Recently in the news for mistakenly claiming that the Catholic Church would change its position on homosexual “marriage”, Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia and Hillary Clinton’s choice as her vice-presidential running mate, is a self-proclaimed Catholic and an ardent supporter of abortion. For orthodox Catholics, and according to every papal document dealing with the abortion issue, these two positions are mutually exclusive. In his words, “I strongly support the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions and, for that reason, will oppose efforts to weaken or subvert the basic holding of Roe v. Wade.” His support of that 1973 Supreme Court decision is also disturbing since it was, as Justice Byron White rightly described it, in dissent, as an act of “raw judicial power.” In addition, should women be free to make any health decision whatsoever, even when they are medically contraindicated? Should a woman be her own physician?
At the same time, Governor Kaine wants to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and abortion through education and the use of contraception. The facts, however, make it clear that these two modes of reduction, in studies done in recent years, have only increased these problems. The question may also be asked, “Why, if abortion is worthy of support, should a collective effort be made to reduce its frequency”? Would it make any sense for a magistrate to try to reduce the incidence of theft, not by outlawing it and thereby turning thieves into criminals, but through education alone?
Although Kaine is opposed to imposing pro-life views on women, he has approved imposing tax dollars on those who strongly oppose abortion. In an apparent reversal of his earlier position, he now supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 provision that bans the use of federal tax money for abortion services. He told the Weekly Standard, earlier in July, 2016, that he had “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde Amendment”.
Kaine’s position is scandalous to many Catholics who may be tempted to believe that a personable, politically successful, family man can simultaneously be a good Catholic and a supporter of abortion as well as homosexual marriage. George Orwell, in his classic, 1984, has famously described the process of double-think in which a person can accept two views that stand in utter contradiction to each other. The Church’s position on abortion cannot be more clearly stated. It is, according to Vatican II, “an unspeakable crime,” a view reiterated very recently by Pope Francis who referred to it as an “abominable crime,” while adding that the right to life is the central human right.
Abortion is hardly a single issue. It is an act that destroys the life of an unborn human being, a procedure that denies one’s right to life, and disregards the sanctity of life. It rejects the veto power of the father, makes insidious inroads into the integrity of the family, causes a great deal of suffering and regret for women, and loosens up attitudes toward sexual morality. As one university student has expressed it, “I want abortion to remain legal because I hate to use a condom.”
Private morality can be a puzzling affair. An apparently good man and presumably solid citizen can hold to strange and incompatible views. In Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoi informs the reader that “Vronsky’s life had been especially happy, because he had a special code of rules, which infallibly determined all he ought to do and ought not to do.” Unless the author misleads us into thinking that as long as a person is happy, his ethics is no one’s business but his own, he gives us a more detailed description of Vronsky’s ethical code: one should pay his gambling debts, but not his tailor’s bills; that it is not permissible to tell lies, except to women; that it is not right to deceive anyone except a husband, and that insults could be committed, but never pardoned. Not many would find reason to accept, not to say applaud, Count Vronski’s code of morality, given its glaring contradictions and blatant inconsistencies.
Dietrich von Hildebrand has made an excellent study of moral blindness in his book, Graven Images: Substitutes for True Morality (1957). He uses, as an example of moral blindness, Raskolnikov, the main character of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov believed that killing a mean person, such as the old pawnbroker he murdered, is not any worse than killing a louse. Yet, he had a deep understanding of the immorality of impurity, was charitable to friends, and detested pharisaism. “But,” as von Hildebrand states, “he does not understand the sanctity of every human life.”
Moral blindness is selective, perceiving certain moral values while blocking out others. It may be brought about by bad ideas and by admiring misguided thinkers. Von Hildebrand comments accordingly: “Raskolnikov, having undergone the influence of certain theories in a purely intellectual process, has come to the conclusion that it is cowardice alone that keeps him from killing this obnoxious insect [the pawnbroker], whose money he could use for great and useful purposes.” The mindset of Raskolnikov is not entirely different from that of a Supreme Court justice: “By paying for childbirth but not abortion,” writes Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “the government increased spending and intruded upon or steered a choice Roe had ranked as a woman’s fundamental right.” In other words, killing the unborn is justified because it saves money. By that calculus, all unborn children are in danger.
The Commandment “Thou shall not kill” is not easy to brush aside, especially for Catholics. Abortion removes all hope from the unborn child whose life is cut short in the womb. It goes against the faith that the child could enjoy his life outside the womb. Finally, it contradicts love that affirms the life and the potential of the other. To support abortion, then, is to oppose faith, hope, and love. That pretty much empties the bank! Abortion inaugurates a series of offenses that not only contradict Catholic Church teaching, but the fundamental rules needed for a civilization. By supporting abortion one proceeds in the direction of aborting civilization.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, CT, and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest works, How to Remain Sane in a World That is Going Mad and Poetry That Enters the Mind and Warms the Heart are available through Amazon.com.
Articles by Don:
