John Cleese versus Atheistic Materialism

Misreading Cardinal George

From First Things:

My friend and former colleague, Prof. Douglas Kmiec, opened his September 9, 2008 Chicago Tribune op-ed (“How Catholics can oppose abortion, back Obama”) with an endearing expression of respect for Chicago’s cardinal archbishop, Francis George. He then continued with his ongoing, tenacious effort to convince Catholics that a vote for Sen. Obama is, notwithstanding his unswerving and emphatic support for expanding abortion rights, actually a pro-life vote. Unfortunately, in so doing, he appears to have misunderstood the cardinal he so admires.

On September 2, Cardinal George reminded Chicago Catholics that “one cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.” He said this out of concern for the fact that “matters of public policy that are also moral issues sometimes are misrepresented or are presented in a partial or manipulative fashion.”

The cardinal also wrote: “Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching.” “The unborn child,” he emphasized, “who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless.” That last sentence is worth reading again: “Good law” does not merely permit us to hope that the defenseless will be well; it “defends” them.

Now, Sen. Obama not only supports, but is enthusiastically and entirely committed to protecting, our “present laws”—that is, the laws that “permit unborn children to be privately killed.” Prof. Kmiec knows this; there is no denying it. That is, Sen. Obama believes—as a matter of principle—that the law ought to “place unborn children outside the protection of law.” Now, we should take him at his word, and assume that he would prefer that fewer abortions take place. Still, on the basic point addressed by Cardinal George, Obama’s position is clear: Unborn children ought not to be protected by law, and the choice for abortion ought to be legally protected. Indeed, Sen. Obama is, at this moment, running swing-state advertisements warning voters that the election of Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin would undermine the current near-absolute abortion license.

And yet, in his op-ed, Prof. Kmiec suggested that it’s only “Republican partisans” bent on “demonizing” their political opponents who say that Obama supports “the legal status quo on abortion.” Sen. Obama, Kmiec insisted, believes that “there are alternative ways to promote the ‘culture of life,’ even given the law’s sanction of abortion.” That Sen. Obama believes there are such “alternative ways,” however, does not change the fact—and, to be clear, it is a fact—that Obama “favor[s] the legal status quo on abortion”.

Having reworked Cardinal George’s exhortation, and pronounced it “exactly right,” Prof. Kmiec suggested to readers of the Tribune that Sen. Obama has no quarrel with it. After all, he said, Sen. Obama “seeks to extend a helping hand (increased funding for prenatal care, maternity leave and less cumbersome and expensive adoption) with an astute understanding of how closely economic circumstances and abortion are related.” Of course, Sen. Obama’s “astute understanding” of this asserted relation has nothing to do with the matter addressed by Cardinal George, namely, the fact that our abortion laws exclude unborn children from their protection. “Good law,” remember, “defends the defenseless.” It does not settle merely for trying to put in a better economic position those who hold the fate of the defenseless in their hands.

For all of Sen. Obama’s professed desire to “extend a helping hand,” there is no denying—though Prof. Kmiec does not mention—that he also supports public funding for abortion, a repeal of the ban on partial-birth abortion, a pro-Roe v. Wade litmus test for judicial nominees, a dramatic expansion of federally funded research involving the destruction of human embryos, and the elimination of legal protection for the conscience rights of health-care professionals and hospitals that object to participating in abortions. How these positions—indeed, they are not merely “positions,” they are, Obama has said, priorities—would (in Kmiec’s words) “strengthen a culture of life” is unclear.

Prof. Kmiec concludes with the suggestion that a vote for Obama is a pro-life vote because studies suggest that abortion rates decline in times of economic wellbeing. Let’s assume they do. But again, Cardinal George’s point had to do with the “legal status quo on abortion,” not with necessarily risky predictions about future ambient economic conditions. One can assert—certainly, Prof. Kmiec did not and cannot demonstrate—that the economic wellbeing of women facing unplanned pregnancies would improve significantly under Sen. Obama. And, one can hope—I’m sure that Prof. Kmiec does—that such an improvement would result in fewer abortions, though such hope would seem hard to sustain, given Obama’s support for the “Freedom of Choice Act.” In any event, such assertions and hopes do nothing to change the fact that Sen. Obama is squarely committed, as a point of pride and principle, not only to preserving the current legal regime, which puts unborn children outside the law’s protection, but also to rolling back the gains that pro-life citizens have managed to secure in recent years.

Prof. Kmiec referred, in his op-ed, to Cardinal George’s “thoughtful instruction.” He should read that instruction again.

Richard W. Garnett is professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

References

Pastoral Letter, Francis Cardinal George, September 2, 2008.
“How Catholics can oppose abortion, back Obama,” Douglas W. Kmiec, Chicago Tribune, September 9, 2008.

Dear Bishops, Now Is the Time

From Inside Catholic:

The statements made by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joseph Biden on Meet the Press have provided a wonderful, even providential, opportunity to present the Church’s teaching on abortion and explain its foundational importance to Catholic moral and political teaching in general. Already many bishops have issued clear and courageous statements correcting Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden’s mistakes, and certainly more will do the same in the coming days. They have succinctly presented the core of the Church’s teaching for the benefit of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and for this we are all sincerely grateful.

The question of how to deal effectively with Catholic politicians who support abortion — and whether they should be admitted to receive Communion — has been debated prominently since the last presidential election; now these latest occurrences demand that the issue be settled once and for all.

Despite all the discussion that surrounded the question of whether “pro-choice” Catholic politicians should receive Communion in 2004, the USCCB’s “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper” did not resolve the matter. As a result, further incidents of public scandal have occurred, including the present ones. This situation cannot continue. Due to the bishops’ clear articulations of the Church’s teaching these last few weeks, the truth can no longer be ignored by politicians who claim to be “personally opposed” to abortion yet vote to legislate and finance the legal slaughter of innocents. They cannot spin the issue any further: They must choose between God and Mammon.

Yet it is likely that, if the bishops’ latest teachings are ignored, a new scandal will develop: The faithful will perceive that there is no governing authority behind the bishops’ teachings, and pro-choice politicians will continue both to cause scandal and to eat and drink judgment upon themselves (cf. 1 Cor 11:29).

In no way do I wish to reproach our bishops; however, some people will not obey laws or follow teachings unless an external factor exists to “convince” them. Although this may not be the most pious way to motivate, it is not a case of coercing belief. The Church in her wisdom has long honored imperfect contrition from penitents because they “dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell.” Imperfect motivation may be the only factor left to change the minds and hearts of certain Catholic politicians who have voted in favor of abortion for decades and still receive Communion each Sunday.

In light of this situation, there are two courses of action that, although controversial, may well contribute to the conversion of wayward Catholic politicians and an abatement of the abortion tragedy in our country.

First, each bishop in his own diocese should issue a clear statement that all Catholic politicians who support abortion should not present themselves for Communion. The bishops have made clear that such politicians, by their votes and public support of abortion, are not in communion with the Church; therefore, they must not partake of the Sacrament of Communion. Should anyone persist, then it seems there is no choice but to deny him or her Communion, as a few bishops have said they would do already.

This does not make the Eucharist a political issue; rather it places the Eucharist above politics by emphasizing both its sacred character and the proper disposition in which one should receive such a sacred gift. At the altar, politics fade into the periphery as each individual soul approaches to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. What is at stake there is not an election; it is the fulfillment of our salvation. If certain members of the Church jeopardize that salvation, either for themselves or for others, by approaching the Eucharist unworthily, they must be corrected with due charity, whether their sins involve the political realm or otherwise. Few would accuse St. John the Baptist of interfering in politics when he denounced King Herod’s illicit marriage as sinful.

Moreover, we need unity among the bishops on this issue. We accept as given that all our bishops oppose abortion wholeheartedly; what we need to consider is how to address practically this blatant rejection of the Church’s teaching by certain public representatives. Many bishops understandably desire to avoid what could become a very public encounter — after all, they have just admonished again these wayward politicians. Unfortunately, these politicians continue to place their shepherds in a very difficult position by insisting on their good standing within the Church. With this claim, they undermine not only episcopal authority but the authority and integrity of the Church.

The Catechism describes the bishops’ sanctifying office as guarding the Eucharist within their dioceses (cf. 893), which includes, although it cannot be the most joyous of tasks, “the responsibility to make sure that the Sacrament is distributed only to those who are properly disposed,” as Archbishop Raymond Burke explained in a recent interview. Since the bishops have been charged by God with this sacred responsibility, and since the Eucharist is threatened equally in each of their dioceses, their unified actions will sanctify the whole Church and the faithful who strive with all their hearts to follow God’s laws. Of course, we must recognize that these decisions to withhold Communion are, above all, ones of charity for the persons involved and for the Church, not of vengeance or anger, as some may charge.

Second, in the next two months leading up to the election, I invite the bishops to consider asking the faithful not to vote for a single candidate who supports abortion. I am not suggesting that bishops and priests should tell the faithful whom they should vote for, but rather that they urge Catholics to become single-issue voters this November.

Certainly, this is a difficult request: There are many worthy issues, dear to many Catholics, that touch on human life and human dignity. Nevertheless, as the bishops made clear in their “Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life,” “abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right — the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess.”

The right to life encompasses all other aspects of human dignity that they list in the same document, namely, “priority for the poor, the protection of family life, the pursuit of justice and the promotion of peace.” Candidates, Catholic or otherwise, cannot honestly champion these core elements of human dignity while promising to uphold legal abortion, for abortion directly contradicts each of these elements for the poorest and most helpless members of our society. In his statement last week, Edward Cardinal Egan made this same point about such candidates:

Anyone who dares to defend that they [the unborn] may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

This suggestion is not an exhortation to collude with the Republican Party. Rather, it invites the bishops to ask the faithful to place their Catholic faith above their party loyalties, and to vote primarily on the one issue that is the very foundation of human dignity and of Christian morality. There is no shame in Catholics voting on a single issue when the issue is life itself: Every other issue depends on it.