Isn't Faith enough?

I happened to catch this news story today, and glanced at the referenced research. I have no doubt that in a day or so I will be able to find multiple posts declaring that the research is obviously false and an equal number citing it as proof that anti-abortionists are, as a group, moral hypocrites.

The way I see it, we are all moral hypocrites, so the latter isn't really news. That was like the media telling me, all last year, that Britney Spears had done something self destructive and stupid. Telling me, again and again, that Britney Spears is emotionally broken is not news, it is perverse pleasure in one person's suffering. News would be Spears turning her life around, which it appears she now somewhat has.

As far as the research being false, I find that doubtful. Like the WHO's research into secular law's limited impact on abortion (it found that half the abortions in the world each year are illegal) or the Guttmacher Institute's research regarding the seeming ineffectiveness of abstinence only education, the numbers speak pretty clearly for themselves, and the methodologies used appear very sound.

I know that there are personal testimonials, 'I was so depressed, I never forgave myself...' But I have a son with autism, a poorly understood developmental disability. I have lost count of how many heartfelt testimonials I have heard for treatments and interventions which show no value in controlled clinical studies. The problem is that physical and mental health is very complicated, so a statistical universe of one is a terrible foundation for deducing causal relationships.

Heartfelt anecdotes notwithstanding, I've wondered for a long time why so many Catholics become so adamant in rejecting this type of research. I could probably understand if it was only research which, at least on the surface, appears to support the current secular climate on abortion, but I have seen more than one Catholic become so angry that he/she lost the power of speech at the mention that secular research shows a link between abortion and poverty (the majority of procured abortions in the US are for women living in or near poverty, about half of them are also already mothers).

Personally, I find this faith reaffirming. "Gospel" comes from "Good News", as in "bringing the Good News to the poor". The idea that Jesus' call to service and social justice is directly relevant to moral issues in which the Church is very interested in today seems like affirmation, not a threat, to me.

I cannot know what motivates my peers, but it seems to me that it might be a lack of confidence in the practicality of our faith in everyday life. Sure, it sounds great on Sundays, but in the real world there are scary people, so we have to torture... Real progress on abortion can only come through the political process...

I have been reading more of the Old Testament of late, with the 'Apocalyptic style' of many of the Prophets seeming to fit the end of the Church's year and the beginning of Advent. When I started thinking about this subject I recalled something that I had read a few days ago in Daniel 3. Bad King Nebuchadnezzar wants to make the faithful young men worship his wicked golden statue, but even the threat of fiery death does not sway them. They refuse to submit and are rewarded, they are saved. Good triumphs over evil, much like a Gunsmoke episode, except that we have divine intervention instead of the quick draw and bullets...

But in reading the chapter more closely, there seems to be some very important messages in the admittedly melodramatic tale. Consider verse 18, which starts "But even if he will not..." The three men have no doubt that God can save them, but their faith is not dependant on the actual outcome. The practical and pragmatic do not enter into it. No 'we'll tell him what he wants to hear so we can escape to practice the faith and serve God...' Or, 'that statue is the state religion, so we had best capitulate, since we can then at least accomplish some good...'

Surely even young men have enough life experience to know that the typical outcome from fiery encounters is death. Miraculous salvation would be the exception, not the rule. Which leads to the question, where they being faithful, or impractical?

Over our seemingly endless election season I heard more than one Catholic chastised for stating that he/she intended to vote for write-ins because the alternative was to vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion. In fact, this was the subject of my very first post here. The argument is that if one does not join the practical effort, evil will win. But the longer I ponder this, the more the retort resonates with me. If we limit ourselves to choosing between evils, are we not insuring that evil always wins?

I think that the same principle applies here. Morality and practicality do not have to overlap. Oregon is rated very abortion friendly in terms of its laws. But it has been a national leader in reducing its abortion rate over the last 30 years. A lower abortion rate is a good thing, but if the path that led to it is greater promotion and access to contraceptives, it is still an immoral situation in Catholic doctrine. Like the three in Daniel, the end does not justify the means in our faith. It is the means, or the upholding the faith that will count in the end.

When we devote a lot of energy into trying to justify everything in secular terms, particularly dubious secular terms like seemingly invented mental health problems, we obscure that.