Mirror of Justice

A number of Catholic Democrats, including, no doubt, a number of MOJ readers, have long been admirers of Vice President Joe Biden.  And this is entirely understandable.  Throughout his political career the self-described “boy from Scranton” has proudly touted his working class background, his Catholic faith, and his Irish roots (see here).  Moreover, Joe Biden has often cited his religion as one of the reasons he pursued a career in public service, and there is no reason to doubt his sincerity in this regard. 

Still, over the years the longtime senator from Delaware has demonstrated an uncanny knack for factual misstatements and political gaffes (see here and here) – the not infrequent extemporaneous comment that often leaves his political opponents shaking their heads in disbelief and his political supporters excusing these rhetorical miscues as “That’s just Joe being Joe!” (see here).

One would expect that for the Vice Presidential Debate – the chance to address a national audience, in a closely contested election, following a poor showing by the President in the first debate – that Mr. Biden would be especially well prepared to deliver a gaffe-free performance.  Moreover, given the emphasis placed on abortion at the Democratic Party’s convention (see here and here), and the great distance between the stated positions of the Obama-Biden ticket and the Romney-Ryan ticket on the life issue (see here), predicting a question on abortion was about as close to a sure thing as happens in politics.

But what voters heard was not a thoughtful answer to a question that everyone could have anticipated.  Instead what Mr. Biden delivered was another gaffe, another “Joeism.”

The problem began with how moderator Martha Raddatz framed the question.  (The debate transcript is here, the video is here).  

This debate is, indeed, historic.  We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this.  And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.  Please talk about how you came to that decision.  Talk about how your religion played a part in that.  And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country.

Father James Martin, S.J. (here) found Raddatz’s question problematic because it shows that “many journalists tend to reduce all of Catholicism to a single issue,” namely, abortion.

But that is only one problem.  Another and I think deeper problem is that many journalists have enormous difficulty seeing opposition to abortion outside the prism of religion. 

Ramesh Ponnuru (here) summarizes this point nicely:

Martha Raddatz framed the question about abortion badly by bringing up religion, a frame that encourages people to think about the question in church-state terms that are both misleading and favorable to one side of the discussion. In response, Biden said that he accepted the Catholic Church’s alleged “doctrine” that life begins at conception in his “personal life” but would not impose it on others.

Raddatz’s errant framing of the issue suited Mr. Biden just fine.  He plainly stated: “I accept my church’s position on abortion as a – what we call a de fide doctrine.  Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment.  I accept it in my personal life.  But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others . . . .”

In describing the Church’s support for the view that life begins as conception as part of the deposit of the faith – “de fide” – as Biden mumbled almost inaudibly, a matter of divine revelation – Mr. Biden committed another Joeism . . . and this one was a dandy.  According to Biden, belief in the humanity of the unborn child is equivalent to belief in the Incarnation, the Holy Trinity, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and as such is something that may not be enacted in law.

Although guided by sacred scripture, the Church does not in fact ground her belief in the humanity of the unborn child solely on divine revelation.  As Ponnuru notes:

The Church does not, in fact, teach as a matter of faith that life begins at conception.  It recognizes the scientific fact that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human organism — a member of the human species — and teaches as a matter of morals that we have obligations in justice to this being.  Biden does not accept this teaching, and it is not clear that he even understands it.

Indeed, the Catholic bishops of the United States would surely be surprised to learn that their teaching on abortion – specifically the belief that human life begins at fertilization – is a matter of faith.  In a document they issued in 1998 entitled Living the Gospel of Life (here ¶ 24) they pointedly responded to Biden’s claim in what might be described as the verbal equivalent of an ecclesiastical smack-down:

[S]ome Catholic elected officials have adopted the argument that, while they personally oppose evils like abortion, they cannot force their religious views onto the wider society. This is seriously mistaken on several key counts. First, regarding abortion, the point when human life begins is not a religious belief but a scientific fact—a fact on which there is clear agreement even among leading abortion advocates. Second, the sanctity of human life is not merely Catholic doctrine but part of humanity’s global ethical heritage, and our nation’s founding principle. Finally, democracy is not served by silence. Most Americans would recognize the contradiction in the statement, “While I am personally opposed to slavery or racism or sexism I cannot force my personal view on the rest of society.” Real pluralism depends on people of conviction struggling vigorously to advance their beliefs by every ethical and legal means at their disposal.

Before his election as pope, when he was head of the CDF, Joseph Ratzinger made a similar point.  In its Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (here ¶ 5) the CDF likewise repudiated the canard that pro-life legislation is an offense against pluralism and an attempt to impose the Christian faith on others:

[N]o Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements.  This is not a question of “confessional values” per se, because such ethical precepts are rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law.  They do not require from those who defend them the profession of the Christian faith, although the Church’s teaching confirms and defends them always and everywhere as part of her service to the truth about man and about the common good of civil society.  Moreover, it cannot be denied that politics must refer to principles of absolute value precisely because these are at the service of the dignity of the human person and true human progress.

Mr. Biden began his response to the question on abortion by saying:

I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can't take care of themselves, people who need help.

A more informed journalist might have responded: “Mr. Biden, I understand Catholic social doctrine impels you to support policies that help take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.  Doesn’t Catholic social doctrine include the unborn among those who are vulnerable, who can’t take care of themselves?  If so, why do you oppose laws that would protect them?”

The problem seems to be that journalist seem incapable of asking following up questions to politicians who advocate a pro-choice position.  Is it too much to ask that journalists rediscover or develop the knack for asking the uncomfortable questions of pro-choice politicians?

As Mollie at Get Religion (here) observes, there are any number of questions Raddatz could have asked Biden by way of follow up: 

[H]ow about asking him whether he could envision any limitations on abortion at all, whatsoever? How about asking him if he thinks it should be legal to kill an unborn child simply because that child is a female? How about asking him if he thinks that there is anything wrong with terminating a pregnancy because the fetus has Down syndrome? 

Likewise, Raddatz might also have asked Biden about his earlier support for a Human Life Amendment, his opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act (something Mr. Obama supported) his support for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban (something Mr. Obama opposed) or his support for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (something Mr. Obama opposed) (see here).  Is it too much to ask that the stark contrast between the President and the Vice President on the treatment of unborn human beings be explored?

I know that we live in an era in which the Church is reaping the poor harvest of many years of deficient catechesis.  Still, is it really too much to ask that a person who publicly identifies himself as Catholic – indeed, wears his Catholic identity on his sleeve – should be able to state with accuracy what the Catholic Church teaches and why when he publicly rejects that teaching as a source that might inform his views on a matter of public policy?

Moreover, is it really too much to ask of such a person that he explain – in a principled fashion – how it is permissible for his religion to influence his approach to public policy on some matters but not on others?

Even if some find this too demanding, is it really too much to ask that the Vice President of the United States know that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s single largest abortion provider?  Is it too much to ask that before he defends Planned Parenthood that Mr. Biden know that the organization itself reported performing 985,731 abortions over three years, from 2008-2010? (see here).  Yet at a campaign rally held the day after the debate Mr. Biden said that the Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood “which by law cannot perform any abortions.”

I’m sure that statement by Mr. Biden comes as much of a surprise to the leaders of Planned Parenthood as Mr. Biden’s claim that the Church’s belief in the humanity of the unborn child is a belief that the Church holds “de fide” comes as a surprise to the bishops of the Catholic Church. 

But hey, maybe that’s just Joe being Joe!