Like Rob, I have doubts about whether our response to 9/11 reflects a renewed "moralization," sacrifical commitment, and sense of national purpose that might be turned to combat the evils of abortion. But my skepticism has less to do with the Iraq/antiterrorism effort itself -- which has indeed involved sacrifices by many brave soldiers and their families -- than with the fact that so little sacrifice has been asked of the rest of us in pursuit of this effort. The fundamental weakness that has exposed us to Islamic terrorism is our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, yet the administration has done little to encourage conservation, presumably because that would require sacrifice from tens of millions of gas-guzzling Americans, not just from the small percentage who are military members and their families. The administration has handled the cost of the war not by rerversing some of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, who (and I include myself) could afford to pay more taxes, but rather by running up a large deficit that is likely to be passed onto future generations. Let's criticize the Democrats too to the extent they oppose any efforts, even means-testing, to reform Social Security in order to put it on sounder footing for future generations. But granting the Democrats' sins, I still don't think that the administration has really given us a solid sense of national purpose: it hasn't expended the political capital to persuade the majority of Americans that the war on terror is a national effort for which they as individuals ought to sacrifice.
Turning to abortion, there is a new plan on the table now to mobilize the resources of American civil society in a national campaign to combat abortion. It's the "95-10" initiative proposed by Democrats for Life of America, which aims to "reduce the number of abortions in America by 95 percent in the next 10 years." The package includes severaI components, but among them are funding programs to promote adoption, to help crisis pregancy centers, and to encourage daycare centers on college campuses. The package thereby joins increases in some government safety-net programs (like Special Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children) with efforts to support private community-based agencies that are out there trying to provide alternatives to abortion. There are also restrictions on abortion such as right-to-know and parental-notification provisions.
Such a package of proposals will run into opposition, no doubt, not only from those on the left who don't want to do anything to discourage abortion, but also from those on the right who don't want government to spend any more money to help those in need. But doesn't a proposal like this reflect what Bottum hopes for: a "sense of national purpose" and a "will to halt [or at least significantly reduce] the slaughter of a million unborn children a year"? Yes, the proposal leaves out criminalization of abortion (which would still be struck down in the courts now); but it does include several of the restrictions (noted above) that are likely to survive judicial review. Yes, in theory one can fight abortion simply by means of restrictions without doing anything to help or provide alternatives to pregnant women in difficult circumstances: but does anyone really support that kind of policy? And yes, one can welcome alternatives to abortion without supporting them through government funding: one could rely on wholly privately-funded initiatives and the renewed moral sense of individuals. But only if America as a nation encourages those initiatives will the effort reflect the "sense of national purpose" that Bottum hearkens for and that he finds in our military and democracy-building efforts in Iraq (which, needless to say, are government programs on a big scale). Note again that much of the 95-10 initiative gives weight to considerations of subsidiarity by relying on the government funding private, community-based providers, not on the government itself providing the services.
But this brings me back to my worry about our ability to sacrifice. Abortion without government restriction has become pervasive in our society in large part because the alternatives appear to require people to make significant sacrifices: for the woman, to bear the child and put on hold other important plans in her life, and for taxpayers, to commit the resources to care for and provide alternatives for millions of children who would otherwise be aborted. A real war against abortion (one that didn't just lay all the burden on pregnant women) would require sacrifices from large numbers of Americans, in a way that the war on terror as pursued to date has not. Because the war on terror has as pursued has not accustomed most of us to any sacrifices, I have doubts about Bottum's claim that it has laid a groundwork for national efforts against abortion. The impetus, I think and hope, will have to come from elsewhere.
Tom B.
From the May 30 Washington Post:
Some Catholic theologians are encouraging married couples to adopt unwanted embryos from fertility clinics. Others vehemently oppose the idea, calling it a grave violation of the principle that procreation should occur naturally.
The Vatican has not yet taken a stand. But if Pope Benedict XVI rules against embryo adoption, as some doctrinal conservatives expect, it could create a fissure between Catholics and evangelical Protestants, who have enthusiastically promoted embryo adoption and enlisted the White House's support for it.
Any thoughts from co-bloggers or readers on whether embryo adoption would (as one theological critic puts it) "make Catholics complicit in test-tube fertilizations, which the church considers illicit"? Or is it (as a theological supporter puts it) a justifiable act of "reaching out to another human being, albeit in an embryonic state, in the only way that that little being can be helped"?
Tom B.
The leading evangelical magazine has a June 2005 editorial "We are Brothers":
Why the sudden change [from hostility to cooperation between evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics]? John Paul II offered a winsome face of Christianity to the world and leaves behind a Roman Catholic Church firmly opposed to moral relativism. He reinforced the Second Vatican Council's commitment to seek renewal in the sources of classic Christianity—Scripture and the church fathers. And while significant differences remain—examples include ecclesiastical authority, the means of grace, and the relationship of justification to sanctification—evangelicals can confidently engage a Catholic Church committed to fundamental Christian truths. . . .
Numerous factors converged to create favorable conditions for this achievement. Having already fought together to defeat communism, Protestants and Catholics now turned inward to combat the decadence of secularism. Abortion became a potent rallying point. Finding enemies in their own respective camps, kindred spirits reached across the theological front to arrange new alliances.
Unlike so much mid-20th-century ecumenism, recent Catholic-evangelical efforts acknowledge the lingering hurdles. The motto of John Paul II's papacy—Totus Tuus (Totally Yours)—highlights his disturbing embrace of Marian devotion. Evangelicals and Catholics have made little progress on the central issue of ecclesiology, especially in areas of papal authority and infallibility, notions repugnant to most Protestants. Megachurches swell their numbers significantly from the ranks of nominal Catholics. They will continue to do so absent concerted re-evangelization efforts from the Catholic leadership.
Tom B.
