Why Politicians Should Never Become Theologians

Before reading on, listen to this interview with Sharron Angle:

Ms. Angle is asked a question about abortion, which she is against. When asked if she is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest she states

You know I am a Christian,and I believe that God has a plan and purpose for our lives. And He can intercede in al sorts of situations, so we need to have a little faith in many things”

Her answer is quite curious. First, she doesn’t answer the question. The answer that she does give is a poorly worded statement of theology. It’s poorly worded because it makes it look like God planned the rape or incest that lead to the pregnancy. The problem this poses is simple, if God is all powerful , all loving, and cannot even look at evil, then why would He plan for sin to occur?

Now, I am not prepared at this time to write a complete theological treatise on this subject. It is a source of serious and sometimes heated debate in the Christian community. However, neither was Sharron Angle. Which is why it is such a poorly worded statement. This is also why politicians should stay far afield of theology. A better worded answer for Ms. Angle would have been this “I believe any abortion is wrong. However, the grace and love of God can help to heal the wounds of any attack.”  This answer would have avoided making God look like He is the source of evil and avoided a very tricky theological issue.

Published in: on 06/29/2010 at 9:03 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Between a Rock…

There’s an article by the Associated Press via MSNBC about an abortion that took place late last year in Phoenix, AZ. The article recounts the story of a woman in St Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center who had pulmonary hypertension and was 11 weeks pregnant. The woman’s life was in danger and would most likely have died without the abortion. The ethics board of the hospital includes doctors, administrators, and a nun , Sister Margaret McBride who was vice president of mission integration at the hospital. Sister McBride has been excommunicated by the Bishop of the Diocese , Thomas J Olmsted.  From the article:

“I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. “I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.

“An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”

First, let me state that I am pro-life, however, I find the Bishop’s statement to be an example of issues that some in the Pro-Life movement have. That is that the unborn takes precedence over the life of the mother.  To state it another way, Pro-Life is concerned only with life at the beginning or the end. Everything in between is not their concern.

Without a doubt, this is a tragic case. One in which there were no easy answers, only hard choices. I have a couple of friends who are in the medical field. from private discussions that I’ve had, these types of decisions are well discussed and deeply thought out. In other words, they are not taken lightly.I doubt that anyone on the ethics panel felt that the unborn child was “a disease”. If anything, they were probably deeply distraught over having to make a decision between two lives. Actually, the real decision was between losing both or just the child. The unfortunate fact is that the child was not going to survive either way. At 11 weeks, the unborn child was not developed enough to even try to survive outside of its mother.It’s mother could no longer survive with the child. The Bishop,  doesn’t seem to grasp that fact.

One of the problems with dogmatic teaching is that there are always situations that break the rule. Without a doubt, tragic situations like this occur with a little more regularity than we would like to admit. Truth is, to me being Pro-Life is not reserved for embryos and fetuses.  The Pro-Life movement needs to be consistent. I understand that in the eyes of the movement,unborn children are especially vulnerable. However, there is no sense in sacrificing two lives when one could be saved. If the tables were turned, and the mother’s life had to be sacrificed for the child, there would be a demand that the child should live.

I’ve had a problem with calling myself Pro-Life because of incidents such as this. Situations where there are no easy black and white answers and the predominant color is gray.  It’s troubling to me to see that so little thought is given to the mother and so much to the unborn child. I believe that it is time for the Pro-Life movement to start looking at their inconsistencies and become truly Pro-Life.

Some other links:

Arizona Republic article

The American Catholic

Beliefnet The Deacon’s Bench