The Common Good
ERRATA: The original version of this post asserted that Catholics for the Common Good were the organizers of the West Cost Walk for Life. This is incorrect. While CCG has certainly been a supporter of the event, the Walk for Life is organized by an independent organization that has no connection with CCG. The author apologizes for the mistake and has deleted the sentence in question from this post.–P.N.
——–
I’ve come across two organizations of lay Catholics in the last year that both have the phrase “common good” in their name.
The first—a San Francisco based group—is known as “Catholics for the Common Good.” Taking a page from former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn (who appears to have some kind of advisory relationship to the group), they style themselves as “pro-life, pro-family and pro-poor.”
CCG’s web site advertises its commitment to the fullness of Catholic teaching, including service to the poor and vulnerable. I must say, though, that the e-mails I have received from the group this year have been almost exclusively around issues dealing with abortion, assisted suicide and homosexuality.
Life does not end at birth; nor should our work to protect and preserve it. The Catholic Church believes that every human life – whether young or old, guilty or innocent, born or unborn – is both precious and sacred, thus making the preservation of human dignity of the utmost importance. It remains as the fundamental foundation for all principles and elements of social teaching.
Now there is nothing here that is, strictly speaking, objectionable. But it is hard to deny that the overall effect is to subtly mute the Church’s full throated defense of the unborn. The phrasing of the first line also reinforces the pernicious idea—repeated at every opportunity by abortion rights advocates—that pro-life people do not care about children after they are born.
A number of points:
-talking heads in the media tend to think of the common good notion as fuzzy and we’re probably to blame.
-Fr. Bryhan Hehir’s book of a couple of years ago titled ‘the Common Good,” should have been must reading for any Catholic interested, but probably wasn’t.
-The Roundtable of Social Justice Directors tried to bring together groups of pro-life and social justice advocates in various areas, with only a mdoicum of success, as far as I can see.
Again, here, the issue is the culture and ethic of the conversation/dialogue; it is obvious that the perspective of these groups tend to differ and naturally so; what’s lacking is the will to move the dialogue along to the inclusivity it deserves. The division in the public square politically probably harms our own internal atempts to be on the same page.
“But it is hard to deny that the overall effect is to subtly mute the Church’s full throated defense of the unborn.”
Peter, I must admit you surprised me with your emphasis. I presume that as a liberal you feel a greater obligation to correct those in your camp, as it were.
But I what I would like to know from you and the prolife group is why this is the number one issue of our times? What else does “full throated” mean? Indeed you are calling like it is.
So much so that it is the issue that decided the presidential election, allowing tens of thousands of more Iraqis to die and be plundered while allowing the very rich to receive a war time tax cut.
More precisely, it is those voices who thunder on the unborn who have been not only quiet but absolutely blocked solutions to prevent children from being abused by the clergy.
So many examples, but I will refrain so Grant won’t wonder about liability.
Even as great a light as Theodore Hesburgh, who opposes abortion, has faulted Rome and the bishops for this almost daily obsession with one issue.
Further, it is a most political issue so much so that many pro life persons would prefer that Roe NOT be overturned so that it will retain its political benefits.
Full throated or not, it is in my opinion the fraud issue of our time.
“Life does not end at birth; nor should our work to protect and preserve it.”
You wrote in response to this statement:: “Now there is nothing here that is, strictly speaking, objectionable. But it is hard to deny that the overall effect is to subtly mute the Church’s full throated defense of the unborn. The phrasing of the first line also reinforces the pernicious idea—repeated at every opportunity by abortion rights advocates—that pro-life people do not care about children after they are born.”
I don’t think it’s quite clear when you say “overall effect”. Did you mean to say “overall purpose” or “overall intent”? Is the subtle muting intended or just simply an effect? In either case, I do not find it hard to deny that yours is an accurate point. There is nothing in the CAGC statement that suggests that the Catholic voice on protection of the unborn is some how going to be diminished or silenced (muted). I don’t think there is any grounds for your prognosis.
And how does the phrase “Life does not end at birth” reinforce the (pernicious) notion that pro-lifers do not care or protect children after they are born? Is it not the case that many in our society neglect and harm children, including parents? Is not child abuse an epidemic? Why then would you imagine that CAGC is going to fuel pro-choice fires?
Reading the CAGC quote, I see only a declaration that is sorely needed: With all the controversy on all sides of the abortion issue, the protection and nurturing of children is the muted issue. What CAGC is doing is pointing to the sanctity of the life of the child, which complements and bolsters rather than hinders the pro-life cause.
Peter,
The words you cited from the second group seemed to me, at first glance, innocent enough. I am inclined to say that either you have more knowledge of those involved and their doings than I could divine from your presentation or you are reading in more than was there. As for the first group, their actual interests seem rather narrower than their professed mission. A colleague of mine and fellow member of a committee said to me once privately, probably because she thought I was being naive, “everyone here has an agenda”. There is probably more truth to that than I would like to think.
EC:
Yours is a fair question. I would respond by saying context is everything and it is the context of these sentences that make me feel odd about how they are worded.
When I talk to people active in the pro-life movement, one of the things that really drives them absolutely bonking mad is the charge that pro-life folks only care about babies after they are born. It’s a charge that gets repeated over and over and they are sick of it. Many of the folks I know who are active in pro-life ministry at the parish level are also involved in outreach to poor families in our community.
So when I read the sentence that reads “Life does not end at birth,” my first thought was “well, who says that it does?” What’s the context for this statement? And while you can certainly make various arguments about how we are supposed to interpret it, it seems to me that this phrase (and the following sentence) is meant as some kind of rejoinder to the argument that was made by some during the last election campaign that abortion is the most important issue because it involves the defense of human life. To which the rejoinder–often voiced–is that “life doesn’t end at birth.”
So, yes, I do read the first two lines of that paragraph as a subtle way of saying “abortion is not the only issue.” And for the record, I agree. There is certainly some value in pointing that out. There’s also no question that ACCG supports a pro-life position.
But, again, context is everything. Part of the context here is that those affiliated with CACG are much more likely to be moving in politically liberal circles than politically conservative circles. And I would suggest that people moving in politically liberal circles need to hear a slightly stronger message about abortion from their Catholic comrades than “abortion is not the only issue.”
None of this is to deny that ACCG and CCG both do some excellent work that is worth supporting. The source of my despair is that Catholic organizations working on issues of public policy are finding it increasingly hard to break out of the partisan divide.
Peter,
Thank you for the thoughtful clarification. I now better understand your take on the statements of these groups. Keep up the insightful pieces.
Herein lies the rub. Your suggestion that pro-life conservatives “need to be advocates for the poor and vulnerable” suggests that they don’t care about them.
I have made this kind of comment on a variety of posts on this blog, but the difference between conservatives and liberals is more one of means than of ends. I care about the poor and vulnerable enough not to impose the bureacracy of the state on them. I care enough about them to try and and promote a prosperous society where they won’t be poor and vulnerable rather than one that makes them systemically dependent.
Abortion, on the other hand is not a disagreemnt of means, but of ends and ends alone. I, for example, as a conservative will not vote for a conservative who agrees with me on almost everything if he or she is not pro-life. This year, I have no one whom I can vote for in my home state because of this. How many so-called pro-life liberals do the same?
It is time to stop treating this as a negotiable issue.
You can’t deny that during the 2004 Presidential election certain bishops acted as if abortion was the only social/moral issue that should matter to Catholics. And when those bishops fulminated about excommunication they received nationwide attention. It’s hard to blame the CCG for subtly referring to that ideology in their first sentence.
As a Catholic who moves in “politically liberal circles”, I am fully aware of the evil of abortion. In my experience, most Catholics who vote Democratic do not need reminding about the seriousness of this problem, and we do need to exert more pressure on the party to abandon its simple-minded and self-defeating stance on the issue.
But if abortion is “non-negotiable” as Sean says, what is negotiable? Is killing Iraqi chldren negotiable? Is allowing the environment to be destroyed (endangering all life on earth) negotiable? A good many
“pro-life” candidates seem to endorse these issues…
Amen for your last paragraph, Peter. Catholic social teachings, are neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Conservative, but true. And, they do challenge all of us.
CCG is a new apostolate that is trying to bridge the gap by only focusing on issues where there can be little or no disagreement on the application of Catholic teachings after an honest reading. It avoids getting into issues where there is great latitude for prudential judement as with such issues as healthcare, immigration and poverty. Here, faithful Catholics can follow the principles of the teachings and disagree on the strategy. This is the reason we have little content on our website related to the poor and vulnerable. As resources permit, however, we will be getting more involved in clearer issues such as human rights, human trafficking and genocide.
As time goes on, CCG will become a place of formation on the social teachings, one of the best kept secrets of the Catholic Church. They focus on the nature of God and the nature of the human person made in His image. They lead people to the very center of the Blessed Trinity and to conversion.
Among CCG’s leaders and advisors you will find liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. We pray that we remain faithful, guided by Holy Spirit and the social teachings, and that we are able to avoid the temptation to let political ideologies divide us within the movement. Outside the movement, we encourage people to be good liberals and good conservatives, but always Catholic first.
Bill May
Chairman, Catholics for the Common Good
Joanne,
By non-negotiable I mean that according to the Church abortion is an objectively grave sin ipso facto. Again, you mix means and ends. There is no one FOR killing Iraqi children and destroying the environment. What you object to are the policy choices – the means – that your political opponents support. If I said that the Great Society proponents were FOR creating a permanent under class, mass illegitimacy, and the destruction of the black family, I would be wrong. I may think those are the logical outgrowth of the policies, but I don’t belive the proponents’ goal was to do this. Political liberals won’t even allow those with whom they disagree to have there own motives – they must ascribe evil ones to them.
We can agree that the goal of a good society is to have a clean and productive economy and national security, and disagree on the ways to do it, but we can’t agree that abortion is objectively murder and then disagree whether it should be stopped by all lawful means. This is foolishness. This is Ted Kennedy logic. I agree with the Church’s teaching (abortion = murder), but I don’t want to impose my views on others (even when it involves scrambling the brains of 36 week to term “fetuses”). This is nonsense and liberals know it. I am sorry, but I can only conclude that Catholics who support these people really don’t care about the unborn. If they did they would start their own party.
Sean H. makes an excellent point: why should we accept the current boundaries of the politcal universe into Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative? Why not start another “party,” since the two we have are so dreadful? Unlike Sean, I’m a lefty — even a socialist. But I’m also pro-life, and I don’t have anyone to vote for. So I don’t vote — which leaves me unsatisfied. Why not start a party, or some sort of caucus, at least?
I’ve made the point elsewhere (last year in Books and Culture, and recently on this blogsite) that a “culture of life” requires a political economy of life. Imagine the delightful political discombobulation that would occur if Catholics would argue that a pro-life stance on abortion requires — requires — a left-wing stance on a host of economic issues? This isn’t a novel or perverse idea: it was common sense to Dorothy Day, John Ryan, and other Catholic social activists from the 1930s. That’s what we need to recapture, not snipe at one another and thus become complicit in the regnant (and boring) political configuration.
I did not mean to ascribe evil motives to certain elected officials or to imply that their goal was to kill Iraqi children and pollute the environment. These may not have been their goals, but these are the demonstrated effects of their policies.
In a pluralistic society, if I believe that abortion is evil (and I do), it is my job to convince my fellow citizens that this is the case. Trying to impose laws without a consensus on the issue simply won’t work.
Perhaps we all should refrain from ascribing
“evil motives” to those with whom we disagree – as in “Catholics who support these people really don’t care about the unborn.”
Peter Nixon writes: “It is precisely those Catholics who have strong ties to contemporary political liberalism who most need to be raising their voices in defense of the unborn, just as it is those Catholics who have strong ties to contemporary political conservatism who most need to be advocates for the poor and vulnerable.”
I confess I don’t see this tension over abortion between liberals and conservatives in my neck of the woods.
Many pro-life groups in my area, consisting largely of Republican/conservative volunteers, DO also serve women who have elected to give birth and adopt out or to try to raise their children without benefit of husband. This work is not as widely known, largely because it is not as “newsworthy.”
By the same token, the Democrats/liberals running for legislative and congressional seats ARE pro-life. They are not making this a central issue in their campaigns, probably because they are running against pro-life incumbent Republican.. So abortion isn’t the issue that is forefront in debates.
Sean H. makes an interesting pont about means and ends, and voting that opens a window into what I think are the real differences among Catholics.
How many of us vote for conservative candidates because we believe they will create prosperous business people who will then provide jobs?
How many of us vote for liberal candidates who say that we cannot rely on the beneficence of the rich to share their wealth, and that there are many people who are disabled and cannot work at all who need help?
And how many of us who vote either way simply feel that we’ve done our duty to Catholic social teaching and leave it at that?
Doesn’t Catholic social teaching call us to more than just a vote? In my view, perhaps the tension between Catholics isn’t so much liberal or conservative, but active or complacent.
(I realize my response is a tangent on Sean H’s original point about means and ends, and I hasten to note that I am NOT implying that Sean H. or anybody else is inactive. I don’t know anything about him other than his responses to various blog posts.)
Here is what Augustine writes on abortion:
“The great question about the soul is not hastily decided by unargued and rash judgment; the law does not prove that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation when it is not formed in flesh, and so not yet endowed with sense.”
In this issue we should at least get our terms straight. No one, even the church officially, is sure when human life begins. The opposition is based on the possibility that there MAY be life at conception.
This is the wrong approach, in my opinion. This should be approached from the point of selfishness just as birth control should.
For Bill May who writes: “This is the reason we have little content on our website related to the poor and vulnerable. ” You are reversing the priority which Jesus gave which placed the poor, vulnerable and women, first. There is not a word in Jesus about abortion.
Are we not re-writing the scriptures?
Eugene McC. et al.–
I’ve mentioned Democrats for the Life of America before. It’s an admittedly small but growing group of pro-life Democrats, and it has a “95-10″ program for reducing 95% of the abortions in the U.S. in 10 years. DFLA is worth a look for anyone interested:
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
Peter,
I read the first phrase of the CCG’s statement as you did; with a little skepticism. However, after I read a few of the comments, I went back and read it again and it gradually became ‘in addition to our pro-life position, we also recognize an obligation to the poor.’ It’s an easy phrase to misinterpret.
Liberals charge pro-life conservatives with disdain for the poor because they tend to vote for Republicans, who have a history of down-sizing, underfunding and or gutting social programs designed to help the poor. It’s a conclusion one is forced to adopt; putting in power those who we *know* will enrich the wealthy and impoverish the poor can lead to but one conclusion, whether it’s true or not. I think Joanne has the right take on this issue.
Eugene, I’m like you — I have no one to vote for in my state, but I *DO* vote. I vote for my city counselman, the sherrif, the DA, etc. If there’s no pro-life candidate to vote for, I either leave the rest blank or enter a write-in. That way the parties in power will know there is a vote out there they didn’t get. If enough people did that, they’d pay attention fast.
Two things worry me about this set of postings. First, taken together, they don’t reflect very well the Catholic faith that I’m sure underlies each of them, a faith that is a profound testimony to divine love for all of us. Nor does this set of postings reflect very well the fact that all of us must humbly admit that we see the meaning of our faith only partially, “in a glass darkly.”
Furthermore, though it is true that some of the moral implications of our faith are clear, e.g., that deliberate abortion is an objective moral evil, it is never going to be transparent just how these moral certainties are to be inscribed into any civil legal code. There can be and are some legal provisions that are clearly incompatible with the demands of morality. That is, we can draw negative inferrences from these certainties about particular civil laws and regulations that contradict them, e.g., a laaw REQUIRING that fetuses with serious genetic defects be aborted. But we cannot rightly claim that we can infer from these certainties a civil legal regime that is either (a) right for all times and places or (b) the only defensible regime.
All a civil legal regime can rightly claim is that it is a prudent application of moral norms.
If I am correct about this, then I have some reason to be skeptical about Bill May’s confidence about the extent of the “Common Ground” that he foresaw for CCG. From my perspective, if we can keep our common commitment to our Faith in the forefront, we can work together, as well as with our fellow citizens, to promote a civic discourse and a legal order that is as consonant with our Faith as is feasible. This common work, though, as a search for what is prudent at a particular time and place, is by this very fact a search that will never be over and done with.
So Sean H. – by your posting , you are some how saying that the lives of innocent humans, babies, toddlers, young children, teens, and adults are some how negotiable? You are saying that a 6 month old baby killed by bombs in Iraq or Lebannon, or from starvatiin in Africa is somehow less innocent than a baby in the womb? Come now Sean. Life does not end at birth. That is not a Democratice spin or a Republican spin. With your reference to Senator Kennedy, it is clear you are here for politics. If so, how is the current Republican Leadership any different on life than the Democrats. Abortion has not ended nor will it under the Republicans. The question is how can we as a society start working towards public policy that address’s the real reasons why women have abortions. Untill then, the same debate will rage on, and babies will die. Criminalization is not the answer.
Nobody has ever answered Carl Rahners question which was, are moral theologians prepared to admit that have the human race do not make it to birth since at least fifty percent end in miscarriages.
This is huge and no one has addressed it intelligently. Where are the funerals, condtional baptisms and reverential burials for a full human being?
Bill,
I don’t think it is quite fair to say no one has addressed this question intelligently. Many people for very good reasons, which have been mentioned in previous blogs, doubt that the ferilized ovum before implantation, when most of the miscarriages Rahner is referring to occur, is more than a potential human being. One piece of evidence is that such an ovum has been known to split to form, eventually, identical twins. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that two such ova have been known to combine to form, eventually, one human being. If such ova have souls, what becomes of the spare?
I think there is wisdom in Bernard Dauenhauer’s comments about the CCG’s optimistic view of their own mission. Bill May explains that CCG is “a new apostolate that is trying to bridge the gap by only focusing on issues where there can be little or no disagreement on the application of Catholic teachings after an honest reading.”
But plenty of intelligent and fair-minded, and yes—honest– Catholics have in fact found it hard to come to agreement about the practical implementation of Catholic teachings in exactly the areas CCG has chosen to work on: “Life” issues, like abortion, end of life concerns, marriage and the family, etc.
On their site there are links to various foundational documents. Perhaps it is a reading of these as exemplary Catholic teachings that is thought likely to convince any right-thinking reader? But then, one of the documents is “Humanae Vitae,” which certainly has been a stumbling block for many. And there are several pieces by John Paul II and others presenting his “theology of the body,” which as an “honest reader” I must admit I find subjective and unconvincing. (Maybe this is a minority view, but I think time may be on my side.)
At any rate, I wish CCG well, but suspect that any group that comes to easy agreement on implementation strategies on their focus issues will turn out to be much less diverse than their warm and welcoming stance indicates they would like to be.
John,
Yes – I can see how from my posts you can determine that I support killing – what did you say – innocent babies, toddlers, young children, teens, and adults. I am first and foremost a Catholic. I responded to the political aspect of this post because I object to the underlying assumption that a person who is not liberal does not care for the “common good.” Your post is another example of why this discussion is so difficult. I said nothing about the relative value of human life. I didn’t even say anything about Lebanon – you did. But now that you bring it up, I will use it as an example and explain what I mean by abortion being non-negotiable. I believe reasonable, and moral, and good Catholic people can differ on they best way to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Hezbolah problems. We hear repeatedly that war never solves anything, but history tells us that’s nonsense. Sometimes it does resolve problems, and sometimes it is necessary – ask a Holocaust survivor. Will it resolve Israel’s problems? I don’t know, but I don’t think I can condemn the decision of a nation that has been under constant attack for more than half a century inherently immoral. Unless you are ready to say all war in all circumstances is immoral, it is something reasonable people can frequently differ on.
Abortion is, on the other hand, inherently immoral. It should be opposed by all lawful and peaceful means. Treating it like any other political issue is like tolerating a little slavery or a little rape in the hope of decreasing it in the long run. I repeat, because I think it is true, that many Catholics merely pay lip service to this issue to assuage their consciences when they support clearly pro-abortion politicians. I’m sorry, but it’s the only conclusion that I can come to when people say they will tolerate the slaughter of nearly one in three human beings conceived in this country because they think a 7% increase in education funding is more “pro-life” than a 3% increase, or that not drilling in ANWAR is more “pro-life” than drilling in ANWAR. That’s hogwash.
More than 45 million abortions since 1973 – 45 million! That’s not politics – those are human souls.
Joe,
Implantation takes about eight to 10 days. With that look one can easily argue that there is no human at that point. The abortion would not be killing right?As for miscarriages, certainly they are abundant after implantation. Where is the preservation of those after that. It is so inconsistent.
There is nothing scientific that does not say that this is not a fraud issue. But it is a very profitable issue for many.
Sean H,
I am anti abortion too. But I have problems with the way you put some of your arguments.
You say abortion is inherently immoral. I agree. But as far as I know the Church permits abortions in cases where there is a danger to the life of the mother. Similarily why not admit that war is also inherently immoral, though there may be situations where it may become unavaoidable. The difference is that if you subscribe to such a view then you will not look at war as a possible solution but only as a protective or defensive measure. No Iraq war and possibly not the catastrophe in Lebanon.
You also say “More than 45 million abortions since 1973 – 45 million! That’s not politics – those are human souls”. But as Bill Mazella mentioned earlier in the thread “No one, even the church officially, is sure when human life begins. The opposition is based on the possibility that there MAY be life at conception.” So you take as fact what even the Church, with its anti abortion position, is not willing to assert.
Sunil Korah
Sunil,
War cannot be both inherently immoral and unavoidable. To judge the morality of any act you must look to the act itself, the subjective state of mind of the actor, and the circumstances. If war is “unavoidable” that is necessary – and just – it is not immoral.
As for the when does human life begin, I have stayed out of that discussion because I think, at least for catholics, the issue is settled, the comments on this blog notwithstanding. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church – which I understand is not treated as much of an authority here -
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Surprise! I agree with Sean that 45 million abortions since 1973 is a horrendous and terribly sad number. But I must add some other pertinent facts. According to the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, more than half the abortions in the US are performed on poor and low-income women. And I must question the statement that one in three conceptions end in abortion. How does anyone know how many babies are conceived?? Statistics in 2000 said that 20% of pregnancies in the US ended in abortion, and the abortion rate has decreased since then.
As John O’Reilly suggested, we need to work towards eliminating the circumstances that drive women to seek an abortion. Even if abortion is recriminalized (which is highly unlikely), the practice will continue. Who knows what the abortion rate was before Roe vs. Wade?
I think everyone who has responded to this thread wants to reduce the number of abortions; we simply disagree about the best way to do it. Insulting each other is pointless.
A couple of points before closing -
I think the argument that poverty causes abortion is spurious. First, the vast majority of abortions are performed on single women under the age of 25. Included within the “low income” group would be women such as students. The vast majority of people who would be considered “low income” are young and single – whether they are men or women. The young and single have always been at the low end of the economic spectrum, and they always will be. I would hazard a guess that many of the readers of this blog were, like me, low income at the age of 19.
If you look at Guttmacher’s definition of “low income” it includes everyone with an income below 200% of the poverty level. I then invite you to look at the census bureau’s poverty stats and you will find very little difference between the percentages of “low income” single women at about the ages of 19 and 20 and the Guttmacher stats on abortion rates. In short, the two groups will always intersect.
More to the point, looking at GI’s own stats, the abortion rate among the highest income level – over 300% of the poverty level – is slightly higher than the rate of abortion for the poorest group – those actually under the poverty level!
The abortion problem is first and foremost a moral and spiritual failure, not an economic one, and connecting the two simply provides a moral fig leaf for some politicians. I do not mean that more can’t be done to promote the health of pregnant women and alternatives to abortion, but this will not serve as the foundation for eliminating or even substantially reducing abortions in this country.
I find this thread incredibly depressing because it seems to suggest that abortion is some type of litmus test for Catholicity, i.e., the more you hate abortion and rail against the women who have them and doctors who perform them, the more Catholic you are.
Perhaps it is a failing in my moral character that I do not feel more compelled to “do something” about abortion besides weigh my votes carefully.
But, quite honestly, children exploited by the sex trade, who suffer with AIDS, or even the kids in my son’s school who have neglectful or abusive parents and siblings, speak to me more than unknown aborted babies.
I continue to pray for the grace to understand this better.
Meantime, I know several women who have had abortions. I pray for them and their unborn babies. I know an abortion recovery program I could send them to if they ever expressed doubts or remorse over their decisions.
But, practically speaking, I’m the last person they’d turn to if they had such feelings. They’ve heard all the strident pro-life rhetoric, and it’s quite clear they expect no compassion from Catholic quarters.
So we can parse sentences like, “Life does not end at birth; nor should our work to protect and preserve it,” and argue about whether they sufficiently condemn abortion to satisfy all sensibilities.
But in the end, what is it doing to help us reach women who have had abortions or those who might? Nothing.
Thank you all for the productive conversation, and especially to Peter for his well-received and constructive comments. Peter is correct in his observation that some could perceive the term “life does not end at birth” as muting the Church’s full-throated defense of human life. Let us state unequivocally that is not the intention of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
Catholics in Alliance adheres completely to the Catholic Church’s teachings on human life. We also believe Catholics can only realize the vital goal of the protection of human life when we bring the Church’s social tradition into the public dialogue on values and public life.
Catholic Social Teaching calls us to understand the radical relationship that exists among the Catholic values of protecting the dignity of human life, caring for the poor, and promoting the common good. As the 2002 Doctrinal Note
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html)
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on “Some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in Political Life” states: “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” It is because of this integral unity that the protection of human life, and specifically abortion, cannot be addressed without a simultaneous full-throated defense of the poor. Despite the claims by some that we should separate poverty from abortion, it remains that the two issues are inextricably tied, as evidenced by the significant decline in abortion rates that occurred during the economic boom of the 1990s (during this decade, abortion rates reached a 24 year low). Poverty is also a root cause of a host of social problems, from war, to immigration, to crime, teenage pregnancy, and infant and childhood mortality.
But beyond practical considerations, Catholic Social Teaching contains a deeper recognition: that defending the life and dignity of the human person presupposes a long and holistic view of the spiritual and existential needs the human person. Political action that seeks to narrow our commitment to human life and dignity actually does more harm than good–by narrowing our understanding of the human person itself.
The Alliance is focused on promoting the Church’s Social Doctrine because our faith calls us to do so, and because we feel that this approach will most effectively build the essential conditions for a culture of life and the common good.
Alexia K. Kelley
Executive Director
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Jean,
I certainly hope my comments aren’t taken as railing against women who have had abortions. I don’t mean to at all. I have seen the damage done to women who have abortions first hand, and all the studies done on this indicate the vast majority of women who have abortions deeply regret their decision later in life. Many suffer deep and abiding spiritual and psychological damage. Abortion is, as much as anything can be, a social sin that our whole society shares in.
Alexia,
With all due respect, the Church itself, and even the document you cited, the doctrinal note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, recognize the difference in the treatment of some issues in the political arena. The Church asks Catholics to all consider and work toward certain common values like peace, economic prosperity for all, care for the sick etc. as the ends of political activity, but it recognizes that there are a plurality of means to arrive at these ends. That is, faithful Catholics can disagree on what political choices achieve those ends. No choice is ever all good or all bad, so we are left with doing what we think is best. I tend to favor free market and private means to achieve most social goods rather than government run methods, not because I think they are perfect or because I think all the actors have the best motives, but because they tend to work better in the long run. Others disagree with me. That is fine, but there are simply some Catholic principles in which a plurality of opinion is not an option. Quoting from the above mentioned doctrinal note:
“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.”
I am not concerned that your group is not committed to fully defending life, but I do think the integral linking of the abortion question to a specific set of liberal social policies on which Catholics may disagree in good conscience and on which compromise is permissible is a mistake. It is risky and may be used by those who do not agree with the Church’s position as a means to divide Catholics on life issues on which we should have a uniform position.
I just want to say what a pleasure it was to see the comments from both Bill May (director of CCG) and Alexia Kelley (director of CACG) on this thread.
One of the dangers of blogging (and commenting) is its remoteness and the difficulty in conveying tone. I very much wanted the comments in my original post to be taken constructively and it is good to see that both individuals took them in that spirit. Perhaps this medium need not be so adverse to reasoned dialogue as is sometimes–not entirely without reason–supposed.
God bless,
P.N.
Sean H. appears to imply that, since the “young and single have always been at the low end of the economic spectrum” it is a mistake to connect abortion to poverty, presumably because the young will outgrow their poverty by finishing school and getting a job (just like he planned to when he was 19).
Sean H., young single women who opt for abortion understand your point with a precision and intensity that you can probably only barely grasp, because they also understand that if they were to become single mothers they are a lot less likely, in fact, to exit the ranks of the poor. You can be sure that thought informs their decision.
And though it stings the pro-life sensibilities, there are many studies that document greater emotional trauma in young women who give up babies for adoption than who undergo abortion. Certainly it is appropriate to argue for the superiority of adoption on principle, but you cannot shut up a person’s heart.
In answer to Sunil’s question. From the Ethical and Religious Directives:
Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.
Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.
Abortion is not permitted to save the life of the mother. The catechism (as carried out through the directives) does not deem her life to be any more worthwhile than that of her fetus.
Barbara, can you refer us to a source for your adoption stats?
Some pro-life groups in my area work with or have ties to specific adoption agencies, and they have tried to make the whole process more humane, balancing the rights of the adoptive parents to be parents in full with the birth parents’ desire to know their baby has a loving home, all within the confines of the state laws.
It’s quite a tightwire to maneuver.
These groups have truly put their money where their mouths are on adoption, and I like to think they’ve made the process less traumatic for all concerned.
Barbara,
I think that’s a bit of quibbling on the meaning of the word ‘abortion’. I grant you that you are right. What I meant is “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”. Does it make a difference to point I was trying to make? That there may be circumstances when something which would otherwise be considered wrong, may have to be done. But may be I should be clearer. I should have said that my understanding of the Church’s teachings (God’s rather) is that killing is inherently immoral. So abortion is immoral. Can you have a war without killing? Therefore to me war is also inherently immoral. If I am attacked murderously and I kill my attacker in self defense what is my position? I think I would be forgiven the act, though that does not make it right. But would I be forgiven if I saw sombody loitering outside my house with a gun and decided that the only way to protect myself is to shoot him down? Could be a toy gun ( has happened hasn’t it?) or non existent WMDs.
(I was talking not about abortion basically. As I mentioned I am anti abortion too)
Sunil Korah
Sunil,
One of your basic assumptions – at least in traditional Judeo-Christian morality – is incorrect. Killing is not inherently immoral – murder or unjustified killing is. If you or another are innocent and attacked and in reasonable fear of life or limb you do not have to be forgiven a killing because you have done nothing wrong. In fact, one might even argue that a failure to act to protect the innocent may itself be immoral. Just war theory is, in a way, this principle writ large.
You, and others, might be interested in the story of Blessed Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20040516_beretta-molla_en.html
Sunil, your question wasn’t clear, so I just quoted the source documents. I’m not going to comment further on what I think of them (especially the doctrine as it is applied to ectopic pregnancies).
Jean, what I should have said is this:
Studies on the impact of adoption on the birth mother show a degree of emotional trauma that has not been shown in studies of women undergoing elective abortion. That women who confess to Catholic priests often do exhibit such trauma might be a function of selection bias. I mean, I doubt if there are many women alive who would knowingly admit to having had an abortion in a crowd of devoted Catholics without also expressing guilt or remorse.
Most studies on adoptoin involved closed adoption. There is no doubt that birth mothers are treated better than they used to be. So hopefully, the opportunity for more open adoption will lessen the trauma for biological mothers who are separated from their babies. However, I do note that the more favorable treatment correlates closely with the scarcity of available babies, as well as lessened social opprobrium for single mothers overall, both of which are attributable to social trends that more than a few would happily reverse.
“Studies on the impact of adoption on the birth mother show a degree of emotional trauma that has not been shown in studies of women undergoing elective abortion.”
What studies?
Barbara, yes, no doubt the dearth of healthy babies has given birth parents more clout and that plays some part in open adoptions. But perhaps we agree that the pro-life people have helped push more humane adoptions.
Sean, I get a bit disgruntled when Blessed Gianna is mentioned in arguments over abortion.
As I understand it, she had cancer at a time when it was quite untreatable. Rather than risk her unborn daughter’s death in a procedure she knew had a small chance of being effective, she elected to leave things in God’s hands and accept what happened.
Blessed Gianna’s sacrifice is inspiring because she was willing to give up whatever extra time she might have purchased by having the procedure and give birth to her daughter instead. She brought life out of death, and this took courage, love, faith and grace.
But abortion, contemplated or otherwise, was never part of her story.
If there is an abortion story that ought to speak to modern women, it’s Dorothy Day’s. She had an abortion as a young woman of indifferent religious views, but elected to have a second child as a result of her transformation by faith and grace.
Though the jury’s still out on beatification on Dorothy Day, of course, and there are a number of factors about her life that make her a more “problematic” saint.
Jean,
I beg to differ – this is taken from the testimony of her husband – translated from Italian of course -
The doctors pointed out three different types of operation, as her husband testifies: a total laparatomy with the removal of both the fibroma and the uterus, it would certainly have saved her life; therapeutic abortion and the removal of the fibroma, and this would have made possible other pregnancies. Otherwise the removal of the fibroma, trying not interrupting her pregnancy.
Gianna chose the last solution, the most dangerous for her. In fact in those times a childbirth was to be expected very dangerous for the mother, after such an operation. Gianna, as a doctor, knew this very well…
The surgical operation, of just removing her fibroma, took place on September 6th 1961.
Therefore the pregnancy went on and Gianna began working again as long as a doctor up to her childbirth approached. She went into a nursing home on April 20th in 1962 and the following day – the Holy Saturday – she gave birth to a child: a little girl named Gianna Emanuela.
She did not leave it in God’s hands – if by that you mean she did nothing. She did what she could to save her own life, but not an abortion or hysterectomy (which would have resulted in an abortion as well). This is why she is so often mentioned in this context.
I feel depressed by the thread also. Much talk of abortion, when life begins, miscarriages, but little clarification as to the notion of the “common good.” Several obviously politicallly driven posts too.
In all of this, not a mention of “whole cloth” and its aftermath/discussion
it’s nice to see folks realy trying, but the gap between pro-life advocates and social justice folk would seem to be one not easily resolvable by dialogue yet. My suspicion is more empathy and less politics would really help.
Okay, I find it kind of surprising that it would surprise anyone that birth mothers undergo intense, adverse psychological effects of giving up a baby, but here are some research studies:
Askren, H. A., & Bloom, K. C. (1999). Postadoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: A review. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 28(4), 395-400.
The authors identified 12 studies with a total of 625 birth mothers, and they report the studies show that mothers are at long-term risk for repercussions; grief reactions, long-term effects, efforts to resolve, and influences on the relinquishment experience are discussed.
De Simone, M. (1996). Birth mother loss: Contributing factors to unresolved grief. Clinical Social Work Journal, 24(1), 65-76.
The authors surveyed 264 birth mothers an average of 25 years after placing their infants for adoption to solicit information on such topics as unresolved grief, extent of social support, moderating variables, and reunion experiences. Higher levels of grief were correlated with the mother’s perception that she was coerced into the placement and with feelings of guilt and shame.
Deykin, E. Y., Patti, P., & Ryan, J. (1988). Fathers of adopted children: A study of the impact of child surrender on birthfathers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58(2), 240-248.
Questionnaire data provided by 125 birth fathers indicated long-term unresolved issues related to the adoption.
Fravel, D. L., McRoy, R. G., & Grotevant, H. D. (2000). Birthmother perceptions of the psychologically present adopted child: Adoption openness and boundary ambiguity. Family Relations, 49, 425-433.
Interviews with 163 birth mothers in the Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project show that the child placed for adoption remains psychologically present.
Winkler, R., & van Keppel, M. (1984). Relinquishing mothers in adoption: Their long-term adjustment. Melbourne, Australia: Institute of Family Studies.
The authors studied 213 birth mothers who had placed children up to 30 years earlier and found that many had continuing experiences of loss, which were often worse for women who lacked social support and opportunities to discuss their loss.
Sean H., thanks for the info on Bl. Gianna Mollo. I plead guilty of not knowing she was offered a chance to abort and actively rejected this option.
I do see where you are coming from. But I think we take somewhat different lessons from her experience, which I won’t belabor here.
Robert,
I regret this discussion depresses you and a couple of others, but I think it is useful. The original post mentioned whether the new group somehow muted a “full-throated” defense of life. I went to their web site, and I think that is exactly what it does. Further, it equates Catholic Social teaching, as so often is the case, with a set of specific, primarily “liberal” or “progressive” policy choices. I challenge this on a couple of grounds.
First, Catholic Social teaching addresses the proper ends of political and societal activities. To the extent this is the “common good” I think all Catholics ought to agree. Unfortunately this group, and others, equate the “common good” with their view of the best means to achieve those ends. For example, I think all Catholics can agree that the “common good” includes feeding the hungry, but this does not automatically equate with an obligation to increase all foreign aid. We can disagree with the methods to achieve the common good and still agree on what it is. Moreover, we must often choose between goods – is the capitalist who wants to drill for oil and create jobs etc. less for the common good than an environmentalist who wants to stop him? For most things, the common good involves compromise and democratic give-and-take. Which brings me to the second point.
Abortion is an essential part of this discussion. At the risk of seeming uncharitable, it seems to me that the driving force behind these groups is that Roman Catholics, particularly those who are active in the faith – going to mass regularly etc. – are increasingly siding with conservatives, and abortion (as well as other moral and social issues) is one of the reasons. I live in Massachusetts and it is probably the only place where you can see a car with an “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart” bumper sticker on the right side of a car and a “Kennedy for Senate” sticker on the left. Increasingly, more people are seeing the complete incongruity of this. Groups like CCG want to stem the tide, and I think they are trying to do so by making a fatuous connection between their political agenda and the pro-life position – they want to deny there is a fundamental disconnect between their political allies on “social justice” issues and a pro-life stand. Finally, and most importantly, I think they misrepresent the Catholic faith by treating abortion as no more important than something like tax reform or environmental concerns. That is not what the Church teaches.
Thanks, everyone, for an interesting and productive conversation. To Sean’s points on Church teaching and public policy, I think the case CACG and others are making is that faithful Catholics should feel free to engage in an open debate about how best to promote the common good. That’s precisely what we’re doing here in this discussion.
The quote from the Doctrinal Note on “exception, compromise or derogation” is often misused. While our Church has articulated unambiguous teachings about many moral issues, it does not claim to speak with absolute authority about how these moral norms translate to civic policy – especially in pluralist societies like that of the United States. We find this belief expressed in the documents of Vatican II, and affirmed more recently in Pope Benedict’s Deus Caritas Est encyclical. Indeed, even many “conservative” commentators accept this viewpoint. Speaking on the Easter Sunday edition of “Meet the Press”, for example, Father Richard Neuhaus suggested that, “if you have a senator who says… ‘As a Catholic, I am convinced in conscience that the goal is every unborn child protected in law and welcomed in life, but I disagree with the bishops as to how we might get to that goal,’ that is a different thing and… his or her relationship with the church is not compromised or impaired.” Bottom line: there is room for legitimate diversity of policy opinions among Catholics on all social issues, even abortion.
The proper test for any abortion policy should not be whether it is “liberal” or “conservative”, but whether it works.
Chris Korzen
Executive Director
Catholics United for the Common Good
Mr. Korzen,
I must ask exactly how the quote from the doctrinal note is misused? It states “This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia . . . . Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.”
Such laws “must defend” life. There is nothing ambiguous about that. As for Fr. Neuhaus’s statement it is that differing on means is permitted so long as “the goal is every unborn child protected in law.” Many so-called Catholic politicians may take no solace in this statement because that is not their goal. In fact, their goal is the exact opposite – to protect abortion in law. In other words, we may disagree about specific methods and laws regarding abortion but cannot, as faithful Catholics, disagree that the end state is that the unborn must be protected.
I will ask the question plainly, and if you can, please give a plain answer. Both of our (I say our because it seems you too live in Massachusetts) Senators take the position that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but oppose any laws outlawing it, or even, apparently regulating it (as in the case of late term abortions). This, moreover, is not a passive opposition to change, but an active support of the “right” to an abortion as a positive political and social good. Is that position consistent with Catholic doctrine and their responsibilities as Catholics?
Sean, I think some conservative Catholics are pushing their political agendas by looking for sticks to beat up liberal Catholics with.
That stick has become the hue and cry of so many conservative commentators: Liberals aren’t real Catholics because they’re soft on abortion.
Ergo, real Catholics must be conservatives. Or, as you put it: “At the risk of seeming uncharitable, it seems to me that the driving force behind these groups is that Roman Catholics, particularly those who are active in the faith – going to mass regularly etc. – are increasingly siding with conservatives, and abortion (as well as other moral and social issues) is one of the reasons. ”
And, yes, liberals do it to conservatives with the war in Iraq: If you’re for the war you believe in killing kids and innocent civilians.
Both arguments are unfair, uninformed and uncharitable.
Jean,
You overstate my position. I do not believe you are required to be conservative to hold to the faith. In my opinion, you can be a socialist. You can oppose the war you can support the war. You can be for increased taxes you can be against increased taxes. You can be an industrialist or an environmentalist. None of that matters.
And let’s get our terms correct. I am not talking about “being soft” on abortion. I am talking about actively supporting abortion and ignoring and derogating the humanity of the unborn. I don’t even go so far as to say that one is a “bad Catholic” if they vote for someone who supports abortion. I am addressing those active in the political arena who profess to be Catholic and then actively promote policies and laws that the Church has unambiguously condemned as contrary to God’s law.
Mr. Korzen, for example, was one of the original organizers of the Massachusetts Green Party, whose platform explicitly supports abortion and denies that humanity of the unborn – see para. 2.7 of their party platform. Now he is promoting a “Catholic” political action group. I am simply pointing out that these two positions – being Catholic and promoting the “right” of one person to terminate the life of an unborn person are diametrically opposed and absolutely irreconcilable. I believe a person in that position, who is seeking money and support under the banner of promoting “Catholic” values has an obligation to explain that position in an open and honest way. I don’t think asking that they do so is terribly uncharitable.
I guess I’ll close (before Grant tells me to rent a hall and kicks me out) by saying that I prefer to uphold the Church’s teaching about life by asking how we can encourage more women to preserve their children, born and unborn, rather than to cast suspicion on those who may now or may in the past have been actively promoted pro-choice positions by virtue of their affiliation with the Green Party, Catholics for the Common Good, the Moose Lodge, or International House of Pancakes.
I will take seriously the liberal-bashing that goes on in blogs such as this one, and in the media, concerning whether one can in good conscience vote for a particular candidate for affice, after the following events occur, and not before:
1. Republican, Catholic, pro-choice governors such as George Pataki of New York and Arnold (you-know-who) of California are
excommunicated.
2. My fellow churchgoers in my conservative suburb help to hand a stunning second, or better yet first place victory to the Pro-Life party candidate in any electoral contest in my state.
Peace to all.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Find More Informations here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=441 [...] …