Rudy and Abortion, II
April 11, 2007, 10:09 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Austin Ruse asked me to post these three responses to Rudy’s stand on abortion:
Maggie Gallagher’s colum, “Rudy to Pro-LIfer: Drop Dead,”
Bill Donohue’s press release “Giuliani and Casey: Making Life Decisions”.
I am always willing to take a jab at Mr. Donohue, so let me be the first to say I am pleasantly surprised with Donohue’s press release!
While Bill D’s press release thankfully lacks the bombastic tone of some of his utterances, I couldn’t help noticing this quote:
“Catholics look to people like Giuliani and Casey to promote a culture of life. Giuliani’s mixed signals are in need of repair. Casey is off to a good start.”
In the article by Paul Lauritzen linked by Grant in the post above, there is a cogent discussion on the alliance between some evangelicals and Catholics, and how this alliance perhaps has a much narrower concept of what “culture of life” entails than how that term was developed by JPII in Evangelium vitae. Paul Lauritzen explains:
“If we examine John Paul’s articulation of the distinction between a culture of life and a culture of death in EV, we find a series of contrasts: individual autonomy vs. the common good; economic efficiency vs. solidarity with the weak and marginalized, relativism vs. objectivism. These contrasts are said to shed light on movements to legalize abortion and euthanasia. Yet, it is important to note that promoting a culture of life and resisting a culture of death are not reduced to opposing abortion and euthanasia; quite the contrary. Consistent with the emphasis on the common good and protecting the weak, the document insists that promoting a culture of life and resisting a culture of death mean opposing poverty, hunger, war, torture, environmental degradation, and the death penalty, among other things. In other words, promoting a culture of life is not just about opposing abortion, stem-cell research, and euthanasia, and to the degree that it is about resisting these things, it is because opposing them is seen as protecting the weak. It is not about these things per se.”
When Bill D. uses “culture of life,” I have to wonder if he is fully on board with JPII’s articulation of the term.
William,
It is commentary like Mr Lauritzen’s that give pause to strongly pro-life Catholics when they hear, in criticism, the words “consistent ethic of life.” Just as some may narrow the concept of the culture of life to just a few issues, those who promote a much broader concept of a culture of life work too hard to obscure the fundamental difference between abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and other “life” issues on the other.
For example, the statement “promoting a culture of life and resisting a culture of death mean opposing poverty, hunger, war, torture, environmental degradation, and the death penalty, among other things.” Leaving the death penalty – which is more closely related to the issues of abortion and euthanasia – aside – what does it mean to be “opposed” to poverty and hunger? I know of precious few people who are in favor of it. What is typically meant by those who say they are “opposed” to poverty is that they are in favor of certain types of government social policies, and that those who are not in favor of those policies are not “opposed” to poverty.
As a Catholic, my obligation in a real consistent ethic of life is to consider the “inestimable value of human life” in my actions – including my political and economic behavior. If I oppose certain types of environmental regulation, that does not necessarily mean I am in favor of environmental degradation, it may mean that I think there are different and perhaps better ways to achieve the same goal, or that I may give greater weight to other valid goals, like economic development, that also serve to recognize the inestimable value of human life.
Abortion and euthanasia are different in kind (also, if one reads EV, very different in emphasis) from some of these other issues. I actually can say that being opposed to abortion ipso facto leads to certain policy positions. I can’t say, for example, I am opposed to abortion and in favor of funding abortions.
No, I think Donahue is on target with the culture of life comment.
Sean–
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, especially your statement “[a]s a Catholic, my obligation in a real consistent ethic of life is to consider the ‘inestimable value of human life’ in my actions – including my political and economic behavior.” If only all people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, were as motivated. Of course there can be legitimate disagreement on how best to fight poverty, etc, but I don’t think it is as clear cut as you say that poverty, hunger, torture, and the like are included in “culture of life” as it is construed by some Christians. In fact, one poster on this blog recently made an impassioned defense of the pro-life position, something I agreed with wholeheartedly, yet in the next sentence said he didn’t care about the “hair pulling” or torture of Islamic fundamentalist prisoners. To me, that kind of comment indicates the turning a blind eye to JPII’s lessons on “culture of life” in EV. That there may be disagreement in how best to effect a culture of life, sure, I agree with that. That efforts to eradicate hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, torture, and the death penalty aren’t part of the culture of life, I can’t agree to that. Apparently, JPII, in formulating an expansive definition of culture of life, takes the same position.
I read the same post, and although I don’t think the description helped his point, I do think he was trying to make a valid point. What is torture? We can all agree that torture is wrong, but we can disagree as to what constitutes torture. Some of what I have seen identified as torture here and elsewhere, I don’t think is torture – the “hair pulling” analogy. It is coercion, but is it torture? Coercion in most instances is wrong but in some it is not. Indeed, there may be some instances where coercion consistent with an ethic of life.
With abortion, this is not the case. Abortion is abortion and always inconsistent with the ethic of life. It is therefore different in kind.
As to “blind eyes” I see it more frequently the other way around -that those who would emphasize poverty and environmental concerns use it as a basis for minimizing or turing a blind eye to abortion and euthanasia.
A check of infant mortality rates places the United States in 36th, place, behind Canada, and all western European countries.
Claiming to be pro-life is like attaching one of those “Support the Troops” bumber stickers — OK as long as it doesn’t require anything other than lip service or perhaps building a few more jails.
(The mortality data is at at http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm, )
Many thanks to Cathy for putting these posts on the blog. There is one more from Robert Royal who condemns Rudy in his column in the National Catholic Reporter.
The reason I asked Cathy to post this is to answer the questions posed a few days ago by Eduardo about whether influential Catholic conservatives would come out against Rudy on abortion in the same way they came out against John Kerry.
This is only the beginning. There will be more. And if the GOP actually nominates Rudy, social conservatives will leave the GOP in droves and notable Catholic conservatives will lead the public clamor.
Austin, I couldn’t find the Robert Royal column, or I would have posted it too. Are you sure it’s online?