"There's nothing about abortion in the bible" -- A response to Adam Lee

The following article from an atheist blogger and activist is making the rounds (There's Nothing About Abortion in the Bible -- So How Do Right-Wing Christians Justify Their Crusade Against Women? Alternet 7/17/13), in which Adam Lee makes what he perceives to be the penetrating judgement that:

"it's reasonable to conclude that the Bible's authors never mention abortion because they weren't especially concerned about it."

This is pretty weak reasoning. The bible makes no mention of eugenics, abortion, human cloning, euthanasia, or other questionable moral practices in human society, but that hasn't impeded Christians over the ages from coming to reasonable moral conclusions about such matters. In fact, such an "argument from silence" can be made only if you contend that

• the Bible should be taken as Christianity's sole comprehensive manual and explication of Christian morality and
• is indicative of early Christian thought, such that the perceived silence of the biblical text on any issue can be interpreted as a clear sign of ambivalence.

But neither of these points hold up to scrutiny.

It's clear by the author's argumentation that he is treating "the bible" per se as the sole comprehensive position on morality, by which we can gain insight into what Christians thought about a particular issue. But this is simply not the case. The earliest long-standing Christian traditions -- Catholic and Orthodox -- have from their inception typically revered multiple sources of authority. Catholics look to the Magisterium (or the teaching authority of the Church) as the formal interpretor of the word of God, as expounded by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons and decrees (not to mention summaries of Christian doctrine and ethics like the Catechism). Orthodox Christians likewise make appeal to the dual authority of the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

Greeks and Romans employed abortion, together with contraception and infanticide, as methods of family planning (particularly against women). By contrast, the practice was shunned by Christians. The Didache ["Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles"] -- dating from 70-100 AD -- explicitly prohibits abortion (2:2 "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born". Lee does acknowledge that "there are later Christian writings that explicitly mention and forbid abortion, such as the Didache. But none of these documents made it into the canon of the Bible." However, the Didache was lost for centuries, was rediscovered in 1875 -- and despite is non-canonical status is still recognized due to its age and content as the earliest known Christian catechism outside the bible, and representative of the traditional thought of the early Christian Church.

Despite various theological speculations on when "ensoulment" occurred, Christian teachers such as Tertullian (c.160-240), Basil (c.329-379), Ambrose (c.340-397), John Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine of Hippo (354-430) down through Aquinas condemned the practice of intentionally procured abortion (much like the Hippocratic Oath of 5th century BC). Likewise, the sixth Christian ecumenical council in 678 AD equated procured abortion with murder.

Likewise, there is the Latin/Western tradition of natural law, which makes the moral case for various moral positions absent and independent of divine revelation. Adam Lee has some leverage here in his narrow focus on "The Christian Right", because insofar as such are by and large "Evangelical", Protestant Christianity typically does not lay claim to natural law.

Picking a fight with "Christian right" is an easy target -- so I can understand the obvious temptation for Mr. Lee as an atheist blogger. I do think it's a tad disingenuous for criticizing the use of "clobber verses" by his opponents, but indulging in the selfsame practice to bolster his own positions. However, should Mr. Lee wish to engage in some genuine debate on pro-life matters, he might consider some more heavyweight intellectual targets such as Christopher Kazcor (The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice) or Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefson (Embryo: A Defense of Human Life).

References

• Priests For Life have compiled an extensive list of various Fathers of the Church and their contemporaries on abortion, including pre-Christian sources, the Didache, citations from Early Councils as well as early Christian writings.
• For an Orthodox Christian treatment of the subject, see T.L. Frazier's The Early Church on Abortion. OrthodoxyToday.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control [including abortafacients] without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

Carl Olson (Ignatius Press has a roundup of reactions from the Catholic hierarchy -- including that of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York.

Related

• How to Lie with Statistics, Example Umpteen Lydia McGrew (What's Wrong With The World) on the statistical meme presently going around to the effect that "98% of Catholic women use birth control."
• White House Misrepresents Its Own Contraceptive Mandate (02/03/12) - The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1). Each White House claim is quoted with a response from the Catholic Bishops.
• "Phoney War Redux" - Noting that the HHS initiative "is being led by a nominal Catholic, Kathleen Sebelius" Dale Price asserts:

  The next step is clear--Sebelius has to be excommunicated. Let me repeat: she must be excommunicated. Counseled beforehand, of course. But if she persists, excommunicated. There is no dancing around the fact any more.

• Suing Sebelius The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing Belmont Abbey College in its lawsuit against the secretary of HHS over this mandated conscience violation. (National Review)
• The Pope's alarming message on American religious freedom, by Phil Lawler. (Catholic Culture): "Is it humiliating for American political leaders to read that Pope Benedict sees an erosion of religious freedom in our country? It should be."

LiveAction, Planned Parenthood and The Truth About Lying (a roundup)

The Controversy: What did LiveAction do?

Two members of LiveAction, a pro-life group, masquerading as a pimp and an under-age prostitute, approached multiple Planned Parenthood locations, petitioning them on how to cover up their underage-prostitute business (requesting testing for diseases, abortions, and access to contraception). The "sting operation" revealed incidents of Planned Parenthood members all too willing to indulge the requests of the faux-"sex traffickers" without reporting them to the law. See: Caught on Tape: Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp’s Underage Sex Ring February 1st, 2011.

The Catholic Debate: Did LiveAction lie, and is lying always and everywhere immoral?

Planned Parenthood released a statement condemning the "dirty tricks" campaign against their organization, and has fired one of the clinic managers engaging in questionable activity. While agreeing on the laudable objective of bringing down an organization like Planned Parenthood, the orthodox Catholic community is conflicted on the justness of the "intentionally deceptive" measures taken in relation to the traditional Catholic moral prohibition on lying [see "Offenses Against Truth" #2475-2487; discussion of the eigth commandment, Catechism of the Catholic Church].

What follows is a roundup of the debate ...

Abortion, capital punishment and war -- One of these things is not like the other.

[Cross-posted to The American Catholic]

Ed Stoddard of Reuters' religion blog Faithworld carries a roundup of the skirmish between Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, has claimed that Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin.

In conclusion, Stoddard asks:

This leads to a question about the consistency of views in the U.S. Catholic Church leadership. The Church opposes abortion and therefore liberal politicians who support abortion rights risk being refused communion. The Church supports a healthcare overhaul that would make the system more equitable. So does a conservative Catholic politician who opposes this reform risk being denied communion for ignoring the Catholic social teaching that justifies it?

How about support for capital punishment, which the Vatican says is unjustified in almost all possible cases, or for war? In the build-up to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul was so opposed to the plan that he sent a personal envoy to Washington to argue against it. Did bishops threaten any measures against Catholic politicians who energetically supported that war despite Vatican opposition?

The author's questions reveal an elementary ignorance concerning the moral issues in question and their relationship to varying levels of Church teaching. While I am disappointed by his answer (Faithworld is generally one of the better and more educational "religion blogs" in the secular media), it is understandable -- as even many Catholics find themselves confused on this matter.