The decision by the pope and the American bishops to turn up the heat this year on the issue of voting for pro-abortion politicians has put many Catholics on the left in an uncomfortable position, even those who are genuinely pro-life. One can see why. Modern Catholic “progressives” are heirs to the Social Gospel theories of the early 20th century. As a result, their religious identity is closely tied to the political philosophy of the Democratic Party.
Sincerity on Both Sides
They sincerely see the wealth redistribution implicit in an expanding welfare state as a way of caring for the least of our brethren; efforts to promote world federalism and harness American military power as beating swords into plowshares; a committed application of federal power to end racial discrimination as a way of loving our neighbor as ourselves for the love of Christ.
Because they are so sincere they cannot help but question the religious sincerity of political conservatives who are Catholic. They are convinced that Catholic conservatives have succumbed to capitalist greed, jingoism and racial bigotry. This accounts for the scolding tone in their sermons and classroom lectures and the angry rhetoric you will hear from members of groups such as Pax Christi during their demonstrations outside American military bases.
Let us leave aside for the moment whether this is a fair way for one group of Catholics to view another group of Catholics who disagree with them. (It isn’t.) What I would like to focus on just now is the lengths to which Catholics who see the Democratic Party as an instrument of peace and social justice are willing to go to justify voting for a pro-abortion politician such as John Kerry, even in the face of the admonitions from Rome and the American bishops. You can tell from the way they are maneuvering that the thought of voting for George Bush is unthinkable for them, regardless of what the hierarchy says about the need to do everything within our power to protect the life of the unborn.
There is no need to rehash how certain Catholics apply the “Seamless Garment” logic to make their case. Many commentators have illustrated the error implicit in their proposition that it is “more Catholic” to vote for Kerry, even though he supports partial-birth abortion, because he is “with the Church” on issues such as capital punishment, poverty programs, the environment and the war in Iraq. What interests me just now is a new proposition being advanced. We are being told that the famed Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray would recommend that Catholics give Kerry a pass; indeed, that Murray would defend Kerry’s decision not to push for laws to prohibit abortion.
Am I sure that Murray would not be making the case for the “personally-opposed-but” Catholic politicians of today if he were still alive? (Murray, generally conceded to be the architect of Vatican II’s Declaration of Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, died in 1967 at the relatively young age of 62.) No. I have no way of knowing if Murray would sound more like Robert Drinan or Avery Dulles if he were still with us.
But neither does anyone else, including Fr. Gregory A. Kalscheur, S.J., an assistant professor at Boston College Law School, who argues in the July 29th issue of America magazine that a correct application of Murray’s understanding of the relationship between Catholics and a pluralist society calls for Catholics not to push too hard for laws ending legal abortions.
Can Abortion Be Prudently Addressed by Law?
What is the basis of Kalscheur’s argument? He maintains that there is an insufficient consensus at this time in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade, and that Murray understood the implications of such a circumstance; that he knew “human law must be framed with a view to the level of virtue that is actually possible to expect from the people required to comply with the law”; that the law “should not be used to prohibit a given moral evil unless that prohibition can be shown to be something that the law is capable of addressing prudently.”
Kalscheur cites passages from Murray’s We Hold These Truths to make the point that a free people can “be coerced only to a minimal amount of moral action” and that if the state seeks to moralize excessively, “it tends to defeat even its own modest aims, by bringing itself into contempt.” This is why, says Kalscheur, a Catholic politician is entitled to ask himself if it is prudent to vote for laws prohibiting abortion, free to consider if “the prohibition will be obeyed, at least by most people? Is it enforceable against the disobedient?”
Some Catholic politicians appear to be listening to Kalscheur. Within weeks of the publication of his article, a piece by David Obey, a “pro-choice” Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Wisconsin, also appeared in America. (I don’t know if this was a coincidence or America’s attempt at a one-two punch.) Obey argues that he supports legal abortion because, in is words, “I decline to force my views into law that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart.”
Kalscheur and Obey have a point, of course. I don’t know if it “would tear this society apart” if we repealed Roe v. Wade and began closing down abortion centers. But the country would be in for a period of considerable turmoil. It is easy to picture Hollywood stars and women professors and business executives leading demonstrations of tens of thousands of middle-class women in protest, with an equal number of male sympathizers in support. I think it likely that there would be arrests and some bloodshed.
Is It Worth the Trouble?
The question is would it be worth such tumult to end legal abortion? More to the point, would John Courtney Murray think it would be worth it? Kalscheur is correct that Murray’s would say it is not worth civil upheaval to use the force of law to end, say, legal divorce, the sale of birth control devices, the sale and distribution of alcohol, or to close businesses on Sunday in respect for the Sabbath. The question is whether he would place protecting the life of the unborn in the same category. (We should not forget that Murray’s defense of the separation of church and state was based on his confidence that the people of the United States could be trusted to democratically enact laws based on the “great tradition” of the natural law. Many have asked whether Murray would rethink that assumption if he had lived to see the legalization of abortion.)
Some comparisons are in order. Would Fr. Kalscheur take the position that Catholics in the United States in the mid-19th century should have waited until a consensus was formed against slavery before pushing for laws to abolish it? Let me emphasize, the question is not whether Kalscheur thinks abolitionists should have called for a war to end slavery, merely whether they should have promoted laws to end slavery with as much vigor as pro-lifers promote laws to end abortion nowadays.
He argues that it is necessary to “help people understand why the moral vision underlying the law promotes the common good” and that if we fail to bring our fellow citizens around to that understanding there will be “a disjunction” “between law and morality.” Would he have offered that instruction to Catholics in Nazi Germany who were looking for ways to end the Third Reich? Should they have waited for a solid consensus to form against Hitler before using the German political system — in the manner pro-lifers are using our political system — to remove him from power?
I can feel some hackles going up. Is it a cheap shot to bring up the Nazis and slave-owners in the context of this discussion? Obviously, it was worth political turmoil to end those evils. Human lives and basic human rights were at stake in Nazi Germany and on the plantations of the ante-bellum South, whereas in the case of an abortion…
You get the point. Look: Even if we were to reach a stage where only 20% of the American people favored legal abortion (which would mean that we would have an overwhelming pro-life consensus), there would still be considerable civil upheaval if a law were passed overturning Roe v. Wade. Barbara Streisand, Oprah and the feminists will not go quietly on this one. Recommending that we wait until abortion can be ended with as little public disruption as accompanied, say, the end of Prohibition is a recommendation to do nothing legislatively to protect the unborn, ever.
I sometimes wonder what level of disruption of our normal lives would be acceptable for those who argue it is imprudent for Catholics to seek legislation to end legal abortions. Would they be willing to live with what took place when the high schools were integrated in Little Rock in the 1950s? When students mobilized to end the draft during the Viet Nam war? When feminists marched on Washington to defend what they call “reproductive freedom?”
If not, why not?
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
