I’m pleased to note the publication of what looks like a fantastic book on the consistent ethic of life, 
which appears to be a reappraisal of the “seamless garment” approach to life issues. The book, which will in print tomorrow, is entitled Consistently Opposing Killing: From Abortion to Assisted Suicide, the Death Penalty, and War. It consists of a number of essays by researchers in sociology, political science, psychology and theology. Sr. Edith Bogue, professor of sociology at the College of St. Scholastica and blogger at Monastic Musings, contibuted one of the book’s chapters. She writes about the background of the essay here.
Here is a description of Consistently Opposing Killing from Praeger Publishers:
This work explains an increasingly popular view dubbed the Consistent Life Ethic, which holds that all life deserves reverence, so all social support for actions that destroy life should be withdrawn. The call is for opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia and other forms of killing to be consistent. Supporters of this view, shared widely in these pages, include figures from the Dalai Lama and Nobel Peace Prize winner Malread Corrifon Maguire to actor Martin Sheen and Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff. It is at once an ethical, religious and political ideology, explored here in its application to actions from treatment of unborn humans to infants, the disabled, the poverty-stricken, war combatants, and animals. In the work at hand, contributors explain the history of the pro-life movement, its growth and expansion, how these types of seemingly disparate killing are all linked, why a Consistent Life Ethic is needed, and how individuals can take steps to assure this ethic is more widely accepted.
April 29, 2008 at 10:04 am
Sweet!
April 29, 2008 at 11:20 am
Looks like it’s worth a read – but from the outset, I worry that these types of arguments blur distinctions that are necessary to Catholic moral analysis and political prudence.
April 29, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Zach, what type of arguments? The Consistent Life Ethic itself? The CLE is not an argument, it’s a synthesis of Catholic teaching. Moreover, the ability to see the connection between war and abortion helps both the pro-life and pro-peace political movements.
April 29, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Nate,
Yes – the consistent life ethic itself. I have no problem with understanding Catholic teaching as holistic, but I don’t think this is what the “consistent ethic of life” mantra (idea) is about.
Basically, it’s important and very Catholic to note that abortion is not the same thing as war which is not the same thing as capital punishment which is not the same thing as Euthanasia which is not the same thing as poverty which is not the same thing as larsony.
They are related, yes. They are all sins, yes. But they happen under different circumstances and with different actors and for different reasons, so the form our opposition takes must be different in each case. Also, these various issues are hierarchical in importance. Some are more important than others.
In the past, the consistent ethic of life has been used to blur all distinctions, especially distinctions of moral significance. Maybe that’s not the case with this book.
April 29, 2008 at 12:22 pm
How is war, capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia not “killing” of human beings? Are there different circumstances surrounding each one? Yes. But they are all forms of killing, right? Isn’t that what the book is trying to do: “consistently opposing KILLING”?
Wouldn’t we agree that the killing of a human being through abortion is just as grave as the killing of an elderly person through euthanasia or the killing of a person through war or capital punishment? If we can’t agree on that, then are we placing more value to the embryo than to the inmate in death row?
In the end, these acts kill human persons and that is the bottom line. Perhaps to get too bogged down in the “different circumstances” that surround each act of killing is to try to create distinctions where there are none, because in the opposition to all forms of killing lies the protection of human life. The problem that we run into is that some people deem capital punishment, for example, as “less important”, because these men or women are not “innocent” or they “deserved it”. We forget that at the heart of the matter is the person and his inherent dignity.
April 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Wouldn’t we agree that the killing of a human being through abortion is just as grave as the killing of an elderly person through euthanasia or the killing of a person through war or capital punishment? If we can’t agree on that, then are we placing more value to the embryo than to the inmate in death row?
Katerina,
I’m going to borrow a quote from Ratzinger that I’ve undoubtedly cited before:
Of course one ought to oppose killing in all cases, but whereas, for instance, abortion and euthanasia are to be categorically opposed, one may have recourse to the use of armed force (warfare) and the moral worth is determined according to different criteria (the just war tradition); likewise capital punishment is not categorically forbidden, but may be justifiably opposed on prudential grounds (as we know by Pope John Paul II and Avery Cardinal Dulles).
April 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Despite the title, I doubt that the authors of the book consistently oppose killing. Even assuming that they are all vegetarians (which they would have to be, least they support killing animals), they presumably are not opposed to cutting down trees, or to antibiotics, both of which involve killing. This would be a rather piddling objection, if not for the fact that the authors place such emphasis on their “consistent” support for “all life.” The truth is that there is no such thing as *the* consistent ethic of life. One can take a variety of positions on killing (say, opposing the death penalty but not being a pacifist, supporting the death penalty while also being a moral vegetarian, etc.) and still be consistent.
April 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Why do we look for excuses to not oppose the death penalty and war? I really don’t understand it.
April 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Katerina,
It’s not about making excuses to oppose death penalty and war. It’s about making sound moral judgments and respecting the distinctions in Catholic moral thought.
April 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Why do we look for excuses to not oppose the death penalty and war? I really don’t understand it.”
And that’s the problem. Unless you understand why someone believes something, getting him to change his mind is going to be really difficult.
April 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Chris,
So, now that you have quoted his “famous” words (although they were not meant to be famous), could you interpret it for me and their relevance to my comment?
1. Was Ratzinger trying to say that abortion and euthanasia are absolutely wrong but that war and capital punishment are “not so bad”?
2. Was he saying that human life is to be protected more in the womb than at an adult age?
3. Was he explaining when it is OK or not to disagree with the Holy See with certain moral issues and their implications in receiving communion?
It’s certainly dangerous when we take certain passages out of context.
I think he was trying to convey 3), since we all know what the purpose of the document was. That is not to say that he was trying to say 1) above. The circumstances surrounding abortion and euthanasia are obviously different than those surrounding war and capital punishment. We all agree on that and it is not being disputed. What I don’t understand is why we have to be forced to pick-and-choose. It is very simple: if we try to protect human life, let’s protect it at all of its stages. Let’s stop killing of human beings altogether. Hence my comment above. I do NOT understand why we always have to make excuses for other forms of killing.
April 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Why do we look for excuses to not oppose the death penalty and war? I really don’t understand it.
The “excuses” — what others might refer to as moral criteria for the evaluation of when employment of armed force is justified — are there in the Catechism (edited by Cardinal Schonborn and our present Pope). They are part and parcel of Catholic tradition.
Honestly, despite talk the “warmongering” label, I suspect most of those charged with making the grave decision to resort to the death penalty or authorize the use of armed force aren’t jumping at the bit to end the life of another.
April 29, 2008 at 1:45 pm
It’s about making sound moral judgments and respecting the distinctions in Catholic moral thought.
Is capital punishment the act of killing a human being?
April 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Katerina,
Yes? The difference between abortion and capital punishment is the distinction between guilt and innocence.
April 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Yes? The difference between abortion and capital punishment is the distinction between guilt and innocence.
Thanks. This is where I wanted to get to.
The root of an inconsistent ethic of life is simply an inconsistent and incoherent understanding of the worth of human life under any circumstance. In other words, the worth of a person is somehow subjected to the circumstances that surround him. According to this logic then, if a person has committed atrocious crimes (e.g. Saddam Hussein), his own actions have already diminished the worth of his own life and that is why it is “not as bad” for another human being to hang him, because he “brought it upon himself”. No wonder we saw so much of “Justice was done!” when Saddam was executed.
My concern here is that by not opposing all forms of killing, other human beings somehow decide the worth of someone else’s life given a certain set of circumstances and that takes us back all the way to abortion, because that is the same mistake made by those who support abortion.
April 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I’m all for hierarchies, but at the end of the day “x is not as bad as y” is a shallow appeal. Drunk driving is categorically worse than running red lights, but I would be stupid to claim this truth justifies running red lights. And in the modern state where the death penalty is so divorced from the concept of justice, John Paul II was correct in claiming support of it impedes the development of a consistent ethic of life.
Too often there is an appeal made to effectual morality so to speak. Just because a particular instance of the death penality may have warrant does not mean that having a death penality scheme is the path to a more just society. There are bigger questions to be asked. To always focus on particular instances is to miss the forest for the trees.
April 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm
My concern here is that by not opposing all forms of killing, other human beings somehow decide the worth of someone else’s life given a certain set of circumstances and that takes us back all the way to abortion, because that is the same mistake made by those who support abortion.
Katerina
Can you address the issue of why the Catechism and our present Pope (not to mention “Catholic tradition”) makes such distinctions between abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and the use of armed force? — Would making such distinctions be “inconsistent”?
April 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Katerina,
Determining someone’s guilt or innocence is not about determining what a human being is “worth”. Of course, every human being is good in their very being because they are created in the image of God. This is irrevocable. Circumstances do not change their dignity or worth one bit.
But, the Church has taught, that does not mean that it is always wrong for a human being to be killed – such as in a just war or just imposition of capital punishment – we have to assume such things can exist in reality otherwise the Church would not bother making all the distinctions it does. I’m sorry if this offends you sensibilities, but it simply is the case.
April 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Too often there is an appeal made to effectual morality so to speak. Just because a particular instance of the death penality may have warrant does not mean that having a death penality scheme is the path to a more just society. There are bigger questions to be asked. To always focus on particular instances is to miss the forest for the trees.
Well, I’d agree with that.
In like manner, our present Pope can say:
AND yet at the same time issue an appeal to all nations to pursue peace and seek to bring about the realization of circumstances where such recourse to “proportional violence” is not an option.
I don’t view the two as being inconsistent.
April 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Chris,
What distinctions? Let’s get our concepts clear first. What kind of distinctions are you talking about? Distinctions in circumstances surrounding these acts? Distinctions in executions of these acts? Distinction in the final end of these same acts? What distinctions?
Is there anywhere in Catholic tradition that says that the life of an embryo is worth more than that of a civilian in the wrong path of an armed conflict? I want to know if there is such a reference in the Catechism or the Catholic tradition. I’m only asking, because you quoted that part of my comment where I was concerned about having “different” values put in human life given the circumstances.
April 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm
M.Z.,
I agree with you and Christopher.
My primary concern here is that people who engage in the ‘consistent ethic of life’ talk make basic moral distinctions. – Something that the author of this book may or may not do, I do not know, I have not read it, I was conjecturing based upon previous experience with this argument.
A secondary contention is that one can have a consistent ethic of life and recognize that there may be times when the death penalty or a just war is the right course of action – and that this is a position fully compatible with orthodox Catholicism.
April 29, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Katerina,
Distinctions like Avery Cardinal Dulles makes here:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175
April 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Katerina,
Sorry if this is redundant, I’m not sure whether or not I posted it or closed the window -
The distinctions that Christopher and I are concerned with can be seen quite clearly in this essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles here
April 29, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Katerina, the ‘double-effect’ rule hasn’t been mentioned yet, but it is the root of the problem. The rule basically legitimizes ‘necessary evil’ or more accurately, choosing the ‘lesser evil’. I’ve always had a problem with the rule, because it denies the power of the Holy Spirit in freeing man from the slavery of ‘necessary’ and ‘lesser’ evils.
I have, however, accepted the fact that God’s grace has not touched all of our fallen world. Perhaps a great many people are stilled trapped by necessary evils. But we should never forget necessary evil remains evil, that we are called as Christians to transform ourselves and the world, in order that the slavery of sin is vanquished.
April 29, 2008 at 2:51 pm
What kind of distinctions are you talking about? Distinctions in circumstances surrounding these acts? Distinctions in executions of these acts? Distinction in the final end of these same acts? What distinctions?
Katerina — I’ll repeat the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
Precisely those distinctions.
For a further elaboration, please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it discusses these issues, and with respect to the “death penalty”, the article by Cardinal Dulles referenced by Zach.
It is a fact that the Church has discriminated between situations in which the taking of life is categorically wrong at all times, and situations of extreme gravity where it may be morally justifiable and even required.
April 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It’s not clear to me that the permissibility of the death penalty turns on how much worth one gives to human life. After all, the key retributive argument in favor of the death penalty is that human life is so precious and valuable that only the death of the murderer can make up for the enormity of his crime. One can object to the retributive principle generally (many do), but if one accepts the principle it would seem that the more value one places on human life, the more pressing is the case for capital punishment. Similarly for deterrence. If the execution of a murderer stops several future murders, then whatever objection one might have to the death penalty, it can’t simply be that it places too little value on human life, since the anti-death penalty person prefers a situation wherein more people are murdered than would be absent capital punishment.
April 29, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Chris, Zach, et. al,
We’re talking past each other. Nevermind.
April 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm
What people might not realize is this is not a Catholic book per se. I see at least one Quaker, one Buddhist, one atheist, and one Hindu among the contributors, in addition to a couple of Catholics and several whose religious affiliation I don’t know.
Whether or not the book comports with Catholic social teaching is a question I’m not qualified to answer, but it’s not particularly meant to.
April 29, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Christopher and Zach,
I think there is a subtle nuance here. Killing is just as grave (i.e. serious) in all its manifestations (e.g., abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia). This is how I read Katerina and, of course, I have the benefit of discussing these issues with her in person. There is no distinction in the act of killing apart from circumstance and medium. That’s part and parcel not only of Catholic tradition, but every philosophical tradition.
Now, the quote you supply, Christopher, which comes from a privately circulated statement (I note this for purely heremeneutical and authoritative reasons), discusses particular issues of life in very broad stokes. Indeed, Ratzinger was not doing moral theology here, but simply reiterating a truth in incomplete fashion (the main topic of the private letter was worthiness to receive communion).
Ratzinger touches on the moral variability of life issues. Some life issues are absolute in moral terms, such as abortion. Under no circumstances can the killing of a human life occur morally by these actions. Some life issues, however, are morally variable rather than absolute, which is to say that the circumstances surrounding them affect the overall moral weight of a given action. This includes war and capital punishment in a general sense. However, if a life is killed by war or capital punishment unjustly, the moral weight is equal to that of taking life by means of abortion or euthanasia. That’s an important point that you often leave out of these discussions. Killing unjustly by capital punishment, for example, is as unjust and immoral as killing by abortion. That’s the Catholic Church’s position.
So let’s recap:
The act of killing is equally grave regardless of the mode of killing (Katerina’s point).
The act of killing may be morally absolute or morally variable (Ratzinger’s point).
If the act of killing is morally variable, each individual instance of the act is weighed according to circumstance.
If the morally variable act is unjust, then the moral weight of the act is equal to that of morally absolute acts.
If the morally variable act is just, then the moral weight of the act may be different than that of morally absolute acts (Christopher’s point).
Katerina is spot on in her analysis of the first proposition. Christopher, you are correct in your take on the final proposition.
April 29, 2008 at 3:56 pm
By the way, Blackadder raises a crucial point:
The worth of a life, which certainly informs and affects morality, is not the sole issue at stake in life issues. We must distinguish between (but, of course, never divorce) intrinsic worth of the human person and the moral action.
April 29, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Poli,
Thank you. That’s why I said that we were talking past each other and I didn’t have the time off from work to write the explanation :)
April 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Killing is just as grave (i.e. serious) in all its manifestations (e.g., abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia).
This is beyond dispute (I believe I acknowledged it earlier).
Now, the quote you supply, Christopher, which comes from a privately circulated statement …
Of course, but it comes in handy as a brief summary (if one is say, commenting during his lunch break). But one simply has to turn to the Catechism for a thorough discussion of the distinctions.
Some life issues are absolute in moral terms, such as abortion. Under no circumstances can the killing of a human life occur morally by these actions. Some life issues, however, are morally variable rather than absolute, which is to say that the circumstances surrounding them affect the overall moral weight of a given action.
Precisely my point — but thank you for your eloquence in restating.
If the morally variable act is unjust, then the moral weight of the act is equal to that of morally absolute acts.
Agreed.
Katerina, I believe I was thrown off when you had asserted:
Because ultimately it is in the nature of moral reasoning to make such distinctions — in the attribution of responsibility and guilt.
Nice to know we agree, however and thanks to MJ for the clarification.
April 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Poli,
You write that Christopher and I exclude the following idea:
“… if a life is killed by war or capital punishment unjustly, the moral weight is equal to that of taking life by means of abortion or euthanasia.”
To be honest, I didn’t mention it because I thought it was obvious – I apologize for not being more explicit.
And yes, the act of killing is equally grave in all circumstances, but we weren’t talking about the gravity of the action – we were talking about the morality of the action.
April 29, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I worry that these types of arguments blur distinctions that are necessary to Catholic moral analysis and political prudence.
My primary concern here is that people who engage in the ‘consistent ethic of life’ talk make basic moral distinctions.
From its origins, the consistent ethic of life approach has ALWAYS sought to maintain important distinctions. Read Bernardin himself on this point.
The problem is when “distinctions” are invoked without keeping in mind the more important and fundamental connections between the issues.
On the other hand, one blurring that needs to occur is that we need to understand that ALL unjust killing is EQUALLY evil. Killing human beings in an unjust war, for example, is not to be distinguished from abortion. Both are unjustified assaults on human life.
April 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Zach,
That comment was directed to Christopher. I was perhaps a bit vague on that.
April 29, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I find it interesting how people ignore the whole context of Ratzinger’s letter, even. The point of discussion is formal cooperation with abortion would forbid one from communion. However, the question we must raise is, what does it mean to be voting for “permissive abortion and euthanasia laws”. That, as one should expect — is a question of prudence; one person’s permissive is another person’s prudential attempt to slowly move things to be better. One person’s permissive could be another person’s attempt to restrict (for example, one person could think working against partial birth abortion only is very permissive; someone else would think it is the first step to restriction). This means the letter itself is quite vague when it comes to the heart of the matter — and it is not surprising, as has been pointed out, the letter is not an issue of detailed moral law, and the requirements of a moral argument are far more complex than those who quote the letter out of context.
Finally, let us also remember what was said about voting for politicians, so people won’t also use its discussion of formal cooperation wrongly: “[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.] ” Again, prudential reasons and a vagueness to this section also make it a poor resource in political debates, but it does point out that one’s voting for someone who is pro-abortion because they are pro-abortion is the only real formal cooperation that prevents one from communion; otherwise, it suggest one must make a prudential decision as to whether or not one can vote for a candidate for proportional reasons (since they are not given, again, it is an issue of personal prudence).
April 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I just want to add how nice it is to see intelligent people disagree, talk it out like adults, recognizing their differences, but focusing on that which is in common — a beautiful change.
April 29, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Michael I,
I agree with you – “one blurring that needs to occur is that we need to understand that ALL unjust killing is EQUALLY evil.”
But I do find it odd that you know people who think it’s somehow different!
April 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Henry,
I appreciate you bringing up precise definition for formal cooperation with evil –
“[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.”
and also your comments about prudential judgment. Once again, it seems the majority of disagreement amongst Catholics is about means and not ends. We still can’t seem to convince each other of the proper means to bring about the good society!
To be joyfully continued, I’m sure.
April 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Zach
I think we have gotten somewhere with our conversation (at least the two of us, one with another). “We still can’t convince each other of the proper means” I think it a legitimate way of pointing out things. And if we kept it that way, it will do well for everyone. We might passionately disagree on how things should be done, and it is right to debate it, and even debate why we might think some ways should be avoided. However, I think the concern many of us have is when this translates into politics and using political views and positions as a way to suggest someone shouldn’t be fit for communion. If that wasn’t brought into the equation, unless someone was clearly in formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil (and not a questionable cooperation which can be debated), I think political debates will greatly improve among Catholics.
April 29, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I agree with you – “one blurring that needs to occur is that we need to understand that ALL unjust killing is EQUALLY evil.”
But I do find it odd that you know people who think it’s somehow different!
It’s not so odd. Think of all the Catholics who tolerate the war in Iraq citing a “distinction”: that abortion is a greater evil. You have to have heard this nonsense before. Unjust killing is unjust killing.
April 29, 2008 at 7:51 pm
It’s not so odd. Think of all the Catholics who tolerate the war in Iraq citing a “distinction”: that abortion is a greater evil. You have to have heard this nonsense before. Unjust killing is unjust killing.
And this is a scary reality.
April 29, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Michael I, and apparently Poli too,
I think where we disagree is that I think reasonable people can disagree about whether or not Iraq is just, as long as they work to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church.
I also don’t think it is nonsense to distinguish between the scope of the problem of war and the scope of the problem of abortion. Abortion kills roughly 4000 people a day in the United States alone. 4000 a day! The number is not insignificant.
The act of abortion is not intrinsically any more or less evil than the act of an unjust war, but the magnitude of the problem of abortion is greater than the magnitude of the problem of the war – as things stand today. Abortion is a more prevalent sin.
Obviously, ideally, neither ought to exist, but we have to work with reality, not our ideals. This is not to say we should not work to the ideal – of course we should – I think I disagree with you about how we should work to the ideals of no war and no abortion.
To be frank, I think you are not being fair to people who think opposition to the war is not as practically important as working to enact pro-life legislation. These people are not war lovers – at least the faithful Catholics you speak of – they have concerns for justice just like you do. Even if it seems like they are totally insane, can’t you at least recognize they do not have evil intentions? And the fact that they exist and argue the way they do is not scary – it’s their attempt to know what the truth of things is. Why demean people like this?
April 29, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I think where we disagree is that I think reasonable people can disagree about whether or not Iraq is just, as long as they work to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church.
I am always open to a reasonable case, but I cannot even imagine any possible argument for the moral legitimacy of the Iraq War based upon BOTH just war doctrine AND the Church’s interpretation and application of that doctrine in the specific context of Iraq.
To be frank, I think you are not being fair to people who think opposition to the war is not as practically important as working to enact pro-life legislation.
But here you press the question beyond moral weight and into the legal sphere where priority and importance may shift on the issues. I think that’s fair to go there, but it wasn’t specifically what was at stake in this conversation.
Even if it seems like they are totally insane, can’t you at least recognize they do not have evil intentions?
I do recognize their non-evil intentions (I hesitate to label them unqualifiably “good”). I also recognize the non-evil intentions of many (not all) women who have abortions. But intentions can be purified by reason in both cases.
And the fact that they exist and argue the way they do is not scary – it’s their attempt to know what the truth of things is. Why demean people like this?
What I meant by “scary” was the thought of the death of every human on account of an unjust war. That’s a horribly torturing image in moral terms, akin to the image of slaughter of humans in abortions clinics.
April 29, 2008 at 11:05 pm
The act of abortion is not intrinsically any more or less evil than the act of an unjust war, but the magnitude of the problem of abortion is greater than the magnitude of the problem of the war – as things stand today. Abortion is a more prevalent sin.
Here we see the “distinction” mentality of explaining away concern for war at work. This is another distinction that baffles me. First, judging the “magnitude” of war is damn near impossible, as it does not include simple battlefield deaths, the impact of war spans generations, and the question of who gets to decide what “counts” as a “war.” Not to mention other factors. Second, it is really easy for a safe male in the united states to say that abortion is the “more prevalent sin” when compared to war. Tell that to people in the midst of ongoing conflicts whose children are not killed, by choice, privately in a clinic, but by bombs produced by your u.s. tax dollars. Who are you to judge what the “more prevalent sin” is, as if from some detached, privileged place of God-like observation? The arrogance! I’m sorry, but I’m certain your “distinction” here is rendered meaningless if you take a posture of real solidarity with the victims of both types of killing.
I think where we disagree is that I think reasonable people can disagree about whether or not Iraq is just, as long as they work to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church.
Theoretically, yes, but this simply cannot account for the vast majority of u.s. Catholic soldiers who participate and the silence of the rest of us who explain away that silence by shifting attention over and over to the equally important sin of abortion.
To be frank, I think you are not being fair to people who think opposition to the war is not as practically important as working to enact pro-life legislation.
As Catholics, WE DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE — AND WE MUST NOT CHOOSE — WHICH ISSUE IS MORE IMPORTANT. We MUST oppose both abortion and war. It’s not a competition.
These people are not war lovers – at least the faithful Catholics you speak of – they have concerns for justice just like you do.
You know as well as I do that many so-called “faithful” Catholics see very little problem with the wars waged by the united states, including the Iraq War. Some perhaps have a twisted understanding of “justice.”
Even if it seems like they are totally insane, can’t you at least recognize they do not have evil intentions? And the fact that they exist and argue the way they do is not scary – it’s their attempt to know what the truth of things is. Why demean people like this?
Although Poli used the word “scary,” I agree with it. And I do not mean to “demean” anyone, only to speak the truth as I understand it. I do believe that the intention of some Catholics, with regard to war, is indeed evil, even if this is not a willful, conscious embrace of some abstract thing called “evil.”
April 29, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Politicians segregate issues and debate their “relative importance.” Catholics, as the late, great and under-appreciated Cardinal Bernardin, do not fall for that trap in the ethics of life.
April 30, 2008 at 8:20 am
Poli/Michael,
I was trying to defend the common sense idea that some problems are more important than other problems – more pressing. Some problems are also more within our reach to solve. As someone who believes in basic democratic ideas and the notion of self-governance, I must insist this common sense idea is important. Indeed, democracy would be impossible without it.
With regards to the magnitude comments I made – I guess if you call observing the sheer difference in number of murders “some detached, privileged place” then yeah, that’s where the observation comes from. If you think using statistics in making a judgment is playing God, then I suppose I am guilty of playing God and for that I am sorry.
But let me be clear – I’m not trying to make an excuse or tell people who are victims of war that their problems aren’t real or significant or horrible – I’m quite aware they are. I know that war is a horror. The point is not to defend or explain away the horrors of war.
But I wish we could have this conversation in person! I think we could come to understand each other.
And for full disclosure, I do not and have not supported the war in Iraq and think there is a very strong case to be made against it.
April 30, 2008 at 8:25 am
I just want to add how nice it is to see intelligent people disagree, talk it out like adults, recognizing their differences, but focusing on that which is in common — a beautiful change.
Amen! I’m glad to see this too…
April 30, 2008 at 11:31 am
Zach – I guess I disagree whether “common sense” is the best way to go about comparing and contrasting war and abortion. It is indeed “common sense” which allows the perpetual defense of war as necessary in the first place.
Even if we use your numbers rationale, I am not convinced that abortion is therefore “more pressing” or “more within our reach to solve.” Wars are usually started as a matter of concrete, immediate decision-making which mobilize millions of people to participate and support it. The fact is, if the Bush administration had had serious opposition from Catholics, the Iraq would have been well within our “reach” to solve, by not participating, by fiercely opposing it, by denying Bush the means to start the war. It was an immediately solvable situation. Abortion, of course, is not like that.
And again, with regard to your use of numbers, I am not convinced that by simple numbers that abortion is more widespread than war, because it is hardly a simple task to tally up the victims of wars, as I noted above.
April 30, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Michael,
I agree with the sentiment and basic idea of your second paragraph. It would be easier to end the war than to end legalized abortion in the United States. I shouldn’t have implied it was the other way around.
I don’t think, however, that common sense allows for the perpetual defense of war. I do think that common sense tells us that war isn’t going anywhere fast, short of the Second Coming. Please do not read this as a defense of war – we should certainly hope and pray for an end to all war – but we shouldn’t be surprised when it doesn’t go away. Also, it’s not not going away because we recognize Original Sin has had terrible consequences on what is possible for humanity this side of paradise.
I must say that I really do appreciate the sentiment that motivates your arguments.
April 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I do think that common sense tells us that war isn’t going anywhere fast, short of the Second Coming.
That’s part of what I’m talking about. Common sense also tells us that (before the Second Coming, if the person is Christian) the way you deal with violence is to return it with violence.
Please do not read this as a defense of war – we should certainly hope and pray for an end to all war – but we shouldn’t be surprised when it doesn’t go away.
We need to do more than hope and pray, in my opinion. We must not participate, and we must demand an end to it, no matter how difficult (impossible?) ending war will be. We also, I think, shouldn’t be surprised that war will not go away (as you say) when we shrug our shoulders and participate.
I must say that I really do appreciate the sentiment that motivates your arguments.
Thanks! Good to hear.