What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Gaseous Clouds of Self-Deception

It is not a frequent occurrence for me to find myself in agreement with David Frum. Nevertheless, when Frum writes of Doug Kmeic, a pro-life supporter of Obama, that he has descended into sheer foggy unintelligibility, I am compelled to agree. Consider this exercise in tumescent obfuscation:



Thus, as I see it, it is a choice between two less than sufficient courses:

(a) the continuation of an effort to appoint men and women to the Court who are thought willing to overturn Roe through divisive confirmation proceedings that undermine respect for law and understate the significance of non-abortion issues in a judicial candidate’s evaluation; or

(b) working with a new president who honestly concedes the abortion decision poses serious moral issues which he argues can only be fully and successfully resolved by the mother facing it with the primary obligation of the community seeing to it that she is as well informed as possible in the making of it.

It is a prudential judgment which course is more protective of life.



As I recall, Hegel, renowned and reviled for the turgidity of his prose, was more lucid than this.

Frum observes:


Here's what's really going on: Doug Kmiec, a former dean at the Catholic University of America, has decided that quitting Iraq is more important to him than stopping abortion. Fine! His call! It's a free country!

And that is quite right. Kmiec is entitled to his conviction that the war in Iraq is an unjust boondoggle, and that the capture-the-courts strategy of the pro-life movement isn't all it's cracked up to be. I agree with the first conviction, and have some degree of sympathy for the second, as I indicated in a post expressing my irreconcilable opposition to John McCain's candidacy. But that great gust of verbal vapor is doing more than merely veiling the Iraq issue behind the abortion question; it's also fudging that question itself. Consider Kmiec's (b), which, being translated, means that abortion raises serious moral issues which can only be resolved by an informed choice, underwritten by the community. That could mean that abortion instantiates a conflict of value-judgments, which is only resolved by a choice, but that is to say no more than what orthodox cultural liberalism says in its more sober moods: yes, there's a conflict there, but it's her body, so she decides. It could also mean that a moral dilemma is resolved by a content-neutral choice, but that is to say that moral controversies are resolved non-morally, which is utterly unintelligible. Further, it could mean that abortion presents a moral dilemma, which can only be resolved by an informed choice, 'informed' implying all of the substantive facts about the human sacrifice act; however, Kmiec is attributing the view to Obama, and Obama doesn't believe that. Hence, we must be dealing with one of the first two options, options that are not only utterly conventional, politically-speaking - meaning that there really is no reason to associate with Obama, uniquely, on their basis - and rather unusual for pro-lifers, at least so far as I can determine.

Just say it, man: you oppose the war, and Obama is more likely to end it than McCain (not much more, in my judgment, but there you are). Please, though, abstain from acts of self-deception where abortion is concerned; at least let us be clear about that.

Comments (89)

Frank Schaeffer, unfortunately, has apparently come to the same conclusion as Kmiec by similar reasoning. These exercises in self-delusion smack of those of the "Evangelical Left" and the "Emergent Church," which make the argument that "abortion is just one moral issue among many, and the war in Iraq and environmental concerns are important too, and we should not be single issue voters...", yada, yada, yada, you know the drill. While there is no doubt some truth in these statements, they reflect an unwillingness or an inability to come up with any sort of hierarchy of values, a problem that is endemic in the contemporary Left. In addition, among many left-leaning Christians it also tends to be a sort of facade designed to obscure their hazy discomfort with traditional Chrisian sexual teaching.

I fully agree with Jeff here. If you give up abortion, you give up the game, and Christians should not be entertaining this option.

Abortion is, in other words, a grave moral evil that will have to take a back seat to more pressing concerns like the health care of those who avoid the abortionist's knife. It's the standard line, as you say, but the verbosity required to make it sound morally serious tells us something about the honesty of the people who employ it.

I understand what Kmiec is trying to do. A lot of stems from the frustration of being compelled to work against abortion but then having to choose between having the Republicans or the Democrats on your team. If we follow the Republican path, abortion will never be ended in this country just as surely as if we follow the Democratic path. Yet every four years, we have to somehow pretend that since the Republicans 'try' on abortion, that ineffectual trying is better than effectual indifference, the latter position being pretty close to the current Democratic position. Meanwhile we also get to support an effectual and damnable foreign policy with the Republicans. I'm sorry to say that the judge strategy is crap, that we probably are sacrificing other ideals of justice which concommitant evils in the process, and that the Democrats can do little worse than our present policy on abortion.

During the primaries Kmiec worked for the Romney campaign, and was an outspoken advocate on his behalf. Whatever qualms he had about the Iraq war, they only seem to have become pressing once Romney dropped out.

I understand what Kmiec is attempting. Instead of penning disingenuous prolixities, though, he could have argued that he regarded the Right's approach to the abortion problem as flawed for reasons A,B, whatever; that he was supporting Obama for reasons X,Y, whatever; and that he advocated anti-abortion strategy S concurrently with his political support for Obama.

Obama's record on life issues is appalling. He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, for crying out loud. Why would any pro-lifer want to support him for ANY reason?

Why would any pro-lifer want to support him for ANY reason?

Because by voting for McCain, if successful, one gets an indefinite additional pursuit, and very probably an escalation into Iran, of war in the Middle East...plus a continuation of legal abortion: a net loss for life.
By voting for Obama, if successful, one gets a POTUS pledged to end the war as soon as prudently possible, and reduces to near zero the possibility of an escalation...plus a continuation of legal abortion: overall, a net gain for life.

...and very probably an escalation into Iran, of war in the Middle East

Was this sarcasm?

I mean, given all the resources wasted as far as Iraq is concerned, do you really think with what little remains, we can actually engage in another war?

My goodness, they're re-cycling soldiers for goodness sakes due to the sparse military we presently have!

I hope you're joking; if not, you're mad!

Escalation into Iran my a _ _!

Oh, yeah, Rob (that's Rob #2, not Rob G): Obama, a net gain "for life." The guy who thinks it's unconstitutional to protect born infants who aren't old enough. I feel ill.

Good post, Jeff. Kmiec's "b" makes me ill, too, so Rob is in good company. With Douglas Kmiec, who used to write for First Things, didn't he? I hope not anymore. Shudder.

"...and reduces to near zero the possibility of an escalation...plus a continuation of legal abortion: overall, a net gain for life."

O.k, the logic here is we can reduce human life to little more than a whim, render the maternal womb a place fraught with danger, and expect peace will somehow reign? Add to it that Obama is an unabashed interventionist who will gladly employ military force, only for more noble reasons than mere national interest or self-defense, and such a view is indefensible.

I won't vote for McCain because he has never found a war he didn't like and his pro-life conviction is merely a pro-forma exercise. However, I won't cross oneself and jump through a series of mental hoops just so I can make the obscene claim that an Obama Administration represents a "net gain for life".

Good Lord, vote for a 3rd party, or don't vote. But, don't join the passing spectacle of an electoral circus at the cost of your own integrity.

This may be our first genuinely postmodern election cycle. "Zionists for Hitler!"

A further point against the claim that an Obama administration = "a net gain for life": A quick pullout from Iraq of the sort that Obama has been suggesting will put Iraqi minorities such as Christians in even greater peril than that which they presently face. Even with US troops present to help maintain a semblance of stability, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul was recently abducted and snuffed. Expect far more slaughter of minorities if liberals and their candidate Obama get their way (they, of course don't want the slaughter, but the policy move they insist on will bring it). This point of concern has recently been expressed by both President Bush and the Vatican. See "Pope, White House Bonds Expected to Strengthen," by John D. McKinnon, WSJ, 4/14/08, A3.

You seem to collectively admit that McCain's pro-life stance is approximately as pro-active as Bush's has been. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment giving the unborn full status as persons and ipso facto making abortion first-degree murder will end legal abortion in this country. Bush made no attempt to use the Bully Pulpit to make this happen; McCain will not do so either. Appointing activist judges to overturn Roe v. Wade will only make it necessary to travel from state to state to get an abortion. Funding will be found to allow even the poor to do so.
As for Christians in Iraq; they were protected under Saddam. Tariq Assiz is a Christian. If they are being killed and displaced, it is because America removed that protection without replacing it. Check Bush's hands for blood there.
As for war with Iran, we are obviously in no position to launch an invasion there; but we do still have the means to launch a devastating air war against them. Both McCain and Hillary Clinton have threatened that. Obama, on the other hand, is being raked over the coals for saying that he would sit down and talk to the Iranians personally, face-to-face. It takes courage and innate leadership qualities to propose that which will surely bring hell down on your head.
With any of the candidates you will continue to have legal abortion. Therefore, if you want to actually decrease the amount of killing being done by Americans, you can vote for the candidate most likely to end the killing in the Middle East most quickly. Not an optimal choice, but the best one available. We may not be able to end the killing in the Middle East; but we certainly can stop being a part of that killing.

Even granting the basic fact that McCain is not particularly strong on pro-life as a motivated issue, and granting that Obama wants out of Iraq:

Given McCain's superior knowledge of the military, it is far more likely that he can actually get the results he wants out of it. My guesstimate (and nobody who thinks should claim more than a guesstimate on this): McCain will have us out of Iraq in 3 years, Obama in 2.

The difference in that 1 year if McCain is elected rather than Obama: In Iraq, at most 2,000 soldiers dead, 6,000 wounded. Civilians 20,000 dead, 60,000 wounded. In the US, 1 Supreme Court Justice appointed. 1,300,000 babies not murdered.

The math does not bear out that voting for Obama is likely to be as much or more pro-life than McCain IN EFFECT.

I think we all agree pursuing an exclusively "capture the Courts" strategy is foolhardy. The battle must be fought and won at the grassroots level too, one heart at a time. We can also agree that Obama is less likely to launch an attack against Iran, though his options in Iraq are more limited than his rhetoric.
Yet, none of these points relieve us of the moral obligation to resist the culture of death. That entails rejecting candidates sworn to advance the death-works and not assuming a series of contortions in order to escape that responsibility.

Well put, Kevin.

Yes, good, Kevin. And my problem with capturing the courts as a strategy is not that Roe should not be overturned. It's an abomination from every perspective--moral and legal--and absolutely must be overturned. May I live to see the day. My problem is not that the strategy is bad in itself but that our presidents have let us down on it. Even, to some extent, Reagan (by appointing Kennedy and O'Connor). Of course then the battle will just have begun for legal protection, but the double-padlock of a lie that there is a constitutional right to rip up your child, making such protection impossible in those jurisdictions (meaning all of them) where elected officials think that they have to "follow" the courts' diktats, absolutely must be taken off the political process.

In any event, I won't let pass without comment this silly moral equivalency of nose-counting between soldiers who die and civilians who die accidentally and innocent children cold-bloodedly, directly, medically murdered with forceps. Not that I've ever been up and cheering over the war in Iraq. I was against it at the beginning when some of my more paleo friends were in favor. But those of us who are genuinely pro-life and don't just mouth the word as a sick and contorted defense of leftism should stand up and shout that there is a difference between war, however misguided, and murder.

Roe has to be struck-down as it corrupts our entire juridical system, but I'm afraid too many pro-lifers aren't prepared for the heavy-lifting that comes the "day-after" it's struck down and consigned to the same ignominious place as Dred Scott.

Agree with you, Lydia on the futility of moral math, but do believe war is murder inflicted on an industrial scale, and as a wise man once said; "a scar across the face of God." I can no more say; "I'm pro-life and pro-war", than say; "I'm pro-peace and pro-abortion", without experiencing an extreme case of moral and intellectual vertigo

...there is a difference between war, however misguided, and murder.

In specific cases maybe. It depends how misguided the war is, doesn't it? Clearly there are such things as war crimes, which can be legally and morally equivalent to murder.

...where elected officials think that they have to "follow" the courts' diktats...

Just start advocating anarchy, that is a more legitimate stance.

Kevin, are you a pacifist? I'm just trying to clarify, as that seems to be what you're saying. Not that I'm going to start a debate about pacifism. I'm just going to point out that non-pacifists don't agree that war is, by its nature, murder on an industrial scale or indeed murder at all in itself.

Lydia,I'm not a pacifist, though I usually admire those who are are. Looking at the history of the past 100 years, it is hard to find justification for most of the wars that this country has fought. World War II was likely unavoidable, but it's prosecution - the deliberate targeting of civilian centers - was grossly immoral. Never mind the decisions made in the decade prior to our entry.

Proponents of war say the loss of innocent lives is inevitable when war begins. If we then pursue a war that can be avoided, we have engaged in murder. Hard to argue around that, no? Given the capability to destroy human life on such a grand scale, it is clear the Just War theory needs revision. In fact, within my Church, both the current and previous Pope have been busy in that regard.

I don't support the cold calculus of comparing lives potentially saved in abortion to those saved in avoiding immoral wars. However I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that abortion is not an issue of practical disagreement in the upcoming election.

"However I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that abortion is not an issue of practical disagreement in the upcoming election."

The only way to adance that "reasonable argument" is first to avoid the following realities; Mexico City regs, our role in the UN and other international forums & aid organizations, Obama's judicial appointments and his bloody support of partial-birth abortion. Secondly, ignore your own personal requirement to bear Witness.

Secondly, ignore your own personal requirement to bear Witness.
Insert appropriate expletive and append off.

Mexico City regs, our role in the UN and other international forums & aid organizations, Obama's judicial appointments
All of these issues lend themselves to abortion being supported in pursuit of other reasonable goals like equity for the poor or proper jurisprudence.

support of partial-birth abortion
I don't see this issue on the 2008 agenda.

"Proponents of war say the loss of innocent lives is inevitable when war begins. If we then pursue a war that can be avoided, we have engaged in murder. Hard to argue around that, no?"

Well, no. It's a matter of the direct object of one's individual acts. But I'll say no more about that for the present.

"Secondly, ignore your own personal requirement to bear Witness."

Amen. Since when were practical outcomes the only point of voting? My gosh, there was a time when I thought I was going to have to write a post to make that point re. Giuliani--that voting says something and is about more than pulling levers in a political machine. Is it even possible that I shd. have to convince men of good will regarding that when it comes to someone like Obama, who opposes even protection for born-alive infants? The mind boggles.

"It's a matter of the direct object of one's individual acts."

A "statesman" who orders the bombing of a city is engaged in an intrinsically evil act. He may not personally know his victims, nor their exact number, but he is a killer.

Peace does not result when one acts as an accomplice to evil. M.Z. Forrest will have to look elsewhere for conscience balm.

A cosmology that rationalizes the killing of unborn children produces a social and political order rife with innumerable social ills, not the least of which is war. Poverty will not be lessened under a regime that enforces and extends the barbaric practice of abortion. How could it, since the necessary foundation for a just social order; the belief in the sanctity of human life and respect for the dignity each and every human being, can only erode under such a shadow?

On the other hand, wars of choice pursued under the rubric that "it's better to get them before they get us", is an anti-Christian stance that neglects an important truth; there are worse things than military defeat. The loss of our immortal souls being foremost. Faith means taking big risks, yet our self-styled hawks rather strike first and not find the weapons on mass destruction later. Seems to be a pretty barren faith.

A stratagem that advocates an Obama Presidency as a legitimate pro-life prerogative, or a right response to the current political climate makes no sense. Nor, does a defense of modern warfare and it's attendant evils that assure us such ungodly measures are necessary to ensuring the survival of "civilization." Sure.

Neither side should expect to retain much credibility when touting their alleged commitment to the Gospel of Life, even as one elevates an abortion enthusiast to the Presidency, or the other bangs the drums of war. Certainly do not feign surprise at the consequences, intended or otherwise, that follow from such warped logic.

God save all of us.

How could it, since the necessary foundation for a just social order; the belief in the sanctity of human life and respect for the dignity each and every human being, can only erode under such a shadow?

Kevin,

You have evidently been engulfed by the "gaseous clouds" of Vatican II. Where did this notion come from that sanctity was an inherent possession of human beings? And, sorry, not all human beings have dignity, which is why it is sometimes lawful that they be killed, as St. Thomas Aquinas said.

A "statesman" who orders the bombing of a city is engaged in an intrinsically evil act.

Does anybody find this statement to be untrue, regardless of the circumstances? I ask because, as Kevin points out, exactly this has become an integral part of contemporary warfare. More civilians always die in modern war than men under arms. Wars are won by killing the innocent until the soldiers stop fighting; either out of horror and grief, or in shame and disgust, depending on which side gives it up first.
As for abortion, it is either a morally neutral surgical procedure, or it is premeditated, first-degree murder; there is no gray area. Over-turning Roe v. Wade and making it a state's rights issue is, therefore, not the answer. A state cannot opt to legalize murder. Any person who calls abortion murder, yet wants to prosecute only the abortionist is a hypocrite. If I hire a hit man to kill my enemy, I am as guilty of that murder as is the man who commited the act; abortion is no different. Those who don't want to prosecute the "mother" are making a political, rather than a moral decision; they know that any proposal that would criminalize the woman will not fly politically. I see very little truth and moral integrity in the pro-life movement, especially among those who are pro-war and/or pro-death penalty.

The "mother"

???!!!

Okay, now I know what sort of person Rob #2 is: Someone who thinks the term 'mother' belongs in scare quotes when the child happens not to have been born. End of discussion.

George R,
Are you trying to be funny? Even though I don't agree with Kevin, your comment seems to intentionally misunderstand the normal meaning of "sanctity of life". Just in case you are serious: the phrase is not intended to refer to each individual life as being saintly.
Also, St. Thomas's teaching was about evil people not having the dignity of rational beings with rationality in act . Nothing in it denies that even evil people have the dignity inherent in being a rational being with rationality in potentia . The latter is sufficient dignity to preclude being intentionally killed other than as punishment for crime.

Kevin, there are good, rational men of principle who disagree with the categorization of the Iraq war as "war of choice". While you may believe that description is accurate, there are other ways of describing the "choices" so as to show that ALL the other choices were still worse - and that is kind of the essence of just-war morality. Much as you would like it to be otherwise, a prudential decision that war is the least horrible of all the choices before us can never (even when in error) be equated with a decision to murder this child here before us. Both may have unnecessary death as a consequence, but looking solely at that specific consequence reeks of consequentialism - and I know you eschew that as much as I.

Someone who thinks the term 'mother' belongs in scare quotes when the child happens not to have been born. End of discussion.

Rob #2 is the kind of person who thinks that the word "mother" denotes something more than a biological condition; and that the woman lying on her back with her feet in the abortionist's stirrups doesn't qualify for the designation.

You have evidently been engulfed by the "gaseous clouds" of Vatican II. Where did this notion come from that sanctity was an inherent possession of human beings? And, sorry, not all human beings have dignity, which is why it is sometimes lawful that they be killed, as St. Thomas Aquinas said.

Evidently, you've been engulfed by the "gaseous clouds" of your own gloss rather than the genuine teachings of the beloved angelic doctor Aquinas.

I challenge you to provide corroborative evidence in any one of his works concerning such. This is but a perversion of his theology than a proper understanding of his work.

"[A] prudential decision that war is the least horrible of all the choices before us can never (even when in error) be equated with a decision to murder this child here before us."

Hear, hear. Sounds like an echo of what someone wise (grin) said upthread.

doubting t,

St. Thomas wrote in the Summa that when men sin they lose their dignity as men, and, in fact, become "worse than beasts."

As for the term "sanctity of human life," certainly there is there is an appropriate use and place for it. However, there is nothing inherently holy about human nature; and killing a man is not a sacrilegious act. It seems to me that certain Catholics have gone too far with this "sanctity of human life" stuff.

...killing a man is not a sacrilegious act. It seems to me that certain Catholics have gone too far with this "sanctity of human life" stuff.

There is such a thing called "The 10 Commandments" and in it there is the command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill"!

My goodness, there's a wonderful thing called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and, more importantly, a wonderful book known to many as The Bible, if you should choose to acquaint yourself with such wonderful insights.

I challenge you to provide corroborative evidence in any one of his works concerning such.

In the Summa concerning the question whether a sinner may be killed is found the following:

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Proverbs 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

George R. states: "certain Catholics have gone too far with this "sanctity of human life" stuff." What, precisely, did you have in mind? Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being or not? If your answer is "Yes," then you agree with Catholic teaching and the wisdom enshrined in various traditions and cultures spanning time and place. If your answer is "No," I fear you have deep problems indeed.

For the record, when most pro-lifers speak of the "sanctity of human life," they have in mind the sanctity of *innocent* human life (as opposed to that of, say, a convicted serial rapist and murderer).

Rob#2; you're cogent description of Total War
is absolutely accurate, perhaps uncomfortably so for some here.

doubtingT, you are right in theory, but in reality, can it really be said of the Iraq War, that not acting would have been worse? We'd be in the 5th year of arms inspectors running up bar tabs in Baghdad, 4,000 Americans and as a many as 100,000 Iraqi's would be alive. The truth is you will be hard-pressed to argue that the criteria for Just War have been met in any recent armed conflicts. Please submit one.

Lydia, great job on pulling out the JPII quote. Needless to say his vociferous opposition to both Iraqi wars have been validated. May we all listen to him more intently.

George R, if your aim is satire, you've succeeded. If not, I suggest you leave Richard Williamson's cult as soon as possible. Last time he was heard from, he was saying we "deserved it" , while also contending that 9-11 was engineered, by you guessed it. The Jews.

Michael S.,

I answer, "Yes." It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, including one in the womb. Feel better?

I don't want to take credit where not due. Which JPII quote did I pull out? I'm not myself probably as opposed to wars generally as JPII, I must admit, at risk of losing credit. In fact, I always used to think of myself as a hawk, though not on this one particular war. :-)

Sorry Lydia, actually doubtingT gets credit for paraphrasing JPII. Still hoping he can point to a war that has met the Just War criteria. Or, maybe you can put forth one. With the benefit of hindsight, I think we can see the Just War Theory is rarely active in the decision-making process of ostensibly Christian leaders.

It seems that the discussion regarding war could be helped along by drawing a distinction between jus ad bellum (having just cause for entering war) and jus in bello (conducting one's efforts within the war in accordance with justice). No doubt few wars if any are carried out perfectly in accordance with jus in bello. But it doesn't follow that there isn't/wasn't just cause for entering the given war. Suppose we think the US's dropping of the bomb in WWII violated jus in bello; it doesn't follow that the war as a whole or the entrance into the war was unjust or unethical.

drawing a distinction between jus ad bellum (having just cause for entering war) and jus in bello

So, I guess that when those responsible for the prosecution of a contemporary war are standing before the Throne and the question comes to them, "Why did you slaughter my children?", prepared in advance for the question, they will pipe up and say, "Well, you see, God, you just need to understand the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello!" And God will smile and say, "Ah! Tell me more!"

Rob #2, I thought you got yourself banned from these comment boxes by Paul, in spite of being a Bob Dylan fan.

George R.,

For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

I thank you for the citation; however, you fail to make a connection between what St. Thomas has said here (i.e., his having alluded to the notion that when men sin they lose their dignity as men, and, in fact, become "worse than beasts") and your fallacious conclusion that, therefore, such men deserve to die.

that ineffectual trying is better than effectual indifference, the latter position being pretty close to the current Democratic position

Hmm...I don't see how anyone could call the Dem party's rabid support of murder-in-the-womb "effectual indifference." Effectual, maybe, but indifference?!?!?! If only Republicans were so 'indifferent' to the pro-life position, abortion would have ended decades ago.

Rob #2: You completely misunderstand my point. I in no way suggested that the distinction gives one license to violate jus in bello or renders such violations insignificant. I'm merely suggesting that an awareness of this distinction can bring some clarity to the discussion. One or more of the comments above conflates jus ad bellum with jus in bello, thereby muddying the discussion.

George R,

I have long been aware of St. Thomas's quote that you gave - I have used it myself for the death penalty argument. However, he also has an important passage showing that death of a criminal should be used for the common good only medicinally (only to prevent further infection, say) - not simply whenever there is a capital crime. I am trying to make both passages coherent with an underlying passage of even more authority: "If a man sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in My image." (Genesis 9:6) All men, whatever their actions, are "made in His image" therefore, all men have a certain inherent dignity that resides merely on account of human nature itself, not human nature well used or ill-used. While I am perfectly happy admitting that human nature is not sacred of itself, God does mean something special by referring to His image in the passage - namely, we have a participated sanctity, or reflected sanctity.

What St. Thomas points out is that when a man acts against reason and commits murder, he loses a protection that applies not on account of having human nature itself, but of something further. This something further is ALSO implied by God, for he tells us "by man shall his blood be shed", that we are allowed (or commanded?) to take the offender's life. But God does not distinguish in the final clause as to the victim but not the offender being in His image, so it cannot be that dignity alone involved.

So if all this is to be understood without self-contradiction, St. Thomas seems to indicate that when a man commits murder, he becomes subject to the state treating him as an animal - up to a point, but not absolutely. The subjection is definitely there in the passage about the man being bestial, and the limit is there in the passage about medicinal purpose. Thus I posit that the difference has to do with rationality in use as opposed to rationality present but abused, and this does not regard the dignity of being "in His image" which all have without distinction. If you have another way of reading the 3 points I am open to it.

Kevin, I would be more than happy to debate war theory with you, but I don't think this thread is the place. I would prefer to leave it that there is legitimate difference of opinion as to certain wars, and not use that here. For, whatever the morality of getting into the Iraq war, neither candidate has that choice before him. The choice now is how to deal with the situation in the best way for the US and Iraq and for the world in general.

Rob #2: The difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello is pretty similar to the sort of distinction as between killing in self-defense (or, even more clearly, in defense of your child) and killing for money. Both are killing. As such, both on the surface seem to be proscribed by God in the Commandments. But I don't think there is much traction in arguing to God "well, you see, Lord, I knew he was killing my child, but you have that 5th Commandment thing, and I categorically don't listen to theologians who make all those picky distinctions, so how was I to know you weren't referring to defense of life?"

"Ah, tell me more..."

One or more of the comments above conflates jus ad bellum with jus in bello, thereby muddying the discussion.

Michael S.--
Yes. The point I am making (and I think that Kevin is also making) is that in contemporary warfare there is no going into it without the understanding that you WILL BE killing innocents: it is a given. That being the case, it is disingenous at best to ever speak of jus ad bellum, since jus in bello is not a possible outcome of engaging in war. Did not the last Pope say much the same?

I would prefer to leave it that there is legitimate difference of opinion as to certain wars,...

Be careful here though. A decision to go to war is in general a prudential judgement: that is, whether it is just or not depends on the actual facts and circumstances which obtain. That does not mean, however - as many especially Catholic supporters of the Iraq war have argued both explicitly and implicitly - that no objective truth obtains as to the justice of a particular war. Far from it.

"Legitimate difference of opinion" may indeed exist in some cases, of course, and I don't intend to reiterate here why I think that it does NOT obtain in the case of Iraq II and DOES obtain in the case of Iraq I and Afghanistan. But "prudential judgement" is not code for "supporters of war X cannot be manifestly in the wrong morally". It is indeed possible for a particular decision to wage war to be manifestly unjust, leaving no room whatsoever for 'legitimate' difference of opinion, that is, difference of opinion not arising out of ignorance or wrong moral judgement.

More generally, "prudential judgement" is not code for a license to moral relativism on a particular issue, and people should stop treating it as if it were.

Rob #2: I think you're overstating your point a bit. The most we can say is that it is highly unlikely that a nation can enter a war without also, even if unintentionally, killing innocents. You give the impression that it is a necessary truth that all contemporary wars involve the killing of innocents. But that is far from obvious. I can imagine situations in which that is not the case (suppose it's a short war, one that lasts the duration of a single bomb and kills only combatants). That may be unlikely, but it's not impossible. So it's important that we not treat as an apriori necessity that which is only supported by enumerative induction. As for what the Pope has said, I have no idea; I'm not Catholic. But I respect the present and previous Pope highly thus would be interested to read what they have said on these matters.

Michael S.--
I'm not Catholic either, but I have to respect the counsel of a Pope.
It is, as you say, possible that a contemporary war could be charted in advance so as to act only in ways in which innocent civilians could be killed only as an unforeseen circumstance that every precaution was taken to avoid. But, in point of fact, not only is this not done, but it is very deliberately not done (although this is officially denied.) All you need to do is read the "apologies" given by the military after the fact in the newspapers. If you bomb in cities, you kill women, children, old people, whomever is near your target. And there is always bombing in cities eventually, if not immediately. In WWII it was Dresden and Hiroshima. In Vietnam it was "destroying the village in order to save it" and naked, naplamed little girls photographed fleeing from our attack. With those, place "Shock and Awe" and also the numerous "mistakes" we've learned of in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

You give the impression that it is a necessary truth that all contemporary wars involve the killing of innocents.

I do not "give the impression," I make the flat-out emphatic declaration that all contemporary wars involve the deliberate killing of innocents. I will not, out of misplaced patriotism, drink the kool-aid and ignore the truth.

All wars DO involve the killing of innocents. So does avoiding war.

In terms of proportionality, I'll take my chances on the latter.
I suppose, to move back to the question of abortion, one could say that by "avoiding" abortion, one inevitably causes x-number of unwanted children to be abused, or starved, even unto death, by unfit and unloving parents. Is this a reason not to do away with abortion?

Rob #2: You've again missed my point. I was not questioning whether all contemporary wars DO involve the killing of civilians. I was questioning the assumption that all contemporary wars MUST of necessity involve the killing of innocents. This is a modal distinction. The point is entirely compatible with the claim that heretofore all contemporary wars have as a matter of contingent fact involved the killing of innocents. Try to read more carefully before launching another strident declaration.

Michael S.--
Okay, I'll bite--what is your ultimate point? Is it that modern warfare, despite the fact that it always just happens to kill more innocents than combatants, can be Just War because it isn't logically necessary that it kill more innocents than combatants? That is, I suppose, some consolation.

Someone made the comment about Pope's opposition to both Iraq I and II. Perhaps, but JPII also strongly encouraged us to engage in the Bosnia "intervention", which we could have held off from. And we killed innocents there as well, though not all that many. So if you want to use the authority of that Pope the issue is not "NEVER get into war that is not forced upon you DIRECTLY and immediately." It is and remains a prudential question - some wars are moral, even in contemporary situations.

As to killing innocents under the jus in bello concern: your methods in warfare - once you have concluded that going to war is the correct and moral thing - must respect life of themselves. That is to say, (at least) your immediate object in every single act of violence must be directed toward combatants (or things) and not toward non-combatants. This is simply not the same thing as saying your methods must not have an impact on non-combatants. If we had to abide by the latter, warfare of itself would indeed be immoral in all cases, because even a one-on-one combat with their unjust leader would affect the civilians in the country if their leader lost.

There is no fundamental moral division between saying "I can kill their soldiers in a way that happens to destroy civilians' homes and livelihoods" and "killing soldiers in a way that may injure civilians" through to "killing soldiers in a way that may also kill civilians". That is - with the necessary qualifiers - (1) the damage to or harm to civilians' lives in no way is how you benefit from the action, (2) the military objective could not have been achieved without the action which results in undesired but likely harm to civilians, and (3) the evils not intended (see (1) ) are proportionately of less weight than the good that is the objective. In other words, the usual conditions of double effect. If these conditions are present, then killing enemy soldiers and accidentally killing civilians is morally identical to a policeman shooting an armed and enraged berserker and killing a bystander accidentally.

"I make the flat-out emphatic declaration that all contemporary wars involve the deliberate killing of innocents."

Agreed. Since so-called 'total war' has become the rule of the day (thank you, General Sherman), noncombatants are routinely targeted in such a way as to "help destroy the enemy's economy or infrastructure," or "prevent noncombatants from helping the war effort of the enemy."

I'd argue instead that targeting noncombatants is always and everywhere wrong.

In Eastern Orthodox teaching, there is no 'just war' theory. All wars are sinful, period, even if they are sometimes necessary. Hence, all soldiers returning from combat are expected to receive confession and absolution before approaching the Chalice.

Eastern Orthodox teaching - as expressed by you - has no just war "theory". That is not logically equivalent to saying all wars are unjust under such teaching. It could be that there is no body of knowledge treated as a single group to be called "just war theory" but that there are individual teachings which are compatible with certain wars being just.

Even if Eastern Orthodox teaching is against all war, that does not prove your point that they all wars are sinful - it more proves that Eastern Orthodox teaching is defective. All wars are sinful, period, even if they are sometimes necessary. This is morally incoherent. If it is truly necessary, then it is morally allowable. If morally allowable, then not sinful. Any theory that says a war is sinful but necessary cannot be taken seriously in trying to come to an intelligible stance on war.

I make flat out emphatic declaration that IT IS NOT TRUE that all contemporary wars MUST directly target civilians. Whether all of recent vintage have in fact targeted civilians is a question of historical determination, not of categorical or moral necessity. It is always possible to act morally. If, in a given situation, it is morally appropriate to wage war, then there is a moral manner in which one could execute that war. You might lose in doing so, but it is (morally) better to lose a war having fought morally than to win having fought immorally.

doubtingT,

What did JPII say about our bombing of Belgrade, either before, or after it happened? Trading on his moral authority requires more than a vague assertion.

You are correct when saying there are worse things than material defeat in war, which makes your strained, theoretical defense of modern warfare somewhat baffling. If you can't give specific, recent examples of wars conducted by moral means, perhaps the theory is false.

If these conditions are present, then killing enemy soldiers and accidentally killing civilians is morally identical to a policeman shooting an armed and enraged berserker and killing a bystander accidentally.

Good summary - though an important point which often becomes blurred is that the specific deaths of any specific noncombatants must in fact actually be accidental; and "I wish I didn't have to kill them to achieve my goal" as a sentiment does not render their deaths accidental. For example, in a 'decapitation strike' on a public restaurant which happens to be where the enemy leader is having dinner, the deaths of civilians are not accidental.

"I make flat out emphatic declaration that IT IS NOT TRUE that all contemporary wars MUST directly target civilians."

Never said that. What I said was that all modern wars DO directly target civilians, by virtue of the fact that 'total war' is the current M.O. of warfare.

"All wars are sinful, period, even if they are sometimes necessary. This is morally incoherent. If it is truly necessary, then it is morally allowable. If morally allowable, then not sinful."

Afraid not. Does the phrase "lesser of two evils" ring a bell? Is the lesser of two evils necessarily a good?

"Any theory that says a war is sinful but necessary cannot be taken seriously in trying to come to an intelligible stance on war."

Not so. "Sinful" does not necessarily imply culpability, at least in Orthodox thought.


For example, in a 'decapitation strike' on a public restaurant which happens to be where the enemy leader is having dinner, the deaths of civilians are not accidental.

Zippy, are you going to start this again?

Rob G,

Orthodox thought is evidently a curious thing. For in Catholic teaching that which is necessary is never sinful; and that which is sinful is never necessary. But you say that war is a neccessary sin. Now if a sin is necessary, it would seem unreasonable to oppose it. And since God cannot be unreasonable,He would not oppose a necessary sin. Therefore, God does not always oppose sin.

That sounds like a fun religion.

Zippy, yes I saw your argument about accidental deaths of civilians at your blog, and you didn't convince me there. What about targeting a military command center and killing the cleaning lady whom you know is there some of the time, but you don't know for sure is there now?

What I said was that all modern wars DO directly target civilians, by virtue of the fact that 'total war' is the current M.O. of warfare. Rob, maybe it is true that most modern wars do use "total war" as the MO, (though your definition of "total war" would have to be adjusted for the fact that neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan did we make any large city uninhabitable, as we did in WWII, or even target civilian centers simply in order to eradicate an indiscriminate bunch of people). But that is the MO as decided in specific cases by certain stupid men. Other men may come along and decide otherwise - and then it would no longer be the MO, would it? You can use bombs and tanks without targeting civilians.

"Sinful" does not necessarily imply culpability Then you are not using the term as it is generally used in Christian thought. Please define sin and culpability so we can follow what you mean.

If you can't give specific, recent examples of wars conducted by moral means, perhaps the theory is false. Kevin,
that logic does not work. I am sure there were 50 year periods in the past where nobody in fact waged war in a moral fashion, but that did not destroy the possibility of waging war morally. The fact is that whatever weaponry I have, I can always use it in a more restrained manner than someone before me has chosen to use it, or I can choose not to use it at all in favor of using something that delivers lesser force. In last resort, I could send out soldiers with knives and let them do their worst - on enemy soldiers.

Yes fellas it is true: I don't think it is OK to kill innocent people just because they happen to be in your way. (And I think the argument that it is OK is one of the places where casuistry gets a bad name).

Oh, and this question:
What about targeting a military command center and killing the cleaning lady whom you know is there some of the time, but you don't know for sure is there now?

... doesn't particularly trouble me. The cleaning staff at a military facility are clearly part of direct combat support.

More difficult is a military facility which is regularly toured by local schoolchildren. In that case I think we are entitled to assume that schoolchildren are not there, unless we have specific information otherwise. Even more troubling is the use of innocent 'human shields'. In that case I think it is OK to attempt to rescue them, and to attempt to target combatants while attempting to avoid them. It is not OK to simply blow them up and chalk it up to collateral damage.

As always, the existence of ever more difficult dilemmas does not call into question the clarity of more obvious ones. And blowing up a restaurant known to be full of civilians is wrong, even when a military leader is suspected to be (though in fact he turned out not to be) having dinner there.

We do a very good job avoiding targeting civilians when we are able, and when that avoidance does not present a tactical disadvantage. But when it does present a tactical disadvantage we are not so good at doing the right thing. In those cases we often have committed deliberate murder in war, including specifically in the case of the failed 'decapitation strike' in Iraq II.

I haven't been following this thread all the way, but my impression is that Zippy does not think that his principles about not deliberately targeting civilians make all modern warfare simply as such immoral because of the _probability_ that someone at some point in the course of the war will directly target civilians, much less because of the probability of civilians deaths as true collateral damage.

"Orthodox thought is evidently a curious thing. For in Catholic teaching that which is necessary is never sinful; and that which is sinful is never necessary. But you say that war is a neccessary sin. Now if a sin is necessary, it would seem unreasonable to oppose it. And since God cannot be unreasonable,He would not oppose a necessary sin. Therefore, God does not always oppose sin.

That sounds like a fun religion."

The snark is uncalled for, George, but I'll put it down to ignorance. Example: say a person in a given situation is limited to two choices, both of which are objectively sinful, but one has less harmful results than the other, or the person is honestly confused about which action is less harmful. He makes a choice and performs one action which is, objectively speaking, sinful. Orthodox moral/ascetical teaching would say that even though the person performed a sinful act, he may not be culpable for it given the circumstances.

An example might be killing a person in self-defense. Orthodoxy teaches that killing another human being is an inherently sinful (i.e., fallen) act, and even if necessary, still has an inherent "wrongness" to it. Hence, if I were to kill someone in self-defense, I would still need to confess and receive absolution before approaching the Chalice. The action isn't somehow automatically "justified" (made just or right) simply because I had a valid reason for taking that action.

Maximos may be able to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is the way I've heard things explained by various Orthodox priests and theologians. On the whole, it seems to me, Orthodox moral teaching seems to have a more 'ascetical' bent to it than that of the RCC. I say this not as a criticism, but simply as an observation.


Rob G,

I apologize for my previous wise-crack. But there has to be something missing from what you are telling us about Orthodox teaching. What you seem to be saying is that sometimes it is more sinful not to commit a certain sin than it is to commit that sin. Therefore, one has to conclude that man cannot help but to sin. How demoralizing!

I think Doubting T is right; you have to define what you mean by sin and culpability. I'm guessing that what you mean by sin is closer to what in the Old Law was called being made "unclean" by contact with certain "unclean" things.

Therefore, one has to conclude that man cannot help but to sin.

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don’t find it doing that which is good. 7:19 For the good which I desire, I don’t do; but the evil which I don’t desire, that I practice. 7:20 But if what I don’t desire, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me. 7:21 I find then the law, that, to me, while I desire to do good, evil is present. 7:22 For I delight in God’s law after the inward man, 7:23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.

...a person in a given situation is limited to two choices, both of which are objectively sinful...

Then he shouldn't do either, should he?

"Therefore, one has to conclude that man cannot help but to sin. How demoralizing!"

Exactly. This is not, of course, to imply that we cannot help but sin in every single situation, but that there are times when we honestly do have to choose the lesser of two evils because of the very fact that we are fallen (as Rob#2's quote from Romans indicates).

And really, it's not demoralizing at all. When we come to the conclusion that in many instances we cannot keep ourselves from sinning, that is when we are forced to rely on Christ and His Holy Spirit. Is it any surprise that the greatest and most pious ascetics consider themselves the worst sinners?

"...a person in a given situation is limited to two choices, both of which are objectively sinful...

Then he shouldn't do either, should he?"

Bearing false witness is a lie, correct? However, if you are put in a position where bearing false witness will save an innocent life (I'm thinking, for instance, of German Christians who lied to the Gestapo to save the lives of Jews), do you bear false witness? I think you would, and if you do, you are still breaking one of the ten commandments, but because of the circumstance you may not be considered culpable.

Maybe not. But you've left out an obvious alternative. If you think that lying to the Gestapo to save an innocent life is sinful, then you may refuse to answer.

Then he shouldn't do either, should he?

Sometimes it is possible to do neither. The Greek tragedians were very good at figuring out when it wasn't. They somehow understood what tragedy meant: that a human life, neither divine nor beast, faces an inescapable fate of not being or acting as one ought. Whether through action or inaction, they saw the terror of inevitable sin.

"If you think that lying to the Gestapo to save an innocent life is sinful, then you may refuse to answer."

Breaking one of the ten commandments is, objectively speaking, a sinful act. It may not be one subjectively, though, and thus, culpability in that case would not attach to the act.


Sorry fellas, but "inevitable sin", strictly speaking, that is, meaning a specific sinful act it is impossible for a person with free will not to choose, is nonexistent.

'"inevitable sin", strictly speaking, that is, meaning a specific sinful act it is impossible for a person with free will not to choose, is nonexistent.'

True enough, because with any temptation, a way of escape is always present. Even so, while an act may be objectively a sin, if the circumstances preclude the individual's culpability, then it is not a sin for that person in that circumstance.

I'm not up with Catholic teaching on sin, but aren't there 4 'qualifications' for an individual's act to be considered a sin? While the Orthodox view might not be quite so analytical, I think we'd probably agree in principle with that understanding.

...aren't there 4 'qualifications' for an individual's act to be considered a sin?

As I understand it, there are three qualifications for mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, and free consent. In general culpability comes in degrees and can be mitigated by a number of things: ignorance, duress, etc. AFAIK it is Catholic doctrine (also it seems self-contradictory to me to presume otherwise) that there is no such thing as 'inevitable sin'.

The reason the contrary seems self-contradictory to me is that a sin is by definition an act which one ought not freely choose, which presupposes the possibility of not choosing it: that is, presupposes that choosing the act is not inevitable.

"It is inevitable that he must choose X" is (again strictly speaking) a self-contradictory statement, because 'inevitable' and 'choosable' are mutually exclusive.

We all have sinned, and there is a certain mysterious backward-looking inevitability to that, but no forward-looking specific sinful act is ever inevitable. We don't have to choose it. As Pope John Paul II wrote, "[I]t is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil."

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing here, Zippy. The difference may simply be one of emphasis, as it is in much of the variation between E and W, and it probably has its roots in the different ways that the E and W responded to the Pelagian and "Semi-Pelagian" controversies.

In any case, the whole point of this was to defend the idea that intentional targeting of civilians in war is always wrong, despite whatever mediating circumstances may be put forth in its defense. Hence, I'd say that such events as Sherman's march, Germany's bombing of London, the US firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the two A-bomb drops, and Clinton's attack on Belgrade cannot be justified morally, as they all involved the intentional targeting of noncombatants. The fact that in some cases a "greater good" came from these things does not make them moral acts, IMO, and no amount of sophistry regarding 'collateral damage,' etc., helps the argument.

a mysterious backward-looking inevitability

Very certainly--even foward-looking. Original sin is a mysterious and difficult thing. We know divine mercy makes tragedy bearable.

There you go again saying a bunch of things I can't disagree with, Rob G. (N.B.: I'm too ignorant of the particulars of Sherman's March and the attack on Belgrade to comment on them. That ignorance cuts both ways, as I can neither condemn nor defend them without first resolving it).

RobG, is any evil act ever "made moral"?

'is any evil act ever "made moral"?'

Well, like I said above, I think that lying to save an innocent life is an example. Stealing to keep someone from starving. Killing someone to keep that person from killing another.

The act considered by itself remains a sin in the objective sense, yet given the particular circumstances it may not be a sin for the person performing it.


The act considered by itself remains a sin in the objective sense, yet given the particular circumstances it may not be a sin for the person performing it.
That isn't at all the way we Papists see it. No act which is a sin in the objective sense (we would say 'intrinsically evil') is ever permissable, period.

Mind you, there are all sorts of things we do that we wish we didn't have to, because of the circumstances of this fallen world. Responding to an attack with proportionate deflecting force is one of those things; but if responding to an attack with proportionate deflecting force were 'a sin in the objective sense' then it would never be permissable to do it, under any circumstances.

Thanks, Rob G.

I think that lying to save an innocent life is an example. Stealing to keep someone from starving. Killing someone to keep that person from killing another.

Maybe you could try to make the case that lying under such circumstances is not really lying at all, or that taking from someone who will not share his food under equally desperate circumstances is not really stealing. The third appears to be a clear-cut case of defense of an innocent party, which is a just, righteous, and morally obligatory act. That which is objectively sinful cannot "be made moral." We may not knowingly commit any sin, however small, to prevent any evil, however great.

It seems to me this is largely a semantic issue. Certain notions related to "sin" are different in E and W. Hence, for example, from an Orthodox perspective the homosexual proclivity is itself sinful even if never acted upon. It is sinful in the sense of being "fallen" and in its characteristic of "missing the mark." So we can say that homosexuality is a sinful tendency or proclivity even as we withhold the ascribing of personal guilt to the homosexual person unless he acts on it.

"We may not knowingly commit any sin, however small, to prevent any evil, however great."

True, but the key word there is 'knowingly.' In circumstances like these one may not have time to do a complete ethical and moral analysis of the thing -- in one's mind, the choice may appear to be the lesser of two evils, even if, as you say, after the fact you're able to conclude that the lesser evil was not, in fact, a "sin." Ascetically and spiritually speaking, however, it seems to me somewhat dangerous to assume that one can always determine up front that a given action is not a sin based on mitigating circumstances.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.