Faith and law
May 30, 2009, 10:14 am
The Fordham Center on Religion and Culture held a public forum on April 28, “Matters of Conscience,” with a distinguished panel discussing conscience exemptions and the role of conscience in making public policy. The transcript should be posted shortly. I found the following observation from Douglas Kmiec well worth considering by all, but perhaps especially by the bishops.
“This notion of creating an ideal world through law is a forfeiture of the faith and the power of the faith. It is directly contrary, it seems to me, …to the Thomistic teaching about not seeming to enact every virtue or prohibit every vice. The human condition is just simply not capable of that and it is more variegated than that.“But it doesn’t mean you give up on the transformation of the culture. It just means you don’t expect the Supreme Court of the United States to be the chief catechist. You expect yourself to in fact embrace the Scripture and the Catechism, and through homiletics and through good works and your own personal witness and what happens in that parish community. That’s where the ideal world gets constructed.“In terms of the conveyance of the significance of marriage and these other teachings on contraception, you don’t need to stop the coverage of insurance for contraception for people who have no moral objection to it in order to convey to Catholics the significance of Humanae Vitae. Now, you are going to need a lot of help conveying the significance of Humanae Vitae, and people have been working on it for a long time. But you are not going to get help from this passage of the law.”
Back in 2004, before the presidential election, I was visiting many of our parishes in my capacity as director of the office for Catholic Social Teaching, speaking on “Faithful Citizenship” in the Archdiocese of Detroit. One evening, as a woman was speaking very passionately about the necessity of overturning Roe v. Wade and the “obvious” requirement of Catholics to refuse to vote for Democrats (John Kerry), a group of high school students — who had just finished their religious education class — joined the group. After listening to the very articulate and passionate woman speak, one female student piped up: “All I know is, if I got pregant and I wasn’t married, my father would kill me…I would DEFINITELY get an abortion!” Another girl immediately replied, “Me too!”
The audience sat in silence, stunned. I aaid, “Don’t we as Church have a lot of work to do long before the question of abortion gets to the Supreme Court?” Prof. Kmiec is right. I often wonder what would happen if all the time spent speaking out on the political aspects of the abortion issue in our Church were spent instead directed at parents and young men and women, helping them to figure out what to do when they have an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, other than choosing an abortion. If our actions spoke louder than our words, perhaps others in society would find the nonviolent alternatives to abortion that we Catholics say we wish everyone would choose — including our own people.
Mr. Hovey,
Your comments are excellent! Your reflection on your actual experience demonstrates a failure in the debates/dialogues??? on the abortion issue. We need to provide, through actual programs, to assist young people if they actually have an untended pregnancy. And even beyond that, we need programs directed at our boys, as well as girls, to help them to understand their dignity as human beings, as beloved children of God.
We need to inculcate in them—the old fashioned concept (in the minds of some) of respect for yourself and others. Boys need to be taught about expressing their masculinity in ways other than sexual conquests of girls. Girls need to be taught that they can express their love and affection for a boy in ways other than sexual intercourse.
For those who are experiencing unintended pregnancy—-having recourses other than abortion would save lives (the unborn baby’s) and according to the story that you told, of the young women who are pregnant. Parents of teens need to be brought into the discussion—their thoughts and feelings about teen pregnancies need to be aired. Education and practical plans,
agencies to help—need to be in place BEFORE anything gets before the Supreme Court.
Thank you, again, for your comments.
The old-fashion concept (in the minds of some) of Respect for the Sacredness and Dignity of every Human Individual has not gone out of style for the many who understand from the beginning, that The Truth is Absolute, Yesterday, Today, and Always. The Truth is already “out”, there are some who simply do not see. To understand The Truth, you must begin at the beginning. All Human Life is Sacred because every Human Life is a Gift of Love from the Creative Love of God to begin with.
Ms. Steinfels – thanks for bringing this conference to our attention. Would like to hone in on the use of law to “enforce” virtue and by extension why catholic bishops choose to try to fight the abortion battle at the level of the supreme court.
In many of the earlier blogs (repeatedly on abortion), some link the concept of life from conception to death with the American struggle over slavery. Remember in particular in one thread, Prof. Kaveny asking many bloggers – do you want this issue to become a civil war?
Yet, have gone back over my notes and a new book by Wm. Lee Miller called President Lincoln: the duty of a statesman. Miller posits some interesting interpretations that directly emphasize Kmiec’s comments.
- the Emancipation Proclamation in Sept. 1862 was announced as the result of the battle of Antietam – one of the few Union successes in that year.
- this proclamation was enacted as part of the “war powers” of Lincoln whose goal was to supress rebellion – the proclamation reads as a piece of law and barely mentions any moral reasons for this action
- the proclamation specifically only freed slaves in states or counties currently in rebellion and gave these regions until 1/1/1863 to stop their rebellion; then the proclamation took effect. It was much later before this proclamation became the law of land as a new amendment to the constitution
- Lincoln knew that even the northern states culture and citizens may not have universally supported the end of slavery….they did support the end of rebellion
- the proclamation is not a moral argument; it is a law and a legal document. Miller states: “Lincoln did not free slaves because slavery was a great wrong; although he believed this and believed that the founders believed this. He freed slaves as an act to weaken the southern states currently in rebellion and bring slaves into the union armies.”
- Lincoln deliberately wrote the proclamation to avoid any partisanship around slavery; to be rhetorically barren. It was a moral accomplishment that required that he not admit this step
- later, in 1864 Lincoln made this address: “I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to set officially upon this judgment and feeling (slavery is wrong)…..I understood….that in ordinary course of civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery…..I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery.”
- he felt that his oath of office forbade him to make moral abstract laws. But his oath did require him to defend the union and make extraordinary steps essential.
I find this interpretation to be linked to the paragraph you have quoted from Kmiec. It speaks to the prudential judgment necessary in a mixed society that may differ on virtue, morality, and its expression in law.
Bill:
Very good point on Lincoln and slavery. The civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery. The abolitionists wanted to insert the issue in but Lincoln initially resisted precisely because abolition as a moral e had not reached critical mass as a political force. The role of the abolitionists was to forward the agenda and they had every right to do so. Wise political leadership was required to eventually ban the practice of slavery (although other forms of separation and discrimination continued in an institutional form).
Bottom line I think Kmiec has a compelling Catholic argument although I would say that certain Obama policies such as FOCA or derivatives thereof still require principled resistance. My sense is that Obama is prepared to quietly allow these expansion of abortion rights he campaigned on languish.
Kmiec’s views flows from Jesus admonition that we are sent as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
F.Y.I.-
http://www.las.uiuc.edu/news/lincoln/stand/
The parishes are importing pastors whose bishop is getting paid by the American bishops while the imported pastor leaves his own flock neglected. Most pastors cannot preach. Most pastors are not in touch with the people. The bishops are totally demoralized. The clergy is soft and still exiting. The only constant is fund raising.
Yet it is abortion 24/7. I guess if it were not for abortion no one would be righteous.
“This notion of creating an ideal world through law is a forfeiture of the faith and the power of the faith. It is directly contrary, it seems to me, …to the Thomistic teaching about not seeming to enact every virtue or prohibit every vice. The human condition is just simply not capable of that and it is more variegated than that.“But it doesn’t mean you give up on the transformation of the culture. It just means you don’t expect the Supreme Court of the United States to be the chief catechist. ”
I’m not sure how to square this view with history … prior to Roe v Wade, the question of the legality of abortion was being pursued via the democratic process, mostly at a state level. The Roe v Wade decision pre-empted that activity and those existing state laws. So, in a sense, the Supreme Court became the “chief catechist”, teaching a profoundly far-reaching and culture-deforming lesson to the country.
If the legal framework begun by Roe v Wade could be mitigated, attenuated or chipped away in some fashion, perhaps the normal democratic process could resume in hashing out this issue to reflect the will of the people. To my mind, that would be very good for the country.