Father Steven E. Clark
Today, I’m privileged to present a guest article written by Father Steven E. Clark. Father Clark is Pastor of Saint Francis of Assisi Church, Mount Kisco, New York. He is a 1976 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis MD, a former Marine Corps Major, helicopter pilot and naval flight instructor, as well as master of Sacred Scripture. He’s also a priest’s priest, best friend whom I met in the seminary and Joseph’s Godfather. He brings an important perspective to bear on this ongoing debate.
Here is Father Clark:
Recently Dr. Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D., posted the blog entry, “Outlawing Abortion: Making the Case for an Incremental Approach.” The graphic is very apropos, and his reasoning I find very sound, quite in agreement with the moral Principle of Double Effect. Now before the “all-or-nothing” crowd blasts off to a region somewhere beyond the Plutonian orbit, let’s all take a breath and review the principle of double effect as I remember it from Msgr. William B. Smith’s course on Fundamental Moral Theology.
There are four conditions for the legitimate use of the principle of double effect.
First, the act itself must be morally good or at least morally indifferent (neutral). What could be better than working to save an innocent human life?
Second, the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only/merely intended. Here the person working to rescind the laws permitting abortion has taken a approach to incrementally rescind parts of the law(s) permitting abortions because for the past 30 years the all-or-nothing approach at overturning such laws has met with vociferous opposition and repeated failure. So, a person working to incrementally rescind/overturn abortion laws (I’ll call them “incrementalists” for the purpose of this article), intends to save lives within the realm of possibility, not directly intending the death of others, but looking forward to an eventual overturning of all laws permitting abortion.
In the book, “Schindler’s List,” by Thomas Keneally and in the Steven Spielberg movie, Oskar Schindler worked to save approximately 1,200 Jewish men and women from certain death, knowing that he couldn’t save all Jews he saw in the labor camp, directed by the sadistic commandant, Amon Goeth. Schindler worked to save the men and women he could save by running a bogus munitions factory run by Jewish labor, while looking forward to an end to the war when such atrocities would no longer occur.
Third, the good effect of one’s actions must not be produced by means of the evil effect. Again the good desired is the saving of those lives with in the realm of possibility given the present circumstances and conditions in our society. The lives that are being saved are saved in the hope of one day overturning all laws permitting abortions, thereby preserving the possibility to life for all babies in the wombs of their mothers.
Fourth, there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting (not agreeing with) the evil effect. For years the all-or-nothing approach to the repeal of abortion laws has been repeatedly rejected by those in who hold the majority in the legislative and judicial branches of government. Therefore, moving to first outlaw “partial-birth abortions”, then third trimester abortions and then earlier ones seems to be more workable and realistic, given the present attitudes of society. Dr. Nadal admirable puts forth this principle of incrementalism in his article.
We could talk about a judiciary unconstitutionally wresting legislative power from our legislative branch and a legislative branch unwilling to justly discipline a judiciary run amok, but that would be grist for a future missive on a blog dedicated to the explanation of the inner workings of our representative republic, we call the United States of America.
Oskar Schindler, at the end of the movie, is shown distraught at not having saved more people from extermination, dissatisfied with the number he had saved. The incrementalists are not satisfied with saving just a few lives, we want to save all babies from the abortionists. However, a frontal assault on the lucrative abortion industry has so far met with little success. Why not try the incremental approach at rescinding the laws permitting abortions with the intention of abolishing the abortion industry in the future?
Ladies and gentlemen the “all-or-nothing” approach to the repeal of laws permitting abortions in this country has so far been unsuccessful, whereas the incremental approach to repealing such laws has met with some success. We should focus on our victories and moving forward from the ground gained by such victories, looking forward to eventually taking the moral high ground once again where babies are protected during the first months of their lives in their mother’s womb. Let’s also remember to support women who have decided to keep their babies under difficult circumstances.
The easy answer is, instead of the clergy focusing on immigration, why don’t they focus on the murder of innocent children. Just having every single Catholic Bishop stand against this autrocity, the faithful will follow and it will end! The reason there is no outrage is because we are not being led, we are not being held accountable or holding our clergy accountable and we are not taking this fight seriously! This is absolutely rediculous that we continue to talk about leaving anyone behind. As a Marine, you are taught that you do not leave a fellow soldier behind, dead or alive! Well, THAT is what we’re talking about. We are all sodiers for Christ and those little ones must be protected and brought along side with us at all costs. Why aren’t the clergy putting EVERYTHING DOWN and fighting for the lives of these innocent little people? Why are we leaving even one little one behind?? Absolutely NO to imcrementalism for any reason. A good Marine does not leave his fellow Marine behind. Period!
Rosalinda,
Were not leaving anyone behind. It sometimes takes marines a while before they can get to their comrades who are cut off and under enemy fire. They need to fight their way to rescue them, which is exactly what incrementalism is doing.
To further your analogy, you are suggesting that if we can’t rescue everyone at the same time, that nobody be rescued until everyone is rescued at once. That isn’t how good marines operate. They rescue all that they can, as soon as they can, and they don’t quit until they bring everyone home, dead or alive.
The difference in this analogy is that in a hand to hand combat fight, you have to make decisions to “come back”, in this fight, we are the voice and the hands and have the power in numbers, we are just not taking it seriously. We are not doing our job. How many priests are with us? I would venture to say in the single digit percentages (truly in the fight), how many Bishops are truly with us? Leading us? Fighting along side us? in the mere single digits! How many Catholics are contracepting and believe in the exceptions? in the double digit percentages. Why? Because they are not being led. Instead of focusing on incrementalism, why isnt’ there a focus on holding these, our leaders, accountable and truly jumping into the fight. The reason ALL has not worked is because we have not engaged. We are not in the fight yet. With the incrementalist mentality, we are conceding and accepting victories that are not ours.
While I have more sympathy for the all-or-nothing approach, the incremental approach is legitimate. See Evangelium Vitae section 73:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
Note well the phrase ” an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known“. This is why Catholics for Obama were full of baloney when they squaked about his policies “reducing the need for abortion”. If you are in favor something you think moral and legal, why reduce them?
RosalindaL
First, it’s obvious you were never a Marine, since Marines would never refer to themselves as soldiers. They are Marines.
Second, I won’t dignify your rants with a response until you are ready to be less emotional and present a more cogent and logical argument.
God bless.
Rosalinda,
You say: “we are just not taking it seriously. We are not doing our job.”
That is a vile slur against the countless pro-lifers who take what they do deadly seriously. It also seems to be a growing chorus from the absolutist camp.
“If only we would finally get serious…”
Speaking for myself, I walked away from a career in science and made myself radioactive with this blog. Speaking for myself, I spend my life in full-time pro-life scholarship, speaking and activism. You obviously have only been tangentially associated with the movement, or you never would have made such a statement. And even f every priest in the world became an activist, we would still need to fight this battle in the corridors of government.
We ARE serious, Rosalinda. The agony of this debate is that it is being waged among factions involving people who have been fighting (full-time) against abortion for forty-five years.
Personally, I think this is a war on many fronts and *all* moral approaches are indicated–incrementalism and personhood simultaneously. I also agree that if the bishops took a strong stand on this issue, it would have a profound impact. It’s like the generals are wishy-washy.
Nice column, by the way.
This was a well-crafted argument. Why keep doing the same thing repeatedly when it does not work?
“Speaking for myself, I walked away from a career in science and made myself radioactive with this blog.”
So that’s why you pick “hot” topics! 😉
In all seriousness, I believe we should use both approaches. Whatever works at the time and in any area – go for it.
In some locales, depending upon the situation we may be able to use the all or nothing approach.
but mostly I believe it will be chipping away bit by bit.
Each baby saved is a victory. Each woman detoured from an abortion is a victory.
Each woman who has had an abortion and regretted it and who speaks out is a victory.
Our countries did not welcome abortion suddenly, although it appears that way. Attitudes were changed over decades.
Rome did not become Christian in a short time. It took almost 300 years. we’ve only been at this for 40.
Here’s an idea I thought of:
This issue, according to those who support the choice to dismember humans, is between “a woman and her doctor.” And abortion is desperately needed to “save woman’s lives,” and without abortion women will die from pregnancy complications and/or back-alley abortions. No woman would get an abortion “for trivial reasons” and the laws shouldn’t stand “between her and her doctor.”
One of the inherent problems with the decision being between a “woman and her doctor” is conflict of interest. The doctor can be sued if the woman has a baby with a deformity, disease, or syndrome, but cannot be sued for killing a “normal” baby. The doctor performing the abortion receives payment for it. The doctor has no incentive not to push abortion.
What if it were illegal for a doctor to receive pay for performing an abortion? To balance out the inevitable argument that women’s lives would be forfeit to a doctor’s timidity, if a pregnant woman dies in his care, he loses his license (perhaps unless she has signed some sort of release–I am pro-choice on whether a woman should have an abortion to save her life). So the doctor will receive no pay if the baby dies due to his direct action or negligence, but if the woman dies he loses his license. Then there’s no profit motive to performing an abortion (and thus very few doctors would do so), but they would still have sufficient motivation to save the woman’s life if an abortion were necessary for that.