A) Bunch of aging hippies and
B) Bunch of know nothing aspiring academics
are not consistent.
Ideological blindness often keeps people from recognizing that the typical writer on this blog is younger. Such should be obvious from the lack of discretion often shown in entering particular arguments. I believe the median age on this blog is close to 30. Going through Gerald Campbell’s bio, I’m guessing he is the senior member of the blog and a bit of an outlier age-wise.
Since these things come up from time to time, I figure it would be a good time to review some things for the casual reader. The pelvic issues as some label them don’t come up all that much on this blog. There have been about 45 posts with divorce in them and 25 or so posts addressing gay marriage. Most of those are tangential treatments. I’m not aware of any issues over the Church’s teaching over contraception. Abortion has been addressed in 220 posts and is certainly the most contentious issue on the blog. All contributors agree that the legal sanction of abortion is an abomination. Several contributors believe that correcting this abomination through law is unachievable as society is presently constituted, and therefore a wider approach needs to be taken toward evaluating the efficacy of any candidate’s approach to abortion. In other words, the reduction of incidence of abortion should take precedence over attempts to limit the scope of legal abortion given societal realities at this time. I and other contributors do not find this sufficient, but I also don’t feel the need to reiterate my previous arguments on every occasion I’m given the opportunity.
From what I understand, I and Gerald Campbell are the only ones to have endorsed Obama for President. Henry Karlson, Michael Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) and Policraticus have clearly stated they aren’t supporting the two major party candidates. Although he hasn’t formalized it, I’m pretty sure Jonathan Jones will be endorsing McCain. I don’t anticipate Blackadder will be endorsing Obama, and likewise I don’t anticipate Mornings Minion endorsing McCain. RCM and Katerina haven’t declared to the best of my knowledge. My memory simply fails on who the other contributors are considering, if they are considering anyone.
MZ, I don’t think of you as one of a ‘bunch of know nothing aspiring academics’
I think of you as a patriarchal oppressor :)
Btw, Gerald Augustinus is ‘dead’, I had to put the no-good bastage down. New digs (still under construction but up and running) http://www.geraldnaus.com
Several contributors believe that correcting this abomination through law is unachievable as society is presently constituted, and therefore a wider approach needs to be taken toward evaluating the efficacy of any candidate’s approach to abortion. In other words, the reduction of incidence of abortion should take precedence over attempts to limit the scope of legal abortion given societal realities at this time. I and other contributors do not find this sufficient, but I also don’t feel the need to reiterate my previous arguments on every occasion I’m given the opportunity.
I’m suspecting that this is intended as an implicit criticism of me. I bring up Gerald’s pro-choice position regularly not because of animus towards Gerald, but because of this:
Catholic teaching of long-standing says that it is a non-negotiable duty of Catholic legislators to seek to protect life from the moment of conception. (Most recently, see paragraph 83 of Sacramentum Caritatis). There is no exception. No mention of prudential judgment. Catholic teaching doesn’t say, “But in situations where you personally feel that a national majority isn’t yet on your side, your duty becomes the opposite: in such situations, you must argue on behalf of the importance of individual choice.”
There are many folks on this blog who are very ready to condemn disagreement with their preferred Catholic teachings — on gun control, the Iraq war, immigration, healthcare, or the death penalty — even if the teaching in question isn’t officially binding and is subject to prudential judgment. Fair enough . . . if your goal is to have a blog dedicated to putting Catholic values first, ahead and above all partisanship, then you should take all such teachings seriously.
At the same time, if putting Catholicism above partisanship is someone’s purported goal, it makes no sense to completely ignore a much clearer example wherein a co-blogger dissents from a clear and binding Catholic teaching. I can’t think of any good explanation for this, and for some reason I find hypocrisy irritating. If someone purports to believe in the fullness of Catholic teaching, then I expect to see that person referring to Catholic teaching not just in situations where it’s a good tool to beat up on their enemies, but also to call their friends to account when necessary.
Certain bloggers have told me that they just don’t notice Gerald’s many pro-choice comments, which is a bit too convenient, and in any event doesn’t justify them in continuing to ignore Gerald’s dissent even when it is placed squarely in their attention. Another blogger said that Gerald opposes abortion and therefore isn’t really pro-choice, which is simply a confusion of terminology (when someone has expressly said it’s better for the woman and her doctor to make the abortion decision, he is by definition pro-choice, whatever he thinks of abortion itself).
The only good reason I can think of is that someone promised Gerald Campbell that he could say whatever he wanted without criticism from fellow bloggers, and that the lack of criticism from the other bloggers is therefore a matter of keeping their word.
Here are some REAL examples of what Gerald has said, so one can see how wrong people are in their presentation of his beliefs:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/08/catholic-democrats/#comment-21129
“This change will flow out of interpersonal relations. This dynamic can provide a concrete basis for substantive changes in the law…” Gerald Campbell.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/08/catholic-democrats/#comment-21134
“Our aim is not to create martyrs but to change public policy and law” Gerald Campbell.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/29/deal-hudson-and-deacon-sambi/#comment-20251
“I’m not arguing that abortion is justified. Never have. In principle, I don’t believe abortion is justified and would argue so. I assume we agree on that point.” Gerald Campbell.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/29/deal-hudson-and-deacon-sambi/#comment-20170
“Subsidiarity is not being used to defend abortion. You insist it is. It is not” Gerald Campbell
I’m suspecting that this is intended as an implicit criticism of me.
It wasn’t.
Certain bloggers have told me that they just don’t notice Gerald’s many pro-choice comments, which is a bit too convenient, and in any event doesn’t justify them in continuing to ignore Gerald’s dissent even when it is placed squarely in their attention.
I think greater clarity here is demanded. Gerald and I had a long argument in a long forgotten combox. In part I think he expected to have his arguments received as that of a pro-lifer offering his opinion, if not necessarily an orthodox opinion as far as the current pro-life movement was attempting to advance. I did not make such an assumption initially and I imagine others didn’t as well. I think Gerald felt he didn’t need to restate what he considered to be the obvious, but in retrospect I hope he would conclude that such was a mistake. While he and I substantively disagree over the importance of incidence – I don’t think it is all that important – I now understand where our disagreement lies.
Catholic teaching of long-standing says that it is a non-negotiable duty of Catholic legislators to seek to protect life from the moment of conception. (Most recently, see paragraph 83 of Sacramentum Caritatis). There is no exception. No mention of prudential judgment. Catholic teaching doesn’t say, “But in situations where you personally feel that a national majority isn’t yet on your side, your duty becomes the opposite: in such situations, you must argue on behalf of the importance of individual choice.”
I think first we need to be cautious about applying what Catholic politicians are able to do to what a voter is allowed to do. Accepting that abortion can never be a right properly understood – the non-negotiable principle – doesn’t eliminate prudential calculations. For example, those that support the 3 exceptions are often openly endorsed rather than being brow beaten. That is a prudential application. As to the question of whether creating an environment to reduce the incidence of abortion is sufficent per se to be prudentially anti-abortion is one where I firmly disagree. I am firmly of the opinion that the election of Obama will do greater harm to the cause of ending the evil of abortion than the election of John McCain.
The ‘aging hippies’ thing is definitely true. I, I mean Gerald Augustinus, used to employ that phrase liberally, esp early on.
Gerald doesn’t dissent from “clear and binding teaching.”
The “aging hippie” stuff cracks me up every time.
Henry doesn’t address the many quotes I provided here, all of which make clear that Gerald thinks it unwise and even “insane” to try to change the law re: abortion.
As for the quotes he does provide:
Gerald doesn’t dissent from “clear and binding teaching.”
Prove it — prove that Gerald either didn’t mean it on all those occasions when he said that he doesn’t want to change abortion law, or prove that the Vatican didn’t mean it on all the occasions when it said that changing the law is a non-negotiable duty.
Henry doesn’t address the many quotes I provided in the “Shameful Supreme Court Decision” thread, all of which make clear that Gerald thinks it unwise and even “insane” to try to change the law re: abortion.
As for the quotes he does provide:
Too vague to be meaningful. What substantive changes in the law? And when? Even if you read this to mean that Gerald would want the law to ban abortion at some future unspecified date, he’s still pro-choice in the here and now. Intellectually honest Catholics recognize that such a position — pro-choice for now but not-pro-choice at some unspecified future date — isn’t consistent with Catholic doctrine. It may be right, but don’t pretend that it’s not a dissenting position.
Same comment.
No one ever said that Gerald believes in abortion itself, and so the relevance of a quote wherein he says that abortion itself is unjustified is zero.
Sophistry. Subsidiarity wasn’t being used to defend abortion per se, but it indisputably was being used to defend being pro-choice as a legal matter. In the “Vote for Obama Really Is a Vote for Abortion” thread, I said that subsidiarity doesn’t justify the “pro-choice position.” After directly quoting me, Gerald’s first response was: “It very clearly does.”
The fact that Gerald’s misuse of subsidiarity has received no criticism from anyone besides me is a serious indicator that something is wrong here — there has to be some reason that people aren’t willing to defend Catholic doctrine against such a perversion.
It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.
Prove it — prove that Gerald either didn’t mean it on all those occasions when he said that he doesn’t want to change abortion law, or prove that the Vatican didn’t mean it on all the occasions when it said that changing the law is a non-negotiable duty
It’s a non-negotiable duty of politicians. Gerald is not a politician. The Vatican has said nothing over how citizens use their vote in terms of weighing candidates. All we have is the unofficial letter from Ratzinger, which does not state that it is incumbent upon a Catholic voter to vote for politicians who take a legal approach to ending abortion. The “proportionate reasons” clause is vague and unclear.
The only one who has to “prove” anything is you. Where does Gerald dissent from Church teaching if he is 1) pro-life; 2) abhors abortion; 3) wants to take a non-legal approach to ending abortion? I want a clear answer, SB. No more sophistry and contorting things. Show us where Gerald dissents.
Policraticus
I would also add that Gerald Campbell has said he does work for a change in the law as well, but he thinks people need to be realistic in how this will be done.
Zippy,
Gerald does not support pro-abortion laws, he is not voting for them, nor is he making propaganda in support for abortion. Nor is anyone on VN doing so.
… nor is he making propaganda in support for abortion.
I know that he is not making propaganda in support of abortion.
What I saw was propaganda in support of keeping abortion legal, which is precisely what is prohibited by definitive teaching.
It’s a non-negotiable duty of politicians. Gerald is not a politician.
More sophistry. In the many quotes I’ve provided, Gerald isn’t just talking about his own private decision to laud Obama. He’s also giving a normative opinion on what politicians should or should not do.
So if I say, “Politicians ought to use the death penalty as often as is consistent with societal consensus,” I’m not in dissent from Catholic teaching, because I’m not a politician? Come on, you guys would never accept such a pathetic excuse. If I’m giving a normative view on how politicians should or should not act, and if I’m saying that they’re correct to do something that Catholic teaching condemns, then I can’t use the escape hatch that you suggest.
And I continue to note that even Poli and Henry can’t manage to come up with even a half-hearted excuse for Gerald’s misuse of the concept of “subsidiarity.”
In terms of intellectual consistency, if you condemn as insufficiently “pro-life” anyone who doesn’t want abortion to be illegal even in cases of rape (and I can point to posts from Poli and Henry on that), then you should on the same ground condemn someone who doesn’t want abortion to be illegal period.
This teaching, by the way, is also why I was very critical of John Roberts during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. He had stated in his confirmation hearing as an appellate judge that nothing in his personal beliefs would prevent him from fully and faithfully applying Roe as precedent. But no Catholic may ‘fully and faithfully’ apply an unjust law, or vote for an unjust law, or make propaganda supporting unjust law, without committing a grave moral wrong.
If a politician were to claim that we should work to end abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother, we would not claim said politician should be rebuked and not supported. We understand clearly enough that policy decisions are made based on existing circumstances. We also understand that policies can move us closer to principle or further from priniciple.
My comment isn’t about supporting politicians. It is about propoganda directly supporting the current body of law (even if that support is putatively temporary) which makes abortion a legal right.
I would hope that you and I, MZ, would agree that it would be wrong to support Obama if the reason why you supported him was to keep abortion legal. It is wrong to obey, vote for, or support through speech positive law which makes (attempts to make) abortion legal.
This has nothing to do with my argument about voting for politicians and material cooperation with evil. That is my own argument, drawing on Magisterial sources in a very general way but not at all something taught directly by the Magisterium.
This on the other hand has to do with directly arguing that ‘subsidiarity supports the pro-choice position’. That — doing that arguing — violates a definitive Church teaching. Church teaching isn’t merely that abortion is intrinsically immoral. Church teaching is that supporting the legality of abortion, or any intrinsically unjust law – even if as some putatively temporary tactical thing – is immoral.
Zippy
Your words and the words you quote are not one and the same.
The dwarves are for the dwarves, Henry.
I have made the same point re: Roberts. SB gets rather upset that this judge’s words are called into question.
You understand that, MZ; others do not.
Tell you what, Henry and Poli — why don’t we all directly ask Gerald whether he agrees, in the here and now, with paragraph 83 of Sacramentum Caritatis:
If Gerald says that he wholeheartedly agrees — that he thinks that legislators and politicians are right now (not at some future date) “particularly bound” by a non-negotiable duty to ban abortion, and that he renounces anything he has said to the contrary — then I’ll take back everything I’ve ever said about Gerald and abortion.
If, on the other hand, Gerald in any way shows that he has less than wholehearted agreement with that passage, then both of you agree to 1) stop defending Gerald on this point, and moreover 2) criticize Gerald in precisely the same terms that you would use if you come across someone who says that it is “insane” to seek legal sanction against torture.
SB gets rather upset that this judge’s words are called into question.
When his words are misconstrued by people who know nothing of the law, that is.
Zippy — you, at least, seem capable of grasping the point I made here regarding Roberts’ testimony.
Zippyand SB,
Thank you for continuing this discussion. I have had many discussions with Gerald about these matters and, though Gerald has always been gracious and cordial, my apprehensions regarding his stance on the legal status of abortion have never been assuaged. I sometimes suspect Gerald himself is a little conflicted about his beliefs. I encourage you to continue to push for clarity on this matter and do so with charity and intelligence (I find that in the heat of argument, I can lose track of these).
To the rest of the Vox Nova contributers (esp. Gerald),
Consider taking SB and Zippy’s points not as accusations but as sincere questions propted my a desire for truth in clarity in a crucial area of CST and a concern for their fellow Catholics.
Conversations here always degenerate because people lose track of the issue at hand and begin engaging in informal fallacies, esp. ad hominems. Things would be much easier if people reviewed the informal fallacies and were disciplined in avoiding them.
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/overview.html
SB:
I understand the dilemma, but the Cross is hard work.
Anyway, what do you expect Catholic or pro-life nominees to say when Democrats are trying to trap them?
The truth. If we get locked out of various places because we tell the truth, we have to trust that Providence is listening.
SB and Zippy-
Thank you for continuing to push this point. I read VN regularly, and while I often disagree with some contributors on the best way to approach political and societal issues from a Catholic viewpoint, I generally do not doubt that each contributor is truly attempting to honestly grapple with the Truth, as given to us through the Church, and the best way to live out that Truth.
However, I find my faith in everyone’s good intentions slipping, though, with Gerald’s continued comments on abortion and the continued defense of his comments by other contributors. I hope they renounce Gerald’s comments on abortion – especially regarding subsidiarity and the pro-choice position.
Maria
It would do well if you understood his point. As I have shown, he does not claim subsidiarity defends or justifies abortion.
The context of the quote people mention is neglected. The context is the current American situation. When you mix the worldview in modern American society, including its false notions of what freedom means or does not mean, and try to mix it with a subsidiarity position for morality, the end result is not what someone who is against abortion will like. Thus, abortion would end up justified in such a situation through the premises of the American political ideals as they currently stand. This is not the same as saying abortion is justified.
… he does not claim subsidiarity defends or justifies abortion.
Right. He didn’t say it justified abortion. He said it justified the legality of abortion. You’ve conflated this many times, and been corrected many times. I leave the interpretation of that up to the reader.
As I have shown, he does not claim subsidiarity defends or justifies abortion.
Right, but he unequivocally claimed that subsidiarity “very clearly” justifies the “pro-choice position.” You can’t answer that point. And I note that you’re not accepting the chance to ask Gerald whether he really and wholeheartedly agrees with Catholic doctrine; I think this is because you don’t want to have to admit error.
Right, we are talking, zippy, within the context of legality. That is a given. Sometimes, it seems to me, you forget that givens are underlying the discussion and think if it is not mentioned, you are proven right.
When discussing abortion here, we are discussing the legality of it. When discussing the legality of it, we must take into consideration the current American worldview and how it provides a hermeneutical lens in which one reads the whole legal system and what is allowed or not allowed.
What is quite apparent is that people often confuse a phenomenological consideration for more than what it is: a discussion of where the current system leads when one adds to it some new element. The consideration can be wrong, the person could be mistaken, fine. But what one must not do is confuse the outcome they see coming from such an examination is necessarily the one they want; indeed, I think Gerald has made it clear, it is not what he wants, and why he thinks another means must be considered.
SB
He has said abortion is an intrinsic evil. He has said he wants to make the situation where abortion is no longer legal. Hmm. Again, what I see is pure sophistry, taking a text out of context for pretext, nothing else. And it’s to find an excuse to label Gerald something he is not, and once you feel you have done it, it becomes another step to a formal ad hominem, which will then be used to denounce anything he says.
I believe I have addressed it elsewhere, but that may have been privately alas. I have stated disagreement on using subsidiarity.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/29/deal-hudson-and-deacon-sambi/#comment-20136
“Considering that subsidiarity is about the higher order aiding the lower order to achieve heaven, many of us would fail to see how legalized abortion is compatible with subsidiarity.”
I should note immediately following, Mr. Campbell notes:
“Yes, I agree [that using sudsidiarity is a misuse of language and a perversion of Catholic doctrine]. But it is the way Republicans have used subsidiarity. It has been used to get the decision-making down to the local level because the assumption is the least government is the best government.
So I agree with you. This is an idological use of subsidiarity but it is the one that in in play in American politics.”
I’m not an idiot. I have been reading and following these discussions for some time, though generally stay out of them since others are more eloquent than I. I believe I understand what Gerald is saying, and I think he is terribly, terribly out of step with Church teaching on the issue.
I really do not “understand” how any “context” could cause an honest Catholic to argue that subsidiarity supports the pro-choice position.
He has said abortion is an intrinsic evil. He has said he wants to make the situation where abortion is no longer legal. Hmm. Again, what I see is pure sophistry, taking a text out of context for pretext, nothing else.
Speak for yourself. You are spinning furiously trying to deny the obvious. Whatever you think Gerald may or may not believe about making abortion illegal in some far distant future that may never come, he has expressly said that subsidiarity justifies the “pro-choice position” here and now, today. He has expressly said that it is “insane” to try to restrict abortion via the law here and now, today. He has expressly said that the pro-choice position is “reasonable and ethical,” here and now, today.
All of these statements are contrary to Catholic doctrine, and you damn well know it.
Anyway, if you’re so confident of the answer, Henry, go ahead and ask Gerald whether he truly and fully agrees with paragraph 83 of Sacramentum Caritatis, and what it says are the non-negotiable duties of legislators.
SB No, Catholic doctrine does not teach the means by which the laws are to be made. That decision is for the political authorities acting out of prudence. And if the situation is that the laws will not be followed and cannot be enforced, then one must first work to make it so that they will be followed and enforceable. One can easily disagree with his reasoning as to whether or not they can be enforced; but that, again, is not a matter of Catholic doctrine.
It might be a matter of Republican political doctrine.
But that’s not Catholicism.
SB
Why don’t you ask him yourself? Why don’t you EMAIL him? I mean, he might be busy and not here for a few days. But you are free to e-mail him. Why do I have to do anything for you? You are the one who makes claims. The ball is in your court.
Nice try, Henry, but I’ve already asked Gerald publicly here. If you have any interest in the truth, you can seek him out privately. It continues to be remarkable that you and Poli can’t bring yourselves to concede that you would ever criticize Gerald no matter what he said about Catholic teaching on the duties of legislators.
SB No, Catholic doctrine does not teach the means by which the laws are to be made. That decision is for the political authorities acting out of prudence.
If you really believe that, you are required to take the same line whenever the discussion turns to the Iraq War, healthcare, immigration, i.e., all of the many issues where Catholic teaching as to the duties of legislators is far less clear-cut.
Catholic doctrine does not teach the means by which the laws are to be made. That decision is for the political authorities acting out of prudence.
One more thing: Give me one cite to an official Catholic teaching where anyone has ever said that the decision as to how to restrict abortion (or when) is left up to the prudential judgment of political authorities.
SB
Show me any official declarations by which it has been shown the step by step process one undergoes to make abortion illegal. Can you do it? There is no such declaration, therefore, it is indeed an issue of prudence.
Now, on the other hand, show me where (beyond this thread) you asked Gerald about SC. I can’t find you doing so.
Finally, there are issues of prudence in regards to war, immigration, health care, etc. The problem is not that the execution of Catholic ideals are in question, but the ideals themselves are.
More sophistry. In the many quotes I’ve provided, Gerald isn’t just talking about his own private decision to laud Obama. He’s also giving a normative opinion on what politicians should or should not do.
Pathetic. Your animus against Gerald is so very plain, and there really is no need to belabor the point. Very disappointing given your background in law.
Poli — insults are not a substitute for an argument. That is, you don’t in any way refute my claim (and you can’t — who can refute the truth?) that Gerald has praised the pro-choice position in affirmative terms, without limiting himself to the question of whether it’s permissible to vote for Obama in spite of the pro-choice position.
I don’t have animus towards Gerald. My animus is towards intellectual corruption and dishonesty.
[...] not to vote? Great post today, M.Z., which gives some perspective on the positions of various VN contributors in the face [...]
Show me any official declarations by which it has been shown the step by step process one undergoes to make abortion illegal. Can you do it?
Who says there’s a “step by step process” in the first place? Talk about question-begging. I’ve shown you a place (and there are more) where the Church definitely teaches that a legislator is obligated to seek to legislate against abortion. Show me where in the Catechism, or in Donum Vitae, or in Sacramentum Caritatis, or anywhere else, that the Church has added a proviso: “But wait, if the legislators don’t feel that the time is right, they can content themselves with doing absolutely nothing to restrict abortion until some indefinite future date (determined by their prudential judgment) at which they would begin a step by step process.”
I do recall a passage where the Church says that if there is an abortion restriction short of a full ban on the table, but nothing else, the Catholic legislator can vote for the abortion restriction even though it’s not a full ban, because at least it’s an improvement. That’s very different from saying that the legislator is actually allowed to praise the pro-choice position as “reasonable and ethical” and justified by “subsidiarity.”
Maria, Absent a deep-rooted pschological need, you will not be able to play the Gnostic and uncover a hidden defense for the legality of abortion within Subsidiarity. Nor, will you find a Pastoral understanding of bestiality within Stewardship and the works of St. Francis Assisi. Be grateful. I know I am.
I should have mentioned Casti Connubii, para. 32:
So where’s the language about how public authorities have prudential judgment to leave aside “laws and sanctions” until some future date when they feel the time is right?
But what one must not do is confuse the outcome they see coming from such an examination is necessarily the one they want; indeed, I think Gerald has made it clear, it is not what he wants, and why he thinks another means must be considered.
‘… subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position‘ is not a value-neutral statement or observation, despite your continued attempts to pretend that it is.
para. 67, I meant.
I recall what I was thinking of: Evangelium Vitae.
Paragraph 72:
Note carefully the language about how legislators are not allowed to leave abortion legal just because the “majority” favors it. Needless to say, this isn’t consistent with Gerald’s argument on the necessity of seeking a “consensus” — whatever that means — before the law can take any action.
Paragraph 73 is what points out that legislators “whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known” could legitimately support a law that fell short of a ban, as long as the law is “more restrictive” than before. But again, that is a far cry from saying that legislators can properly argue against any and all legal restrictions.
SB,
You have been proving yourself virtually incorrigible.
I can ony give you a gentlemanly admonishment to step back and look at yourself and the situation more reflectively, for others have all too readily and repeatedly pointed out to you your intellectual errors and personal misjudgments in this case.
But as you seem not to understand your blindness as you more or less slander Gerald again and again, I can only sadly anticipate that you to act out even further.
Please prove me wrong.
Mark D — As usual, you have no arguments or substance to offer. If you think I’m wrong in any way, make an argument. If you think, for example, that Catholic doctrine doesn’t require legislators to try to restrict abortion, explain yourself. If you think, for example, that Gerald didn’t mean what he said as to subsidiarity “very clearly” justifying the pro-choice position, explain yourself. Etc.
As I have said, each interlocutor gets his due with me.
Well, if you aren’t up to the task of making an argument, why bother to jump in?
“Gentlemanly” — this coming from the guy whose most recent response to me was that I’m a “natural contraceptive.” In any event, I suspect that you too need to learn the lesson that Catholic teaching is more than just a tool to use when convenient for bashing your enemies but to ignore and misrepresent when your friends are the ones in dissent.
Such thin skin…
I can see that:
1) No one (not Henry and not Poli) is going to be able to explain how they can read the many Church pronouncements on a legislator’s duty to oppose abortion, and come away with the notion that legislators have the prudential judgment to praise the pro-choice position as ethical;
2) No one is even going to pretend to explain how subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position;
3) Poli is never going to be able to defend his claim that Gerald has only addressed whether a private voter can licitly vote for a pro-choice politician, and hasn’t been affirmatively endorsing the pro-choice position in and of itself;
4) Even if Gerald came forth and said, “I spit upon the Church’s pronouncements on abortion,” none of the people disputing with me would care; they would all disappear or pretend not to notice, or else they would come up with all sorts of unique theories showing that Gerald’s statement was actually consistent with Catholic teaching, or else they would try to deflect the point by accusing me of animus for quoting Gerald, etc.
Maybe someone other than me should be making these points — Henry and Poli are so full of venom towards me that they would never in a million years admit that I’m right about anything. But they ignore Br. Matthew on these sorts of points as well, so maybe it doesn’t matter who the interlocutor is.
Even if Gerald came forth and said, “I spit upon the Church’s pronouncements on abortion,” none of the people disputing with me would care; they would all disappear or pretend not to notice, or else they would come up with all sorts of unique theories showing that Gerald’s statement was actually consistent with Catholic teaching, or else they would try to deflect the point by accusing me of animus for quoting Gerald, etc.
Baloney. And you’re being dishonest.
If Gerald or anyone else here were to say such a thing, consider the anarchist first in line to express dismay and disagreement.
SB,
I hope you’re taking vacations or time off work while you write all these comments.
[...] at Vox Nova had a great post today which gives some perspective on the positions of various VN contributors in the face of [...]
Baloney. And you’re being dishonest.
Not as much as Poli and Henry, pal. I’m not the one pretending that Catholic doctrine on abortion allows so much prudential judgment that one can affirmatively praise the pro-choice position as ethical, etc.
In other words, if they distort Catholic teaching to that degree just for the sake of sucking up to Gerald, I have absolutely no reason to believe that they would ever criticize him, no matter what he said.
So it’s Michael I, Mark D, and Poli — all of these guys let their fingers write checks that their brains can’t cash. (That is, they engage in personal insults that they can’t back up with an actual argument.)
Does Mr. Campbell’s position on how best to end abortion tolerate existing abortion laws or actually support them as legitimate legal measures?
Good evening to all.
I would like to clarify that I am not an American citizen, nor do I live in the territory of the USA. I have been following your debates with great interest. Since I think that the issue you debate is universal and applicalbe for anyone of us, I think that we should not get lost in labyrintic arguments, but follow the example of the Apostles in the Godspell: we must always and everywhere speak out in defense of the Truth, that has been given to us, very clearly stated by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and interpreted by the Holy Church Magisteria. (…preach with occasion or without it, timely or untimely…)
Speaking in defense of the Truth should not be permanently left “for later on, or for a better occasion”, since that’s a sin of omission. For a politician like Saint Thomas More, it meant martyrdom. And for a modern politician it might mean another type of martyrdom ( i.e., end of a political carerr, or being despised or persecuted by the media ), but we are the salt of the earth, or at least we should be. If the World is sliding into confusion, it’s also because we, as Roman Catholics, refuse to gently clarify and lead those around us.
with kind regards,
Juan Polakovic
Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
… or actually support them as legitimate legal measures?
If subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position then a legal right to abortion is legitimate. That is what ‘justifies’ means.
“You can have good Catholics who say that they’re not for the criminalization of abortion, or they want to take gradual steps toward eliminating it by convincing the public that this is a bad thing. Those are all legitimate political positions-as long as you’re really moving towards the goal of protecting unborn human life. You at least have to have the goal.”
-Abp Chaput of Denver. I’m waiting foir Zippy and SB to release the rhetorical hounds on him.
In other words, if they distort Catholic teaching to that degree just for the sake of sucking up to Gerald, I have absolutely no reason to believe that they would ever criticize him, no matter what he said.
I like Gerald, from the few interactions I have had with him online. But please, what reason would I, or anyone else really, have for “sucking up” to him?
So it’s Michael I, Mark D, and Poli — all of these guys let their fingers write checks that their brains can’t cash. (That is, they engage in personal insults that they can’t back up with an actual argument.)
What are you talking about, SB? Take a deep breath. Start over.
Wait, don’t start over. Just try to finish up your rant as soon as possible.
MM – Chaput probably wants to take our guns away too. ;)
This is just more of your faulty ecclesiology, MM. You can’t pit what a bishop happened to say at some random time in some random context against Magisterial statements from the CDF and encyclicals written by the Pope.
I never said you could, Zippy, but don’t you think there would be something very wrong with a bishop saying something that you claim the Church teaches is definitely wrong? That’s a pretty strong charge against a bishop, even if he is speaking in an informal formar. You’re not the prefect of the CDF. Get over it.
…don’t you think there would be something very wrong with a bishop saying something that you claim the Church teaches is definitely wrong?
Not at all. I’m sure it happens all the time, inadvertently or otherwise. Bishops are human beings too.
…you are in effect calling Abp. Chaput an idiot.
Nowhere have I even hinted at such a thing.
If you think Abp Chaput supports the notion that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position, or that a Catholic can take that position in good and fully informed conscience, and you are going to go around using his words to support that position against Magisterial documents to the contrary, then why don’t you write him a letter and find out if he agrees with you? He’s been clear that a Catholic may only vote for a pro-choice politician if he does so in spite of the politician’s pro-choice views. What makes you think that he will support your notion that a Catholic can actually be pro-choice in good conscience?
Did I mention subsidiarity anywhere? Keep focused on who you are talking to. And, Zippy, you really need to stop putting words in peoples’ mouths. Of course is is clear that a Catholic may only support a pro-choice politician in spite of his views on abortion. That is pellucid in terms of avoiding formal cooperation.
But that is very different from saying that decriminalization is not an effective strategy, for any number of reasons.
Perhaps the problem surrounds the use of the term “pro-choice”. I have never liked that term, and actually don’t use it much myself. Does it mean someone who believes abortion to be valid moral choice, or somebody who believes decriminalization is not the answer, and ridding the culture of the scourge of abortion requires other means? Very different things. And it becomes dramatically more complicated in the US context where the political authorities have practically no say over the legality of abortion, making the rhetoric appear hollow on both sides of the debate.
And, pray tell, what kind of criminalization do you have in the magisterium of your mind. As I pointed out, in virtually no jurisdiction in history where abortion was illegal did it have the same punishment as murder. Morally, same thing, but in the criminal code, quite different— and the magisterium is certainly not opposed to that. But once you start from that premise, well, it gets murky. Making it a little silly for illustrative purposes, if the punishment for murder is 100, then how should abortion be punished? 75? 50? 25? As we keep going from 100 to 0, do we cross a threshold whereby it no longer becomes valid to treat abortion in so lenient a manner? And if so, what is that threshold?
No, the key is that abortion is treated as a moral evil, an intrinsically evil act. They key is that we do not defend it, claim it to be a “right”, a valid choice. How the criminal code deals with it is an entirely different question. (Putting my cards on the table, I would, in an ideal world, favor criminalization. But I’m also aware that is not going to happen anytime soon, calling for other strategies. And no, I don’t think a reversal of Roe, satisfactory though it might be, would have any major effect on he incidence of abortion).
Funny, the constant reference to subsidiarity. For a common argument made by many pro-lifers is that overturning Roe is the core goal, and then the states will decide. Subsidiarity in action! Of course, this is made in defense of voting Republican since all Republicans can promise is to appoint judges who will overturn Roe.
Pro-choice isn’t complicated, MM.
They key is that we do not defend it, claim it to be a “right”, a valid choice. How the criminal code deals with it is an entirely different question.
That is contrary to the Magisterial Declaration on Procured Abortion, which has a couple of sections on the interconnection between the law and morals, to wit:
19. The moral discussion is being accompanied more or less everywhere by serious juridical debates. There is no country where legislation does not forbid and punish murder. Furthermore, many countries had specifically applied this condemnation and these penalties to the particular case of procured abortion. In these days a vast body of opinion petitions the liberalization of this latter prohibition. There already exists a fairly general tendency which seeks to limit, as far as possible, all restrictive legislation, especially when it seems to touch upon private life. The argument of pluralism is also used. Although many citizens, in particular the Catholic faithful, condemn abortion, many others hold that it is licit, at least as a lesser evil. Why force them to follow an opinion which is not theirs, especially in a country where they are in the majority? In addition it is apparent that, where they still exist, the laws condemning abortion appear difficult to apply. The crime has become too common for it to be punished every time, and the public authorities often find that it is wiser to close their eyes to it. But the preservation of a law which is not applied is always to the detriment of authority and of all the other laws. It must be added that clandestine abortion puts women, who resign themselves to it and have recourse to it, in the most serious dangers for future pregnancies and also in many cases for their lives. Even if the legislator continues to regard abortion as an evil, may he not propose to restrict its damage?
20. These arguments and others in addition that are heard from varying quarters are not conclusive. It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one. One must, however, be attentive to what a change in legislation can represent. Many will take as authorization what is perhaps only the abstention from punishment. Even more, in the present case, this very renunciation seems at the very least to admit that the legislator no longer considers abortion a crime against human life, since murder is still always severely punished. It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.
21. The role of law is not to record what is done, hut to help in promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person’s rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men’s hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.
22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.
Whether we can theorize some tabula rasa political order which never addressed the issue of abortion at all, and therefore doesn’t expressly prohibit it, is irrelevant. The present positive law enshrines a right to abortion, explicitly expressed as such. To support that legal status quo – which is what it means to be politically pro-choice – is to support a legal right to abortion, no matter what other means may be proposed to reduce abortion. This is never acceptable for a Catholic, period.
What are you talking about, SB? Take a deep breath. Start over.
I’m talking about people who say that I’m “dishonest” (you), but can’t explain where or how anything I’ve said is untrue (let alone knowingly untrue); just as you above said that Gerald doesn’t dissent from any binding teaching, without being able to explain how or why (even when asked); just as Poli said that I’m “pathetic” without being able to explain how or why. Etc.
I’m not going to pretend I never say anything insulting, but at least I back it up with an argument. I never just say, “You guys are intellectually corrupt” and then run away to hide.
Funny, the constant reference to subsidiarity. For a common argument made by many pro-lifers is that overturning Roe is the core goal, and then the states will decide. Subsidiarity in action! Of course, this is made in defense of voting Republican since all Republicans can promise is to appoint judges who will overturn Roe.
I expect this kind of dissembling from Henry, but I think you’re capable of grasping the problem here. Gerald said that subsidiarity “JUSTIFIES the pro-choice position.” Not that subsidiarity, if carried out w/r/t abortion policy, would result in many states still being pro-choice. The latter — what you’re saying and what Henry said — is a factual claim. But “JUSTIFIES” is a normative moral claim.
It just floors me that so few people around here can bring themselves even once to say, “Gee, much as I hate to admit it, the pro-choice position is not exactly justified by the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, and if we want to be faithful Catholics we shouldn’t be exerting such effort and creativity coming up with moral arguments on behalf of being pro-choice in the first place.”
Do you guys really expect to be taken seriously when you demand adherence to various position papers or press releases even while you consistently make up excuses for dissent from a much more clear and authoritative teaching here?
This wouldn’t happen if this were any other issue on another blog. What if you guys came across a conservative blog where a supposed Catholic intellectual-type was making excuses for keeping torture legal. Imagine that he said things like, it’s “insane” to seek legal punishment for torture at the present time; or defended the notion of public funding for torture on the grounds of equity for the poor; or boasted of his excitement over voting
for a Republican presidential candidate who had sworn his undying allegiance to the National Association of Torturers, and said that this Republican would magically change the “culture” or create a “consensus” against torture; or said that some random Catholic doctrine “JUSTIFIES” the legality of torture. You guys would have at him in a million different ways. There’s no way you would put yourselves to work coming up with excuses and dissembling explanations for everything.
You’ve got their number, SB.
SB: now that you mention it, John Yoo’s despicable ‘argument’ (I can’t bring myself to leave out the scare quotes) in favor of the legality of torturing the children of ‘detainees’ is remarkably similar. Under subsidiarity, which addresses the heirarchy of responsibilities for the individual and the common good, the President is charged with the defense of the country. Whether or not to torture the child of a detainee is best left to the President, then.
Cut the cheerleading out.
Considering that Mr. Campbell explicitly said the offered argument was a perversion of Catholic doctrine, you guys are in agreement with him. The perversion is fairly common. Where your disagreement lies is that you both disagree that the majority’s belief that the decision to have an abortion is material to the decision of how to pursue the elimination of abortion.
Mr. Campbell explicitly said the offered argument was a perversion of Catholic doctrine,
No he didn’t. He just said outright to SB, in unqualified fashion, that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position. You guys are just the Coalition for Fog applied to abortion. Congratulations.
I am perfectly willing to enhance your white martyrdom that you seek by banning Zippy. Watch it.
As I pointed out above, here is a quote on the matter:
“Yes, I agree [that using sudsidiarity is a misuse of language and a perversion of Catholic doctrine]. But it is the way Republicans have used subsidiarity. It has been used to get the decision-making down to the local level because the assumption is the least government is the best government.
So I agree with you. This is an idological use of subsidiarity but it is the one that in in play in American politics.”
Go ahead. That is your choice.
So it’s a defense of Gerald that he KNEW he was misusing the concept of subsidiarity, and that he continued to misuse it in the later post (where he claimed that it “JUSTIFIES” the “pro-choice position,” with no caveats)? At least Gerald knew more than his defenders, then, but I’m not sure how deliberate misuse is better than unwitting misuse.
“Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.”
Bingo.
The torture analogy is utterly ridiculous. If the Supreme Court had decided on a “right to torture” that must always be protected, and if there was a substantial lobby in favor of that right, even if qualified, then yes, I would argue that we should also pursuing non-legal means to eliminate torture. But in the present case, it os not a private issue as the acting moral agent is the government, and the decision to torture was made by the very person conducting the torture.
See the difference? Probably not. Especially since SB uses the term “conservative” to describe just other strand of Americanist liberalism. Lovely.
Not utterly ridiculous. There are certain areas (as you point out) where torture is different from abortion, but that’s what makes it an analogy rather than an identity. (X cannot be analogical to X itself, because X is the same thing as X. X can only be analogous to Y or something else, which means that analogies can be drawn only between things that actually do differ in some respect).
In any event, the point — which you do not and cannot refute — is that several Vox Nova bloggers (now apparently including you) have all twisted yourselves into pretzels, engaged in empty personal insults, and misrepresented what Gerald said, all so as to make excuses for dissent from Catholic teaching in a way 1) that you would never do as to those teachings that you find politically convenient, and 2) that you wouldn’t even be doing here if the dissenter were your enemy rather than a co-blogger.
If you don’t like the torture analogy, how about this: vigilante killings of child molesters. I’ll bet you anything that at least a substantial minority of Americans would favor, or at least not desire to punish, such killings. Such killings would be carried out as a private issue, not by the government. So all of your purported objections to the analogy disappear.
Now let’s say that someone mirrors all of Gerald Campbell’s sentiments on the subject: it’s “insane” to try to prohibit vigilante killings; indeed, it would be a matter of “equity for the poor” if the government affirmatively bought guns for poor people who want to engage in vigilante killings; and it’s a matter of “subsidiarity” that we preserve the legality of such killings and leave the decision up to the injured parent of a molested child whether to kill the offender or not. Maybe someday we can bring about a “consensus” by mysterious means) that such killings are bad, but until then we shouldn’t try to control behavior from the outside.
I don’t have to guess what you would say to such a person — you’d say he was a crazed American, drunk on gun rights and revenge, etc., etc., all of the rhetoric you use on the gun control issue. And I have a pretty good guess that Henry and Poli and Michael I wouldn’t be quite so ready to look the other way.
It’s all in whose ox is gored.
Also ridiculous. Try and poll on “do you supptr extra-legal vigiolanet murder of child molesters” and see what support you get.
Why would you, of all people, be skeptical, if Americans are as bloodthirsty and as attached to their guns as you contend elsewhere? In any event, that’s a hopelessly inadequate non-response. Once again, you don’t even pretend to answer the point that several VN bloggers are rank hypocrites here. As you said to me via email, the view that abortion “should not be criminalized” is “certainly within the bounds of legitimate Catholic debate.” Take that position if you wish, but then you just can’t flip on a dime and contend that Catholics are bound to take your preferred political position on whatever [guns, healthcare, etc.].
What an eye-opening discussion. I guess I’ve been a little too “pollyanna” in my view of some of VN contributors. Some of whom I thought were really trying to promote a “seamless garment” Catholic social agenda are obviously just political hacks who are using Catholic doctrine when it is convenient. If Catholic teaching supports Democratic social programs, don’t dare dissent from a USCCB statement. If Catholic teaching makes Democratic politicians look like leaders in the abortion holocaust, well, let’s just consider the “context” and twist around simple and clear Church teaching into mumbo jumbo.
And if others point this out. let’s just ban them.
Funny, MM, you used to really like the abortion-torture parallel when you and I were using it to argue against the Rubber Hose Right. Don’t like the feel of the other edge of the sword, eh?
Interestingly enough, there are no Magisterial statements on torture any where near as clear as there are on the duty of Catholics to oppose, not just abortion, but the legalization of abortion. For example we have Evangelium Vitae specifically addressing, not abortion and euthenasia, but laws which authorize them:
“Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.”
[...]
“Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.”
If you want to use the sword analogy, it seems to me like you are turning on yourself, which is sad.
Yes, I do like the abortion -torture analogy. I like it because they are both intrinsically evil acts, and yet many people (perhaps most?) support one but not the other. I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly oppose both. But do not let the different legal statuses and differing proximity of legal actors to the different acts in question get in the way of your attempt to fog this core issue (yes, word chosen delibertately).
Maria: I haven’t been banned. There is no need to ban me, actually; all they need do is ask.
MM: I’m no more impressed with your tergiversations than I was with Victor Morton’s.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the following: imagine the Supreme Court were to find in the constitution a legal right to kill one’s offspring up to two years of age (As Peter Singer rightly points out, the current boundry line between what constitutes a person having legal rights and ‘fetal tissue’ without such rights is completely arbitrary- a distinction without a moral difference). In such a case, who here would defend, as legitimate or even tolerable, a legal regimine which sanctioned such slaughter? Nobody. Even if rationality miraculously prevailed and no one chose to go through with such a terrible act, we would still be clamoring for an end to such a law. No appeals can be made to prudential or pragmatic judgements here since, as Zippy qouted from EV, the very existence of such laws “directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good.” That is why we have a duty to always and everywhere oppose such laws, even if it is politically inconvenient.
Please! Don’t mention the name starting with V. Say “He-who-shall-not be-named” or “you-know-who”!!
Seriously: I think my point is perfectly lucid. if you think moral theology entails no nuance, that’s where you are wrong. And rigidity is counterproductive. You sit on your tower throwing missiles at your fellow Catholics who are doing their best to promote the gospel of life in the real world, the messy world. Yes, you are clean and smug from your vantage point, and no doubt your conscience is unburdened, but what does it buy you? There is zero porbability of your persuading enough people to remove all legal protections on abortion (and I don’t mean Roe, that stupid Republican smokescreen, I mean all legalized abortion).
And no, trying to fight on other fronts and reaching out to those who disagree with you is not cooperating with evil, it is following the example of Christ. Christians lead by example. Making a tactical decision not to fight abortion on the legal front -given the impossibilty of success– does not mean one is giving tacit approval to a law that we all understand is not a just law, and is at odds with the natural law. Of course John Paul is right that there is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws. Your presumption in this regard here is your biggest error. That, and the fact that you consider even raising these issues to be tantamount to “fog”.
MM,
You agree with EV when it say that “there is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws”, but do you agree when it says that there is a “grave and obligation to oppose such laws”? Even if one were to grant that legal prohibition were impossible, it would still be your duty as a Christian to fight for full legal protection of the unborn. We are not only required to fight winning battles.
that should be “grave and clear…”
I have support, applaud, and participate in efforts that seek to eliminate the evil of abortion in non-legal ways. In fact, I think it is the best and most effective way to approach the issue. Still, that does not eliminate our duty to work towards the elimination of laws that legalize and enshire it as a constitutional right. To do so, doesn’t necessitate voting for a certain party in America, in my opinion. It does, however, seem to necessitate actually personally calling for the elimination of such laws, refraining from mocking those who do seek to overturn these laws, and at the very least, stop making arguments to explain away the position of those who support those laws.
Interesting example, Brother Matthew. But here is the issue: from the perspective of the natural law that is binding on our consciences, there is no cut-off point when the right to life becomes diminished or negated. The life of an embryo from conception is as sacred as a child.
And yet: the law has never operated under these premises. As I’ve said repeatedly to Zippy, in practically every instance in history when abortion was illegal, the penal sanctions attached to it never even came close to that of murder. So there is no requirement in the positive law to punish equally, just because they are equally grave violations of the right to life under the natural law.
Key is this line from the Declation on Procured Abortion: “Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.” And this wherein the confusion lies. A person cannot actively support this law by aiding somebody having an abortion, or cooperating in a medical capacity. Nor can a person loudly proclaim the benefits of abortion and the natural right of all women to terminate their pregnancies at will. And of course, one cannot support and campaign for a law with these effects. The issue pertains to calling abortion a good, but about the optimal degree of punishment that should attach to it.
The issue is not defending people who support “abortion rights”, public figures or ordinary people. The issue is working to reduce abortion in an environment where there is strong public support for this “right”, and where a public figure claiming to be pro-life in the strictly legalistic sense can (because of the peculiar circumstances of the legal status of abortion in the United States) have only negligible effects on the actual incidence of abortion. We need to seek alternatives. That is the issue. As I told Zippy, his rigidity may sound noble, but it’s not helping anybody.
I have no problem seeking alternatives to combating abortion. However, this seems a little off point with the initial disagreement in this comment strand regarding some of Gerald’s extremely inflammatory remarks. Why don’t some the contributors just say the Gerald was wrong to state that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position? Whether that was Gerald’s original intention or not, it certainly was written that way, and folks determined defense of the statement seems inexplicable (and troubling) to me.
MM,
It’ll be a couple hours before I am home and have time to respond to your last post. Until then…
Evangelium Vitae can speak to my ‘rigidity’:
Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20).
MM wrote:
So there is no requirement in the positive law to punish equally, just because they are equally grave violations of the right to life under the natural law.
EV again:
“But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake.”
[...]
“The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears.”
Get that: the moral gravity of abortion is even greater than that of infanticide, because the unborn child doesn’t even have the defence of crying.
Zippy: do you believe abortion should be treated in exactly the same way in positive law as murder? Fair enough if you do, but that would be a first in history (or maybe a second..) and is certainly not implied by EV.
And how in God’s name did you twist this text to claim abortion is more morally grave than infanticide? They are equal in moral gravity.
MM writes:
do you believe abortion should be treated in exactly the same way in positive law as murder?
Not all murders are treated the same by the positive law. Abortion should be treated like a particularly heinous kind of premeditated murder, because it objectively is in fact a particularly heinous kind of premeditated murder.
Fair enough if you do, but that would be a first in history (or maybe a second..)
The Magisterium of the Church seems to disagree with you about the facts.
“There is no country where legislation does not forbid and punish murder. Furthermore, many countries had specifically applied this condemnation and these penalties to the particular case of procured abortion.”
This says nothing about the penalties being exactly the same– and anyway, when did you start appealing to Church teaching on factual questions? :)
MM,
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at with regard to the application of positive law to abortion. From what I gather, your argument is roughly the following: (please correct me if I’m wrong- I don’t want to be attacking any straw men here)
Nearly everywhere and at every time abortion has been illegal, positive law did not punish abortion and murder equally, even though the two are morally equivalent. This shows that even in times and places where abortion has been outlawed, there has been a conviction on the part of society, reflected in its positive law, that abortion is not what the Catholic faith claims it to be- murder. Since even the most unborn-protective legal regimes have not perfectly reflected Catholic doctrine on this matter, it is unreasonable for the pro-life movement to set, in the context of contemporary society, a primary and non-negotiable [i.e., it cannot be set aside until a more auspicious time] goal of the legal protection of all unborn persons.
Again, I hope this is a fair representation of your argument. I believe that implicit in this argument are several hidden premises.
1) The established pro-life movement has set a benchmark for itself which is practically unattainable.
To this I would say that every economic, political, and societal movement is animated by a telos which is practically unattainable. The anti-war movement is animated by the ideal of worldwide peace. The women’s movement is animated by the ideal of perfect equality between the sexes. The pro-life movement is animated by the desire that the dignity of human life be perfectly reflected in the political and social order. That these movements have not succeeded in enshrining their respective ideals in positive law doesn’t mean that all their striving in the legal sphere has been in vain and should be abandoned. Nobody says that since legal measures haven’t brought full equality to women we should abandon all anti-discrimination legislation and simply change hearts and minds. Nobody says that since we have not achieved peace in the international order that we should scrap international law and simply focus on changing hearts. [Ok, maybe some people believe this, but you don’t do you?;)]
At this point someone may make the objection that we should reframe the telos of the pro-life movement- the ideal should be to prevent any and all abortions. Having framed the end of the movement in this way, we are free to will whatever means it takes to achieve that end. Therefore, we can abandon legal remedies (since they are practically unattainable [for the sake of argument, lets assume that this is true]) and focus entirely on other non-legal remedies, such as attacking the causes of abortion and attempting to change people’s minds. To such an objection I would say this: the rise of the Catholic pro-life movement has been a direct response to changes in the social and political order, not to abortion itself (which, alas, has always been with us). Casti Connubii sounded the alarm on these (then incipient) changes in the social and political order and a flood of life-related papal documents have followed in its wake. Therefore the raison d’etre for the movement is not simply to end abortion [a societal imperative which has always and will always be with us] but to change the political and societal order to reflect the dignity of the human person. This is absolutely crucial. Many of the vehement disagreements with regard to abortion here at VN are, at their root and source, a disagreement with regard to the proper end of the pro-life movement
There are other hidden premises in the argument above but I will have to save them for later…
Yikes. Sorry for the out of control italics.
Just a couple things.
1) I actually agree with Zippy and SB that reductions in abortion arising contingently from actions like poverty reduction are not sufficient to be pro-life or achieve an anti-abortion vision. In as much as I’ve participated, I’ve attempted to articulate Gerald Campbell’s argument in a light most favorable to him. I have no issue with people rejecting his argument not the least of which is because I have rejected it myself.
2) I typically relish banning commenters. Everyone who is banned claims it is because of the strength of their argument or suppressing views. I love Zippy, and I love arguing with him. I don’t want this point to come across as a threat or anything else, so I won’t add to it.
Br. Augustine,
I can edit your remarks to get your italic under control if you let me know where.
I think part of the struggle is where to draw line. The pro-life movement seems pretty comfortable working with 3 exception folks and in fact has a lot of them in their leadership. This compromise is ultimately in the long run untenable, but prudence dictates we tolerate it and save it for a day when we can effect that change. As has been made manifest over the past half dozen months by prolife activists, a President Obama would have the opportunity to cause harm to progress that has been made in the fight for the unborn. Without the expectation that Obama would ban say third trimester abortion – which by the way no one expects McCain to do or even propose – are there policy goals we could seek with a President Obama to help the unborn? Are there not things he could do that could help our cause? I think a lot of Obama supporters are looking for that, hence some of the tortured reasoning. Ultimately what they are trying to achieve is breaking the dichotomy of being anti-abortion and pro-abortion and instead introduce a scale where we are progressing toward eliminating abortion or regressing from that task.
Thanks MZ,
The italics should go off after “you” in the last sentence of the first paragraph response to premise 1. In the second paragraph of that response, first sentance, “telos” should be italicized and nothing else. In the fourth line of that same paragraph, “means” should be italicized and nothing else. Same paragraph, line 13, “raison d’etre” should be italicized and nothing else. That should do it. Thanks again.
MZ,
I’ll get to the rest of your comment later this morning. God bless.