In the piece by Fr. Richard McBrien, to which Michael linked, we read the following:
The only way that abortions are going to be reduced, as Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese insisted recently on his blog for The Washington Post ( Abortion: Rhetoric or Results), is by dealing directly with the causes that lead women to have abortions.
This is just wrong. I won't burden readers with an endless stream of links, but the claim that the "only way" to reduce abortions is to "deal[] directly with the causes that lead women to have abortions" is badly mistaken. Reasonable regulations of abortion (and rules against public funding of abortion) also reduce the number of abortions. Fr. Reese also states:
Those wanting to do something about abortion must face the political reality that abortion is not going to be made illegal in the United States. Granted that fact, then the political question has to change from "Who will make abortion illegal?" to "Who will enact programs that will reduce the number of abortions?"
No, there is another question, i.e., "who will enact regulations, and who will nominate and confirm judges who will permit regulations, of abortion". It it true, of course, that overruling Roe will not end abortion. (As I have written before, though, Roe's wrong needs correcting even if that wrong does not prevent a single abortion.) It is also true, though, that there is plenty of room for (and plenty of public support for) reasonable regulations of abortion, regulations of the kind that would (and do) reduce the numbers of abortion.
No one is saying -- certainly, I have never said -- that "dealing with root causes" is not one way to reduce the number of abortions. (Will Sen. Obama ever endorse the Democrats for Life proposal in Congress?) But, especially at this late date, and at this point in this election-year argument, it is bewildering -- and, frankly, frustrating -- that someone of Fr. Reese's stature would assert something that is so incorrect, i.e., that the "only" way to reduce abortions by dealing with root-causes (and, therefore, that we should not worry so much about Sen. Obama's commitment to Roe, to public funding, to the FOCA, etc.).
Nowhere in Fr. Reese's piece (or in Fr. McBrien's) is the impact on abortion rates (which would seem to matter more than the raw numbers relied on in the pieces) of public funding, the FOCA (in all its glory), and the election of an Administration that is full-throatedly pro-abortion-rights. This consistent refusal -- by Reese, McBrien, Kmiec, Cafardi, etc. -- to engage the effects of policies that will increase the abortion rate, in the context of their contentions that pro-lifers should stop worrying about Roe and put their hopes in an Obama administration's social-welfare programs, is inexcusable.
UPDATE: Here's Professor Gerard Bradley, on the "root causes" argument.
. . . Public authority’s first responsibility is not, in any event, to counsel persons to make good choices. Nor is it to make it easier for them to make good choices. There are many institutions and people in society who can do those things, not least the charitable offices of churches. The first responsibility of government, the indispensable core of social justice, is the equal protection of everyone from violent destruction by others. Only government can see to that. No one else and no other institution in society can see to it, because seeing to it depends upon the enactment of just laws and their effective enforcement by enforcement authorities.
I have not said a word so far about the critical empirical claim made by “root cause” strategists: better social services (healthcare and the like) will reduce the incidence of abortion. For what it is worth, I think the evidence for that empirical claim is dubious. I think that what I have said so far establishes that the “root cause” campaign is morally dubious, and unworthy of Catholic’s support for that reason.
There's been a lot of blogging on MoJ about abortion during this campaign season (for good reason), but tax policy has not gotten a lot of attention. Obviously, faithful Catholics can disagree about what sort of tax policy best promotes the common good. However, some of John McCain's and Sarah Palin's recent statements about taxes seem to be in a bit of tension with Catholic teaching. Both have categorically condemned Obama for wanting to "redistribute wealth" or for wanting to "redistribute your hard-earned money." I don't have any reason to think that McCain actually believes what he's saying. He's smart enough to know that our current tax system involves a significant amount of redistribution, and I don't see how any of his proposed policies will change its fundamental nature. (E.g., isn't his proposed mortgage rescue plan a radical redistribution of wealth?) But his rhetoric is not harmless. His crowds are booing the very suggestion that a just society will rely, at least in part, on progressive taxation in order to help provide for the less fortunate. To be sure, it would be perfectly reasonable -- and consistent with Catholic social teaching -- for McCain to challenge the wisdom of Obama's proposed tax increases. Recently, though, he also seems to be challenging a key premise of Church teaching on economic justice.
Let’s not become so distracted by the presidential politics that divide us that we forget what urgently unites us. I confess that this has been a failing on my part for some weeks. The Catholic bishops have had an “action alert” posted on their website for over a month, but I paid no attention to it because it had no direct connection to the elections: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml
The particular matter on which our help is asked is opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This federal bill would, of course, deeply entrench Roe v. Wade’s right to abortion throughout pregnancy. But it would do much more. FOCA would also forbid any federal or state governmental entity from “interfering with” or “discriminating” against that right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” Thus FOCA could eliminate such “interferences” as parental involvement laws, informed consent laws, and health provider conscientious objector laws -- as well as create a virtual entitlement to abortion by requiring that all programs that benefit motherhood not “discriminate” against abortion (all of which would greatly increase the number of abortions).
Massive opposition to FOCA is something upon which all Catholics and many others must be able to come together, at least after next Tuesday’s election, especially if Senator Obama wins.(Sen. Obama has told Planned Parenthood that FOCA will be his top priority if elected, but FOCA is sure to be pushed by the new Democratic Congress even of McCain wins. He'll need votes to sustain his veto.) Pro-Obama Professors Cafardi, Caveny, and Kmiec would be looking forward to an Obama administration, of course, but as pro-life citizens they would not welcome FOCA. If their voices join those of the Georges (the cardinal and the professor) in opposition to FOCA, it can perhaps be defeated (as an earlier, less radical version of FOCA was defeated at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s first term). Indeed, as friends and supporters of any Obama administration, Nick, Cathy, and Doug might have especial weight given to their views. So let’s start looking beyond the election, beyond our present divisions, and all begin actively to oppose FOCA as soon as possible.
The USCCB website suggests asking Members of Congress who presently co-sponsor FOCA to remove their names. Here is a list of those names: http://nchla.org/datasource/idocuments/9FOCA%20HsSnSpon15a%2008.pdf. The website also urges personal meetings and letters to all senators and representatives, offers sample ads, and the like. For additional information (include the statutory text and a legal analysis by the bishops’ counsel), fliers, and posters, click on Oppose the “Freedom of Choice” Act (FOCA)
When Catholics urge vouchers for school choice and argue that Catholics schools perform better than the public schools that often fail poor children, the responsive retort frequently has been that Catholic schools are able to skim off the cream of the crop and avoid the difficulties with disadvantaged students. John Breen notes that such arguments have no purchase on Catholic schools in disadvantaged parts of Chicago, where they still out-perform the public schools.
When I hear the argument that Catholic schools supposedly avoid responsibility for the most challenging of students, I always am reminded of John Cardinal O’Connor's response in New York City. In an article ten years ago, Sol Stern well-summarized the Cardinal O'Connor challenge:
Cardinal John J. O’Connor has repeatedly made New York City an extraordinary offer: send me the lowest-performing 5 percent of children presently in the public schools, and I will put them in Catholic schools-where they will succeed. Last August the Cardinal sweetened the offer. He invited city officials to come study the Catholic school system, “to make available to public schools whatever of worth in our Catholic schools is constitutionally usable. The doors are open. Our books are open. Our hearts are open. No charge.”
To consider along with the posts yesterday and today, which pick up on my earlier posts about the fundamental importance of education to social justice, the online article by Steven Malanga, provocatively titled, “We Don’t Need Another War on Poverty,” is chock-full of valuable statistics. Herewith an excerpt from his discussion on education funding:
Though Obama has supported some education reforms, such as charter schools, his plan for fixing urban schools by showering more federal money on them is another attempt to revive tin-cup largesse. In his signature education speech, Obama described visiting a high school outside Chicago that “couldn’t afford to keep teachers for a full day, so school let out at 1:30 every afternoon,” adding that “stories like this can be found across America.” Later, he said: “We cannot ask our teachers to perform the impossible, to teach poorly prepared children with inadequate resources.”
In fact, the U.S. has made vast investments in its public schools. According to a study by Manhattan Institute scholar Jay Greene, per-student spending on K–12 public education in the U.S. rocketed from $2,345 in the mid-1950s to $8,745 in 2002 (both figures in 2002 dollars). Per-pupil spending in many cities is lavish. In New York, huge funding increases dating to the late 1990s have pushed per-pupil spending to $19,000; across the river in Newark, state and federal aid has boosted per-pupil expenditures to above $20,000; and Washington, D.C., now spends more than $22,000 a year per student. Yet these urban school systems have shown little or no improvement. “Schools are not inadequately funded—they would not perform substantially better if they had more money,” Greene observes. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study found that most European countries spend between 55 percent and 70 percent of what the U.S. does per student, yet produce better educational outcomes. If some urban school systems are failing children, money has nothing to do with it.
Here's the piece by Father Thomas Reese, SJ, referenced in Fr. McBrien's piece in the immediately, preceding post:
Abortion: Rhetoric or Results?
Abortion has been one of the most divisive and polarizing issues in
American politics for the past 35 years. Despite the extensive public
debate, people's views are not changing. Opinions on abortion have
remained relatively stable since 1995 according to a recent report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Support for keeping abortion legal in all or most cases has
fluctuated between 49% and 61% while support for making abortion
illegal in all or most cases has fluctuated between 36% and 48%.
Currently the numbers are 54% for keeping it legal; 41% for making it
illegal. Neither side is convincing the other.
Opponents of abortion argue that morality is not based on public
opinion. That is true, but law is often based on public opinion.
Certainly laws cannot be enforced without the support of public
opinion. The inability of the United States successfully to enforce
laws against illegal immigration, drugs, prostitution and gambling
shows how difficult it is to enforce laws that significant numbers of
citizens, even a significant minority, do not support.
In
many countries where abortion is illegal, the laws are simply ignored.
For example, in Argentina abortion is against the law but state
hospitals perform abortions and the state pays for them. They have a
much more flexible attitude toward law than Americans do. We believe
laws should be enforced.
For years, Republicans have been courting the pro-life public by
arguing that the Supreme Court is only one vote away from overturning
Roe v. Wade. Vote for a Republican president, they say, and he will
appoint pro-life justices. In fact, Republican presidents have
appointed a majority of the justices since 1973 and the decision is
still in place. The reluctance of justices to reverse earlier decisions
(stare decisis) makes the hurdle very high even for a conservative justice.
Let me be clear. I think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. It was bad
law. It was a classic case of judicial activism. At the same time, to
think that reversing Roe v. Wade will solve the abortion problem is
naive. It will simply return the issue to the states and most states
will keep abortion legal. And in states where abortion is made illegal,
those seeking abortions will simply drive to another state.
A recent study by Catholics United
found that in only 16 states does over 45% of the population
self-identify as pro-life. A total ban on abortions in all 16 states
would only affect 10% of the abortions in the country. This number does
not take into consideration the women who will go to other states for
their abortions.
Nor does a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion have a chance
of passing Congress let alone getting approved by the states. Any
activity that is engaged in by over 1 million people a year is not
going to be outlawed, especially if 54% of the country does not think
it should be outlawed.
Those wanting to do something about abortion must face the political
reality that abortion is not going to be made illegal in the United
States. Granted that fact, then the political question has to change
from "Who will make abortion illegal?" to "Who will enact programs that
will reduce the number of abortions?"
Democrats can argue that their programs will in fact reduce the
number of abortions. This year, for the first time, Democrats placed in
their party platform language calling for programs that will reduce the
number of abortions.
Congressional Democrats have supported the Reducing the Need for
Abortion and Supporting Parents Act (HR 1074, known as the DeLauro-Ryan
bill) and the Prevention First Act bill (HR 819).
Congressional Democrats have also worked on making other
alternatives more attractive with the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003
(Public Law No: 108-145), which was championed by Senator Hillary
Clinton.
Democrats for Life
have made an important contribution with their Pregnant Women Support
Act that aims to reduce the abortion rate in America by 95 percent in
10 years by enacting the social and economic supports that actually do
something to help women avoid going through this ordeal. The U.S.
Catholic Bishops Conference supports this bill.
Do these programs actually help reduce the number of abortions?
During the Reagan Administration, the number of abortions rose
significantly and peaked during the George H. W. Bush Administration.
In contrast, during the Clinton Administration the number of abortions
fell significantly (to 1.3 million a year from 1.6 million a year
during the Bush administration), and were performed at a significantly
earlier stage in pregnancy. During the current Bush Administration,
these declines have slowed almost to a standstill. In fact, rates of
abortions among teenagers and poor people appear to have increased. For abortion statistics click here.
A landmark 2007 study by Catholics United shows
that lower unemployment, higher rates of health insurance coverage, and
greater availability of Head Start centers are more effective at
lowering abortion rates than lower availability of abortion providers.
The study, which looks at county-level data in Kansas from 2000 to
2004, suggests that abortion reduction is best achieved by addressing
the root causes of abortion than restricting access to abortion
services. Access the full report here.
In another study released in August 2008, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good examined
the long- and short-term effects of public policy on the abortion rate
over a twenty-year period. The findings reveal that social and economic
supports for women and families dramatically reduce the number of
abortions. The study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that
benefits for pregnant women and mothers, employment, economic
assistance to low-income families, quality child care for working
mothers and removal of state caps on the number of children eligible
for economic assistance in low-income families have reduced abortions.
Access the full report here.
Another study by Rutgers University found that the number of
abortions among New Jersey women on welfare went up when the Republican
State Legislature told mothers on welfare that they would not get
additional funds if they had another child. See James Kelly, "Sociology
and Public Theology: A Case Study of Pro-Choice/ Prolife Common
Ground," Sociology of Religion, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp.
99-124
About three-quarters of women
having abortions say that they cannot afford to have a child. If "It's
the economy stupid," then any pro-life strategy that is worth is salt
must be willing to spend money to help women choose life. A Catholic
Democrat like Joseph Biden can say that he will do everything possible
to reduce the number of abortions short of putting women and doctors in
jail. Republicans can only say that they will do anything possible to
reduce the number of abortions short of voting for programs that cost
money. The U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference is one of the few groups
that are willing to say it wants the government to do both.
I hope that all MOJ readers will consider carefully what Father Richard McBrien, the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, and the author of the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (here), has to say in the following piece, dated October 27, 2008. Notice, too, in Fr. McBrien's article, the link to the piece by Father Thomas Reese, SJ, former editor of America.
Why do families matter? Is it simply because of their role in social
reproduction, or does this ignore the personal goods, the benefits and burdens,
of intimate life? Does an emphasis on the formative role of families risk
treating them merely as serving the state and divert attention from the rights
of persons to form families and the rights - and needs - of children to
nurturing relationships? What kind of social and economic transformation would
be necessary to implement a normative vision of family that supports families,
is egalitarian, and respects diversity? What is the best way to rectify women's
continuing disproportionate responsibility for house work and care work -
enlisting the state or pressuring men? Is an egalitarian vision of family life,
in which promoting sex equality within marriage a proper governmental task,
consonant with basic liberal principles, or is it a transformative project that
ignores human nature and basic sex difference, corrupts family life, and
infringes on women's - and men's - religious freedom? This essay responds to
those questions, raised by several political scientists and political theorists
in a symposium about my book, The Place of Families: Fostering Capacity,
Equality, and Responsibility (Harvard, 2006).
We've discussed in the past many Catholic schools' selectivity when it comes to accepting students with disabilities. I don't know the exact statistics, but I have to assume the ability to exclude kids with special needs (an option not available to public schools) is one of the reasons that, as John wrote in his recent post , "many private schools spend far less on their students than do public schools with much better results." It's clearly more expensive to educate kids with special needs -- that's typically the reason many Catholic schools give for not accepting them -- and they tend not to deliver the same sorts of measurable "results" as "typical" kids. Are the parochial schools in inner city Chicago more welcoming of kids with disabilities, too? I hope so!
In his April 27, 2007 interview with reporter Nicole Gudiano, Senator Joseph Biden was asked questions on how he reconciled his Catholic faith with his support of Roe v. Wade. While he expressed some concern regarding the termination of a pregnancy, he asserted that his “church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.” He concluded the interview with the statement, “To sum it up, as a Catholic, I’m a John XXIII guy, I’m not a Pope John Paul guy.” The Senator has been rebuked by a number of bishops and citizens for the position on abortion that he has advanced. Moreover, he has been corrected about his faulty understanding of Catholic teachings. My intention in writing today is not to reiterate these points but to show that his distinction between being a “John XXIII guy” versus a “Pope John Paul guy” is false. My proposition is based not on untested theory, but on the statements of these two Popes and the declarations of the Second Vatican Council that Blessed John XXIII convened.
In his 1961 encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, Blessed John XXIII stated:
N. 189. Besides, the resources which God in His goodness and wisdom has implanted in Nature are well-nigh inexhaustible, and He has at the same time given man the intelligence to discover ways and means of exploiting these resources for his own advantage and his own livelihood. Hence, the real solution of the problem is not to be found in expedients which offend against the divinely established moral order and which attack human life at its very source, but in a renewed scientific and technical effort on man’s part to deepen and extend his dominion over Nature. The progress of science and technology that has already been achieved opens up almost limitless horizons in this held.
N. 192. The only possible solution to this question[i.e., population] is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values. First consideration must obviously be given to those values which concern man’s dignity generally, and the immense worth of each individual human life. Attention must then be turned to the need for worldwide co-operation among men, with a view to a fruitful and well-regulated interchange of useful knowledge, capital and manpower.
N. 193. We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.
N. 194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.
N. 195. It is of the utmost importance that parents exercise their right and obligation toward the younger generation by securing for their children a sound cultural and religious formation. They must also educate them to a deep sense of responsibility in life, especially in such matters as concern the foundation of a family and the procreation and education of children. They must instill in them an unshakable confidence in Divine Providence and a determination to accept the inescapable sacrifices and hardships involved in so noble and important a task as the co-operation with God in the transmitting of human life and the bringing up of children.
N. 196. Genesis relates how God gave two commandments to our first parents: to transmit human life—”Increase and mutliply”—and to bring nature into their service—“Fill the earth, and subdue it.” These two commandments are complementary.
N. 197. Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature. On the contrary, it must be brought into the service of human life.
N. 198. We are sick at heart, therefore, when We observe the contradiction which has beguiled so much modern thinking. On the one hand we are shown the fearful specter of want and misery which threatens to extinguish human life, and on the other hand we find scientific discoveries, technical inventions and economic resources being used to provide terrible instruments of ruin and death.
N. 199. A provident God grants sufficient means to the human race to find a dignified solution to the problems attendant upon the transmission of human life. But these problems can become difficult of solution, or even insoluble, if man, led astray in mind and perverted in will, turns to such means as are opposed to right reason, and seeks ends that are contrary to his social nature and the intentions of Providence.
In the Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, issued by the Second Vatican Council convened by Blessed John XXIII, the Council, in 1965, had this to say about abortion:
N. 27 Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
N. 51 For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men.
Fast-forwarding to the papacy of Pope John Paul II, he proposed in his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, the following point that characterizes his view on abortion:
N. 2 The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike—because it marvelously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.
He then would go on in this encyclical letter and refer to the Second Vatican Council’s statement that abortion is an “unspeakable crime.” If some would think the John Paul’s words contained nuance about the permissibility of abortion in some circumstances, that possibility evaporates in light of these words:
N. 62 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
The distinction that Senator Biden makes in claiming the John XXIII mantle while discarding the John Paul II one does not exist. Both popes were of the same view regarding the evil of abortion. To be a John XXIII “guy” is simultaneously a claim to be a John Paul II “guy.” The Senator’s characterization leading to a supposed difference is therefore wrong.
