Table of Contents
Spring 2005
Quick Links:
Articles in this issue
From the Editor:
What's In a Name?
Getting Right with the Pope
Why Moral Values Did Count
What Athens Has To Do With
Jerusalem
Evangelicals
Discover the Culture of Life
Sin and Redemption in Atlanta
The Faith-Based Initiative Re-ups
Same-Sex Toons
Contributors
|
Evangelicals
Discover the Culture of Life
by
David W. Machacek
Among the many consequences—intended and otherwise—of the
Terri Schiavo affair, perhaps the most interesting was the emergence of the
phrase “culture of life” into American political rhetoric. A Catholic term
of art put into circulation by Pope John Paul II a decade ago, “culture of
life” proved to be something of a double-edged sword for the conservative
politicians who embraced it.
The prehistory of the expression traces to the late Cardinal Joseph
Bernardin of Chicago, who in the 1980s began to expound a “consistent ethic
of life” that linked abortion to other issues such as euthanasia, the death
penalty, and poverty. In his 1983 Gannon Lecture at
Fordham
University, Bernadin criticized those who focused too narrowly on particular
issues, such as abortion. “Our moral, political and economic
responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth,” he urged.
“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally
visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old
and young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the
unemployed worker…We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public
policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion
and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral
fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental
responsibility.” A consistent life ethic, Bernadin argued, would cut across
“the spectrum of life from womb to tomb.”
John Paul II put the weight of papal authority behind such a comprehensive
life ethic in a 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae—The Gospel of Life.
While affirming in no uncertain terms the Church’s ban on abortion and
euthanasia, the encyclical laid out a theology that linked a range of life
issues—from war, poverty, and malnutrition to indiscriminate use of the
death penalty and reckless disregard for the environment—as evidence of a
growing “culture of death.” In the encyclical’s final chapter, the pope
called for the creation of a “culture of life.”
George W. Bush seized on the phrase in his 2000 presidential campaign. When
asked during his October 3 debate with Al Gore whether, as president, he
would work to overturn the FDA’s approval of the “morning after” pill
RU-486, he replied, “I don’t think a president can do that….I think what the
next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life
of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the
unborn.”
The phrase underscored the Bush 2000 campaign theme of “compassionate
conservatism” even as it represented a coded appeal to Catholic voters.
Bush again pressed the phrase into service in the October 13, 2004
presidential debate, this time in response to a question, put first to
Senator Kerry, about reports that some Catholic bishops were telling
parishioners that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate that supported
abortion rights and stem-cell research. Asked his opinion, Bush replied, “I
think it’s important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable
society is a society where every being counts and every person matters….I
believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that
will help reduce the number of abortions.”
But it was the Schiavo case that put the “culture of life” on the American
political map.
On March 17, Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a Presbyterian, argued before the
Senate that the chamber should move on a bill addressing the Schiavo
situation before its Easter recess, saying, according to AP writer Jesse J.
Holland, “It
has to do with the culture of life.” (On March 21, after signing the emergency legislation,
President Bush explained to reporters in Tucson, “This
is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances
like this, it is wisest to always err on the side of life.”)
Writing in Slate on March 22, William Saletan was the first in a long
queue of journalists to take Bush and company to task for embracing, as it
were, an inconsistent culture of life. Those most vocal in the case “keep
saying the case is about defending life, a presumption in favor of life,
building a culture of life, and the dignity of the human person,” Saletan
wrote. “But presumptions and cultures are generalities…The individual, Terri
Schiavo, has vanished into a larger point. What remains is the impersonality
of personhood, the indignity necessary to preserve dignity.”
In the March 24 Los Angeles Times, Ronald Brownstein pointed to
another apparent inconsistency: “Although Bush made a special trip back to
Washington from vacation to sign legislation offering a new federal right of
appeal to Terri Schiavo’s parents, the president and his aides have said
almost nothing about the mass shooting in Red Lake, Minn.—the deadliest
outbreak of school violence since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre.”
The explanation, wrote Brownstein, might have had something to do with the
fact that “the Schiavo case and the school shootings track with the
preferences of two of his core constituencies. Conservative Christians
pressed Bush to intervene for Schiavo, while the National Rifle Assn. and
other gun-owner groups generally look to minimize the relevance of political
responses to mass shootings.”
In his syndicated column in the Washington Post the next day, E.
J. Dionne (noted for being a liberal Catholic) asked, “How has Terri
Schiavo’s care been financed? The available information suggests that some
of the money came from one of those much-derided medical malpractice
lawsuits and that the drugs she needs have been paid for by Medicaid, both
of which have been recent targets of Republican-sponsored legislation,” he
said. “People who lack access to health care because they can’t afford
insurance often die earlier than they have to—with absolutely no national
publicity and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass
bills on their behalf.”
Still others, like Jac Wilder VerSteeg, deputy editorial page editor of the
Palm Beach Post, on March 26 added the war in Iraq to the litany of
inconsistencies: “It is hard to conclude that Rep. DeLay and Sen. Frist are
serious about the culture of life, since they have not kept Congress in
constant session over the killing of 1,500 U.S. soldiers, sent to war
ill-equipped and with poor planning, much less concerned themselves with the
Iraqi casualties…And did President Bush ever interrupt a vacation to get to
the bottom of abuses at Abu Ghraib?”
Indeed, from the perspective of the ethical principles advocated by Pope
John Paul II, VerSteeg argued, “Exploiting a tragedy for personal or
political gain is as contrary to the culture of life as it gets.” The
culture of life the pope advocated was much broader and more inclusive than
the few hot-button political issues that concern political conservatives,
and the result of such a narrow application of the principles John Paul II
articulated in Evangelium Vitae “is a parody of the culture of life
that ignores much of the papal document on which it supposedly is based.”
To be sure, there was debate within Catholic circles about exactly what the
“culture of life” signified.
Controversy over the status of abortion and euthanasia relative to other
life issues began as soon as Evangelium Vitae was released. While
some saw it as an affirmation of Bernadin’s “seamless garment” approach,
others, such as New York Cardinal John O’Connor, discerned a hierarchy of
“life” issues. In a March 4, 1999 interview with Washington Times
writer Larry Witham, for example, O’Connor employed the image of “God’s
house, with abortion and euthanasia as the ‘foundation’ and unemployment,
racism, housing and health care ‘crossbeams and walls.’”
Those differences of opinion were evident in the debate over Terri Schiavo
as well.
In a March 23 interview on MSNBC,
the Rev. John J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston
College, argued that the application of Catholic ethics to the Schiavo case
was more complex than the “right-to-lifers” were making it out to be.
According to Paris, the case had to be seen “in the context of the pope’s
1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, which says that one need not use
disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.” The operative
question was what constitutes “ordinary” and “extraordinary” measures, he
claimed. “Even such things as artificial nutrition and fluid can become
extraordinary if they become burdensome when you have to sustain somebody
for 15 years on it.”
On the other hand, in a March 27 Washington Post story by Manuel
Roig-Franzia, Richard Doerflinger, vice president of the Pro-Life
Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, contended that for
decades uncertainty about the ethics and obligations involved in
technologically advanced life-sustaining treatment had “left Catholics free
to decide.” As long as they had “prayerfully considered” the options, said
Doerflinger, “either way, they would not have sinned.” But that changed
after Pope John Paul II made a statement to an ethics conference in the
spring of 2004 to the effect that providing food and water is “morally
obligatory.”
On March 31, the day Terri Schiavo died, President Bush at a news conference
expressed condolences to Terri and her “families,” and urged “all those who
honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life.” Bush’s
continued use of this language—along with his attendance at Pope John Paul
II’s funeral—signaled a new era, at least as far as UPI reporter Richard
Tomkins was concerned.
That “Bush—a born-again Chris-tian—shared a personal affinity and respect
for the pope grounded in shared religious values surrounding the ‘culture of
life’” suggested “the United States is no longer a stridently Protestant
country in which dealings with the Holy See would automatically have a
political backlash,” Tomkins wrote in an April 6 dispatch.
Others, however, continued to question whether the affinity was more than
superficial.
“Then came the death of Pope John Paul II, and suddenly everybody turned
Catholic,” wrote Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons April
6. “Except that, judging by TV coverage, you’d think that the late pontiff
was the spiritual head of the Republican Party and that the ‘culture of
life,’ as defined by GOP politicians, was the essence of the Catholic faith.
Defined, that is, by ‘hot-button’ issues of sexual morality: gay marriage,
gay priests, abortion, contraception, etc.”
“The pope had a notoriously broad definition [of the culture of life] and
the president a very narrow one,” wrote Paul Heise in the Lebanon
(Penn.) Daily News April 7. Similarly, Washington Post staff
writer Jim VandeHei remarked the following day, “Not only did the pope
emerge as a leading critic of Bush’s preemptive military policy,
particularly in Iraq, but he also differed on international law, the death
penalty and stem cell research.”
There was at least some indication that such criticism was leading some
conservative politicians to expand their sense of what the culture of life
included.
“It started when Rick Santorum, a conservative Republican senator
from Pennsylvania, announced two weeks ago that he was questioning his once
unyielding support for the death penalty,” Anna Badkhen reported in the
April 10 San Francisco Chronicle. “Then Sen. Sam Brownback, an
equally conservative Kansas Republican, chimed in, saying capital punishment
contradicts the efforts to establish a “culture of life.”
But to most journalists, the story remained that conservatives in the GOP
were not yet Catholic enough when it came to applying a culture of life to
American policy issues. As the headline on Wendi C. Thomas’ May 3 column in
the Memphis Commercial Appeal put it, “Real ‘culture of life’ would
embrace gun control.”
Reporting on an Earth Day event in the Merrimack River valley April 23, Matt
Murphy of the Lowell (Mass.) Sun quoted an attack by Sen. John
Kerry on the Bush administration’s record on mercury pollution in the
nation’s rivers. “You can’t,” said Kerry, “talk about a culture of life in
one breath and turn around and poison our children with the next.”
Or as NPR religion reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty suggested on All Things
Considered May 7, on the rhetorical front the “culture of life” looked like
it just might provide “ways for Democrats to find an opening.”
|