Christians are called to be fully pro-life without declaring one part to be more important than another

Used under fair use license. Click on photo to go to the original article.

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. – Pope Francis, APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION GAUDETE ET EXSULTATE

A common definition of pro-life comes from the website “Whole New Mom.” In it, one of the authors defines pro-life as, “The Pro-Life Position is to be opposed to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and often extends to embryo-destructive medical procedures. Pro-Choice is the opposite position.” She then takes on people who—according to her—try to misuse the term pro-life to include taking care of others. Another common argument is to recognize that pro-life should include care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan since that is, after all, a biblical mandate. However, there are those who go one of two routes, either they argue that the number of abortions justifies concentrating on that one are, for now, with the hope of future more heave involvement in the other areas, or they simply counterattack that it is not the government’s job to be involved in social areas and that, therefore, they cannot support any approach other than private investment. This despite the fact that the history of the Church shows regular partnerships between Church and government to ensure that social needs were at least addressed. In making that argument, not only is Church history ignored, but also a handy out is found by turning the argument into a merely political argument.

It should be noted that not all pro-life organizations would make the arguments above. But, in the USA, I would wager that most pro-life organizations would either limit the definition of pro-life to abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and embryo-destructive medical procedures, or would make the governmental argument to excuse them from having to consider a broader definition of pro-life.

I have pointed out in various prior postings that various statements of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops point to pro-life being more than just the definition above. They also point to the fallaciousness of the governmental argument, in that it is merely a difference of opinion on how something should be accomplished not on whether something should be accomplished. Among the letters of the USCCB, you will find immigration, the poor, etc., is listed as part of a holistic pro-life stance. Sadly, the USCCB has not done a great job of collecting the writings in one area to make it easy to see the various statements on what is pro-life. However, none of those letters have previously dealt with the argument that the concentration must be on abortion because the number of abortions worldwide is so high.

Now that has been dealt with. Pope Francis has issued an Apostolic Exhortation. At least for Roman Catholics, it has been made abundantly clear that the argument that we must concentrate primarily on abortion is a fallacious argument. First, he makes it clear that charging those who make the social argument as being “… worldly, secular, materialistic, communist, or populist,” are wrong. In fact to accuse those who make the social argument of any of those ideologies is a, “… harmful ideological error.” Not only are those who propagate that argument wrong, they are themselves ideologues who are propounding a harmful opinion. It is obvious that they are expected to stop doing that. But, then, Pope Francis tackles those who claim that abortion must be prioritized, and he negates their stance as well. “Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, … .” To those ideologues, Pope Francis issues a rebuke saying that, “… they relativize it, as if … the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend.” The line is clear. The ideologues are not those who consider pro-life to be both being anti-abortion and pro those already born and suffering a lost of dignity through poverty, abandonment, age, etc., but the ideologues are those who prioritize one type of pro-life over another or who try to limit being pro-life to merely abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and embryo-destructive medical procedures.

For those active in anti-abortion organizations, no change but an attitude change is being asked of you. Continue the fund-raising; continue the marches; continue the silent presence near abortion clinics. But, if you change your attitudes, you might be surprised at finding additional allies who will join you. My family and I have given to more than one pro-life organization. But, as the years have passed, I have been forced to stop giving because each and every one of those organizations ended up adopting the political argument that I must vote only for approved anti-abortion candidates. I am not the only one who makes the social engagement argument who would return to donating, so long as we are not condemned if we vote a different political party than your approved party. For those in the social engagement argument, I urge you to return to the anti-abortion picket lines should the condemnations cease. But, I also urge you to continue in your social engagement, with the hope of someday making common cause with those who have previously negated our engagement.

To the Orthodox, I would argue that Pope Francis’ stance is fully consonant with the Orthodox stance and with the Ecumenical Patriarch’s emphases on the environment, immigration, etc. It is a stance with which we need to agree. To the Evangelicals (and Roman Catholics, and Orthodox) on the political right who insist that to vote any-but-a-certain-way is tantamount to committing deep sin, consider yourselves rebuked by Pope Francis. As the USCCB has said before every election, a Roman Catholic may vote his or her conscience without fearing mortal sin. To the Orthodox, I remind you that our brethren split between both parties, with many of our ethnic member being more open to the social argument, meaning cooperation with the government in expanding aid programs. I cannot speak to the Evangelicals as they are divided among many factions. I would not know to whom to speak, but you may wish to consider carefully what Pope Francis has written.