Article #78
MORAL DECISIONS Necessary Evils
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
In July of 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a
bank bill. In his comment on exercising that right to
veto a decision made by Congress, Jackson wrote:
There are no necessary evils in
government. Its evils exist only
in its abuses. If it would confine
itself to equal protection, and, as
Heaven does its rains, shower its
favors alike on the high and the
low, the rich and the poor, it
would be an unqualified blessing.
A Statement such as that presents a truly high
ideal for government. Yet equal protection for all is
a consummation devoutly to be wished. I suppose that
if ever legislator, judge and executive (as well as the
citizens who put them in office) were perfect, then it
would be a reality.
Alas, both the governed and the governing being
all imperfect human beings, they will all have their
own axes to grind. We might even be justified in
suspecting that they will be tempted to use those same
axes on each other when it comes to chopping out a
niche for the protection of their own "rights" as
opposed to those of others.
No one can deny that there may be room for honest
disagreement at times as to just who is in the right.
That leads to debate (with or without the axes) and
eventually, one would hope, to resolution or at least
compromise. This may be the case even in issues that
are vital and essential. There may be honest
differences of conscience as well as of opinion -- and
even perfectly justifiable compromises.
In a democratic system, the elected official is
one person whose position can be very precarious. And
I am thinking here of far more than just the struggle
to get elected and then stay in office for more than a
term. I am thinking more of the responsibilities of
office and the decisions of conscience which may attend
the proper exercise of those responsibilities.
The politician has a conscience of his own, but he
also represents a constituency formed of any number of
people with any number of opinions and positions of
conscience. It is by that group that he hopes to be
elected and re-elected. It is to them that he must
answer -- at least on election day. But they are not
the only ones to whom he must answer, because he is
more than just an elected official. He is also a human
being and a child of God, and so he must answer to
humanity (which, of course, is an abstraction) and to
God (who is absolutely not an abstraction). His
election, his reputation and his salvation may all
depend on the choices he makes about very public
matters.
How does he reconcile himself to the fact that he
represents a group which may include people whose ideas
of basic moral right and wrong may differ from or even
be in conflict with his own?
The problem, of course, is all the more complex in
that anyone who runs for office must count on pleasing
the people, if he intends to stay in office. It sounds
like an almost impossible balancing act, and one would
expect that it would make most officials quite happy to
get out of office. Yet, as Voltaire remarked, "The
pleasure of governing must certainly be exquisite, if
we may judge from the vast numbers who are eager to be
concerned with it."
There is, of course, more than that to it. The
politician has the potential of doing enormous good,
and may be in government for just that purpose. Can it
be done without loss of integrity? We will begin
looking at that next time.
Article #79
MORAL DECISIONS Fudge, Anyone?
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
An all too frequent part of the political diet is
fudge. Fudging the issues is an act practiced to
perfection by many who hold office and intend to stay
there. We are constantly being served whole trays of
fudge when it comes to governmental stands on questions
of "reproductive rights" (a patriotic sounding phrase
which usually refers to making sure that reproduction
is stopped dead in its tracks). There can be no doubt
that such questions are matters of conscience. They
are of essential interest to the Church and to those
who have honestly examined the issues. They should be
every bit as essential to government and politicians.
One problem that every person must at some time
face -- and the politician perhaps more than most -- is
just how far compromise can be taken before it comes to
the point of real abnegation of conscience. There is a
boundary beyond which lies loss of integrity and moral
self-destruction. For the politician, even very early
in a career, this may become an acute problem.
We need good government and we will never have it
unless we have good men and women in office. To get
there, they must be elected. How they go about that
will be crucial to the amount of good that they can
later be able to accomplish. Even those whose honest
intent is to do good may be tempted to compromise on
almost any issue, no matter how important, in order to
achieve the political success of attainment at length
to an office in which it is possible finally to "do
some real good."
The problem with that approach is that what really
gets compromised most of all is the person doing the
compromising. If a candidate is willing to compromise
on even the most basic issues in order "to do some
good," then that is a candidate who should not be in
office at all. How much faith are you really willing
to put in a person who has no conscience or, having
one, does not follow it?
Of course there are matters of policy in which
people may agree on the results to be attained and yet
disagree on just how to attain them. Compromise may
mean finding a way to cooperate to the satisfaction of
both without violating the conscience of either. Both
the end and the means to it may be good. It may even
be a matter of practical action and not a question of
conscience at all. Issues like these are no problem.
But what, for example, of the candidate who deals
with so basic an issue as legal abortion, who claims to
be morally opposed to it personally, but who will not
be opposed to it as a public official. It's enough to
make you wonder if this stuff he's passing out is even
fudge.
No candidate is worth electing if he is not honest
with his constituents and honest to his own moral
principles. Honesty demands that you speak the truth
about what you hold in conscience and that you live it
both in private and in public. If that costs the
election, then so be it. This is a hard choice, but it
is the only right choice. If you try to live
otherwise, then you will soon have no conscience left.
As Samuel Butler said, "Conscience is thoroughly well-bred and soon leaves off talking to those who do not
wish to hear it." The man willing to compromise his
own conscience on one issue would also do so on others.
I would not want him to represent me. I could not
trust him.
The bitter loss of conscience may, for a time, be
sweetened with that bit of fudge. The question of the
right to life, however, is so basic that there is
little room, if any, for compromise.
Article #80
MORAL DECISIONS Isn't Death Wonderful?
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
Do you realize how often our culture proposes
death as the answer to problems? Is a child
inconvenient? Kill it. Is it going to be deformed?
Kill it. Are you faced with cancer or Alzheimers?
Kill yourself. Will this patient never regain
consciousness? Kill him. How altruistic we can be in
recommending the death of someone else. Wouldn't he or
she be better off dead rather than unwanted, deformed
or incapacitated?
The failure to protect life is the beginning of
the end for any society. Once we accept the precedent
that any group of persons can be killed, then, like it
or not, that same treatment can be extended to any
other group too small or too helpless to defend itself.
That is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany when
rights were denied to Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the
insane, the retarded and anyone else who could be
declared less than human. Every atrocity was soon
perfectly legal.
It happened in the United States when our own
Supreme Court decided that slaves had no rights they
were less than fully human. It happened again in Roe
v. Wade when the unborn were declared less than human.
It is the direction many would like to take in regard
to the aged, the retarded, the deformed, the
unconscious, the disabled newborn and anyone else who
does not meet some arbitrary standard of "full" human
life.
Anyone elected to public office in this country
will need to face a problem of conscience that deals
with the most basic values of human life itself.
Legislation is being or will be contemplated and
promoted in everyone of the areas that I mentioned.
The person who runs for office will have to face the
fact that election may well depend on positions that
are literally matters of life and death. What does a
candidate do if popular opinion runs contrary to the
voice of true conscience?
For the moment I would like to limit my
consideration to this question of the Catholic
candidate. Of course, the same or similar problems of
conscience will exist for any other candidate
Catholic or not when he finds himself having to frame
or interpret civil laws which run contrary to the
truth. However, some problem areas may seem more
clearly delineated for the Catholic candidate.
The Catholic Church has a clearly defined
hierarchial structure and teaching authority. Its
moral positions have been stated clearly and publicly.
In many very basic moral issues both candidates and
voters will have little or no doubt about just what the
position of the Church is.
In some difficult areas the question themselves
are so complex that no candidate can or should give a
flat yes or no as representative of his position. For
example, the problems related to legal norms for
treatment of terminal patients or even for the feeding
of various types of unconscious patients are
sufficiently complex that various situations may demand
varied responses. The politician should not be
expected to offer a simple answer to a question filled
with both ethical and medical complexities. Answers
will need explanation. That, however, is far different
from the tack taken by politicians who purposely
respond with ambiguity, thus disguising their own
positions while attempting to woo voters on both sides
of an issue without satisfying the doubts of either.
One issue that is not nearly so complex is whether
the intentional killing of the unborn is right or
wrong. And, if one says that it is truly wrong, then
is it not just as wrong for government to legalize it
and even promote it by offering funds to supply it?
These answers may demand explanation to show why a
position is as it is, but they can be answered without
hedging, fudging, hiding or ambiguity. We have a right
to that sort of clarity before we vote for someone and
we have a right to know whether a candidate, who
presents himself as Catholic, will in practice follow
the conscience to which he lays claim.
Article #81
MORAL DECISIONS A Rare Bird
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
How much have we heard in past decades of "single
issue" candidates or "single issue" voters? Of course
it is foolish generally to run or to vote on one and
only one issue since there are many things in
government which demand considerable attention. Often
enough, however, that issue has been the question of
abortion and those who want to know a candidate's clear
position on it are accused of a "single issue"
mentality, when in fact it is the candidate who makes
it a single issue by being willing to come clean on all
the issues but that one. Abortion gets sidestepped,
clouded over or purposely fudged.
It is a rare candidate who tries to tell the
public not only what his position is on a given issue,
but how and why he has come to hold it. It is a rare
bird indeed who would try to do so on a really hot
issue such at that of abortion. On September 13, 1984,
in a talk given at Notre Dame University, Governor
Mario M. Cuomo of New York proved himself to be one of
those rarest of birds.
He entitled his lecture, "Religious Belief and
Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective."
His position was basically this: A Catholic public
official can, in good conscience and remaining faithful
to the teaching of his Church, be personally and
conscientiously opposed to abortion, and yet be able to
vote in favor of legislation which provides funding for
the performance of abortions.
I can hear many saying, "1984? That's ancient
history! Why go into it all at this late date?" First
of all, it still remains the one coherent effort by a
Catholic politician to make a clear and cogent
statement on this topic. Secondly, the Governor
himself never treated it as ancient, but referred back
to it often enough to justify later actions and
statements and, in doing so, was setting a tone for
other Catholic politicians as well. Third, since it
does represent a position easily adopted by others, it
deserves a response to warn others of how it misleads.
In this article and the next eight or nine as
well I will look at what the Governor has to say and
I will offer a response. I am in no way implying that
the Governor was dishonest or deceitful in what he
said. The fact is that he was quite clear and
forthright. But I am just a fully convinced that his
arguments are full of serious flaws and that he is dead
wrong in the position he describes and supports.
I am encouraged to respond in view of the fact
that in his presentation Governor Cuomo said: "I hope
that this public attempt to describe the problems as I
understand them, will give impetus to the dialogue in
the Catholic community and beyond, a dialogue which
could show me a better wisdom than I've been able to
find so far." And so (as the correspondents of the
last Century used to say), I take pen (or word
processor) in hand to offer my thoughts on the topic.
The arguments to which I will respond in the next
articles are those of the Governor, and I will at times
remind you of that. Yet I have no intention of saying
what I have to say as though it were addressed to the
Governor personally. It is not. That sort of
discussion would serve little purpose and would simply
reduce matters to some sort of contention with one
person. I have no reason to doubt his honesty, no
reason to doubt his sincerity and certainly no reason
to doubt his intelligence. There is no question of
personality in what I have to say. In fact, from what
I have read of the Governor and what I have heard him
say in interviews or speeches, I would say his
personality is quite engaging and his ability to
present his case quite impressive.
His arguments are not all rhetoric. They are
serious and well thought out. They deserve equally
serious and well thought out response and that is
what I shall offer. Clear as they are, his
suppositions are frequently wrong, and his conclusions
just as wrong also.
Article #82
MORAL DECISIONS A Good Beginning
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
An old English proverb holds that "A good
beginning makes a good ending." It is equally true to
say that a bad beginning makes a bad ending and may
even send you off on the wrong journey. If all of our
space exploration had started out with the old
geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the
earth, none of our space exploration would ever have
gotten off the ground. Or, even if it did, it would
certainly not have ended up in the right place.
When Governor Mario Cuomo began his 1984
presentation of thoughts on the question of the
Catholic politician and abortion legislation, he set
off from a beginning that took the whole journey in a
totally wrong direction. Yet, what he says seems at
first to make eminent sense.
"To be a Catholic is to say 'I believe' to the
essential core of dogmas that distinguishes our faith."
Yet we live in a pluralistic society and the Catholic
who holds public office "bears special responsibility.
He or she undertakes to help create conditions under
which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a
reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who
chooses may hold beliefs different from specifically
Catholic ones sometimes contradictory to them." All
who assume public office take an oath to preserve the
Constitution which guarantees this freedom. In fact,
to assure our own freedom, we must allow others the
same freedom. "We know that the price of seeking to
force our beliefs on others is that they might someday
force theirs on us."
The constitutional amendment which forbids the
establishment of a State Church also "affirms my legal
right to argue that my religious belief would serve
well as an article of universal public morality." Even
the public office holder has this right and must be
allowed to attempt to convince others of the rightness
of his position. "And surely, I can, if so inclined,
demand some kind of law against abortion not because my
Bishops say it is wrong but because I think that the
whole community, regardless of its religious beliefs,
should agree on the importance of protecting life..."
"I accept the Church's teaching on abortion. Must I
insist you do? By law? By denying you Medicaid
funding? By a constitutional amendment? If so, which
one? Would that be the best way to avoid abortions or
to prevent them?"
These questions constitute the beginning of the
Governor's approach. But it is in that very beginning
that the problem lies, and it will necessarily send us
off to a bad conclusion. He, like so many others,
reduces the whole problem to religious beliefs versus
religious freedom. However, that is not the case.
Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church argues
against abortion, but it is absolutely not a matter of
"specifically Catholic" belief. The moral position is
that human life has value and deserves to be protected
by the State. That is certainly not peculiar to
Catholics. Nor is it a peculiarly Catholic teaching
that the unborn child deserves that protection. The
evidence of science leaves no doubt that the fertilized
ovum, the embryo, is new life, individual life, human
life. There is no doubt or question of its humanity
that can claim scientific support.
To begin with the notion that this is a
specifically Catholic position is to make a very bad
beginning indeed. The whole line of thought is then
colored by a basic error which, intentionally or not,
fudges the whole issue and avoids the real question.
Article #83
MORAL DECISIONS The Meaning of Words
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
Quite some time ago I ordered and received a copy
of the transcript of arguments in the famous Roe v.
Wade case the case in which the Supreme Court opened
the door to the wanton abortion of infants on demand.
One of the things which I found most intriguing was the
use of words. Among them was the very important word,
"person." Those who argue that the court based its
decision on the ground that the unborn child is not a
person, might be in for a surprise if they were to read
what actually took place in the presentation of the
case.
Those who support abortion differ in their views.
There are, indeed, some who would say that the embryo
is a person, but that the woman's right to kill it
takes precedence over its right to life. However, even
the judges who made the Roe v. Wade decision were not
having any of that. In fact, in the course of the
hearing, one of the Justices said that the acceptance
of such a position should then logically lead to the
legal acceptance of the killing of a husband because he
was in some way a threat to his wife's health.
Instead, they made their ruling on the ground that the
fetus is not a person.
What is interesting, is that their words might not
really mean quite what think. Their position was not
really in terms of the true humanity or real personhood
of the unborn child. It was based, instead, on the
fact that the fetus, even if a real person, was not a
legal person (i.e., a citizen with rights to be
preserved), because the Fourteenth Amendment extended
such rights only to those who are born or naturalized
as citizens. In that sense, it was a decision based on
the rankest sort of legalism.
Mrs. Sarah R. Weddington, the counsel for "Jane
Roe," argued that a law which accepted the rights of
the fetus was merely a statutory and not a
constitutional protection (since to be a citizen
deserving of the full protection of the Constitution,
you must be born). In her words, "You do not balance
constitutional rights of one person against mere
statutory rights of another." Even she is clearly
speaking of both mother and unborn child as persons,
but not both as citizens!
There are others, of course, who support abortion
on the ground that a fetus is not a person, by which
they mean person in a real sense and not only in a
legal sense. The problem with their position, however,
is that it has to fly in the face of every shred of
observable scientific evidence from which the inference
of personhood could and should be drawn.
In other words, the real question at the heart of
the matter is not a question of religious belief, but
of evidence observable and producible by scientific
procedure. It is from this evidence that the inference
of personhood of the fetus follows immediately. It
would not even be questioned, were it not for the
desire to abort.
To act in favor of abortion is to act contrary to
science and reason. For the Catholic, of course, it
also happens to mean acting against his Church as well.
But the Church is making no demand for an act of blind
faith in a dogmatic position. Rather, the Church, with
its authority, simply supports what one can see as
truth even without an act of faith.
The problem involved in the abortion issue is not
one of Church versus State. It is a problem of truth
versus error. What the Church adds to the discussion
is that the life of the unborn is sacred as well as
valuable.
Article #84
MORAL DECISIONS Pluralism
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
One of the battle cries of the abortionists is
that we live in a pluralistic society a society in
which there is the freedom for multiple opinions and
beliefs to live side by side. A society in which no
one is to be coerced into acting against what he holds
to be the truth. (Of course, that is not totally true.
There are those who can and should be coerced. What,
for example, would you do with Satanists who advocated
infant sacrifice?) However, we can and should accept a
pluralism which recognizes the need for freedom, when
that freedom is not detrimental to and destructive of
basic human rights which still leaves quite a bit of
room for discussion at times.
There is a problem, however, when we begin to
think of pluralism as meaning that we are all entitled
to our opinions, that every opinion is a good every
other one and that we never have a right to contradict
what another says. There is an even deeper problem
when use the word "opinion" but are really talking
about things that are far more than mere matters of
opinion.
To live in a pluralistic society does not mean
that we have to hold back from stating and supporting
what we hold as truth. Even if the abortion issue were
completely a matter of religious belief (and it is
not), we would have every right to attempt to persuade
others to accept and see the truth of our position.
Please note, I say persuade and not coerce or impose
upon. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that
we can be persuasive if we say one thing but do
another.
In the last century slaveowners who argued against
slavery could hardly have been very convincing. In
Nazi Germany in the 1940's a legislator who argued
against killing Jews, while still voting funding for
better crematoria, could hardly have been a powerful
voice for the truth. So it is even now.
The Catholic office holder who says that he is
personally opposed to abortion and then votes to fund
it for others is offering no persuasion at all and I
would begin to doubt the sincerity of his own
convictions. To fund abortions while saying that it is
the taking of human life means either that one does not
really believe this or that one does not really mind
murder.
Real pluralism means the freedom both to state and
to live by what I believe, and to do otherwise is
simply to mislead. For the Catholic legislator it also
means the freedom to state his position in conscience
and to vote by that position as well. To do less is
not pluralism. It is sad neglect.
We might note, however, that the real coercion is
not on the side of the pro-life advocates. It is the
pro-abortionists who have been the guilty parties. Is
it not a perfect example of coercion for me to be
forced, under penalty of law, to pay taxes which
legislators are then going to use to pay for abortions
which both faith and reason tell me are immoral? I am
forced to act against my conscience.
I am of the opinion that the mere passing of laws
against abortion is not the final answer to the
problem. We need to bring about changes in more than
legal structure. There is a need for change in minds
and hearts. This does not mean that a change in the
law is useless or negligible, but even a change of
legislation in our country will not come about without
a change in the outlook of the majority. But isn't
that what persuasion is all about? And it cannot be
emphasized enough that we will never persuade anyone if
we say one thing and do another.
Article #85
MORAL DECISIONS The Famous Right to Privacy
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
Whenever we enter into the realm of civil
legislation, we are faced with real questions of
individual rights, and those rights should not be taken
lightly. Much has been said in these last few years
about the "right to privacy" guaranteed by the
Constitution. In fact, no such right is mentioned in
that document. The courts, however, have construed it
as being implied in the Ninth Amendment, which says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."
The implied "right to privacy" would mean that the
State cannot intervene in the life of the individual in
areas which are that person's business and should not
be the concern of the State. There are, of course,
some obvious limits to that right when it interferes
with the legitimate rights of others. If I steal or
murder, then I cannot claim that it is my business and
the State should stay out of it.
In abortion, however, precisely that claim is
being made. It is the woman's "right" to decide if she
shall or shall not end her pregnancy by killing her
child. It is justified on the grounds that the
Fourteenth Amendment does not recognize her child as a
citizen with constitutional rights. If ever a legal
situation demanded change, this is it!
When Governor Cuomo addressed this, he did so in
terms of the notion that "the values derived from
religious belief will not and should not be
accepted as part of the public morality unless they are
shared by the pluralistic community at large, by
consensus." That would, of course, place the question
into the realm of private religious opinion and the
"right to privacy" should apply. The flaw, of course,
is in the assumption that we are dealing with values
derived from one particular set of religious beliefs.
We are not.
The Governor, like many others, does not seriously
take up the question of the evidence for the humanity
of the unborn child. Perhaps we cannot blame him. He
says that he is a lawyer and politician and not a
theologian or a philosopher although, as one might
expect, he does deal in his talk with theological and
philosophical concepts. Neither is he a doctor or an
embryologist, but he had better with those issues as
well. It is as easy for a politician as it is for
anyone else to be misled by the pro-abortionists who do
not want us to look at embryology at all. Instead,
they will try in every instance to insist that this is
a Church-State issue. It is not.
The fact that so many religious people and
religious leaders (and they are not all by any stretch
of the imagination Catholic) are opposed to abortion
makes it easy, perhaps, for many to discount what they
say as being just "religious stuff." That is as
ridiculous as taking the comments of Governor Cuomo or
any other politician as just "political stuff" or
"legal stuff." Applying a derogatory name does not
negate the reality of the issue.
The Governor spoke of those "who say there is a
simple answer to all these questions; they say that by
history and practice of our people we were intended to
be and should be a Christian country in law" and
therefore we should impose purely Christian norms. He
rightfully rejects that concept. But that is not what
the question is about. (In fact, I might find it
terribly hard to pin down very much evidence at all to
prove that the country is Christian.) The problem is
that a basic human right is being discounted under the
guise of being no more than a religious squabble.
Article #86
MORAL DECISIONS Settling for a Wet Hen
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
In reference to compromise, Time, in 1958, quoted
Nikita Khrushchev as having said: "If you cannot catch
a bird of paradise, better take a wet hen." I suppose
there are some areas in which you should be willing to
settle for less than you bargained for. But that does
not make much sense in matters of life and death.
It may well be a temptation for those in
government to think that they have done enough provided
that they have at least reached a compromise. That is
not always true.
In 1984 Governor Mario Cuomo spoke of the fact
that what we believe to be best cannot always be put
into effect and that even the modes of political
persuasion vary and are not at all a matter of faith.
In reference to the abortion issue, this was taken to
imply that even if new laws were the best way to
proceed, and even if our faith demanded that we look
toward such laws, faith would not be able to supply for
everyone the best way in which to work toward such a
goal. He said: "That is, while we always owe our
Bishops' words respectful attention and careful
consideration, the question whether to engage the
political system in a struggle to have it adopt certain
articles of our belief as part of public morality, is
not a matter of doctrine: it is a matter of prudential
political judgement."
Furthermore, "on divorce and birth control,
without changing its moral teaching, the Church abides
the civil law as it now stands without making much of
a point of it that in our pluralistic society we are
not required to insist that all our religious values be
the law of the land."
These statements sound like the basis for some
sort of justifiable compromise even on abortion, but
they are not. There is still the same basic false
supposition that we are dealing merely with the belief
of a particular religion. That is not the case. The
reality is that we are legally killing millions of
people each year because of a legalism that fails to
look at the truth. What is at issue is not a matter of
Catholic theology, but a matter of the most basic human
right to life.
It may seem both easy and reasonable to speak of
the Church's tolerance of civil law in regard to birth
control or divorce, and then equate these with the
issue of abortion. The argument then proceeds: Just as
the Church does not propose a political plan to bring
about laws on divorce or birth control, so it should
leave to individual politicians decisions on the best
political plan to do something about abortion.
From one point of view, that makes eminent sense.
The Church does not dictate to Catholic politicians the
way in which they should go about their political
efforts to achieve the greatest good for their citizens
(apart, of course, from the concern of the Church that
what they do should be moral and honest).
From another point, however, our conclusions must
be quite different. The Catholic politician who says
that he is opposed in conscience to abortion, but then
votes for its legality and even for its funding, is
speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He cannot
claim that he is merely finding the best political way
in which to do something about abortion. He is,
whether he admits it or not, advocating abortion and
offering it his active support. He is not only
settling for the wet hen. He is making sure that the
bird of paradise will not even survive.
Article #87
MORAL DECISIONS Dreams and Reality
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
The Church does teach that artificial birth
control is wrong, but it does not invoke the need for
civil sanctions against those who do it. Yet it does
promote the need for legal restrictions in regard to
abortion.
In the Roe v. Wade hearing of October, 1972, Mr.
Robert C. Flowers, the attorney for the State of Texas,
quoted from an earlier case in which judges had argued
from the fact that the state allows birth control to
the fact that it could therefore not rule against
abortion. A dissenting judge had written in the
minority opinion: "In other words, in their view no
distinction can be made between prohibiting the use of
contraceptives and prohibiting the destruction of fetal
life, which, as explained above, can be construed to be
a human life. I find this assertion incredible.
Contraception prevents the creation of new life;
abortion destroys the existing life. Contraception and
abortion are as distinguishable as thoughts and dreams
are distinguishable from a reality."
Abortion is a far greater evil than either divorce
or birth control. It destroys life. Even then, if it
occurred but rarely, one might not demand a general law
against it. But in the United States it happens on the
average of 4000 times each day. Someone had better do
something about it!
Governor Cuomo argued that it is not the function
of the Church to define a particular political plan to
achieve such goals. "There is no Church teaching that
mandates the best political course for making our
belief everyone's rule, for spreading this part of our
Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a
catechism that spells out a political strategy for
achieving legislative goals." That sounds good, but it
is wrong. It is not simply a matter of "part of our
Catholicism." It is a matter of killing innocent
persons.
The Governor also argues that legal prohibition of
abortion by civil government is not a "plausible
possibility." It wouldn't work. It would be
"'prohibition' revisited, legislating what couldn't be
enforced and in the process creating a disrespect for
law in general." "Nor would a denial of medicaid
funding for abortion achieve our objectives." "The
hard truth is that abortion isn't a failure of
government. No agency or department of government
forces women to have abortions, but abortion goes on...
Collectively we Catholics apparently believe and
perhaps act little differently from those who don't
share our commitment." He says that we could
accomplish more by good example and lack of hypocrisy.
I could hardly argue with that. We must both say and
do what is right.
Beneath all the rhetoric, however, is the real
crux of the issue. The Church cannot and should not
mandate one precise political plan as though such a
plan were a matter of faith. In fact, I am not aware
that it has done so or ever showed signs of doing so.
But it has tried to make it quite clear that no one can
live with two heads in disagreement with each other and
still claim to be one person.
It is ridiculous to say, "I am personally opposed
to abortion," while at the same time saying, "I will
pay for abortion and I will do nothing to stop it."
The great political plan of doing something about
abortion while keeping it legal and paying for it is
the ultimate hypocrisy.
Article #88
MORAL DECISIONS Political Credibility
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
When a politician speaks in support of the "right"
that a woman has to abortion and then even helps to
fund the carrying out of that "right," he cannot then
claim even a shred of personal or political credibility
when he says that he is personally opposed to abortion.
Some politicians would like to create the
impression that they are opposed to abortion as a
personal belief, but that they are law abiding citizens
who are not able to do anything to stop it. Many of
them really mean that they will not attempt to stop it.
Of course, there are real limits to what any
single legislator or judge or executive may do. The
very least that can be done, however, is not to promote
it.
The legislator who votes for pro-abortion bills or
funding is doing wrong no matter what he says. He may,
in good conscience and with good political reasons,
vote for a bill which places further restrictions on
abortion, even if it does not completely prohibit it,
since that may be the best that can be accomplished at
a given time. An executive may sign such legislation
into law for the same reason.
The executive is in a particularly crucial
position if he has the power to veto. He can veto
bills that offer funding for abortions and should do
so. Of course, they may be later passed over his veto;
that is also part of the process of government. The
executive cannot change that; but if he fails to use
his own power properly, then he should be honest enough
to admit that he does indeed favor abortion and its
funding. Otherwise, he acts to preserve his job, but
he can no longer claim to be really opposed to the
killing of the unborn.
Governor Cuomo introduced still another argument
into this discussion. It is his contention that, in
spite of Roe v. Wade, there is still much that we can
do. He said: "While we argue over abortion, the United
States' infant mortality rate places us sixteenth among
the nations of the world. Thousands of infants die
each year because of inadequate medical care. Some are
born with birth defects that, with proper treatment,
could be prevented. Some are stunted in their physical
and mental growth because of improper nutrition...
there is enough work for all of us. Lifetimes of it."
What he states are, indeed, facts deplorable
facts. They are all problems which need to be
addressed and which we keep putting off or attempting
to solve in dreadfully inadequate ways. It is almost
as sad a situation as one can imagine to think that
thousands of children die needlessly each year when our
efforts might have saved many or most of them. It is
frighteningly sadder still to realize that there are
also 1,600,000 children purposely murdered each year
before they have a chance to draw the first breath.
It is ridiculous even to suggest that we should
satisfy ourselves with caring for the terrible needs
suggested above, while ignoring or even being asked
to pay for the millions of murders made legal by the
courts and legislators. Of course, we must care for
all of these problems and do what we can to solve them.
But let us not fool ourselves into thinking we can
ignore the one in favor of the other. It would be as
unrealistic as it would have been for German
politicians to fund Hitler's atrocities while pointing
at the same time to the prosperity that his government
could and did bring about.
Article #89
MORAL DECISIONS The Litmus Test
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
Do you remember litmus paper from high school
chemistry? You dipped it into a fluid and it turned
blue or pink depending on whether the fluid was an acid
or not. One touch of the test paper, and you had the
answer.
Politicians in the past few years have frequently
referred to the dreaded litmus test of their positions.
They feared that a direct answer to a question on
abortion would be the litmus test of fidelity to their
constituents and their religion.
Governor Cuomo said: "Abortion has a unique
significance but not a preemptive significance...
Approval or rejection of legal restrictions on abortion
should not be the exclusive litmus test of Catholic
loyalty." He is, of course, right. It should not be
the only test, but it is one real test. I cannot claim
that I am living a good life on the ground that I keep
all of the commandments but one. The commandments are
not multiple choice.
How should the Church and its Bishops act in
regard to Catholic politicians who clearly act in favor
of abortion on demand, while claiming that they are
personally opposed to it? How should they react to
those who make an issue of their Catholicism to get
elected while, at the same time, making it clear that
no one need fear them when it comes to restricting
abortion?
Bishops are pastors of souls with a most serious
obligation to teach and to care for those entrusted to
their care. They are obliged to care enough about
those politicians to point out to them just how wrong
they are. This care can be exercised through local
pastors and it can be exercised in private, without
becoming a public issue.
But what if those politicians will not change?
What if they do indeed make an issue of their
Catholicism, even creating the impression that their
pro-abortion position is not in conflict with their
religion? The pastor of souls cannot stand by in
silence and allow others to be misled. He may be
required to state clearly and publicly that this person
is not living out the truth and is not living out the
teaching of his own Church.
Do you recall the uproar of a few years ago, when
one of the Auxiliary Bishops of New York made a
perfectly correct pastoral statement? He said that
politicians who act in favor of abortion should be
concerned about their own salvation. He was accused of
consigning them to hell, which, indeed, he was not
doing. But he was calling them to look at their own
conduct in the light of conscience and not to be
satisfied with adopting a politically expedient
position.
This is not a retreat into fundamentalism, nor a
dreadful abuse of authority nor is it even a position
which will settle for nothing less than full civil
implementation of its own views. It is the care of a
pastor for his flock.
The prophet Ezekiel said: "If I say to the wicked,
'You shall surely die,' and you fail to warn him if
you say nothing to warn the wicked man from his wicked
way, in order to save his life he being wicked shall
die for his iniquity, but his blood will I require at
your hand. If, however, you warn the wicked man, and
he turn not away from his wicked conduct and his wicked
way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have
saved yourself."
The matter of abortion is not simply a
specifically Catholic issue; but it is a matter so
important and so basic that the Church would be remiss
if it did not teach the truth and teach it with
authority.
Article #90
MORAL DECISIONS Patriotic Funerals
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
We have probably all been to the funerals of
veterans and seen the American flag draped over the
coffin. It is a sign of respect and of patriotism, a
meaningful tribute to the person.
In July of 1989 the Supreme Court handed down its
decision in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health
Services. The decision did not undo Roe v. Wade, but
it did accept the right of the individual states to set
limits on abortions. The limits were small, but they
were at least some effort to lessen the wholesale
slaughter of the unborn.
Governor Cuomo, in his famous 1984 speech, pointed
to the oath of elected officials to preserve the
Constitution, and said that part of that preservation
consisted in not denying funding for women to have
abortions. This he based on Roe v. Wade as an
authentic interpretation of the Constitution. "Given
Roe v. Wade it would be nothing more than an attempt to
do indirectly what the law says cannot be done
directly..." Yet he says that he is personally opposed
to abortion.
You might expect that the Webster decision would
have given the Governor some relief. It at least
allows for some limits which can be imposed legally and
with approval of the Supreme Court the authentic
interpreter of the Constitution.
The Webster decision was handed down on July 3,
1989. Three days later Governor Cuomo announced his
intention to reject any legislation that would limit
abortion in the ways set forth by the Court's decision!
Of course, the Governor does not make the laws himself,
so what he is saying is this: Even if a majority of New
York legislators drew up a law totally in accord with
the decision of the Supreme Court, he would veto it!
In the same speech he spoke of another decision
handed down on the same day in which the Court held
that "no law could prohibit political protestors from
burning the American flag." The Governor affirmed that
he would find a way to ban flag-burning. This seems to
me a seriously distorted sense of priorities.
He will do his all to save the flag, while drawing
no limit on abortion in a state which in 1985 (the last
year for which statistics were available at the time of
this writing) allowed the legal murder of 195,000
babies. This attitude put the flag over a whole host
of coffins, but with no attention to respect or
patriotism or meaningful tribute to the dead.
I cannot judge the internal state of Governor
Cuomo or of anyone else. But I can describe my
rightful expectations. We have a right to expect our
elected officials to act in accord with conscience. We
have a right to expect them not to have two
consciences, one public and one private. That division
leads to ruin and chaos.
If a person's conscience says that abortion is
wrong, then this should be evident in words and
actions. If it says that abortion is acceptable, then
words and actions should say the same. No one should
hide behind one or the other in order to garner votes.
I could not vote for a person of such divided
conscience to represent me. I would never be able to
be certain just how much evil the public conscience
could tolerate. In a society which has the freedom to
determine its laws and which allows its public
officials to follow their consciences, it is a false
patriotism which hides behind a court decision in order
to justify setting aside personal conscience in favor
of the expediency of the moment.
Article #91
MORAL DECISIONS Blind Justice
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
Although I have never gone there personally to
observe it for myself, I have read that atop the Old
Bailey (the criminal court of London) there is a large
statue of Justice. In one hand she holds a balance to
show that evidence will be weighed. In the other is a
sword the threat of legitimate government to enforce
its rule. Over her eyes is a blindfold to show that
she will judge by the weight of evidence and not by her
view of the person who comes before her.
The statue is a symbol of the fairness of the
application of law in the courts. To bring that symbol
into the realm of reality is no easy task. The judge
and jury, with all their human weaknesses, are expected
in some fashion to bring an ideal to life.
The place of the judge is crucial. Blind as
justice may be, the judge who hears a case must keep
both eyes and ears wide open to the evidence. His mind
must also be just as open. If he judges on the basis
of his own biases, preconceptions or even
misconceptions then he does not do justice. If he
does not, cannot or will not grasp the meaning of
issues and evidence, then he will be blind to the truth
and that is the one thing to which justice cannot be
blind.
The fact is that we do not live in an ideal world
and any judge even a justice of the Supreme Court
can be afflicted with blindness. The issue of abortion
provides an all too clear example.
In 1989 there was a case Webster v. Human
Reproductive Services in the course of which some of
the Justices of the Court most distressingly exhibited
that blindness. Fortunately, at least in that case,
they were in the minority. Yet what they said is so
blatantly blind that it deserves our attention. It is
the typical sort of blindness that comes from
preconception and misconception.
Webster v. Human Reproductive Services was a case
that emerged from a Missouri law which was intended to
set some limit on abortion. That limit was modest
enough. In 1973 the Roe v. Wade decision of the
Supreme Court allowed for abortion from the moment of
conception up to the moment of birth. That decision
stupid as it was did, however, allow that the states
do have some right to attempt to protect the unborn.
On the arbitrary and sadly unscientific basis of
the division of the nine months of pregnancy into three
periods of three months each (referred to as
"trimesters"), they made distinctions. In the first
trimester the unborn had no rights and so the state
could do little or nothing to offer protection. In the
second trimester it might have some power to act. But
it was only in the last three months that the state
might try to make some serious effort to limit
abortion.
In that third trimester the unborn child is
viable. That means that the child is capable then of
living outside the womb. The Missouri law tried to
save at least some babies by demanding that the
abortion clinic run tests to see if the child marked
for killing was viable. The pro-abortionists, of
course, contested even that much protection.
In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the law, but
not unanimously. Dissenting opinions were written by
Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Harry Blackmen
(concurred in by Justice William Brennan and Justice
Thurgood Marshall). These dissenting opinions were
perfect examples of just the sort of blindness that is
so deplorable. In coming columns I will address what
they had to say. A statue of blind Justice points to an
ideal. The blindness of these Justices points to
disaster.
Article #92
MORAL DECISIONS The Legal Scale
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
In 1978, in a speech at Harvard, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn said: "A society without any legal scale
is a terrible one indeed. but a society with no other
scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man
either." In some areas of our legal system we are
clearly on our way to this unworthy position. Saddest
of all we are getting there in the most basic areas of
human life.
What does it mean to have no scale but the legal
one? It means that morality and legality are taken to
be the same thing. Things are considered morally right
simply because they are legal. In other words, the law
does not try to support what is good and prohibit what
is evil. Instead, it tries to make things good merely
by proclaiming then to be legal.
If you want an example of what this implies, then
you can look back to Nazi Germany in the 1930's and
1940's. The law made it right to kill Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals and political undesirables. The goodness
or badness of death camps was measured only in terms of
their efficiency with no reference to the morality of
murder. The law made it all right.
You could also look back a little further right
here in the United States. Prior to 1865 slavery was
perfectly legal and quite constitutional. Indeed, in
1857 the Supreme Court declared it so. It was legal
and therefore right to buy and sell human beings as
though they were cattle. The law made it all right.
Even a little thought should tell us there is
something wrong here. Yet it took a civil war (and a
constitutional amendment) in the United States and the
Nuremburg war trials in Germany to point out the
stupidity of laws that were, in fact, immoral. The law
must be in accord with morality. It does not create
it.
Yet here we are at the end of the Twentieth
Century and we have still not learned the lesson of
that history. It is perfectly legal to kill unborn
children even though it is absolutely immoral. As in
the two examples already mentioned, even now the
helpless who cannot defend themselves are destroyed for
the benefit of others.
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court took a
step which it is difficult to imagine any court doing.
Abortion, which until then had been a crime, was now
proclaimed to be a constitutional right! How could
this have happened?
The answer is actually quite simple. The case was
judged on "no other scale but the legal one." They
ignored moral norms. They ignored scientific evidence.
They looked only at the law and that led to disaster.
The law in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution said that the rights of citizens could
not be abridged by any state, and it defined citizens
as those who become such by birth or naturalization.
The unborn child is not yet born and therefore not yet
a citizen. Therefore it has no constitutional rights
and so its mother exercising her rights can kill
her own child.
Ironically, that same amendment says that no state
shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." The amendment was clearly never intended to
justify abortion. If anything, it is more obviously a
rejection of it. But a purely legalistic court
declared the unborn child a non-person legally, even if
that same child is truly a person in any other sense.
A judgment based on "no other scale but the legal one"
has turned out to be more deadly even than the court's
decision in favor of slavery. And it is every bit as
bad as the death-dealing legality of the Nazis.
Article #93
MORAL DECISIONS History Repeats Itself
By Reverend Monsignor James J. Mulligan
History repeats itself. That's one of those
adages so old that we are likely to forget how true it
really is.
In 1857 a case came the Supreme Court of the
United States. Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, was taken
by his master to Illinois in 1834, then to the
Louisiana territory north of Missouri and then back to
Missouri in 1838 where he was sold to a man named
Sandford. Later Scott claimed his freedom on the
grounds of his sojourn in the free state of Illinois.
The circuit court of St. Louis county decided in his
favor. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed
that decision.
Scott then went to a federal circuit court for
damages due to violence Sandford had done to him, his
wife and his two children. Sandford claimed the court
had no jurisdiction since Scott was a slave and
therefore no citizen. The court said that it did have
jurisdiction, but it also ruled that Scott was still
Sandford's slave.
In 1856 the case came before the Supreme Court.
At first the court was going to refuse to adjudge
Sandford's claim that they had no jurisdiction and
merely uphold the Missouri decision as being in accord
with the laws of the state. However, after the
decision was already in process of being written, the
justices decided to broaden their response and write a
decision which would once and for all support the
presence of slavery in the Constitution and the
subsequent Missouri Compromise of 1820. Slavery would
become a matter of inviolable law.
The Missouri Compromise was an act of Congress
which set limits on slavery. It was allowed in those
states already allowing it, in the area of the