On Pro-Life Political Rhetoric

Third Quarter 2004

An Exchange

In the Capital Commentary published by the Center for Public Justice on May 31 (Kerry and the Church by Keith J. Pavlishchek), Dr. Pavlischek briefly stated the Roman Catholic Church's position on abortion: that it is the destruction of life and should not be permitted by public law. Over against that, Pavlischek showed that Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, who is a Catholic, holds a pro-choice position on abortion. "In both word and deed, "said Pavlischek, "Sen. Kerry has consistently and publicly repudiated the Church's belief that unborn life is worthy of legal protection. Quite to the contrary, he insists that legally protecting unborn life would be a massive injustice. His actions convey that he regards the teaching of his political party to be morally superior to the teaching of his Church."

Some Catholic leaders, said Pavlischek, are now arguing that public officials like Kerry, "who repudiate the Church's pro-life teaching should be denied Holy Communion. "Kerry, however, "wants people to think that his 'private' beliefs as a Catholic are radically separated from his 'public' beliefs as a good American Democratic politician." That won't wash, says Pavlischek. Kerry would surely not say, "I'm personally opposed to restaurant owners who refuse to serve black people, but I don't want to impose my morality on them. 'In fact, we now praise as courageous and prophetic those Roman Catholic bishops who threatened to excommunicate Catholic politicians who publicly defended racial segregation in the 1 1960s." One suspects, then, says Pavlischek, "that Sen. Kerry might not really be personally opposed to abortion at all."

In response to Pavlischek 's commentary, Gary R. Govert wrote the following response.

Talk Radio
by Gary R. Govert

Having just read Keith Pavlischek's recent Capital Commentary, I'm beginning to worry that the influence of talk radio is even more pervasive than I feared. Apparently, even the Center for Public justice has not escaped unscathed.

Pavlischek's article generally commended the Roman Catholic Church's position on abortion, condemned Sen. John Kerry's position on the same issue, and defended the suggestion by some Catholic leaders that Kerry should be denied participation in Holy Communion because of his stance on abortion.

I write in response to Pavlischek's article as one who generally opposes abortion on moral grounds and who believes that the rhetoric of individual autonomy commonly used to justify unbridled access to abortion is profoundly unchristian. I also write as one who nearly thirty years ago found his way to the Reformed faith largely through the influence of the Center's founders, and who therefore rejects any suggestion that a person's religiously grounded moral positions should (or can) be set aside when he or she engages in political advocacy.

But more to the point, I write as one who believes that faithful and intelligent public debate about complex issues such as abortion is undermined by the kind of attack advocacy we typically hear on talk radio—and now, lamentably, have read in the Capital Commentary.

My purpose here is not to challenge the Roman Catholic (or Pavlischek's) position on abortion. Even if the official Catholic position begs some significant biological, historical, and ethical questions, as I think it does, it is a thoughtful, defensible perspective and one that should be heard in the public square.

I am concerned, however, by the unfairness of Pavlischek's rhetoric and his apparent lack of interest in the real difference between private morality and public law. I don't profess to know exactly what or how Kerry thinks about abortion. Based on what I do know, I think I probably would disagree with him on some aspects of the issue. But I don't believe that Kerry (in Pavlischek's words) "has consistently and publicly rejected the Church's belief that unborn life is worthy of legal protection," or that Kerry "insists that legally protecting unborn life would be a massive injustice." This kind of rhetorical overstatement isn't setting up a straw man for the purpose of knocking him down; it is setting up a straw man, dousing him with gasoline and setting him on fire, all for the purpose of posing the real issue (how far legal protection of the unborn should extend) as a struggle pitting pure good against pure evil. In other words, talk radio.

As for whether someone can be personally opposed to abortion on moral grounds and at the same time in favor of legal access to abortion—which Pavlischek apparently considers a moral if not a logical impossibility—not much needs to be said. Most readers of this publication understand that in a democratic, pluralistic society, it does not always make sense to advocate a perfect congruence between one's moral views and the law. Pavlischek actually acknowledges that "reasonable people agree that not every sin or vice should be illegal."

But then he turns right around and suggests that no reasonable person could possibly think that way about abortion because it is in the category of "certain sins and vices of great moral weight." In other words, never mind questions about such things as (1) what makes law legitimate in a democratic society, (2) the potential human and political consequences of outlawing something that most Americans (however benighted) think should be legal, and (3) the possibility that God might be calling us to patient, long-term advocacy on behalf of unborn children rather than bomb-throwing and short-term legal fixes that actually fix nothing. And to top it all off, Pavlischek concludes his analysis with the suggestion that Kerry "might not really be personally opposed to abortion at all" and that he is actually the spiritual clone of (who else?) Sen. Ted Kennedy. More talk radio.

As for the highly publicized threat to deny Kerry communion because of his position on abortion, most of the mainstream media commentary seems to have focused on whether, in a supposedly secular polity like ours, it would be legitimate for the priests to do this. In other words, are the priests not inappropriately mixing religion and politics, or church and state. I haven't found this debate very enlightening. Of more immediate concern to me, however, is what these church leaders are doing as pastors, as opposed to political actors. Surely the Roman Catholic Church has procedures for determining when members can be denied the Eucharist. I trust that Kerry will receive the procedural due process to which he is entitled before any such excommunication occurs. If he does not, and if I were one of the priests threatening to deny Kerry communion, I think I would be more worried about my own soul than about his.

I apologize to Mr. Pavlischek if I have in any way misconstrued his commentary. It is very important to me, however, that the Center maintain the high standards of political discourse that I think have characterized its work over the years. Let's not succumb to the kind of simplistic rhetorical excess that characterizes so much of contemporary political debate. That's not responsible free expression; it's talk radio.

[Mr. Govert is a lawyer and former board member of the Center who lives in Cary, North Carolina.]

***

Apology Accepted
by Keith J. Pavlischek

If Mr. Govert really believes that "the rhetoric of individual autonomy commonly used to justify unbridled access to abortion is profoundly unchristian," then it is hard to take seriously his objections to my article. He's doubtful that Sen. Kerry has really "consistently and publicly rejected the Church's belief that unborn life is worthy of legal protection." But, of course, he has. That's the very essence of Kerry's radically "pro-choice" position in which a woman's autonomous individual "choice" always trumps the unborn child's right to legal protection. Kerry must believe this is morally and politically superior to his Church's pro-life teaching, or else he wouldn't advocate it.

Mr. Govert is concerned about my "apparent lack of interest in the real difference between private morality and public law." I'll chalk up this concern along with the nonsense about "talk radio" to those distortions of my arguments for which he apologizes. Apology accepted.

[Dr. Pavlischek is a Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps. Before being recalled to active duty in 2002, he was Director of the Civitas Program in Faith andPublic Affairs.]

***

One Last Word
by Gary Govert

Mr. Pavlischek clearly doesn't want to turn off the talk radio, so I'll just say that I can only wish I thought that the moral and legal issues at the center of the abortion debate were as black and white as he makes them out to be.

I do, however, want to acknowledge my own lapses into talk radio. "Profoundly unchristian" was rhetorical overkill (individual autonomy isn't all bad), and I probably should not have suggested that Mr. Pavlischek is uninterested in the difference between private morality and public law. Apparently, he just thinks it doesn't matter in this case.