DISCLAIMER: This diary was written by a friend of mine, Salty1, who joined dailykos shortly before this post. But because of the seven day cooling off period on diary entries he would not have his voice heard in this forum before election day. I, myself, am a Southern Baptist Democrat and I admire his articulation and point of view.
Catholicism is a faith that celebrates and defends the sanctity of human life – including the lives of the unborn. The Republican Party has sought over the years to use the Catholic moral position on the question of the lives of the unborn as an issue with which to divide and isolate Catholics and move them into the Republican base
During this election cycle, while the economy has emerged as the front-and-center theme around which the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign have woven their narratives, a side show has been playing itself out - only occasionally in the view of most voters - among Catholic voters like me over the wedge issue of abortion. No doubt this is because of the prominence of Catholic Pennsylvania as a coveted prize on the maps of both campaigns. And no doubt because the only Catholic on this year's election happens to be on the Democratic ticket, not the Republican ticket. Earlier in this election cycle a pair of prominent Catholic Democratic politicians caused confusion and made some elements of the Republicanized clergy angry over their comments on the proper Catholic view on abortion. I am referring of course to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. At the core of the side show spectacle is the frustration of the McCain campaign's allies and surrogates in Catholic America against the growing Catholic support for the presidency of Barack Obama - something that isn't supposed to happen according to the Republicans who claim to have a hegemonic grip on voters influenced by questions of abortion policy. But I am, like many Catholics, standing up and saying "not this time". Abortion no longer needs to be the wedge used by Republicans to divide Catholics. Catholics not only can, but should embrace the candidacy Barack Obama. Here is why.
This effort to turn Catholics into Republicans based on the single issue of the Catholic culture of life has been carried out in this country largely with the duplicity and coordinated support of politically conservative members of the clergy who have issued directives to their audiences that the political issues surrounding the culture of life are "non-negotiable" and that civic participation by Catholics in American democracy must begin and end with the single question: who supports most zealously the criminalization of procured abortion procedures in our society.
Before any discussion of Catholicism and abortion proceeds, everyone needs to understand what the actual Catholic teaching on procured abortion is, where it comes from, and what it is not. Misinformation spreads like a weed, even among Catholics themselves. For centuries, Catholic doctrine on questions of morality and faith has been determined by the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (the "Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith" or "CDF"), formally known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition, whose duty, officially, under the Apostolic Constitution of the Roman Curia, as promulgated by the Pope is "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence." Your neighborhood parish priest doesn't determine these issues. Bishops – not even the Bishop Francis Malooly of Joe Biden's state of Delaware who recently attacked Biden in a Delaware opinion piece – do not make these sorts of determinations. Even Fox News Religion Contributor Father Jonathan Morris who regularly holds himself out to the public as the Catholic authority on all questions political may not make these determinations.
The CDF has specifically addressed the question of procured abortion twice in recent years: once on November 18, 1974 in its "Declaration on Procured Abortion" written by the Croatian Prefect Franjo Cardinal Seper, and again in 1987 in the "Donum Vitae – Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day" written by Prefect Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope. Benedict XVI. This is not to say that other Catholics – some of better learning than others – have offered their opinions or collaborative or supporting arguments regarding abortion consistent with the declarations issued by the CDF, but in the end, it is the CDF, and the CDF alone, that has the authority to dictate the final word on Catholic questions of faith and morals, including questions of abortion.
Nancy Pelosi this summer in one of the Sunday morning network interview shows suggested that the Catholic view on when human life begins is open to debate and intellects as prominent as St. Thomas Aquinas have struggled with this. Pelosi was wrong on this matter. The Catholic Church, through the CDF, settled this question in 1974.
The CDF in 1974 clearly fixed as a matter of official Catholic doctrine that human life begins at "conception" (whatever that may mean). Non-Catholics may be surprised to learn the reasoning and basis for this view. The CDF does not cite scripture as a basis for settling this question. In fact, in a footnote, the CDF says "[t]he authors of Scripture do not make any philosophical observations on when life begins, but they speak of the period of life which precedes birth as being the object of God's attention: He creates and forms the human being, like that which is moulded by His hand." Rather, the CDF turns to Tertullian, the early Church Father, who taught in chapter 9 of his book, the Apologeticum that "we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed." Further support for the condemnation of abortion is found in the Didache, a pre-Nicene Christian treatise, which prescribes that "you should not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born." From these two texts, the CDF concluded that (a) abortion of the unborn human life is a moral sin no different than the taking of a human life of one already born and (b) an unborn fetus is a human life from the beginning – from "conception" – because as Tertullian says "you have the fruit already in the seed."
That is why Biden was in fact correct in stating on "Meet the Press" with Tom Brokaw that the Catholic view that life begins at "conception"– a view for which Biden was attacked rather aggressively by Father Jonathan Morris on September 9, 2008 in his opinion piece "Biden gets it Wrong on Abortion" who argued that modern science, not faith, is the basis for the Catholic doctrine that human life begins at conception: "Determining when life begins is not a religious issue. It has nothing to do with faith. It is not about theology. Neither the pope nor the bishops have anything unique to say to Senator Biden about when life begins. The Catholic Church simply reminds its members of the natural law that regulates human relations: do not kill each other. And it looks to modern science to determine what is human and what is living." It behooves Father Morris to review what the CDF has said on this matter – and it should make any Catholic uncomfortable to see men of the clergy making doctrinally false claims about the Church in civic fora like Fox News in the advance of a political agenda. Unfortunately Father Morris is not alone in playing fast and loose on the intersection of Religion and Politics. The Catholic Church, based on the teachings in Tertullian's Apologeticum and the Didache, has held that abortion is the taking of human life because human life begins not at birth, but at the very beginning, at the "seed", the moment of "conception". This is not modern science. This is faith and morality, clearly within the jurisdiction of the CDF, whose conclusion in 1974 was stated thus: "[f]rom the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already."
Based on this, I think any Catholic would agree that as a general moral teaching (a) Catholic doctors should not perform abortions, (b) Catholic women should not get abortions (c) Catholics should not actively aid or facilitate doctors and women in the procurement of medical abortion procedures and (d) the world would be a lot nicer if there were less abortions, in the same way that the world would be a lot nicer if there were less sin in general. But what I have written so far does not in any clear way indicate how a Catholic should behave civically and politically with respect to this question. The CDF provides some guidance in its same 1974 Declaration: "[i]n regard to the mutual rights and duties of the person and of society, it belongs to moral teaching to enlighten consciences; it belongs to the law to specify and organize external behavior." I take this to mean that the role of the CDF is to teach us Catholics what is right and wrong; it is the role of civil law to organize social behavior in a way that is consistent with right moral teachings.
The CDF in its 1974 Declaration was willing to suggest what those civil laws should look like, and in 1987, under Prefect Ratzinger's leadership, the CDF came forward even more forcefully, prescribing the specific legislation of absolute criminalization of abortion in all cases as the only acceptable legislation. This raises a jurisdictional question, however. All Catholics should concede and agree that the CDF has jurisdictional authority, granted by the Pope under the Apostolic Constitution, over "faith and morals" and "everything which in any way touches such matter." That last catch-all provision sounds like it gives the CDF absolute and universal jurisdiction over everything in the world – after all, what in our day to day lives doesn't "touch" in "any way" faith and morality?
But a more reasonable person might agree that there must be some limit to such a broad mandate over the Catholic faithful. There is a question – and certainly not a question that the CDF itself should be attempting to answer due to conflict of interest – whether such authority includes the authority to prescribe specific policy actions, legislation, and even criteria for exercising a citizen's right to vote – especially since the CDF itself makes a clear distinction in its 1974 Declaration between "moral teaching" and "law." I may provoke the ire of Republicanized Catholics like Father Morris when I suggest that the CDF's authority does not, in my view, have full authority to dictate specific legislative actions, much less tell us how to vote. Government policies should of course do the right thing. And we should make the right choices at the polls. The CDF can guide us as to what right moral teachings are. It is our job as citizens to figure out how best to take action in our societies, communities and families based on our faith and morality, with the CDF's guidance of course.
Such a view is not consistent with Prefect Ratzinger's 1987 Donum Vitae, unfortunately. In 1987, the CDF declared that "[a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights." In other words, not only must abortion be criminalized in every country on Earth, but abortion must be treated as an act of murder. Does the CDF really have the authority to require all nations to legislate abortion as a category of criminal murder? Some may think such a broad and absolute declaration to be wholly within the CDF's mandate. I don't. But even more disturbing, under Prefect Ratzinger, the CDF understands civil law and public policy to be largely, if not entirely, a mirror image of moral law – a series of binary "do"s and "don't"s around which a society can be organized. The 1987 Donum Vitae reflects Prefect Ratzinger's simple-mindedness and lack of understanding as a jurist, regardless of his great skills as a theologian. Government and the law are not a mere list of morally sound permissions and prohibitions. There are ways to act immorally, and to sin, within the boundaries of the law. And there are criminal acts which may not be moral sins. And the law itself doesn't organize behavior with mere permissions and prohibitions. There are complex and coordinated efforts to allocate resources, alter incentives, influence, coax, coerce, and guide actions. The CDF's reasoning seems to follow the analogy that since the taking of a human life before it is born is morally no different than taking a human life after it is born, and the latter is generally prohibited as an act of criminal murder in most civil societies, by analogy the former must also be treated as an act of criminal murder under civil law. The analogy fails of course when one realizes that many civil societies distinguish between nuances in the taking of human life – Was there intent? Was it premeditated? Was the defendant sane at the time? Was action taken in self defense? To sustain the analogy and insist that abortion be treated as a kind of murder you have to be disingenuous about the subtlety and nuance of criminal law in most countries. The analogy doesn't hold and a distinction in legislative treatment is justified.
But what about the CDF's mention in 1974 that law should organize behavior in a way consistent with the moral teachings? Would an absolute criminalization organize behavior? Empirical evidence suggests not. In many countries abortion is a prohibited procedure which, nonetheless, is freely procured in secret clinics – the proverbial "back ally with a coat hanger". As long as there is a demand for the procedure, there will be parties willing to satisfy that demand. We know this from the "War on Drugs." We know this from any number of misguided efforts to use the blunt instrument of criminal law to affect supply and demand in socially undesirable markets. And in a pluralistic society like ours, where citizens are free not to be Catholics, free to reject the moral teachings of the Church, can we really be sure that our law enforcers would enforce and prosecute criminal abortionists with any zeal? Or would they behave much like some law enforcement officers in rural northern California behave with respect to marijuana, turning a blind eye to violations of federal narcotics laws on a regular basis.
The idea that law should "organize behavior" suggests that we need to look at the causes of abortion, and focus our public policy on those causes. The goal, after all, is to get women to stop choosing abortion, not to drive them into black markets that cause even greater social problems. To that end, the role of government is to understand what drives that choice – lack of information about the alternatives? A lack of a social safety net? The added burden of a child? Social honor? Concerns for the health of the mother? It is not even clear yet what the drivers of this problem are and what kind of people get abortions in this country. One thing is clear: no one is "pro abortion" – no one seeks pregnancy for the thrill of aborting a child. In almost all cases, I would venture to guess, abortion is the result of a "least worst choice" calculus in the minds of pregnant women.
Add to that problem the complexity of civil law: sometimes in advancing one social agenda, the state may create undesirable consequences – "externalities" economists call them. That is the heart of the Constitutional doctrines represented by Roe v. Wade. There is a Constitutional right of the mother, according to the Supreme Court, that is violated when a state enacts a certain kind of legislation seeking to advance the protection of the unborn human life. The CDF is not ignorant of this potential for rights to conflict, as stated in the 1974 Declaration: "by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother.... We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning." If I am not mistaken, in this declaration, the Catholic Church has effectively denied that there is a self defense for the crime of murder. If we are to take seriously the CDF's teaching that "the first right of the human person is his life" there is a moral question that is not clearly answered by the CDF: why should the right to life of the unborn trump the right to life of the mother is there is a serious, potentially life or death question of the mother's health? So as a Catholic, if I am to take seriously the teaching that no right of any person can ever trump the right to life and physical integrity of the unborn and its right "to be conceived, brought into the world and brought up by his parents" as Prefect Ratzinger described it in 1987, then I have to conclude that either there is no right in the Constitution that protects the mother or the Constitution itself is immoral and must be rejected or changed. Of course, I have indicated that I find the CDF's reasoning on this matter to be weak and problematic. And yes, I do think there is a Constitutional right that is protected in the Roe v. Wade decision. But taking the CDF's imperative seriously leads to this conundrum regarding our Constitution. This is, at its essence, the single-minded obsession some people have with using the full force of their civic rights in our democracy to ensure that the most undemocratic branch of government- the Supreme Court - be staffed by "philosopher-kings" who would deny the existence of such a constitutional right upon which the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. These people have effectively put their vote up for sale, and that vote has been purchased by certain politicians – mostly in the Republican party – in exchange for the promise that, if given the opportunity, those politicians would seek to appoint to the Supreme Court justices who deny such a right. I sometimes wonder what incentive any such politician has on ever making good on such a promise – today the "prevent-abortion-by-stacking-the-court-to-overturn-Roe-v.-Wade" movement has become the golden goose that keeps on producing eggs for the Republican party during every election cycle, even for down-ticket candidates whose office would never allow them to make any difference in this political strategy. Meanwhile, how many babies have been aborted since the Roe. v Wade decision? How much time has been lost when they could have been pursuing another policy?
Abortions can be prevented from happening through governmental policy without violating the Constitutional rights of mothers. The state and society together can craft policy that both protects unborn lives and the rights of mothers right away, under any politician's administration, that doesn't depend on periodic election of officials on the promise of using their powers to manipulate the life appointments of the Supreme Court. There is a way to save an unborn child without waiting for the next presidential election to vote for the next Republican candidate to dangle the tantalizing carrot of Supreme Court appointments in front of Catholic voters. Government is a powerful machine for information gathering, analysis, and policy action. Government can learn who is getting abortions and why. Government can formulate strategies to "organize behavior" – reduce the demand for abortions by creating viable, safe alternative choices for pregnant mothers. The politician that acknowledges that abortion reduction while respecting the Constitutional rights of mothers is possible and makes a commitment to pursuing such a policy for the sake of the unborn has my vote - and of course, that politician is Barack Obama. It is a large, complicated effort that the government would have to undertake if it were serious about reducing abortion in our country, an undertaking that may even be expensive with massive investments in the social safety net and in education programs. The goal of such a program would be to change the decision-making calculus of the pregnant woman so that abortion is no longer the "least worst alternative". Such a policy would truly be the civil society's enactment of the Catholic culture of life. Republicans would cower from the challenge and the costs of such a program. Would a Republican government really collect taxes if it meant preventing abortions from taking place? But I ask every Catholic, including Father Jonathan Morris and Pope Benedict XVI – Can the Catholic voter really compromise on the rights of the unborn in order to save some money on his or her taxes?