By DEXTER DUGGAN
The Wanderer asked Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of the New York-based Priests for Life, to comment on remarks by the two major-party presidential candidates about filling U.S. Supreme Court vacancies. Pavone replied that he would comment only in his capacity as a private citizen.
Q. In the October 9 St. Louis presidential debate, Hillary Clinton specifically cited Roe v. Wade and “marriage equality” as what she wants to protect with her Supreme Court appointments, but Donald Trump cited neither, instead holding up Justice Antonin Scalia as a positive example. At best, this is inferential support for conservatives.
Republican candidates often never mention the actual babies and moms to be saved from abortion, which fails to help educate the public, and Trump seems to be taking the same default stand.
What would you say to this?
A. In regard to issues being debated in an election, the most important consideration is not what a candidate believes, but what he or she (and the party they represent) are willing to actually do. Mr. Trump has made it crystal clear what he will do, including nominate pro-life judges and sign pro-life legislation.
Knowing he will do these things, I leave it to his campaign strategists to figure out what he should say to each audience, and how much time he should spend talking about each issue. That depends on the context and target audience of any particular speech. We don’t so much need a talker as a doer.
Having said that, holding up Justice Scalia as an example is quite concrete and meaningful to conservatives, because of all that Justice Scalia said and did during his many years on the court. Moreover, to issue a specific list of judges that exemplify what type he would choose, Mr. Trump has again done a very concrete service to the movement.
Interestingly, in her answer to the Supreme Court question at the debate, Mrs. Clinton did not use the word “Constitution.” She said her justices would need to understand how the world works. How about understanding how the U.S. Constitution works? Instead of referring to that, she referred to invented rights such as abortion and gay marriage.
Q. Are you still supporting Donald Trump? (Pavone provided the following statement in response.)
A. The lewd comments, made over a decade ago and for which Mr. Trump has apologized, and which I, like everyone else, find repulsive, do not in the least change my intentions of voting for him, of urging others to do so, and of advising his campaign.
The reason is simple: This presidential election is not about a choice between him and someone better; it’s between him and someone far worse. Moreover, it is not ultimately about either one of them, but rather the good of the nation as reflected in two things:
What will they do, and who comes into power with them.
As for what they will do, the qualifications needed for signing the right kinds of legislation or nominating the right kinds of justices do not involve what lewd comments one may or may not have made. They involve, rather, actually being voted into the Oval Office.
A vote is not a character endorsement or the passing of some kind of virtue test. A vote means that of the current viable options, this is the person most likely to advance the common good.
I hope my doctor is virtuous, but when it comes to treating me, whether he has made lewd comments doesn’t enter into the equation. And if an emergency medical technician is saving my life or that of a loved one, I really couldn’t care less, in the midst of that emergency, whether he has made lewd comments or committed any sexual sin.
This is an emergency moment for our nation, and there are only two options right now for who will take the helm. Beggars can’t be choosers.
Who comes into power with them: It is easy to focus on the faults and positions of a candidate, but we also have to consider whom they bring with them into power. Who sits in the Oval Office determines who sits in the office of vice president, secretary of state, secretary of HHS, attorney general, surgeon general, and literally thousands of other positions.
And the worldview, philosophy, and policy preferences of all those people will correspond to the platform of the party to which they belong. When we vote for a president, we vote for a party and for a whole army of people, many of whom will be ten times stronger and more qualified on the issues than the president him- or herself — and will lean ten times harder in the direction of the party platform.
This affects the courts, too. All the major decisions of the Supreme Court recently have been 5-4 decisions. We have a court split right down the middle, and the next president will shift that court strongly either to the left or the right — either toward defending life or destroying it, either to preserving the freedom of the Church or snuffing it out, either to preserving marriage and family or redefining them with new transgender definitions.
Do lewd comments of a decade ago by one man really outweigh the concern that moral corruption will be set into stone in public policy and court decisions for decades to come?
Additional Reflections
What an incredible reparation Mr. Trump is making now for any past faults by the very fact that he is running as the Republican nominee for president, and is ready to nominate the right kind of judges and sign the right kinds of legislation, which will steer our nation away from so many morally corrupt public policies.
A penitent sinner could hardly have a more substantial opportunity to make reparation.
Repentance for the past is Mr. Trump’s current stance (as that of so many Americans!); continuing in a morally corrupt policy posture is the current stance of the Democrats.
It takes a great deal of moral courage, actually, to take the step Mr. Trump is taking by running for public office. He knows his past and knows what will be brought up about it. Yet he is willing to move forward both personally and professionally for the good of the country.
The Lord is the one who says, “Your sins I will remember no more.” The one who is known as the “accuser” is the devil.
It is particularly hypocritical for the other side, whose policies and worldview (like that of Planned Parenthood) destroy and distort any meaning that human sexuality has, should be concerned about sexual behavior and comments. Sins of the past are one thing; embracing a bankrupt view of sexuality today, and in public policy, is worse.
Finally, according to Pope St. John Paul II, a government that authorizes the killing of babies by abortion has become “a tyrant state” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 20). This is not just about one issue; it’s about the very nature of the state, the type of government we have.
The Democratic Party and Mrs. Clinton believe that when they are voted into power, they have authority over human rights, a veto power over the right to life. That is a tyrant state, moral corruption institutionalized in policy. That’s far worse, and far more monumental, than anyone’s personal faults, past or present.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress