Boston Globe: Common Ground on Abortion

Over the past several days, several MOJ contributors have discussed the issues of abortion and the responsibility of Catholics (be they citizens or officials) in public life. On this past Friday, November 16, the Boston Globe published an op-ed piece by Professor David O’Brien of the College of the Holy Cross. Although the Globe identified him as a professor of Catholic studies, he is more accurately a professor in the History Department and former director of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture, an initiative whose “programs foster dialogue that respects differences, and provides a forum for intellectual exchange that is inter-religious as well as interdisciplinary, intercultural, and international in scope.” Professor O’Brien’s essay entitled “Common Ground on Abortion” is [HERE] and is a critique of Sean Cardinal O’Malley’s criticism of Democrats in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on which the Globe reported a day earlier. It does not appear clear to either Professor O’Brien, the Boston Globe, or five of the six letters-to-the-editor writers responding to the O’Brien essay [HERE] that the Cardinal’s words are going to apply equally to any public official or citizen, regardless of party affiliation or independence from party affiliation when he or she supports abortion, either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Professor O’Brien, the Globe, and most of the letter writers do not mention the Faithful Citizenship document just adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their fall meeting concluded last week [HERE], which addresses concerns about other issues raised by the Globe, Professor O’Brien, and most of the letters-to-the-editor writers.

Many things need to be said about the O’Brien essay. I shall comment on three of his assertions today.

The first is this statement:

Their [referring to Boston Mayor Menino, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and Congressman Jim McGovern, who had been identified in the previous sentence] supporters know that these Catholic politicians are prochoice but not proabortion; to call them proabortion is an insult to politicians and voters alike. The major difference between these prochoice advocates and their antiabortion critics is their recognition of and respect for the hard won autonomy and moral agency of women.

I must differ with Professor O’Brien’s characterizations. To call these public officials “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” is a superficial distinction making no matieral difference. When one examines the public statements and positions of these three officials, the difference evaporates. By stating that they are “pro-choice,” they are asserting that women have the “right” to take the lives of their unborn children and that they as public officials support this “right” (i.e., no one, including the state, may infringe on this “right”). As public officials, they are supporting this right, and their respective records demonstrate that they do not want this “right” curtailed by anyone under any circumstances. It is strange that those on the other side of this vital issue are labeled by Professor O’Brien as “anti-abortion”, but I digress. I think the Globe was more accurate in describing Governor Deval Patrick as being “pro-abortion” when it said in a brief article [HERE] on the same topic of the O’Brien essay:

Gov. Deval Patrick says he respects O’Malley and the church, and that there are “hard issues on which people of conscious [sic] differ.” The pro-abortion governor says people don’t have to agree on everything to work together. [Italics mine]

A second statement of Professor O’Brien’s meriting comment today is this:

Another thing about these officials is accountability: Politicians must consult citizens before taking positions on specific legislation, and they are accountable to those citizens for the positions they take. The cardinal consults no one but his colleagues and superiors in taking his position, and is accountable only to his superiors for the consequences of his actions.

I take comfort knowing that the Massachusetts public officials who are pro-choice/pro-abortion (there is, in fact, no distinction as I have indicated) will be consulting me before taking positions on specific legislation. I will be especially alert to watch my e-mail, monitor my voice mail, and read my conventional post knowing that I will be consulted on legislation dealing with these matters, such as HR 6067 to which Professor O’Brien refers. It is not only unfair but wrong for Professor O’Brien to allege that the Cardinal is accountable to no one. We are all accountable, as Catholics, to God for what we do and what we fail to do. As a “professor of Catholic studies,” Professor O’Brien does not mention that Cardinal O’Malley is a successor to the Apostles of Jesus Christ and therefore has a special accountability in this regard.

The final statement on which I’ll comment today is Professor O’Brien’s concluding remark:

Unfortunately Catholic Church support [for HR 6067] is limited because the bill includes support for education about contraception. On this bill and others like it, the Massachusetts congressional delegation can provide the only answer needed to Cardinal O’Malley’s unwise assault.

As of this writing, the text of HR 6067 is not yet available on the Congressional website, so it is not possible at the time to examine its text carefully. I have examined, however, Cardinal O’Malley’s words on the underlying matters relating to the O’Brien essay. They are not an assault; they are the words of a citizen and of a bishop who is charged by the Church to teach authentically about the most fundamental human right of all—the right to life. Without this right (as the Cardinal has been defending it) all other claims to rights are subject to forfeit. If there is an offensive being conducted, it is to be found in the actions of those who ridicule what the Cardinal has said and done in the faithful execution of his responsibilities as shepherd and pastor. Let us also not assume that this is the sole issue which divides American citizens, including Catholics. Other major issues in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including embryonic stem research, marriage, adoption, gambling, and euthanasia, are already the subjects of vigorous debate and are rightful topics for the Church’s proposing what is moral and what is not about them.    RJA sj