Congressman Todd Akin’s comments about rape and his position on abortion have dominated the news cycle for 48 hours. They clearly struck a chord within the political world, but the note struck goes deeper than mere politics. If this was just about politics, Republicans would be defending one of their own rather than running from him and asking him to step aside in his bid for the Senate seat in Missouri. And, this reaction contains, I believe, important lessons for anyone in the pro-life movement.
Beth Haile has a post up at CatholicMoralTheology.com about the recent meeting of the Catholic Conversation Project. One of the benefits of this meeting is that I get to meet people like Beth with whom I have corresponded before, but never met in person. As she notes, it is a time not only to meet each other, but we celebrate the Eucharist together. There, in the Sacrament, in the Scriptures, and in the Creed, we are reminded that what binds us together as Catholics is something way, way deeper than whatever separates us as thinkers.
Haile's comments - in their precision and thoughtfulness - show why I have such confidence in these young theologians. They are not afraid to admit they are still working through issues, and that they don't have all the answers, but they also evidence the fact that we Catholics do have The Answer, the encounter with the Crucified Who Lives.
Our friend at the online academic journal "Religion & Politics," from the Danforth Center at St. Louis University, has a regular feature, "The Table" in which they assemble a group of experts to discuss a given topic. This week, they focus on Paul Ryan and the Catholic Vote. You can read the essays here, one of which is by yours truly.
Much has been made of the recent article in the Economist about the finances of the Catholic Church in the United States. Mark Gray, at the blog for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, notes that while the Economist dotted its I's and crossed its T's, it had trouble framing the issue, and apparently mistook the Catholic Church for WalMart.
Yesterday, I made a brief appearance on CNN's "Situation Room." Here is the link.
Last January, after President Obama announced he would not be expanding the kind of traditional, typical conscience exemptions regarding the HHS contraception mandate, for a brief period in time, most Catholic commentators were united in opposition. From E. J. Dionne and Chris Matthews on the left to Pat Buchanan and Ross Douthat on the right, Catholic voices spoke loudly and clearly that the government had over-stepped. Part of the reaction was tribal, to be sure, but most of it was rooted in Catholic sensibilities that date back to the Reformation. We could not understand how the government could differentiate between a Catholic parish and a Catholic university, labeling the former religiously exempt and the latter essentially secular for purposes of this law, in part because we held, contra the Reformers, that faith and reason must work together. We refused to accept a similar differentiation between the Church’s charitable and healing ministries and our parishes because we held, contra the Reformers, that faith and works must go hand in hand.
Who talks like this? GOP Senate hopeful Todd Akin made the remark in explaining why he opposes legal abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The phrase seems to suggest that there is such a thing as "illegitimate rape," as in, you know, she shouldn't have been wearing such a tight shirt. The whole episode is appalling.
Realizing his mistake, Akin tried to get out front of the mess he had made. He said he had reviewed what he characterized as an "off-the-cuff remark" and apologized, saying he "misspoke." This was not a slip of the tongue, as the transcript bears out. He began by saying he had had conversations with doctors about this. Just as outrageous is the idea that one could ever make an "off-the-cuff" remark about something as dreadful as rape.
The Platform Committee of the Democratic National Committee declined to adopt a more "big tent" approach to abortion, despite the efforts of the group Democrats for Life of America to push more inclusive language into the party platform. Here is a news story about the decision with great quotes from DFLA executive director Kristen Day.
Saturday evening, I read then-Father Joseph Ratzinger's treatment of the line in the Creed about the descent into Hell, contained in his masterful "Introduction to Christianity." (I will be writing more about that book in the near future.) Everything he wrote was powerful, it struck home, but it was a bit abstract. The next day, yesterday, I drove back to DC from Connecticut and discovered the non-abstract definition of Hell: I-95 on the last Sunday before school starts.
American political history is shaped, in large part, by the essentially non-ideological character of the national psyche. We are a practical people. We respond to politics as we do to technology, with a desire to fix it. While divisions between the parties have always been highlighted at campaign time, as soon as the election is over, the ideological divisions within Congress and between Congress and the White House have generally receded as our political leaders look for solutions. Only at a few key times – the Civil War, and the New Deal being the most obvious – was there a clear ideological division in which the political parties could not come to agreement because they were at odds over first principles, and in the case of the New Deal, the GOP eventually came around.