|
|
|
Were our Hearts Not Burning? (Lk 24:32) The following article was written by a man and a scholar whom Fr. Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, called "probably the most important up and coming theologian in the United States right now," at a Call to Holiness Conference at which he spoke in, if my memory serves me, 2003 . The comment was to me in a personal conversation. Can a pro-lifer support exceptions politically or legislatively? (Reproduced here by permission from the author) By Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. There is an old saying: politics is the art of the possible. While there is some truth to this statement, there are dangers as well. These dangers are especially present in the politics surrounding abortion. Many politicians are able to convince people that they are pro-life because they support bills that restrict abortion or outlaw certain forms of abortion (e.g. partial-birth abortion). The key question, however, that must be asked is whether the politician believes that there are certain conditions which justify abortion as a moral and legal option. A law, which permits abortion in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, seems to be better than a law that permits unrestricted abortion. The question, though, is whether such a law can be described as “pro-life.” I would argue that it is not pro-life because it still believes that there are certain reasons that justify the deliberate killing of innocent human life. Let us present a comparison. Suppose there was a law that prohibited murder except in cases when a spouse was committing adultery or when a serious insult to one’s honor had been received. Those who support this policy might say that this law was preferable than one that permits unrestricted murder. The bottom line, though, is that murder is upheld to be justifiable under certain conditions! If someone were to propose this law with exceptions to murder, would it be reasonable to describe him as anti-murder? The truth is that this person would support legal murder—but only in certain cases. Many Catholics appeal to John Paul II’s encyclical, The Gospel of Life, no. 73 to support “imperfect” laws that permit abortion for certain exceptions. The argument is that such laws, while not optimal, are the best we can achieve at the present, and politics is the art of the possible. Certainly, Catholics need to consider, with prudence, what is the best way to protect innocent human life from destruction. Nevertheless, public support for a law that concedes that abortion is morally justifiable under certain conditions could be hazardous to the pro-life cause. In trying to win a battle, we can wind up losing the war. There are two passages in The Gospel of Life, no. 73 that demand careful attention before turning to the section that seems to permit support for “imperfect” legislation. The first, which comes at the very start of no. 73, reads as follows:
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such a laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection [emphasis in original].
The second passage follows along the same lines:
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
If we were to take these two passages as our guide, it would be impossible for us to participate in a campaign for a law that permits abortion for certain exceptions and to describe it as “pro-life’ legislation. Yet this is just what many pro-lifers do. A law that legitimates abortion for certain exceptions is still an unjust law. A strict reading of The Gospel of Life would prohibit Catholics from supporting such a law or to take part in “a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law.” What are we to make, then, of the passage from the Gospel of Life, no. 73, that allows Catholics to support “a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of abortions?” Following what the Holy Father teaches, I believe it is imperative for the following two conditions to be fulfilled before a vote could be cast for a more restrictive law. First, the Catholic would need to make it absolutely clear that he is opposed to all procured abortion. Any legislation that legitimates abortion under any circumstances is still an unjust law and must be described as such. A Catholic could not endorse such a law and describe it as pro-life if he were to follow what the Gospel of Life teaches in the passages cited above. Second, the Catholic would need to be sure that the wording of the law does not, in any way, suggest that abortion is moral or legitimate in some cases. If the law, for example, simply prohibits partial birth abortion, a Catholic could support it. The law, in itself, gives no impression that abortion should be permitted in other cases. If, however, the law were to accept abortion as a right except for the partial birth procedure, the Catholic could not vote for the law. This would be an example of a law that claims to legitimize the crime of abortion, and the Holy Father has clearly taught that there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose such laws. If the particular law in question overtly states that abortion is permitted in some cases, the Catholic should try to have the wording changed so there is no endorsement of abortion in these cases. The aim should be focused, as John Paul II observes, on limiting the harm done by bad laws rather than on endorsing, even indirectly, abortion as a moral option (even in some cases). The Holy Father is aware of the “problem of conscience” faced by Catholic lawmakers who wish to outlaw all abortion but cannot seem to succeed. He does not wish Catholics, though, to support laws that legitimize the crime of abortion. Catholics need to stop describing certain bills as pro-life if these laws still permit abortion (even in limited cases). Politics might be the art of the possible, but there are cases in which it is impossible to support an unjust bill, Conscientious objection to unjust laws is a moral option that more Catholics should consider. According to John Paul II, there are times when such conscientious objection is not only an option, but also an obligation. This is an aspect of his teaching that needs to be better understood and implemented.
|