Worth a Read: Chris Currie on Cooperation in the Prolife Movement
This comment by Chris Currie was pasted in the comments on my thread on cooperation below. I thought it deserved more prominence.
I’m not a “moderate” on the issue of abortion. (Despite my beliefs in the legitimacy of compromise in the pursuit of a long-term goal and in a consistent ethic of life that informs my positions on a number of other issues.) I fervently hope, pray and work for a day when abortion will be both rare and illegal.
However, I’ve had many opportunities (such as today) to engage with thoughtful individuals who do consider themselves “moderate” in their approach to this issue.
In my experience, a “pro-life moderate” means different things to different people. While I appreciate Matt’s point about needing to know the specific platform of pro-life moderates before the “absolutist” wing of the movement can consider joining them in common actions, it seems even from the discussion above that this is not definable.
Some moderates are such because they see aspects of the issue as gray areas; others because the issue doesn’t have the pre-eminent importance attached to it by more “extreme” pro-lifers; still others because of competing concerns that are sometimes hard to reconcile with pro-life advocacy that is often seen as part of a larger (or narrower) right-wing agenda.
Depending on what primarily motivates one as a pro-life moderate, one’s platform and even one’s tactics are likely to be different than even those of other moderates.
But, and this is really the point I want to make, I don’t think that really matters in terms of the efficacy of the pro-life movement(s).
When I was in my mid-20s, I was for one year the executive director of a state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. As a still-impressionable young adult, I was dealing on a daily basis with a wide spectrum of different people and organizations on both sides of the abortion struggle.
That experience taught me some permanent lessons:
1. People with different gifts, personality types, worldviews and life experiences tend to gravitate toward different kinds and levels of pro-life activity. Whole organizations and even entire wings of the movement attract disproportionately people with certain personal profiles (think citizen lobbyist, preacher, clinic blockader, legal-defense counsel, sidewalk pray-er, pregnancy counselor, etc.).
2. To be truly comprehensive — to address all of the needs of an effective pro-life movement — you *need* to have this diversity of roles, and even of opinions. I remember hearing the venerable Molly Kelly describe us as a “perfect movement” in the sense that, somewhat analogous to the Body of Christ, all of the parts are there that are necessary to accomplish the divine plan.
3. The movement’s greatest weakness is not the lack (or presence) of this or that strategy or belief or outreach or group, but the difficulty that the people associated with our movement have in working *with* and not *against* each other. The pro-choice groups also have a multiplicity of organizations and tactics, but I found that they almost never sniped at or undermined each other’s efforts like the pro-lifers did (and still do). Our intolerance of our diversity and sometimes active attempts to undermine each other’s efforts have limited our effectiveness more than anything else.
I came to perceive the great spiritual warfare being waged on the battlefield of abortion as not just between those who accepted and rejected the sanctity of unborn human life, but as between those of us in our own “Godly” pro-life movement. The battlefield, indeed, was within each of our own hearts.
Satan, I believe, strikes us where we are weakest and where he can most effectively accomplish his objectives in ourselves and in the wider human landscape. For those in the organized pro-choice movement, it obviously doesn’t serve his purpose to try to inflame their malice towards each other.
On the other hand, for those of us who find it easier to affirm the duty to protect the life of unborn child, he so often uses the most universal of human defects — pride — to turn our just and good principles to his own ends, resulting in the crippling of our efforts on behalf of God’s children. It’s a shameful spectacle the way we fight among our selves, sometimes saving our greatest venom for other pro-lifers (whether “moderates” or “extremists” or just not the right kind of either).
If not pride, then other peccadilloes undo us, too. (Have any of us shied away from expressing our pro-life convictions to a colleague or a pregnant woman in need because of concern about damage to our standing in that person’s — or group’s — eyes? I know I have.)
The flip side of that is that seldom in my life have I experienced the power of the Holy Spirit at work in women and men as when among those motivated by their pro-life convictions. To be among people who are sacrificing often so much without the possibility of any personal gain or benefit is truly inspiring. It is so transcendent of our natural proclivities that it is a witness to the truth and power of our Faith.
I often felt, when navigating between some of the warring factions in my little corner of the pro-life movement, if they could only see the love and holiness radiating from some, usually many, of the members in the opposing groups, that it would be possible for them to better discern their own spirits and focus more intensively in the tasks that they were called to do in their own part of the movement.
If we all realize it is less about us and our knowledge, our righteousness, our plan, and much more about God’s plan to use us to save His precious children (and to save us in so doing), then I think we will see the day that we are not only more united in spirit, but also much closer to the goal that we seek.
Thank you for this post, Chris. After reading your post and reflecting on it a bit – I stumbled upon Galatians 5:13-26 and found many parallels with your comments. Our pilgrim journey continues…
Let us Hope that there aren’t too many obstacles along the way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=WFU_iE9WasM&feature=PlayList&p=7DD8D0E052DBE103&index=3
That is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_iE9WasM&feature=PlayList&p=7DD8D0E052DBE103&index=3
What Chris and I are saying does not seem inconsistent. I am emphasizing substance and he is discussing process. Both are necessary (that is, if dialogue is sincerely sought between those who emphasize process and those who emphasize substance). In his examples the different groups he knew with different approaches had their own specific ideas and their preferred activities, and it was necessary not only to spend time with them but to get know the content of their views and approaches in order to see what and how much they had in common with others. Here the issue raised was whether there is common ground between pro-lifers and moderates. Of course “moderates” believe widely different things. But to explore common ground between any one of them, or any group of them, those ones need to specify their beliefs and positions vis a vis pro-life issues and activities. Do they believe in providing concrete help for women and in first passing the most general consensus legal measures? If so, they would do well to get to know the existing pro-life movement because it is doing that all the time. Do they express their moderation by endorsing power transfer to political leaders who expressly seek to fund the abortion industry itself, outlaw pro-life pregnancy centers and strike down all consensus pro-life laws? Getting to know someone includes getting to know where they stand. But if they just say they are interested in laws being clear, and in treating women with full respect, and in law’s pedogogical character and the like, that doesn’t tell us what we need to know for dialogue because both the existing pro-life movement and the existing pro-abortion agenda self-identify under those banners. And if such people who claim to be pro-life moderates predominantly display concrete actions and positions in support of the political powers that unequivocally wish to destroy the pro-life movement, it is fair to ask what common ground could possibly mean between pro-lifers and them, and why their broad ideas are applied in antagonism to existing pro-life activities that one would think embody those ideas, and what “moderate” could even mean in their case.
What i really was trying to say is I hope there won’t be many obstacles such as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_iE9WasM
Sorry. Last try.
http://www.wikio.com/video/795999
Cathy,
This note from Chris embodies some of what I find disturbing about the pro-life movement. He describes experiences that would lead me to question its foundations. He sees divisions and factions within that movement, but does not turn to St Paul’s insights on their source (Gal 5, as pointed out above by Tobit). Instead he proposes a scenario that justifies the movement despite contradicting St Paul. (not that such paradoxes never happen!)
He can ask “Have any of us shied away from expressing our pro-life convictions to a colleague or a pregnant woman in need because of concern about damage to our standing in that person’s — or group’s — eyes? I know I have.” but he jumps to the conclusion that his behavior was wrong. He does not think it might teach him something.
The majority of the people in this country are in favor of both life and choice. The appellations “pro-life” and “pro-choice” describe fringes that believe in one to the exclusion of the other. The attempts to polarize with terminology like “pro-abortion” or “totalitarian” would be laughable if they were not so tragic. They are signs of closing down, not hearing what God is speaking in the depths of their hearts.
I can understand why you admire this note. Chris expresses some of the struggle to discern his way. I hope that he will learn from our tradition, to hear what God is speaking to us so that he can respond to a pregnant woman with a love that supports her and her child rather than a dogmatic lecture. So he can struggle toward joy, peace, patience and kindness rather than accept what leads to factions and divisiveness.
Jim, I apologize for the unclarity of my hastily written remarks about the effects of spiritual warfare within the prolife movement. I didn’t mean to imply that the divisions and malice I observed in any way could conform with a justification for the movement.
Rather, I was trying to spotlight what indeed seems a paradox, that the Holy Spirit and the Adversary are at work within the same movement, within the same body of believers — indeed, within the same individuals. I think that is consistent with the content of Paul’s angry letter to the Galatians and with numerous other citations in the epistles.
That said, my personal experience was that in those whose works reflected sanctity I naturally saw the fruits of the Spirit as Paul enumerates them. Less so in those who fomented division and discord.
I should also say that I don’t believe that those whose calling is to the prophetic should necessarily be assumed to be in the thrall of false spirits. We are not all of us prophets, but we do well to listen to those whose message is prophetic and to discern whether their judgmental critiques are valid. I am not advocating the stifling of constructive criticism.
I want to thank Tobit for graciously including me on his pilgrim journey and Jim for reminding me that so much of that journey is still ahead. May we all continue to learn from our tradition that the dogma that protects our Faith also teaches us that of Faith, Hope and Love, the greatest of these — and the virtue that should always animate our dealings with the pregnant woman, a fellow pro-life worker, and a pro-choice acquaintance — is Love.
Chris, my apologies for writing so presumptuous a letter, I meant to ask Cathy a question, which I have since forgotten, and the letter got away from me.
I could tell that you are concerned about love and grace as well as life, and did not mean to imply otherwise. But the pro-life movement, like almost every religious movement, too easily gets caught up in some ideas and practices that implicitly deny its roots. (see the SSPX and anti-semitism discussions for an example). I wanted to call attention to some values I feel are often neglected — humility, scripture, love — but I did not mean that you were one who neglects them.
How we are to deal with the Child in the Sanctity of their Mother’s Womb and how we are to deal with a Woman struggling with an unwanted pregnancy, are two separate issues because we are dealing with two separate individuals.
“And the Greatest of these is Love” because it is Love that gives us new Life.
There is no relationship between anti-semitism and Pro-Life. Pro-Life opposes anti-semitism.
There is no relationship between anti-semitism and Pro-Life. Pro-Life opposes anti-semitism.
Nancy,
Given your fondness for capital letters, I am surprised you don’t follow Merriam-Webster and capitalize the S in anti-Semitism.
David, I am not exactly sure how the rule of capital letters should apply to such terms as anti-semitism or anti-catholic or even anti-abortion. (it doesn’t seem right to ever capitalize the word abortion) Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, I should have stated that in order to be Pro-Life, one must be Pro-Semitism not anti-semitism.
Worth a read?
Vatican condemns Obama abortion policy
Published: Sunday 25 January 2009 10:02 UTC
The Roman Catholic Church has condemned US President Barack Obama’s decision to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions. Mr Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush, rescinded the subsidies for these clinics.
Representatives for the Vatican said it was disappointing that reinstating these subsidies was one of the first policy decisions of the new president. The move was described as a harsh blow to those who are fighting against “the slaughter of the innocents”.
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6148684/Vatican-condemns-Obama-abortion-policy
This and the earlier thread are very interesting, but for many pro-life people calls for civility and cooperation are seen (justifiably in many cases) as code for, “Dummie up and quit making us more sophisticated types so uncomfortable.”
For example, Jim McK quoting Chris observes -
“He can ask “Have any of us shied away from expressing our pro-life convictions to a colleague or a pregnant woman in need because of concern about damage to our standing in that person’s — or group’s — eyes? I know I have.” but he jumps to the conclusion that his behavior was wrong. He does not think it might teach him something.”
Well, yes, because it is. I don’t think he is saying that people ought all times and in all circumstances express their pro-life convictions. Aside from being ineffective, it makes for poor conversation – “How ’bout those Steelers? Yeah, and evey one started as an embryo.”
The point is that even when perfectly appropriate to the circumstances, the prevailing social norm is fast becoming that any mention of anti-abortion sentiment is rude – uncivil if you will. Certainly we have an obligation to be kind and circumspect, but withholding or denying the truth only to avoid incurring the bad opinions of others is wrong. Neither is it loving, by any stretch. We don’t love our fellow man unless we desire the best for him.
Finally, even the dialogue on abortion is becoming – at least from a Catholic perspective – nonsensical. What exactly is the middle ground or a moderate position on abortion? I can understand it from the position of a person who does not accept the Church’s teaching, but from a Catholic perspective? Talking about the moderate position on abortion is like saying you are taking a middle ground on slavery. This doesn’t preclude an incremental approach to the issue, but a moderate position as the end state just doesn’t make sense.
Sean, it’s precisely that analogy I reject. But you may be right–maybe there’s no point in arguing about it–or trying to work together. Maybe the “middle” –whatever that is, has to go its own way.
I’m all for cooperation when talking about abortion. But I refuse to hide behind “seamless garment” language to rationalize supporting policies and candidates who are ardently pro-choice.
I think Cathy deserves mucho credit for trying.
I suspect, unfortunately, that she’s right – comments like “Adeodatus’s” abou t”seamless garment make me despair about cooperation and the middle must go its own way.
I would reference though, Fr.Kavangh’s “Abortion Absolutist” article in America of December 15.
I think it underscores what Cathy was trying to do.
Cathleen,
Your last comment was actually very helpful to me for seeing a potential for greater understanding of your position. You wrote, “it’s precisely that analogy [Popcak note: presumably you mean slavery?]I reject”
Could you please provide an analogy you would accept?
If I understand the argument here correctly, progressive Catholics tend to reject or at least become uncomfortable in the face of the following analogies such as “Abortion is murder” or “Taking a middle ground with abortion is akin to taking a middle ground with slavery.” What is an analogy that would exemplify the progressive attitude toward abortion? Because without an appropriate progressive analogy, the progressive postion is reduced to naysaying at best or haughty sniping at worst.
I’ll even start you out if you like.
Abortion is to the dignirty of the human person as…
God Bless,
Greg
Sean H., how does “sophistication” (as in “Dummie up and quit making us more sophisticated types so uncomfortable.”) enter into this discussion?
Is this one of those wearisome, and I believe false, dichotomies meant to show that the “elites” and “sophisticates” with advanced degrees and cocktail forks have become so good at splitting hairs that they just can’t see right from wrong as well as Joe Sixpack in front of his hockey game?
Doesn’t this kind of rhetoric work to divide the ranks more than it unites them?
Jean:
If you analyze this thread carefully, the most essentially divisive comment is Professor Kaveny’s last post, in which she says that the Catholic “middle” may “have to go its own way.”
That’s a very newsworthy notion from a multi-degreed member of the steering committee for the Catholic Common Ground Initiative, and it raises a thorny question that can in fact be fairly parsed in terms of the dichotomy Sean has noted.
Let’s say that a segment of Commonweal’s 20,000 circulation is emblematic of the Catholic “middle” that Professor Kaveny cannot readily define above. And let’s admit that some of these folks are really smart people. The pub, after all, does take pride in having “no soccer scores, no recipes, no crosswords.”
Where exactly in the Catholic world might this exasperated faction “go” when EWTN beams into approximately 146 million homes that do like puzzles and hockey and the straightforward teachings of the Magisterium?
“The point is that even when perfectly appropriate to the circumstances, the prevailing social norm is fast becoming that any mention of anti-abortion sentiment is rude – uncivil if you will.”
One anecdote that lends some support to Sean’s comment: Patricia Heaton, the actress who starred on “Everybody Loves Raymond,” was recently interviewed on TV about her career. During the course of the interview, she mentioned her membership in the pro-life organization “Feminists for Life.” She went on to tell the interviewer that it is “virtually impossible” (or words to that effect) to raise the topic of abortion in the Hollywood acting community, even in a non-confrontational manner in one-on-one conversations, without alarm bells going off in the listener. Heaton stated that she feels as if she’s violated a strong social taboo whenever she’s raised the topic. One woman’s perception, but perhaps many of us have experienced the same reaction to a greater or lesser degree, even in the company of family and friends.
“Fine words” wrote Gabriel Marcel “butter no parsnips”.
Perhaps I am seriously dense, but I do not recall such disagreements among the baby savers as Mr. Currie seems to have experienced. Perhaps it is that many have disagreed with, say, Prof. Kmiec, who says he is definitely a Pro-Lifer. Padraic Colum wrote of “The giddiness one experiences when the name given does not correspond to the thing seen”.
There is a possibility of agreement among [what the Germans call] the anti-baby groups, and the pro-baby groups: Begin with a discussion about deliberately sterilized copulation. In attempting to combat a disease, one usually begins with the cause of the disease. So we may begin with “where do babies come from?”. Is it possible to decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies by reducing the number of copulations?
At least Mrs. Pelosi was honest about the problem as she sees it [after the birth of her children]. Babies are expensive and a drain on the economy, especially among the poor.
Is it not an echo of Margaret Sanger:
“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children…We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
” But you may be right–maybe there’s no point in arguing about it–or trying to work together. Maybe the “middle” –whatever that is, has to go its own way.”
Cathleen, I don’t understand throwing in the towel. Why?
If I may, I’d like to quote something that Elaine wrote in the earlier thread you started on common ground:
“There are groups in our communities working to support the life decision, working to educate and so on.
“This, in fact, is what the prolife movement *is*, on the ground.
“Is there something in particular that is stopping those who seek a moderae pro-life position from engaging with the groups that are already active in your community?
“Most communities have crisis pregnancy centers now. These centers have many needs, from counselers, to fund-raising, to networking clients with community resources.
Most Catholic diocese and regions have Rachel’s Vineyard ministries, offering space for post-abortion healing.
“Most Catholic dioceses have educational efforts targeted at schools and parish programs, in which young people are educated on the sanctity of life.
“I do not understand what stops anyone, even if you oppose criminalization, from getting involved in any of these activities and supporting them. This is the pro-life movement. What would keep a moderate prolifer from being directly involved in these efforts, which are specifically anti-abortion, in addition to other efforts to strengthen the social safety net in our communities.”
I agree with Elaine. None of the pro-life people I work with are applying an ideological litmus test or demanding to know anyone’s voting record. These are laborers in the vineyard who need help. Why not help?
Craig: Do you really think the fact that Commonweal includes “no soccer scores, no recipes, no crosswords” suggests disdain for such things? People are always advancing their own definition of “Commonweal Catholic” in comments here, but this is the first time I’ve seen it suggested that Commonweal Catholics don’t do crosswords. I’m pretty sure a lot of our readers do crosswords; they just get them elsewhere, along with box scores and recipes and papal encyclicals.
Mollie:
I pulled the quote straight off your website and it will suggest values to the average reader:
About the Magazine
“CONTENT, RANGE: No soccer scores, no recipes, no crosswords. But lots of politics: e.g., the tobacco wars, welfare reform, budget-balancing, Israel & Palestine,” etc
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=8
All the best,
Craig
All the best. Really? I seriously doubt it.
Yes, Craig, I recognize the quotation. But… “values”? That’s silly. You’re quoting a description of what the magazine is like, written for those unfortunates who may never have seen it. I won’t poll my colleagues, but I personally am pro-crosswords and recipes, and neutral on soccer scores. Other things we don’t publish include celebrity profiles, comic strips, short, reader-contributed humorous anecdotes, excerpts from best-selling novels… For the record, those are all nice things too.
Sorry, everybody. Go back to strategizing!
I thought somewhere along there was at least some minimal agreement that language matters -and now we get the snarky Commonweal Catholic hazari from another who knows better.
So you wonder why people “roll their eyes” and I can cite some anecdotal stuff about that too.
I still think Cathy (and Fr.Kavamgh in America) are right about how to move forward while many keep talking past each other about I’m right and you’re wrong.
Good luck.
I’ve always thought Commonweal should have Sudoku and a bridge column.
Cathleen,
You may reject it, but I think the analogy is apt, and I think it doesn’t preclude discussing the issue in a civil way. Remember, I am saying this from a Catholic perspective. Both are intrinsically evil.
This, I believe, is exactly what I am concerned about. Calls for civility are often demands that when talking about abortion, you may not say it is evil because to do so implies people who support abortion on demand are evil. I don’t make that assertion, and I don’t mean to imply it. Some very good people hold some very bad ideas – it’s always been so.
I guess my point was that when we discuss compromise and cooperation the prerequisite is that people who hold to the Catholic teaching about abortion are obliged to leave that belief outside the discussion. That, to me, is not cooperation. It allows one position to set the ground rules for dialogue, which means there is no real dialogue.
This is easily seen in what is called cooperation. Cooperation on the abortion issue means supporting expanded health care, child welfare, and other social welfare support. OK – What about clearly abortion related policies – parental and spousal notification, waiting periods, limitations on second and third trimester abortions? Why are they never part of the common good or the middle ground even when an overwhelming majority of Americans support them? In other words, those who support abortion on demand will support things they are inclined to support anyway, will be joined by some pro-lifer’s and we’ll just call it common ground on abortion.
Don’t get me wrong. This is not condemning the efforts of these people as to the issues they support, but they should be addressed on their own merit – not as anti-abortion lite. First, there is no real evidence that such things actually reduce the numbers and rates of abortion – at least in the US. More importantly, by treating this as an essentially material problem we ignore that it is at heart a profoundly moral failing.
It is about how we treat life and the value of people – particularly children. Just Look at Nancy Pelosi’s comments this weekend. Contraception is good for the economy because we don’t have to pay for the offspring. We aren’t talking about humans with potential, that create, that have value – they are consumers, or worse, parasites. It is this profoundly selfish and materialistic view based in fear that is the root cause of abortion – not a lack of day care. When we ignore the moral dimension we do little to address the problem.
Jean – I didn’t mean to be snarky – if it seemed so I apologize.
Appalling, Jim. I’m afraid I’ll have to inform the editors of Brie Quarterly, who will doubtless cancel your subscription.
Craig, I don’t know how your response relates to my concern about distinguishing sophisticates from others in the pro-life arena.
Sean, thanks. The ladies who work at the two pro-life clinics I’m familiar with come from a variety of racial and socio-economic groups. They manage to set aside religious differences in favor of the cause.
Sean—
I agree with you that the analogy of slavery and abortion is apt, but good luck trying to reach common ground (i.e., truth) by discussing that analogy with someone who is pro-choice. In my experience, they’ll just ignore you because they see, upon a moment’s reflection, that it leads to an unbearable cognitive dissonance.
I’m not throwing in the towel, per se. I think on the ground cooperation is a very good idea.
But in terms of how to approach issues of law and policy, or what priorities should be, maybe there’s less overlap.
And life is short. You have to decide where you’re going to do the most good. Maybe the pragmatic “moderates” should get together on their own (if they can even figure out what they are and who they are), and come up with something constructive, rather than beating their heads against the wall defending themselves with the “movement” pro-life people. I posted Chris’s comment because I saw a spark there–a basis for conversation. But maybe the best thing is to start something new. I’m not talking theology. I’m talking strategy. It doesn’t have to be Catholic per se. It can be more inclusive, more pragmatic –Politically speaking, it has to be, if it has a shot at anything in this country.
I really like Kavanaugh’s article–and wrote him so.
Craig said
‘If you analyze this thread carefully, the MOST ESSENTIALLY DIVISIVE COMMENT is
Professor Kaveny’s last post, in which she says that the Catholic “middle” may “have to go its own way”
I don’t think Cathy is saying anything that in actuality hasn’t already happened in the Catholic population. Most vote and act according to their own conscience, i.e. practice birth control, believe homosexuals can at least be allowed partnerships with full benefits and not condemned. Most of the young believe in the right to choose. I don’t think her comment can equal the divisive remarks of some who believe we should go to hell. Now you can’t be anymore divisive than that
In fact, maybe we would be appreciated more if we were even more divisive and not support the church financially. Perhaps we should just give all our money to Catholic Charities stipulating that it can only be used for certain things. Just think the Vatican might even make overtures to us because it will want us to return to the church!
But, for me, I am tired and sick of the whole debate and don’t care anymore what pro-lifers have to say. They really don’t say anything. Some pontificate just to win an argument, or as above, with a “gotcha” statement such as Craig’s remark.
“I pulled the quote straight off your website and it will suggest values to the average reader”
That isn’t certainly going to change minds. These types of believers think they are going to save the world, not Christ. But to me our salvation history shows God, in order to save us, acting in ways that are unexpected. Who would have ever thought that an unwed mother would be the mother of our Savior? Or that the Savior would be a suffering servant? Certainly not the righteous of that age.
P.S. P.S Granted, Craig said, “this thread”, perhaps another gotcha moment on his part. 2 points for Craig
I just read this at CNS.
News Briefs
NEWS BRIEFS Jan-27-2009
By Catholic News Service
U.S.
Rumors aside, FOCA legislation no threat to Catholic health care
WASHINGTON (CNS) — Internet rumors to the contrary, no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act. As a matter of fact, the Freedom of Choice Act died with the 110th Congress and, a week after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, has not been reintroduced. But that hasn’t kept misleading e-mails from flying around the Internet, warning of the dire consequences if Obama signs FOCA into law and promoting a “FOCA novena” in the days leading up to Inauguration Day. The Catholic Health Association “is strongly committed to opposing FOCA and (the board) is unanimous that we would do all we could to oppose it,” said Bishop Robert N. Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., an elected member of the CHA board of trustees since June 2006. “But there is no plan to shut down any hospital if it passes,” he added in a Jan. 26 telephone interview. “There’s no sense of ominous danger threatening health care institutions.” Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is CHA president and CEO, was equally sure that FOCA poses no threat to Catholic hospitals or to the conscience rights of those who work there. “I don’t believe that FOCA will pass, although we will continue to monitor all proposed regulations for their potential to help people in this country and for any negative assault on the life issues,” she said.
Sean, I never said it was wrong to mention to a pregnant woman how evil abortion is. I said the interaction might teach one something if it were not boiled down into a simplistic rule. If right or wrong is not the issue, but love, then “our concern about our standing in another’s eyes” might have a different meaning. It may reflect a sensitivity to the person’s state, which is an indication of love.
It is not right to lay heavy burdens without helping to lift them, but that is what is happening when you offer the truth in a way that afflicts a person. It is still true, or right, or moral, but that does not guarantee that it is loving. That calls for an introspection that seems painfully absent in much of the pro-life rhetoric. I dare say that absence is the reason people are embarrassed to admit they are pro-life.
Sean –
To say that the word “moderate” is ambiguous is not to say that it is *meaningless*. On the contrary, the problem with it is that it has too many meanings to be practical in many circumstances. Still, I would say that in most discussions of the moral admissability of abortion that “moderate” means *at least* that a “moderate” is someone who thinks that the procedure is admissable in some circumstances but not all.
For instance, some “moderates” think that the medical procedure called “abortion” in the first four or five days is definitiely NOT the killing of an innocent person, so it is not “abortion” in the ethical sense. People who are convinced that this is so are not thereby approving abortion in any sense of “abortion”. Other people called “moderates” think that the fetus is not a person until several months into the gestation period, so that to kill a fetus before those months are up is also not “abortion” in the ethical sensel
Yes, “abortion” itself is a word with more than one meaning. We must be careful how we use it.
Craig —
Since when is a “straight-forward” statement necessarily a true on? Many bishop made the straight-forward statement that slavery was acceptable, and they were wrong, wrong, wrong.
I agree with Catehy that this is not an either-or proposition. At the very least, as you suggest, there are opportunities for cooperative efforts on the ground, as individuals and even within groups.
I’m not sure we should give up on achieving modest accords in the law and public-policy arena, either. A decade ago, when I was active in the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice of the Nation’s Capital, some pretty hard-core activists on both sides of the abortion issue were able to hammer out a few policy statements (this was Washington, of course), while chapters in other cities were doing some pretty radical things like cooperative sidewalk counseling venues at abortion clinics.
If people from Operation Rescue and abortion clinic operators were able to able to find enough common ground to work together peacefully for their respective goals, it seems to me that we who call ourselves Catholic should be able to walk at least as far together.
Based on the discussion above, I’ve teased out a few basic guidelines that could serve to enable and enhance collaboration on pro-life issues:
1. To quote, appropriately enough, Hippocrates: “At least, do no harm.” In our various engagements, especially in the public forum, let’s refrain from unconstructive attacks on each other that serve to alienate rather than persuade and to give scandal to those outside the Church and/or pro-life communities.
2. Let’s remember that there are very good people with different perspectives on these issues, and try to spend some more quality time with those ouside our own camps. Within the Catholic context, maybe we’ll realize that the vessel that we share at the altar unites us regardless of whether the other vessels we drink from are filled with Budweiser or a good Merlot.
3. Let’s identify our multiple, discrete objectives and structure our engagements with each other in ways most conducive to the attainment of each. Part of the difficulty in doing this is that sometimes we have more than one goal in mind and using tactics beneficial to the realization of one is harmful to another. For example, there are times during an encounter when we need to choose whether we are most interested in saving one person’s soul or saving another’s body — and then act appropriately with that goal in mind. We can have our political/theological/legal/etc. arguments in one set of fora, and help save those being led to slaughter in others.
I would also like very much to introduce some thoughts about a way to “start something new” with regard to political strategy, as suggested in Cathy’s last comment. These thoughts have been brewing in my mind for awhile now, but aside from discussing them with a few close friends, I’ve not had the opportunity to vet them with a wider group of thoughtful and knowledgeable associates.
I think this might be the right forum, but perhaps, if the thread is no longer being widely followed, not the right time. Maybe I can jump in on another thread later, since this concerns more than just the prolife issues …
Many thanks to Cathy for hosting this irenic exchange as well as the thread that precedied it. Lest it revert to fixed and contentious positions, let’s see if we can conclude on a hopeful note. I wonder if it isn’t possible to agree on a few points that might serve as a basis for dialogue. Any chance the following formulations might broadly resonate?
“Abortion conversations feel like minefields. I often don’t feel safe entering into them with people who take contrasting positions for fear of being misunderstood and judged. I resent having to walk on eggs and sometimes I feel pushed into take positions more categorical and less nuanced than I really hold.”
“The misunderstanding cuts both ways. I acknowledge that I sometimes slip into a disparaging tone and, as a result, tend to caricature those see the issues differently than I do. When I step back and reflect, I can see how a reasonable person might come to very different conclusions than my own. Language matters; I need to carefully reflect on mine and to cut others more slack.”
“Affirming our tradition’s judgment on abortion does not necessarily lead to one single political response. There are no easy answers in application of the law to abortion but there are middle positions between prohibition of virtually all abortions and legal sanctioning of virtually all abortions.”
“The consistent ethic of life approach, enunciated by Joseph Bernardin and others, deserves to be dusted off and reconsidered. The very fact that it is intensely resisted by many prolife *and* prochoice activists suggests that it may be a fruitful starting point for conversations among moderates.”
Reactions?
Thanks for this excellent effort to synthesize the discussion into a basis for dialogue, Mike. I think you hit the right points. In the interest of refining them, I offer a couple of comments:
1. While I agree with the conclusion of the first paragraph, I’m not sure it follows from its premises. In my experience, people more often “take positions more categorical and less nuanced” than they really hold when they are with members of their own camp, and are more often less rigid when in dialogue with people holding different views. (Although I acknowledge I’ve seen counter-examples that may be consistent with your premises.)
2. In the third paragraph, assent by all parties might be possible only if the term “middle positions” is understood by some in a teleological sense and others in a chronological one. For example, for one person, a “middle position” might be to affirm Roe v Wade’s countenance of early abortions but place greater restrictions on abortion after viability. For another, a “middle position” might mean opposing a state referendum to ban almost all abortions because there are not yet enough Supreme Court justices to uphold such a ban.
Mike, yes, this one resonates with me:
“Abortion conversations feel like minefields. I often don’t feel safe entering into them with people who take contrasting positions for fear of being misunderstood and judged. I resent having to walk on eggs and sometimes I feel pushed into take positions more categorical and less nuanced than I really hold.”
I’m happy to in some pro-life activities–I have helped out with the dresser program at the local parish, and when I’m at the second-hand store, I usually pick up maternity or baby clothes for one of the local clinics.
When I asked about doing more in the way of volunteering at the clinic, the director was very polite but clear about what I could not talk about at any time I was at the clinic. For instance, I could never say some abortions were ever justified, never tell anyone where the local abortion clinic was, never refer someone to an obstetrician not on the approved list.
I realized that I had some ambivalent feelings about those rules and what they said about the clinic’s modus operandi, and would not make a good volunteer.
While I continue to look for ways I can participate around the edges of the pro-life movement, I have not sought to make a bigger commitment. And that hesitancy has certainly been a factor in my ongoing reassessment of my identification as a Catholic.
In an earlier thread, had mentioned the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Here is an statement from a CUA and member of this group in terms of middle ground:
Link: http://blogs.cuatower.com/2009/01/27/reducing-abortion-is-at-the-moment-the-moral-position-for-the-pro-life-community-says-cua-professor/
A few final observations -
Ann – I said a “middle ground” or “moderate” position was meaningless from a Catholic perspective. All the things you point out may be moderate in a political sense, but they are certainly not in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As I said, I can accept incrementalism – getting closer to your position – as a practical political tactic – e.g. supporting limits on late term abortions is an acceptable political position for a Catholic to take, but supporting such limits as the resolution for the abortion issue is not.
Also, I don’t object to like minded people cooperating on any issue. My problem with groups like Common Good is the direct connection they make between thes postions and abortion.
First, there is little empirical evidence that such a connection even exists. Certainly poorer women are more likely to have abortions, but when you adjust for the fact that due to economic mobility over time women of child-bearing age are more likely to be less well off the difference isn’t that great. Moreover, if material and economic matters are a principal cause of abortion why did the explosion in the numbers and rate of abortion in the US correspond almost directly with the greatest growth in spending on social welfare?
Second, from a political accountability perspective I find the connection bothersome. My entire congressional delegation (Massachusetts) is pro-abortion on demand, and virtually all of them are Catholic. I can tell you from my experience – they don’t like answering questions on this issue. They already avoid and obfuscate whenever anyone confronts them on their position. They are bold in their proclamations in front of liberal and feminist groups, but when they are in town meetings and dealing with their ethnic, Catholic, and older voters they avoid abortion like the plague. I am saying this about everyone involved in Common Good and like movements, but I believe for many of these politicians it is simply a cynical attempt to to be able to diffuse this uncomfortable situation by supporting something they would have anyway. I, for one, want them to be uncomfortable because they should be.
Finally, and most importantly, it tends to ignore, or at least minimize the profound moral evil that abortion is. They want abortions to be “rare.” Why? It is a tragedy. Why? As soon as one says, because it violates God’s Law, or that it is the wrongful taking of human life – talk of the Common Good goes out the window. We hear a lot about “wanted and loved” children. But as Catholics, someone’s right to live shouldn’t be based on whether any person wants or loves him because God wants and loves him. This movement seems to me to be distorting the dialogue about abortion by removing the central reason that its is even an issue.
Correction – I meant to say
I am NOT saying this about everyone involved in Common Good
Sean–
Very well said. Unfortunately, I think your post highlights the divide that I fear will always separate those who try to approach common ground from the pro-life side, and those who try to approach it from the pro-choice side. The pro-choice sentiment that dare not speak its name seems to be “Well, of COURSE, abortion is the taking of innocent human life and is always wrong, we all know that, but society has sort of gotten use to that option so you can’t just take it away”.