POOR John Kerry. He is trying to be a modern politician while retaining his spiritual sensitivities, and he is suffering for it.
Last month Kerry, who is a committed Catholic, voted against a bill that makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which President Bush signed into law this month, designates a fetus as a human being from the moment of conception and makes killing one a murder separate from the murder of a pregnant woman, except in certain medical procedures.
Kerry objected on the grounds that this would impact on a woman鈥檚 right to choose to end her pregnancy 鈥� a right Kerry is keen to defend. In the past, he has also expressed his opinions on stem cell research, arguing that current legislative restrictions in the US could adversely affect the health of 100 million living Americans. Needless to say, these are not opinions that are shared by the leaders of his church.
Advertisement
Kerry has taken a risk. The inevitable bleats from outraged bishops put him in danger of losing a significant proportion of the floating Catholic and wider Christian vote. Nevertheless he has decided not to follow the flock. For this we should applaud him: here is a man who regularly attends mass and has deep spiritual convictions and who dares to follow his own opinion rather than the dictates of his church leaders. When personal morality overcomes herd mentality and political expedience, we should all be thankful.
Kerry鈥檚 act is more significant than most people are giving him credit for. He is providing proof that, contrary to what appears in much of the media, intelligence, faith and integrity can work together. In debates on the ethics of science, the views of people with religious convictions tend to be sidelined precisely because of the tendency of bishops and others, such as those now criticising Kerry, to vilify anyone who dares question the official church line. Opinions born of religious faith have come to be seen as pre-formed and inflexible. This is a shame because, as Kerry has demonstrated, religious people have a lot to contribute to rational debate.
The ranting bishops have regaled Kerry with last year鈥檚 Vatican 鈥渄octrinal note鈥� on Catholic participation in political life. It said that 鈥渁 well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals鈥�. The fact is, Kerry and the Pope would probably agree on the fundamental contents of faith and morals. It鈥檚 the non-fundamental questions that are problematic. Questions such as, at what point does cellular material become an embryo? When does an embryo become a fetus? Can we agree on the difference between a fetus and a baby, if there is one? And does the Bible instruct Christians to impose their moral beliefs as nationwide legislation?
I don鈥檛 suppose Kerry knows all the answers. I suspect the Pope doesn鈥檛 either. But Kerry has the moral high ground here. We cannot infer from his defence of abortion rights and the use of stem cells that he has decided these controversial acts are OK. Indeed, he says his personal stance is against abortion. Kerry is simply recognising that his position has influence, and that when he doesn鈥檛 know the fundamental answer to something that bothers his conscience he鈥檒l be damned rather than bypass other people鈥檚 consciences. It鈥檚 called respect for human dignity: it puts value on everyone鈥檚 ability to make up their own mind about what is morally right and wrong.
It is a welcome reminder that spiritual convictions do not automatically disengage the brain. Indeed, people of faith like Kerry who weigh human responsibilities in scales that go beyond merely human notions of accountability can provide an insightful angle in any ethical debate while avoiding dogma. Feel free to call people irrational for having spiritual beliefs. But don鈥檛 think that we (yes, I鈥檓 one of them) cannot engage in open discussion and honest debate.
There are many issues out there on which there is no consensus. I have a PhD in quantum physics, but the interpretation of quantum mechanics still baffles me (I am in good company: the Dalai Lama admits similar problems). Deciding what are and are not proper uses of biotechnology is at least as perplexing. And don鈥檛 get me started on the right way for a Christian to resolve the tension between the creation and evolution camps.
Unlike Kerry, I have never been forced to take a public stance on the issues I find problematic. But here is one for the record. I believe that people of faith have to be especially careful about bullying others into following their version of morality, particularly when they may be denying others the chance for health and happiness that some technology might offer. In this, they might find themselves transgressing the very faith they are trying to uphold.