Some years ago, while taking a train from Paris to Rome, I was seated across from a middle-aged American. After the customary period of silence, we began talking. He was a retired businessman now doing art work in Prague. I was a young Catholic priest finishing my studies in Rome. On learning this, the artist told me that he was a product of twelve years of Catholic school and six years of Catholic university training. He was now an “alienated Catholic”: He could not reconcile the Church’s teaching on abortion, so he left the Church.
After hours of discussion and debate, we parted. I doubted whether I had tempered his opinion in the least. I was upset, not so much by my inability to convert him, but by my recognition that society was doing a wonderful job of educating people in the ways of secular humanism, while that the Church had failed miserably to form this man in the most rudimentary matters of Christian anthropology and faith.
After a few years of pastoral work, I have become convinced that this man’s problem is rampant throughout the Church. Many things that we as Catholics have taken for granted are no longer accepted or understood. Classic matters of faith are received by a stare of non-understanding, and many Catholics appear to no longer know or care about the Church’s teaching on fundamental truths.
This is alarming because Catholics are daily besieged by Pilate’s famous question, “What is truth?” This is in no place more evident than in the realm of ethical and moral decisions (especially abortion) which can seem convoluted and at times indecipherable—but need not seem so for the Catholic, who has clear guidance helping form his moral decisions.
It is arguable that on a legislative and judicial plane we have lost the fight regarding abortion, at least for the time being. But there is no reason to despair. That so many Catholics are “pro-choice” indicates a failure in our catechesis. As Catholics we need to regroup, reevaluate, and reeducate. We should attempt to change people’s thinking and, in so doing, their hearts. Every Catholic should be an apologist for life because he should be an apologist for truth.
In the development of the Catholic-as-pro-life-apologist, it is important to set the ground rules. The issue of abortion is such an all-encompassing problem that it must be approached in a specific and well-thought-out manner. It involves theological and philosophical argumentation. It involves those who believe in a divine being and those who do not, which suggests that those who oppose this travesty against human life must develop an apologetic technique that will approach the issue on both the theological and philosophical levels. It must be noted here, that these two levels, for the Christian, are not separate, unrelated entities but are integrally related, perfectly compatible with Christian thought and Tradition.
For the Catholic, the theological is the most evident and seemingly important level as our Christian existence is centered in a lived theology. Our entire lives are based on the fact that we are “a people of God” who find our purpose and being in Jesus Christ. We are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26, 2:7).
For us, all human life from the moment of its beginning is in this image and likeness, which is so profound that it transcends any mere visual likeness. From the instant of zygotic inception a human life begins with an immortal and unrepeatable soul. Any attack on this life or the dignity of this life is an attack against God.
On a theological level all this seems clear to us, but to many it is obviously not so clear. Within our own faith it is not evident to some, and it is not evident to those who are part of the Christian family yet do not hold the same view as mainstream Catholic thought. That being so, within the theological plane the Catholic is called to be an apologist in different ways: catechetically, ecumenically, politically.
Catechetically. On this level the Catholic must act as an apologist within his own Catholic faith. This has different dimensions. There are Catholics who hold that abortion is not a violation of respect for human life, but, on the contrary should be a personal choice, and there are those who inconsistently hold that they are “anti-abortion but pro-choice.” There is also a new group that claims to be “pro-child and pro-choice,” an equally inconsistent opinion.
These positions are difficult inasmuch as they show a genuine lack of pre-catechetical formation in the individual as well as a need for present catechesis. Many Catholics have had little or no explanation as to why the Church teaches as it does on abortion and consequently base their own position on outside arguments they have heard. Many times a thorough description of Catholic moral teaching on the dignity and sanctity of human life is enough to sway them, but, in cases in which this is not enough, it is the Catholic’s duty to continue to dialogue with these persons in order to move them onto a line of thought compatible with Catholic Tradition, trying to dissuade destructive but fashionable unilateral dissent.
A Catholic also must act as a continual source of theological information and catechesis for those who hold the accepted Church teachings on abortion and issues dealing with the dignity of human life. This must be done in order to ready individual Catholics for the duty of acting as apologists within today’s world, preparing them to spread the gospel message. At the parish level these goals can be accomplished through instructive opportunities available in daily and Sunday homilies as well as in classes, lectures, seminars, and panel discussions, which should all be part of parish education.
Ecumenically. The Catholic is called to act as an apologist on an ecumenical level; this includes becoming involved with ecumenical movements which are working for the right to life, as well as maintaining a dialogue with those of other faiths who hold the sanctity of human life in all its stages. This will enable the Catholic to become more aware of techniques that help in spreading public awareness and will aid in the educational advancement of his own Catholic community.
It is also important to stay in contact with those non-Catholic groups that hold abortion as a legitimate option. By maintaining a dialogue with these groups the Catholic is keeping a channel open for possibly changing their opinion while at the same time staying abreast of the other side’s theological arguments—important if one is to develop clear and relevant counter-arguments.
Politically. The theological argument can be helpful on a political level (though I believe the philosophical level is the more pertinent and effective level in today’s political environment). It should be possible to argue on a theological level in the political realm for the simple fact that our government was founded on theocentric precepts. The Declaration of Independence clearly refers to the “laws of nature and nature’s God.” Our legal system is originally based in English common law which finds its roots in the natural law tradition. These things indicate that theocentric arguments should have relevance in today’s political system.
Unfortunately, in the modern political environment, it is difficult to use such arguments without separation of Church and State being invoked. It is, however, important, and not out of line, for a priest today to keep his congregation “politically informed” (cf. John Cardinal O’Connor). This may include informing the congregation on the voting records and personal convictions of politicians in homilies and Church bulletins. In the past this has been seen as a “touchy” issue; however, in the case of abortion or other severe social justice issues it is not only merited but a necessity.
Pragmatically, the philosophical level in our discussion of abortion is probably the most important level today. Although for the Christian the theological level may be the more valuable, it is arguable that in our pluralistic society the philosophical dimension of discussion is held to be the most credible by the majority we wish to address, and thus, practically speaking, it carries more weight. The problems here are many-faceted, for the confusing nature of our society has affected our philosophy as well. Thus, we must not only argue on a philosophical level, but we must argue in a way which can transcend the differing philosophies which prevail in modern society.
Catholics tend to prefer philosophical argument on a metaphysical or ontological level, particularly in regard to human life, whereas this is no longer a common philosophical idea in the mainstream of society. Instead, philosophical schools such as relativism, instrumentalism, utilitarianism, existentialism, and purer phenomenological schools prevail; thus it is not easy to argue metaphysics with one who holds either that there is no ontological realm, or that if an ontological realm does exist, it is either impossible or superfluous for us to make assertions in regard to its nature. This is an extremely difficult topic worthy of further examination but not in the context of this paper.
Thus, within this philosophical approach there are two major characteristics of discourse of which we must be cognizant in order to give our arguments relevance. First of all, we must look for commonalities, and secondly, we must be consistent in our argumentation and demand the same of our opposition.
1. Commonalities. When one speaks of commonalities in this area, one is referring to the things that our position has in common with the opposition. At first glance, our position on the abortion issue may seem to have very little in common with those who hold abortion as acceptable. However, it seems to me that the most striking commonality (possibly the only one) lies in the point of departure of the two positions. Both positions seem to claim as their concrete beginning the undeniable dignity of the human person (even though, definitions of dignity and personhood and the upholding of such terminology obviously suffer a grave disparity): One side arguing that to allow abortion is an affront to human life and dignity of the unborn child, and the other arguing that not to allow abortion is an affront to human life and dignity of the mother and possibly the child. Both sides suggest holding human life and dignity as their fundamental praxis. Thus, with this commonality, there is a basis upon which a dialogue can begin.
Differences arise, however, when we begin to discuss when exactly human life begins and when personhood is granted. The pro-life position has a very specific and concrete definition of this point, namely conception. The pro-abortion opinion has an unsure and differing definition as to when human life begins and when personhood is granted, as well as an inconsistent g.asp of who is deserving of dignity (granted is used here as it is the opinion of the pro-abortion lobby that personhood is a right granted by the state and not necessarily connected with the nature of human life).
Differences persist even after life or personhood is recognized by both parties as being present. The pro-life opinion is that all human life is precious, and thus no one has the right to take an innocent life at any stage in its development. The pro-abortion opinion is that the lessening in “quality” of one human life may merit the taking of another’s life, even if personhood has been granted (in other words, the ends may justify the means). Hence, according to the pro-abortion lobby, even if personhood has been granted this should not jeopardize the mother’s ability to choose (presumably between life and death).
2. Consistency. We must demand consistency on two levels: First in our own position, and second in the position of our adversaries (this is particularly important on the political level).
Consistency in our own position. It is absolutely fundamental that in our position we have a consistent model upon which we “across the board” extol the value of human life. This must, therefore, include consistency in regard to human life realizing the evil involved in any taking of innocent human life (except for in certain cases of legitimate defense) whether it be by abortion, euthanasia, or other affronts to humanity which diminish the dignity of the human person.
Credibility depends on this consistency. To hold one of these precepts and not the others puts holes in our system and seems to place in doubt whether we really see an inalienable value in human life. Once we have consistency in our opinion, we can then demand consistency in the opposition (perhaps our strongest tactic against abortion).
Consistency in the opposition. We must demand a consistent position in the opposition. This is most evident in the political realm and in the legal system. Federal courts do not recognize the intrinsic value of an unborn child, yet they have recognized the intrinsic value and dignity of the bald eagle egg or the spotted owl. One can be slapped with a $10,000 fine and ten years’ imprisonment for purposely breaking a bald eagle egg, and the spotted owl is held to be more important than the livelihood of thousands of families. According to the American judicial system the dignity, rights, and privileges of bald eagle eggs and the spotted owl are greater than those of an unborn child. This seems inconsistent and so is a point from which the Catholic can argue with some prospect of success.
We must also demand consistency in regard to position demonstrating the intrinsic irrationality of antiabortion/pro-choice opinion as well as pro-child pro-choice opinions. Both demonstrate grave inconsistency in regard to ethos as well as simple logic. The lack of logic is extremely evident in the pro-child pro-choice opinion: this group proposes the absurd proposition that the antiabortion parties forget the child after it leaves its mother’s womb. They, however, claim to be in favor of children and of innocent children’s murder at the same time, an attitude that makes it very difficult to reconcile with the idea of protection of children. It seems very much like the child abuser who claims to love his or her children. It is difficult to accept the reality of that kind of love.
There also seems to be another inconsistency on the level of jurisprudence. If there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of a defendant, the case must be found in favor of the defendant. Doubt must always be in favor of the accused (Chitty’s Blackstone). Modern scientists agree on when human life begins, our government has not agreed on when personhood should be granted, yet our court system has ignored this obvious “reasonable doubt” and allows children to be aborted. Since it is “doubtful” when their life and personhood begin, according to jurisprudence, they should be viewed as human beings deserving the rights and privileges of personhood.
This inconsistency (and others) must be cleared up. The political system today gives more regard toward “special interest” than toward universal interest or values. These sample contradictions and many others, in the final analysis, are the primary way in which we can argue against abortion, leading to a change in the intellectual climate and a subsequent repeal.
In conclusion, the most important and profound apology Catholics can make is intimately connected with Jesus’ response to Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”. At first glance it may seem that Jesus made no response because verbally he said nothing; yet precisely in that lack of words he made the greatest statement of all. For he responds with his entire being.
He answers Pilate’s question with all that he is. He answers with the ageless response of “I am.” We, too, are called to make this the greatest response to the questions posed to us. For when we respond to “what is truth” with our “being”our essence as Catholics, we are responding with and in the one who is always present. We are responding in and with “I am.” We are exhibiting in an apparent fashion our belief in a Church which is constantly nourished by the Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium of Him Who Is. We, by our lives and our example, are part of that truth, that truth which is Jesus Christ in whom “we live and move and have our being.” Christ in whom our freedom is fulfilled.
As our Holy Father so wonderfully states: “The relationship between man’s freedom and God’s law, which has its intimate and living center in the moral conscience, is manifested and realized in human acts. It is precisely through his acts that man attains perfection as man, as one who is called to seek his Creator of his own accord and freely to arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.” (Veritatis Splendor, 71).
As Catholics, we must always realize the complexities and emotions involved in an issue as volatile as abortion, and yet it is of absolute necessity that the Catholic not avoid this argument merely because of its volatile nature. It is also important that one not lose sight of this issue because of its very public nature.
Many times in a position as public as this one it is easy to push it aside and let others handle it. That is not the proper or Christian response for it is only in our Christian “human acts” that we attain freedom. All are called, as heralds of the Gospel message, a constantly aware and prepared to actively discuss and defend the Church’s position against abortion; this entails continual study and familiarity with the issues (both pro-life and pro-abortion). This also entails an active catechetical role amongst the laity, clergy, and religious.
With an active and educationally minded clergy we would no doubt be able to avoid tragic encounters like the one described at the beginning of this article where one has had a lifetime of Catholic Schooling, but no education. Most important, this mission involves an active prayer life in which petitions of intercession are placed before our Lord asking his assistance for the end of this genocide as well as prayers for those children and parents who have fallen victim to abortion. It insists on us being present in the truth which is Christ, being witnesses and apologists of “I am.”
It is only through these measures that we can finally resolve this tragedy. After recent executive decisions, we may be moved to believe the old adage that “the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.” But neither the pen nor the sword is mightier than the word of God.