Inured to high drama and ample displays of liberal eccentricities in their backyard, or sanctuary, battle weary Milwaukee Catholics received an earful from one Sister Arlene Welding, SSSF in the freewheeling editorial pages of their local archdiocesan newspaper, The Catholic Herald. (November 27, 2008) Sr. Arlene’s aim was, as far as I can tell, to set the US bishops straight by offering an impassioned defense of President-Elect Barack Obama. How did this bold apologia pro Obama begin? Well, by reminding the bishops of the hearty number of their flock, some fifty-four percent to be precise, who voted for the former Illinois Senator. “It is time they [the bishops] begin to realize that 54% of Catholics who voted for him [Obama] do not agree with the bishops telling people how to vote.”
Sr. Arlene though, was not finished by any measure. After scribbling off the hackneyed and utterly banal line about the annoyance of bishops “telling people how to vote,” she meandered into the realm of the astonishing and unbelievable. Are you ready for a real zinger? Said the sister: "Obama may be pro-choice, but so is God. God gave everyone a free will and he does not pressure people into using that free will to do what is right.” Now, given the importance our society places on emotions, good intentions, glitz and bling and the corollary beaten-down state of rational argument and logic, Sr. Arlene’s screed shouldn’t epater the reason-inclined reader too much. More than anything else, Obama’s election is proof that style often trumps substance when reason would have otherwise. But the theological, let alone philosophical, reckonings offered here by Sr. Arlene elevate inanity to a level heretofore thought impossible, even in the age of Obama. So let’s knock down each fallacy, one by one.
Sister Arlene states unambiguously that, like Barack Obama, “God is pro-choice.” She stumbles upon this novel idea by asserting the truth (yes, there’s one in there) that man possesses a free will from God. Free will then, according to creative minds like Sr. Arlene, means that anything goes as far as morality is concerned, including the participation in an act that is intrinsically evil, i.e., the murder of an innocent human being. But the free will that Sister Arlene so vociferously aims to defend is given to man with the clear expectation that he use it well by choosing the objective good. To do otherwise would be immoral and hence wrong. So should every immoral act be verboten by the powers of state and therefore subject to penalty? No. As students of ethics know, there are certain evils that unfortunately roam free in society because efforts to snuff them out by the government would likely result in the emergence of police states, much like those in certain countries in the Middle East where “morality police” go door to door in search of every alleged violation of this or that code of conduct. However, when the evil is so egregious, as in the case of abortion, the state must, as a matter of natural law, step in and rely on the force of law to ensure justice by protecting the threatened party. Contrary to the contrivances of Sr. Arlene, free will is not a carte blanche to commit every atrocity conceivable, even if someone out there views this or that act as good “for him.” It is true that one cannot be forced to do the right thing, but it requires some impressive logical gymnastics to contort that claim to argue seriously that certain intrinsically evil acts cannot be outlawed by the state, just because man has a free will to commit them if he so chooses. Based on her own skewered line of reasoning, logic would have to guide Sr. Arlene to the embarrassing conclusion that any law enacted by a state restricting a serious evil, as in let’s say murder, fraud, stealing from nice old ladies, etc., is an unjust “imposition” by an external entity on the plenipotentiary free will of the individual.
There’s more to the story of Sr. Arlene and her novel interpretation of Catholicism and morality. Determined to outdo herself in exhibitions of malarkey, she continued in her tiresome screed: “Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. So is war and violent killing on the street. I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative.” Where to even begin here? There’s just too much material. Well, we’ve unearthed another true assertion made by Sr. Arlene. (Sorry, this may be the last one.) The sister gets it right when she says, “Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life.” But once again, she sets fire to any gains made with that statement by following it up with yet another worn-out talking point, dragged right out of the 1960’s, when she morally equates abortion to war. Ah, the war/abortion, seamless garment bilge resurfaces. Not again! Once again, abortion, since it is an intrinsically evil act, can never be morally justified. Period. As anyone who has thumbed through St. Augustine or St. Thomas instantly knows, war is another shade in the field of ethics and requires a more nuanced approach than what Sr. Arlene offers the reader. As the Church has taught for almost two-thousand years (whether theological neophytes like Sr. Arlene care to admit it or not), war can, in certain well defined conditions, be morally justifiable. The successful martial exertion of the Allied Forces during World War II represents the most conspicuous example of a just war, most rational minds would agree. And there are certainly others, before and after. War per se is not an intrinsic evil, no matter how hard innovative yet wrongheaded individuals like Sr. Arlene may try to construct it.
Then, after a litany of low points that demonstrate marvelously Sr. Arlene’s discombobulated value-ranking system, she strikes the lowest of low points when she suggests, astonishingly, that abortion may be “the most merciful alternative” with regard to children likely to be born into poverty. Among some tough competition, this last puff takes the prize for most sad, most confused and most wrong of all Sr. Arlene’s sordid utterances. A study in comparisons would be appropriate here. Everyone remembers Mother Teresa’s impassioned plea to any woman considering abortion. Rather than abort the child, the Blessed would offer that he or she could be left with Mother Teresa or with one of her Missionaries of Charity. “Give me the baby. I will take him.” Unfortunately Sr. Arlene, in stark contrast to Blessed Mother Teresa, takes the polar opposite approach with her chilling embrace of “mercy” killing. Who doubts that no one in modern times better understood the pains of material poverty like Mother Teresa? Yet the utter poverty and destitution witnessed by this Blessed never justified in her mind the kind of cruel recourse proffered by Sr. Arlene in her letter.
Finally, for her curtain call, Sr. Arlene presumes in a tone dripping with arrogance to lecture the bishops, and the rest of us to be sure, on the need to reassess our priorities when it comes to singling out moral causes to take up. “I challenge our bishops to dwell more on unjust economic issues that both create and perpetuate the need for children to die of starvation, and for women to choose abortion. It would be better to aim at eliminating poverty rather than focus only on abortion. Poverty in our country and the world at large is a disgrace that cries to heaven for vengeance.” Once again we can turn to Blessed Mother Teresa for some much needed clarity and illumination. Had she read Sr. Arlene's letter, Mother Teresa would have no doubt kindly reminded her that spiritual poverty and not material poverty, is the greatest scourge of the modern world and that abortion, par excellence, represents the apotheosis of society’s waltz macabre with evil and the culture of death.
The decision by Brian Olszewski, the editor of the Catholic Herald, to publish such an error-laden, reason impoverished letter is yet another deeply troubling aspect to this unfortunate story. No doubt, the reply to a query calling into question the editor’s judgment would go something like this: The Catholic Herald does not endorse every view that is expressed in its letters to the editor. While we certainly don’t agree with Sr. Arlene’s viewpoint we nonetheless believe it is helpful to give voice to both sides of a position as controversial as this one. Default relativism emanating from a journalist, a kind of thesis-antithesis Hegelian-esque dialectic approach toward discerning the truth, might fly with a secular paper but it certainly should not be the guiding standard of a one that claims to be Catholic; at least, not one that is worth the paper on which it is printed. As a Catholic newspaper, certain commitments to basic principles must be assumed sacrosanct and the commitment to these principles should regularly be reinforced by the various articles that appear in its pages. Mr. Olszewski’s scandalous decision, whether arrived at through laziness or willful intent, to provide a forum to a religious like Sister Arlene to spout her poisonous view that God is pro-choice should be met by the collective outrage of all committed Catholics around the country. Just where is the editorial oversight when it comes to supervising the content of this ostensibly Catholic paper, so as to ensure its theological integrity and conformity to the Magisterium? Serious Catholics who subscribe to the Catholic Herald, if indeed there are any left given its precipitous drop in circulation, deserve much better than what is being offered by the current Herald staff under the direction of Mr. Olszewski.
Serious Catholics concerned about the future of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee can contact Mr. Olszewski at the following address:
Brian T. Olszewski
The Catholic Herald
3501 S. Lake Dr.
Milwaukee, WI 53235-0913
The phone number is (414) 769-3466
Mr. Olszewski's e-mail address is olszewskib@archmil.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment