The Smell of Abortion

September 12, 2020 (1,048 words)

Did you know abortion has a smell? This provocative question is posed by one Abby Johnson, who spent eight years working for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. She started in 2001 by escorting women into the facility from their cars, and eventually became the clinic’s director before ultimately resigning in 2009 as a conscientious objector.

Her decision to jump ship and switch sides has earned her a level of notoriety. Her conversion story is well-known in certain circles, but it remains compelling and bears repeating here:

“For most people who consider themselves pro-life abortion is abstract. They can’t begin to conceive of the barbarity involved. They don’t know about the ‘pieces of children’ room in abortion clinics where infant corpses are pieced back together to ensure nothing remains in the mothers’ womb.

“For me, abortion is real. I know what it sounds like. I know what abortion smells like. Did you know abortion even has a smell?”

One day Johnson was asked to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion:

“Nothing prepared me for what I saw on the screen: an unborn baby fighting back, desperate to move away from the suction. And I will never forget what the doctor said next. “Beam me up, Scotty.’ The last thing I saw was a spine twirling around in the mother’s womb before succumbing to the force of the suction.

Since leaving Planned Parenthood Ms. Johnson has become an outspoken pro-life advocate who regularly interacts with audiences. Her most recent high-profile speaking gig was at the Republican National Convention a few weeks back. She was part of the Opening Night line-up and received a hero’s welcome.

Her star turn was followed a night later by a Catholic nun of some renown who also enthusiastically testified in defense of the unborn. This much prime-time exposure for their cause positively charmed the pro-life crowd, which came away feeling as though they have finally been brought in from the cold.

Combined with President Trump’s landmark appearance at the March for Life rally last January, everyone should now be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt the Republican Party is the political party that “stands for life.” There should be no one left out there who needs any further proof the pro-life movement has found its political home.

And yet, here I am.

Listen, Abby Johnson’s story is truly heart-rending. Anyone who can sit through the opening sequence of the feature film Unplanned that is based on her book without sobbing uncontrollably is a better man than me. And the fact the Republican leadership asked her to speak at its convention is a lovely gesture, and a clear indication that it means well.

But in many respects Abby Johnson is an advocate without a home. She is that proverbial ship at sea with nowhere to dock and come ashore. And so is the entire pro-life movement.

In our celebrated liberal democracy, pluralism is our pride and joy. But this makes morality a moving target. Majority rule if often little more than mob rule. The will of the people can change with the weather, and is too easily manipulated. Believing the Christian ethos can triumph in such a setting has proven to be an unrealistic expectation.

Abortion may be the most egregious example of the pitfalls of a liberal democracy, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of wrong moves had to be made before we landed on this spot of the game board.

When one lives in a liberal democracy based on pluralism, trying to legislate against an elective medical procedure in not a winning strategy.

In a liberal democracy where everyone gets to do what they want to do, in order to pursue their own, individual definition of happiness, arguing the science that clearly shows life begins at conception will also not work.

The ultimate solution to legal infanticide is much bigger than appointing the right sort of federal judges, defunding Planned Parenthood, and engaging in regional skirmishes over access to abortion.

The challenge before us is figuring out how to reintroduce morality into a system of social organization that has rejected the idea of an objective sense of right and wrong, in favor of the complete emancipation of the individual. And what has the individual been liberated from, exactly? From the limitations imposed by what has been dismissed as nothing more than a social construct. That is to say, from “morality.”

Pro-life people have drawn the mistaken conclusion that reversing laws on abortion is the first step in the much-needed restoration of the culture. While I share their objective, I couldn’t disagree more with their evaluation of the situation.

Right now certain Catholic commentators are caught up in wanting the bishops to call out Joe Biden for his frequent reference to his Catholic upbringing. Mr. Biden, like so many other Catholics in the public eye, started his career as staunchly “pro-life” but has since “developed” his position on the matter to suit the times.

While such a formal rebuke would be welcome, it wouldn’t address the larger issue. The fact that Democrats have lately succumbed to the cultural zeitgeist on matters of sexual morality should in no way obscure the fact that Republicans long ago embraced the cultural zeitgeist on matters of economic immorality.

Concepts such as supply and demand have their place in economic theory. But they should not be allowed to supersede the more fundamental concept of justice. The only problem with our flourishing economic system is that it currently operates outside a moral framework.

Far too many conservative, pro-life Catholics believe that economics has nothing to do with morality, and see abortion as a matter quite apart from the economic question.

Getting bishops to publically condemn politicians who support abortion might be an action sought by some, as a long-awaited defining moment. But that could too easily be misinterpreted as a de-facto endorsement of the Republican Party platform as it pertains to economic behavior.

I, for one, think it’s too much to ask our active bishops to sort through the myriad problems associated with the “economic freedom” promoted by Republicans.

That’s something lay people, and especially our most successful lay people, need to tackle. And they should keep the smell of abortion front and center when they do.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 12, 2020

Reverse Racism at Yale

September 7, 2020 (728 words)

What am i missing? Here we are, smack dab in the middle of a “transformative social justice moment,” with every organization from acting troupes to tech firms loudly proclaiming its support for diversity and inclusion. So now the U.S. Department of Justice is accusing Yale University of “reverse discrimination” in its admissions policies?

Specifically the charge is “Yale discriminates based on race… in its undergraduate admissions process race is the determinate factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year.”

Furthermore:

“Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African Americans applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission. Yale racially balances its classes.”

As someone who does not give the Ivy League and its exalted machinations much thought on a typical day, I for one hope that in this instance Yale is guilty as charged. That would mean it has been making a conscious effort to improve the level of diversity and inclusion among its student body, instead of settling for high-minded public pronouncements designed to appease the mood of the moment.

As for the belligerent white majority who finds itself siding with the plaintiffs in the case, and who find admissions (and hiring) quotas distasteful, how exactly do you think we are ever going to improve the level of diversity at our elite institutions?

It’s a tad unrealistic to just sit back and hope hardly any whites or Asian Americans apply in a given year, thereby opening the door to a higher percentage of black students.

It’s hard for me to work up any sympathy for the aggrieved party here, since it’s not as though they are being denied a basic human right. Getting turned away by Yale is not exactly going to automatically condemn anyone to a life of depravation.

Of course, the white and Asian American students with “comparable academic credentials” who are being bumped are probably not the fortunate sons and daughters of alumni. They probably do not come from well-heeled “legacy” families who have helped build Yale’s endowment to a stunning $30 billion – second only to Harvard’s.

No, the students getting passed over are more than likely from families of more modest means, who have only their native intelligence, an aptitude for class work, and an unflinching determination to recommend them. In other words, my people.

Even so there is no cause to shed tears for someone not being admitted to Yale, whatever the reason. There are any number of fine colleges and universities where one can obtain a reliable education. There are bright students and engaged professors everywhere. Sometimes in places where you’d least expect to find them. In no way does one need a degree from Yale to flourish in American society, or pursue one’s ultimate destiny of eternal salvation.

I only hope the previously disadvantaged blacks currently being welcomed will be able to change the tenor of the institution in some meaningful way, instead of merely being absorbed into the existing rarified Yale ethos.

The problem with all big organizations and elite institutions is that those at the top, the ones who make the decisions and determine the agenda, are completely out of touch with the people most affected by those decisions and agendas. This has undermined civility and a sense of unity among the general populace.

We need more folks from the lower ranks of society making their way to the upper echelon. Of course such people will need to be groomed for leadership, which will require the appearance of appropriate mentors along the way. But it’s vitally important they bring their working class sensibilities to their new-and-improved station in life. It is the only way to break down the stratification that has existed since our nation’s founding, and which has only gotten worse over the last half century.

This is why I have such high hopes for someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (Assuming she can manage to win re-election to her House seat in November.) Until recently she earned her living as a waitress. When it comes to steering a future course for our country, I will take a hustling waitress with her wits about her any day over a skull-and-bones child of privilege legal expert who thinks he knows best.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 7, 2020

A Unified Vision of Reality

September 6, 2020 (1,359 words)

So the other day I’m watching a short little video from Cross Catholic Outreach that landed in my in-box. It features a man identified in a caption as Cardinal Alvaro Ramazzini of Guatemala, a guy who looks to be about my age.

He is riffing on the reasons why we in the First World should contribute to the less fortunate in far-away countries, and how we should think about those contributions. He calmly runs through a series of references to bolster his case – starting with the well-known adage that it is better to give than to receive.

Diving a little deeper, he points out the dynamics of the Christian spirit should always be to forget myself and to think of others. But he is careful to note when I do this, it must not be to take advantage of others, or to be liked by them, but rather to truly seek the good and well-being of those others.

The interesting thing, according to this Ramazzini person, is that when I live in this dynamic of forgetting myself, because I want to live the love of God by loving others – since, after all, I can’t see God, but I can see my neighbor – the result is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our life: a deep joy that comes from knowing I am on the path that God wants for all humanity.

Here is more from this short little YouTube video with an old guy by the name of Ramazzini:

Many of the tragedies and the sadness and the anguish – all that is pain on the Earth – is simply the result of the lack of love between us. The greatest commandment is to love God above all things (i.e. money, power, and pleasure – the usual suspects), and to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we live according to this “golden rule” we realize that we can be happy, even if we are poor.

Not for nothing, folks, but Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, and blessed are the (actual) poor for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Having before us the practice of the Beatitudes should remain a source of joy because when I practice them, I am saying I love God and I love my neighbor.

Love must always be directed to those who need it most. And those who need it most, in the words of Pope Francis and the Bishops that were in Aparaecida (State of Sao Paulo, Brazil), are the disposables – the ones we do not even know exist. Towards them should our actions of love be directed.

When we live in that way we will find a very special joy in our hearts.

I think one of the very serious consequences of being economically or materially rich is exactly what happened in the Gospel of St. Luke in the parable of the rich man and the poor man. The rich man ate at a banquet every day, dressed splendidly, was always at parties. He hadn’t noticed there was a poor sick man at his door, with wounds over his entire body. The Gospel of St. Luke says the poor man’s state was so bad that dogs would approach to lick his wounds.

The rich man didn’t even give this unfortunate the crumbs that fell from the table. In a way this helps explain how you cannot serve God and money at the same time. If you turn money into your God, then you will forget the true God, and you will forget your neighbor.

That is why I believe that wealth can be an obstacle. When Jesus talks about the way to reach eternal life, he mentions that it is a very narrow path. Unfortunately when people forget the transcendence of life – because life ends here but starts over there – they become indifferent and become selfish.

I consider finding that sense of truly forgetting about myself, in order to share what I have with others who have less, can give anyone an incredible feeling of personal fulfillment. But it’s not just a matter of saying it, for anyone can say it. What I truly want is for you to experience it. This is meant for you who are watching and listening to me, to make this an experience in your life.

You will also realize that we are all pilgrims in this land and that what we really need is to prepare ourselves for our definitive encounter with God.

When this happens, everything will become relative. Money will be relative. Fame will be relative. Power will be relative. Everything will be relative, because you realize, as Saint Augustine says, that God made us for Him, and our hearts will be restless until we rest in Him.

That is why my exhortation is to remember it is always better to give than to receive. And I realize that in many cases this is approached from the point of view of charity. If I want to do works of mercy I typically give alms, I give a contribution, I provide support. And all that is wonderful.

For the word of God teaches that those who give alms are definitely fulfilling one of Jesus’ mandates. But there is also another way of understanding things, and that is from the point of justice.

I believe that Christians should not just think they are called to share what they have only because there are others who are poorer. They should also do it as a duty of justice: to be able to help others who haven’t had the same opportunities or the same resources as you may have had in your life.

That passage from the Old Testament when manna fell from heaven has always been very significant to me. It was food for all the Israelites that were in the desert. When the manna stopped falling, nobody needed more and nobody had left-overs. I believe that is the ideal.

The ideal will always be to understand that although I may have a lot, God will hold me accountable for the way I lived my life. I should start now to find a sense of personal fulfillment by sharing what I have.

I urge the people who support the projects of Cross Catholic Outreach to be generous, knowing that one day, when you present yourself before God, He is not going to ask you how much money you made, how much money you were able to accumulate, how many bank accounts you had.

He will ask you, did you feed the hungry? Did you give water to the thirsty? Did you visit the sick and in prison? Did you support and take care of the migrant? Those will be the words of the final judgement.

We must understand life from the perspective of eternity. We are pilgrims here on Earth, and we are walking in this journey. There will come a moment when we see God, face to face, and we will see our lives as they were.

Okay, sure, these are things we’ve all heard before. In fact, these sentiments can be said to form the basis of many a (boring) Sunday homily, can they not?

But Ramazzini’s easy command of the material, the quiet enthusiasm with which he presents it, and the intimate, conversational nature of the video itself all combine to have me on the edge of my seat. There are goosebumps on my arms and tears beginning to form in my eyes.

It’s true I may need a translator to understand what Cardinal Alvaro Ramazzini of Guatemala is telling us in his little YouTube video. But the concepts that animate his mind, and the minds of millions of other non-English-speaking people around the world, are ones that have resonated with me since I first reached the age of reason as a little boy.

There are many things I find myself grateful to my dear, departed parents for, but introducing me at a young age to these universal truths and this unified vision of reality is right at the top of the list.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 6, 2020

The Philadelphia Statement

September 5, 2020 (710 words)

There’s been a lot going on lately, so you may have missed the big, August 11 signing of the Philadelphia Statement. Named in recognition of the pivotal role that city played in the founding of the United States, it was endorsed by over forty academics, scholars, religious leaders, and legal experts, who we are told represent a broad spectrum of beliefs.

Affirming the necessity of free speech and civil discourse, while denouncing cancel culture, hate-speech labeling, and other forms of ideological blacklisting, this effort calls on all Americans “to preserve our freedom to disagree openly, while maintaining the possibility of a shared future alongside those with whom we disagree.”

In other words, the Philadelphia Statement is just another articulation of the Enlightenment pipe dream enshrined in our Constitution: a peculiarly modern version of “freedom” that allows everyone to pursue their own idea of “happiness.”

This ephemeral objective is to be accomplished by dialing down a sense of personal accountability to the larger society, and doing away with any objective sense of right and wrong. All while magically preserving civility and order.

Note the familiar, reassuring boiler-plate language being employed in the Philadelphia Statement to cloak what is at its core a truly radical concept in social organization:

“Free speech marked by truly open discourse and debate is essential to a diverse and thriving society,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President of Communications, Jeremy Tedesco.

“Free speech helps us learn to think critically and defend our own ideas while also cultivating tolerance and respect for those with whom we disagree. But the rise in blacklisting and demonizing of those who hold opposing views is steadily eroding the willingness of Americans to express their sincere beliefs and breeds contempt for those with different views.

“That’s why a diverse group of leaders have drafted and signed the Philadelphia Statement. We’re committed to a better way forward that respects the timeless principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution, and we invite our fellow Americans to join the growing movement to protect civil discourse and free speech.”

In addition to calling out “cancel culture,” the statement also identifies campus speech policing and corporate “hate speech” policies as symptoms of what if refers to as a crisis in free expression.

Well, that’s certainly one way of looking at it: A crisis in free expression, with “our fellow Americans” becoming increasingly unwilling to share their sincere beliefs.

I am inclined to view the problem a bit differently, though. I would say the lack of tolerance and respect for others the Philadelphia Statement admirably tries to spotlight is the direct result of too much free expression.

So to my mind the Philadelphia Statement once again demonstrates the right’s muddled understanding of the cultural forces at work this summer with, say, the Black Lives Matter movement.

As the statement explains:

“If we desire unity rather than division; if we want a political life that is productive and inspiring; if we aspire to be a society that is pluralistic and free; one in which we can forge our own paths and live according to our own consciences, then we must renounce ideological blacklisting and recommit ourselves to steadfastly defending freedom of speech and passionately promoting robust civil discourse.”

But isn’t all this is in the eye of the beholder? For instance, don’t this summer’s liberal activists see themselves as “forging their own paths and living according to their own consciences”?

Whether the academics and scholars and religious leaders and legal experts behind this well-intentioned pronouncement like it or not, there are many people in this country for whom the phrase “civil discourse” is simply code for “preserving the established order.”

It all boils down to this: There is a fundamental contradiction built into the Philadelphia Statement that its earnest signers do not see. It’s the same contradiction, by the way, that is enshrined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Promoting pluralism as society’s highest ideal will naturally lead to division, and make unity all but impossible.

Look, I hate to be a grouch. But as any philosopher worth his or her salt will tell you, without a unified vision of reality, no agreement is possible, and society plunges into the darkness of chaos and violence.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 5, 2020

Once More unto the Breach

September 4, 2020 (754 words)

Here we go again. With another presidential election looming partisans of all stripes are once more treating us to raw, visceral appeals designed to by-pass logic and reason.

There are the social conservatives, who loudly condemn Democrats as morally reprehensible for supporting reproductive choice and marriage equality. The conservatives are convinced such stances are a betrayal of our country’s Christian roots. They refuse to recognize these trends for what they truly are: an inevitable evolution of the Enlightenment version of “freedom” and “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness” that inspired our most famous Founders.

These same religiously-motivated citizens continue to insist there is no issue before the voters that takes precedent over defending human life from inception to natural death. Even though abortion is still an elective procedure rather than a political mandate, and is in any event still not on the ballot.

Failing to consider abortion in its full economic context – how privileged women choose abortion as an expression of their “economic freedom,” how under-privileged woman are constrained by “economic injustice” into opting for abortion – is the fatal flaw in the pro-life movement as presently constituted.

The last part of “from inception to natural death” started as a reference to the euthanasia movement, as well as being a reference to the “death squads” we used to hear so much about, which we were told would casually discard the weak if left unchecked.

But an entirely different end-of-life problem has emerged, quite apart from the euthanasia movement, or the worry over so-called death squads.

What constitutes “natural death” is getting harder to decipher, as advances in treatment of so many previously terminal conditions blur the line beyond recognition. Our medical pros are only too happy to employ their entire bag of sophisticated procedures, pulling out all the stops in an attempt to keep our elderly loved ones around long after they should have been allowed to shuffle off this mortal coil to meet their maker.

Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, are ramping up their objections to the dreaded “welfare state” policy proscriptions of their political foes, those wayward souls who are known to promote some really wacky ideas.

Such as healthcare being a basic human right that should not be left exposed to the vagaries of the for-profit marketplace. As any self-respecting conservative will tell you, only an irresponsible liberal or a wild-eyed socialist could support such an un-American position.

Any version of “Medicare for All” would throw a wrench into our best-in-class healthcare system, and violate the sacred principle of “choosing our own doctors.” Not to mention eliminating the thriving competition fiscal conservatives assure us now exists between the various privately-owned (i.e. corporate–owned) health insurance companies.

All this claptrap cuts both ways, of course. Liberals are just as inane in much of what they have to say about the competition.

Heaven knows there is plenty to criticize about the way President Trump has conducted himself in office, and the way his administration has chosen to conduct the nation’s business. But too much of the criticism we are hearing is unfortunately on the same sophomoric level as the commander-in-chief’s typical tweet.

The erstwhile Kamala Harris, for instance, at the beginning of her first public speech as Joe Biden’s running mate, was given to say: “The president’s mismanagement of the pandemic has plunged us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

This is the sort of broad characterization that should make even Trump’s harshest critics blush. Does anyone really think there was a single undisputed “right way” to handle a once-every-hundred-years catastrophe of worldwide proportions? Does anyone really think this pandemic was NOT going to cripple important segments of the economy?

At the Democratic National Convention, featured speaker Michelle Obama was in her best get-out-the-vote mode when she intoned: “…if you think it can’t get any worse, it can… and it will.” She was described in the aftermath of this appearance as “the most effective communicator in the Democratic Party today.”

These days being an effective communicator means getting people to act on their feelings, without subjecting those feelings to any rational analysis.

It’s too bad, really. The majority of Ms. Obama’s address, and Ms. Harris’ first speech as the VP nominee, was well-written and well-delivered. I don’t mind pointed political jabs, since after all they come with the territory. I just wish the partisans of all stripes would appeal to a slightly higher order of thinking than what one is prone to find in the average high school football cheering section.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 4, 2020

We All Must Be Accountable

September 3, 2020 (534 words)

There is certainly a lot that both the average white citizen and the white power structure has to answer for when it comes to the thorny state of race relations in this country. The playbook for the change that needs to happen is close at hand. It can be found by referencing the dormant Christian ethos whites have been misled into believing does not apply to everyday economic life.

America needs to extend this summer’s collective examination of conscience beyond a mass mea culpa, and turn it into something tangible. Revising the basic rules of economic engagement to be less predatory, and more equitable in the distribution of profit, would be the surest path to social justice.

Figuring out how to reconcile the Christian ethos with everyday economic life may not prove to be all that difficult for the average white citizen. But getting the white power structure to even consider giving up “economic freedom” in favor of “love thy neighbor as thyself” will be a tough sell.

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter activists will eventually have to move past the raw, visceral airing-of-grievances stage.

A prime example of which is the recent letter from Brown University’s senior administration that Glenn C. Loury, the 71 year-old tenured economics professor at Brown, considers to be a “manifesto” that is “obviously the product of a committee”.

It reads, in part:

“The sadness comes from knowing that this is not a mere moment for our country. This is historical, lasting, and persistent. Structures of power, deep-rooted histories of oppression, as well as prejudice, outright bigotry and hate, directly and personally affect the lives of millions of people in this nation every minute and every hour. Black people continue to live in fear for themselves, their children, and their communities, at times in fear of the very systems and structures that are supposed to be in place to ensure safety and justice.”

Professor Loury has said this letter “asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they are axiomatic certainties.” He thinks it “often elided pertinent difference between the many instances cited,” and “reads in part like a loyalty oath.”

I guess the ultimate question for the activists is exactly as Loury has framed it: Does racial domination and “white supremacy” define our national existence even now, a century and a half after the end of slavery?

For my part, I think activists should by all means continue making their case in a clear and forceful manner, while somehow managing to ward off a collective mindset that makes the transgressions inflicted upon blacks the sole focus, the sole pre-occupation. This is admittedly an ongoing challenge, since the transgressions are real and indelible.

The enemy in all this, it seems to me, is conjuring the belief that a minority – any minority – is powerless to affect its own advancement in society. Taken to an extreme, such a pre-occupation could result in a segment of the black population sitting back and not even trying, while it waits for white America to remedy every slight, to right every wrong.

No man or woman, regardless of ethnicity or skin color or station in life, ever gets that degree of justice in this world.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 3, 2020