Biden pulls a Pelosi? Sure looks like it

Sen. Joe Biden was on "Meet the Press" with Tom Brokaw and the matter of "the moment of conception" came up:

MR. BROKAW: Two weeks ago I interviewed Senator Nancy Pelosi--she's the speaker of the House, obviously--when she was in Denver. When Barack Obama appeared before Rick Warren, he was asked a simple question: When does life begin? And he said at that time that it was above his pay grade. That was the essence of his question. When I asked the speaker what advice she would give him about when life began, she said the church has struggled with this issue for a long time, especially in the last 50 years or so. Her archbishop and others across the country had a very strong refutation to her views on all this; I guess the strongest probably came from Edward Cardinal Egan, who's the Archbishop of New York. He said, "Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being `chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." Those are very strong words. If Senator Obama comes to you and says, "When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe," as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him?

SEN. BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights...

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

The American Papist offers good commentary, as well as more links.

Previous related posts on this blog:

• Pelosi OKs talk with SF bishop on church teachings (September 6, 2008)
• Bishop Robert Vasa: Pelosi "is not formed by either Augustine or the Catholic Church" (September 5, 2008)
• Archbishop Niederauer "invites" Pelosi "into a conversation" about abortion (September 5, 2008)
• Cardinal George: Abortion is evil and contrary to the common good (September 4, 2008)
• USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities responds further to Pelosi (September 2, 2008)
• More bishops respond to Speaker Pelosi's remarks on abortion (September 1, 2008)
• Catholic = Pro-Life (August 30, 2008)
• Witness, if you can bear it, the fanatical devotion to abortion (August 29, 2008)
• Further rebuke and lessons for Pelosi  (August 28, 2008)
• L.A. Times columnist misuses Jesuit Murray to defend Senator Biden (August 27, 2008)
• Biden: "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine..." (August 27, 2008)
• Bishops respond to Speaker Pelosi, self-described "ardent Catholic" (August 26, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput chastises and catechizes Speaker Pelosi (August 25, 2008)

Comments

[Joe]

Can you recommend a good general article on law and morality. Contraception is intrinsically evil, as is gay sex. But does that mean the former should be outlawed, and the latter should mean a ban on partnership laws? I think there is a lot that is indeed confusing, not in terms of what is right or wrong, but in terms of making law for a pluralist society where free sex is the norm.

[Jackson]

"...for me....personal and private....differing views....my judgment....to impose....pluralistic society...."

Geesh! He's completely abandoned himself to the dictatorship of relativism.

[The Athenian Stranger]

Being a Catholic Bishop looking for teaching moments this season is like being a Trap Shooter with the Democrats playing the role of clay pigeons.

Pull!

[rd]

joe: apart from biden's mess-up on 'meet the press' today, the latest obama/biden strategy seems to be to redirect the attention away from the evil of abortion, and instead calling to question the effectiveness of 'criminalizing' abortion. they claim that the mccain/palin camp only want to 'criminalize' abortion.

but come on, who in the pro-life movement would want to prosecute a pregnant woman who's had an abortion? to demand that the government stop recognizing and supporting a false 'right' to abortion is not the same as 'criminalizing' abortion.

the latest obama tactic is just another attempt to distract from the real issue.

the real issue that the obama camp is trying to duck is this: do the unborn have the inherent human right to life?

they're ducking that question because they know the answer is not in their favor.

there are sections about morality and law in the catechism of the catholic church. see articles 1897 thru 1948. pay particular attention to the section on "the common good" and on the respect for persons.

those catechism sections begin here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm#1897

also, there's a later section on the "natural law":
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm#I

[Stohn]

"I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception."

So what about his religiously based view that adult murder is wrong? Or that we must help the poor?

[LJ]

This is a perfect illustration of why it took Republicans to end slavery and to pass Civil Rights in the '60's.

Two words describe this bowing and scraping to pluralism in the face of clear and present evil; political expediency.

And the more these people explain themselves (Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et. al.) the more they just sound plain gutless.

[Paul H]

Kudos to Tom Brokaw for putting these so-called "pro-choice" politicians on the spot! These are tougher questions than I would normally expect from the mainstream media.

[SDG]

Reposting a comment posted I posted at AmP:

Does it seem to anyone else like Biden's comments, coming after two weeks of bishops responding to Nancy Pelosi's comments in the same forum, essentially amount to the Catholic pro-choice Dems declaring war on the bishops?

It's like Biden is backing up Pelosi, drawing a line in the sand, and saying to the bishops: "Here we stand. We ignore you. We're Catholic, we publicly stand for abortion, we publicly maintain the validity of this as a Catholic approach. What are you going to do about it?"

It would certainly be odd if Biden's (marginally more nuanced) comments didn't elicit an episcopal response similar to Pelosi's. However, the escalation on the pro-choice-Catholic-Dem side raises a question: What are the bishops going to do? Will they escalate? If so, how?

[Nick]

WHAT? He said THAT?!

Didn't that peabrain learn anything from the Pelosi chastisement?
Here we go again, starting off affirming Catholic teaching, then keeping it private, and THEN (mis)quoting a doctor of the Church in "support" of his position.

[Dan]

Joe, the Gosepl of Life directly addresses, at sections 68 through 74, the issue of how the moral law bears on the civil law insofar as abortion is concerned. In that discussion Biden's argument -- that a pluralistic society must tolerate a difference of opinion about abortion -- is addressed and unequivocally rejected. Here is a summary of the conclusions (I also posted this in the comments on Amy Welborn's post about the Biden issue):

1. The argument is premised on unacceptable moral relativism.
(Biden’s statement contains a classic statement of this moral relativism: He says that the question of when life begins is a “personal and private” issue that varies according to one’s religion.)

2. “While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which—were it prohibited—would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals—even if they are the majority of the members of society—an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.”

3. “[A] civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.”

4. “Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.”

5. “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’.”

The Gospel of Life also contains the reminder that there is an obligation to not formally cooperate in evil and, I believe, Joseph Ratzinger later specified that a politician who advocates legalized abortion is formally cooperating in evil.

Finally, the Gospel of Life contains this:

“I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person’s natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society.”

[Marguerite]

With sonograms and other technological evidence showing the miraculous multiplication of cells the moment sperm meets egg, Sen. Biden's response to when conception takes place is disingenuous. He "disputes" this fact because he'd rather render unto Caesar (his liberal constituents) than unto God. Senator Biden needs to retake Biology 101 since a lot has changed since he first took the course back in the middle ages.

[Marguerite]

Nobody is asking Sen. Biden to embrace anyone else's views of when conception begins but to state faithfully what the Catholic Church teaches. Why is this so hard for him to do? There may be many opinions on when conception begins, but there is only one truth. And, Truth is immutable, opinion is not.

[Ed Peters]

SDG, there's a dangerous amount of evidence in support of your theory.

[Telemachus]

"...I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church... There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view."

Um, actually Joe, there ain't. Most Protestants (non-Anglicans anyways), Jews, and Muslims would probably disagree with you that the definition of a human life is subjective. I would hope the Jews especially, given what they had to go through recently.

What a coward. How far does a politician have to go before he / she (I'm looking at YOU, Pelosi) is excommunicated? I'm tired of having to listen to these people call themselves Catholics.

McCain / Palin 2008, if not simply because they might help overturn Roe v. Wade, and because leftie feminists hate Palin. Lord knows they won't end the stupid war in Iraq, and might even take us into Iran, but at least the legal slaughter of our children might end. That, and McCain seemed to hint at school vouchers in his speech, which would be a boon to Catholic education.

[Banquo]

The purgatorial ghost of Robert Drinan, SJ from abortions past rears its head in this election.