Pulpits, Press, and Public Policy: the Politics of Abortion

Sticking with what we know

 

It happens during every election and intensifies whenever a Catholic Democratic (or is it Democratic Catholic?) politician is running for office against a more conservative, perhaps evangelical Republican Protestant (or is it Protestant Republican?). Abortion takes center stage, and politicians from both sides use their own opinions and talking points in vain efforts to appear more pious than the other. It is almost embarrassing to watch these mostly professional attorneys attempt to argue finer theological points as if so well versed in religion and theology that it had come down to a coin toss about whether to go to seminary or law school. 

 

I’ve all but given up politics simply because I’m tired of caring so much about something that is beyond my control. I am not an affluent citizen, and there is nothing so special about me that a political candidate would worry about having his or her photo taken with me or even answering my letters, e-mails, or phone calls. Essentially it is that I have no clout, therefore no politician has time for me. No sweat. I’ve not lost any sleep over it. In fact, I have found that food tastes better and the air smells cleaner and my temper is not so quick to flare after I stopped reading and listening to the political rhetoric precisely because of its lack of substance. Besides, this particular presidential election all but started right after the 2006 mid-term elections. I know I am not alone in “burn out”.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, has been taken to task by Catholic Church leaders this week as she has attempted to use Catholic theology to justify her “pro-choice” stance by citing man’s free will and ultimate responsibility for one’s own actions (not entirely off the mark here, by the way). However, one of her spokespersons, Brendan Daly, dipped into St. Augustine and quoted a passage that was an appropriate and interesting question but is out of its 5^th century context in 21^st century America: 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this quote from St Augustine can go in several reasonable directions and still miss the point he was trying to make. Pelosi’s crew attempts to use it as a fundamental Church teaching about the conception of a child; a bona fide theologian who specializes in St Augustine stated simply that Augustine was wondering when a soul is actually imparted to an unborn human child. I somehow do not believe that abortion was a big issue during Augustine’s time. 

 

Speaker Pelosi graduated from a Catholic school, presumably when she was a child, but I wonder if that reference is by her own folks or the media in attempting to give Ms. Pelosi a theological or Catholic pedigree, suggesting that she can support her opinions on matters of catechism teachings about life, conception, and abortion. Clearly, however, it is that she has run afoul of what the catechism actually teaches, and several bishops have called her on it. In spite of these learned objections to her opinion, she appears ready to defend herself and what she believes the Church is teaching. She is, in fact, entitled to her opinion, but does it matter?

 

It is unfair – and unconstitutional – to use religion as a litmus test for public office. It is equally unreasonable and immeasurable to attempt to use faith in the same way – and yes, there is a difference. Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian and man of great faith, and is arguably the worst president of his time. Can it be said that his faith caused these failures, or were failures evidence of his lack of faith? Either way, faith is an unfair standard of measure. So why do we allow the allegedly unbiased media to provoke us to such a point that we would judge a candidate’s worthiness for public office based on his or her standard or measure of faith?

 

Unfortunately, abortion has been hijacked by politicians who seek favor with a particular group, whether NARAL or National Right to Life. Rather than have serious discussions about formulating serious policy about a gravely serious subject, we allow those seeking office to jerk our heart strings and wreak havoc with our emotions. Speaker Pelosi and Joe Biden are on the Church’s radar screen like John Kerry was in 2004 with some bishops suggesting that these wayward Catholics should refrain from participating in Holy Communion while they actively support abortion. And most likely as in 2004, some priest will ignore the bishops and serve Communion to these parishioners anyway. 

 

So what was accomplished in 2004 that we can reasonably expect in 2008? My guess is nothing, nothing of substance anyway. We will call names and point fingers, the media will report whatever will get folks to pay attention to their news outlet, emotions will churn, yet absolutely nothing will come of it.  

 

It is perfectly ok for church leaders to call on state leaders who share their faith just as some arms of the United Methodist Church have publicly derided United Methodist George W. Bush regarding the US presence in Iraq as well as some economic policies, but I sometimes wonder if these church leaders are not violating some ethical “line in the sand” by making such public comments critical of individual persons? At the very least, when we reduce ourselves to accusations, name-calling, and finger-pointing, we are very un-Christ-like. For this we should all be ashamed.

 

Voters have to exercise extreme caution when measuring a political wanna-be according to his or her statements regarding faith, regardless of the setting. It is ok to publicly profess Christ as Savior, but it is also much better and the Kingdom much better served if voters can actually see the faith rather than hear about the religion. We must always remember that the US Constitution was written in such a way for a specific purpose. We are not electing national religion leaders, and these wanna-be’s should stop pretending to be religious scholars. Abortion is a moral issue that the Church itself has failed to adequately address over the years. Politics will not turn a heart of stone … unless, of course, it will win votes.