Bernard J. Coughlin, S.J., former president and current chancellor of Gonzaga University, has an excellent essay "on the square" on President Obama's call for common ground on abortion. Here is a taste:
In the nineteenth century it was the right of freedom versus the right to enslave; in the twentieth century it is the right to life versus the right to kill the innocent. And much as people would hope to find common ground, there is no common ground to be found. The right to life is not granted by kings, rulers, clergymen, parliaments, or congresses. It is the Creator’s work, not to be fudged.
In disputes over civil laws—the best housing policy, the best health policy, the wisest tax laws—it is reasonable to hope for common ground. But in some matters there is no common ground. The president encouraged his audience to “increase adoptions” and to “reduce the number of abortions.” Friends of mine have suggested the same, and it is all to the good. But abortion always kills an infant. I can readily imagine President Lincoln hearing from the slave owners: “We will decrease the number of slaves,” and “We will increase social services.” But he also knew that one slave is still a slave. And one fetus killed is still killing an innocent life.
***
It is not faith that tells us that abortion kills an innocent life. It is science. And the more we know about it the more the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” is recognized as simply a euphemism for “a woman’s right to kill the child in her womb.”
***
Every infant is God’s child, and his gift to us as a sister and brother. And just as President Obama has so praiseworthily pledged himself to guarantee every child the right to an education, so should he first, and with far greater righteousness, pledge himself to guarantee every child, as far as humanly possible, the right to life.
The president says: “We must find a way to live together.” All the while, the infant in the womb is answering: “But first I have to live.”
For the whole essay, click here.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Michael P., you are right, religious and sexual freedoms are not opposed. And, it is fitting that you would have so titled your post on this the memorial of Mary Magdelene. As Fr. Raymond-Leopold Bruckberger, O.P. said: "There must have emanated from this man, who was the Christ, a light, a power far above nature to free the love of a burning and passionate woman like Mary Magdalene from all obsession, pacify it, order it, and at the same time bring it to full flower."
Please reassure me, Rick, that this is not a critical mass of the base--or "base"--of the Republican Party. See here.
"Analysts say Islamic militants are trying to drive out last of naion's Christian minority." For this OSV story, click here.
A reader responds:
Thanks for posting the D'Agata essay. One very minor thing jumped out at me, but something I've never really thought of before.
The president of the United States is often described as "the leader of the free world." See D'Agata: "met the first African American man to lead the free world ...."
True enough, I guess, if the world is seen as populated by countries. But the world is populated by ... people.
So, couldn't the Pope be properly described as "the leader of the (truly) free world".
Just a thought.
