Kakistocrat

Considering the ongoing battle in the Anglican/Episcopalian communities of believers, many opponents of abortion (and assisted suicide for that matter) might be surprised to know that they have a friend in Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion.

Besides being a long time member of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn, Archbishop Williams has recently reinserted himself into the abortion debate. In "Britain’s Abortion Debate Lacks A Moral Dimension," an October 21, 2007, piece for the Observer, Archbishop Williams grants a presumption of goodwill towards those who originally voted in favour of the 1967 Abortion Act, and suggests that many did so clearly believing that they were making provisions only for extreme and tragic situations (conception as a result of rape, fetal or prenatal complications threatening the mother’s life…). Lord David Steel, whose private members Bill in 1967 paved the way for greater access to abortion, told newspapers recently that there are simply too many abortions and he complained that abortion was now being used as a form of long term contraception, so I think the Archbishop’s presumption of goodwill is certainly supported by Lord Steel’s recent comments. However, despite that original good will on the part of the Abortion Act’s architects and defenders, the Archbishop notes “rapidly spiraling statistics—nearly 200, 000 abortions a year in England and Wales—tell their own story,” and one with significantly less good will. 

He notes the irony in the popular and continually strengthened “language of foetal rights” wherein a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks heavily is regarded as infringing on the rights of her unborn child, and yet at the same time, “with no apparent sense of incongruity” there is a governmental push to allow for women to administer upon themselves abortion inducing drugs.

What has happened to society? the Archbishop asks. He suggests that clear, absolute principles (for example, one that he holds, "that abortion is nothing other than the deliberate termination of a human life"), don’t necessarily let one off the hook, when faced with a hugely complex world. Tough decisions cannot be escaped (What do we do with the pregnant woman who life is endangered as a result of her pregnancy, or the victim of rape who has been impregnated?), but he asks, and this is a very important question

when do we get to the point where accepting the inevitability of tough decisions that may hurt the conscience has become so routine that we stop noticing that there ever was a strain on conscience, let alone why that strain should be there at all?

Archbishop Williams notes that just as eroding marriage to allow for divorce in certain seemingly justifiable circumstances has led to no-fault divorce, so also, eroding our view of life to the point that abortion in permitted in seemingly justifiable circumstances, has allowed now for now near unlimited access, and it is this slipperiness, this erosion of values, that is to explain today’s discussions about the availability of over-the-counter abortion pills, which only bring humanity lower.

K.

Jean Vanier, who has devoted his life to servicing the disabled and making a place for them in society, identifies five potential attitudes or stages that a person might feel when coming into contact with those with intellectual disabilities.

1. One might react with fear and view the disabled person as ‘abnormal,’ a designation which, in the past, has motivated some to reject such people by attempting to get rid of them.

2. One might recognize in the disabled "pitiful little fellows whom we should take care of in big institutions," which has been the response in past generations.

3. One might seek to get to know the disabled, understanding their needs, and responding to them with competence, which integrated schools have attempted to do.

4. One might be full of wonderment and thanksgiving for those disabled, attitudes which allow for the transformation not simply of the disabled person, but of the person coming into contact with them.

5. Finally, one might see the face of God in those disabled.

Pope John Paul had a deep love for Vanier and even once claimed that the work of Vanier had "grown to become a dynamic and providential sign of the civilization of love." Not exactly a small praise, and more recently, Vanier has shared his thoughts about the late Pope. Vanier cites an occasion in 1987 (long before the Pope became sick—a detail important to Vanier), where he shared a breakfast with the Pope. Vanier began to describe to the Pope how a disabled boy named Eric, who was both blind and deaf, had come to transform those who lived around him. Vanier described how Eric was a healing presence. Vanier notes how later one of the Pope’s aides informed him that the Pope had not understood what Vanier had meant by this. "It’s after he became sick that a deep bond arose between us," Vanier notes "when he understood how someone ‘made little’ by a severe handicap could transform others."

Vanier recounts an experience with John Paul II, shortly before the late Pope died:

I remember I was standing in front of the Popemobile giving the meditation on the mystery of Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God. I was just two metres away from him, looking into his eyes. I said aloud, ‘Our Pope is poor. He’s fragile, but he is the glory of God. God manifests himself in him.’ And we continued to look at one another. It was an exceptionally moving moment. Afterwards he gave me the rosary he’d been using and which I carry with me every day.

Many of the Pope’s own critics (and he had no shortage of them by the end of his reign) came to grudgingly admire the way he carried himself with dignity right unto his death. Further, if God’s face can be seen in those who suffer, how one treats that person can certainly alter, and certainly God can be seen to be at work in both the person who attempts to develop an authentic relationship with a person with disabilities, and also in the life of the person disadvantaged.

I would not hesitate to defend the potential for transformation that occurs in developing authentic relationships with those who suffer. I remember a particular student I once worked with who I developed a rapport with (I suppose that is the standoffish way of saying ‘friendship’), who was confined to a wheelchair, couldn’t speak, had little movement, and operated academically at what I would consider a Grade 3 level. During a conversation one lunch she asked me why God had put her in a wheelchair (we could communicate by typing small words, and while the process was slow, it was still communication). Not having a clue how to answer this, I stalled a little, and upon seeing a student walk into the classroom, and also that the lunch break had almost come to an end, I saw my way out of the awkward conversation saying ‘Let’s talk about it Monday,’ hoping that she would forget. She didn’t and I was forced to tell her that I hadn’t a clue as to why she was in a wheelchair. When I asked her why she thought she was in a wheelchair, she quickly responded that her condition was ‘a gift.’ This seemed to me unexplainable, as to be prevented from moving, speaking or doing anything independently struck me more as a curse than a gift. However, she explained that she made people better, and what she meant by that (and not in an arrogant way either) was that she brought out the best in people. I had thought that myself about her (that the goodness which radiated from her did in fact transform those around her, and make them better people) but i never expected her to see herself as operating in such a role. It struck me that the wisdom found in this tiny person (although I do not think that her condition had anything to do with God, though her attitude I suspect did) could never allow any other person to choose that which would see such people rejected, gotten rid of, or institutionalized (which is a form of alleviating responsibility I suspect).

K.

Being an uncompromising opponent of abortion, but also a reluctant supporter of certain wars, my views on capital punishment might be difficult to predict. Allow me to lift this cloud of mystery, and also invite you to share your own thoughts on the subject. My post will be brief, and should comments invite interest in this subject, my thoughts will be expanded on in the comment section.

My primary reason for being opposed to capital punishment is a pragmatic one. When I am talking about abortion or assisted suicide, I can say

I believe both are wrong, simply because life is a sacred gift from God, and to believe that I have the right to take either my own life or the life of another, is to confuse my relationship with both my God and those around me.

By supporting capital punishment, my argument is mooted, and I must appeal to other reasons, for someone can simply say

You say that life is sacred and that we have no right to take either our own or the life of another, and yet you support capital punishment, so that’s inconsistent.

They are right. I can no longer say, ‘life is sacred, and I have no right to take either my own of that of another,’ if I believe that the state sponsored execution of a convicted criminal is acceptable. The abortion debate, the assisted-suicide debate is too important to allow me to sacrifice my consistency on the sacredness of life, and that we have no right (ever) to dispose of it.

Understand that I am not arguing that a person is being philosophically inconsistent to be both in support of capital punishment and against abortion, but I am saying that should a person hold such views, a certain argument that can be waged when discussing abortion or assisted suicide is immediately negated.

K.

Those of you ‘lurkers’ might find this post to your liking, and may even considering expressing your own thoughts on the subject. (A ‘lurker’, according to a former professor, is one who reads but never [ever] comments).

This week Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis informed the Press, that were Rudi Giuliani to approach him in an attempt to receive Communion, he would be refused it. Giuliani is one of five Catholic presidential candidates (with Democrats Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich) who support abortion rights, with only one Catholic (Senator Brownback) opposing.

Barack Obama, another Presidential contender, in his bestseller The Audacity of Hope describes being approached by an abortion-protestor who said, ‘Mr. Obama, I know you’re a Christian with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?’

Obama writes:

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortion, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on way to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place. 

‘I will pray for you,’ the protestor said. ‘I pray that you have a change of heart.’ Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own–that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me (p. 197-98).

The reason the Church is against abortion (in the words of Pope Benedict, ‘today’s gravest evil’ is abortion) is because life is present in the womb. With what we know today about the development of the fetus in the womb, the Church rightly sees little difference between the abortion of a fetus one month away from birth, and the murder of a child one month after birth. We need also remember that arguments that seem to grey the issue of abortion, do not find another way of disposing that which is in the womb.

There are over one million abortions in the United States every year, and over one hundred thousand in Canada. Placing restrictions on abortion really won’t bring those same numbers into the back allies with coat hangers. They may bring some there, but we want to heed Obama’s warning about those who feel they have no other option, though not by granting full access to abortion, but rather by giving hope to those who feel hopeless, and by giving them choices, we may find that less and less would choose a back street. When those whom Obama alludes to those who are pregnant and can’t see a future for their child and who then abort, everyone around that person is guilty for having not given hope, and for allowing that person to believe that the task of raising a child is one that they would receive no help in. It does, after all, take a village to raise a child (Ha! Reference to Hillary and Barack in one paragraph!). To promote alternatives to abortion is what takes audacity, not satisfaction with the status quo.

Barack Obama was previously listed as “one of 10 people who could change the world.” I happen to believe that he is a good man and has a lot to offer the United States. I have the audacity to hope that he not only reverses his stand on abortion (though my realistic side says this is a pipedream) but also promotes realistic alternatives to abortion so “as to reduce the number of women who feel the need to have abortions in the first place” which he says he wants to do.

K.

Priest and Bishop, Bartolome de las Casas (1454-1566) would note that nine years after the Spanish arrival in Central/South America 90% of the Native and African populations being used for work there had perished. While some points of similarity exist between the arrival of the Europeans in Central/South America, with their arrival in North America, it is the general attitude of the French Jesuits who came to Canada that allows for a Catholic today to be far less embarrassed, than if there was only the history of European activity in Central/South America to remember.

While there are similarities in how each described the appearance of the Native, Jesuits of North America did not make the mistake of Pedro Van de Caminha (1500), who, though kinder than many around him, viewed the Central/South American naitve as innocent, and as children of a pre-fallen Adam and Eve. Jesuit Paul Le Jeune (1591-1664) and his fellow Jesuits approach the North American Native far more realistically. Certain tribes are even described as ‘barbarous’ and before we are thrown off by that language we need realize that the litmus test for ‘barbarism’ depends on the amount of blood spilt in war. Compared to his colleagues who approached the Native in the Central/South American region, Le Jeune rightly abandons the ‘Noble Savage’ concept, although he does ask his audience (who are unfamiliar with the North American Native) to treat his subject with grace for ‘before the faith was received in Germany, Spain or England, those nations were not more civilized [and] mind is not lacking among the Savages of Canada, but education and instruction.”

While cautious that his hearers not adopt a judgmental tone towards the Natives, and while very clearly admiring the fitness of the Native people, Le Jeune also has high regard for their manners. In fact he juxtaposes his sometimes frustrated and grumbling Jesuit brothers with how respectful the Natives are:

A Sagamore [who] dining in our room one day, wished to say something; and, not finding an opportunity, because they were all talking at the same time, at last prayed the company to give him a little time to talk his turn, and all alone, as he did.

Le Jeune is also impressed by the Native ability to learn. Describing an occasion in which he was teaching a Native child as well as a “little Negro or Moor,” he claims that so rewarding was this experience that were he granted the finest audiences in France in exchange for these two pupils, he would not hesitate to keep the students.

While Le Jeune’s overall attitude is respectful, he does remain a product of his French culture, and though his desire to help the North American Native is obvious (both in his life and writings) a Euro-centric attitude is not completely absent, though when it does emerge the causes for it (in my opinion) are rather mild. The “common flies, gnats, fireflies, mosquitoes” are quite disagreeable while “the mosquitoes, they are disagreeable beyond description. Some people are compelled to go to bed after coming from the woods, they are so badly stung.” Le Jeune considers what he would do to alleviate the problem, and while not finding fault with the Natives in their failure to do so, there is a hint of ‘why don’t they do what I’d do.” Mild, as I said.

A similar attitude emerges when describing how the Native men and women clothe themselves. He believes that the Native custom of wearing furs when it is cold was “learned in imitation of the Europeans.” Now I am sure a careful study could uncover ways in which the European activity in Canada benefitted the Natives, but that furs may be worn for warmth, I don’t think can be seen as a European innovation.

While the writings of the early Jesuits (there are 73 volumes) are of anthropological importance, such information was used by the Relations earliest audiences (Jesuit Superiors) to assist in the future state of missionary activity in North America. Le Jeune consistently uses forms of the phrase ‘we shall hope for a great harvest from this country,’ to show what his primary goal is. Several hundred years later there was an attempt by some to attempt to overthrow the Native tribal religions by intermarrying Christians and Natives, but the early Jesuits had little interest in intermarriage, though they do theorize that if they can get the roving Natives to settle into one place, they could have schools opened for them and teach them how to farm, and that through gaining their admiration, the Natives would embrace their faith. When Le Jeune encounters a Native ‘sorcerer,’ the ‘sorcerer,’ after hearing such plans, states that “to employ so many men to aid us, without taking anything away from us; if though shouldst do that, thou woudst secure the greater part of the Savages, and they would believe all thy words.” Le Jeune interprets the opposition of the ‘Sorcerer’ (whose words he has paraphrased) as a sign that the harvest is near.

I conclude with apologies. This is a slightly longer than usual post for an already rather long-winded blogger, but I think the issue is important enough. Too often, contemporary accounts paint broadly and interpret Christian activity in the ‘new world’ negatively. Put quite bluntly, the Jesuits of North America did not have to address the atrocities that de las Casas had to, simply because, as seen through the earliest writings of the North American Jesuits, the Native people were treated with love and respect. Father Paul Le Jeune records what he honestly believes to be the inferiorities of the Natives, but such criticisms for him center largely on the fact that the Natives aren’t dealing with mosquitoes in a way that eradicates them. His Euro-centrism is a tamed one, and is largely overshadowed by his honest desire to record what he believes to be strengths and weaknesses so as to assist future missionaries.

K.