Richard Stith is among the geniuses of the world, and I’m
blessed to know him. In a letter to friends who share a consistent life
approach, he wrote a preliminary response to “Gaudete et Exsultate.” It was –
of course, coming from him – thought-provoking. But I’d like to respond.
Stith raised three issues. First, the exhortation seems to
be a ringing endorsement of the consistent life approach; but if you measure it
as such, it falls short. It puts abortion in a context of other life issues,
but does not mention war and the death penalty. That’s a lot of violence to
overlook, and these are odd omissions indeed if Francis intends to endorse the
consistent life approach.
Second, Stith points out that when the Pope speaks about
immigration and abortion together, this seems to equate intentional lethal
violence with misery. Stith in no way minimizes the misery caused by
restrictions on immigration; but misery is different from intentional lethal
violence. So, again, the Pope’s approach is not the same as a consistent life
approach.
And third, Stith is concerned that the Pope seems to accept
the largely false “canard that pro-lifers do not do anything much to help out
in the difficult daily lives of moms and babies after they are born.”
With regard to the third matter, it seems to me that
pro-lifers have to accept that in 2018 the leadership of a substantial portion
of the pro-life movement (other than the Consistent Life Network!) is untrustworthy.
Millions of people continue to set aside their own ease and comfort so that
they can help women and children threatened by abortion: I thank God for them,
and thank them for their dedication. Nonetheless, there are criticisms of the
movement as a whole that were not honest and fair 20 years ago that are honest
and fair today. The Trump campaign pulled pro-lifers into an ad hoc coalition
with people embracing some truly awful ideas.
With regard to the first and second issues, I agree with
Stith’s argument that what the Pope is saying is not the same thing that the
consistent life network is saying. But it isn’t obvious to me that the
differences matter. It seems to me that abortion is a huge issue, and it’s
complex enough that we consider it from a variety of different perspectives,
learning from each.
From the beginning, the pro-life movement has always
addressed a few issues. It has never been single-issue. Consider:
1.
Jack Willke and The Abortion Handbook
Jack Willke put abortion in a framework that included euthanasia.
Abortion and euthanasia are not obviously similar: tiny and fresh versus
full-sized and wrinkled; sharp lines (life begins at …) versus grey areas (the
natural process of death, ordinary/extraordinary measures, who decides); deliberate
lethal intervention versus deliberate non-intervention; etc. But Willke
emphasized that abortion is a living person – with a beginning and end here on
earth. From sperm and egg is not a continuum; it’s a change. From zygote to
elderly is a continuum. From aging to corpse is not a continuum; it’s a change.
Willke wanted to emphasize the value of the life of an individual, from
beginning to end.
2.
The Human Life Center in Minnesota
There were many pro-life activists who emphasized that
abortion is rooted in an attitude toward human sexuality. If a person accepts
that sexual activity is private matter, and that its meaning for them is entirely
up to them – if sex and birth drift apart in theory and in practice, with sex
for fun and IVF for babies – and if we accept the apparent commonsense proposal
that good fun cannot cause great damage – then abortion follows.
3.
Eagle Forum and the conservative coalition
Eagle Forum and allies often insisted that the pro-life movement
should be single-issue. But when they got to work, their single issue was
anti-abortion, anti-feminist, pro-nuke. This conservative coalition is still visible
and vibrant, although it’s changed a smidgeon. Now it’s anti-abortion,
anti-gay, pro-gun.
4.
slavery and the Holocaust
Jesse Jackson, before he turned pro-choice, said that the
mentality of slavery and the mentality of abortion are the same: treating a person
as a thing. It was an interesting argument, but in fact pro-life activists and
civil rights activists did not build a coalition. Ask Jesse why not.
Similarly, many pro-lifers compared abortion to the
Holocaust, for two reasons. First, abortion involves killing huge numbers of
people while society looks on and refrains from interfering. The phrase “Never
again” expresses a shared determination, but the precise focus of this
determination is not quite identical among Jews and Christians. Jews often mean,
“We will never let this happen to us again.” But Christians often mean, “We
will never turn our backs on a slaughter again.” Second, abortion produces
corpses that end up in the waste stream, or in labs, or in crematoria. Tracing
the bodies to a crematorium in Alexandria is sobering. The cremation of
innocent victims looks like a holocaust. However, despite the similarities that
pro-lifers saw, many Jews have expressed opposition to this linkage. It never
helped build an effective coalition.
5.
Consistent Life Network
The consistent life approach was championed by Juli Loesch
in the early 1980s, in the organization she founded, Prolifers for Survival. It
was her intention to bring pro-lifers into the Mobilization for Survival. The
ideas was embraced by Cardinal Bernardin, who spoke about a “seamless garment.”
And now the idea is carried forward by the Consistent Life Network. They speak
for me, for sure.
6.
Pope Francis offers another angle
I hadn’t really focused on it until Stith spelled it out,
but the Pope’s approach is not the same as CLN. One might say it’s about a
consistent approach to hospitality.
I’ve been working for six years to link abortion and
immigration. And I learned slowly that most people consider hospitality to be a
decoration, like flowers on the table, not a matter of immense and eternal
significance like justice and truth. Emphatically, Stith does not trivialize
hospitality. He notes that what the Pope is saying isn’t exactly the same as what
Loesch and Bernardin said. Okay: it’s a new approach.
The links include:
(a)
Restricting immigration and expanding abortion
are major accomplishments of the eugenics movement.
(b)
Both are about hospitality to people who show up
in our lives on their schedules, not ours, capable of altering our lives substantially
even if inadvertently.
(c)
It is almost impossible to construct an argument
for restricting immigration that isn’t also an argument for can’t be turned pretty
easily into an argument for global population control. And global depopulation
schemes include forced abortion. In other words, restricting immigration here
leads to more abortion overseas. Recent reports of increased miscarriages among
pregnant women being held for deportation are horrifying in themselves; but
they are only the tip of the iceberg.
(d)
Both abortion and restricting immigration are
ways to turn away from the creative initiatives of the Lord, who always cherishes
us but almost always challenges us. When the uncomfortable Other shows up in
our lives, it’s likely to be God. Do not be afraid! Angels always say that when
they show up, because people are always scared.
(e)
Immigrants and babies change our lives – but the
changes, on balance, are joyful and delightful and enriching and wonderful, now
and forever.
I’m not disturbed by Stith’s comments. I think he’s right: the
Pope’s links are not consistent life links. They are similar, but not the same.
It’s actually something new and different. And I embrace it wholeheartedly.
