When criticizing the pro-life movement…
Reading the comments thread on my previous post, I realized that, while there is ample reason (in my view) to strongly criticize the pro-life movement as it exists today, we do need to be careful that we avoid the language of “us versus them.” We should not forget that, on the issue of abortion, all pro-lifers by definition are on the right side–”the side of the angels,” to use the words of Mark Shea. Many of them give significantly of their time and treasure to aid pregnant women who find themselves in desperate situations. We can criticize the political methods employed by a large group of people within the movement, and we can certainly criticize the moral contradictions that are apparent in the way that many pro-lifers approach other social justice issues, but let’s not forget that when it comes to opposing the legalized murder (yes, murder; that’s what it is) of the unborn, we are on the same side.
I’m new to Vox Nova and to the Catholic blogosphere in general, so this view may be born more of theory than of experience, but I think that a major reason why we are often accused of being “pro-abortion” is that we sometimes are too harsh in the language that we use when referring to the “mainstream” pro-life movement. I do not in any way suggest that my fellow contributors and I back down from the moral positions that we hold; if you read my posts, you’ll see that I do not hesitate to point out what I see as strategic errors and instances of blatant moral hypocrisy within the movement. However, in the spirit of charity and humility, we do have the duty to constantly examine ourselves, and ask whether we are always extending to others the same presumption of good faith that we (rightfully) demand for ourselves.
Comments are closed.
I’m sorry, Mickey. I appreciate your efforts but the pro-life movement is “them” and not “me.”
Picking up from below…
Thank you all for the charity with which you responded to my earlier.
I do not proclaim any great knowledge of the incredibly complex rules by which legislation moves through the Congress. However, I am not in the least confused by the process as a whole and believe that I have a reasonably good handle on the politics.
Thus I can say with reasonable certainty that NO bill will make it through the House that contains limits on abortion funding.
And this is the central point of my contention with the approach you outlined and the responses that my previous encouraged.
I am not advocating for the GOP… Indeed, I did not register as a Republican until February. Neither party has a lock on good or bad qualities. Both are given to the ills common to Man as he assumes positions of power.
I would point out, however, that the very fact that there IS a dispute about abortion is due to those periods from Reagan to present when Republicans were in the position to move into judicial posts persons of a particular judicial philosophy supportive of the position on abortion that we share. More simply stated, if the GOP had not so successfully installed “Right” leaning judges and justices, we would be in the same position as that of our Catholic brethren in Europe – having no remote possibility of striking at this great evil.
You speak of our duty to our fellow man as though it is defined by the narrow examples of individual suffering. There is a mantra in law – “extreme examples make bad law.” Lest we forget, we are talking about law here, with all of its attendant defects.
I appreciate the heart-wrenching experience of illness and death. I have seen my share and appreciate that mine has been a lesser burden than many. However, too often my fellow Catholics trot out case after case of hardship as the argument for social programs without any consideration for the cost of the deals they cut to advance those goals.
At its core, I truly do not believe President Obama to be a “good” man for I cannot imagine a good man advocating for abortion. He, Vice President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, and the late Senator Kennedy were more than advocates for an extreme form of individualist freedom, they were and are advocates for abortion-on-demand.
This matters because we, as Catholics, were specifically targeted by Senator Obama’s campaign and, now, his Administration for support. He and his party NEED our support to remain in power just as they needed our support to take over the government. Therefore, it is a fair question to ask, as I did above, what he and his supporters have done to warrant our support?
It is naïve to continue to believe one who lies, merely because they say what we want to hear. The post and comments suggest that, like many of us, you support the President’s position without requiring that he lay out a position. It appears that he is saying what you want to hear and that you are reading into his statements the rest.
The President has said only that nothing HE proposes will mandate coverage for abortion. You seem to be reading into this that abortion will not be funded. However, the very thing necessary to bar such funding – the inclusion of language that will bar such funding – is not on the table in any of the bills.
How can we, as faithful Catholics, support a plan that will provide funding for abortion and how can we trust the man who has already extended federal support for abortion through executive order to add it later?
See what I mean by “naïve?”
I again ask that you explain why we should trust him since nothing he has said or done seems to warrant trust. Why do YOU trust him and Speaker Pelosi? What has he and his party done to deserve such loyalty?
Finally, a word to Mr. Campbell.
I could not disagree with you more about your belief that the approaches of the past were counterproductive. The dual approach of seeking regulation at the state level and elevating judges and justices with respect for the Constitution has been the only thing to have preserved the opposition to abortion. Sure, opening women’s shelters, advocating natural family planning in parishes, establishing Catholic adoption agencies, and the like have borne fruit but it is the law that establishes the base-line and one need only look to our European brethren to see how fruitless opposition to abortion is once the unmitigated right to abortion becomes the law of the land.
I thank God that he put the likes of Scalia, Rehnquist, Roberts, and Alito in a position to oppose this evil and I am truly grateful for the elected representatives who made themselves His tools.
Without further explanation, your comment might be interpreted to suggest that you believe God doesn’t work that way.
If I got you wrong, please explain. I would like to think that the best educated among us share the view the God works to His glory as He sees fit – even through lawyers.
G-Veg,
We have a difference of opinion and I accept that respectfully.
Personally, I agree whole heartedly with what Cardinal O’Malley said at Kennedy’s funeral. His view is identical to what I have advocated for over 25 years. We must change hearts and minds and then we will change the law.
You have every right to disagree and to proceed along the path you have chosen. The choice of means is a matter of prudential judgment and it is about means that we disagree.
A new strategic vision is beginning to unfold. It has been there all along, but it took political changes over three decades for it to gain momentum. Time will reveal if it leads to better results. My suspicion is that it most certainly will.
As for the judges, I fail to see how they sitting in Washington could influence any women’s decision about the life of her unborn. You or any loving individual alone carries within that potential. You can help shape her decision by being there and giving comfort to her in time of great fear.
Finally, let me say it is this truth — the truth of the healing power of love — which will carry us through the days ahead. Eventually, this redemptive power will rid the nation of the tragedy we all carry deep within our hearts.
I appreciate your comments.
when it comes to opposing the legalized murder (yes, murder; that’s what it is) of the unborn, we are on the same side.
About that “legalized” part. Not all of the people around here — including several bloggers and regular commenters — are “on the same side” as to whether abortion should be legal.
As far as I know (and I may be wrong, since I am new here), every Vox Nova blogger is opposed to legalized abortion.
Gerald, in what way has the VP, Speaker Pelosi, Senators Kennedy and Kerry, etc., sought to change hearts and minds on this issue?
As far as I know (and I may be wrong, since I am new here), every Vox Nova blogger is opposed to legalized abortion.
Would that were so — and would that I be proven wrong in my skepticism towards this claim.
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Christ’s love is spilled out without measure on and through those who accept the love and teachings of our God. As Catholic Christians, we must accept that this love and His teachings are revealed through natural law and tradition as well as the bible. Thus, law must have a place at the table.
I have never suggested that law alone would bring the Kingdom here on Earth. Indeed, law is a tool as given to corruption as any other human endeavor. However, along with prayer, personal witness, stewardship, and other efforts to change the heart and mind, law is a tool placed at our disposal to attack evil.
So it is that slavery and institutional discrimination were rooted out. (For the record, I include enforcement in my definition of “law” for, without teeth, the law can only gum things up.) So it is with abortion.
On the one side is the fraternity of Man seeking to provide support for those carrying the unintended and, perhaps, unwanted child. On the other is the law, beating back the forces that seek to institutional abortion and all of its predicate ills such as the sexualization of children, redefining “family” to destroy the relationship between husband and wife, and the destruction of the Catholic priesthood.
The ills we complain of are linked through a post-modern infatuation with individual autonomy and an ungodly focus on the human being as nothing more than a piece of a pantheistic earth-based religion. The priests of this new religion work through non-governmental organizations such as Planned Parenthood and use the law as their primary tool to insert themselves into every aspect of human endeavor.
We dare not cede the law to these forces or we will soon find ourselves truly a “people apart.” So, please continue your efforts to change hearts and minds. I pray that it bears good fruit. Don’t worry, we have your back.
G-Veg,
Natural law seems to reveal the knowledge that when hearts and minds are changed then human laws change. If your primary focus is to change laws then your actually living in the materialistic perception and problem-solving style of those forces that you oppose. As a consequence, natural law, would predict that your strategy would be met with an equal and/or greater resistance of opposition.
The natural law of love has a history of conversion and it is rooted in martyrdom that is non-violent. This is the beginning of our faith and this is the essence of our faith which is Christ on the Cross. Christ did not want anyone covering His back. He wanted them to stay awake and pray with Him. They did not stay awake and pray. Instead they fell asleep and when He was arrested one of them picked up a sword and used it to defend Him. Christ stopped him and healed the victim of this violence.
I, for one, do not want you covering my back. My back is already covered by Christ.
If you think all these people are against legal abortion, you are just plain wrong. Oh, it’s not OK just yet for commentators on a blog like VN to write, “Keep abortion legal!” as the NOW sign boldly proclaims. That was the approach of Cuomo/Kerry/Kennedy Catholics, and it made them appear to be bad or at least unfaithful Catholics.
A newer approach came to the fore with the Obama outreach to Catholic voters. Now the going line is to insist on one’s faithful adherence to the principle of respect for life while disagreeing about TACTICS. Like Barry Goldwater on racism years ago (look it up), Obama Catholics call for changing hearts/minds while leaving unjust laws in place–or even, as the President evidently prefers, making them worse. This is the thrust of many recent posts here on Vox Nova, including the one I attacked so angrily that my comments are now subject to moderation.
I don’t always like what Obama fan Michael Sean Winters has to say on the America blog, but I admire his consistency on the issue of law and justice. Catholic social teaching compels us to work for laws that respect and promote the dignity of human life right down the line–conception to natural death. That seems to be your position as well, standmickey, but it is swiftly becoming a minority view on the left-leaning side of the Catholic blogosphere.
As far as I know (and I may be wrong, since I am new here), every Vox Nova blogger is opposed to legalized abortion.
Not true. One of the bloggers who has been posting in this very comment thread has been known to characterize laws against abortion as tyrannical. He claims to be against abortion per se, but wants to attack it via the culture and people’s hearts instead of the law. (Whether he can honestly claim to be in in favor of such a tactic is an open question, given that he never manages to write even a single word arguing against abortion as a cultural matter.)
I am not an Obama catholic and your comment about TACTICS indicates to me that you have a different understanding of interpersonal dynamics than I. Consequently, your problem-solving strategies will be different from mine.
Now, I clearly understand your position based on your understanding of interpersonal dynamics. Do you understand the position of those who want to change hearts and minds? Do you understand the interpersonal dynamics that might lead me or others to pursue this tacticd?
It is not a matter of being left or right. It is a matter of perceiving the underlying interpersonal dynamics of human relationships and how they will influence a person’s sense of self, others and their place in the world. Unconscious core beliefs based on primary and primitive attachments and the associated instinctive emotional responses of fear, safety, anger, or pleasure will initiate every adult interaction. If this remains a mystery to self and others then we have no freedom and we do not know what we do.
A newer approach came to the fore with the Obama outreach to Catholic voters. Now the going line is to insist on one’s faithful adherence to the principle of respect for life while disagreeing about TACTICS.
Recent Church teaching has said that disagreement about tactics is to be expected, and that it is fine so long as concern for changing abortion law does not disappear from one’s view. As usual (and unlike most Catholics on the right) official Church teaching takes the both/and approach rather than the either/or. We are not to think we are going to end abortion either through the culture or through law. Catholic teaching includes and emphasizes both.
Mickey, I think there is a lot of truth in your post, but it should also be remembered that many of us who are pro-life are not the ones dissociating ourselves from the pro-life movement. We are being excluded, we are being told that we are not really pro-life (as ron chandonia did above), that we are “pro-aborts,” etc.
In these cases, and in these times, we are being forced to point out that we are different than these right-wing pro-life voices. But at the same time we cannot allow them to speak for us or to define what being “pro-life” is, because their view is a narrow distortion that bears little resemblance to Catholicism. We have to witness to the larger pro-life vision.
As far as I know (and I may be wrong, since I am new here), every Vox Nova blogger is opposed to legalized abortion.
That’s inaccurate. As he has said on numerous occasions, Gerald opposes legal restrictions on abortion in the current United States. I think he summarizes his position fairly well here:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/03/20/obama-to-speak-at-notre-dame/#comment-51278
John Henry
That’s not exactly Gerald’s nuanced view. Gerald has said he hope for and is working for the time it can be made illegal. So you are right in saying it is an issue about the current United States that he thinks this is not possible, but that is different from saying he is not opposed to legalized abortion.
MI: all very good and true points.
John Henry,
There you go again. Creating distortions!
Yes, I did summarize my views at the link you posted. They are fully consistent with what I said in my comments on this post above. I will quote the above words for your convenience:
“Personally, I agree whole heartedly with what Cardinal O’Malley said at Kennedy’s funeral. His view is identical to what I have advocated for over 25 years. We must change hearts and minds and then we will change the law.”
Nothing I have written is inconsistent with what Michael said about Church Teaching in his comment above.
Mickey’s comment is accurate as far as I am concerned.
Henry, I provided the link, so people can evaluate that for themselves. It’s fairly clear to me that Gerald is pro-choice (i.e. he currently opposes legal restrictions on abortion in the United States). What he may be hoping for or working for or may support in the future is interesting but not directly relevant.
Gerald,
If I have mischaracterized your views, I apologize. I do not think I have. This is a rather tiresome topic of conversation for those who are not directly involved, so I’m content to let your prior and current comments speak for themselves. If you do, in fact, support additional legal restrictions on abortion in the United States at this time, then I withdraw my comments above. Otherwise, I do not think they are a distortion of your views.
Gerald, I think I asked a fair question. This notion of changing hearts and minds is very important. Some people make reference to the idea that we shouldn’t have draconian anti-abortion laws at this time, but hearts and minds will change over time. I don’t think they will. Time doesn’t change hearts and minds; the Holy Spirit and we pro-lifers have to persuade people.
Think of the names I mentioned (Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi – I could have added Governor Cuomo and probably others). I don’t know a thing they’ve done to change the national dialogue toward defense of the unborn. At a minimum, if they truly are reluctantly pro-choice, they shouldn’t take donations from pro-choice organizations.
we pro-lifers will have to persuade people
Let me know when this project gets started.
John Henry,
The mischaracterization comes about when the theoretical order and the practical order are homogenized. I’ve discussed this many times but to no avail.
Though I faithfully subscribe to the entire range of theoretical principles and the logic that makes up Catholic Social Teaching, my comments on abortion are almost always directed to the practical order. My usual intent is to apply these principles and logic to political situations and from there to provide a nuanced and distinctive analysis.
To take these practical differences and try to make of them what they are not is intellectually dishonest or a mark of ignorance.
The central weakness of the pro-life movement stems from its origins. Early on, it adopted the politics of fear as its principle source of STRENGTH. This stratagem accounts for the harsh language, the graphic demonstrations, and the threats and intimidations (much like what has gone on in Town Hall Meetings these past several weeks) that have come to characterize the movement.
But the reliance on fear points as well to an anti-intellectualism at the heart of the movement. The pro-life movement has an ideological and myopic quality that obviates the full scope and intensity of Catholic Social Teaching. It embodies a reductionist tenacity that is highly coercive and mischievous to the core.
Ironically, just as the pro-life movement has embraced fear as its galvanizing strength, it is the politics of fear that has become its principle WEAKNESS. When allowed to blossom, fear insures frustration for all and guarantees an unsuccessful ending to the cause.
Moderate Members of Congress are generally reluctant to get too involved in lending support to highly publicized efforts designed to mitigate challenges to the unborn. I have seen this time and again. The dark truth is that many would rather not go near the issue than have to face the myriad designs of fear and intimidation. So they stay detached, acting as politically needed but at a superficial level. They are satisfied to be identified as either pro-life or pro-choice depending on the political makeup of their district. Posturing from that perspective, the better part of prudence for them is to let things continue as before and stay well below the radar screen.
Likewise, prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals, each an expert in family issues, critical social pathologies, or the like, refuse to engage the challenge of abortion. They are well-aware that the question of abortion is heavily tinged with the politics of fear. Why should they risk going near the topic? Their authority and credibility across the board would be jeopardized were they to dissent from prevailing assumptions. The most prudent choice is simple: either lend support to strategies they know are impractical or remain quiet. To maintain Intellectual integrity, they take measures to insure their voice is never heard.
In short, the politics of fear over the last three decades has placed serious constraints on creative thinking about the problem of abortion. Throughout this period, politics has been held hostage to extremes on both sides. The upshot is that little has been accomplished that would effectively safeguard the integrity of the unborn in a pluralist society.
But there is good news. It is increasingly recognized that an appeal to the politics of fear has not only become the principle weakness of the pro-life movement, it is seen as the principle cause of its demise. After long years of haggling, politics in America is reaching the point where few besides its most ardent enthusiasts would deny that the pro-life movement stands discredited. It now lies about in shambles. This is a source of hope for those committed to the integrity of the unborn.
A new day must dawn and it most assuredly will.
Please listen to this podcast.
Is MICHAEL Reagan Right?