Not so fast, Mr. Allen
According to John Allen’s column in the National Catholic Reporter online, even Italy’s major daily Catholic paper, L’Avvenire, the media arm of the Italian bishops’ conference, is now taking a “softer” line on legalized abortion. But this time the claim doesn’t hold up.
Comparing this article to the one in L’Osservatore Romano, Allen writes:
L’Avvenire, on the other hand, carried a harder-hitting front-page editorial on Tuesday signed by Francesco D’Agostino, chair of Italy’s National Bioethics Committee, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a consulter to the Pontifical Council for the Family.
D’Agostino challenged Obama’s claim that abortion is always a “heart-wrenching” decision for a woman, arguing that in some cases abortion is simply viewed as a means of birth control, and one that doesn’t pose a particular ethical dilemma. In that sense, he accused Obama of being either naïve or deliberately disingenuous.
D’Agostino also insisted that anti-abortion forces have been misrepresented.
“Contrary to how they’re usually presented, opponents of abortion are not people who want to send women who have abortions to jail at all costs, or who want to see the doctors who help them at trial. They’re rather people who are convinced that it’s essential, not only for moral reasons but also for social reasons, that human life — including prenatal life — be recognized for its intrinsic value, and, as a result, be respected and protected,” he wrote.
In that regard, D’Agostino argued that if Obama’s desire to reduce the actual number of abortions is to be meaningful, and not just verbal, he must acknowledge that the legalization of abortion has “strongly attenuated” the respect for prenatal human life in advanced nations.
Although this was a more critical perspective than the L’Osservatore piece, there’s one interesting wrinkle. Towards the end, D’Agostino argues that abortion is an anthropological problem before it’s a legal one, because it raises the fundamental question of whether abortion truly involves the killing of a human life. He makes the following parenthetical remark: “One can agree or disagree with the decriminalization of voluntary abortion,” appearing to suggest that either view could be defended, as long as there’s clarity on the anthropological point.
That’s a more flexible position than many pro-life forces in the States could accept, for whom the legal abolition of abortion is the only morally defensible aim. It’s another reminder of the gap between Catholic cultures in Europe and America; in Europe, even the most ardent pro-lifers sometimes seem “soft” by American standards.
Whoa there Mr. Allen.
I actually think John Allen is pretty smart in his analysis (though I wish he would find a better to paper to write for). But not this time.
The “parenthetical remark” in the final paragraph reads in full: “Before being a juridical problem (one might or might not be in agreement on the de-penalizing (depenalizzazione) of voluntary aortion) the problem of abortion is an anthropological one: that on which we must all be agreed is that abortion means the killing of a human life.”
First of all, since the entire article is a kind of open letter to Obama and his supporters, it’s clear that these people are the ones being addressed in the closing lines, where he is urging them to admit the humanity of the unborn and that abortion is taking a human life. Nowhere does it say or imply that Catholics can be of two minds about working to outlaw abortion.
Second, what the author is talking about here is not the “legal abolition” of abortion. De-penalization or de-criminalization is the removal of legal penalties for performing, procuring or undergoing an abortion. That’s a whole separate issue. Should women be subject to criminal penalties for undergoing an abortion? Note D’Agostino’s remarks earlier in the article: “Contrary to how they’re usually presented, opponents of abortion are not people who want to send women who have abortions to jail at all costs, or who want to see the doctors who help them at trial.” It’s abundantly clear here what he’s talking about. Removal of the right to abortion from American law, or even making it illegal says nothing about penalties. People who want to abolish abortion can and do hold different opinions on this point, as D’Agostino noted.
I know of very few American pro-life Catholics who would support criminal penalties for women having abortions (though a number of them would support them for the doctors who perform them). On the other hand, Italians and American Catholics are abundantly agreed that “abortion is the killing of a human life.” This doesn’t exactly support Allen’s contention that Europeans take a “softer” line on legally outlawing abortion than American Catholics. In fact there is a great deal in common between us here.
But what about Allen’s larger contention about the “gap” between American and European Catholic cultures? I have a lot to say about that, an I’ll put it up here as soon as I can.
I wrote a comment outlining my disagreement on the NCR site. Around twelve hours later, it has still not been posted.
Update, Saturday p.m.: Nearly twenty-four hours, but still no posting of my comment.
In regard to the differences in culture, Mr. Allen doesn’t state what he bases his claims on. Hopefully it’s not L’Osservatore Romano’s poor excuse for journalism, which (as I’ve shown below), Italian Catholics are also ridiculing.
Yesterday, in a combox discussion, someone else pointed me to an earlier column by Allen:
In the view of some in the Vatican, underlying [America's] dualistic approach to foreign policy, is the legacy of Calvinism. The Calvinist concepts of the total depravity of the damned, the unconditional election of God’s favored, and the manifestation of election through earthly success, all seem to them to play a powerful role in shaping American cultural psychology.
After Cardinal Pio Laghi returned to Rome from his last-minute appeal to Bush just before the Iraq war began, he told John Paul II that he sensed “something Calvinistic” in the president’s iron determination to battle the forces of international terrorism.
Recently I was in the Vatican, and happened to strike up a conversation with an official eager to hear an American perspective on the war. He told me he sees a “clash of civilizations” between the United States and the Holy See, between a worldview that is essentially Calvinistic and one that is shaped by Catholicism.
“We have a concept of sin and evil too,” he said, “but we also believe in grace and redemption.”
First, I don’t know if Laghi was intending to include American Catholics in his description of America’s “Calvinist” character. But I do think it’s a ridiculously sweeping judgment, which Allen himself may or may not accept. And the context cited was the war in Iraq, not abortion. So my interlocutor may not be correct that this is the source for Allen’s claim. But let me say a few words about it.
The basis for the contention is that Calvinists have an all-or nothing dualistic mentality. You are either saved or not, no change is possible. You are either for us or against us. All evil is absolute evil. And apparently, as a corollary, Iraq is evil, so only total war is possible. And abortion is evil, so only total war is possible.
The language of dualism isn’t limited by any means to Calvinists. It’s right there in the New Testament:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . .
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.
(John 1:1-5, 9-10)
This is moral dualism: the world will be given a choice between light and darkness. John was against the metaphysical dualism of the Gnostics, who saw two opposing supernatural forces, good and evil, locked in struggle. John knows that there is one good God, who is in control. But he also knows that there is darkness in the world that must be overcome, the Christ will overcome, that Christians must work to overcome. This does not mean that all Christians who thought this have to be considered Calvinists.
All Italian Catholics and those in other European countries understand that it is a fight against darkness when they fight the legalization of abortion. They understand that if you are with Christ, you can’t be with Caesar if Caesar is a baby-killer.
The Italians, their bishops in the lead, fought over 30 years ago against the legalization of abortion in their country (One of the most vocal was Cardinal Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I). Have Italians now changed, and adopted a more “European” ideal to replace their earlier “American” one? Highly doubtful. The Italians I quoted below understand they shouldn’t give the fight — some are even congratulating the American Catholics who spoke out about the Notre Dame scandal for their stand and called on their fellow countrymen to imitate us. (How very un-European of them!).
I don’t think Allen’s contention here holds up at all.
