Man Bites Blog

I try to understand.

I understand that Commonweal thinks that abortion is used too often as a dividing issue, and that they are generally supportive of President Obama and health care reform. I don’t even know that they are altogether incorrect about those positions.

Still, I would kind of expect a magazine with a Catholic identity to occasionally let it slip that the current culture around abortion is not a good thing. But you won’t find it in the current editorial on health care reform and abortion, which refers to abortion opponents as if they were odd aliens from another culture. It refers to the US as “a nation where access to abortion is a constitutional right” without pausing to consider whether it should be considered as such. It acknowledges that, “Any direct funding of abortion by the federal government would be a catastrophic political mistake,” but leaves unsaid whether that is because it would be harmful on its face, or because it would give the GOP a talking point.

All in all, if you took away the masthead, this editorial could have probably been published by Planned Parenthood without much protest from their membership.. Some Commonweal readers might see this as a positive sign of common ground; I see it as the salt losing its flavor.

I also have to take issue with the conclusion:

If those on either side of this conflict insist on using health-care reform to further their own agenda-either to expand access to abortion or to further restrict it-they will not only damage the health of the nation as a whole, they will discredit their own cause as well.

Reading this, one would think that pro-lifers were waiting in the shadows and thought, “Aha! — we’ll use health care reform to further our agenda.” Also, I thought that this was what Commonweal Catholics thought the pro-life should be doing — simultaneously expanding access to necessary government services, and curtailing the culture’s abortion license. To Commonweal, are there any circumstances under which it is appropriate to move to restrict abortion?

That the editorial goes for a false balance is bad enough, but the wording — “either to expand access to abortion or to further restrict it” — gives the idea that there already quite enough restrictions on abortion, thank you very much, and heaven knows we don’t need more, especially in the midst of a health care debate!

Commonweal has been know to express grave concern that bishops’ statements about abortion might lead some to conclude they are supporting the GOP. In that same spirit, I express concern that if Commonweal continues to write articles in which they distance themselves from those opposed to the current abortion regime and are indistinguishable from a Planned Parenthood press release, some might draw the conclusion that the don’t give a damn about the unborn.

For an example of how one can support President Obama, health care reform, and the unborn, see Micheal Sean Winters here.

I keep wondering what it would take in order for some of the dotCommonweal bloggers like David Gibson and Catherine Kaveny to write a post that unambiguously defends the unborn without taking potshots at pro-lifers.  Heck, I’d even settle for a post that did more of the former than the latter.

Apparently, it will take more than the president elect promising to make his first priority signing a bill that even magazines like Slate acknowledge would seriously undercut the religious freedom of Catholic hospitals.

Here’s David Gibson today:

So why the focus on FOCA by Catholic conservatives? I’d say a couple of things: One, the election was a resounding defeat for their camp, and exposed division in the church and within the pro-life movement. While they retrench, they need to keep the focus on an enemy, and FOCA serves that purpose. The pro-life movement has largely been an opposition movement, and that dynamic is hard to change, and it could hurt fundraising at a bad time for all fundraisers. Two, the conservatives can also claim “credit” for defeating FOCA when it does not become law.

And that would be so bad because….?

From a culture of life perspective, wouldn’t it be wise to make it clear that the election was about the rejection of many of the worst policies of the Bush Administration rather than a rejection of protection of the unborn?  Isn’t that what Obama’s pro-life supporters insisted was the case?  Doesn’t this provide the opportunity to do so?

And I am increasingly perturbed by  this notion that pro-lifers should chill out about FOCA because it would never pass.  Apparently, its enough within the political pale that it earned the endorsement of the president elect, and all we’ve been hearing about is how reasonable he is.

Exactly where can pro-lifers get involved.  If we favor restrictive policies, then we are being divisive and eschewing common ground.  If we mobilize opposition to terrible bills like FOCA, then we are ginning up outrage over phantom menaces.  Where, exactly is the sweet spot?  Is there something we can do that is reasonable enough to not be divisive, but not so terrible that we won’t stand accused of scaring things up?

The title of Gibson’s post was, “The FOCA Phantom: What will pro-lifers do without it?”  I suggest we work to find out.

Commonweal looks at the recent public statements by Catholic politicians on abortion and corrctions by the bishops, and criticizes….  the bishops!

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.