Lately I've been observing the spread of a disease. No, not swine flu. I mean a condition that I call apology aversion. Its distinctive symptom is an apparently permanent inability to speak the words "I'm sorry" and mean them.
Years ago a wildly popular novel about true love at Harvard told the world that being in love means never having to say you're sorry. If that were so — and it emphatically isn't — it would point to a remarkable conclusion. Considering how few people these days ever express honest regret for their misdeeds and mistakes, you've got to figure that the world has been inundated by a tidal wave of love.
If only it were so!
Often enough, of course, people do say they're sorry. But time and again they do that without really meaning it. The clumsy oaf who stomps on your foot and mumbles "Sorry" as he stumbles off to cripple someone else. The charming lady who cheerfully cuts you off in traffic while flashing you a beatific smile of regret. The expressions of sorrow in these and other situations are roughly equivalent to "Tough luck, fella."
This is apology aversion in everyday life. Refusal to admit mistakes in matters of public significance is more sinister and equally common.
Consider all those journalists and think tank talking heads who helped sell America on the need for the war in Iraq and then, without so much as a word of apology, turned on George Bush for getting it wrong. Think of all those members of Congress — of both parties — who were looking the other way while the economic bubble expanded and now are busy demagoguing the bubble's collapse at somebody else's expense. And on and on and on.
In a special way these days I'm reminded of those Catholic sources—periodicals like the National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal as well as some individuals claiming special wisdom—who raised their voices often and loudly last year to declare that even if Barack Obama and the Catholic Church didn't quite see eye-to-eye on everything, the candidate was moderate man, committed to reducing the frequency of abortions and to much else congenial to the Church.
Having loaded up his administration with veteran pro-abortion activists, however, Mr. Obama so far has reinstituted funding for groups that promote and perform abortion overseas, significantly expanded funding for stem cell research that involves killing human embryos, and set the wheels in motion to overturn a Bush policy extending conscience protection to hospitals and medical personnel who object to abortion.
A little down the line, Obama's choice to succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court will almost certainly be a liberal pro-choicer, while the question about his health care reform isn't not whether but how far he and congressional Democrats will go in attempting to mandate abortion coverage.
Nor is there much encouragement in the president's disclosure that a White House task force is looking into ways to cut the number of abortions. The answer almost certainly will be more sex education and contraception — of which we have plenty now — plus swift enactment of Obama's domestic program.
Dialogue? So far as is known, Mr. Obama has had one half-hour meeting with anybody qualified to speak for the Catholic Church—the president of the bishops' conference, Cardinal George of Chicago. Even admirers concede the administration is tone-deaf on Catholic concerns.
So are Catholics who said Obama and the Church would have a lot in common saying they're sorry? No way. Apology aversion won't allow that.
Russell Shaw is an OSV contributing editor.
Posts
Card. Ruini will head a study of Medjugorje
1 hour ago
10 comments:
Apology aversion? Yes, you are right on that point. Amen.
However, I'm sorry, Russ, but I'm not buying your Obama kool-aid. I opposed the Bush War from the start, but the corporate media gave him several years to get it straight.
Lots of us, even a few Republicans, decried the lack of values in the Me-Generation economy that rewarded non-work with tainted profit.
I don't mind saying I bolted from minor parties to vote prez blue in '08, but it was more a lesser or two evils: the Republicans had too much baggage on the combined fronts of morality and competence.
I would tend to look to guideline #2 and assume that pro-Obama voices among Catholics were stating more or less strong opinions, and that none of us was claiming "special wisdom."
I can appreciate the frustration and bitterness of Catholics who hitched their wagon to the Republican battle train only to end up circling the drain last November. Many strong and honest pro-lifers got spanked. But it's time to get over it.
And if such Catholics are serious about making a difference on one or many pro-life fronts, it's time to disengage from the princes of politics, roll up our sleeves and start working in our families, neighborhoods, towns, and cities. Why are we looking for some messiah to legislate what we have been unable to persuade?
The criticism of the president and his followers as messiah and minions, is apt enough. But too many Catholics seem to be upset less that people have such complexes and more that their own messiah wasn't chosen.
I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
As I read Todd's comments, this thought came to mind...how can one "disengage from the princes of politics" when every piece of legislation (federal monies funneled for abortion, stem cell research, promotion of universal health care-no choice in health care, marriage legislation and adoption of children by the gay community) ATTACK our families.
The criticism is due to his POLICIES not the person.
Let's take a look at what the president actually said about abortion at his news conference last week:
You know ... my view on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.
I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest-- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with. The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that - that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So - so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's - that's where I'm going to focus.These are not the words of an abortion-is-a-sacrament radical. Further, abortion rights was not the issue on which this election was decided.
Finally, all the evidence points to the desperate need of the pro-life movement to create a new set of arguments and a new political strategy, as 30+ years of its current approach have failed. Refusal to engage the arguments of the other side eliminates the chance of converting anyone. Where is the compelling argument that doesn't sound to non-Catholics like religious dogma, whether considering the argument itself or the speaker? Increasingly authoritarian moves by bishops has been shown over history to be a sure path to failure. (And just this weekend, reductio ad absurdum: the bishop of Scranton can't tolerate the nation's most pro-life Democrat.)
Of course, all this doesn't matter if you want to continue to prove Einstein's famous definition of madness: to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Hey Todd, swallow a little of your own medicine. As to the war rhetoric, get over it! Our Last president, kept the war off our shores! This president ran as a black man. You tell me, if he is so proud of that, then why does he think abortion is fine? There are more abortions performed on black women today, than any other race! This Pres. wants to see a mass genocide of his own race? I do not get it. You can bet if I have access to this statistic, so does our President.
Wizard -
The President is a man of many words. I'm very glad to see he is breaking his promise to Planned Parenthood that FOCA would be a top priority--but it only serves to demonstrate that his promises shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm not saying he's better than the GOP on this count--just that he's a politician like any other.
I will grant that much of the pro-life rhetoric warning that he could be (or is) the most pro-abortion president ever is a bit overwrought, but that was based largely on the fact that we had little record to go on. Some of his background makes him look more radical than more established Democrats, but, in reality, after capturing the Democrat nomination, he showed himself to be much more of a pragmatist. I won't say he's governing "from the center", but he has been no better or worse than any other Democrat would be. That is still enough to undo much some of the political progress achieved by the pro-life movement, and to stall the continued effort to turn the courts back from enshrining abortion rights in our Constitution.
You claim that 30+ years of pro-life work have failed, citing "refusal to engage the arguments of the other side". I contest both points. While abortion does remain legal, there have been some political victories in state laws and in at least tempering composition of the courts. The fact that one of our major parties identifies with the cause is itself a victory. In fact, I would say that Obama's backing away from FOCA is itself a testament to the value of the clout of the political side of the pro-life movement. Maybe this gesture comes straight from the goodness of the President's heart, but nothing our politicians do is not calculated. Without pro-life political pressure, FOCA would be law.
Moreover, while the battle over court appointments has not yielded victory on abortion, it has at least slowed the process whereby the ethics of the sexual revolution are progressively read into our Constitution and enforced as the law of the land without the consent of the governed. The fact that, in many states, people have been allowed to vote on the definition of marriage is itself a side benefit of the efforts of the pro-life movement. With continued Democrat victories, that democratic right will surely be taken away.
On your second point, I would have you note that, in many respects, public opinion, while not entirely on board with the aims of the pro-life movement, has moved in its direction. (See, for example, this article from the NY Times--no friend of the pro-life movement.) This does not seem indicative of a failure to engage the other side. In fact, a study by John Shields of Claremont McKenna College, discussed here would indicate that it is the other side, defending the status quo, which refuses to engage and discourages debate. My own experiences and those of my friends in attempting to bring attention to the issue on college campuses reinforce this.
I'm all for new strategies, and, clearly, there are serious downsides to being too closely linked to the GOP, but as you yourself say, this election was not about abortion, and it seems to me that those who are declaring the pro-life movement dead are precisely those with an interest in justifying their lack of engagement in it, or, from the other side, those who wish to push it out of the political mainstream entirely. Let new strategies abound, but let's not distort the record or belittle what the pro-life movement has accomplished. We haven't achieved success, but we are in this for the long haul.
Todd-
The pro-life movement has had its sleeves rolled up at all levels for years, creating all kinds of networks for helping women with unplanned pregnancies, helping women who suffer trauma from past abortions and providing education. There's no contradiction between this and also engaging the political sphere.
I'll agree that too much is made of presidential politics, but we're not looking for a messiah. Practically speaking, we aren't even looking for someone to legislate, as much as we are looking for someone to change the courts to point where we can persuade within the context of an honest democratic debate that isn't already rigged by the judiciary to always favor the side of the sexual revolution.
"The pro-life movement has had its sleeves rolled up at all levels for years..."
True enough for many of us. I'd prefer seeing bishops refocus from secular politics to the support and promotion of this. Bishops in lots of places celebrate the Red Mass, or Masses of reparation, or Masses for this group and that. When was the last time you heard of a bishop reaching out pastorally to those who actually do the nitty-gritty pro-life work in society?
"There's no contradiction between this and also engaging the political sphere."
Except when those in the political sphere are caught in lies and deceptions, and who lack the wisdom or savvy to portray charitable efforts in a much better PR light. The way things are handled shows naivete and innocence. A little serpent wisdom would be helpful.
"... we are looking for someone to change the courts to point where we can persuade ..."
I'm not convinced. Even though drinking and getting drunk is very much a part of the fiber of our culture, MADD has made decent inroads with a much smarter publicity campaign, and a focus on the aspects of drinking they were able to change.
The past election cycle has convinced me that we need to disentangle from politics and put more effort into PR and into charity.
Leave the ND sideshow to alumni, and focus the public face of the pro-life movement on those in need. Bishop D'Arcy's more effective witness might be to convince his brother bishops to sell their episcopal mansions, convert to homes for pregnanat mothers in need, and move in with their seminarians or clergy.
The truth of it is that if we pro-lifers could convince every pregnant mother to bring a child to term, we would be perfectly free to do so. American law does not mandate abortion, it only permits.
Todd,
We need to do both. Abortion is the murder of unborn children - this is not just any political issue. This isn't about pro-lifers getting "spanked" at the polls and needing to "get over it". No one should "get over" children being horribly torn limb form limb in our own communities.
You are setting up a false dichotomy : either we engage at the political level or the social level. There is no conflict we can and many do both. There is nothing that says you can't speak and write and march on the capital of the state or nation, throw some donations to pro-life candidates and canvas to support pro-life bills AND work outside of clinics, pray, help crisis pregnancy centers and support local pro-life work.
In fact I would argue that with the specter of FOCA, the possibility of nationalized health care and the likely further liberalization of the courts more Catholics and other supports of pro-life causes need to do BOTH.
You example of MADD works for me too. MADD was not originally founded solely as an educational group nor is it one today. When they were founded in the early 80s their focus was legislation. They helped enact legislation that pushed all states to enact 21 as the legal drinking age, created tougher sentencing against DUI offenders and promoted the use of victim's impact statements which results in tougher sentencing. MADD still isn't sitting on the sideline, they work every day to make driving while intoxicated more costly from a legal standpoint.
The pro-life cause needs to do the same. We need to constantly be pushing our local, state and national officials to do more than pay lip service to the rights of the pre-born. Setting up a committee (even one in the West Wing) to think and talk about abortion isn't enough when real babies are being legally murdered every day.
This is for those pro-Obama Catholics who keep equating the Iraq war with abortion. Your not understanding the differnance between instrinsic evil and what you think is wrong is evident! When you voted for Obama you voted against the Church!!!
Indeed, this election was not about abortion. It was about liberals' making themselves feel good about themselves by voting for a minority president, and like all liberal actions and policies, making themselves feel good (without actually doing anything) was all it was about.
"When you voted for Obama you voted against the Church!"
And probably what rankles even more is that we stuck out our tongue when we did so.
Post a Comment