The Texas bishops’ recent pronouncement that Catholic groups and parishes are not to associate with Amnesty International is distressing. The bishops’ edict results from Amnesty’s new policy, supporting decriminalization of abortion for women who are victims of "rape, incest and extreme risk to the health of the mother."
Contrary to the bishops’ insinuation, Amnesty, which was founded by a Catholic, does not support abortion as a universal right, only its decriminalization. A big difference. The Texas bishops’ statement is also out of sync with that of the American bishops who do not object to decriminalization as to women, but only as to practitioners.
Ironically, the bishops’ instruction comes at the same time a global study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing abortion does little to deter it. The difference is that, where it is illegal, many more women die as a result – 13 percent more, for example, in some African countries.
Worldwide, the annual number of abortions continues to decline significantly, even while decriminalization has been going on. The decline is also substantial in countries that broadly permit abortion. This is a good development. The reasons seem to be better reproductive education and availability of contraception. The bishops are weak on the first option, and opposed to the second. Rather than fighting with Amnesty, their energy would be better spent on alternatives to abortion, such as taking care of children of women who do not choose abortion. They say they do this, but their budgets send a different message.
So, why tell Catholic groups not even to be in coalition with Amnesty on selected human rights issues, such as opposing the death penalty? Does that mean now, when we receive the monthly Amnesty “Prisoners of Conscience” mailing, asking us to write three letters on behalf of people somewhere in the world (and some of them jailed and tortured for religious reasons), the bishops want us to say “sorry”? And what about those of us who distribute these mailings to our e-lists, asking friends to do the same? This is one of Amnesty’s greatest successes. I’ve been at Amnesty conventions where former prisoners have testified that the thousands of letters, which poured in from around the world on their behalf, were the only reason they were freed and alive today.
Amnesty is one of the world’s premier human rights organizations. What alternative do the bishops suggest? Certainly not themselves. They conduct no “Prisoners of Conscience” monthly letter-writing campaigns – although it would be terrifically powerful if they did. It was not the Catholic bishops in Mexico (or Texas, for that matter) who lifted the horrific murders of more than 400 women in Juárez, a femicide, onto the international stage. To the contrary, church officials in Juárez provided no moral leadership. Nor was it the Catholic hierarchy in Argentina that spoke out against the years of disappearances, but, we now know, actually collaborated with the junta’s extermination of political opponents. It was Amnesty that lent enormous help to those struggles, not the bishops. Amnesty won the 1977 Nobel Peace prize for its work in Argentina.
It’s wrong to create an “either/or” situation in this context. Good Catholics can oppose abortion, and still support the good work Amnesty does.
***
Harrington, a Catholic, is a civil rights attorney In Austin, where he also teaches and writes.
