Now, here’s the thing. Most of the piece is a moderated sneer at those who would prioritize life issues. Once again, as it always is, my question is – why not? What’s wrong with being pre-eminently concerned about a society and legal system that seems to be creeping towards extremely subjective views of the value of human life, in which the value of any given life – pre-born, aged, disabled – is dependent upon the good will of those who have power? Why is that unseemly for Catholics to be concerned about?
Certainly, there different angles to attack the problem, but that’s not what O’Brien is tackling here – he’s not taking on the issue, frequently discussed here, of what obligations Catholic have to work to criminalize abortion. No, as I said, he sees the whole stance of prioritizing life issues as nothing more than a political ploy:
The church has its own politics, less obvious than the GOP strategy of building a Catholic-Evangelical religious coalition. Months ago our Worcester-area pastors asked us to sign postcards warning our Massachusetts senators not to make support for Roe v. Wade a “litmus test” for selection of a new Supreme Court justice. Instead our senators should apply the other “litmus test” of opposition to Roe. As a strategy for ending, or even reducing, abortion, such cards, used across the country, have even less to recommend them than threats to deny Communion. But these high visibility campaigns are primarily exercises in internal church politics. Saying no to abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, and other “non-negotiable” issues-war, torture, or our nuclear addiction are not included-is a way for Catholics to stand up for life amid what the bishops, echoing Pope John Paul II, call the “culture of death.” Many Catholics are persuaded that prolife and promarriage campaigns will help their church recover its integrity, badly damaged not only by incompetent leadership but by the allegedly spineless accommodation of politicians and most parishioners to the supposed individualism, hedonism, and permissiveness of our American society.
It’s always so odd to me when critics can’t see that people might be concerned about these issues because, you know, they think they have actual moral, as opposed to political implications.
The real point of O’Brien’s piece, though, is to hold up Roberts, examine him for flaws in his Catholic warp and woof, and compare him to our Best Friend of 2004:
With Roberts now proposed for chief justice, moderate bishops will stress Skylstad’s wide list of concerns but, as in 2004, they may be brushed aside by the new breed of conservative bishops and Catholic politicians playing for high stakes. Commentators will find Skylstad’s official statement boring, moderate bishops will not return reporters’ phone calls, and the press will search out the same cast of characters who shaped Catholic politics last year. As a result, many Catholics will ask whether the bishops will apply the same “all or out” standard to Judge Roberts that they applied to Kerry or, more disgracefully, to longtime Congressman David Obey (D-Wis.), a thoughtful critic of abortion who failed to support the whole prolife agenda.
The issue O’Brien raises is federalism, and here I hand it over to the legal minds, who are discussing this at, of course, MIrror of Justice:
I continue to think that the "will the bishops be ‘consistent’ by applying the same standard to Judge Roberts as they did to John Kerry" argument is quite weak: John Kerry and Judge Roberts were / are seeking different jobs, with different powers and responsibilities. In any event, though, O’Brien writes this:
Some early reports associated Roberts with the Federalist Society and its hankering to return to pre-New Deal restrictions on federal powers. That position is at odds with important elements of Catholic social teaching.
In fact, (1) there’s nothing wrong with the Federalist Society; (2) the Federalist Society does not waste time "hankering to return to pre-New Deal restrictions on federal powers" (O’Brien has probably been duped by the silly "Constitution in Exile" bugaboo here); and, more important, (3) it is not the case that it conflicts with "important elements of Catholic social teaching" to believe that, the Constitution — a legal document — really means something that, let’s concede for now, might make achieving certain Catholic-supported policy goals more difficult. If it is a fact — and, I think it is — that the Constitution does not give Congress a general police power or general regulatory authority, then it is hard for me to see how this "fact" could conflict with "Catholic social teaching," any more than could the "fact" that, say, edible and nutritious grains don’t grow everywhere.
The Constitution, properly understood, permits John Kerry to oppose, and vote against, public funding for abortion, and to support reasonable regulations of abortion. So (putting aside the Communion question), I see no reason why the Bishops should not urge Kerry to do so. But if the Constitution does not, in fact, confer upon Congress a general police power, it would be inappropriate for Bishops to urge John Roberts to invent one.
Read Previous Post