| Understanding the Issues
and What's at Stake Dear Brothers and Sisters in
Christ:
If any of us thought that we could avoid political chatter this fall,
the past two weeks of conventions and speeches have been a dose of
unpleasant reality. In truth, I hope that all of us are paying at least
a little attention. When leading politicians who claim to be Catholic
misrepresent so badly the basic teachings of the Church, we Catholic
citizens must call them on it.
No doubt, no one has missed the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA), a self-described “ardent, practicing Catholic,” being
interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” two weeks ago (August 24). When
asked what advice she would give a president on the issue of when human
life begins, and despite the clarity of the Church’s teaching that life
begins at conception, Ms. Pelosi attempted to formulate a theological
argument that (a) life may not begin at conception (quoting St.
Augustine); (b) the teaching of the Church that life does begin at
conception is only “about 50 years old;” and therefore (c) this teaching
“shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose [an abortion].”
Clearly, this not-quite-argument is poorly reasoned and false.
As saddened as I was to hear Ms. Pelosi make such indefensible,
inaccurate statements about the Church’s teachings, I was greatly
encouraged by the immediate response of my brother bishops. Archbishops
Chaput, Egan, Wuerl, and others have responded strongly and clearly to
Ms. Pelosi, and to all who might be swayed by her confusion and
evasions, reiterating the constant, unchanging, and unequivocal truth
that abortion is always a grave moral evil. On August 25, Archbishop
Chaput responded, completely dismantling Ms. Pelosi’s confused argument,
in part simply by quoting this from the excellent book “Abortion: The
Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective” (Loyola, 1977), by Fr.
John Connery, S.J.:
“The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm
antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend
on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of
fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and
penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the
condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would
want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a
human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of
conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never
looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible
abortion.”
Cardinal Egan rebuked Ms. Pelosi even more strongly in his open letter
of August 26: “Anyone who dares to defend that they [i.e. the unborn]
may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do
so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing
leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”
I agree completely with the rebuke and rebuttal of Cardinal Egan and
Archbishop Chaput. As your Bishop, I am responsible to our Lord Jesus
Christ for the salvation of all the souls of North-West Iowa. I can’t
force anyone to believe the truth, nor would I use such force if I
could, but my duty as Bishop requires that I, as my brother bishops have
done, teach that truth by word and example as firmly and as clearly as
humanly possible. These true and universal doctrines of the Roman
Catholic Church are the teachings of Christ.
1. Abortion is always a grave moral evil (Catechism of the Catholic
Church 2270-2272). The deliberate taking of innocent human life can
never be justified. The same grave moral evil is likewise practiced in
euthanasia (CCC 2276-79), and in the destruction of human embryos for
medical research, and in human cloning (CCC 2274). In each of these
issues, as well, innocent human life is unjustifiably taken.
2. Cooperation in any evil act is also a grave moral evil (CCC 1868).
Directly to assist with, for example, the taking of innocent human life
makes one culpable for that action. Indirectly to assist with the taking
of innocent human life may or may not be culpable cooperation, depending
on circumstances. One of the key circumstances is knowledge of the evil
to be perpetrated (CCC 1859-1860); and in our society today, it is
scarcely to be believed that anyone above the age of reason could claim
“invincible ignorance” regarding the moral status of any of these
issues.
3. The proper formation of conscience is an ordinary duty of all the
baptized (CCC 1777-1782). The objective sources of moral knowledge,
according to which conscience can be formed with certainty, are natural
law, Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church (CCC 1785). Subjective
sources of moral knowledge, such as reflection on one’s own experience,
private revelation, and infused virtue, never contradict the objective
sources, but can deepen and strengthen conviction in the truth of the
objective teachings (CCC 1778-1779). This means that the “argument from
anecdote” (so-and-so did such-and-such a grave moral evil, and they came
to no harm…) and the “argument from personal authority” (I have
such-and-such a belief or experience, and I say…) always fail to
persuade. It also means that, with very few exceptions, no one has the
easy excuse of ignorance of the moral law to justify their malformed
conscience (CCC 1791-1793).
4. Participation in the political process is an ordinary duty of all the
baptized (CCC 1913-1917). This means not only that the faithful should
vote, but also, more importantly, that the faithful must take
responsibility for the actions of our elected officials by (a)
exercising their vote with care and right discernment in conscience and
truth, and (b) insisting that elected officials use their executive or
legislative power for the common good (CCC 1916-1917).
5. The end never justifies the means (CCC 1753). This means that the
common good can never be achieved by practicing any moral evil as state
policy (CCC 1789, 1905).
Now, it must be admitted that not every moral evil is equally grave (CCC
1852-1854). Some issues have little effect beyond themselves; some touch
on a few related issues; some are foundational to the whole structure of
politics and society. The issues which have been labeled as
“non-negotiable Catholic issues” are the most grave, because they are at
the foundation of all our rights and responsibilities. These are,
namely, the “life issues” of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell
research, and human cloning; and the fundamental social issue of the
family, which in this country today mostly means the definition of
marriage. These issues are “non-negotiable” because, if the fundamental
right to life is not secure, no rights are ultimately secure. If
existence is contingent upon the will of others, so too is every other
human right contingent.
Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, made this explicitly clear, as
Cardinal Ratzinger, in the 1987 document called Donum Vitae (“The Gift
of Life”):
“The inviolable right to life of every innocent human individual and the
rights of the family and of the institution of marriage constitute
fundamental moral values, because they concern the natural condition and
integral vocation of the human person; at the same time they are
constitutive elements of civil society and its order…. The moment a
positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which
civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the
equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power
at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the
more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are
undermined…”http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml
- 80 (Donum Vitae, III; see also Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical,
Evangelium Vitae, Chapters 3 and 4).
In this way, the rights of prisoners and criminal suspects, of the ill
and elderly, of children and families, of immigrants, all depend
directly for their coherence and reasonableness on the right to life.
Even opposing the three great “-isms” of modern liberal philosophy
(race, gender, and class) depends on the prior recognition of human
personhood and its inherent dignity as such. In the same way, the root
principles defining all forms of social justice, such as solidarity and
subsidiarity, are only ultimately guaranteed by defense of the right to
life and of the family as the basic social unit. When families are
unstable units, then all voluntary associations, up to and including
states and nations, ultimately lack a coherent concept of justice to
animate laws and mores. The five “non-negotiables” are fundamental
because, when they are abandoned, justice itself is de facto abandoned (CCC
2273).
Our nation is divided today, because we have in fact abandoned these
foundations for personal and corporate liberty in our legal system, but
not in our culture, our expectations, or our vocabulary. More and more,
to be “progressive” means to wish to change the culture to conform to
new legal interpretations, while to be “conservative” means to wish to
change the laws to conserve traditional culture. More and more, because
America is a nation greatly attracted to the innovative, and not much
attached to tradition or conservation, the expectation that law be the
servant of culture is rejected. In other words, the tools of politics
tend to favor a new, illusory ideal of the isolated, autonomous self,
rather than (as they ought) to protect and defend a shared and inherited
idea of the common good.
When this happens, division results. The “politics of identity” take
over; the perceived “rights” of this or that group (defined by race,
gender, and class) begin to seem more important than shared identity,
shared humanity. In some fundamental sense, as Pope Benedict has said,
the denial of a shared humanity requires a denial of some particular
group’s humanity: in our day, especially of the unborn, and the
terminally ill.
In the early Church, as still today, Christians were ridiculed for
coming to the defense of the poorest of the poor: widows, slaves,
orphans, infants exposed to die. Christians challenged the assumptions
of the world that only the rich and powerful mattered, and died for it.
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” The full fruit of
the Church’s early centuries of evangelization ultimately included the
conviction that politics not only can but must aim for justice – not the
worldly justice of due process and evenhanded use of force, which is too
easily perverted into an idolatrous worship of order or system; but the
divine justice of converted hearts and life completely free from sin.
The conversion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the democratic
revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were sparked by the
brightness of this luminous ideal. Our nation claims this Christian
vision as its foundation and its heritage: to choose to accept one’s
personal responsibility for the common good.
We know that for the common good to exist, the strong (such as those who
wield the right to vote) are obliged to defend the weak (such as the
unborn). We rejoice in the political freedoms of America, especially our
freedom of religion. Because freedom in Christ is always freedom from
sin, freedom to love, and never license to commit evil, we trust that
our freedom of religion strengthens our democracy. When we live faithful
to the fundamental truths of our faith and our democracy – that life is
an inalienable right, endowed by our Creator, for a clear and specific
purpose – then our laws and our culture will be strong and just,
defending the weak and the poor.
I hope these words are helpful to you. As we approach the November
elections we must clearly understand the issues and what is at stake.
May the wisdom of the Church’s teaching help us all and may all faithful
Catholics continue to speak the truth in love.
Your brother in Christ,
Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless
Bishop of Sioux City
|