Ted Kennedy, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, and Jesus
This post will consist simply of three quotes.
Fr. Patrick Tarrant, Ted Kennedy’s priest:
“The truth is, he had expressed to his family that he did want to go. He did want to go to heaven. He did want to die… I think the whole world knows certain parts very well, but I think there’s another part of his life that very few people know, and that’s his deep faith. His very deep faith in God and his love for his family. He was…very reverent. I wish the world had known that part of him, but that was his secret. It was like it was the secret of his power, to be involved in doing good for others and it was what, I believe, drove him”.
“Wouldn’t it have been nice to see something more of that in public? I am glad he revealed it in more private settings. But faith wasn’t be merely private.”
“(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”
Comments are closed.
Sure, if you want to make Father Zuhlsdorf look foolish. But you could have just as easily used this quote from Jesus:
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.”
Context, gentlemen.
A person who persistently gave public scandal on the subject of abortion (setting aside other peccadilloes; the man was an infamous troller of interns long before Bill Clinton’s distasteful foray) could stand to demonstrate his Catholic heart a little better, and a little more consistently, in public.
This comment will consist of one 1971 quote:
“When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
– the Teddy Kennedy that could have been
And the award for Best Distorter of Scripture to meet his politics goes to…
Morning’s Minion!!!
But, of course, in the early church confession and penance were public matters. Too bad you can’t go back there and remind them what Jesus said. Maybe you could have gotten the author of the Didache to talk less about abortion and more about the minimum wage too.
As Weigel is to Caritas in Veritate, so MM is to Scripture.
The comment above is meant to apply only to this post, I should add. I’m certainly not saying MM interprets Scripture this poorly in every context; I am certain he doesn’t. But posting one Scripture quote as if it’s the summation of everything Catholics believe about the role of faith in public life as some sort of gotcha game with Fr. Z. (whom I don’t read) is absurd.
Ted Kennedy was exactly in the same position as George Bush is, in that their private faith may be holy and sincere, but their public actions show a profound commitment to injustice. The point the scripture is making is that we shouldn’t do our good deeds IN ORDER to be seen and appreciated. Senator Kennedy did wrong in public and that is what Fr. Zuhlsdorf is complaining about. RIP.
Sorry, but some of you are missing the point. Jesus spoke vociferously against those in his time who abused religion to further their own positions in the public square. This is exactly what we see in the United States, especially among the right.
So, yes, I want Kennedy to be guided by his Catholicism when he fights for healthcare and the underprivileged, but I do not want him to wrap himself in a self-righteous mantle of religiosity, proclaiming how great he is because of his noble deeds (and telling other Catholics they are unworthy dissenters).
The problem with the so-called “religious right” (like the Pharisees of old) is that they talk the talk, often loudly and pompously, but do not act according to Gospel values in the public square. And you don’t need to be a scripture scholar to figure that out.
Ted Kennedy was exactly in the same position as George Bush is, in that their private faith may be holy and sincere, but their public actions show a profound commitment to injustice.
No, that’s not quite right, but the comparison is interesting. Both come from wealthy, priviliged backgrounds, from families with a clear sense of entitlement. Both made some pretty bad choices when they were young, and both reformed. But Kennedy devoted his life to helping the poor and the underprivilged, while Bush devoted his public career to rewarding his rich friends and starting wars.
On the abortion issue, of course Kennedy was wrong, and it is indeed tragic that he changed his position on this matter. His record hangs over him, but it does not define him. Indeed, it is pretty incidental to his record, which is a lifetime of fighting for healthcare reform and economic justice. But what is Bush’s record? He will be forever remembered as the president who started an unjust war based on lies, and who legitimized torture in this country. This is not merely incidental, it is central to his record, and he is the acting moral agent in these issues. Big difference.
Ted Kennedy showed his faith by the passion of his service to the poor.
I agree with Jesus, pray to God in secret, don’t parade it.
I’m also not sure that Teddy was wrong in voting to keep abortion legal. Is it really a DOGMA OF FAITH that one must be opposed to legalized abortion to be Catholic? I don’t think so. Scandinavian countries, where abortion is legal, have very few abortions.
MM,
Bush is not as one-sided as you seem to believe. Clearly his faith was manifested in his poicy initiatives on AIDS to very good effect.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4303636&page=1
I think Magdelena is correct. It is a good analogy.
Had Kennedy stayed pro-life. I think there would have been a real possibility of ending abortion in this country with a bi-partisan coalition durring the Regan administration.
You seem to trivialize the amount of blood on his hands.
It is my sincere hope that he repented before it was too late.
Shoofoolate,
That abortion must be illegal is the clear teaching of the church. Please reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church section 2273. The Chruch is explicit that abortion must be illegal.
Shoo, the Church requires us to put our faith in action by working to make our laws just. We are required to oppose legalization of abortion for the same reason we are required to work for laws against the death penalty, racial discrimination and exploitation of the poor. The unborn are the very “poorest of the poor” and even if our abortion rate was 0%, legal protection for the procedure would still be a black eye on our civilzation.
MM, your view of President Bush vs. Senator Kennedy lacks insight. Pres. Bush is not the devil. Neither was the Senator of course. I can’t believe you are actually that simplistic, that you actually believe what you wrote above, which is the equivalent of grunting, “Kennedy good, Bush bad!” What is wrong with Catholics that we can’t handle complex moral personalities? Kennedy is not defined by his abortion record any more than Bush is defined by his war record. I am pretty sure Bush didn’t wake up every day thinking “how shall I be eeeeevil and abuse my office today?” which appears to be your view of him.
Both of these men were/are associated with injustice, injustice in different forms but injustice in any case. There is now way to dance around that fact. President Bush should thank his lucky stars he still has a chance to repent, and we should pray for Senator Kennedy, who did so much good but who had such a terrible record on the greatest human rights issue of our time.
Ben just imagine if Sen. Kennedy had stayed pro-life in spite of all political pressure to flip-flop. What an amazing witness he would have been! What a hero! It’s a shame but we all fall short. We all have opportunities for heroism (perhaps on a less grand scale) that we shrink back from, daily…
Shoofoolatte wrote: “I’m also not sure that Teddy was wrong in voting to keep abortion legal.”
Looks like you really have found a home here at Vox Nova.
I’m grateful for the home, Mark. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to the Catholic Church that I know and love.
I see here that it is alive and well, and am encouraged.
Minion, that balance between public practice of the faith and public humility is a toughie. Even the phrase “public humility” carries that paradox. We need to be like Paul, loudly putting the faith first and ourselves last (and even Paul can come off conceited).
I don’t know the context for that quote from Father Zuhlsdorf, but there’s no denying that the Kennedy brothers helped to define contemporary America’s attitude about public and private faith and ethics. I can’t put it all on Ted, but that balance isn’t what it should be. The religious right wouldn’t exist as it does – neither would Protestantism – if we did our jobs proclaiming the obvious truths.
Ben, it is my understanding that the CCC – the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a collection of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
These are not the articles of Faith – like “I believe in one God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth …”, which give form and meaning to the Catholic Faith.
In fact, there is much disagreement and controversy about what is included in the Catechism. According to a Wikipedia article, many traditionalist Catholics argue that the CCC “promotes evolution, favours indifferentism, false ecumenism, secular collaboration and compromise, homosexuality, and internationalism”.
My point is, the teachings in the CCC are not what one must believe to be Catholic. One can be at variance with the CCC and still be Catholic.
Catholic, yes. A “good” Catholic, no, although it is loathsome for laymen to fling such a term around since we usually apply it incorrectly, assuming that those who disagree with our political or liturgical or musical or cultural preference are not “good” Catholics since they disagree with us. The material in the Catechism does mostly require what is called “religious assent” – Catholic teaching can not be reduced to the Creed! The “it’s not proclaimed ex cathedra, therefore I don’t need to believe it” strategy is very unfortunate and limiting. Believing and applying Catholic Social Teaching, in its entirety, is definitely NOT optional for the Catholic Christian who wants to grow in faith, hope and love.
Just fyi, Wikipedia is not really a good source for reliable information and traditionalists are not always Catholic – in fact some of them are more Protestant than Luther! ;)
shoofoolatte,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church was a document compiled under the authority of Pope John Paul II that was designed to present a comprehensive summary of the truths of the faith in light of the Second Vatican Council to be used as the basis and foundation for catechetical programs around the world.
As such, it is a reliable and concise resource of what the teachings of the church are.
It is not merely a collection of some things that a lot of catholics believe.
Minion:
I can understand the frustration with those who use their faith as a veneer/bludgeon for their political motives.
The problem is that Kennedy sinned publicly. He caused scandal with some of his positions and with some of his actions. For the sake of the Church, he should have publicly repented. This isn’t a matter of “Kennedy isn’t being open and talkative enough in his faith;” this is a matter of “kennedy embarrased the Church publicly; what is the best way to fix that for the greater glory of God?”
The answer to that is a public apology.
Indeed, if people after Cheney’s death tried to say that Cheney wanted to go to heaven, you’d be livid and would be demanding that Cheney have publicly apologized.
Shoofoolatte,
“I’m also not sure that Teddy was wrong in voting to keep abortion legal.”
I agree.
What are the alternatives to choice? Practically speaking, there are none.
The pro-life MOVEMENT has never offered a viable political substitute for the policy of individual choice. Nor can it.
Kennedy was not pro-abortion. He was pro-choice. As the culture wars came to be defined in either/or terms during the late seventies and early eighties, Kennedy saw no responsible political view other than leaving the decision about the life of the unborn to the the mother.
The pro-life MOVEMENT’s alternative was to use the power of the state to impose beliefs on a population that rejected them. Politically, Kennedy judged this to be unacceptable, and rightly so. Why? Simply put, cultural conditions and circumstances would not permit such a policy.
Hypermoralism is never a satisfactory political option. It amounts to the use of coercion to establish a moral police order. It is fascist to the core.
Kennedy was conflicted about the question of abortion throughout his life. His 1971 view reflects his deepest MORAL thinking on the matter. But once the issue became polarized there were no PRACTICAL means by which to reconcile the conflict. Thus he took what he judged to be the only responsible political position — to stand back and leave the ultimate decision AT THIS TIME to the individual. This stand is in accordance with the principle of the lesser of two evils.
As hearts and minds change — and they surely will over time — the integrity of the unborn will become fully protected in American society. But such a radical transformation will never come about through the strategy adopted by the pro-life MOVEMENT. For over three decades, this MOVEMENT has done immeasurable harm to a cause that requires reasoned and steady progress.
The problem is that Kennedy sinned publicly.
Unlike? Help me out here.
He caused scandal with some of his positions … this is a matter of “Kennedy embarrased the Church publicly”
It really is all about keeping up appearences, isn’t it?
The Church was embarrased because a legislator did not back the Church’s public policy position. It’s less about the unborn and any particular policy strategy to protect them, than the fear of he did not say “how high?” when the Church said “jump.”
Indeed, if people after Cheney’s death tried to say … you’d be livid.
I would not. I would consider it indecent.
Ted Kennedy was not a saint and he would be the first to admit that. However, as long as he died in the state of grace after confession, communion and annointing (and I am certain that he did) then he was good to go. Those who delight in speculating and enumerating his various sins and transgressions at this time should be half as fortunate when their time comes.
RIP, Ted.
Gerald,
You constantly make this argument, but the never present the historical grounds for it. Many Democratic politicians in the 1970s chose to side with the Feminist wing of the left against the working class ethnic wing of the left. Not all did. Kennedy could have taken Tip O’Neill’s position and not risked losing his seat. How is it that when he presses for immigration reform, he’s heroic, but on abortion he needs to be practical.
Kennedy didn’t need to make up a bunch of lies about Robert Bork. He could have let Bork, a judge oppose to Roe, join the Supreme Court like every other qualified nominee. No, he chose to raise the temperature in the culture war, but on the side of abortion, not on the side of life. On abortion, his rhetoric is the pro-choice equivalent of Randall Terry.
Why is applying morality in the sphere of bioethics a fascist approach when it isn’t in the sphere of economics? Because people argue about liberty? I’m sorry, but the businessman who says “I should be free to pay my workers what I want” or the farmer who says “I should be able to grow whatever food I want to feed my family” are arguing against the government interfering with their freedom. So that’s disingenuous. All legislation is authoritarian to some extent.
Gerald,
You’ve just called large portions of the pro-life movement, including me, The bishop’s chairman for Life issues Cardinal Rigali, my Archbishop, his auxiliary, my pastor and surely a majority of the American Presbyterate fascists.
I think you need to apologise.
Zak,
Yes, its a good argument. It is one I’ve held since somewhere around 1982.
As for the historical input you mention, I fail to see how that would change the substance of the issue. The outlines of the debate have been clear for three decades. If anything, history has vindicated the strength of my argument.
As for Bork, the Senate made the correct choice. Even if you disagree, I fail to see how progressive Senators could support Bork. But its not just about Bork the man (didn’t he have something to do with Watergate?). Its his judicial philosophy that runs counter to progressive hopes for America. Strict constructionism just doesn’t sound progressive.
As for bioethics, how do you feel about IVF? Its a widely followed practice, you know. Given IVF, stem cell research presents a conundrum. Bush set forth a policy that established certain limits to research.
But what if there is promise in stem cell research? What then? What if it might mitigates disease? Do we use stem cells or not? Do we employ the principle of the lesser of two evils?
Hopefully, stem cells will not be needed for long. But then, what do you do with IVF?
Gerald,
I’m saying your argument “nothing practical can be done” is not credible, especially without evidence.
Regarding Bork, I didn’t like him. But I could possibly have voted to confirm him (I agree with Russ Feingold that the Senate’s oversight in such matters should not extend to people’s philosophies – I would have confirmed Clinton’s nominees too) but Kennedy went on the floor of the Senate and told lies that were incredible hyperboles, including the “back alley abortion” line.
How do I feel about IVF? I feel states are obligated not to sanction practices that deny the sanctity or dignity of human life, so at the least laws should be in place like Italy’s which prohibit the freezing of human embryos, require that all embryos created by implanted, and limit the number of embryos that could be created. Ideally, I would like to see laws that ban the practice completely eventually, but because there isn’t any kind of consensus AND because the practice, though immoral, does not inherently involve harm to another person, I’m willing to work to that end.
Regarding embryonic stem cell research, it’s wrong the same way the Tuskegee experiments were wrong and should be illegal for the same reasons. It certainly not should be funded by the government, any more than torture should be conducted by the government.
Kennedy didn’t just think there wasn’t a consensus so he couldn’t press for greater restrictions on abortion, he actively lambasted those who wanted such restrictions, further undermining the possibility of a pro-life consensus. Then he backed government support for abortion through Medicaid, signaling that the government was not even neutral on the moral nature of abortion but was favored it.
ben,
Hypermoralism is precisely as I described. You need to understand what is being said.
Zak,
Thanks for your comments.
“I’m saying your argument “nothing practical can be done” is not credible, especially without evidence.”
The entire pro-life MOVEMENT is in shambles. I believe that is evidence enough to establish what I am saying. (Keep in mind, I’m speaking at the national level. We both agree there is much progress happening in local communities. I think we discussed this at some point earlier. In my comments, notice I always emphasize the word MOVEMENT. The leaders of this MOVEMENT have been people like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and Haggard. They have framed the issues poorly).
Bork should never have been nominated. That’s my view. It was poor judgment on Reagan’s part. What Feingold is saying is that court nominees should not be politicized, either when nominated or in the hearings. I agree with you and him. When Reagan nominated Bork, I believe he politicized the process. Kennedy responded, perhaps over zealously. I agree the legacy left from the Bork incident has not been good for the country, although the latest nominee didn’t stir up the intensity of passion we are used to seeing. Hopefully, the Sotomajor confirmation is only a first step in the direction you and I want to move.
Like you, I find stem cell research troubling. Hopefully, we are moving beyond the need to use them. Even then, there is the principle of the lesser of two evils. No decision on this issue is easy. But the IVF stuff I find even more troubling because it is so much more narcissistic.
The policy approach that places restrictions on abortion always degenerates into a kind of political football. It always does, although the Hyde Amendment is still the law of the land. For this reason, I favor attempts to reduce the incidence of abortion along with a long-term strategy to change hearts and minds about what constitutes integrity for the unborn. I think the restrictive approach to achieving the end we both seek ends up being counterproductive.
I don’t know if you saw reference to this article by Amy Sullivan. I found it interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090828/us_time/08599191906900
Gerald,
Instead of apologizing you’ve called me a dummy.
How is that dialogue?
Zak and Ben made many convincing agruements for the pro-life position. The only point I don’t find convincing is the assertion that anyone who is not so convinced is evil. As I have mentioned, my unwillingness to assent to that is why I am no longer Pro-Life.
The late Dr. Jerry Falwell once taught me an important lesson. He said (I believe quoting Andrew Jackson) “When God Almighty lays his hands on a man, I take mine off.”
I wish Dr. Falwell’s wise teaching was more widely accepted. (not something I get to write too often!)
Ben,
Your accusations were misplaced. Perhaps I should have just ignored you. But then you would have said I ignored you because ……….
All of which would not be true.
Kurt,
By no means do I think anyone who is not convinced of the pro-life argument. I think Ted Kennedy did a lot of good in many ways, and his general approach to politics (of trying to use government to solve problems, and reaching principled compromise) is the right one. What strikes me is that like too many Catholics on the left, that approach disappeared on the issue of abortion (and stem cell research, and gay marriage). On those issues, people like Pelosi and Kennedy become the lead culture warriors of the left. I hope Jim Wallis (in the article Gerald cited) is correct, that Kennedy was troubled by the abortion issue, but the speech about Bork and the policy positions adopted from the mid-70s onward do not show someone troubled by abortion. Discussions about who is evil or who should receive communion or Catholic funerals don’t interest me – on the first, it’s certainly not my place to judge souls (and I thank God for that!) and in the second, I’m a layman without such responsibilities and I defer completely to the hierarchy. But I will continue to argue against those on the left whose arguments for personal liberty in the sphere of abortion (or bioethics more generally) is in total contradiction with their general philosophy of the common good.
The pro-life movement is in trouble because it was abandoned by Catholics with social justice concerns because they didn’t like Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan and because they had too much of a “Wir sind Kirche” attitude to listen to the hierarchy’s condemnation of Roe.
Gerald,
Because of recent research into generating pluripotent stem cells without destroying embryos, we are beyond the need for ESCR. But scientists never want to place limits on the types of research they can do, and the left has found a great issue for culture war demagoguery to use against the left, because of the narcissism and utilitarianism in American culture that says “do whatever you can to benefit ME.”
Now, I understand that you will say, “that’s exactly my point. You need to change the culture. But changing the law does change the culture. Roe changed people’s perceptions of abortion by telling them there was a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion. 20 years after Roe is undone, the “rights” argument used by the pro-choice side will have far less resonance than it does now, because there will be a generation that hasn’t grown up with the idea that this “right” is enshrined in the Constitution.
If the Hyde Amendment hadn’t passed, then you would have seen the idea that abortion is a right become even more settled in people’s minds.
Yes, restricting abortion through the law is always messy because politics is messy; but abandoning the attempt to do so merely yields one major area of American culture to those who have no problem with abortion, and as much as you may argue no one is pro-abortion, some people are. Maybe not the Catholics who feel compelled to vote pro-choice (I am agnostic on that issue), but plenty of the people donating to planned parenthood and advocating abortion as a means of reducing the number of poor people are pro-abortion (as are those who recoil at the notion that there daughter might get pregnant and “ruin her life” and therefore want to preserve their ability to dispose of the “inconvenience”).
Regarding Bork – he was one man, not the whole court. Nominating him was no different than if a President Gore had nominated Larry Tribe. I want to agree that the way Sotomayor was handled may suggest a change in the politicization of these things but there are still to issues:
1. She had to abstain from saying what she thought about anything. The only reason nominating Bork was different than any judge nominated since is that he was an academic and had a long paper trail.
2. Sotomayor from the left was similar to Roberts from the right, but many Republicans (wrongly, in my view) rejected her primarily for political reasons, and many Democrats (wrongly, in my view), rejected Roberts for the same reason, including Obama.
While I have some sympathy for those who are concerned that the way the pro-life movement conducts itself has actually hurt its own cause in some ways, I am unconvinced that people like Kennedy (may he rest in peace) had little option but to act as they did.
Surely there would be legal initiatives that could be pursued by someone as adept at crafting law as the lion himself. What about something to connect women contemplating abortion with couples looking to adopt? Seems legally feasible with a coalition of pro-life democrats and republicans, at least if all the people who talk about abortion as a tragedy have any interest in protecting people from that tragedy.
Whether not supporting the Bork nomination was the right move, or the value of any other piece of legislation, can be debated back and forth, but I don’t see how anyone can claim that Kennedy (and others like him) took the only position available. For someone with his energy and creativity it was possible to do something about this feature of our culture that destroys countless lives (and I’m not only talking about the babies).
If we’re really concerned about the current state of the pro-life movement, and I think there is reason to be, then we need to try to improve it, not just discredit it.
Zak,
I read your thoughtful and persuasive comments yesterday morning. Sorry for my delay in responding. I spent yesterday seized by Kennedy’s funeral in Boston and his burial here in Arlington. For me it was a day devoted to observation and quiet reflection on the last six decades.
First let me say I was moved by the depth of passion that radiates from your words. Unlike many others, your commitment is doubtless to the goal we all share — a life of integrity for the unborn. In contrast are those commentators who exhibit wild and hostile emotions about how this result is to be obtained. Their pledge is less to the common end than to a flawed stratagem. To abide their skirmishes is rarely, if ever, fruitful.
Although not a scientist, I sense a great promise in non-embryonic stem cell research. I’m led to believe as much through the many contacts I have at NIH. Perhaps, as you say, ESCR is no longer needed. But until this judgment is more definite, researchers will continue down that path, although not for reasons of politics but for reasons of scientific prudence. So long as prospects remain that great good can result, ESCR research will continue, whether it is government-funded or not. In judging the merits of these acts, it is appropriate that we apply the principle of the lesser of two evils, as is our usual wont in difficult situations. But, overall, my reading is that dark clouds of suspicion are gathering over the value of this ESCR approach.
As for narcissism, it impacts us all. It is expressed through a quest for power, wealth, and reputation. The term “Lifestyle” encapsulates all these forces. It impacts rich and poor alike. It crosses all religious, economic, social, political, and ethnic boundaries. If I recall correctly, the largest drug expenditure in the State of Texas a few years back was for the purchase of Viagra. Not a life saving drug, but a lifestyle drug. Imagine that … Viagra!
While I understand that utilitarianism is a reductionist philosophy, the practical philosophy of St. Thomas is not. I would like to see greater appreciation of the nature of prudential judgment among Catholic thinkers. There is considerable evidence of a void here and it needs to be filled. Otherwise the vast intellectual resources of the Catholic tradition will have little, if any, practical impact on our struggle for the future.
The Church’s role is to teach. It does not create public policy for America, or any other state. The former role is abstract, the later concrete. Even though ethical principles are implicated in and guide the formulation of policy, they are not the sole determinate of action. Much more is involved. It is at this juncture that great confusion arises. Abstractions have become the preferred focus of discussion rather than the predicament itself.
You are correct: I do assert the primacy of culture over law. Why? Well, let me answer this way. What would happen if a philosophy of law designed to protect the integrity of a pluralist society were imposed on the Vatican? Would there be huge resistance? Yes. In that case, the imposed law would have the same fate as a sliver festered out by the body.
It seems to me Roe has to be evaluated against the backdrop of the cultural changes that took place in the U.S. during the late forties and fifties and continue up to this day. Woodstock is a convenient metaphor to convey my meaning. Given profound cultural developments, the impact of Roe was not to change people’s perceptions but allow the expression of perceptions that had already changed.
To be sure, Roe had an immediate impact on abortion rates. But over the last two decades the trends are being reversed, albeit slowly. It is my sense that a new narrative about the desirability of abortion is being developed in the community. A new moral ethos is emerging. This ethos will become a self-correcting mechanism that, over time, will reduce the incidence of abortion in America.
I saw this correcting dynamic unfold on the streets of Washington with regard to the use of crack. Younger people took note of the wreckage crack left in the lives of their friends. Eventually crack was judged as a “stupid” drug. It lost its ethical and social value. Younger people never acquired the attraction to crack their older friends did. They turned their attention elsewhere to satisfy their intrinsic needs.
My support of the Hyde Amendment predates its passage into law. I wrote many pieces arguing for its passage. But the situation today is changing. Health care legislation may well provide a subsidy that would enable lower-income people to purchase private sector health care insurance. But what if a person purchased BC/BS and it paid for abortion? Should they be denied the opportunity to use such care because they have been given a subsidy? I would be greatly troubled were that the case.
As for Bork, I can understand your reaction to Kennedy’s hostility towards him. You may well be right. Perhaps it was too vicious. Certainly, it seems to have contributed to a precedent for what came after. I’m not going to deny this. My suspicion is that something very personal was at work, going back to the Nixon and Watergate events. The grounds for my suspicion, however, are admittedly vague.
I did read an interesting article in the NYT on Friday that addressed this issue. It is referenced here. You may find it interesting.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/weekend-opinionator-kennedy-bork-and-the-politics-of-judicial-destruction/?scp=1&sq=Kennedy%20and%20Bork&st=cse
Thanks once again for your comments.
Brett,
The political atmosphere of the culture wars has always been poisonous. Having worked in that environment from the seventies onward, I hardly think that at any time there was room for a reasoned dialogue to achieve common purposes on the question of abortion. Witness the rancor that attends health care and the question whether health care is a right or a privilege. Imagine the rancor that would attend abortion and the question whether a person existed from the moment of conception!
For too many people, cultural causes have been used as a blunt instrument by which to gain political advantage. Such is the nature of today’s politics. Only recently has it become possible to speak of a common ground on which to build a national effort to reduce the incidence of abortion. The more the language of either/or evaporates, the more can be done.
You ask why legal initiatives cannot be used to further the cause of the unborn. Well, they can. In fact, there is talk about merging the dynamics of abortion and adoption into a complimentary strategy. Laws would be passed to use the dynamics of one to solve the problems of the other. This is an example that you mentioned. Numerous other efforts could be passed into law that would include education, health care, job training, etc. All these are initiatives that would require the passage of new laws.
But such laws are different from those that would restrict behavior. Restrictive legislation address symptoms without addressing causes. This use of law tends to be coercive. The drug laws are a case in point. When Reagan became President, there were 170,000 in U.S. prisons. Today, there are 2.5 million incarcerated and a large percentage of those are for substance abuse. But has substance abuse diminished? No. Behavior continues as before.
Legal remedies do hold promise. But not all legal remedies hold promise equally, or at all.
Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Gerald,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I hope you are right that we are seeing a cultural change. I see the signs of it that you see, but I see contrary signs as well. Within the medical community, it seems there is more pressure for abortion to be seen as regular medical care, so that physicians are required to learn how to perform it, so that pharmacists who are now required it some states (like my home state, Illinois) to dispense emergency contraception may one day be required to dispense RU-486, and other trends. Utilitarianism in medicine today is only tempered by the Kantian notions of autonomy – despite the Catholic Church’s major role in providing health care, Catholic philosophy does not play a major role in shaping health professions or bioethics debates within the medical field. I think this trend has been exacerbated by a legal enshrinement of abortion as a right, and I fear it will only be upset by legal counteraction.
Regarding your example of health insurance, the same kind of legal action is needed, so that health plans stop treating abortion as a regular procedure. Health plans that want federal money (i.e., virtually all of them) would surely decide not to cover abortion – it wouldn’t be an issue of someone not being able to get insurance because he wants a plan that cover’s abortion.
Zak,
I understand the principle of taking advantage of whatever viable opportunity for good presents itself at a particular time and situation. But why, even in the abstract or as a long term goal, the total silence from you and the Right to Life Establishment about private insurance companies funding abortions? Does the secular conservative principle of leaving the private market alone while setting a high bar to any government action have that much of a hold on the Right to Life Movement?
I find both the Capps Amendment and Cardinal Rigali’s response to it to be rather Rube Goldbergesque statements.
But I look at the actions of the Cardinal Newman Society. While I have problems with their tactics that seem to be designed more to publicly embarrass Catholic institutions, I do agree with their insistance that Catholic institutions should insist on riders in their health insurance plans that ban abortion services. But doesn’t the CNS’s demand also violate the Rigali test? The institution is paying into the insurance company risk pool, that will pay for abortions of other clients.