Once Biden, Twice Shy? Apparently not.

This interview with a Delaware newspaper was apparently given with Sen. Joe Biden back  in April 2007, but was first published on October 18, 2008, along with some updated questions and answers. It has raised plenty of eyebrows in the Catholic blogoshere, with comments by Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Rocco Palmo, American Papist, and Jay Anderson, to name a few. The comment that is getting the most attention is this:

"To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

There are a number of problems with this sort of flippant comment. One is that it suggests, coming as it does at the end of an interview almost entirely devoted to discussing abortion and "Roe vs. Wade", that Pope John XXIII would have, in some mysterious way, sympathized with Biden's muddled attempts to justify his support of abortion ("But throughout the church's history, we've argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation."). On the contrary, John XXIII was quite clear and direct about "life issues":

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.

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.

That is from his encyclical Mater et Magistra, on Christianity and social progress, issued on May 15, 1961. Since Sen. Biden is a "John XXIII guy," I'm assuming that he's read it. In which case he must have read this section, which comes near the end of the encyclical:

The Enduring Validity of the Church's Social Teaching

218. The permanent validity of the Catholic Church's social teaching admits of no doubt.

The Fundamental Principle

219. This teaching rests on one basic principle: individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution. That is necessarily so, for men are by nature social beings. This fact must be recognized, as also the fact that they are raised in the plan of Providence to an order of reality which is above nature.

220. On this basic principle, which guarantees the sacred dignity of the individual, the Church constructs her social teaching. She has formulated, particularly over the past hundred years, and through the efforts of a very well informed body of priests and laymen, a social doctrine which points out with clarity the sure way to social reconstruction. The principles she gives are of universal application, for they take human nature into account, and the varying conditions in which man's life is lived. They also take into account the principal characteristics of contemporary society, and are thus acceptable to all.

Must be Studied, Applied, Taught

221. But today, more than ever, it is essential that this doctrine be known, assimilated, and put into effect in the form and manner that the different situations allow and demand. It is a difficult task indeed, yet a most noble one. To the performance of it We call, not only Our own sons and brothers scattered throughout the world, but also men of goodwill everywhere.

222. First, We must reaffirm most strongly that this Catholic social doctrine is an integral part of the Christian conception of life.

And what does Catholic social doctrine say about abortion? That it is always wrong. Always. Period. In fact, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church refers to both John XXIII and John Paul II in saying:

155. The teachings of Pope John XXIII,[314] the Second Vatican Council,[315] and Pope Paul VI [316] have given abundant indication of the concept of human rights as articulated by the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of them in the Encyclical Centesimus Annus: “the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child's personality; the right to develop one's intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth's material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one's sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person”[317].

The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end,[318] which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia.[319]

Yet Sen. Biden states,

I found my comfort zone in concluding that, what essentially Roe v. Wade does. Roe v. Wade is sort of a civil remedy -- I have to be careful here to not say something people misunderstand -- for a theological dilemma. By that I mean, Roe v. Wade says there are differences depending on the idea of viability, differences in when it's appropriate and inappropriate for how broad the woman's options are.

But there is no "theological dilemma" except in the mind of Sen. Biden, who seems certain that the State "has an interest in the fetus" in the "third trimester", yet also seems confused by the fact that the Church has an interest in the unborn child from the very moment of conception, which takes place several months before the third trimester. John XXIII stated that "it is essential that this doctrine [Catholic social doctrine] be known, assimilated, and put into effect"; it's unfortunate that a fan of Blessed John XXIII doesn't appear to really know that doctrine, nor does he seem to have assimilated it all that well.

Another problem, of course, with the "John XXIII vs. John Paul II" riff is that whatever their differences in style, focus, and volume of writing produced, the two pontiffs didn't disagree on the issues of abortion and contraception, or even on how to deal with the complexities of modern politics and social ills. In fact, the two men were, I think, quite similar in many ways when it came to their teachings on such matters, in addition to their keen interest in ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. Sen. Biden's remark appears to be based much more on a faulty impression of John XXIII and his writings as opposed to what he actually said and taught.

In an interview with Christian Science Monitor this past August, Sen. Biden said, "If I were an ordained priest, I'd be taking some issue with some of the more narrow interpretations of the Gospel being taken now..." But he is the one with a narrowness of interpretation and vision. He tries to shrink and skew the Church's clear teaching about when life begins and how abortion is always wrong. And his comment about John XXIII and John Paul II indicates a narrow "either/or" understanding of papal teaching (and Magisterial teaching in general) that is seriously flawed.

And now there is this breaking news:

On [yesterday’s] episode of “Ellen,” Joe Biden told Ellen DeGeneres “that if I lived in California, I would vote against Proposition 8.” This initiative reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yet in his debate with Sarah Palin on October 2, Biden said that “Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”

The Catholic League responds.

Previous related posts on this blog:

• Biden pulls a Pelosi? Sure looks like it (September 7, 2008)
• 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

[Kirk]

Does anyone have any update on Bishop Niederaurer's meeting with Pelosi? Have we heard anything from Biden's new bishop on Biden?

[Dan Deeny]

I was wondering if a devout Catholic could,in good conscience, have worked at the camp at Dachau. Perhaps. He might have thought the following: First, while he was personally opposed to the extermination of the Jews, he didn't think it was right to impose his religious views on others; Second, the final solution was legal, and indeed an efficient and mathematical means of removing a problem; Third, from a certain perspective, the Jews, being dead, would no longer suffer the pain and anguish of being unwanted, often expressed as Antisemitism. He might have worked in the bookkeeping department, fulfilling his duty as a good Catholic to provide shelter and clothing to the needy, or perhaps in the cafeteria, fulfilling his duty to feed the hungry. What do you think?

[Nino Baldino]

well neither am I a John Paul guy .I really am surprised this site would fall for this worldly devotion to the last pope..He was silent during the entire ,most disasterous sex scandal in 2000 years..many Catholic schools have had to close down for dioceses sued over the sex scandals in their areas had to pay and thus lost land etc...Pope John Paul would send telegrams to governors begging for this or not murderer to not be executed but was silent on Little Ellian being kidnapped by the Clintons and shipped back to cuba..which of course has statue honoring this 'great' pope..man how obvious is it...Pope John Paul 11 was the worst pope of the 20th century...and you defend him..and where is Card.Law..a plush job in the Vatican I hear and he has devastated Mass...sad...whom the secular world honors..is hardly a role model..and it honors the pope your defending......I will pray for a bit of common sense and reasoning to enter thru a crack in the wall at your office...all the best...N

[Mina]

Its sad that Biden believes Satan's illusions about abortion. It solves nothing, and he's trying to grasp onto the failed idea that it solves something. We need to pray for him very much.

Dan Deeny, I will pray for you. No matter how well or badly a Pope performs his office, Jesus still gave him that office. It is unjust, as Catholics, to mistreat and criticise those that Jesus puts into power. Jesus warns us not to judge, for we will be judged and more severely so by Him in return. Let us both praise and honour Jesus by thanking ALL Popes, even John Paul II, for doing their best to shepherd the flocks worldwide. Amen.