TIME: 9:00 AM EST

We are currently attempting the most expensive bailout of our economy in American history. And even if it works, we know the bailout is no silver bullet.

And if it doesn’t work? Most commentators still prefer to avoid that question.

So, if it were ever true in an election year, isn’t it now more than ever ‘the economy, stupid?’ In 2008, doesn’t the economy trump every other issue?

Doesn’t it even trump our concerns about abortion?

If, for example, you happened to be a Catholic voter who a) thinks Mr. Obama is better suited to handle our economic crisis than the pro-life Mr. McCain, but who b) disagrees with Mr. Obama on abortion, should you vote on the economic issue because urgency trumps importance? Doesn’t the logic of “adjust your own oxygen mask first before helping others” apply here too? Is it reasonable to judge that we must first get our economy out of chaos and avert the abyss, and then get back to the business of reducing the incidence of abortions?

The Catholic bishop of Scranton has an answer. This is from Bishop Joseph F. Martino’s pastoral letter for Respect Life Sunday (celebrated on October 5th this year in all parishes in the United States):

Another argument goes like this: "As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant 'life' issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote." This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being "right" on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: The finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that "pro-choice" candidates have come to support homicide -- the gravest injustice a society can tolerate -- in the name of "social justice."

On the one hand the economic crisis.

On the other, the on-going dramatic crisis of the present abortion regime in the U.S.

Do they bear the same moral weight?

Let’s think about it. What about the pending economic crisis? How and in what sense does it really warrant the term ‘crisis’? The Pope made headlines yesterday when addressing the bishops at the opening of their international synod on the theme of the Word of God. In his opening comments, the Holy Father stated:

At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord speaks to us of the two possible ways of constructing the edifice of one’s life: building on sand or building on solid ground. He who builds on sand is the one who builds only on the foundation of visible and tangible things: success, one’s career, money. As if these were the true realities. But one day all of these things will pass away. We see that now in the crash of the great banks: all this money disappears; it’s nothing. And in like fashion all these things, which would appear to be the true reality to count on, are only second-order realities. Whoever builds his life on these realities, on material things, on success, on appearances, builds on sand. [My translation from the Italian.]

Now, in the MSM this became “Pope says the global financial crisis shows the futility of money and ambition.” But he did not say money is futile. He was suggesting, rather, that one should not make money (or more generally, material goods) the basis on which to form and build one’s life. To put it another way, one should not choose material well-being as one’s ultimate end.

But the looming financial crisis in the United States will be a crisis brought on and precipitated by years upon years and generations upon generations of Americans, millions of them, essentially choosing material well-being as their ultimate end, as the foundation and ultimate datum of meaning upon which to build a personal life project.

Now, I have heard no one suggest that we will be seeing breadlines in the coming months. Like anyone else, I can only rely on trusted experts who have years of experience in global financial matters. But if we are to trust them, what I am hearing is that this will not become a crisis of bread-line proportions. No doubt, it will be truly nightmarish for many as unemployment increases, and credit continues to dry up with all the sad contingencies that accompany this. But for the vast majority, the pending “economic nightmare” will be one of inconvenience. Of drastic readjustment. Of not having a plasma screen television in each bedroom. Of not being able to buy that new car. Of not being able to eat out four or five times a week. Of being forced to live within our means, as opposed to living on credit.

Am I suggesting this is simply going to mean we’ll have to tighten our belts a few notches? No. It’s likely going to be quite unpleasant. I don’t know if there will be enough Prozac to go around. Lot’s of Americans are not going to have the personal tools to cope with this. But again, that will be due in large part to the materialism that characterizes our culture.

Now, let’s return to comparing this “crisis” to the true humanitarian crisis of abortion-on-demand.

Same moral weight?

Hardly.

And a further thought. Can we not, in fact, detect a linkage between one crisis and the other? Between the materialism which has driven countless thousands to build their personal life project on material wealth, and the materialism which treats unborn human life as disposable, and which sanctions abortion on demand? I think the two are intrinsically linked. Indeed, it is not a platitude to wonder, if we had been able to mend our culture by assuring the right to life of the unborn, whether we would be facing this financial devastation at all. I can only suspect that if we had dealt rightly with the most fundamental issue, we would be in a better position to correct the present, secondary, and less fundamental issue.

***