The Joy of the Truth » Truth

Mel Gibson vs. Roman Polanski What’s the Difference?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:00:47 +0000

Mel Gibson has made the news – in the form of a media feeding frenzy – yet again. This time he is accused of making racial slurs and of possibly physically abusing his girlfriend (the mother of his nine month old baby). There is little doubt that the accusations are true. Mel Gibson has slid once again in his lifelong struggle with alcoholism. However, especially as far as celebrities go, this news is “nothing new under the sun.” I say especially as far as celebrities go mainly because their domestic woes are typically public knowledge. Alcoholism, extra-marital sex and even (sadly) abuse of all kinds are all-too-common occurrences. In fact, one has to wonder why such a media feeding frenzy (including an audio clip that went viral on the Internet) exists at all.

Meanwhile, another celebrity has made the news as well, though much further down the media page. Switzerland refused to extradite movie director Roman Polanski, who was accused of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Unlike Gibson, Polanski was even defended by many in Hollywood. The ruling of the courts of Switzerland is considered a great victory for some people who claim that Polanski was just misunderstood, that the sex with the 13 year old was consensual, and that it all happened so long ago that we shouldn’t even bother.

So what’s the difference between Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski? Frankly, both cases of sin outrage and sadden me. Rape and abuse are both gross desecration of human dignity. At the same time, I am aware enough of my own sinfulness to be driven to prayer for both of these men. But I notice the difference in the way they are treated publicly, and I have to wonder.

To me, this is just another sign of the rampant presence of modernism in our society. As I have said before, modernists consider hypocrisy one of their few major sins. To the modernist-influenced media, Roman Polanski was just following his nature, and even though the girl was only 13, she did choose to be with him and to take drugs. However, Mel Gibson created the movie Passion of the Christ and claimed to be a faithful (and traditional) Catholic. Because he followed a religion that dares tell the world what is right and wrong, Gibson’s sinfulness is hypocritical.

The irony is that those who criticize Gibson and defend Polanski are themselves hypocritical. Abusive sexuality is apparently OK for some people but not for others. Unless, of course, the crime is not the abuse but instead the moral standards held by Gibson. Modernists aren’t really saying that abuse is evil, but that moral standards are.

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:00:43 +0000

The Spring 2003 edition of Wilson Quarterly ran an article called, “What is Natural?” The author, Andrew Stark, was exploring the standards used by insurance companies to decide what treatments to cover and which ones not to cover. One of the standards that he explores is the classic standard of a true medication or treatment returning the human body to natural functioning. Of course, like a true modernist, Stark then asks the question what exactly is natural? One example that he gives is the question of covering Viagra but not birth control pills. The idea of returning to the body to natural functioning would seem to indicate that Viagra should be covered since it returns the natural procreative functioning of the male, and that contraception should not be covered because it works against the natural procreative functioning of female. Then Stark pulls the standard modernist trick “what if.”

But suppose we view “natural” sexuality in recreational, not procreative, terms. Since “most Viagra users are men aged 50–75, hardly peak biological years for procreation,” a writer in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out a few years ago, “the specter of ‘recreational’ use is hard to ignore.” Viagra users are not fulfilling their natural functioning but thumbing their noses at it. After all, as Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Isn’t sexual impotence God’s gentle way of saying to a 75-year-old man, ‘You’ve had enough’?” Contraception, by contrast, enables a woman “to enjoy sex,” Paige Shipman of Wisconsin Planned Parenthood told me, precisely by “eliminating a direct threat to her natural functioning: the ravages on her body that would result from having to bear 12 to 15 children.”

So if sex is understood in procreative terms, Viagra promotes natural functioning and contraception thwarts it. If it’s understood in recreational terms, Viagra frequently mocks natural functioning and contraception protects it. ¹

This common modernist fallacy creates a false supposition on which to base an argument. The argument itself seems perfectly logical, but the very premise on which it is based is made up out of thin air. “Suppose we just change the rules.”

For what reason would we consider sexuality from a recreational viewpoint? It is obvious to human reason that the purpose of human sexuality is greater than pleasure alone. It is equally obvious that at least part of that purpose is procreative. While there are many things in human life that bring pleasure, there are very few for which pleasure is the ultimate purpose because pleasure is such a low good on the hierarchy of human needs.

Of course, once you start heading down a false trail of logic, it is easy to remain misled. Paige Shipman’s comment about contraception preserving a woman’s natural functioning from the ravages of her body that result from having 12 to 15 children is a completely spurious argument. First of all, chemical contraception ravages the body even more than natural pregnancy — artificially aging the cervix, making the body more susceptible to cancer, and causing infertility. On the other hand, the woman’s natural fertility functioning makes it unlikely that she will ever bear 12 to 15 children. The application of little human reasoning to her natural fertility cycling guarantees it. The woman can use natural family planning to limit the number of children she has without using chemicals that would further damage her body.

Modernists like the “what if” game. It allows them to create a logical-sounding argument that calls truth into question while at the same time it makes no real claim to truth itself. It’s a dangerous form of propaganda that can do real harm.

Stark, Andrew. “What’s Natural?” Wilson Quarterly. Spring 2003. 55-56. ↩

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:51:27 +0000

In a previous blog post, I pointed out that abortion advocates have problems even if they call themselves pro-choice. The overemphasis of the individual’s choice tends to isolate the mother from the support of the community. Our culture is pretty much telling unwed mothers, “It’s your choice, so it’s your problem.” Whether a mother decides to kill her baby or give her baby life, the pro-choice movement makes the decision and all its consequences hers and hers alone. Her right to choose removes society’s responsibility and compassion.

Wesley Smith, an outstanding opponent of Euthanasia, teaches that the same thing happens with the “right to die.” The individual’s choice to end his or her life in the face of suffering or despair removes our responsibility to reach out to them in love.

“But I know people and you know people who became suicidal,” he continued. “They might not be alive today if it had not been for the mental health professionals and friends and loved ones who stood in the gap and said, ‘No, we love you, there’s another way’.”

“We are disengaging from each other,” Smith said. “We are losing love for each other, and that is reflected in how we treat people who are in despair and darkness.” ¹

One interesting thing about Smith was that he said he did not understand why euthanasia is a progressive issue. Apparently Wisconsin is being targeted by pro-death advocates and Wisconsin is known as a blue state. I wonder if Wesley Smith falls into the same misunderstanding of modern liberalism as many Catholics. Liberalism is no longer founded on progressive ideals, but instead on philosophical Modernism, the belief that truth cannot be known except through personal experience. Modernism emphasizes personal choice as the most important value, since it sees truth as a personal thing (“What’s true for you may not be true for me”). Pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion advocates call themselves pro-choice because the personalized choice is what matters most to them. However, their over-emphasis of personal choice means a neglect of community responsibility and love.

Klein, Franz. “Wisconsin is a ‘major target’ for pro-euthanasia groups, speaker says” Catholic Times. October 1, 2009. 12. ↩

Are We Missing God’s Plan for Our Adulthood?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:00:28 +0000

It’s amazing what thoughts come to me as I mow the lawn. I was watching my children play in the sandbox and get excited every time I came into view on the riding lawnmower. I began to think about how carefree their lives are, not weighted down by the worries and concerns of the adult world. Sometimes my four-year-old daughter can’t understand why mommy and daddy don’t just play with her 24 hours a day. What could possibly be more important than playing?

These past weeks have been filled with concerns and worries. These concerns and worries don’t seem to touch our children at all. Yet they weigh heavily on my hearts and minds. Of course, this is how it should be. This is exactly what the Church means when it teaches that the innocence of children must be protected (most people see the term “innocence” in a purely sexual context — this is not the way the Church defines the term). Children are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unable to handle the stress of the adult world in a Fallen world. By protecting them from this stress, we give them a chance to mature so that they are able to handle it by the time they are old enough to start taking on the responsibility.

Of course, as I watch their carefree play, I began to get a little jealous. Why can’t I be that carefree? Then it struck me that this is exactly the desire expressed in humanistic psychological philosophies. Philosophies such as Transactional Analysis Theory have made us believe that a healthy adults is able to recapture the carefreeness of childhood, and that being weighed down by adult concerns is a sign of psychological dysfunction. The more I thought about this the more ridiculous I felt about being jealous of my children. Humanistic psychology has proven to be untenable. It just doesn’t work. When adults try to be carefree in a Fallen world, we tend to become careless instead. When we try to reclaim our childhood we just end up hiding from reality.

Indeed, God’s design is for human beings to grow into what He has planned for us to become. Childhood is a preparation for adulthood — earthly life is a preparation for eternal life. All the while we are meant to grow in our capacity to love. So, what is in this desire to recapture our childhood that the gloomy adult world may be missing? What does God want to develop us into as adults that is reflected in the carefree play of childhood? Certainly God’s plan stands in opposition to the two extremes:

Humanism that would have us stick our heads in the sand and ignore evil, embracing a carefree childish attitude that ignores our responsibilities as adults

“Realism” that sees only the evils in the world and believes that all joy is nothing more than wishful thinking

The Christian is called to a balance. We must face the realities of this world, including the sinfulness and the evil that is was brought about by original sin. However, we face these evils knowing that good wins in the end. We faced them with joy, hope, and love. In that sense we can recapture some of the carefree joy of childhood. If we are not living in joy, hope, and love, we are missing out on what God has planned for our adulthood lives.

Joy is more than happiness. It is a deep-seated satisfaction that our lives have significance and meaning. The difference between the innocence of childhood and the joy of adulthood is that the innocence of childhood exists in oblivion to the evil around us, while the joy that occurs in adulthood often exists despite needing to face that evil.

Joy is the fruit of hope. Hope is trust in God. We trust that He will remain true to His promises to make all things right in the end — to bring about His Kingdom. We have hope in His power to bring good out of evil.

Love is the very life of God — the power to freely give ourselves as gifts to others for the sake of their good. When we love others, we are willing to face the evil that comes our way, and even to sacrifice good things that we may have coming to us for their sake. Love is strengthened by hope, and love is what makes our lives significant and meaningful, bringing us joy.

These are three of the elements that the innocence of childhood prepare us for and grow into. In the end, joy, hope and love are better than carefree innocence. If we are not living these three fruits of grace and maturity in our adult lives, we are missing out on what God has planned for us.

Like I said, it’s amazing what thoughts come to me as I mow the lawn.

The Joy of Dialogue: Immigration

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:00:45 +0000

As I write this I have just returned from having breakfast with a few friends. We get together once in a while to enjoy good company, good food, and great conversation. I was thinking on my drive home how fortunate I am to have people with whom I can have deep intellectual discussions. As we talk we often get into debates and I tend to talk as a bit of a know-it-all, which makes me appreciate my friends even more for their patience and their willingness to engage me. However, it’s not that I think I’m right and they’re wrong. I listen to their arguments and test them. And then I test my own thought process, usually later in the day, and often will change my opinions and clarify my thinking about the issue we are discussing. Then, the next time we get together I will humbly explain how I have come to understand the issue more.

Today the main debate was about immigration. I was attempting to take the side of the United States bishops and to understand where they’re coming from in their opposition to the law passed by Arizona. However, as I argued with the person who is staunchly in favor of enforcing the immigration laws (and who is frankly at least of a know-it-all as I am, and therefore a lot of fun to debate), I began to refine my approach and my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps the bishops need to focus on identifying how our current laws are unjust to people who want to enter our country legally, and on fixing those laws if they are indeed unjust. Instead it seems they join the voices of those who would disregard the law completely and prefer to have them unenforceable. Immigration is a difficult topic for Catholics. We are called to generosity, but we are also called to the responsible use of our country’s resources. Catholic teaching does allow for cultures to protect their identity and in doing so to protect their borders against those who would enter illegally.

However, finding the balance between protection of one’s culture and borders on the one hand and being generous to those in need on the other hand is a prudential decision that is sometimes difficult for Catholics to agree on. Dialogue and debate in matters such as these is not only fun but fruitful.

I am indeed fortunate to have friends with whom I can debate and discuss and who will still respect me even when I’m wrong and or even when I stubbornly argue a point without appearing to listen to the other side. This is part of the intellectual life Catholics are invited to participate in. To read, think, and dialogue with others in order to discover truth is part of the joy of the intellectual tradition. If you find yourself mentally stagnating especially in the area of applying your faith to our culture, find some friends you can have respectful debates with and make an appointment to have breakfast with them on a regular basis. Not only will you have fun and fellowship with your friends, you’ll also discover the joy of interacting with the truth and trying to discover the best way to apply to our lives.

Who Is Really to Blame?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 03 May 2010 04:45:54 +0000

The virtue of prudence gives rise to the virtue of “memory” – the habit of learning from our mistakes. The media and our decidedly anti-catholic culture continue to try to place blame on Pope Benedict and the bishops for the sex scandals. People who look to place personal blame assume that the problem with the bishops was a sort of malicious negligence. In reality it’s more likely that the problem lay in accepting the same philosophy that had shaped our culture. What can we learn from our past mistakes?

This philosophy, born of the Enlightenment, said that the human power of science would solve all of the world’s problems. Before the hubris of this philosophy too over our way of thinking, bishops would have assumed the traditional understanding of human nature. According to this understanding sexual disorder is caused by a warped or twisted appetite. This twisted appetite is common to all human beings due to fallen human nature, though it affects each of us in different ways and to different degrees. Any sexuality that was not grounded in family love was considered disordered. While psychology and therapy can help us come to terms with our twisted desires and maybe even give us some tools to overcome them to some degree, the Church has always taught that only grace can truly bring healing to our disordered appetites. However, the Enlightenment-born philosophy of our culture at the time, promoted by the likes of Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers, claimed that people with disordered sexuality can be healed through scientific methods.

Prior to the early 1990′s, most people in the Church and in the culture at large were unaware or only beginning to come to grips with the prevalence of this horror and the high rate of recidivism among abusers. Accordingly, many leaders- and not just in the Church- felt that sex offenders could be treated pharmacologically or therapeutically and then returned to their former lives and occupations. Many bishops throughout the 1970′s and 1980′s sent priest abusers to treatment centers and received reports from therapists recommending that priests could be safely returned to ministry.

— Robert Barron from Real Catholic TV

You can still see the error of this purely scientific view of humanity in the way we approach alcoholism and drug addiction and other such obsessions. We tend to speak of alcoholism as a disease. This philosophy correctly identifies a biological element to alcoholism and that a person is not able to heal himself without professional help, however it also connotes that the problem is purely biological and does not include elements of the sinful choice or disorder caused by original sin.

The problem with this opinion is that human conditions are much too complicated to be purely biological. Sin and choice and fallenness always come into play. Environment, biology, choice, habits all interact in human behavior and even in addiction. That is why medicine and therapy alone are never enough heal someone.

So the mistake made at the time of the sexual abuses was to put too much trust into human ability to heal pedophilia. This was the mistake of an entire culture, not just the Catholic bishops. The same actions were taken by heads of secular schools and other institutions.

The irony is that while our culture blames Catholic Bishops, it still holds to the mistaken attitude that human beings have the power to cure human disorder through science. This attitude of the Enlightenment has been combined in a schizophrenic way with modernism. So, our culture assumes that anything without a biological cause is a free choice and therefore acceptable.

While we have not yet come to consider pedophilia normal, there are signs we are headed in that direction. Take the case of the famous movie director and screenwriter Roman Polanski. He was accused of drugging and committing sexual acts with with a 13 year old girl. He is now being brought to justice and Hollywood is up in arms in his defense. Whoopi Goldberg said on The View “It wasn’t rape-rape.”

Watch the video of Whoopi Goldberg statements and see for yourself. Notice how Whoopi Goldberg seem to think that statutory rape is not a crime, or at least not the same level of crime as “violent rape.” What’s going on here? This is an example of the effects that the philosophy of modernism is having on our culture. Modernism is leading us to accept even pedophilia as just another lifestyle choice. What would have happened if the scandals that we face today. Had happened today in the age of our current schizophrenic blend of Enlightenment and modernism? Our schizophrenic philosophy would make it even more probable that this could happen. We should not be placing personal blame on the bishops or on the Pope. Rather, we should be analyzing the very thought processes that our culture is being led by now.

The Problem of Choice

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:49:24 +0000

I have commented before that while there is value in calling abortion advocates on the “pro-choice” bluff is important and fruitful, we also need to understand how it is possible for them to consider themselves pro-choice (especially because many errant Catholics actually consider themselves so), and to meet their arguments at face value. This is, after all, St. Thomas Aquinas’ approach.

Richard Stith seems to agree. His article, Her Choice, Her Problem in First Things Magazine presents an excellent argument that seriously needs to be considered in the public square.

He argues (among other things) that choice removes compassionate support and replaces it with the attitude, “You chose to have the baby when you could have gotten an abortion, now you can live with your choice.”

But once continuing a pregnancy to birth is the result neither of passion nor of luck but only of her deliberate choice, sympathy weakens. After all, the pregnant woman can avoid all her problems by choosing abortion. So if she decides to take those difficulties on, she must think she can handle them.

Birth itself may be followed by blame rather than support. Since only the mother has the right to decide whether to let the child be born, the father may easily conclude that she bears sole responsibility for caring for the child. The baby is her fault.

It could certainly be argued that society was not so compassionate to pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade. If this is true, is the answer to turn to a solution that is at least as uncaring? Furthermore, it must be understood that there is a difference between compassion for the woman and accepting the sin. Today we are expected to say to a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, “Oh, that’s OK. Your sexual choices are your own. We’ll help you and not judge you.” Before Roe vs. Wade, the attitude was, “This is the consequence of your sin, and you need to come to terms with it. However, we will help you even though we do not condone your sin.” How is this kind of compassion shown?

The father of the child may man-up and marry the woman and become a true father to the child
A family may take the young mother away from the community, school, etc. so as not to cause scandal, but would support her through her pregnancy and even through the adoption process or even in motherhood
Pregnancy crisis centers help women without other sources of support
Churches and communities step in to help single parents who are struggling
All the while the family, Church and society make it clear that the consequences of the sinful, selfish use of sexuality affect her, the baby, and everyone around them

The personal experience of a friend of mine has shown me exactly what “choice” does to us as a society. When she got pregnant and went to the father of her new baby, his response was, “I’ll give you some money for an abortion, but if you choose to have this baby then you’re on your own.” No longer is the point of choice and consequence the decision to have sex. Now the point of choice and consequence is the decision to have an abortion or not. The man was let off the hood because keeping the child was the woman’s choice.

It’s time for a more compassionate response to unwed pregnancy than “choice.”

Join the Crusade Against . . . Water

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:19:23 +0000

I know that Pen & Teller have been critical of Catholicism, but in this video they make a good point. They take on environmental extremism (or perhaps any extremism) and force the question, “Do people support causes out of knowledgeable concern, or out of blind, ignorant emotionalism?” In our politicized word, it’s an important question to ask. Even in causes as reasonable as pro-life, we can fall into emotionalism and make ignorant arguments. However, I am always impressed with the leaders of the pro-life movement in Catholic circles – Fr. Frank Pavone, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, Peggy Hamill, Bobby Schindler, etc. They all ground their discussion of abortion and other life issues in the natural moral law and create reasoned arguments that show why abortion is morally evil.

In other sectors of the public square, we are often so used to hearing propaganda and sloganizing that we stop questioning if the claims to truth are true. Our politicized culture even makes science into a propaganda tool instead of an investigation into objective truth. Does anyone really know if “global warming” is real or not? “Science” seems to support both sides of the argument because science has been used as a weapon rather than as an honest search for the truth. This video calls us to task on accepting such a culture.

It’s also really, really funny.

Modernism Gets It Wrong – Again

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:18:11 +0000

A new law requiring insurers to cover the costs of chochlear implants for children has drawn opposition. What is the complaint? Is is that . . .

Government has overstepped its bounds, once again meddling in affairs that should be left to market forces?

the law puts undue burden on small business who now have to pay a higher premium to insure their employees?

the law does not do enough to help children born deaf or severely hard of hearing?

Nope, not that either

So what is the complaint? It comes from Audism Free America:

The notion that being deaf is an affliction and an abomination which alienates one from society and leaves (one) dependent and isolated is a myth,” the petition states. “We do not wish for your state to be mislabeled as promoting eugenics and linguistic and cultural genocide.

Taken from “Ear-implant law draws dissent“, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

What this petition seems to be saying is that deafness is not a disability but just another part of cultural diversity. Therefore, to mandate a procedure that could enable children who are deaf or severely hard of hearing to hear more is like trying to bleach African-American skin white so that African Americans can fit into a white culture better.

Such a ridiculous statement has its roots in modernism, the philosophy that truth is created by personal experience and perception. Modernism celebrates diversity, not because every human person has innate dignity, but because every individual has his own truth. In the case of the petition from Audism Free America, modernism is saying, “Who are you to call deafness a disability. From our perspective, deafness is normal and hearing is an abomination.” Yes, I have heard some proponents of “deaf culture” take the argument that far.

The problem with Audism free America’s position is that deafness is a disorder. Human nature includes the five senses as a normative and universal constituent. In other words, the senses make up part of what it means to be human, and a diminishment of the senses is a diminishment of something that a human person should have (however not a diminishment of their humanity or dignity). Therefore, deafness is a disability based on the standard of human health. Modernism does not believe in disability because it does not believe in a universal standard of human life or of human health.

The problem comes in how we look at disabilities. We tend to look at people with obvious and severe disabilities and say they are disabled and we are not. I have been around severely disabled people all of my life, and I have learned that there is no “they” and “us.” Fallen human nature is fallen for all of us. Disability is not a matter of having one or not having one, but a matter of degree and of kind. People who are disabled in one area of life are also extremely able in other areas of life. The term “disabled” becomes a problem only when we let it define a specific segment of the human family.

One can see the same line of thought in the homosexuality movement. The Church calls same-sex attraction “disordered” because it is opposed to the universal human purpose of sexuality. Modernists see this as an insult that alienates a specific segment of the population. However, the Church realizes that every person’s sexuality is disordered to one degree or another, so calling same-sex attraction disordered is actually a statement of solidarity, not one of divisiveness. Again, modernists rankle because they do not believe that a standard for “normal” sexuality even exists.

I had friends in high school and college who were deaf and hard of hearing, and I learned sign language in the course of our friendship. One of these friends had been brought up in the “deaf world” and had a difficult time relating to the “hearing.” The others tried very hard to interact with everybody, and counted a number of the “hearing” among their friends, even those who did not learn sign language. It was not the deafness that isolated them. In the case of my one friend, it was his desire to see his deafness as something that set him apart and his consequent unwillingness to form relationships with those who would not share his unique “culture.” He had implicitly bought the lie of modernism.

In the end, the petition from Audism Free America isolates deaf people from the rest of us by accentuating the differences rather than acknowledging the fact and universal nature of disability. And their modernist bent would keep children from getting help to overcome their disability. That is just not acceptable.

Pro-life means anti-murder

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:35:22 +0000

The murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller has pro-life groups scrambling to defend the pro-life movement from accusations that we support murder,

see Pro-Lifers Say Abortionist’s Murder Undermines the Right-to-Life Movement

and for good reason. Almost immediately, pro-abortion commentaries began declaring that the pro-life movement is hypocritical, violent and “extreme.” Of course, such political diatribe was sadly predictable and frankly pathetic. That pro-abortion activists would use the death of one of their own as an opportunity for such propaganda is pretty much unconscionable, especially considering that the comments came out long before all of the facts are even known. We don’t even know the motivation behind the murder.

In stark contrast to this shameless propaganda, the defenses launched by pro-life groups is not mere political expediency. Murder of any human being, even of a human being who is committing murder, is morally evil and would be fundamentally and philosophically opposed to a true pro-life advocate. Reports on Tiller’s murder have mentioned some possible justifications for such a murder that a morality blog should examine.

Justification #1: the murder of an abortion provider is justified because the use of lethal force is morally justified in defense of innocent human life.

Using lethal force in defense of innocent life (or in self-defense) is only justified under very specific circumstances. Most germane to this discussion, the use of lethal force must be the only means possible for saving the innocent life. While pro-lifers may become frustrated at the continued death of the unborn, we cannot honestly make the claim that lethal force is our only remaining option. In fact, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and others have pointed out that converting the hearts of abortion providers is actually a greater asset to the pro-life cause, as these doctors then become powerful witnesses to the evils of abortion.

Justification #2: killing one abortion provider saves the lives of hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of children.

First of all, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League points out that this claim is simply not true. Getting rid of one abortion provider simply opens the door for other providers to step into the gap. Indeed, another abortion provider, a close of friend of Tiller’s, immediately went to Tiller’s clinic to make sure it kept running. More importantly, even if this were true the proportionate good brought about by the evil does not justify the evil of murder. The principle of “the ends do not justify the means” clearly states that no evil may be done so that good may come from it. If killing an abortion provider saves the lives of thousands of babies, those thousands of lives are purchased at too dear a cost. This principle makes the most sense to those who believe in life beyond this world. The babies who are killed by abortion will be take care of by God. Our faith in God’s love and mercy for the unborn victims of murder does not keep us from fighting the evil of abortion, because the battle against abortion is actually the battle for immortal human souls – of the mothers, abortion providers, and leaders who support such evil. So, we fight abortion out of love for these evil doers and a desire for their conversion. Their murder is antithetical to the cause of life for Catholics and for any other Christian.

Justification 3: As a late-term abortion provider, George Tiller deserved to die.

If this is true of George Tiller, it is true of all of us. Yes, George Tiller committed murder, and as a result may be put to death if the conditions for capital punishment are met. However, vigilante justice is never morally justified, and even capital punishment would probably not be justified in America.

In the end, pro-lifers must declare that the murder of George Tiller was philosophically and morally opposed to what the pro-life movement stands for. I join many Catholics today in praying for the soul of George Tiller and for his family. I also pray for the conversion of the person responsible for this heinous crime, whatever his motivations were.

The Joy of the Truth » Truth

Mel Gibson vs. Roman Polanski What’s the Difference?

Related Links:

Related Posts:

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Are We Missing God’s Plan for Our Adulthood?

Related Links:

Related Posts:

The Joy of Dialogue: Immigration

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Who Is Really to Blame?

Related Links:

Related Posts:

The Problem of Choice

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Join the Crusade Against . . . Water

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Modernism Gets It Wrong – Again

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Pro-life means anti-murder

Related Links:

Related Posts: