Compromise or Principle?

by Patrick Delaney
Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 2003
CatholicExchange.com, 2003

After 30 years of compromise and failure in pro-life efforts, has a recent doctrinal clarification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith charted a new course for the pro-life movement?

Framing the Issues

On January 9 of this year, a Zenit news report announced the forthcoming release of a new document from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The report stated that the document would focus on questions "such as whether it is morally permissible to vote for a law that accepts abortion, with restrictions, as an alternative to a more-permissive law in force or about to be voted on."

Though at first glance this particular moral question may appear peripheral in importance, its implications are significant. While a complete discussion of this question is beyond the scope of this article, we can provide an adequate outline in the format provided here.

Sadly, for well over 30 years the pro-life movement has been divided over the moral and practical efficacy of supporting laws that provide for some restrictions on abortion, yet explicitly violate the inherent right to life of at least some preborn children.

The most prominent examples of this phenomenon include the almost institutionalized insertion of "exceptions in the cases of rape, incest," and when the "life of the mother" is allegedly at risk. These exceptions regularly accompany "pro-life" bills in Congress and state legislatures and are defended by pragmatist pro-lifers (for lack of a better label) as the most efficient means to save the maximum number of lives under our given circumstances.

Others, however, see a grave problem with this strategy. Total protection pro-life advocates have countered that permitting "exceptions" in the law sacrifices the fundamental truth that all innocent human life is inviolable. Indeed part of the rationalization of the Roe v. Wade decision depended upon the fact that the state of Texas permitted abortion when the life of the mother was allegedly at risk. The Supreme Court reasoned that since the defendant state permitted such killings in exceptional circumstances, it must not recognize the preborn as persons in the legal sense. If the preborn are not persons endowed with human rights, then the privacy rights of the mother hold supremacy and all preborn non-persons become subject to potential slaughter.

This example shows how just one rationalized exception destroys the entire natural moral order. One exception to an absolute moral norm affirms the moral relativism espoused by the culture of death and the lie that the civil government need not honor its basic purpose to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. Indeed exceptions in the law, or attached to the so-called credentials of "pro-life" politicians, formally reject any external limits to the power of government by professing that civil law can legitimately deprive little preborn boys and girls, or anybody else for that matter, of their inherent right to life. Just one exception proclaims the "enlightenment" harangue to the culture at large that "God is dead!"

Total protection advocates have reasonably concluded that such deadly compromises of fundamental truth are not "pro-life" and have served to affirm moral relativism in the culture (i.e. "choice") thereby prolonging the abortion tragedy and vastly increasing the death toll of children.

Despite such protests, pragmatists have sought to defend their position by citing one particular teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae. In section 73 of that encyclical, the Holy Father states:

[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.

With good intensions, no doubt, pragmatists have taken this provision as meaning the "proposals" in question could explicitly deprive certain segments of the human family of their right to life through "exceptions" so long as the proposals were judged to be "limiting the harm" and "lessening the negative consequences" of a present law.

In addition to the many arguments above, total protection advocates have responded by showing how "incremental" proposals are permissible so long as they do not contradict fundamental moral norms. An example would include a clean partial birth abortion ban without any exceptions. These advocates cite the vast teachings of the Catholic Church that require every civil law to conform to natural and divine law. They have maintained that this qualification in EV 73 is not open to violating exceptionless moral norms.

Doctrinal Note Released

On January 16, the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] document titled Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life was released. It treats a variety of subjects with a unified theme of combating the contemporary "cultural relativism" that advocates "ethical pluralism," namely, the rejection of fundamental truth as "the very condition for democracy."

In treating the (exact) excerpted passage from EV cited above, the CDF clearly settles the dispute between the pragmatist and total protection camps with the following qualification:

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.

In the context of attempting to limit the harm of a current permissive law, a proposal that contains exceptions (thereby explicitly permitting some child killing in civil law) does contradict "the fundamental contents of faith and morals." No king, emperor, dictator, president, Supreme Court or legislator has the rightful authority to sanction or permit such an atrocity under any circumstances in the law; and a "well-formed Christian conscience" is not permitted to vote for it. It must therefore be concluded that lethal exceptions can never be supported nor voted for in any legislation.

Where To Go From Here

Now that the highest moral authority has issued this clarification, one of the sad sources of division in the pro-life movement can now be relegated to the scrap heap of past theological uncertainty.

After 30 years of compromise in legislative and political efforts, and virtually complete failure in achieving even the slightest progress toward a restoration of personhood for the preborn, the pro-life movement should now be able to put this division behind and focus its full unified resources on restoring objective moral principles in the law, particularly the personhood of every child from the moment of conception.

This clarification by the Holy See has shed light on the first priority of Christians who are called to participate in the political life of democratic societies. This first priority is not to "save lives" by means of compromising fundamental truth. Such a strategy has proven itself incapable of achieving its own goals. Our primary objective is to restore fundamental truth in the law. For, as this "Doctrinal Note" declares, democracy "must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society."

Should we choose to accept our Christian calling to restore non-negotiable ethical principles in the law, there is just one basic requirement: that we refuse to negotiate or compromise fundamental moral principles in any way.

Imagine a massive Christian solidarity movement that refuses to compromise the natural law's "non-negotiable ethical principles." Should any politician of any party favor just one abortion, for example, or support the funding of contraceptive and abortifacient programs, such a pro-life movement would refuse to render him or her one vote, one dime of support, or any appearance of credibility in their publications or media. Indeed, such a candidate would rightfully be considered disqualified from holding public office or receiving one Christian or "pro-life" endorsement because his or her own stated policies are an attack on God and man.

This Doctrinal Note goes on to state that when "political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation ... Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law." Never again should Christians support legislation that permits abortion in any way, for such legislative efforts serve to reinforce moral relativism undermining the essence of the moral law.

Finally, in affirming this mission, the Holy See declares "Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise" on the "correct understanding of the human person," because "otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent." Supporting candidates for public office who favor abortion in "exceptional" cases, along with the massive funding of contraceptive and abortifacient programs does "compromise" the "correct understanding of the human person" and fracture "the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful."

Even when the moral relativist culture of death attempts to divide and conquer by orchestrating two major political options through all of its means of public propaganda, the Church who speaks on behalf of Jesus Christ Himself is instructing us that we "cannot compromise." Our Divine Lord would never vote for a bill, or a candidate for public office, that supported a little abortion because He could not support the contradiction of His own Divine Law-which is His Very Self. Neither should the members of His Mystical Body support laws or candidates that permit just one abortion of the least of Our Lord's brethren. As taught consistently throughout Sacred Scripture, it is the faithful, non-compromising adherence to Truth that brings about God's blessings of victory.

Therefore, in politics and legislation, the clarity provided in this new "Doctrinal Note" strongly encourages a new boldness in the pro-life efforts of the faithful. Christians are called to be united in defending and demanding recognition of the natural moral law, never compromising its non-negotiable precepts. In doing so, we will be conforming our political efforts to objective truth and the grace of God's Providential Will for the structuring of society. Such faithful adherence to truth can only evoke the grace of Jesus Christ Who is the Truth Himself, permitting Him to transform our society, end the daily bloodshed of the innocents, and build a culture of justice, love, and life.

Patrick Delaney is the Director of Associate Relations for the AmericanLife League. American Life League, with more than 375,000 supporting families, is the nation's largest pro-life educational organization. This article first appeared in Latin Mass magazine, Winter 2003 and is reprinted here with permission of ALL.

The Road to Hell is paved with ... empty promises and expectations

Following a brief response from Operation Rescue, my reply to the question is below.
----
Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for your response. Again, I understand your argument and respect your sincerity. However, I would be willing to wager that the results you apparently expect will never happen. Not one of the 870 real lives you expect to save, will in fact be saved, and you will further confirm moral relativism in civil law and thereby misinform the consciences of South Dakota citizens. Their conviction, that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances, and therefore preborn children cannot be considered persons under the law, will necessarily maintain the legalization of all abortion. The result, therefore, will be a prolongation of the abortion holocaust and more dead babies.

Before the pro-life movement can save the lives of the children, we must first save the simple Truth--God's simple natural moral law which is binding on all rational human beings, and which even a 5 year old child can understand in its most basic form. This is not some "high pinnacle of perfection," but the most basic requirement of a civil society.

Yes, the civil law "already condemns those conceived by rape and incest," however, the law you are proposing cannot be rightly classified as simply "not perfect," in truth it is intrinsically flawed, intrinsically unjust because it explicitly permits abortion by exercising legislative authority to confirm the condemnation of these rape and incest babies. This is what the bill does. No legislator can morally vote for such a bill, nor may an organization such as Operation Rescue morally participate in a propaganda campaign for such a law. As affirmed by John Paul II:

"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'" (Evangelium Vitae, 73, my emphasis).

No one has the authority to permit the killing of the innocent ... not even the SD legislature in an effort to restrict abortion. Though the legislators may be able to restrict abortion in the wording of a bill, they may never explicitly permit such killing, which is what an exception does. Again, as stated by JPII in Evangelium Vitae: "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being ... Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action" (57).

Exceptions explicitly permit preborn child killing. Voting for such a bill, doing what is morally wrong, can never be advantageous.

Finally, I agree with you. This debate should in no way be just intellectual and abstract. We are discussing saving the lives of the innocent. What we have experienced over the last 34 years is a "bait and switch" by the devil. He promises we'll be able to "save lives" so long as we surrender God's objective moral law, so long as we surrender just a few innocents. The result is always the same (for he is a liar and a murderer from the beginning): we save none. The slaughter continues and is prolonged because we confirm in the law, and by our actions, that "the least these" brethren of Jesus Christ, made in the Image of God, are non-persons. We confirm moral relativism in the culture. Confirming moral relativism can never lead to building a society that recognizes simple objective truth, particularly the intrinsic dignity of each and every human being, again, the only principle which can prevent the full legalization of abortion on demand.

Only the Truth can make us free. This is not an abstract argument at all; its about putting and en to the daily slaughter, human sacrifices to satan. Confirming lies can never lead to affirming Truth. Exceptions in "pro-life" bills, confirm lies. It's that simple. Adopting this course can only permit the killing to continue.

Here in my hometown of Madison, liberals campaigned for 20 years to get the city to fund a convention center on one of our lakes downtown. They lost referendum after referendum ... for 20 years! Then, they finally won. Now we have this huge wasteful monstrosity down on the Lake Monona where Planned Parenthood holds their conventions. What is the point?: The liberals never gave up ... they sponsored the same referendum year after year. South Dakota pro-lifers should do the same. Push the same bill again and again until you wear down the opposition and / or adequately educate the public. WIN THE WAR, don't give up. Or as the saying goes, from Winston Churchill, I believe: "Never give up. Never, never give up."

God Bless,

Patrick Delaney, M.A., M.Div.
Madison, WI

P.S. By the way, I'm not sure anyone thought of this the last time around, but if it was a mortal sin for Justice Blackmun and the Roe majority to decriminalize abortion, isn't it a mortal sin for a SD voter to overturn the law as they did last November, legalizing abortion? Like Blackmun, the voters themselves, in this situation, are the legislators and are therefore directly responsible for the outcome. Knowing the new bishop of Sioux Falls, and several priests in that diocese, I would expect they would be willing to preach this truth next time around. As these arguments surface and become more developed, this movement will receive help in passing a law which simply reflects the duty of the government (before God) to protect the innocent. The no exception course should not be abandoned.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Operation Rescue"
To: "Patrick Delaney"
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: SD Legislation a Watershed Moment in the Pro-life Movement

The law already condemns those conceived by rape and incest. Why do you place their lives over those who were conceived consentually? Are their lives something we can just throw away because this bill (which efforts are already undewrway to strike the exceptions in a future legislative session) is not perfect now? I hate discussing this kind of thing as if it is merely an intellectual argument about the pros and cons of some archane political measure. 870 REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES are condemned to die and we have the opportunity to save them. This legislation is all that stands between them and the butcher's knife. I say that their lives are worth saving, and in fact, it is our Christian duty to do so.

Cheryl S.
Operation Rescue

The Road to Hell is paved with ... exceptions.

This following Friday, Operation Rescue president Troy Newman issued a press release providing an argument for supporting South Dakota bill HR 1293 which seeks to "ban" abortion while explicitly permitting abortion by way of exception. My first e-mailed response to Mr. Newman is below.
------
Dear Troy,

Thank you for your thoughts in this press release below. I certainly trust your sincerity and understand your argument very well. The problem is your strategy cannot achieve its stated end, and I am willing to guarantee that you are making a strategic mistake that will end up being counterproductive.

One exception in the law surrenders the only principle that can prevent the full legalization of abortion on demand: the personhood of every human being from fertilization. This "pro-life" bill you are supporting is premised on the non-personhood of the preborn and the civil government's claim that they have the authority to deprive innocent human beings of their God-given right to life. In this sense, this bill not only surrenders these children you refer to, but the entire body of natural moral law in general--in favor of moral relativism (i.e., "choice") which, as John Paul II states in Centesimus Annus, will always lead to totalitarianism, or "thinly veiled totalitarianism."

In other words, again, as stated by JPII: "Even though intentions may sometimes be good, and circumstances frequently difficult, civil authorities and particular individuals never have authority to violate the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence" (JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 97).

Trying to end abortion while permitting exceptions is folly. Establishing exceptions in the law, affirming the non-personhood of the preborn, can never lead our country to recognize the personhood of the preborn (again, the only principle that can prevent the full legalization of preborn child killing). In fact, the very opposite is true ... this strategy invincibly leads to abortion on demand. As confirmed by Dr. Brian Clowes of HLI in his research:

"In every one of the 56 countries that now have abortion on demand, the first step the pro-abortion forces took was intense lobbying for abortion in the so-called 'hard cases'—the mother's life and health, fetal deformity (eugenics) and / or rape and incest … Once the pro-abortionists secure abortion for any of the 'hard cases,' they point out the 'inconsistency' in the laws in order to justify abortion on demand" (Clowes, Facts of Life, 1997 ed., 179, emphasis in original text).

Doubt it? Check out this story from today's Catholic World News: UN presses Colombia on abortion access. Since Colombia allowed abortion by way of exception last year, it is now a discrimination issue in that country. After all, if abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, etc., why can't women in other circumstances obtain them as well? How long do you think it will be before the pro-aborts achieve fully legalized abortion in Colombia, now that they have established the non-personhood of the preborn?

Pro-aborts never compromise their lies. Why should we ever compromise God's natural moral truth? In fact, I wrote my M.A. Thesis on this question (in Catholic Morals) and concluded that not only should we not pursue such a course (for it is counterproductive), but we may not pursue such a course for it is immoral.

Also, in the second chapter of that thesis paper, I attempt to show why the exceptions strategy can never get us any closer to ending abortion. Another reason comes from the abortionists themselves who admit that they could exploit the smallest exceptions loophole to perform any abortion they want. Brian Clowes shows how abortionists can legally “interpret any loophole—even a ‘life-of-the-mother’ exception—to mean abortion-on-demand" (Clowes, Facts of Life, 1997 ed., 181). Check it out.

In any event Troy, I would encourage you and all the legislators in SD to support and pass the same bill as last year, and let the next battle continue. Conforming your legislation to God's natural moral law will also bring about the dynamic of grace ... for when the truth is spoken and defended, grace is imparted to listeners and can transform hearts. This is not possible with falsehoods.

In addition, I would encourage a large scale vote verification effort. Somehow I doubt the board of elections in SD, or whatever phantoms count the votes, are angels from heaven.

As a former employee of American Life League and a member of Pro-Life Wisconsin's speakers' bureau, I'd be happy to talk with or come to SD to discuss these issues which I have been privileged to study in depth. Though I would not actively oppose your legislation, my research, training and judgment tell me this course is counterproductive.

Take Care and God Bless,

Patrick Delaney

P.S. In addition, your analogy limps Troy. A better one, is yes, you are trying to save 10 innocents condemned to die by terrorists (who have abducted them). The terrorists decide they will relinquish eight so long as you allow them to brutally kill the other two without prosecuting them for the crime. They draw up a contract to this effect and ask you sign. Do you sign? And to take it a step further, let's say one of the two is Jesus Christ.

Coddling Contraception: The Exceptional Consequences Of Zealous Indifference

by Patrick Delaney
Celebrate Life
November, 2001

As destructive floods can begin with a "crack in the dam," vast social evils usually begin with a rationalized exception. Breaking with 1900 years of consistent moral teaching in all of Christianity, the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church was the first to approve the use of contraception for married couples in "extraordinary circumstances." Today, contraceptive "safe sex," with all its tragic social consequences, has risen to the cultural status of a cardinal virtue.

Possibly the most fatal problem in the pro-life movement today is the refusal to admit the connection between contraception and abortion.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger campaigned for 51 years to accomplish a moral and legal acceptance of contraceptives. Once the Supreme Court sanctioned the full legality of birth control in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, it took only eight more years for the 1973 Roe and Doe cases - fully sanctioning legal abortion - to logically follow.

In the 1992 Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court makes this connection clear. Very rationally the court observed "the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception ... for two decades ... people have organized intimate relationships ... on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

Birth control creates a mentality of viewing babies as "unwanted," and implicitly authorizes sexual promiscuity through the abandonment of self control. Having adopted this most unnatural new and perverted ideology, sex educators continue to indoctrinate young people into believing that habitual promiscuity, controlled reproduction, and abortion are a normal way of life. When these new lifestyles happen to produce a baby, the disposition of the parents is already established to reject that child. A cultural habit of such behavior will inevitably rationalize and demand legal abortion.

Indeed, a recent study conducted by the pro-abortion British Pregnancy Advisor Service found that "almost 60% of women requesting abortion claim to have been using a method of contraception at the time they became pregnant . . . [and] almost nine of 10 women claimed that they usually used a method of contraception even if they had not on this occasion." Ian Jones, chief executive of BPAS, admits, "Abortion is an essential support to other family planning services."

This contraceptive trap is so efficient that former abortionists like Carol Everett claim to have provided free "safe sex" education, birth control pills and condoms "to increase teenage pregnancies and thus increase demand for abortions," which her clinics would perform at a minimum cost of $250 each (emphasis added).

Pro-life indifference

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the role contraceptive ideology plays in our societal demand for abortion, the National Right to Life Committee and many other alleged pro-life organizations have adopted a zealous neutrality on the issue.

The federal government, therefore, continues to massively subsidize the culture of death through "population control" efforts, "family planning" and "sex education" with no substantial resistance from the pro-life movement--and no resulting political fallout.

In fact, NRLC gives tacit approval for such funding. Addressing members of Congress in a 1997 letter, NRLC Legislative Director Doug Johnson states, "NRLC takes no position on contraception, or on federal funding of contraceptive services, whether in the U.S. or overseas; NRLC has no objection to providing increased funding to the 'population assistance' program.
The inconsistency here is obvious. To have "no objection" to massive sex education, family planning and population control funding is to have no objection to fostering a vicious cultural climate that always demands legal abortion.

These funding efforts are the toxic blood supply of the culture of death. Without the hundreds of millions of tax dollars the government provides annually to propagate this evil ideology worldwide, the culture of death just might slither back into the tabooed underworld from where it came.

Supporting this argument, law professor Charles Rice writes in his 1999 publication, The Winning Side, "Any 'pro-life' effort that temporizes on contraception will be futile because the trajectory is a straight line from the approval of contraception to the acceptance of ... abortion ... euthanasia ... pornography ... promiscuity ... divorce ... homosexual activity ... in vitro fertilization ... [and] cloning."

The 'morning-after pill' and other abortifacients

NRLC's zealous indifference on birth control causes an even greater, more immediate tragedy. Few people seem to understand that many of these taxpayer funded "contraceptives" really act as abortifacients-meaning they cause the death of an already living human being. Such abortifacients include the birth control pill, Depo-Provera, Norplant and "emergency contraception" (often called the morning-after pill).

As Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., explains, "Make no mistake about it. The purpose of 'emergency contraception' is to send a dose of a very strong hormone into a woman's reproductive system solely for the purpose of preventing the implantation of a newly conceived child. It causes an early, less visible abortion."

The Food and Drug Administration and the scientists who designed this chemical recognize this scientific fact. The Vatican and several other national governments that have banned this drug recognize it as well. But the National Right to Life Committee will not recognize this scientific reality.

In fact, last February when the Virginia House of Delegates considered a bill which would allow these "emergency contraceptives" to be available over the counter, certain committed pro-life delegates could not elicit the aid of the NRLC state affiliate in Virginia. After pressing further, they were shocked at NRLC's flat refusal to even issue a statement opposing this deadly bill.

Could population controllers, sex education peddlers, and pro-abortion ideologues have ever planned a better scenario than having such a major pro-life organization in the world’s richest country take a “neutral” stand on contraceptives?

NRLC's refusal to mend this flaw in its pro-life philosophy has served to neutralize any legitimate obstacle from threatening the hundreds of millions of annual tax dollars that fund the culture of death.

While some would wish to classify the moral and cultural legitimacy of birth control on a strictly abstract religious plane, the concrete results of the contraceptive culture have been a clear disaster. Does anyone believe that we can bring an end to abortion and build a culture of life while the federal government annually pours hundreds of millions of dollars into worldwide contraceptive propaganda? Does NRLC believe it?

One of these days we are going to have to wake up and consider that maybe, just maybe, 1900 years of unified Christian moral teaching has a little wisdom to offer us sophisticated moderns.

Patrick Delaney is assistant director for education at American Life League.