Unsolicited Advice For The Bishops
The following two statements are in conflict:
1) The placing of economic interests or interests outside of abortion against abortion is always and everywhere evil.
2) There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
As the lesser recognized theologian Rosie Perez put it in White Men Can’t Jump, “Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic globule, from which one extracts what one needs.” Or to put it another way, choices are not always atomistic or autonomous. Sometimes what advances your interests today, ultimately sets you back in the future. If as some bishops have publicly feared, Obama signs FOCA, it will not have happened in a vacuum. House and Senate members will have had to vote for it. Those of us that have been dubious of the prospects of that legislation have used that point in our considerations.
Certainly I’m sympathetic to the concerns that people will always put off dealing with the abortion issue. Such is a very American attitude: don’t do nothing, do something! Sometimes issues are best put off, particularly those issues you will lose. The opposition offered by Archbishop Chaput and other Colorado bishops to the personhood amendment in Colorado would be an example of this. Absent a cooperative framework, any protection for the unborn or for that matter any loss of said protection will be transitory. And certainly when we are called to account for injustices commited to the unborn, claims that we traded future protections for the unborn in favor of temporary measures that went as quickly as they came will enjoy the same hallowness as claims that the deaths of Iraqis in an unjust war took precedence. In the fight for the unborn, prudence must be at least as great a guide as principle. The particular cannot and should not be placed in opposition to the whole, even if the particular takes precedence in priority.
Comments are closed.
Sometimes what advances your interests today, ultimately sets you back in the future.
Very true. And we do not know how our actions will ultimately effect our causes, especially in the act of voting. We do not know what will happen when we put anyone in power. Those we reasonably believe will further our causes may end up making things worse, even while they work to make things better.
So are you saying that the particular, abortion, when seen as the main issue in voting, is in opposition to the whole? That is not a true statement. One doesn’t vote pro-life at the expense of the whole – one votes pro-life for the good of the whole. If we don’t defend life, what is left for us to defend? Abortion harms the innocent unborn, the women who have abortions, and all of society. A society that has no respect for life cannot but degenerate.
And FOR THE RECORD – we don’t ignore all the other issues just because we first and foremost vote pro-life. And if you don’t mind my saying so, Obama is a bad pick for the economy, healthcare, the war, and the whole nine yards. And while these things might be debatable, defending life at all stages is not. Abortion should never be allowed, not even as a means to the end of less abortions.
Dear Wormwood,
The patient is coming along nicely. If you can’t convince him that abortion is right, then simply convince him of the futility of his actions. Despair makes our father happy, and helps defeat the enemy.
Uncle Screwtape,
if people on this site would lose their penchants for rhetorical flourish and take the planks out of their own eyes (read: stop complaining about the gov’t not changing its position on abortion, and instead actually go and get to know some mothers ready to have an abortion, and who knows maybe offer to adopt the babies – but wait that would look too much like the cross-bearing sacrificial love of the people of God), then perhaps there would be some actual fruit borne in the struggle for life, instead of the briers and thorns of partisan and factional bickering
p.s. it does not logically follow that this approach precludes struggle for systemic governmental change
Unsolicited Advice for Mr. M.Z. Forrest,
Do not presume to to advise the bishops with a line of reasoning they are most likely more familiar with than you are.
right, just have faith! this is a religion after all. you’re not supposed to understand.
darren,
so if we get to know a rapist and his misfortune in life then we should allow rape?
Come on, get real
dan, nice rhetorical flourish with no substance or logic. in no way does what i say imply that abortion should be allowed.
Where do those statements appear?
The first statement would be a paraphrase of several statements I’ve seen. The second statement is a direct quotation from a USCCB document.
“if people on this site would lose their penchants for rhetorical flourish and take the planks out of their own eyes (read: stop complaining about the gov’t not changing its position on abortion, and instead actually go and get to know some mothers ready to have an abortion, and who knows maybe offer to adopt the babies – but wait that would look too much like the cross-bearing sacrificial love of the people of God), then perhaps there would be some actual fruit borne in the struggle for life, instead of the briers and thorns of partisan and factional bickering
p.s. it does not logically follow that this approach precludes struggle for systemic governmental change”
Darren: I have researched this topic ( I recommend The Girls Who Went Away). Women who choose to adopt out their baby are typically (notice I allow for some exceptions) women who would never abort. The choice is usually between keeping their baby versus adopting it out. So the argument that adoption is the solution for abortion is skewed because it never addresses the women who would never choose to adopt out, but only chooses to abort. And for the record, I don’t think it is fair to assume pro-lifers don’t adopt babies. They do, in large numbers. I know from personal experience. We still have to make change, but this last election in my opinion, was not between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion candidate. It was between bad and bad so the voters had to make a decision.
MZ: Good post.
Tony writes:
Dear Wormwood,
The patient is coming along nicely. If you can’t convince him that abortion is right, then simply convince him of the futility of his actions. Despair makes our father happy, and helps defeat the enemy.
Uncle Screwtape,
:) Nice catch!
Seriously: have abortion-tolerant “Catholics” forgotten what his Holiness, Pope John Paul II, wrote?
“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights–for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture–is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” (Christifidelis Laici, 5)
I’m seriously curious whether supporters of Sen. Obama can coherently refute the late Holy Father’s claim, here, using sane logic and Catholic axioms…
The Holy Father’s claim does not need refuting. I affirm it. Speaking of coherence, perhaps you could actually address the argument made. You seem to think his statement is claiming that work, health, and family cannot be improved while abortion remains legal. That isn’t the claim. The claim is that gains there will be transitory in the presence of the disregard of the rights of the unborn. As the Holy Father notes in your quote, claims for the family, health, and work are justly made. You even bolded it. Seamless garment.
M.Z. wrote:
The Holy Father’s claim does not need refuting. I affirm it.
Just to be clear: you affirm that, if we do not defend the right to life with maximum determination, the outcry for the other rights is false and illusory? You also affirm that the right to life is the condition for all other rights (apart from which the other rights are meaningless)?
Speaking of coherence, perhaps you could actually address the argument made. You seem to think his statement is claiming that work, health, and family cannot be improved while abortion remains legal.
Not quite. My concern was one of priorities, and one of avoiding equivocation in such a grave matter; in other words, if abortion remains legal, we can certainly make progress in other areas, but that does not give any faithful Catholic license to “bump” abortion (and other inhuman crimes) down the list of priorities. I assert that a so-called “seamless garment” approach, which draws moral equivalence between violations of life in principle (e.g. abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research) and less fundamental issues (e.g. this-or-that war being just or unjust, the state of the economy, poverty, social security, the environment, etc.) is morally incoherent, at best. Certainly, it betrays a gross ignorance (willful or otherwise) of Catholic social teaching.
If you’d like to suggest that my argument is incoherent (as you seem to be doing), you might want to double-check your understanding of your “quote #2″ from the “Faithful Citizenship” document, first; it is not meant as a license to equivocate “abortion” with “the war in Iraq”, “euthanasia” with “Enron scandals”, and so forth. It was meant to provide guidance for those times when both candidates are equally abortion-tolerant (or otherwise violate a non-negotiable tenet of the Faith).
Let me be clear: I find the Faithful Citizenship document–while not doctrinally heretical–to be inexcusably vague (and the result of compromise between factions of the bureaucracy-ridden USCCB), and it certainly lends itself to abortion-tolerant cherry-pickers; but for anyone to suggest that even this inadequate document allows for the approval, toleration, or equivocal minimalization of abortion and infanticide–which Vatican II denounce as “inhuman crimes” (Latin: “abortus necnon infanticidium nefanda sunt crimina”)–is a burst of fantasy which does his imagination credit, but fails the “morally coherent” test (to say nothing of the “Catholic Doctrine Consistency” test) miserably.
The claim is that gains there will be transitory in the presence of the disregard of the rights of the unborn. As the Holy Father notes in your quote, claims for the family, health, and work are justly made. You even bolded it. Seamless garment.
Now, I must ask you to consider this reasonably! Certainly, claims for family, work, etc., are justly made; but that does not grant them moral equivalence with the right to life… and it certainly doesn’t justify a blase attitude of any Catholic toward the primacy of the fight against abortion, infanticide, and the like! How anyone who claims to be a “faithful Catholic” can possibly view their votes for the pro-FOCA Sen. Obama as “honoring the right to life as foundational, apart from which no other concerns are meaningful” is beyond me. Does it really make sense to you to view “voting to support the direct destruction of previous pro-life efforts” as being “concerned about life, but also working in other morally compelling areas”? If someone *refused* to vote for Sen. Obama, and then worked in soup kitchens rather than crisis pregnancy centers, I could empathize; but you’re saying that direct action on your part to aid/abet the abortion holocaust (i.e. by casting a vote for an advocate of “unrestricted abortion”) is one of indifference, and doesn’t reflect badly on your commitment to values?
Your seams are showing, methinks…
Paladin,
When I raised the question elsewhere why there was no battle being fought against the creation and destruction of life in fertility clinics, the argument was made that there would be no chance of winning a fight against fertility clinics, so the battle should be fought on winnable issues like abortion and stem-cell research.
In addition to the creation and destruction of life in fertility clinics, I believe it is the Catholic position that the birth control pill and the morning-after pill are abortifacient. Also, there’s the issue of human cloning about which some have maintained here that when nuclear transplantation is done using human cells, the result is a human being.
Finally, some estimates are that early-embryo loss in humans is as high as 80-percent. The Catechism says, “[2274] Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” As I have pointed out before, no one is championing the cause of the lost early embryos at all. (Of course, their death is accidental, so perhaps it does not rank with the others.)
Someone interpreted my question as implying the Church was hypocritical for stressing abortion and stem-cell research while not going after fertility clinics. That is not my point. Actually, I just have a question. Do all these issues require battles fought “with maximum determination”?
Also, does the “right to life” pertain solely to abortion, stem-cell research, and other reproductive issues taking place from conception up until birth?
I do have another question. It is doubtful abortion will be totally prohibited in the United States ever, but for argument’s sake, let’s say it won’t happen in 30 years. There are also the other issues I mentioned above (stem-cell research, human cloning) and who knows what the future will bring. Will Catholics be obliged to vote solely on these issues in future presidential elections?
No, but we can disqualify candidates from consideration based upon their views of such intrinsic evils.
Also, I think that intent plays a large role. Abortion and ESCR intend to destroy life. The intent of fertility clinics is to assist couples in having children. I think that may be why the church is voice may be raised a little higher when speaking against abortion and ESCR.
Just as a correction, many European countries have been at the lead in efforts to limit leftover embryoes. For some reason I think Italy limits the embryoes created to 2 or 4 for in vitro. There is a reason that septuplets and octoplets have been a laregly American phenomenon. Oddly enough, this is what has prompted restraint in our laws rather the “selective reductions” (aborting of excess emryoes that survived implantation.)
There are very few people that believe in disqualifying candidates based upon beliefs as a formal matter based on ideology. Such isn’t to be confused with disqualifying beliefs.
David Nickol wrote:
When I raised the question elsewhere why there was no battle being fought against the creation and destruction of life in fertility clinics, the argument was made that there would be no chance of winning a fight against fertility clinics, so the battle should be fought on winnable issues like abortion and stem-cell research.
Well… the only real response that I can give is, “I disagree that there is no battle being fought against IVF.” The battle is not only being waged in the political arena, mind you; but many “social conservatives” (who don’t otherwise give a fig for the teachings of the Catholic Church–e.g. Sean Hannity, etc.) don’t have IVF, and the widespread deaths that result, on their radars. Hence the political silence on the issue; be assured that the Holy Father, and all well-informed, faithful Catholics, fight it tenaciously–in whatever way they can.
Actually, I just have a question. Do all these issues require battles fought “with maximum determination”?
Absolutely. Abortion (which is widely tolerated in our country), infanticide (which is growing in acceptance), embryonic stem-cell research (which is almost pandemic), euthanasia (which is growing in acceptance), and IVF (which, if you object to it in a public forum, you risk being branded a fanatic–by non-Catholics, heterodox Catholics, and uncatechized Catholics alike) are all direct acts which unjustly kill a child. Did you imagine that any of these shouldn’t be opposed with maximum determination? Don’t judge the determination of the Church’s pro-life views based on the lack of noise and/or action in the political arena; the arena has its own gate-keepers for what gets air-time, and what doesn’t.
David Nickol wrote:
I do have another question. It is doubtful abortion will be totally prohibited in the United States ever, but for argument’s sake, let’s say it won’t happen in 30 years. There are also the other issues I mentioned above (stem-cell research, human cloning) and who knows what the future will bring. Will Catholics be obliged to vote solely on these issues in future presidential elections?
Well… there’s a difference between a “sole issue” gaining my vote, versus a “sole issue” disqualifying a candidate from receiving my vote. I think even the typical Vox Nova contributor would be of the latter camp on at least some issues–such as rape, slavery, etc. Forgive me if I’m misreading you, but you seem to be suggesting that “voting solely on these [life] issues” (which isn’t really an accurate portrayal, anyway–see the “gain vs. disqualify” issue, above) is somehow undesirable. Is that true? And if so, why?