It is morally permissible for Catholics to vote for Obama

I am stricken with awe at Pro's superlative humility and am sure he will do a fine job defending his position.Before moving on to Pro's arguments I will make the clarification that these issues are not dictated by the pope, but rather already part of our faith. These issues are non-negotiable whatever any individual pope says; our current pope simply underscores these particular issues rather than others because they are the ones that are currently in play worldwide. Perhaps in different circumstances we would include human sacrifice and state-funded devil worship.1. No causality between the president's actions and the carrying out of abortions.It is not an issue of abolition vs. permission, there are policies which can restrict access to abortion (thereby mitigating an intrinsic evil) and there are policies which expand both access to and the mentality behind abortion (thereby extending it). To repeal the Mexico City Policy is to allow Federal money to promote abortion outside of the United States. To vote against the bill which would secure medical care for children born alive in botched abortions, even when defeated, is the defense of outright infanticide. This means that decisions taken by the president himself have (or would have had if they had been successful) a direct effect upon the issue of abortion.As for the Supreme Court justices. The fact that Republicans have failed to appoint justices who would repeal Roe vs. Wade in no way exculpates Obama from appointing judges who would uphold the decision. At most it would be an argument against voting for the Republicans as well. The president has direct responsibility over his supreme court appointments. If he chooses to appoint someone in spite of (or, more probably due to) their support of legalized abortion imposed by the courts, then this is a candidate which a Catholic cannot support in good conscience. 2. The president will not affect Gay Marriage, as this is a State issue.The president instructed his administration not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). This is a direct action that helps those who would redefine marriage. Just as in the case of abortion, however, there is a greater issue than direct action. If the president supports something, this gives that issue public credence and is of tremendous effect even when out of his purview. This is why it is important for congressional candidates when they get the public support and endorsement of the president during their re-election. Electing them is not in his power, but his personal influence and the influence of his position is such that these issues are in no way negligible, and a Catholic in good conscience cannot support a candidate who will use his influence to support intrinsic evils.3. No religious institution is forced to provide contraceptives under the HHS mandate due to the exemption.This is patently false, as has been stated by many of the bishops in addressing this issue (see source 4 on round 2). The exemptions are so narrow as to exclude, Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals, Universities including the University of Steubenville. Not all Catholic institutions have "the inculcation of religious values" as their purpose: hospitals, soup kitchens, universities, hospices etc. have as their objective the corporal acts of mercy (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, teaching the ignorant etc.). They do not all primarily employ "persons who share its religious tenets" because they wish to serve efficiently and hire those best fit for the job. Very few of them primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets because those very religious tenets would make the very idea of excluding non-Catholics from our services unconscionable. If a non-catholic wishes to go to a Catholic school, have care in a Catholic hospital or receive a warm meal in a Catholic soup kitchen, we will not ask for a baptismal certificate. This means that, with the exception of parishes, the vast majority of Catholic organizations and services do NOT fall under the exemptions to the HHS mandate. This and other claims of the white house have been amply debunked. (1)But his belies a larger issue. Even were the religious exemption large enough to cover all Catholic institutions, it would not cover the conscientiousness objection of Catholic businessmen. If a Catholic businessman cannot in conscience lend financial support to sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients, he will face fines which would put him out of business. This mandate will force many Catholics to choose between following their conscience and bankruptcy or jail (1). Voting for a man whose administration enacted this mandate is scandalous (in the Catholic sense of leading others to sin) and absolutely unacceptable.The HHS mandate redefines what it means to be religious. A layman is no longer "Catholic enough" to be exempted due to his religious beliefs. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB, the body that represents all the bishops in the US) put out a letter (2), speaking broadly of the issue of religious freedom, including reference to the HHS mandate. They remind us there that freedom of religion is about more than freedom of worship. I take the liberty of quoting two paragraphs from that letter:"Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas."(...) The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration's contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face:Most troubling, is the Administration's underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its "religious" character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration's ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization's religious principles. This is deeply disappointing."This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue."Sources(1) Becket fund fact-check: http://www.becketfund.org...(2) USCCB "Our First, Most Cherished Freedom": http://www.usccb.org...