UPDATE: Newt Gingrich is pro-life again
No surprise, the GOP’s new favorite quickly walked back his statements last week about life beginning at “implantation,” and all is right with the Right.
Not that he was going to get hammered. But Gingrich’s fast course correction may be another indicator of the necessary discipline of a front-runner, and one who needn’t take any chances with the Iowa vote looming in less than a month.
Gingrich’s pro-life lapse and retraction may also be seen in the same context as his remarks on immigration last month that seemed to open the door to some form of amnesty for millions of illegals. But Gingrich started backing up that bus pretty quickly.
The NYTimes has an interesting piece up on why Newt’s Big Thoughts often backfire. I am starting to think Gingrich could actually win this thing, but it’s still a long way to Jan. 3 and the Iowa vote.
He’d make things interesting as far as Catholicism in the public square, that’s for sure.
Photo: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
It pains me that all likely candidates next year, Romney, Gingrich, and Obama, stink when it comes to life issues.
Sure. Of course maybe he should realize that humility and modesty are important public, Catholic virtues. I have heard thousands of homilies and I have never come across the preachy and arrogant tone that he exhibits.
Gingrich can’t afford to toy around too much with the life issue, I think.
BTW, if you want to read something really interesting, check out Joe Klein defending/explaining Newt’s controversial comments on child labor:
http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/05/newts-trumpet-ducking-donald-and-talking-work-ethic-with-gingrich/
The reason for the whole “implantation” snafu was pretty obvious–he’d listened to the wrong moral theologians. There’s a whole group (we’ve seen it on this blog) who want to make a huge moral distinction between fertilization and implantation. There are going to be times when you listen to the wrong experts–and then you walk it back.
He didn’t listen to the wrong moral theologians – the Church itself hasn’t established the time of ensoulment, it has said as much in her official documents. The Church recognizes problems such as twinning which happen after fertilization show the simplistic idea of ensoulment merely at the point of conception has problems. Of course, I also think Newt is trying to discuss issues which transcend his competence: he knows there are problems with a simplistic view but he also doesn’t know how to address it. But the question of ensoulment doesn’t have to be answered to be against willful abortion and that is something we must keep in mind. However, it is clear, many who claim leadership in the political pro-life movement don’t want to admit the difficulties because they like using simplistic rhetoric for the sake of political gain. Newt has just admitted what they never wanted revealed.
@Aerodatus, (12/05, 9:19 pm) I’m curious: what do you mean by “life issues”?
Henry,
I think the pro-life movement recognizes when a difficulty is treated like an enormous loophole, instead of something to really think about.
I think when they start thinking of real concerns as “loopholes,” they remind me of those who argued it was a loophole which allows one to save their animals on the Sabbath.
Was that a loophole? I thought that was the overwhelming Judeo-Christian preferential option for life.
In any case, any of the Republican candidates is better on pro-life issues (e.g. abortion and end-of-life) than Mr. Obama or any other Democrat.
Democrats think the ends justify the means; Catholics understand the ends can never be used to justify the means.
@Ken (12/06, 9:33 am) Just curious, what conclusions does your understanding that “the ends can never be used to justify the means” lead you to regarding modern warfare?
I think the pro-life movement recognizes when a difficulty is treated like an enormous loophole, instead of something to really think about.
Kathy,
Exactly what “loophole” did Gingrich open up? He said he was opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. Presumably as a Catholic he opposes contraception of any kind, including methods that would interfere with implantation. Exactly what is the point of utter orthodoxy on “life” beginning at conception? It appears that many early embryos, if they can even be called that, are genetically incapable of survival. One of the arguments I hear frequently from those who insist that “life” begins a conception is based on the assertion that human DNA that can, if not interfered with, is present at conception and will develop into a unique human being. But it appears that many times when fertilization takes place, the genetic errors are such that the fertilized egg can’t possibly continue with its development. In such cases, it really seems to me that the presence of a supernatural soul is the only thing that could qualify human DNA that cannot survive and develop to be considered a person.
If two bits of DNA come together that do not have the requisite genetic instructions to live, grow, develop a heart and a brain, and so on, you simply can’t make the argument that it is a human person because it has everything required to grow into a human person. It doesn’t. At best one might think of such conceptions as being profoundly disabled humans, but it does seem to me there has got to be some minimal definition of a human being.
It’s going to be entertaining watching Gingrich engage in the necessary gymnastics to obtain the requisite pro-life confirmation. I predict he won’t be able to do it.
There won’t be a satisfactory pro-life candidate this year because people—a people who are not a Catholic plurality—must have the necessary economic conditions to be pro-life. When lives (meaning the lives of the lower-half of our winner-take-all system) are being destroyed, the present generation worries more about survival than the next generation. Being pro-life (esp. in the narrow abortion sense that many uneducated Catholics see the topic) isn’t a necessary condition to getting smart economic policy. We won’t get a pro-life candidate that satisfies Catholics without sacrificing economic sanity. – TL
I’ve thought for some time that Newt is running at least in part so that he could have as wide a public forum as possible for his ideas. There is a need for thinking that isn’t walled in by conventional options and conventional partisanship. I’m not certain that people who hatch those thoughts are therefore the best choice for president.
Certainly, it seems that our country is bound by conventional ideas. Thus, we can’t attack the deficit if it means raising taxes. And we can’t attack the deficit unless we raise taxes on the rich. Therefore, we can’t attack the deficit. Result: nothing gets done, our credit standing is compromised, and the debt continues to accumulate.
We missed what in retrospect was a tremendous opportunity to break the illegal-immigration impasse when President George W Bush wanted to pursue immigration reform. His ideas did not align with the conventional partisanship fault lines – and that, as much as anything else, was responsible for sinking the proposal. Personally, I think elements of his program represented a step forward.
The church is also no stranger to its ideas and programs being rejected because they don’t fit neatly into the partisan political divide. It’s a real problem in American society, and one we need to solve.
Luke – Ok, that is an old one, but here goes. A nation should only fight just wars. If the war is a just war, that means a nation has been drawn into it against its will and the soldiers are therefore, to paraphrase Chesterton, fighting, not so much because they hate what is in front of them but more because they love what is behind them.
With that in mind, by the enemy forcing you, dragging you, into the war, they have pulled you against your will outside the bounds of normality. In fact because warfare is so far outside the normal bounds of polite society, an entire set of separete “rules of war” have been developed over the centuries. With that in mind, when your men kill the enemy, while they are still guilty of killing, since it is self-defense, they are not guilty of murder. The fact that the nation has been pulled into a war and is defending itself is the mitigating factor.
Think of another situation, a hostage situation. The maniac has taken several hostages and is holding them at gunpoint. The police arrive and he starts making demands about a getaway car and maybe a plane ticket. The police sergeant keeps talking to him and lies to him. He makes the criminal believe the car is on its way. While he is doing this the police team sneaks into the building, frees the hostages, and arrests the criminal. Was it wrong for the sergeant to lie to the hostage-taker? Yes of course it was wrong; lying is always a sin. However while the sargeant is guilty of lying, his culpability is softened due to the obvious legitimate mitigating circumstances.
@Jim Pauwels (12/06, 10:03 am) Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree that Pres. Bush’s ideas for comprehensive immigration reform (ideas shared by Sen. McCain at one point) would have been, on balance, an improvement over the status quo.
I would add that it’s not merely conventional ideas by which the country is bound. It’s also bound by the increasingly undemocratic behavior of the (already-undemocratic-by-constitutional-design) US Senate. If the Senate operated under majoritarian rules, then the 111th Congress, for example, would likely have passed cap-and-trade environmental legislation, something like the American Jobs Act, a stronger Affordable Care Act, and if not comprehensive immigration reform, at least something like the DREAM Act. It also might have allowed tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to return to the rates of the 1990s, as well as having passed others of the 300+ bills
that passed the House but never came up for a vote in the Senate.
As for Newt an immigration reform, he hit the nail on the head. By granting indocumentados the status of permanent resident, they are free to live their lives normally and without fear, and their punishment for jumping the border is that they cannot vote or engage in politics.
That is a fair swap, but of course neither the Democrats nor the Republicans like it. Democrats hope to grant amnesty in order to keep Latinos in the Democrat camp (ala the Black vote), and some Republicans (like me) would like to do the same.
As such, barring something like Reagan did, unless guys like me can convince fellow conservatives to soften their hearts on this, I think that sadly, most indocumentados will be nervous for many years to come.
@Ken (12/6, 10:20 am) Ken, thanks for your patient and thoughtful reply. Rather than get into an off-topic debate over “jus ad bello” and “jus in bello” (apologies for any errors in my Latin), I’d be interested to hear your evaluation of recent US wars (e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq I and II, Bosnia), and which ones met (or failed to meet) Catholic standards for just wars.
Luke “I’d be interested to hear your evaluation of recent US wars (e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq I and II, Bosnia), and which ones met (or failed to meet) Catholic standards for just wars.”
I am not sure what the popes have said regarding these more recent wars and of course would defer to both Popes John Paul II and Benedict. I follow and will make myself agree with whatever the pope says. Farther back, I think Pope Paul VI declared the Vietnam war as unjust. Vatican II spoke on the matter as well:
“…insofar as men are sinful, the threat of war hangs over them, and hang over them it will until the return of Christ” (Gaudium et Spes 78). The danger of war will never be completely removed prior to the Second Coming. . .”
Bearing in mind the basics of just war doctrine:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
You asked my opinion though and so here goes; most recent to oldest:
Libya – Hardly
Afghanistan – Maybe early-on, but not so much now
Iraq 2 – No
Iraq 1 – Maybe
Bosnia – No
@Ken (12/6, 12:19 pm) Thanks again. I’d say that we agree more than we disagree.
I find myself coming to the conclusion that, basically, there’s no way in the modern world to wage war without having to go to Confession afterwards.
Also, as a result of prolonged participation in Catholic discussions about these issues, I found myself “rewriting” the “Gaudium et Spes” excerpt you provided:
“…insofar as men are sinful, the threat of [abortion] hangs over them, and hang over them it will until the return of Christ” (Gaudium et Spes 78). The danger of [abortion] will never be completely removed prior to the Second Coming. . .”
I don’t want to defend my “rewriting”. Nor do I want to argue that it’s the sort of thing our bishops should be saying. I just want to ponder it for a while.
“With that in mind, when your men kill the enemy, while they are still guilty of killing, since it is self-defense, they are not guilty of murder.”
Ken –
Your deduction is a correct one — your conclusion does follow from your premises. However, the Church does not teach that killing in self defense makes us guilty of a sin. If killing is the only way to ward off an unjust aggressor, the Church says that that is not a sin.
The bigger problem is that the Church is inconsistent — it *says* that all killing is evil, but then it says that it’s OK sometimes. (Yes, there’s a semantic problem in there.) The fundamental problem is that the Church says the it is never right to do evil to accomplish good. But then it says that sometimes (e.g., in a just war) one may do evil to accomplish a good. It really can’t have it both ways and have a coherent moral system.
Mr. Hill, when I write “life issues,” I mean those issues dealing with the beginning and end of life (abortion, euthanasia) and their intersection with government policy. These candidates do not inspire on that range of issues.
@Aerodatus (12/6, 4:36 pm) Thanks for your reply. Would it be correct to assume that preventing lead paint poisoning in children, and lowering the mortality rate for young and middle-aged adults by ensuring their access to regular health care are examples of issues that you do not consider to be “life issues”?
It’s an interesting questioning, though I think your tone is mildly obnoxious.
I consider them life issues in a sense. But we must be careful to make sure our categories don’t become too expansive. People sometimes make of the mistake of thinking that if two issues occupy the same overarching category, that they are of equal importance.
Of course, this says nothing about the competence of various parts of society (be it government, private institutions, charities) to address all of these ills.
@Adeodatus (12/6, 5:32 pm) First, my apologies. I’ve been misreading, and therefore mistyping, your name all this time.
Second, thank-you for answering my question despite how it came across to you. I was not intending to annoy or aggravate you.
I asked that last question because (it seems to me) a debate about “life issues” defined as “those issues dealing with the beginning and end of life…and their intersection with government policy” is different from a debate about “life issues” defined as also including what Hubert Humphrey called “those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped”.
I’m willing to engage in either discussion. I asked the question merely to understand which one we were having.
Luke – You are correct in that those are “life issues”; most can see how lead paint is bad and medical insurance is necessary. In fact our society has been working on reducing lead exposure for years now, and the efforts toward paying for poor people’s health insurance – some good and some misguided – are currently underway.
The reason most Catholics and many Protestants and others – we pro-lifers – focus on abortion (and sometimes on euthanasia) is that both are murder plain and simple, and so far – unlike how our society recognizes the hazards of lead poisoning and the importance of health insurance – many in our society do not see the incredible wrong of abortion.
Because the first step in fixing a problem is realizing there is a problem, it is important to show society how wrong abortion and euthanasia are, how they demean everyone involved and how they really hurt society in general.
Luke, thanks for the response.
Oh, Newt is not a bad guy, but gosh he has been around DC beltway for so long, hauling his bags around and settling in with whichever outfit will pay. I heard him humorously described as like one of those filter whales, just drift along gobbling up whatever plankton he happens along. Book deals, history lessons for Fany and Freddie, global warming, he will ‘make it work’. (sigh)
Don’t misunderstand. If Newt is nominated I will vote for him; I just happen to think our man will be Romney.