Interesting article in the Atlantic:
This is Really a Different Pro-life Movement
When the Supreme Court issued its landmark abortion-rights decision, Roe v. Wade, in 1973, the most intransigent opponents of the decision were not the legislatures of southern Bible Belt states such as Mississippi and Oklahoma....
The state legislatures that presented the strongest defiance to legalizing abortion were those of the heavily Catholic states of the Northeast. Barely 10 percent of Massachusetts legislators supported legalizing abortion in 1973, according to an archival American Civil Liberties Union document. Instead of permitting the procedure up to the point of viability (about 28 weeks at the time), as the Supreme Court mandated, the Massachusetts state legislature responded to Roe by passing a bill prohibiting abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. Rhode Island’s statehouse presented even stronger opposition: It kept abortion clinics out of the state until 1975, when its anti-abortion law was overturned by a federal court.
This was not merely a geographic shift, trading one region for another, but a more fundamental transformation of the anti-abortion movement’s political ideology. In 1973 many of the most vocal opponents of abortion were northern Democrats who believed in an expanded social-welfare state and who wanted to reduce abortion rates through prenatal insurance and federally funded day care. In 2022, most anti-abortion politicians are conservative Republicans who are skeptical of such measures. What happened was a seismic religious and political shift in opposition to abortion that has not occurred in any other Western country.
Before the mid-1970s, active opposition to abortion in the United States looked almost exactly like opposition to abortion in Britain, Western Europe, and Australia: It was concentrated mainly among Catholics. As late as 1980, 70 percent of the members of the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization, the National Right to Life Committee, were Catholic. As a result, the states that were most resistant to abortion legalization were, in most cases, the states with the highest concentration of Catholics, most of which were in the North and leaned Democratic.
This fit the pattern across the Western world: Countries with large numbers of devout Catholics restricted abortion, while those that were predominantly Protestant did not. Sweden—where Catholics made up less than 1 percent of the population—legalized some abortions as early as the 1930s; Ireland did not follow suit until 2018.
But in the United States, the anti-abortion movement did not remain predominantly Catholic. Southern evangelical Protestants, who had once hesitated to embrace the anti-abortion movement in the belief that it was a sectarian Catholic campaign, began enlisting in the cause in the late ’70s and ’80s. Motivated by a conviction that Roe v. Wade was a product of liberal social changes they opposed—including secularization, the sexual revolution, second-wave feminism, and a rights-conscious reading of the Constitution—they made opposition to the ruling a centerpiece of the new Christian right. When they captured control of the Republican Party in the late 20th century, they transformed the GOP from a northern-centered mainline Protestant party that was moderately friendly to abortion rights into a hotbed of southern populism that blended economic libertarianism with Bible Belt moral regulation.
The anti-abortion movement’s political priorities changed as a result. A movement that in the early ’70s had attracted some political progressives who opposed the Vietnam War and capital punishment became associated in the ’80s and ’90s with evangelical-inspired conservative-Christian nationalism. Early activists wanted to create a comprehensive “culture of life,” but many of the evangelicals who joined the movement in the late 20th century wanted to save America from secularism and take back the nation for God.
"Early activists wanted to create a comprehensive “culture of life,” "
ReplyDeleteRight, some of us still do!
The “culture of life” and its opposite, ”the culture of death,” were creations of the JP2 era when sectarian notions, i.e. a huge contrast between Church and Society , began to remake American Catholicism into a Protestant sectarian protest against society.
DeleteCatholicism throughout the ages while criticizing culture, and upholding the ideas of religious life as a counterbalance, has adapted itself readily to cultures, e.g. importing pagan cultural practices into its life and worship. The Church while recognizing that pursuit of wealth, status and power are not evils in themselves has always challenged people with Gospel values that forsake these “worldly” pursuits for the Kingdom.
Catholicism did however adopt sectarian cultural criticism when it was attacked during the Reformation and the Enlightenment. In recent times Immigrant American Catholicism, Irish and Polish Catholicism all became highly sectarian when under attack.
Vatican II, after the Enlightenment and Reformation, returned the Church to its default setting at home in the world while ever journeying toward the Kingdom.
The Polish JP2 was a ripe target for wealthy American Catholics, Protestants and secular people who were not pleased that American Bishops written pastoral letters criticizing capitalism and the nuclear arms race. These criticisms seemed to me to be much in the tradition of criticizing the misuse of wealth, power, and status.
Working with Reagan against communism in both Europe and Latin America, JP2 put stops on many of the positive developments that had followed Vatican II.
As a college student I was delighted with the Vatican II positive appraisal of possibility of the world, and that with the Kennedy as the first Catholic president, we Catholics were in a position to take our places in American society.
I see Francis as a contemporary who shares with me all the positive values of Vatican II and who wishes to resume its progress after years of stagnation under JP2 and Benedict.
Unfortunately, American Catholics in general, and most of our bishops in particular are migrating toward a sectarian attitude toward the world strongly influenced by Evangelical attitudes that fail to recognize the importance of Creation, the Incarnation, and the presence even now of the Kingdom of God in this world.
The Evangelical attitudes seem to at home with not challenging people to give up their pursuit of money, status and power. In fact I see the Evangelical agenda as diverting us from these Gospel values.
"The “culture of life” and its opposite, ”the culture of death,” were creations of the JP2 era when sectarian notions, i.e. a huge contrast between Church and Society , began to remake American Catholicism into a Protestant sectarian protest against society."
DeleteJP2, or whoever authored Evangelium Vitae in his name, coined the term (or mainstreamed the term) the "culture of death". That term can seem too simplistic and, perhaps, Manichaean to many people. I don't think it was intended to be an all-encompassing condemnation of every aspect of contemporary society. But it was intended to call out something which is true: there were, and are, various threads running through contemporary society which devalue life. The death penalty was one such - not only as it is applied in the US, but perhaps even more so as it was applied by totalitarian and authoritarian states (something which both JP II and Francis could readily identify with). Abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide; genocides; terrorist attacks; weapons of mass destruction - these are of varying magnitude, but what they have in common is a wanton disregard for the value of human life.
Cardinal Bernardin's lectures in the 1970s, which were grouped under the useful (but much-disparaged by conservatives) term "the seamless garment", preceded John Paul's exercise of papal authority on this topic.
In our own time, we might see the culture of death casting its shadow in our lack of caring for some victims of COVID. And in our failure to take climate change seriously.
JPII contrasted the culture of death with the Gospel of Life. And he courageously and prophetically elaborated out some of the policy implications of the Gospel of Life - some of which, such as reduction of nuclear weapons, suspending the death penalty, and government aid to address health, food and shelter gaps in the safety net - have not played well with American conservatives.
In more recent times, Francis has transformed and extended the notion of the Gospel of Life in Laudato Si, pointing out the connection between our responsibility to sustain human life and our responsibility to care for our common home.
Historically, Evangelicals' tradition of the social Gospel has not been comparable to the Catholic tradition. But that is starting to change, especially among the younger generation of pastors and theologians. And surely the cross-pollination with Catholic thought is one of the factors in that development.
I decided to change the label of the current pro-life movement from "Protestant" to "Sectarian" in the title.
ReplyDeleteAs Gallup has commented, "Protestant" is no longer a popular word. People who used to label themselves that way now use the word "Christian" or "Evangelical" or a more specific denominational name. "Protestant" has increasing become a word used only by social scientists to label non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians, i.e. those descendant from the Reformation.
I could have labeled the present movement an Evangelical Pro-life movement since it has adopted the sectarian attitude of Evangelicals and is now composed heavily of Evangelicals, however Sectarian better captures the fact that it is composed of both Catholics and Evangelicals whose common denominator is a sectarian attitude toward a culture from they oppose.
Pro-life Democrats and European Pro-life Catholics regard abortion as mainly a personal moral problem. While they want to make abortion difficult, they also realize it is a human problem and want to provide prenatal care, and child support to encourage women to have children. They do not regard abortion a part of some culture that they oppose, i.e. it is not an "us" vs. "them" issue.
Episcopalians got rid of the "protestant" in their designation about the time they thought some kind of union w Rome was at hand. JPII called the ABC a "very nice layman," and that cooled things considerably. Episcopalians do not, in my experience, celebrate Reformation Sunday. Lutherans and some of the more high-toned evangelicals do. The fundies think that they are the original primitive church and that Catholicism was an offshoot of them. So Catholics are the real protestants in their heads.
DeleteI got one of those antiCatholic Jack Chick tracts in the mail for Easter. Signed "A Friend." Guessing it was the Trumper-Nuts down the street.
"They do not regard abortion a part of some culture that they oppose, i.e. it is not an "us" vs. "them" issue."
DeleteUm, yeah, they do. To the Democratic party (which isn't to say all Democrats) it's very much an us vs them issue. Abortion access has become a surrogate for women's agency over their own bodies, and the power to decide the course of their own lives.
Katherine, I'd say it works both directions. While most pro-choice people are not pro-abortion, and they wish that no woman faced that decision, they aren't all focused on the whole women's control of their own bodies hype (which is a legitimate concern, however) but on the moral right of a woman in a religiously pluralistic country to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Many in the pro-life movement look at those on the pro-choice side of the divide as "baby murderers" - so if you look at it from that side also it is still very much an "us v them" issue.
DeleteIt is interesting that in most other developed nations, it is assumed to be the woman's decision (though most also limit the window for abortion to 12-16 weeks except in specific circumstances). The bishops don't get involved, just as the bishops don't complain that the governments of these countries provide free contraception, paid for by the taxes of all. Only in America
"Abortion access has become a surrogate for women's agency over their own bodies, and the power to decide the course of their own lives."
DeleteThat is a really good point. I think that an overturn of Roe will have some domino effects, and I think there are right-wing fundamentalust/evangelicals who *do* want to reduce women's agency.
But I think conflating the specific right to have an abortion on demand, no restrictions, with women's rights generally is beyond the pale.
In posting this article, my intent was to make a sociological rather than a political or theological point.
ReplyDeleteSociologists explain Christianity in terms of churches and sects. Catholicism was the big original established church. Overtime, it had become integrated with society and corrupted by wealth, status and power. Protestantism developed by founding ecclesial communities claiming to go back to a purer Christianity contrasting sharply from Catholicism.
Overtime some of these new sects became established churches. These established churches proved fertile grounds for even more sects. The sect dynamic is for their members to foster a life that serves as a high contrast both with established churches and society. They do spend a lot of their time criticizing the lives of others, setting themselves up as the correct way of living.
How then does Catholicism renew itself? One method has been through church councils that corrected abuses of both doctrine and morals. However, the more dynamic method has been through movements such as religious orders which invite people to practice a more challenging form of Catholicism. Somewhat like Protestant sects, religious orders emphasize some aspect of Catholicism, e.g., solitude and contemplation, the celebration of the divine office, a life of poverty or preaching the gospel, or teaching, or missionary work, or service to others.
The key element that differentiates religious orders from sects is that their members do not claim that other Catholics are in error for not becoming like themselves. Religious orders always emphasize their communion with the broader church. Their emphasis is always upon the positive things they do rather than the sins of the church or the broader society.
To the extent that the pro-life movement supports pregnant women by fostering support systems for them, it could function like a religious order. Some pro-life people do this to some extent. We have a home for pregnant women here in our county. Some Catholic colleges have provided dormitories for pregnant women. I suspect all of these are heavily dependent upon wealthy donors, as sometimes religious orders are.
I doubt that there are many Catholics who devote ten percent of their time and money to direct support for pregnant women. Yet, absent a public system of support for pregnant women that is what is likely needed. Personally I would opt for the public support system. Like mental health the need is just too great to rely upon private charities.
To the extent that the pro-life movement consists of people whose time and talents are dedicate to enacting laws against abortion and criticizing other people for their support for abortion then it is a sectarian movement. In my SOCIOLOGICAL opinion it is not a Catholic movement no matter how much it may appeal to either theology or church leaders to support its efforts.
The article does a fine job of explaining how a Catholic movement of Democrats interested in societal support systems for pregnant women evolved in to Sectarian movement interested ONLY in controlling other people lives.
Possibly to Jack's point: May 11 article in the WaPo features an anti Roe Baptist dismayed at how fractured the anti Roe groups have become about what a post Roe world should look like:
ReplyDelete"For Karen Swallow Prior ...overturning Roe means more support for child care and pregnant women as well as supporting sex abuse victims, vaccinating as many people as possible against the coronavirus, and helping start and run an inner-city high school in Buffalo. But not all antiabortion activists agree and lately have begun splintering over next steps, such as whether to classify abortion as homicide and restrict contraception, as well as whether issues outside of reproduction even qualify as part of the “pro-life” cause.
"Antiabortion advocate worked for years to overturn Roe, but worries over next steps"
I don't see Catholics united in any vision for a post Roe world. The church's answer is always to develop a program of some type that will take years to get off the ground to address some need. As a Bad Catholic who does not work well within official Church rules and structures, it makes more sense to me to support whatever private charities already exist to help pregnant women, and to vote for people most likely to focus in support systems than crime and punishment aspects of reproductive issues.
DeleteSorry but I reject the notion that overturning Roe is going to necessitate new programs and commitments. It's not as though carrying pregnancies to term is going to bring us into some strange, unexplored new world. Even setting aside the fact that abortion will continue to be available in the US for women motivated enough to seek one out in a post-Race world, there already are many forms of assistance available, both as government assistance and assistance from private agencies. If there are holes in that safety net today, then there has been no reason for the last half century that either party can't address them. Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress right now. Where is there proposal for this? From what I can tell, their "advocacy" consists of protesting in front of the private homes of Supreme Court justices.
ReplyDeleteJim, the Dems have tried to close the holes in the safety nets. The GOP stops it every time. Obamacare helped but there are still millions of working poor without health insurance who also don’t qualify for Medicaid. They are working so a baby without childcare available means they will have to quit their jobs so that they will qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, WIC etc. As you know, several red states refused to expand Medicaid when they had the chance. What you are advocating is throwing thousands more barely making it women into the welfare system because our country does not mandate paid maternity leave, does not subsidize childcare which is free or very affordable in every other wealthy country in the world, does not provide child allowances as other rich nations do, etc. I will take the time at some point to educate you to the realities so that you can see past the National Review blindness. F course there have been decades when our country could have added safety nets for the most vulnerable. The Republicans stopped almost every one of these initiatives. Private agencies like Catholic charities get 75%+ of their funds from government. They are contractors to provide social welfare services. The small programs here and there - baby bottle and diaper campaigns, soup kitchens etc- are a drop in the bucket compared to need. Housing is scarce and too expensive. Would you want your grandchildren to be raised in a dangerous slum? Programs that exist now are inadequate to meet current needs. Dump another few hundred thousand onto the system? Dream on.
DeleteIf Jim is responding to my comment about programs above, I was talking about the Church, not Congress.
DeleteThe U.S. has gone about as far left as it's ever going to. The Limousine Liberals don't know what poor people need and the Republicans don't care.
The low-paid workers in the service and personal care sectors need to figure out how to organize and start squeezing their clients and capitalist overlords for a bigger slice of the wealth. The Democratic Party is no longer the friend of labor.
That should be post-Roe world, not post-Race world. Good old autocorrect
ReplyDelete