My response to Father Martin's response to my post...and so forth

Here is my response to Fr. James Martin's response; the response of other readers can be read here. And here is the initial post that set it all in motion.

Dear Fr. Martin,

First, thank you for taking the time to visit the Insight Scoop blog and to post your comment. It doesn't matter much to me that you posted the same remarks elsewhere. I've done the same from time to time—and I don't suffer from carpal tunnel as you do. I am sorry to hear of this affliction, and I fully understand that it limits your ability to respond to every post, comments, etc. made here or elsewhere.

Also, I don't have any doubts about you being unabashedly pro-life. Although I am not always successful, I do my best to address stated positions and arguments, and to avoid figuring out motives or attitudes that I am not privy to. And, in doing so, I can be a bit blunt, as my first post on your CNN appearance indicates. But please know that my criticisms are not personal in nature.

A number of folks have already make many excellent points and asked some good questions. I don't want to belabor matters too much, despite the importance of the topic, but will focus on two or three of your remarks. The first is this: "However, as you could see from the CNN show, I also believe that some in the pro-life movement (defined broadly) sometimes downplays the non-abortion parts of the pro-life tradition: that is, the death penalty, war, feeding the hungry, euthanasia, and so on."

Even if this were true (and I do not think it is), it's not clear to me why it is used as an argument when the issue at hand in the CNN interview was abortion (just as the controversy over President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame was about abortion). Or, to put it a different way: does the veracity of what someone states about a specific topic—the Catholic Church's teaching about abortion—change due to how much we have said or not said about euthanasia, war, the death penalty, etc.? No, it does not. As you rightly noted, "Abortion is certainly the pre-eminent life issue these days..." I would simply point out that this, in fact, is what the pro-life movement believes, and that it reflects, I think, the moral teachings of Pope John Paul II.

But I would also point out that it is simply unfair and unsubstantiated to suggest, as you do, that most of those in the pro-life movement have little or no concern about other issues. (Does the person who says, "God is the most important thing in my life" deny, in so saying, their love for their spouse or children or friends? Having priorities does not mean a person is imbalanced; it means they have a goal and a focus.) In fact, study after study shows that those Christians who give the most to charity are usually "conservative" in their beliefs, which means, I think it is fair to say, that they are anti-abortion and pro-life. I know many, many Catholics who are associated in one way or another with pro-life work, and they are also, to varying degrees and in different ways, involved in feeding the hungry, helping the poor, promoting and supporting adoption and helping out single mothers, fighting euthanasia, protesting embryonic stem-cell research, denouncing totalitarian regimes that oppress basic human rights. And many of them are vocally and actively opposed to the war in Iraq; many of them are opposed to the use of the death penalty in this country. None of them, from what I can tell, are in favor of torture.

Put simply, this caricature of the pro-life movement is incorrect. It needs to be vigorously corrected; it needs to go away. It is harming the good name of numerous people who are doing good things but are being misrepresented or misunderstood. We expect such from the media and from abortion-rights politicians, but it is painful to hear from other Catholics.

Amy Welborn, a well-known author and blogger, addressed this in a post today and made a couple of excellent points:

A movement is composed of human beings who are limited. They each have limited numbers of limbs, brains and energy and mental stores. A social movement tends to focus on one or a few closely-related issues. Participants in the social movement attach themselves to the movement for various reasons and have varied other commitments and views. A quick study, for example, of the woman's suffrage movement in England and the United States shows this diversity: some were more or less focused on human rights, others (mostly in the US)  believed women should have the vote so that the chances of enacting conservative social legislation like alcohol restrictions and prohibition would be greater, and still others believed it was very important for white, Anglo-Saxon women to have the vote in order to balance out the mostly Catholic and Jewish immigrant hordes.

... And of course, the question sneaks up and won't be ignored...why is it only the movements with abortion at the center of their concerns which are scolded for not being broad enough? Where are the calls for anti-poverty, anti-death penalty, and peace groups to include anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia concerns in their agendas?

Those are, I think, fair and important questions. And speaking of how such movements have a natural diversity within them, I should also point out that I, and many others, are not at all happy with the sort of actions taken by Randall Terry and his associates while protesting at Notre Dame. I admire Terry's passion and his desire to stop abortion, but I think his approach, in the end, is not very helpful; it is, I think, quite counter-productive, as it takes away from the much less sensational but more widespread witness of thousands of Catholics.

I mention this, in part, because of your comment, "you don't have to violently disagree with the Notre Dame decision in order to be pro-life. Nor do you have to speak the use the same language, pursue the same political goals or, in general, do the same things, in order to sincerely and ardently work for an end to abortion." In general, I agree; there is certainly room for healthy debate and discussion about the tactics and strategies and approaches used in different venues and forums. But I also think this sidesteps, to a meaningful degree, the real issue at the heart of the Notre Dame situation. Despite what Fr. Jenkins said many times, it was not a "dialogue", nor a conversation.It was bestowing an honor on the most overtly "pro-choice" (that is, pro-abortion) president in the history our country. The reason many Catholics are upset is because they believe, rightly, that the talk of dialogue was a smokescreen for what was actually happening: the most famous Catholic school in the U.S. was honoring the most famous abortion rights advocate in the U.S.

Fr. Robert Barron recently wrote: "Does anyone think for a moment that Fr. Hesburgh, at the height of the civil rights movement, would have invited, say, George Wallace to be the commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree at Notre Dame? Does anyone think that Fr. Hesburgh would have been open to a dialogue with Wallace about the merits of his unambiguously racist policies? For that matter, does anyone think that Dr. Martin Luther King would have sought out common ground with Wallace or Bull Connor in the hopes of hammering out a compromise on this pesky question of civil rights for blacks? The questions answer themselves."

The logic here is both quite simple and unavoidable: the reason Notre Dame would never honor a racist—even if he was President of the U.S.—is because Notre Dame knows, along with everyone else, that racism is sinful, evil, and contrary to both Catholic teaching and basic morality derived from commonsense and the natural law. So why is abortion different? After all, it is evil. It is sinful. It is contrary to Catholic teaching. It is contrary to basic morality derived from commonsense and the natural law. So why is it different? Because it has been rendered legal by the Supreme Court? Because many people accept it as a legal right? Because it has somehow been magically turned into a private choice and a "woman's right"?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

Put another way, as some readers have rightly pointed out, it is misleading to suggest that being against abortion is just a matter of "Catholic moral teaching." It is a matter of natural law, and the government/state that legalizes and recognizes abortion as a "right" has seriously, woefully failed in its duties, as the Catechism notes:

The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights. (par. 2273).

Again, this isn't simply what Catholics alone should believe; this is moral teaching that should be clear to all people who seek truth and honestly assess the respective natures of procreation, conception, birth, and abortion. Catholics should not ever fall into the trap of thinking abortion is wrong only "because the Church says so," a trap eagerly jumped into by those Catholic politicians who say they are "privately opposed to abortion, but..."

My point, simply, is this: the reasons used to support or defend the honor given to President Obama at Notre Dame are unconvincing both intellectually and morally. There are many venues and forums for dialogue, even debate, about abortion and related topics. A commencement address is not such a forum. But it seemed obvious that Notre Dame wanted to have the prestige of featuring President Obama at the commencement, as well as wanting to specifically honor him.

Yet it is not clear at all how bestowing such honor will result in fewer abortions, especially since President Obama's actions since taking office demonstrate his unwillingness to compromise or really dialogue about such matters, despite his rhetoric. On the contrary, the entire spectacle gives the impression that what the Church teaches about abortion can be disregarded or suspended for this, that, or the other thing, which in turns undermines the consistent and clear teachings of the Church about not just abortion, but everything else: euthanasia, just war, the death penalty, and so forth. Such a weakening takes us closer to the "state of barbarism" warned about by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (par. 14).

We agree on the need for charity. But I think we also agree that we simply cannot overlook that words have meaning, life is precious, and the moral law is unchanging. Sadly, what took place this past Sunday at Notre Dame indicated—regardless of the sincere intentions of those involved—that words are malleable if you mean well, life (at least certain lives) is sometimes secondary, and the moral law can be fudged as long as we insist it isn't being fudged. That, I think, is why so many in the pro-life movement as so saddened and ashamed.

Thank you again for your response; thank you also for your service to the Church and for the Kingdom.

Pax Christi,

Carl E. Olson
Editor, Ignatius Insight
Moderator, Insight Scoop

Comments

[dim bulb]

Excellent! Have you seen Dyspepctic Mutterings take on America Magazine's May 11 Editorail jeremiad against those who opposed the Notre Dame stunt?
http://dprice.blogspot.com/2009/05/seinfeldian-catholicism.html

[Sawyer]

What you take many words to say in a polite manner can be stated more briefly and bluntly: the apologists for Jenkins and ND are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, and their rationalizations are smokescreens for the fact that liberalism is their true religion.

[Time to stand for God]

What seems to have been lost in the controversy are the key elements of the issue President Obama was not invited to participate in a debate or dialogue of fair minded people which would have been perfecly acceptable for a Catholic universty since debate is a valuable learning tool GKChesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a series of debates The Church has courageous defenders who could espouse the Church's teaching effectively and respond to any criticisma and doubts raised in objection to Her teaching .
Instead Notre Dame awards an honorary degree to the President .Again not harmful in itself because university honour degrees are often awarded to public figures who have contributed to society in a significant way. If an hohorary degree was awarded to President Obama for improving AfroAmerican standing in the wider community or for political acumen it would have been credible but to award the President who has openly espoused and continues to flag his unstinting support for the pro "Choice" campaing is a gross betrayal of Truth.
The President's speech was soothing, charming and I imagine very appealing to the young people he addressed He pressed all the right buttons I only hope they do take to heart his urging them to protect God's creation by rallying to vote for and support those who have been fighting tp protect the greatest og GOd's creation the human person. Slavery treated people like a disposable possession It was once legal. Abortion treats the new little person in the womb as a disposable possession. It is now legal WE all must do everything in our power to help reach the minds and hearts of our fellow human beings to end legal abortion in the same way that slavery was declared illegal.

[Francis Beckwith]

The "reduce the number of abortions" argument is virtually unmeasurable. For example, suppose that abortions increase dramatically over the next five years. Then, two decades later the abortion rate decreases. Why? There were fewer females conceived two decades earlier to have the abortions two decades later. So, ironically, one way to decrease abortions is to increase abortions.

On the other hand, suppose abortions decrease after Obama institutes certain social programs. How do we know that the decrease is not the consequence of fewer females conceived in the 1980s when abortion was at its peak? Also, how do we know that this approach just reinforces the idea that abortion is a right that should be exercised if the government does not provide assistance. So, ironically, the very programs that decrease abortions may help to nurture the very moral sentiments that produced the abortion mentality to begin with. Thus, reducing the number of abortions may have the unintended consequence of creating citizens who do not understand the real reason why abortion is wrong: it unjustly kills an intrinsically valuable human person.

With all due respect to Fr. Martin, reducing the number of abortions is not the goal of the prolife movement. However, one goal of the prolife movement is to reduce the number of people who believe that reducing the number of abortions is the goal of the prolife movement.

[T. Shaw]

What Sawyer wrote!!!!!!

Truth.

Case closed.

[Daniel G. Fink]

I've witnessed this many times over by those in the Respect Life Apostolate...

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/05/bishop-finn-prays-at-missouri-execution.html

Will we ever see Father Thomas Reese, SJ., protesting outside the walls of Banned Parenthood?

[Howard Richards]

As bad as segregation? Say it ain't so! I never would have thought that being chopped into pieces was as bad as being forced to ride in the back of a bus! You really must be more temperate in your language!

[Paul H]

"Put simply, this caricature of the pro-life movement is incorrect. It needs to be vigorously corrected; it needs to go away. It is harming the good name of numerous people who are doing good things but are being misrepresented or misunderstood. We expect such from the media and from abortion-rights politicians, but it is painful to hear from other Catholics."

Well said, Carl.

I get a similar criticism all the time in discussions with pro-choice people, and even from some pro-life people. The criticism I so often hear is that the pro-life movement is concerned only with political matters, such as overturning Roe v. Wade, and nothing else. If only we were more concerned with supporting women facing crisis pregnancies, etc., we would have more credibility.

I always respond by saying that based on my involvement with the pro-life movement, and based on my interactions with many other people in the pro-life movement, that this criticism is patently false and absurd.

Yes, of course we want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and of course we often work to elect pro-life politicians. But when I draw on my own experience in pro-life groups, and when I quantify the amount of time spent on political matters vs. the amount of time spent on other things like providing material and spiritual support to pregnant women and moms with young children, praying for an end to abortion, and educating people on life issues, I find that the political realm is just one small-to-medium-size piece of the overall pro-life picture.

Consider the fact that in the United States there are hundreds and hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers, in big cities and small towns across the country (my town of only 6,000 people even has one), with most of these pregnancy centers staffed by volunteers and supported by charitable donations. Where did this huge network of crisis pregnancy centers come from, and how does it continue to exist, if pro-life people only care about political issues and don't do anything to help women facing crisis pregnancies?

Sometimes I think (cynically, but perhaps accurately) that if pro-lifers pushed for *legislation* to have government-run and government-funded crisis pregnancy centers, then people who make this criticism would think we really cared. The fact that pro-lifers have established these crisis pregnancy centers virtually everywhere in the country mostly with private efforts and private funding somehow seems to make the whole endeavor less legitimate in the eyes of some people. (Though to me, it makes it 1000 times MORE legitimate!)

[Marcel LeJeune]

Carl - thanks for taking the time to charitably answer Fr. Martin. Your argument is well thought out and solid. I hope others have the opportunity to read it.

[vince manning]

Please address that aspect of Obama's speech that requires Catholics to doubt their faith in order to have "dialogue" with pro-abortion pols like Obama,Pelosi,et al.Obama was quite clear that the failure to doubt was arrogant and prideful.He,though,must have none,since he's willing to allow the murder of innocents who just might be humans with souls.

[The Ironic Catholic]

Now THIS is dialogue.

Well done. And thank you for the charitable tone--it underscores every point you make.

And I think we should thank Fr. Martin for engaging in the first place (as you do, but the commenters should join in).

[LJ]

Other than for some of the Catholic spokespersons for the political left, I would not be as categorical as Sawyer. There are many Catholics who honestly but erroneously believe that the way to living Catholic social doctrine is in the first instance political and the second place socialist/liberal/left (pick one degree along that continuum) social policy. They may believe this from being taught, or from liberal culture at home, or from simple family party allegiance. But one way or another, their understanding of either Catholic social teaching, socialist politics or both is defective. This includes a lot of clergy as well. In a banana republic this I could understand, but it is sad that this could be the case in America whose birthright of freedom is right there to learn and absorb, but which for so many is lost in the mists of the past.

But as Sawyer points out, there are many who would compromise their faith before they would compromise that leftist ideology, and the seamless garment is being used as a cloak to hide the truth.

[James Martin, SJ]

From today's L'Osservatore Romano (!) Obama "not pro-abortion"

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2989

[Pete]

Fr. Martin,

As others have pointed out, L'Osservatore Romano does not speak for the Pope:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2I5MGM2NGY1ZDA0YTk5OWZhNGM2NTlmNWE4YzQ0ZTc=

[Scott N]

Yes, and I am also not personally for slavery or spousal abuse but I think that is a choice that others must make. Who am I to say otherwise. I also believe that the right to own slaves and commit spousal abuse should be rigorously defended and in fact Federal dollars spent in this pursuit, although I am personally against it. Excellent point. We can all now agree that I am not pro-slavery or pro-spousal abuse, in fact, who is really?

[Carl E. Olson]

Fr. Martin:

L'Osservatore Romano, or at least its editors, is embarrassing itself. Any reasonable person knows that "pro-choice" equates, in the end, to supporting, promoting, and defending abortion, which is pro-abortion, no matter what sleight of semantics are attempted. Dozens of bishops have noted that President Obama is pro-abortion, including Cardinal Francis George. Obama's public record is one of ardent support of abortion, and his first 100 days in office revealed the same unrelenting focus and refusal to "yield" to pro-life arguments and concerns.

[Robert Miller]

Carl:

A splendid reply.

The one thing you didn't develop was the fact that ND provided BO a platform to advance the agenda of "Catholic" university, high school and even grade school teachers; many religious orders; the predatory lay clericals who run our parishes and many of our chanceries; VOTF and the whole pack of tired old Catholic liberal activist jokers who want to create a big-tent American "Catholic" Church.

Hitler didn't succeed in getting a German National Catholic Church. But BO looks like he's got a lot of accomplices on board to make it happen in the US.