Abortion, Consistent Social Ethics, and Public Policy: History and Contemporary Implications of American Magisterial Teaching and Action

Abstract

While American magisterial teaching has continuously cast abortion as part of a consistent ethic covering a comprehensive and interrelated set of issues affecting human life and dignity, the teaching also entails a set of tensions between the single issue of abortion and the larger framework, and this has been resolved by insisting that the legality of abortion affects all other issues and so deserves special focus; this focus has played out in public policy with detrimental consequences. This essay argues that if the bishops’ goals truly are a reduction in abortions, the promotion of respect for life and human dignity, and the promulgation of a truly comprehensive and consistent ethic, then there must be a change in their approach. This change would consist of a focus on the unintended lethal impacts of illegality, more grassroots arguments aimed at changing cultural attitudes, and more support—in both rhetoric and action—for measures that work, including but not limited to the myriad levels of structural justice for the poor and women in particular. These actions would, in turn, reinforce the consistent ethic. Further, the bishops should disavow a single-issue approach and move toward an actually comprehensive approach to public policy.

1. Introduction

How does the official Catholic teaching on abortion fit within its broader social teaching, and how does the teaching as a whole relate to the political and practical actions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on social issues? This essay will seek to show that while abortion has been and continues to be presented as part of a wider framework of social issues, several tensions exist within that framework between the priority of a full range of issues and the single issue of abortion. It will also show that American bishops have resolved these tensions by claiming that a focus on abortion is imperative for legislative success on that issue and that they have thus made the legality of abortion central and primary in their public policy efforts, overshadowing and often conflicting with other issues in the framework. I will argue that the bishops’ political objective of making abortion illegal is failing to meet their objectives of reducing abortion and fostering respect for human life and dignity and also failing to advance the full spectrum of issues portrayed in their teaching as interrelated and important. Further, it will be argued that the current approach, especially in light of the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent Dobbs decision, is exacerbating polarization within the church and alienation from the church.1 In light of this, this essay claims that if the desired outcome of the bishops’ activity is, in fact, the promulgation of a consistent ethic of life and the promotion of action on a full range of issues (including a reduction in the number of abortions and encouraging life-affirming practices), then they can do much better than the present course.

In making this case, I begin by briefly explicating the universal magisterial teaching on abortion itself and then turn to the American magisterial teaching both on what should be done about abortion and on the relation of abortion to other social issues and the political process in the U.S. In this latter section, I will focus on the “Consistent Ethic of Life” developed by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and largely adopted by USCCB, tracing its continuing influence in documents down to the present. I will then look at how the teaching is actually more complex than it might at first appear, as there exists an enduring tension within the consistent ethic between the framework of issues affecting human life and dignity and the single issue of abortion. Subsequently, I will investigate how the bishops’ political actions reflect the resolution of this tension through a focus on legal abortion and how this has led to a disproportionate focus on abortion (and, specifically, on making it illegal), which has in turn led to a concomitant polarization and overshadowing of other issues and even detrimental effects on other elements of the consistent ethic. This has become far more deleterious and ironic given Dobbs. Next, I will discuss the effectiveness of illegality as a mode of preventing abortions and the legitimacy of various prudential judgments regarding how best to prevent abortion. Finally, I will discuss alternatives that would better promote both a reduction in abortion and a more comprehensive and consistent ethic: first, a decreased focus on illegality and an increased focus both on persuasive cultural discourse and on action on poverty-reduction and long-term support for pregnant women and mothers (in other words, an expanded pro-life platform) and, second, a disavowal of a single-issue approach and the adoption of a more truly comprehensive approach to public engagement. I will also briefly discuss the need for a reexamination of methodological inconsistencies at the base of the teaching on abortion and its relation to other social issues.

2. History

First, papal and American hierarchical teachings are clear on two main questions involved in the moral analysis of abortion: the status of the fetus and how to solve conflict situations. John Paul II summed up this teaching in no unclear terms in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Calling on the “unchanged and unchangeable tradition of the Church” and citing previous documents of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the pope asserted that “the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit” and thus that “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being”.2 In short, abortion is an “intrinsic evil” and should always be opposed.

Now, to be clear, my intention is not to analyze the moral issues raised by this teaching: Should the fetus have full status of personhood? Should abortion be deemed “intrinsically” evil? Some of these issues will return in various ways as we go along our main task, but it is important to clarify that the main task is, first, to examine the development of both American hierarchical teaching, particularly on what should be done about abortion and how abortion relates to other issues, and the hierarchical public-policy practice and, second, to assess the effectiveness of this teaching and public policy, especially in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The USCCB teaching on abortion emerged as part of a response to the movement to liberalize abortion laws in the U.S. during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Before the bishops dealt with the issue of abortion on its own, they issued Human Life in Our Day (1968), wherein they affirmed “humanity” from conception and called abortion a “threat to the right to life” (USCCB 1969). After the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, abortion became a major topic in official teaching.

The major documents include the following: the Declaration on Abortion (1970); the Resolution of the NCCB on the Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment (1973); the Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities (1975); the Reaffirmation of the Pastoral Plan (1985); the Resolution on Abortion (1989); the pastoral letter Faithful for Life: A Moral Reflection (1995); Light and Shadows: Our Nation 25 Years after ‘Roe v. Wade’ (1997); the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities (2001); and A Matter of the Heart: On the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (2002). In all of these documents, the bishops have consistently cast abortion as a threat to the dignity of life and affirmed the need for respect for the unborn child and specifically for legal protection of the unborn.

However, they have also consistently expressed concern for helping pregnant women in need and have increasingly emphasized a multifaceted approach to dealing with abortion. The two seminal statements on abortion (1969 and 1970) recognize that “problem situations” may exist and declare their “determination to seek solutions to the problems that lead some women to consider abortion” (Senander 2002). These solutions are mainly in the form of pastoral care efforts but also include society’s responsibility “to intensify our scientific investigation into the causes and cures of maternal disease and fetal abnormality, and to provide all women adequate education and material sustenance to choose motherhood responsibly and freely”.3 The 1970 Declaration claims that society, including both government and voluntary organizations, does not respond with justice toward pregnant women in need of medical care, counseling, and other assistance; however, they emphasize response to individual women’s needs and do not examine in any detail societal structures that lead to those needs (Senander 2002, p. 99). The 1975 Pastoral Plan strongly recognizes the need for alternatives to abortion, expresses the need to present problems that pregnant women might face and solutions to such problems, and urges legislation to provide alternatives to abortion. The emphasis is primarily on pastoral care efforts, but they also go beyond the 1970 statement in advocating not only for medical and other assistance for pregnant women in need but also more explicitly for nutritional, pre-natal, childbirth, and post-natal care, as well as for adoption services and opportunities for unwed mothers to continue their education.4

The 1985 “Reaffirmation” of the Pastoral Plan continues the thrust of a multifaceted approach with small but notable changes, such as a greater emphasis on the role of Catholic organizations in providing “services and care to pregnant women” (Senander 2002, pp. 100–101, n. 131). In their 1995 pastoral letter Faithful For Life, the bishops reaffirm their desire to respond to the needs of women in crisis pregnancies and encourage the social and emergency services provided by Catholic Charities, emergency pregnancy centers, hospitals and medical centers, adoption agencies, and programs of post-abortion counseling. Further, they recognize the need for long-term support and pledge “the heart and hands of the Church to help mothers and fathers in need find pregnancy counseling, pre- and post-natal care, housing and material support, and adoption services” (Senander 2002, p. 103, n. 136). Finally, for instance, in the Pastoral Plan (2001), many of the calls for a multifaceted approach to aiding pregnant women include both efforts undertaken by Church organizations and agencies, as well as the need for long-term support and legislation that provides such support (USCCB 2001).

In the early 1980s, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, together with the eminent Catholic moral theologian Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, elucidated a way of understanding the comprehensiveness and consistency of the Catholic moral tradition with what became known as the “consistent ethic of life” or “seamless garment” approach. Bernardin was convinced that the Catholic moral vision had the “the scope, the strength and the subtlety” to effectively address a wide range of issues, for this vision “joins the humanity of the unborn infant and the humanity of the hungry; it calls for positive legal action to prevent the killing of the unborn or the aged and positive societal action to provide shelter for the homeless and education for the illiterate” (Murtagh 2009, 17). This articulation was largely in response to worries over the development of a single-issue platform, and specifically Bernardin’s worry that the hierarchy could be “severely pressured by those who wanted to push a particular issue with little or no regard for the rest of the bishops’ positions” (Sammon 2008). The Church is not about a single social issue but rather one with a wide-ranging, coherent, and consistent ethic that affirms human life and human dignity.

The bishops appreciated the wisdom of such an ethic: Just two years after its first articulation, the consistent ethic language was adopted as the official policy of the USCCB in the 1985 revision of the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, wherein they state that in the vision of the consistent ethic, “different issues are linked at the level of moral principle because they involve the intrinsic dignity of human life and our obligation to protect and nurture this gift” (Senander 2002, p. 89). They not only included mention of the consistent ethic but also modified the 1975 plan itself to reflect such an ethic.

The use of the consistent ethic in official teaching continues to this day. Particularly telling are the documents issued prior to every presidential election, documents which necessarily treat the full range of the public dimensions of the Church’s moral concerns. In every one of these documents, the bishops have asserted their conviction that “a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework from which to address issues in the political arena”.5 These “Faithful Citizenship” documents persistently insists that the “consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework for principled Catholic engagement in political life” and that because Catholics are “not single-issue voters”, they “should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine candidates’ positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of justice and peace” (USCCB 2007). Thus, abortion is consistently portrayed as interwoven into a range of issues that warrant careful consideration and action. This could not be more salient post-Dobbs.

However, the Faithful Citizenship statements raise questions regarding a hierarchy among issues and disagreements within the hierarchy of bishops. Influential Catholics were critical of the 2007 document for being unclear or misleading. For instance, in 2009, Cardinal Raymond Burke complained that the document “led to confusion” among Catholics because “while it stated that the issue of life was the first and most important issue, it went on in some specific areas to say ‘but there are other issues that are of comparable importance’ without making necessary distinctions”.6 Responding to such criticisms, the chairs of several committees suggested that an introductory note be appended and the text left unaltered, and this was approved in September of 2011. While most bishops went along with the decision, some criticisms remain: In the words of Phil Lawler, the document still fails to “draw the necessary, clear distinction…between issues on which prudent compromise is wise (economics) and those on which compromise is odious (abortion)”.7 Subsequent discussions have proceeded along the same divisions.

These divisions over Faithful Citizenship can be seen as emblematic of a tension that has existed in the American hierarchy for some time, namely between a framework of respect for human life and dignity and the single issue of abortion. Senander has previously expounded on how this tension can be seen in terms of the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) and how it continues with varying degrees in USCCB teachings (Senander 2002, pp. 79–96). She points out that the Pastoral Constitution is the primary magisterial document to which the American bishops’ teachings about abortion appeal and that two statements within this document clarify the tension, with one contained in # 27 and the other in # 51. The former delineates a variety of offenses against life itself and against the integrity of the human person and human dignity, among which is abortion. This statement reveals a framework for understanding the Catholic Church’s position on abortion. The latter, # 51, states that “life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes”. This statement has been used by the bishops as they engage in opposition to permissive abortion laws in order to emphasize abortion as an offense against life itself. There is varied emphasis on these two statements within the American magisterial teaching.

In the bishops’ 1969 Statement, they emphasize the respect for life and dignity, placing abortion among various offenses against life and dignity, asserting the need to guarantee basic human rights, and even quoting #27 of Gaudium et Spes.8 However, their Statement (1970), Declaration (1970), and the Resolution of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment (1973) all focused on the issue of legalized abortion with increasing intensity and strongly reflected Gaudium et Spes #51.9

The Pastoral Plan of 1975 reflects both the framework of respect for life and dignity and an emphasis on the single issue of legalized abortion. The bishops begin the document with a quote from #51, and clearly, they want to focus on abortion and its legality, but references to a framework of respect for life are also once again present. They note that “basic human rights are violated in a number of ways” and include, among these, euthanasia, “injustice and the denial of equality to certain groups of persons”, and “neglect of the underprivileged and disadvantaged who deserve the concern and support of the entire society” (Senander 2002, p. 86, n. 85). However, they also assert that while “the denial of the God-given right to life is one aspect of a larger problem”, it is “unlikely that efforts to protect other rights will be ultimately successful if life itself is continually diminished in value” (Senander 2002, p. 86). Basically, this document contains what would become a standard resolution of the tension between the framework and the following single issue: emphasizing the threat of legal abortion is essential to guarding against other threats to human life and dignity.

The 1984 presidential campaign piqued concerns that the 1975 Pastoral Plan overly emphasized the single issue of abortion. Bernardin’s Consistent Ethic was meant to resolve this tension: Abortion was indeed part of a framework of respect for human dignity and the sacredness of life. Documents subsequent to its articulation clearly adopted the consistent ethic language, for instance, with modifications in the 1985 Pastoral Plan in order to reflect the consistent ethic idea. However, this modification was carried out in a way that emphasized the above-noted resolution of the tension and that even more explicitly linked legalized abortion and the protection of human life and dignity. The bishops make clear that their concern and attention to abortion “is intensified by the realization that a policy and practice allowing over one and a half million abortions annually cannot but diminish respect for life in other areas”, and therefore, they conclude, “all in our society who are pledged to protect human rights through law have a moral responsibility to address this injustice by seeking the restoration of legal protection to the unborn” (Senander 2002, p. 90, n. 95; 91, 96). Thus, the bishops came to believe “that an emphasis on the threat of permissive abortion laws and a commitment to the ‘consistent ethic of life’ complement each other by highlighting the potential effects of legalized abortion on other issues of human dignity” (Senander 2002, p. 90).

Focus on legal abortion as a resolution of the persistent tension became all the more present in subsequent documents. The 1989 Resolution does not list other concrete instances of violations of human life and dignity, though the bishops do reiterate the by-then standard resolution of the tension, calling abortion “the fundamental human rights issue” and noting “the grave consequences of denying moral or legal status to any class of human beings because of their age or condition of dependency” (Senander 2002, p. 93, n. 104). Their 1995 pastoral letter addresses the issues of abortion and euthanasia in terms of the impact of legalized abortion on culture (Senander 2002, p. 93). The bishops explicitly develop the relationship between the issue of legalized abortion and its effects on other life issues by examining the impact of Roe on American culture, decrying that “the language and the mindset of abortion—presented in terms of unlimited choice, privacy and autonomy—pervade our entertainment, our news, our public policies, and even our private lives” (Senander 2002, p. 94, n 106). They also list other violations of human life and dignity to which the church responds and thus reflect Gaudium et Spes #27 and the consistent ethic to a certain degree, but they also clearly focus on the “particularly grave concerns” of abortion and euthanasia. Finally, in myriad recent plans, they again clearly reflect the standard resolution of the tension, stating that “among important issues involving the dignity of human life with which the Church is concerned, abortion necessarily plays a central role” and that “this focus and the Church’s commitment to a consistent ethic of life complement one another” (USCCB 2001).

3. Tension with Insufficient Resolution

In short, while the teaching has placed abortion within the framework of other life and dignity issues, this framework also contains a tension that has been resolved largely by the idea that legal abortion poses a threat to all other life issues and so warrants special focus. Thus, while documents in the Faithful Citizenship series emphasize abortion as part of a range of issues that deserve careful consideration and attention, opposition to legal abortion has also been cast as the central concern, one that hinges the other issues. In other words, according to the American bishops, abortion remaining legal poses a fundamental threat to all other life issues, and therefore, abortion, particularly making it illegal, deserves special attention.

Certainly, this has been evident in the bishops’ public policy efforts. Indeed, as Charles Curran asserts, “there can be no doubt that the U.S. bishops put more effort and money into the abortion issue than any other question of public policy” (Curran 2008). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, individual bishops and groups of bishops mobilized the Church’s resources in opposition to permissive abortion laws in individual states. But after Roe v. Wade placed abortion on the national agenda, the Conference of Bishops became the main actor in the hierarchy’s opposition to abortion. Their 1975 Pastoral Plan announced four main areas in which the hierarchy wanted to pursue the fight against abortion: public information and education; pastoral care; public policy; and prayer and worship. As noted, this plan has since been twice updated, but it always contains these four areas. Indeed, the bishops have devoted enormous resources to organizing a sophisticated anti-abortion lobbying effort, coordinating and funding pro-life groups and pastoral care efforts throughout the states and often directly addressing Catholics on the subject during Mass and in numerous campaigns disseminating their considerable teaching.

But the most concerted thrust of their effort has focused on the call for “well-planned and coordinated political action” aimed (at least initially) at passing an antiabortion Constitutional amendment and at various ways of overturning Roe v. Wade and enacting anti-abortion laws.10 This effort has included both local and national elements. For the first two decades after Roe, the bishops were strongly focused on the national level, testifying before Congress about a Constitutional amendment in 1974, 1976, and 1981 and encouraging efforts to elect officials at all levels that could affect such an amendment: state legislators, House Members, and Senators. The bishops were also drawn into the level of presidential politics, particularly with the lure of “pro-life” presidents who would appoint “pro-life” Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe. We can return below to look at a possible shift in the bishops’ activity back to more local efforts following both a 1989 Supreme Court decision and Dobbs, but first, we will briefly examine their presidential-level activity. Of course, the local level will still pertain to the post-Dobbs milieu, given that localities—both state and municipal—are the key areas of debate and policy in this new world.

Before Roe, abortion was not a particularly prominent issue in national politics, but after Roe, it certainly became one, and the bishops certainly became players in the game. In the 1976 election, the bishops asked for “well-coordinated political action” from anti-abortion activists, and both Jimmy Carter and President Ford sought the approval of the bishops, with Carter distancing himself from the Democratic platform and Ford announcing support for a proposed anti-abortion plank in the Republican platform and inviting the Conference’s Executive Committee to the White House to contrast his agreement with the bishops with Carter’s opposition to the abortion constitutional amendment (Sammon 2008, pp. 17–18). During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan aggressively championed the pro-life cause and firmly established a now-persistent trend of Republican candidates promising to appoint federal judges who oppose abortion. Many bishops enthusiastically welcomed this development (Sammon 2008, p. 18).

The 1984 election was the pinnacle of the abortion debate. By 1984, the Republican Party had completely aligned itself with pro-life supporters. As noted, there was concern within the hierarchy about a single-issue platform and too-close alignment with one party and agenda. While Bernardin won the day on paper, some bishops, most notably Archbishop John O’Connor of New York and Archbishop Law of Boston, made clear that they did not agree. They refused to include other issues on their social agendas and repeatedly chastised Catholic politicians who supported abortion: for instance, vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferarro and Governor Mario Cuomo of New York (Sammon 2008, p. 20). As Margaret Ross Sammon explains, the back-and-forth exchanges between Ferraro and Archbishop O’Connor and Bishop Timlin of Scranton (and the support lent to these bishops by other members of the hierarchy) “showed that large numbers of bishops rejected the consistent ethic of life theory and would make abortion the major issue in every election” (Sammon 2008).

Though 1984 was the peak, the issue of abortion has not been absent from subsequent presidential elections, and neither has the influence of the bishops. For instance, in 1996, the Cardinal Law of Boston and James Hickey of Washington urged Catholics not to vote for Bill Clinton after the president vetoed legislation banning partial-birth abortion. In 2000, George Bush encountered problems when speculation arose that he was considering the Catholic pro-choice Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania as his running mate, and in response, several bishops announced a ban on pro-choice Catholics appearing at church-related events (Sammon 2008, p. 21). In 2004, John Kerry came under fire from several members of the hierarchy who announced they would deny him communion. During the 2008 presidential campaign, many individual bishops also made headlines, denouncing the pro-choice stance of candidate Barack Obama and then vociferously protesting President Obama’s invitation to speak at the University of Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony of 2009. With the election of Donald Trump, the presidency is no longer the chief area of public policy at the federal level, though the future judicial branch has been enormously altered by now two-time, non-consecutive President Donald J. Trump, not least in his sweeping nomination of federal judges, including the Supreme Court. The anti-Roe crowd has won at the federal level.

4. Implications

All of this anti-abortion political activity has led to the perceived alignment of the hierarchy with one political party and increased polarization within the Church and alienation from the Church (in tandem with other issues on which the bishops have concentrated their efforts). Indeed, it is evident that the bishops’ top priorities are rather closely aligned with the agenda of the Republican Party: abortion (first), gay marriage, etc. Other areas of their consistent ethic—the death penalty, social justice, and war— have been far less prominent.

Undeniably, there are other factions within the church: those deemed to support “pro-life” and “traditional” causes (anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage) and those that support “social justice” causes. Further, polls show that younger Americans increasingly hold negative views of religion as generally “judgmental, homophobic, hypocritical, and too political” (Hollenbach 2012). The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey concluded that “roughly 10% of all Americans are former Catholics”.11 The emphasis placed by the hierarchy on this particularly polarizing set of issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) relates to deeper methodological questions regarding the designation of “intrinsic evil” and the existence of a dichotomy in the moral reasoning of the teaching; we will return to these below.

Here, we can simply note that the American hierarchy’s emphasis on illegality has contributed to troubling trends. It has also had other detrimental effects. First of all, the support lent to one party to combat legal abortion has clearly harmed other measures to combat abortion, such as strong social support for poor women and families (and it can be noted that these measures are themselves part of the consistent ethic and the teaching on abortion). Indeed, the Republican Party may have put forth a “pro-life” platform on the issue of the legality of abortion, but this is certainly not matched by pro-life policies in terms of long-term support for pregnant women.

It is also plausible that the support lent to one party has had a detrimental impact on other issues deemed vital in Catholic teaching. While the Republican Party may hold a “pro-life” position regarding the legality of abortion (though not necessarily, as noted above, going much beyond legality), it does not often pursue a “pro-life” agenda in many other arenas deemed important by Catholic teaching: the death penalty, domestic economic justice, war, foreign assistance and global justice, the human right not to be tortured, etc. Further, as Nicholas Cafardi points out, many decisions of the Republican “pro-life” judges have had detrimental effects to women’s rights going beyond abortion: (the Ledbetter case), minority voters’ rights (the Crawford case), gun control (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago), and the death penalty (Herrera v. Collins) (Cafardi 2012). Thus, despite adopting a consistent ethic that was in part meant to guard against the threat of groups pushing a particular issue with little or no regard for the rest of the bishops’ positions, they have been led straight into such a trap.

Regardless of whether one accepts the thesis of an alignment with one party and its detrimental effects, it is certainly reasonable to claim that the bishops’ opposition to abortion has overshadowed many other issues that are part of the consistent ethic and of the Church’s social teaching. As Bishop Gabino Zaval of Los Angeles told Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne before the wildly decisive 2008 election, “We are not a one issue Church….but that’s not what always comes out”.12 Thus, while the bishops engage in advocacy and action on a range of issues from domestic and global social justice to war and human rights issues of various stripes, most people both within and outside of the Church are unaware of their comprehensive set of concerns. As Elisabeth Brinkmann has asserted, despite a “constant and by now rather well-established commitment of the U.S. bishops to a consistent ethic of life”, the general population “seems largely unaware of the Catholic Church’s very wide-ranging commitment, flowing from such an ethic, to issues of social justice” (Brinkmann 2008, p. 83).

Troublingly, concern for abortion has also been emphasized in such a way that it has been made to conflict with other elements of the consistent ethic; the bishops’ involvement in the American debate over healthcare provides a prime example of this. The bishops have long supported affordable and universally available healthcare for all Americans; however, they opposed the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) and cast it as “profoundly flawed”. This opposition was based on their conclusion that the bill could lead to taxpayer-funded abortions, a conclusion in disagreement with the Catholic Health Association and a significant group of leaders of women’s religious communities. And as David Hollenbach notes, this action has led a number of commentators to conclude that “resistance to abortion has come to overshadow their other social ethical concerns” (Hollenbach 2012).

Thus, the American bishops have for several decades extolled a consistent ethic of life in many of their teachings, with abortion as one important issue among many related issues. Also, within the teaching on abortion itself, there is an emphasis on both legal protection for the unborn and multifaceted support for pregnant women. However, there is a long-standing and abiding tension between the single issue of abortion and the framework of related issues, and this tension has been tentatively resolved by insisting that legalized abortion threatens other issues in the framework. Although cast as part of a consistent ethic, abortion (and specifically the state of its legality) is often extolled as having a pride of place, and this pride of place has certainly been demonstrated in the bishops’ public policy. As has been argued by many observers of various stripes, the U.S. bishops have made public policy on the legal issue of abortion paramount and central to the detriment of many other aspects of Catholic teaching on intertwined social justice. So, while there is both a consistent ethic which insists on a framework and interconnection of issues and a teaching on abortion that extolls not only legal protection for the unborn but also multifaceted support for pregnant women, the reality of the bishops’ actions is that the legality of abortion takes pride of place, and this has detrimental effects.

5. Going Forward: Legality or Persuasion Through a Consistent Ethic of Action?

Before proceeding, it should be noted that there is some variety in the USCCB. As noted, there is a tendency to “overstate the cohesiveness” of what is in fact “a large group of men with varied temperaments, varied approaches, and on many questions, varied opinions” (Byrnes 2019). And indeed, as noted, tensions have existed for some time. The Bernardin and O’Connor/Law dichotomy is one clear historical example of these divisions, and the current divides over the Faithful Citizenship documents are another. Those latter documents show that, at least ostensibly, the majority of bishops want to put forward a balanced approach faithful to the tradition of teaching, but clearly, divisions still exist. Some bishops remain far more polarizing than others: for instance, those who have used, or have threatened to use, the Eucharist against wayward politicians. Others, such as Cardinal Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, denounce a prophecy of denunciation. All this being said, and granting that there has been and continues to be variety within the USCCB, there is also undoubtedly a trend in said conference of a clear focus on abortion (and particularly its legal status). Having already examined this trend and some of its consequences, we may turn to see the fruit such focus has borne.

First, the current strategy of seeking such illegality, mainly in the form of overturning Roe, has indeed produced such an overturn. But there is no abortion-free, pre-Roe world to return to: Rather, the matter has simply been left to the individual states, and many states have upheld permissive abortion laws.13 Further, it is not clear that this new world would protect the unborn by reducing the number of abortions. Indeed, there seems to be little correlation between illegality and low abortion rates; instead, data show that abortion rates decline as social programs rise. As Lisa Sowle Cahill clarifies, “Latin American countries banning abortion still have high rates due to poverty and women’s low status” whereas “North European countries with permissive abortion law and expansive programs of healthcare and family support have much lower rates than the United States.” (Cahill 2012, p. 35) This approach is, in short, not demonstrably effective.

It has also been convincingly argued that illegality is not the appropriate way to express opposition to abortion; the clearest source of such a view can be found in Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution 1965). This view values as much freedom as possible and sees law as intervening only when required for public order, which includes the protection of basic human rights, the minimal requirements of justice, and fundamental elements of public morality. Thus, in order for law and the coercive power of the state to be appropriate, the basic requirements of public order must be endangered. Of course, the bishops are claiming that abortion meets the requirements of public order because it threatens the basic human rights of the unborn and because permissive laws threaten other areas of human life and dignity.14 But the problem is that many Americans do not agree with this assessment. Indeed, in our pluralistic society, there is far from a consensus that all abortions should be banned, and in fact, there is far from a unity of opinion even within the Catholic population and even among Catholic ethicists.

David Hollenbach points out that it is “precipitous to appeal to the coerciveness of law” when moral arguments are as unresolved in our cultures as they are (Hollenbach 2006, p. 20). Further, “the appeal to law may have the opposite effect from the one desired by the bishops who make this appeal”, given both the fact that the values at stake are matters of intense debate in the culture and that most Americans place such a deep value on the freedom of the individual and may reject the bishops’ position “simply because they appear to call for the use of coercion by the state” (Hollenbach 2006). Further, there are special problems involved in overturning a law that has become an assumed part of jurisprudence, of cultural attitudes toward women’s rights, and of the medical system. It remains to be seen what the full result of Dobbs will be.15

Now, it could also be argued that putting the law in place would lead to the formation of a consensus that all abortion is immoral. In other words, the law has a pedagogical and culture-shaping role that should not be overlooked (Glendon 1987). This is also connected to what the bishops have in mind in their focus on illegality not solely to reduce abortions but also to affirm the dignity of life in the wider range of issues. Perhaps there is a role for more moderate adjustments, such as the requirement of a waiting period, or parental consent in the case of minors, or restrictions on the length of time in a pregnancy when abortion can be performed. But it seems far from clear that criminalizing all abortions will actually produce a change in people’s minds on abortion, and it is even less clear that such laws will lead to more respect for other areas where human life and dignity are threatened. As M. Cathleen Kaveny has asserted, it is not enough for the law to enforce “a negative moral obligation prohibiting the killing of the innocent” without also promoting the even more necessary “positive obligations to assist the weak and the vulnerable” (Kaveny 1997, p. 135).

Thus, far more likely to succeed going forward, as Hollenbach posits, is a strategy of “persuasion that operates on the cultural rather than the legal level” (Hollenbach 2006, p. 20). Quite simply, the fact is that the Church has not done a good job of convincing the larger society, not to mention all Catholics, of the correctness of its position that no abortions are acceptable in any circumstances.16 It cannot expect the law, or the politicians who write and uphold laws, to carry this out for them. Instead, the hierarchy must find new ways of engaging the public and extolling its pro-life message, ways that, in the words of a loyal critic of the Church, Harry J. Byrne, go beyond “authoritative statements from on high” to grassroots discourse (Cahill 2005, p. 176). Such discourse must include concrete actions. Further, in getting across the Church’s full message of respect for life and dignity, the hierarchy cannot rely so totally on its opposition to abortion.

Along with persuasive argument and cultural engagement (and, in fact, part of this effort), there must be concrete action aimed at actually preventing and reducing abortions. As noted, while international data show that there is no correlation between fewer abortions and abortion being illegal, there is a strong correlation between poverty and abortion, and this holds true for the United States. Indeed, a 2008 study by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good found that the abortion rate among women living under the poverty line is more than four times that of women 300 percent above it. Data from all states from 1982 to 2000 show that social and economic supports like public assistance for low-income families and benefits for pregnant women and mothers have significantly contributed to reducing the number of abortions in the U.S. over that period (Cahill 2012, p. 35). The Pregnant Women Support Act (PWSA), which was passed as part of the 2010 ACA and is designed to help expectant mothers with prenatal healthcare, nutritional needs, and other critical programs, is one example of a step in the right direction, but more action is needed. And such actions will actually go hand-in-hand with making a persuasive argument. Indeed, as Lisa Sowle Cahill has argued, no “position on abortion will have persuasive power or wide credibility unless it is verified in practices that respect and choose life equally for women and for children, born or unborn” (Cahill 2005, p. 176).

On one level, the bishops have acknowledged the importance of some of these efforts. As noted above, they have increasingly extolled the importance of support for pregnant women on the part of various levels of society. Even Cardinal Justin Rigali, one of the most “pro-life” former chairs of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has said that the PWSA offers “an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues” (Cahill 2005, p. 36).

Concrete efforts aimed at supporting women and their children are hardly the highlight of the bishops’ pro-life platform and political maneuverings. Nor have they been equally strong advocates against structural injustices such as sexism and for greater equality for women in society as they have been advocates for the illegality of abortion. Indeed, the bishops seemed far more concerned to make highly questionable determinations about the picayune details of how the Affordable Care Act might fund abortions than they were to push for measures such as the PWSA (or, for that matter, to push for the broader goal of universal healthcare, which has long been a part of their teaching). Moreover, as noted, their focus on illegality has in some ways undercut other efforts—with such a focus lending significant support to the Republican Party, which has in turn championed programs that dealt significant blows to social programs, such as those in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (Cahill 2005, p. 187).

So, it is no doubt good that the bishops encourage Catholics to be in solidarity with women in crisis pregnancies and that they support (financially and in their teaching and public statements) efforts to assist pregnant women at crisis pregnancy centers, etc. But as Lisa Sowle Cahill has elucidated, “the participatory side of the USCCB’s theological bioethics is out of line with its ethical and policy analysis” (Cahill 2005, p. 186). In short, their action needs to match their rhetoric and be more balanced in favor of a focus on supporting the needs of pregnant women. Further, their rhetoric itself needs to focus increasingly on structural injustices such as poverty and sexism, and their advocacy and mobilization need to focus much more on these structural injustices and not merely on abortion being made illegal. It is therefore more imperative than ever that we reject the false divide between “social justice” and “pro-life” advocacy. This could not be truer for anyone more than for the Catholic bishops who have a long history of insisting that these two agendas are linked. It is time they made this link more of a reality.

Thus, the reversal of Roe v Wade should never have been made to bear the full weight of Catholic opposition to abortion. Nor should a focus on making abortion illegal be made to bear the weight of the entire spectrum of life and dignity issues in any state or government—particularly salient after Dobbs. In other words, making abortion illegal is not a sufficient resolution for the tension between the framework of life-dignity issues and the single issue of abortion. Indeed, such a position has not succeeded in creating a “culture of life” or even dramatically reducing the number of abortions, but it has succeeded in increasing polarization and shifting attention from other aspects of the consistent ethic of life and Catholic teaching on economic justice, peace, and the equal rights of women. There are better ways to address abortion, ways that can reasonably be considered more effective and that better reflect the consistent ethic of life and the full range of Catholic teaching. These include both more fully joining opposition to the threat to unborn life with support for women and children, focusing on social programs, and engaging in persuasive argument (which will necessarily include the former actions). The bishops should put their weight fully behind these better methods, not only in theological rhetoric but also in action.

6. Consistent Public Policy Beyond Abortion

Looking beyond abortion itself, it is necessary to foster a more truly consistent, inclusive public policy agenda. Focusing on the single issue of legalized abortion and expecting that doing so will advance a consistent ethic and convey the importance of the entire spectrum of moral issues is not a strategy that has or will work to actually get across the full scope of the Church’s moral concern. In short, inattention to the full range of issues risks a reductionistic understanding of the Church’s social mission, and addressing a comprehensive range of social issues should constitute a central goal, especially for the institutional Church’s social mission.

Of course, there has been some positive guidance from Rome on this point. Indeed, while the popes have certainly not wanted to eschew the issue of abortion, the big picture of global justice and the call for global justice, solidarity, and hope seem more important to both Benedict XVI and Pope Francis than the recent divisive history of religion and politics in the United States, with its focus on abortion (Cahill 2012, p. 37). And further, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2003 “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” insists that “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A Political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility toward the common good” (Cahill 2005, p. 64). The American bishops, then, should heed the advice of the CDF and learn from the actions of the former pontiffs Benedict and Francis: abortion is important, but it cannot and should not bear the full weight of Catholic concern.

7. Further Methodological Concerns

Lingering foundational methodological inconsistencies also need to be better addressed, and we can simply note this here. Indeed, many commentators have argued that the Church’s teaching on sexual and medical issues employs a classicist, deontological natural law approach, whereas in other (for no doubt there is overlap) social issues, it employs models of historical consciousness, personalism, and proportionate reasoning (Curran 1988). The result is that some acts, such as abortion, are always deemed an “intrinsic moral evil”, whereas others are deemed to depend on circumstances. A step further, ostensibly, former issues are ones which truly touch on the heart of morality and on which no compromise is possible, whereas other social issues, such as war or economic justice, are areas tangential to the moral teaching and where there can be much legitimate disagreement.

There has been much debate about whether the teachings’ methodology is consistent and legitimate and whether an alternative set of ideas historically and derogatorily dubbed “proportionalism” is itself legitimate and orthodox. Clearly resolving these issues will be no easy feat, and even fully explaining them is far beyond the scope of this paper. Without a doubt, however, it should at least be noted that they deserve attention. As Patricia Beattie Jung has argued, in order to truly promote a consistent ethic, the teaching must be reformed: the hierarchy can continue “to illuminate the sanctity of fetal life” but “attention must also be given to the realities of women’s lives and to the normative implications of the ambiguities therein” (Jung 2008).

Even if this latter suggestion is not likely to be adopted by the American hierarchy, at least in the immediate future, the other proposals made, namely less focus on illegality—especially without support for increased civil society support from every level of responsibility—more focus on issues of poverty and persuasive argument and on giving attention to comprehensive set of issues, remain imperative.

8. Conclusions

American magisterial teaching has continuously cast abortion as part of a consistent ethic covering a comprehensive and interrelated set of issues affecting human life and dignity. Ironically, the teaching also entails a set of tensions between the single issue of abortion and the larger framework, and this has been resolved by insisting that the legality of abortion affects all other issues and so deserves special focus; this focus has played out in public policy with detrimental consequences. I have argued that if the bishops’ goals truly are a reduction in abortions, the promotion of respect for life and human dignity, and the promulgation of a truly comprehensive and consistent ethic, then there needs to be a change in their approach. Such a change would consist of a focus on the literally lethal impacts of illegality, more grassroots arguments aimed at changing cultural attitudes, and more support—in both rhetoric and action—for measures that work, including but not limited to the myriad levels of structural justice for the poor and women in particular. These actions would, in turn, reinforce the consistent ethic. Further, the bishops should disavow a single-issue approach and move toward an actually comprehensive approach to public policy.

In short, it is simply not enough on the one hand to proclaim a consistent ethic—an interrelated and full spectrum of issues—and on the other to act as if only one issue really matters and that only one solution will solve everything on that issue and thereby to ignore imperative aspects of dealing with that issue. The legal question at the highest level of legal authority in the U.S. has been cast back to myriad levels of subsidiarity. Now, more than ever, there is an urgent need in public dialogue for the vision of a Consistent Ethic of Life and for the USCCB to be a principal champion of such. The American bishops simply have not fully fulfilled their role as a comprehensive dialogue- and consensus-shaping force for the greater realization of Catholic Social Teaching in all its sophisticated complexity. It is time for them to be consistent and thus truly effective.