Friday, 5 August 2016

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson on abortion - with due respect, I have to disagree

"Catholics need to stop voting for pro-abortion politicians," Supreme Knight Carl Anderson told an international gathering of the Knights of Columbus in Toronto, Canada, Aug 2, 2016.

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. Photo credit: Knights of Columbus

I am a pro-life Catholic who believes in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, and an active member and office bearer of the Knights of Columbus local council, so why do I find this statement by the Supreme Knight extremely concerning?
The reasons are many and complex.

Simplistic dualism

Firstly, at its most elemental, it simplistically divides politicians (and, by extension, people in general) into two groups, anti-abortion and pro-abortion, representing good and evil, clean and dirty, right and wrong, life and death, righteous and damned (if they don't repent.) If only life were that simple - black or white with no shades of grey…

With that simple statement to stop voting for pro-abortion politicians, Brother Carl Anderson has reduced the decision making process around the presidential elections facing Americans today to an obvious, no-brainer choice that is really no choice at all. Hillary Clinton is pro-abortion, Donald Trump is no longer so - well, except with "caveats" such as rape and incest and other "it depends's". (See the piece in Charisma News.) Therefore American Catholics must vote for Donald Trump! Say, what?

Single-issue voting

This is the world of single-issue voting where you identify one issue that outweighs all the other issues combined. “What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation? Abortion is different. Abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale,” says Brother Anderson. The argument is perfectly logical - but only up to a point:
Moral issues outweigh political issues.
Killing innocent children is a moral issue.
Therefore killing innocent children outweighs political issues.

From which the argument continues:
But abortion is killing innocent children on a massive scale.
Therefore the issue of abortion outweighs all political issues.

However, after this there is a leap to the next conclusion:
Therefore Catholics need to stop voting for politicians who are pro-abortion.

Why is this a leap of logic? … because the premise presumes that all other issues are purely political, non-moral issues - which is false.

There are many other moral issues than "killing innocent children in the womb". For instance, how about tolerating that, after being born, children are growing up malnourished (with the accompanying brain under-development that this causes) or even starving to death, or being exposed to perilous sea-crossings and long overland treks on foot, or months and years of sub-human living in refugee camps? Not just children, of course, but their parents and other adults as well. How about knowingly leaving impoverished communities to drink mercury-laden water, or water polluted with arsenic or other toxic substances from gold mining? How about continuing to export asbestos to third-world countries that do not yet have regulations in place to prevent exposure to asbestos and the resultant harm to health and life this causes?

Ah, the objection goes, but abortion is "on a massive scale", involving "millions of children". Far be it from me to try and defend abortion, but to try and make abortion the only single moral issue based on numbers is indefensible. How do you stack up and compare x million abortions against human suffering that cannot be measured, the human suffering that is being endured daily and has been endured for decades by the millions of environmental, economic and conflict-driven refugees that Pope Francis talks about in his encyclical, Laudato Si, for instance? What if your (somewhat) anti-abortion political candidate wants to ban refugees from immigrating and to build walls to address the 'security problems' caused by refugees, and shows little or no compassion for children who are homeless and hungry, dressed in dirty clothes and lacking the essentials of healthcare?

Photo credit:
Whenever I read the account of the sheep being separated from the goats in chapter 25 of the gospel of Matthew I am struck not only by what is listed in the "citation" but also by what is missing: the Ten Commandments are completely missing. The goats are not condemned for lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, fornication, buggery - or even murder - but for a lack of compassion! It's all about sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, assisting the sick and imprisoned. Read Matthew 25 and see for yourself.

Culture of Death

The other leap of logic is with the phrase, "culture of death." It is presumed as axiomatic that pro-lifers support a "culture of life" and pro-choicers a "culture or death." I am pro-life - in small letters. A couple of years ago I made a conscious decision to stop identifying with the "Pro-Life" movement (capital 'P', capital 'L') because of its exclusive fixation on life before birth. I see it as even worse with some fundamentalist evangelical Christian churches than with Catholic Pro-Lifers. The perception is that they will proudly and loudly, and extravagantly, go to the ends of the earth to elect politicians who will enact laws to prevent a child being aborted, but once the child is born they have no further interest in the child's welfare in terms of nutrition, health, home circumstances or education, or even whether the mother will be executed for 'immorality' - usually by stoning. It is perceived by its critics as a single issue movement that calls itself religious and Pro-Life but is mainly anti-abortion and loudly political.

Then there is the pejorative phrase, 'culture of death' that is juxtaposed (self-righteously?) against 'culture of life'. A number of my close friends and family who believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion are warm, caring and nurturing people. I would unhesitatingly call them 'good' people even though I do not share their views on abortion. If I have to compare, I would call them a lot more caring and compassionate than some Pro-Lifers I know or have read about, or seen on the news screaming "Murderers" at Pro-Choice activists. My point is that Pro-Lifers and pro-lifers do not have the monopoly corner on a culture of life. To suggest that a United Church minister of my acquaintance is spreading a 'culture of death' because he believes in situation ethics and is supportive of members of his congregation who have felt the need to have an abortion creates and perpetuates the kind of division between Christians that is actually contrary to a culture of life. Or to suggest that an agnostic doctor of my acquaintance lacks a moral compass and promotes a culture of death - a woman who is a loving mother, dedicated to saving lives and improving the health of her patients, but who is quite prepared to refer a pregnant patient for an abortion where she deems appropriate - would be blinkered, pietistic moralism devoid of any constructive, life-giving energy.

Election guidelines

In the 2015 Canadian federal election I was very pleased to see that the Canadian bishops did not propose simplistic, single-issue voting to the Catholic faithful. On the contrary, they published a very helpful guide covering a multiplicity of issues - none of which were purely political.  Actually, they published as many as 3 guides - all of which can be found at the above link:
Link to the Guide of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)
Link to the Guide of Development and Peace
Link to the Guide of The Canadian Council of Churches

May I propose that, in choosing a president, American Catholics follow guides such as those recommended by the Canadian bishops rather that the simplistic exhortation of the Supreme Knight who seems to imply that the only Catholic belief of political relevance is to be Pro-Life. 

Monday, 16 May 2016

The Great Toilet Debate: Who's Who in the Loo?

For most of us, gender identity is pretty cut-and-dried and as unambiguous as the declaration on our birth certificates. For many Christians the Bible quote from Geneisis 5:2 "... male and female He created them" is as cogent as any science fact. It's obvious. When you look "down there" you can see whether you are male or female by your bits and pieces or lack thereof. Right? Well, sometimes.

Image courtesy of Dennis Hlynsky via Flickr creative commons -
What I only discovered recently is that for as many as 1 person in 100 God seems to have made it not so obvious. Such people describe themselves as 'intersex' and they exist in sufficient numbers to have formed the Intersex Society of North America with its own website. They published what I found to be a very interesting article summarizing some research done at Brown University: How common is intersex?

I found this out from reading another interesting article, Transgender issues are more complicated than some Christians portray by Jonathan Merritt which I recommend not only for your reading pleasure but even more for your education if you think that the issues are simple, cut-and-dried.

What got my attention in the first place was the same writer's article: 3 reasons conservative Christians will lose the transgender debate. Yes, I especially recommend this article if you are any kind of Christian - liberal, conservative, Evangelical, Catholic, dualistic or non-dualistic.

Saturday, 2 January 2016

The enemy of peace isn't only war, but also indifference - Pope Francis

The Pope hits the nail on the head, talking about indifference. From my reading and listening over the last few years it has become very clear to me that the opposite of love and the obstacles to love are less about hatred and malice and far more about selfishness, apathy and indifference. The goats in chapter 25:33 of Matthew's gospel were not condemned for their hatred or their malice, but their lack of caring. I suppose you could say, their apathy and indifference. This is equally true with the needy in your town as with the "hordes of men, women and children fleeing war, hunger and persecution, ready to risk their lives..."

Pope calls for peace, end to injustice in New Year's address (CBC News)

Pope Francis in New Year message: 'Now's the time to end indifference'

Thursday, 31 December 2015

Frosty's tragic end

Please don't tell the girls, but Frosty has come to a tragic end. The details are too gruesome to put up on a public blog. Let's just say he suffered a dissociative disorder caused by El NiƱo involving his head and body. I suppose he lost his mind, you could say.

Frosty and friends in happier times
(c) 2015 Terry McCann

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

A Crisis of Junk Science

When the noble science of Science degenerates into junk science the ripples of scepticism resulting from feelings of betrayal and anger have the potential to become a tsunami.
"In the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted last April that hair identification testimony from its forensic scientists was flawed in 95 per cent of the 268 cases before 2000 it has reviewed so far. In 32 of those cases, the defendant was sentenced to death."
The above is from an op-ed by criminal defence lawyer, Daniel Brown, in today's Toronto Star.

Before Canadians feel too smug here's another snippet:
"Bad science is an alarming thread that runs through almost two dozen Canadian wrongful murder convictions exposed in recent years by the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). The roll call of errors in these cases includes clothing fibres mistakenly believed to match one another; experts who incorrectly concluded that dog bites on a dead child were knife wounds inflicted by her mother; inept autopsies that misinterpreted the cause of death; biology samples contaminated by a government lab technician; and hair samples that anchored a murder conviction, yet later turned out to be worthless."

The only consolation for Canadians is that Canada does not have a death penalty. Innocent people have not been killed; they have simply languished in jail while their children were removed and placed in group homes, foster care or adoption.

In his piece, Brown observes,
"Wealthy defendants are able to afford top lawyers and expert witnesses, but indigent accused or those from marginalized communities frequently bear the brunt of bad science evidence. They cannot match cases assembled by well-funded police and prosecutors, sometimes pleading guilty to obtain a reduced sentence in the face of superficially overwhelming evidence."

The Alchemist by Pieter Bruegel

Brown makes some conclusions that I think are predictable and precisely to my first point about scepticism:
At precisely the time we ought to be exercising heightened skepticism, a mistaken belief is developing that wrongful convictions are a thing of the past.

And again…
Judges must be better trained to weed out junk science and unwarranted opinions offered by experts. And they must warn juries about the perils of placing too much reliance on science or picking sides in a battle of experts.
This reminds me of manufacturers relying on inspectors to 'inspect in' quality. As W. Edwards Deming pointed out decades ago, that is far too late in the production cycle and way too susceptible to error. Would we fly to our vacation spots knowing the plane we are on did not have adequate requirements and design review, risk and failure modes analysis, verification and validation prior to 'inspection'? Heck, let alone fly, we don't even allow cars on the road that have not been built according to this process, and yet we trust that our 'scientists' all use correct scientific methods and design of experiment even though they often do not bother with peer review. Hello?

Read the entire op-ed here: Junk science is undermining our justice system

(Republished from my professional blog article of the same title at tcmc Quality Management Services)

Photo credit: