The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionTime to rethink antiabortion strategy
Jan. 21, 2010
A counterprotester is approached by pro-life supporters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during the annual March for Life in Washington in 2007. (CNS/Bob Roller)
It has been almost 40 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision took the issue of abortion out of state legislatures, where it was being debated in many states, and established a constitutional right to the procedure. The decision short-circuited the messy, cumbersome, noisy way we Americans make laws and cast the debate in absolute terms. Pro-choice advocates insisted that women had an absolute right to an abortion. Pro-life forces insisted the unborn child had an absolute right to life. The ambivalence most Americans felt about abortion -- and about the pre-Roe legal regime that left many women dead or maimed from illegal abortions -- got lost amid the claims of absolutists.
To be sure, this ambivalence has manifested itself at times in the years since Roe most obviously in the passing of the Hyde Amendment, which barred the use of federal funds for abortion from all government-provided health care programs such as Medicaid and from the federal employees’ health benefits package. The current debate over the role of abortion funding in health care reform reflects this ambivalence also. But, mostly, pro-life advocates have been unable to shake the legal structure of Roe, which effectively guarantees abortion on demand.
It is time to rethink pro-life strategy, and that rethinking must include new arguments aimed at persuading our fellow citizens, a new political and cultural approach to abortion itself, and finally a new ecclesiological awareness that will stop the very American, and very un-Catholic, habit of reducing religion to ethics.
A new argument
Catholics, including the hierarchy, need to find a new way to talk about abortion. The words and phrases we use have become entirely loaded, with meanings that are often unhelpful or outdated or both. Rhetoric matters, not only because it is the vehicle for persuasion in a democratic society, but because it helps us explain ourselves to others (and sometimes to ourselves). We use rhetoric not only to describe reality, but our rhetoric shapes our reality, especially our human reality where we make value judgments and wrestle with existential questions.
Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin tried to place Catholic concern about abortion in a “seamless garment” of life issues. This approach had the value of presenting Catholic teaching on a range of issues integrally, like the seamless garment of Christ, a reference Bernardin clearly intended. The seamless garment construction had the disadvantage of making abortion appear as one among many issues, all of them more or less of equal import. This was not Bernardin’s intention, certainly, but in American politics in the 1970s, the reign of interest groups was still prevalent: Politics was a smorgasbord and no politician was expected to take one of everything. Catholic politicians, especially progressive Democrats, found it easy to say, “Well, I don’t agree with the church on this one issue, but I agree with the church on many other issues.” The seamless garment fit the political temper of the time. Bernardin’s intention to make Catholics see how all these issues were related was lost as politicians used it self-servingly to keep their Catholic credentials while voting against any effective measures to limit the scope of abortion rights.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Some conservative Catholics disparaged the Bernardin approach because it appeared to them to level all moral issues, failing to distinguish between those that were never permissible, like abortion, and those, like economic matters, on which there is a variety of Catholic positions. This position received its most famous, and most noxious, formulation in 2004 when the conservative group Catholic Answers published a voting guide listing what they considered the five “nonnegotiable” political items for a “serious Catholic.” The list, conveniently enough, tracked with positions held by the GOP: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage and human cloning. The partisan nature of these items was only part of the problem. The bigger difficulty is that while the moral case against abortion may be an obvious one, it is less clear what political consequences flow from that moral case. Are Catholics to insist that, in this pluralistic society of ours, abortion be criminalized? Would women go to jail or just the doctors? And, the lack of any mention of pre- or post-natal health care for women on the “nonnegotiable” list demonstrated that the orthodoxy to which Catholic Answers pays homage is a Republican orthodoxy.
The pro-life movement needs to argue that abortion is a foundational moral issue, both in terms of Catholic moral theology and in terms of any reasonable configuration of human rights. If a part of a house’s foundation is missing, the whole thing can come tumbling down and, indeed, Catholic politicians who are motivated by the church’s social justice tradition but who fail to extend their concern to the unborn can be tagged with hypocrisy. On the other hand, no one can live in a foundation. You live in the beautiful house, with its many rooms, on top of the foundation. Indeed, you barely even see the foundation unless you are looking for it. It is there, and it must be firm, but it is what the foundation supports that catches the eye. The pro-life movement can no longer ignore the house, no longer protest against abortion without also protesting on behalf of prenatal care, job security for pregnant women, health insurance to cover the costs of a pregnancy, and a myriad other issues that are consonant with the church’s social tradition.
A new politico-cultural approach
It is difficult to see what the pro-life GOP crowd has accomplished. Every Jan. 22, on the anniversary of the Roe decision, there is a march in Washington. If there is a Republican in the White House, they speak to the rally -- by telephone. You can see the marchers from the windows of the Oval Office, but all the pro-life crowd has been able to achieve is, literally, lip service.
Erin Urbain plays with her son, Andrew, 10 months, at the Catholic-sponsored Paul Stefan Home for Unwed Mothers in Orange County, Va., in 2007. (CNS/Paul Haring)Poll after poll shows that Americans do not want to return to the pre-Roe days of back-alley abortions, even while more and more Americans identify themselves as “pro-life.” The one way to make more and more Americans identify as “pro-choice” would be to overturn Roe. Indeed, there is now a symbiotic relationship between the organized pro-choice and pro-life groups. They need each other. The most recent, and somewhat comic, example of this was the pro-life movement’s use of the Freedom of Choice Act as a fundraising scare tactic last year. The act, which never stood a chance at passing and was not even introduced in the current Congress, got its start as a fundraising device for pro-choice groups in the early 1980s. What goes around comes around.
The inability of the church to change the attitudes of fellow citizens about abortion has been a source of great frustration to the bishops. Some have decided to lash out and to up the ante, declaring who should and should not present themselves for Communion, as if the Eucharist were a kind of reward for a good voting record. In America, Pelagianism remains the most popular heresy, even among the higher clergy. But disappointment can never be allowed to frustrate faith, as St. Francis of Assisi showed when he failed to convert the Sultan or receive the crown of martyrdom for his effort. In the face of disappointment, we are called to deepen our faith. Additionally, when these neo-Pelagian prelates strike out at politicians, they tend to do so clumsily, without appreciating the difference between opposing abortion and deciding that laws are the best way to express that opposition in a pluralistic polity. Their efforts are counterproductive.
The pro-life movement needs to abandon the effort to overturn Roe. Not because Roe is good law -- it isn’t -- but because a change in the law can only come about after a long period of cultural change. Instead of threatening Catholic politicians who fear offending powerful pro-choice interest groups, bishops could meet with them and ask them and their families to volunteer once a month at Project Rachel, counseling women who feel remorse for having procured an abortion. Or they could volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center once a month. The bishop could ask the politician to come back, with his or her family, after six months of such volunteering and discuss the issue again.
The Catholic church is the most organized of organized religions. Progressive Catholics know the price of that organization all too well: Affecting change within the church is a slow, glacial process. But that organization also allows the church to accomplish things less organized churches can’t, and the Catholic church should turn every one of its parishes into a crisis pregnancy center. We need to put our money, our time, our resources, our hospitals, our schools and our families where our pro-life mouth is. “Preach the Gospel,” said Francis. “If necessary use words.” We need to not use words for a generation and then see where both the church and the culture are on the pro-life issue. My guess is that we can achieve more by witnessing to our belief in the sanctity of human life, and let the law take care of itself for 20 years.
A new ecclesial awareness
“It is a great temptation for the church to reduce its mission to that of an ethical authority in order to gain access to the public forum,” Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete wrote in the journal Communio 15 years ago. The temptation has not ceased in the interim. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI has warned again and again that moralism can stand in the way of evangelization, most obviously in his book Jesus of Nazareth, where he comments on the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer, found in Luke 18:9-14. The pope writes: “Ethics is not denied; it is freed from the constraints of moralism and set in the context of a relationship of love -- of relationship to God.”
The creed does not mention any moral precepts. The Eucharist, not the Code of Canon Law, is the source and summit of Catholic life. Yet, if you only knew about Catholicism what you had seen on television lately, you would think the only thing that really concerns the church is what its members do with their private parts. The latent Jansenism of American Catholicism, combined with the moralism of the mainstream culture, robbed Catholicism in the United States of the kinds of cultural expressions of faith one finds in Catholic countries.
This must change. The issue is not only that an imposed moralism, even if its morality is upstanding, does not befit the freedom of the children of God, a freedom that requires all morality to be freely chosen not imposed externally. The issue is how we see and understand ourselves and present ourselves as Catholics. If some conservative writers (and bishops) are to be believed, to be a true Catholic means you support every plank of the Republican Party platform. It would be equally wrong to believe that supporting every item of the Democratic platform would gain one heaven. To be a Christian and a Catholic means that the most important event in your life happened on a hillside in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and that you are sincerely, with an open heart, dedicated to teasing out the meaning of those long ago events in your life. The church today needs fewer press releases on abortion and more catechesis about the astounding, dogmatic claims made about the man Jesus. Apart from the central mysteries of our faith, our moral teachings are nonsensical.
Law is sometimes a blunt instrument, and the focus of the pro-life movement on changing the laws regarding abortion have demonstrably failed to accomplish anything. It is time to rethink how we talk about abortion, how we address the concrete needs of women facing crisis pregnancies, and how, as a church, we articulate our moral vision. Otherwise, we will keep banging our heads against the wall and that does not do anything for the unborn.
[Michael Sean Winters is a regular NCR contributor.]
| Special Coverage for the National March for Life
To mark the 37th annual March for Life in Washington, NCR has prepared a series of articles that will appear on our Web site Jan. 21 and Jan. 22.
|
I agree that we do need a
I agree that we do need a different anti abortion strategy, however I don't think Mr. Winters has the answer. He criticizes Republican because they adopt the Catholic moral position on these issues. It will be hard to change attitudes as long as liberals and the Democraatic party make abortion a litmus test for selecting Democrats for leadership positions, judgeships and who they contribute money too. It will be hard for Pro-lifers and Republicans to be less strident as long as they are met with hatred and vitriol from the liberal left.
The writer is a liberal
The writer is a liberal Catholic and like many of them is almost totally unfamiliar with the pro-life movement except what they read in teh New York Times and the Washington Post. In fact, the pro-life movement is broad and deep and does all the things the writer suggests. There is something for everyone in the pro-life movement. And if something is missing, you know what pro-lifers do? They start it!
What is missing from the pro-life movement is the liberal Church who for some reason do not believe the issue is important enough to get involved in. If the liberal church got involved in this issue, it would go away in a matter of years.
Once again, we are
Once again, we are classifying people as "liberals" or "morally conservative" because they hold a view different from either side. We need to face facts and that is the aboration issue will not go away even if everyone join the same side. There woudl still be abortions in this country and elsewhere for whatever reason. Condemning one side over another doesn't solve the problem and neither will maintaining that each has the absolute truth with this significant life issue.
We need to find a way to curtail the abortions in this country and that means there has to be some give and take from both sides of the issue. I can hear it now, "he supports aboration". I do not but believe that we need to look at reducing the numbers first before we try to get everyone on board with the 'cold turkey' approach which does not work effectively with people who smoke and it won't work with the aboration issue either.
We need to sit down and find a way to begin doing this so that more of the unborn will live and more women will find better options when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy instead of people shouting at them and condemning them for 'thinking' or 'acting' on having an aboration performed. They need compassion and not condemnation.
As a Catholic, I don't want
As a Catholic, I don't want the Church to expend time and money on this issue. By doing so our church is engaging in religious supremicism.
Let me explain: there is no section in the Bible where abortion is described as murder unless the head has begun to exit the womb. Jesus never said anything on the issue. In fact, the presumption is that He followed Jewish Law which allows abortion in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother.
In that case, who are we as Catholics to impose the view that abortion is "non-negotiable" upon non-Catholic Americans?
We are not fundamentalists
We are not fundamentalists nor Calvinists and we do not take the "show me the scripture" approach. The Church teaches that all human beings have dignity and worth. Based on the value of life expressed in scripture, and recognition that to deny that value for anyone makes the whole prospect dissonant and incredible.
Also, the dignity of persons is not a catholic issue, it is a human issue. This is not a question of how Jesus is present in the Eucharist, or whether one is obliged to go to mass on a particular day, or if one should refrain from communion if they have transgressed certain moral laws; This is a question to which the answer is true and applicable and mandatory always and everywhere and for all people, even if they do not know it or wish it were not true.
Bthompson wrote: “This is
Bthompson wrote: “This is a question to which the answer is true and applicable and mandatory always and everywhere and for all people, even if they do not know it or wish it were not true.”
For one moment try to step back from your Catholic cultic certitude and read your own statement as if it were written by a person of strict Islamic faith who was attempting to enact laws that would negate your own ability to live your personal values, and to forcibly impose Sharia Law upon every person in the United States, yourself included.
.
That is what your statement sounds like to people who do not subscribe to your my-way-or-the-highway approach. That is exactly the point of the above article — Catholic demands are perceived as being threatening and arrogant. The majority of Americans, even those who call themselves “pro-life”, still believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. The Catholic Church makes NO exceptions (since the papacy of Pius IX), and wants to impose that position on everyone as a matter of law with criminal penalties.
.
Non-Catholics and former Catholics of my acquaintance (and they are many in number) are convinced of three things about the Catholic Church: (1) that Catholics have a fetus fetish, (2) that Catholic bishops and their followers have a perverse obsession with the sex lives of other people and (3) that Catholics are determined to force their perceived misogynistic religious beliefs upon everyone else.
.
That’s a sad commentary on Catholic Christian “evangelization” as others see it. That’s also why it doesn’t work. It might also explain why I have so often been asked by Protestants: "Are Catholics Christian?" Maybe Catholics don't act like it.
I don't think you are a
I don't think you are a Catholic, by your own conclusions. You sound more like protestant, and not even.
No where in the bible does it mention "abortion" as a word. You are not Catholic because nowhere does it mention the word Catholic. You don't believe in the Bible because nowhere does it say to "read the Bible", the word Bible is nowhere to be found. You don't believe in the Holy Trinity because Trinity is nowhere either. Don't believe in Dogmas, Magisterium, Pope, Communion, Confession, Holy orders, Matrimony, The Immaculate Conception, or anything like it because the words don't show in the Bible.
But they are all Biblical and explained in the Bible....
Now, Jesus did mention on not hurting His little ones and made such a big deal about it that he used hyperbole to emphasize how grave of a matter this is. From Luke 17: He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!
It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble." He was referring to scandalizing little ones...there is no greater scandal than to kill a defenseless baby.
So you see, all these are not political issues, they are moral and Biblical issues.
Your assertions on the Bible and Catholicism (Christianity for that matter) are dishonest at worst and lazy at best. Educate yourself on these matters. A truly "Progressive" Catholic works to advance society and help each other, using the SAME OLD formula, as the one given by God, not come up with their own rules and then ignore some, or most, of God's formula, by arrogance and/or laziness. God's the creator and the finisher...not man. He creates, He terminates.
You said, The pro-life
You said,
The pro-life movement can no longer ignore the house, no longer protest against abortion without also protesting on behalf of prenatal care, job security for pregnant women, health insurance to cover the costs of a pregnancy, and a myriad other issues that are consonant with the church’s social tradition.
Agreed. But I think you would be wrong to suggest that this is not already occurring. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the people who are supporting crisis pregnancy centers and homes for unwed mothers are the same people who are participating in the March for Life, or praying in front of Planned Parenthood. Do you really think that it’s the pro-choice crowd that is running Project Rachel?
Further, your comment overlooks the fact that many abortions are procured by people of means (i.e. a reasonable income or insurance coverage) out of personal convenience, for reasons such as: the pregnancy means a potential conflict with school or career plans; or they don’t want any more children; or pre-natal testing suggested that the child may be born with a birth defect, etc.
You said,
The [Freedom of Choice] act, which never stood a chance at passing and was not even introduced in the current Congress, got its start as a fundraising device for pro-choice groups in the early 1980s.
Perhaps you are forgetting that Candidate Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his first act as president would be to sign FOCA. The reason it didn’t get introduced, and the reason it didn’t stand a chance of passing, was due to the outcry of its very proposal.
You then refer to “…the inability of the church to change the attitudes of fellow citizens about abortion…”, which directly contradicts your earlier statement that “more and more Americans identify themselves as ‘pro-life’.” Attitudes are changing, perhaps too slowly, but they are changing.
You suggest,
The pro-life movement needs to abandon the effort to overturn Roe. Not because Roe is good law -- it isn’t -- but because a change in the law can only come about after a long period of cultural change.
I agree. But cultural change is made more difficult when the government continues to promote and encourage abortion, through acts that fund abortion, or allow minors to have abortions without parental notification or consent. This sends a mixed message: why would the culture need to change regarding something that the government actively supports? Imagine the progress that could be made on many fronts if we weren’t wasting energy fighting our own government. The ongoing health care debate is a great example.
Then, you said
if you only knew about Catholicism what you had seen on television lately, you would think the only thing that really concerns the church is what its members do with their private parts.
Perhaps that is not so much a commentary on Catholics and Catholicism as it is on the secular media?
Further,
The church today needs fewer press releases on abortion and more catechesis about the astounding, dogmatic claims made about the man Jesus.
I don’t know about the church you attend, but in my experience, abortion is rarely if ever mentioned in homilies. I usually hear exactly what you are asking for: love of neighbor.
And finally, you conclude by saying,
the focus of the pro-life movement on changing the laws regarding abortion have demonstrably failed to accomplish anything.”
Really? Did you once again forget about your own statement that “more and more Americans identify themselves as ‘pro-life’”? Something has been happening over the past years to cause that shift.
The bottom line is that we can not approach abortion with an “either-or” attitude, but rather “both-and.” That is, we must continue to not be afraid to identify abortion as the moral evil that it is, while at the same time working to serve those who think abortion is their only option, and help those who chose abortion to find healing in the loving arms of Christ.
I’m all in. Are you?
This is the point of Winters'
This is the point of Winters' excellent article: the loving arms of Christ or the iron fist of the vengeful and malevolent deity of the Republican right?
Even as we begin to recognize
Even as we begin to recognize the uselessness of all the political rhetoric, we fail to recognize that we are focused on an abstract "unborn" rather than the already here and bleeding to death under patriarchy.
The church has become just another denomination that plays politics and wastes peoples' time of sound-byte issues, the whole point being "do as I say".
Some good points here. There
Some good points here. There is probably too much emphasis on the law and politics on the part of some. But there are also many crisis pregnancy centers and volunteers and people going to abortion clinics to pray outside and sympathize with those in the difficult situation of an unplanned pregnancy. Many of these women feel they have no other option than abortion, but that's not true. There is help if they can find it or we can find them.
The strategy has to be both and, not either or. The law does matter and it does influence people's behavior, not to mention the fact that the unborn have a right to life with in inalienable. Prior to Roe v Wade there may have been some backalley abortions, but it didn't happen on the large scale that abortions take place today. It has become a business with people profiting off of others' fear and desperation. The abortion industry has prospered because it is protected by the law. But the law should be protecting the innocent from the malevolent, not the other way around.
It is wrong to reduce religion to ethics, but it is also wrong to think that by ignoring ethics we can be true witnesses of the gospel. Jesus was a man of high ethics who never sinned, who showed mercy and compassion, but also told them they must change their ways (Jn 8:1-11).
Why should the strategy
Why should the strategy change when it is working? More people are pro-life now than ever before. What needs to happen is a change of heart in the fence-sitters and people who are reluctant to back the pro-life movement (ahem, NCR!)
Pro-life politics has shown
Pro-life politics has shown itself to be so offensive -- ignorant and insensitive -- that I am back to where I was before I had my own children. That I even read this article is because the author is often quite insightful and has a way with words.
The great unanswered question
The great unanswered question remains: What changes to the legality of abortion will not result in a return to the back alley abortions "that left many women dead or maimed"? I see no way to avoid answering this question.
Given the separation of
Given the separation of Church and State in the United States is it the role of the Church Leadership to press for a chanage of laws or a change of hearts? If it is hearts we wish to shange then we must put the human life issue on a level which gives value to the lives of those already born comparable to the value of the lives of the unborn. There are a lot of persons already born who are not candidates for euthanasia. Respect for their lives is a defining sign of a genuine pro life position. Just as an example we might think of the roughly fifty million people in our own country without access to affordable health care. The press releasaes from the Bishop's Conference clearly did not consider them as important as the unborn.
When abotion zealots rant and
When abotion zealots rant and rave they drive people from the church,especially young women. These women take their children when they leave. And so, over time our Church continues to shrink and it's moral influence lessens. My priest said in his sermon last Sunday that he had been praying to the Virgin for thirty-eight years to overturn Roe. When will he take no for an answer? Chemistry has made Roe irrelavent. Laws will not prevent abortions. Laws make activists on both sides wealthy but they dont stop abortions. This question of where to go next in opposing abortions will require the expulsion of the ranters and holier than thous. Those genuinely concerned with the children must come up with an answer based on the teachings and conduct of Jesus and not the US court system.
Murder is murder is murder.
Murder is murder is murder. Woman who gets abortion, doctor that performs abortion, accomplices to it....all go to jail.
Just like if a mother hired a hitman to kill her 2 year old son and there was witnesses but no one said anything about it because they were paid off to keep quiet. People will agree the mother, hitman, and accomplices all go to jail.
I don't understand the stutter when people are asked "What if abortion became illegal???"
If I'm wrong, you have no right to judge all these mothers that kill their toddlers or the people that molest them...Because, just like a pregnant mother seeking abortion, "She was desperate, low of funds, child had a disability." If the case was rape and the mother had the child, would rape justify the mother kill her own toddler? I want to know if rape justifies killing a child. Last I checked NOTHING justifies killing a child. "The unborn at the early stages is not viable" Yes, neither is a one year old...Can we kill it?. If you leave it alone and not feed it or care for it, it will soon die. A one, or even 2 year old or older (even some adults and especially the elderly) cannot take care of itself, it needs the help of an adult for nourishment. So can we kill a 20 year old in a coma, from a car accident???
Seems the garment has a seam in this screwed up society...
It might be different because
It might be different because the unborn conglomeration of cells is fully dependent upon the body of its mother. That is why some people believe that allowing for legal abortion in the instance of rape is critical.
Michael, as I have said time
Michael, as I have said time and again on your America Magazine blog, Roe was tragically but correctly decided.
Overturning Roe judicially in the way desired by the Federalist Society and Justice Scalia (thereby returning the issue to the states) would have serious imlications for federal power in the area of equal protection law. There is little chance of that happening, which is a good thing. Indeed, the equal protection principles which protect abortion in Roe also protect the Church in Alabama and Mississippi.
Privacy is also correctly defined in Roe. Until and unless the fetus is a legally recognized person, the government has no business intervening on its behalf. Sadly, state governments are not the competent jurisdictions to extend rights to the unborn. Only the sovereign federal legislature can do that. The 14th Amendment is very clear on who has enforcement power in this area, it is Congress and the Courts it creates. Shifting the battle to Congress is appropriate. Trying to overturn Roe is not, which is why my column on the issue in the DC Examiner suggests that continuing the March on Washington and its focus on overturning Roe is the best thing that could happen for the movement.
As a pro-life Catholic who is
As a pro-life Catholic who is also someone who tries to look behind all rhetoric, whether from the Bishops or elsewhere, it seems to me that what the Church needs to do is the following:
The Vision: No abortions
The Goal: Study and research for the best political, cultural and Christian methods for achieving the vision.
Implementation: Use every method the entire Church has at its disposal for achieving the goals chosen. These include public PR, Intrachurch preaching and teaching, funding for implementation of the goals chosen, a competent administrator to coordinate the goals chosen to achieve the best possible outcome,and I'm sure there are many other methods.
Nowhere have I ever seen or heard in the Scriptures, church teaching over the centuries, or anywhere, where it is a sin to disagree with the hierarchy over the best methods to achieve a Christian vision. That is what is happening now with the bishops condemning politicians who do not agree with the goals and implementation methods chosen by the bishops unilaterally.
A fabulous article, by the way. As a former elected official, I tend to speak in 'bumper sticker'. It is such a pleasure to read a well-thought out article that expands my bumper sticker thoughts so beautifully.
I found an interesting
I found an interesting rebuttal to this article that seems to make a lot of sense...
http://twowingstogod.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach.html
I see the Archbishop O'Connor
I see the Archbishop O'Connor Pro-Life Prize this year is being given to President George W. Bush. That's utterly repulsive and incredible. Abortion went up under Bush. Indeed, can anyone think of a presidency in recent years more throughly disrespectful of precious life than the Bush/Cheney administration?
Let's all start a novena to pray that the Holy Spirit bring wisdom (meaning an end to partisan ideology) to our bishops.
"The most recent, and
"The most recent, and somewhat comic, example of this was the pro-life movement’s use of the Freedom of Choice Act as a fundraising scare tactic last year."
When a Presidental candidate who says during his campaign that FOCA would be the first thing he would sign, wins the election, I think this should be a legitimate concern. I don't see how you can call this a comical scare tactic. I really wonder why this author would even say this. He seems to want to laugh at pro-lifers because we took at his word the candidate that this author supported.
What I do find comical is how authoritative this author speaks about the pro-life movement, yet how unfamiliar he clearly is. Does anyone in the pro-life movement see Michael Sean Winters as a leader amongst us?
Excellent, Michael. The point
Excellent, Michael. The point about having "Catholic politicians voluteer at a Project Rachel...or crisis pregnancy center" might be expanded to not only helping but listening to reasons the abortion was procured. There might be some societal changes that could begin to make a difference. What about full access to pre- and post-natal care, so mother and child can be healthy, and a pregnancy is not considered a pre-existing condition? How about changes in the work environment that do not punish women for having a child, and seeing that good child care is available-the Europeans are far ahead of us on this one. Why are adoptions so expensive that most people cannot even begin the process? Yes, hearts and minds can be changed, but should we not work to find practical ways as well, to help people make the choice for life?
Peace and blessings.
As a Polish American, I
As a Polish American, I worked for fifteen years of my adult life in the anti-communist vanguard, when the "mainstream" public opinion said that the division of Europe was permanent and it was tilting at windmills to expect the countries of Central Europe to be free. I wrote an article in early 1989 for AMERICA magazine arguing that, among the ethical issues unresolved by World War II, whose 50th anniversary we were then marking, were unresolved ethnic disputes, e.g., in the Balkans. The article never saw the light of day because "mainstream" opinion never believed Tito's Yugoslavia would implode, the Soviet Union would cease to exist, or that Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, or Bulgaria would one day be again free. They are.
Same thing with Roe: no compromise on burying this heinous license to murder.
In fact, I strongly urge that what we should learn from the 37 years since Roe is to STOP PLAYING DEFENSE on cultural formation issue, and to take a hard and fast offense. Instead of just hoping to stop homosexual "marriage" in State referenda, for example, it's time to get the states where ersatz "marriage" has failed to submit applications for a Constitutional amendment to write once and for all into the Constitution the definition of marriage. Something that should have happened in 2004, but for the faint-hearted "moderates" who buried George Bush's call as overreaction and unnecessary. Instead of the molly-coddling that Catholic bishops did for years with the pro-abortion lobby (starting with failing to excommunicate William Brennan in 1973) perhaps we now see some example of episcopal spine in recognizing that if you endorse killing children, you do not belong among those receiving the Eucharist.
Sorry, Mr. Winters, but it took over 80 years from the Constitution to the 14th amendment abolishing slavery, and in the meantime we had lots of "compromises" (like 1820 and 1850) as well as those who did not want to rock the boat by writing Dred Scott into the Constitution (the Crittenden Amendments) just three months before the Civil War began. The protection of the unborn will not be achieved by the faint-hearted, nor the amen crowd ready to pronounce as "pro-life" any Democrat who votes for the liberal welfare agenda -- and just conveniently forgets to protect babies.
"The creed does not mention
"The creed does not mention any moral precepts." So? It definitely did not abrogate the 10 Commandments, especially "Thou shalt not kill."
Is not a "moralism," even if to a minimal degree, a necessary step to know Christ? I can't tell an insane serial killer, e.g., through action or words, "Just experience the love Christ!" if I do not first tell him "Thou shalt not kill!" Or can I?
Contraception is the
Contraception is the foundational issue, not abortion, which results from our contraceptive culture's mentality. How often do we hear our priests and bishops reminding us that contraception even within marriage is gravely immoral? How often do we hear them citing Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae? "Oh! That is moralism! We can't do that!", I presume they would say. Really?
Post new comment