Print Blog
Email a FriendPosted by Arwen Mosher on Tuesday, Oct 21, 2008 12:44 PM (EDT):
Archbishop Chaput is wonderful, and I think he makes some very strong points here. Thanks for sharing this, Rebecca!
Bishop Chaput v. Professor Kmiec
pluralism does not mean being quiet out of a misguided sense of good manners
Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:30 PM
Those of you following the debate among pro-life Catholics about which way to turn in the election in two weeks will want to read the latest salvo from Archbishop Chaput.
It started last February, when Professor Douglas Kmiec, a member of the Reagan administration and Professor of Law at Pepperdine University, suggested that Barack Obama would be a natural choice for Catholic voters in a column for Slate.
Initially his reasoning seemed to be that the war in Iraq was as serious a concern as the right-to-life, and he had made the prudential judgment to support the anti-war candidate. If that had remained his position, we could agree or disagree with his judgment, but it would have remained within the bounds of Catholic thinking.
To review:
Catholics are bound to vote to defend the right to life of the unborn not only as champions of the innocent, but also because the right to life is the foundation of the law itself. When it is attacked or weakened, the rule of law is also being attacked. As the Vatican put it in a “doctrinal note”:
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia…
The exceptions to this duty are two:
when there is no pro-life candidate (or no perfectly pro-life law or program being proposed), in which case we are permitted to vote to limit harm, or
when another intrinsic evil outweighs the intrinsic evil of abortion in a particular circumstance.
Prof. Kmiec seemed to be invoking the latter exception, but later he argued that Sen. Obama was more pro-life than Sen. McCain. Last week he seemed to drop that claim and instead made an argument in the Los Angeles Times that amounts to “I’m personally opposed, but….”
Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space.
Isn’t that the same thing Sen. Biden means when he says he can’t impose his religious views on others?Read it yourself and see what you think.
Meanwhile, Denver’s Archbishop Chaput recently attended a dinner for a women’s group called Endow, at which he gave this address.
He begins with what he humorously calls the “litany of the IRS,” which I reproduce because Faith & Family is a non-profit organization and I’m speaking for myself not my employers when I talk politics, so I’d like to invoke it too.
I’m not here tonight to tell you how to vote. I don’t want to do that, I won’t do that, and I don’t use code language—so you don’t need to spend any time looking for secret political endorsements.
I plan to speak candidly, but I can only do that if you remember that I’m here as an author and private citizen. I’m not speaking for the Holy See, or the American bishops, or any other bishop, or even officially for the Archdiocese of Denver. So the things I say tonight are my personal views, nothing more. I think they’re pretty solidly grounded in Catholic teaching and the heart of the Church, but it’s your task as Catholics and citizens to listen, evaluate and then act as you judge best.
In part his address simply recapitulates the argument of his book,Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life
What he says is tough, but since it’s directly relevant to a conversation we’ve been having here in several different posts, I thought I’d highlight it:
Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.
To suggest—as some Catholics do—that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “pro-life” option is to subvert what the word “pro-life” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert George’s essay of earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” at thepublicdiscourse.com. It says everything that needs to be said.
Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private citizen. But I’m grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.
He makes several further points and then concludes that portion of his discussion thus:
As I suggest throughout “Render Unto Caesar,” it’s important for Catholics to be people of faith who pursue politics to achieve justice; not people of politics who use and misuse faith to achieve power. I have no doubt that Prof. Kmiec belongs to the former group. But I believe his arguments finally serve the latter.
For 35 years I’ve watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that’s an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.
The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than “single issue” politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up—and they won’t be lied to.
So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is “lost” as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow “pro-life,” are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to.
Tough words from a brave man. I find them all the more interesting because Archbishop Chaput is certainly not “in the tank” for the Republican party. He campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and seems to be a natural liberal politically speaking. His book and his remarks come as the fruit of his years of ministry.
Comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
Posted by Laura on Tuesday, Oct 21, 2008 9:18 PM (EDT):
Thanks for adding this additional layer to the discussion, Rebecca. Next week I’m attending a forum where Doug Kmiec will be present and I’m glad to hear all sides of the argument.
I don’t agree that Kmiec’s statements are the equivalent of “I’m personally opposed, but…” although I can see how one could read it that way. I honestly believe that he is frustrated with business as usual in pro-life politics and is trying a radically new approach to making the pro-life cause bi-partisan.
Also, truthfully, I don’t believe that Doug Kmiec is going to change the mind of any traditional, Republican-voting, pro-life Catholics. The Republicans have a long pro-life history and one man is not going to change that. But a lot of Catholic Democrats, politicians AND voters, have given up on being pro-life, and that’s truly sad. If Kmiec can start a conversation that makes the Democratic party, and possibly our next President, more receptive to pro-lifers, that’s valuable. If he challenges pro-choice Catholics (most of whom are Democrats) to examine their consciences and see the truth, that’s huge.
Finally, given the abortion culture war we’re in, is it really useful to be condemning people for the way they’re trying to be pro-life? If pro-lifers can’t band together in support of one another, what hope do we have?
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Tuesday, Oct 21, 2008 10:24 PM (EDT):
Laura, thank you for your respectful response.
I think you misread Archbishop Chaput if you think he’s condemning anyone; he’s trying to save us all from being condemned!
In his book he’s quite gentle—but also clear—on the matter, and I read him to be adopting the same tone here.
The only reason a Catholic can support a “pro-choice” candidate is if there is a proportionate reason to do so. In other words, there has to be an issue that outweighs the daily slaughter of some 4000 innocents.
For himself he can’t imagine what that might be, but he doesn’t preclude the possibility.
He’s not condemning anyone; he’s saying sincerely he hopes people who vote for pro-choice candidates (and not just at the presidential level) have that proportionate reason, because they’ll have to answer for their votes.
As will we all. I think he’s speaking as a pastor.
Posted by Laura on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 11:44 AM (EDT):
Rebecca, I wrote another comment yesterday but it never posted. Aaargh!! Anyway, I saw this article and thought it was interesting:
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=91722
I thought it was worth highlighting since American bishops fall all along the political and ideological spectrum, and it’s typically the more conservative ones that are quoted on this blog (understandably). Bishop Chaput’s words are always worth reading, but I disagree that he’s a “natural liberal politically speaking”. He has a varied history, as you mention, but in recent years he has clearly aligned with other conservative bishops. A critique of Kmiec would be heard as more forceful by his supporters if it came from a left-leaning bishop.
Also, you’re right that condemn was probably too strong a word, although I felt it was implied. And I read Bishop Chaput’s words here as more personal than pastoral… he says he’s speaking as an author and private citizen, not as a pastor, so that’s how I read them.
Thank you for continuing to re-visit these topics in your posts. I appreciate hearing a thoughtful perspective that’s often different from my own. It’s been helpful for me, on a lot of levels, this election season.
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 12:37 PM (EDT):
Thanks for the link, Laura! I’m enjoying this conversation with you.
Here are two more links for you. Have you been following the debate between Prof. Kmiec et. al & George Weigel in the pages of Newsweek?
The Catholic Brief for Obama: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164445
And Flawed Thinking:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/165045
As I say in response to a comment of yours on a different post (assuming you’re the same “Laura”!), I am using the term “Conservative” in its political sense, since I think the Catholic approach to matters of faith and morals is neither “Conservative” nor “Liberal,” but merely faithful to the Magisterium.
Which is why Archbishop Chaput, who once stumped for Jimmy Carter, to date the most politically liberal President our nation has ever had, is such a strong defender of the unborn and traditional marriage. Politically, he isn’t conservative, if by that we mean being for strong defense, low taxes and minimal government spending on or intervention in anything.
What I think makes his arguments particularly valuable is not where he falls on the political spectrum, but that, as his new book shows, he has really wrestled with the question of the American Constitution and how Catholics are to act politically in this particular political regime (we’re a little different than Canada or Europe).
Few Catholics (including clergy and hierarchy) on either side of the political spectrum have really thought through those questions. That doesn’t mean Chaput is the voice of the Magisterium, of course, but it’s why I personally give his opinion greater weight.
Where bishops disagree, of course, we have only to look to the Magisterium of the Church where matters of faith and morals are concerned. If we read Evangelium Vitae and the the CDF’s doctrinal note on the participation of Catholics in public life, we then have the tools we need to evaluate what we are bound in conscience to do.
Here are the links for those documents for those who care to pursue the matter further:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
Posted by Laura on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 2:18 PM (EDT):
Yes, Rebecca, I had seen those Newsweek links and was amazed that the issue is getting play in the mainstream media!
I agree with you that matters of the Church are inherently neither liberal nor conservative. But the way we express our adherence to Church teachings in public life often aligns us more closely with one of the two major political parties, laity and bishops alike.
When I said that I view this blog as conservative, I meant that the authors (and the majority of commenters) here seem to express their Catholic faithfulness through conservative politics. I’d be surprised if any large percentage of this blog’s readers are voting for Obama next month. That’s my perception, anyway, but since liberal and conservative are relative terms, maybe that says more about my own views than anything else!
Regardless of label, I appreciate the writing here as challenging to my own perspectives so thank you for it.
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 2:40 PM (EDT):
You may be right about how people will vote, but my perception is that many of us share the view of a long-time reader I ran into this morning. She was laughing about how badly she wants to vote for Obama—but won’t—because (her words) “his positions on the whole complex of life issues are so extreme.”
There have been several similar laments in our comment boxes recently, so I bet you have more company on the left side of the political spectrum here than you know.
Our readers can’t be pegged! Except for their exceptional taste in reading material.
Posted by Carrie Lassey on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 3:20 PM (EDT):
I had to comment on the conversation. My husband and I were just discussing the other day that we would both probably vote for Obama if it wasn’t for his pro-choice stance. I do consider myself conservative, but in todays culture it is not hard to be considered conservative.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
