What Became of Freedom of Conscience?

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of the law?

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! "A Man for All Seasons"


Notwithstanding all I said in Part I of this op ed, and notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, which holds that a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, serious moral questions remain for anyone who feels abortion is a moral wrong.

(1) Because you may choose to have an abortion, must I perform that abortion?

(2) Must I assist you?

(3) Must I pay for your abortion?

(4) Must I provide you with insurance to cover the cost of your abortion?

(5) Must my business do "one of the above?" Must I do "one of the above" even if I happened to believe abortion to be murder, or tantamount to murder? Must I do so even though I believe abortion to be a grave sin? If you have "freedom to choose" abortion, why do you not recognize my "freedom to choose" to have nothing to do with your abortion? Why does your "freedom of choice" trump mine?

The bishops are fighting for their own "freedom of conscience." They are also fighting for all people — Catholics and non-Catholics — who believe as they do. Even those who administer colleges and hospitals which have employees!

When a woman has an abortion, an embryo, fetus or child is unquestionably killed. The only question is this: was the victim a human being? If life begins at conception, and if the victim is a human being, then abortion is murder or tantamount to murder.

And if committing, or assisting in an abortion, is morally wrong, I do not want to stand before my maker having assisted with an abortion — even if my assistance was only financial — there to be reminded that "whatever you did to the least of my brothers, that you did unto me."

That is what this battle is all about.

The Catholic Catechism contains this sublime teaching: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. ... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. ... His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1776)

Defending freedom of conscience is not just a Catholic issue. It is a fundamental human right to refuse to take part in morally evil actions: "To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself — the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good — would be radically compromised.

"What is at stake therefore is an essential right, which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane." (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, no. 74)

One last thing must be noted. The USCCB position was not the position of every Catholic bishop. Some saw from the outset the USCCB position was fraught with peril. The dissenters felt that the USCCB operated under the naive assumption that placing unspecified control of the U.S. health care system in the hands of the federal government to get health care insurance for the uninsured outweighed the obvious risks. The USCCB chose to overlook the fact that the law would be implemented by an administration that did not shares it values as to the value of human life.

The bishops should have had my mother.


Posted Online: Feb. 16, 2012, 2:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea