ON CONTRADICTIONS FOUND IN THE DEFENSE OF LIFE
by Maggie Helgeland
“Here, fire. You hungry? Here’s another mask,” a child giggles before proceeding to toss a bright-blue surgical mask into a hungry fire contained within a barrel. The child was in the company of about a hundred others gathered outside the Idaho state capitol building on a Saturday in early March to protest mask-wearing.[i] Despite the absence of a statewide mask mandate, other similar events took place across Idaho to protest COVID-19 restrictions[ii] and the nation’s newest president—some taking to burn pictures of “Sleepy Joe” and others burning masks that say “Biden Sucks.”[i] News sources and President Biden point fingers at Republicans for not taking the necessary precautions to slow the spread of the virus as Republicans fight back, calling for personal responsibility rather than government-produced policies.[iii]
For over a year, the coronavirus has swept across the continents, leaving destruction and hardship in its wake. Though some of the consequences of a global pandemic could be labeled as positive, such as the encouragement of togetherness within family units as well as the promotion of care for one another—aside from when it came to stocking up on unnecessary amounts of toilet paper or lashing out when someone walked the wrong way down the aisle at the grocery store—at the end of the day, people have died. Not just tens, hundreds, or even thousands, but 2.69 million people have died worldwide, over 540,000 of those being in the United States alone since January of 2020.[iv] Although COVID-19 found itself in power during an election year, perhaps the threat of the virus was more politicized than it should have been. Ultimately, coronavirus isn’t a political issue, but a life issue.
As the numbers of cases and deaths surged all over the country and world, Christians, non-Christians, Democrats, Republicans, etc., succumbed to infighting involving refusal to comply with public policies, shaming those who rejected those mandates, and so forth, similar to the exchanges that took place during the Idaho protests. The world watched as faithful members of the two predominant political parties in the U.S. either snubbed COVID-19 policies while continuing to stand up for the lives of the unborn—like Idaho’s lieutenant governor, Janice McGeachin, who claims, “I am staunchly pro-life,”[v] but was photographed at the mask-burning protest at the Boise capitol[ii]—or followed coronavirus prevention protocols religiously, while in the same breath guarding a woman’s right to choose the fate of the child in her womb—like President Joe Biden, who called Republican governors who lifted COVID-19 preventative restrictions in their states “Neanderthals,”[iii] but says regarding abortion, “It’s a woman’s right to do that. Period.”[vi] This isn’t the first time such a double standard has existed, nor will it likely be the last time, and the contradiction finds itself where respect for life fails to be consistent across the board, regarding all human lives.
In an address at St. Louis University in March of 1984, just after the close of the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms Race and less than a decade after Roe vs. Wade, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin discussed the case for a “consistent ethic of life,” under the metaphor which he dubs “a seamless garment.” Towards the beginning of this address, Bernardin stated:
The range of application is all too evident: nuclear war threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale; abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale; public executions are fast becoming weekly events in the most advanced technological society in history; and euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated. Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality; they cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.[vii]
The cardinal’s argument is centralized on this concept of having a consistent approach to the issues of life, whether they be regarding war, abortion, euthanasia, medically assisted suicide, capital punishment, immigration, caring for the poor, police brutality, or even a global pandemic. In the unfolding of his example of the “seamless garment,” Bernardin contends that, to be “pro-life” ought not be a title that includes a qualifier; rather, it ought to be a title that encompasses all issues of life.
The novel coronavirus ran rampant across the globe, and “non-essential” businesses and medical procedures were kicked to the curb; meanwhile, abortion clinics were still open for business. Though the number of abortions procured from the beginning of 2019 through the end of 2020 has not yet been published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2018 the CDC reported that 619,591 abortions had taken place in the United States, which was around a 1% increase since 2017[viii]; therefore, just in the year 2018, more human lives were intentionally discarded by the termination of pregnancies than were lost at the hands of an untamable virus from January 2020 to date. Live Action claims that one unborn child is killed approximately every ninety-seven seconds by Planned Parenthood; thus, an estimated more than 325,000 lives were taken by Planned Parenthood alone as the coronavirus continued to wreak havoc on the United States[ix]—this doesn’t include abortions obtained at other clinics or medical facilities. As politicians and groups that tended to lean more towards the left were enforcing COVID-19 protocols—which included shutting down establishments that were labeled as “non-essential”—to prevent the spread of the virus and, therefore, save lives, those same politicians and groups continued to advocate for the disposal of life in the womb. Comparing the numbers, herein lies a question: if we were so concerned about the loss of life, why were abortion clinics still able to end lives on a daily basis? To follow along with Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment,” there didn’t even have to be a choice between protecting people from the spread of the coronavirus or preventing women from having access to abortion—it ought to have been the Catholic “both/and.” The “seamless garment” preaches against this disintegrated view of pro-life that we see justified by both the Idaho lieutenant governor and the President of the United States.
COVID-19 continued to rage on, and hundreds of thousands of unborn humans were ripped from their mothers’ wombs, while another form of execution was also at play: capital punishment. During the same calendar year as the most recent reporting of abortion statistics from the CDC, the Holy Father Pope Francis revised section 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty. On August 2 of 2018, the pontiff touched on the dignity of the human person and the right to life, despite wrongs committed, and the Catechism now reads:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.[x]
In his address at St. Louis University, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin continued the discussion of promoting a consistent ethic of life, making the claim, “a society which can be indifferent to the innocent life of an unborn child will not be easily stirred to concern for a convicted criminal.”[vii] In 2020, seven death row inmates were executed across five states, and from the start of 2020 through January of 2021, thirteen executions were carried out by the federal government.[xi] Diving deeper into those twenty executions that have taken place since January 1 of 2020, the five states in which criminals were subjected to capital punishment are predominantly Republican. According to a study published by the Pew Research Center in 2014, those same five states (Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas) along with the state of Idaho, are among those ranked most pro-life, based on views and legality (or lack thereof) of abortion.[xii] Further, since January 2020, the American people have witnessed “the most pro-life president in American history” personally see to it that thirteen human beings were executed on behalf of the federal government. It seems ludicrous that, while hundreds of thousands of human lives are being lost across the nation due to an inability to control a killer virus, the justice system of the same country continues to discard the lives of those whom, albeit are not blameless, but are defenseless against the forces that hold and eventually murder them, all the way up to the federal level.
We could go on with more statistics involving the intentional taking of a life, or not caring for the lives of those most at risk, through the means of medically assisted suicide, euthanasia, war, immigration, the poor, police brutality, racism, you name it, but what Cardinal Bernardin is articulating is that there does not have to be a choice between lives to save, care for, or respect; in fact, there shouldn’t be a choice. In order to maintain the “consistent ethic of life” that Bernardin emphasizes, an utmost respect for all lives must be upheld, if for no other reason than a shared humanity among everyone. The cardinal says:
The moral questions of abortion, the arms race, the fate of social programs for the poor, and the role of human rights in foreign policy are public moral issues. The arena in which they are ultimately decided is not the academy or the Church but the political process. A consistent ethic of life seeks to present a coherent linkage among a diverse set of issues. It can and should be used to test party platforms, public policies, and political candidates. The Church legitimately fulfills a public role by articulating a framework for political choices by relating that framework to specific issues and by calling for systematic moral analysis of all areas of public policy.[vii]
A consistent ethic of life would encourage the citizens of a society to defend the right to life, endowed by their Creator on each individual human being. This ethic of life would cross party lines, travel over borders, and would not discriminate based on the life issue at hand. Democrats would find life-promoting alternatives to abortion, and Republicans would work towards prison reform to assist even the most hardened criminals in human formation and finding their own worth. All would acknowledge necessary measures and take careful precautions to ensure the safety of those most vulnerable amidst a pandemic. The term “pro-life” would actually mean “pro ALL lives.”
To repeat an aforementioned Bernardin quote, “Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality; they cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.”[vii] When dealing with the issues of life, one cannot be pro-choice, yet appalled that someone refuses to wear his or her mask out in public. Likewise, one cannot guide expectant mothers to choose life, yet put up a fight when it comes to measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Each instance of ignorance or refute of any life issue is an empowerment of the culture of death.
Ultimately, human beings have an inclination to selfishness and pride, both of which prevent us all from having a completely accurate viewpoint. In the United States, a great tragedy exists of allegiance to a political party platform above allegiance to neighbor or even God—a reality that also hinders one’s ability to think and act rightly. Does a consistent ethic of life call for complete abandonment of political structure and total devotion to every cause defending human life? No, not necessarily. But our protection of human life and support of its flourishment ought not be conditional; rather, it should remain steadfast in all circumstances, regarding all people.
Practically speaking, what does this look like? Believe it or not, it is possible to wear a mask in the supermarket in the morning and sidewalk counsel outside of an abortion clinic (still wearing a mask) in the afternoon. Someone else could make a point to visit someone in prison and speak out against the death penalty while also donating money to a pregnancy resource center. Still others could protest racial injustice while remaining six feet apart from one another. None of these examples of taking a stance for life in one way contradicts another, but they do follow a consistent ethic of life as outlined by Bernardin, which they must do to avoid being faulty examples of pro-life actions.
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin closes his address with the following: “I submit that a clear witness to a consistent ethic of life will allow us to…serve both the sacredness of every human life and the God of Life who is the origin and support of our common humanity.”[vii] The great challenge of defending all life from conception to natural death has been placed on our shoulders, should we choose to accept it. One day we will answer to the Creator of all, so the question remains—will we be able to stand before Him with evidence that we—though frail and broken—protected, cherished, and supported His children as we have been commissioned to do?
[i] "'Here Fire, You Hungry?' Idaho Covid Protesters Burn Masks in Front of Capitol," The Guardian, March 06, 2021, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/06/idaho-covid-protesters-burn-masks-state-capitol)
[ii] Kim Bellware, "Anti-maskers Encouraged Kids to Burn Their Face Coverings on the Capitol Steps in Idaho," The Washington Post, March 08, 2021, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/07/idaho-mask-burning/)
[iii] Caitlin McFall, "Idaho Parents and Kids Burn Masks in Front of State Capitol," Fox News, March 06, 2021, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/us/idaho-parents-and-kids-burn-masks-after-face-covering-order-is-lifted)
[iv] "COVID-19 Alert," Google, |PAGE|, accessed March 20, 2021, https://www.google.com/search?q=total coronavirus deaths worldwide&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&oq=total coron&aqs=chrome.3.0i20i263i433j69i57j0l8.3550j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
[v] Janice McGeachin, Twitter Post, October 08, 2018, |PAGE|, accessed March 20, 2021, https://twitter.com/JaniceMcGeachin/status/1049402979659337728?s=20)
[vi] Tommy Beer, "Biden Vows To Protect Abortion Rights, Provoking Harsh Response From Trump," Forbes, December 15, 2020, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/10/06/biden-vows-to-protect-abortion-rights-provoking-harsh-response-from-trump/?sh=17a16ca32051)
[vii] Thomas G. Fuechtmann and Joseph Bernardin, "A Consistent Ethic of Life: Continuing the Dialogue," in Consistent Ethic of Life (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1988), |PAGE|)
[viii] "Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2018," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 26, 2020, |PAGE|, accessed March 15, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#:~:text=Abortion-related deaths from 2017,CDC from 49 reporting areas)
To provide some insight into this number, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops points out, that while “nationally valid data is available from only two sources: the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute – a research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,” their results may be skewed insofar as the CDC can only publish statistics that are reported to them, and the information provided by the Guttmacher Institute “should be viewed and utilized in the context of their mission to advance abortion services.” "Current Abortion Statistics," USCCB, |PAGE|, accessed March 15, 2021, https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/current-abortion-statistics)
[ix] "Learn About the Problem," Live Action, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://www.liveaction.org/learn/the-problem/)
[x] Pope Francis, "New Revision of Number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Death Penalty – Rescriptum "ex Audentia SS.mi"," Bollettino Sala Stampa Della Santa Sede, August 02, 2018, |PAGE|, accessed March 14, 2021, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html)
[xi] "Execution Database," Death Penalty Information Center, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/execution-database?filters[startDate]=01/01/2020&filters[endDate]=03/19/2021)
[xii] "Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics," Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, September 09, 2020, |PAGE|, accessed March 19, 2021, https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/)