Archbishop Chaput. . .
May 20, 2008, 6:27 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
well, as we lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur. (Common translation: the thing speaks for itself.)
HT: First Things
Archbishop Chaput writes with many different voices … is this one Robbie George’s? On the one hand, it’s so clearly biased in favor of the Republican agenda — does he think we’ve forgotten McCain’s support of stem cell research? And on the other hand, his “what-will-you-say-to-the-unborn-babies?” move completely aborts the reasoned argument that his use of the term “proportionate” invokes.
I doubt that in this election year, after the horrors of the Bush administration supported by Republican bishops and their ghostwriters, many Catholics are going to be scared off by such manipulation posing as magisterium.
“In my experience, all nuns are Democrats and all bishops are Republicans.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Archbishop Chaput says, “In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action.”
I might be more persuaded by these remarks if I knew what the archbishop meant by “active … in trying to discourage abortion.”
Would it pass muster for a Catholic politician to say, for example, “I believe abortion is morally wrong. I don’t want any girl or woman in this country to have an abortion. Neither do I believe that criminalizing abortion is the answer. I will do my utmost to maintain and expand programs that promote abstinence and information about human sexuality to teenagers, that provide financial and social safety nets for poor and single families, for families stressed by care for a special needs child. I will also pledge to ensure that those seeking abortion can make informed decisions, and that minors who seek abortions have the benefit of their parents’ counsel.”
Has the USCCB ever offered any particular guidelines for Catholic politicians? Or are they just following up bad behavior with communion-barring after the fact?
Actually, Archbishop Chaput was calling ALL Catholic politicians to BE NOT AFRAID and speak out to end the gruesome act of abortion. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb.”
Jean,
I’m guessing, though I don’t know for sure, that there are certain circumstances under which you would consider the incremental approach to be insufficient.
Jean–
I believe the USCCB website has several links to documents that would be considered “guidelines” for Catholic politicians, including the conference’s “Catholics in Political Life” and “Faithful Citizenship.”
In addition, the USCCB strongly supports the Pregnant Women Support Act, and the conference has urged all federal legislators to work towards the statute’s enactment.
Chaput wrote: “until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.”
I wonder what Chaput means when he uses the word “force”? it opens a lot of possibilities does it not.
Jean, you wrote: “Has the USCCB ever offered any particular guidelines for Catholic politicians? Or are they just following up bad behavior with communion-barring after the fact?”
It’s not the USCCB that has been communion-barring but a few bishops.
What doss Archbishop Chaput propose as the solution to the abortion problem?
His apparent solution to the failures of princes is to flog the peasants.
That’s not going to work.
Seriously, does he propose to criminalize abortion? What is a long term acceptable solution? Outright ban in all 50 states? Since that won’t ever happen, how much less is acceptable? Is the archbishop willing to compromise on permitting abortion if the life of the mother is at risk?
If not, he and the other 19 people in this country who share that view are bound to be disappointed.
In reading Archbishop Chaput’s statement, I was struck by his account of his support for Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, his disillusionment with the Democratic Party over Roe, and then, not exactly coming out as a Republican (as afar as I could tell). I admit some sympathy for the trajectory he describes. And I wonder if his closing paragraphs should be carefully parsed:
“On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:
“After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.
“I’m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.”
“Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children. I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They’ll need it.
Chaput wishes Catholics for Obama, “good luck.” He does not threaten anyone with a ban from Communion. It seems to me Catholics for Obama should pick up the gauntlet (thought it may be thrown out in irony!) and work to shift the candidate in a more nuanced direction on the abortion question.
My views on Archbishop Chaput’s essay are similar to Peggy’s.
I’ve been observing a subtle shift in Archbishop Chaput’s comments on Catholics in political life over the past few years. Back in 2004, he came very close to suggesting that voting for a pro-choice politician was a mortal sin. I think the arguments made by Cathy Kaveny and others (e.g. that the distinction between formal and material matters) have had an impact. His recent statements are more nuanced.
The Archbishop seems a bit bothered by the fact that the Catholics for Obama organization (which, just so we’re clear, is -not- the same as the candidate’s Catholic Advisory Committee) used his remarks in a way that evaded the full force of his views on the topic. I think that is a reasonably criticism and it is someone odd for CFO to be invoking the authority of Archbishop Chaput for their position.
I do think that the Archbishop is correct when he suggests that a very large number of Catholic politicians who are “personally opposed” to abortion while taking a pro-choice stand have done little or nothing to discourage abortion. Many have staunchly defended Roe v. Wade and cheerfully take large campaign contributions from the abortion-rights lobby. I think there may be some exceptions to this, but there are very few. One thing that I would add, however, is that there are more than a few “pro-life” politicians who could not meet the Archbishop’s standard of being “involved in a sustained public way in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life.”
I can only applaud the Archbishop’s suggestion–echoed by Peggy–that Catholics for Obama needs to do a better job influencing their candidate. Or to put more of a point on it (since I am an Obama supporter) it looks like I need to do a better job influencing MY candidate. Wish me luck…:-)
Jean asked:
>> Would it pass muster for a Catholic politician to say, for example, “I believe abortion is morally wrong. I don’t want any girl or woman in this country to have an abortion. Neither do I believe that criminalizing abortion is the answer. I will do my utmost to maintain and expand programs that promote abstinence and information about human sexuality to teenagers, that provide financial and social safety nets for poor and single families, for families stressed by care for a special needs child. I will also pledge to ensure that those seeking abortion can make informed decisions, and that minors who seek abortions have the benefit of their parents’ counsel.” <<
I think that this would be a good start, though it might be helpful to expand a bit on why you don’t think that criminalizing abortion is the answer.
Mybe we could also ask the Archbishop what he thinks about cluster bombs, the war in Iraq and other (for some maybe) life issues.
I’ve often wondered why the word “criminalize” keeps coming up. Making something illegal is not the same as making it a felony. A lot could be done just by taking away the means, and especially by prosecuting doctors.
But isn’t the unspoken issue the fact that outlawing abortion entirely means that sometimes women’s opportunities for education and employment be limited because of pregnancy? Isn’t an absolute equality of opportunity for women part of the Obama dream? When he looks out at the young women at a rally and talks about his hopes for them, for his daughters, doesn’t he see a world where women won’t be sidetracked by pregnancies unless they choose to be?
The word “criminalize” comes up because in March 2006 the legislature in South Dakota voted to ban abortions except to save the life of the mother. Criminal penalties were attached for physicians. At the time, there was also discussion about penalties for the mother. Who can doubt that in some states there would be criminal penalties if Roe were overturned and the regulation of abortions was returned to the states?
This from a CNN story at the time:
“The bill signed by Rounds allows doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, but even then encourages them to exercise “reasonable medical efforts” to both save mothers and continue pregnancies.
“Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance — even in a case of rape or incest — can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.”
The whole story:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortion/
Fr. Komonchak, yes, thanks for the correction re: USCCB. They may provide guidelines for politicians, but individual bishops determine how to treat politicians and public figures in their jurisdiction.
I don’t think calling for wholesale criminal penalties for abortion is going to get any politician very far. There’s too much disagreement on the topic among people of different faiths.
You can probably persuade people to restrict some abortion procedures, late-term abortions, abortions performed without parental consent, etc. etc. Even where people agree that there should be criminal penalty, there is disagreement about whom should be punished (mother, doctor, both?) and how much.
Moreover, the party that is least likely to support a ban on abortion plus criminalization is also the party most likely to support needy women and children. Though I realize that argument is persuasive only if you believe that government support of women and children has any affect on the abortion rate.
And locking up mothers–advocated by some in the pro-life camp–is a disruption of the lives of born children I don’t even want to contemplate, not with state foster care systems in the disarray they’re in. There are dozens of foster kids in Michigan the system can’t even account for.
I believe that the Church’s teaching on abortion is one that would keep someone from committing a grave sin. But I also have doubts about whether that teaching doesn’t err on the side of prudence. The church admits no gray areas; even though it recognizes self-defense in manslaughter, it doesn’t recognize preserving maternal health in abortion.
So I can’t say in all honesty that I totally buy into church teaching. And, in all honesty, I don’t feel I can receive communion as a result. So I don’t.
Is that the admission you’re fishing for?
Margaret,
The word “criminalize” is used too generally in these discussions, in a way that suggests that women who abort–not just doctors–would be charged with felonies.
Jean, I wasn’t fishing for anything. What I meant was that if a politician were to offer your statement as a personal position, better than “Personally I’m opposed, but….,” he would probably be asked why he wouldn’t want to criminalize it. I agree with your first remarks: that as things presently stand, an act that would criminalize abortion doesn’t stand a chance of passing. One is led, then, into an area of political prudence where an “all-or-nothing” stand will simply be irrelevant, and one could, as you say, start discussing what laws to restrict abortion are ressonable and have a chance of passing. It’s because these are prudential judgments that I don’t think that support for a particular law or policy or opposition to another law or policy can be assumed to be grounds for determining fitness to receive communion.
If abortion is so prevalent in the country among Catholics, Christians, etc., doesn’t this show the failure of the church leaders to effectively teach morality to their members? Now, there asking the secular government to enforce the morality that they can’t teach. Wouldn’t it be better for the churches (this may even revise ecumenism again) to work together in convincing their members how morally wrong abortion is. With that, Roe vs Wade would be obsolete.
Regarding who is guilty and who deserves punishment, I don’t understand why a pro-life Catholic would absolve a woman who obtains an abortion of guilt and hold only doctors responsible. As I understand the Catholic position, the woman, the doctor who performs the abortion, the nurse in attendance, the person who drove the woman to the doctor (and so on) are all excommunicated. The Catholic Church is asking its members to tie themselves in knots to justify even voting for Clinton or Obama, and threatening to deny communion to politicians who don’t criminalize abortion. And yet people who maintain abortions is the unjust taking of human life, the overriding issue that trumps all others, are arguing that women who obtain abortions shouldn’t be held responsible. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Now, if it’s a purely pragmatic position, maintained with the realization that most people would not stand for criminal charges against a woman who has an abortion, then I can understand it. But it seems extraordinarily inconsistent to me to equate abortion with infanticide and then claim the mothers who abort their children are victims.
Mr. Nickol: You wrote: “The Catholic Church is asking its members to tie themselves in knots to justify even voting for Clinton or Obama.” I think you’ve gone cosmic on us here. It’s not “the Catholic Church” that has done this, but, perhaps, a few bishops.
On the other point, I think the issue, at least as I’m concerned, is purely pragmatic: you could never get such a law passed.
It is one of those curiosities that women who “get pregnant” are excused from all responsibility. One has the image of the little helpless black girl who somehow “got” pregnant. Instead of getting out to give the “little helpless black girl” that with which to protect herself “Buzz off, Sam”], such groups as Planned [Un]Parenthood promote not becoming a parent. They do not promote not getting pregnant. They do not give help to the “little black girl, now become a mother”. And yet they have thousands of doctors and nurses and clinics, and billions of dollars.
So much for feminism and protecting the dignity of women. But then it is generally black women who are on the receiving end, white men and women on the giving end. A real Country Club phenomenon.
Abortion was illegal for most of our history. Abortioners were prosecuted. The number of annual abortions was probably in the thousands [or perhaps only in the hundreds]. It was certainly not in the millions, That was left for our modern times.
It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the refusal of Holy Communion to public figures who make an issue of contradicting Church doctrine. That refusal is a pastoral action. It is but a confirmation of the action taken by the individual, just like excommunication – cutting oneself off from the faithful.
One intent is to avoid public scandal and confusion among the faithful.
The other is to make the recipient reflect on the nature of Eucharist – the Real Presence of Almighty God – and the loss to the soul of unworthy reception and the damage to the soul of commission of yet another sin. We are not such as believe the Eucharist to be but a commemoration, an outward sign.
The bishop said he spoke privately with the governor about the matter. She obviously rejected his admonition. Now it is not as though he is chairman of the Lions, or the Rotary Club. Will-she, nill-she, he is her bishop on the ground and responsible for her salvation.
William Collier, yes, indeed, the USCCB supports the Pregnant Women’s Support Act. Here’s the press release about it:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-206.shtml
There are also some public policy statements from the USCCB that should guide Catholic politicians. The search engine indicated were updated May 18.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/index.shtml
I like their “women deserve better than abortion,” which seems to be one of the tacks that Catholic feminists take. (So be careful, Gabriel Austin, about painting feminism with too broad a brush.)
What I can’t find, at least in any quick or cursory search, are any clear and consistent guidelines for how politicians are supposed to vote, and to what extent they must introduce or support anti-abortion legislation.
So barring various politicians from communion is being decided on a case-by-case basis, presumably after a pastoral discussion with the public official in question. The upside of this approach is that bishops are trying to gauge intent and understanding. The downside is that the communion-barring as a punishment may be meted out inconsistently. But life isn’t consistent, I suppose.
Kathy, I personally don’t construe “criminalization” only with mothers who abort, but that’s where my greatest concern lies, so that’s the angle I usually pursue in these discussions.
Fr. Komonchak, sorry I inferred you were fishing. This is always a contentious topic and often brings out the most uncharitable elements of my nature. My apologies.
I can’t help but note that the tone of this thread is markedly more civil than usual when the topic turns to abortion. Perhaps one of the contributors could lead us further down this road with a discussion not about abortion, per se, but about how to have a conversation about abortion without the imputation of evil motives so often present when this topic surfaces.
Maybe if we focused on process rather than content, we’d be challenged to understand with appreciation why someone comes down on the issue in a manner different than we do. If the template throught which we understand this topic is autonomy and coercion, maybe it would be useful to imagine how it would look it the template were life and death…and vice versa.
The Public Conversation Project offers some direction in this regard: “On a subject that has been hotly polarized for a long time, the dominant discourse often delineates the issue in a win-lose bi-polar way; it draws a line between two simple answers to a complex dilemma and induces people to take a stand on one side of that line or the other…Most people who care deeply about the issue yield to this induction.”
“Being aligned with one group offers benefits. It gives one a socially validated place to stand while speaking and it offers the unswerving support of like-minded people. It also exacts costs. It portrays opponents as a single-minded and malevolent gang. In the face of such frightening and unified adversaries, one’s own group must be unified, strong, and certain. To be loyal to that group, one must suppress many uncertainties, morally complicated personal experiences, inner value conflicts, and differences between oneself and one’s allies. Complexity and authenticity are sacrificed to the demands of presenting a unified front to the opponent. A dominant discourse of antagonism is self-perpetuating. Win-lose exchanges create losers who feel they must retaliate to regain lost respect, integrity, and security, and winners who fear to lose disputed territory won at great cost.” (Carol Becker et al., From Stuck Debate to New Conversation on Controversial Issues: A Report from the Public Conversations Project.)
Apropos of the inevitable election season abortion battles ahead, this strong Obama supporter wonders if we progressives can’t concede that we often *sound* remarkably cerebral and sanguine about abortion and the impetus to regulate it. I particularly think this when we, who regularly argue for the extension of the law to protect the weak and marginalized, seem not to be able to register much more than exasperation (on our better days) and contempt (on the bad days) for our co-religionists who would extend this legal protection to the unborn. It is one thing to say that this extension of rights is, sadly, infeasible; it is another to say that it is mean-spirited.
Why do we get almost two hundred posts on one thread, and easily over thirty every time abortion comes up and practically zero when an autistic child is barred by law from the church?
I asked a question above and would ask that you indulge me for bringing it up again:
Isn’t the unspoken issue the fact that outlawing abortion entirely means that sometimes women’s opportunities for education and employment be limited because of pregnancy? Isn’t an absolute equality of opportunity for women part of the Obama dream? When he looks out at the young women at a rally and talks about his hopes for them, for his daughters, doesn’t he see a world where women won’t be sidetracked by pregnancies unless they choose to be?
“Mybe we could also ask the Archbishop what he thinks about cluster bombs, the war in Iraq and other (for some maybe) life issues.”
Go ahead. The Archbishop answers his email: shepherd@archden.org
Fr. Komonchak,
I really think it is “the Catholic Church,” through official spokespersons (for example, Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 and the USCCB in 2007) laying out a moral “formula” for voting involving concepts like intrinsic evil, material cooperation, proportionate reasons, and the like. The “formula” is heavily weighted against a pro-choice candidate, clearly putting Catholic Obama supporters on the defensive. While it may be a few bishops here and a chaplain there plugging values into the formula and saying you must vote for McCain, there are no bishops that I know of suggesting proportionate reasons to vote for Obama. So the few people who speak out to give their interpretation of what the “formula” means in concrete terms appear to be speaking for the Church.
Earlier in this thread Mike McG mentioned the Public Conversation Project as providing a process for ratcheting down the decibels and accomplishing meaningful and civil dialogue on controversial topics. IMO the Common Ground Initiative provides another worthwhile process for effecting communication on such topics.
I discovered a third “process” today. Deep within the 186-post Sebelius/Kmiec thread, Prof. Christopher Ruddy mentioned an article he and his wife had written for inclusion in a book edited by Fr. Imbelli. Prof. Ruddy also offered to forward the article to any dotCommonwealer who might like to read it. Here’s the pertinent part of Prof. Ruddy’s post:
“Four years ago, after the U.S. Bishops adopted their ‘Denver’ policy on Catholic in public life, my wife, Deborah, and I wrote an article, ‘Handing on the Faith to the ‘New Athenians’ in the American Catholic Church.’ It was published in Handing on the Faith: The Church’s Mission and Challenge, edited by Bob Imbelli (Herder & Herder, 2006). We argued that the U.S. Church’s response to abortion has to work primarily at the level of imagination and culture-formation, rather than at the level of public policy; this approach resonates with some of your previous musings on the place of hymns and artwork in this whole discussion. Our essay drew upon John Courtney Murray, Cardinal Bernardin, Phil Murnion, Charles Taylor, Rowan Williams, e.e. cummings—even Peter Steinfels. I’d be glad to e-mail you or anyone else interested a copy; my e-mail is CJRUDDY@stthomas.edu.”
Always on the prowl for interesting things to read, I asked Prof. Ruddy to forward the article to me. I hope others will request a copy, too. The article is very well-written, and it provides a thoughtful reflection on how our Catholic faith can best be handed on and shared in our highly secularized world. The article also contains a Scripture-influenced model, based on Paul’s encounter with the Athenians in Acts 17, for addressing controversial issues such as abortion. I’m sure Prof. Ruddy’s offer to share the article remains open.
I was watching the Partridge Family in footed pajamas back 1968 (they’re still on in Indiana around 5:00 p.m., if anyone cares). But the during the phase of history covered by the Archbishop’s “I lost interest in politics” (1968-76) we had Nixon’s ramp-up of the Vietnam War (the MyLai Massacre), it’s slow and agonizing end, the scandal of our treatment of Vietnam vets, further unrest among the races in big cities, the Watergate Scandal, the gas crisis and the terrible recession in the early 1970′s (which I do remember), the further hardening of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the involvement of the Americans with Middle Eastern dictatorships, and the increasing American entanglement with military dictatorships around the world as a means of fighting communism.
To my mind, the late 1960′s early 1970′s would have been a very good time to be interested in politics. And a time very relevant to our own. The fact that he wasn’t interested in these issues, to my mind, explains a lot about his perspective on the issues we face today.
“The fact that he wasn’t interested in these issues, to my mind, explains a lot about his perspective on the issues we face today.”
Or it might mean that we’re all pretty selective about the issues we get worked up about.
Mike, yes–of course, in a way, but don’t you find claim is rather striking–he says he “lost interest in politics”-during a time most people consider the most politically turbulent time of the 20th century?
I find this claim to be quite illuminating about the Archbishop’s approach to contemporary political issues, which many of us see as paralleling the issues of the late 60s and early 70s. Perhaps it is as simple as he really isn’t interested or moved by those issues.
I could say more, and perhaps will, if I have time, but it is striking: do those who supported Bush despite his stance on the war need to figure out what they will say to the little Iraqi children who were killed in an unjust war? Did those who supported Nixon –or who lost interest in politics after 1968- have to figure out what they would say to the napalmed Vietnamese babies? Will we meet them in heaven too?
This also occurred to me. Assuming there is validity to the idea of having to justify ourselves to those who have grievances in the next life, how do we decide whose grievances would be the most troubling?
Shock and awe tactics of bombing civilian populations, strafing refugees–of course these are crimes. But the court of public opinion recognizes some crimes as worse than others. The crimes of WWII, for example, are too numerous to mention. Some of them were ours. But the one that will forever live in infamy is a government-sponsored program for the direct, intended killing of the innocent.
Cathy: I believe our frame on these matters coincide. But when do we get beyond dueling grievances to recognize how nursing a grievance, holding to values derided by the zeitgeist, changes us, many even diminishes us? Aren’t there process issues here that cross-cut ideology and push us to become indignant about some issues and sanguine about others? Are we all that different than Chaput?
Archbishop Chaput has many worthy acolytes defending him so he doesn’t need my two cents.
But again, a careful reading of his statement in FT shows that he supported Jimmy Carter, which takes us into the seventies and early eighties. I would bet he found, as many Catholics did, Carter’s systematic structuring of human rights issues into U.S. diplomacy a welcome shift, especially in Latin and Central America. (This following the cyncial Kissinger support of LA military and dictators [remember Pinochet!]).
Many American diplomats also welcomed this new emphasis; I think particularly of Robert White who worked to establish this new policy in Paraguay and El Salvador. The new policy was, of course, dumped by Alexander Haig (prominent Catholic) when he became Ronald (pro-life) Reagan’s Secretary of State.
Nothing’s simple!
I am struck and pleased by by Mike’s attempt to reintroduce real dialogue (pace Cardinal Dulles et al) into the discussion here where partisan politics and values are deeply intertwined and one frame approaches often dominate complex questions for political folk.
Or will we go on having repetitive lengthy threads as the election cycle continues to rev up?
I’m not sure what you mean, exactly, Mike. Why is this “dueling grievances”? The situations aren’t parallel.
Archbishop Chaput, in 2004, strongly implied that it was a mortal sin to hold your nose and vote for Kerry–that those of us who thought four more years of Bush were insupportable were not only wrong, but doomed to hell unless we changed our minds. (That’s what a mortal sin is and does). I didn’t think then, and don’t think now, that fellow Catholics who vote for the Republican candidate because of abortion are committing a mortal sin.
Even now, while his rhetoric has changed, Archbishop Chaput’s test or frame has not. Other issues are functionally invisible to him–those of us who won’t be voting for McCain need to explain ourselves to aborted babies in eternity. The burden of proof is on us. But those people who vote Republican–no explanation necessary, to anyone. What strikes me about him is that virtually all other issues than abortion are uninteresting–invisible to him. In contrast, I don’t think people on this blog aren’t deeply interested in and troubled by abortion as a moral question. Some of us spend a large part of our professional lives thinking about the relationship of law and morality.
I think the first post–Caroline Sherwood–has the Archbishop exactly right, alas.
Some things are simple. When a medical supply firm receives an order for a suction machine, that’s pretty straightforward.
Cathy:
I take your point. I have consistently voted Democratic, never felt the need to confess it, plan to support Obama with every shred of my being, and categorically repudiate the assertion that I sin in doing so. I reject the position Chaput took in 2004 and the position argued by some of the Catholic right today that a vote for Obama (or Clinton) is morally wrong. It is a messy world out there and there are many considerations to weigh in voting.
Without agreeing with Chaput, however, I think I ‘get’ him in the same way that I ‘get’ Jeremiah Wright. People who feel passionately about a moral issue and believe that their concerns are belittled and burlesqued become self-righteous and circle the wagons.
Perhaps I do differ with you and many others who correspond here, however. As I’ve said before, I think that there is a strong undercurrent of exasperation in progressive Catholic circles with those who are so profoundly disturbed by abortion that it becomes the predominant lense through which the political process is viewed. I don’t dispute that “all other issues than abortion are uninteresting-invisible” to some. But I don’t think that prolife sensibilities are particularly welcome here or in progressive Catholic enclaves and I, for one, grow weary of the dance. One or two of ‘those people’ make an appearance, display strident and unnuanced positions, so we can roll our eyes, set them straight and denounce them as hypocrites.
As I’ve said before on this blog, I think that many Catholics find prolifers more disturbing than abortion. There’s a problem with that picture.
Mike, that’s very helpful, and very insightful, and I think you’re exactly right about “prophets.” What do you think we should do next?
Kathy,
The same equipment that is used for many elective abortions is also used for treatment of potentially serious gynecological conditions that have nothing to do with terminating a pregnancy. I, for example, am a post-menopausal woman who was treated with such equipment to rule out cancer of the uterus.
In this discussion the physical well-being of women and equality of life opportunities for women are moral values that have been almost entirely ignored — as Kathy’s post May 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm and the silence that greeted it demonstrate.
Sorry, B.H., for my rash comment which impugned very legitimate health care procedures. I didn’t mean that, obviously.
In the other context, though, of elective abortion, I think that it would be worth discussing whether there are occasions when the mother’s life opportunities outweigh the consideration of the life of the unborn. If so, what is the moral reasoning that underlies this judgment?
(I think it would be helpful for the sake of discussion to prescind from life-or-death situations for the mother, and focus on questions of opportunity.)
Archbishop Chaput wrote: “In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one.”
And it is difficult to name one. Tom Suozzi, the county executive in Nassau County, N.Y., comes to mind; he got national attention for announcing just such a plan. But the fact that no nationally known pro-choice Catholic politician has done this certainly undermines the sincerity of the “personally opposed, but” politicians.
On the other hand, how successful have Catholic bishops been in persuading Catholics not to have abortions? Many of the countries with the highest abortion rates are heavily Catholic. The bishops have not been effective, either. They’ve framed abortion as a legal and political issue. But it is also a spiritual one.
Cathy: What can we do? I wish I knew.
I’m trying…with limited success…to examine my own conscience instead of the consciences of those take positions I deplore, to ban binary thinking, to savor paradox, and to understand the universal urge to justify my actions. Courtesy of a fellow dotCommonweal participant, I just read a wonderful book on this theme entitled Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me). Finally, I’ve provisionally adopted the intuitionist model of moral reasoning:
“One of the most frustrating aspects of moral argument is that the other side is not swayed by one’s arguments, no matter how good they are. The failure to respond to reason makes the other side seem unreasonable, and invites charges that their ‘real’ motivations are hidden and sinister. But this inference is based on the naïve idea that moral reasoning drives moral judgment, so that one can change people’s minds by refuting their reasons. The present findings are more compatible with an intuitionist model of moral judgment in which moral judgments are based on gut feelings and emotional intuitions. People then create moral arguments by drawing on a priori moral theories, which they put forth as social products, required by the discourse of an argument (i.e., one must provide reasons for one’s judgments.) The refutation of such arguments does not cause people to change their minds; it only forces them to work harder to find replacement arguments.”
Jonathan Haidt and Matthew Hersh, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2001, 31, 191-221.
Paul, to be a pro-choice Catholic is an oxymoron.
Gabriel:
” … he is her bishop on the ground and responsible for her salvation.”
The last time I looked, Jesus Christ and she are responsible for her salvation. Bishops have a grandiose idea of their importance, but it doesn’t extend that far!
Paul Moses: Do you think Senator Bob Casey counts? as a pro-life Democrat.
“Pro-lifers are more disturbing than abortion.” Have you ever seen the movie Citizen Ruth–it’s a satire on abortion politics. I find it very helpful to teach, because it makes people grapple with stereotypes on either side.
I’ve been thinking about Kathy’s question: “Isn’t the unspoken issue the fact that outlawing abortion entirely means that sometimes women’s opportunities for education and employment be limited because of pregnancy? Isn’t an absolute equality of opportunity for women part of the Obama dream? When he looks out at the young women at a rally and talks about his hopes for them, for his daughters, doesn’t he see a world where women won’t be sidetracked by pregnancies unless they choose to be?”
In my view, a world where women do not have unwanted pregnancies is a not a bad thing to wish for.
What you’re really doing is challenging Catholics to ask whether they should buy into Obama’s dream knowing it includes legal abortion as a way to stop unwanted pregnancies. It’s a legitimate question. I believe you must reject Obama if you believe he will do nothing to stem the rate of abortion, and that abortion trumps all other social issues.
Thanks for thinking about this, Jean.
I have a larger question, too. Why aren’t Catholics putting pressure on the Democratic Party to change the platform on abortion? I assume there must be a contrary, positive value at work. I would guess it must have something to do with equal rights for women.
I don’t know that Catholics are NOT putting pressure on the Democratic Party to change the abortion plank. Anyone can provide opinion and testimony to be considered for the 2008 platform through June 15.
Write to:
Chairs of the Platform Committee, c/o The Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Or email platform@dnc.org.
The 2004 platform is available at the party site. I searched it for mentions of abortion and children and collected the bits below that individuals might want to consider as they assess the party’s platform:
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
We will increase tax credits to pay for child care and eldercare, and make sure those credits are available to lower-income families and stay-at-home parents. We will expand after-school opportunities, help schools stay open until 6 p.m., and offer good transportation so young people can take advantage of it. We support expanding family and medical leave to help parents meet the growing challenge of balancing work and family responsibilities.
We still have work to do as long as millions of Americans work full-time, fulfill their responsibilities, and continue to live in poverty. We will offer these Americans a ladder to the middle class. That means raising the minimum wage to $7.00, increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit and extending child credits so that parents who work full-time don’t have to raise their children in poverty.
We believe not just that a strong America begins at home, but that a strong America begins in the home. And just as government’s first responsibility is the health and safety of its people, parents’ first responsibility is the health and safety of their children. We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege.
We will strengthen Medicaid for our families and expand the children’s health program created under President Clinton so no child goes without medical care.
Because education in the earliest years of a child’s life is critical, we will expand and improve preschool and Head Start initiatives with the goal of offering these opportunities to all children. Because children need safe, loving, and disciplined homes in order to learn, we will work on a bipartisan basis to reform foster care.
“It’s a legitimate question. I believe you must reject Obama if you believe he will do nothing to stem the rate of abortion, and that abortion trumps all other social issues.”
I believe precisely, that, Jean, and plan to vote accordingly. In spite of everything.
Ditto.
Btw, I do see it as a sign of hope that Democrats have been winning some congressional races the last couple of years by finding pro-life candidates in conservative districts to co-opt Republican use of the pro-life mantle as a simple differentiator.
If onlyone issue is decisive:
-the Bishops wasted their time writing up Faithful cCtizenship
-the seamless garment approach need not be taken as useful
-Mike wasted his time on a few excellent posts
-folks don’t really want to discuss effectiveness in terms of politics-
Isn’t it really just a matter of asking how the Democrats plan to carry through on the idea of making abortion safe, legal, and rare? It’s not like demanding they rewrite the platform, and the safe and legal parts are already taken care of. Almost all Republicans favor exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, so even pro-life Republicans aren’t promising an absolute ban.
Jim, that is a good sign.
I have certain Easter feelings, just at the moment.
“-the Bishops wasted their time writing up Faithful cCtizenship”
Whether or not the bishops wasted their time is perhaps an open question – e.g. has anyone from your parish referred to it in a homily? – but be that as it may, I’ve read “Faithful Citizenship”, found it helpful and challenging, and am pleased that my decision is very much in line with it.
“-the seamless garment approach need not be taken as useful”
The seamless garment, as articulated by Cardinal Bernardin and enshrined in Evangelium Vitae, is extremely useful in providing a basis for assessing and acting on *all* life issues. Abortion isn’t an exception. Nor does the Seamless Garment provide cover to pro-choice Catholic politicians for setting aside the issue of abortion.
“-Mike wasted his time on a few excellent posts”
Au contraire, I avidly read Mike’s excellent posts about process, I love the idea of finding a way to dial down the acrimony. And, fwiw, I fully support Mike’s right to unapologetically vote for Democrats. Apparently, I weigh the issues differently than he does. Each voter must thoughtfully reach her/his own decisions.
“If onlyone issue is decisive”
It’s possible, plausible, necessary, and fully in line with Faithful Citizenship that some issues are more important than others. Sometimes, decisively so. Unfortunately, we live in such times, when there is such a decisive issue. I say “unfortunately” because I would like nothing more than to support Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton. I agree with them on so many things. I’m confident that either one could govern effectively. I’d like nothing better than to be able to base my vote on issues about which I care deeply, such as the Iraqi war, the state of the economy, immigration and human rights violations. Those are extremely important issues. What’s more, An African-American or a female president would be a tremendous sign to America and the world that we can be better, that wrongs can be righted.
Would that there wasn’t another evil in our midst so grave that it towers over all of these considerations.
Unfortunately, so long as Obama and Clinton continue to countenance the killing of 1 million voiceless and defenseless babies in the womb – more than countenance, wave it as a banner to rally voters to their candidacies – I can’t support them. 1 million is a staggering number of dead. It’s many times the number killed each year in the various combinations of violance and warfare that we collectively call “the Iraq war”.
Obama and Clinton each would be elected by covering themselves in the blood of 1 million dead human beings each year. That’s wrong. I can’t in good conscience vote for either one. In spite of everything else.
Jim,
Thanks.
Two questions, if you are willing.
1) is it the fact that Obama and Clinton are pro-choice that reflects badly on their character that is most decisive for you (countenencing) (e.g., no one with this stance is fit to be president) or is it the fact that they will in your view increase rather than decrease the number of abortions?
2) If it’s the latter, then how do you evaluate criticisms/worries about McCain, including the view that a McCain presidency won’t actually reduce abortions?
Cathy
Republicans have sent up trial balloons about constitutional amendments banning abortion, gay marriage, etc., but they’ve never done much more than keep those balloons up with hot air.
And the foreign policy of the past eight years has been so appallingly bad and resulted in the loss of so much innocent life that I think there’s plenty of blood for Republicans to swim in.
They’ve also done precious little to assist the poor, marginalized and born children.
As disillusioned as I feel with the American political system, the Democrats are still one up as far as I can see.
I think we need to get practical here. The abortion question is wrapped up in the repeal/non-repeal of Roe vs. Wade. There is entirely too much support for keeping it on the books for any politician to take a chance with her/his career and push for repeal. No member of the Senate or the House can really muster enough support to pass a law of repeal. To do so would be to invite the end of their political careers. In spite of the conservative weighting of the Supreme Court I doubt very seriously that this august group would rule in favor of repeal of RvW.
I also think that, even if SCOTUS would support repeal, there would be other legislative attempts until something similar would be passed, no matter how long it would take.
Abortion is viewed by a significant portion of US society as being an inherent aspect of the right to privacy. Martyr politicians are few and far between. Clinton, McCain nor Obama will commit political suicide in support of a repeal of RvW. Any other lesser actions/positions would, in the main, be window-dressing.
Abortions will diminish when and if women come to believe that having them is not in their best spiritual, economic or social interest. The churches have done a miserable job of proving point #1. Any religious attempt to really impose the anti-abortion portion that they have not made compelling by legal fiat is doomed to failure.
Speaking of the SCOTUS and WvR:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/22/were-republican-appointed-justices-who-favored-roe-in-1973-liberal/#more-2527
The final vote in favor of Roe was 7-2, with five Republican-appointed Justices and two Democratic-appointed Justices in step. Were all five Republican-appointed Justices really “liberals”? ….
….. there is no question that the notion that the 1973 Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Roe was “liberal” does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Blackmun and Burgher were conservatives in 1973 (the former defecting left in the 1980’s and 1990’s), and Stewart and Powell were moderates. Brennan is the only Republican-appointed Justice of the Roe Court who was truly a liberal.
No matter how one slices it, the Supreme Court in 1973 had three (Brennan, Marshall, Douglas), arguably four (Stewart), “liberal” justices. That is not a majority, and it certainly does not explain why and how seven Justices pulled in favor of Roe. Bottom line, conservative and moderate Justices joined with liberal Justices to rule in favor of Roe, and of the five Republican-appointed Justices among them, only one can truly be labeled a “liberal.”
Our diocesan paper, “People of God”, arrived at church yesterday, from which a few take it home.
It had a nice piece, encouraging folks to read Faithful Citizenship as their moral guide in this election year.
At several points in the article, it urged catholics to consider all the major points of catholic moral teaching and noted tha in the poliotical sphere, the notion of the “coomon good” should play a predominantrole in shaping how one procedes.
Bob,
Your diocese isn’t located in upstate New York, by any chance, is it?
No.
What’s up with upstate New York?
Another quick point,
Diocesan policy here (a letter sent to all parishes last year) was that it was verboten to advocate partisan politics and to focus on the values of Faithful Citizenship.
Bob, I was just trying to think of dioceses that would positively discourage one-issue voting–a very effective means of bringing pro-life democrats to the ballot, as noted above. The dioceses I could think of happen to be in upstate New York.
“Jim,
Thanks.
Two questions, if you are willing.
1) is it the fact that Obama and Clinton are pro-choice that reflects badly on their character that is most decisive for you (countenencing) (e.g., no one with this stance is fit to be president) or is it the fact that they will in your view increase rather than decrease the number of abortions?
2) If it’s the latter, then how do you evaluate criticisms/worries about McCain, including the view that a McCain presidency won’t actually reduce abortions?”
Hi, Cathy, please forgive the tardy reply – I was blessedly computer-free over the long holiday weekend.
Regarding 1) above: for me, it is policy, not character. I admire both Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s character very much. But as a matter of policy, both are committed to maintaining the pro-choice status quo.
Can’t presidents, through executive-branch agencies, have some impact on the number of abortions, e.g. by choosing to fund certain activities and withhold funds from other activities? To the extent that’s true (and I’m foggy on the details) then I would expect either Clinton or Obama to use whatever discretionary means are available to them to support abortion.
Regarding 2) above: if a George W. Bush presidency, including six years with a Republican Congress, can’t or won’t do anything to materially reduce the number of abortions, then I have no reason to suppose that a President McCain, with a Democratic Congress, will have more success.
But symbolic efforts, a la the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and Gonzalez v Carhart, count for something.
And judicial appointments still loom large in the minds of many pro-life activists and voters. Is that strategy well-thought-out, in your view?