Parsing the 5/10 statement, my question is, what do the Catholic members of Congress mean when they say “pro-choice?” Is it the same thing as what the Bishops mean?
Here is their re-iteration of the Statement of Principles:
“Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission. As we said in our Statement of Principles, ‘We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion – we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term.’ That is precisely what some of us are doing with our initiative ‘The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act’ – which includes policies that promote alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, improve access to children’s healthcare and child care, as well as encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.”
That strikes me as a deeply “pro-life” statement.
Granted there are some (although I think few) people who do in some sense “celebrate” abortion as a ticket to women’s “freedom” and full participation in society. But I think that when many Catholics, including many Catholic lawmakers, describe themselves as “pro-choice” they are not “celebrating” abortion, but are expressing that that having a hard time envisioning the practical implications of making abortion illegal.
I wonder if we might step back from the pro-life and pro-choice labels, and starting from the Statement of Principles above, focus on those really hard questions of what it means to concretely build a culture of life.
As many of you know, I’m on the record with a critique of how current rhetoric fails to acknowledge that abortion is a profound human and moral tragedy.
I think it’s important that Kennedy’s opinion in Carhart included this graphic testimony from a nurse who had described the “procedure” in these frank terms:
“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... . The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. " 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
Abortion is the death of a baby, and as we wrestle with the policy implications, I believe we need to have that always before us.
So I agree that the last paragraph in the Catholic Members statement:
“The fact is that religious sanction in the political arena directly conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about the role and responsibility of democratic representatives in a pluralistic America - it also clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Such notions offend the very nature of the American experiment and do a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done.”
is deeply problematic—because, as the Bishops said, of course it’s appropriate for the Church to speak out against the destruction of innocent children.
But looking at the statement as a whole, in light of the Statement of Principles, I wonder if we might look between the lines and give this a generous read. Could it be that their core concern is that anyone who asks those deeply difficult practical questions—what exactly should we do about this problem in our society—finds themselves misunderstood and labeled?
We undoubtedly need clear and courageous statements that abortion is a grave moral and social evil. But we also need careful and thoughtful reflection about the complex legal and policy choices that will practically and effectively reduce abortion in our society. Currently these two dimensions of the political conversation appear as opposite ends of the spectrum with advocates on either side in a mutually suspicious stand-off.
The Statement of Principles was a step in the right direction. Why can’t we go the extra mile in reaching out—and use that as a springboard to create relationships of trust in which Catholics with differing views might begin to see themselves as potential partners in the same project? I think that those relationships of trust will then serve as the most promising vehicle for fostering a more complex and complete understanding of the role of religion in a democracy, and particularly as it might inform the decisions of elected officials.
Amy
Books & Culture has a fascinating interview with Brad Wilcox, a sociology prof at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the (progressive) New America Foundation. Read the whole thing; here's an excerpt:
World population is still increasing by some 77 million annually. That's equivalent to adding a whole new country the size of Egypt every year. Yet here is a curious fact few people know: the number of children under 5 in the world is actually smaller than in 1990.
How can this be? Mostly it is because of the massive global decline in birthrates. Now, in literally every region outside of sub-Saharan Africa, the average woman no longer bears enough children to replace the population. For now, world population continues to grow, though at a slower and slower rate, primarily because of the enormous increase in the numbers of elderly people. But many countries, such as Russia and Japan, are already shrinking in absolute size, and on current trends, global depopulation will occur within the lifetime of today's young adults.
Michael Gerson challenges the coherence of Rudy Giuliani's stance on abortion:
Why does Giuliani "hate" abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin. . . .
A number of pro-choice positions can be held consistently. It is possible to believe that human worth develops gradually and that the early fetus is merely a clump of cells. It is possible to accept professor Peter Singer's teaching that human worth arrives only with self-conscious rationality, opening up disturbing new possibilities of infanticide.
But Giuliani has chosen an option that is not an option -- a belief that unborn life deserves our sympathy but does not deserve rights or justice. This view is likely to dog him in the primary process, not only because it is pro-choice but because it is incoherent.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
On May 10, eighteen Members of Congress expressed their dissatisfaction with Pope Benedict’s statement about abortion and the responsibility of Catholics who hold public office. [HERE] On last Friday, May 18, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops exercised their pastoral office and replied to these public office holders. [HERE] I am certain that there will be ongoing development of this question and related issues. In the meantime, let us pray for our brothers and sisters who do not understand very well their responsibilities as Catholics who also hold prominent positions in government office. Let us also pray that our bishops will continue to exercise their pastoral duties with courage, wisdom, and clarity. RJA sj
I highly recommend Andy Koppelman's essay, Does Obscenity Cause Moral Harm?, which was published a couple of years ago in the Columbia Law Review. Koppelman concludes that moral harm is real and that pornography can cause it, but that "these premises do not entail that there should be censorship." He concludes:
The status of "moral harm" is somewhat analogous to the constitutional status of "religion." The state can recognize it and try to take account of it -- at a very high level of abstraction. What it cannot do is try to make fine distinctions among instances of it. That is beyond its competence. And the idea of state incompetence is as important in free speech doctrine as it is in religion clause doctrine. It has particular bite here. Just as government should not be able to decide for us the path to salvation, so it should not be able to decide for us what our sexual fantasies should be.
This is a rich and provocative essay, and I'm interested in others' reactions. From the perspective of Catholic legal theory, does our opposition to state regulation of religion arise from the state's incompetence, or from a more affirmative vision of human freedom? Or are the two invariably linked -- i.e., is the regulation of religion a threat to human freedom only because of the state's incompetence? (If the state was somehow deemed competent in religious matters, wouldn't we still favor individual religious liberty?) Does the censorship of pornography pose the same threat to human freedom as the regulation of religion does, or are we more willing than Koppelman is to let the state distinguish among types of human freedom?
