ND Bits and Pieces

Videos of the speeches.

http://www.ndresponse.com/video.html

You can see the disucssion at Insight Scoop here.

Glad to see the stuff about Cardinal Bernardin. I've always been dismayed over the years at how partisans of both the left and right have misused the consistent life ethic position.

Thanks for posting this Amy. For those of us who were there (and it was one of the best days I have EVER spent on that campus, growing up or attending twice) it is gratifying for us too see/read/feel your support in getting the truth out about our day. It was the kind of day that one really wished could be broadcast to the world because it was so amazing!

The more you post, Amy, the clearer it becomes that the Obama-fest at Notre Dame was just a symptom of a much deeper problem. If it's true that the country as a whole is actually becoming more pro-life, then we Catholics seem to be moving in a very "counter-cultural" direction. More likely, however, we are just going along with the crowd on a train-ride to Hell.

Today we can read suggestions (serious suggestions) that Obama is our "2nd Catholic President" because he speaks the words of our faith better than our own bishops do. The bishops, meanwhile, are derided for hiding from their flocks and ignoring the call to respectful dialogue by those who do not share their so-called Catholic but really very parochial views on the life issues. I can't imagine where we can go from here without much stronger guidance than we have so far received. Regardless of our stance on abortion (which, it seems, almost half of us now support), I suspect our only real option for American Catholics will be to follow the lead of the Vatican paper and take a "Go along, get along" stance on issues many of us thought were basic to our Catholic identity.

Dear Amy,

Thanks for your comments. That's an excellent point about the other movements not being scolded for being too focused. I've long thought that some in the Catholic left, who are focused on issues of the death penalty, war and poverty are insufficiently committed, to fighting abortions. So you're absolutely right on that.

On the other hand, I've always wondered if they feel (sincerely) that this ground is already well covered by others in the church, and so they turn their efforts elsewhere. (I may be wrong here, but this seems to be what I experience.) One reason, for example, that I've not been more vocal, in the secular press, for example, about my pro-life beliefs is that I believe, truly, that there are others who are more articulate and know the terrain far better than I do.

But on (an)other hand, surely there is room in the church for people to be advocating for all sorts of different Gospel issues. That is, one person's ardent desire to enter the public debate on abortion does not mean that I have to do it in the same way. Nor does the fact that I worked for a few years with refugees mean that everyone in the pro-life movement has to do precisely that, to prove their Catholic bona fides. I think the Pauline image of the Body of Christ helps me here, in that all of us are called to do different things within the Church, and that all of those calls and charisms are valuable to the building up of the Kingdom.

Anyway, many thanks for letting me comment.

Yours in Christ,

Jim Martin, SJ

Rather than "clarifications", I'd prefer to see an apology and a retraction from Fr. Martin for this particular calumny:

"I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there."

I doubt Fr. Martin can name a single person about whom such a comment is accurate.

Fr. Martin:

Thanks for commenting.

Perhaps prolifers also feel that other ground, not specifically included in the abortion/bioethics/euthanasia penumbra - is also being well covered, so they focus their efforts on these issues?

You are willing to give those dedicated to the death penalty, war and poverty the benefit of the doubt on this score, why not those dedicate to individual life issues?

If there are others whom you admire you are articulate on the pro-life cause, could you publicly give them props - and specifically by name and association - instead of only pointing out what you perceive as inadequacies?

That is the point. And the statement you make at the end of your comment about the Body of Christ - well, that's what I was saying. Exactly. If someone wants to throw their heart and soul into anti-death penalty work or working with refugees, as long as they are not working against other areas of Gospel values, why would I take the opportunities I have to publicly comment on them to simply criticize them and nothing else? Why would I not give them their props and thank them for their witness and sacrifice? Why would I not give them credit for saving lives and for keeping this important issue on the public conscience and not let us forget the weakest and the voiceless and their invaluable work in building up the Culture of LIfe?

I found Cardinal Bernardin mention by Obama to be rather ironic since the Cardinal refused to appear at a Democratic convention because of the platform supporting abortion. Fr. Jenkins could have learned by his example.

As for Fr. Martin his clarification is not very helpful. He should have apologized for that particular talking point often used by pro-abortion types. Just because many pro-lifers don't support fed government programs as the answer does not mean we are not equally concerned about helping the poor and other aspects of the social Gospel. Plus it is quite annoying that he talks about prudential questions in comparison to things that are intrinsically evil.

Very odd that he lists euthanasia as something that pro-lifers downplay. Terry Schiavo anyone. This is certainly a issue that is seen on equal par for pro-lifers.

Too bad, because among the self identified progressives, I like Fr. Martin who is often quite reasonable and does not usually resort to such a mistaken notion.

Amy, your 3:40 PM comment in this thread is absolutely spot-on.

This type of thing is really getting tiresome. I’d like to take people like Fr. Martin in good faith, but I fear that at best, they have been completely duped by seductive consequentialist arguments, and at worst, they are deliberately manipulating this situation for political gain or prestige.

I like Fr. Martin’s writings and have read two of his books. That’s why his attack upon Catholic pro-lifers is so disappointing and disheartening to hear, especially when said in the context of the rampant, unchecked abortion killing going on every day and the continued devaluation of human life in our society. In this situation, in the face of the greatest moral evil of our time, it’s truly shameful to publicly attack those who are fighting valiantly against it.

Let’s go back in time 150 years and imagine:

If Fr. Martin had been alive in 1859….

Media Interviewer: “Reverend Martin, I’d like you to weigh in on this. What do you think of all these Catholics in the pro-freedom movement, seeking to block slaveholders’ rights?”

Fr. Martin: “First of all, I am unabashedly pro-freedom. I am against slavery.

“But I think the pro-freedom world is a lot broader than simply slavery. … The pro-freedom world is really ‘a consistent ethic of freedom.’ I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-freedom movement, freedom begins at emancipation, but seems to end there.

“I mean, it just cannot be about simply slavery, and I really lament the fact that some of the bishops have turned the Gospel of Jesus Christ into simply slavery.

“It concerns me that freedom issues are being reduced to simply slavery … I really think that does a disservice to all of Catholic moral teaching. It’s not the only issue, and it’s certainly not a litmus test upon which we should judge people.

“I don’t think you can call President Buchanan pro-slavery. I mean, someone who talked about convening a task force between pro-freedom and pro-slaveholding-choice people is certainly not someone who is pro-slavery. I don’t know anyone who’s pro-slavery, and I think that label is really very misleading.”

-- Or, heck, let’s not even go that far – let’s just go back only 50 years:

If Fr. Martin had been alive in 1959…

Media Interviewer: “Reverend Martin, I’d like you to weigh in on this. What do you think of all these Catholics in the pro-civil rights movement, seeking to block segregationists’ rights?”

Fr. Martin: “First of all, I am unabashedly pro-civil rights. I am against segregation.

“But I think the pro-civil rights world is a lot broader than simply segregation. … The pro-civil rights world is really ‘a consistent ethic of civil rights.’ I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-civil rights movement, civil rights begin at stopping the Jim Crow laws, but seem to end there.

“I mean, it just cannot be about simply segregation, and I really lament the fact that some of the bishops have turned the Gospel of Jesus Christ into simply segregation.

“It concerns me that civil rights issues are being reduced to simply segregation … I really think that does a disservice to all of Catholic moral teaching. It’s not the only issue, and it’s certainly not a litmus test upon which we should judge people.

“I don’t think you can call Governor Wallace pro-segregation. I mean, someone who talked about convening a task force between pro-civil rights people and pro-segregation-choice people is certainly not someone who is pro-segregation. I don’t know anyone who’s pro-segregation, and I think that label is really very misleading.”

Amy,
Your response to Father Martin's tepid rsponse was one of the best things I have ever read by you. If Father Martin is silent about the abortion issue because he feels he is not "articulate" enough about it then maybe he should take the time to reaearch it more instead of denigrating pro-lifer's on national television.

"He should have apologized for that particular talking point often used by pro-abortion types."

No.

""I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there."

I doubt Fr. Martin can name a single person about whom such a comment is accurate."

If you would prefer, I could find a dozen or more bloggers and regular internet commentators who seem--note Fr Martin's quote, "seems to end there"--to have no other concern than the abortion issue. Such persons could take an example from Bishop Finn. There's no doubt abortion is at the forefront for him on life issues, but he did take time to petition his governor for clemency on behalf of a death row convict as well as join in a prayer vigil.

There are bloggers and commentators who write unceasingly on abortion, but rarely or never on other life issues, including pre-natal care, child-rearing, or adoption, not to mention the politically charged issues of capital punishment, torture, or war.

For those who feel insulted by Fr Martin's comments, which I found nuanced, balanced, and rooted admittedly in his own subjective experience: get over yourselves. This is not about you. Unless, of course, it *is* about you.

The thoughtful among us realize that many, many people put their money and actions where their mouths are. Amy, for example, does promote other life issues, and has been a ceaseless advocate for the works of mercy. But, Fr Martin did not single out Amy, nor did he single out any individual for not walking the walk.

Again, if it doesn't apply to you personally, just say, "Hm, and I wouldn't have phrased it that way," and go back to your respective apostolates. No need for name-calling: hogs, disingenuous, the snide cracks at his orthodoxy, and the other nonsense.

Dear friends,

Well, I do apologize to any of my friends in the pro-life movement who were offended. That is, I apologize. Instead of what I said on CNN I would have preferred to say something like this, which I do believe, and with which you still may disagree: "Some in the pro-life movement give the mistaken impression that life begins at conception and ends there." (As an aside, it's often easier to be clear in print then when you're speaking on television.)

I believe this statement is true. Why? Because abortion is sometimes presented as not simply the pre-eminent issue, or the most important issue--which is it--but the only issue. The death penalty, issues of war, and so on are often given very short shrift.

Surely those of us in the pro-life world, and I count myself as one, can be self-critical enough to see these things. Indeed, it is a question even of the way we are seen in the larger world. What does "pro life" mean to the average person? It means "against abortion." All well and good. But what of the rest of life? This is something a failure in our movement, I believe.

But I'll offer a critique of the left, as well, while we're at it: Some on the left give the impression that abortion is not part of the Christian message of social justice. That is a failure of our movement too.

Now, not everyone in the church needs to work in the same fields in the vineyard of the Lord. That some of us work more ardently for pro-life does not mean that others are not pro-life. That some of us critique some aspects of the pro-life movement does not mean we are "pro abortion," as one emailer wrote me today. That some of us work for the poor does not mean that others are against the poor. That some critique the social justice workers does not mean they are against social justice. All of us have various callings within the church. As St. Paul says, "there area a variety of gifts."

It bears repeating--once again, and for the last time on this blog--I'm pro-life: that is, I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Thus, I believe abortion is wrong. But, again, it is, and cannot not the only issue for Catholics in the modern world. Jesus Christ (and yes, I believe in his Resurrection and the Annunciation, and I can't believe I have to say that as a priest) spoke to many issues in his day: the treatment of the poor, Sabbath rules, the exclusion of the sick, the care of widows and orphans, the need for prayer, the need to read the signs of the times, and so on. All of this was under the rubric of the "Kingdom of God." There were many issues.

And in the church, the saints did many things. Not every one was a Mother Teresa, who cared for the poor in the precise way that she did. St. Teresa of Avila did different things in a different way from Mother Teresa and from St. Therese of Lisieux. Their vocations led them to be, as John XXIII said, "Holy in a different way." Yet they recognized the holiness of the other way.

We do not all have to adopt the same tactics, language, tone, strategies, and even agree on the way ahead, in order to be considered "pro-life." Or, more importantly, to be considered "Christian." Nor does tearing ourselves apart build up the church.

Might we assume, as St. Ignatius says in the Spiritual Exercises, that we should always be willing to give people the benefit of the doubt in all cases?

Yours in Christ,

James Martin, SJ

While I may disagree with Fr. Martin some points, I believe he does have a valid one. Remember that this discussion began with the CNN interview with Fr. Martin that included Raymond Arroyo of EWTN. Mr. Arroyo is correct to state that abortion is an intrinsic evil, but seems unable or unwilling to see that so is torture (i.e. waterboarding).

How is it possible to condemn one such evil while trying to justify another? Does this not weaken the credibility of our witness to the dignity of the human person, especially concerning abortion? Yes, the issue of abortion must be central to the pro-life witness, but so is being consistent, which I believe is Fr. Martin's valid point. As long as abortion remains central, and not reduced to simply another issue among many others, I do not see a problem with broadening, as he puts it, the issues of the pro-life position. I would think it could only strenghten the credibility of our witness.

"You really are not addressing the question."

Of course he's not.

He's only posted, what, six or seven times on three blogs in the past two days, and what does he get for it? People insulting him directly and by insinuation, people doubting his integrity, people questioning his orthodoxy and pulling in writings that have nothing to do with his remarks critical of "some" pro-lifers, people criticizing him that his remarks on those separate blogs seemed so similar, and so on.

I'll repeat from earlier: some--though happily not all--of you people need to get over yourselves. It's not about you.

Leslie, the personal insults were the name-calling and the insinuations. They have continued in spite of his posts.

"(W)here does Fr. Martin show any appreciation for the efforts of pro-lifers?"

Why does he have to? Some people's feelings were hurt by "direct language." What can we say? Get over it.

I wonder if we can stop judging a priest who has given his life to serve the people of God on the single basis of an interview on national TV. I think Fr. Martin's comments were naive and ill-advised and I do fear that those with an animus against the Church and against the prolife movement will use his words to spread their agenda. At the same time, I do not think those words came from a heart of ill will. Indeed, his willingness to share his thoughts--and to admit deficiencies in his interview-- with the bloggers who first critiqued him show him to be a man of Christian decency. On the other hand, there seems to be an almost obsessive and boorish effort in the comboxes of the Catholic blogosphere (and this doesn't necessarily pertain to all the comments on this blog) to continue the criticism and even call his priesthood, Christian beliefs, and prolife sensibilities into question. Aside from the offense against charity, it is simply counter-productive.

P.S.- Fr. Martin, if you are reading this, I read on one of the blogs that you have carpel tunnel syndrome. Please stop typing! That's easy to say to someone who writes and edits daily, but perhaps voice activated wordprocessing?

Mere Catholic:

Fr. Richard McBrien and Archbishop Rembert Weakland have also given decades to the priesthood.

That does not mean they are beyond criticism.

I'll take Fr. Martin's word on his committment. I just hope next time he has a chance to discuss the pro-life movement before a national audience, he will do so with the charity and appreciation for the totality of his efforts he is asking others to show to him.

Bob, in my mind, criticism of one's actions is one thing. Attacking a person's vocation and questioning whether they are sufficiently pro-life (again, as I said, not all of this on the comboxes here, but Dawn Eden catalogues the regrettable words around the blogosphere on her blog) based on one single interview transcript is quite another. I don't agree with Fr. Martin's "approval" of ND's decision to invite Obama and found his comments on the pro-life movement to be inaccurate, but there are ways to reason this calmly (as Ed Mechmann did on the NY archdiocesan blog and Amy did here)and many did not to do this in the comboxes.

David French at Phi Beta Cons had a good response to the calumnious thinking of Martin and his ilk:

QUOTE:

The unexamined clichés of the religious Left never fail to amuse. Whenever pro-lifers mobilize (such as in response to Obama's honorary degree and commencement speech at Notre Dame), two lame responses always follow. The first is the canard, "Pro-lifers stop caring about the baby as soon as its born." And the other is, "Yes, I'm pro-life, but I'm pro-life in the fullest possible sense . . . I care about everything that makes our lives good."

Yesterday's Inside Higher Ed contains a classic of the genre. Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, writes about the "real scandal" at Notre Dame. Describing the protesters, she says: "They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living."

Does she have a shred of evidence to support these claims? Does she know anything at all about the individual protesters? Some variation of this leftist talking point has been repeated so often that even pro-lifers internalize the critique, wringing their hands and exclaiming, "Yes, yes, we need to love the living more." But what about the evidence? Has it ever been the case that pro-life Christians care more about the unborn than the born?

Of course not. In fact, religious conservatives are among the most generous — if not the most generous — Americans when it comes to giving their money or their time. And are they giving all that money to pro-life causes? Hardly. I work at perhaps the largest pro-life religious conservative legal organization in the world, but our budget is less than 3 percent of that of one of the largest Christian relief organizations. It has never been the case that pro-life Christians only care for unborn children. To say otherwise is slander.

ENDQUOTE

another late-commer....
perhaps, unconsciously, many fall for the over-population myth, and really really are happy that China has done something about it.
Perhaps, if you take a scale and put all the starving people and social justice issues on it, it will look like it weighs more, than a scale with aborted babies on it.
Our perceptions have been skewed.
Quite really it is the weight of the unborns that is the "heaviest" morally, due to their total innocence, that they are treated as "trash". God's knitting them in the womb, thrown back at Him...
Women being lied to... actually being told its legal (and by inference,moral) to kill your own offspring???
Its like telling a terrorist- its okay- you have a right to choose.