- comment
Cvllelaw - body
- Curious -- what conviction of JFK's do you think that Tom Perriello does not share? (There may be many, but what causes you to make the comment?)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- JFK would have allowed his faith to inform his conscience.
I wonder whether Perrillo would allow his faith to inform his conscience -- and his vote -- on issues such as abortion, subsidiarity, living wage legislation, or just war.
Clearly one could make the argument that Perrillo indeed follows most of what social justice theory advances. But he stops short at social issues such as abortion and subsidiarity, which strikes me as the very definition of "cafeteria Catholic" when it comes to policy.
Obviously, no politician gets to legislate morality. But they do get to legislate ethics, and where JFK would not have checked his faith at the door, I wonder whether Perrillo (much like Governor Kaine) would do so.
Naturally, I could be entirely wrong and Perrillo could very well be a pro-life Catholic Democrat. In which case, I completely retract my criticism/concern.
(great blog, BTW)
- comment Cvllelaw
- body
- Curious -- what conviction of JFK's do you think that Tom Perriello does not share? (There may be many, but what causes you to make the comment?)
- comment Cvllelaw
- body
- Tom is a pro-life Catholic who believes that the most effective way to reduce abortion is not to spend all of our time demonizing abortion and those who have abortions and those who perform them, but to care for the mother, to give her a sense that her life with a baby is not ruined. Experience shows (and he's got the research, I don't) that you can cut the abortion rate in half by embracing the mother and encouraging the mother to carry the child to term with the knowledge that there will be health care available, and food stamps and child care, etc.
This squares with my own experience, counseling young women who want an abortion who have to seek approval from a juvenile court -- they want an abortion because they feel trapped, because they feel that their lives are ruined. Give these young women a social safety net rather than condemnation and they would not be having an abortion. I don't remember the name of the feminist who said, "A woman doesn't want an abortion like she wants a fur coat or a new car. She wants an abortion like a fox wants to know off its leg when it is caught in a trap." When the anti-abortion forces will begin to respond to that kind of pregnant woman rather than the demonized "gotta-have-an-abortion-because-it's-cheaper than-birth-control-pills" kind of pregnant woman, we will see some real reduction in abortion rates. Unfortunately, many of those who condemn abortions are so caught up in condemning sex and in judging the woman who had sex that they lose the chance to really help a woman -- or often a girl -- who is in crisis.
I've never talked with Tom specifically about subsidiarity, but it strikes me that the principle of the "common good" of which he speaks -- the notion that there are things that we as a society or a nation can do for our members -- is at the very least not much of a step away from subsidiarity, which I understand to be the notion that a government should do things (or in some formulations ONLY things) that are too big for an individual to do for him or herself. Subsidiarity would be a welcome change from the social Darwinism being practiced by so many on the right these days.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I wonder if Tom Perrillo would use the same argument you've offered for ending abortion incrementally for other such social ills.
For instance, would it be appropriate to tell SEIU that they have to live with sub-par wages and not a wage that puts working men and women above the poverty line? Or whether we needed to move just half of our troops out of Iraq by supporting the surge and backing Petraeus? Or whether we should cut taxes rather than raise them in the name of subsidiarity, etc.
Now given that issues of social justice such as a living wage, just war, and subsidiarity are all viewed as secondary in urgency to the right to exist (which is what abortion negates). A conscience informed by a Catholic faith could be excused for being aggressive in removing the former while incrementally progressing on the latter ideas, but I (and most Catholics) have a hard time with an application of social justice that argues the converse -- that the periphery of problems that degrade human dignity deserve swift action, but the core rights of human beings to exist does not.
Now I will grant this: I find it extremely admirable that Perrillo seeks to get away from the "judgment society" that has hampered real progress and is turning more towards caring for the mother and the child with a social support network (a "social safety net" screams social-ism... but perhaps I'm just overly sensitive). There are 8,000 crisis pregnancy centers across the nation that do precisely this function -- most of whom are privately funded and offer precisely the services Perrillo lauds.
My question would be whether resolving the social issues surrounding abortion and the horror of the act itself are really mutually exclusive (which Perrillo seems to argue -- fix the social issues, then abortion goes away on its own accord), or whether they are linked (why wait -- ban abortion and fix the social issues because both are an injustice)?
Not to make the argumentum ad Hitlerum, but a "let's help half of the Jews" argument in 1930 Nazi Germany would not have been what I would call a moral argument. Nor would a "let's free half of the slaves" in 1850 America. We still place ourselves in the dangerous position of playing judge over which lives are worthy of our concern, and which are disposable.
Catholic social justice theory -- especially on life -- doesn't distinguish between the lives worth saving and the lives not worth saving. Perhaps I'm unclear as to why ending the tragedy that is abortion and creating an environment where young families can get the help they need are mutually exclusive goals?
Either way, I entirely agree that subsidiarity is far more preferable to the social Darwinism practiced by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum.
5 Comments:
I wonder whether Perrillo would allow his faith to inform his conscience -- and his vote -- on issues such as abortion, subsidiarity, living wage legislation, or just war.
Clearly one could make the argument that Perrillo indeed follows most of what social justice theory advances. But he stops short at social issues such as abortion and subsidiarity, which strikes me as the very definition of "cafeteria Catholic" when it comes to policy.
Obviously, no politician gets to legislate morality. But they do get to legislate ethics, and where JFK would not have checked his faith at the door, I wonder whether Perrillo (much like Governor Kaine) would do so.
Naturally, I could be entirely wrong and Perrillo could very well be a pro-life Catholic Democrat. In which case, I completely retract my criticism/concern.
(great blog, BTW)
This squares with my own experience, counseling young women who want an abortion who have to seek approval from a juvenile court -- they want an abortion because they feel trapped, because they feel that their lives are ruined. Give these young women a social safety net rather than condemnation and they would not be having an abortion. I don't remember the name of the feminist who said, "A woman doesn't want an abortion like she wants a fur coat or a new car. She wants an abortion like a fox wants to know off its leg when it is caught in a trap." When the anti-abortion forces will begin to respond to that kind of pregnant woman rather than the demonized "gotta-have-an-abortion-because-it's-cheaper than-birth-control-pills" kind of pregnant woman, we will see some real reduction in abortion rates. Unfortunately, many of those who condemn abortions are so caught up in condemning sex and in judging the woman who had sex that they lose the chance to really help a woman -- or often a girl -- who is in crisis.
I've never talked with Tom specifically about subsidiarity, but it strikes me that the principle of the "common good" of which he speaks -- the notion that there are things that we as a society or a nation can do for our members -- is at the very least not much of a step away from subsidiarity, which I understand to be the notion that a government should do things (or in some formulations ONLY things) that are too big for an individual to do for him or herself. Subsidiarity would be a welcome change from the social Darwinism being practiced by so many on the right these days.
For instance, would it be appropriate to tell SEIU that they have to live with sub-par wages and not a wage that puts working men and women above the poverty line? Or whether we needed to move just half of our troops out of Iraq by supporting the surge and backing Petraeus? Or whether we should cut taxes rather than raise them in the name of subsidiarity, etc.
Now given that issues of social justice such as a living wage, just war, and subsidiarity are all viewed as secondary in urgency to the right to exist (which is what abortion negates). A conscience informed by a Catholic faith could be excused for being aggressive in removing the former while incrementally progressing on the latter ideas, but I (and most Catholics) have a hard time with an application of social justice that argues the converse -- that the periphery of problems that degrade human dignity deserve swift action, but the core rights of human beings to exist does not.
Now I will grant this: I find it extremely admirable that Perrillo seeks to get away from the "judgment society" that has hampered real progress and is turning more towards caring for the mother and the child with a social support network (a "social safety net" screams social-ism... but perhaps I'm just overly sensitive). There are 8,000 crisis pregnancy centers across the nation that do precisely this function -- most of whom are privately funded and offer precisely the services Perrillo lauds.
My question would be whether resolving the social issues surrounding abortion and the horror of the act itself are really mutually exclusive (which Perrillo seems to argue -- fix the social issues, then abortion goes away on its own accord), or whether they are linked (why wait -- ban abortion and fix the social issues because both are an injustice)?
Not to make the argumentum ad Hitlerum, but a "let's help half of the Jews" argument in 1930 Nazi Germany would not have been what I would call a moral argument. Nor would a "let's free half of the slaves" in 1850 America. We still place ourselves in the dangerous position of playing judge over which lives are worthy of our concern, and which are disposable.
Catholic social justice theory -- especially on life -- doesn't distinguish between the lives worth saving and the lives not worth saving. Perhaps I'm unclear as to why ending the tragedy that is abortion and creating an environment where young families can get the help they need are mutually exclusive goals?
Either way, I entirely agree that subsidiarity is far more preferable to the social Darwinism practiced by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum.
Post a Comment
Home