How to Make Progress on Abortion
Now, more than ever, we are seeing the problems with the proposed solution of the American Catholic right – align with right-wing evangelicals and support the Republican party so that they can select certain judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem is, like Icarus, you might fly too close to the sun and come crashing down. Here, the sun is that package of Republicans beliefs and attitudes that have no place in Catholic social teaching. So we have some Catholics defending war, torture, and an aggressive and unChristian neoconservative posture in the world. We have more Catholics embracing all aspects of the theology of individualism, relishing in subsidiarity without solidarity, pushing to purge the government from all aspects of the economy, defending materialism and consumerism, and nodding toward a preferential policy toward the rich. As long as you don yourself in the prolife shroud, everything else is permissable. More damagingly, as the Republican party disintegrates into an angry nihilistic faction, so too does Catholic discourse deteriorate. And so in the eyes of the general public, the pro-life is seen as part and parcel of a bitter and angry cultural movement that mocks social justice concerns and opposes attempts to bring healthcare for all. These people are harming the pro-life cause more than any “pro-choice” politician.
Is there a better way? Well, the Church exhorts us to support the pro-family social and economic policies that would reduce abortions: “One can never approve of abortion; but it is above all necessary to combat its causes.” and “It is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption – a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.” Let’s see the pro-life movement get serious about this, including by aggressively supporting healthcare for all, so that people don’t need to die, or go bankrupt, or remain economically deprived, simply because they cannot afford healthcare – this is a grave scandal.
But there is more. This tactic alone, necessary though it is, will do nothing to affect the legal protection of the unborn. For yes, the Church too teaches that they should have legal protection. And, by the way, if the Catholic right’s strategy does work, and they get the judges they want, and the judges overturn Roe, I fear the backlash will be so great that the states that provide the vast majority of abortions will simply immediately re-affirm the dubious principles of Roe. What kind of victory is that?
There is another way, one that will take a lot longer, maybe even a generation or two. It is about changing the culture. Pro-lifers love comparing abortion to slavery. They would therefore be advised to follow the example of that great abolitionist, William Wilberforce. As Austen Ivereigh puts it:
“William Wilberforce, the great Christian anti-slave trade campaigner, eventually realised that there were too many vested interests and closed minds in Parliament to effect change there. In 1771, following yet another failure of his slave trade abolition bill, he told his followers: “It is on the general impression and feeling of the nation that we must now rely, rather than on the political conscience of the House of Commons”.
From then on, it was a campaign to shake consciences — through stories, town-hall meetings, petitions, boycotts, testimonies (above all, the testimonies). Gradually, over the next decades, people awoke to the humanity of the slaves; and as the value of that humanity rose in people’s eyes, what was once considered a regrettable but acceptable sacrifice for the sake of other benefits – prosperity, trade, and so on – became an insuperable moral obstacle.
The change in the law followed the awakening of consciences. It can happen again.”
Look to the death penalty. Support for the death penalty has fallen slowly but steadily over the years, largely due to Catholic advocacy, especially the example of Pope John Paul II. Death penalty advocates typically did not use angry inflammatory language – instead, the kept pushing the moral point about how the death penalty is not compatible with a true culture of life. Look at the attitude of the younger generation in the polls. The marriage cause is lost. But the abortion cause is not. The young, while dramatically more inclined than their elders to support same-sex marriage, are more ambivalent about abortion. They are open to persuasion. But they will not be persuaded by a group that associates with the direction taken by the current right. Let’s make the right choice.
Comments are closed.
I agree that more pro-lifers should be seeking to make sure people are provided health care. However, why this means we should dump the GOP in favor of the party that funds abortion still escapes me.
While I agree 100% with your general premise-that we need to change attitudes and hearts first-I think it is important that we as Catholics don’t condemn either side overabundantly, thus in some ways encouraging/assenting to the weaknesses of whomever isn’t the brunt of the specific attack. To say that current pro-lifers are hurting the cause more than pro-choice candidates is dangerous. What I would love to see is both political groups remember what it means to be “C”atholic-and be that first. For some reason, I see the faithful prayer for the sanctity of all human life, from conception to natural death; in their heads (my assumption, of course) I see them picking a section of that statement. They focus on the unborn, the elderly, or everyone in between, and forget that that prayer is for the TOTAL of humanity. Humans are all in God’s image, and there is nothing that makes one human life more important than another. Yes, the unborn can’t defend themselves, but the living need the mercy that Jesus brought. Each are equal, and each are equally deprived of the gift of God when they aren’t cared for. That, I believe, is what it means to be Catholic. And I wish that we all could remember that, and act accordingly.
Michael D: Did I say that?
Amen.
But they will not be persuaded by a group that associates with the direction taken by the current right
I think you did, unless you’re trying to argue that you don’t think Catholics should be allies with the Democrats or at least should be wary of that association as well. I would love to see you write on that topic coming from a “left” inclined perspective.
There is nothing wrong with people opposing abortion working within the GOP. Nor is there anything wrong with Catholics advocating for universal health care or peace within the Democratic Party.
It would be a better world if the Catholic Right could come to terms with the concept that Catholic values would be best advanced by having some Catholics in the Democratic Party promoting peace and economic justice while being a dissenting witness on abortion and other Catholics in the GOP, working for anti-abortion legislation and being a dissenting witness for justice and peace.
Lastly, to my friend MM, I think for the second time you have wrote of the conservative use of subsidiarity without solidarity. I think you are falling into the conservative misuse of the term subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is not individualism. It is not a check on solidarity, but a feature of solidarity. It is addressing concerns as the lowest social organ that is capable of solving the concern. As it pertains to social organs, it presumes common action, simply leaving open at what level. And it does not restrict itself to levels of government but demands robust voluntary social organs such as labor unions.
American secular conservatism has little regard for subsidiarity.
Kurt: very good points. The question then becomes: how do we end the phenomenon of people seeing themselves as Democrats first or Republicans first and Catholics second? Unfortunately, it seems that many of not most Catholic Democrats are perfectly fine with the party’s pro-choice orientation, and that many if not most Catholic Republicans are perfectly fine with that party’s unacceptable positions. Until we eliminate “cafeteria Catholicism,” I don’t see your vision being realized, unfortunately. And I have no idea how we’d go about fixing that problem.
Kurt:
Your explanation of subsidiarity is right on, and well said about the nature of the connection of solidarity and subsidiarity. But then you strangely say this:
“As it pertains to social organs, it presumes common action, simply leaving open at what level. And it does not restrict itself to levels of government but demands robust voluntary social organs such as labor unions.”
Subsidiarity does not leave “open” what societal level is to address social concerns. It is, as you said just before that, to be at the lowest possible level. That it doesn’t prescribe the exact form of the social structure is an admission that there are so many different forms of society. You’re absolutely correct that it requires “robust voluntary social organs” although we can debate whether labor unions, often organized at the national level, are an accurate expression of this feature. Although I’m glad to see you seem to oppose “card check”, a truly troubling piece of legislation that will restrict the voluntariness of joining unions by getting rid of the secret ballot and open up the possibility of violent coercion, which the labor movement unfortunately has a long history of perpetrating.
But I have no idea how one can reconcile subsidiarity with single-payer health care, which many on this site seem to favor. I would appreciate an explanation of how this is possible.
Mickey – good point.
“I think it is important that we as Catholics don’t condemn either side overabundantly,”
Perhaps this is just me, but there seems to be exactly zero chance that catholics at any level are in danger of overcriticizing the political right and its instrument, the GOP.
On the contrary, it seems pretty clear that the GOP feels that it can count on the catholic vote, and that liberal Catholics are not considered to be real Catholics.
This of course mirrors the secular tendency of conservative Americans to claim the role of “real” American, and to constantly cast aspersions on the left’s patriotism.
“God and country” is a conservative slogan.
Any attempt at even-handedness has to take into account this initial imbalance.
Good point on subsidiarity, Kurt.
What tires about about this debate is that, whenever I make this point, the retort is always “so we are supposed to work with the Democrats”? Get rid of the binary thinking. Of course Catholics can get involve in any political party they wish. But ending abortion will not be done through alliance with a political party. Look to Wilberforce.
I don’t see why the GOP would feel it can count on the Catholic vote, since they didn’t get it in 2008.
The problem is one of formation. The situation is such that people are formed first and most profoundly by politics and by identification with one or the other political party.
Ellul I think has some good comments on political parties and Christianity:
This means, first of all, that whenever we join a party we should always be spiritually and humanly closer, more bound, more friendly, more trusting and more open with respect to our brothers in the Church, even if they are sometimes of a different opinion politically, than we are with respect to our fellow party-members. Reconciliation does not mean reuniting with those who have the same opinions we have. It means loving and bearing with those who are opposed. Now that can only be done first in the Church.
It is a good thing that there should be Christians active in the various parties, even the communist party or the OAS if need be, since that can be an occasion for demonstrating to the world that faith in the same Saviour infinitely transcends those differences, and that Christians of opposite parties, or of enemy nations, are first and foremost brothers in Christ and completely understand one another spiritually and humanly. IF such is not the case, then involvement in a party has nothing to do with the ministry of reconciliation. You cannot pretend to reconcile others if you are not reconciling among yourselves.
That assumes, for example, that we will not take part in preemptory quarrels, nor pass judgment on our brothers, not resent the opposing opinion of a brother. IT also assumes that within a party we shall never cease to affirm the independence the faith establishes, by witnessing to our ties with our brothers in the faith, even though they be our political opponents. There again we encounter tension, but that is the price of a reconciliation which really means something. Otherwise it is merely another word for a nice humanistic agreement., Jacques Ellul, False Presence of the Kingdom, 190-1.
Obviously this is difficult. And while people from both sides might have tried this before, it seems it is something we should try for again. We must never let our party affiliation determine our faith, nor divide us away from our unity in Christ. Alas how often we fail.
standmickey Says:
Kurt: very good points. The question then becomes: how do we end the phenomenon of people seeing themselves as Democrats first or Republicans first and Catholics second?
1. Encouraging the faithful to make use of prayer, Mass, and the sacraments.
2. issue (not candidate or party) study and reflection, preferably in small groups using JOCist methods (“observe, judge, act”).
SCP Says: Subsidiarity does not leave “open” what societal level is to address social concerns. It is, as you said just before that, to be at the lowest possible level.
I mispoke. You are correct. I should have said subsidarity first presumes common action. Secondly is a discernment as to what is the lowest level of social action that can effectively address a matter.
You’re absolutely correct that it requires “robust voluntary social organs”…
thnak you.
we can debate whether labor unions, often organized at the national level, are an accurate expression of this feature…
Workers subject to the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Labor Management Act organize at the workplace level. Only under the Railway Labor Act are unions organized at the national level.
Although I’m glad to see you seem to oppose “card check”…
You would be mistaken. I support dispensing with the right of the company boss to decide which legal means workers use to organize a union.
But I have no idea how one can reconcile subsidiarity with single-payer health care, which many on this site seem to favor. I would appreciate an explanation of how this is possible.
I wouldn’t make the case it is the only way to go, but not a difficult case to make. Each level serves it proper role. National financing for local and personal delivery of health care — private doctors, local independent clinics, Catholic and other non-profit hosptials. People are freed from having to deal with distant institutions they have no control over — big insurance companies and HR Departments.
“I don’t see why the GOP would feel it can count on the Catholic vote, since they didn’t get it in 2008.”
McCain didn’t even get support from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.
It was a weak year for republicans, and I think many conservatives just wrote him off.
I don’t think that represents ashift away from the GOP for catholics.
MM: agreed – no one party is the answer, and no one party is the problem.
Magdalena: excellent points. How much time do we spend immersing ourselves in the Sacraments and teachings of the Church, and how much time do we allow ourselves to be bombarded by political messages…
Kurt: Do we agree that workers should be allowed to choose or not choose membership in a union by secret ballot? That seems key to the voluntary nature of membership. The stipulation of your concern I think I could agree with. It’s unfortunate that the legislation bundles the two when one is so patently unjust.
And I appreciate your distinction about the division of tasks under single payer, but I can’t help but wonder how people being “freed” from distant institutions (large insurance companies, HR Depts) over which they have no control in favor of centralized, federal health care control over which they even more certainly have no control is an improvement. If the Federal gov’t is paying for this, they will and should demand accountability for the money, which requires policy making, which puts them in control.
Of course care, such as it will be, will occur on some local level, but if this care is restricted in what will be paid for (which it must be), and the federal govt controls this, then how is this true subsidiarity? As opposed to, a locally funded and provided solution?
And when the prime mover for nationalized health care has promised that abortion (reproductive health) will be at the heart of any plan that he signs, shouldn’t Catholics be skeptical of his intentions? (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9CCpvj690A)
I like the civility of this thread, and I do not accuse anyone here of supporting abortion, but to return to the thread topic, shouldn’t things like this be admissible in such a conversation?
Minion:
But it’s a binary system. Either you work with the GOP or the Democrats (or you change the system of political parties).
And let’s be honest here; you want the pro-life movement to be allied with the Democrats; you’re allied with the Democrats. You think it makes more sense for pro-lifers to work with Democrats, hence you often support Democrats. I don’t think it’s unfair for your opponents to say, “um, this is what working with the Democrats entails and that’s worse and less productive.”
Though I need to catch myself; you say merely being “associated” with the right has damaged the pro-life cause. That requires than simply not being lockstep w/ Republicans; that requires a stronger brea, one that rests on cultural lines. However, under that American binary/Calvinist thinking, if they’re not GOP they’re Democrats and we end up where we were before: whether it is better to be associated with the Democrats.
So no, it’s not an unfair question.
Sorry, the link should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9CCpvj690A
It is women and those who advise them (boyfriends, parents, etc) who bear the blame for abortion. First I would advise the prolife movement, priests and bishops to concentrate the bulk of their resources on reaching these people at the grass roots level rather than trying to threaten and coerce the electorate into voting to establish a police state that would prevent women from carrying out their desire to kill their unborn children. Remove the political stranglehold and let people dialogue without every discussion disolving into a political food fight. Heed the words of the vatican: “The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process. Woe to those who reduce the mission of the Church to a worldly pressure group seeking political results.”
Next, the tone needs to be radically changed to reach the typical abortion customer. No matter how sleazy and despicable one considers them and the “choice” they’ve made, they must be approached with calmness and reason or there’s no chance they will respond. I know there are people working in the trenches but their numbers are relatively small, often not well organized and their work is (perhaps unwittingly) undermined by clowns at the top who insist on hosting a media circus that paints the whole movement as a scary bunch of kooks. That perception needs to be changed or the prolife cause is going nowhere.
Last, I know that changing things is easier said than done and there will never come a time when everyone is on the same page. I don’t have a magic plan that will rid the world of abortion which has gone on since the beginning of time. I can only offer what I consider to be common sense solutions. I don’t believe the law will ever be changed enough to make much difference. At best it would impose a few restrictions that anyone with a car and credit card could easily deal with. This always has been and always will be a matter of personal responsibility.
Kurt: Do we agree that workers should be allowed to choose or not choose membership in a union by secret ballot?
Yes, workers and not the bosses should decide if they want to form a union by petition or election. This is what EFCA calls for.
And I appreciate your distinction about the division of tasks under single payer,…
Thank you.
…but I can’t help but wonder how people being “freed” from distant institutions (large insurance companies, HR Depts) over which they have no control in favor of centralized, federal health care control over which they even more certainly have no control is an improvement.
Maybe no better, no worse than the status quo. However, I get to vote for my government and have been able to help friends solve Medicare problems by putting them in touch with their Congressman. Except through union negotiations, I don’t elect anyone who as a say in the insurance company or HR Department.
But single payer would free me to pick my own doctor, hospital, clinic, specialist and not be bound to a network or prefered providers of an insurance company or HR Department I have no control over.
So, an improvement over the status quo but maybe not everything.
And when the prime mover for nationalized health care has promised that abortion…
Don’t cheapen yourself with comments like that. You are better than that.
Kurt,
Thanks for the answers – I’m more comfortable “voting” by switching doctors and insurers in the free market, voting with my feet and money. When I see that the fed govt can wage war, torture, abortion, etc. and I have no input in these matters, or worse, they are often presented as the only available options opposite each other, I would prefer not to trust them with my health.
Seeing that the poor get health care is of concern, though. I have witnessed, participated in (both as a patient and as a referring social worker) and heard of many local solutions which in no way require govt funds and thus face govt limitations, and I prefer this solution. These solutions seem to me to be the truest intersection of charity, solidarity, and subsidiarity.
As to whether my comment cheapened myself, are you saying that you knew of this speech he gave to Planned Parenthood where he said reproductive heath care (including abortion) was “at the heart and center” of the health care reform package he would present? Or are you saying that because my statement has such negative implications that you’re not interested in knowing either way?
If the former, then I suppose one could argue that although he did say this, his views have changed since the campaign, people say all kinds of crazy things on the trail, etc. But however you spin it, it should concern Catholics and all people who see abortion as evil.
I’d like to keep the conversation civil also, but what do you do with a fact like this, ignore it? Realize that people who think that Obama is about as extreme as a politician can be on abortion often (but not always) do so for reasons that are well justified. This isn’t demonizing him so much as making a reasonable judgment based on his actual record and statements, so let’s keep this civil while acknowledging the truth.
SCP –
In a single payer system you can vote with your feet and switch doctors. In the current system, most folks are stuck with the insurer their employer picks and the doctors the insurer picks. So single payer gives more feet voting opportunities.
What you have seen in the range of private charity would be able to continue under single payer. Of course, what you have not seen is a solution (rather than a mitigation) of the problem of lack of health care.
You cheapened yourself by asking a legitimate question about how a single payer health care system relates to the principle of subsidiarity and after an exchange or two, turning into a snide comment about the President and abortion policy. Why don’t you work on the question of how we can have pro-life policies when the prime mover for pro-life policies ran a rackettering program for the abuse of young boys? After you have the answer to that, get back to me and we can pick up where we left off.
Here’s the thing, Kurt, I made no snide comment at all, unless you consider “prime mover” as a moniker for Obama to be snide. If you took that as being “snide”, I apologize. Given all the “Obama is God” sarcasm on the Right I should have been more careful with my Aristotelian terminology. But, given the title of this thread, my factual claim seems relevant. If I erred, please point out how exactly.
Obama said that abortion (again, under the name of “reproductive health”) is at “the heart and center” of his program for health care reform. If we are to “make progress on abortion” as this post ostensibly was about, shouldn’t we be able to acknowledge and discuss even inconvenient truths? It seems that we can all agree that this is a terrible thing, and discuss how it may impact the pending and changing legislation, without namecalling.
It wasn’t an insult, and I don’t mean to demonize him by misrepresenting him. I’d appreciate the same courtesy in return.
Minion: But it’s a binary system. Either you work with the GOP or the Democrats (or you change the system of political parties).
You really don’t get this point, do you?
SCP,
It was an insult. Not an insult to the President, but an insult to me.
You asked an abstract question — how a single payer health care system can be reconciled to the principle of subsidarity. I tried my best to respond to your inquiry.
If you are incapable of having a conversation on any topic from the weather or whatever else, without turning to the matter of abortion, you should abstain from engaging people unaware of your limitations.
The pro-life movement has suffered in its effectivness because too many people have lost interest in hearing from pro-life activists rant and hurl insults. You would be well advised to try to correct that problem, not expand it.
It appears I’m butting in to the middle of a conversation haha, but I just want to say that I appreciated your responses to my question, Kurt. I was thinking along those lines too, and about the recent emphasis of the Holy Father on reforming the Church through interior recollection and reformation. I think too often we despair and forget that Christ has already given us the tools that we need to address the problems that His Church faces: Himself in and through the Sacraments, and the Holy Spirit in and through prayer.
Minion:
If so, then explain it to me.
“If you are incapable of having a conversation on any topic from the weather or whatever else, without turning to the matter of abortion, you should abstain from engaging people unaware of your limitations.”
So you think that bringing up abortion on a thread entitled “How to make progress on abortion” is akin to bringing it up in a conversation about the weather. Hm…
Please show me where I am ranting and hurling insults here – or was this just another attempt at distracting from my argument?
Never mind – I get it. You don’t want to look at Obama’s actual record on abortion.
Best to all here.
SCP – If it’s any comfort, your series of comments seemed appropriate to me.
…from my argument
SCP -
I appreciate your admission that you were making an arguement and not acting sincerely when you asked me
the question on the relationship of a single payer health care system to the principle of subsidiarity. Had I known that, I would not have bothered responding to you. I will try to not fall for that trick again.
Yes, I am well aware that the prime mover for national health care and for kids staying in school and studying hard is pro-choice. Just as the prime mover for pro-life ran a racket for the abuse of young boys.
You’re very kind, Pinky, and not bad with the keyboard. but I think I’ve just made my last attempt at trying to reach out to and learn from the catholic Leftists here. If we can’t be serious about these things, we’ll never make any progress. Again, best to all.
Kurt – Whaaa?
PS – Pinky, can you explain to Kurt that making arguments are what serious and sincere people do when forwarding their ideas?
SCP –
Serious and sincere people don’t fake an interest in an academic discussion on how and if single payer health care relates to the principles of subsidiarity only to zing someone by playing the Kevin Bacon with the abortion issue.
“the prime mover for pro-life ran a racket for the abuse of young boys.”
Kurt, what do you mean by this?
I wrote about this here:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6416&Itemid=121&ed=4
Joe, that is an insightful and thoughtful article. But I can tell you as someone who was out in the field in the last election, while you have a good analysis of the options, you are missing a major matter.
You speak of those voters who are social conservatives but do not accept GOP economic principles. This can run from pro-life liberals to Red Tories.
In the last election, McCain’s Catholic outreach was limited to Catholic conservatives. McCain never made a pitch to Catholics who were pro-life but had reservations about his stance on war and economics. Catholic conservative leadership as well focused on internal mobilization, attacking traitors within their own ranks (Doug Kmiec and Kari Lundgren, who now writes here), and saying some truly awful things about Catholics who were even considering a vote for Obama.
Obama and Democrats aggressively courted these conflicted Catholics. They listened, they reached out, they showed empathy for our conflicts.
Courted is the perfect word. Imagine you are a woman. I’m talking about a really attractive woman — shapely legs, pretty face, fills out a sweater nicely (because in politics, nothing is more attractive than an undecided voter). One suitor speaks to you for his virtues. He admits he has some features you don’t like and that he is unlikely to make a total transformation on those matters, but wants you and wants to search for common ground.
Another suitor basically tells you that his shortcomings are “prudential judgments” and given the other suitor’s vices, if you go with him you are a slut and a whore.
My question is, who gets the girl?
(this was not meant to be sexist)
Kurt, every site is different, and if this is the kind of site where people don’t have a back-and-forth, that’s fine. I’d appreciate it if you’d let me know that though (which is a little paradoxical, I realize). But I’m really interested in finding out what you meant about the abuse of young boys.
Why Kurt,
It is obvious that you hate women and want to oppress and dominate them! Shame on you!
:)
No, seriously, I do see your point. Conservatives rested on their laurels, or lack thereof. The entire McCain candidacy, the entire primary, reflected a complete lack of long-term strategic and moral vision. Sarah Palin was a gimmick.
McCain couldn’t reach out to Catholics or anyone else because McCain has no coherent philosophy, like much of the rest of the GOP. As others have pointed out, the GOP has become “the party of NO”.
Regardless of whatever else we might say about him, Obama has a vision. That is why I put forward Red Toryism. It is a coherent platform, it says yes to something instead of no to everything.