Skip to comments.What the Schneck?: Medicaid's good justifies abortion's evil
Posted on 09/29/2012 4:58:39 PM PDT by qwertyz
What the Schneck? A Catholic University scholars data-free theory on Romney and abortion:
Professor Stephen Schneck is a conundrum. Hes a Catholic who works for the Catholic University of America (CUA). But hes involved with the group Catholics for Obamadespite the church hierarchys view that the president is attacking the religious freedom of Catholics. Hes pro-life. But he supports Democratic politicians universallyeven though the party has become manifestly hostile to pro-lifers. Schnecks most puzzling contradiction is this: He claims that while Democrats support abortion rights, its really Republicans who cause abortions.
Schneck is very specific about it. He has numbers. At an event in Charlotte earlier this month during the Democratic convention, Schneck spoke on a panel hosted by Democrats for Life. He asked the audience, Can one vote for Romney if it means a 6, or 7, or, God forbid, 8 percent increase in the number of abortions in America?
Thats an interesting question. Interesting because (1) it contradicts the received wisdom about abortion and (2) it does so with seeming mathematical precision. Schneck doesnt foresee a 4 percent jump. Or a 12 percent jump. He locates the projected rise in a narrow band. Its the kind of figure that brings you up short. Because Stephen Schneck isnt just some crank professor trying to rile up his undergraduates. Hes the director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic StudiesCUAs in-house think tank....
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
His premise is that women need a cafeteria full of services -- like Access food stamps and Medicaid -- otherwise, they will feel they can't afford to give birth and will abort. Consequently, he believes it is a moral duty for government to offer a bounty of services. He doesn't like that a few menu items happen to include the poisoned mushrooms of Medicaid-funded abortions and abortifacients.
Nevertheless in Schneck's mind, stocking a big cafeteria of services counterbalances the government serving poisoned mushrooms.
It's a morally insane way to run a kitchen -- offer more good stuff and fewer people will ingest the bad stuff!
But the Catholic Church's teaching is quite clear on the moral recipe of human acts: "One may not do evil so that good may result from it" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1756) and "A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together." (1760).
Politically, to the extent we the people are responsible for financing this kitchen, the clear moral imperative is, at minimum, to get the poison out of the cafeteria. No relative good or positive consequence justifies serving up that which is intrinsically evil.
Nothing justifies abortion's evil. Nothing.
I had Schneck as a professor once for a class. He wasn’t horribly biased, never made overt political statements. Although you could fairly easily tell from his personal comments. One time in class he said if he could live anywhere at any time, it would be Paris in the 19th Century.
I later saw him speak at an event about Catholic voting. He trotted out this exact weird argument that Catholics could vote for a Pro-abortion candidate if the Pro-Life candidate also happened to support policies that did greater harm (i.e. gutting welfare programs).
I lost a lot of respect for him for presenting such an absurd argument.
The thinking is the same as with the folks who imagine that the few who miss out on paying federal personal income tax will vote for Obama because he's the personification of all the goodies.
They are all Marxists.
“Stephen Schneck isnt just some crank....Hes the director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies”
I see where the author’s sort of gone wrong.
Many of the biggest idiots in the history of the world have had titles like ‘director of the Institute for Policy blah, blah, blah.’ after their name.
And Schneck is the perfect example-at-my-fingertips.
Eliminate Tenure and the Mr Schneck’s of the world are no more.
I don’t think so, based on my interactions with him. However, he clearly was influenced by Marxist thought. One of his personal comments that also gave him away was his familiarity of the old slogan “Marx, Mao, and Marcuse” from his college days.
It was an intro to political theory class, and when Marx was discussed he was fairly critical of Marxism’s failings, and even checked this one girl in the class who was overly enthusiastic about the subject.
He is a real Catholic in his eyes, but it’s very much the Liberation Theology kind.
This poser has probably never actually spoken with a genuine medicaid recipient to find out what it's really like. Seriously. Not worth a second thought.
Foillowing is the letter I sent to our (usually conservative, certainly orthodox) DIOCESAN bookstore absout it. They evidently didn't vet it very carefully. I did.
I want to share some strong concerns about a book which you have prominently displayed at your check-out counter and on your website, Voting and Holiness, edited by Nicholas Cafardi.
Its a VERY attractively-packaged, Paulist-published collection of reflections on political participation; but this book is by no means nonpartisan. Editor Nicholas Cafardi and most of his contributors are publicly-recognized activists within the leadership of Catholics for Obama. This can be quickly and indisputably documented:
My central concern is that this book is --- without openly admitting it --- Obama campaign literature. In their respective chapters,
· Lisa Sowle Cahill opposes the protection of human rights for the unborn as an electoral priority;
· William DAntonio argues against the bishops efforts to support pro-life and pro- religious liberty legislation;
· Richard Gaillardetz asserts that Catholic can vote for a candidate who supports abortion, so long as the policies of that pro-choice candidate would best further the common good.
· M. Cathleen Caveney argues that intrinsically evil acts may not be gravely evil;
· Bryan Massingale deplores the bishops comparison of abortion with slavery, since--- he claims--- the personhood of slaves and unborn babies was not historically, and is not now, the relevant issue.
· Vincent Miller urges Catholics can pursue the common good even while accepting cooperation with evil;
· Maureen OConnell sees it as an antiquated Catholic theology to focus upon personal salvation, prohibitive admonition, and avoidance of evil;
· Stephen Schneck --- the co-chair of Catholics for Obama--- opposes Cardinal Charles Chaputs call for indivisible Catholic truth in the public square.
Please understand that I would likewise oppose the front-and-centering of a political book which was a partisan promotion of the Romney/Ryan team.
I know the promotion of the Catholics for Obama perspective must have been inadvertent on your part. The packaging of this book is very skillful on the part of the editor, and its real partisan aspect is obvious only after a bit of research (which I have done.)
I hope you will discontinue promotion of this book on your display counter and on your website in the 6 weeks before Election Day.
Wow — thanks for doing your homework! Very helpful to know the cast of characters. It’s amazing how abortion gets discounted to a third-class (or lower) moral problem by these guys.
How did his Liberation Theology translate to wanting more government to provide more services to create a dependent, servile class? That’s what I don’t get.
He’s on the right track but the wrong train.
To reduce abortion SUBSTANTIALLY require that men have to co-support and co-raise the children they co-create. No exceptions unless you are dead.
This problem is old, old and has always been directly attributable to men not taking responsibility for children they co-create.
We now have the means to identify fathers of children with excellent accuracy. We should use it.
If this were strictly enforced, abortions would decreased dramatically in less than a generation.
1) Men would be more committed to preventing pregnancy if they don’t want the rsponsibility of a child so there would be fewer pregnancies. 2) Children with a father in their lives are less likely to be irresponsible about creating new children when they reach reproducing age.
If anything medicaid/welfare ENCOURAGES irresponsible breeding, because it absolves mommy and baby daddy of any kind of obligation to provide for their kids.
The taxpayer will pick up the tab, so screw away...
It could be simply a refusal to look at history. The Republicans have never done more than trim social programs. Why does he think they will do so now? Ryan’s budget was hit by the staffers at the USCCB for reducing programs, but it does hardly more that decreasing the rate of growth. The analogue is thr old lady who is $200,000 in debt but who refuses to stop using her credit card.
The sad story is that when they were setting up the IPR (it was formally called the Life Cycle Institute - part of the sociology dept.) they went through a name selection process. They came up with three final choices, none of which contained the word Catholic. One of the names was chosen and things went along their merry way until the (then President) Fr. O’Connell told them to go back to the drawing board and this time to remember the mission of the University.
I’m not seeing how your comment relates to mine.
I didn’ say anything about Medicaid.
Whatever,abortion on demand occurs because these same people do use it for birth control, because other forms of birth control requires personal discipline.
The man in his own words. From EWTN via YouTube
Chaput is not a Cardinal.