Dialogue with Fellow Catholic Citizens
The Washington Post recently published an article on the Catholicity of President-Elect Joe Biden. He is a fervent Catholic who attends Mass and receives Communion regularly. Nevertheless, priests have condemned him from the pulpit as a standard bearer of the “party of death.” Some Catholic Bishops have denounced him because of his stance on reproductive rights including access to contraception and abortion. Biden has been quoted as saying: “Reproductive rights are a constitutional right. And, in fact, every woman should have that right.” And many Catholic clerics don’t like that.
American Catholics, according to the Pew research center, are playing major roles in American politics. They comprise a little over a quarter of the national vote and almost a third of the Congress. They split almost 50–50 between the two major parties. Catholics pretty much mirror or embrace the policies and platforms of their party whether or not they are in accord with official teachings of their church. The large majority of Catholics accept the notion that America is a pluralist society with many belief traditions and endorse the right of religious freedom for all citizens. And most want to keep the Church in any official capacity out of electoral and partisan politics.
I was struck by the analysis of the recent election of Biden by Mike Davis who pointed out how many Catholics made abortion a political issue and sought the reelection of Trump even though they disapproved of his policies on immigration, criminal justice, safety-net, and health and of his character as leader of the nation.
Many of us in the Catholic tradition struggle often with the tension between teachings of the Church we hold dear and the responsibilities and principles of citizenship. Indeed, we often always struggle with the teachings of the Church we hold dear and the practices of Catholic churchmen, including Catholic Church officials. But I would invite fellow members of, and all who appreciate, the Catholic tradition, whether Roman, Eastern, Anglican, or other, to a dialogue on whether the right of women to have access to contraception and abortion, is even an issue for Catholics in America or in any country which accepts the freedom of religion and the rule of law.
Would you, fellow citizens in my Catholic tradition, please tell me after I explain my position where my error is? Please can we discuss this rather than have countering bumper stickers saying either “Pro-choice” or “Pro-life” driving away from one another?
My position is this: I oppose abortion. It is a violent termination of life of a fertilized egg or human embryo that is in the process of becoming a human being who is in process of fulfilling their highest capacity. If you are a Catholic, you may believe that the embryo is already a human being. I do not. That is the present position of the Church — though it was not always. But I will not here marshal my arguments as to why the embryo is not a human being. But again, it is the violent termination of a process of becoming a human being.
I oppose violence even as a means to a good end unless it is necessary. In my ethics which, while I admit is aspirational, is based on my understanding of the nature, existence, and potential of humankind from science, philosophy, and theology. In my ethics, violence can never be justified. And it must be reduced whenever possible because violence often breeds more violence. However, it can be judged as necessary for human life and the optimum fulfilment of life and of the human species as a whole. Non-violent action by individuals and communities constitute the realm of freedom. However, violent action constitutes the realm of necessity. And I think our humanity is in process of expanding the realm of freedom and reducing the realm of necessity.
In the case of self-defense or the defense of someone who incapable of defending their self, who is the judge of that necessity? In the case of war who is the judge of the necessity of war? In the case of a person undergoing an operation, who is the judge of that necessity. These are all instances of violence. And the judgment as to whether, when, where, by whom, and how that violence shall be carried out so as to reduce violence. This for me is a task of ethics informed by science.
Abortion belongs to the realm of necessity and must only be waged to promote the realm of freedom. Who makes the decision as to whether an abortion will be performed? Is it the doctor, the spouse, the priest, the social worker, the politician, the state?
Joe Biden, like Tim Kaine, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and other Catholic political leaders never
endorsed abortion and never counselled a woman to have an abortion. They however did make clear their position that the decision as to whether or not to have an abortion belongs solely to the pregnant woman and that services need to be legally available to her to make and effect that decision safely. I agree and refuse to participate in a congregation that makes opposition to reproductive rights a standard for participation.
When I was the director of Catholic Social Services, our social work staff, using the principles of professional social work, never counselled a woman whether or not to have an abortion but provided them the space and tools by which to make that decision. Moreover, counselors helped women so the decision for abortion would no longer be considered necessary thus reducing the number of abortions, through birth control, adoption, infant care, pre-school, motherhood training, nutritional services, and more. We anti-abortionists believe and have evidence that more is accomplished to reduce abortions this way than by state mandates that make it abortion a crime.
The major argument against reproductive rights is that no matter how the embryo was conceived and no matter the consequences of bringing the embryo to birth, the human embryo is a human being and to abort that embryo is the unjust killing of a human being or murder. As I said and would be glad to argue that. However, the only justification Catholics and some other religious congregations give for that derives from reflections on their holy scriptures and dogmas passed by their religious governance leadership that the human soul is given by God at the moment of conception and thus the fertilized egg is by nature a human person. Religions often teach their truths through stories and myths, parables and metaphors. In my years of theology at Jesuit School of Theology and the University of Chicago Divinity School, I learned that to access these truths I should not take the myths and metaphors literally. I learned to examine these expressions of truth for what they were conveying about the potential and guidance of all of us.
My point, however, is not to argue for a more liberal theology that makes religious doctrine more compatible with modern science, with its understanding of language and interpretation, and especially with the findings of anthropology and neuroscience. This effort I have carried out in much of my thinking and writing over my years of teaching, writing, and social action because I value religious and aesthetic contributions to theoretical science, pragmatic politics, and everyday morality.
The point I am arguing is that the dogmas and traditions of religion, though influential to personal morality and character in the private realm, are not pertinent to public law in a polity that affirms the freedom of religion. The freedom of religion implies the freedom of all persons to practice their religion as they desire insofar as it does not interfere with other persons’ freedom to practice their religion or no religion. It implies a way beyond the realm of necessity towards the realm of freedom for humankind. Freedom of religion implies the freedom of persons from religion. The United States of America was the first national government that we know of to have no official state-endorsed religion.
Catholic traditionalists in league with Christian, Jewish, or Muslim conservatives may oppose abortion in their communities based on their understandings of religious dogma and their scriptures. In no way can they be forced to have abortions if they regard abortion as a grave sin. Nor can they prevent others from abortions because of their religious beliefs. If they are against abortion, they should not have one. Or they might want to help others have other options that lessen the necessity of abortion in their decision-making.
When we really understand the values and vision of those who claim to be pro-choice and those who claim to be pro-life, we will understand that these are false alternatives. The choice to follow or spurn the guidelines of the CDC (wear a mask, keep safe distance, wash your hands frequently) is not absolute. It is limited by the health, sickness, and life of those with whom we come in contact during the pandemic. The choice of whether or not to have or to forbid abortion is not absolute either. It is limited by the life, capacity, and long-term benefit of the mother whose body is her property.
We, more liberal Catholics, are encouraged by the social teachings of Pope Francis who asks all Catholics to consider the life of refugees fleeing persecution, of the life of the planet as the natural condition for all human life, of the inequalities produced by our economic systems that threatens the lives of most of our species, of the lives and human dignity of even hardened criminals. This does not diminish his condemnation of abortion in accords with the traditional dogma of the Church.
The condemnation of human activities that are warming the earth, of economic practices that increase inequality, of practices of worker oppression and slavery, of unnecessary acts of violence and suffering and of the increase of the tools of violence that threaten the future of mankind is a call to us individually. Especially it is a call to us as communities, nations, and communities of nations to take action to reduce the conditions of violence, the factors that make violence necessary. How this is to be done is the task of true politics, people, communities, nations gathering together to make choices. Pro-life choices and pro-choice lives.
And so
Tell me why you consider a human embryo a human being before it is born into the fellowship of family and community without resorting to dogmas of religion that are not held universally.
[Does a person need to be an Aristotelian to be a Catholic? (i.e., believe in immutable essences determined by forms applied to matter; the implanting of a form to create a being’s nature.)]
Tell me why you want the state and public law to determine if, when, and where an abortion should be performed over the free choice of the pregnant woman.
Tell me why a person who defends the reproductive rights of women, but still acts to reduce the needs for abortion, cannot be a Catholic.
Tell me why a person who deplores abortion but does not follow the other social justice teachings of the Church canbe a Catholic.
And then let’s carry on a conversation without demonizing each other or anyone else.