Thoughtful Catholics are aware of the challenges, pitfalls and snares that abound in the political arena whenever issues that entail the evil of abortion are on the horizon. Most recently we have seen creative legislative strategies by various states which attempt to at least limit, if not, eliminate abortions --- including the 2006 ballot initiative, Prop. 85, supported by California's bishops, that would have required parental notification in the case of minors seeking abortions.
In Missouri, a new law (see sidebar) attempts to curtail abortions by mandating that most abortion clinics will now fall under state supervision by categorizing them as outpatient surgery centers. This means that these abortion clinics now must comply with stricter state standards concerning facilities, staffing and health standards. Apparently the cost of compliance with such standards would make it nearly impossible for a number of abortion clinics to continue to operate.
While this approach certainly does not eliminate all abortions in Missouri, it does seem to be a well-thought-out plan to use new and inventive legislation to enforce regulations that in the end would likely curtail abortions.
Interestingly, there are pro-life Christians who denounce anti-abortion strategies exemplified in Prop. 85 and the new Missouri law. They espouse the unilateral and immovable position that the only morally righteous and acceptable political stance is to always and in every case vote only for laws that provide for a total ban on abortion. Their argument is that to do anything else --- i.e. to support laws and motions that seek to limit abortions (like the example from Missouri) but do not outlaw them totally --- is to cooperate in evil.
On the other hand, there are other pro-life Christians, just as committed to the elimination of legalized abortion, who espouse a multi-faceted position which states that while a total eradication of abortion remains the ultimate goal, supporting laws and policies, like that of Missouri, that at least bring about an immediate lessening of abortions, is a laudable and moral choice. What does the Catholic Church say about this?
The Catholic starting point: Absolutely clear!
Laws that legalize abortion are intrinsically unjust and it is not moral to obey them. The traditional Catholic understanding is that people are only morally obliged to enact, support and follow "just" laws is clearly stated in the new Catechism (n. 1902, 1903). St. Thomas Aquinas is unambiguous about this:
"A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence." (STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2)
This teaching was first applied to abortion in 1974 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"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 favor of such a law, or vote for it.'"
Abortion is clearly an intrinsic evil that cannot under any circumstances be morally justified. Therefore, directly and intentionally voting for, supporting or complying with abortion laws is morally unacceptable.
But now that legalized abortion is the "law of the land" how can Catholics make morally correct pro-life political decisions while the elimination of legal abortion remains in the future?
Voting for measures that limit but do not eliminate abortion: A nuanced approach!
In his groundbreaking encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II addressed a new issue which was a significant one in many countries by 1995 when it was published. He identified a "problem of conscience" in cases where a legislator or citizen in a country where abortion was legalized might have the opportunity to vote for a particular restrictive measure that would result in limiting abortions in place of the more permissive law already in place. His answer:
"In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences…. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects" (EV, n. 73).
It becomes clear, then, that Catholic teaching would support a two-pronged strategy in the campaign against abortion, a culture of death, and in fact against any unjust laws:
1) As a Catholic community, we need to be committed to a continued and concerted drive to defeat and remove all unjust, anti-life legislation that supports abortion, euthanasia, racism, the death penalty, embryonic stem cell research, is anti-children and all other legislation that attacks the human person at any stage of development from conception to natural death.
2) We can at the same time support the adoption of restrictive legislation that is aimed at limiting the evil permitted by more permissive laws already in place. This is not then a compromise or an argument in which "the end justifies the means." Rather, this is, as John Paul said, a "proper attempt to limit [a current law's] evil aspects."
In light of the Church's teaching, is support for the type of legislation that is being proposed in Missouri entitled to Catholic moral support? It would seem very clearly so.
Laws and a 'Conscience Clause'
Finally, how can Catholics and Catholic institutions negotiate in a country with unjust laws that may impose themselves in ways that impel individuals and institutions to act contrary to their conscience? What happens when laws and policies force health care workers to participate in anti-life practices, directly or indirectly, under various threats, criminal or civil penalties or loss of a job?
Formal cooperation in evil, where one participates directly in the attack against human life or shares in the immoral intention of the person committing the act, is never morally acceptable. Therefore, every society needs to provide for persons to invoke their conscience, which the Church claims is a human right and so should be both acknowledged and protected by civil law.
Again, Pope John Paul II teaches that:
"…the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics, and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane" (EV, n. 74).
In conclusion, we can see that the Church's teaching regarding Catholics and support for anti-life legislation is both clear and multi-faceted. We must first work to legally protect all life from conception to natural death from any and all attacks and harm. Secondly, we must work simultaneously to support any legislation that offers more immediate relief when total relief remains distant.
And finally, we must work to provide legitimate "conscience clauses" in legislation so that no one is forced to participate in morally unacceptable anti-life practices that may unfortunately still remain legal in society. Vincentian Father Richard Benson is academic dean and professor of moral theology at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. His column appears monthly in The Tidings. |