Ruling opens door for bipartisan ‘Pro-life 3.0’ debate

By Peter Finney Jr.
Clarion Herald

Charles Camosy is one of the foremost Catholic moral theologians on the issue of “prenatal justice,” a term he helped coin to capture the essence of what is at stake in the culture wars, and, in particular, what was ignored over a half-century of abortion on demand fueled by a Supreme Court decision that gave judicial cover to the deaths of 60 million unborn children in the womb.

The professor at the Creighton University School of Medicine and the Msgr. Curran Moral Theology Fellow at St. Joseph Seminary in New York began crusading for  “prenatal justice” as a way of clearly expressing a philosophical argument with parallels to America’s great original sin – slavery – and the country’s failure over two centuries to ensure “racial justice.”

“I'm not sure if others have used (prenatal justice), but it doesn't seem to be in heavy usage,” Camosy said. “I started using it because it seems so clear that the analogy to racial justice is extremely helpful. Not only are both connected by a consistent life ethic, but they are also connected by both being non-negotiables for Catholics. One cannot remain in communion with the Catholic Church if they deny racial justice, nor can they remain in communion with the Catholic Church if they deny prenatal justice. It’s also worth noting that racism is caught up in abortion, and abortion is used as a tool of racism. The two are intimately connected to each other.”

Argument changed forever

In a thought-provoking reflection for Church Life Journal, a publication of the University of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, Camosy says the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade has changed the face of the abortion argument forever and brings back to center stage the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s consistent life ethic, the so-called “seamless garment.”

Some have suggested, Camosy writes, that Cardinal Bernardin’s umbrella argument of defending life in all its stages, including opposition to the death penalty and racial justice, diminished the significance of abortion as a moral catastrophe.

“There is nothing about (the consistent life ethic) which requires that every single issue be given the same weight or priority,” Camosy says. “Far from it. We are called to read the signs of the times and respond appropriately to the moment before us – and that means putting issues into a hierarchy based on level of priority.”

Cardinal Bernardin was clear

But there was no doubt about the priority Cardinal Bernardin gave to abortion, Camosy writes, as was clear when he was asked in 1988 if Catholics could disqualify candidates because they violated the consistent ethic of life through their support for abortion.

“Well, certainly,” Cardinal Bernardin replied. “That’s what the consistent ethic is all about. I feel very, very strongly about the right to life of the unborn, the weakest and most vulnerable of human beings. I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual. The consequence of that decision would be an absence of legal protection for the unborn.”

If we are to read the signs of the times, Camosy says, the abortion issue is of monumental moral importance. Abortion far exceeds the number of homicides and state executions in the U.S. each year, and abortion also is used as “a despicable eugenic weapon against the disabled,” including those with Down Syndrome. It also targets “economically vulnerable.”

“These populations are the most likely to be morally and legally opposed to abortion,” Camosy says.

What if the “signs of the times” are interpreted to mean that the pro-life movement should abandon its fight for “equal justice under law for prenatal children” and instead throw its weight behind fixing the social injustices that lead to abortion?

Camosy says answering that question is simple.

“We can walk and chew gum at the same time here,” he says.

Take, for example, the issue of segregation. What if those opposed to segregation in the 1960s said rather than make segregation illegal, they should go all in on addressing the underlying social causes of racism?

‘Pro-life 3.0’: An opening

“We can and should work to address the structural issues underlying the great evil of abortion, just as we work for equal protection of the law for prenatal children,” Camosy says. “With the fall of Roe and Casey, along with a massive political realignment in the GOP toward populism, ‘Pro-life 3.0’ has arrived – and with it comes the possibility of new and creative political arrangements that were not possible before.

“The new space has been created, not only because we can now work far more easily and creatively with both Democrats and Republicans at the state level, but because of the new chorus of conservative and even national Republican voices calling for expanding social supports for women and families.

“It is now genuinely possible to work for both prenatal justice and for paid family leave, robust child allowances, workplace protections and supports based on family status, shelters and other protections for women at risk for intimate-partner violence and so much more.”

The bottom line for Camosy’s consistent life ethic is this: “As wonderful and important as initiatives geared toward making abortion unthinkable are, they will ring profoundly hollow without also insisting on equal justice under law for prenatal children.”

Hinge moment in history

Camosy calls this a “hinge moment” in history for prenatal justice. He hopes church leaders will seize the moment to teach the consistent life ethic in all its beauty and coherence.

“Remember, this is not about punishment or castigation or politics,” Camosy said. “This is about standing up for fundamental justice and attempting to bring Catholics back into the community.”

What would Cardinal Bernardin say about where we are right now?

“It's hard to play guess-what’s-in-the-head of someone who’s not here,” Camosy said, “but even back in his day, he couldn’t understand how someone with a consistent life ethic could vote for someone who denied prenatal justice to the most vulnerable and voiceless population we have. Since then, abortion-rights activists have become even more extreme. So, I guess he would continue to see abortion as connected to a broad range of issues, and also ask Catholics to be nonviolent across the board on issues like war and the death penalty. But, he would strongly insist on prenatal justice as the most pressing issue of our time.”

[email protected]