After recent comments by Joe Biden along the lines that he is opposed to abortion, but will not withdraw his support for the “right” to abortion on the grounds that it is a “personal and private issue”, Archbishops Chaput of Denver issued a rebuke. Chaput was quite right to point out that abortion is a foundational issue, one that always involves the taking of innocent human life, and thus cannot be relegated to the domain of private morality. In his fascinating book on Catholics and the Democratic party, Michael Sean Winters argues convincingly that Kennedy’s defense against the dominant anti-Catholicism of the time– that his religion was a private matter and would not affect policy– was a wrong turn for the Democratic party. For a party at the forefront of the civil rights movement, a movement dominated by Christianity, it simply was not credible to invoke this defense in the matter of abortion and overlook it on civil rights.
That said, Archbishop Chaput seriously oversteps. Here is what he says:
“Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation.”
With this statement, Chaput is undercutting the basis of his own argument, and indeed, mixing moral absolutes with prudential judgments concerning political strategies. Let’s think this through a little. Assume Roe is no more. A very likely scenario would be for the largest states accounting for the great majority of abortions to immediately introduce legislation codifying the provisions of Roe, and this would garner the support of a majority of the electorate. By the logic of Chaput, that would be fine, as it’s a case of the American people deciding “through fair debate and legislation”. But of course this is not so as such laws would be as grievously wrong as Roe.
The passage from Evanegelium Vitae on democracy, quoted by MZ recently, is relevant here:
“Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign of the times”, as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.”
I’m confident that Chaput was not trying to hold the ideals of democracy above the natural law, but his drafting was sloppy, amenable to such a mis-interpretation. But one thing is pellucidly clear: he seems to embody the same inability to see beyond Roe that afflicts much of what calls itself the pro-life movement. Thinking beyond Roe means an honest acknowledgement that reducing abortion in this country means addressing the culture directly, by being a witness to a consistent ethic of life and promoting the kinds of social and economic policies that support the bearing and rearing of children in our society– this is not merely an end in itself, but a necessary condition for changing people’s minds and hearts on abortion, which is essential in a democracy. It can be done. The strong stance of the Church on the death penalty over the past decade or so has contributed to diminishing support for this form of punishment in the United States. And one thing is for sure: the narrow political agenda of much of the pro-life movement is only going to backfire.
In a previous interview, Chaput seemed to recognize these issues, when he stated:
“You can have good Catholics who say that they’re not for the criminalization of abortion, or they want to take gradual steps toward eliminating it by convincing the public that this is a bad thing. Those are all legitimate political positions-as long as you’re really moving towards the goal of protecting unborn human life. You at least have to have the goal.”
I think one thing that frustrates Chaput, and rightly so, is that such an approach can relieve the pressure on the crop of pro-Roe politicians. They can continue about their business while adopting a position which is patently unjustifiable. But none of this is either-or. Promoting a consistent ethic of life includes shouting quite loudly that the unborn need some legal protection, that abortion can in no cicumstances be seen as a “right”, and that we need to be working toward that ultimate position. But it does not mean singling out certain politicians while letting others off the hook. Because it’s not so simple.
For example, Joe Biden actually opposes public funding for abortion and partial-birth abortion. Does he not deserve credit for that? After all, in the debates about whether an Obama presidency would have much impact on the abortion rate, it is often pointed that he would have a direct impact by public funding. Clearly, Biden’s proximity to each act of abortion is thus lessened, and the voter’s proportionately so. And yet he still insists on this “right”. What about McCain? A decent record on the legislative side, and yet he has equivocated on Roe, and refuses to talk about abortion in his campaign, suggesting it will simply not be a priority. At the same time, the Democratic platform includes for the first time language to reduce the number of abortions and to provide assistance to women to carry their child to term. Obama even noted this in his speech. Not only was McCain silent on abortion, but his party removed similar provisions from its platform.
So, while it’s clear that supporting Roe can in no sense be justified, and folks like Biden should be rebuked for saying otherwise, the choice of the voter on the abortion issue alone, even forgetting for a minute the multitude of other issues, is not so clearcut. And anybody who tells you different is selling something else.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In