The Catholic Vote
Perhaps the most substantial reflection on abortion in Catholic magisterial teaching is the 1995 encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae. Either in his own words or when citing tradition, the pope called abortion a “crime” seven times, further specifying it as “murder” four times. He summed up the teaching as follows:
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Art. 62).
The Catholic position on abortion is therefore that it should be banned without exception. What, then, about laws which permit abortion, a category which includes the Amendment? If anyone doubts the Amendment permits abortion, the Value Them Both Association continues to say it does. The following quotes are from a flyer produced by that entity and recently left on this writer’s door (capitalization as in the original):
-“Will passage of the VALUE THEM BOTH Amendment make abortion illegal in Kansas? NO . It will restore previous common-sense limits such as clinic health and safety standards.”
-“What about difficult circumstances? Value them Both AND current Kansas law ALWAYS protect exceptions for the life of the mother. . . . Value Them Both protects laws that ensure victims of sexual assault are not left behind.”
Now, please compare these statements, made by a group which, according to a media report, has received about $3,500,000 from the Catholic dioceses of Kansas, with the pope’s direction in Evangelium vitae: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion . . . it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it [internal quotation marks omitted].” (Art. 73). Since the Amendment permits abortion, can a Catholic licitly obey it, take part in a campaign for it, or vote for it?
Guidance is found in Pope John Paul II’s discussion of the difficult circumstances Catholic legislators sometimes face in our fallen world. Voters on a constitutional amendment are not legislators, precisely, but they share with legislators a key function—they are asked to decide the law. The law weighed by such voters, moreover, is a fundamental one, controlling all subsequent legislation. The pope’s guidance to legislators therefore may be applied analogically to voters on a constitutional amendment:
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” (Art. 73.)
Let’s break this down for application to the present situation.
“it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law” This is a condition precedent to the analysis: a Catholic may vote for a law which permits abortion only when it is impossible to overturn or abrogate such laws. The Church has been guiding Catholics for two millennia, and Her theologians, working with the data of Revelation and the light of natural reason, have formulated common teachings on difficult moral dilemmas. One such dilemma is where a Catholic bears responsibility for making law, perhaps as a legislator or, in our situation, a voter on a constitutional amendment, but cannot, due to legal and political realities, enact laws entirely consistent with Catholic teaching.
The Church in this situation counsels neither withdrawal from the world nor conformity to it. One is instead bound to do the best possible, which is distinct from actually cooperating with evil. To take another example, where a Catholic knows a group plans to commit armed robbery and cannot stop the crime, the Catholic may licitly convince the robbers to empty their weapons of ammunition. This would not directly promote the evil in the form of a robbery, but rather the good in the form of a lessened risk to human life. As the pope states at the end of the quote above, it would be “a legitimate and proper attempt to limit . . . evil aspects.”
With that in mind, does the condition precedent apply here? Is it possible to overturn or completely abrogate Kansas laws which permit abortion? Another digression is now required, which this writer regrets. But no one said it would be easy.
When asking what is possible here, the question is legal and political only. Catholic theology does not concern itself with how to overturn or completely abrogate laws which permit abortion. The Church only teaches that abortion should be banned, and She has little regard for the particular legal and political structures which get it done. This is generally true of the Church’s stance towards government. Monarchical or republican government? Federal or centralized administration? Written or unwritten constitution? Common law or civil code? The Church is largely indifferent to these things, so long as the resulting government respects the freedom of the Church and human dignity.
Thus in Kansas, the laws which permit abortion could be overturned or abrogated in various ways. The constitution could be amended in various ways, and legislation could be written in various ways. Theologically speaking, none of that is the question on this part of the analysis.
The question is, can it be done? Is there sufficient support in Kansas to ban abortion without exception? The answer is no, and the point is beyond dispute. Catholic voters are for now in the situation of Catholic legislators in Pope John Paul II’s example—we are unable to overturn or completely abrogate laws which permit abortion. This condition precedent is therefore met.
“whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known” This is another condition precedent: a Catholic may vote for a law permitting abortion only where it is clear to everyone that the Catholic would ban abortion if possible. Has the campaign for the Amendment made this clear? Are people convinced Catholics want to ban abortion, and that the Amendment is a mere compromise, the best we can presently do?
This condition precent is not even close. A major theme of the campaign is that the Amendment will not ban abortion. The point, moreover, is broader than the immediate effect of the Amendment’s language. The campaign is saying the Amendment will not lead to the banning of abortion. In fact, as this writer demonstrated in his fourth essay, the Amendment appears to be a Trojan horse for abortion, enshrining it for the first time in the text of the Kansas constitution. Church support for the Amendment is thus a public scandal.
“in place of a more permissive law already passed . . . an elected official . . . could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law” Hodes & Nauser, which held abortion is a natural right, is a more permissive law already passed, and a sincere person could believe the Amendment is aimed at limiting the harm done by that case. But implied in the pope’s analysis is the legislator’s duty to limit the harm as far as possible; the pope, after all, is addressing cases where “a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law.” A Catholic legislator, whose true aim is to ban abortion, cannot prefer a viable law which permits more abortions over a viable law which permits fewer.
So, will a “yes” vote on August 2, 2022, limit the harm as far as possible? The bishops of Kansas apparently think so. His Excellency Carl A. Kemme, Bishop of Wichita, stated in the diocesan newspaper: “[O]n August 2, 2022, the citizens of the State of Kansas will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to determine the direction of our state when it comes to the life of the unborn and the well-being of their mothers.” This is our only shot, the bishop implies, so we had better take it.
His Excellency is probably correct if the Amendment passes. Constitutional amendments are difficult to undo. And Catholics will not be heard if, after getting what they want, they complain and want more. Catholics who vote “yes” had better be happy with their purchase.
If the Amendment fails, however, Catholics would be in a different, if still difficult, situation. We could accept responsibility for a confusing Amendment and campaign. We could work for a constitutional amendment which effectively prevents the courts from blocking enforcement of restrictive abortion statutes: “This constitution does not protect or secure a natural or other right to abortion, nor does it require the funding of abortion.” We could then seek the maximum possible restrictions on abortion through the legislative process, something the Amendment is likely to thwart.
A “no” vote therefore limits the harm as far as possible. Instead of accepting abortion under the guise of regulation, we would work towards its abolition. The Catholic vote on August 2, 2022, is “no.”