Did Obama Read the Whole Encyclical?
Michael Sean Winters contributes regularly to the America blog: “In All Things.” He strikes me as being both theologically knowledgeable and politically savvy. I believe him to be a not uncritical admirer of President Obama. Thus I find one of his posts today particularly powerful. He begins:
The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions turned down an amendment that would have prevented any government health insurance plan from paying for abortion services. It is unclear yet whether this is part of a legislative strategy but it is time for Catholic Democrats to lay down some markers.
And concludes:
Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none.
The rest is here, including a relevant comment from the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee who says, in part: “As currently written, these bills would result in the biggest expansion of abortion access since Roe v. Wade. This legislation poses mortal peril to the unborn and it is on a fast track.”
On the other hand, see Could Abortion Coverage Sink Health-Care Reform? It would be a terrible thing if the issue of abortion torpedoes health-care reform because those on either side demand too much.
I agree with your assessment of Michael Sean Winters, Fr. Imbelli.
FWIW, here is a portion of a call-to-action email that was forwarded to me today by our parish Respect Life group. It appears to have been written by a local activist named Henry Potrykus.
“So far, two massive health care bills have been unveiled, one in the Senate and one in the House. The full House is expected to vote on its version of the bill at the end of July. Senate floor action could occur shortly thereafter.
” “These two bills pose one of the greatest threats to pro-life policies since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states. “These bills contain multiple provisions that would result in federally mandated insurance coverage of abortion on demand, with massive federal subsidies, as well as mandated creation of many new abortion clinics and the nullification of at least some state limitations on abortion.”
” “The pro-abortion movement sees federal ‘health care reform’ legislation as a golden opportunity to force-feed abortion into every nook and cranny of the health-care delivery system,” Johnson said. “Their goal, as they sometimes put it, is to ‘mainstream’ abortion. If Obama and his allies succeed, the result will be a very large increase in the number of abortions performed in America.”
“The imposition of sweeping pro-abortion mandates as part of “health care reform” is currently the top priority of many pro-abortion organizations. These organizations are pushing for the abortion mandates both in public statements and in less visible lobbying efforts. In April, the president of PPFA said that her organization intends to use the health care legislation as a “platform” to guarantee access to abortion to “all women.”‘ Likewise, the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers, said, “NAF supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, for all women.”
“On July 1, the Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) , sent out an alert to that organization’s e-mail list headed, “Urgent! Access to Abortion Services Threatened” The alert said, “Let there be no mistake, basic healthcare includes abortion services. . . . Reproductive healthcare, including abortion services, is an essential component of women’s health, and we must act now to make sure women get a fair shake in the final healthcare reform bill.” (RCRC is made up of a number of religious bodies, including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, and United Church of Christ.)
“Both the House and Senate bills would empower federal officials to mandate coverage of and access to specific medical services. In an interview released July 7, Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion advocacy group NARAL, said, “if, indeed, we can advance a panel or commission, then I am very optimistic about reproductive health care being part of this entire package.”
“The two bills reflect the commitment made by Barack Obama when he appeared before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007. Speaking of his plans for “health care reform,” Obama said, “in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose.” [emphasis added] Under his plan, Obama explained, people could choose to keep their existing private health care plans, but “insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care … that’s going to be absolutely vital.” “
Here in Italy abortions are provided by the public health care and are free of charge. I never see the pope to present Berlusconi, the prime minister with Dignitas Personae! Why this double standard? Benedict was forced by some US bishops?
David N., thx for the link to the Time article. I’m beginning to wonder if grand, sweeping change is too politically risky.
Incidentally, I see that Douglas Johnson from NRLC, quoted in my lengthy comment above, has also weighed in with a substantive comment to Winters’ post on America.
Thanks for passing this along.
I should also say it was good to see Prof. Kaveny’s positive citing of Abp. Chaput’s writing last week.
What would be “too much” for the pro-life (or anti-abortion, if you prefer) side to demand?
19 pro-life House Democrats–that’s not an oxymoron!–recently wrote to Speaker Pelosi to express their opposition to abortion funding as part of health care reform.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50300
It would have been much better of course if 19 was 190, but just the existence of a pro-life Democrat voting bloc is something to applaud IMO.
Thanks, William, I echo your applause. This is indeed good news.
I was much impressed by Fr. Reese’s report (cited by Jerry Filteau at NCR) on the meeting of the Presiden tand the Pope.
He commented that the meeting showed that we can talk about life and justice issues and find points of convergence and move to areas of working together, and in area of disagreement, agree to disagre ebut continue to discuss and make the best case, because that’s what adults do.
I think that would be good advice for many threads here.
I was struck in the same report that Archbishop Sambi was reported, by Drew Christansen, to have taken the USCCB to task for appearing too partisan in their approach to the president.
What would be “too much” for the pro-life (or anti-abortion, if you prefer) side to demand?
John McG,
I don’t suppose this will be popular here, although I think it is reasonable. It would be too much for the anti-abortion side to insist that health-care reform must be used to make abortions more difficult to obtain. It would be too much for the pro-abortion side to insist that health-care reform must be used to make abortion more widely available. This may be the last opportunity in many years to achieve significant health-care reform. If the opportunity is squandered because either side is intransigent about achieving its pro- or anti-abortion goals, it will be a terrible loss.
According to the Time article I linked to, 90 percent of private insurers provide abortion coverage. Insurance coverage for abortion is clearly not controversial. On the other hand, it is a long-established principle that federal funds do not pay for abortions. I am not sure whether subsidizing people who could not otherwise buy insurance would be federal funding of abortion (if the insurance covers abortion), but I can see there are valid concerns about what pro-abortion forces will push for.
What does concern me is that conservatives tend to be anti-abortion, and they also tend to be anti-Obama and not too keen on health-care reform. So it could be in their interest to use the pro-life movement as a way to kill health-care reform whether or not their real concern is abortion.
Remember what Rush Limbaugh said: “I hope he fails.”
David
Again you assume that your way is the only way. Conservatives don’t oppose health-care reform – they oppose the kind of reform that Obama and the House want. There are a lot of reforms that would work much better than a move toward single payer, which is clearly what Obama and his supporters want even as they disclaim it.
Also, I thought the whole common ground idea was to make having the babynot aborting it more affordable.
Conservatives don’t oppose health-care reform – they oppose the kind of reform that Obama and the House want.
And that’s the only kind we have a chance of getting at the moment, so I stand by what I said. I am concerned that some conservatives may use abortion as an issue to sabotage this health-care reform effort. As you yourself point out, conservatives don’t want this to happen, no matter how ardently they long for health-care reform of the conservative variety, whatever that may be.
Yes, Mary. Cardinal Bertone allowed abortions to be performed regularly at his Catholic hospital in Genoa when he was Archbishop there. Maybe the double standard is due to the lack of a militant prolife lobby in Italy? Italians voted to legalize abortion and do not show any inclination to revisit that decision. Perhaps because the abortion rate has been going down steadily under the regime of legal abortion and they have bad memories of how it was before.
Now is the time for Pro-life, life long Dems, and ‘commonweal catholics’, pro-gov.option health care people, [e.g.myself & spouse] to take a very strong anti-federal funding of abortion in the upcoming bills. . As I told my two legislators, Feinstein and Pelosi, no tax subsidy for abortion. they always have donating some of your own considerable wealth as an option in this pluralistic society. The health care reform bill’s passage is in a shaky position.. we need to ‘shake’ it our way…Pro-abortion sponsors putting up a new fence around ‘common ground’ is called trespass …
I don’t find this all that shocking. If abortion is considered to be a legal medical procedure that could be employed in some cases to protect the life of the mother, then why wouldn’t it be covered. Are only rich people supposed to have access to abortions? The Church condemns artificial contraception. Should that not be covered by health insurance? Why should immorality be a priviledge of the rich? Health insurance is too important to be hobbled by the abortion issue, which if used as a political club in this instance will not really advance the pro-life cause as much as it will kill health care reform. What we need are smart regulations regarding when abortion might be considered “medically necessary” (which is not the same as saying it is “morally necessary”), but this is not the way to get there.
So… Just as I posted the above comment, my wife, Katie, suggested that a measure prohibiting health insurers from ever denying coverage of abortions might effectively cut off the kind of conversation about “medically necessary” abortions, I said was needed. Currently, a distinction is usually made between elective and non-elective procedures with the latter being covered as considered “medically necessary.” For example, plastic surgery would (I hope) be covered in the case of a burn victim and not in the case of a porn star (unless he or she was said burn victim). Requiring a health insurer to cover all abortions in all cases at all times would not allow any such “medically necessary,” distinction leaving us in the same frustrating all or nothing debate. So, yes, I stand corrected, I do think the decision to turn down the amendment should be opposed, but the alternative should be the “common ground” of determining elective versus non-elective abortions. This should not be the place to further the abolitionist agenda.
If abortion is considered to be a legal medical procedure that could be employed in some cases to protect the life of the mother, then why wouldn’t it be covered. Are only rich people supposed to have access to abortions?
I agree. To cut abortion from a health plan would disadvantage poor women. The health plan should be for evryone, but not everyone in the US is a pro-life Catholic.
Amazing that no one answers the question that Mary raises about Italy which the Vatican makes little waves about. What a double standard. Here are Mary’s words again.
“Here in Italy abortions are provided by the public health care and are free of charge. I never see the pope to present Berlusconi, the prime minister with Dignitas Personae! Why this double standard? Benedict was forced by some US bishops?”
David, Ed (your wife also), Crystal – very wise council. This is the 3rd inning of a 9 or extra inning game.
It is conservatively estimated that 75 million Americans or immigrants do not have or are significantly non or underinsured. Latest studies indicate that 60% of all folks facing foreclosure is the resuslt of medical bills. Put yourself in the shoes of the unemployed, the underemployed, the immigrant in terms of healthcare.
We have two “goods” that are competing in the political arena – would suggest that you not allow the perfect to defeat the common good. These are complicated programs – the House bill is more than 1,000 pages.
Yes, we need to make sure that all reasonable methods are used to protect the innocent, the unborn but the numbers alone support efforts at a common ground.
This should not be the place to further the abolitionist agenda.
1. Not funding abortion is not “abolitionist.”
2. What would be the place to further the pro-life agenda? It seems that this is the type of thing pro-lifers have been lectured by Commonweal Catholics to support for some time. Isn’t it better for pro-lifers to work for a program we can enthusiastically and unequivocally support rather than let it play out and oppose it?
The health plan should be for everyone, but not everyone in the US is a pro-life Catholic.
From the Catholic perspective, which is where Commonweal is coming from, the unborn are also part of “everyone.” How is a health care plan that pays for their destruction inclusive of them? And if there is not answer to that questions, and it is a requirement that a health care plan be for everyone, how could Catholics support a health care plan that does this?
Amazing that no one answers the question that Mary raises about Italy which the Vatican makes little waves about
Because, frankly, I have no idea, and would be writing from complete ignorance, and it has no impact on my life.
I am more concerned with correctly discerning what I should be doing now than in satisfying hunts for inconsistency.
It seems apparent that the Holy Father’s presentation of the document is consistent with Catholics teaching. That’s good enough for me. How others were treated before is as concerning to me as whether previous popes authorized torture.
What would be the place to further the pro-life agenda?
John McG,
It seems to me a real pro-life agenda would concentrate on eliminating the need or desire for abortions, not on making it more difficult for women to obtain them. Is it really a victory for the pro-life movement if a woman wants an abortion, can’t get it, and winds up having and raising a child she didn’t want? Who benefits? Certainly not the woman. Certainly not society as a whole. And how do you make an argument — as a Catholic — that it is better for an unborn child to be born than to be aborted?
I know Commonweal is a Catholic magazine (and I’m Catholic) but I think to expect the president to come up with a health care plan that is cstom made for Catholics when he represents a nation consisting of non-Catholics and even non-Christians as well, is just unrealistic. It makes me think of that joke in which a man dies, goes to heaven, and is shown around by St. Peter. They pass an area surrounded by a high wall and hearing sounds from within, the man asks Peter who’s behind the wall. Peter says “Shhhh! Those are the Catholics – they think they’re the only ones here.”
We aren’t the only ones here.
It seems to me a real pro-life agenda would concentrate on eliminating the need or desire for abortions, not on making it more difficult for women to obtain them.
No, it’s both/and. Despite the economy, etc. 2009 Unites States is not a historically hostile place to raise a child, wanted or unwanted. What you are proposing is imminentizing the eschaton. As much as I may support things like a good health care bill that will make society more welcoming the children the idea that we could ever eliminate the need or desire for abortions is an even richer fantasy than the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade.
So long as there is original sin, there will be those who perceive a need or desire for abortion. So, yes, part of our job is to make it unthinkable.
it really a victory for the pro-life movement if a woman wants an abortion, can’t get it, and winds up having and raising a child she didn’t want? Who benefits? Certainly not the woman. Certainly not society as a whole.
I would say the child who was not aborted benefits. I would also dispute the notion that the woman would not benefit from raising a child. And if that child goes on to accomplish great things, then yes, all of society benefits.
Who benefitted from Christ’s suffering?
And how do you make an argument — as a Catholic — that it is better for an unborn child to be born than to be aborted?
Considering the Church’s embrace of the dignity of human life in general and rejection of abortion in particular, I would think this would be a much easier argument for a Catholic to make than the opposite.
I know Commonweal is a Catholic magazine (and I’m Catholic) but I think to expect the president to come up with a health care plan that is cstom made for Catholics when he represents a nation consisting of non-Catholics and even non-Christians as well, is just unrealistic.
I’m not concerned with what it is reasonable for the president to do. I’m concerned with what I, as a Catholic deeply concerned about abortion, should do. And I agree with Micheal Sean Winters that I should work to shape the health care reform to account for the dignity of the unborn.
David, how do you propose we ‘eliminate the need or desire’ for abortions? Virtually everyone is in favor of giving women the options and resources to keep their children or give them up for adoption, but Europe is a great example which shows that, though this reduces abortion, hundreds of thousands of abortions a year would still take place in the United States. Sadly, Obama was wrong in saying that no person makes this choice casually…the growing number of sex selection abortions being only one of many kinds of counter-examples. We need a comprehensive approach. It’s not just a legal ban. Not just supporting a woman’s choice for life. Not just attempting to change minds and heats.
But you asked who benefits from a legal ban? Well, to start off…the baby for sure. Virtually any fate is better than being slaughtered, right? Women would often benefit given that many today often claim that they are ‘so glad’ that they kept their child…which they know see as a gift and blessing despite getting pregnant by accident and originally not wanting a baby. Your statement that women ‘certainly’ wouldn’t benefit is just false on its face. And society would benefit especially if it would help avoid the huge demographic problem that virtually the entire developed world is having right now: having too few children.
Of course, even if this were not the case, we hopefully wouldn’t do a social calculus to determine who lives and who dies, right?
“How others were treated before is as concerning to me as whether previous popes authorized torture.”
John, the operative word is “are treated” not were treated. In reality Rome thinks the American church is a bunch of lunatics on this question. We have to find other virtues to justify our salvation than one issue. I will say it again. This is a phony issue that does no good but make its advocates ostensibly feel good about themselves.
how do you propose we ‘eliminate the need or desire’ for abortions? Virtually everyone is in favor of giving women the options and resources to keep their children or give them up for adoption
I think the best way to eliminate the need of desire for abortion is make sure the unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur in the first place – to make contraception and sex education more available. Why ignore those and concentrate on an after-the-fact approach?
Crystal,
You seem to be suggesting that opposition to abortion (or even more specifically, opposition to use of tax payer dollars to fund abortion) is a peculiarly Catholic doctrine. It is not. First of all, the Catholic Church does not base its opposition to abortion on divine revelation, knowable only by faith; rather it grounds its opposition to abortion in the natural law which is knowable to all on the basis of reason. Second, it is not only Catholics who are opposed to abortion (or again, more specifically, to government funding of abortion). There are Protestant Christians, Muslims, agnostics, athiests and others who share this opposition. In your comments you seem to be putting opposition to abortion in the category as belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. One need not be Catholic to think that the government ought not to spend tax payers’ dollars on the intentional killing of young members of the human species when a significant percentage of the American population are opposed to such killing and a vast majority are oppsed to such spending.
Even in the face of opposition arguments, majorities support requiring coverage of abortions under reform. After hearing strong arguments both for and against covering abortion under reform, two-thirds (66%) support coverage, agreeing that health care, not politics, should drive coverage decisions. A majority of voters (72%) reported that they would feel angry if Congress mandated by law that abortion would not be covered under a national health care plan.
– Reproductive Health Coverage in Health Reform, a national opinion survey conducted for the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), July 7, 2009
President Obama’s support for maximum abortion rights was on display throughout the campaign. The fact that his party may now be striving to include abortion in federal health care plans is as surprising as the news that Obama likes his teleprompter. Just a few months into his campaign, he gave a speech to Planned Parenthood that was so effusive in its praise for Planned Parenthood and abortions rights, it was as if the fate of the civilized world depended on both. That revolting encomium was the only evidence one needed to understand the intensity of the pro-Roe forces coming into the White House.
The Planned Parenthood crowd did not elect Obama to be a moderate on abortion or to read papal encyclicals and suddenly have a change of heart. They did not elect him to “dialogue” with Catholic leaders about how to accommodate pro-life concerns. They elected him to do just the opposite: to expand the availability of abortion and reduce the meager restrictions that now exist. His party will aim to do just that.
I would like to comment on Mary’s snipe about B16 and Berlusconi. Does Mary really live in Italy? I do.
If you get rid of Berlusconi and his centre right government and put in the alternative centre left (as it is at the moment) you would get not only abortion but a massive expansion of the application of IVF techniques AND EUTHANASIA. BTW as everyone knows Italy has one of the lowest birthrates in the developed world. The journalist and politician-broadcaster Giulio Ferrara, editor of Il Foglio (a newspaper which is a pomo left, Neo-Hegelian, red Tory intellectual mix, at the moment not unfriendly to the American President) tried a national and international campaign before the last Italian Election to tie the U.N. sponsored Moratorium on the Death Penalty to a Moratorium on Abortion. B16 supported this initiative but we Catholics in the Anglo world received the idea with a resounding yawn or indifference. Where were all the pro-U.N., anti-death penalty, seamless garment English speaking Catholics then? A further consideration for Mary. Italy has minimal influence on the rest of the world. For better or worse the English and Americans set the pace of the culture wars.
According to the article I linked to in Time, nearly 90 percent of private insurers cover abortion. Are Catholics obligated to get their insurance only from insurance companies who do not provide abortion coverage? After all, unless you are unfortunate enough to have medical bills that amount to more than you pay for your insurance, you are paying for the treatment of the others who get insurance from the same company as you. This seems to me a more direct contribution toward abortion than having a small amount of your tax dollars subsidize, for people in lower income brackets, the cost of health insurance that includes abortion coverage.
Jonn McG
“It seems apparent that the Holy Father’s presentation of the document is consistent with Catholics teaching. That’s good enough for me. How others were treated before is as concerning to me as whether previous popes authorized torture”
I didn’t write about a previuos pope but about Benedict, a master of relativism, he acts towards Obama in a way and towards European Leaders in opposite way.
The Catholic teaching is very mutable.
Katie
The journalist and politician-broadcaster Giulio Ferrara, editor of Il Foglio (a newspaper which is a pomo left, Neo-Hegelian, red Tory intellectual mix, at the moment not unfriendly to the American President) tried a national and international campaign before the last Italian Election to tie the U.N. sponsored Moratorium on the Death Penalty to a Moratorium on Abortion. B16 supported this initiative”
When Ferrara candidated himself to Prime Minister with the list ” aborto no grazie”, ( he wanted outlaw abortion law) Avvenire wrote AGAINST him, and B16 was silent. Thank you so much!
“A further consideration for Mary. Italy has minimal influence on the rest of the world.”
I agree on the rest of the world, but has great influence on the Catholic Church, Katie. The Vatican, la curia are permeated with the Italian way of thinking and making,so this is the reason because you american people so often are more catholic that the pope.
Considering the Church’s embrace of the dignity of human life in general and rejection of abortion in particular, I would think this would be a much easier argument for a Catholic to make than the opposite.
But you asked who benefits from a legal ban? Well, to start off…the baby for sure. Virtually any fate is better than being slaughtered, right?
John McG and Charles Camosy,
I fully understand the argument against abortion that is based on the idea that life begins at conception and that consequently abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life. What makes no sense to me at all is the argument — especially coming from Catholics — that concern for the well being of the unborn is a reason to oppose abortion. For those who believe in eternal life in heaven, what do you believe is lost to someone who bypasses life on earth? Of course almost everyone would say they are glad they were born, but I don’t see how it is possible to compare the experience of those of us who were born against the experience of those who weren’t, since we do not have the testimony of those who weren’t born. (And of course even without procured abortion, a large percentage of pregnancies end with spontaneous abortions.)
It simply doesn’t make sense to argue that the unborn would be better off if they were born. There is no way to provide evidence for such a claim. I am not making an argument in favor of abortion. I am simply pointing out that arguments against abortion based on concern for the welfare of the unborn cannot be supported by evidence.
kathie
Il foglio is a RIGHT newspaper, not a left newspaper! Ferrara, a former Communist , is now a very conservative teocon and belongs to right party, he was Minister with Berlusconi.
You don’t know this and you live here?????
David Tenney,
Why do you make a distinction between truth known through revelation and truth known through “natural law”? Are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin any less true than truths known through “natural law”?
“For those who believe in eternal life in heaven, what do you believe is lost to someone who bypasses life on earth?”
Respectfully, David, taking your argument just one small step further reduces it to the ad absurdum level: Why should women have any babies at all? By having a baby, a woman takes a guarantee of heaven away from the child and introduces it to the pain, suffering, and salvific uncertainties of our earthly existence. Wouldn’t it be morally wrong for a woman not to have an abortion?
David…this is an interesting and important argument. Notice that it applies to the newborn infant as well, right? Just as there is no way to show that the unborn would be better off if they were born, there is no way to show that an newborn infant would be better off if she were allowed to reach puberty. My view is that we harm those who already exist who we prevent from having certain kinds of experiences: in particular, and as a Christian, I think the most important one is feeling and acting on love for another. But there are plenty of human beings–again, newborn infants are powerful examples–which would fall into the category you describe where we aren’t sure their continued life would benefit them. Are you willing to apply your argument to them as well?
Winters’ reaction is kind of like Capt Renault being shocked that there is gambling at Rick’s Place.
If pro-life Democrats are serious about things like stopping abortion funding they had better realize that relying on their own party to do it is ridiculous. The President knows people like Mr Winters will probably support him no matter what he does, so why should they expect him to follow their lead. He’ll treat you like a lap dog until you bite.
Why do you make a distinction between truth known through revelation and truth known through “natural law”? Are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin any less true than truths known through “natural law”?
If something is based on natural law, it is by definition not supposed to be sectarian: any person of good will and conscience should be able to recognize its truth without referring to any specific religious dogma
The problem with this in contemporary America is that “natural law” does not equate with “secular”, and that there is no counterstroke to this disputation: Who gave the Catholic bishops, in a society that gives no preference to any one religion, the right the decide what is sectarian teaching and what is not?
But David – Life itself is a very great good – family, friendship, nature, art, to which many would add, the knowledge, love and service of God. All human beings can know some or all of these things, while no one now can know the afterlife. No one has the right to deprive another of these known goods, and especially to do so on the basis of substituting an assumed greater good.
Which reminds me of a joke – two old Jewish men at the end of life are talking about the pain of life. The first says, It would be better to die than to live through more of such pain. The second agrees. The first, warming up to his topic, asserts, It would be better not to have been born at all than to live through this life of ours. The second agrees again and adds – But who should have such luck? – not one in ten thousand.
(Life is such a great gift that non-existence is inconceivable.)
Sean,
When’s the last time you bit a Republican politician? What exactly does biting mean in this case? A willingness to vote for the other party? If so, what is it that you expect Mr. Winters to do now, before the next election, besides what he already has done, which is to criticize the plan to have public health insurance include coverage for abortion and recommend that prolife Democratic congressmen not vote for such a plan?
William,
You say: “By having a baby, a woman takes a guarantee of heaven away from the child and introduces it to the pain, suffering, and salvific uncertainties of our earthly existence.”
Yes, that is correct, according to my understanding of Catholic teaching.
You ask: ” Wouldn’t it be morally wrong for a woman not to have an abortion?”
No, according to Catholic teaching, it would be morally wrong for a woman to have an abortion. Catholic teaching is very clear that it is not up to us to say who lives or dies. It is not up to ue to say who is saved and who is damned. It would be wrong to kill in an attempt to send people to heaven under any circumstances, not because it is wrong to help people get to heaven, but because it is wrong to kill. There are any number of cases in which you can relieve people’s suffering by killing them (mercy killing), and that is strictly forbidden.
My point is that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent human being, and that is always wrong, no matter what good may come of it. I understand that perfectly well. What I do not understand is the argument that abortion is wrong because it deprives the aborted child of the positive benefit of life on earth. It is simply unknowable what the future of an aborted baby might have been in its earthly life had it been born. It might have had a happy and productive life and made positive contributions to society, died, and gone to heaven. It might have had a miserable and destructive life, died, and gone to hell. We can’t know.
But David – Life itself is a very great good – family, friendship, nature, art, to which many would add, the knowledge, love and service of God. All human beings can know some or all of these things, while no one now can know the afterlife.
James,
I don’t see how it can be argued that a life on earth is better than no life on earth. Someone can have a perfectly miserable existence, be something like a serial killer (or a Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot), die, and go to hell. Jesus said of the one who would betray him, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”
What reasonable person, if given the choice of life on earth with a finite risk of eternal suffering, or a free pass to eternal bliss, would chose the former?
Regarding your joke, I once encountered, in a discussion forum, an environmentalist who insisted that the world would be a better place if human beings had never existed. I asked, “Better for whom?” But she stuck to her guns.
RP Burke,
I agree. The Catholic Church says its interpretation of natural law is binding on everyone, since everyone should be able to arrive at the same conclusions on purely rational grounds. But of course that is to accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with the Church’s interpretation of natural law of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. If natural law is so clear, why did the vast majority of experts advising Pope Paul VI conclude one thing, and the pope himself conclude another?
But there are plenty of human beings–again, newborn infants are powerful examples–which would fall into the category you describe where we aren’t sure their continued life would benefit them. Are you willing to apply your argument to them as well?
Charles,
My argument isn’t that people who would be better off dead should be killed. How many of us have not had a friend or relative who suffered terribly, and when they died, everyone agreed “it was a blessing”? I am saying the Church forbids killing in such cases, not because the people will be better off to continue living in their suffering, but because the direct killing of an innocent person is always prohibited. The Church doesn’t say you may not kill an innocent person because he or she has wonderful things ahead in life. I am merely arguing that I don’t think you can make a rational argument that abortion is wrong because the unborn have wonderful things ahead of them. What’s ahead of them is unknowable.
Better than talking about ‘whether to be born or not be born’ let’s talk about how to tip the scale of a very narrow vote; and take out the pro-abortion funding in the health care bill. The 54% of Catholics who voted Demo in the last election would need less than 25% of this majority to be pro-life enough to tip the balance of the proposed bill and exclude abortion funding. Pro-life Dems need to play the hand delt to them. Some posters here sneer at pro-life Dems but we hold the winning cards in this political struggle [card game]. How to play ‘all in’ is the task ahead. Anti-Obama people ‘dropped out’ of this political card game last year. They tossed in their losing hand in the discard pile. they are now in the boring kibizing role. Basta.
“Health insurance is too important to be hobbled by the abortion issue, which if used as a political club in this instance will not really advance the pro-life cause as much as it will kill health care reform. ”
If universal and affordable health care is important for the common good, then istm that a “neutral” way to deal with the toxic issue of abortion is to simply bracket it out. Let the two sides agree to preserve the status quo. The Hyde Amendment continues to stand. Any “public option” for health insurance would be governed by the Hyde Amendment. Insurers can continue to cover abortion services if that is what the market demands.
Incorporating FOCA into a health care reform bill would be evil. I would oppose such a bill with an absolutely clear conscience, and I suspect most folks in the pro life community would agree with me. The fact is, the vast majority of people in the US do have health insurance, or are covered by Medicare or Medicaid or receive veterans benefits. For those that don’t fall into these categories, emergency rooms are still open, and there are a variety of state, local and charitable organizations that assist with medical needs. It’s a cobbled-together “system” full of holes, and it stinks, but it’s better than the unlimited-abortion-on-demand-with-no-restrictions alternative.
Mr. Burke,
If you have access to the journal, “Communio” (Spring 2009), you may find of interest an article by Martin Rhonheimer, “Rawlsian Public Reason, Natural Law, and the Foundation of Justice.” Rhonheimer traces a development of Rawls’ thought and considers the relation between “natural law” and “public reason.” Being neither a moral theologian nor a political philosopher, I will, in prudence, leave it at that.
Matthew -
How? Don’t vote for him, don’t give him money, don’t give him political top cover by accepting the myth that he cares one wit about abortion one way or the other.
What do I expect Mr. Winters to do now, before the next election, besides what he already has done, which is to criticize the plan to have public health insurance include coverage for abortion and recommend that prolife Democratic congressmen not vote for such a plan?
Well, while I am sure that the Obama administration is quaking in its collective boots over the scathing criticism, maybe he should say no one ought to vote for him again? But, since the Obama camp knows that there is a whole raft of liberal Catholics who will support them no matter what he does on abortion, why should they care?
Martin Rhonheimer, “Rawlsian Public Reason, Natural Law, and the Foundation of Justice.”
Fr. Imbelli,
Is this what is listed on the Communio Web site contents for the Spring 2009 issue as “Martin Rhonheimer Response to David Crawford”? It is not available for reading on the web, but the article by David Crawford titled Natural Law and the Body: Between Deductivism and Parallelism is available. I am assuming this is what Rhonheimer is responding to.
The link in my previous message doesn’t seem to work. Here is the URL
http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/crawford35-3.pdf
Let me return to Fr. Imbelli’s initial posting of Michael Sean Winters’ remarks. Unlike Fr. Imbelli, I do not find those remarks either perceptive or sagacious.
Winters calls for Catholic Democrats to “lay down some markers.” So far as I can see, the markers he has in mind amount to nothing other than some of the “non-negotiables” that some Catholic bishops foolishly propounded during last year’s presidential campaign. The political naivete of laying down markers or non-negotiables like these is breathtaking.
Re the case at hand, namely health care legislation, Justices Roberts and Alito, among others, have declared that Roe v Wade is settled Constitutional Law. I agree that R v W is deplorable and ought to be overturned. Nonetheless, it is,for the foreseeable future, constitutionally controlling. So, until RvW is somehow overturned, it is political and legal folly to promote any legislation that on its face cannot pass Constitutional muster. Until RvW is overturned somehow, it makes no political or moral sense to hold other legislation hostage to a pretense that RvW is not the prevailing law of the land. Indeed, it would be actually immoral to block improvements in health care legislation by insisting on a prior overturning of RvW.
In short, there’s no free lunch and no wholly clean hands in law or politics. Many of our fellow citizens despeerately need better health care legislation. To resist such legislation in the name or opposing RvW and its legal ramifications is, objectively speaking morally obtuse and/or reprehensible.
Bernard, who is proposing overturning RvW in healthcare bill?. we are Just opposing abortion funding; also lets throw in opposing funding for belly tucks, hair transplants, penile enlargements. You may want to throw in some of your favorite elective proceedures if you can get past your ‘constitutional’ restraints views.
Bernard, who is proposing overturning RvW in healthcare bill?. we are Just opposing abortion funding; also lets throw in opposing funding for belly tucks, hair transplants, penile enlargements.
Ed,
It’s not quite that simple. (And I am not sure how well I understand it, but I will take a stab at it anyway.) The government will not be funding abortion under the current plan unless the “public option” passes and offers abortion services. But conservatives, in general, are opposed to the “public option.” So if that is defeated, there will only be private insurance plans. As Time tells us, almost 90 percent of private insurers cover abortion. Under the proposed plan, people in lower income brackets will get a government subsidy to purchase health insurance (or to help pay for the insurance they already have).
I presume what you are talking about is including in the law a provision that anyone who gets a subsidy to purchase health insurance may not buy a policy that covers abortion. But what if they already have insurance which they are struggling to pay for that includes abortion coverage? They either have to do without the subsidy or buy different insurance.
Cosmetic surgery is generally not paid for by health insurance except in cases where it is medically necessary. So if you are balding and want a hair transplant, you pay for it yourself. If you are injured or burned and need a hair transplant to restore your former appearance, that would likely be medically necessary.
accepting the myth that he cares one wit about abortion one way or the other
Sean,
If Obama didn’t care about abortion one way or the other, wouldn’t that be good news? We keep hearing from the pro-life crowd that he is radically pro-choice, approves of infanticide, and ultimately will have us killing the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.
Crystal Watson cited a poll showing widespread support for public funding of abortion. I’m suspicious of the neutrality of the poll. Note the key phrase “after hearing strong arguments for and against covering abortion.” I’m going to look to see if I can find the wording of the “strong” arguments. I may be wrong, but I suspect the arguments were worded to favor one side. The reason for my suspicion is the long-standing trend in abortion polls to show strong opposition to public funding. See for instance the November 2008 Zogby poll showing 69% of Americans opposed to the repeal of the Hyde ammendment. I try to pay attention to polls on abortion done by major polling organzations and I can’t recall one that has shown anything other than a strong majority opposed to public funding.
I would also just point out that Crystal did not address my major argument. Even if it turns out the her poll numbers stand up and there really has been a sea change in public opinion on this issue, that doesn’t make opposition to abortion or federal funding of abortion a purely Catholic or sectarian position.
David Nickol asked me,
“Why do you make a distinction between truth known through revelation and truth known through ‘natural law’? Are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin any less true than truths known through ‘natural law’?”
Of course “truth is one”, but the distinctinction is relevant in terms of how one translates one’s religious beliefs into policy recomendations in a pluralistic society. In the case of truths known only through divine revelation, one does not have much ground to stand on in trying to shape government policies that will apply to those who do not belong to the same religion. In the case of truths known by virtue of the natural law, there is a rational basis for arguing for public policies based on these truths.
Now obviously I know it is more complicated than that because we don’t all come to the same conclusions about the content of the natural law or even recognize a single standard of rationality. (I note however the long history of acknowledging a natural law in our legal tradition.) At the very least though, arguments made on the basis of natural law (such as opposition to abortion) shouldn’t simply be dismissed as a sectarian belief of Catholics that have no place in the public square when discussing policies for a pluralistic democracy. That seemed to me to be what Crystal was saying.
I think your point about us effectively paying for abortion now through our private health care plans is significant and worthy of further reflection.
I think your point about aborted children not missing out on anything of spiritual significance misses a fundamental point of Christian theology. We are destined not just for heaven but ultimately for a reunited heaven/earth: “a new heavens and a new earth” (Rev 21). The movement towards this new reality was innaugurated by Jesus and we see its beginnings in his resurrection. We have been invited by God to be co-creators of this “new creation”, sharing in the building up of God’s kingdom. While everything will be transformed, there is also continuity between what we experience/do/are here and now and what will be on that glorious day when all is brought to fulfillment- hence, the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body. The upshot of all of this is that missing out on bodily, earthly existence is significant. God certainly will find ways to accomodate aborted children and make “all things work for the good” (1 Corinthians 9?), but Christians are called to recognize that creation is “good… very good” (Gen 1) and that embodied life is also a good.
Crystal did not address my major argument. Even if it turns out the her poll numbers stand up and there really has been a sea change in public opinion on this issue, that doesn’t make opposition to abortion or federal funding of abortion a purely Catholic or sectarian position.
David,
Yes, it’s true that not only Catholics are anti-abortion. I’d guess that people who would be considered politically and/or religously conservative would tend to oppose allowing a choice about abortion, and would have less concern about the inequality of placing financial burdens on the poor by limiting federal assistance, although there are probably exceptions.
PS – I think the reason I had said that it was unrealistic to expect a health care plan made for Catholics was that the title of this post – Did Obama Read the Whole Encyclical? – seemed to say that a non-Catholic president or a minority Catholic country should base decisions about his health care plan on the Pope’s encyclical.
David Tenney writes:
“We are destined not just for heaven but ultimately for a reunited heaven/earth: “a new heavens and a new earth” (Rev 21). The movement towards this new reality was inaugurated by Jesus and we see its beginnings in his resurrection. We have been invited by God to be co-creators of this “new creation”, sharing in the building up of God’s kingdom. While everything will be transformed, there is also continuity between what we experience/do/are here and now and what will be on that glorious day when all is brought to fulfillment- hence, the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body.”
Robert Imbelli says: “bravo, well put!” and adds: very much in the spirit of that spiritual materialist Irenaeus of Lyons who anticipated Teilhard de Chardin by more than 1700 years.
Crystal,
the title I gave the post reflected my impression that the President very much resonates with the “social justice” portions of “Caritas in Veritate.” That and his evocation of Cardinal Bernardin lead me to hope that he may come to see the nexus the Pope is making between social justice issues narrowly construed and life issues.
You may know that I read Judge Noonan’s Notre Dame remarks as expressing a similar hope.
The upshot of all of this is that missing out on bodily, earthly existence is significant. God certainly will find ways to accomodate aborted children and make “all things work for the good” (1 Corinthians 9?), but Christians are called to recognize that creation is “good… very good” (Gen 1) and that embodied life is also a good.
David Tenney,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail, and I will think about what you have said. Unfortunately, I have very limited time today, so I can only give a brief reaction.
It seems to me a theory of “what it’s all about” can’t have major gaps in it. As I mentioned earlier, setting aside procured abortion, the rate of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) appears to be about 30 percent. That is staggering enough. (A lot of people can predict what is coming next.) But if life begins at conception, as the Church maintains, it is even more staggering that as many as 60 to 80 percent of what the Catholic Church would regard as human persons fail to implant in the uterus, and consequently die within about 10 days of conception.
Accepting pregnancy as beginning at implantation, 60 to 80 percent of “human persons” die before the women who conceived them even become pregnant, and then 30 percent of pregnancies end by miscarriage.
So embodied life may be good, but it seems to me you have to explain why such a small minority ever gets to experience it. As I am fond of pointing out, Jesus said, “He who has ears, let him hear.” But the vast majority of human persons (if life really begins at conception) never develop ears.
I am not saying that because so many infants die naturally, there should be no objection to abortion. I am just pointing out that if you attempt to argue that abortion is wrong because of what it deprives the aborted infant of, it has to be acknowledged that to die before birth is the fate of most human beings, and if it is God’s plan for humans to experience earthly life, it seems to me you have to explain why most people don’t.
Also, as I said, according to the Church, people who do bad things go to hell. To live an earthly life puts you at risk of eternal suffering. To skip earthly life presumably does not. Who would risk all eternity for a few fleeting years of physical existence when skipping it guarantees eternal bliss?
Sean,
Your argument seems to be that if someone opposed to our current abortion laws voted for Obama despite Obama’s support for these laws, then he has no right or reason to campaign against any of President Obama’s abortion-related policies. This is a non-sequitur, and a profound misunderstanding of democracy besides. It suggests that by voting for a candidate you offer a blanket endorsement of his platform, and that unless you agree with a candidate about everything you consider important, you should not vote for him. This sort of thinking leads to another non-sequitur: you’re not really prolife in any meaningful sense unless you never vote for prochoice politicians. The only virtue of such a rule is its simplicity. Politics is almost always hard and complicated.
Mr. Winters doesn’t pretend to be “shocked” at the proposal to include abortion funding in the new health-care legislation. He claims to be opposed. You say his opposition is worthless until he starts voting Republican. I say his opposition — and that of other prolife Democrats — is enough if it succeeds in forcing the administration not to violate the provisions of the Hyde Amendment with its health-care plan.
In the FWIMBW Dept:
I’m a retired federal employee and have Federal BC/BS insurance coverage.
One of the exclusions (based, I presume, on the Hyde Amendment) is: Procedures, services, drugs, and supplies related to abortions except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
I suggest that in any proposed legislation involving healthcare for folks in a pluralistic society, this language might be the way to go. Nothing more, nothing less.
“I say his opposition — and that of other prolife Democrats — is enough if it succeeds in forcing the administration not to violate the provisions of the Hyde Amendment with its health-care plan.”
Matthew, I would definitely live with that. FWIW, I agree with Winters that it is particularly incumbent on pro-life Democrats, and more generally pro-life supporters of Obama, to hold this line.