The Defense of Torture as a Pro-life Position
There are worse fates than death even for those whom death has not yet claimed. Better to die a hero or a saint than to live a permanent villain or a devilish slave to sin. Life, then, ought not to be our chief concern or ultimate care. What we do in life’s promotion and defense may make us heroes or make us villains depending precisely on what we do. A true pro-life disposition orders one towards life, but not life as the ultimate good, not life as the greatest of all things. It is a perversion of the pro-life disposition to uphold life at the expense of all else.
We see this perverse disposition in the justification of torture and other forms of coercion among pro-lifers. The argument begins with the premises that the value of life demands that we do everything necessary in its defense and that torture and other coercive techniques are necessary for national security. Such pro-lifers therefore support barbarism in the name of life—in the name of keeping us safe and secure. They support torture because they are pro-life, yet in their hierarchy of values, they place human life above the dignity of the human person, a ranking that allows them to act against human dignity in the defense of life, to sacrifice one for the sake of the other. However, as human life is not the most valuable of things, and not of greater importance than human dignity, a pro-life disposition that sacrifices human dignity in the name of national security is a perversion of the true pro-life virtue.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
That says it all, “nice and succinct,” Kyle. Kudos and brav-o.
Kyle, Certain leaders in the pro-life movement I hear on EWTN radio seem to operate from a pro-survival mentality rather than a truly pro-life understanding. It appears that it is easier to “love” the unborn child than it is for them to “love” those who differ from them. The unborn child has no voice and therefore cannot disagree with them. Also, each of the pro-life leaders I hear have a desire to be special and this desire is formed from an unresolved absence of a secure and rewarding early attachment to one or both parents. They tend to be more extroverted in their worldview and characteristically aggressive verbally and physically in their interpersonal relationships. They are genetically better equipped for competition as a problem-solving style in this competitive social order that has been our history from the beginning of time. In other words, they are able to form belief systems and social systems that justify the over-powering primitive animal instincts of threat and survival which originate in the limbic structure of the mammalian brain that we share with all mammals.
They have mutated to an extremely complicated level of emotional and intellectual defensiveness that prevents the external and internal intrusion of unwanted input that may weaken the defense mechanisms that protect them from being aware of the unresolved shame and fear that forms the foundation of their identity.
If they were to be vulnerable enough to experience this underlying shame and fear it would cause an identity crisis and symptoms similar to a psychosis in which their reality of self and the world is shattered with no protection inwardly or outwardly from the threat of annihilation. In other words, they would become like the victims of torture, or rape, or any abuse. They are so extremely defended against this kind of vulnerability that anything that even remotely may appear threatening is immediately avoided through the instinctive protective defense mechanisms of dissociation, projection, avoidance, rationalization, intellectualization, etc.
How do we have a chance to reach them?
We must take a one-down approach because they are experts at being one-up. Their instincts are so finely tuned to perceived threat and their defenses are so strongly developed for protection that it creates an almost impenetrable wall that repels any ordinary attempt to enter.
This is known as the “human realm” on the wheel of life. This false self that is created to defend itself against intruders can become so hardened that it also creates a loss of connection to that vulnerable self that God created. An analyst named Winnicott commented about this. I am paraphrasing, “It is a pleasure to be hidden, but disaster not to be found.”
“The unborn child has no voice and therefore cannot disagree with them.”
Beautiful! LoL!
I guess you folks have never brought a newborn home from the hospital. They do indeed have a voice and use it most often to disagree with one’s usual night time occupation–sleep.I am pro-life and I do not agree with the torture of prisoners. It is never licit to commit a sin for a “good” reason. That little rule saves a lot of yap on many subjects.
Pamela
Well, it is true, I have not done that; I’ve not been blessed with marriage let alone children. But the kind of voice I think being discussed here is quite different than the one you mention.
Kyle and Ronald:
I think Ronald’s “pro-survival” moniker fits at least some of the “pro-life” leaders well. It also helps explain the extreme distortions of pro-life principles which emerged in the Terry Schiavo case as well as their attitudes toward torture.
Is it acceptable and appropriate to name the the EWTN radio hosts and guests with the “pro-survival” mentality, and call out some specific statements? We have the obvious and egregious examples of Thiessen and Arroyo, but surely this doesn’t apply to the whole lot. I don’t think, for example, it applies to Frs. Pacwa or Groeschel. It would be much more helpful to name specific people or specific patterns of behavior rather than applying broad conclusions regarding “their” psychology and spiritual development.
I try to avoid psychological analysis, myself. Not my specialty. I’m more interested in the frameworks though which people interpret the world. My aim in this post was to answer why some pro-lifers support the use of torture: some see its use as consistent with and even as a consequence of their pro-life framework. What each of their psychologies is I am not competent to say.
How does just-war fit into this understanding? It seems you could apply the same logic to just-war. In just war, does the Church place human life above the value of human dignity?
Frank and Kyle, I agree with both of you. I was specifically referring to Thiessen and Arroyo. Kyle, the framework through which all of us interpret the world gives evidence of the psychology of the human being. The reason I am so bold in my statements about the psychology of the person is 30 years of practice and education, although, that does not mean anything good if it is used only for manipulation and power. I also use analysis to attempt to educate and challenge others to think about the underlying influences that create the frameworks through which we interact with one another.
When I was doing “rap groups” with war vets in the late ’80′s and early ’90′s I heard one vet say, “Where there is mystery there is no mastery.”
Every behavior and thought has at its foundation a history of experiences and feelings with other human beings that forms our framework through which we view self and others. Everything written on this site and others reveals the psychology of each of us.
More importantly, it reveals how open we are to loving one another and what is love and what is not love. Torture and abortion belong to fear.
How can one person support torture and oppose abortion or how can one oppose torture and support “free” choice for abortion.
It seems that there are blind spots that need to be explored for each side. It is these blind areas in our psyche that forms the framework of our identities through which we engage self, others and the world.
This is the darkness in each of us that must be brought to light.
There is nothing sacred about the psychology of the person.
I love listening to Frs. Pacwa and Groeschel on EWTN. Sometimes, I hear the darkness in their message which seems to be related to the tradition of their socialization into Catholicism and the religious life. This is in relationship to their understanding of women. That particular area of “darkness” is the most critical element of Christian and non-Christian belief and social systems which can transform a culture of death into a culture of life if we males are open to exploring it.
That is for another post.
Zach,
The concept of just war supports my position: in a just war, I may be asked to sacrifice my life and commit actions that might take the lives of others, but I am not permitted to act in any way that violates my dignity or the dignity of others. I may shoot the enemy, but I may not torture him.
Kyle
I would also add that just war says I might shoot an enemy only in specific circumstances, beyond which, even if the cause is just, I have entered into grave sin. One of the mistakes people bring is if the war is with a just cause, it means anything is permitted in the war itself. That is not correct. And one of the things with torture is that it puts the person outside of the realm of combatant; they must be held in custody, and that means they are out of the way in the context of the battle itself. That puts even more protection on them, not less.
Ronald,
I grant you that the interpretive frameworks we use give evidence of our psychology and that a psychological analysis of someone through their interpretive frameworks is possible, but I don’t have the training, education, knowledge, or experience to venture down that road, certainly not over the Internet. Of course, that I lack the ability for that road doesn’t mean others cannot travel it without success.
I would also add that just war says I might shoot an enemy only in specific circumstances, beyond which, even if the cause is just, I have entered into grave sin.
Indeed, and we can go further to say that even in those instances in which I am permitted to justly shoot, my heart must be in the right place and desire the right things. As opposed to, say, bloodlust.
Kyle
Exactly!
Thank you, Ronald, for your response and especially for
I’ll be eager to read what you’ve saved “for another post.”
As natural as love is to all of us, discerning what is love and what is not love can be outrageously difficult. Searching desperately, we may settle for something that looks like love, but — being encumbered by expectations of reciprocity, cultural conditioning or outright manipulation — isn’t authentically love. The less we encounter The Real Thing, the harder it is to maintain that openness and discern authentically.
And so, “waterboarding isn’t really torture.”
Mr. Karlson I’m afraid my reply was a little tongue- in-cheek.I dislike having any other issue tied to the right of a human being, once conceived, to be born. It is a most basic right that cannot be compromised. Trying to tie it in with other positions in which there can be legitimate disagreement is a mistake, I think. I don’t like war, but it is allowed under certain conditions. The death penalty is allowed under certain conditions. The direct killing of a preborn human being is never allowed for any reason.That old “seamless garment” theology was a crock from day one, IMHO. Torture is never allowed either. It’s just harder to get Christians to see that, nowadays. The Holy Bible forbids torturing animals does it not? They must be killed “humanely” and swiftly to avoid undue distress. Why would we ever think we could torment another man for whatever useful information could come of it?
Pamela
The “seamless garment” theology is found in Orthodoxy and is the basis behind Evangelium Vitae. Not only that, it does indeed tie to animals (as John Berkman points out in his article, “Is the Consistent Ethic of Life Consistent without Concern for Animals?”). It is not “crock.” It is based upon the basic, Catholic understanding of truth.
Pamela, I hope this is not taken as “piling on”. It is not the bible that forbids torturing animals, it is God Who forbids torturing animals.
Genesis 9:3-6 “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat. For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made.”
A lot of stuff in there.
I dislike having any other issue tied to the right of a human being, once conceived, to be born. It is a most basic right that cannot be compromised.
pamelanak,
This seems to me to be the fundamental flaw in the thinking of the so called “right-to-life” movement — that the one absolute right is the right to make it from conception to birth, and all other rights are secondary. Indeed, you often hear people argue that if a child does not make it from conception to birth, that child can never have any other rights. The mistake, of course, is to try and see everything from the perspective of the unborn, or in the case of the no-birth-no-rights argument, to see everything from the perspective of a single unborn individual. In reality, the unborn must be seen in context. They are developing human beings inside other human beings in a world with six billion inhabitants, all of whom have very important rights to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education.
My understanding of the “seamless garment” approach is that it goes well beyond the idea that if you oppose abortion, you must oppose capital punishment, euthanasia, and so it. “Life” means more than not being killed. It means being able to live in a fully human way. It is not a matter of county bodies of fetuses and saying, “This year’s projected total is 1.2 million, so anything with a body count of 1.2 million coming up this year is of less importance.” This assumes some mathematical ability to weigh the living conditions of 309 million living, breathing Americans against the death of 1.2 million fetuses and prioritize everything you do accordingly.
It seems to me that many pro-lifers want to place an infinitely high value on each an every unborn life, when nothing even resembling that is done in even the most benevolent of societies. We could save thousands of lives a year, no doubt, by lowering speed limits on the highways to 25 miles an hour, adding more safety features to cars, and allowing driving only in the case of necessity. We could cut deaths by thousands by having tighter air pollution controls. Wikipedia tells us that 310,000 people die in Europe annually because of air pollution. We could save about 100,000 deaths in the United States annually if we could just get doctors and nurses in hospitals to wash their hands. And of course we could save lives with universal medical coverage. But all of these things have costs, and in general you don’t hear pro-lifers saying we ought to spend the money or limit people’s freedoms just to save lives. It is only the lives of the unborn that seem to have infinite value.
David–
Your comment raises a question that I have never heard adequately answered. Good stewardship entails ensuring that the available resources are adequate to meet the prevailing demand. Resources are always finite in quantity and often barely adequate. As you point out, the rights and needs of the living cannot simply be ignored. This is not to say that abortion should ever become a birth control method. But it is to say that birth control is, imo, necessary and moral, if chosen for the right reasons.
This debate is very difficult in that we see people opposed to any use of torture even when it is used – within strict boundaries – to protect the lives of others, perhaps thousands of others.
As Catholics we all know the principles associated with the Just War. World war Two was undoubtedly such a war and yet in the name of justified defence of our own country and that of others, millions were killed, and millions more maimed and psychologically damaged. To permit such massive suffering on moral grounds and then to absolutely deny the use any form of “coercive interrogation” to protect lives is to me a most frustrating line to take. It’s splitting hairs, while thousands of lives are unnecessarily placed in danger because we can’t or won’t permit a known terrorist to undergo moderate to severe discomfort.
Of course the morally degrading behaviour of some Americans at Abu Grade (forgive the poor spelling) prison is beyond the pale. As a general rule, torture of prisoners, even terrorists, should not be allowed. But when a particular terrorist has information that, if revealed, could save lives, perhaps thousands of lives, then I for one would permit some persuasive techniques, within strict bounds (no injuries, no severe pain – but certainly severe discomfort) to save those lives.
For those too morally sensitive to consider coercive interrogation of mass murderers under any circunmstances,imagine if your wife, your daughter, your loved ones were the people under threat. Would you then be so sanguine about not permitting some discomfort to a member of the murderous gang captured by the authorities. Be honest!
It seems to me Mr. Nickol that you have a very Hobbesian outlook on life.(“Every man has a right to everything ” Thomas Hobbes)…well everything but life it seems. I find it interesting that it took humanity some millions of years to become confused about the nature of human babies, although some were valued and some were not. Our forefathers never quibbled about the humaness of their child. They may have put a pillow over it’s head or left it out on a hillside but they were never confused about WHAT they were destroying. In fact this head-scratching seems to have occurred right around the time several philosophies (all of them atheistic) converged during the 20th century.Your argument seems to be that there are so many needy people we can’t be concerned about just one human in the womb. Happily for us God does just that.He cares about us individually. He died for each one of us and not humanity in one big glob.He made human life valuable because it WAS human. It’s worth is not contingent on its desirability, usefulness or lack thereof ,to society as a whole. He asks for us to do the same for each other.We are not called to care for humanity en masse. We are called to care for our neighbor. For any human to care or be cared for he must not be deliberately killed in any stage of life. When a human being comes into existence he deserves to live because he IS.
Now Mr. King have I missed something? I thought God was the Author of the Bible.So if I am quoting from the Bible isn’t that the same as God saying it?
Mr. Karlson I cannot discuss the document you mentioned with any intelligence. But my reason for saying what I did about the “seamless garment” is that it mixed up an absolute with debatables as I mentioned before. Practically that translates into politics as Nancy Pelosi supporting an abortion platform because she also supports government heathcare. That’s her “seamless garment” -can’t have one without the other. Doesn’t work for me.
Geesh, R.L.!
Could anyone possibly come up with a more striking demonstration of Ronald’s closing point, regarding the need for transformation of a paternalistic “culture of death into a culture of life if we males are open to exploring it”? Would you really take the weapon of the enemy into your own hands, let your inner warrior run amok with it, and justify its use to protect the ladies?
I fully expect to hear some feminist heads explode.
R.L.
…and yet in the name of justified defence of our own country and that of others, millions were killed, and millions more maimed and psychologically damaged. To permit such massive suffering on moral grounds and then to absolutely deny the use any form of “coercive interrogation” to protect lives is to me a most frustrating line to take.
It’s possible that a war can start as just by meeting all four conditions and yet cease to be just because of its execution. My own sense of World War II is that however justified we were in using force to oppose Hitler, some of our ways of fighting the war (e.g., fire-bombing and nuking cities) were clearly unjust. In any case, I deny your assumption that the massive suffering of WW2 was entirely justified, and so the comparison between it and the contemporary use of coercive interrogation doesn’t work for me.
For those too morally sensitive to consider coercive interrogation of mass murderers under any circunmstances,imagine if your wife, your daughter, your loved ones were the people under threat. Would you then be so sanguine about not permitting some discomfort to a member of the murderous gang captured by the authorities. Be honest!
Honestly, I would not ask a single person to coerce another (in a way that undermines the other’s will and renders him incapable of free, rational, personal action—incapable of virtue, even), and thereby risk his soul, for the sake of my loved ones. As I said at the outset, there are worse things than death.
Kyle and R.L.:
My reaction in R.L.’s “ticking bomb” hypothetical would depend entirely on the specifics of the situation, and on how much time my spiritual director, my pastor and friends have to work with me before I dunk the prisoner’s head in the water. With enough pressure and no time to consider my actions, I’d probably go ahead and torture until the prisoner talks or dies. In fact, with zero time to consider my actions and a weapon in my hand, I might kill you both if I was convinced it would save my wife or sons from certain and horrible death.
But that proves nothing, other than “Frank is a guy who knows what his warrior spirit can do.” With some time to think it through and gather the support I need to deal with such a dire situation, my behavior would be completely different. And so would your behavior depend on the situation and the pressure you feel.
It goes directly to the point, however, why we need to prohibit torture, even in dire circumstances, if we as a society are to transcend “pro-survival” to authentic “pro-life”.
Frank, I remember playing football in high school 45 years ago(Ahgggg!!!) and I intentionally hit a guy up under his face mask to hurt him. At 5’8″ and 135lbs of massive muscle I could have obliterated him, but, a miracle occurred and he was saved. I immediately felt terrible about hitting him even though he was bigger, stronger, faster, better looking, dated the entire cheer squad, drove a ’57 Chevy 2-door hard top, etc.
Why would I feel guilty? It must have been that spark of Christ in my heart. I attempted to get tougher and become something I was not, that did not work. I got depressed instead. I have worked with Viet Nam Vets in the past and each and everyone of them that I have seen have been permanently scarred by that war. Their families also suffer.
“When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?” PP&M
When will we stop the legacy of violence at every level of human relationship?
Like Kyle said above “…there are worse things than death.”
Frank, I am in total agreement with your statement about being able to gather support and think it through. We do need a community to help with the burden of violence all around us. The community must be “pro-life”.
Pamela Nak:
I just noticed this in your post of 7:11 pm:
I’m afraid I missed the biblical quotation. Most people notate quotations with book, chapter and verse so it’s clear what’s being quoted. Your comment, by contrast, seems to be a refutation of “seamless garment” ethics and Nancy Pelosi politics as you understand them. Though some of your comment is in agreement with my perspective, I’d be much more cautious to avoid throwing out Our Lord’s seamless garment with the dirty wash-water.
Using the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as reference,…
If I quote pieces of the Bible, that’s not the same as God saying it, because (1) In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way, and I’d be quoting my selected piece of a modern translation of the original human expression, not God’s whole word [CCC 109]. (2) Unless I’m sorely underestimating the language skills of Vox-Novans, none of us speaks authentic, idiomatic ancient Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. (3) The many human authors of the Bible wrote from the perspective of their own time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current [CCC 110].
So to summarize: It isn’t obvious how you’re “quoting from the Bible” and, even if you are, that’s not “the same as God saying it.”
Greetings Mr. Frank M. My post of 21/2 2.30 mentions a general reference to the admonitions in the Bible to treat animals humanely. Mr. King mentions that God gave those laws and not the Bible(post 21/2 4.33. My confusion resulted from his reply. I was wondering where he had heard God’s voice on that particular subject, if not in the Bible. I still want to know.
And now you tell me you appear to think that Holy Scripture isn’t what it says it is. So what’s the point of the readings at Mass and “The Word of The Lord” being repeated every Sunday? If it isn’t the Word of the Lord, why on earth should we take anything in it seriously?
Not trying to be snarky now. I know the Almighty didn’t sit down with a quill but either God meant all that’s in it and it’s true or it’s worthless for all intents and purposes…and wicked besides. Can’t have it both ways. Nice human literature (like Alice in Wonderland) or Divine Literature that speaks the Truth. In other words, when the Lord tells us “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, He means it for all places and all times. Even though He gave those rules to Moses and his tribesmen, they were meant for you and me.Today and forever. Bad translations aside, how can it be otherwise?
I agree with the “seamless garment” in that after a human is allowed to live, he doesn’t ceased to be my concern. We are to see Jesus in everyone. If he needs my help I should be happy to help him. But how I give that help is up to me and not up to support/nonsupport of any specific govenment policy. That’s where I see it going very, very,wrong.
Pamela, I was out one Saturday morning around the age of 10 with a friend of mine who was about 2 years older than I. He had a bb gun and let me shoot a Robin out of a tree. I shot her in the chest and she fell into the weeds and died. I choked back tears and never shot a gun again until basic training in ’66. I never read the bible in any depth until 6 years ago. I left Catholicism for 40 years and only returned Easter of ’05 due to a spark of God’s Love. No bible, no apologist, no theologian influenced me to return.
God is Love and I knew that in ’05. I have been extremely saddened by the lack of love that I see in our Church. The Church is going very very wrong with creation of infallible “Truth” without knowing the full mystery of God’s Love.
Oh Mr. King I am very delighted that you found your way back to the Church. Thank God! But who exactly are you saddened by ? The magisterium or the person next to you in the pew? Both are the Church. The magesterial Church cannot “create” Truth. It is the primary means by which God passed on the Faith which He first gave to the Apostles.The Magesterial Church cannot change what was given them by the Apostles to suit themselves or anyone else. This is where fidelity to the Truth is of vital importance. How else can we worship God as He wishes, if we do not know WHAT He wishes? Because our first duty as humans is to love God above all. I use “love ” as an act of our will and not an emotion. If it is your fellow Catholics that are disappointing, I will gently remind you that the Church is a hopsital for the ailing and not the perfect.
Believe me I understand particularly well when the Bible tells us that if “we do not act with love ,we are but clanging cymbels etc…” I was orphaned at a young age and know well the difference between duties performed for obligation and duties performed with love. I try to remember that everyday in the way I treat other people.I fail very often. Acting with the love of God and being faithful to the teachings of the Magesterial Church are not mutally exclusive activities. In fact I would say they would be the highest form of love for God and for one’s fellow Catholic.
Pax vobiscum!
In other words, when the Lord tells us “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, He means it for all places and all times.
Since murder is, by definition, wrongful killing, I find this a very curious commandment. It is saying, “Don’t do that which is wrong.” We don’t need God to tell us that. The same goes for “Do not steal.” Stealing is wrong by definition. The only way these commandments make any sense to me is if — as I believe was the case — they were meant to apply within a specific group. That is don’t steal from a member of your own tribe, and don’t kill a member of your own tribe, but people outside the tribe are fair game.
I think it would be fairly easy to come up with a better list of ten commandments.
” I think it would be fairly easy to come up with a better list of ten commandments”.
The only thing I can tell you Mr. Nikol it that the Church of the Latter Day Saints has your name all over it. Be a good Morman in this life and you get to be a god in the next–with your own universe and everything. I didn’t read all the fine print but I’m rather certain that includes the perogative of making your own list of rules.
p.s. Who says stealing is wrong by definition-or murder for that matter? I should think murder could come in quite handy as well as stealing, envy, and making a god of one’s self.
Sorry Pamela, I do not fit into your scheme of things. My will is formed by knowing God’s Love and directly experiencing it. You cannot will yourself to love. You can will yourself to understand why you don’t love.
Love is an emotion. It is a passionate expression that goes beyond expression. Whoever said love is not an emotion is wrong and has not explored the nature and language of emotions. That person is afraid of emotions and afraid of his or her emotions and the passion of these emotions.
I have worked for 30 years learning the language of emotions. Every emotion has a history and a story to tell. If those emotions do not develop a vocabulary they then get acted out in some destructive way.
To state that love is not an emotion is a destructive statement because it causes others to disregard the validity of their emotions and in a sense dehumanizes them.
Pamela:
Thank you for your reply. You packed in quite a lot, and I’m sure I cannot respond adequately to most of it. I am pleased, of course, that you appear to have backed off your earlier statement that “seamless garment theology was a crock from day one.”
Regarding “Holy Scripture isn’t what it says it is,” I don’t understand: Scripture and tradition within the living Tradition of the whole Church are God’s word passed to us over generations. Snippets quoted from scripture are an entirely different matter.
I think your “it’s true or it’s worthless” approach is not consonant with Church tradition or teaching. Sections 101 through 141 of the Catechism do a much better job explaining this than I can.
To hit what I think is closest to the heart of the matter: I think it’s an entirely different question, whether a quotation one among us picks to support one political opinion or the other is “true” vs. a lectionary reading which the Church selects without any political motivation at all. Readings at Mass are a day-to-day continuum of the Faith, not a series of stand-alone “truths.”
Who says stealing is wrong by definition-or murder for that matter?
murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
Don’t forget the Bible you read is a translation (unless you read Hebrew).
God is not declaring stealing and murder wrong in the commandments. They are wrong by definition. That is why the correct translation is “Do not murder” instead of “Do not kill.”
God bless Mr. King! We are talking at crosspoints I think. Love is an emotion and love is an act of will. The Greeks had several classifications for the word and its various forms of expression. As I used to explain to my daughter: “One cannot put one’s arms around God and express love to Him the way you do Mummy and Papa. The way you show God you love Him is to do the things He asks you to do as best as you can do them.”To do this one must know WHAT is expected of one. That is where our beautiful Faith is to be relied on.
Mr. Frank M., your point is well taken about quoting verses out of context, especially to support a Labour or Conservative opinion–now to support a Tory position…well that’s an entirely different matter! (A little joke) But where ever did I do or say I thought differently? I mentioned that God gave the Israelites specific instructions not to cause animals undue distress and to treat them with care. Is there another bit of the bible that says something differently? Is this a political issue in the States of which I am unaware?
Finally every little “truth” must be measured against the ultimate Truth to find its value. I find that test in the consistant teachings of the Magisterium. If I’m told abortion is always wrong then I know abortion cannot EVER be right. Even if every politician and social worker and college don in Europe tells me differently.
As for the “seamless garment”…I don’t want to disappoint , but I really haven’t changed my mind. To me it’s more American politics than sound theology…with the disclaimers already mentioned. It gave left wingers in your country a bit of rope with which to hang right-to-lifers if they did not support various social programs and positions.One apparently wasn’t given the legitimate room to support both abortion(never allowed)reform and the death penalty(allowable under certain conditions) without aspersions being cast.Neither wise nor logical, IMHO.
Best Regards Gentlemen
Once again I ask you Mr. Nikol. Where do you get those definitions? Hint–They are a direct result of your Catholic heritage. Robespierre, Lenin, Marx, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, et al never thought those things were wrong in the societies they tried to establish and influence. They were only punishable if you did them to the wrong person and got caught, which is not the same thing at all. According to Darwin’s theories, murder makes perfect sense if your neighbor has something you need. There is no reason not to murder him if your survival depends on what he has. That is unless one can can steal it from him first and can save one’s self the trouble. Without God all things are possible..and looking back on the 20th century, probable.
Pamela:
The fact that ropes have been used for centuries to hang people is not any reason to denigrate the rope. The fact that hanging (“lynching”) was used in 20th century America as a weapon of social terror is no reason for a all African-Americans to reject lifelines. The fact that “seamless garment” theology has been used to promote ideas that make you uncomfortable should not be an excuse for you to reject the theology, but rather an invitation to go deeper into the theology and deeper into your self — I hope this is making some sense.
Further to your comment on Darwin’s observations and 20th century atrocities: I’m not aware of Darwin ever writing that “murder makes sense.” While it is true that murder, stealing and especially heresy often make a lot of sense as strategies for ego-survival, you have to feel soulless to think “there is no reason” not to commit these sins. As a rope is critical to lifesaving and available to terrorists, understanding natural selection is critical to our stewardship of this planet and available to misuse by sociopathic dictators.
Dear Mr Frank M. you do make some legitimate points. The mention of Darwin was to illustrate the logical procession of using his science as though it were a religious view. We seem to have an ever growing trend to mistake science for religion and to use it(science) to validate personal and/or political opinions. I have nothing against science in general or natural selection in particular. Good science and true Religion will never conflict.
We feel horror at the thought of commiting those crimes I mentioned because our consciences have been formed properly and we consent to be led by them. Not because we are necessarily born with an innate horror of stealing, adultry,fornification, abortion etc. Being born with the stain of Original Sin makes us all find these kinds of things attractive at one time or another if we are not careful.I mention those societies where Atheism was the state “religion” to illustrate how fast and furious we can descend into barbarity without God’s laws and our obedience both publicly and privately to them. The more we reject God’s kingship over us, the higher the stack of bodies will grow.
Pamela, Some people are born with an innate sense of what is love and what is not love.
These are the more sensitive people who do not fit into a social system that is not constructed on love.
I am not attracted to terms like kingship. I am attracted to God’s Love.
Anything that is not associated with God’s Love belongs to the culture of death. Abortion is the end result of fear, violence, competition, anger, greed, lust, selfishness, self-preservation, objectification, molestation(especially in the church and at home), revenge, poverty, homelessness, isolation, “just wars”, etc.
“We seem to have an ever growing trend to mistake science for religion and to use it (science) to validate personal and/or political opinions.”
Pamela, I like much of what you say and particular the tone you say it. As you know we have plenty of folks -particular among those that take scripture quite literal – who indeed make a ‘science’ out of translations of translations of in the end often conflicting biblical verses – and most certainly a good many of them/us use it (religion) to validate personal and or political opinions.
What can one say – human beings – so wonderfully irrational.
I by the way find the philosophical/theolocigal concept of “being born with stain of original sin”-
while delightfully irrational – rather cute, crude and dated in light of our much changed scientific understanding these days.
I fully agree with you however that
Good science and true Religion will never conflict.
True Religion does not get hung up on individual words of scripture in my view. The true genesis of humans and the scriptural genesis in my view have not much in common other than very general concepts.
The closest in my view we come to a proof of a God is, that human beings from the beginning of times spend considerable energy and thought to express themselves religiously.
For me the Holy Spirit is the key here to bridge the divide between the spiritual and the rational.
I tell my Atheists friends -who try often so very hard to disproof Religion that they should imagine to talk people out of liking music to truly appreciate the loosing battle they are fighting.
In my view fanatic Atheists and fanatics of the relgious kind have more in common with one another than they can ever admit.
Mr Grega,”…rather cute,crude and dated…” Yes, while that would be a fairly accurate description of me (minus the crude, except on a few regretable occasions) I can’t agree to its description of the doctrine of Original Sin. And you tell me that science has now disproved this? However did I miss the headline in the “Times”?
Seriously, it has long been sound doctrine and makes perfect sense to me and every Saint that I am familiar with. I too have often thought that Atheist missionaries such as Christopher Hitchens, Michael Dawkins, et al have alot in common with the Jehovah’s Witnesses that occasionaly still show up on one’s doorstep. With this qualifier: Jehovah’s Witnesses eventually stop talking and leave. Not to mention,they are much nicer. Never overfond of a religious opinion that leaves the holder more bitter, obnoxious and hateful than the typical late night passenger on the Tube or most Labour politicians now sitting.
The Defense of Torture as a Pro-Life Position
That’s kind of like the defense of supporting Obama, Sebelius, and federal funding for abortion and abortion insurance as a Pro-Life position.