A View from Abroad
April 8, 2009, 11:55 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
I was in England last week–so this editorial from The Tablet on the Notre Dame invitation to President Obama was quite interesting to me.
Respectful engagement — listening — is essential to dialogue, which, in turn, is essential to conflict resolution. Threats and arrogant moralizing from U.S. hierarchs in a pluralistic society cannot facilitate forward movement. Of course, tell *that* to folks like Burke et al.
It’s no longer “my way or the highway.” Maybe certain bishops will eventually get this message from the laity???
I have been a print subscriber to The Tablet for over 10 years. Editorials such as this one are what have kept me renewing the rather hefty subscription on an annual basis.
The Tablet editorial synopsizes what many of us here both think and have tried to say -and have been rebuffed by the one issue posters here.
I see where Kerry Kennedy’s speaking at Sacred Heart in Connecticut is being boycotted by Bishop Lori there.
This continued insistence on strictly following all the bishops want in fidelity to current teachings is hardly in step with huge numbers of their flock.
We’re bearing down on the first anniversary of bXVI’s visit to the US.
I happened to look back at Peter Steinfels’ column (April 26,2008), “Benedict and his lasting Impact.” which indicated a major issue of the aftermath was how the Church in the US would be handled and that Benedict had called on the Bishops to be “engaging and imaginative.”
Unfortunately, I think we’ve seen precious little of that and the continmuing foofaraws over Obama or political or other invitees to Catholic colleges shows how less than productive this year has been.
I mentioned in one of the other threads on this imbroglio that I was ambivalent. Still am.
From the Tablet piece:
“The second question is about how the Church should engage in public controversy. Does it make progress for its ideals and beliefs by symbolic boycotts and gestures of dissent, or does that merely confirm the views of the already convinced while closing the ears of those who are not? … But if abortion is ever to be restricted by law in America, or indeed any other democratic country, it will come about by means of the democratic process and not just because bishops demand it. That means winning the debate: it means producing better arguments, which in turn means giving due weight to contrary opinions and treating opponents with civility. ”
That is a lofty idea – that winning the debate will turn principles into laws and policies – but there is another, more realistic school of thought. Laws get made and policies enacted, not by having better ideas or better debaters, but by having more votes – at the polls, in legislative chambers, and (pertinently to the topic of abortion and other divisive social issues) on Supreme Courts.
If Catholics showed solidarity with the most defenseless by speaking, acting, voting and governing on their behalf, Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame wouldn’t be controversial, because abortion would be much more restricted in the United States than it is right now. Mexico City wouldn’t be overturned. Emrbyonic stem cell research wouldn’t be federally funded. Conscience rights for Catholic health care workers wouldn’t be jeopardized. And so on.
But Catholics don’t show solidarity. They vote along party lines, or for their pocketbooks, or (as was suggested last election) the way their grandfathers did.
A major Catholic university – one that is forming the next generation of Catholic leaders – has broken ranks with the bishops on the most important item on the Catholic social agenda. It’s understandable that they would be dismayed.
That’s not to say that it’s not important to win the debate. We should be able to debate and vote.
I posted my comment roughly the same time Bob posted his. It seems just barely possible that we have different views :-)
A major Catholic university – one that is forming the next generation of Catholic leaders – has broken ranks with the bishops on the most important item on the Catholic social agenda. It’s understandable that they would be dismayed.
But isn’t the problem, Jim, that it isn’t quite that simple? The folks at Notre Dame say they haven’t broken ranks — they don’t disagree with the Church (or the bishops) about abortion. They just don’t feel that the president’s abortion views and policies disqualify him from speaking to their graduating class. It’s certainly possible to question that judgement, but I think it’s too simplistic to say they’ve “broken ranks” in making that judgment.
But Catholics don’t show solidarity. They vote along party lines, or for their pocketbooks, or (as was suggested last election) the way their grandfathers did.
Jim,
Are you suggesting (in a thread initiated by Cathy Kaveny!) that every Catholic who voted for Obama voted selfishly or incorrectly? Should Catholics really be expected to vote as a bloc? Maybe many Catholics voted for what they thought was in the best interests of the country as a whole, and did not accept the argument that they should be one-issue voters.
A major Catholic university – one that is forming the next generation of Catholic leaders – has broken ranks with the bishops on the most important item on the Catholic social agenda. It’s understandable that they would be dismayed.
Although it might have been specifically about whether or not Catholics should be denied communion, I thought what Fr. Komonchak said in another thread is relevant here:
So even if abortion is “most important item on the Catholic social agenda,” it is not clear that there should be a monolitic Catholic position on how one should have voted in the last election, or what Notre Dame should do in this situation.
How about this: Does the Tablet editorial correctly identify the issues?
Joseph Jaglowicz wrote:
Respectful engagement — listening — is essential to dialogue, which, in turn, is essential to conflict resolution. Threats and arrogant moralizing from U.S. hierarchs in a pluralistic society cannot facilitate forward movement. Of course, tell *that* to folks like Burke et al.
It’s no longer “my way or the highway.” Maybe certain bishops will eventually get this message from the laity???
—–
Generally I’ve been in favor of Obama speaking at ND. However, I think the “bishops versus the people” above – not infrequently repeated in dotCommonweal – is simplistic if not wrong-headed. More often it is “the people versus the people.” As someone had perceptively pointed out in an earlier thread, the uproar over ND’s invitation was started by ordinary Catholics and bishops only got into it after.
I’d add too that as a true moderate that could see both sides, the debate over this issue has produced some of the most thoughtful posts (from both conservatives and liberals) that I’ve seen since reading dotCommonweal, thanks in part to new and newish posters to this site.
“But isn’t the problem, Jim, that it isn’t quite that simple? The folks at Notre Dame say they haven’t broken ranks — they don’t disagree with the Church (or the bishops) about abortion. They just don’t feel that the president’s abortion views and policies disqualify him from speaking to their graduating class. It’s certainly possible to question that judgement, but I think it’s too simplistic to say they’ve “broken ranks” in making that judgment.”
It seems to me that the bishops would like to see Catholics show a unified front on these life issues, and it was in that sense that I was responding to the Tablet’s editorial. I took Cardinal George’s curious phrase “extreme embarrassment to many, many Catholics” in that sense – that it’s embarrassing to us for the wider world to see that we’re not of one mind. Also, his comment that “it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation, and didn’t anticipate the kind of uproar that would be consequent to the decision” seems, to me, to be a call for greater solidarity.
The bishops seem to think that Catholics should be united around their shepherds. The bishops apparently thought they were teaching pretty clearly in “Catholics in Political Life” what universities should and shouldn’t do, and yet Notre Dame, in their estimation, acted contrary to those instructions. Either Notre Dame didn’t interpret it the same way, or decided to ignore it, or didn’t take it seriously, or were not aware of it. But whatever the reason, it seems pretty clear that the bishops believe that Notre Dame has broken ranks with them.
Peter Nixon raised another aspect of solidarity last week when he posted, “Let’s not kid ourselves. There is a reason that President Obama accepted this invitation and turned down the hundreds of others that he surely received. It has little to do with how wonderful Notre Dame is. It has a lot to do with the desire of the president to convey that at least some portion of the Catholic community is “okay” with him. I don’t blame him for this and it doesn’t particularly upset me. This is what politicians do. The question is how comfortable we are with this.”
I agree. Let’s not kid ourselves. Hardly a week goes by without President Obama saying or doing something that drives a separating wedge into Catholic voters.
I believe, passionately, that the church needs to be engaged with the world. An important aspect of that is that we need to be able to converse respectfully with those who advocate policies we detest. For that reason, I don’t think it’s the end of the world that the President is coming to Notre Dame, and as I’ve said before, I continue to hope that some good will come out of it. But another aspect of engagement with the world is that we need to work to change the world for the better. And in a democracy, that often translates into such mundane and grubby political activities as voting and lobbying. It even includes such distasteful community organizing activities as cajoling, threatening and picketing. For all the criticisms leveled at the bishops, my assumption is that we support the Catholic legislative agenda – on peace, health care, immigration, concern for the poor, and, yes, life issues. If we’re united, we have a better chance of seeing that agenda become policyl. Solidarity is a core Catholic social value. Notre Dame should not be exempt from it.
I also am very, very supportive of, and enthusiastic about, Obama speaking at Notre Dame, but I think this editorial–to get to Cathy’s point–get a couple things wrong…or at least incomplete.
For instance, the author is either unaware of, or attempts to paper-over, Obama’s radical pro-abortion rights record. It is about as bad as it could possibility be. In addition to the traditional NARAL-friendly positions, Obama supported partial birth abortion rights and rejected (more than once) the infant born alive protection act. Admittedly, this was not necessarily because he is comfortable with killing infants or near-infants, but apparently because he is such a staunch defender of Roe that he is willing to reject any measure that might chip-away at any part of its legitimacy. (Interestingly, his doing so is yet more evidence of the logical and perhaps legal connection between abortion and infanticide.)
This first problem leads to the second…the implication on the part of the author that it is just silly (the position is rare among Catholics in Europe, after all!) to consider Obama’s above position so morally reprehensible that that a person who holds it–regardless of other enlightened positions–should not be honored by a Roman Catholic University which takes its mission seriously. While I disagree with this view, I think it is a perfectly reasonable one to hold. (And perhaps the fact that it would not have a good press among European Catholics who, generally, are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence is actually a mark in its favor!) Nor does this mean a retreat from the arguments or the democratic process or from engaging one’s opponent…everyone I know who rejects his giving the address would support him coming to speak in another capacity. The issue is honoring someone who holds views that are morally reprehensible.
Finally, if abortion really is the wrongful killing of a human person, the issue certainly trumps–by a dramatic margin–the death penalty and even the Iraq war in terms of moral gravity. I am not of the opinion of some conservatives (and I am not a conservative) that killing a fetus is in a different ‘moral category’ than killing a supposed criminal or supposed military combatant. However, simply in considering the numbers of persons killed, abortion dwarfs the death penalty and the Iraq war by orders of magnitude. It is therefore an issue which has that much more moral gravity.
“But if abortion is ever to be restricted by law in America, or indeed any other democratic country, it will come about by means of the democratic process and not just because bishops demand it. That means winning the debate: it means producing better arguments, which in turn means giving due weight to contrary opinions and treating opponents with civility. In a country where separation of Church and State is almost a religion in itself, anything that looks like an ecclesiastical dictum is counter-productive.”
– and -
“It seriously damages the whole Catholic contribution to democratic politics to treat abortion not only as a black-and-white issue, with no shades of grey, but as the unique black-and-white issue that trumps all others.”
It seems to me that THE TABLET editorial did raise the proper questions that have not been sufficiently
dealt with by the vocal opponents to Obama’s speaking at ND. It seems to me Mario Cuomo raised the same concerns in regards to the issue. What is the best way to proceed legally and politically that has the best chance at success in improving the lives of women who feel they must choose abortion so that that option is less necessary in their eyes as well as providing support for the children not aborted. How do we reverse social policy and law that has existed for 35 yrs without damaging respect for law and criminalizing women or their doctors who many times feel backed into a corner.
To Charles Camosy: You write -”the author is either unaware of, or attempts to paper-over, Obama’s radical pro-abortion rights record. It is about as bad as it could possibility be. In addition to the traditional NARAL-friendly positions, Obama supported partial birth abortion rights and rejected (more than once) the infant born alive protection act. Admittedly, this was not necessarily because he is comfortable with killing infants or near-infants, but apparently because he is such a staunch defender of Roe that he is willing to reject any measure that might chip-away at any part of its legitimacy. (Interestingly, his doing so is yet more evidence of the logical and perhaps legal connection between abortion and infanticide.)”
Is this the truth of Obama’s record on this or more of a caricature of that record propagandized by those most militant right to life ( a real question, I’d like to see solid unbiased evidence of this)
To Cathleen Kaveny: You have written eloquently about how America treats law in a “sheriff in the old west” frame as opposed to law as teacher… Since many of us have beaten this issue to death and you
have been away from it. Would you grace use with your insight into this as a professor from ND as well
as a blogger here. How do you see the TABLET editorial in the context of this controversy as a whole?
Thanks
Tom Mattzzie weighs in.
http://www.catholics-united.org/?q=node/249
TK, you might find the following links helpful:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-keenan/why-naral-pro-choice-amer_b_101708.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/404kfgky.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html
“Hardly a week goes by without President Obama saying or doing something that drives a separating wedge into Catholic voters. ”
I think it is quite naive to think that Obama has that much power! These division exist with or without his presidency, statements, actions or presence.
Another elephant in the living room is the fact that Catholics are no better (and I’ld like to see reliable stats to the contrary) or worse than the rest of US society with it comes to the PRACTICE of abortion or the willingness to benefit from ESCR research.
Yeats remains correct: Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
I don’t believe the Catholic support for Obama reflected the traditional Catholic support for the Democratic party. Instead, this support stemmed from overwhelming frustration with a Bush White House and a Congress that gave the former president a blank cheque to violate human and constitutional rights, tarnish this country’s international reputation, stifle regulation, and drive this country into one humongous financial mess.
I also must disagree with the idea that Obama knows how to drive a wedge between Catholics. A few outspoken and (for lack of a better word) conservative hierarchs were able to galvanize a minority but vocal group of voters to vote against Obama. Obama was simply able to appeal to the majority of Catholics fed up with Republican policies the past eight years and desirious of seeking realistic approaches to solving difficult problems — such as abortion, for instance.
I am very leery of any idea that Catholics should all be of a single mind on difficult issues. The phenomenon of “group think” and related come to mind here. At risk of oversimplifying, I have enough of a challenge trusting God — much less trusting our bishops. With respect to abortion, we could all agree it is morally wrong (as I do), but how to resolve this issue? Therein’s the rub. Our God-given dignity gives us the right and obligation to “chew on” such issues. We may agree on the goal (no abortions), but I do not necessarily trust the “other” to have a better approach to resolution than the one stirring about in my head.
To Charles Camosy -
Thank you for providing the links. The Weekly Standard gives me the context I needed to understand your argument. Although I am still not sure one can infer from Obama’s position on the federal vs Illinois legislation anything other than that Obama wishes to maintain the status quo with regard to Roe. I think Keyes assertion that Obama supports infanticide is ludicrous and Keyes must be seen for what he is (as well as Michael Gerson; ie partisan). I am not trying to argue for Obama’s position vis a vis Roe which I do not believe is defensible from my standpoint of a Catholic man who tries to be faithful to church teaching but sees the political implementation of revisions to Roe not as simply as some seem too who hold higher ecclesiastical authority than me.
Today, during the 5 pm (EDT) CNN News, one of the clips that run at the bottom of the picture said that Newt Gingirch has charged the Obama administration with being “anti-religious.” Of course, as we all know, Mr. Gingrich would never, ever say anything just for political effect! Perhaps he’s just being as prophetic as some of our bishops such as Archbishops Chaput and Burke and assorted other bishops. Again, as Cathleen Kaveny has said in other contexts, we would all do well to beware of prophets whose prophesies cost them little.
We would all do well to listen carefully to the Church’s liturgy, especially during this week. It’s all about the redemption that all of us, including bishops, have been offered through absolutely no merits of our own. All that is asked of us in return is thanks and love.
It is surely no surprise that THE TABLET supports the Progressive Position on the Controversy. [The support of THE TABLET is about as interesting as, say, COMMONWEAL'S opinions might be about English or French or German politics].
On the face of it [that's prima facie], the awarding of an honorary degree is the granting of an honor. Is there a way to distinguish between the person – Mr. Obama – and the office?
Has anyone asked about the role of the Board of Trustees in this matter? It is they, after all, who make the final decisions for the school.
TK writes: “Is this the truth of Obama’s record on this or more of a caricature of that record propagandized by those most militant right to life ( a real question, I’d like to see solid unbiased evidence of this)”.
Unbiased? Try the record of the debates in the Illinois legislature. [Simple question: Why is it that the right to life people are to be described as "most militant"? Are their opponents to be described as compromisers? We are talking about little babies here, 35% of whom were black].
That Catholics may be no better [I would like to see some stats about this] than the general population on abortion and the failing but immensely profitable ESCR research merely indicates a lack of information – or perhaps a great attachment to pills and condoms.
To Charles Camosy – Please excuse this added post but I did want to say that Michael Gerson’s column on Obama and abortion is a reasonable one. But his appearances as of late (in the last month) both on ABC’s THIS WEEK and in the WASHINGTON POST are ones wherein Mr Gerson seems to want to provide immunity to the previous administration from all sorts of misjudgments and poor performance as opposed to providing an honest and educative critique of what the current administration is doing wrong. I may very well be wrong about Mr Gerson’s view but I do not find him persuasive.
“• Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[3]” FROM GUTTMACHER
see here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
and here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
re Catholics and abortion:
IN MARCH 2003, registered nurse Jill Stanek submitted a statement to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services committee in which she reported that infants who survived abortions at her Oak Lawn hospital were sometimes “taken to the Soiled Utility Room and left alone to die.” Stanek was lobbying the committee to approve the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which would have recognized any infant born alive after an abortion as a human being deserving legal protection. Barack Obama, then the committee chairman, defeated the bill with his fellow Democrats in a 6-4 party-line vote.
Charles and TK,
I have been over these issues many times. What the article in the Weekly Standard doesn’t say is that Jill Stanek’s allegations of the mistreatment of born-alive infants were investigated by the Illinois Department of Public Health and were not corroborated.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Obama blocked did not mandate any standard of care for infants born alive as the result of abortion or miscarriage. It merely declared them persons under the law. Presumably some other laws were supposed to come into play once they were declared persons, but nobody has ever named those laws. Obama stated at the time that if there was a problem with the way born-alive infants were being treated, they could compromise and address that specific issue, rather than pass a bill that redefined the word “person” in every existing Illinois law and regulation.
I think Obama made a mistake in resisting the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. I think he hurt himself unnecessarily, because neither the federal version nor the Illinois version actually does anything. That is why the federal version passed so easily. Of course, the pro-life forces are attempting to chip away at Roe v Wade in every way they can think of, which is their right. But for those who are strong supporters of Roe (such as Obama), of course they are going to resist chipping away at Roe!
It is very difficult to get a fair assessment of what Obama did and why without digging into the original documents and reading all sides. His positions are almost never reported accurately.
Thanks David
David, I was just putting that link up to show TK to show how he voted…not necessarily getting into the issues you raise. However, the best case scenario for Obama (and the WS denies this is the actual reason) is that he voted against the measure because it is likely that the prior law covered these cases…and because he felt it would be used to undermine Roe. That these cases actually happen is a matter of public record:
http://www.nursinglink.com/news/articles/7573-fla-doctor-investigated-in-badly-botched-abortion
Either way, Obama is an extremist on abortion rights.
I hope The Tablet doesn’t have any portraits of St. Thomas More in its offices. He took some hard line positions on single issues and caused undue embarrassment to those who wanted to constructively engage the culture.
From the Tablet editorial: But if abortion is ever to be restricted by law in America, or indeed any other democratic country, it will come about by means of the democratic process and not just because bishops demand it. That means winning the debate: it means producing better arguments, which in turn means giving due weight to contrary opinions and treating opponents with civility.
The editors of the Tablet seem either ill-informed or lacking any sense of irony. One difference between the legalization of abortion in the US and in Europe is that in the US it was decided judicially and not legislatively. While I don’t think a judicial process is, strictly-speaking, undemocratic, it is also not exactly a “democratic process” in the same sense that a legislative process is. If the bishops could be accused of short-circuiting public debate, it seems to me that the SCOTUS could be accused of the same thing — with the exception that SCOTUS has the power to make its views the law of the land.
It might bear repeating what Tom Mattzzie about the small number of bishops protesting and the loudness of the Cardinal Newman Society compared to their support.
And thanks Bernard for reminding us of this. “Again, as Cathleen Kaveny has said in other contexts, we would all do well to beware of prophets whose prophesies cost them little.”
When bishops were bishops.
From NCR
“From 1983 to 1993 the U.S. bishops were a leading voice challenging the conventional Cold War assumptions of most American politicians, defense officials and many others about nuclear deterrence and disarmament.
Sounding a lot like the Obama but decades ahead, the U.S. bishops’ pastoral letter, “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response,” called for nuclear disarmament. The pastoral changed the way U.S. presidents and other civil leaders began to talk about almost all issues of war and peace.
……Now, a quarter-century later, the U.S. Catholic bishops, with a few notable exceptions, are strangely absent from a new public debate over nuclear disarmament — even as leading U.S. policy figures and military analysts from the Cold War have begun to frame the question in ways that the 1983 class of bishops would have welcomed.”
http://ncronline.org/news/peace/us-bishops-strangely-absent-nuclear-debate
TK: thank you. The cites you provide have been helpful
The Guttmacher data comes from a report of abortions between 2000 & 2001. I don’t know if that is representative or anomalous, but it gives me a tentative answer to my question.
The Gallup information deals with attitudes toward, not necessarily incidinces of, abortion.
For those of you who seem to dislike The Tablet:
How many of you read/subscribe thereto and how many form your opinions from the likes of Fr. Z. TLM Society, etc.?
Bob Nunz
“Kerry Kennedy’s speaking at Sacred Heart in Connecticut is being boycotted by Bishop Lori there.”
This event is a dinner. The Great and the Good are no longer prepared to risk eating with publicans and sinners?
FWIW I think the Tablet is spot on.
I will try to respond–when I have something to say that hasn’t already been said. But for now, I’m dealing with death (okay, I exaggerate, an abscessed tooth) and taxes (okay, maybe I would save time if I organized honoraria stubs as I got them rather than at the end of the tax year).
But three things: First, I think Charlie raises a good issue. 1) How does one describe an extremist with respect to abortion? 2) Is Obama an abortion extremist? I don’t think he is –and I think David Nichol is largely right on the Born Alive Act–I read through the underlying documentation last fall, and it would take an entire graduate school seminar (2 hours) to sort through the stuff for a class.
Second, a broader question on the pedagogical function of the law in political contexts. In some ways, both the Born Alive Act (from the pro-life side) and FOCA (from the pro-choice side) are attempting to teach –but in ways resembling political propaganda more than a nuanced response to the problem at hand. You can read what I think about FOCA. The problem with the Born Alive Act, in my view, is that what was necessary wasn’t a declaration of personhood–infants born alive are persons–but a set of procedures to be followed in the case of late-term abortions to ensure that an infant born alive was taken care of properly. The Act doesn’t help much in that regard, IMO. So what prolifers and prochoicers should be able to agree on–taking proper care of infants born alive in an abortion got lost in the abortion propaganda battle. What happens to the role of law as a moral teacher when the teaching function of law gets submerged in political battles?
Third, Fritz (FC, that is) is also right. Abortion in the US is constitutionalized. So if you want to institute substantial legal protections, you need to undo Roe. But you can only undo Roe by changing the composition of the court –which the president does. Given the crisis in the country this year, this resulted in a democratic perfect storm. Abortion v. everything else.
Either way, Obama is an extremist on abortion rights.
Charles,
It seems to me an extremist would be someone who wanted to go farther than Roe v Wade. I wouldn’t call Obama an extremist. I would call him a strong supporter.
An extreme position against abortion rights would be wanting no abortions, ever, for any reason, not even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. The Catholic position is extreme.
“Again, as Cathleen Kaveny has said in other contexts, we would all do well to beware of prophets whose prophesies cost them little.”
Her statement has also stuck with me and I remembered it a few days ago when reading a text by my bishop, Bishop Tobin: “If the language in my article about President Obama’s funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. [...] As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions.”
I find Cathleen Kaveny’s suggestion to be a great gauge by which to evaluate statements from people who try to justify them by claiming they are being prophets.
But David…what would ‘beyond Roe’ look like? Infanticide? Roe, as currently interpreted, justifies even late-term abortions if the pregnancy affects psychological health. Moderate choicers acknowledge that Roe is bad law and should be changed or reinterpreted…but extremists like Obama are willing to go to the mat and take wildly unpopular positions so that nothing can chip away at it. (Also, given that the Catholic position allows indirect abortion to save the life of the mother, would you still characterize that position as extreme? I also think the distinction in Roman Catholicism between direct killing and refusal to sustain creates the conceptual space to go further…but that is a complex topic for another time.)
Thanks for picking up my point, Cathy. But however you interpret Obama’s decision to, multiple times, not support the Born Alive Act, he still comes across looking as an extremist…preferring to err on the side of refusing to touch Roe rather than make it as hard as possible that things like this do not happen:
http://www.nursinglink.com/news/articles/7573-fla-doctor-investigated-in-badly-botched-abortion
But even if you thought that this wasn’t conclusive, and I say this as a strong support of him on other issues and of his giving the address at Notre Dame, there is other evidence which puts him in the extremist camp:
1. His support of partial birth abortion rights.
2. His recent leaving open of cloning of embryos for research.
3. His campaign claim to sign FOCA as a first act of his presidency.
4. His claim that he wouldn’t want his children ‘punished with a child’ when talking about their own abortion rights.
5. His legislative rating with NARAL and NOW.
Some might point out that his wanting to reduce abortions takes him out of the extremist camp, but I cannot think of any national pro-choice candidate, at least offhand, who doesn’t use this rhetoric. Again, I think he has enlightened and admirable positions on many other issues…and for this reason I support his speaking at Notre Dame…but on this issues of sever moral gravity he is an extremist…and therefore I can understand why reasonable people would disagree with me.
So maybe this “extremist” concern is the nub of the issue. This is very helpful, Charlie, in advancing the ball.
I don’ read 1-4 in the same way that you do. I see all of these issues as captured by the pro-life pro-choice fight as it’s been configured for the past thirty years. I don’t think that I’m obliged to accept culture war framing in making my assessment of things. I think I’m entitled to look at the issues and make my my own judgment about their merits.
1. Partial birth abortion. Terrible procedure. But any late term abortion is a terrible procedure, whether or not performed in this way. I think the fight over partial birth abortion actually made things worse, because you pit the core concern of the pro-life movement (the baby’s life) against the core concern of the pro-choice movement (the mother’s health–and who gets to determine it). Again, I think the law was meant to make a pedagogical point rather than actually to save lives. It is easily gotten around.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1926
I would have liked to see, myself, a ban on late term abortions that included a health exception WITH TEETH. It would have actually done something.
2. Cloning. I think this is not an issue that you can call someone an extremist on. I think the underlying key question, the status of the very early embryo is a hard question. I don’t think Paul Ramsey et al were unreasonable or extermists. Both Presidential bioethics commissions were split on this issue:
http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social-assistance-lifestyle/religion-spirituality/1276944-1.html
I think there are many reasons, incidentally, to oppose creation of embryos for research purposes other than the status of the very early embryo–Dan Callahan has addressed some of them. I oppose it. But they’re not the main Catholic line of argument.
3. FOCA–God, I wish he hadn’t said that! But FOCA hasn’t been introduced, much less signed. And if you watch the clip, it seems to me that he’s working with an understanding of FOCA that’s more toward protecting Roe than vastly expanding rights–the young woman who asked the question was asking whether Roe would be overturned.
4. The “punished with a child” comment was, as I read it, about access to contraception–not abortion. Again, not acceptable under traditional Catholic teaching, but not a grounds for calling someone extreme.
5. Legislative rating–he is strongly pro choice. Yes. I guess the difference is that I believe his rhetoric. I do think he means to reduce abortion.
So, I see him as pro-choice, strongly pro-choice, but not as an abortion extremist.
But David…what would ‘beyond Roe’ look like? Infanticide? Roe, as currently interpreted, justifies even late-term abortions if the pregnancy affects psychological health.
One might take a look at Canada (that evil country to our north) where abortion is entirely unregulated. Abortion is legal, with no restrictions, from conception to moments before birth. Canada has a lower abortion rate than the United States.
Obama has made it clear that he believes late-term abortions should be limited to those for saving the life and health of the mother, with psychological health strictly interpreted. His position is interpreted here by Jan Crawford Greenberg:
I would be interested in knowing what empirical evidence there is that current health exceptions don’t have teeth. The latest Guttmacher data (2008; published last month) state that 1.1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks. I am assuming that the distribution of that 1.1% declines significantly for every successive week between 22-24, and then precipitously (when most states require not just restrictions but actual reporting of abortions, so those occurring after that point can be investigated), meaning that some incredibly small percentage of abortions take place after viability.
Even if you outlawed most other abortions you would still be left with these “life and health” situations. If the current laws have teeth, as I believe they do, literally nothing would change by focusing attention and efforts in this direction.
Charles,
Cathy has addressed your points, but I can’t resist putting in my own two cents on a few of them.
Banning partial-birth abortions does not save unborn babies. The Supreme Court noted in its opinion that if a late-term abortion is to be performed, there are alternative procedures.
Obama didn’t say he would sign FOCA as the first act of his presidency. He was asked what he would go about abortion rights, and he said, “The first thing I would do is sign FOCA.” He wasn’t making it his top priority.
The “punished by a baby” remark was in a discussion of whether or not young people should be taught to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. He was arguing in favor of prevention. He wasn’t saying, “If one of my daughters gets pregnant, we will make sure she has an abortion so she is not punished with a baby.” It makes a huge difference.
I tried to suggest that the Bishop’s hopes that folks should stand with them is belied by their continued failure to imaginatively and engagingly dialogue with the world and their own followers.
The head of USCCB was called on by some of his own local followers to resign over the handling of sex abuse and blithely looked the other way.
Just saying the bishop is the shepherd and we ovines should follow doesn’t work any more.
We’ve had all the abortion and FOCA arguments here before, but the issues remain.
Those Bishops marking out the president as an enemy are only being seen for the partisans they are.
I continue to think the prhrase strategically inept is apt in describing their handling of this mater and that both the Tablet and the Commonweal Editorial were right.
“Her statement has also stuck with me and I remembered it a few days ago when reading a text by my bishop, Bishop Tobin: “If the language in my article about President Obama’s funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. […] As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions.”
“I find Cathleen Kaveny’s suggestion to be a great gauge by which to evaluate statements from people who try to justify them by claiming they are being prophets.”
Hi, Claire,
Through our baptism, all of us are made prophets (as well as priests and kings). It’s not just an empty title – an honorary degree – but a real responsibility.
FWIW, I would characterize a prophet as one who:
* Speaks the truth
* Speaks under God’s authority/command
* Does not shy away from speaking that truth to power
* Calls those who hear her words to repentance and conversion
By those criteria, the church itself is charged with being a prophetic witness. Bishops, as the primary teachers of the church, surely have a prophetic responsibility.
I really think that the bishops are discerning that the ground is shifting beneath them. At some point in the last few years, some sort of subterranean social critical mass has been reached, and the tectonic plates have bumped and lurched in such a way that all sorts of things are now up for grabs that previously were stable. The pro-life movement suddenly is stymied and on the defensive; embryonic stem cell research is expanding; marriage is in a shambles; etc.
It could be that we’re entering an era of being in the desert. The prophetic statements may start flying.
Barbara, good point about the need for evidence.
Jim, what’s interesting is that your notion of prophecy is actually something more at home in the American Protestant tradition than the Catholic tradition. The Jeremiad. In my Santa Clara lecture, I tried to come up with criteria for the right use of prophetic indictment. One of the reasons that it’s hard for Catholics to use it, in my view, is that it is tied (in the American context) to a Puritan way of viewing the world.
http://www.scu.edu/ignatiancenter/events/lectures/upload/w-09_Kaveny_Lecture.pdf
Whatever the statistics are for late-term abortions and why they are performed, there were a lot of complaints from pro-choice advocates about Obama’s remarks. Jan Crawford Greenberg herself seems to be stunned. In any case, whatever is actually happening, many critics of Obama say he is for “unlimited abortions” or that he wants “no restrictions,” or whatever, and they are distorting the truth. An extremist, in my opinion, would be someone who was in favor of abortion for any reason (including sex selection) at any time, right up to the end of the third trimester. Obama is not an abortion extremist.
Regarding Charles’s point about indirect “abortion” to save the life of the mother, I don’t think that lets the Church off the hook regarding having an extreme position on abortion. And I believe the laws pushed by Church officials in Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador do not make the exceptions for ectopic pregnancies that are allowed in Catholic thought.
” “Hardly a week goes by without President Obama saying or doing something that drives a separating wedge into Catholic voters. ”
I think it is quite naive to think that Obama has that much power! These division exist with or without his presidency, statements, actions or presence.”
Sure. But his team capitalizes on it for its own purposes. And the bishops, in doing what they are supposed to do – teach the faith, heal divisions, and keep the flock together and safe – may find themselves crossing or obstructing the Obama administration.
“Should Catholics really be expected to vote as a bloc?”
Sure, why not?
In determining whether or not Obama is a pro-abortion-rights extremist I think we would do well to avoid considerations outside the bounds of this question. So, though I’m happy to take many of you up on the tributaries of this main point, in the interests of focusing the discussion I’m going to ignore them in this post. (Though, in addition to the Tablet missing his being an extremist, it misses the gravity of the moral issue of abortion in relation to other issues.)
1. Obama did not reject the ban on partial birth abortion because it wouldn’t save babies’ lives or because it didn’t have teeth. He rejected it because he thought it was not consistent with Roe. And I’m not sure it can be directly compared to any type of late term procedure…because, in part, of its symbolic value. It shows that abortion is comparable to infanticide…as the now infamous senate debate showed:
http://shinbone.home.att.net/congtran.1.htm
The bottom line here is that there are many moderate pro-abortion-rights politicians who reject partial birth abortion. Obama does not…and this is one feather in his extremist camp.
2. Plenty of moderates on embryonic stem cell research would ban cloning of any kind. Obama, cleverly, noted that he wanted to ban cloning for reproduction (incidentally, where were the calls for his being ‘anti-science’ on this one?)…but left the door open for cloning embryos to destroy them. Another feather.
3. I have one of the worst memories in the world…so I don’t remember the context with regard to his comments about FOCA. But, here it is:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/one_year_annive.html
He was asked what he was do at the federal level to ensure access to abortion. His answer was, without hesitation or nuance, “The first thing I’d do is sign the freedom of choice act.” Another big feather.
4. Thanks for the corrections on the context for his ‘punished with a child’ comment. I guess it doesn’t have to do with abortion per se…but rather an underlying attitude toward how to view the value of a child.
5. His legislative rating makes his a pro-abortion rights hero. But to those that see abortion as the holocaust of our time it makes him an extremist.
Finally, David’s point about Canada is a good one…Obama could be more extremist than he is…but Canada is off the deep end when it comes to abortion. That he doesn’t support the law of the most extreme country in the world on abortion does not exclude him from the extremist camps himself…especially in an American/European context.
Charles, other than claiming rhetorical high ground, why is it important to characterize Obama’s views as “extreme” rather than simply listing them out and describing them?
Why is extremist inevitably considered a pejorative term? I wish there were more extremists in opposition to torture. Does that inevitably make me immoral, because I hold a view that is extreme? The RCC’s doctrinal approach to abortion is extreme in relation to most other religious denominations. Does extremism make that view suspect or immoral? (Well, of course not — that’s the problem, however, with using “extreme” like a slur rather than a relational adjective–it loses meaning).
Barbara…good point. In an otherwise contextless discussion, Obama’s being an extremist on this issue tells us virtually nothing of moral interest. However, I take the point here to be about rationality of the position (with which, again, I disagree) that Obama should not be honored by a Roman Catholic university. It is not only that Obama has the wrong position on a issue of the most serious moral gravity…its that he has an extremist position on it. That, for some, makes his position on abortion so morally reprehensible that he should not be honored at all. And I understand and have sympathy for this way of thinking.
Charlie,
1. It matters a lot whether a law that is passed by Congress or a state is inconsistent with Roe. It won’t be valid law if it’s not consistent with Roe. So, to pass a law that is inconsistent with Roe won’t chip away at Roe, it will be enjoined and declared unconstitutional. I don’t know what the transcript you’re linking to is supposed to do. It doesn’t as far as I can see, have anything to do with Obama.
I think there are plenty of good reasons for a pro-life lawyer to have qualms about the Partial Birth Abortion Act. I expressed them in my column. I think a pro-choice person, not necessarily an extreme pro-choice person, could easily be worried about the law whose symbolic value lies not only in protecting the humanity of the unborn but in doing so WITHOUT a health exception. So it was designed to be a political defeat of the pro-choice movement’s core concern.
2. The question isn’t whether a moderate could vote to ban stem cell cloning–it’s whether it’s necessary to ban cloning to be a moderate. The majority of the American people, who support stem cell research, are extreme by our standard.
3. He’s pro-choice. I do not think he was endorsing the extremist reading of FOCA that the NRLC has endorsed–and I have argued that it is not the most plausible reading of the law.
4. I don’t think it’s at all out of line for a parent to be very worried about the prospect of a thirteen or fourteen year old girl bearing a child –and the great difficulties that girl will suffer, maybe for giving in to peer pressure in a moment of weakness.
5. I really think the analogies to Holocaust and to chattel slavery are note helpful. A woman cannot sell her unborn child. She cannot work it to death. She cannot mutilate it. Indeed, the slavery analogy has been used on the other side by pro-choice activists, who say that compelling a woman to carry a baby to term–to suffer pain and put her body to work on behalf of the fetus is a type of slavery.
Point of fact, Charlie: Didn’t Obama say that he would have voted for the partial-birth abortion ban if it had included an exception for the health of the mother? This is what he told Fox News: “On an issue like partial-birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.”
And in fact he has not pushed FOCA (which has not been re-introduced) as his first, or even one of his first, acts as president. Why doesn’t that impinge on your view of him as an “extremist”?
Your fifth point is not really responsive. So what if members of the prolife movement view anyone who supports abortion rights as no better than a Nazi?
Barbara, as my extensive response to Charile shows, I think there’s something here–accounting for the differences among Catholics. I don’t view Obama as an extremist, and it does matter to me.
Here’s my example of an extremist view: “When stripped of its sensitive moral connotations, abortion and childbirth are simply two alternative ways of ending a pregnancy.” (Justice Brennan–but not an exact quote). You can’t strip the moral connotations away.
Another example would be the “abortion is blessing argument” Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/viamedia/2009/03/abortion-is-a-blessing.html
I just don’t think Obama is there.
There have been a few news stories over the past week that the Obama Administration has quietly offered three names to the Vatican as potential ambassadors to the Holy See, and that the Vatican, just as quietly, has rejected all three because of what the Vatican perceives as their pro-choice positions on abortion.
I don’t know if the stories are true (or the rumor that Caroline Kennedy may be offered the ambassadorship), but if the stories are true (and I hope they are not), then they are unsettling to me. They don’t support the argument that the President is extreme on abortion, but they would support an argument that the President, and by extension his Administration, is either blind to Vatican concerns or insensitive and indifferent to them.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_vatican_picks/2009/04/02/199160.html
Cathy,
1. Do you think Obama had jurisprudence in mind when rejecting the partial birth abortion ban…or more ideology about wanting to protect Roe? The transcript as part of my response to your point which tried to compare PBA to any other kind of late term abortion…I wanted to show that his support of it is in a different category because of its proximity to infanticide. And the facts are that the majority of pro-abortion-rights politicians do not support partial birth abortion…that Obama does doesn’t make him an extremist all by itself…but it is a feather.
2. Again, it isn’t necessary to ban cloning to be a moderate, but that he doesn’t appear to want to ban it does put another piece of the puzzle together.
3. Obama is a smart guy…presumably he knew, at the very least, how FOCA was going to be viewed by some if he said what he said. And he said it without the hesitation or nuance that he typically has on other issues.
4. Whether or not such analogies are helpful really isn’t the issue I was raising though, right? I’m sorry for even putting the word in there as a distraction. The point is that his being a legislative hero to NARAL makes him an extremist to think that NARAL stands for the destruction of the most helpless members of our community.
My last post on this -as the thread like all the rest here touching on abortion can go on and on.
1)I think the notion that Catholics vote the way they do because of economics or what they’re used to is simplistic _ I think many many catholics found Obama to be very close to their values and the values the Church should in general be proclaiming (say, instead of coming across as only trumpeting anti-abortion and gay marriage.)
2)To picture Obama as “extremist” only will make lots of folks see themselves portrayed that way, when they see the hierarchy(or at leas tsome of them) as (one issue) extremist.
3)To think that we should all fall in behind the shepherd as a bloc is delusional based on the wide swath of views in the Church and mythological based on how much our Bishops have brought to the table.
Ity’s over five years now since Peter Steinfels published “A People Adrift.” The issues he raised then are still extant, and probably to a greater today, in the American Church.
The sex abuse scandal goes on. A synod which might have helped with some major pastoral problems produced nothing of use in moving forward.
I continue to ask where’s the “imagination” and “engagement” BXVI called for here?
4)Merely using tactics of power and control to say this is what we want is not going to get folk to fall in line. Careful explanation and listening(yes, listening) is a way forward, not demonizing those who don’y agree with you.
Oops. I screwed up the number in my haste to get back to grading…which is not going as I planned! Consider 4 above to be five and this to be four:
4. I think there are ways to frame concern for a child being pregnant that don’t call into question the value of the baby…and that’s what Obama, the master rhetorician, did when he described it as being ‘punished with a child.’
Hey Grant. Well, we could get into the debate about the supposed need for a health provision and if this is really just a red herring for partial birth abortion on demand….but I don’t think we have to. Again, the evidence is clear: many moderates on abortion-rights reject Obama’s position on PBA.
Well, I don’t know what has happened since he said he would make FOCA a priority. One possibility is the outcry over it made both him and others realize it was bad politics and he subsequently backed away from it. I don’t know. But that in a comfortable environment he so easily said such a thing is telling, isn’t it? I mean, I suppose the argument could be that he was telling Planned Parenthood what they wanted to hear and wanted an applause line…but I think that doesn’t fit the larger Obama narrative.
Agree with your last comment. Bad choice on my part.
I for one appreciate the very interesting and very civil exchange Professors Kaveny and Camosy have been having on this thread, and I wonder, and I ask this rhetorically so as not to put them on the spot, what would the President have to do for Professor Kaveny to conclude that he has an extreme position on abortion and for Professor Camosy to conclude that the President does not have an extreme view? Honestly, I’m not trying to bait anyone with this question.
1. I do. He’s a con law professor. All late term abortions are dealing with babies who are very close to being born–and therefore they are close to being infanticide. They are a gruesome form of bringing about death. I don’t think method is decisive. But even very conservative Catholic moral theologians (Germain Grisez) have justified crainiotomy in cases where the life of the mother is at stake. The method is even more gruesome. There is an interesting account in DAmon Linker’s The Theocons about strategy on these issues–pro-life and pro-choice strategy.
I have found it helpful to go back to the sources–not to rely on activists on either side for my account of what’s going on.
2. The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the symbolic function of law is trumping everything, for activists on both sides. At this point, you can do as you damn well please==short of implantation–with private money. Under Bush, you could do very little with public money. Under Clinton, a comprehensive set of regs was proposed that would govern both the private and public sector. It would allow, but strictly regulate research on early embryos. Whether or not you agreed with the substance, it at least made sense that the ethical rules shouldn’t depend on the funding source.
3. I think FOCA was a political strategy on both sides. It’s been hanging around for over twenty years now without going anywhere in some form or other. The right to life people really activitated it. I don’t think FOCA is a univocal thing==I don’t think, as a matter of legal analysis, that the worst case scenarios proposed as CERTAINLY going to follow by the bishops at al was sound. I also think, incidentally, that this certainty about meaning shows that they were pretty confident it WOULDN’T pass. If it passed, the next step would be to “read it down” so to speak–and they gave away all their arguments for this.
4. I agree that being loved by NARAL is very worrisome. But I want to move beyond the political operatives and actually see what is at stake. Also, the abortion rights people are NOT totally happy with the reservations he expresses about abortion.
Jim,
How do you distinguish between a prophet according to your criteria and the following?
Someone who
* Is under the delusion that he speaks the truth
* Is under the delusion that he speaks under God’s authority/command
* Does not shy away from speaking that “truth” to power
* Calls those who hear her words to repentance and conversion
Because of that, I do not that those criteria helpful. But that is tangential to the discussion in this thread, so is probably not worth pursuing here.
1. OK, I need to defer to you in some ways here because I’m quite sure I don’t understand all the legal issues at stake. However, I do think his support of PBA needs to be taken in the context of all the other issues: Infant Born Alive Act, Cloning, FOCA, ‘punished with a child,’ and NARAL’s rating.
2. You get into the issues surrounding regulation of ESCR, but I’d like to stick to the point I’m trying to make: that Obama’s refusal to condemn cloning for purposes of research puts him at odds with moderates. It is something that adds to the picture.
3. You’ve been a rock-star interpreter of FOCA and really helped me see what is going on legally, but all I’m trying to point out here is that Obama’s aggressive and nuanceless support of it in that youtube clip fits the larger narrative of him being an extremist.
5. I want to see what is really at stake as well, but our discussion is about the reasonableness of the position of those who don’t want to see Obama honored at Notre Dame. And the fact that NARAL rated Obama perfectly (I think…or has my memory failed me again?)–perhaps before his move to the middle–is evidence of abortion extremism that certainly plays into the calculations of those who don’t wish to see him so honored.
William….I guess I’d like to have found 3 or 4 votes in his past which made NARAL upset. Does that help? I think I’d also like him to get into the nitty-gritty aspects of this debate…rather than giving ‘above my pay-grade’ non-answers. He’s so nuanced on other issues…war, economy, health care, etc…and that’s one reason I find him so compelling. Unfortunately, this is why I also find his extremism on abortion so disturbing.
I got home from England and am trying to figure out what’s going on at ND. Where is the root of the disagreement? What’s the key problem?
Why I liked the Tablet article was that it identified two issues that the divisions turn upon. But I think you’re right that there is another issue. I think, and what I’ve been trying to explore the issue with you, is that whether or not one sees Obama as an “extremist” or someone one can work with is a key issue in the debate about ND.
ND has argued for engagement. But you can’t engage with, or cooperate with, extremists. So if you think Obama is an abortion extremist, you’re not likely to want to build a good relationship with him. If you think he’s pro=choice, but not an extremist, you’re more likely to believe you can find common ground. Now it’s not impossible for someone to think he is an extremist on abortion but still support the invitation (you do) but I think it’s a distinct factor.
So is Obama an extremist? I don’t think so–but I think the culture warriors on both sides try to slot everyone in as an extremist. So that’s why I’m very suspicious of stuff produced by them.
But you configure the narrative differently, and reach a different conclusion.
At any rate, this helps me figure out what is going on under the Golden Dome–so thanks for that!
You sound like you want to leave the discussion…but let me say this. I suppose this comes from using a vague word like ‘extremist’…but I don’t mean to imply irrationality. I think Obama has rational reasons for believing as he does…and therefore I think he can be engaged. Which is why I support his giving the address.
I have to teach this afternoon–and need to finish preparing.
My topic: complicity with evil!
Someone wrote:
“An extreme position against abortion rights would be wanting no abortions, ever, for any reason, not even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. The Catholic position is extreme”.
Indeed the Catholic position is extreme in the defense of the life of the child. The teaching is that we are but co-creators. It is God Who creates the soul. To kill the body in which that soul resides is a smack in the face of God.
“Rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother” are red herrings. The first two are extremely rare. But how do the circumstances of their creation affect the the children. Are they to be killed for it?
The third is of the nature of “suppose that”. How often does a pregnancy attack the life / health of the mother? As Chesterton remarked, “first let’s have all the babies. Then we can decide which to kill”.
Far more interesting in a Catholic journal would be a discussion of Mrs. Pelosi’s remarks about not coddling the poor. Or Mrs. Clinton’s praise of the racist eugenics of Margaret Sanger.
Has anyone ever attended a debate at a commencement exercise?
“How do you distinguish between a prophet according to your criteria and the following?
“Someone who
* Is under the delusion that he speaks the truth
* Is under the delusion that he speaks under God’s authority/command”
Yep, it’s tricky, isn’t it?
But the difficulty doesn’t negate what our baptism called us to.
“Rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother” are red herrings. The first two are extremely rare. But how do the circumstances of their creation affect the the children. Are they to be killed for it?
Gabriel,
Extremely rare? One percent of abortions are for the reasons of rape and incest. That’s 13,000 a year in the United States. Approximately 630,000 women are raped each year in the United States. If it were not for emergency contraception (which you and the Catholic Church oppose), there would no doubt be many more pregnancies due to rape.
Your Chesterton remark appears irrelevant here. It would be relevant if we were discussing abortion for something like genetic defects, but it has nothing to do with abortion to save the life of the mother.
In 2004, the latest year for which I can find statistics, the U.S. maternal mortality rate was 13 deaths per 100,000 live births (540 women).
FWIW – I reflexively recoil from calling the President of the United States “extremist”. Part of that is undoubtedly wishful thinking on my part, and part of it is American history, which is that political reality tends to move officeholders toward the middle.
I’d suggest that it’s too early to gauge whether or not the Obama Administration is extreme as many of us feared. The President is supposed to be trying new approaches to reduce the number of abortions, such as by providing a better social safety net for pregnant women. Little or none of that has happened yet, and several things have happened that do tend to confirm our worst fears, but it’s still early.
Talking of extremists one wonders how the Cardinal Newman Society escapes. Some even place them below Donohue. Interesting. http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/04/01/notre_dame_obama/
The church’s “extreme view” — characterized accurately above as “no abortions, ever, for any reason, not even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother” — would be enforced differently under the English common law system we have here in the U.S. and under the Roman code on which canon law is based. “Internal forum” and all that.
Then there’s the other “extreme view” — “no restrictions on abortion, ever, for any reason, not even in cases where the reason is public embarrassment or consequent inability to make boat payments.” Where is the place in the middle where the civil law can sit?
” “Should Catholics really be expected to vote as a bloc?”
Sure, why not? ”
Sounds as if Catholics should have a lifestyle, not lives.
That sounds too gay for me.
A couple more stats, just to be complete. Latest Guttmacher data indicates that Catholics have a slightly lower abortion rate than women generally. Earlier data (1995 Roper poll) showed Catholics as slightly above the average for women overall.
Back to Guttmacher: women who identify themselves as Protestants also have a lower abortion rate than all women. (22% of women who have abortions claim no religious identification, while constituting 16% of the population.) At the same time, women who identify as Catholics have a higher rate of abortions than those who identify as Protestants, (22 per thousand vs. 18 per thousand.) This last datum is complicated by the wide range of attitudes toward abortion across the spectrum of Protestantism, but the fact of Catholics’ higher incidence of abortion than Protestants should give pro-life Catholics pause.
One major predictor of whether women will choose to terminate a pregnancy is poverty. A large percentage of women who elect abortion are at or below 200% of the poverty line, currently set at $28,300 for a family of three. 57% of abortions were elected by this income group, who are 30% of the general population.
So…
Where is the place in the middle where the civil law can sit?
First, a good question is why Canada, which has no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, has fewer abortions per 1000 than the United States, which has at least some legal restrictions and also a number of impediments (for example, a shrinking number of abortion providers)?
Second, I think a reasonable legal approach would be no restrictions on abortion if procured well prior to viability (say at 12 weeks), and after that, abortion only for reasons of rape, incest, life, health (clearly defined), and fetal abnormalities.
” the fact of Catholics’ higher incidence of abortion than Protestants should give pro-life Catholics pause.”
I guess I’m not sure what to make of it.
This thread should not end before noting John Allen’s comments and Archbishop Quinn’s views at NCR today.
Not sure if this has been noted here already, but Fr. Jenkins has written a response on the controversy to the university’s board of trustees. He engages the bishops document to explain why it’s okay to invite the President.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040808.html
Amy Sullivan reports in Time on Obama’s mistteps with Catholics. Among other items, she talks about Obama’s plans and timetable for reducing abortions:
“A relatively simple way for Obama to neutralize those doubts would be to move forward with a policy to lower abortion rates, an effort his campaign pitched heavily to Catholic voters to illustrate his commitment to finding common ground with abortion opponents. A team of aides assigned to focus on abortion reduction plans to hold its first meetings with pro-life and pro-choice advocates over the next month. But it is already encountering some resistance from both sides and doesn’t foresee acting on the issue in time to affect funding before the 2011 fiscal year. ”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1890595,00.html