01/1903

With all the talk about impending war today and all the concern for the fallout or unintended consequences of an invasion of Iraq, few are recalling a line spoken by Mother Teresa of Calcutta in 1994, “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.” Few make the connection between the deliberate destruction of an unborn human being and the deliberate destruction of those already born; but only the means are different. Even the means, now that both medical procedures and war are so transformed by technological advances, tend to look more and more similar. Certainly, the way we talk about both abortion and war and the reasons given for engaging in either practice tend to sound eerily alike: protecting freedom, using no more violence than necessary, reluctantly concluding that we have no choice, needing to maintain our way of life.

There will be talk about abortion this coming week because January 22 marks the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court. That decision and those made later to re-enforce it effectively removed all limits on abortion up to and including the process of birth itself. In the past 30 years, 40 million lives have been taken by abortion. It is not an occasional tragedy. It is woven into the very fabric of our society.

Usually, an anniversary is a happy occasion. January 22 is not. When the new Roman Missal is finally translated for this country and available in our parishes, Catholics will find that January 22 can be “observed as a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life.” For many decades, prayers at the end of a “low Mass” were offered for the conversion of Russia from communism. The prayers were answered, at least to the extent possible, by the destruction of the Soviet Union. Incorporating into the Mass itself prayers for rescuing the United States from the scourge of abortion means they will eventually be answered. I imagine most would hope that the prayers won’t be answered by the destruction of the United States.

We seem bound on self-destructing. Our system of law has been wounded because a class of human beings have lost their right to life itself. Which group might be next? It all depends on the political process, not on the recognition of natural rights which have an unalienable claim to legal protection in a just society.

Scientific research has disconnected itself from the recognition of human rights of any subject needed for experimental purposes. Some scientists talk as if the human person were no more than a carcass of spare parts, to be used and then destroyed at will. The stated purpose is to advance medical science, to find ways to cure the sick, to extend the life span, to conquer nature’s limits. In the end, of course, everyone dies. In the meantime, science transforms itself from a means to foster wonder at being human to a way to control life and reduce it to a project.

If the human being is not respected as a person from the first moment of conception, then artificial procreation raises no moral questions. If a child is not an end in itself rather than a means to satisfy the desire of the parents to have progeny, then human cloning is arguably a moral procedure. Bit by bit, case by case, the total moral vision given by faith is eroded until what was unthinkable last year and outrageous ten years ago becomes part of the collective wisdom of society. In his first visit to the United States as Pope in 1979, John Paul II spoke in Washington D.C.: “All human life, from the moment of conception and through all subsequent states, is sacred because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the grandeur and dignity of a human person. Human life is not just an idea or an abstraction; human life is the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that grows and develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of love and of service to humanity.” Twenty-four years later, we have not learned that lesson well.

Or have we? There is some evidence that people understand more clearly than ever what is at stake in every abortion procedure. There is a growing recognition of the lasting harm that usually occurs when a child is killed and its mother wounded. There are increasingly insistent questions raised about the injury to physical and psychological health that is the result of abortion and even in the use of artificial contraception. The assertion that abortion is never medically necessary is argued by many physicians, and the number of abortions is down. The great majority of people in this country still reject cloning for reproductive purposes and most seem uneasy with cloning for “therapeutic” purposes. Some scientists, at least, prefer to do research on stem cells of post-natal origin as a sound and ethical way of achieving the results promised by obtaining stem cells through the destruction of human embryos. It’s a mixed picture, because nature itself is not infinitely malleable, not even human nature, and we can never act in ways contrary to nature without eventually being brought up short.

If we had not grown so accustomed to abortion as integral to our way of life for the past 30 years, would we be more hesitant now about attacking Iraq? Does our failure to recognize an unborn baby as a human person prompt us to de-personalize our enemies? It’s arguable, I suppose. It’s at least profitable to think about it on January 22 as we mark again the anniversary of a decision by the Supreme Court that cheapened human life and changed our way of life and do so this year in the midst of preparations for war.

Changing our way of life so that the killing of the unborn is unacceptable means achieving “radical solidarity with the woman in need.”(Pope John Paul II). Mother Teresa said in the same talk quoted at the beginning of this column, “How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? We must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts.” Abortion hurts, as does war. Preventing both demands sacrifice, and looking back on these past 30 years brings to light the great help that has been given to women facing difficult pregnancies through Catholic social service ministries, pro-life groups and pregnancy resource centers. Project Rachel addresses the grief of women who have lost a child to abortion. Clothing, medical expenses, places to stay for pregnant women have been given through the generosity of the Knights of Columbus and other Catholic groups. Ecumenical partnerships have been formed around life issues. Responsible activism has involved many in the political life of our nation in support of those who have no one to protect them. All of this is indication of some growth in our ability to love.

So we mark January 22 with mixed emotions. Challenged by the great evil of abortion, some people have grown in their capacity for compassion and self-sacrifice. Our prayers to bring an end to abortion should include the petition to grow in compassion and in the capacity for self-sacrifice. Any prayer in these days must also include a prayer for peace. If all these prayers are answered, then some future January 22 stands a chance of being a truly Happy Anniversary. God bless you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago

Top

Back to Archive 2003