Mirror of Justice

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Bishop Finn and a more nuanced analysis for Rob

Rob's main objection to Bishop's Finn's analysis seems to be that the bishop says that an Obama voter "participates" in the evil of abortion. Rob points out correctly that such a voter may in no way intend abortion; he or she only accepts it as the lesser of evils.

But surely we also "participate" in those evils we facilitate, even if we do not intend them -- and indeed even if our participation is legitimate. If I morally inject morphine into a patient in order to stop his agony but also knowing it will shortly thereafter kill him, it would be sophistic to argue i have not "participated" in his death (as a material cause).

For a beautiful reflection on voting in this election, I commend to you this short essay by Dan Avila. Dan is a former student of mine who has worked for many years forthe bishops of Massachusetts.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Bishop Finn on the Catholic Obama Voter

By Rob Vischer

On my drive home tonight I was listening to Hugh Hewitt interview Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City. Bishop Finn seems to be saying that a faithful Catholic cannot vote for Barack Obama. An excerpt:

HH: I’m talking with Bishop Robert Finn of the Archdiocese of Kansas City. Bishop, I’ve had Archbishop Chaput on this program, I’ve read Cardinal Rigali’s letter as well. And still I have people come up to me in places like Ohio and Minnesota after I’ve done this last week when I was traveling around, tell me that their local priests are counseling them it’s okay to vote for Barack Obama, it’s okay to vote for a candidate who’s radically pro-choice because of other reasons. If such a priest if known to you in your diocese, do you discipline them.

RF: Well, we certainly have to talk in a very serious way. I think priests are subject to many of the same limitations as other people. They may have grown up in a particular partisan household that favors a candidate regardless of their moral stance. They’re among those people who want to look for a way to rationalize their conscience. But yes, as a bishop, I have to try to hold my priests accountable for misleading people.

Now perhaps he's saying that, in his estimation, there are no sufficiently compelling moral reasons to justify a vote for Senator Obama. But throughout the interview, he never acknowledges that the voting decision could encompass issues other than abortion. In other interviews, he has labeled the Obama voter as a "participant in the act of abortion" without even mentioning the role that intent plays in the voter's culpability. It is perfectly reasonable to take issue with my willingness to vote for Obama despite his horrendous views on abortion; that does not make me a participant in abortion. I have no doubt that Bishop Finn is sincere and well-intentioned, but he is removing any nuance from the Catholic voter's analysis. And he's invoking the specter of eternal damnation for those who continue to insist on a more nuanced approach. Maybe Bishop Finn has given a more comprehensive account of Catholic teaching on conscientious voting in other media appearances; if so, it is a shame that this one-dimensional account is the one that is gaining the media traction.

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader in Kansas for forwarding Bishop Finn's letter setting forth the more familiar (and more nuanced, in my view) analysis of Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship, which acknowledges the moral relevance of a voter's intent and the possibility of proportionate reasons for favoring a pro-choice candidate.

Another response to Doug K. and friends, and a note to Steve S. as well

By rstith

Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis have a thoughtful analysis of Doug Kmiec's arguments for Obama here http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.11.03_Anderson_Ryan%20T._The%20Pro-Life%20Case%20Against%20Barack%20Obama%20.%20.%20.%20and%20Doug%20Kmiec_.xml. In partial defense of Doug, I'm sure all of us get somewhat blinded by partisan committments now and then, myself certainly included. Makes one appreciative of the Church's wisdom in forbidding its clergy from holding public office.

Noting that Steve Shiffrin has difficulty in identifying embryos as fellow humans, since they are just "human organisms" still without brain function and the like, I have to agree that this is a problem for me and for many others as well. Even though we know in our minds that each human being begins its life at conception and continues in continuity of being until death, we have trouble intuiting this transtemporal identity when faced with a human embryo. In this brief essay, I think I have found a way to stretch our imagination to make it congruent with what we are told by reason: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/stith/doesmakingbabiesmakesense.pdf (A fuller exposition can be found in "Construction, Development, and Revelopment" available on the M of J website.)

Taking a Breath

By Amy Uelmen

A couple of weeks ago I was in the middle of an email exchange with a friend, and our discussion of campaign issues was becoming pretty heated. Before pressing the “send” button, something (Someone?) inside suggested that I take a breath and ask whether my email message would build up or destroy our friendship. As a result of this, I suggested to my friend that we bracket a part of our conversation until we could continue it in person. The following week, my friend walked into my office with a hug and a chocolate bar, saying “this is a peace offering, I am sorry for being intemperate.” I pulled out some homemade chocolate chip cookies, saying “I’m sorry too,” and we picked up where we had left off. Looking each other in the eyeballs, the conversation took a completely different turn. We’re not done with our conversation, and we still disagree on significant points. But I am sure that this friendship will last beyond November 4th.

A Further Response to Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec (Part 3) –The Empty Hope of Transcending the Culture Wars

By John M. Breen

As noted in my prior post, there are many parallels between the fight to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. Like Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall and the other lawyers who battled racial segregation, pro-lifers came to the fight over abortion expecting a tough slough – a bare knuckled brawl in which opponents of abortion have often been confronted with knives: the sharp points and blades of obfuscation and deceit. Still, plenty of pro-life legal advocates have the stomach for such a fight even if others don’t.

Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec seem not to appreciate this fight for what it is. Indeed, they seem uncomfortable with the language of struggle. Their language is reminiscent of the political rhetoric that characterizes Obama as a transformational figure. They say he is “erasing” the “old battle lines” of the culture wars.

In fact, however, it is either appallingly naïve or simply disingenuous to suggest that the culture wars are a thing of the past or that they can be overcome by a single political figure. Indeed, Obama’s record shows that he isn’t someone who transcends the culture wars. During his time in the Illinois Senate he was a partisan who spent his time reinforcing the barricades – voting against restrictions on partial birth abortion and measures that would require medical treatment for children who happen to survive an abortion. His Catholic supporters talk of peace in the culture wars, meanwhile Obama has promised the use of a new and devastating weapon – the Freedom of Choice Act. Indeed, the unwillingness of Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec to address Senator Obama’s promise to sign this legislation by itself shows how surreal their depiction of Obama as a transcendent, non-partisan figure in the culture wars truly is. To acknowledge this reality is not to subscribe to a kind of “Rambo Catholicism” as Kaveny has suggested in the past, but to engage in the very realism to which she and her co-authors purportedly subscribe.

To be sure, seeing this fight for what it is shouldn’t prevent advocates on behalf of the unborn from collaborating with others where working together will not compromise the integrity of the pro-life message, and where the possibly of saving the lives of some unborn children will do not endanger the lives of others. In this regard, however, Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec have failed to seriously address the likely increase in both the abortion rate and the shear number of abortions that the policies of an Obama administration will bring about, even when the ostensible benefits of greater social assistance to women in crisis pregnancies are taken into account.

Near the beginning of their essay Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec fault Weigel for criticizing “the emergence of serious pro-life Catholics supporting Obama.” In the end, however, their unwillingness to face up to their candidate’s radical support for abortion rights seriously calls into question the accuracy of this statement as a self-description.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Inherent and Equal Dignity: A Reader Responds to Steve S.

By Michael Scaperlanda

A reader writes:

Steve Shiffrin's recent post responding to John Breen and Michael Scaperlanda is coarse, uncomprehending, and creepy.

He castigates those who use the "shrill rhetoric" of calling abortion murder. Yet he engages in the shrill, ideologically partisan, and philosophically unjustifiable rhetoric of calling human beings in the embryonic and early fetal stages of development mere "human organisms that could develop biologically," and "human organisms without nerves or brains." Coarse -- and hypocritical. He provides not the slightest argument to sustain the alleged distinction between a mere "human organism" and a human being. Nor does he take the first step towards answering those critics of abortion and embryo-destructive research who have argued that the distinction cannot be sustained in light of the facts of human embryogenesis and early develoment and the spectacular failure of efforts to identify the "person" or the "real" human being with the brain, or consciousness, or the immediately exercisable capacities for characteristically human mental functioning. Uncomprehending. The rhetoric of "human organism" (which, of course, is what all of us are) is a mere rhetorical ploy to define certain human beings -- those at early developmental stages when some people have an interest in being permitted to exterminate them -- out of membership in the human family. Creepy.

Religion need not be brought into any of this, but since MoJ is supposed to be a Catholic blog, it is worth asking on what basis a Catholic can possibly distinguish "living human organism" from "human being" -- especially when the distinction is deployed to justify failing to protect (and even licensing the killing of) those who are unfortunate enough to be categorized by those in power as mere "human organisms." If there is one thing that is utterly bedrock about the Catholic understanding of humanity, it is that all living members of the species Homo sapiens, irrespective of age, size, stage of development, location, or condition of dependency, are human beings -- persons possessing inherent and equal dignity and a right to life.

Clearheaded and intellectually honest advocates of abortion do not pretend that their position is compatible with the Catholic understanding of humanity and fundamental human equality and dignity. Take
Princeton
philosopher Peter Singer, for example. Unlike Shiffren, Singer understands and freely acknowledges that "living human organisms" in the embryonic, fetal, and infant stages of development are human beings. He doesn't shrink from this truth, or engage in word games to obscure it from view. He knows that if "having a brain" makes a difference to moral standing, it is because the brain functions to enable creatures of certain kinds to possess self-awareness and to carry out certain forms of mental activity. But, of course, humans don't have a brain that functions in that way until months after birth. Hence, Singer defends the morality not only of abortion, but of infanticide. Singer's conclusion is horrific, but at least he faces up to the scientific facts and is honest enough to speak out loud about the implications of his moral-philosophical premises.

Evidently, Shiffren would like to find a middle ground (one that could somehow still count as "Catholic") between the view of the nature and basis of human dignity taught by the Catholic Church (though not by the Church exclusively, nor on the basis of sheer revelation) and a view like Singer's. If he takes the trouble to examine the scientific and philosophical literature, and to consider the facts and arguments carefully, he will join those who have already ventured forth and found that the "middle ground" is nothing but quicksand.

A Response to Steve S.

By Michael Scaperlanda

Steve S. says that John and I "do not respond to the point that killing a human being with a brain and a central nervous system is more serious than killing a human organism that could develop biologically." I would direct him to my post of October 23, 2006 in which I quoted at length from an essay by Francis Beckwith. I also linked to an important essay by Patrick Lee and Robert George entitled the wrong of abortion.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Abortion: A Response to John and Michael

By Steve Shiffrin

In a previous post I maintained that most people do not think that first trimester abortions are murder (though they regard them as morally problematic), that they believe the moral seriousness of abortion increases in the course of fetal development, that a significant reason for such beliefs is that the existence of a brain and the central nervous system sharply distinguishes babies from first trimester fetuses, and that if first trimester abortions are not murder, there is little basis for privileging the abortion issue over other serious moral issues. I am grateful to John and Michael for responding to this post. I would note that both do not respond to the point that killing a human being with a brain and a central nervous system is more serious than killing a human organism that could develop biologically.
John responds by suggesting that the assumption that most people do not think abortion is murder is problematic. He cites an essay by the President of a pro life organization citing polls where persons in high numbers (between thirty eight and fifty seven per cent, most appear to be in the high forty per cent range) regard abortion as murder. I am surprised at the high numbers. I think the numbers would go down if persons were asked whether first trimester abortions were murders (how much I do not know). And I wonder how seriously to take some of the responses given that most do not want to prosecute women for hiring hit men in the abortion context and most would tolerate exceptions to an abortion ban that would not be permitted if abortion were thought to be murder (For reflections on the rape exception, see Sherry Colb,http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070711.html). But I think the numbers are impressive.
In one post Michael shows a picture of a fetus late in the fifth month. Anti-abortion advocates do not post pictures of a fetus in the first trimester because I think they understand that most people would be less moved (I believe because they think that increased fetal development correspondingly makes the abortion more problematic in the minds of their audience). In another post Michael say he does not care what most people think. What most people think is no guarantee of truth. He maintains an obligation to tell the truth. I would have liked to have heard how he would try to persuade those who are repelled by the murder claim, those who believe that killing a human organism without nerves or a brain is not the same as killing a baby.
Of course, I acknowledge the desirability of speaking the truth as you see it. But I believe the shrillness of the murder rhetoric often associated with anti-abortion advocates (this is not a slap at Michael) has significant political costs. The shrillness with which it is usually presented unnecessarily puts people on the defensive and causes them to circle the wagons. It is polarizing. The tone should be different in a divided society that has considerable agreement about the desirability of reducing abortions. Shrill rhetoric (truthful or not) can energize a base (and that is often necessary), but it is highly unlikely to persuade the millions in the middle.

A Further Response to Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec (Part 2) – Not “The Perfect Pro-Life Candidate”

By John M. Breen

Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec acknowledge that Obama isn’t “the perfect pro-life candidate.” In this they display a rare talent for understatement. Still, they insist that he is genuinely “pro-life” in a meaningful and “real world” way in that he wants to reduce the frequency of abortion. On what basis are we to believe that Senator Obama is truly committed to this goal? It certainly cannot be gleaned from his record in public life.

Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec say that Obama sees abortion as a “tragic moral choice,” and indeed during the campaign Obama has himself said that the entity developing in the womb carries “moral weight.” But this “moral weight” and the “tragedy” of the choice for abortion have counted for all of nothing in Obama’s public record. Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec can point to no legislative action on Obama’s part – either in the Illinois legislature or the U.S. Senate – in which he has worked to protect the life of the unborn child. Indeed, he has opposed even the most modest restrictions on abortion – such as laws involving parental notice and restrictions regarding the transportation of minors across state lines – at every turn. Moreover, the only measure he has acted on to reduce abortions has been to vote in favor of more public funding for contraceptive use – an abortion reduction strategy that seems intuitively sound but which has proven to be of dubious value in practice. (I should add that this is wholly apart from whatever moral problems that promotion of contraception may pose in its own right).

Many rightly believe that we should support programs that provide more generous social assistance to women in crisis pregnancies. Indeed, a number of commentators on MOJ, myself included, have written in support of such efforts. At the same time many writers, including Weigel and several commentators on MOJ (myself included), have raised serious doubts about how effective such policies will be in reducing the frequency of abortion. Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec’s flippant response to these arguments (i.e. “the U.S. isn’t Sweden”) reflects the superficial response of political pundits, not the thoughtful response one has come to expect from these legal scholars.

Moreover, given Obama’s record, recounted above, one would hope that Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec would understand if pro-lifers greet the eleventh-hour additions to the Democratic platform and Obama’s expressed interest in reducing the incidence of abortion with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Beyond his obvious and oft-repeated support for the abortion license, and the doubts surrounding the ability of social programs to greatly reduce the incidence of abortion, there are other reasons to question Obama’s sincerity with respect to abortion. The reasons why abortion is “a tragic moral choice” and why the entity in the womb carries “moral weight” is the ground that the pro-choice lobby most fears for the public to tread. And this is the place where Senator Obama has not dared to go. Indeed, the pro-choice lobby, who can barely stomach the description of abortion as “tragic,” becomes positively apoplectic when the reasons why this is an apt description of abortion are explored.

What they most fear is that an intellectually honest discussion of the matter would lead many to confront the humanity of the unborn child. Not daring to venture into this hazardous territory of honest discussion, Obama has been content with the rhetoric of “tragic moral choice,” confident that this will convince most Americans that he is as moderate and restrained on the issue as his calm and easy manner suggests. Obama's pro-choice supporters have tolerated this otherwise unmentionable description, knowing that, as a substantive matter, he subscribes to their views with unfailing devotion. Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec have been complicit in this deception by failing to acknowledge let alone criticize Obama for the radical positions he in fact espouses.

We Interrupt this Broadcast...

By Susan Stabile

...to say, Blessings to all on this solemnity of All Saints Day. For me this is a day to contemplate the saints in my life - canonized and not, living and dead. And it is a day to give thanks for those who inspire me by their example of discipleship, for those who (to use Pope Benedict's description of the saints) "bring to light in creative fashion quite new human potentialities."

My extended reflection on the day is posted on my blog.