Pro-torture and pro-abortion: it’s the same thing
As followup to Patrick Madrid’s condemnation of waterboarding, and my post (yep, shameless plug time!) about the flawed reasoning of those who claim that it is somehow more acceptable to be pro-torture than it is to be pro-abortion, I’d recommend reading Mark Shea’s excellent post on the topic. As is often the case, he gets the point across in a way that few others are able. The key passage is below the fold; emphases are mine:
I got tired of wading through such cesspools of filth trying to palm itself off as “Catholic moral reasoning” and decided to be pro-active. Here’s what I did. Instead of falling prey to the dictionary game, where you offer definition after definition and the interlocutor dismisses definition after definition while never offering a definition of his own, the trick is to assert the Church’s positive teaching. That is, instead of letting the moral equivalent of the adulterer wannabe force me on the debating ground of his faux confusion over how close you can get to the hot secretary without it technically precisely being, you know, adultery, I realized that what the defender of Catholic teaching needs to do is emphasize “avoidance of the near occasion of sin”.
So, for instance, when you live in a country (as we do) with regime of legalized torture in which over a hundred detainees have been murdered in cold blood, the question is not “How close can you get to torturing somebody in a ticking time bomb scenario?”
Rather, the question is, “Is it a grave sin for Catholics to make excuses for torture via non-existent ticking time bomb scenarios when the State is currently enacting a consequential program of torture and murder, including threats to murder children and rape innocent women?” I think the case can be made that it is, just as the case can be made that if a famous Catholic goes on TV to speculate repeatedly and publicly about how often an act of killing a fetus might not technically be abortion, he is guilty of giving grave scandal and of leading people into grave sin.
A follow up question is this: “What part of “humanely” is not clear in the Church’s teaching that “Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely” (CCC 2313). If the reply comes “But this is an enemy like no other!” ask the interlocutor, “So our fathers who fought Nazis and Communists were up against cupcakes and only we Baby Boomers know what it is to fight real evil?”
The fact is, we’ve gotten lots of good intelligence over the decades while observing the Geneva Conventions. What we’ve gotten over the past decade since the US gov’t started torturing under Bush (and is now continuing the policies under Obama) is international disgrace *and* lousy intel, plus the side benefit of junk “evidence” that is not admissible in court because it was obtained by torture. Talk about sin making us stupid!
And finally, what the “prolife” Right has gotten by its cowardly embrace of torture is this: the loss of the only thing it had to stand on in it’s fight against abortion. Because once we embrace consequentialism and the notion that good ends justify evil means, what do we have left to say to the abortionist, who holds exactly the same philosophy? Catholics must repent of this monstrous moral theory or they can have nothing whatever to say to the abortionist who replies, “You want to live a long, happy and fruitful life and don’t much care if you commit what some abstract theologian calls “grave sin”in order to get it? So does my client and so do I. So leave us alone.”
Precisely. Unfortunately, I think that the Catholic Right in America will continue to give about as much respect to Holy Mother Church’s condemnation of torture as the Catholic Left does to her condemnation of abortion and euthanasia. I believe it was Aquinas who said that it doesn’t matter whether you fall off the boat on the left or the right side; either way, you still drown.
Comments are closed.
“Unfortunately, I think that the Catholic Right in America will continue to give about as much respect to Holy Mother Church’s condemnation of torture as the Catholic Left does to her condemnation of abortion and euthanasia.”
Just out of curiousity, what constitutes “The Catholic Right”?
While the “Left” in the u.s.a. certainly is solidly pro-choice, it would be wrong to say that most on the Catholic “Left” (and I would question: which “Left”?) are pro-choice. Most Catholic Democrats for example are pro-life. The real Catholic Left, radical Catholics like the Catholic Worker, are also radically pro-life.
The Catholic Right (which as Christopher says, could be another contested term I suppose, but not to the degree that we see in the variety on the “Left”) may or may not be largely “pro-torture.” But they certainly are less likely to oppose their party on the matter in an outspoken way than Catholics on the “Left” are when it comes to abortion. And they will on the one hand say that they are against torture but will end up defending pro-torture folks on the other hand by “admitting” that it’s “hard to define what torture really is.” That is my perception.
I would also distinguish between the “Catholic Left” and the “Catholic Left” who are politicians. Politicians, whether republican or democrat tend to be pro-choice. Democrats by explicitly embracing that ideology, and republicans by talking a good game but doing nothing about abortion.
While broad and inexact, I think the Catholic Right and Catholic Left are fairly self-evident terms.
I would dispute the assertion that the Catholic Left disrespects the Church’s condemnation of abortion and euthanasia. (And I don’t even think it is fair to say the Secular Left accepts euthanasia). You could be quite comfortable on the Catholic Left accepting the USCCB’s policy recommendations on abortion. You could also be comfortable accepting the Church’s condemnation of abortion but differing with the bishops’ on the means, tactics and strategies to be used in defense of that principle.
I will let the Catholic Right speak for itself if one can be welcome and comfortable in standing for the Church’s policy positions on torture or, alternatively, join the Church in condemning torture but respectfully differing from the bishops as to the means, tactics, and strategies for responding to the evil of torture.
My definition of the Catholic Left and the Catholic Right, as I used the terms in this post, may be a bit different from MI’s and Kurt’s. Essentially, I was speaking of those who, when they encounter a teaching of the Church that is explicitly opposed to a position taken by their political party of choice, immediately try to downplay the importance of that particular teaching rather than consider that it is their party, not the Church, that is wrong. Catholic Democrats do it all the time with abortion (and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that “most” Catholic Democrats are pro-life), and Republican Catholics do it with torture and unjust war. Or, to put it more succinctly, I was referring to people who let their politics determine their faith, as opposed to letting their faith determine their politics.
Speaking of politics determining faith, Rocco Palmo has posted a report on Cardinal Rigali’s first sermon after taking the reins of the Scranton diocese. The cardinal preached on respect for life in the womb, an evident attempt to refute Time magazine’s suggestion that Bishop Martino had been bounced for his anti-abortion stance.
Rocco’s post points out that the sermon was “doubly pointed” because Scranton’s Catholic mayor had just declared himself pro-choice. Why now? Seems “the Jesuit-trained father of six” is contemplating running for governor of Pennsylvania in the Democratic primary, where (as Kurt so artfully put it) politicians may feel “comfortable accepting the Church’s condemnation of abortion but differing with the bishops’ on the means, tactics and strategies to be used in defense of that principle.”
and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that “most” Catholic Democrats are pro-life
Hopefully my follow-up comment clarified what I meant. Obviously most Catholic democrat politicians are pro-choice and I think that’s a scandal. But I do think most Catholic democrats who are not politicians (and those Catholics who are actually on the Left, ’cause democrats ain’t) are pro-life.
Or, to put it more succinctly, I was referring to people who let their politics determine their faith, as opposed to letting their faith determine their politics.
If that’s how you are using the terms, fair enough.
For the record, I think about Catholic left and right in roughly the same sense Mickey does. That is why I object to being identified with either.
One other interesting note. In the wake of the Kennedy funeral it is clear that the left are not the only ones who “respectfully differ from the bishops as to the means, tactics and strategies for responding to the evil of abortion.” Any bishops (or priests) who express support for Cardinal O’Malley’s decisions are coming under rabid criticism from the right. OK, so maybe not “respectfully differ.”
Here is an example from one of the most prominent priests in Canada. Tom Rosica was the CEO of Toronto’s World Youth Day, is the CEO of our national Catholic TV station, Salt & Light, and someone who’s pro-life bonafides were never questioned.
The good bishop of Madison Wisconsin is not fairing much better.
Mickey,
I think it would be better if you said “Catholics who are on the political Left/Right” and reserve the phrase “Catholic Right/Left” to Catholic thinkers or those who choose to express their social action primarily through the Catholic faith.
Politics and faith are not exact match-ups. Faith should influence politics and policy positions but doing so requires discernment. Those who primarily make that discernment in a public forum should be called out when they use questionable discernment. Those who (hopefully) make that discernment privately, are a different case.
Ron needs to re-read Rocco and the Scranton papers. He falls into the very issue I mentioned earlier. Of course Martino was not fired because he was against abortion. Every Catholic bishop is against abortion.
Yes, the “Catholic Left” (properly understood) would be the first to point out Ron’s error that being against abortion is not the same as approving of every means, strategy, initiative, rhetorical assertion and tactic of the now laid-off bishop of Scranton.
Good point, Kurt.
I think those are good distinctions, Kurt.
Brett – Good to see that piece from Fr. Rosica.
“Through vicious attacks launched on blogs, a new form of self-righteousness, condemnation and gnosticism reveals authors who behave as little children bullying one another around in schoolyards- casting stones, calling names, and wreaking havoc in the Church today! What such people fail to realize is that their messages are ultimately screamed into a vacuum. No one but their own loud crowd is really listening. We will never change laws and bring about conversion of minds and hearts with such behavior. We make the Church and our efforts for life look ridiculous and terribly anti-Christian. Sowing seeds of hatred and division are not the work of those who wish to build a culture of life.”
Yes, yes, yes!
MM.
Father Tom was much beloved by the conservatives in this country until he wrote that paragraph. Now he is being slandered in the most vicious ways. It will be interesting to see what happens to his ministry at this point. Most of us expected him to be in charge of a diocese or dicastery within the decade.