Modern-Day Pharisees and the Politics of Abortion

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.

Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more." (The Gospel of John, Chapter 8, v. 3 - 11)

There is something particularly striking about this Gospel passage. It’s not the first time that Jesus is challenged by his Pharisaic colleagues, not even the first time that he is challenged to condemn someone’s behavior per the precepts of Mosaic law. What is most noteworthy is that he not only refuses to obey the law of Moses, he does so in defense of a woman, someone with limited legal status in ancient Hebraic society. (Notice that her presumably male partner is not also brought to Jesus for condemnation and punishment). Jesus’ refusal to capitulate to the authority of Mosaic law is no small deal among religious Jews, either then or now.

I bring this up in light of a recent event involving a neoconservative Republican, Douglas Kmiec. He happens to be a lifelong Catholic, is a professor at conservative Pepperdine University, a one-time member of the Reagan Administration, and a long-time critic of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Therefore, naturally, he was denied the right to receive Holy Communion at a recent gathering of Catholic business people.

Come again? That's right. What became something of a fad during the 2004 presidential campaign, when certain Catholic bishops threatened to withhold communion from pro-choice candidate John Kerry, Catholic clerics apparently have their sights on ANYONE who does not toe the Vatican line on abortion 110%. And what was Professor Kmiec's sin? He, to the shock and surprise of his conservative friends and colleagues, endorsed the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL). The logic here is that, in supporting someone who is pro-choice, Kmiec is essentially supporting abortion, which, according to Catholic teaching, is never, ever permissible, even when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Kmiec has made his own statement on the matter. For myself, I would simply like to point out that this incident highlights certain aspects of Catholic teaching and orthodox Catholic (Pharisaic?) behavior that I find to be troubling and that sadden me personally.

• Jesus was a sworn enemy of public hypocrites, as any good Catholic ought to know. Therefore, the cleric who denied communion to Prof. Kmiec should be very, very nervous right about now. He singled out Kmiec for his support of the Democratic candidate for president in a room full of Republicans who presumably have supported anti-Christian Republican policies and the politicians who crafted these. Who among these did this grandstanding (as as yet seemingly unnamed) cleric deny communion to? Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery; he did not condemn her or allow others to. Jesus broke bread at the Last Supper with his disciples, men he knew to be flawed and whom he knew would abandon him in his hour of need. Exactly which of these was denied communion by Jesus himself? In my opinion, this cleric needed to stop and ask himself, What would Jesus do?
  
• The Vatican's worldwide campaign to stamp out abortion, and with it adequate reproductive health services for women, lends aid and comfort to those cultures who also use religion to subjugate women. Particularly, women living in societies where Sharia law is strictly interpreted and enforced and who are subjected to atrocities such as genital mutilation, stoning and other forms of "honor" killing for transgressing strict codes of conduct and morality that apply to women, but not to men. Is the Vatican truly comfortable sharing any level of association with any culture or society that would treat its women so cruelly? If the Church wants the world to take it seriously when it waxes philosophic on the "woman as masterpiece of God's creation", it needs to back up these words with actions and policies that truly reflect the sentiment they espouse.
  

Senator Obama is not pro-abortion, and is on record as stating that abortion is an issue that saddens him, that has a deeply moral component, but that is something that is intensely personal to the woman who must weigh whether or not abortion is the appropriate choice for her to make, given her individual circumstances. Jesus did not defend the woman in the gospel story because he thought that adultery is A-OK. He refused to condemn her because he understood that there is more to explaining a person's behavior than to say yes she did, or no she didn't, and that understanding the circumstances of someone's behavior can make the crucial difference in evaluating its moral component. He understood that a woman without power or standing before God and the law was at the mercy of men, men who wrote and kept the rules of conduct. In like fashion, Senator Obama is choosing to place his trust in women to make informed decisions about this serious matter with health care professionals who are in the best position to judge what the best health options are. To choose to condemn abortion and the women who have them out of hand is to side with the Pharisees who are uninterested in taking into consideration the possibly painful circumstances of the woman they stand in judgment over.

It is my true wish that Catholics and others among the Pro Life movement could bring themselves to understand that Pro Choice does not equal Pro Abortion. No one that I know or that I am aware of who supports abortion rights does so because they are pleased to see embryos and fetuses destroyed. They do so because they recognize the hard truth that under certain circumstances the painful decision to abort a pregnancy is the best decision for the mother in question. I can't excuse any woman from the obligation to carefully weigh this particular decision, its moral component and its consequences. However, neither will I join modern-day Pharisees who refuse to consider the circumstances under which a women would make this decision and condemn her. Jesus would do likewise, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Senator Obama and Douglas Kmiec have thankfully gotten the message. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Why the Christian Right fears Obama, by Daniel Gilgoff (USATODAY.com, June 16, 2008)

When faith is front and center, by Douglas W. Kmiec (The Chicago Tribune, June 16, 2008)

For an "Obamacon," Communion Denied, by E.J. Dionne (The Washington Post, June 3, 2008)

Abortion rights lawmakers to receive communion (Brietbart.com, April 16, 2008)

Evolution of Church Teaching on Abortion (ReligiousTolerance.org)

Catholics For Choice

Teachings of the Magisterium on Abortion (PriestsForLife.org)

ThirdWay.org

The Ethics of Abortion, by John Hoad (EthicalManifold.net, February 11, 2003)

How to Decide Whether or Not to Get an Abortion (wikiHow.com)