It is hard to know what is more exasperating, the ill-informed statements of Catholic prochoice politicians about the church’s teaching on abortion, or the response of certain bishops, whose criticism of politicians sometimes seems designed to be exploited for partisan purposes.
Well if the author is referring to him or herself, then it is quite easy to know which is more exasperating. I suppose the answer hinges on what one values more — the truth of the Church’s teaching on the unborn, or the fortunes of a partuclar party.
It’s also not hard to know which should matter more to a Catholic.
Continuing:
Pronouncements like these lead fair-minded people to suspect that a double standard is at work in the church’s attitude toward Democrats and Republicans. This perception is reinforced by the media’s relative neglect of positions the bishops take on issues such as immigration, health care, and poverty. Dramatic conflict drives news coverage. Knowing this, bishops must be careful not to issue statements that are easily manipulated by one party or the other. Stressing the consistency of Catholic teaching is one way to do that.
Editorials like this lead fair-minded people to suspect that a double standard is at work in Commonweal’s attitude toward Democrats and Republicans. People tend to ignore or dismiss when the bishops say things they don’t want to hear. Knowing this, publications like Commonweal must be careful not to issue editorials that can be easily manipulated to undermine the Church’s clear teaching about the unborn.
The editorial concludes with this:
Abortion, the bishops tell us, is a fundamental moral issue, because unlike most public-policy questions, it entails the intentional killing of innocent human life, which is always and under all circumstances grievously wrong. There is another fundamental moral issue in American political life that involves the intention to kill innocent human beings. Because of the indiscriminate destruction caused by nuclear weapons, the intent to use such weapons, even in retaliation for a nuclear attack, is always and under all circumstances wrong. Yet the targeting of cities, and a determination to retaliate if attacked, has long been U.S. nuclear policy. In responding to this intrinsic evil, one that may yet involve the deaths of tens of millions, the bishops have been firm on principle but also prudent, rhetorically disciplined, and seekers of reasoned compromise on policy. The same discipline and prudence—the same concern for practical effect—should shape their pronouncements about abortion.
I think the difference in reaction can be explained by reasons other than bishops’ cheerleading for Republicans. Specifically:
-
No one is currently being killed by American nuclear weapons, and it is very unlikely anyone will be killed by them in the near future. There are 1,000 abortions daily, and serious movement afoot for the American government to fund embryo-destructive research. Hence, it may make sense for the bishops to treat abortion with a greater sense of urgency than nuclear weapons.
-
As far as I know, there have not been Catholics showing up on national television making the case that Catholic teaching allows for targetting cities with nuclear weapons, and thus are in need of correction.
I would think a fair-minded person would take these things into account before jumping to the conclusion that the bishops’ differing responses to these problems is motivated by a desire to elect Republicans.
