On the wall of the University office opposite mine, a placard proclaims: "God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat." Yet Catholics want to bring moral convictions to the voting booth. How should pro-life Catholics raise issues and cast their vote?
In a thoughtful article in the Sept. 27 issue of America, George Weigel urges a vote for Bush. Yet he notes, soberly, that "the Republican Party is not a perfect home for Catholics." Neither is the Democratic Party.
It helps if we keep uppermost two Catholic sensibilities. The first is what Pope John Paul II calls "a culture of life." The pope refers to the public moral culture underlying a democratic state and its economy (basically a market-entrepreneurial economy but subject to regulation for the common good). He affirms that a culture which defines "wrongs" (e.g., euthanasia, abortion, unjust wars) as "rights" jeopardizes the entire democratic project. An economy which treats people as throw-away objects also threatens true life.
The American bishops, at least since the mid-1970s, have espoused what they term, "a consistent ethic of life." From cradle (abortion) to grave (euthanasia and capital punishment) and in between --- with concern for poverty and quality of life; for both security and the tempering of any rush to war --- Catholic pro-life thought seeks to couple and integrate life issues.
Some Catholics have opposed this consistent ethic, arguing that abortion serves as the ultimate and priority litmus test. Some opponents of the ethic are simply flip and frivolous, as when Richard Neuhaus once caricatured it as putting "save the whales" on par with "saving innocent fetuses." Others ask how we can equate innocent fetal life with the execution of a murderer. They fear a trivialization of abortion and, legitimately, want what Catholic thought has always provided: relevant distinctions.
But Catholic thought distinguishes in order, finally, to weave coherency. Yes, Catholic opposition to abortion ought not to be equated simply but only, in Catholic fashion, analogously) with executions (although the rash of pardons for unjust convictions demonstrated by DNA shows capital punishment also, at times, involves the unjust taking of innocent life). Opposition to capital punishment serves to build a culture more widely respectful of life.
Similarly, the Catholic position on war (where popes consistently narrow the conditions for a "just war" to legitimate defense against an unjust attack) stems from respect for life. Statistics show that in wars (even those deemed just) since the Twentieth Century, something like ten times more innocent civilians get killed than combatants. So the church inveighs against easy resort to war.
If abortion is a sin against life, so would be any use of a hydrogen bomb or saturation bombing which carpets cities and destroys innocent life. Those who start unjust wars are responsible for the innocent life of both civilians and combatants. A culture which dismisses the innocently slaughtered as "collateral damage" is likely to see the aborted fetus as equally "collateral" to a woman's right to choose.
Some also lift up abortion as the unique test by citing the number of lives lost, claiming they outnumber, by far, victims of war or unjust executions. Yet more innocent millions die in the Third World, every year, from addressable issues of malnutrition, lack of health facilities and unjust economic structures. God does not play a numbers game. Any unjust killing (even if indirect) of innocents cries to heaven.
Still others rail against pitting sheer life issues (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, war) with quality of life issues. Two things need saying. Catholic thought does not absolutize life. It allows people to die with dignity rather than demanding extraordinary and futile means which prolong life in suffering, without quality. Quality of life issues impact abortion. Those who urge economic programs to reduce the number of abortions point to the effect of a New Jersey law, cutting off newly pregnant women from any additional welfare, as having increased abortions. One third of all those who abort fall below the poverty line. Again reflecting poverty, African American women abort three times the rate of whites.
Also writing in the Sept. 27 issue of America as a pro-life Catholic (indeed, he is the doyen of American sociologists studying pro-life movements), Fordham sociologist James Kelly, urges a vote for a Democratic administration. Kelly states, "It is harder to welcome new life when life itself seems unwelcoming to parents as they face cuts in health care, growing economic inequality and minimum wage levels below the poverty line." He also argues that pro-life sponsored legislation is most effective not when it directly attacks Roe/Wade but emphasizes real choices and alternatives to abortion.
Scripture is silent on abortion, although the Didache, "The Apostolic Teaching of the Fathers," dating from 90 A.D., condemns it forthrightly and ranges it with other innocent life issues (it does not stand alone). Nor does Scripture give us any precise definition of what constitutes innocent life. Thoughtful consistent ethic of life voters will divide on which candidate most fully embraces the Catholic life ethic. But whoever wins, Catholics and others will have their work cut out for them to foster a true culture of life. Jesuit Father John A. Coleman is the Casassa Professor of Social Values in the Department of Theological Studies at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles. This week he presented a talk at Seattle University on "Religion and Politics: Bringing Our Convictions to the Public Order," part of the university's Education for Justice series.
|