The elephant in the room ...

... namely, the disagreement, no less among Catholics than among others--the intractable disagreement--not about the *biological* status of unborn human--yes, HUMAN--life at the successiive stages of its development, but about its *moral* status.

In the United States (and elsewhere), there is a deep and widespread controversy about the moral status of unborn human life at the earliest stages of its development.  Moreover, there is little if any reason to doubt that this controversy will endure.  Referring to "philosophy, neurobiology, psychology, [and] medicine," Garry Wills has observed that "[t]he evidence from natural sources of knowledge has been interpreted in various ways, by people of good intentions and good information.  If natural law teaching were clear on the matter, a consensus would have been formed by those with natural reason." Garry Wills, "The Bishops vs. the Bible," NYT, June 27, 2004.

On the the enduring absence of a consensus, compare Robert P. George & Patrick Lee, "Acorns and Embryos," The New Atlantis, Fall 2004/Winter 2004, www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/7/georgeleeprint.htm, with Michael S. Gazzaniga, "The Thoughtful Distinction Between Embryo and Human," The Chronicle Review, Apr. 8, 2005. See also Anthony Kenny, "Life Stories:  When an Individual Life Begins--and the Ethics of Ending It," [London[] Times Lit. Supp., Mar. 25, 2005, at 3.

Jesuit moral theologian Richard McCormick foresaw that because of this dissensus about the moral status of unborn human life--in particular, about its moral status during early pregnancy--"public policy [would] remain sharply contentious and the task of legislators correspondingly complex."  Richard A, McCormick, SJ, "The Gospel of Life,"America, Apr. 29, 1995, at 12, 13.  See also John Langan, SJ, "Observations on Abortion and Politics," America, Oct. 25, 2004:  "[T]he fact of continuing and intense public disagreement [underlines] how far we are from having a broad public consensus against the practice [of abortion] and of how difficult it would be to . . . enact a legal prohibition against it."  Cf. Clifford Longley, "'The Church Hasn't Yet Made a Mature Appraisal of What Democracy Demands'," The Tablet [London], May 7, 2005, at 11:  "The criminal justice system . . . only works when there is at least a minimal degree of assent by the public to the moral framework in which it operates. . . .  [W]hat you have to persuade the majority of is not just that your moral principle is correct but that it is right to insist that the minority which does not agree with it must nevertheless comply with it too."

For the views of some Roman Catholics on the issue, see Joseph F. Donceel, SJ, "Immediate Animation and Delayed Homonization," 31 Theological Studies 76 (1970); Joseph F. Donceel, SJ, "A Liberal Catholic's View," in Robert Hall, ed., Abortion in a Changing World 39 (1970); Thomas A. Shannon, "Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy," 62 Theological Studies 811, 814-21 (2001); Jean Porter, "Is the Embryo a Person?  Arguing with the Catholic Traditions," Commonweal,Feb. 8, 2002, at 8; John Haldane & Patrick Lee, "Aquinas on Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life," 78 Philosophy 255 (2003); Robert Pasnau, "Souls and the Beginning of Life (A Reply to Haldane & Lee)," 78 Philosophy 521 (2003); John Haldane & Patrick Lee, "Rational Souls and the Beginning of Life," 78 Philosophy 532 (2003).  Cf. Anthony Kenny, "The Soul Issue," Times Lit. Supp.,Mar. 7, 2003, at 12.

Consider these passages from an essay that Peter Steinfels, the then-editor of Commonweal, published in Commonweal in 1981:  "[T]he right-to-life movement is naively overconfident in its belief that the existence of a unique "genetic package" from conception onwards settles the abortion issue.  Yes, it does prove that what is involved is a human individual and not 'part of the mother's body.'  It does not prove that, say, a twenty-eight-day-old embryo, approximately the size of this parenthesis (--), is then and there a creature with the same claims to preservation and protection as a newborn or an adult. . . .  Although it is not logically impossible, for example, to consider the great number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant themselves in the uterus as lost 'human beings', a great many people find this idea totally incredible.  Similarly, very early miscarriage usually does not trigger the sense of loss and grief that miscarriage does.  Can we take these instinctive responses as morally helpful? . . .  It is simply not the case that a refusal to recognize Albert Einstein or Anne Frank as human beings deserving of full legal rights is equivalent to the refusal to see the same status in a disc the size of a period or an embryo one-sixth of an inch long and with barely rudimentary features."  Peter Steinfels, "The Search for an Alternative," Commonweal, Nov. 20, 1981, reprinted in Patrick Jordan & Paul Baumann, eds., Commonweal Confronts the Century:  Liberal Convictions, Catholic Tradition 204, 209-11 (1999).  Cf. Jean Porter, supra:  "What can we [Catholics] say to convince men and women of good will who do not share our theological convictions or our allegiance to church teaching that early-stage embryos have exactly the same moral status as we and they do?  It will not serve us to fall back at this point on blanket denunciations such as "the culture of death."  Naturally, these tend to be conversation stoppers.  What is worse, they keep us from considering the possibility that others may not be convinced by what we are saying because what we are saying is--not convincing."

The sixty-four-dollar question:  Who is more unreasonable:  (1) One who denies that Christians (and others) can in good faith reasonably reject the position (even though, of course, one can reasonably accept it too) that unborn human life has the same moral status from the very beginning of its existence as it has as every later stage; or (2) one who rejects the position that unborn human life has the same moral status from the very beginning of its existence as it has as every later stage?

This disagreement--again, among Catholics no less than among others--is the elephant in the room.  The Bible doesn't resolve the issue.  The magisterium may say, clearly and emphatically, what it believes about the issue ... but, again, ""[t]he evidence from natural sources of knowledge has been interpreted in various ways, by people of good intentions and good information.  If natural law teaching were clear on the matter, a consensus would have been formed by those with natural reason."

Now, ponder the implications of this disagreement--this *reasonable* disagreement?--for our politics, for our law, and for our evaluation of those who, like Obama, disagree with the magisterium.  I suggest you re-read what John Noonan had to say at Notre Dame, quoted below in Robertt Araujo's post.