No Exceptions to the Fifth Commandment
October, 2002
Human beings have an infinite capacity for self-delusion. Despite years of betrayal by establishment, careerist politicians who profess to be “pro-life” while actually supporting the slicing and dicing of little babies in some cases, many sincere pro-life Americans continue to delude themselves into thinking that a candidate for public office who does indeed support some abortions while professing himself to be pro-life is a friend of the unborn. It is even worse than that. This same spirit of delusion keeps well-meaning people from looking honestly at the actual reality of our situation, hoping against hope that the politicians in whom they have placed their trust have been “forced” into doing things which are anti-life (support for the funding of contraception, stem-cell research, in vitro fertilization, “family planning” programs both at home and abroad; the appointment of out-and-out pro-aborts to positions of high public trust). Sincere pro-lifers wind up projecting their fondest hopes and deepest convictions into the skulls and hearts of men and women who care principally, if not exclusively, in the advancement of their own careers as ends which justify any and all compromises with the immutable standards of objective justice founded in truth.
As Dr. Charles Rice noted in his book The Winning Side, establishment pro-life organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee have mortgaged the interests of restoring full legal protection to all preborn children to advance the careers of politicians who do not understand the simple truth that the law can never permit legitimately the execution of even one innocent life. Indeed, our desire to have pro-life “champions” has resulted in the corruption of the phrase pro-life itself, which should be reserved to describe only those individuals who are completely and totally opposed to all abortions without any exception or reservation whatsoever. Politicians who support abortion in some instances while professing to be “pro-life” should not be called pro-life. They are merely less pro-abortion than those who support abortion-on-demand. As the average pro-life voter fears the evil more than he loves the good, he is ready to accept the testimony offered by establishment pro-life organizations concerning their assertions that one can be viewed as pro-life even if one supports the execution of the innocent in certain cases (such as rape, incest, and alleged threats to the life of a mother). This has retarded, not advanced, the cause of the restoration of full legal protection to the innocent unborn. Indeed, we have regressed to such a state of affairs in the past two decades as a result of one needless compromise with truth after another that the only standard of being considered “pro-life” in electoral politics is a conditional opposition only to a certain form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy.
A person who is not committed to the protection of all innocent human life from the first moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death will never make the defense of the innocent unborn his first priority in public life. Experience has taught us that such a person is usually uncomfortable with the issue of abortion, and they are ever ready to embrace the evils listed at the beginning of this article (contraception, in vitro fertilization) as culturally accepted norms which are beyond question, if not actually in the furtherance of the common good. They are prone to look the other way as out-and-out pro-aborts are nominated for public office. Many of these partially pro-abortion politicians campaign quite actively for pro-aborts in their own political party, never thinking for a moment that country which permits the slaughter of the innocent unborn under cover of law makes itself less secure from threats posed to it by terrorists who have no more regard for the lives of its citizens than it does for its own innocent unborn. In short, a person who makes even a single exception to the sanctity of innocent human life does not understand that God is the source of all law, and that the Fifth Commandment means what it says: “Thou shalt not kill.” No human being has the authority, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil government, to support that which is violative of the unchanging precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law.
The only language which career politicians understand is votes. Politicians who support some abortions while professing themselves to be pro-life have learned that powerful groups, many of which receive subsidies from the Republican Party, will always indemnify them when they do things which are patently anti-life. They know that most pro-life voters are so fearful of out-and-out pro-aborts that they will cast their votes quite readily for them in the belief that the cause of fundamental justice founded in truth will be advanced by voting for the lesser of two evils. Interesting to note, however, that pro-abortion lobby groups demand that total adherence to abortion-on-demand without compromise. They are more intellectually committed to their stand in behalf of limitless baby-killing under cover of law than are many pro-lifers, who believe that it is politically imprudent and inexpedient to be uncompromisingly pro-life in the real of electoral politics. If pro-life voters really trusted in the good more than they feared the evil they would vote only for totally pro-life candidates, yes, even for candidates of conscience who, conventional wisdom tells us, have little chance of winning. However, candidates of conscience will continue to have little chance of winning if those who call themselves pro-life refuse to vote for them, thereby enabling career politicians to continue to take the life issue off of the radar screen of electoral politics and public policy. Ultimately, though, the crisis we face politically represents a larger crisis of faith on the part of believing Catholics. The secular, religiously indifferentist environment in which our politics are conducted has resulted in the expectation that we can advance a culture of life without referencing Life Himself, Life Crucified and Resurrected. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became incarnate in our Lady's virginal and immaculate womb as a helpless embryo. He thereby placed Himself in solidarity with every child in every mother's womb, no matter the condition of the conception (whether in or out of wedlock) nor of the child conceived (whether healthy or normal). Every abortion, therefore, is an attack mystically upon Jesus Christ, Who meant it when He said, “Whatsoever you do to the least of My brethren, that you do unto Me.” How can we say we love our Lord while we look the other way as even one innocent human life is put to death under cover of law? How can we cast our votes so readily and so cheaply for men and women who do not understand (and who refuse to see) that a nation which admits of exceptions to the innocent unborn may one day pay a heavy price for permitting the slaughter of the innocent, perhaps with its own existence?
Professional politicians follow election returns. The more we cast our votes exclusively for candidates for conscience the more we will force careerists to pay attention to us. The more we continue to support the political status quo, however, will be the more the life issue will disappear from public debate altogether.
Acknowledging as I always do the fact that there is no salvation in electoral politics and that the problems we face are the direct result of a series of forces let loose during the Renaissance and afterward which overthrew the Sovereignty of Christ the King and the authority of His true Church, it is nevertheless true that pro-life Americans would increase their electoral clout if they understood their obligation to trust in the power of God's truths to plant the seeds which might result in the conversion of hearts and minds to an acceptance of the necessity of conforming human law and public policy to His law. Indeed, those who speak to the fullness of truth in public debate can plant the seeds which might convince some mother considering to kill her child to change her mind. How little we actually trust in the power of truth to effect such conversions!
May it be our resolve to vote consistently and exclusively for candidates committed to the protection of all innocent human life without any exception. The Apostles did not see the rise of the first Christendom with their own eyes. However, they took seriously the obligation the Divine Redeemer gave them to proclaim the truth without regard for how it would be received. We have the same obligation in our day. We must, despite our own faults and failings, proclaim the truth in love and then trust our Lord to bring our seeds to fruition in His good time.
Our Lady of Life, pray for us.
Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a member of the Board of Advisors for the 100% Pro-Life PAC (PO Box 1601, Havertown, PA 19083) www.prolifepac.com. He is also the publisher and editor of Christ or Chaos, a monthly journal of Catholic commentary, and is a contributing editor of The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper. He has taught in numerous colleges and universities around the nation since January 1974, receiving awards for excellence in teaching.