Given his past writings I expected Fr. Richard Neuhaus to make the argument that the bishops had over-estimated our intelligence in the Faithful Citizenship document. At least he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the document itself is theologically sound. The "Catholic Answers" crowd, who had taken it upon themselves to collapse the 9 broad "fundamental and inalienable ethical demands" that Rome had placed on us in voting into a much smaller subset that is of concern to "Serious Catholics", predictably argued that the document is evidence that the USCCB is a politically active secret liberal cabal...
But I am surprised at how overt some bishops have been. After all, the election is now over and healing must begin. Part of this may be human nature. If a bishop runs a political ad, there is an emotional investment in the outcome. And timing and statements where anything but subtle.
But Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio seems particularly blunt. DiMarzio reportedly oversaw the creation of the Bishop's Statement and now seems to be stating that we either did not understand it, or abused it. I, for one, would really like some elaboration on this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not our teaching on abortion is absolute? So John McCain's position on abortion, which includes exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and maternal health, would seem intrinsically evil (VERITATIS SPLENDOR). In addition, McCain has publicly stated in the past that he has reservations about overturning Roe v. Wade, something that would be considered dissent from a Catholic politician.
In addition, my understanding is that our belief in life is comprehensive; conception to natural death. So shouldn't McCain's positions on war, poverty, medical care, and the death penalty all be factored in? In the document (#36 and #37), the bishops noted that choosing between intrinsically evil positions is a "moral dilemma". It gave guidelines, and then placed the final moral decision in the hands of individual Catholics. As I understand it, we would have all been compelled to follow the certainty of our individual consciences anyway (CCC 1790).
So let's consider the situation from a lay Catholic's point of view. For better or worse, there is zero measurable evidence that presidential voting for a 'less intrinsically evil' position on abortion (if there really is such a thing) actually has an effect on abortion in the US. Abortion rates have been falling for a couple of decades and dropped more sharply under pro-choice Clinton than intrinsically-evil-but-still-somehow-pro-life Bush. So, if we consider the practical implications of our vote - exactly as #36 and #37 advise, there is no blatant or obvious solution.
To make matters even more difficult, the same document specifically warns us, just as Rome's Doctrinal Note did (#4), that we cannot use the excuse of "limiting the harm" to take actions that are a detriment to other fundamental moral values (see #27-#30). No matter how much I worry about abortion, I cannot embrace, for example, unjust war.
If Catholics factor in multiple fundamental moral values, a broad understanding of pro-life, and their own perception of past and future relative effectiveness, it seems completely understandable that they are going to arrive at different conclusions. I find it extremely disconcerting that Bishops like DiMarzio are insinuating that only one moral conclusion could have been reached. Especially since the document he, himself, oversaw appears to express a theme similar to one I wrote on the other day. I noted that our teaching on life is so broad, that we, not being God, cannot love enough to fully embrace it. Instead, we find the capacity to embrace pieces of it and strive to add more.
DiMarzio seems to be implying that he, himself, can infallibly view all of our pro life teachings in perfect context. Further, that it is seemingly no big deal, since we all would have reached the same conclusion if we simply had better reading and comprehension skills. If that is the case, I wonder what he felt about the inclusion of this in the document:
29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment