More on the “Call for Incivility”
In its response to the Call for Civility described in MZ’s post, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute issued a terse statement condemning the initiative. This underpins their objection:
“Some ask for civility now for one reason, abortion. John Paul the Great called abortion the greatest civil rights issue of our time and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently called it the number one political issue of our time. Embryo-destructive research, and homosexual marriage follow right behind, though numerous Catholic politicians also oppose the fundamental teachings of the Church on these issues.”
They go on to dismiss other areas of Catholic social teaching as merely prudential, trumpeting only these three issues. Is it just me, or does this Republicath endeavor seem slightly dated, so 2004? Rather than respond myself to this blatant misreading of Catholic teaching in this area, let me appeal to the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
It begins by noting that with so many voting guides in circulation, Catholics should rely on resources authorized by their own bishops or by the USCCB. That means no Catholic Answers and their dubious five principals! But let me address the issue at hand. One of the main benefits of the USCCB document is its crystal-clear elaboration of intrinsically evil acts, acts that no never be condoned regardless of circumstances. These issues must take precedence. The “incivility statement” does not use the technical term “intrinsically evil”, but seems to be suggesting that its examples of abortion, ESCR, and same-sex marriage are the three most important issues for Catholics, and can never be supported. There’s a problem, however. The USCCB statement provides a different list, and includes abortion, euthanasia, cloning, destructive research on human embryos, genocide, torture, racism and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war. To use somewhat different language, these issues are all non-negotiable. This, of course, does not mean a Catholic can never vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil position (if so, then Catholic voters would have to stay at home!). If a voter supports the underlying position, then he/she is engaging in formal cooperation with evil.
Note that same-sex marriage is not on the intrinsically evil list. Does that mean the Church’s teaching on this matter can be ignored? Of course not, but that also holds true of a great swath of teachings that this group is quite indeed quite willing to ignore. They want to play down the consistent ethic of life, which they simply cannot do. Again, to quote the USCCB:
“The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. All the life issues are connected, for erosion of respect for the life of any individual or group in society necessarily diminishes respect for all life. The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means. Catholics must seek the best ways to respond to these needs. As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught, “[each of us] has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and, finally, the necessary social services.”
The document also criticizes the temptation to use big and important issues like abortion to simply ignore the rest of Catholic social teaching:
“Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity: The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.”
And as for the old “prudential judgment” hobby-horse:
“Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others.”
This is quite clear. While the destruction of human life must always remain paramount, it cannot be divorced from the broader issues pertaining to justice and human dignity. And, as we are well aware, no current US political party offers a viable home for Catholics. This is what makes this kind of Republicath exercise so infuriating: they want to focus the attention of Catholics only on those issues where the Republican party seems more favorable, at least on some superficial level. You will never hear mention of the intrinsically evil act of torture, for example.
Make no mistake, this is a partisan agenda. Remember the history of Austin Ruse on these matters. From a very quick google search, it becomes clear that he enjoys criticizing the USCCB, calls George Bush a “true man of faith”, and has endorsed John McCain because the most important issues are “terrorism and the tragedy of unlimited abortion” (the fact that McCain is the biggest cheerleader for a war opposed by the Church does not seem to matter). Of course, Mr. Ruse and his group can endorse whomever they like. But what they should not do is tell other Catholics to adopt the same stance. When they conclude that they will continue to strongly condemn “the public policy positions of Catholic politicians who support abortion, embryo-destructive research, and homosexual marriage”, and do so not out of partisan loyalty, but because they are faithful Catholics, that is not entirely intellectually honest. The political activities of the instigators of this petition give the game away. If they were really acting as faithful Catholics, they would add to their list, and support the full USCCB agenda on these issues.
Comments are closed.
Amen!
I guess William Wilberforce was just a jerk because he didn’t devote as much effort to ending poverty, unjust wars, and torture, in the Britthsh Empire as he did to ending slavery. Because after all, we can’t even talk about the evils of slavery without also talking about the treatment of French prisoners of war.
I see another possible problem.
In the name of tolerance and diversity it has become practically impossible to even speak about hot button issues. No matter how quietly, dispassionately, and reasonably you talk about your objections to abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, ect., you will be labeled “Homophobic,” “intolerant,”" narrow-minded.” It’s not hard to see the word and concept “civility” being used for the same ends.
“Civility” means not talking about “divisive hot-button issues” like abortion, ESCR, and same-sex “marriage”.
MM,
Your arguments are well put.
Intrinsic evil is that which assaults the intrinsic dignity of the human person as existentially constituted. Thus, our ethical and political concerns should range far and wide. More often than not, they should include questions that are almost never engaged in the public forum, such as the number of civilian deaths in Iraq, the root cause (spiritual) of negative human behavior, the depth and extent of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, the practical means by which to reduce the incidence of abortion, the critical role of truth in a democracy, the use of fear as a political stratagem, and so forth. Practical reason requires a deeper and more comprehensive response to human problems.
I find it especially troubling when politicians are dismissed and ridiculed for the stand they take on specific hot-button issue — issues that are deliberately framed as wedge issues and designed as stratagems to gain political power. Abortion is a case in point. Those who are the most vocal in opposing abortion, such as Austin Ruse and his fellow signatories, have failed to set forth or implement any practical solution to realize that which they desire. They are very impassioned, to be sure, but actually practically disengaged. This particular debate has raged for a half century to no end. Acrimony alone stands triumphant.
Practical reason is about finding means that are proportionate to the end to be achieved. It’s as simple as that. On issues such as abortion, no such means have been crafted.
For this reason, I believe we should refocus our efforts and try to find ways to reduce the incidence of such behavior. Coercive means can never suffice. It gives way to the totalitarian urge.
At the same time, I believe there must be an education aspect to this effort. We must work to bring about an evolution of human consciousness that will enable people to see more deeply into the intrinsic principles and dynamics of this issue. Debate must become more intellectual.
Practical reason requires us to move beyond the nominalism and voluntarism that is the default position in America. Practical reason requires an INTELLECTUAL grasp of the principles and dynamics that are PROPORTIONATE to the end to be achieved. I do no see that kind of intellectual discourse at work in America.
The greatest service Catholics could make to this country is to articulate a deeper appreciation of the role of practical reason in ethics and politics. Ethics, for St. Thomas, is 95% a matter of the intellect and only 5% about the will! We live in topsy-turvy land!
“Truth does not allow us to despair of our opponents. The man of peace inspired by truth does not equate his opponent with the error into which he sees him fall. Instead he reduces the error to its real proportions and appeals from it to man’s reason, heart and conscience, in order to help him to recognize and accept truth. This gives the denunciation of injustice a specific tone: such denunciation cannot always prevent those responsible for injustice from stubbornly disregarding the obvious truth, but at least it does not set out to provoke such stubbornness, the cost of which is often paid by the victims of the injustice. One of the big lies that poison relations between individuals and groups consists in ignoring all aspects of an opponent’s action, even the good and just ones, for the sake of condemning him more completely. Truth follows a different path; that is why truth does not throw away any of the chances for peace.” – JPII
Dear Lord, wrong on so many levels.
First, Wilberforce did not support abolition. He objected to the slave trade but neither was an advocate of the emancipation of black or white workers.
Hence it is so odd (or ignorant) that it is asked ” If Catholic politicians advocated segregation or — even worse — slavery, would there be a call for civility towards them?”
The answer of course, is yes and the question is not “if” but when. Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle, as he intergrated Catholic schools was firm that civility need be extended to those who objected to his action. None of the signatories are people who lifted a finger in the historic effort to end segregation in Catholic institutions. Dr. King, Cardinal O’Boyle, Cardinal Ritter responded to the supporters of the status quo with civility though disagreement. Catholic slave owners did not receive incivility from the Church nor did politicans supporting slavery, succession, or Jim Crow.
There is a legitimate principle of shunning those who would re-open a resolved issue — who would try to re-introduce a social ill that has been settled. This is how the Church has consistently approached the issue of racial justice. In the day when it was a matter of social debate, she called for civility. Today, she would not accommodate a re-opening of this matter.
Two final observations. For all of their claimed loyalty to the Church it seems that they disagree with her on EVERY SINGLE question of prudential judgment. I certainly understand the right of private judgment on these matters. But that the bishops have not once got it right on these questions?
And as for the “non-negotiability” of abortion, they seem to be wedded to slogans rather than specifics. Telling other people they are “not Catholic”, “evil” or “banned from communion” over adherence to a slogan is troubling. Their support for President Bush and the Republican Party seem to suggest that abortion is “negotiable”. Both President Bush and the Republican National Platform reject the idea of seeking to make it illegal for a woman to abort her child. They suggest abortion should be restricted by prohibiting doctors from performing abortions but do not call for any criminal or civil penalties on the mother. I agree with the Republicans on this matter. In my prudential judgment, this proposal will be as effective in protecting unborn human life as a criminalization of abortion as murder. It will also allow society and the state to respond to women in crisis pregnancies.
The call for incivility is evidence of the SCGS* mentality among some Catholics. They want a political plank they can cheer about. It matters little that abortions continue and that pro-choice citizens are turned off by their perceived lack of charity.
Pro-life people have and had far more credibility with a consistent ethic of life, and some anti-abortion folks have a long way to go in terms of making their stance believable in the minds of the people they need to convince.
It’s possible that the reason why extremists are not often considered civil, is that they lack respect and courtesy. When you watch the minions of Murdoch: Fox Noise, the Simpsons, 90210, etc., who can’t help but get the picture that the one who argues loudest wins?
* Small Church, Getting Smaller
Friends,
1.2 million of our brothers and sisters and cut up or burned up in the womb every year. They twist and turn and try to get away from the knife but they fail and are killed. There is no issue of social justce before us that is so urgent as this one. The Church agrees. If these brothers and sisters of ours were born and then deliberately killed in their homes, I suspect that some in this group would be more alarmed than they are now. Why aren’t you more alarmed now? I suspect it is becuase it would require parting company with politicians that are otherwise more in line with your political thinking on purely prudentail issues the minimum wage etc. The fact is that the Church does have a solid teaching on abortion but does not tell us what the minimum wage should be. No amount of intellectual posturing will change that. You should join this cause, what John Paul the Great called the greatest civil rights issue of our time. The Pope apologized for Catholics who did not act as Catholic in Germany before adn during the war. Will a future Pope apologize for some of us who are not doing enough to stop this holocaust of abortion? I suspect so. After all, to end it would only require all Catholics to live up to their baptismal promises, but many refuse. Why? To keep Ted Kennedy in office?
As to whether the group signing our statement has offered any solutions, as suggested by Gerry Campbell, this shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about the incredibly diverse and highly effective pro-life movement. If you were actually involved in the movement you would not make such a statement.
As to my group liking to attack the USCCB, we feel free to criticize the decisions and actions taken by the lay staff of the USCCB, like the presidential voter guide that we were able to kill, likely for good. This voter guide was not an action of the Bishops voting but an action of left-leaning lay members of the USCCB staff. We feel free to criticize them all day long.
All the best,
Austin Ruse
Austin
Can I summarize your last point like this: “IF the Bishops say what we like, we will follow; if they don’t, we will accuse lay people at the conference are confusing the Bishops and these lay people must be leftist because we don’t agree with them” ?
Surely, one can also start making such accusations against other leaders. The Pope when he speaks what I want to hear is the authority; when he says things I don’t like, it’s someone else writing for him! I got it!
When did you become the judge of Bishops? What does any ecumenical council say on the relationship between Bishop and non-Bishop? Who is it that is in charge and has the authority? This sounds too much like “creative fidelity” to me.
You could summarize it that way if you wanted to be inaccurate and uncharitable.
The US Bishops did not create or approve the presidential questionnaire. It was drawn up by a staff of laymen. I am not bound by the work of laymen who happen to work in the lobbying shop of the USCCB. Moreover, I am not bound by the political positions said laymen take on the minimum wage or any other prudential issue.
There is no dogmatic or doctinial issue of the Church with which i disagree. I don’t work on all issues: I work on the issue of abortion and related family issues within the debate in international law. But, there is not dogmatic or doctrinal issue of the Church with which I disagree.
The authority of a Bishop is more than just “dogmatic and doctrinal” declarations. And if a Bishop allows someone to speak in their name, then they are representatives of the Bishop and MUST be treated accordingly. Not just thrown off with uncharitable “leftist” comments aimed at them for emphasizing things you didn’t like.
I am bound by the political decisions of the lobbying staff of the USCCB? So, I am morally bound to support the specific legislation from last year to raise the miniumum wage from $5.15 to whatever? And I am bound by this? My my my. Of course, that is silly.
Austin, your 1.2 million figure is low, unless you’re quoting for the US only. The international figure is much higher, probably in the tens of millions. As Catholics, our concern for abortion and its victims does not end with our particular national obrder, wouldn’t you say?
It can be convenient to latch onto minimum wage as a supposed “life” issue, but others would look at hunger, AIDS, or political corruption which also claims lives worldwide on the order of millions, if not a few tens of millions. One would also look at executions, while not producing death in the same numbers, is a form of murder practiced by the state which has a reasonable chance of being suspended if more sensible Catholics were to pressure sate governments and the feds. You’d have to go to a place like China to find a formal government-sponsored genocide of the unborn.
My question for you would be this: given China’s endorsement of abortion, including abortion by force, do you boycott consumer goods from that nation? Does your sense of the abortion issue extend beyond direct providers and victims? If anti-abortion folks applaud the criticism of coaches, politicians, and others a few steps removed from the actual procedure, are they not bound to refuse anything to do with China or any other nation that explicitly enforces abortion?
Austin
Your discussion on just wage issues demonstrates to me how far you are from CST.
Yes, I know many want to lump hunger and AIDs etc into the life issues but I resist that. They do not come close to the state-sanctioned deliberate killing of our brothers and sisters. Teh state has a responsibility to protect all of us from harm and the greater harm the great responsibility. The state has withdrawn its protection from unborn children both here and around the world. In my estimation, there is no other issus that rises to that level.
Do I work on international issues? That is all that I do. I do not work in the domestic pro-life movement. Do I boycott China? No, i work against China in the UN. I had a hand in bloodying UNFPA for its assistance in coercion in China. There are hundreds and thousands of companies and states that are compliticit in the killing of unborn children. We are not called to boycott. Some are called and I say God bless them.
Henry,
Where you are wrong is assuming we must always look to a government solution to prudential issues. Moreover, are you saying the Church teaches that every employer must provide a just wage? Even the guy who mows my lawn? McDonald’s must pay an employee an amount with which they can raise a family? Heck, even the Church doesn’t pay that. I know. My wife worked there. Next.
Austin
I am off to Mass. See you in a hour or so.
“Yes, I know many want to lump hunger and AIDs etc into the life issues but I resist that”
There you go showing how much you disassociate yourself from the CST and the doctrines of the Church which you said you support. The Church has said they are life issues. Anything to do with the dignity of life in any stage is a life issue. This shows you are not pro-life, imo. You misrepresented your support of the Church’s doctrines, too.
How one is to find a way to end abortion can be said to be aprudential issue. Your argument is that the way is through certain candidates — so you are offering a governmental solution for a prudential question. Interesting.
Anybody else?
“Anybody else?”
No. Henry pretty much nailed it.
It’s possible to work long and hard against abortion, and be rather apolitical about other life issues. That’s a prudential judgment. Not bad necessarily, but one that places you in the camp of being anti-abortion. If you want to stick it out there, that’s your call.
Personally, I prefer to be identified as pro-life. I’ve made choices, for example, to demonstrate against nuclear arms and abortion in the 80′s. Never protested or wrote letters against capital punishment, but it would be part of a consistent life ethic. As a pacifist with such leanings, I can usually get farther in a conversation being a liberal who opposes abortion and the death penalty, and favors domestic adoption options. Having also adopted a special needs child, I get more cred for being consistently pro-life: preaching it and living it. It makes my friends think when we discuss politics. Plus I also believe in being effective locally: supporting Birthright, talking an occasional friend out of an abortion, things like that.
You mentioned the pro-life movement is effective. I question that. 1.2 million a year doesn’t seem like a success story to me. PR to non-believers is a shambles. People still say pro-lifers are just anti-choicers who don’t care about life outside the womb. How come JPII, Martin Sheen, and Mother Teresa have cred, and your average pro-life spokespeople don’t? For some folks, it’s more about being right on the issue than having a prayer of changing minds and hearts.
The success of the pro-life movement can be measured only in part by the number of abortions. The true success of the pro-life movement is seen in how we have kept the issue on the boil for so long and can only be seen in the context of a Constitutional mandate for legal abortion. The numbers will always remain high so long as abortion is constitutionally protected. But, keeping it on the boil even though it is protected and agaisnt the overwhelming support of aboriton from the elite institutions is the true success of our movement. I work closely with Europeans and the pro-life movement exists there but has very little affect. Not only have we kept it on the boil, but now more people describe themselves as pro-life than pro-choice. When asked what reasons abortions should be allowed it is even better: most Americans believe most abortions should be illegal. And young people are overwhelmingly pro-life. We are only a few votes short of overturning Roe.
I would hate to be a pro-abortion advocate. I hear their speeches. They are defeated. Why? Precisely because, over against the claims of Gerry Campbell, there is a real plan. It is a plan of the Holy Spirit. What I mean by this is that the pro-life movement is vast and diverse. Pro-life charisms have sprung up like mushrooms. There are now several thousand pregnancy centers (have you ever volunteers for one?). There are people involved in pure eduation (have you contributed financailly to them?). There are those who work on national legislation, state legislation, local legistion. There are those who fight the spread of abortion internationally (my group among them). There are groups of doctors, lawyers, university professors. And there are women who have had abortions who are testifying in the public square about how they regret their abortions and how their abortions have harmed them.
All this has happened without social justice types. Sad. You say you protested in teh 80′s? Come back. Work in a pregnancy center. Support the women who are speaking out. You cannot name an issue that is more important than this and the Church agrees.
“The true success of the pro-life movement is seen in how we have kept the issue on the boil for so long …”
I’m sorry, but I read that as” the success is that nothing has been done, nothing has been fixed, but we vocal speakers gather people around us while we practically do nothing.”
That’s not a success. That is failure.
True success would be had when there is no need for a pro-life movement at all. This will never happen, however, when leaders of the movement use it for political gain and political rallying cries for party bias which transcends issues of the pro-life cause (and often, in support of positions contrary to life).