Tom Reese) is not in favor of abortion. He may not be the most conservative Jesuit in the world, but he certainly isn't in favor of abortion. Just wanted to make that clear.