A Catholic Cause
by G.C. Dilsaver
(Lead editorial, The Wanderer, February 7, 1991)
The pro-life movement has waged an intense and often heroic war against abortion. The reprieve of thousands of precious preborn lives is to the everlasting credit of the movement. Still the victories have been too few. The great effort expended has not yielded proportional results. Indeed the murderous course of Planned Parenthood and its allies continues--slowed--but not stayed.
The reason that the pro-life effort has not been more successful stems from its refusal to overtly espouse and embrace its cause as a Catholic one. The movement fights the abortion industry on a reactionary and cursory (though most urgent and tragic) level, rather than getting to the root of the problem which is a pagan culture. The key to victory then is the cross of Christ, for only through conversion will the source of the holocaust recede.
The predominant pro-life party line either downplays or denies that abortion is a religious issue, much less a Catholic one. Pro-abortionists conversely insist that it is a religious and specifically Catholic issue, in an attempt to rile secular sensibilities. The prolife reasoning that abortion is not a religious issue is largely a reverse psychological reaction to the abortionists claim that it is one. Hence the bizarre consequence of the prolife movement shying away from the terms "religious " or "Catholic," effectively agreeing to the abortionist's use of these terms in a pejorative sense.
Additionally, the pro-life movement's de-emphasis of its religious nature shows just how far secular-humanism has infiltrated our culture. Americans are unwilling to advance a cause under the banner of God for fear of being labeled religious fanatics, or of being accused of insensitivity (an egalitarian capital sin) to others 'beliefs-–or, more aptly, unbelief’s.
But the prolife movement is undeniably religious; and still more it is undeniably Christian and specifically Catholic. This can be witnessed at the grass-roots level where it is rare to find a pro-lifer minus a Rosary or a Bible. Yet the leadership of the pro-life movement - who, themselves are predominantly Catholic or Protestant Evangelical - have for the most part deemed it wise to advance purely secular arguments.
The prolife secular strategy advances a twofold argument, first a philosophical one, then a humanistic one. But is it reasonable to assume that the pro-life message can be efficaciously conveyed in purely philosophical or humanistic terms? Is it possible to convince people of the grave evil of abortion merely by logically demonstrating that the preborn are human? Is it enough to center on the humanity of the preborn, and his human rights, as the motivating good of prolife action?
In the secular pro-life argument, the philosophical definition of the preborn 's humanity is first established - and it can be done so with irrefutable logic. Yet logic does not suffice even when the truth it renders is grasped by one's opponent - witness those most culpable, the administrators and technicians of the abortion industry, who know only too well the truth. In addition, one with pro-abortion sentiments, when confronted with the truth of the preborn's humanity, rnay willfully reject the conclusion by advocating choice as the overriding good: 'lt's my body and no one is going to tell me what to do with it." Hence selfishness and pride harden the heart to reason. For such a mindset, truth itself is felt to be coercive.
Without the dynamics of religion, the logical demonstration of the humanity of the preborn is ineffectual, for truth loses its imperative quality when stripped of its divine authorship. Truth becomes merely a game of words once the transcendental ramifications of it are denied - that ls, an inevitable final judgment is not recognized.
The second half of the secular pro-life argument focuses on humanism, or human rights, as the issue. This argument emphasizes earthly existence as the most desirable human good. But human rights, divorced from the Faith, invest humanity with an unbecoming authority. Man decides his destiny and defines his good. Since the dynamics of a purely harmonistic argument cannot engage man's transcendent destiny, it is morbidly earthbound and inherently vulnerable to quality of life arguments. A life that is "worth living' becomes subject to man's judgment.
By not factoring in man's immortality and heavenly destiny, his worth is reducible to merely quantifiable factors. A standard is drawn (and always with the “good" of man, his quality of life, in mind) that is liable to separate those deemed physically and mentally fit for a “meaningful" existence from those condemned as unfit. Likewise sociological factors (is it beneficial to humanity?) and relational factors (is it beneficial to my humanity?) become the criteria for opting for life, or, in purely humanistic terms, nonexistence.
Indeed we know that human life is tragically fragile and often squandered by nature itself (involuntary abortions, natural disasters). Humanism can lead to a desperate grasping for earthly existence that does not correspond to life's temporality and contingency. There can come a time when one becomes too fixated on the preservation of life, refusing both the reality of death and the loving
Providence of God.
The human condition, this vale of tears, is absurdly brutal unless one is imbued with the Faith and cognizant of the sanctification of suffering. The humanistic argument must be put in the perspective of eternity for it to be a mandate for life. Man without God is less than human, merely a biological organism.' A strictly humanistic argument does not suffice, for man's end is not earthly existence, but the Beatific Vision.
An example of the secular.pro-life argument is the recently launched advertising campaign by the U.S. Bishops three to five million dollar expenditure). This campaign emphasizes choice “choose to know the facts” – and human rights. Though salutary in aim and effort, no mention of Christ is made in the entirety of the advertising. It is a squeaky clean secular message. The Bishops are quite aware of the public "sensitivity" to anything that smacks of religious dogmatism, much less Catholic dogmatism.
(His Eminence John Cardinal O 'Connor – who as head of the NCCB Committee for Pro-life Activity is ultimately responsible for the Bishops' advertising campaign- seems to have realized the relative futility of the secular pro-life strategy. In his annual March for Life sermon at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, he eloquently affirmed that the pro-life movement must "not only save babies, but save souls.” He likened efforts and techniques, that utilized secular means “to the old wine skins" of the Gospel parable, and exhorted his listeners to 'get rid of total reliance on our own strength, on our wisdom.” He reminded the pro-lifers that our Faith is not an appendage, not an add-on" and that “we must receive Christ wholly and fully, unadulterated, without compromise." Finally, he called for a “complete metanoia, a complete revolution" to take hold of our country.)
The abortion debate takes place across a chasm. Any pro-lifer who has dialogued with the pro-abortion enemy is painfully aware that there exists between them a fundamental antithesis of minds. All the facts in the world do not suffice to change the pro-abortionist's position. It appears that never the twain shall meet: While the abortionist is abjectly nihilistic, the pro-lifer is inherently hopeful. While the abortion camp asks, “How far can we extend the parameters of legalized murder?," the pro-life constituent asks, "How can we nurture and facilitate life?" The abortionist's answer to the vicissitudes and suffering of life is death. The.pro-life answer to human suffering is love, indeed the charity of Christ.
Christ crucified must be preached if the scourge of abortion is to end. The most eloquent proof of the preborn's humanity does not suffice if one's heart is hard or the suffering and sacrifice that procreation entail become too great, The main thrust of the prolife movement (especially, and most obviously, the Bishops’ “ advertising” efforts) must be the spreading of the Gospel, with its aim being the conversion of the country. The movement must see all issues in the perspective of eternity, that is through Catholic eyes, both in regard to man's gift of glorious redemption and the possibility of his eternal damnation. It must be concerned not only with the overt and abominable tragedy of the aborted infant, but likewise with-the blackened soul of the abortionist and the rampage of sin.
Finally, the refusal to claim the pro-life cause as an essentially Catholic one robs it of the inestimable efficacy it would receive by being officially placed under the aegis of Mary Most Holy. Let the banner of Guadalupe, where the Virgin is with Child, fly high above this most Catholic of causes to banish not only the atrocity of abortion, but all that is contrary to the will of God.
Lead editorial The Wanderer
February 7, 1991
by G.C. Dilsaver
(Lead editorial, The Wanderer, February 7, 1991)
The pro-life movement has waged an intense and often heroic war against abortion. The reprieve of thousands of precious preborn lives is to the everlasting credit of the movement. Still the victories have been too few. The great effort expended has not yielded proportional results. Indeed the murderous course of Planned Parenthood and its allies continues--slowed--but not stayed.
The reason that the pro-life effort has not been more successful stems from its refusal to overtly espouse and embrace its cause as a Catholic one. The movement fights the abortion industry on a reactionary and cursory (though most urgent and tragic) level, rather than getting to the root of the problem which is a pagan culture. The key to victory then is the cross of Christ, for only through conversion will the source of the holocaust recede.
The predominant pro-life party line either downplays or denies that abortion is a religious issue, much less a Catholic one. Pro-abortionists conversely insist that it is a religious and specifically Catholic issue, in an attempt to rile secular sensibilities. The prolife reasoning that abortion is not a religious issue is largely a reverse psychological reaction to the abortionists claim that it is one. Hence the bizarre consequence of the prolife movement shying away from the terms "religious " or "Catholic," effectively agreeing to the abortionist's use of these terms in a pejorative sense.
Additionally, the pro-life movement's de-emphasis of its religious nature shows just how far secular-humanism has infiltrated our culture. Americans are unwilling to advance a cause under the banner of God for fear of being labeled religious fanatics, or of being accused of insensitivity (an egalitarian capital sin) to others 'beliefs-–or, more aptly, unbelief’s.
But the prolife movement is undeniably religious; and still more it is undeniably Christian and specifically Catholic. This can be witnessed at the grass-roots level where it is rare to find a pro-lifer minus a Rosary or a Bible. Yet the leadership of the pro-life movement - who, themselves are predominantly Catholic or Protestant Evangelical - have for the most part deemed it wise to advance purely secular arguments.
The prolife secular strategy advances a twofold argument, first a philosophical one, then a humanistic one. But is it reasonable to assume that the pro-life message can be efficaciously conveyed in purely philosophical or humanistic terms? Is it possible to convince people of the grave evil of abortion merely by logically demonstrating that the preborn are human? Is it enough to center on the humanity of the preborn, and his human rights, as the motivating good of prolife action?
In the secular pro-life argument, the philosophical definition of the preborn 's humanity is first established - and it can be done so with irrefutable logic. Yet logic does not suffice even when the truth it renders is grasped by one's opponent - witness those most culpable, the administrators and technicians of the abortion industry, who know only too well the truth. In addition, one with pro-abortion sentiments, when confronted with the truth of the preborn's humanity, rnay willfully reject the conclusion by advocating choice as the overriding good: 'lt's my body and no one is going to tell me what to do with it." Hence selfishness and pride harden the heart to reason. For such a mindset, truth itself is felt to be coercive.
Without the dynamics of religion, the logical demonstration of the humanity of the preborn is ineffectual, for truth loses its imperative quality when stripped of its divine authorship. Truth becomes merely a game of words once the transcendental ramifications of it are denied - that ls, an inevitable final judgment is not recognized.
The second half of the secular pro-life argument focuses on humanism, or human rights, as the issue. This argument emphasizes earthly existence as the most desirable human good. But human rights, divorced from the Faith, invest humanity with an unbecoming authority. Man decides his destiny and defines his good. Since the dynamics of a purely harmonistic argument cannot engage man's transcendent destiny, it is morbidly earthbound and inherently vulnerable to quality of life arguments. A life that is "worth living' becomes subject to man's judgment.
By not factoring in man's immortality and heavenly destiny, his worth is reducible to merely quantifiable factors. A standard is drawn (and always with the “good" of man, his quality of life, in mind) that is liable to separate those deemed physically and mentally fit for a “meaningful" existence from those condemned as unfit. Likewise sociological factors (is it beneficial to humanity?) and relational factors (is it beneficial to my humanity?) become the criteria for opting for life, or, in purely humanistic terms, nonexistence.
Indeed we know that human life is tragically fragile and often squandered by nature itself (involuntary abortions, natural disasters). Humanism can lead to a desperate grasping for earthly existence that does not correspond to life's temporality and contingency. There can come a time when one becomes too fixated on the preservation of life, refusing both the reality of death and the loving
Providence of God.
The human condition, this vale of tears, is absurdly brutal unless one is imbued with the Faith and cognizant of the sanctification of suffering. The humanistic argument must be put in the perspective of eternity for it to be a mandate for life. Man without God is less than human, merely a biological organism.' A strictly humanistic argument does not suffice, for man's end is not earthly existence, but the Beatific Vision.
An example of the secular.pro-life argument is the recently launched advertising campaign by the U.S. Bishops three to five million dollar expenditure). This campaign emphasizes choice “choose to know the facts” – and human rights. Though salutary in aim and effort, no mention of Christ is made in the entirety of the advertising. It is a squeaky clean secular message. The Bishops are quite aware of the public "sensitivity" to anything that smacks of religious dogmatism, much less Catholic dogmatism.
(His Eminence John Cardinal O 'Connor – who as head of the NCCB Committee for Pro-life Activity is ultimately responsible for the Bishops' advertising campaign- seems to have realized the relative futility of the secular pro-life strategy. In his annual March for Life sermon at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, he eloquently affirmed that the pro-life movement must "not only save babies, but save souls.” He likened efforts and techniques, that utilized secular means “to the old wine skins" of the Gospel parable, and exhorted his listeners to 'get rid of total reliance on our own strength, on our wisdom.” He reminded the pro-lifers that our Faith is not an appendage, not an add-on" and that “we must receive Christ wholly and fully, unadulterated, without compromise." Finally, he called for a “complete metanoia, a complete revolution" to take hold of our country.)
The abortion debate takes place across a chasm. Any pro-lifer who has dialogued with the pro-abortion enemy is painfully aware that there exists between them a fundamental antithesis of minds. All the facts in the world do not suffice to change the pro-abortionist's position. It appears that never the twain shall meet: While the abortionist is abjectly nihilistic, the pro-lifer is inherently hopeful. While the abortion camp asks, “How far can we extend the parameters of legalized murder?," the pro-life constituent asks, "How can we nurture and facilitate life?" The abortionist's answer to the vicissitudes and suffering of life is death. The.pro-life answer to human suffering is love, indeed the charity of Christ.
Christ crucified must be preached if the scourge of abortion is to end. The most eloquent proof of the preborn's humanity does not suffice if one's heart is hard or the suffering and sacrifice that procreation entail become too great, The main thrust of the prolife movement (especially, and most obviously, the Bishops’ “ advertising” efforts) must be the spreading of the Gospel, with its aim being the conversion of the country. The movement must see all issues in the perspective of eternity, that is through Catholic eyes, both in regard to man's gift of glorious redemption and the possibility of his eternal damnation. It must be concerned not only with the overt and abominable tragedy of the aborted infant, but likewise with-the blackened soul of the abortionist and the rampage of sin.
Finally, the refusal to claim the pro-life cause as an essentially Catholic one robs it of the inestimable efficacy it would receive by being officially placed under the aegis of Mary Most Holy. Let the banner of Guadalupe, where the Virgin is with Child, fly high above this most Catholic of causes to banish not only the atrocity of abortion, but all that is contrary to the will of God.
Lead editorial The Wanderer
February 7, 1991