My heart sank when I read the headline: "Abortion Provider Is Shot Dead." It sank still further as I read the story.
Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas was one of the few doctors willing to perform late-term abortion, even some, the newspaper reported, in the ninth month. Kansas records show that Tiller aborted-killed hundreds of fetuses old enough to live outside the womb. Regardless of one's views on the beginning of life, the thought of all those fully formed infant bodies cut and crushed is surely heartbreaking. Now we must add the image of a man rushing into a church on a Sunday morning and gunning Tiller down. Sigh.
Tiller's murder was immediately and widely denounced by the various leaders of the pro-life movement. Speaking on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia went a bit overboard. "Our bishops' conference and all its members have repeatedly and publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society," he wrote, "including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion." The blanket condemnation of "violence" seems unhelpfully expansive. But you get what he means. What the killer did was wrong. Very wrong.
But why? On this point we need to be reminded, because the reasons are not as simple as they seem.
There are a number of ways in which killing can be wrong. At the most basic level, as the Christian tradition and natural reason clearly teach, it is always wrong to directly and intentionally kill an innocent person. It does not matter who does the killing. A policeman cannot knowingly target an innocent person. If judge and jailor connive to smooth the way for the execution of an innocent person, then no sanctity of office or claim of legal responsibility can cover the fundamental wrongness, the intrinsic evil, of the killing.
In addition to the principle of innocence, there is a broad, general presumption in favor of life that restricts the use of lethal force in society. Killing of any sort is wrong if it is not necessary for the protection of life. Sometimes the principle of necessity is easy to apply. If the criminal throws down his gun, then the policeman should not shoot. He can be apprehended and his crime stymied without lethal force. But we all know that it is easy to argue about what is deemed necessary. There is a strong element of "could have" or "might have" in the application of this principle. The problem is magnified when we begin to think about larger social situations. Was the use of lethal force necessary to prevent a riot? The question can be hard to answer.
To the principles of innocence and necessity we need to add a third principle, what the Catholic tradition calls "legitimate authority." The main body of the Christian tradition allows that we have a right to self-defense, and even insists that we have a duty to defend others. However, when it comes to calculated, premeditated, and methodical use of force the tradition is very clear: No individual can take justice into his or her own hands.
A number of pro-life groups zeroed in on this aspect of Tiller's murder. From Operation Rescue: "We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning." The National Right to Life Committee condemned "any such acts regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal." The Family Research Council: "We strongly condemn the actions taken today by this vigilante killer."
The emphasis on "unlawful use of violence," the evocation of "vigilantism," and the description of Tiller's killer as a "vigilante killer" are all exactly right. We are all sinners, but it is painfully obvious that Dr. George Tiller acted in wanton disregard for the sanctity of life. Killing him did not violate the principle of innocence. Moreover, he gave no evidence of stopping. As a result, perhaps something like the principle of necessity can be satisfied. But it is certainly obvious that his killer was acting as the law unto himself. He arrogated to himself the roles of jury, judge, and executioner. He violated the principle of legitimate authority.
We live in an age that makes revolutionaries into celebrities and unrepentant terrorists into community leaders. By and large, our progressively minded elites pride themselves on questioning legitimate authority, and antiglobalization zealots can be counted on to riot at WTO meetings. Not surprisingly, therefore, the principle of legitimate authority leaves us cold. Isn't the very notion of legitimate authority part of a complacent, Establishmentarian mentality? Who really cares about narrow, technical questions of legality when fundamental questions of justice are at stake?
The Bible, however, recognizes the signal importance of legitimate authority. Jesus teaches us to render unto God that which is God's-but also to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Thus 1 Peter 1:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution." St. Paul's letter to the Romans is especially emphatic: "Let every person be subject to governing authorities," and not just now and then, but in every respect, "for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1).
Paul is not suggesting that the Roman emperor of his day is a trustworthy divine deputy with a pipeline to God. He is not going down a moral checklist and giving Roman justice thumbs up. Instead, Paul is making a basic point about God's providence. The fundamental good of government flows from its ability to impose law and order. Legitimate authority, however stained by injustice and blind to its own moral corruption, restrains our tendency to fall into endless conflict, vendetta, and fearful scramble for survival.
Our legal regime clearly suffers from the corruption of human sinfulness. Abortion is legal. As St. Thomas taught, unjust laws have "not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence." So there we have it, a painful fact. In America, abortion is a legalized illegality, a socially permitted injustice.
Eric Rudolph bombed several abortion clinics in the late 1990s. He wrote the following to justify his actions: "The fact of the matter is that if you recognize that abortion is murder but do not recognize the right to use force to prevent this murder, then the only logical conclusion is that you do not consider that the unborn have a legitimate claim to life."
The syllogism seems so pure, so morally heroic, so rigorous-and yet it represents a far greater threat to the culture of life than the shameful fact that abortion is legal in America. To take a gun into your hand and presume to become the instrument of a greater, supra-legal justice represents a fundamental assault on the very idea of legitimate authority.
It is a moral luxury for modern men and women to discount the tremendous importance of the principle of legitimate authority. Go to a collapsed African country where warlords rule and the raw lust for power dominates. There you will see that that the rule of law is not a narrowly technical or complacently legalistic social good. A legitimate, functioning government is the precondition for civilization. It is the very basis for any successful collective effort to respect life.
I have always loathed revolutionary vanguards, terrorists, and assassins. I have never felt any attraction to John Brown. On the contrary, he strikes me as a dangerous man who was capable of horrible crimes. The same holds for Che Guevara and others. They have imagined that the noble truth of their cause justifies their disregard for the laws of society. But law transcended is law destroyed, and law destroyed invites barbarism, as the history of the twentieth century so sadly illustrates.
Pro-life leaders rightly condemn vigilante violence. It is a principled stand, not a public relations maneuver. Legitimate authority restrains the grossest forms of evil. The existence of a civil society allows us to exercise our consciences on behalf of the unborn rather than being absorbed by the cruel need to fight for our own survival. The rule of law provides the fundamental condition for any right-to-life movement that seeks to protect real lives rather than to congratulate itself on its moral purity.
R.R. Reno is features editor of First Things and professor of theology at Creighton University.
Comments:
Legalized abortion certainly meets the first condition. I'd probably argue that conditions 2 and 5 have not been met yet, though it would seem they'd eventually have to be. Condition 4 seems highly unlikely at this point, though that too could change. Prof. Reno is mainly arguing against condition 3, and I think he's on solid ground here. (Certainly much more solid than those who are trotting out "violence begets violence", which strikes me as thinly veiled pacifism. It gives the impression that the two acts are equally wrong, ignoring that unborn babies are innocent, and abortionists are not.)
One could imagine all kinds of justified killing in the world if we lacked valid political authority. So the Tiller case is not unusual in that case. What he did was, undeniably, homicide on a massive scale. Yet just authority prevents--absolutely prevents--vigilante justice.
Reno's comments are standard, uncontroversial natural law thinking.
Thank you to Professor Reno for a clear and honest analysis of just exactly what was 'wrong' with the actions of Mr. Roeder (no one seems to use his name) when he gunned down Dr. Tiller on Sunday. I have been waiting for such an analysis for four days now.
I would like to reflect on a couple more points that continue on the same path. First, as mentioned by Mr. Pietsch above, most lawful individuals acknowledge that there are times when acting outside of the law is appropriate, indeed required. Mr. Pietsch references the conspirators in Operation Valkyrie in the waning days of the Third Reich. Today, our culture lauds such men to the extent of making movies about them. They were certainly acting outside of the 'law' of Nazi Germany.
I have heard only one rational explanation for why it is inappropriate to use force to defend the unborn in our culture: that there is no chance for such actions to actually achieve the end of changing the current legal framework by which children can be legally condemned to die. It is futile.
The participants in Operation Valkyrie did have some hope of success, thus their negation of law was an attempt to preserve law and order while redressing a wrong. We have no such hopes, at least in attempts such as those of Mr. Roeder.
This leads to the question of 'what is the place of a pro-life culture in the United States?' Many of us have little or no hope of changing laws using the strategies of the last thirty-five years. Professor Reno's reminder of St. Paul's exhortations conjure images of a Christian minority living amongst a decaying and decadent society, often subject to persecution. Is this our future? Is this what men like Mr. Roeder saw, leading to desperate and despairing acts such as the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Every day, I drive by a brand-new abortion facility that Planned Parenthood is building in my home city. It is currently under construction. It looks like a castle, with concrete ramparts and gatehouses. It is a powerless feeling. They look like they are in for the long haul, and we may have to live with these fortifications for many years to come. How will we fare, and what are our options? I gotta say, it ain't lookin' good.
Those who think "I've fasted and I've prayed, why isn't it happening," need to remember that for all the years of our existence as created beings, for all our history as a whole people, God has poured down grace and gifts and beauty and miracles and mana, and still, we forget Him, still we are distracted. God's patience is beyond our understanding, when it comes to waiting for each soul to recognize Him. God's forgiveness is beyond our capacity, unless we humble ourselves to recognize that the most holy of us, still requires God's absolute absolution.
Hitler seems to have had legitimate authority before he started conquering nations -- he was elected by the German people. One should also note that our present government has repeatedly acted without authority (in contradiction to the Constitution) and disregards law with increasing frequency. This raises the question: Is legitimacy a A/B matter or can it exists by degree? In any case, reasonable people will frequently disagree over which authorities are legitimate.
The more obvious error in the actions of those who kill abortionists is that no life is being spared. It can be justified to kill an aggressor when that is the only way to save an innocent's life, but abortions are certain to go on after offending doctors are killed. Nothing is defended. When we kill, it must always be to preserve something.
Uh, No it doesn't. Not here. Not by the principles as directed and prescribed in our Founding documents.
The 'Fundamental good of government' (if there even is one), is to remain as small and un-intrusive into the lives of its citizens as possible. Once again, underscoring the unique nature of our form of government. That it is in the Father of this country's own words:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
In the author's bowing-to-government posture shown here, I think it would be refreshingly prudent to re-recognize the fact that 'government' derives its power from the Consent of The Governed. Not the other way around.
Let us respect _sane_ laws, while erstwhile remembering that _We_ are the government, not an amorphous Central Power Structure...
- Peace
If a government sanctions evil and makes justice a tool that permits the strong to harm the weak, in what sense can it be called "legitimate"?
who daily used metzenbaum forceps to ram in the heads of struggling
newborns. The method of Tiller's death was wrong but not the result. Ive
seen the end of a late term abortion. Some of you need to witness what
you so cavalierly gloss over...
Oddly enough, the only item in the "double effect checklist" that I found to be definitely missing in Dr Tiller's murder would be proportionality. Whereas the act's bad effects are quite considerable -- loss of a human life, disrespect for established authority --, the good effects are negligible, at least if one assumes (as seems reasonable) that no late-term abortions will be avoided by the killing. Moreover, good does outweight bad in Bonhoffer x the Nazis and the other dilemmas presented here, so this would seem to be a satisfactory solution.
The first is to emphasize the grave nature of any violation of the principle of legitimate authority. Until the modern era, the most Catholic moralists taught that we must be always and under all circumstances obedient to legitimate authority. Many thought this principle contributed to Catholic complacency during the Nazi era, and the current Catechism now reflects a recognition that in some very circumscribed cases armed resistance to political authority may be legitimate (CCC#2243).
The conditions outlined by the Catechism are very stringent, and rightfully so, and in no way does our current situation justify armed resistance of any sort. We have a long, hard political fight ahead. We have hearts to convert. But for all the agony of the present, which is so very real, we have every reason to believe we will win. The pro-abortion status quo has been on the defensive for twenty years, and young people are increasingly likely to mark the pro-life box.
Second, some have mentioned Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He never intended to play a direct role in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Instead, he provided spiritual counsel to the men who did, men whose consciences were deeply afflicted by the fear that they were embarking on an immoral course of action. I imagine he counseled them along the same lines we find in the Catechism.
, however, one is troubled by blanket edicts that say everything in the arena of life that terminates a living entity is morally wrong.
There are still many Americans undecided on the issue of overturning Roe vs. Wade-- who are on the one hand uncomfortable with the idea taking away "a woman's right to choose", but on the other not really comfortable with abortion itself. Many I've spoken to are thoughtful,even prayerful, individuals, who also don't want to identify themselves with with those whose rhetoric is all about screaming "Baby Killer! Murderer! Sinner!". Too often, it appears that we have on one side an argument for respecting the rights of an individual woman, and on the other, screamed imprecations and threats... and when killings of abortionists happen, it appears that too many of the "pro-lifers" say things that sound like "he deserved it!".
If we are truly interested in changing hearts and minds (and votes), then I believe our response must be different. Discussions about whether or not America is governed by "legitimate public authority", or comparing our government to that of Nazi Germany, will not win people's hearts. Rather, I think that we need to argue, loudly and consistently, that the murderer of Dr. George Tiller does not represent the Pro-Life movement in any way. Mr. Roeder, if he is indeed the murderer, is NOT Pro-Life-- he proved that by his act. He might be anti-abortion, but that is by no means the same thing.
To be Pro-Life is to be "pro" of all of life-- to recognize that we are each of us created by God in His own image, and that only He can say when we live and when we die. It is to work against abortion (and not merely to make it illegal, which just pushes it underground, but to work to create a culture in which abortion is unwanted, is unthought of), to work against the death penalty, and to work against euthanasia (and again, not merely by ensuring it's illegal, but by working to create a society wherein those who might otherwise wish to die can find solace and hope through faith-driven hospices and similar services, providing a quality of life, palliative care including pain control, as to make euthanasia unnecessary and undesirable).
More, to be Pro-Life is to recognize that life isn't limited to being conceived and dying-- it includes caring about and for people in all the years between. It means ensuring that the hungry are fed, that the thirsty have safe water supplies, that the poor are clothed, the sick treated, the imprisoned visited. This isn't my list, of course-- it's Jesus'... These are His very clear criteria by which we shall be judged when He returns in power and great glory at the end of the world. However we have treated the very least of those created by God in His own image is how we will be judged to have treated Jesus Christ Himself [St. Matthew 25-31-40].
If we can convey this message to the world-- that to be Pro-Life is to be about love (and not merely about picketing clinics or defending those who shoot abortionists)-- then those who are drawn to the 'pro-choice' side by its apparent civility, and driven away from being Pro-Life by the rabid rhetoric of those who are merely anti-abortion and not truly Pro-Life at all, can be helped to recognize the difference, and attracted to join those of us who are Pro-Life in loving response to the God who loved us enough to die for us.
I am certainly no abortionist, but I know that I am a sinner, and am no more worthy of Christ Jesus' sacrifice than George Tiller was. There is no point in further vilifying Tiller-- he is no longer an abortionist. He is a sinner in the hands of the God who loved, and loves, him enough to become incarnate and die for him. I can only pray that he too is somehow given the chance to truly repent by the God who shall judge him, and that he, and I, will be judged in love. I cannot-- and would not begin to-- say what God will do with George Tiller, whose sins were so great. I do, though, believe that Christ Jesus came into the world for sinners (I Tim. 1:15), and if that's the case, then Tiller is certainly a fine example.
* * * * *
There are too many people who have appropriated the 'Pro-Life' title when all they mean is that they are against abortion... while defending the death penalty, while doing nothing to support pre-natal care for those who cannot afford medical insurance, without caring for those in need, "the least of these My brothers". It is frequently these people who spew the most violent and hate-filled rhetoric, words which would never`have been found on the lips of Our Lord. They are not Pro-Life. They may be anti-abortion, they may be social conservatives, they may be any number of things, but they are not Pro-Life.
To be Pro-Life is to love our neighbor, from conception to death, as Christ loved, and loves us. It's not to be "anti-" anything, but to be "Pro-", to love, and to show that love through our acts of love. It is in so doing that we will attract people-- not through angry verbiage and personal attacks.
Let us therefore not merely repudiate the act of killing the abortionist, but any attempt to define him as "Pro-Life". Let us tell the world that no one can claim to be Pro-Life and still kill, for just as our beginnings belong to God, so too do our ends.
Pax.
Even in self-defence, St Thomas draws a stark distinction between public officers, who may legitimately intend the death of the aggressor and a private individual, who may not; although he may foresee it as an inevitable, but unintended, consequence of protecting himself.
Thanks, as always, for your lucid remarks. I too think the killer was wrong, but I too think the case gives pause for thought, especially in the light of the resistance movements in Nazi Germany.
How does Bonhoeffer's or von Stauffenberg's reasoning differ from Tiller's own executioner? Both of these Germans made decisions to circumvent the legitimate authorities, and our culture has vindicated them. I recently read Arendt on Eichmann who seemed to allow for the possibility to act outside of the rule of law in certain circumstances.
How would the best defence of this killer differ from the apologia of the German resistance movement, so widely accepted today? I think an answer to this question would push your article into fruitful ground.
Thomas