Is Contraception The Hill We Want To Die On? No, Says Austin Ruse

In my posting yesterday, entitled Pro-Life Champion Austin Ruse Betrays The Catholic Faith, Fuels Loss Of Souls Through Contraception, I exposed what I considered to be some serious flaws in Mr. Ruse’s piece over at Crisis Magazine. This morning I received a couple of comments from Austin Ruse (see comment box at end of yesterday’s article) claiming that I had misunderstood—and misrepresented—his position and that I ought to correct the matter for my readers.

He said:

You misunderstand my piece. I oppose Barbara Comstock's position on over the counter contraceptives. I say that clearly in my piece. Please correct the misimpression you have created.

I responded to his comment:

Mr. Ruse, thank you for commenting. I would like nothing better than to discover that I have misunderstood you. However, my first reaction to your response is that I don't possibly see how I could have. Your article certainly covered a lot of ground. And you really haven't addressed any of my chief criticisms. However, in the interests of fairness I will read and re-read your piece once again before making further comment.

And then he further claimed that he wasn’t giving up ground on the issue of contraception:

If you could, I would appreciate it is [sic] you would google "Austin Ruse Contraception" and you can see i have been fighting this batter [sic] for more than a decade, quite publicly. I do not advocate in the least that Catholics give ground on this topic.

I have reviewed Mr. Ruse’s article again and again and it truly baffles me how he can continue to make such claims. I do not question his intentions because I respect him greatly as a pro-life crusader and I have supported his organization financially on a number of occasions. I have also tried in the past to get the word out to help him by means of my blog.

Nevertheless I stand by my original posting of yesterday with a few further comments.

Based solely on the information provided in Mr. Ruse’s article, if he had been trying to make a case for supporting Barbara Comstock because electing her would limit the greater evil that her opponent would do, he might be forgiven somewhat. After all, there is allowance for such scenarios:

However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]

So if it came down to two choices and two choices only, either Barbara Comstock, who supports contraception, or some rabidly pro-abortion politician from the pro-death Democratic party, it might make some sense. But remember, that was not his case at all. He did seem to indicate that there was only one other Republican candidate and that individual, he believed, had little or no chance of being elected. So perhaps, just perhaps he is:

…suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected.

But now it turns out that Mr. Ruse left out some extremely pertinent information which altogether destroys such a possible rationale for supporting the dissenting Catholic Ms. Comstock:

Bob Marshall, a Virginia state delegate, has filed to run against Comstock in the Republican primary. Rather than celebrating this solid pro-life candidate, Ruse, who supports Comstock, raised a straw man to attack Bob's candidacy. Contraception.

And, from the comments section of the very same posting, Mr. Ruse even admits that Bob Marshall is a very good man.

Bob Marshall is a very good man. My column was not about him....

So, having trashed that one and only possible defense for Austin Ruse’s advocacy of Ms. Comstock, we are left with only one conclusion, based strictly on the information he supplied. Austin Ruse wants us to vote for an enemy of the Church, a dissenting, betraying Catholic who openly supports—even flaunts—her efforts to increase the availability of a drug designed to facilitate an intrinsically evil act which is contrary to the natural law and which, at times, results in the death of an innocent human being. Why? His only argument, as I see it expressed in his missive, is because all other factors considered, she qualifies for the label “pro-life” and will work to fight abortion when elected.

Laughable. Ridiculous. Outrageous. Soul-Destroying.

Perhaps he didn’t mean to say that, I don’t know. Perhaps he just didn’t express himself well. Perhaps he was tired and dopey when he wrote the piece. But that is surely a summary, with varying subtleties, shared by not only me. Take a look here and here.

I certainly hope and pray that something hasn’t seriously compromised Austin Ruse's good record and character. 

RELATED:

Can Barbara Comstock Explain Her Abortion Vote?

Providing Easier Access To Birth Control For Adult Women

Barbara Comstock of Virginia pushing for over-the-counter birth control