Postively pro-life
Monday, January 12, 2009
By goodwink
Comments (9)
ShareThis
Catholics must focus on the battle for hearts and minds to be successful in the effort to end abortion.
The United States will make history this month, inaugurating its first African-American president on January 20, a day that nearly coincides with another momentous event 36 years ago: the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that found a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution.
That ruling sparked a culture war that continued through the last election cycle. As the certainty of Barack Obama’s victory grew—and as Catholics began to move toward him, eventually giving him 54 percent of their votes—a vocal minority of bishops from Pennsylvania to Texas to Colorado all but said it was morally impossible for a Catholic to vote for him because of his pro-choice record.
For whatever reason the powerful rhetoric surrounding abortion failed terribly in convincing Catholic voters to swing to the GOP, as they did in 2004. As sociologist Father Andrew Greeley put it—somewhat harshly—in his post-election column in Chicago’s Sun-Times, “Ranting at others because they are ‘killing babies’ may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn’t change people’s minds.”
Sociological data seems to support Greeley’s conclusion: A 2007 Century for American Progress analysis of American attitudes on abortion found that 60 percent of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, with an equal number opposing a constitutional amendment banning it.
An October 2008 survey by Faith in Public Life found that even among Catholics a majority (54 percent) support legal abortion in all or most cases; 71 percent of Catholics 18 to 34 didn’t consider abortion an important issue in determining their vote for president. Such data led Catholic Obama supporter and legal scholar Nicholas Cafardi to conclude that Catholics “have lost the abortion battle—permanently.”
Whether Cafardi is correct or not—the U.S. bishops rejected his conclusion at their annual meeting in Baltimore in November—the results of the last election and consistent American support for legal abortion should give the pro-life movement pause. Thirty-five years of costly lobbying and court battles have accomplished very little in changing public support for legal abortion or reducing the abortion rate, with one in five U.S. pregnancies currently ending in abortion.
That does not mean advocates should abandon efforts to affect laws that regulate it. Catholic supporters of Democrats have long argued that progressive social policy will do more to reduce abortion than prohibiting it. Passage of the Support for Pregnant Women Act, which includes measures such as eliminating pregnancy as a pre-existing condition for health coverage, would put that moral logic to the test. At the same time Catholic support for Democrats may fade quickly if the Freedom of Choice Act, aimed at overturning some state-level restrictions on abortion, passes.
But there are more than legal questions facing the pro-life movement. The gap between Catholic rhetoric against abortion and Catholic action on behalf of pregnant women is arguably one reason why Catholics have been unsuccessful in convincing Americans that abortion ought to be illegal. Many parishes have pro-life committees, but their service to pregnant women is nowhere near what would be required if abortion were not an option.
Most parishes have among their members medical professionals, social workers, business owners, and educators who together could craft new, creative, and far more comprehensive approaches to ministry to pregnant women than diaper and formula drives, street protests, or prayer circles, as valuable as those may be.
Such efforts may not directly lead to legal restrictions on abortion, but they may inspire the kind of personal commitment and service that would give actual women real choices about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
“Preach the gospel; if necessary, use words,” St. Francis of Assisi is alleged to have said. Catholicism offers a prophetic vision of the value of human life from its microscopic beginning to its natural end. It’s time we buttressed that vision by equally prophetic service to women and their children, born and unborn.
Bryan Cones is managing editor of U.S. Catholic. This article appeared in the January 2009 (Volume 74, Number 1; page 8) issue of U.S. Catholic.
Father Andrew Greeley
By Scarlett007 (not verified) on Wednesday, August 26, 2009I had heard that Father Greeley passed away!! I PRAY THIS IS NOT TRUE, however, this is the latest post I can find, albiet, some months after his terrifing fall reaching for a taxi cab door in Chicago! Can someone help me out and tell me our beloved Priest is still well, happy and alive??? Or NOT??? Many thanks Rebecca at rubypoet@inbox.com, from Tucson, AZ
Father Andrew Greely
By Scarlett007 (not verified) on Sunday, October 25, 2009I was mistaken, THX YOU, OUR LORD GOD!!! FR. Greely is well, and getting better every day!
Greeley's health
By Megan Sweas on Monday, October 26, 2009Scarlette007--sorry I missed your comment in August. It's our understanding that Fr Greeley is still getting therapy for the brain injury he suffered as a result of the accident. You can find health updates on his website. I'm sure he and his family would appreciate your continued prayer for the "long road to recovery," as the lastest update calls it.
It's a false either-or
By Faustin Weber (not verified) on Sunday, February 8, 2009I reject the central thesis of this article, that the shrillness of our message accounts for its ineffectiveness, and that instead we must narrow the gap between what we say and what we do for pregnant women. I cannot think of any other organization in the country that tries to do more for the poor or for women in crisis, including pre-natal care, adoption services, counseling services or direct assistance programs. It's a false either-or.
The more accurate reason the pro-life teachings are failing to take hold, I believe, is something broader than the issue of abortion or Catholicism itself. I believe that reason is cultural shift that regards religion as a "private affair".
By all accounts, attendance in Churches in this country remains high, especially compared to our European counter-parts. However, increasingly, people of faith (including Catholics) seem to believe that our faith should be held in private, without trying to "force" it on others. The prophetic witness of the Church has been undercut and devalued; among the sophisticated, it is "bad form" to make people feel uncomfortable about moral matters.
This is why the "personally opposed, but cannot impose my views on others" is such a powerful line--the Pro-Abortion Lobby has researched it (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2006/Election-Poll-Summary.pdf)and has used it effectively.
If we're going to make headway on the abortion issue, we must reclaim the idea, so powerfully articulated by people like Martin Luther King, that our faith places demands on our conscience and compels us to act to build more just structures. That will take great oratory, but even more fundamentally, it will take conversion.
Culture Fallacy
By Jerry (not verified) on Thursday, January 29, 2009Catholics who consistently vote for pro-abortion politicians rationalize that asking people to change the law is hopeless and the best way to lower abortions are "positive" methods 1) to change the culture and 2) to increase social welfare payments.
Of course, if these Catholics followed their faith and demanded pro-life candidates, the Democratic Party would not be the almost monolithic Abortion Party and Roe v Wade would have been overtuned by now.
The problem with the "Positive Change the Culture" argument is that the courts have a tremendous influence upon the culture. Roe v Wade was made against public opinion but the public has increasing grown to accept it because of the law impacted culture. On the good side, court rulings on segregation were made against public opinion in the South. Over time these court rulings had a huge impact in changing the view on integration in the South.
As long as the courts declare abortion is a sacred right embedded in our constitution, pro-abortionists have the upper hand in the culture war especially since they have the dominant liberal media on their side.
The second argument that increased welfare will lower abortions does not hold water given the high level of abortions in Western Europe and Russia. Welfare in the United States has created a culture of irresponsibilty that has led to a rash of out of wedlock pregnancies. This culture of irresponsibilty first leads to irresponsible sex which can lead to the additional irresponsibilty of either absent fathers (since "government assistance" is the new father) or abortions since irresponsible people feel no obligation to care for the life they created.
Will FOCA have some impact on the Catholic vote? It will a little. However, most Union and Welfare Catholics care a lot more about the payoffs they get from the Democratic Party infinitely more than human life. Non-practicing Catholics frequently want abortions for themselves. Typical drones who just watch the news will get the dominant liberal media spin that those who oppose FOCA are crazed extremists.
As for hard core informed leftists Catholics such as those running U.S. Catholic? It is logical to assume when they vote straight line for pro-abortion candidates who promise FOCA, they will continue to vote for these candidates when they fulfill their promise.
Comment on Positively Pro-Life
By Michael Gottsch (not verified) on Friday, January 23, 2009I would suggest there are some more simple reasons that explain why Catholics did not support the "pro-life" candidate. First, because we value our pluralistic democracy, we are not willing to "obey" every command of a bishop (some of which conflict), and we do not base our votes solely on religious teachings, especially where many significant issues require attention. Many Catholics, such as myself, believe it is absurd to assert that it's a sin to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. Yet a minority of bishops have clinged to just such a position. Second, many politicians in the U.S. use religious positions as political postitions. They are not necessarily committed "pro-lifers" like those who demonstrate at abortion clinics. They are "pro-life" because they think that's how they'll get the most votes. How else can you explain the many other immoral things (starting immoral wars and championing the death penalty, for example) they do while professing to be pro-life. Many pro-lifers, especially ones of the intellectual variety, are recognizing that if the goal is to reduce abortions as much as possible, then maintaining a position that all abortions must be outlawed (which they know is not possible to achieve) will not serve the goal whereas other measures will.
"Absurd to assert it's a sin to vote (pro-choice)"
By Jerry (not verified) on Thursday, January 29, 2009In the 1960's the Bishop of New Orleans excommunicated Catholic politicians who publicly supported segregation.
Is it absurd to say that it is a sin to vote for an outspoken racist and segregationist?
Isn't the the support of the choice to kill another human being in the same league as segregation?
Positively pro-life
By Jim Lein (not verified) on Thursday, January 22, 2009I've been saying much the same for years but not saying it as well. Christ did not come to advocate legalistic approaches. That was not his way.
There is most glaringly a "gap between Catholic rhetoric against abortion and Catholic action on behalf of pregnant women." The least all Catholics can do is pray, especially the Rosary, for troubled pregnant women. Who better than Mary to guide us in understanding the needs of these women? This prayer and understanding will help us close the rhetoric-action gap by reaching out to these women as Christ would. Certainly his way is sufficient.
As I read this article, it
By Ellie Kane (not verified) on Saturday, January 17, 2009As I read this article, it reminded me of the other day when my young son went to pour milk in a cup. My husband said cautiously, "Michael, pay attention when you pour the milk!" forseeing the possibility of milk spilling onto the counter. I glanced over as Michael was telling his Father, "I am Dad." Actually, he had an eye on the television as he poured. I realized he really wasn't thinking about what 'pay attention' meant, so I said, "Michael, look at the cup while you pour." Michael looked and poured uneventfully. This memory made me think that we cannot as a Church, just say 'Abortion is wrong - don't have one or don't vote for people who will enact laws approving them.' The American public can no longer see why abortion is wrong - they are ignorant of so much of what comes before the need for an abortion. So many of us cannot see the 'need' for an abortion arises because of our lack of formation and living our faith with regards to saving oneself for marriage and marriage til death do us part. We no longer consider it a reasonable expectation to live out these 2 elements of our faith. Can many of us even say we value virginity and lifelong committment? My son could not 'pay attention' when he didn't really know what it clearly meant. Nor can people really consider the abortion issue as vitally important to society if they are poorly formed in truths that prevent the 'need' for one. May we as educators back up and start the formation at the beginning rather than at the horrific ending, where it is much too late.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
