My economist’s eye caught a familiar (false) debate over Catholic social teaching while reading New York Times columunist Ross Douthat, who compared Eunice Shriver favorably to Teddy Kennedy because she was a pro-life Catholic and Teddy was a Catholic for Choice. Unfortunately, Douthat advances a distorted version of Catholic social teaching: making us believe abortion is front and center.
Dignity for the human person includes opposition to the death penalty and promoting the right of workers to organize. On advancing the Church’s agenda on social issues both Kennedys deserve recognition. To be sure, Ted Kennedy had the platform and the power to effectively advance social justice, which is very much an economic agenda: See the Catholic Bishops’ letter on the economy.
Did Ted Kennedy advance a policy giving the preferential option for the poor —the marginalized must have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all? The answer is yes, he supported minimum wage so that work could provide at least a subsistence living.
Did Ted Kennedy support policies that allowed decisions to be made at the smallest, most personal level possible, which is called “subsidarity” in Catholic social teaching? Here is where abortion comes in. Many Catholics – in fact in the same proportions as the rest of the American population – don’t want to criminalize abortion, because, as my former dean at the University of Notre Dame, Mark Roche, observed when John Kerry was running for president, nations that criminalize abortions have more abortions per capita.
Did Ted Kennedy support policies that advanced “solidarity,” which means policies that do not rely on charity and inequality, but recognize that all of us are all connected and face the same risks? Yes, he supported social insurance, civil rights, Social Security, and medical care for all.
The difference between Eunice and Teddy is accurately irrelevant when poverty in the United States is still the highest of all developed nations (about one in five Americans are poor). Poverty rates in Canada are half that, and the rates are 5.4 percent in Finland and 6.5 percent in Sweden. Worse still, the U.S. poverty rate for households with children is very high, at 19 percent and rising due to the recession.
Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal O’Malley presided over Senator Kennedy’s funeral and burial bearing witness that the nation’s path to social-justice principles is more difficult without the senator.
5 Responses to The Difference Between Eunice and Teddy on Abortion Is Irrelevant
stinkcat - August 31, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Ted Kennedy sure was not pro-life. After all, he has killed more people with his car than I have with my assault rifle.
jms948 - September 1, 2009 at 9:49 am
Teresa, Teresa, Teresa–Sorry, but some of your stuff is just so very painful (on many levels) for me to read…jms–H.R.I.M.
kathandsant - September 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
If you really read what the Church says about social justice, it is not achieved without justice (read pro-life) for all, including our smallest and most vunerable. Please, someone give us social justice for the most poor and vunerable without slipping in pro-choice policies! We can do it! “I am personally against abortion” and “It is a religious issue, not a political issue” are old excuses that don’t hold water. Kennedy was on the money for so many issues, but this was not one of them.
ctmathewes - September 1, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I’m not a member of the GOP nor do I think that the Roman Catholic Church’s views on this are wise, but I’m afraid that you badly misunderstand the magisterium’s position on social teaching, Prof. Ghilarducci. Both the present Pope and the previous one (at least) have insisted that the pro-life stance are not optional things nor open to differing modes of commitment. For the magisterium, abortion is an intrinsic evil, and permitting it is collaborating w/ intrinsic evil. The question of social equity–something I very much care for–is not nearly so primary for these leaders.I agree that there was a “seamless garment” argument several decades ago, where different things were equally important, but for the magisterium that’s no longer true. Unfortunately for you and me, the hierarchy of the RC church does imply that Eunice is more properly Roman Catholic than Teddy. Douthat’s not wrong. You are.
beans - September 2, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’m Catholic. I went to Catholic school for 17 years, ran a youth group, headed the pro-life club in my school for three years, etc – my point is, I’m well versed.There’s a very common misconception that Catholics are subject to every pronouncement from the Pope in his extraordinary Magisterium. In fact, Catholic faith involves a system of intelligent debate within the community, a community that stretches back over hundreds of years. The work of Thomas Aquinas, for example, is as relevant to our debates now as anything from the current Pope. This is because the vast majority of the teachings of the Church are not infallible. When a teaching is not infallible, Catholics are supposed to use their free will and intellect to decide how they can live within the faith.FYI – I find the methods of the current pro-life movement abhorent. I don’t support it – and that doesn’t make me a bad Catholic. My work within this field is toward a more positive approach – offering scared young women kindness instead of condemnation and fear.