In the hope that my words might help to clarify the nature and dimensions of the dispute playing itself out on the Mirror of Justice, let me offer a parable about politics and political relationships that might help us understand why principled passions may flare and to think about how to define the appropriate boundaries of political positions and affiliations that all faithful Catholics might recognize.
There once were three professing Catholic candidates running for mayor of a city:
Candidate A campaigned on an anti-pornography platform, pledging to devote her tenure as mayor to ridding the city of adult book and video stores.
The other two candidates both stated that they were firmly opposed to censorship on freedom of speech grounds and thus would not use the power of city government to close adult establishments.
Candidate B insisted that he was personally offended by pornography and fully accepted Church teaching on the harms of pornography, but explained that he had concluded that direct censorship was too dangerous for a free society.
Candidate C, while occasionally saying that he too was offended by pornography, was nonetheless willing to speak at the adult film convention, knowingly accepted campaign contributions from the pornography industry, hosted a reception for a well-known pornographer, and opposed even limited regulations on pornography (such as those designed to protect children against inadvertent access to adult material).
Faithful Catholics in that city were divided on how to respond to two of the candidates.
Some argued that the only justifiable position for Catholics was to adamantly resist the evil of pornography. They contended that a good Catholic should, even perhaps must, support Candidate A.
Other Catholics reasoned that, while they may be troubled by Candidate B’s unwillingness to take on the scourge of pornography, his position on other important issues facing the community made him a preferable choice to Candidate A.
A few Catholics even believed that, unlike other evils posing such grave harm as abortion or racism, Church teaching did not demand a single legal answer to every question about pornography. These Catholics concluded that Candidate B’s position was not only tolerable, was not only outweighed by his commendable views on other important issues, but was acceptable on its own merits. (As full disclosure here, I myself have been something of a free speech absolutist in the past, falling into what would be Candidate B’s camp on this issue. Although more troubled about aspects of that position today, I have not yet thought through any change to my longstanding position.)
But Catholics in that city were not without common ground. Everyone agreed that Candidate C was unacceptable. Candidate C’s conduct in knowingly affiliating with purveyors of pornography was shocking and outrageous. By embracing the pornography industry through speaking engagements, campaign contributions, and personal contacts, as well as taking extreme positions on the pornography question, Candidate C had moved beyond the pale and could no longer make any legitimate claim on the support of Catholics concerned for the common good of that society. Surely, all could agree, a professing Catholic who was not merely reluctant to use the force of law to control the dehumanizing and obscene depictions of pornography, but who actually embraced those engaged in production of that filth had thereby disqualified himself from public office.
Now I hasten to acknowledge that the Catholic supporters of Governor Sibelius’s nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services would insist that her political conduct and affiliations with respect to the subject of abortion (and abortionists) are not factually parallel to and thus are not captured by the parable I have told. But that should be the crux of the debate, then, shouldn’t it?
Has Governor Sibelius lent her voice as a speaker at abortion industry events? Has she knowingly accepted (and even solicited) campaign funds, not merely from pro-choice political groups, but from abortionists or abortion industry funds? Is she fairly and morally held accountable for the hosting of a reception, together with apparently jovial photo sessions, for a man who is the most notorious late-term abortionist (nothing short of infanticide) in the nation?
If we were able to come to a point of agreement on what the facts are (and perhaps we cannot), wouldn’t we have to come to common point of evaluation of the moral significance of those facts? And, if not, then what remains of the Catholic witness for the sanctity of human life?
Greg Sisk
John Breen says. in his "Sebelius, Michael Perry, and Setting the Record Straight" post (here) that I "very incompletely report[ed] . . . an e-mail exchange between myself and a law
professor who is a regular reader of MOJ – a person who has asked to
remain anonymous." What I reported--very completely reported--was the initial e-mail from the professor, whom we shall call P, which P sent to John; P cc.'ed me. John could have posted P's e-mail message to him and then posted his response. He chose not to. So, with P's permission, I posted P's e-mail to John. Now, John complains that I did not also post John's response to P's e-mail. But, of course, John can post his own messages here. John is an MOJ blogger. John doesn't need me to post his response. And when I leave it up to John to post his own response here, he criticizes me for not posting it. Gimme a break, John.
My friend and co-clerk (with Chief Justice Rehnquist), Ted Cruz, is running for Attorney General (he served for several years as the state's Solicitor General), as a Republican, in Texas. Ted is -- no surprise, for a Republican running in Texas -- a conservative, and he and I have not always seen eye-to-eye on policy matters (including capital punishment. MOJ readers in Texas should know, though, that -- besides being a stalwart friend and a prince among men -- Ted is solid as a rock, and inspiringly passionate, when it comes to school choice and education reform. In fact, the first conference I ever organized I organized with Ted. It was a big event, in Ohio, which dealt with the social-justice and religious-freedom aspects of the school-choice issue. To have such a committed advocate, on such an important matter, in the AG's office, in one of the largest states, would be a very good thing.
The exchange which Michael P. very incompletely reports was an e-mail exchange between myself and a law professor who is a regular reader of MOJ – a person who has asked to remain anonymous. The reader began the exchange by claiming that my “posting of pictures of Sebelius and Tiller is very misleading.” She continues:
Tiller won the reception after bidding the most for it at a silent auction sponsored by the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Sebelius donated her time to help the caucus raise money, something she said she had done before. The silent auction was part of the group's annual Torch Dinner. Sebelius had no control over who won the auction or who attended. She didn't even pay for the reception that was paid for by the Women's Political Caucus.
How the reader comes by these alleged facts (i.e. that the reception was an auction item that the Governor agreed to donate to the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus’ Torch Dinner silent auction, and that the Governor did not pay for the reception) is not clear since she cites no source by which one could verify her assertions. Still, that a political fund-raising auction item was the origin of the event seems plausible enough. At the same time, the reader’s claim that Sebelius did not pay for the reception is open to serious question since the photographs of the receipts for the reception (available via the link in my original post) would suggest otherwise – a point I raised in my e-mail response. I would add that, in my experience (and I suspect the experience of most people), those who donate items for fund-raising auctions actually donate something. If the item is a dinner or a cocktail reception, the donor supplies the food and drink, not the person who purchases the item or the auction sponsor.
Ultimately, however, whether Sebelius paid for the event personally or her office paid for it, or it was paid for by the auction winner or the auction sponsor is beside the point. The point is that a person is known by the company she keeps, and the company Gov. Sebelius keeps happens to include a notorious late-term abortionist – someone who, as Michael Scaperlanda notes, has given money to Sebelius directly and through his PAC. While a public figure may not agree with every opinion or form of conduct of every individual with whom he or she is photographed, Tiller and his work are a known quantity. Sebelius and Tiller aren’t strangers to one another. She knows what Tiller does and she has done nothing over the years to disassociate herself from the man and his work. Indeed, she has adamantly supported the very policies Tiller has sought to have enshrined in law.
The reader, however, seems to think that Sebelius is a victim of happenstance and contract law. For her, Sebelius had no hand in the fact that Tiller ended up at the Governor’s Mansion sipping cocktails. According to the reader:
[Sebelius] was obliged to attend the event since she donated "hosting a reception" as a service to be auctioned off by the Women's Political Caucus. Once a donation is made it is usually irrevocable and donees don't get to impose conditions after the donation has been made. Tiller and the Women's Political Caucus relied on her promise to deliver the promised service and could have sued her for specific performance or damages if she failed to perform. The implication of your post is that SHE PICKED Tiller and his staff to be her guests and that by choosing them as guests she was endorsing their activities which isn't consistent with the facts.
I find it difficult to believe that a politician could not politely excuse herself from such a personal appearance if she found the company politically unacceptable. In an e-mail, I wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, if the KKK had the winning bid at the silent auction (or, I suppose more correctly, given the sponsor, the Women's Auxiliary of the KKK) she would have been contractually obligated to attend? -- and hand out hugs and pose for pictures? -- or were they a bonus that she begrudgingly bestowed upon the highest bidder? Do you mean to suggest that she could not have gracefully bowed out of attending the function at the Governor's Mansion and still permitted use of the facilities, the way that politicians do at events like this everyday?
For the reader, however, contract law wins out over all:
Tiller could have refused to pay the amount he bid for a reception hosted by Sebelius if she refused to show up and that the Women's Political Caucus could have sued her for the loss of these funds. Her presence was the key part of the donation on which he was bidding. He wasn't bidding for a reception at the governor's mansion but a reception with the governor. As I noted before, donors like Sebelius can't put conditions on a donation after it has been given.
In her desire to exonerate Sebelius from the radical pro-choice record she has amassed and the relationships that have accompanied this record, the reader fails to see how Sebelius did in effect “put conditions” on the auction item she purportedly donated. Indeed, she fails to see how Sebelius did have a hand in selecting the individuals who would submit the winning bid and so attend the Governor’s Mansion reception.
The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus only endorses political candidates who are “pro-choice.” Indeed, the “choice” issue is the only issue listed by name in the organization’s qualifications for endorsement. So, what Sebelius could be certain of is that – whoever aspired to be her guest at the Governor’s Mansion, whoever submitted the winning bid at the silent auction – that person or group would be “pro-choice.” Thus, although the reader claims that Gov. Sebelius “had no control over who won the auction or who attended,” Sebelius had substantial control who would win simply by agreeing to host an event on behalf of the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Notwithstanding the reader’s assertion to the contrary, in effect, Sebelius did “have control” over who would win the auction. In donating the reception to the organization she chose, Sebelius was assured that one “condition” would be satisfied, namely, that the winner would be committed to the abortion license. Thus, the basic premise upon which the reader’s entire argument is based is demonstrably false. If she (or Michael P.) has any reason to think otherwise I’d be delighted to hear what it is.
Finally, the supposition (which sometimes takes the form of an assertion) that runs throughout the reader’s e-mails is that Sebelius was somehow opposed to Tiller and the deadly work he performs in his clinics. For the reader, the smiles and good cheer evident in the photographs of the reception hide an aversion that Sebelius secretly holds for the work that Tiller performs. For the reader:
[t]he fact that [Sebelius] is acting civil towards Tiller and his associates in the pictures doesn't signify anything. Politicians frequently act polite to people that they loathe. Look at John McCain's courting of people like Falwell and Hagee from the Christian Right, whom he considered to be neither Christian nor right.
The problem with the reader’s comments here are threefold. First, Sebelius’ interaction with Tiller goes beyond mere civility – it is a relationship that predates her time as Governor. Second, it is not as if Sebelius must some how hold her nose while she stands next to a random group of strangers. On the contrary, these are allies with whom she shares a deep political affinity – the legal protection of abortion in its most extravagant form. Third, unlike John McCain’s rather swift denunciation of Rev. Hagee, Sebelius has done nothing to disassociate herself from Tiller.
I made this point in one portion of an e-mail I sent to the reader, a portion to which she never responded.
You say that Sebelius doesn't endorse Tiller's activities. What evidence do you have for this other than her vacuous and self-serving claim that she is "pro-life"? On the contrary there, is every indication that she supports precisely the kind of gruesome actions that take place at Tiller's clinic, if not as a moral matter certainly as a legal one -- a point convincingly demonstrated by Michael Scaperlanda's post. And as Secretary of HHS, a[n] official legal position, intimately connected to shaping the law, it is her legal views that matter most. Sadly, these views are nothing short of atrocious, and no amount of fabrication will make them otherwise. To ignore this and to attempt to spin the facts so as to characterize Sebelius as genuinely pro-life is what is truly misleading.
I have received several emails since posting Sebelius, the Group of 26, and Orwell’s America yesterday. About half were extremely positive and appreciative. The other half, including one from an MOJ blogger and another from one member of the Group of 26, were, shall we say, distinctively less positive. And, I must say that I am extremely frustrated in the level of discourse (and lack of argument) by those who disliked my post. One responder simply said that my post “disgusted” him. Another suggested that I must have been motivated by anger/outrage “to cross the line by accusing [the Group of 26] of wanting to turn the pro-life movement into a pro-abortion-rights movement – and as much as saying that they are lying (about Sebelius) in their effort to do so.” Another said, “I am not likely to be swayed by the evaluation of one of the most unenlightened and thoroughly unpastoral bishops I have ever encountered.” That person also said that I was full of “judgmental crap offered from the Olympus of moral certitude.”
What is missing from all of these emails is even the attempt at refuting my (and Archbishop Naumann’s) accusations. In short, name calling substitutes for reasoned argument in these emails.
I accuse the Group of 26 of engaging in making a material misrepresentation (the less polite word is, as one reader pointed out, “lying”). The material misrepresentation is partly by omission – the Group of 26 tells us how Sebelius is good at reducing abortion but they fail to tell us about her opposition to even modest abortion regulations. The Archbishop goes further, suggesting, I think accurately, that the Group of 26 is engaged in an affirmative misrepresentation when they claim that "She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief." If I am wrong in my judgment – if I am wrong in my accusation, please let me know. If you disagree with my assessment, please resist the temptation to resort to name calling and resort to good old fashioned argument instead.
I also accuse the Group of 26 of engaging in preemptive name calling by accusing her opponents of demagoguery. They say “we also reject the tactics of those who would use Gov. Sebelius’ faith to attack her. As Catholics, we find such partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive.” This is a very convenient rhetorical strategy, which dismisses an opponents arguments before they can even be presented. If I am wrong in my judgment – if I am wrong in my accusation, please let me know. If you disagree with my assessment, please resist the temptation to resort to name calling and resort to good old fashioned argument instead.
[I quote:]
"[In] Michael S.'s most recent posting on the Greater Kansas City Women's
Political Causus, he mischaracterizes the organization. Gov. Sebelius was
supporting an organization whose primary purpose is to support candidates that
advance women's rights and opportunities. The following is taken directly from
the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus:
'The purpose of the organization is:
- To support candidates, female or male, who support public policies that
advance women's rights and opportunities and who will employ women in
decision-making roles in their campaigns and on their office staffs; and
- To educate women for fuller participation in the political system;
- To encourage women whose actions are consistent with the furtherance of
women's rights to seek elective and appointive positions at all levels of
government
- To promote laws that ensure gender equality'
Being pro-choice is one of a long list of factors that that the Greater
Kansas City Women's Political Caucus uses to determine which candidates to
endorse but it is NOT the only one. Under Michael S.'s reasoning Gov. Sebelius
couldn't possibly be pro-life and still donate time to help the Democratic Party
raise funds because its platform endorses a pro-choice position. This reasoning
would reduce Catholics to single issue voters and would force Catholics into
either supporting the Republican Party or not voting at all. This is clearly
not the view espoused by the majority of the American bishops in Faithful
Citizenship.
By the way, being pro-choice is not the same thing as endorsing Dr.
Tiller's actions.
In fact, the t-shirt that Gov. Sebelius was holding listed three Democratic
candidates - her, Lt. Gov. Parkinson, and Atty Gen. Morrison. Morrison brought
Tiller up on 15 counts of violating Kansas's laws governing late term abortions
that require an independent second opinion from another doctor that the late
term abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Morrison resigned in
a political scandal under accusations of sexual harrassment. The Atty. General
that Gov. Sebelius appointed to replace Morrison has continued to prosecute Dr.
Tiller for 19 counts of violating Kansas's abortion laws. These are hardly the
actions of people who enthusiastically support Tiller's activities."
Matt Bowman, an attorney in DC, writes:
"I would like to thank you for your forthright discussion about the Sebelius Catholics at MOJ. I know it must not be easy having to be so blunt with your colleagues, but I agree with you and Archbishop Naumann that the actions of the Catholic United 26 have gone to an unprecedented level. Where they once made an argument for basically reluctant, proportionate voting strategy, they now are literally attempting to redefine what it means to live and act as a Catholic pro-lifer, so that it means living and acting like as a pro-abortion rights activist within the highest levels of the abortion industry. They are exceeding the Mario Cuomos of the past, who at least claimed that they were justified in parting with their faith beliefs. They are even different than the Maguires and Drinans, who admitted they were promoting a change in Church teaching. These academics wish to change what it means to be a Catholic pro-life citizen into the opposite of what the Church and all the bishops say it means, even to the point of vigorously protecting abortion practitioners themselves. And they seek the change while publicly claiming that it is not a change but that they actually represent the authentically Catholic pro-life view, so that their message will be more effective as cognitive interference to regular Catholics and propaganda of the worst kind. The stakes could not be higher, and your comparisons with Orwell are highly appropriate. When a Catholic Archbishop goes so far as to say these people are “very, very dishonest,” that is, they are lying, then criticism such as yours cannot be dismissed as mere blog incivility (as Kmiec and even some at MOJ will continue to do). Sebelius represents the polar opposite of “living and acting” the Catholic Church’s pro-life beliefs—any contrary claim is a lie. Your initial post inspired me to write on this topic, which I've published here."
