Hat tip to Jimmy Akin (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/mitt-romney-on-.html) for posting a recent radio interview between a prominent Des Moines, Iowa radio talk show host and former Governor Mitt Romney (MA), presently leading many polls for the Republican representation in the 2008 Presidential Election, on his web blog (http://www.jimmyakin.typepad.com/, August 6, 2007).
The interview, running almost 20 minutes, includes some very revealing conversation concerning abortion and (implicitly) the manner in which a “man of faith” approaches “public service”, i.e. as the hypothetical President of the United States.
Roe v. Wade – Law of the Land… “now”
One of the more illuminating portions of the discussion was when the Host asked if “… Roe v. Wade is the law of the land”. Romney answered, “It is now”. Apparently Romney’s opinion is that the decision should be “overturned” and “left to the States”.
Romney’s personal view concerning abortion apparently changed during his tenure as Governor as Massachusetts. Describing his view when entering office, he said that he was Pro-Choice (though he did admit that he didn’t favor that misnomer at the time), then became “Pro-Life”[1] after having to deal with decisions as Governor[2].
Personal Faith in the Public Office
After describing the “change” to a “Pro-Life” position as Governor, the Host really shifted the discussion to Romney’s Mormon faith[3], its stance on abortion, how this plays out in his Public Service.
“…[T]he church’s official position… forever… states that…” a Mormon is uncompromisingly “Pro-Life”, says the host.
At first, Romney appeared to accept the host’s statement regarding the position of the Mormon church and chose to respond by reminding the listeners (like a good politician) that “…the great thing about this Country [is that] individuals who run for secular office are not implementing the policies of their church but … what they think is right for the Nation…”.
The Host “stirred the pot” when he brought up Kennedy as an example, who was criticized by many for segregating his personal faith from the public office. I found this interesting in that, to an extent, there is a truth in what Romney (and Kennedy) are saying: it is not the responsibility of a Mormon (or Catholic) politician to implement the dictates of their personal faith. However, there is an overarching Law that does indeed need implementation, regardless of what the “masses” say in a “democracy”: Natural Law.[4] Of course, the discussion never gets this far, but it is an extremely important “nuance” in the debate surrounding how a man of “faith” balances his personal and public responsibilities.
The Mormon Faith and “It’s Official Position” on Abortion
While Romney responds saying that “he is not going to have a conversation” about his church’s views, this is actually what ends up happening, both on and off the air, for the rest of the interview.[5]
Romney caves in, saying, “There are people in my church who are ‘pro-choice’…that is not against my church’s view…”.
The Host, who continually reads some ‘source’ that is never identified, again says that the Mormon’s official stance is unambiguously “Pro-Life”.
Romney emphatically reacts: “You happen to be incorrect on that…”!
Interestingly, Romney is the one that is (more) correct here.
While the Mormon church asserts that abortion is “one of the most…sinful practices of this day”[6], there seems to be a some official theological inconsistency. Isaiah Bennett, author of Inside Mormonism, says that the most apparent view of the Mormon church would leave outsiders (and, indeed, some insiders) to think that the church’s stance is crystal clear, but the reality is that the church is as “Pro-Life” as George W. Bush is, leaving room for abortion in “problem pregnancy” situations:[7]
…[T]he Mormon church opens itself to the charge of grave hypocrisy when it presents itself to the public as unabashedly pro-family and pro-life. There is an underside to this righteous self-portrait, and further examination… yields evidence of serious cracks in Mormonism’s pro-life foundation…
The Mormon church places itself in an untenable position: it opposes abortion because abortion takes the life of an innocent human child, a gift from the Lord, making abortion a selfish, cruel act, comparable to murder in gravity. Yet Mormon leadership consistently allows for exceptions. These exceptions are spelled out by the leaders [of the church]. Gospel Principles, a manual of belief and practice published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder-day Saints, stated in its 1979 and 1988 editions, “There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened”[8] (243 and 241, respectively).[9]
Bennett adds that in the 1992 edition of the Gospel Principles (cf. 251), the following was added:
There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when: 1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape. 2. The life or health or the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or 3. The fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.[10]
In other words, the unborn is an innocent human life and the taking of that life is gravely immoral—comparable to murder—except when the above mentioned situations come into play.
The first issue is circumstantial, i.e. the manner in which the child came into being was itself immoral (rape, incest) and, thus, it makes void the normative stance that abortion is gravely wrong. The second issue again is circumstantial, yet different from the first. This exception implicitly states that the life of one is more important than the life of another. A difficult state of affairs, to be sure, but the exception undermines the foundation of a true “Pro-Life” stance. And, finally, the third circumstance amounts to euthanasia if actually carried out, i.e. the unborn person has defects which would make living, under such circumstances, improbable and, thus, it is acceptable to take the life of the child.
This portion of my comments are already much too long and I would hope that it would be unnecessary for me to outline why such stances are inconsistent with a truly “Pro-Life” world view. My main desire was to show that Romney, as opposed to the radio host and “conventional wisdom”, is correct—the Mormon church, in its official documents, are not consistently against abortion and one could, hypothetically, be a “good Mormon” and hold (what amounts to be) a weak and impractical “Pro-Life” position.
Thoughts on the Interview as a Whole
First of all, I might say that Romney is more of a “politician” that I was hoping. My wife and I do not have television, so it is rare for us to have the opportunity to see how people act. While the radio host forced the conversation into a pseudo-debate concerning the Mormon church’s stance on abortion and continually (albeit implicitly) questioned Romney’s understanding of the Mormon faith, the underlying opportunity for me, as a voting-Catholic-American, was to see how this politician would react to sincere (though mistaken) questions. My opinion is that he was condescending, sarcastic and disrespectful. While someone might respond to me saying that he was simply reacting to the host’s initiatives, I would say that the host isn’t running for Office.
Second, my initial reaction is that he seems to be personally consistent with regard to the “Pro-Life” question. He stated that he was once Pro-Choice (which, as displayed, is not entirely in opposition to Mormon doctrine), and that, once Governor, he became “Pro-Life”; he declared that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that the decisions with regard to abortion law should be left up to the States; and he seems to have a more strict and tenable “Pro-Life” stance, i.e., he didn’t say that he thought that circumstances should make abortion a viable option.[11]
That being said, I do have one main concern about the consistency or credibility of his abortion view: If Roe v. Wade should be “over turned”, why should any decision concerning the issue be left to the States? Should a decision regarding murder in general be left to the States? Or theft? Or rape? In other words, is Romney here subjecting the issue to the decisions of government (at worst), or “majority vote” (democracy) at best? And if that is the case, then why not allow the issue to be a Federal one? Romney appears to be inconsistent here.
Could He Win the Presidency if He Received the Nomination?
While I have my personal concerns regarding his Pro-Life stance, I would also have to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of voters in this Country will here “over turn Roe v. Wade” and make Romney out to be a strict “Pro-Life Conservative”. That being said, can Romney win a Presidential nomination in today’s culture when he is making it known that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?
No. I don’t think so.
The majority of Americans fall somewhere between the polar extremes of the two great misnomers: “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life”. There are many who believe that there are circumstantial allowances (rape, incest, deformity, life of mother, etc.) that make it necessary to keep a law protecting a (limited) right to abortion as an option on the part of the mother. There are others who would be outright opposed to abortion in the third trimester, but not the first or, possibly, the second trimester, etc.
However inconsistent such views are, one must acknowledge the reality that most people are in this “grey camp” when it comes to the abortion question: they are hesitant to allow abortion, and they are hesitant to make it completely against the law.
As such, I do not think that Romney could win against the likes of Obama or Clinton if he were to win the Republican nomination. I think that the vast majority of Americans will find such a view impractical and dangerous (that is, overturning Roe v. Wade), even if some people (like myself) feel that abortion should be completely banned.[12]
A Humble Reminder to All Catholics and Christians in General
While the main thrust of the topics herein have evolved around abortion, I would like to end by humbly reminding all people that there is much more to politics and our responsibility to vote than the issue of abortion.
While I in no way wish to diminish the importance of the subject, I strongly feel that most “good Catholics” are “one-issue-voters” and do not allow themselves to feel the tension that they should feel when thinking about all the issues together. For example, I think that Catholics voting next year would do well to consider some of the following:
1. What Can the President Actually Do? — What practically can a President do when it comes to the issue of abortion in this Country? Can the President actually overturn a Supreme Court decision? Depending on the answer to the question, the issue of abortion will take on a greater or minimized role in your decision when it comes time to vote.
2. The Questions of “Life” Transcend “Abortion” — To stick with the issue of “life”, Catholics should ask themselves how other “life issues” come into play. Too often Catholics will reduce the issue of “life” to “abortion”. There are other issues to consider: war, capital punishment, poverty, crime, drugs, nuclear policy, etc. etc. etc. While it is true that abortion is inherently different than “war” or “capital punishment” in that there is no circumstance that makes abortion “just”, there are, nonetheless, other “life issues” to consider. And many of these issues can be immediately affected by who the President of the United States is.
3. “Human Dignity” as an Interpretive Theme, as Opposed to “Human Life” Alone — Finally (though I could bring up other issues…) I would like to say that “human dignity” offers a more complete interpretative theme when it comes to time to vote. Issues such as health care, boarder control and illegal immigration, social security and social programs, such as welfare, come into play. These too must be considered by any voting Catholic.
Personally, I am pleased that the 2008 election debate is well underway… having started 1.5 years before the election! If gives us all ample opportunity to weigh the arguments, see who is consistent over the long run, and decide who we (perhaps with hesitation) decide to vote for.
I hope it is a long, painful and frustrating process for you all, as (in my opinion) it must be for any Catholic in our American democracy!
—
[1] In a separate tapped interview that the host played during their discussion, Romney is quoted as saying that being “Pro-Life” means that “…I would like to see over time, and as soon as possible, I would like to see Roe v. Wade allow the States to make their own decisions with regard to abortion”.
[2] Discussed having to deal with embryo cloning, etc. as the Governor.
[3] Technically titled “The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints”
[4] I have recently been enthralled with these discussions as found in Pope Benedict’s writings, such as Values in a Time of Upheaval, among others.
[5] The interview is worth listening to for the off air comments alone, especially the last five minutes.
[6] General Handbook of Instructions, 11-4, qtd. in Inside Mormonism—What Mormons Really Believe, by Isaiah Bennett (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 1999), pg. 141 (=IM).
[7] I have always been alarmed when Catholics or other Christians uncritically acclaim that the President is “Pro-Life”. On his official campaign website when running for office, he stated that he believed that abortion was wrong, except in cases of rape and incest, etc. While there are some who feel that I am “majoring in the minors” by pointing out this “nuance”, I would strongly disagree. The “Pro-Life” stance is not simply a banner to wave in front of the “Religious Right” of America—it is an uncompromisingly consistent believe that human life begins at conception and, as a human, the unborn child has certain “inalliable rights”. First and foremost of those rights is the “right to life”.
[8] My own emphasis added.
[9] IM, 143-144.
[10] IM, 144.
[11] It should go without say that I am simply reacting to what was said during the course of the interview.
[12] Further, I remind people to question below (without providing my own answer to the question) whether the President could, in all reality, do anything about Roe v. Wade to begin with.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In