Continuing Conversations
Conscience, the Court, and Too Much Stuff
A few weeks ago I described Catholic doctrine about abortion when the woman’s live is at stake. In that case, the fetus may be removed, even though that it will die outside her body. But the fetus must be kept whole; it may not be torn or cut, as it is in standard procedures, to make the procedure less damaging to the patient.
Most responders to that post talked about conscience. Some pointed out that, yes, a Catholic conscience forbids certain actions, but it also require others. In particular Catholic institutions must care for the marginalized and strive for justice. They have offices of mission effectiveness to monitor those commitments.
Other responders noted that their own consciences require them to perform abortions; as physicians, they have a duty of care.
The most moving response came from someone who would still like to call the Church his own.
I reacted with intense anger when I saw policy so neatly laid out, anger toward the American bishops and their completely inadequate work as so-called pastors and teachers. Is that the best they can do? Just exactly who, when confronted with life and death issues, is going to perform such a neat analysis of double effect?
He remembered learning the difference between moral philosophy (guided by reason) and moral theology (guided by the gospels). The Church, he thought, had “baptized” certain philosophical doctrines, when its fundamental commitment had to be scriptural.
The gospels are summed up by “Love one another!” That overarching command to love demands a totally different approach to just about all human matters including abortion. Way too cheap to issue an abstract, dry policy when confronting such human issues which are really about relationships: the mother’s, the family’s, the community’s, to each other and to the fetus. It is the church’s job to preach the gospel, not to make rules.
Last August I described a proposal to impose term limits on the Supreme Court, a bill introduced in the Senate a year earlier. I knew the bill had little chance of passing, and that there are other suggestions around. Canada, for instance, simply has an age limit of 75. But I wanted to understand the senate proposal in detail.
Doing so helped me see past the obvious benefit: that no justice would serve for (what seems like) forever. Beyond that, the new system would give us a court that is regularly refreshed, as a new justice would arrive every two years and another, having served 18 years, would leave. The proposed structure would establish a permanent balance between the wisdom of experience and the perspective of newcomers.
I also discovered the practical challenge facing any proposal: getting from what we have to what we need. The justices now on the Court were appointed for lifetime terms. Fairness may require that we honor those terms. Practicality might dictate the same, since justices now serving will decide whether changing the rules is constitutional. Being human, they are unlikely to agree to cut their own tenure short. (A constitutional amendment, as Biden has proposed, would not need the Court’s approval, but amending the Constitution has become almost impossible.)
The Senate bill would allow present justices to serve out their terms, but also require that a new justice be added every two years. For decades this would result in the Court becoming ever larger, until justices with lifetime terms gradually leave. That larger court alone would make a lot of people uncomfortable. The fundamental issue, though, is partisan. Six of the present nine justices reflect generally Republican values. Any party would want to hold on to such an advantage. And conversely, imagine that Trump wins in November, and that the senate bill has become law. By the end of his term there would be a roughly 8 to 3 advantage for Republican perspectives. In a few decades it would all level out, but that would be scant consolation for Democrats now living.
I still prefer the senators’ plan over lifetime terms. But I understand, as I didn’t before, how challenging it will be to build a bridge to a better future.
Now for something lighter. Having lost my small organic grocery store I’m now exploring supermarkets. What I’m finding includes new-to-me products, some welcome, some bizarre. And surprisingly often, my frustrations are often with containers rather than their contents.
A welcome discovery was ultra-pasteurized milk, which preserves all the nutritional value of milk and stays good for weeks at least, maybe months. My years of throwing out soured milk are over.
A puzzling discovery was something called “pumpkin spice chai non-coffee.” What exactly is it? Flavored water? Was ‘latte’ part of the description? Do I care?
A pointless discovery was a container for half an avocado.
Most of my frustration, though, has been about containers. Honey seems to come only in plastic jars, except at our farmers’ market. I can find unsalted almonds in bulk, but I prefer salted, and those come only in plastic jars. The yogurt I once bought came in containers — yes, plastic — but with removable paper labels. The empty cartons, blank white, were useful for leftovers.
But yes, I will survive. And newness is good for the brain. I remind myself.
I particularly appreciated your discussion about the Catholic church’s position on abortion.
The response by the reader who distinguished between moral philosophy and moral theology, and between preaching the gospel and making rules, resonated deeply for me.