Very recently, Cardinal Georges Cottier, the Dominican theologian emeritus of the pontifical household, penned an interesting essay centered around Obama’s speeches in Notre Dame and Cairo. This is highly significant. The journal, 30 Days, has strong ties to the Vatican (just like the much maligned L’Osservatore Romano) and the cardinal was charged, under Pope John Paul II, with vetting documents for orthodoxy. And yet he writes an essay finding much to praise in Obama’s abortion strategy, even though Obama does not see merit in granting legal protection to the unborn.
To me, this is yet another indication of how much the American Catholic right is diverging from the traditional Catholic outlook, overly influenced by the dominant Gnostic-Protestant culture in general, and by the derivative dualistic Calvinism of the evangelicals with whom they increasing make common cause in particular. It’s significant that cardinal Cottier is a Dominican, a Thomist, an Aquinas scholar, and his analysis is couched in Aquinas’s theory of law. His main point, I think, is that Christians are expected to live in a fallen world, and to change by example and persuasion, not by force and through laws that will not be accepted. The application to abortion is pellucid.
So what exactly does cardinal Cottier say on Obama and abortion? He first implicitly rebukes those who adopt the right-wing talking points of the day and call him the “most pro-abortion president ever”. Here is Cottier:
“There are those who, like us, consider abortion an intrinsece malum, there are those who accept it, and even some who claim it as a right. The President has never taken the latter position. On the contrary, I think he has made positive suggestions – something also stressed by L’Osservatore Romano of 19 May – proposing again in this case the search for common ground. …His position is not the misunderstood relativism of those who say that it is a matter of contrasting views, and that all personal opinions are subjective and uncertain, and thus it is better to set them aside when speaking of these things.
In addition, Obama recognizes the tragic seriousness of the problem. That the decision to abort “is a heart-wrenching decison for any woman”. The common ground that he is proposing is that we all work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortion. He adds that any legal regulation of the matter must guarantee in absolute fashion conscientious objection for health workers who do not want to engage in the practice of abortion. His words go in the direction of diminishing the evil. The government and the State must make every effort to ensure that the number of abortions is minimized. It is, of course, only a minimum, but a precious minimum. “
He then draws an interesting historical comparison. He notes that the early Christian legislators did not repeal gravely unjust Roman laws tolerating practices that went counter to the natural law, such as slavery and concubinage. Instead, change took time, “arrived at by slow degrees, often marked by setbacks,” as the Christian ethos on the dignity of the person became more prevalent. In other words, they had to change the culture before they could change the law. In sum:
“At first, to obtain the consent of citizens and preserve social peace, the so-called “imperfect laws” were left in force, which prevented persecution for acts and behavior contrary to natural law. Even St Thomas, who had no doubt that the law must be moral, added that the State should not make laws too severe and “lofty” because they would be despised by those incapable of applying them.
The realism of the politician recognizes evil and calls it by its name. It recognizes that we must be humble and patient, fighting without the presumption of eradicating it from human history by means of legal coercion. It is the parable of the tares, which also applies at the political level. On the other hand, this does not become justification for cynicism and indifference to it. The effort to decrease evil as much as possible remains persistent. It is a duty.”
He then warns of the danger of utopianism, something the Church has always opposed, and shows how a zeal for good can lead to evil — he gives the examples of communism and the murder of abortion doctors:
“The Church has always perceived the illusion of eliminating evil from history by legal, political or religious means as unattainable and dangerous. Recent history is also full of disasters produced by the fanaticism of those who aimed to dry up the sources of evil in human history, ultimately transforming everything into a vast cemetery. The communist regimes followed exactly this logic. As does the religious terrorism which kills even in the name of God. When a doctor who favored abortion was killed by militant anti-abortionists – as happened recently in the US – one has to admit that even the highest ideals, such as the sacrosanct defense of the absolute value of human life, can be corrupted and turn into their opposite, becoming slogans at the disposition an aberrant ideology.”
As I have said many times, the Church throughout history has worked with flawed leaders and flawed juridical frameworks, trying to promote the common good to the best of its ability. Think of Charlemagne, Justinian the Great, Theoderic. Think of Thomas More working for Henry VIII. Think of Pope Gregory the Great pledging his respect and loyalty to Emperor Phocas after Phocas had murdered his predecessor Maurice and Maurice’s family. Whole books could be written with such examples. To think that standards of virtue rise in democracy is itself a form of idolatry. In other words, a position consistent with Catholic history would be work with Obama on the aspects of his agenda that we support — including the goal of reducing abortions even if we differ on the the larger picture.
We will only win by changing hearts and minds. Think about it. A noisy “pro-life” group demonizes Obama as the most pro-abortion president ever, and even our bishops have shown themselves more inclined to follow than lead on this issue. I remain convinced that the vitriolic response of many American Catholics to Obama’s election, to his positions (real or imagined), and to his address at Notre Dame, will surely backfire and do great harm to the pro-life cause. After all, the message being absorbed by the wider public is that Catholics are a bunch of single-issue extremists who had no problem with a war-and-torture president, but vehemently oppose Obama on abortion. What will that accomplish?
I was incredibly impressed by the pope giving a copy of the most recent CDF document on bioethics to Obama as a parting gift. Ever the teacher, he wanted Obama to read a literature that was patently foreign to him. Instead of denouncing, he sought to persuade by words. Instead of opposing with emotion, he reached out with intellect. I don’t not expect any road-to-Damascus moments as he reads it. But still, this gesture was worth a million Randall Terry types ranting and raving about the ills of abortion.
We can only win by persuasion, by changing hearts and minds. Remember, when the people of South Dakota were asked to criminalize abortion, what exactly were they asked to approve? Well, there would be no penalty for the woman, and the doctor would be charged with a misdemeanor akin to possession of a small quantity of marijuana. And it still failed at the polls. Cardinal Cottier’s example from ancient Rome is apt.
We can change the culture by example. We do so by stressing the consistent ethic of life, the personalist ethic of intrinsic human worth. We must denounce abortion as the violent act it is, and link it to the more general culture of violence. We must follow the Declaration on Procured Abortion which declares that, “One can never approve of abortion; but it is above all necessary to combat its causes”. It is merely a small step, one of a million necessary small steps. For those who remain cynical about this strategy, I would merely note that grace and nature are not distinct spheres.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In