SOUL FOOD:

If Douglas W. Kmiec and Martin Sheen are right, the election of our next president is in the hands of voting Roman Catholics. They comprise in the neighborhood of 25% of voters and turned out for the primaries in representative numbers.

On Election Day they could swing those states still hanging in the balance to bring victory to Barack Obama over John McCain. If, despite the Roman Catholic precept that abortion is an intrinsic evil, they vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Kmiec’s book “Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama” shows them the way. Martin Sheen wrote its introduction; The Overlook Press published it last month.

A cradle Catholic, Sheen is a self-described lifelong Democrat and radical Catholic activist. With Kmiec, a lifelong Republican and conservative, he shares the same parish and a strong opposition to abortion.

Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University’s School of Law and before that was on the faculties of The Catholic University and Notre Dame. He provided constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

He now argues that fellow Catholics can vote in good conscience for Obama. His basic premise is summed up in chapter five of his book “Roe is Wrong — But That’s Not the Point.”

Roe, Kmiec holds, is bad constitutional law “because it’s not based on the Constitution or any tradition or custom implicit within its terms.”

In an affirmation of his endorsement of Obama, he wrote in May, “The ‘self-evident truths’ of the Declaration have interpretative significance for the meaning of ‘life’ and ‘person’ in the constitutional text — and that meaning makes life unalienable, which means each life from conception is unique and worthy of constitutional protection.”

Yet, he points out, to overturn the decision would simply return the issue to the states. For that reason he believes it is wrong for the Catholic voter to think — to be burdened with the idea — that overturning Roe is the only “acceptable means to address abortion.”

While it’s likely the next president will appoint at least one and as many as three new Supreme Court justices, Kmiec thinks the chance of overturning Roe remains slim. He notes that three Republican presidents have tried this course over 20 years and failed.

He laments “divisive confirmation proceedings that undermine respect for law and understate the significance of non-abortion issues in a judicial candidate’s evaluation.” He embraces Obama’s perspective.

In an op-ed piece published Friday in the Los Angeles Times, Kmiec reviewed Obama’s take on abortion offered during Wednesday’s final presidential debate. Abortion is “always a tragic situation,” Obama said.

“Nobody is pro-abortion,” Obama put forth. “We should try to reduce these circumstances.”

Kmiec’s position has stirred considerable controversy. He was denied Communion at a Westlake Mass in April for having endorsed Obama.

Several Roman Catholics in Huntington Beach, all but one of them women, exchanged e-mails with me last week. They, like Kmiec, support Obama, though not because of Kmiec’s book or precisely for his reasons.

Most told me they personally oppose most abortions. Ann Egan and Trish Rice each profess to be both pro-life and pro-choice.

“If that is an enigma to some,” wrote Egan, “then so be it.” She sees the world in shades of gray, she said, while my questions were black and white.

I asked, “Do you think a Catholic can in good conscience vote for Barack Obama?”

Pat Goodman referred me to the document, “Faithful Citizenship,” published by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.

She interprets it to say that she should not vote “for a candidate whose sole issue is that [he] supports abortion rights.” By extension, she also believes it instructs her to “not vote for a candidate solely for their opposition to abortion rights.”

Mary Martin found guidance in “Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics,” published by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which notes in small print it is not affiliated with the USCCB. As she sees it, most voters, Catholic or not, “who claim they are pro-life are actually anti-abortion only” and vote based on that issue alone.

Bob Younkin believes Catholics can in good conscience vote for Obama “because with the exception of his record on abortion he has been in concert with Catholic teaching.”

He cites issues of poverty, immigration and health care.

“[Obama] influenced the Democrat[ic] [P]latform to include a statement to reduce abortions, which is a giant step forward in respect for life,” he wrote.

Rice sent me a copy of an essay, written by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, titled, “What is the meaning of life?”

Later she wrote, “I believe that abortion, along with all the actions against life, is intrinsically evil. My goal is to end abortion and I believe that can best be done when all parties work to find common ground … to end abortion, war and all other assaults on the dignity of human life.”

Egan emphasizes “all,” saying, “To be pro-life, you must be pro ALL life…those on death row, the soldiers on both sides of the war in Iraq, the innocent bystanders who we so glibly refer to as ‘collateral damage,’ the victims of the tragedy in Darfur…”

She sees Obama as the better candidate to realize this.

“I strongly object to any intimation that ‘the Church’ might determine that I have a moral obligation not to vote for Obama,” she said.

In his Friday op-ed essay, Kmiec pointed out, “Some Republicans are telling Catholics that supporting Obama is a sin.” He didn’t mention what Egan seems to know — or guess — that many Catholic bishops are, too.

Whether they are Republicans, I don’t know. But I’ll delve into their views more next week.

MICHÈLE MARR is a freelance writer from Huntington Beach. She can be reached at [email protected].