Jesuit calls Obama out on abortion
Fr. John Kavanaugh, professor of philosophy at Saint Louis University, has written an open letter to Barack Obama in the August 18th issue of America magazine. His closing rhetorical question says it all:
A vociferous cadre in the Democratic Party has for too long wielded a dogmatic veto over any discussion of limiting abortions. With your commitment to reasoned, evidence-based and respectful discourse, are you able to challenge your party to welcome pro-life Catholics into its supposed big tent?
Be sure to read CNA’s write-up. For those unfamiliar with Fr. Kavanaugh’s work, he was written extensively on life issues and ethics from a philosophical and theological standpoint. Perhaps his best known works are Following Christ in a Consumer Society and Who Count as Persons?
Comments are closed.
Great!
I keep being amazed that abortion is a political issue, everywhere else it’s a given. Legal by simple law, usually within the first trimester, with exceptions for later. It could easily have been overturned by simple law in all those countries, but never was. Yet, those countries have far, far lower abortion rates than the USA, often 1/10 of the American rate.
Good for Fr. Kavanaugh– Ad majorem Dei glorium!
Gerald.
Maybe this is because our country gives them away? (practically) And maybe because Senators like Barak Obama vote against parental notification laws? Just a theory.
Good for the good Jesuit.
I simply cannot in good conscience vote for the guy based on this issue. Call me a one trick pony. Fine. This is what a conscience is for…
Two posts on Fr. Kavanaugh in one week. He definitely is great.
1/10th the US per capita?
Source please. I know offhand that spain is about 2/3s of the US per capita, and in Russia more babies are aborted than born.
Also, if abortion is the taking of a human life, then it should not be permitted at all. Unless it should be legal to take human life.
Finally, doesn’t questioning Obama make Kavanaugh a neo-con racist?
What a great letter – wow – I would hope Obama would indeed take it in and adjust his positions. In my opinion the overwhelming majortiy of parents having experienced the wonder life from conception on would never consider abortion for social reasons.
Obama must know this and feel it personally – it is a must for him in my opinion to express this truth dignified and offer a position on abortion that while not recriminiaizing abortions for medical reasons effectively starts the process of stopping the to abundant practice of abortions to accomodate life circumstances and inconveniences.
In my mind this would include truly empowering particualrly financially those mothers and fathers that are early in their lifesor in the middle of their schooling and education.
But we should not forget, our current Abortions laws are the result of a rather long and gen erally reasoned process – like some reasons for Abortions are here to stay others lend themself however for adjustments.
Like everything in our society it will be a compromize.
Why these gratuitous remarks?
Some of the members of the advisory council are official contributors to the Commonweal blog, and I know they read America.
I think the “church of Naral” remark is snide. Also, does he mean to imply that Doug Kmiec is actually risking excommunication?
I know how certain the Church is of its positions, and how many people feel very deeply about this issue, but for non-Catholics, there is no “irrefutable evidence” that human life (in the sense of personhood) begins at conception.
[joke mode]
Wait a minute; this must be a partisan piece, since it is criticizing someone who is running for election; if you are not for him, you must be against him, and so you must be doing this to confuse Catholics, hoping to con them into voting for McCain. Nice trick to use a Jesuit to do so, since we all know Jesuits are liberals, and liberals are trying to trick Catholics to vote for Obama!
[joke mode off]
I’m sorry, my Western European snootieness. By everywhere I meant everywhere I can think of – Austria, Germany, Holland and the like, I didn’t mean Russia and Eastern Europe in general. Russia, and Eastern Europe, in general has skyhigh abortion rates. In particular in teenage pregnancies and abortions, the USA has far higher rates than Western Europe, where contraception seems to be more common/used better. Maybe esp. the “Jesus Camp” kids, once they break daddy’s heart that they pledged to him at the “Purity Ball” are unlikely to use contraception when they ‘lose their innocence’ ? Except for some margin of error/accidents, one has to be rather stupid to get pregnant without wanting to. Most abortions, after all, are the mulligans of the unlucky, the careless and the stupid. Tragic cases, such as rape, incest, life of the mother comprise some 2% of all abortions.
Re: Teens:
In the United States, the teen pregnancy rate is more than nine times higher than that in the Netherlands, nearly four times higher than the rate in France, and nearly five times higher than that in Germany.
In the United States, the teen birth rate is nearly 11 times higher than that of the Netherlands, nearly five times higher than the rate in France, and nearly four times higher than that in Germany.
In the United States, the teen abortion rate is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly seven times higher than that in the Netherlands, and nearly three times higher than the rate in France
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm
Another thing about dropping abortion rates – RU486 isn’t counted in abortion statistics but makes up some 15% of US abortions.
Abortion to save the mother’s life must always be legal. Catholics can go through the ‘dual effect’ stuff if they want to. Morning after pill must always be legal and readily available esp. to rape and incest victims. Thankfully, this is obvious to the vast majority of people, including some Catholic bishops (on the morning after pill).
You write,
“I think the “church of Naral” remark is snide. Also, does he mean to imply that Doug Kmiec is actually risking excommunication?”
Obama says,
“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches,
“2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).”
The Church then continues,
“5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
By supporting Obama, Doug is consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws. His pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
It seems you are finally starting to understanding why we say, “You can’t be Catholic and be pro-choice.”
Gerald, I was sorry to read this part- “Maybe esp. the “Jesus Camp” kids, once they break daddy’s heart that they pledged to him at the “Purity Ball” are unlikely to use contraception” please forgive me, I do not want to be overly-personal, but you seem to sneer at people a lot. Being in a place where you look down on people is a very unhappy experience even when you don’t realize it. I know because I have been there myself. Only later did I recognize how miserable I was, mocking silently or out loud people whom I considered less enlightened, more stupid, more hickish than glorious suave and urbane me.
Yes, let’s kill babies who are conceived via rape.
After all, killing babies solves problems. If life begins at conception, then killing babies is wrong even if they are conceived via rape.
Well, people shouldn’t be forced to give birth to their own brother. Apart from the fact that the morning after pill is just a super-dose of the regular pill, not an abortion.
Magdalena, I’m afraid “Jesus Camp” (as in the movie) and “Purity Balls” with their sickly, quasi-incestuous theatrics should be sneered at.
LCB,
My questions still stands: Is Fr. Kavanaugh seriously implying that Kmiec is risking excommunication?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe any “pro-choice” Catholic politicians have been excommunicated, although some have been asked not to present themselves for communion. So excommunicating someone who endorses a non-Catholic pro-choice candidate would seem very extreme. Even Archbishop Chaput, although he set the bar very high, acknowledged that Catholics can vote for “pro-choice” candidates if voting for them in spite of their stand on abortion and with proportionate reasons. And of course being asked to refrain from receiving communion is not excommunication.
It seems you are finally starting to understanding why we say, “You can’t be Catholic and be pro-choice.”
I wouldn’t call Kmiec “pro-choice.” I believe his position is that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided not merely because it found a right that wasn’t there, but that the Constitution itself should be interpreted to declare that the unborn are persons. In any case, it seems to me that in the “hierarchy of truths,” the Catholic teaching against abortion is much higher than the Catholic teaching that the law must ban abortion. The former is a teaching about the morality of abortion, which has a very long history in Catholicism. The latter is a position about what laws ought to exist in a pluralistic democracy, and it seems to me the Church has much less authority to make binding pronouncements in such a matter. For those who believe the Republican approach to ending abortions does not and will not work, it seems to me they actually have an obligation to go with any other alternative they think can work. If working for a legal ban actually prevents progress toward ending abortion, then clearly Catholics should work toward the more important goal of reducing or ending abortions rather than the goal of changing the law.
Gerald Naus.
You are absolutely wrong and so are any bishops who shamefully and publically agree with you.
Politicians who do nothing against abortion laws (since in Europe, it’s a legislative matter, not constitutional) although they could (which basically includes almost every prime minister, president etc) routinely receive communion, even at the hands of the pope, who certainly knows who those people are. Where does this difference stem from ?
Gerald:
One reason for the differences in political attitudes on abortion is that abortion in the U.S. is considered a legal right. The best work on this is probably still Mary Ann Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law.
ctd – on the other hand, it’d be far, far easier for the head of the governing party to change abortion laws – a simple majority is enough. Yet, it hasn’t happened or has been seriously discussed in the countries I can think of.
Gerald:
Because Western Europe’s choice of not making abortion a right, but rather a limited privilege has made the incidence of abortion more in tune with public sentiments (rare, but legal.) No governing party feels the political pressure to pursue a change. Glendon also writes – this is in 1987 – that the political and social consequences of such an approach were more services and support for pregnant women and children.
I am not advocating this approach, by the way. I am just noting that it explains a great deal about the differences between the U.S. and Western Europe.
Yes, ctd, you’re SOL for maternity leave in this country. If you’re lucky, you can go on disability. Whoopee. In Austria, they basically manicure your toenails for you if you have a baby. A year maternity leave, money for every child until it graduates college, etc. It doesn’t have to be like that, but in the USA employees are basically one step short of working in the mines with slavedrivers. This is also why I am self-employed :) (something a lot harder to do in Europe)
Quick note to Magdalena: Thank you for your comment.
There is so much to be learned from blog exchanges in general and Vox Nova specifically. But I’m convinced the benefits are severely compromised when the tone becomes harsh.
Sneering doesn’t work in so many ways. Among other thinks, it drives away moderate voices.
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” …Alexander Solzhenitsyn
“I have this naïve notion that despair at the spectacle of absolute ludicrous quantities of mutual contempt on all sides breeds tolerance and mutual respect – due to laughter at the absurdity of it, or wariness at the endlessness of it.” …random blog comment
I am surprised that nobody has talked about Pat Buchanon’s piece, “A Catholic Case Against Obama.”
“I could find no instance in his entire career,” writes Freddoso, “in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.”
It’s because the piece is, sadly, insufficient and fails to deal with the whole political spectrum and questions at hand. Taking a truth out of context and making it the sole guideline for action is always dangerous and is the foundation for heresy. Indeed, it’s often said that is what heresy is. Thus to take abortion and only abortion and to keep harping on it is indicative of a mind which has not found the holistic truth of the Catholic faith.
So, in other words, I should feel ok about voting for the Senator who has the worst abortion record ever?