2004 CONFESSIONS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes
Letters

Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

CONFESSIONS
November 2004

---

THE SHORT ROUTE TO CHAOS

Mark Roche, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at Notre Dame, recently wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times. It was titled, "Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion." In the piece, he grants that abortion is unacceptable, that history will condemn it the way it condemns earlier generations' support of torture and slavery. But then he says that if you balance abortion and stem-cell research against the death penalty, health care, the environment, and the war in Iraq, "more Catholics may want to reaffirm their tradition of allegiance to the Democratic Party in 2004."

A very crude comparison might be made -- the number of deaths caused by abortion (let's just leave stem cell research alone for the moment) versus those caused by the death penalty, the environment, poor health care, and the war in Iraq. Something akin to the "grim arithmetic" that Lincoln employed during the Civil War. It's ugly, and it's not philosophically rigorous, but it deserves some measure of consideration. Another argument could be made along the old "intrinsically evil" lines -- abortion is intrinsically evil. These other matters -- even war and the death penalty -- do not demand acts which are intrinsically evil. It's possible to have a just war, a just execution. Prudence is involved.

Roche makes a second argument -- that abortion rates are tied up with concern for "the social safety net." The net "makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and remain the highest." He notes that both the rate and total number of abortions was lower during the Clinton presidency than during that of Ronald Reagan. Electing a pro-choice Democrat might actually mean fewer abortions.

That's a trickier tack; here's why I don't feel driven to investigate or engage it. The poet Ezra Pound said that "literature is news that stays news." Perhaps that is why, as the buzz around the election mounts to a roar, I keep thinking of A Man For All Seasons, Robert Bolt's play about Saint Thomas More. At the outset, King Henry VIII wants an heir, and needs a divorce from the barren Queen if he is to get one. More opposes the notion.

Here's one exchange:

Cardinal Wolsey (to More): Oh, your conscience is your own affair; but you're a statesman! Do you remember the Yorkist Wars?... Let [the king] die without an heir and we'll have them back again!... Now explain how you as Councilor of England can obstruct these measures for the sake of your own, private, conscience."

More: Well... I believe that when statesmen forsake their own private consciences for the sake of their public duties...they lead their country by a short route to chaos."

This isn't some Catholic pundit talking, nor do I suspect it to be the words of the Saint himself. These are the words of an unbelieving playwright who found in More a hero of the self and sought to portray him as such: a brilliant politician who bent as far as his conscience would allow, but would not do violence to that conscience. For his fidelity, he was martyred.

What is conscience but a collection of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong? Kerry has said that he believes life begins at conception. Presumably, he thinks it is wrong to take innocent human life. If he refuses to oppose the practice of aborting innocent human lives, what does that mean? Isn't he violating his own beliefs? Isn't he violating his conscience in gross fashion for the sake of his "public duties"? It doesn't matter if the source of his belief is religious -- it is still his belief.

Leave aside for a moment the argument about not imposing one's religious beliefs on others -- what does it say about the kind of man Kerry is if he is willing to betray himself in this way? If you think it's the taking of innocent life, can you really tolerate it and still be a person who believes in that inalienable right to life mentioned by the founders? I'd sooner support a pro-choicer who thinks it's just a blob of cells -- there at least, I can hope for integrity, a willingness to stand on principle. If a man is willing to betray what he believes is right, it's easy to imagine Bolt's "short route to chaos."

TOP