Another Round in Church vs. State
Confession: I get more “news” than is probably goof for me from the Yahoo homepage. I think they get their stuff from the Associated Press.
Anyway, I found this article interesting. Bishop Tobin (RI) has asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted) to stop receiving Communion because of his stance on abortion. In the article, you have to read between the anti-religious lines, and the whole thing is kind of a waste of journalism but I’d like to see more bishops like Tobin.
I’d also like to see a knock-down drag-out fistfight between them.
what a scandal….requiring communicants to actually be practising Catholics!
I agree that Kennedy-style Catholicism is a farce and that Kennedy the Younger should not receive Communion while advocating abortion, but I also agree with Archbishop Chaput–publicly denouncing (and humiliating) politicians isn’t Christian practice either: not unless Kennedy has repeatedly been asked privately not to receive.
Kennedy should respect the Bishop’s authority and do what he says on communion. He should also instruct the Bishop that the Bishop doesn’t get to control his vote in the U.S. Congress, and he needs to stop trying.
I remember this being an issue when I was an undergraduate at Boston College. There was opposition to Senator Kennedy speaking at Commencements (and other functions) because of his stance on abortion and BC’s Jesuit tradition. Much of that took place before my enrollment, but I remember hearing about it whenever other speakers were opposed on theological grounds.
I understand the criticism of “cafeteria Catholicism” (or any other religion). I wonder, though, if the Bishop’s objections would extend to other Catholics who are engaged in actions opposed by the faith. Also, we must examine Kennedy’s role carefully. Is he advocating that abortion is moral? Or legal? Kennedy may personally oppose abortion on theological and moral grounds, but as a government official, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution (and other legal documents). And as long as those call for the protection of abortion, he would be derelict in his professional duties. Perhaps this puts him in a bind of having to choose one or the other (Catholic or politician), but if we put this litmus test to all our politicians, how many will we be left with? Kennedy may be personally vehemently opposed to abortion, but if the legal mechanisms are not there to justify outlawing it, his position as a politician prohibits him from doing so. That being said, it does not preclude him from working to change or amend the laws as such, if there is a Constitutionally viable way to do so.
UPDATE: I see now Paul has posted a video below apparently discussing the very issued I mentioned or a related one. I can’t watch it at work, but intend to do so when I get home and re-evaluate my position, if necessary.
I’m looking forward to your statements after viewing the video, BSK. In short, I’d say that a legislator’s support for pro-abortion legislation [or, say, opposing Stupak's amendment] is different from a judge’s [or executive's] duty to uphold the law. You hit the nail on the head here:
That being said, it does not preclude him from working to change or amend the laws as such, if there is a Constitutionally viable way to do so.
I also agree with Ann and Archbishop Chaput that via-the-press isn’t the proper way to handle this.
The Episcopal Church is always looking for new members Patrick. Church of Ireland and all of that.
TVD-
First off, I clearly misread Paul’s post, as the video was different than I expected (not better, not worse, not anything but different).
I anticipated it was discussing this quote from his post:
“The argument goes something like this:
1. The Catholic Church teaches me that abortion is an intrinsic evil.
2. This is part of my faith.
3. I cannot use the force of law to impose my faith on others.
4. Ergo, I cannot support restricting abortion in law.”
This was somewhat related to the point I made earlier, though looking at it in relation to the 1st Amendment specifically, where I was looking more generally at the roles and duties of an elected official. You are correct in pointing out that not all elected officials have the same roles and duties, and it is exactly this differentiation that makes our system work (or how it is theoretically SUPPOSED to work). I would still argue that he is bound by the existing laws of the nation, but that there is still a difference between reluctantly voting for something you personally oppose but are duty-bound to endorse and actively promoting something.
I still wonder whether the Bishop’s sentiment is extended to other practicing Catholics who fall short of strict adherence to the faith. I am a Catholic who believes in abortion rights… would I be denied communion?
I am a Catholic who believes in abortion rights… would I be denied communion?
I don’t know, BSK. [I assume you mean "should I."] This one’s above my pay grade, if it’s OK for me to not be a bishop or pope.
“The argument goes something like this:
1. The Catholic Church teaches me that abortion is an intrinsic evil.
2. This is part of my faith.
3. I cannot use the force of law to impose my faith on others.
4. Ergo, I cannot support restricting abortion in law.”
Well, I think we “raised Catholics” don’t quite get the depth and beauty of Catholic thought. It was always being shoved down our throats, and without explanation. Pound my face into the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and it don’t look so beautiful to me.
It’s the converts, or the returnees after a long absence, who have the perspective of the proper distance.
[Hi, Beckwith.]
Catholic thought, especially since Aquinas, says God gave us a brain for a reason. It’s through our reason that we give assent to faith, and that faith—and love of God—is the strongest of all, the one that sustains through our quite reasonable doubts.
You don’t have to believe in the Pope. The Church states its teaching, and hopefully it’s right, although it’s so often been wrong when men got in the way of God, for their own venal reasons or weaknesses. Wanting to be liked, mebbe. A lot of that going around these days. We like people who tell us what we want to hear better than the ones who don’t.
If I—or you—conclude that abortion is a moral wrong, it must be by the assent of our reason.
And I’ve met or corresponded with very few who don’t feel a nag at the old conscience when it comes to abortion.
This offers a clue to our conscience, toward our “right” reason, which most of us attempt to follow, Aquinas or Aristotle, who was a good man and a seeker of truth, although a pagan since Christianity hadn’t been invented yet.
[Nice to see you here, BSK. I don't think you or Aristotle will spend eternity in hell, if my vote counts. Me, either, I hope, although I've sometimes been a very bad boy. Hehe.]
TVD-
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I suppose my questions was more political, but your answer is probably more meaningful than the original intention of my question would have received (FWIW, I was inquiring as to whether the Bishop would treat me the same way as Kennedy, or whether his motivation was more along political lines than religious).
Nonetheless, I agree with your larger point. As symbolic as the representation of Christ as the Shepard is, I don’t know that God intended us to be sheep. Perhaps my God is a bit touchy-feely, but my sense has always been that he’d prefer us to act in good conscience and perhaps fall astray of the line than to blindly follow it or deliberately follow it in such a way as to undermine our greater convictions.
On the specifics of abortion, I am by no means a “fan” of abortion. I certainly have that “nag” you mention. My core belief has been that I feel caught between the scientific definition of “life” and the religious one. If there was scientific evidence that life was formed at conception (which Paul alluded to and I would like to be directed to), I would fully support a conditional ban on abortion (health of the mother). Absent this, the idea that life forms at conception is a matter of faith. Of MY (and your, and many others’) faith, but not necessarily a faith that should determine the laws of our country.
Does that make sense? Sorry, it’s late.
BSK: Based on your statement above, let me be the first to welcome you to the pro-life community. I say that because it is manifestly not a matter of faith as to when something is a new living member of our species. The science and philosophy are as certain on this as they get on anything. Don’t take my word for it: go to the nearest university library or bookstore and look at the introduction of any standard embryology textbook. There you will see a scientific consensus.
If you require further information, Robert P. George has written very helpfully on this in New Atlantis and in his book EMBRYO: I commend both to you.
I’ll have to look into those. The research I had seen spoke differently, and we may be dealing with different definitions of “life”. I am more than open to having my mind changed, and will certainly have to reflect on my own views. I want to be deliberate in my understanding, though, because I do feel we are balancing two difficult situations. There are negative effects to prohibiting abortions entirely, so I personally feel we must be certain off the negative effects of allowing them, which it looks like this research documents adequately.
“I also agree with Ann and Archbishop Chaput that via-the-press isn’t the proper way to handle this.”
If my memory serves me correctly, it was Kenendy who brought this to the press in the first place. He attacked the bishops publicly. Tobin has been trying to meet privately for some time, and Kennedy has refused. The article linked in the story is about a private attempt between Tobin and Kennedy in 2007. Only in light of Kennedy’s outlash and Tobin’s response do we now hear of it.
It’d be one thing if there was no history between Tobin trying to communicate with Kennedy and especially if Kennedy hadn’t gone off the reservation and publicly accused the Catholic leadership of this country of NOT being pro-life, then the “via the press” method wouldn’t be proper. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I don’t think that this timeline is bias-free but it’s a start: http://www.projo.com/news/content/kennedy_tobin_timeline_11-24-09_T5GIG25_v11.3b3fb9a.html
BSK: I would take care to make sure you’re looking for the right thing. You don’t need an exhaustive definition of life, which biology does not have anyway, in order to identify a living member of our species (this is because of the difference between necessary conditions for life and sufficient conditions). So while there’s plenty of controversy on what the definition of life is, I’m aware of no scientific controversy regarding the status of human embryos. There’s nothing else for them to be except the smallest whole members of our species, genetically unique, following their own developmental trajectory (separate from the mother). They’re not dogs or cats, they’re not parts of their parents.
I agree there are difficult situations on all sides, but I can’t see that there could be many circumstances where it would be morally permissible intentionally to kill a human being. “Health” of the mother certainly can’t be one of them. Again, for their clarity and rigor, I can’t commend highly enough Prof. George’s writings on this issue.
It strikes me, from an RC standpoint, that there are two issues beyond the support of an intrinsic evil.
1. Scandal: the moral harm that comes to others through public sin or enabling/endorsing sinful behavior.
2. Self excommunication: If a person has removed themself from under the moral authority of the church, they cannot claim to be “in commmunion” with it. The unity with the body of Christ is broken. Participating sacramentally in commmmunion then becomes mere keeping up appearances. See point 1.
Regards
“I agree there are difficult situations on all sides, but I can’t see that there could be many circumstances where it would be morally permissible intentionally to kill a human being. “Health” of the mother certainly can’t be one of them.”
I realize the “health of the mother” argument means many things to many people. When I invoke it, I am thinking of circumstances in which the pregnancy will prove fatal to both the mother and embryo. In this case, I would say an abortion is appropriate (even acknowledging the embryo as an independent life-form, something I am not sure I am willing to do yet). If your options are let one die or let both die, how could you justify the latter? I realize there are all kinds of “thought experiments” that call this type of logic into question… but let’s be honest, when faced with an option that would ultimately result in a net loss in the number of lives lost, how could we not take it?
I would NOT apply my argument to situations where the mother simply feels “icky” and no lives are at risk.
BSK: I see. What you’ve described is usually short-handed a “life of the mother” scenario as distinct from a “health of the mother” which often, as you say, amounts to much less.
For the scenario you have in mind, where the mother’s life is threatened, performing a surgery which results in the death of the baby is permissible as what is known as a “double effect” or an unintended consequence. I.e. in that kind of scenario, the intention of the action performed by the doctor and requested by the woman is to save the woman from life-threatening illness, the foreseeable but not intended consequence of which is the death of the baby.
In almost all other scenarios resulting in the same consequence, however, the intention just is to kill the baby.
To press a little harder on “independent life form”: again, no one is claiming embryos are independent, if that means they could survive without the mother. But then, no one thinks infants are independent, either. What is a straightforward fact is that a human embryo is a whole, living member of our species and entitled to the moral respect we accord other humans. There really is very little room for controversy on this point. Can you point me to a text which denies the humanity of embryos? Why would you think an embryo isn’t a human?
Thos-
Duly noted on the difference between “health of mother” and “life of mother”. I have never heard the latter term, but it clearly more accurately describes the situation I was referring to, and I will attempt to make that distinction going forward.
To your second point, I would say that there is a difference between the “independence” of an infant and that of an embryo, primarily because of the physical independence that separates the two. Obviously, there are many human not capable of viable life without others. But the embryo is literally dependent upon the mother, in the sense that its being is an extension of the mother, being literally a “part” of her body. So, here is where I do feel there is room for debate: where do we draw the line between where the mother’s humanity ends and the embryo’s begins? In my opinion, they are intertwined, the embryo being a “part” of the mother and a pregnant woman ultimately representing one life that will soon (but has not yet) separated into two. Based upon my current understanding of both the scientific and moral issues at play, as well as my own inner sense of the situation, I fall into the “life begins at birth” camp as opposed to the “life begins at conception” camp and even further from the “life doesn’t begin, it simply is, and the sperm and egg are thus equally viable lives” camp.
Furthermore, as a human rights issue and a legal matter in the United States, the burden that is placed on women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full-term is, in my opinion, a violation of the equity and equality that I hold dear to humanity. I recognize the tangle of issues at play here, as well, but feel confident in my opinion, as currently formed.
I realize we can go round and round on this for quite sometime, and might have minds changed or eyes open. But we probably risk the conversation devolving into many other areas. I will take into consideration what I have read here and follow up on the resources shared. I appreciate the response to my comments/questions but would otherwise like to remove myself from this particular line of conversation at this time.