Obama: “A More Perfect Union”
March 18, 2008
In Philadelphia today, Senator Barack Obama delivered what is perhaps the most important political speech on race since Martin Luther King gave his I Have A Dream speech on the Mall in Washington, D.C. 45 years ago.
Obama’s speech is entitled A More Perfect Union. Watch it:
Advertisement
71 Comments
Comments are closed.
I really enjoyed reading the speech, and thought that the prose was very good. Indeed, it struck me as Reaganesque in a lot of ways (talking about erosion of the family, need to be positive about America, etc.). That said, the delivery was not up to what I expected; it was too flat too often. Still, it restores some hope that America may be willing to listen to a substantive philosophical speech, and with that we may move past soundbites.
Stephen,
Is your father named Chris?
I think I liked the speech, but I can’t help but wondering if he really means anything he says.
I should add that I haven’t had a chance to watch it.
Charles Murray (!) agrees:
Sbuck,
Thanks for posting Murray.
He has achieved his goal – recapturing the initiative from rightwing nutters, appealed to well-meaning white voters and independents, and calming undecided superdelegates. Brilliant speech. Haters, keep hating – this ain’t 2004.
I thought it was a pretty good speech, but to compare it to MLK’s I Have A Dream speech (which was about something more than salvaging a given candidate’s political fortunes) seems a bit much.
After a first reading, I thought this was quite a good one. Andrew Sullivan said this is the greatest speech on race in his lifetime, saying things that no one has had the courage to say. Maybe. And it *seems* Christian and genuine. But that’s the trouble. Epistemically, we just can’t know whether it’s genuine or highly, sophisticatedly, put on. Politics since Machiavelli: c’est la vie.
Arewak:
Not that everyone that has concerns are “haters” and Right wing nutters. Though it is an effect tool at times to use that argument to have the discussion and probing stop.
Tha b eing said I thought it was a good speech that should help him staunch the bleeding. Though I Did not think it was perhaps the best thing since ” I have a Dream” on race relations. That being said it does give him control of the news cycle. The key will be in Penn. If perhaps it keeps him from losing that state by 20 points rather than ten it might help him long term
As to being 2004. I hope not. The whole kooks in jesus land mantra did not work well for the Dems or the well being of the country as a whole
For a stronger criticism, read Derbyshire and Kurtz at the Corner:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk1MWI1MmQzZDY1YTNkYTgwODA4ZDU0YzI0NjJjYmY=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDNiYTU4N2Q5MmE4MmJiOTljYWUzMDE2Y2NiYmM4ZTM=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q=
Trust is trust.
But for me I have never seen a politician look more genuine in my lifetime. He honestly and painfully brought into the public square what has otherwise sadly remained unsaid from all sides; invited the nation’s people to make further good on the promise that was/is America; and showed how success or failure therein will intimately and concretely affect each of our and our loved one’s lives.
I expected a great speech, but this was beyond anything I thought politically possible.
The nation will now have to move forward, with or without the success of his presidential candidacy.
jh-
Point taken. I was addressing those who couldn’t be bothered to give the man the benefit of the doubt no matter what. I like the fact that he addressed the issue head on (i know some folks have lihgering questions and that’s ok). I especially liked his rather defiant posture as he made it clear that, even he, is a real person with with flaws and views that have been shaped by race in America.
I thought it was just an incredible speech. Reading the speech I had to work to continually remember why I don’t support this man. I had to work to not get swept up in his idealism and his hope. I had to work to hear the small voice of conscience call out to me about the millions and millions of exterminated children who are excluded from Obama’s vision.
There is always the tendency to make these things more important than what they are. Not having been prone to give too much credit or blame to distasteful associations, I have been following this from a distance. In the end, I think the speech ends the story. The Clinton camp had basically declared 48 hours ago that they weren’t going to be caught dead directly addressing Obama about it. That leaves newspapers and Republicans. Unless something new happens, the former will lose interest. This speech probably won’t even make the front pages of a number of papers. I imagine the Republicans won’t really play either, because there is nothing for them to gain at this point. If either of the three groups don’t do as I anticipate, you’ll likely see sympathy for Obama at some point; he is after all the one running, not this pastor. It won’t quite be in Kitty Dukacas territory, but it would head in that direction.
Isn’t this the man who pledged allegiance to Planned Parenthood and opposed his veto to a bill that would have saved the lives of babies born alive as the result of an «unsuccessful» abortion? I tend to be suspicious of «charismatic» men who make rousing speeches. They remind me of Hitler, somehow…
we get it, he’s the devil – now scram.
And Godwin’s Law enters into VN, yet again.
enjoy Lent
peace to all
Sorry. I thought this was a Catholic blog. My mistake.
I tend to be suspicious of «charismatic» men who make rousing speeches. They remind me of Hitler, somehow…
When Hitler/Nazism is invoked in reference to the current administration and the way american Christians buy into it, the idea is denounced. Yet, somehow it’s okay to make this comparison when speaking about Obama? Just sayin’.
Sorry. I thought this was a Catholic blog. My mistake.
There’s nothing Catholic or decent in what you said. Nothing.
Mike,
As a Catholic, the adulation that surrounds Obama makes me uneasy. There is a sort of religious fervour in the reactions of his followers. I have seen posters that show him with a sort of halo, or rays around his head, and catchy words – believe, hope, etc. – as if he were a messiah, the new hope of the world. This is what I find disturbing and dangerous.
Also, I have seen that video showing his pastor preaching. It is in church, and there is what looks like a Bible in front of him, but there is nothing religious in his speech – it is all politics. The only reference to Jesus is to say he was black! It is all anger and hatred. Some people justify it by recalling the years of slavery and abuses, but this is supposed to be a Christian church. Followers of Christ are called to live by his words: “Happy the merciful… Happy the peacemakers… Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” The victims of apartheid in South Africa understood this message and are working towards reconciliation. This should be a model for “pastor” Wright’s church and others like it. Now I hope this is sufficiently decent and Catholic for you.
I do not and will not support Obama for president. Just want to make that clear ahead of time.
As a Catholic, the adulation that surrounds Obama makes me uneasy. There is a sort of religious fervour in the reactions of his followers. I have seen posters that show him with a sort of halo, or rays around his head, and catchy words – believe, hope, etc. – as if he were a messiah, the new hope of the world. This is what I find disturbing and dangerous.
Uneasy about Obama? That would be silly. Surely it is not his fault that some of his supporters portray as such. Uneasy about Obama supporters? That’s more reasonable. I am quite sure that the 1984 RNC appeared as religiously wed to Reagan as many of Obama’s rallies do.
Also, I have seen that video showing his pastor preaching. It is in church, and there is what looks like a Bible in front of him, but there is nothing religious in his speech – it is all politics.
This would be the pastor and not Obama here. If I ever run for office, I would hope that no one would have doubts about my campaign based upon what Fr. Norbert was preaching one day, especially if I openly condemned his words as Obama has done with regard to his former pastor.
Now I hope this is sufficiently decent and Catholic for you.
Whether or not what you write is Catholic or not is not the point. What matters here is what you are saying here is reasonable. Being uneasy over Obama because of a particular policy stance is reasonable (i.e., abortion). Being uneasy over Obama because of how a minority of his supporters portray him or because of what his former preacher preaches is not reasonable.
Elise B. has made perfectly Catholic comments.
It seems to me that her comparisons of Obama to Hitler were rooted not merely in his charismatic abilities, but in his record of giving full support to planned parenthood. There are plenty of good Catholics who have made valid comparisons of legalized abortion and national socialism, including the primate of Great Britain, Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Conner.
Have to give it to him–he’s a good politician. Watch Obama address Planned Parenthood with the same presidential demeanor and “genuineness” on display in the above post:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM
“When Hitler/Nazism is invoked in reference to the current administration and the way american Christians buy into it, the idea is denounced. Yet, somehow it’s okay to make this comparison when speaking about Obama? Just sayin’.”
Well, Nazis were socialists and eugenics (Can you say “Planned” parenthood?) fans so I’d say Obama fits right in there…
Being uneasy over Obama because of how a minority of his supporters portray him or because of what his former preacher preaches is not reasonable.
I disagree, and a comparison to your Catholic priest is not useful. For many or most Catholics, you end up in a parish just because of where you live, and the priest was assigned by some unknown process, and your choice to go to that parish has absolutely nothing to do with who the priest is.
For many Protestants, the situation is nearly the opposite: They pick this or that church specifically because they like and agree with the pastor. In fact, that was precisely true in Obama’s case: He picked that church specifically because he liked Wright — enough that he named a book after one of Wright’s sermons. While Obama has now (after public exposure and pressure) disavowed some unspecified statements by Wright, that’s not enough to deem it “not reasonable” to ask why he deliberately chose such an inflammatory conspiracy-theorizing preacher as a mentor for the past 20 years.
That’s not to say that this is the most important question, or even that the answer should have any effect on how one votes. Still, one can’t rule the question out of bounds.
Teutonic Tim, Elise B. et. al., Obama SUPPORTS your right to disagree with him and ENDORSES the idea that he MUST listen to you and take your priorities and values into consideration in devising ways to solve the problems posed by “unwanted pregnancies,” insufficient pre-natal care, inadequate sex education AND the rights of women to control their procreation.
Just how many so-called “liberal” politicians are according you this degree of respect?
Are you really so completely unable to recognise the opportunity to dialogue effectively with the broader culture that you are being offered by him?
Someone will have to show me which encyclical or papal statement endorses threadjacking. I may be relying too much on secular friends, but I could have swore it was considered jerky behavior. Okay, I modified the last phrase since this is a family blog.
Christine
Your link to youtube and Obama’s speech was vital and let’s hope readers actually viewed it and it demonstrates several things about Obama who is far more dangerous than Hitler in terms of quantity of souls affected potentially… but far more innocent than Hitler in that he seems really to see abortion as non murder ( perhaps a real sincere erroneous conscience much like the one Pope Nicholas V had on pre emptive wars against non Christians in his bull of 1455)…the link brings these following aspects to mind:
1. That he pro-actively sees abortion as solution to women like his daughters as to their advancing in opportunity should they make a sexual mistake during career building periods of their lives. Heaven forbid that bearing the child would hold them back as they seek equality to men…read…apparently affluent men. Opportunity is key with him….having had a grandmother who rose from secretary at a bank to being the bank’s leader. There is a subtext of money achievement as achievement in se.
2. He touted to Planned Parenthood how he opposed Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court and said that he is not just for defense in this area of sexual matters but for offense and he is for moving ahead against the old regime and expressed love for Justice Ginsburg.
3. Numbers wise therefore in his potential for appointing judges that will affirm late term abortion….he is worse than Hitler quantitatively though unlike Hitler, he perhaps has what theologians call a sincere erroneous conscience…but he is quantitatively more dangerous than Hitler because Hitler could only kill within his term of office and Obama’s appointees will continue past his term or terms as will his justices that he appoints who will affect souls after their terms also.
4. All of this brings into bold relief…the inadequacy of Catholic Magisterial concern. While this man grows, the Pope is researching the early Fathers and the Bishops are simply saying that Catholics can vote for such a man if counterbalancing issues call for it…..as though any other area of government will cost the numbers of lives that an Obama Supreme Court could cause. Pew noted some time back in one of their polls that Evangelicals are more reliable against abortion in the voting booth than Catholics are. I do not wonder why.
Maybe between Christine and Bill a new blog could be formed where this vital information could be distilled. Then people who need to be reminded about Obama’s abortion stance daily and can’t manage to discuss any other aspect of his candidacy would have a place to go. It would seem to be a higher calling than trolling.
“Are you really so completely unable to recognise the opportunity to dialogue effectively with the broader culture that you are being offered by him?”
Being offered the “opportunity” to negotiate and water down what is Correct, and Truthful with what Obama stands for is nothing I want to partake in.
Not to mention – is it not obvious that he is using race to capitalize on the current P.C. trends in this country to take the focus off of himself, his affiliations and beliefs, and his past?
MZ,
I beliefe that justification for thread-jacking can be found in the actions of Pope Stephen VI, who conducted the posthumus trial of Pope Formosus in 897. By these actions he proved that it is never too late to raise a dead issue, and rehash settled issues over and over again, putting words in the mouth of your opponent by proxy.
Clearly therfore, the Roman tradition of the cadaver synod supports unreasonable thread-jacking and trolling.
However, the daily reminders of Obama’s position on abortion do not rise to the level of Stephen’s trial of Formosus. Pehaps we could ask that reminders of the horrible evil Obama supports could be limited to 40,000,000 over the course of the campaign. One reminder for each child who was denied the right to speak at all?
You put a smile on my grizzled face with your first paragraph. I love you Ben, in that guy/guy shoulder slap kind of way. If I’m ever in CO, I will have to call.
MZ,
Trolling has become a serious problem on this site. It is getting much too difficult to have a free exchange of ideas and information on any topic.
While the nation, the media, and the world are engaged in discussing the content and impact of Obama’s speech on a critical issue facing this country, this site is bogged down in inane comparisons of Obama and liberals to Hitler.
Judging from comments I’ve read on other sites — trollers who brag about disrupting the dialogue at Vox Nova — all this trolling may be intentional. In fact, the reference above to Pope Formosus in 897 seems to indicate such disruption is a stratagem. If allowed to continue, no good will come of this site.
Gerald
I agree with the trolling (and the bait they like to throw out). There needs to be something we can come up with to deal with it.
On the one hand, we want free discussion. On the other hand, it is clear some people don’t and want to only engage in hit-and-run tactics which demonstrate no good faith in what they say and do. These people should not be given such freedom here. It sometimes can be difficult, at first, to know who is who. But once one becomes known as such, something should be done.
The whole “Obama must be like Hitler because he is popular” doesn’t even get turned around to “Sports entertainers must be like Hitler, because of the reaction sports has from people.” Yet it would be as logical a connection. Which is none at all.
“While the nation, the media, and the world are engaged in discussing the content and impact of Obama’s speech on a critical issue facing this country”
What critical issue? His candidacy? His speech should be seen as nothing other than an attempt to shield himself from his affiliations while at the same time taking advantage of his race for his own political gain.
Oh, and if exchanging ideas that are different than your own is trolling, perhaps you need to take a step back and take account of what it is you call a free exchange of ideas.
Henry,
I agree.
But aside from the trolls, there are some individuals who seem unable to distinguish a passionate statement of opinion from a logical articulation of an idea. What makes matters worse is that many opinions expressed by these individuals come from a place of hate and anger. How such outbursts can contribute to making Vox Nova achieve its goals is beyond me.
Practical Reason allows for a wide-range of argument on every issue. But to employ practical reason requires that attention be paid to the intellectual order — principles and logic. Emotive outburst are not only not helpful, they are unhelpful. Yet that seems to be the limit of some contributors.
It seems to me that her comparisons of Obama to Hitler were rooted not merely in his charismatic abilities, but in his record of giving full support to planned parenthood.
Hitler gave full support to Planned Parenthood?
I finally managed to watch the entire speech late last night. Stunning. I find it inspiring that a leading politician could give such a honest speech, a speech full of complexity and nuance, in the current charged political atmosphere. Can this kind of rhetoric herald the return of substance over soundbite? Already, I can see the right-wing attack monsters getting into gear, quoting him out of context, mocking the delivery– they don’t want a debate on on the issues, they don’t want issues, they just want the same old ideologically-laden soundbites.
MM
Notice how some people are reacting to it already? They don’t even have to quote it, dont’ even have to know what was said, to react against it and claim victory.
It really was a great speech. So the thing is to make sure people don’t reflect up it and instead deal with side issues.
I appreciated the speech and at least it came across as honest and genuine. To get across such complex issues the way he did without offending anyone is quite impressive.
I can’t vote so I won’t vote for him and even if I could I won’t mostly because of his embryonic stem cell research, so don’t get all worked up about it.
Emotive outburst are not only not helpful, they are unhelpful. Yet that seems to be the limit of some contributors.
To be sure, can hardly expect to run a blog that regularly features emotive outbursts from several of the authors, and never expect to see commenters engage in emotive outbursts in response.
To reiterate, though, I was very impressed by Obama’s speech.
I thought this Nightline intereview deserved not to be missed.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/story?id=4480133&page=1
“I love you Ben, in that guy/guy shoulder slap kind of way.”
Oh My God!
“Maybe between Christine and Bill a new blog could be formed where this vital information could be distilled. Then people who need to be reminded about Obama’s abortion stance daily and can’t manage to discuss any other aspect of his candidacy would have a place to go. It would seem to be a higher calling than trolling.”
LOL. Trolling? Apparently, free exchange of ideas here is only welcome from those with like mind.
The point of linking to Obama’s speech to Planned Parenthood was to showcase what a good politician Obama is: he appears so honest, so genuine, so impressively sincere when discussing the issue of race; and, oh how honest, how genuine, how oh-so-sincere he appears discussing the right to abortion as well…
People are getting carried away by the man’s rhetoric, and refusing to see there’s little substance underneath.
Jimmy Mac,
It’s not as bad as all of that.
MZ is the Discalced Yooper, I am a displaced Yooper.
That makes us almost related.
“People are getting carried away by the man’s rhetoric, and refusing to see there’s little substance underneath.”
Are you saying there is no substance in his rhetoric?
I don’t see how this squares with the acknowledgement among major figures across the nation that this is perhaps the most profound speech on race in a half century. Doesn’t it take substance in the man even to write such a speech?
Oh, the liberty and ease some of us take in dismissing the core of a human being/political figure, all with one simple rhetorical swish–he has no substance!
Perhaps someone can explain to me the critical/intellectual/religious basis for this carefree manner of political engagement.
“Perhaps someone can explain to me the critical/intellectual/religious basis for this carefree manner of political engagement.”
Quick thoughts:
I don’t know whether you’re serious or joking. But if serious, take a gander at Nominalism and Voluntarism. In nominalism, universals do not exist in things. Thus, the intellect has no capacity to grasp universals that exist in things. Hence, there is no truth to be acquired through the acts of the intellect. Truth is relative. Hence, in society consensus alone is the basis for society. This reduces to a will to power.
Maritain distinguishes three ways of knowing: Faith, Philosophy, and Science.
In the Nom./Volun. tradition, the intellect has no proper object in things (ie., universals). The intellect is only about ideas in the mind. Thus, the only two ways of knowing are Faith and Science. Faith gives certitude (unless it becomes reduced to belief as in Hume). Science only gives probability.
Politics, then, is reduced to art — a making. Natural law is absent. Universal truths are absent. Common good is gone. Ideas about the person, individual freedom, and human solidarity have no universal dimension. Only Will and Power are affirmed.
Ways of knowing:
Protestantism — Faith and Science
Catholicism — Faith, Philosophy, and Science
In the Catholic tradition, philosophy constitutes the defining characteristic of politics. Politics is a branch of Ethics. Ethics is Practical Philosophy. Practical Philosophy is distinguished from Speculative Philosophy and Productive Philosophy (Art).
Politics today is merely art. Make of policy whatever you want. There are no guides, no truth, no universal criterion, no sense of intrinsic purpose. There is just making. And make sure you have power behind you before you start to do something.
It’s wonderful, isn’t it.
Gerald
His speech is great around the issue of race and I would love to see him as a cabinet level czar over race issues within someone’s else’s presidency….someone who opposes abortion. Speech-wise he is not simply smooth with perfect cadence like an international salesman for Boeing…and some lawyers have that quality….he is that but more on racial relations because he is of two races and Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don’t have that advantage nor his wideness in this area as a result.
And he is needed in the race arena and he risked the enmity of many blacks in his comments on Wright at one point….but he won them back probably in what followed about Wright being family with all the faults and errors that family has. Who else does that risking and recapturing? Jesse Jackson and Sharpton must feel small by comparison. I would love him in a position at the very top in someone’s cabinet related to human relations/the poor/housing/health understood as a purely financial matter…but not in the position where abortion is affected….and that is the tragedy. He is up for a job that encompasses also an area wherein his conscience is very defective although it may be sincere which is up to God since Vatican II noted: “conscience frequently errs without losing its dignity”….simply the old position on sincere erroneous consciences….and which makes many past actions of the Church during the Inquisition palatable which are now condemned as intrinsically evil.
Bill,
I agree Obama captured the issue of race in ways that most can’t. I believe his presence on the national and international scene does great credit to this country, not matter the capacity he serves.
On the question of abortion, I realize this is a difficult issue. I wish we had the opportunity to sit down and discuss it thoroughly. I have found it difficult to explore the various dimensions of this issue here because there are many who seem not willing to follow carefully the logic that is being presented. Emotive reactions become a distraction. In some measure, this is to be expected. We all get excited and angry. Me too. But there are those whose only response is emotive. They become disruptive, sometimes by design.
The reason I would like to pursue this further is because I’m persuaded that at the practical level (and this is where Thomistic ethics is focused — action), there is not nearly as much difference between opposing positions as appears from a distance. As one who has had to oversee a $7 billion state health budget, I am aware of conflicting positions on a large number of very difficult issues. My experience has been that mortal enemies can come together if the good of the individual person needing help is made the irreducible center of focus. This is true even on hot button issues, such as abortion, teen pregnancy, and so forth.
For example, there are practical ways where various groups having competing ideologies can come together to design a new teen prevention program. In this new program, the expertise of various competing organizations would be used as an integral aspect of a single program. I have had thirteen separate organizations come together to design an entire new program on teen prevention. Each would lend their expertise to one aspect of the total program. The individuals who needed assistance were always the center of gravity of the entire effort. It was their total welfare that mattered. In this way Support Groups such as Communities in Schools teamed up with Mentoring groups, Job Readiness groups, Health Services groups, Peer Education groups, and Family Involvement groups to structure a single program having a single pot of money. No one group would dominate the activity. They would participate collectively. I’ve seen Planned Parenthood and Abstinence Education groups would in harmony. The individual was center of attention.
I believe pro-life/pro-choice groups do agree that it is better NOT to have an abortion. This makes me believe that with the right leadership — and the incentive of a single pot of money — the polar opposite sides of this debate could be persuaded to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion — even within a single program. To me, this would be an important step forward in our national effort. It has the added advantage of being something that can be accomplished here and now.
This same approach can be effective on any number of issues. We have created silos in this country along ideological lines. This has taken the focus off the one needing help. We need to regain the appropriate center of gravity once again.
Gerald Campbell,
What you just posted seems to conflict with your criticism of nominalism.
Universals do not admit compromise.
Motivating oposing sides to get along by using a “single pot of money” is an instance of the same nominalistc machinations of power that you decry above.
“choice” is not an option. abortion is categorically evil.
Gerald,
Unfortunately if you listen to him before Planned Parenthood, he is pro-active in widening the right to abortion even though he may also be wanting to act against early pregnancy in the first place through working on the problems that make it likely and make it 50% of black and Latino reality. I cannot fathom how he or anyone can be friendly on partial birth abortion where the ambiguities debated in Catholic theological periodicals years ago around the issue of 14 days til twinning or the formed/unformed dichotomy found in the later Jerome letters and in the later Augustine based on their reading of the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-23 have no application….and are naive in comparison. Partial birth abortion is simply even beyond all the old problems raised in the widest parameters in the history of Catholicism at its most permissive in this area….. and partial birth is so horrible that I can’t even identify with the temptation or inclination toward accepting it where even his word “science” does not pretend to apply as it can for some rational people on other and earlier problems.
Hence I would oppose despite his other talents… were he to come into power that relates to this issue and specifically to choosing judges. Besides being against early pregnancy which can be worked with….he is pro actively interested in stretching the permissions of time of abortion as they are already legally allowed and that is not simply bad but horrible.
I should have noted around the word “permissive” not the issue of sin which they saw at any stage but the issue of the specific sin of murder…here is the early/later Jerome and the early/later Augustine apparently after reading the Septuagint which uses the formed/unformed dichotomy:
Early Jerome first:
Epistle 22 to Eustochium
“…Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. ”
Later Jerome after the Septuagint apparently:
Epistle 121.4 to Algasa
“…seeds are gradually FORMED in the uterus, and it is not reputed homocide until the scattered elements receive their appearance and members”.
_____________________________________________________________________
Early Augustine first:
” Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.”
-De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15)
Later Augustine after the Septuagint which he quotes:
” On Exodus 21:22…Augustine CSEL 8:147
Here the question of the soul is usually raised: whether what is not formed can be understood to have no soul, and whether for that reason it is not homocide, because one cannot be said to be deprived of a soul if one has not yet received a soul. The argument goes on to say, “But if it has been formed, he shall give soul for soul”….If the embryo is still unformed, but yet in some way ensouled while unformed…the law does not provide that the act pertains to homocide, because still there cannot be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation, if it is in the flesh not yet formed and thus not yet endowed with senses.”
__________________________________________________________________
Septuagint passage:
Exodus 21:22-24 ” And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty:as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot….”
____________________________________________________________________-
Hebrew version in the NAB:
Exodus 21 NAB
21:22. If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
21:23. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life,
21:24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
______________________________________________________________________
The Hebrew mentions only the life of the wife and not the life of the baby at all.
The problem is that both are presumed inspired until the Church decides otherwise.
Ben,
“Universals do not admit compromise.”
First, let me say there is no question with me about the morality of abortion. I’m certain we agree. In the speculative order, the order of truth, there is No disagreement.
But, at the practical level (what St. Thomas calls Practical Philosophy which he distinguishes very carefully from Speculative Philosophy on the basis of proper object), we may disagree as to means, particularly in the vast political arena of 300 million people. Once again, the disagreement is about MEANS to stop abortion, not about the TRUTH of abortion.
As for abortion, the PRACTICAL aim, it seems to me, is to reduce the incidence of abortion as far as possible — totally if possible. But, there remains the question: HOW to do it.
I’ve said repeatedly elsewhere, the legal approach has had little result. I would hazard the statement that abortion will not be outlawed away during your life time. Even the repeal of RvW would only multiply the struggle in all 50 State legislatures and it is certain not all States would even then outlaw abortion. Abortion will be an option, like it or not, far beyond the foreseeable future.
Going back to universals, I agree with you that universals do not admit compromise. Universals are integral to the being of an existent. They are what they are.
But, a consideration of universals qua universal belongs to the speculative order. In that order, the proper object of consideration is TRUTH. Here we can say truthfully that an unborn embodies personhood, and the we can proceed to describe all that that judgment entails — other truths.
But, in the practical order, where the proper object of consideration is ACTION, not truth, and where the universal and contingent come together, we have another matter. Such is the case in POLITICS.
In practical situations, particularly in politics, one is not at liberty to impose universal truth. Try it with anyone, it just doesn’t happen. No matter how hard you try, action will not be a carbon copy of Universal Truth, and especially in the arena of politics.
Heavens, in America we don’t even have acceptance of the elementary truths contained in the natural law. The natural law is not part of American cultural tradition, be it legal, philosophical or whatever. Even the notion of the person is not understood or accepted. Yes, it is Catholic, but it is not yet American.
Going further, the practical order, by virtue of its very nature, IS an admixture of principle (universal truth), intentionality, and circumstance. While intention and circumstance are guided by principle, they cannot be eliminated as elements in prudential judgment. Once again, ethics is not about making action to be a carbon copy of universal truth. The universal and the contingent are of different orders. Somehow they must be brought together in the concrete act.
Abortion IS intrinsically evil. I agree But a POLITICAL policy of individual choice remains an viable option nonetheless. Why? Because the question is about the MEANS that will reduce the incidence of abortion. Indeed, right now Choice is the only political REALITY we have whether one is pro-life or pro-choice. Individuals will choose one way or the other. The challenge is to get them to choose in ways that maintains the integrity of the unborn.
If you can chart another practical course of ACTION, I’d appreciate hearing from you or any others. This is too important an issue to do otherwise. But, the way I see it, the only practical choice right now, no matter what side a person occupies on this debate, is a choice to do all that can be done at the practical level to reduce the incidence of abortion.
This is the reality we live with. If you don’t believe me, try to change it. Unless, as I said, you have an alternative practical approach you’d like to share.
This is how I view it.
Bill,
Yes, the question of partial-birth abortion is very troubling. It is different than all the other questions on abortion.
I did see a statement from a reader at Andrew Sullivan who apparently covered this issue for the Tribune. I’m not sure of its significance and I’m sure you’d be better able to interpret than I. I’ve noticed many times that Obama has supported or opposed a piece of legislation on Constitution grounds, or because he thought the legislation to be bad law. He is, after all, trained in Constitutional law, for better or worse.
Personally, I’d too would like to know the underlying reasons for his voting record on the abortion question. I don’t buy the allegation that his record is explained by the fact that he is in favor of abortion. I don’t believe that at all. As he has said:
“I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible by making sure that young people are engaging in responsible behavior and that we are encouraging the kinds of good decisions that prevent unwanted pregnancies and that we are encouraging adoption as an alternative. But I think that at the bottom line is that in the end I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington.
That’s my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”
As for the statement I found on Andrew Sullivan’s site, here it is. Make of it what you can. I’d like your sense of it:
“My name is on the federal “born-alive” infants protection act; it footnotes my Tribune stories that detailed Jill Stanek’s allegations. I’m not at all convinced that this issue shows Obama is an absolutist on abortion. A few facts:
“A.) There was no documentation of anything to back up the “crimes against humanity” claim. The hospital where Stanek worked did induced labor abortions, but there was no evidence that the hospital killed the pre-viable fetuses after they were outside the womb. A state investigation found no violations by the hospital.
“B.) The Illinois “born alive” legislation was much different than the federal BAIPA, and would have given parents or public guardians the right to sue a hospital that performed induced labor abortions. One of the bills would have required two physicians to be present for many induced labor abortions, restricting the ability to use that common abortion method. Moreover, Illinois already had laws requiring doctors to give appropriate medical care to viable, live infants. For all of these reasons, the legislation that Obama opposed was also opposed by the Illinois Medical Society. Jim Geraghty has a reasonable run-down here.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWVhZGI2Y2NjNjY5YTM0MjNiYzc0ODIwOTE0ZjE3MzU=
“Reasonable people can disagree, but Obama had a valid claim that there was no need for additional laws on this. At a minimum, there was no good reason to think that anyone had, as your reader claims, “killed babies” after they were born.”
Bill,
Thanks for the early references.
Have you explored how St. Thomas’ doctrine on the act of being (existence) refines Augustine on this matter? Do you think it makes it more clear that the person exists at the moment of conception? The point here would be that St. Thomas would be transcending the Augustinian language of form and appealing to “esse,” the act of existing. The Act is the Person.
Gerald
The problem with Aquinas is that he saw a vegetative soul early on in pregnancy …then a sensitive soul and only later on an intellective immortal soul as each succeeding stage assumed and incorporated the previous one. Therefore he was once again able to follow Aristotle in general who in particular saw the male as being ensouled at 40 days and the female at 90 days in his History of Animals. This schema of Aristotle appealed to some Christian writers because it bizarrely echoed Leviticus 12 which held a mother to be unclean for 40 days in respect to a male and 80 (not 90 days) in respect to giving birth to a girl. So Aquinas too saw delayed ensoulment as the later Fathers did. And it ended up in the Trent catechism in the section on the Incarnation whereas the early “murder” view of both early Jerome and early Augustine ended up in the same catechism under the the motives and ends of Matrimony:
Here is the residue of Aquinas’ and the later Fathers in section 3 of the catechism:
” in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
Now here in the same catechism is the other view of early murder and early ensoulement in the section on Matrimony:
“and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.”
This was prior to any scientific knowledge of what happens in sex. So you had both views probably written by two different theologians within the same catechism or by one theologian who did not see that the two positions contradicted each other. Since the 14 days til twinning issue was brought up in Theological Studies periodical in the ’70′s, theologians and Popes do not use the early “murder” language though John Paul veered toward Chrysostom’s entirely different view that regardless of ensoulement’s timing…something sacral is happening and must not be interfered with at any point and is human life whether abortion is murder technically or some other attack on a sacral process within nature.
In that Theological Studies periodical, genetics people tended in debates to the early murder position while embryologists tended to a as yet undetermined later murder position due to e.g. the wastage by nature of a high percent of fertilized ova which if they were actual souls would mean a large part of mankind never gets the option to choose God or not freely as beings in the world.
In the actual de fide anti abortion statement of Evangelium Vitae (section 62)which had the backing of the world’s bishops in union with the Pope, the issue of actual technical “murder” is totally avoided and the issue of timing is avoided precisely due to dilemnas around the fertilized ovas first time period. Abortion is simply condemned and the issue of timing is stated by John Paul in section 60 to be as yet unresolved as to ensoulement but irrelevant since from the first moment a human life is involved. He does not address the problem of natural destruction of so many fertilized ova since science does not seem to know all the details yet itself.
On Obama, listen to Christine’s link of Obama before the Planned Parenthood audience…he signals expansion of the parameters of aobrtion and he signals a direction of judges which would allow for such expansion. Strangely the Stoics were very cultured and very intelligent and Jerome even called Seneca..”our Seneca” for his excellent ideas on marriage….perhaps without Jerome knowing that Seneca completely supported infanticide.
Gerald Campbell,
Obama tells us his position on abortion, and why he voted against the born alive protection act:
Speach on the floor of the Illinois Legislature:
… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Basically, he’s concerned that if we declare a born but not full-term child as a person, it may erode the abortion at any time position of Roe vs. Wade / Doe vs. Bolton… WHICH OBAMA ENDORSES. Better to let a few born babies die, than allow the mother from having her right to murder her unborn baby infringed.
more reasons on : Jill Stanek’s blog
God Bless,
Matt
Matt,
Thanks for the quotes.
Given what you’ve quoted above, Obama’s concern here is not that it would erode the abortion argument. His argument is deeper. It is about the Constitution and what can be considered to be Constitutional:
“… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.”
“”For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
What I’m seeking to find is an article about the legal, cultural, philosophical underpinnings that make defining the person from the moment of conception to be unconstitutional. To make any meaningful changes, it seems to me we have to begin at that fundamental level of discussion.
Let me put it another way. How can we move American jurisprudence to accept that the unborn is a Person? This is the crux of the issue.
I don’t believe it’s possible or wise just to change the law. The law rests on foundations. It rests on acceptance by the body politic. The foundations and allegiances to those foundations need to be argued and debated.
It’s a daunting task. But it’s worth the effort. In the meantime, we need to broaden and improve our efforts to reduce the incidence of abortion. This is something that can we can work towards right now with immediate results.
Bill,
I meant to get back to you earlier, but distractions are sometimes compelling.
Let me make a few comments about St. Thomas in view of the seeming contradiction you lay out between the two statements presented in the Catechism. Perhaps my comments will help remove what appears to be a contradiction.
Aquinas does speak in natural terms about the three levels of soul: vegetative, animal, and human. From conception, the soul exercises vegetative functions, and slowly evolves through the sensitive state to one that is intellectual and volitional. This leads some to state that Aquinas believed in delayed ensoulment and that is the end of it. I think more is going on.
To be sure, Aquinas draws from Aristotle’s natural philosophy. He uses the principles of form and matter. The soul is the form of the body (matter). At this level of analysis, it is hard to conclude that a human being is fully formed at the moment of conception. The characteristics that are characteristic of a human being — intellect and will — appear according to the ordering of time. Whether it happens at 40 days or 43 days, it doesn’t matter. A human being, properly speaking, comes into existence at some latter time than conception.
It is on this basis that there appears to be a contradiction between the two statements in the Catechism you quote.
But, there is more going on in Aquinas than his natural philosophy. Yes there is form and matter, body and soul. But for there is also the act of existing. It is this act of existing that brings a unique dimension to the thought of Aquinas. Act, form, and matter, not merely form and matter, are necessary to constitute a real human being.
Now what is this act. Well, the act of being — the act of existing — is that act wherein the person is situated. It is the Act that is the Person. It is unique, it is transcendent, it is a gift, it has an intrinsic significance unrelated to any material conditions or circumstances.
Just as the act of existing sets any being outside nothing — makes it essential structures to exist — so the act of existing elevates the being to that of a person. There is an intrinsic relation between the act and the person. The person is a gift of the Creator.
Maritain in his book Existence and the Existent explores this Act of Existing. He attempts to show that Aquinas’ discussion of the act of existing is the place where he treats of the Person. But Aquinas himself never set about to articulate the being of person. He explored a human being’s whatness (form) in his natural philosophy. But he did not formally address a human being’s existence. Such work remains to be done effectively. Nonetheless, it is implied Aquinas’ work on the acting of existing.
JPII’s work, The Acting Person, draws on Aquinas’ insight.
Given this, it can be said that the person exists from the very moment of conception. The integrity of the being is from the outset. What unfolds over time are the life processes. They take time to bring to full bloom. But the being of the person itself is there from the outset.
Thus, I don’t see the contradiction between the two statements.
On the designation of “murder” this is another issue altogether. Here the challenge is to bring American jurisprudence to a deeper appreciation of the notion of the person. This cannot be done without considerable struggle on many levels — philosophical, ethical, legal, cultural, social, and practical. America can evolve in that direction — and I believe it will — but we are no where near that place now.
Gerald
But Aquinas is best summed up on that issue here where he seems to go against your “person exists from the very moment of conception” if by person we mean being with a rational immortal soul…..
Summa Theologica/First Part/Question 118/ art 2/ reply to objection 2/
“We must therefore say that since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it follows of necessity that both in men and in other animals, when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted: yet so that the supervening form contains the perfection of the previous form, and something in addition. It is in this way that through many generations and corruptions we arrive at the ultimate substantial form, both in man and other animals….. We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God AT THE END OF HUMAN GENERATION (vegetative or nutritive and then sensitive coming first..then the rational soul….parenthesis mine), and this soul is at the same time sensitive and nutritive, the pre-existing forms being corrupted.”
Your phrase about “from the moment of conception” comes from the phrasing of the Immaculate Conception dogma: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
But Trent had said that there is a delay in everyone being ensouled except Christ so while some have argued from the IC dogma as immediate ensoulement being true of Mary also and thus us too….. the wording can also seem to simply say that she was at every instant protected from original sin whenever she was ensouled in fact and is not a commentary on immediate ensoulement, and thus the former argument did not seem to take at the highest levels since in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II ackowledges in section 60 that the Church has not defined the moment of ensoulement…..
” Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life”.’
That section is non infallible whereas the section 62 condemning abortion is infallible but it shows that the entrance of personhood’s moment is still a question until the magisterium does expressly commit itself to use John Paul’s phrase.
All of which makes your convincing the outside world of all this even more difficult and not something fated to happen in this part of this millenium.
Bill,
“if by person we mean being with a rational immortal soul…..”
No, I’m not saying that.
If the person is merely a being having a rational immortal soul, one is at the level of essence, ie., the universal. At that level, it is not possible to explain how each person becomes unique?
The person is distinct from the individual.
The form of the body (soul) and the act of existing are not the same. The person is integral to the act whereas the soul (rational being) is in the order of essence.
You quote: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life”.’
I agree with this statement. But it only makes sense with the distinctions I’ve made. The soul and the person are not the same. They cannot be.
Yes, this is a difficult sell.
Sorry it’s late.
Gerald
Main my point in many areas especially this one is that the Popes should be cultivating the studies around this issue and working toward more and more ex cathedra statements on these issues. Notice how Catholics do not dissent on the only two ex cathedra encyclicals. Why? Because humans know when a Pope has put his money where is mouth is to be brusque about it. Ergo…HV…coming only 14 years after the Assumption and introducing itself per Monseignor Lambruschini twice as non infallible….met with what could only be called a tidal wave of neglect by the generation who had accepted the Assumption precisely 14 years previous. Instead they…the popes…. seem to veer to what they like as many managers in life do. John Paul liked being on stage in college and where did he end up in the papacy…traveling 17% of the time and ending up on stage…ditto with Benedict’s weekly excursions into the early Fathers which many Catholic writers could do as well. We need them working on the charism of infallibility on these critical issues….which are in effect more critical than the Assumption for which ex cathedra was used. Until they do that work, we will not convince Catholics let alone non Catholics. People want to see detail not declarations anymore and detail takes work. And I would add on this area, we need a think tank to take over that summer palace completely and composed of theologians, scientists and some saints from the Carthusians to keep on eye on both….but all to feed the thoughts to the Popes in this area. Let’s de-monarch Castel Gandalfo and forget the astronomy and get to existential issues where by the way according to a 2005 poll by NCReporter…young millenial Catholics have an 89% acceptance of abortion as existing side by side within the Catholic faith with being a good Catholic…twice that of pre Vat II Catholics which is strange enough. We need less secondary work from Popes and more primary work and more use of their charism defined at Vat.I. I know that charism takes process….but a think tank plus papal attention is part of that process…or would be if it existed.
Bill,
I think the message is pretty clear, based on what I’ve said above. The problem with St. Thomas is that he never wrote a separate philosophy. His philosophy is spread throughout his works in an unorganized way. The doctrine of analogy or the act of being, e.g., are never addressed directly. So passages that treat of the soul, and when ensoulment takes place, can never really be understood based on the words in that specific text.
I recall while studying under Vernon J. Bourke — translator of the Summa Contra Gentiles — his comment: “When I began my study of St. Thomas I read the entire Summa from front to back. It was a complete waste of my time.” The point being what I said above.
It is clear to me that abortion is intrinsically evil. I understand why. I see no contradictions in the text. But there is a problem at the practical level.
The problem is that when everything has been said — no matter how complete the explanation or how authoritative — such discourse is still situated within the framework of speculative philosophy. When JPII speaks of “consequentialism” and “proportionalism” in Veritatis Splendor he is still within the speculative order. He hasn’t even begun to engage the problem in the concrete life of a person.
The problems centering around compliance lies within the context of Practical Philosophy, i.e., the practical order. Here the Church fails, more so in official statements than at the pastoral level. But in terms of dialogue, the Church fails. The Bishops fail. We cannot communicate very well in the practical order. Yet, this is where ethical decision are made — in the concrete.
The practical involves the intersection of the universal and the contingent. A human being evolves in every way over the course of time. No universal principle or edict can become a template for a person’s existence. This is true for countless reasons. At the same time, there is need to move people and institutions towards a more full expression of their potential. The teaching dimension of the Church is inadequate. Yet how can it be made more complete.
Even on this site, I’ve discovered a reluctance to engage the practical dimension. The notion of proportionality is misunderstood. There is more attention to the ends than to the means that will bring a society to those ends. There is also a tendency to think in terms of personal ethics rather than politics.
Gerald
Yes along with my desire for more ex cathedra and more detail within it, I believe that the Church of the future will have Popes so confident that they will want…will desire…to debate all these things as a weekly habit on TV in an orderly dignified fashion where people actually are in fact…..as when Wm. F Buckley debated women’s liberation leaders at Oxford years ago. It was no tv and I remember his female opponent leading off and he then rose to the podium after her long dissertation and exhaling his first words as usual, he breathed out with his dramatic pauses…. ” I…. would agree with you….if you were correct.” The entire audience went hysterical with laughter at the way in which he broke the ice as that smile crossed his face. That is what we need from Popes too for your practical level.
People who believe so much as to what they are saying that they want to get out there and get these issues where much of humanity is….watching the tv. We follow a Man who wrote not one document but insisted on being in the streets, houses and temple….but all three not just the last one. The tv is the de facto streets now.
That should read…”it was on tv”…not “it was no tv”
I may have seen that TV program from Oxford. Certainly, you captured Bill Buckley’s gestures poignantly. Reading your comment, I had to smile myself.
The first time I met Buckley was in 1959, I believe. He met with a group of us at a Jesuit university alongside Fr John Courtney Murray, SJ. Now, that was an exchange! I don’t recall the exact details, but I remember to this day thinking how rich was the dialogue. I might have become filled with envy. Actually, I probably was filled with envy.
The Information Age is rich with possibility. While many attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union to US economic and military power, I believe it was otherwise. US material power could not force 2 million to the streets in Prague to oust Gustáv Husák. Nor could the economic difficulties of the Soviet Union.
The VOA broadcast information and ideas into the Soviet Bloc to win the struggle for hearts and minds. A dramatic, but peaceful, revolution took place involving more than a half billion people. It was as though individuals everywhere were squeezing the pus from the body politic. They finally had arrived at the point where they could say in unison: “Enough of this crap.”
We in America are starting to say important things here too. Dialogue is essential to change. Ideas are essential to dialogue. Catholics need to engage ideas like dignity, freedom, solidarity and enrich their content in public discourse, both in the speculative and the practical order .
An idea whose time has come is more powerful than an army.
It’s been very good talking to you. Must sign off and get into the Easter frame of mind. The great days are ahead for the Church. Popes will not be exempt from cross examination on their ideas as they are now….and that will actually be a good thing because Christ exposed Himself to that all the time. Do we think that the Holy Spirit won’t help them when they are doing what He did. A pope will someday come who wants the interchange of dialogue in public on tv repeatedly where the people are and where he is one among others with no priviliges that protect him from cross examination. He will have that confidence….and it will be infectious and the polls will be very different on what Catholics believe about abortion precisely because he does argue in out with no protections.
Bill,
Your perspective on this is very interesting. I’m sure we’ll exchange words again.
The day will come, as you say, when the truth will be told openly and honestly — and it will be a truth that truly engages hearts and minds everywhere.
Very special Happy Easter to you and yours.