Dutchman is a fellow Catholic Dad. On his blog FestungArnulfinger, he wrote a reply to a comment I had on a post of his. I pointed out his repeated call to compromise on the right to life and suggested that perhaps he was lukewarm. A question to which he wanted to respond. I decided to host my reply here rather than post something of such length in a comment box.
First, Dutch, let me say that I have absolutely no animosity toward you. I would love to have a beer or three with you when I get back to Chicago or if you should come to Southern California. I suspect we would very much enjoy one another’s company. I like to think I can consider you a friend because I am a good judge of character or a good Christian. I suspect it is also because I have said things very close to what you have said – I am not qualified to cast a stone. I suspect that you also challenge me to think more deeply.
I want to take two related issues that separate us on this topic. I think my suggestion of lukewarm will become apparent from following my reasoning. First, is the world view implied by our positions. Second is what sits at the core of our political values. I think the two are related. I am going to set aside discussions of the statistics you present in your post, even though I dispute them. They are not central to our discussion.
There is an ongoing clash of two mutually exclusive world views in the western world. One is a moral relativism which denies the very existence of a transcendent truth. The other is a natural law position that says that there are universal human rights that have as there source the very dignity of the person – a state can recognize these, but does not create them. One side says that everything is up for compromise; the other says there are lines we cannot cross – compromise is fine if it does not deny these fundamental truths.
Your position is one of compromise on the fundamental rights you actually believe are owed to every human being. Your argument is akin to that put forward by Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. You are more nuanced, because I think you actually believe abortion to be wrong – I am less sure of most Democratic politicians (Catholic or otherwise). Your position boils down to recognizing the natural law AND compromising the very rights it entails. This is an untenable position. Recognizing the truth, but then acting against it is worse than not recognizing the truth. As Catholics, we believe this law was written on the hearts of men by the Creator himself, which makes denial of it a denial of His law. Note that I accuse myself as a sinner here; for I once held the position that I could be personally opposed to abortion, but compromise this issue in my political behavior (because of my personal prioritization of economic and pacific values). I offer the assessment in hopes of changing hearts, not condemning enemies.
One way this contradictory position can seem tenable is if we hold some other value as our core political belief. For example, democracy can be a core political belief. This belief is often an assumption that goes unspoken by many Americans. We are taught a religious-like faith in American democracy. It is a faith that crosses groups, and is rarely questioned openly. Alternately, if we hold the value of peaceful coexistence above all else, then we might believe we can compromise universal human rights. Both of these positions would put democracy or peace ahead of the natural law. If we put any value ahead of the natural law then we can rationalize any compromise except that core value. When we put democracy or peace or some other value before the natural law, then these values become false gods.
You correctly point out that there is a bifurcation in our culture, and it is getting stronger. I don’t see it ending any time soon, I expect it to grow – especially if we elect officials who continue to deny the sanctity of human life (as does Barak Obama). Might our democracy break on this issue? Yes, I fear it may. Is this a reason to compromise the truth? Absolutely not. That would place our democracy above what is right, making it a false god.
Our country nearly broke over slavery 145 years ago. Before things came to a boil, there were people who refused to compromise – even when everyone else did. But every man, regardless of skin color, is due his God given human rights. It is because of the courage of those who refused to compromise, who defied the “pro-choice” position of their day, that slavery was eventually eliminated. Even then it was only after a painful bloody war. In many ways, we still have not recovered from that great sin. Yet we are faced with a sin greater still.
Our world nearly broke over fascism 65 years ago. It nearly broke over communism during the entire last century (indeed, some areas did break, some are still breaking). In each of these struggles, nations and individuals were faced with hard choices: to stand for what is right or to choose another path.
That is one of the choices we have here. To stand for what is right or to choose another path. But we are deciding even more than that. We are not just voting about the lives of the unborn or the fate of democracy but about the very character of our souls. For as we choose the side with which we will stand, so too are we choosing the persons that we are. This choosing is not a place for compromise because we are defining our very being. We are deciding over ourselves.
