Later this morning, Presidential Republican Candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, will be delivering his address on his religion and its role (or not) in his public duties. Rick has previously posted several commentaries on Governor Romney and Senator John Kennedy’s September 1960 Houston address. I am mindful that Rick pointed out that the Kennedy address did not remove the Senator from suspicion as the question-and-answer session immediately following his Houston speech illustrated.
It is too early to assess Governor Romney’s speech at this hour. However, I think it is important that we who are dedicated to the pursuit of Catholic Legal Theory might wish to keep in mind that Kennedy, Romney, and, in a much earlier period, Thomas Jefferson were or are politicians who saw the need not to alienate voters. Thus, what is said about religion in one particular context may not and probably is not the only view held by someone seeking or holding public office. This prudential consideration would suggest that those seeking public office may at different times offer different perspectives on their views about the role of faith and religion in public life.
For example, when the then recently elected President Thomas Jefferson wrote his famous “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), he stated that,
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Yet the same Jefferson, in drafting the Virginia legislation on religious liberty some sixteen years earlier invoked the name of “Almighty God” who created “the mind free” to substantiate and legitimate the claim that,
all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
In September of 1960, Senator Kennedy argued before the protestant ministers that the “real issues” of the campaign were being obscured by the fact that he was a Catholic and no Catholic have ever been elected President of the United States. But to allay their fears about a Catholic President, he stated,
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him… I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition—to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress—on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)—instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic. I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts—why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France—and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle… If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
In April of 1963, then President Kennedy delivered an address at Boston College (then a school largely attended by young Catholics and owned by the Jesuit order), in which he spoke about peace in the world and referred to Pope John XXIII’s encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, which had been promulgated less that two months earlier. This is what President Kennedy said after being elected to the White House:
In this hope I am much encouraged by a reading in this last week of the remarkable encyclical, “Pacem in Terris.” In its penetrating analysis of today’s great problems, of social welfare and human rights, of disarmament and international order and peace, that document surely shows that on the basis of one great faith and its traditions there can be developed counsel on public affairs that is of value to all men and women of good will. As a Catholic I am proud of it; and as an American I have learned from it. It only adds to the impact of this message that it closely matches notable expressions of conviction and aspiration from churchmen of other faiths, as in recent documents of the World Council of Churches, and from outstanding world citizens with no ecclesiastical standing. We are learning to talk the language of progress and peace across the barriers of sect and creed. It seems reasonable to hope that a similar process may be taking place across the quite different barriers of higher learning. (Italics mine)
I do not think that either of the two statements of two former presidents are in conflict with one another. However, I do think that they reveal that the same person who is seeking public office (and wishes to retain it) would not want to be held to the views expressed in only one speech given to one influential group. They were not foolish enough to do that, and I do not think the American public is imprudent enough to believe that. I look forward to hearing and studying Governor Romney’s address later today. I may be proven wrong, but I do not think that what he will say today will be the only views he will express about the role of religion in public life.RJA sj
A few hours ago the Holy See released Pope Benedict XVI’s second encyclical letter, Spes Salvi. [HERE in English translation] The central theme is redemption, a subject not alien to the law and therefore no stranger to Catholic legal thought and theory.
The Holy Father begins his letter by relying on a theme in the Pauline corpus, Romans 8:24, “in [this] hope we were saved…” In essence, the Pope’s fundamental point is about the goal of redemption for humanity and the corresponding responsibility of hope in the reaching this objective—an objective that relies on but does not depend ultimately on human institutions such as the law. The letter illustrates the right relation between God and human enterprise in this endeavor. This is justice, pure and precise. And proceeding to this justice requires hope and patience on behalf of the human family—as Benedict states, “The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.” This strikes me as a crucial element of our work in and through the Mirror of Justice project—the name of which derives from one of Mary’s titles and influences the Pope’s encyclical as will be pointed out toward the end of my posting today.
The Holy Father uses the images of the downcast, the slave, and those on the margins of society to reinforce the theme of hope in the one who came to save us all so that we may be redeemed and live with Him forever. Benedict takes note of the human alternatives that exist in this word to achieve one type of freedom that can liberate the marginalized—an endeavor with which the law has a great interest. But as he argues throughout the letter, the forms of liberation that rely solely on human resources are imperfect: “Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a ‘not yet’. The fact that this future exists changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the future.” For Benedict, there must be a renunciation of exclusive reliance on the things of this world to provide authentic relief to those who suffer in this world:
Faith gives life a new basis, a new foundation on which we can stand, one which relativizes the habitual foundation, the reliability of material income. A new freedom is created with regard to this habitual foundation of life, which only appears to be capable of providing support, although this is obviously not to deny its normal meaning. This new freedom, the awareness of the new “substance” which we have been given, is revealed not only in martyrdom, in which people resist the overbearing power of ideology and its political organs and, by their death, renew the world. Above all, it is seen in the great acts of renunciation, from the monks of ancient times to Saint Francis of Assisi and those of our contemporaries who enter modern religious Institutes and movements and leave everything for love of Christ, so as to bring to men and women the faith and love of Christ, and to help those who are suffering in body and spirit. In their case, the new “substance” has proved to be a genuine “substance”; from the hope of these people who have been touched by Christ, hope has arisen for others who were living in darkness and without hope. In their case, it has been demonstrated that this new life truly possesses and is “substance” that calls forth life for others.
For this to make sense, the Pope acknowledges that redemption, and the human role in it (through hope in God) must understand what life, including eternal life, means. This is where the role of Jesus’s salvific mission must be taken into account for it means something to the existence of every person whose life begins in this world but will continue elsewhere. Inspired by the writing of Henri de Lubac, the Pope distills the essence of human existence by identifying the individual and social nature of hope, faith, salvation, and redemption: “salvation has always been considered a ‘social’ reality.” For Benedict, sin—the product of human free will—destroys the unity of the human race by fragmenting the person and the society in which he or she lives. This factor is quite characteristic of our materialistic and individualistic world today as expressed in the famous dictum of Planned Parenthood v. Casey: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State” or, I suppose, any other human institution. But the Pope sees a remedy to this problem of fragmented liberty: it is redemption which reestablishes the unity in which individuals come together in a union that begins to take shape in the community of believers. In this context, the Social doctrine of the Church has much to provide every person of good will who recognizes the difficulties which the Casey perspective generates but who is motivated to look for enduring solutions to the conundrums the Casey outlook leaves in its wake. In N. 16 of Spes Salvi, Benedict specifically addresses this problem and the transforming role that Christian “faith-hope” can have on the present age. In doing so, he critiques the Caseyesque rationale by stating,
a disturbing step has been taken: up to that time, the recovery of what man had lost through the expulsion from Paradise was expected from faith in Jesus Christ: herein lay “redemption”. Now, this “redemption”, the restoration of the lost “Paradise” is no longer expected from faith, but from the newly discovered link between science and praxis. It is not that faith is simply denied; rather it is displaced onto another level—that of purely private and other-worldly affairs—and at the same time it becomes somehow irrelevant for the world. This programmatic vision has determined the trajectory of modern times and it also shapes the present-day crisis of faith which is essentially a crisis of Christian hope. Thus hope too… acquires a new form. Now it is called: faith in progress. For Bacon, it is clear that the recent spate of discoveries and inventions is just the beginning; through the interplay of science and praxis, totally new discoveries will follow, a totally new world will emerge, the kingdom of man.
It is this “kingdom of man” in which Benedict argues the purely political departs from the exercise of right reason that leads all to the eternal life and the Kingdom of God. He relies upon illustrations from the French Revolution and Marxist theory and praxis to make his point convincing. While promising “freedom,” both of these political events removed authentic freedom for reason. Here the Pope inserts one of the most significant elements of the encyclical letter:
[R]eason is God’s great gift to man, and the victory of reason over unreason is also a goal of the Christian life. But when does reason truly triumph? When it is detached from God? When it has become blind to God? Is the reason behind action and capacity for action the whole of reason? If progress, in order to be progress, needs moral growth on the part of humanity, then the reason behind action and capacity for action is likewise urgently in need of integration through reason's openness to the saving forces of faith, to the differentiation between good and evil. Only thus does reason become truly human. It becomes human only if it is capable of directing the will along the right path, and it is capable of this only if it looks beyond itself. Otherwise, man's situation, in view of the imbalance between his material capacity and the lack of judgement in his heart, becomes a threat for him and for creation. Thus where freedom is concerned, we must remember that human freedom always requires a convergence of various freedoms. Yet this convergence cannot succeed unless it is determined by a common intrinsic criterion of measurement, which is the foundation and goal of our freedom. Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.
What is critical to the success of the Holy Father’s proposition are two further realizations. The first is that right state of human affairs cannot be guaranteed by human-designed structures alone even while acknowledging their merits. Second, it is essential to understand the essence of human freedom: “the kingdom of good will never be definitively established in this world. Anyone who promises the better world that is guaranteed to last for ever is making a false promise; he is overlooking human freedom. Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined—good—state of the world, man’s freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all.”
At this point he returns to the issue of human redemption and reminds us that it is not “science” that redeems us; rather, it is love, specifically the love of God in Jesus Christ, the one who came to save us all. Moreover, this love is the source of all life—both now and in the future. This love characterizes a crucial relation in human beingness, relation with our Savior. But this love which takes us into the eternal life also has a role in the life of this world. As Benedict states: “[Christ] commits us to live for others, but only through communion with him does it become possible truly to be there for others, for the whole.”
As he concludes this encyclical letter, Pope Benedict reminds us that to protest against God in the name of “justice” is not a helpful pursuit. It is through prayer entwined with knowing and dealing responsibly with human suffering and degradation that the human person makes an extraordinary discovery: a world without God is a world without hope; and only God can provide the justice that sustains hope in the better future—the eternal life—for one and all. “God is justice and creates justice. This is our consolation and our hope. And in his justice there is also grace. This we know by turning our gaze to the crucified and risen Christ. Both these things—justice and grace—must be seen in their correct inner relationship.”
As I mentioned, Mary, the Mirror of Justice, is identified by the Holy Father as one having a critical role in our hope and redemption. As Benedict suggests, “Life is like a voyage on the sea of history, often dark and stormy, a voyage in which we watch for the stars that indicate the route. The true stars of our life are the people who have lived good lives. They are lights of hope. Certainly, Jesus Christ is the true light, the sun that has risen above all the shadows of history. But to reach him we also need lights close by—people who shine with his light and so guide us along our way. Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us?” For she is our Mirror of Justice, who leads us into our right relation with God and with one another. RJA sj
I thank those who have addressed the matter of the role of those in the presbyteral order raised in Steve’s posting.
I largely agree with Susan’s priest friend. Moreover, to confirm what he has said, we need to take stock of N. 93 in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which states:
93. A priest also, who possesses within the Church the power of Holy Orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ, (Note 81)stands for this reason at the head of the faithful people gathered together here and now, presides over their prayer, proclaims the message of salvation to them, associates the people with himself in the offering of sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Spirit to God the Father, gives his brothers and sisters the Bread of eternal life, and partakes of it with them. When he celebrates the Eucharist, therefore, he must serve God and the people with dignity and humility, and by his bearing and by the way he says the divine words he must convey to the faithful the living presence of Christ. (Italics are mine)
Note 81 refers to two important passages from the Second Vatican Council on the same issue, i.e., Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, no. 28; Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, no. 2.
Readers of and contributors to MOJ may also want to read the informative article in the current issue of America Magazine by Rev. Michael Kerper [HERE (it may be necessary to have a subscription to the magazine to read the entire article)]. While he describes his ministry in the Mass of John XXIII, I think these words of his apply with equal force to the priest who is celebrating the Eucharist in the Mass of Paul VI. These words of his are especially instructive:
The old Missal’s rubrical micromanagement made me feel like a mere machine, devoid of personality; but, I wondered, is that really so bad? I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant. When I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God?
The act of praying the Roman Canon slowly and in low voice accented my own smallness and mere instrumentality more than anything else. Plodding through the first 50 or so words of the Canon, I felt intense loneliness. As I moved along, however, I also heard the absolute silence behind me, 450 people of all ages praying, all bound mysteriously to the words I uttered and to the ritual actions I haltingly and clumsily performed. Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.
Even as I cherish this experience, I must confess that I felt awkward, stiff and not myself. Some of the rubrical requirements, like not using one’s thumbs and index fingers after the consecration except to touch the host, paralyzed me. As a style, it doesn’t really fit me (I also can’t imagine wearing lace). But as a priest, I must adapt to many styles and perform many onerous tasks. Why should this be any different? Perhaps we have here a new form of priestly asceticism: pastoral adaptation for the sake of a few.
My reluctant engagement with the Latin Mass has not undermined my own priestly spirituality, born of Vatican II. Rather, it has complemented and reinforced the council’s teaching that the priest is an instrument of Christ called to serve everyone, regardless of theological or liturgical style. Ultimately it means little whether Mass is in Latin or in the vernacular, whether I see the people praying or hear their silence behind. For sure, I have my preference, but service must always trump that.
I share Fr. Kerper’s view that as one who shoulders the duties and responsibilities of the presbyteral office—I must never forget this: it is not about me; it is about Thee!RJA sj
I am grateful that Michael posted Professor Ellen Wertheimer’s thoughts on our postings concerning the public subsidies of collegiate contraception. I had the pleasure of meeting her almost four years ago when I visited Villanova Law for a couple of days. I am also very grateful for Rick’s thoughtful response. Since I have already spent some time on commenting on this issue, I will present my agreement with Rick’s response to Professor Wertheimer.
However, there is one additional point that I would like to make on this issue. To those who would vote “yes” to repealing the law reducing public subsidies, I pose a question: will the public subsidies end with the underwriting of contraceptives for collegians? I previously indicated that I believe this would encourage more (casual) sex amongst young people: if contraceptives are free or low-cost, why not? What is there to lose? Lots, I suggest; lots. For example, what happens when the incidence of sexually transmitted disease increases if sexual activity is promoted and also increases? Who will pay for the costs associated with these additional expenses? Moreover, who will claim responsibility for the psychological damage that will likely result to young people who come to realize that premarital sex brings other burdens (such as self-objectification and objectification of the other)? What are the costs—financial, social, and individual—that will result when these concerns become manifested? Moreover, what precedents will these subsidies instigate? I can think of several, but I’ll offer a general response for the time being: if someone’s sexual gratification is to be subsidized, what should the response be to claims such as this: “I want whatever gratifies me to be subsidized too!”
If the “yeas” carry the day on the issue of collegiate contraception, will those voting in the affirmative be prepared to vote “yes” when high schoolers, junior highschoolers, and elementary schoolers want their contraception publicly subsidized, too? If any MOJ contributor or reader thinks I am getting a bit carried away on the topic, I take the opportunity to refresh their recollection about what is going on in one region of the country that is contributing to the promotion of sexual activity amongst much younger people in a public school system [HERE].RJA sj
Thanks to Michael for his posting on Professor Stephanie Coontz’s interesting but defective account of history—particularly within the Christian and western tradition of which she speaks. I have some questions about how she portrays the “state” of the 16th century, but I’ll put them aside for the present moment. I shall, however, pursue another issue of hers today. She tailors history to suit her purpose (e.g., she confuses the consent given in a Christian marriage by the husband and wife with the “couple’s wishes”), which appears in both the first and last observations she makes. She, and her legal authority, Professor Nancy Polikoff, are attempting to redefine marriage. To substantiate in part my claim, I turn to the American University law faculty profile of Professor Polikoff, which states:
For 30 years, she has been writing about and litigating cases involving lesbian and gay families. Her articles have appeared in numerous law reviews, and her history of the development of the law affecting lesbian and gay parenting appears as a chapter in J. D’Emilio, W. Turner, and U. Vaid, eds., Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy, and Civil Rights (2000). She helped develop the legal theories in support of second-parent adoption and visitation rights for legally unrecognized parents, and she was successful counsel in In re M.M.D., the 1995 case that established joint adoption for lesbian and gay couples in the District of Columbia, and Boswell v. Boswell, the 1998 Maryland case overturning restrictions on a gay noncustodial father’s visitation rights. She is currently at work on her forthcoming book, Valuing All Families, to be published by Beacon Press in 2007.
It seems that The New York Times is cooperating in their enterprise. Their tactic (Coontz and Polikoff) seems to be this: first let us forget history and then let us rewrite it the way we approve; second, let us privatize marriage so that whatever relationship someone wants they can have and call it marriage; and third, once the second point has been accepted by society because it is “private”, efforts will be pursued to institutionalize and mandate acceptance of alternative forms of “marriage.” I, for one, do not think that the Coontz-Polikoff schema is to privatize marriage. But if I am wrong in assessing their objective, I ask their pardon. However, I must ask something in return: that Professor Coontz correct her account of Christian marriage so that it will acknowledge what the Church has taught and continues to teach—that marriage is not a purely human institution, but is one established by God and protected by the Church—an institution that takes one man and one woman and brings them into a spiritual and physical union with one another because they were created for one another.RJA sj
Thanks to Michael and Rick for exploring further issues on the contraceptives-for-collegians issue.
Michael has posed a new issue. In his first posting he asked this: assuming that you want to minimize the number of abortions in the United States, how would you vote on the proposed legislation referenced in The New York Times article of November 22. From my reading of this article the legislation is designed to reinstate subsidized or “deeply discounted” contraceptive drugs available at campus health centers. The question was framed by Michael: “how would ‘you’ [I took that to mean me, and I think Rick took it to mean him] vote”. That was the question asked and answered.
Michael has now raised a new question: “whether one who neither opposes nor is (inordinately) skeptical about the use of contraceptives generally should vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’”. I would hope and pray that my earlier five points would be considered by anyone studying the proposed legislation mentioned in the Times article. But now Michael has narrowed the class of those who are neither opposed to contraceptive use nor have serious questions about their use. I take this characterization to be a class of persons who, given the conditions stipulated by Michael, desire the reinstatement of the subsidized or deeply-discounted pharmaceuticals. It is not clear if the previous assumption about wanting to minimize abortions still applies to the narrowed class. If it does not, I would imagine that advocates for contraceptives-for-collegians would be essentially concerned about maximizing availability with-a-minimum-of-fuss (and expense), period. But if the assumption still applies, as I think it should, then would not these advocates, assuming they are reasonable people, be open to considering the objections that were previously raised by Rick and I?
Michael has posed some concerns about my previous posting on this topic. However, it seems that he agrees that some of what I have had to say and proposed could dissuade some couples from engaging “in some forms of pre-marital sexual intimacy.” But then he suggests that several of my proposals may encourage them to engage in “other forms.” I am not sure what Michael’s reference to “other forms” means. I look upon the topic he has raised as asking the question in the context of collegians who are having sex and want someone to pay for their contraception—regardless of the issue of whether they want pregnancies and abortions to be reduced.
By saying “yes” to the several questions Michael has raised, a person is encouraging collegians to engage in sex, regardless of the “form.” Should collegiate administrators, should legislators participate in this encouragement? My answer is, was, and will be: no. Moreover, if we are discussing what legislators and collegiate administrators should be doing, might we, as citizens and as legal educators, encourage them to discourage collegians from continuing to accept the perilous myth that pre-marital sex (regardless of the “form”) is okay? I think that voting “no” is a good step in the right direction whereas voting “yes” is a big step in the wrong direction.RJA sj
Thanks to Michael and Rick for examining the question about whether colleges and universities should have reinstated the previous subsidization levels of costs associated with providing birth control pharmaceuticals. Rick has voted “no.” I join him. There are a number of reasons for this, several immediate ones that I would like to offer today.
First of all, we need to consider whether these chemicals have other effects on the human body besides reducing the likelihood of pregnancy after sexual intercourse? These drugs do affect a woman’s physiology and alter her body chemistry. Is this a good thing to pursue knowing that there are other important health considerations of which we need to take account? I do not believe so. Therefore, why should we encourage this by making available free or inexpensive chemicals that can and do harm or alter normal body functions of the female human being?
Second, does this change of policy also provide implicit consent of society to young people to be sexually active by suggesting that they will be immune from any adverse consequences of sexual activity? Of course it does. A critic of my position on this point could argue that sexual mores have changed in the last several decades. My response begins with the question: why? But I hasten to add that I would like to answer my own question by suggesting that our society has deceived itself, with the discovery of the “pill” and other chemical contraceptives, into thinking that these hormonal cocktails permit people to do what they “feel” like doing without having to worry about consequences. Of course, the only consequence that many think of is how to avoid pregnancy. And if fear of this consequence has been almost eliminated, why worry about anything else? But there are other important considerations that must also be taken into account as well. For example: these drugs do not combat sexually transmitted diseases; they do not foster commitment; they do not enhance the stability of marriage; they do not advance the gift of life or the gift of self or the gift of love. In short, the promotion of these chemicals inevitably leads young people into objectifying themselves and one another.
Third, does the cheap or free administration of these drugs cultivate young people into becoming more virtuous in their temperance or forbearance? No, they do not. In fact, it appears that once they learn how to be unrestrained in their sexual activity, will they not be encouraged to submit to whatever other appetites that may come their way? I think so.
Fourth, we need to consider what the change in this policy would do to the educational process in general. I submit that it would teach young people more about how to avoid responsibility rather than cultivate it. I suppose a critic of mine might argue that with affordable pharmaceuticals that are designed to avoid pregnancy, young people will be more responsible on sexual matters. Really? This self-deception needs to be recognized for what it is.
A fifth reason I’d like to present at this stage is based on the assumption that these drugs will decrease “unwanted pregnancies.” But what happens when the pharmaceutical fails or when someone takes a wrong dose or when someone misuses the prescription? With sexual activity presumably on the increase, can we conclude that “unwanted pregnancies” will really decrease? Again, I suggest that the desired answer of “yes” will not automatically follow.
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
Yesterday, November 15, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly adopted a draft resolution, L 29, Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty [Download l_29.pdf ]. The draft resolution will now be forwarded to the General Assembly for adoption. Usually, but not always, the success (or failure) of the draft resolution in the Committee is a good indicator of what the GA will do. Normally, a draft resolution that fails in Committee will not be able to advance to the GA, but there have been exceptions. The GA will begin to consider the resolutions adopted by the Committees in late November and continue throughout December. Seventeen attempts were made to amend the draft resolution, but each effort to amend failed. The final vote [Download l29_voting_sheet.pdf ] adopting the draft resolution was: 99 in favor (designated “Y”); 55 in opposition (designated “N”); 33 abstaining (designated “A”). Those States with neither a Y, N, or A before their name either were not present, or if present, did not activate their voting machine during the vote.Assuming that the GA adopts this draft resolution, it will revisit the subject next year in the subsequent General Assembly.RJA sj
Thanks to Rick for his postings on the Stuntz-Breen discussion. I wonder if the approach taken HERE toward the end of this previous posting would be one reasonable path to establish a pro-life majority? RJA sj
