I have to tell you, I’m excited by the thoughtful responses engendered by my last post. For one thing, as I happily blog away, it’s hard to know if I’m making any impression at all if no one responds. For another, I have always been discouraged by the lack of opportunities for pro-life/pro-choice dialogue. I’ve written and spoken on life issues for years, but I have always realized that most of my audience already agreed with me, and preaching to the choir isn’t any way to effect change. As I go forward with this blog I intend to continue writing about life issues. And I want to be as clear as possible about my beliefs. So I want to answer Leah’s comments with a whole blog post. I’m not going to do it point by point, though, so if I miss anything let me know! I would not wish to minimize in any way the diificulties faced by young mothers unexpectedly pregnant and without financial and personal resources. I do think it is “pro-life” to find ways to help them. That’s why I drew attention to Catholic Charities, which I believe is the largest such organization in the country, and the help that it IS giving to poor women and children in general and women in crisis pregnancies in particular. Here in Knoxville there are at least two “Pregnancy Help” centers run by pro-life folks, and other cities have similar centers run by pro-life supporters. Systemic change is another, more complicated issue. I don’t mind saying that I tend to be “liberal” when it comes to providing aid to the poor and “conservative” when it comes to moral issues. Here’s what Pope John Paul had to say about this in the Gospel of Life (Chapter 90): The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defence of life in pluralistic democracies, because of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the re- establishment of a just order in the defence and promotion of the value of life. Here it must be noted that it is not enough to remove unjust laws. The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by ensuring proper support for families and motherhood. A family policy must be the basis and driving force of all social policies. For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood. It is also necessary to rethink labour, urban, residential and social service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively possible to take care of children and the elderly. Did you read that? Wow. I answered Leah’s earlier comment by saying that the difficult circumstances weren’t pertinent to her sister’s choice to give birth. I didn’t mean the circumstances that the children were born into were not important, or unfortunate, or damaging. And I’m not accusing Leah, who is having a discussion with me and not a debate, of trying to confuse the issue. But “professional” pro-choice advocates DO confuse the issue when they bring up all the unwanted children, all the kids in foster care, all the kids being born out of wedlock and into poverty, because since 1973 we can assume that women who have given birth CHOSE to do so, since abortion has been legal all that time! In other words, abortion has NOT solved the problem of unwanted children or abused children or children being born into poverty, as some of its advocates presumed it would. I could go into the contraceptive mentality argument to explain how legalized abortion has even contributed to these problems, but that is a post for another day. Bottom line, if abortion kills, then it is wrong. We can’t allow something so morally wrong in a civilized society. Some people are especially called to fight for changes to the law. Others are specifically called to work for systemic change to help the poor. Others are called to direct charitable pursuits. Yes, all of that can happen at once, and should. However, no one can do everything, and some have gifts or passions that incline them in one direction more than another. Once a year I march for life. I’ve prayed outside abortion clinics. I admire the people who do so faithfully week after week. But I have written thousands of words about life issues because writing is my passion and my gift. I also just don’t understand why any time someone says abortion should be illegal, he or she is immediately called upon to adopt babies or otherwise step up and solve the problem of “unwanted children.” If I say I am against the death penalty (I am) no one expects me to go out and fight crime. If I say I am opposed to the war in Iraq(yes, I am), no one asks me to do anything about that. If I say I don’t think red light cameras are constitutional (not really sure about that, but I don’t like them!) no one demands that I stand at the corner of Henley and Summit Hill to arrest people. It’s perfectly fine to have a conviction that any other law is wrong without having to back it up with action. Think about it. Back to Leah and the foster care system. I don’t disagree with anything she says. My husband is an attorney and I am his assistant. I hear a lot about children with less than ideal parents and who are in and out of foster care. We do a lot of Guardian ad Litem work where we do our best to determine the best placement for his little clients. Some of the situations are heart-wrenching. I don’t know what the answer is and I know what we have doesn’t always work. Leah is right that these children are scarred at an early age and even if society doesn’t have the heart to care about the welfare of the children, society should care about the effect troubled kids have as they grow into troubled adults, falling into drugs and crime and becoming parents to another generation of troubled kids. All I can say is that the right to life is fundamental. Maybe these kids don’t have much of a chance but they have some chance, and it’s not our right to take that away from them. I firmly believe part of the problem in the system IS our society’s lack of respect for life, which has led to a culture of death and destruction.
Posts Tagged ‘war’
Posted in Abortion, Catholicism, Euthanasia, Life Issues, Politics, Reprints, War, tagged Abortion, consistent ethic of life, Euthanasia, Life Issues, Politics, seamless garment, war on April 27, 2010 | 2 Comments »
This is a reprint of my very first column. Although it appeared in late 2001, I had actually written it over two years before, as one of three sample columns which were rejected by the then-editor of the East Tennessee Catholic.
What does it mean to have a “consistent life ethic?” You may remember that as Jesus hung on the cross, the soldiers cast lots to decide who should have the robe he was wearing. They couldn’t split it among them because it had no seams. Some have referred to the concept of a consistent life ethic as the “Seamless Garment.” Life is a continuum, and we cannot pick and choose whose lives we are going to care about and protect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God”(2319).
If we are to be consistent–constant, dependable, invariable, steady, unfailing–in what we believe and do regarding life issues, we must protect and care for all life, not just the lives of the innocent unborn. Many people have bumper stickers on their cars proclaiming, “We vote pro-life!” Well, I would love to vote pro-life but I can’t find a pro-life candidate.
Under the topic of “You shall not kill” in the catechism, we read the obvious: abortion, homicide, suicide, and euthanasia are all prohibited. But we also read that those who contribute to famines are liable for the deaths of the starving, that destroying whole cities in wartime is a crime, and that “the arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race” (2329). The death penalty is limited to cases in which it would be necessary to protect other victims from the aggressor–something solitary confinement in a maximum security prison can certainly do.
It is relatively easy to be pro-life when it comes to the slaughtering of an innocent in the womb. It’s harder to care about a serial killer. It’s pretty easy to know it’s wrong to throw a newborn in a dumpster. It’s harder to say that no one, no matter how sick he is or how much he is suffering, has a right to take his own life. It’s easy to decide to support laws which ban abortions. It’s harder to support laws requiring that tax dollars be spent to keep poor children off the street, to provide aid to mothers on welfare, to create programs for job training for unskilled workers.
Being consistent isn’t easy. All human beings are a mass of inconsistencies. Being a truly pro-life Catholic isn’t easy either, but Jesus never claimed that His was an easy road to follow.
“I would like to buy $3.00 worth of God, please. Not enough to explode my soul or disturb my sleep, but just enough to buy a cup of warm milk or a snooze in the sunshine. I don’t want enough to love a black man or pick beets with a migrant. I want ecstasy, not transformation. I want the warmth of the womb, not a new birth. I want a pound of the Eternal in a paper sack. I would like to buy $3.00 worth of God, please.” –Wilbur Reese
God, the Giver of life, the Creator of life, calls us to believe in life 100%. If we’re only willing to give $3.00, then we aren’t pro-life. We’re just anti-abortion.