The Working Catholic: Social Doctrine, Part Seven by Bill Droel

 There are scores of books explaining Catholic social doctrine. The outline for many of them is a chronology of papal encyclicals (from Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 On the Condition of Labor to Pope Francis’ 2020 On Social Friendship). Or the author might pick issues like peace, health care delivery, labor relations and the environment; quoting relevant official documents in each chapter.                                                                                             

The Church’s Best-Kept Secret by Mark Shea (New City Press [2020]; 16.95) is different. In 159 pages written for a popular audience, Shea reflects on four social principles, giving two chapters to each: the dignity of each life, the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. The encyclicals are referenced along the way. However, Shea prefers to illustrate the principles with lots of Scripture, some quotations from the early church and citations from C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).                                                    

Ethical consistency is Shea’s recurring theme. Some Catholics agree with our doctrine on some issues but not others. Other Catholics, including some bishops, claim to be consistent but mistakenly say one issue has greater moral weight than another. And some Catholics disingenuously claim to support Catholic doctrine, but they only use it to oppose policies or politicians they don’t like. “If your focus is on abortion, fine,” Shea writes. “But do not pretend to focus on it while actually spending your time and energy fighting against the Magisterium…and in favor of policies that harm the environment, fighting against a living wage and in favor of laissez faire capitalism.” The tone of The Church’s Best-Kept Secret is easy-going, not technical. But, as this riff shows, Shea can hammer points as needed.                                                                                                          

There’s a difference between the world-as-it-is and “the way it is supposed to be,” Shea writes. Everyone has at least a dim notion of perfectibility, of a better situation, of the world as we hope it could be. He goes on to quote G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936): In the here-and-now people “do not differ much about what things they will call evil; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” For example, some people justify torture during wartime (though doing so became harder in the United States after the publication of photos from Abu Ghraib Prison). Yes, says Shea, soldiers sometimes have to kill combatants in self-defense. But the moment an enemy becomes a prisoner, torture is absolutely forbidden “as gravely and intrinsically immoral.”                                

In the same way some people excuse abortion because in their calculus the unborn are less equal. “Hairsplitting arguments about when a fetus becomes a person are meaningless,” Shea says. Each person has a right to live “the whole of human life for the whole of life.”                                                                                                                                    

Over and over, Shea insists that a moral person cannot say that one issue must take priority over others. Concern over 20 or more issues does not dilute or fracture the brand. Yes, “there is plenty of room…for specialization and focusing on specific issues and ills.” But, to make one issue morally higher than another is to make some people in some situations more equal than others. A moral person cannot deliberately excuse evil.

There is obviously imperfection in the world-as-it-is. Yet the moral person retains a vision of a world as it is supposed to be and consistently strives to lessen evil and enhance good. At the same time, Shea concludes, one must refrain from becoming a justice warrior in the sense that they presume to create a perfect world. Such a person will likely be ineffective. Always “begin where you are, and not where you are not,” he advises. You are inside a family, inside a voluntary group, in a union, at a protest or rally. Then challenge yourself and others to move a step outside your comfort zone.                               

Shea is not the last word on social action, its history, its principles and its current applications. Most readers will quarrel with him on some pages; which is a sign of a good book. The Church’s Best Kept Secret is fresh, accessible and challenging.

Droel is the author of What Is Social Justice (National Center for the Laity, PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629).

The Working Catholic: Abortion Stereotypes by Bill Droel

  

One gets the impression nowadays that to be a member of the Democratic Party is to favor a woman’s autonomous right to unimpeded access to abortion, at least during the first six months of her pregnancy. Further, all Democrats supposedly favor the federal government as the guarantor of that right.

In fact, many members of the Democratic Party have a textured view of the abortion issue. Some Democrats support Consistent Life organization (www.consistentlifenetwork.org) which opposes poverty, the death penalty and abortion. There is also the group Democrats for Life (www.democratsforlife.org) which supports “whole life” Democratic candidates and office holders.

Back in the day, many pro-life leaders were solid Democrats and most were Catholic, details Daniel Williams in Defenders of the Unborn: the Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade (Oxford University Press, 2016). These leaders drew upon the New Deal and upon natural law. They used “the same language of human rights [and] civil rights” as found in the movements for racial justice and equal opportunity for women. Further, these leaders, as Democrats, believed that government has a positive but not exclusive role to play in protecting rights and in delivering services to the needy, says Williams.

Not all Catholic Democrats were vocal about pro-life. But the pro-life list included Catholics like Sargent Shriver (1915-2011), Eunice Shriver (1921-2009), Thomas Eagleton (1929-2007), Edmund Muskie (1914-1996) and yes, Ted Kennedy (1932-2009) plus non-Catholic Jesse Jackson. Likewise in the old days, some Catholic bishops who supported progressive causes also spoke against abortion, including Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit and Cletus O’Donnell (1917-1992) of Madison. Meanwhile, some prominent Republicans were speaking in favor of abortion. And, in another surprise from Williams, “evangelicals largely eschewed the pro-life movement” prior to 1973. They were uneasy about associating with anything that felt Catholic and simply did not give much attention to social issues, focusing instead on individual faith expression.

The core pro-life Catholic Democrats gradually created a “bipartisan, ecumenical coalition” with mainline Protestants, Williams continues. Despite some setbacks, this coalition won victories at the state level and saw results from its educational efforts. To furnish one example, 10,000 people rallied in late 1972 in New York City against a proposed state law to extend abortion access. By 1972 the pro-life movement (still attracting liberals and Catholics) had defeated pro-abortion legislation in 25 states.

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court rendered its Roe vs. Wade decision. The argument that “women had an absolute right to choose not to be pregnant” took off, Williams details. In reaction to the court decision new pro-life alliances emerged, particularly with evangelical groups. And after January 1973 many liberals gave up the pro-life cause; some switched positions. The new pro-life movement after Roe spent little energy on retaining or recruiting liberals.

Many liberals today seem uninterested in listening to reasonable pro-life arguments. For example, one day after the January 20, 2017 inauguration of former president Donald Trump nearly one-half million walked in a Woman’s March on Washington. Nationwide total participation reached perhaps four million. Various groups had partnership status for this historic protest against the meanness conveyed by Trump during his campaign. A pro-life group from Texas was anti-Trump. However, after initial approval their partnership for the protest was revoked. A chairwoman of the march explained: “If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose.”

o  Some Democrats who favor access to abortion think the Roe decision is flawed. Some think that in addition to the Supreme Court and the federal administration other entities have a stake in abortion policy.

o  Some Democrats identify as pro-life, though there are different approaches. For example, not all favor exclusive attention on the Supreme Court.

o  Some Republican office holders and candidates who identify as pro-life are insincere. Interestingly, the number of abortions has decreased during Democratic presidencies.

o  Some members of the Republican Party generally favor the Roe decision.

Whatever one’s position on abortion, it would be honorable and strategic to put away easy assumptions.

Droel edits INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a printed newsletter on faith and work.

 

Daily Meditations with Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox - "Supreme Court or Supreme Torque"

Webster's Dictionary informs us that the word 'torque' derives from the French word to twist and has two meanings:  First, "a metal collar or neck chain worn by the ancient Gauls, Germans, and Britons."  The "torture" is derived from the same French word, thus "something that causes agony or pain" or "affords sadistic pleasure."

It seems to me that the five political hacks on the unsupreme court have twisted all legal reasoning out of shape and twisted the last 49 years of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court out of shape. to get to the position stated in the leaked document. Protesters in Foley Square, Manhattan, defending the right to abortion following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Wikimedia Commons. They turn their back on 87% of American citizens in order to torture the lives of women, especially poor and black and brown women, and certainly young girls and victims of rape in order to arrive at some sadistic pleasure. The second meaning of “torque” is as follows:   As a verb, it means to “impart torque to: cause to twist (as about an axis); a turning or twisting force.”   The chaos that will happen in the everyday lives of women and families from this sick decision; the complete loss of respect for the Supreme Court; the chaos to derive from people losing all faith in government by law; the joy such chaos will bring Steve Bannon and his goal of undermining respectful law and order therefore, will surely match any other quest for sadistic pleasure conceived of. Leonard Leo, Federalist Society co-chairman and board member of Opus Dei’s Catholic Information Center, facilitated the appointment of Supreme Court justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Photo: Federalist Society. The next step is naked fascism or what historian Timothy Snyder calls Tyranny.  I smell Opus Dei in the air.  Word in the street is that Ginni Thomas is a member of Opus Dei (however, being a super secret organization, it is hard to substantiate though her car was seen at Opus Dei meetings).  I smell fascism of all stripes in the air at the Supreme Court. This law will be remembered as Supreme Torque therefore, a supreme and ultimate twisting of legal precedent to come to a bona fide act of torture and of sadism toward women.   It represents a triumph of Patriarchy; a triumph of misogyny.  The killing of human rights just as it opens the door to the killing of babies and of mothers whom it pretends to defend by denying access to safe women’s care. Yes, the once-supreme court will now be recognized as the Supreme Torque—a sadistic and power-driven cluster of political hacks driven by religious ideology and not the law, in fact throwing overboard 49 years of the law—to implement their theocratic mandate on an already limping democracy.  The Supreme Torque of Patriarchy, Authoritarianism, Misogyny, Theocracy. The only remedy is moral outrage heated enough to get people to the polls.  “Nothing great happens without anger.”  (Thomas Aquinas) Supreme Court—or Supreme Torque? - Daily Meditations with Matthew Fox Queries for Contemplation What possibilities do you envision for standing up to Supreme Court overreach and taking away civil rights already promised to the citizenry? Responses are welcomed. To add your comment, please click HERE to go to our website and scroll down to the Comments field. Pl