According to the Catholic League, Obama is now a champion of the “culture of death“. The reason? His statement that he thought it was wrong for the federal government to interject itself into the Terry Schiavo case. It’s funny, I’m surpised it took Bill Donohue so long to jump in this time around. Four years ago, he was pretty much releasing Republican daily speaking points at this stage in the game!
Thoughts on Donohue
Before getting to the heart of the matter, let’s recap a little. Donohue does not like Obama. A while back, he complained about some of the people supporting Obama. Specifically, he mentioned “three controversial clergymen” including a Chicago-area Catholic priest. Among the accusations are that these clergymen condemned zionism, and blamed 9/11 on American foreign policy, received an award from the Nation of Islam, befriended Louis Farrakhan, and demonstrated against a gun store. Blaming 9/11 on foreign policy? Only those wedded deeply to a rigidly Calvinist view of the world deny that there are legitimate grievances against the United States in the Islamic world, as I talked about yesterday, grievances that include an unconditional support for Israel, the simultaneous talking up of democracy while backing despots and cracking down on actual democratic outcomes, and– more recently– the invasion and occupation of a Muslim country and the use of torture. Then again, Donohue has always been more American than Catholic. And anyway, what of the religious leaders who explicitly blamed Americans for causing 9/11–- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Where was Donohue then? And what about the other allegations? Demonstrating against a gun store? Hasn’t the USCCB spoken out in favor of gun control?
We need to revisit Donohue’s partisanship, I think. He really really liked George Bush in 2004 and really really did not like John Kerry. He once asked “Is Bush too Holy to be President?” and declared that “most observers, regardless of their political bent, agree that President George W. Bush seems at home with his Christianity” and “most Americans appreciate and admire President George W. Bush for his strong religious convictions”. Donohue also presented a number of anti-Bush quotes as evidence that “we need to build more asylums”. And while Bush is deeply religious, Kerry was clearly a phony. So when Kerry talks about religion (such as when he stated the Catholic belief that both faith and good deeds are required for salvation) he is denounced as a hypocrite, and insincere. Donohue is disgusted by Kerry trying to defend his religiosity, asking “whether Kerry is playing politics with his religion”. To Kerry, “religion is an enigma”. Donohue even feels the need to list friends of Kerry’s who claim he is not religious. Contrast with the fawning treatment of Bush.
There’s more. How about both candidates’ attempts at religious outreach? Special venom is reserved for Kerry’s people. Donohue claimed that the resume of one (Mara Vanderslice) is “that of a person looking for a job working for Fidel Castro”, while another (Brenda Peterson) is lambasted for opposing “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Contrast this with his now infamous defense of Bush’s Catholic liaison, Deal Hudson. After allegations of sexual impropriety with an 18-year old student, Donohue blamed the victim, decrying the allegations of a “drunken female he met in a bar.” Even by Donohue’s standard, this was low.
There’s more. How about Bob Jones? During the 2000 election, Donohue accepted Bush’s apology for speaking there, claiming that the issue was now settled. He talked about Christian forgiveness. He then went on to accuse John McCain of “demagoguery” and of playing the “politics of fear” for raising Bob Jones’s anti-Catholic and racist background. And others who kept raising the issue were engaging in a “smear tactic” for “political profit”. Later, when John Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones, and was criticized, Donohue leaped to his defense, calling it “much ado about nothing” and declaring that Ashcroft was right to attack his opponent for raising the issue. Contrast this with the Catholics for a Free Choiceincident. Donohue hounded Terry McAuliffe for listing this organization under the “Catholic” banner on the DNC website. (And in this case, Donohue actually had a point, for once). But when McAuliffe caved, how did Donohue react? You might guess something along the lines of “settling the matter” and “Christian forgiveness”, along the lines of Bush at Bob Jones? You’d guess wrong. His actual statement? “We will not congratulate the DNC for doing the right thing… this victory is oh, so sweet.” Nice.
And when Donohue faced allegations that some of his evangelical allies among the “Justice Sunday” gatherings included those who branded Catholicism a false religion, Donohue not only defended his friends– betraying the mandate of the Catholic League– but attacked phantom left-wing critics: it’s the “fat-cat, left-wing bigots like George Soros who concern us” whereas “Dobson is our friend.” On the allegation that Republicans favor tax cuts for the rich? “The greedy want to keep the money they’ve earned; those who want to take it from us are the altruists”. What about the Iraq war? Here, he claimed, falsely, that Pope John Paul never said that there was “no legal or moral justification for the war”. And he angrily denounced those who “exploited” the pope’s position while not respecting “his teaching on all subjects”.
Thoughts on the Schiavo Case
This lengthy recap of the last few years is meant to put Donohue’s attack on Obama into perspective. But let’s get to the heart of the issue, the Schiavo comment. This is a highly nuanced topic, as I discussed last year. Basically, up until very recently, the question of whether it was licit to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a persistent vegetative state remained open. Many bioethicists (including Fr. John Paris) argued that– from the teaching of moralists like Bañez and Vitoria– providing food and water can sometimes be seen as extraordinary and disproportionate, justifying removal of tubes. If so, this would not be euthanasia. This was widely accepted over the last half century or so, going back to Gerald Kelly in the 1950s.
Indeed, the lack of clarity over this case was singled out by William E. May in his Introduction to Moral Theology (2003) as an example over which Catholics might honestly disagree:
“Moreover, at times virtuous people disagree, and disagree in a contradictory way, with regard to specific moral issues on which the magisterium of the Church has not made a firm judgment. For example, some (including bishops) argue that ordinarily one is required to provide food and hydration to persons in the so-called “persistent vegetative state” unless it is clear that doing so fails to nourish the person or imposes unnecessarily harsh burdens, whereas others (again including bishops) vigorously maintain that there is no moral duty to do so.”
Of course, this question was the subject of a very recent CDF statement, stressing that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory in principle, except in rare cases where it is excessively burdensome. The problem is, the loud cavalcade that made a circus of a dying woman a few years ago seemed blithely ignorant of this background debate. They seem not to have noticed that there were very different views on this topic within orthodox circles right up to the CDF notification. And don’t me wrong, I fully support the CDF ruling. But while it was laudable to try to save Schiavo’s life, I share Obama’s doubts about the wisdom of using the full coercive power of the federal government to do so. And note, that’s all Obama said. Funnily enough, most of those supported such intervention at the time tended to be the same poeple who tended to be wary of state power interfering in areas where it should have no jurisdiction.
Fundamentally, I did not see a consistent ethic of life in play. Why were the zealots who were so concerned about the life of one woman in America not seem to care about the thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by American bombs at the same time? Why did they support Schiavo, while refusing to fund health care for people who might not be able to afford even basic treatment, let along the prolonged care that Schiavo required? Why did we hear about Schiavo’s death, and not those who died because they lacked health insurance, or because their insurance company refused to pay for the necessary treatment? Where was the outcry when the man who claimed he wanted to “err on the side of life” institutionalized torture using consequentialist reasoning? Sorry, yet again, no evidence of a consistent ethic of life. Instead, it was a shameful exploitation of a tragedy for partisan ends. No wonder Donohue is trying to resurrect it.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In