No, That's Not How it Works
Baltimore Sun Babbler Rodricks fails to understand Catholic teaching on abortion
Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks is well known for writing ill-informed columns. So I was not surprised that he targeted the Catholic Church in his latest column.
Rodricks column was, ostensibly, about a priest in Baltimore County who gave an anti-Biden homily. But it was more than that.
Now I agree with Rodricks premise that priests should not be preaching from the pulpit about exactly what candidate parishioners should vote for. That is not an appropriate use of the priest’s time or ability. I fully subscribe with Father Joseph Krupp’s take on politics in the Church in general.
Priests should follow that rule, too.
What I take issue with Rodricks about is this:
As for abortion, I understand too well that the Catholic Church opposes abortion, and conservative priests like Meeks believe it’s important to remind parishioners of church teaching on it. But “unabashedly pro-abortion” is cheap rhetoric. It’s entirely possible for someone to oppose abortion but support a woman’s right to choose to have a legal one without risking her life to have an illegal one. And I know plenty of Catholics who feel that way.
I respect those on the other side who see abortion as murder. What I don’t respect, in this election year above all others, is the focus on it.
It’s very clear that Rodricks language about “respecting those on the other side who see abortion as murder” is a bold-face lie.
Let’s talk about a few things here
It is not “conservative” priests who believe it is important to remind parishioners of church teaching on abortion. It is all priests who believe it is important to remind parishioners of church teaching on abortion. Respect for life and teaching of the 5th Commandment and respect for human life is central to the teaching of the Church.
Which brings me to Rodricks other asinine comments that “it’s entirely possible for someone to oppose abortion but support a woman’s right to choose to have a legal one without risking her life to have an illegal one.”
No, it’s really not.
If Rodricks had spent some time looking into this instead of taking the word of Catholics who might not quite be following the church’s teaching on this, let us take you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.752272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."802274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81
So as a matter of fact no you can’t really “support a woman’s right to choose” and be a faithful Catholic.
To give Rodricks the slightest benefit of the doubt, perhaps he has confused himself with the Church’s teaching on voting and abortion. The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops writes:
Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
Short version: a faithful Catholic cannot vote for a candidate because of they support abortion. Though many (myself included) will not support pro-aborton candidates.
What’s truly puzzling is why Dan Rodricks would spend an entire column writing about one priest in one parish that uses his homily in a less than useful way. But the more you think about it, the more you realize that it’s merely Dan Rodricks using his bully pulpit to attack the Church, faithful Catholics, and spread false information about the position of Catholics on the issue of life. Though after years of Rodricks being a left-wing Democratic activist masquerading as a thoughtful columnist, I’m hardly surprised.
No, That's Not How it Works
Why do liberal "journalists" and I use that term loosely, always ask conservatives if they support abortion rights, but never ask liberals if they support partial birth abortions? Just being facetious. I know the answer.