Bonhoeffer and the 'Cuomo dodge'
Today is the 73rd anniversary of the martyrdom of Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer by the Nazis at Flossenberg concentration camp.
Bonhoeffer's opposition to Nazi euthanasia was one of the earliest points upon which he ran afoul of Hitler's regime, and it is hardly a mere illustration of Godwin's Law to point out that even the arguments the Nazis used in favor of euthanasia and abortion were often virtually identical to the arguments used today. Bonhoeffer's best-known statement on the subject of abortion cuts right to the heart of the matter and brushes aside some common and rather smelly red herrings:
(Quoted in Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 472, paragraphing added)
Today the "Cuomo Dodge" (which seems to have been invented by the late Mario Cuomo, governor of New York and father of the current governor), has become the standard rationalization for Roman Catholic and other conservative Christian politicians who want to have it both ways: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think it's right to impose my beliefs on others." Bonhoeffer's statement exposes the moral vacuity and even depravity of that argument; to refuse to "impose" one's belief that what one believes to be murder is wrong upon others is simply not an ethically viable option. And if one does, indeed, believe that it's murder- the position of Roman Catholicism and of historic Christianity as a whole- one cannot ethically treat the question as a matter upon which agreeing to disagree is even an option.
I will leave it to Roman Catholics to make the point that one cannot be pro-choice without being unfaithful to the ethical position of Roman Catholicism. I myself will merely point out that one cannot be pro-choice without violating the consensus of Christian belief throughout all of history, and that I have yet to hear an intellectually honest and morally coherent case made that one can be pro-choice without violating the ethos of Scripture.*
Nor is the attempt to make abortion somehow a "religious" issue valid; unless one is legislating religious observance or adherence, there is no such thing. The Abolitionist movement was not illegitimate or in violation of the First Amendment because its impetus came from the primarily Christian religious beliefs of the abolitionists! Ethical issues are simply not inherently religious and can be debated on purely secular grounds; to avoid engaging in the secular argument by creating confusion on that point is simply not to be intellectually honest.
There is a word for those who hold a belief "as a matter of religious conviction" but in no other sense. That word is "hypocrite." To believe that abortion is murder as a matter of religious conviction is either to believe that abortion is murder, period, or is blatant hypocrisy. And one does not hesitate to impose one's belief that murder is wrong upon others.
Or at least one shouldn't.
Bonhoeffer's opposition to Nazi euthanasia was one of the earliest points upon which he ran afoul of Hitler's regime, and it is hardly a mere illustration of Godwin's Law to point out that even the arguments the Nazis used in favor of euthanasia and abortion were often virtually identical to the arguments used today. Bonhoeffer's best-known statement on the subject of abortion cuts right to the heart of the matter and brushes aside some common and rather smelly red herrings:
Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And this is nothing but murder.
A great many different motives may lead to an action of this kind; indeed in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual. Precisely in this connection money may conceal many a wanton deed, while the poor man’s more reluctant lapse may far more easily be disclosed.
All these considerations must no doubt have a quite decisive influence on our personal and pastoral attitude towards the person concerned, but they cannot in any way alter the fact of murder.
(Quoted in Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, 472, paragraphing added)
Today the "Cuomo Dodge" (which seems to have been invented by the late Mario Cuomo, governor of New York and father of the current governor), has become the standard rationalization for Roman Catholic and other conservative Christian politicians who want to have it both ways: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think it's right to impose my beliefs on others." Bonhoeffer's statement exposes the moral vacuity and even depravity of that argument; to refuse to "impose" one's belief that what one believes to be murder is wrong upon others is simply not an ethically viable option. And if one does, indeed, believe that it's murder- the position of Roman Catholicism and of historic Christianity as a whole- one cannot ethically treat the question as a matter upon which agreeing to disagree is even an option.
I will leave it to Roman Catholics to make the point that one cannot be pro-choice without being unfaithful to the ethical position of Roman Catholicism. I myself will merely point out that one cannot be pro-choice without violating the consensus of Christian belief throughout all of history, and that I have yet to hear an intellectually honest and morally coherent case made that one can be pro-choice without violating the ethos of Scripture.*
Nor is the attempt to make abortion somehow a "religious" issue valid; unless one is legislating religious observance or adherence, there is no such thing. The Abolitionist movement was not illegitimate or in violation of the First Amendment because its impetus came from the primarily Christian religious beliefs of the abolitionists! Ethical issues are simply not inherently religious and can be debated on purely secular grounds; to avoid engaging in the secular argument by creating confusion on that point is simply not to be intellectually honest.
There is a word for those who hold a belief "as a matter of religious conviction" but in no other sense. That word is "hypocrite." To believe that abortion is murder as a matter of religious conviction is either to believe that abortion is murder, period, or is blatant hypocrisy. And one does not hesitate to impose one's belief that murder is wrong upon others.
Or at least one shouldn't.
*I realize that in the Hebrew language, which evolved millennia before "safe" elective abortion was an issue, the same word is used for "breath," "life," and "spirit." Despite the efforts of the Christian left to exploit this point, however, I know of nobody in the history of Christian theology who has ever argued that the Hebrew language itself is divinely inspired. Thus, the argument that "biblically" life begins with the drawing of the first breath is as disingenuous theologically as it is scientifically.
Moreover, since the oft-cited example in Exodus 21:22-25 begins with the assertion that the woman under discussion was induced to miscarry by being the victim of physical violence sufficient to bring about the expulsion of the child from her womb, "harm" has clearly been done to her regardless of any other consideration. Christian (as opposed to Jewish) exegesis has therefore historically understood the word "harm" in verse 23 to refer as a matter of grammatical necessity to the fetus since it has already been established that the woman herself has been harmed. To hold that it refers to the mother is to make the entire passage a tautology. The only exegetically viable reading of the passage is that the death of the fetus is treated by the text exactly the same as the death of a person who had already been born.
Comments