Though not all of us rejoiced. And not all of us wept on inauguration day. Or at least not for joy.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
41 thoughts on “No, Mr. President”
But what about Catholic Social Teaching? And the death penalty? And the Boer War?
You talk a lot about the 50,000,000 abortions in America since Roe v. Wade, Jimmy, but in all the years I have read your blog, I’ve never even once seen you address the Boer War. We can’t just be one issue voters you know.[/whine]
If you’re gonna pick one issue, Billy, i’d suggest 50 million deaths is a pretty good one to start with. Fortunately, Catholic Social Teaching is on our side on this matter!
Question: Why the disconnect between social justice advocacy and abortion? Is not the legalized, Orwellian newspeak Pro-Choice approved, dismemberment of the most defenseless…i’m stammering here…is it not *THE* social justice issue of our time?
And for it to be defended by our first african american President? Satan is getting his jollies. Christ triumphs in finality, but it’s sad to see Christians bitching about the emphasis placed on abortion as an issue. Tears!
JV, I think BillyHW’s point was the same as yours. The (nineteenth century) Boer War was the giveaway.
Thanks, Billy. I loved the Boer War comment…satire rocks.
That was awesome! Thanks for posting.
I realize that the following was satire, so… I’ve never even once seen you address the Boer War
Well, he’s got a link to Mark Shea’s blog, and Mark Shea has a link to the American Chesterton Society, and Chesterton wrote passionately on the Boer War. By that, Jimmy has shown that he has addressed the Boer War just as much as many Catholics do pro-life matters! So don’t dare state that he has not adequately addressed this issue. If you do, it is clear that it is simply political partisanship.
Unbelievably powerful. Jimmy thank you for bringing that clip to my attention; may it spur us on to action.
BillyHW and Mike: Perfect.
I posted this comment on late into a conversation on another thread, and I was wondering if any of you could shed some light on the subject. It is a sort of, “then what,” question.
It is about enforcement. I was born after Roe v Wade, so I’ve only known an America in which abortion was legal. Can someone tell me what enforcement was like prior to Roe v Wade in states that forbade abortion? I understand that it could have been different from state to state, but I’m trying to get a sense of it.
Because abortion has been legal for some 30+ years now, making it illegal is one thing, but making it cease or reduce it significantly would require enforcement of the law.
Has the Church, Bishops like Burke or Chaput, or theologians of the Church suggested guidelines for just enforcement? Trials as degrees of murder? Jail time just for the doctor alone (the one doing the killing)? Jail time or other sanctions against the woman (and her husband/partner, if complicit)? Closing of hospitals that perform abortions? I’m wondering if the Church has spoken to any of this.
Presumably, someone could argue that various external conditions would justify various charges of murder for the woman (ex. after a rape (manslaughter); under severe medical duress (manslaughter); under less significant duress (2nd degree murder); out of convenience (1st degree murder). I’m not arguing for these categories, I can just imagine our society coming to terms like this. Perhaps they would also do this for the doctor – different conditions warranting different charges.
Could anyone speak to this? Thank you for the clarification and insight.
Amen Brother Piper. I wish I could hear that in a Sundy homily. But instead I drive out of the church parking lot seeing all the Obama stickers.
Well, I suck. Sorry Bill!
Wow. Such testimony from here in Minneapolis, where Obama must have garnered 80% of the vote. I agree with John 6:54 about the bumper stickers.
*chills*
Olav–Personally, I find the “What Would Wellstone Do?” ones more disturbing.
Anybody feel someone with Jimmy’s clout and reach ought to denounce the murder of George Tiller? As a long time reader and admirer of Jimmy’s, I would love for him to weigh in with an unqualified and wholehearted condemnation of murder as a tactic EVEN as means of preventing further murders of the unborn. I think of Till’s victims and the painful anonymous deaths they endured; and while it’s impossible not mourn them more ardently, Till’s death only reminds us that to take a life from another human being is in every case a crime. Yours in life, APL
APL, you missed your exit somewhere – the bait shop and fishing holes are in the other direction.
The pro-life community has spoken with one voice denouncing Tiller’s murder. Several of the blogs I lurk on did not have separate posts on Tiller – the impression I had was that Priests for Life, Operation Rescue and American Life League expressed pro-lifers’ reactions. I can’t speak for Jimmy, but it’s not necessary for each individual to write a post saying exactly what others have said.
Thanks, MK. I actually wasn’t fishing, though I can see why you’d assume these are unfamiliar waters for me. I check this blog regularly and I always find Jimmy’s take worth my while. I hadn’t heard much in the MSN in the way of condemnation from Pro-lifers –no shocker there, so I turned to Jimmy hoping he would light the way fo alll of us Pro-Lifers. I’ll do some digging. Thanks for the tips!
You’re not alone, APL. I’m hoping to hear Jimmy weigh in on this, as well, because there are actually some very knotty moral issues involved and I’d like to see a cool-headed analysis in relation to Catholic teaching.
There is the question of the legitimate use of violence in defense of the innocent, and just where this kind of thing crosses the line into being morally unsupportable.
Well put, Tim J. I think it takes someone with Jimmy’s eloquence and credentials to get to the bottom of this one. It’s such a cynical cannard to hear the MSN trot out the gunned-down-in-his-place-of-worship narrattive. They don’t care about the house of worship 364 days a year, but when the abortion doc meets his gruesome end there, suddenly they’ve got an angle. All I’m interested in are the moral and ethical implications of Tiller’s murder. I’m hoping Jimmy finds the murder as deplorable as I do, but I have no desire to celebrate Tiller as the pious, fallen hero. Triggers the ol’ gag reflex.
Hi Atheist Pro-Lifer,
Thanks for posting. You help us put the lie to the claim, often bandied about, that opposition to abortion is simply a religious belief. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts about when a new human life comes into existence are SCIENTIFIC facts, which have nothing to do with religion!
Still, I hope and pray you’ll be able to remove the “Atheist” tag from your moniker someday. 🙂
Operation Rescue is an extremist antiabortion group. Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, characterized Randy Terrel as celebrating the murder of Dr Tiller. In his own words, he claimed Dr Tiller “reaped what he sowed.”
Some less extreme antiabortion activists have over the years moderated their language, abandoning talk of abortion as a holocaust. As Keith Oberman, MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, have pointed out when extreme language such as describing Dr Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer” or that he “has blood on his hands” or even Robert P George’s extreme language which even fellow antiabortion activist Douglas Kmiec criticized as “rhetorical” — this all contributes to an extremist culture from which these acts of murder and other violence of terrorism come. One pro-life personality who is the son of Frank Schaefer yesterday on MSNBC apologized for his past extreme language and placed part of the blame for this and all the other many acts of antiabortion terrorism on himself and others who have expressed such ideas or used such language. Everyone knows there are unhinged individuals or fanatics who when hearing that someone has “blood on his hands” can forseeably in some cases be led to terrorism.
There is nothing “knotty” about this terrorism. It must be condemned without caveat.
This is not the first time Dr Tiller was personally a victim of antiabortion terrorism. He was previously shot in both arms by an antiabortion activist.
Homeland Security correctly warned against three elements that coincided in this terrorist: association with the right wing, association with groups dedicated to a single issue like abortion, antigovernment sovereignty movements, naming in particular the “freemen”.
John Piper led me to become a Christian but he is IMO wrong to use extremist language. Our words must not only be factual, but responsible.
If abortion is murder, C, (which it is) then what good does it do to cover up the fact with politically correct euphemisms? This will result only in more babies being murdered in the womb, and the violent nutjobs will go on being violent nutjobs.
“Cowardice asks the question – is it safe?
Expediency asks the question – is it politic?
Vanity asks the question – is it popular?
But conscience asks the question – is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;
but one must take it because it is right.”
Martin Luther King
No, this charge of “incitement” (by simply calling abortion by its right name) is completely devoid of merit – nothing but partisan hackery. I keep expecting the enemies of the pro-life movement to rend their garments and proclaim, “What further need do we have of witnesses??!!”.
Sorry, that should be addressed to C.H., of course…
I guess that everyone in the anti-slavery movement should have put on sackcloth and ashes on account of John Brown’s abolitionists murders. You don’t see the pro-aborts saying that, now do you? No, in our modern age, we are told old ladies praying the rosary outside abortion clinics are the biggest threat to freedom. Orwell, call your lawyer.
DM, thanks for the hospitality. I certainly wish I had more allies in the non-believer ranks. I think the issue of abortion, and specifically principled opposition to it, gets filed under “religious ideology” for many secularists and they shut their brains off and forget that there is a MASSIVELY immoral practice going on every day in this country. As for my moniker, it’s staying as it is ’til I get better data. That’s a joke, btw. Respect and love, APL
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/rice.htm
That piece was written by Professor Rice almost fifteen years ago, but it is certainly timely. The Holy Rosary, sidewalk counseling and (most importantly) love will end abortion.
nota bene: I mispelled Randy Terry as Randy Terrel.
It is religious ideology, but ideology doesn’t mean anything bad. The Catholic church claims that abortion violates natural law but it also claims the same of atheism, contraception or remarriage. A society must be founded on civil tolerance, not the bible as Mike Huckabee mistakenly asserts.
The bible is also not clear. Abortion is not condemned in scripture anymore than contraception is condemned. Since scripture says the preborn are in the process of being “formed” by God, it seems that the preborn are not yet human individuals. God also in the OT ordains that certain women be punished with death even when they are pregnant — God would not ordain the punishment of an innocent human individual, so this also suggests that the preborn are not human individuals.
Robert P George mistakenly asserts that science has determined for us that the fertilized egg is a human being. When pressed, he says that science has catalogued the fertilized egg as part of the species homo sapien. But being a member of the species homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for being ontologically a human being. Many Christians who accept evolution believe that members of species other than homo sapien (now exitinct) may also have been ontologically or theologically a human being and many also believe that some homo sapiens (around or before the time of Adam) may not have been ontologically or theologically a human being.
I was very disturbed when watching EWTN and seeing a lady from the Catholic bishops state that since tripping would be an alternative to murder that the murder was not justified. Though she backtracked and said she was not advocating tripping anyone, she never condemned tripping. Both tripping and murder are to be unequivocally condemned as is violence committed against property. The alleged assasin is also alleged to have glued shut the doors of medical clinics. That must also be unequivocally condemned.
Dr George Tiller was a martyr of love. He was shot in both arms by an antiabortion activist but chose to continue the work he believed in. I have seen his friends interviewed on MSNBC and one of them mentioned how he had been asked why he chose to continue this work even after being shot and he replied that the women needed him and that, due to the antiabortion terrorism, there were few else who would be willing to risk their lives for it. Jesus says the greatest love a man can have is to lay down his life for his friends; Dr George Tiller, even if misguided, lived that Christian teaching. His gentle spirit is the fruit of the holy Spirit. We do not see the fruits of the holy Spirit in his alleged assasin nor in the rancor and acerbity of the militant antiabortion movement.
Keith Olbermann demonlished the specious arguments of those such as Bill O’Reilly that their extreme language (ex. “blood on his hands”) could not have caused some to become more prone to violence. As Olbermann pointed out, the same Bill O’Reilly had been claiming that liberal media is causing youth to be .corrupted. Media and the social millieu have an impact. Whether a statement is factual does not answer the question of whether it is right. I believe that all who live in the Spirit can see that.
But being a member of the species homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for being ontologically a human being.
Then what is? Brain activity? Capacity to assert the Will to Power will to live? Skin color?
“But being a member of the species homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for being ontologically a human being.”
It better be, or people could say that Christian Hedonist is not a human being, and, therefore, it’s okay to kill him and steal his land, because he’s not _____ like we are; or enslave him because he’s not _____ like we are; or throw him in a concentration camp or do medical experiments on him because he’s not _____ like we are.
“George Tiller was a martyr of love.” Thank you, Screwtape.
“It better be, or people could say that Christian Hedonist is not a human being, and, therefore, it’s okay to kill him and steal his land”
I think my point was lost on you. First, many Christians, including anti-choice Christians, claim that being a member of homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for whether you are ontologically a human being.
Second, just because an idea may lead some to develop other ideas which may be false or dangerous does not make the first idea false. It may be true that believing that membership in homo sapien would guarantee that certain evil ideologies would not come to pass, but the fact that a belief may produce a good consequence and that the negation of the belief may produce a bad consequence does not determine whether said belief is true. It may however determine whether it is wise or sinful to express that belief.
I think the biblical argument for choice is strong but our reason can also enlighten us. Around half of all fertilized eggs die as part of the course of nature, not due to any induced abortion. Many just fail to implant and others die shortly after implantation. Many “mothers” may not even realize that it happened. If fertlizied eggs are ontologically human beings, then that means God set up the course of nature this way. We can’t appeal to the fall here since evolutionary science is clear that the course of nature in this respect was the same before the fall just as after. But a loving God would not have set up the course of nature this way … so logically we know that fertilized eggs are not ontologically human beings.
Being in the mother’s womb is like being in the mind of God. Every person who exists first existed in the mind of God. The bible talks about it and how God knew us even before we were created. But existing in the mind of God is not the same as being ontologically separate from God as a created thing just as existing in a mother’s womb is not the same as being ontologicaly separate from the mother. And just as God can choose who to bring into separate existence from his mind, a woman is within her rights to choose as well; women are co-creators. It doesn’t take rocket science or arcane theology to see that the embryo is not separate from the mother. The fertilized egg ontologically speaking doesn’t actually have a personal body. Prior to implantation, it’s not even in the mother’s womb — and the bible says we are formed there, so fertilization cannot be the moment of our creation (I think the bible is also clear that our creation is not a single event, but a process that ends with birth) The body of a person necessarily is that by which a person gives expression to his soul (if a person gives zero expression, then it is a corpse, not a living, personal body). The fertilized egg alone cannot give expression to anything. So it is just a part of the woman and is part of her living body. A sleeping person or one in a coma is still expressing his soul … but a single cell alone cannot express a soul since the expression of a rational soul requires intercellular activity since reason exists only in relations between things.
The whole scientific concept of species is in flux and has been from the beginning. There are dozens of definitions of species proposed and they don’t agree with each other on whether something is its own species or which species an individual belongs to. The Catholic definition of species from Aquinas also is very different from the scientific concepts.
Christian Hedonist,
If I’m not mistaken, you’re our old friend CT/CW/etc. Might I recommend Isaiah 5, and verse 20 in particular?
Tim, There is the question of the legitimate use of violence in defense of the innocent, and just where this kind of thing crosses the line into being morally unsupportable.
I was hoping to hear something from Jimmy as well, because I am struggling with the reasoning on this one. Many anti-abortion folks I respect have criticized Tiller’s killer very strongly, but such criticisms just don’t make any sense to me. I can’t find any argument, short of those for complete pacifism, by which he should be condemned. While I find the arguments for complete pacifism to be very compelling, I can’t quite see my way clear to abandoning force as a means of protecting others. Other arguments against Tiller’s killer seem to rest either on the doctrine of double effect (which seems weak to me) or the claim that force can only be used by legitimate authority (which leads to a whole series of questions, including questions as to what constitutes legitimate authority, and whether civilians have any recourse to force when authority is tyrannical or permits injustice.) I was also kind of hoping you or Steven might have some thoughts on the matter. Help out a confused Beastly?
In Roman times when innocent human beings were being sacrificed to pagan gods, the Christian witness and bible still commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to pay taxes. So paying taxes to the U.S. govt is surely obligatory for Christians even though some of those funds are used to pay for abortions. Then, a fortiori, respecting the other laws of the U.S. govt prohibiting murder as understood by U.S. law is also surely obligatory.
Please do not commit violence of any kind against doctors and other health care workers or their property.
The fact that I have seen few anti-abortion activists unequivocally condemn and renounce all forms of violence or property destruction leads me to think that there is something not of the spirit in much of the movement. For if something is of the spirit, it will show in the fruits of the spirit. Rancor, terrorism, murder, assault, property vandalism — these are never fruits of the spirit.
If you are anti-abortion but completely against murder, terrorism and vandalism, do the right thing, the patriotic thing, the charitable thing: if and when you see other anti-abortion activists displaying signs that they may be militant, contact the civil authorities. Just as patriotic and peaceful Muslims can help the land, so also can patriotic and peaceful anti-abortion activists.
In Roman times when innocent human beings were being sacrificed to pagan gods, the Christian witness and bible still commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to pay taxes. So paying taxes to the U.S. govt is surely obligatory for Christians even though some of those funds are used to pay for abortions. Then, a fortiori, respecting the other laws of the U.S. govt prohibiting murder as understood by U.S. law is also surely obligatory.
Please do not commit violence of any kind against doctors and other health care workers or their property.
The fact that I have seen few anti-abortion activists unequivocally condemn and renounce all forms of violence or property destruction leads me to think that there is something not of the spirit in much of the movement. For if something is of the spirit, it will show in the fruits of the spirit. Rancor, terrorism, murder, assault, property vandalism — these are never fruits of the spirit.
If you are anti-abortion but completely against murder, terrorism and vandalism, do the right thing, the patriotic thing, the charitable thing: if and when you see other anti-abortion activists displaying signs that they may be militant, contact the civil authorities. Just as patriotic and peaceful Muslims can help the land, so also can patriotic and peaceful anti-abortion activists.
“The fact that I have seen few anti-abortion activists unequivocally condemn and renounce all forms of violence or property destruction leads me to think that there is something not of the spirit in much of the movement.”
Evidence? (and for such a sweeping indictment, I mean substantial evidence.) Either way, abortion is murder, and impugning those who speak the truth doesn’t hurt the truth.
Tiller’s Murder Was Not Justified
George Tiller, the mass murderer of Wichita, Kansas is dead. “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword,” said the Lord. I will pray for his eternal salvation as I do for all abortionists, and I will also pray for his murderer who proved that he was no better than Tiller in that final act. The killing of Tiller has generated an immense amount of publicity, rancor and confusion, even among pro-lifers, so I would like to reflect on a few issues surrounding Tiller’s death that are on people’s minds.
1. Can killing a mass murderer be considered “justifiable homicide”? The short answer to this is “no,” but it is not always apparent why. The Church teaches that people and nations certainly have the right to defend themselves, even if necessary with the use of lethal force. Scripture and tradition also teach us that we have the duty to defend the innocent and rescue them, but there are several provisions that put this admonition into a moral context.
* The lethal use of force to protect or rescue someone is to be employed in the midst of a life-threatening aggression already in progress; it is not to be used as retaliation, and it is usually not pre-emptive.
* The use of force has to be proportionate to the aggression (that is, one can’t use a gun to kill someone who only insulted him).
* There also has to be a high likelihood of success in actually stopping the aggressions.
* And finally, one has to have tried using every other means possible to stop the aggressor up to the point of using lethal force.
In light of all this, the killing of even mass abortionist Tiller while he was in church is not justifiable. He was not in the midst of an aggressive act at that moment, and his killer could not know for certain whether or not he was intending to go back to his dirty business the following day. In addition to that, all other legal and moral efforts were actually being made to stop him from doing his work, and it was a fairly well-known fact that Tiller was coming close to having his license revoked by the State of Kansas. In other words, a legal means of stopping the killing was already being played out and may have worked had the murder not taken place. Who knows what will happen now.
2. Then could an abortionist be killed in his abortion clinic while in the act of committing abortions? While some might justify such an act based on the above criteria, it would be almost impossible to carry out with the security of the modern abortion system, and the likelihood of its overall success would be extremely low. For example, even if a person killed an abortionist in the act and perhaps saved the baby he was attempting to abort at that moment, the abortion clinic would continue to do business using other abortionists and just re-schedule the other abortions. It is likely that the very same baby that he thought he saved would have just been aborted in a later appointment.
Would that killing save a small percentage of babies whose mothers would not come back to the abortion mill? Probably, but sidewalk counseling does that already and the sidewalk counselors would not be in jail like the murderer would, so they could continue to save babies on a routine basis whereas the murderer’s one single act of saving babies cannot be repeated.
3. What effect does the killing of abortionists have on the pro-life effort and is this to be taken into account in the criteria to determine the “likelihood of success”? Presumably a person kills an abortionist because he wants the killing of babies to stop. He tries to cut off the supply of aggression at its source by making one less abortionist in the world; but again, the overall goal of stopping the killing of babies has not been accomplished because there are still abortionists in the world and an abortion industry that an isolated murder has not been able to stop. In fact, the case can be made that such an act makes the pro-life effort much more difficult for those on the front lines as it generates reprisals in the form of bubble zones, lawsuits and the souring of public sentiment against our cause.
The killing of abortionists can only be seen as a desperate act, one which is ineffective at stopping the killing of babies. We must never miss the real tragedy, however, which is the fact of the 60,000 dead babies killed by the mass murderer of Wichita. May God have mercy on George Tiller’s soul.
Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International
JoAnna,
Thanks for the letter. I’m afraid it didn’t help much, since I think many of the points only lead to further confusion. I suspect that the good reverend understands the matter better than I do; it’s just that his points don’t make a lot of sense to me.
He states that sometimes violence is necessary to defend oneself and others, and goes on to apply what amounts to just war conditions to such an act. Well and good; that makes good sense. But by his reasoning, most acts of violence committed during war are not justified, and no acts of capital punishment are ever justified, since they can only justly be committed during an attempted act of violence on the part of the aggressor.
I also agree that all other means must first be proven ineffective or impractical if one is to resort to violence. Do 35 years of heavy-duty anti-abortion activism not qualify?
The good reverend also writes: He was not in the midst of an aggressive act at that moment, and his killer could not know for certain whether or not he was intending to go back to his dirty business the following day.
I find myself astonished every time I hear this argument. If an assassin had been operating openly and regularly in my neighborhood five days a week for 35 years, I would be a flaming idiot to not assume he’d be back at work the next Monday. Can someone who buys this line of reasoning please explain to me why we don’t immediately release all our condemned criminals onto the streets right now? After all, we don’t know for certain that any of them will return to a life of crime. By this reasoning, how can we even justify pursuing and arresting serial killers? After all, they have to stop sometime, and their most recent victim just might be their last.
As to the legal proceedings underway against Tiller, my understanding was that Tiller had been under investigation during his entire career, to very little effect.
The good reverend also argues that Tiller’s killer wasn’t really preventing any abortions, since abortion clinics will still continue to operate, and other abortionists will simply pencil in appointments for those who would otherwise have patronized Tiller’s office. While this may actually be true of most first trimester abortions, it is highly unlikely in this particular case. Tiller specialized in third trimester abortions, along with only two other abortionists in the United States. Tiller’s killer effectively reduced the number of active late term abortionists in America from three to two. The long-term effects of this remain to be seen, but I would be very surprised to see another abortionist take his place any time soon. Even most pro-abortion “doctors” are unwilling to poison babies that are capable of living and growing outside the womb. Tiller was a rare exception, and his clientele will have a hard time finding a replacement, unless both other such abortionists are willing and able to take on a 50% workload increase. The argument makes some sense if we’re talking about reducing the number of abortionists from 1819 to 1818. Not necessarily true if the number of late-term abortion providers is going from 3 to 2.
The “effect on the pro-life movement” angle does carry some weight, but it’s really little more than speculation. The long terms effects are impossible to judge at this point, and the short term effects seem to be a significant reduction in late term abortions.
In all honesty, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the anti-abortion activists so fervently condemning Tiller’s killer are silently rejoicing. I understand why they might do so, but I’m not sure that hypocrisy is ultimately helpful to the cause. Not that I feel the need to off any abortionists, but I can hardly find it in me to condemn the guy who did.
I found Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of HLI, remarks chilling. He seems to suggest that if an abortion is in progress that murder of the abortion provider is justified or not justified based on a judgment of prudence considering whether the good effects outweigh the bad effects. He denies that murdering an abortion provider is intrinsically evil in all circumstances. His reasoning seems to be a misuse of casuistry (as the term is classically used, not its modern day colloquial meaning).
I have yet to see a single anti-abortion activist condemn as never justified the killing of an abortion provider who is in the process of ministering the abortion procedure. Condemning a killing on the basis of its consequences is not enough. Killing medical professionals is evil and would be similar in heinousness to killing Christian ministers or members of other professions who work as men and women of peace.
“In all honesty, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the anti-abortion activists so fervently condemning Tiller’s killer are silently rejoicing.”
–I believe you are correct as to your suspicion. In fact your suspicion was stated even more plainly by an ex-member of the militant anti-abortion movement, Francis (or was it Frank — it was the son) Schaeffer on MSNBC, whose appearance I mentioned above. He has apologized for his past use of extremist anti-abortion language as partially to blame for the volatile climate from which these acts of murder and terrorism spring. He has also stated that when he was involved in the anti-abortion movement that he and others would publicly denounce an act of violence or terrorism whenever it occurred but then in private rejoice and that he has no doubt that many are doing the same with respect to this latest act of murder and terrorism.
In reaction to a misuse of casuistry, Christian ethics has been led down different roads and many of these roads lead to the chilling equivocal statement of that priest above and your own chilling musings. If we are to replant Christian ethics on more solid ground, we must re-embrace the proper use of casuistry. IMO, the proper use of casuistry leads to a noble pro-choice ethic.
And for those anti-abortion activists who do completely and unequivocally condemn all anti-abortion violence as inherently evil, please hear my plea which as it happens was the plea I heard from Schaeffer on MSNBC — report to civil authorities any indications of terrorist impulses in your movement.
Ignore the hobby-horser, folks.
CT, Condemning a killing on the basis of its consequences is not enough.
And you’re welcome to your own ideas as to the legitimate use of force. It sounds, however, as if you don’t think others have any right to disagree with you. Killing medical professionals is evil and would be similar in heinousness to killing Christian ministers or members of other professions who work as men and women of peace…
…the chilling equivocal statement of that priest above and your own chilling musings…
I wonder whether I still have the right to be chilled by your chills. IMO, the proper use of casuistry leads to a noble pro-choice ethic.
And when others come to a different conclusion: And for those anti-abortion activists who do completely and unequivocally condemn all anti-abortion violence as inherently evil, please hear my plea which as it happens was the plea I heard from Schaeffer on MSNBC — report to civil authorities any indications of terrorist impulses in your movement.
Nice. Perhaps you’d care to report my own thoughtcrimes to the authorities yourself and spare us the bother of a middleman? Or is there a difference between “chilling musings” and “indications of terrorist impulses?”
But what about Catholic Social Teaching? And the death penalty? And the Boer War?
You talk a lot about the 50,000,000 abortions in America since Roe v. Wade, Jimmy, but in all the years I have read your blog, I’ve never even once seen you address the Boer War. We can’t just be one issue voters you know.[/whine]
If you’re gonna pick one issue, Billy, i’d suggest 50 million deaths is a pretty good one to start with. Fortunately, Catholic Social Teaching is on our side on this matter!
Question: Why the disconnect between social justice advocacy and abortion? Is not the legalized, Orwellian newspeak Pro-Choice approved, dismemberment of the most defenseless…i’m stammering here…is it not *THE* social justice issue of our time?
And for it to be defended by our first african american President? Satan is getting his jollies. Christ triumphs in finality, but it’s sad to see Christians bitching about the emphasis placed on abortion as an issue. Tears!
JV, I think BillyHW’s point was the same as yours. The (nineteenth century) Boer War was the giveaway.
Thanks, Billy. I loved the Boer War comment…satire rocks.
That was awesome! Thanks for posting.
I realize that the following was satire, so…
I’ve never even once seen you address the Boer War
Well, he’s got a link to Mark Shea’s blog, and Mark Shea has a link to the American Chesterton Society, and Chesterton wrote passionately on the Boer War. By that, Jimmy has shown that he has addressed the Boer War just as much as many Catholics do pro-life matters! So don’t dare state that he has not adequately addressed this issue. If you do, it is clear that it is simply political partisanship.
Unbelievably powerful. Jimmy thank you for bringing that clip to my attention; may it spur us on to action.
BillyHW and Mike: Perfect.
I posted this comment on late into a conversation on another thread, and I was wondering if any of you could shed some light on the subject. It is a sort of, “then what,” question.
It is about enforcement. I was born after Roe v Wade, so I’ve only known an America in which abortion was legal. Can someone tell me what enforcement was like prior to Roe v Wade in states that forbade abortion? I understand that it could have been different from state to state, but I’m trying to get a sense of it.
Because abortion has been legal for some 30+ years now, making it illegal is one thing, but making it cease or reduce it significantly would require enforcement of the law.
Has the Church, Bishops like Burke or Chaput, or theologians of the Church suggested guidelines for just enforcement? Trials as degrees of murder? Jail time just for the doctor alone (the one doing the killing)? Jail time or other sanctions against the woman (and her husband/partner, if complicit)? Closing of hospitals that perform abortions? I’m wondering if the Church has spoken to any of this.
Presumably, someone could argue that various external conditions would justify various charges of murder for the woman (ex. after a rape (manslaughter); under severe medical duress (manslaughter); under less significant duress (2nd degree murder); out of convenience (1st degree murder). I’m not arguing for these categories, I can just imagine our society coming to terms like this. Perhaps they would also do this for the doctor – different conditions warranting different charges.
Could anyone speak to this? Thank you for the clarification and insight.
Amen Brother Piper. I wish I could hear that in a Sundy homily. But instead I drive out of the church parking lot seeing all the Obama stickers.
Well, I suck. Sorry Bill!
Wow. Such testimony from here in Minneapolis, where Obama must have garnered 80% of the vote. I agree with John 6:54 about the bumper stickers.
*chills*
Olav–Personally, I find the “What Would Wellstone Do?” ones more disturbing.
Anybody feel someone with Jimmy’s clout and reach ought to denounce the murder of George Tiller? As a long time reader and admirer of Jimmy’s, I would love for him to weigh in with an unqualified and wholehearted condemnation of murder as a tactic EVEN as means of preventing further murders of the unborn. I think of Till’s victims and the painful anonymous deaths they endured; and while it’s impossible not mourn them more ardently, Till’s death only reminds us that to take a life from another human being is in every case a crime. Yours in life, APL
APL, you missed your exit somewhere – the bait shop and fishing holes are in the other direction.
The pro-life community has spoken with one voice denouncing Tiller’s murder. Several of the blogs I lurk on did not have separate posts on Tiller – the impression I had was that Priests for Life, Operation Rescue and American Life League expressed pro-lifers’ reactions. I can’t speak for Jimmy, but it’s not necessary for each individual to write a post saying exactly what others have said.
Thanks, MK. I actually wasn’t fishing, though I can see why you’d assume these are unfamiliar waters for me. I check this blog regularly and I always find Jimmy’s take worth my while. I hadn’t heard much in the MSN in the way of condemnation from Pro-lifers –no shocker there, so I turned to Jimmy hoping he would light the way fo alll of us Pro-Lifers. I’ll do some digging. Thanks for the tips!
Fr. Pavone (Priests for Life):
http://www.priestsforlife.org/pressreleases/09-05-31-tiller-death.htm
Cardinal Rigali (US bishops)
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/09-06-01-bishops-tiller.htm
The others escape me – it’s rather late here – but they were all along the lines of sadness about Tiller’s murder and emphasis that they’ve used peaceful, legal means, that violence is wrong.
You’re not alone, APL. I’m hoping to hear Jimmy weigh in on this, as well, because there are actually some very knotty moral issues involved and I’d like to see a cool-headed analysis in relation to Catholic teaching.
There is the question of the legitimate use of violence in defense of the innocent, and just where this kind of thing crosses the line into being morally unsupportable.
Well put, Tim J. I think it takes someone with Jimmy’s eloquence and credentials to get to the bottom of this one. It’s such a cynical cannard to hear the MSN trot out the gunned-down-in-his-place-of-worship narrattive. They don’t care about the house of worship 364 days a year, but when the abortion doc meets his gruesome end there, suddenly they’ve got an angle. All I’m interested in are the moral and ethical implications of Tiller’s murder. I’m hoping Jimmy finds the murder as deplorable as I do, but I have no desire to celebrate Tiller as the pious, fallen hero. Triggers the ol’ gag reflex.
Hi Atheist Pro-Lifer,
Thanks for posting. You help us put the lie to the claim, often bandied about, that opposition to abortion is simply a religious belief. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts about when a new human life comes into existence are SCIENTIFIC facts, which have nothing to do with religion!
Still, I hope and pray you’ll be able to remove the “Atheist” tag from your moniker someday. 🙂
Operation Rescue is an extremist antiabortion group. Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, characterized Randy Terrel as celebrating the murder of Dr Tiller. In his own words, he claimed Dr Tiller “reaped what he sowed.”
Some less extreme antiabortion activists have over the years moderated their language, abandoning talk of abortion as a holocaust. As Keith Oberman, MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, have pointed out when extreme language such as describing Dr Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer” or that he “has blood on his hands” or even Robert P George’s extreme language which even fellow antiabortion activist Douglas Kmiec criticized as “rhetorical” — this all contributes to an extremist culture from which these acts of murder and other violence of terrorism come. One pro-life personality who is the son of Frank Schaefer yesterday on MSNBC apologized for his past extreme language and placed part of the blame for this and all the other many acts of antiabortion terrorism on himself and others who have expressed such ideas or used such language. Everyone knows there are unhinged individuals or fanatics who when hearing that someone has “blood on his hands” can forseeably in some cases be led to terrorism.
There is nothing “knotty” about this terrorism. It must be condemned without caveat.
This is not the first time Dr Tiller was personally a victim of antiabortion terrorism. He was previously shot in both arms by an antiabortion activist.
Homeland Security correctly warned against three elements that coincided in this terrorist: association with the right wing, association with groups dedicated to a single issue like abortion, antigovernment sovereignty movements, naming in particular the “freemen”.
John Piper led me to become a Christian but he is IMO wrong to use extremist language. Our words must not only be factual, but responsible.
If abortion is murder, C, (which it is) then what good does it do to cover up the fact with politically correct euphemisms? This will result only in more babies being murdered in the womb, and the violent nutjobs will go on being violent nutjobs.
“Cowardice asks the question – is it safe?
Expediency asks the question – is it politic?
Vanity asks the question – is it popular?
But conscience asks the question – is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;
but one must take it because it is right.”
Martin Luther King
No, this charge of “incitement” (by simply calling abortion by its right name) is completely devoid of merit – nothing but partisan hackery. I keep expecting the enemies of the pro-life movement to rend their garments and proclaim, “What further need do we have of witnesses??!!”.
Sorry, that should be addressed to C.H., of course…
I guess that everyone in the anti-slavery movement should have put on sackcloth and ashes on account of John Brown’s abolitionists murders. You don’t see the pro-aborts saying that, now do you? No, in our modern age, we are told old ladies praying the rosary outside abortion clinics are the biggest threat to freedom. Orwell, call your lawyer.
DM, thanks for the hospitality. I certainly wish I had more allies in the non-believer ranks. I think the issue of abortion, and specifically principled opposition to it, gets filed under “religious ideology” for many secularists and they shut their brains off and forget that there is a MASSIVELY immoral practice going on every day in this country. As for my moniker, it’s staying as it is ’til I get better data. That’s a joke, btw. Respect and love, APL
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/rice.htm
That piece was written by Professor Rice almost fifteen years ago, but it is certainly timely. The Holy Rosary, sidewalk counseling and (most importantly) love will end abortion.
nota bene: I mispelled Randy Terry as Randy Terrel.
It is religious ideology, but ideology doesn’t mean anything bad. The Catholic church claims that abortion violates natural law but it also claims the same of atheism, contraception or remarriage. A society must be founded on civil tolerance, not the bible as Mike Huckabee mistakenly asserts.
The bible is also not clear. Abortion is not condemned in scripture anymore than contraception is condemned. Since scripture says the preborn are in the process of being “formed” by God, it seems that the preborn are not yet human individuals. God also in the OT ordains that certain women be punished with death even when they are pregnant — God would not ordain the punishment of an innocent human individual, so this also suggests that the preborn are not human individuals.
Robert P George mistakenly asserts that science has determined for us that the fertilized egg is a human being. When pressed, he says that science has catalogued the fertilized egg as part of the species homo sapien. But being a member of the species homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for being ontologically a human being. Many Christians who accept evolution believe that members of species other than homo sapien (now exitinct) may also have been ontologically or theologically a human being and many also believe that some homo sapiens (around or before the time of Adam) may not have been ontologically or theologically a human being.
I was very disturbed when watching EWTN and seeing a lady from the Catholic bishops state that since tripping would be an alternative to murder that the murder was not justified. Though she backtracked and said she was not advocating tripping anyone, she never condemned tripping. Both tripping and murder are to be unequivocally condemned as is violence committed against property. The alleged assasin is also alleged to have glued shut the doors of medical clinics. That must also be unequivocally condemned.
Dr George Tiller was a martyr of love. He was shot in both arms by an antiabortion activist but chose to continue the work he believed in. I have seen his friends interviewed on MSNBC and one of them mentioned how he had been asked why he chose to continue this work even after being shot and he replied that the women needed him and that, due to the antiabortion terrorism, there were few else who would be willing to risk their lives for it. Jesus says the greatest love a man can have is to lay down his life for his friends; Dr George Tiller, even if misguided, lived that Christian teaching. His gentle spirit is the fruit of the holy Spirit. We do not see the fruits of the holy Spirit in his alleged assasin nor in the rancor and acerbity of the militant antiabortion movement.
Keith Olbermann demonlished the specious arguments of those such as Bill O’Reilly that their extreme language (ex. “blood on his hands”) could not have caused some to become more prone to violence. As Olbermann pointed out, the same Bill O’Reilly had been claiming that liberal media is causing youth to be .corrupted. Media and the social millieu have an impact. Whether a statement is factual does not answer the question of whether it is right. I believe that all who live in the Spirit can see that.
But being a member of the species homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for being ontologically a human being.
Then what is? Brain activity? Capacity to assert the
Will to Powerwill to live? Skin color?“But being a member of the species homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for being ontologically a human being.”
It better be, or people could say that Christian Hedonist is not a human being, and, therefore, it’s okay to kill him and steal his land, because he’s not _____ like we are; or enslave him because he’s not _____ like we are; or throw him in a concentration camp or do medical experiments on him because he’s not _____ like we are.
“George Tiller was a martyr of love.” Thank you, Screwtape.
“It better be, or people could say that Christian Hedonist is not a human being, and, therefore, it’s okay to kill him and steal his land”
I think my point was lost on you. First, many Christians, including anti-choice Christians, claim that being a member of homo sapien is not the determinative criterion for whether you are ontologically a human being.
Second, just because an idea may lead some to develop other ideas which may be false or dangerous does not make the first idea false. It may be true that believing that membership in homo sapien would guarantee that certain evil ideologies would not come to pass, but the fact that a belief may produce a good consequence and that the negation of the belief may produce a bad consequence does not determine whether said belief is true. It may however determine whether it is wise or sinful to express that belief.
I think the biblical argument for choice is strong but our reason can also enlighten us. Around half of all fertilized eggs die as part of the course of nature, not due to any induced abortion. Many just fail to implant and others die shortly after implantation. Many “mothers” may not even realize that it happened. If fertlizied eggs are ontologically human beings, then that means God set up the course of nature this way. We can’t appeal to the fall here since evolutionary science is clear that the course of nature in this respect was the same before the fall just as after. But a loving God would not have set up the course of nature this way … so logically we know that fertilized eggs are not ontologically human beings.
Being in the mother’s womb is like being in the mind of God. Every person who exists first existed in the mind of God. The bible talks about it and how God knew us even before we were created. But existing in the mind of God is not the same as being ontologically separate from God as a created thing just as existing in a mother’s womb is not the same as being ontologicaly separate from the mother. And just as God can choose who to bring into separate existence from his mind, a woman is within her rights to choose as well; women are co-creators. It doesn’t take rocket science or arcane theology to see that the embryo is not separate from the mother. The fertilized egg ontologically speaking doesn’t actually have a personal body. Prior to implantation, it’s not even in the mother’s womb — and the bible says we are formed there, so fertilization cannot be the moment of our creation (I think the bible is also clear that our creation is not a single event, but a process that ends with birth) The body of a person necessarily is that by which a person gives expression to his soul (if a person gives zero expression, then it is a corpse, not a living, personal body). The fertilized egg alone cannot give expression to anything. So it is just a part of the woman and is part of her living body. A sleeping person or one in a coma is still expressing his soul … but a single cell alone cannot express a soul since the expression of a rational soul requires intercellular activity since reason exists only in relations between things.
The whole scientific concept of species is in flux and has been from the beginning. There are dozens of definitions of species proposed and they don’t agree with each other on whether something is its own species or which species an individual belongs to. The Catholic definition of species from Aquinas also is very different from the scientific concepts.
Bill912,
Perhaps CH mistyped? After all, Tiller could be said to have been a murder of Love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXYc0JojI-E
Christian Hedonist,
If I’m not mistaken, you’re our old friend CT/CW/etc. Might I recommend Isaiah 5, and verse 20 in particular?
Tim,
There is the question of the legitimate use of violence in defense of the innocent, and just where this kind of thing crosses the line into being morally unsupportable.
I was hoping to hear something from Jimmy as well, because I am struggling with the reasoning on this one. Many anti-abortion folks I respect have criticized Tiller’s killer very strongly, but such criticisms just don’t make any sense to me. I can’t find any argument, short of those for complete pacifism, by which he should be condemned. While I find the arguments for complete pacifism to be very compelling, I can’t quite see my way clear to abandoning force as a means of protecting others. Other arguments against Tiller’s killer seem to rest either on the doctrine of double effect (which seems weak to me) or the claim that force can only be used by legitimate authority (which leads to a whole series of questions, including questions as to what constitutes legitimate authority, and whether civilians have any recourse to force when authority is tyrannical or permits injustice.) I was also kind of hoping you or Steven might have some thoughts on the matter. Help out a confused Beastly?
In Roman times when innocent human beings were being sacrificed to pagan gods, the Christian witness and bible still commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to pay taxes. So paying taxes to the U.S. govt is surely obligatory for Christians even though some of those funds are used to pay for abortions. Then, a fortiori, respecting the other laws of the U.S. govt prohibiting murder as understood by U.S. law is also surely obligatory.
Please do not commit violence of any kind against doctors and other health care workers or their property.
The fact that I have seen few anti-abortion activists unequivocally condemn and renounce all forms of violence or property destruction leads me to think that there is something not of the spirit in much of the movement. For if something is of the spirit, it will show in the fruits of the spirit. Rancor, terrorism, murder, assault, property vandalism — these are never fruits of the spirit.
If you are anti-abortion but completely against murder, terrorism and vandalism, do the right thing, the patriotic thing, the charitable thing: if and when you see other anti-abortion activists displaying signs that they may be militant, contact the civil authorities. Just as patriotic and peaceful Muslims can help the land, so also can patriotic and peaceful anti-abortion activists.
In Roman times when innocent human beings were being sacrificed to pagan gods, the Christian witness and bible still commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to pay taxes. So paying taxes to the U.S. govt is surely obligatory for Christians even though some of those funds are used to pay for abortions. Then, a fortiori, respecting the other laws of the U.S. govt prohibiting murder as understood by U.S. law is also surely obligatory.
Please do not commit violence of any kind against doctors and other health care workers or their property.
The fact that I have seen few anti-abortion activists unequivocally condemn and renounce all forms of violence or property destruction leads me to think that there is something not of the spirit in much of the movement. For if something is of the spirit, it will show in the fruits of the spirit. Rancor, terrorism, murder, assault, property vandalism — these are never fruits of the spirit.
If you are anti-abortion but completely against murder, terrorism and vandalism, do the right thing, the patriotic thing, the charitable thing: if and when you see other anti-abortion activists displaying signs that they may be militant, contact the civil authorities. Just as patriotic and peaceful Muslims can help the land, so also can patriotic and peaceful anti-abortion activists.
“The fact that I have seen few anti-abortion activists unequivocally condemn and renounce all forms of violence or property destruction leads me to think that there is something not of the spirit in much of the movement.”
Evidence? (and for such a sweeping indictment, I mean substantial evidence.) Either way, abortion is murder, and impugning those who speak the truth doesn’t hurt the truth.
Sleeping Beastly, perhaps this will help:
JoAnna,
Thanks for the letter. I’m afraid it didn’t help much, since I think many of the points only lead to further confusion. I suspect that the good reverend understands the matter better than I do; it’s just that his points don’t make a lot of sense to me.
He states that sometimes violence is necessary to defend oneself and others, and goes on to apply what amounts to just war conditions to such an act. Well and good; that makes good sense. But by his reasoning, most acts of violence committed during war are not justified, and no acts of capital punishment are ever justified, since they can only justly be committed during an attempted act of violence on the part of the aggressor.
I also agree that all other means must first be proven ineffective or impractical if one is to resort to violence. Do 35 years of heavy-duty anti-abortion activism not qualify?
The good reverend also writes:
He was not in the midst of an aggressive act at that moment, and his killer could not know for certain whether or not he was intending to go back to his dirty business the following day.
I find myself astonished every time I hear this argument. If an assassin had been operating openly and regularly in my neighborhood five days a week for 35 years, I would be a flaming idiot to not assume he’d be back at work the next Monday. Can someone who buys this line of reasoning please explain to me why we don’t immediately release all our condemned criminals onto the streets right now? After all, we don’t know for certain that any of them will return to a life of crime. By this reasoning, how can we even justify pursuing and arresting serial killers? After all, they have to stop sometime, and their most recent victim just might be their last.
As to the legal proceedings underway against Tiller, my understanding was that Tiller had been under investigation during his entire career, to very little effect.
The good reverend also argues that Tiller’s killer wasn’t really preventing any abortions, since abortion clinics will still continue to operate, and other abortionists will simply pencil in appointments for those who would otherwise have patronized Tiller’s office. While this may actually be true of most first trimester abortions, it is highly unlikely in this particular case. Tiller specialized in third trimester abortions, along with only two other abortionists in the United States. Tiller’s killer effectively reduced the number of active late term abortionists in America from three to two. The long-term effects of this remain to be seen, but I would be very surprised to see another abortionist take his place any time soon. Even most pro-abortion “doctors” are unwilling to poison babies that are capable of living and growing outside the womb. Tiller was a rare exception, and his clientele will have a hard time finding a replacement, unless both other such abortionists are willing and able to take on a 50% workload increase. The argument makes some sense if we’re talking about reducing the number of abortionists from 1819 to 1818. Not necessarily true if the number of late-term abortion providers is going from 3 to 2.
The “effect on the pro-life movement” angle does carry some weight, but it’s really little more than speculation. The long terms effects are impossible to judge at this point, and the short term effects seem to be a significant reduction in late term abortions.
In all honesty, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the anti-abortion activists so fervently condemning Tiller’s killer are silently rejoicing. I understand why they might do so, but I’m not sure that hypocrisy is ultimately helpful to the cause. Not that I feel the need to off any abortionists, but I can hardly find it in me to condemn the guy who did.
I found Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of HLI, remarks chilling. He seems to suggest that if an abortion is in progress that murder of the abortion provider is justified or not justified based on a judgment of prudence considering whether the good effects outweigh the bad effects. He denies that murdering an abortion provider is intrinsically evil in all circumstances. His reasoning seems to be a misuse of casuistry (as the term is classically used, not its modern day colloquial meaning).
I have yet to see a single anti-abortion activist condemn as never justified the killing of an abortion provider who is in the process of ministering the abortion procedure. Condemning a killing on the basis of its consequences is not enough. Killing medical professionals is evil and would be similar in heinousness to killing Christian ministers or members of other professions who work as men and women of peace.
“In all honesty, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the anti-abortion activists so fervently condemning Tiller’s killer are silently rejoicing.”
–I believe you are correct as to your suspicion. In fact your suspicion was stated even more plainly by an ex-member of the militant anti-abortion movement, Francis (or was it Frank — it was the son) Schaeffer on MSNBC, whose appearance I mentioned above. He has apologized for his past use of extremist anti-abortion language as partially to blame for the volatile climate from which these acts of murder and terrorism spring. He has also stated that when he was involved in the anti-abortion movement that he and others would publicly denounce an act of violence or terrorism whenever it occurred but then in private rejoice and that he has no doubt that many are doing the same with respect to this latest act of murder and terrorism.
In reaction to a misuse of casuistry, Christian ethics has been led down different roads and many of these roads lead to the chilling equivocal statement of that priest above and your own chilling musings. If we are to replant Christian ethics on more solid ground, we must re-embrace the proper use of casuistry. IMO, the proper use of casuistry leads to a noble pro-choice ethic.
And for those anti-abortion activists who do completely and unequivocally condemn all anti-abortion violence as inherently evil, please hear my plea which as it happens was the plea I heard from Schaeffer on MSNBC — report to civil authorities any indications of terrorist impulses in your movement.
Ignore the hobby-horser, folks.
CT,
Condemning a killing on the basis of its consequences is not enough.
And you’re welcome to your own ideas as to the legitimate use of force. It sounds, however, as if you don’t think others have any right to disagree with you.
Killing medical professionals is evil and would be similar in heinousness to killing Christian ministers or members of other professions who work as men and women of peace…
…the chilling equivocal statement of that priest above and your own chilling musings…
I wonder whether I still have the right to be chilled by your chills.
IMO, the proper use of casuistry leads to a noble pro-choice ethic.
And when others come to a different conclusion:
And for those anti-abortion activists who do completely and unequivocally condemn all anti-abortion violence as inherently evil, please hear my plea which as it happens was the plea I heard from Schaeffer on MSNBC — report to civil authorities any indications of terrorist impulses in your movement.
Nice. Perhaps you’d care to report my own thoughtcrimes to the authorities yourself and spare us the bother of a middleman? Or is there a difference between “chilling musings” and “indications of terrorist impulses?”