I am stuck by many paradox in the political battles concerning our ethical and legal approach to “life issues” like abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. I have worked with some folks on one side of some of these issues and then have found the same people on the opposite side of another of these issues. Sometimes those most concerned about government control of their lives are strong advocates of a legal solution to these issues. Within Christianity, I suggest that the model of surrender of our rights, possessions, and life for the good of the other is well presented by Jesus. Many thoughtful Christians have worked to educate and provide witness in action to help those in need while attempting to formulate and practice a consistent ethic of life.
Discerning Benefits for all in Culture Wars ( http://tinyurl.com/y223u2hh ) offers support for the idea that opportunity for more common ground than difference in the Culture Wars may lead to replacement of dualistic confrontation with mutual appreciation and understanding.
Charles C. Camosy, associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University, affirms a consistent life ethic in the strongest possible terms. This includes not only considering many more issues than abortion, but also focusing on the well-being of women and families.
We urge all Catholics to resist the false choice between “supply” and “demand” approaches to abortion; that is, between opposing the practice of abortion (the supply side) and addressing the root causes that lead to abortion (the demand side). But an authentically Catholic consistent life ethic means treating prenatal children as the equivalent of every other human being. When we do that, and then simply “do the math,” it is easy to see why fundamental justice for prenatal children is the pre-eminent justice issue of our time.1
Deacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D. was speaking recently with a fellow Catholic who is against mandates concerning vaccinations or masks during this time of COVID-19. The language was interesting. “It’s all about my personal freedom. As Catholics, we have free will and as Americans we have individual rights. I should be able to make my own decisions without anyone else (especially the government) taking that freedom away. “It’s my body; it’s my choice.”
Do I have a right to refuse to take the vaccine? The answer is not an absolute yes or no, but maybe. Does society have a right to regulate my behavior despite my personal freedom? “My body, my choice” is again insufficient. My personal freedom extends only as far as the personal freedom of others. At some point, the moral choice is to surrender a measure of personal freedom for the common good of all. Consider how we veterans are often greeted: “Thank you for your service!” It is acknowledged that, as a class of people, military personnel put their own personal freedom aside to a degree in order to benefit their comrades and the country. Taking the vaccination, even under a mandate, is less about one’s personal good than it is about the good of others. For people of faith, we need only look to St. Paul, who reminded the Philippians: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:3-4). The bottom line is that “my body, my choice” is an inadequate and flawed argument no matter who makes it.2
Renée Darline Roden, holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and currently works as an editor for FaithND and as a playwright in New York City. Her writing has appeared in Howlround, Church Life Journal, and Image Journal’s Good Letters, is suggesting that pro-life Catholics think as much about mores and social structures as they do about legislation. In order to achieve full justice on the issue of abortion, the moral discussion has to explore the personal and theological relationships that laws incarnate and reflect but cannot dictate.
To attempt to outlaw abortion without caring whether or not abortions will occur illegally or without caring why so many women see abortion as so essential to their freedom, health and happiness is shortsighted. And it is that blindspot that makes the pro-life political apparatus appear so misogynist and cruel to its political counterparts. A movement that wants to end abortions has to listen to the voices of women demanding change. It has to seriously consider why women—particularly impoverished women—see abortion as a necessity. Until all economic and social structures of sexism are transformed and the patriarchal mores in our hearts and relationships are converted, there will always be unwanted pregnancies. And if there are unwanted pregnancies, there will be abortions. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.3
The possibility of common ground for the common good in the culture wars may, as a beginning, lie in working for the well being of women and families, discussion of benefits to society from limiting some personal choice, and working to transform economic and social structures of sexism. Our real overlap with people who disagree with some of our efforts is our ability to respect and work with them on other ethical and moral aspects that improve life in our common home.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment