Pope Francis Weighs in on the U.S. Presidential Election: One Principle, Several Issues

A week ago, Pope Francis wrapped up an eleven-day pastoral visit to Southeast Asia and Oceania. On the plane trip home to the Vatican, he held a press conference for the reporters who accompanied him on the plane. One reporter asked the Pontiff for his opinion on the presidential election in the United States. Although he did not mention Donald Trump or Kamala Harris by name, it was obvious who he was referring to. “Sending migrants away, not allowing them to grow, not letting them have life is something wrong; it is cruelty. Sending a child away from the womb of the mother is murder because there is life. And we must speak clearly about things.”

After denouncing the sinful policies of both Trump and Harris, he stilled affirmed that it is a Christian’s responsibility to vote. He was asked whether it would be morally admissible to vote for someone who favored the right to abortion, he responded: “One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Each person must think and decide according to his or her own conscience.”

Although I strive to follow Christ, I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with Pope Francis on every issue, but I acknowledge him as a fellow traveler who advocates for the most vulnerable in our society (according to the Bible, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger). His ethical principle is fairly simple and echoes the teaching of Jesus. All of our actions, including voting and other political acts, should seek to enhance the lives of our neighbors, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He urges us to apply this Golden Rule to all aspects of human life, what Catholic ethicists call the “Seamless Garment”. Therefore, all government policies should be evaluated according to how they enhance humanity’s wellbeing: policies regarding marriage and family, healthcare, education, employment, care of creation, abortion, immigration and other issues. He does not think that people should evaluate political candidates by only one issue. People are fallen creatures and political policies exemplify their flaws. That should not lead us to political apathy. We should evaluate these options and vote for the “lesser of the evils”, that is, those that achieve the greatest good in the world.

This papal advice might affect the U.S. election in unexpected ways. Not all people of faith agree with the Pope that human life should be legally protected from the moment of conception. Many place that point at the moment of the viability of the fetus outside the womb, while others believe it should begin at birth. Many of these people will vote for Harris. Even those pro-lifers who agree with the Pope’s position on abortion might vote for Harris, because Trump’s immigration policy is equally evil.

May people in the U.S. seek the truth, evaluate the options and vote as their conscience leads them.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 3)

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973 essentially legalized abortions across the country, especially during the first two trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was not much difference on abortion in the Republican and Democrat parties. There were many pro-choice and pro-life advocates in both parties. That changed in the 1980s beginning with the Reagan presidency. Republican presidential candidates promised, that if elected, they would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. Pro-lifers, especially evangelicals, became a major constituency of the Republican Party. In contrast, the Democrats became staunchly pro-choice. For over four decades abortion has been one of the most important political issues. Many people are “single-issue” voters and are, therefore, a “safe, solid voting block” for their respective parties. These “single-issue” voters seldom criticize their own party on other issues, even when criticism is warranted. In my opinion, these voters are naively allowing failed policies and character flaws to go unchecked.

During his presidency, Trump appointed three judges to the Supreme Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett). In their Senate hearings, they affirmed that they would accept Roe as settled legal precedent and, as a result, hardly anyone across the political landscape thought Roe would be overturned. Nevertheless, these judges broke their promises, and joined the other conservative justices in overturning Roe through the Dobbs decision in 2022. This action returned the abortion issue to every state. Since then, seven states have put abortion on the ballot. In each of these states, the pro-choice position has won, including in conservative “red” states like Kansas and Ohio. (Democrats affirm that their pro-choice position turned the expected Republican “red wave” into a “trickle” in the 2022 midterm elections.) In other places, state legislatures enacted laws regarding abortion access and/or restrictions (for example, no abortions after six weeks, or exceptions like rape, incest, or the life of the mother).

These actions have spurred political activism by Democrats and Republicans. Some politicians, from both sides, have made campaign promises that they would bring federal legislation to Congress (either abortion access or abortion restriction, respectively). There are so many hoops to go through, that a nationwide access or restriction bill is quite unlikely to be implemented. For example, it would need 60 votes in the Senate, and there are neither 60 pro-choice nor 60 pro-life senators.

Abortion will be voted on at the state level. In the upcoming elections in November, at least five states (including Nevada and Florida) have constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot. If passed, they would enshrine abortion rights into their state constitutions. In at least five additional states, including Arizona, similar proposals are in the pipeline and will probably make the ballot. It is likely that the pro-choice position will win in most of these states. Nevertheless, it is an open question to what extent this will help the Democrat presidential, senate, and congressional candidates in their particular races. This depends on the number of Republicans who are, in fact, pro-choice voters.

I encourage all my readers to be alert during this election season. Lies will be flying all around. Let’s use our best discerning skills. Vote well…vote wisely.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following statement. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.