For good or ill, most people need some kind of simple master narrative in order to help them see the importance of an idea or action. Whether it is us vs them (as in the famous “Steelers Nation”) or good vs evil, or some other rallying cry, from sports to economy to politics to evangelization, we rely on these narratives to bring coherence to social groups.

Many in the Catholic Church are suggesting that the Catholic Church has lost some of its coherence (they might even say “all” rather than “some”). Historically, we see that it takes many decades after a major council or synod to discover or refine Catholic identity. The Catholic Church has long held that our faith is applicable to the political realm–indeed, to every realm of life. Such application is not inherently problematic but is rather the consequence of a vital faith.

The question at hand is both about abortion and about Catholic identity–and in ease sense, playing on different levels. A better-defined sense of Catholic identity would not necessarily be a bad thing.

I am not familiar with Congressman Kennedy, in particular, but I sense from the debate that the Catholic members of Congress who oppose abortion criminalization are also not able to or are not trying to push other forms of legislation that would provide better encouragement for a choice other than abortion. You presume a different situation, one which is not readily apparent to someone who has not followed these details in politics with an eagle eye. Is there an analysis of voting records and speeches that might shed light on this, beyond the simplistic political surveys typically used by political action committees? I am thinking of something that would examine both votes and the reason for the votes; for example, a vote for pre-natal health care for poor families could be seen as a vote against abortion in such an analysis.

You make the most important point in your final paragraph where you note that you are “pointing out a problematic equation of political strategies with religious identity that occurs in U.S. Catholic political discourse,” essentially to “offer certainty amidst the instability of political discourse.”

You clearly demonstrate that these Catholic rhetors make the equation. That it is problematic is not apparent to me from your article. I write as someone who is not favorable to the style of Bishop Burke or Bishop Tobin, but who is rather frustrated with many Catholics who too readily compromise with either major political party when neither is really promoting a world view that harmonizes with the Gospel.

The larger problem is that when politicians support a point of view — whether “personally opposed but…” or “i will fight against…” — we are often taken in, even despite signs that their actions will not follow the promise of their words. This is ultimately the most pernicious (and persistent) reason why we cannot support the mere articulation of a political strategy.

The irony of Katherine’s question “When will you start to put your time and attention to saving babies?” is that she found it worthwhile to take the time to craft a substantial comment on your blog post. While there is always a danger in academia of getting lost in vain pursuits of showing off intellectual prowess, I don’t see this happening here on your blog. Again, I see you caring deeply about the Catholic Church and Catholic identity and abortion and seeking a way forward with the resources you have.

Katherine, I would suggest to you that you will advance more quickly in reaching your goal of saving babies if you see Kari for the ally she is than by labeling her as a heartless, insecure intellectual out to perform “linguistic tricks.” In doing so, you lend more credence to Kari’s perspective rather than less. Try having a little more imagination about how God might be at work in the world. I think that too often the Church lacks imagination; much as many of the Jews of Jesus’s time could not believe that Jesus could possibly be the Messiah, we can be in danger of clinging too tightly to our preconceived notions of how God is going to accomplish something (e.g., reducing abortions) that we write off something that may well be part of his solution (such as the work of thoughtful academics like Kari).

There’s a difference between ideals (like eliminating abortion) and the concrete reality of how laws are made in a democracy. Law-making in a democracy, for good or ill, requires compromise, and no one will compromise with someone screaming ‘baby-killer’ at anyone who thinks differently about how to go about ending abortion, or at least reducing it. That kind of rhetoric just alienates people and ensures that no one will take your concerns seriously – and thus it is the best way possible to ensure that abortion stays legal and abortion rates stay high. The status quo helps no one but fundraisers and politicians seeking election.

You might find it worth reading Fr. Ray Schroth’s recent article, “The Holy Eucharist as a Political Weapon.” The article is dealing specifically with bishops denying communion to pro-choice politicians. But I think it is relevant here, nonetheless. Here’s an excerpt:

Let’s be clear on this. I too agree that abortion is a sin, the taking of a human life, and the life of the child in the womb should be protected by law.

But I have a sense of how difficult it would be to over-rule Roe v Wade or pass other laws, like the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding, but which must be voted on every year, or laws requiring parental consent, counseling, waiting periods, etc. But to use the Eucharist as a club to force a political leader, who must represent a vast and complex constituency, to bow to the political directive of a local bishop can be seen as both an abuse of ecclesiastical power and an occasion for scandal for the Church.

But when you write, “By equating the political strategy of opposing abortion criminalization with being in favor of abortion itself – and therefore in favor of the Culture of Death, a position antithetical to Catholic identity – these Catholic rhetors attempt to offer certainty amidst the instability of political discourse.”, could someone unskilled in the art of rhetoric hazard to point out your word choices?

“…opposing abortion criminalization…” what a way to put it! Certainly I am not saying I am in favor of abortion! I am merely using the abortion industry’s favorite new turn-of-phrase to confuse the ignorant and obscure the basic issue.

Babies are dying, Kari. Beautiful, little children who are loving and kind and have immortal souls – they’re being murdered.

If the whole world would say out loud, “Kari is very intellectual!” would your sense of self be satisfied and allow you to turn your energy away from the word games? When will you start to put your time and attention to saving babies?

Check out the Lifesitenews story on the Virginia mom that’s posted today. Do you have the heart to defend this infanticide with linguistic tricks?

May the Christ Child visit your heart this Christmas and open eye of your soul to the Truth. God bless you.