"Yes, abortion is killing. But it's the lesser evil."
That's the tiltle of an op-ed by Antonia Senior that was published in the Times of London on June 30, 2010. The essay is causing a stir. See this response by Albert Mohler. I haven't found a good link to Senior's essay.
She begins the essay by explaining that she was in the Tower of London and encountered an interactive display that asks visitors whether they would die for a cause. After some reflection, Senior answers that the cause for which she would stake her life is the cause of women's liberation, and for Senior, that includes the right to abortion.
Senior acknowledges that an abortion involves the taking of a life. But she concludes that that realization doesn't change the calculus. She states: "you can't separate women's rights from their right to fertility control. The single biggest factor in women's liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology." She concludes her essay with these words--"As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."
I wish that Senior had heard the fine talk that Erika Bachiochi (see) gave on pro-life feminism at the recent annual conference of University Faculty for Life.
The annual meeting/conference of University Faculty for Life (UFL) is this weekend (June 4-5, 2010) at Catholic U. Information about the conference is available on the UFL website. Here. The speakers include Hadley Arkes, Tom Cavanaugh, Richard Doerflinger, Jason Eberl, John Keown, Father James Schall S. J., Msgr. Robert Sokowloski, David Solomon, and Elizabeth Kirk. There are a few law professors on the program--Mark Rienzi (CUA), Lucia Silecchia (CUA), Richard Esenberg (Marquette), and Caroline Newcomb (Southwestern).
The conference has been organized by Frank Beckwith and Father Kurt Pritzl O. P. and supported by a generous grant from Our Sunday Visitor.
The circumstances in Arizona do seem quite compelling. I don't have a good grasp of the facts. I have, however, seen respected commentators raise questions about whether the abortion was in fact necessary to save the life of the mother. (See the comment by John Hass here.) But even assuming that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, I think Bishop Olmstead was correct to defend the moral principle involved--that one may not directly take the life of an innocent human being.
In the context of assisted suicide, I wrote something a few years ago that addresses this same point. The principle (noted above) holds even if the actor has a good motive. "The basic idea is that one cannot do evil that good may come from it. So, it has never been regarded as permissible to kill an innocent human person for some good reason (to see their suffering--and that of their loved ones--come to an end; for research purposes; or to prevent their sizeable estate from being squandered on futile medical expenses). The acceptance of exceptions--even supposedly narrow ones--is devastating. As John Finnis has stated: 'If appropriate circumstances and good intention can sometimes justify choosing to kill an innocent, the lives of each of us depend on everyone judging, at every moment, that in the circumstances no greater good would be achieved, or greater evil avoided. by killing us....Once itis is allowed that a 'proportionate reason' can justify choosing to kill an innocent person, the genie is out of the bottle and exceptions cannot be contained.'" See.
With all the discussion about conscience, I thought I'd mention an upcoming conference entitled "The Future of Rights of Conscience in Health Care: Legal and Ethical Perspectives." The conference, which is co-sponsored by University Faculty for Life, Ave Maria School of Law, and BYU Law School, will be held on February 26, 2010 at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
The speakers will be Armand Antommaria, Tom Cavanaugh, Rebecca Dresser, Cole Durham, Clarke Forsythe, Jill Morrison, Richard Myers, Edmund Pellegrino, Rob Vischer, Lynn Wardle, and Robin Fretwell Wilson. The papers will be published in the Ave Maria Law Review. More information about the conference is available at this link. Here.
Here is a short piece by moral theologian Mark Latkovic on mental reservation. Here. This is an issue that deserves more attention. The practice of mental reservation is widespread and probably explains why one encounters the manipulative use of language so often. People rely on the idea of mental reservation to mislead, while still thinking of themselves as truth-tellers. As Latkovic explains, it is important that we honor the good of truth.
I think Father Kevin Flannery's article on capital punishment is well worth reading. Here. He discusses problems with the explantion of the teaching on capital punishment in Evangelium Vitae and in the Catechism. In particular, he explains the errors in discussing capital punishment as analogous to personal self-defense and as resting on the principle of double effect.
The Catholic Social Science Review published a very interesting symposium (here, see volume 9 (2004)) on Robert Kraynak's book Christian Faith and Modern Democracy. That book and the symposium take up some of the questions raised by Rob in his recent post.
Here is an effort to respond to Susan's good question about what I had in mind with my reference to the websites of what I take to be two very different religious communities. I should haven't taken the lazy way out.
Here is the mission/vision of the IHM Sisters--"Urged by the love of God, we choose to work with others to build a culture of peace and right relationship among ourselves, with the Church and with the whole Earth community. The IHM community envisions and is committed to bringing about the dream of God on planet Earth through respect for, nurturing of and promoting the liberation and well-being of all persons and all of nature as God's good creation."
Here is a portion of the Mission of the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist--"By living this strong sacramental and liturgical prayer life, we hope to:
Attract and form women to be faithful religious serving the Church for the good of souls, especially through the total gift of themselves as spiritual mothers and brides of Christ.
Establish and support Catholic schools steeped in the rich culture of the Catholic faith to nourish the spiritual formation of youth, their families and society.
Promote the culture of life and respect for the dignity of each person through apostolic work.
Respond to the needs of the Church arising in the third millennium through teaching, catechesis and evangelization."
In my view, the IHM site seems more about the sustainability of planet Earth than about the Gospel, which is not to say that environmental issues are not at all relevant to Catholics. It may be that I am overly concerned about the IHM site's references to Jungian spirituality and drum therapy but it seems to me that the site indicates a community that has moved "beyond Jesus." It may be that I am being unfair to the IHM community. As I mentioned, the IHM sisters I met in Monroe were inspirational. I received an email from a reader who spoke in very moving terms about the faith and devotion of IHM sisters who teach at a school in Maryland. My concern is that the community doesn't seem to be sustaining itself. I think that is because there isn't enough of an emphasis on community life and Eucharistic Adoration, and being a bride of Christ.
I'll try to follow up with more of an explanation.
I thought I'd make a quick comment about Michael P.'s recent post. I think Cathlics owe a debt of gratitude to the communities of sisters who helped build the Church. I was taught by Ursuline Sisters and I am grateful to them for their lives of sacrifice and witness. But it is clear that there are challenges for communities of religious sisters in the West and also signs of tremendous hope. These points can be illustrated by looking at the websites of the IHM Sisters, here, and of the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, here. The IHM Sisters, which is Sister Schneiders' community, are based in Monroe, Michigan. I have heard it said that the Monroe convent is the largest in the world although I am not sure about that. The convent is a grand structure that is now the home of approximately 200 sisters with the median age of 84. I have been there on a retreat and the sisters are inspiring. But there is a sadness there because it is seems likely that the community will quietly go out of existence in the not too distant future.
The Sister of Mary are based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The community has only been in existence for a dozen years. The community began with 4 sisters and there are now over 80 sisters. I believe that the median age is about 24. I know the Sisters of Mary quite well and the community is full of dynamism and joy. It is hard to meet this community without feeling a sense of great optimism and hope.
A quick perusal of the websites reveals, I think, why the Vatican thought it necessary to examine religious life in the US. I understand that the head of the Vatican team is Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo who is friend of mine. Bishop Blair is a holy priest and a careful thinker who will, I am confident, fairly discharge his responsibilities.
