Tiller, Long, Bonhoeffer, and Assassination
Jun 4, 2009
Elizabeth Scalia
At a blog called “Brutally Honest,” the proprietor Rick is, well, brutally honest as he ponders and works out the moral questions concerning the murder of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. It is not easy reading. Rick quotes from this piece at Another Think:
After years spent openly opposing Adolf Hitler and encouraging Germans to turn against his regime, Dietrich Bonhoeffer—a Christian minister, theologian, pacifist and German citizen—made a deliberate turn from civil disobedience to secret participation in a cabal whose aim was to assassinate the Führer. Bonhoeffer laid aside his Christian pacifism when he woke up to the fact that Hitler was engaging in genocide. This outraged Bonhoeffer, who held the deep religious conviction that the Jews were a people precious to God and deserving of protection, whatever the personal cost.
. . . Bonhoeffer aided and encouraged these [assassination plots] from his post inside the Abwehr. Pretending to be a loyal servant of Hitler's Reich, Bonhoeffer was in fact a double agent working towards Hitler's forcible overthrow.
You need to read it all, of course, but Charlie ends his musings with this:
Are these times, and the circumstances we find ourselves in, really so different from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's day?
While non-violent, political opposition to evil is always the default position for Christians, the lesson of Bonhoeffer seems to be that there are times when the heart and soul of a government becomes hardened against the prophetic outcry of God's people. At such a time, far more may be required of us. Is this such a time? How far should we be willing to go to stop the killing of the innocents?
Writes Rick:
I go back to yesterday's post and in particular William Saletan's piece:
Several years ago, I went to a conference of abortionists. Some of the late-term providers were there. A row of tables displayed forceps for sale. They started small and got bigger and bigger. Walking along the row, you could ask yourself: Would I use these forceps? How about those? Where would I stop? The people who do late-term abortions are the ones who don't flinch. They're like the veterans you sometimes see in war documentaries, quietly recounting what they faced and did. You think you're pro-choice. You think marching or phone-banking makes you an activist. You know nothing. There's you, and then there are the people who work in the clinics. And then there are the people who use the forceps. And then there are the people who use the forceps nobody else will use. At the end of the line, there's George Tiller. Now he's gone. Who will pick up his forceps?
George Tiller used forceps and other instruments to pluck, literally pluck, the unborn from the wombs of mothers in their third trimester. 60,000 times as some outlets are reporting. 60,000. In your mind, line those unborn babies up in neat little rows of one hundred babies per row. . . . How long would that tasking take? Once completed, would you continue to think that Tiller's death was heinous?
Honestly . . . would you? I don't understand the mindset, the logic, the mental manipulations necessary to consider it so.
Bonhoeffer was a brilliant theologian; his book The Cost of Discipleship is one of those books a Christian reader goes back to again and again in the course of growth. In weighing the moral question of obedience to institutions who were exceeding their own rights, he once argued, "if a teacher says to a child, 'did your father come home drunk again last night,' is the child bound to tell the truth?" Bonhoeffer decided no, the teacher [institution] had intruded beyond her scope, and therefore the child, to honor his father, is not obligated to subject him to judgment or mockery, or for that matter governmental intrusion. Bonhoeffer was, in the course of a terrible war, able to extrapolate that small, defensive lie into a plot to assassinate Hitler.
Rick and Charlie’s questions are sound, but one fears where their
thinking may lead. Bonhoeffer was a unique individual with a very healthy mind and tremendous depth of faith, and he was coming at his issue without carrying forty years of political baggage that could further influence his thinking to a place of imbalance. As extraordinary as he was, Bonhoeffer understood that his uniqueness in no way excepted him from the fact that what he was attempting was an evil—his evil, wholly distinct from Hitler's own evil—and one for which he would be held to account. Bonhoeffer knew that he could not rationalize his evil or make it less evil in the sight of Hitler's monstrous regime, and that in the end he would have only God's grace in which to hope.
In another mind, another heart, particularly one beset by decades of politicized, often overheated rhetoric, who knows if such balance and genuine accountability would be possible?
The question is natural, but every bit as dangerous as the increasingly large forceps on Saletan's table. If you can use the millions of dead unborn to justify a murder, this time, then you can use other rationales for other murders. Once you have justified the killing of a George Tiller, what is to stop you from finding a means to justify other killings, or the whole concept of assassination?
In a so-called late-term abortion, a baby is delivered vaginally, and feet first. The body and shoulders are delivered, but the infant's head is held within the birth canal, until the doctor can slip a scissor into its skull and suction out its brains, at which point he will deliver a dead child and avoid a charge of infanticide. We are told that these abortions are necessary to spare the life or mental health of a fragile mother who may not be able to endure the physical or psychological rigors of childbirth. The American Medical Association has quietly conceded that—as we do not live in the nineteenth or even the early twentieth century, when a cesarean section was all but a death sentence for a woman—there really is no medical reason for such an abortion. One may additionally argue that delivering a baby feet first, then shoulders, is by no means a simple or easy sort of delivery, so the dangers it purports to spare a woman are not obvious.
George Tiller specialized in aborting advanced pregnancies and he is being held up as a hero and martyr by those who can read the previous paragraph and not find the word savagery forming on their lips. Those of us who call ourselves pro-life take a very different view, and cannot call Tiller a hero, but neither can we support his murder.
Tiller, despite his choices, was still a created creature of God, and his life was God's to take, not man's; who is to know at what point in a man's life he will suddenly, like Paul on the road to Damascus, be brought to his knees with an encounter, and then seek out mercy, forgiveness, and the saving blood of Christ he will need to wash away the blood he has himself spilled? There is no man or woman on earth who is beyond this redemption while they live. If you take his life, have you interrupted the time and opportunity that, in Christ's plan, in Christ's fullness of time, would have been his moment of clarity? If so, then what have you done to your own soul, in cutting short the opportunity for his soul to find its redemption?
One of the reasons so many Catholics struggle with the death penalty is because we do believe that life is sacred, and that redemption must always be given its day, thus we cannot allow ourselves to indulge in relativism over the issue of life. Benedict XVI correctly called relativism a dictatorship and it is easy to see why: to reflect on matters of life and death in the fun-house mirror of relativism is to succumb to the allure of our own human (and thus faulty) reasoning. Relativism is to be avoided because we can so easily use the threads of relative thinking, no matter how thin they may be, to weave for ourselves some protective cover for the evil we do, and so we must guard against it.
Most people have not read Paul VI's short, prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae, but everyone has an opinion on it. But all who identify themselves as pro-life should read it. It demonstrates with startling clarity the way in which small ideas that some may call "unpleasant but necessary," grow ever larger. Once you read it you can see how the seeds of the culture of death can reside in the tiniest tools doing what some would call the least damage. A pill grows to an IUD, an IUD grows to a suction or curette, that grows to a row of ever-larger forceps, all to deliver death, death, death—death with which we have quickly become so comfortable that we don't even realize the tools of destruction have grown so large or become so light in our hands.
We are all currently watching the inexorable creep from the largest of forceps to the next step: large human beings who will be refusing medical treatments to the expensive-to-keep-alive elderly, or injecting "compassionate" needles to the terminally ill or the children whose quality of life they deem insufficiently productive, or to people with an extra chromosome.
Slippery slope is a useful cliché, particularly on this issue. The same slippery slopes that call for the manufacture of those ever-increasing-in-size forceps exist in the idea that Bonhoeffer or Tiller's murderer, Scott Roeder, should be emulated. They should not. George Tiller's life may not have been a life any of us would have wanted, or admired, but it was the life he had, and he was entitled to it.
Of course, while many hundreds of thousands of words are being written about the murder of George Tiller, and much political hay is being stacked against so-called Christianists, another murder followed Tiller's—and it is being mostly ignored, even by the same president who, within hours of Tiller's death, managed to express his profound sadness over it. A young recruit by the name of William Long finished his boot-camp training, stopped in at his Arkansas recruitment center, and was slain by a man named Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, whose name and religion routinely go unmentioned in press reports.
Why should we care about some dumb hick named William Long, who was only a soldier and not a hero abortionist? And why should his assassin's name or religion matter? Because William Long was as entitled to the life he had, as was George Tiller. And Long's death, at the hands of a man who used his religion to justify his actions, is the ultimate reminder of why Christians cannot emulate Bonhoeffer, for all his brilliance, or Tiller's murderer: When we start thinking that we know the heart and mind of God so well that we may decide who lives and who dies, we slip into a mode of Antichrist.
The Pauline paradox "when I am weak, then I am strong" carries a flipside: "When I am strong, then I am weak." Relativism is dangerous because we can too easily slip into the belief that we so well comprehend God's will that we can confuse our own will for God's, and thereby do terrible damage to one another. God's rain falls on "the just and the unjust," and it is one of the challenges of the life of faith that we must leave to God the rendering of his Justice.
The duty of a Christian—and it is a difficult duty—is to remain in the present moment that we might be alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit ("continuing instant" in gratitude and prayer) while also taking the long view of things. This requires trust that however things look of a moment or a day, God is present and working: Nothing is static, everything is in a constant state of flux, all of it churning forward so that "in the fullness of time" Christ may restore all things to himself.
What is left? Well, prayer, which is the most subversive of powers; it is a self-renewing weapon that cannot be wrested from us, and it cannot be over-employed.
Saletan issues a challenge in his piece: He asks Christians to ponder whether they really believe that abortion is, in fact, murder:
Maybe it's time to ask yourself what you really believe. Is abortion murder? Or is it something less, a tragedy that would be better avoided? Most of us think it's the latter. We're looking for ways to prevent abortions—not just a few this month, but millions down the line—without killing or prosecuting people. Come and join us.
The words sound reasonable, but they follow an unapologetic celebration of a life lived in service to the largest of the forceps, and the suctioning of the smallest and most innocent brain cells. "Come and join us," is an insidious little invitation that wants you to feel comfortable in all you give up, made by people willing to give up nothing, themselves, not even the largest of the forceps, or the smallest of the pills. They say they want fewer abortions and believe they will get them with more and more contraception, bigger public-awareness campaigns. They don't seem to notice that forty years of more and bigger has not yet reduced the number of abortions. And they don't want anyone else to notice, either. They just want submission.
We must not submit. No matter how smooth the oration, no matter how appealingly the hand of invitation is extended, the culture of death, which promises everything, ultimately offers nothing.
But we know, as the angel tells Joseph, "with God, nothing is impossible."
We are dealing with an unfathomable mystery of life and love—the nurturing of both or the disallowance, the bringing forth or the refusal—the continual opening or the closing of the world. The wrestling between sides has been going on for thousands of years, even before Moses said to his people, "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, choose life, that you may live." The struggle will continue until "the fullness of time." What is a believer to do?
If we are to err, let us err on the side of life. Let us choose life, that the world may live. And let us pray.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
6.3.2009 | 7:56pm
Julana says:
Maybe it was the grace of God Bonhoeffer trusted in that he was prevented from having the blood of a man on his hands.
6.3.2009 | 11:14pm
Hiram Prell says:
What a plethora of verbiage to say absolutely nothing. And this is where First Things is headed.
6.4.2009 | 1:34am
If First Things is condemning the murder of Gearge Tiller, then First Things has jumped the shark. Plain and simple.
6.4.2009 | 2:11am
sadday says:
Spot on Julana if we stay very close to God we can never be lured into the darkness of violence.
By killing Dr Tiller this unbalanced and confused man has made the same choice as Dr Tiller He has used violence as a solution.
Jesus made Peter put up his sword in the garden of Gethsemene when he was trying to defend the Innocent Surely that should tell us that violence shouls and can NEVER be a part of our defence of God's Precious Infants .
We must continue to pray and use our democratic rights to free speech and peaceful assembly to spread the prolife message and God will not fail to support us
By killing Dr Tiller this unbalanced and confused man has made the same choice as Dr Tiller He has used violence as a solution.
Jesus made Peter put up his sword in the garden of Gethsemene when he was trying to defend the Innocent Surely that should tell us that violence shouls and can NEVER be a part of our defence of God's Precious Infants .
We must continue to pray and use our democratic rights to free speech and peaceful assembly to spread the prolife message and God will not fail to support us
6.4.2009 | 2:47am
David Pence says:
Tiller was murdered and in nation of law the murderer must be held accountable for his deed. That's a given. What is not is the belief that Christianity is a religion that espouses a dogmatic pacifism or non-violence a la the Mahatma. If I recall correctly Aquinas held that under certain circumstances the killing of a tyrant was just. Indeed, I think grace had nothing to do with Hitler's survival, the failure to assassinate was a tragedy. I do not condone the murder of Tiller, but I do oppose pacifism passing itself off as THE Christian option.
6.4.2009 | 3:10am
Bernard says:
Surely the difference between murder and legitimate acts of war must be considered here? Bonhoeffer was clearly participating in a broader war, and that can be is legitimate in Catholic moral teaching if the relevant conditions are met. Roeder was acting on his own initiative and, while rebellions can be legitimate, the relevant conditions are very strenuous. I guess that one could imagine a scenario when, in a certain country, armed rebellion against the state that was proportionate to the evil of abortion being committed, with a reasonable chance of success, with the likelihood that excessive turmoil would be avoided, etc., etc.; this is clearly not the case here.
As an emotional counter-weight, one of my greatest regrets happened during a night out with a friend when I was 19 or 20. We came across a group of young men savagely kicking a man who was on the ground. I suggested that we intervene, but I allowed my friend to talk me out of it. We called the police, and went home. That was the response recommended by the police to this kind of assault, yet the incident haunted me for some years afterwards.
If I felt sickened and slightly culpable in leaving that victim to his beating, how much more should I be outraged by these far worse acts of violence? And do I allow myself to make my peace with them, however uncomfortably? Roeder was terribly wrong to do what he did, but he never made his peace. This does not make him a hero, but it makes him understandable. It should also challenge us to ensure that our own motives are pure.
As an emotional counter-weight, one of my greatest regrets happened during a night out with a friend when I was 19 or 20. We came across a group of young men savagely kicking a man who was on the ground. I suggested that we intervene, but I allowed my friend to talk me out of it. We called the police, and went home. That was the response recommended by the police to this kind of assault, yet the incident haunted me for some years afterwards.
If I felt sickened and slightly culpable in leaving that victim to his beating, how much more should I be outraged by these far worse acts of violence? And do I allow myself to make my peace with them, however uncomfortably? Roeder was terribly wrong to do what he did, but he never made his peace. This does not make him a hero, but it makes him understandable. It should also challenge us to ensure that our own motives are pure.
6.4.2009 | 6:08am
Karen LH says:
It strikes me that you could make a pretty good case that Hitler's government had ceased to be a legitimate authority.
6.4.2009 | 8:17am
Rob says:
I found this piece to be both insightful and beautifully written.
While I appreciated Dr. Reno's piece yesterday, most particularly its conclusion, I was uneasy at the notion that the condemnation of Tiller's murder rested primarily upon the ostensible legitimacy of the laws of the land.
Scalia's logic, it seems to me, is rooted deeply in the graceful ambiguities and decisive call to mercy entailed by discipleship. Well done.
While I appreciated Dr. Reno's piece yesterday, most particularly its conclusion, I was uneasy at the notion that the condemnation of Tiller's murder rested primarily upon the ostensible legitimacy of the laws of the land.
Scalia's logic, it seems to me, is rooted deeply in the graceful ambiguities and decisive call to mercy entailed by discipleship. Well done.
6.4.2009 | 10:52am
Hunter Baker says:
Beautifully written. This is one of the better commentaries I've seen on the matter so far.
6.4.2009 | 11:14am
Michael Mullins says:
Surely, Dr Reno's argument rests, not on the "ostensible legitimacy of the laws of the land," but on Dr Tiller's murderer's lack of any legitimate authority. No private individual may deliberately kill another person.
St Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him."
St Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him."
6.4.2009 | 11:26am
Kathy Paddock says:
Thank you for this insightful article. I personally prayed for Dr. Tiller's conversion. What a powerful spokesman and witness he would have made for protecting the sanctity of human life, had his life not been cut short. And yes, if we are to err, then let us err on the side of life. Thank you for sharing this piece.
6.4.2009 | 11:48am
sherry says:
Beautiful words. We are called to witness against the willful killing of anyone, the just and the unjust, the guilty and the innocent. Again, we are not called by Christ to kill for our beliefs. We are called to always hope that God's grace can permeate the hardest of hearts.
Sometimes, the hardest of hearts are those that thirst for justice and see the world, and feel frustrated by the lack of apparent progress towards a good world, a holy world, a fair world. It is difficult to wait for God's plan to unfold.
Perhaps one grace of George Tiller's very mad and cruel life, is that now, as he is before God, countless advocates who thought everything he stood for was grotesque, are praying for God's great mercy for his soul. His political/social/religious enemies are praying for him, and how much grace does that garner for our souls and his?
Sometimes, the hardest of hearts are those that thirst for justice and see the world, and feel frustrated by the lack of apparent progress towards a good world, a holy world, a fair world. It is difficult to wait for God's plan to unfold.
Perhaps one grace of George Tiller's very mad and cruel life, is that now, as he is before God, countless advocates who thought everything he stood for was grotesque, are praying for God's great mercy for his soul. His political/social/religious enemies are praying for him, and how much grace does that garner for our souls and his?
6.4.2009 | 11:54am
Charlie Lehardy says:
Bonhoeffer was a unique individual with a very healthy mind and tremendous depth of faith, and he was coming at his issue without carrying forty years of political baggage that could further influence his thinking to a place of imbalance.
I think this is the crux of the danger of where the Bonhoeffer comparison will surely take us. I am not untainted by sin myself, nor do I hear God's voice clearly because of the cultural cacophony around me. We see God (and the events of our times) "in a mirror, dimly" as Paul said, while also speaking about love. Ultimately, we can only be certain we are acting within the will of God if we love one another, and if we respect and honor life, out of respect and honor for the Creator of life.
As usual, very good thinking, Anchoress. Thank you.
I think this is the crux of the danger of where the Bonhoeffer comparison will surely take us. I am not untainted by sin myself, nor do I hear God's voice clearly because of the cultural cacophony around me. We see God (and the events of our times) "in a mirror, dimly" as Paul said, while also speaking about love. Ultimately, we can only be certain we are acting within the will of God if we love one another, and if we respect and honor life, out of respect and honor for the Creator of life.
As usual, very good thinking, Anchoress. Thank you.
6.4.2009 | 11:54am
CEK says:
Excellent commentary piece! I'm pleased to see such moral clarity about this situation - but I'm forced to wonder where this was when we were talking about torture. It's extremely bizarre that, Elizabeth, you were (wrongly) prepared to do a Bonhoeffer on a suspected terrorist, and yet (rightly) condemn such a course of action toward a late-term abortionist.
6.4.2009 | 1:24pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
CEK, I appreciate your kind words on this piece, but as my own position on torture is as yet not fully formed (I find it a much more complex issue than the issue of taking human life) I am surprised that you feel confident enough to claim my position for me. Someday I will put all of my thoughts on torture down on paper, and then perhaps I will know more clearly where I come out on the issue, but right now, I would not claim to have a strong feeling either of opposition or support.
6.4.2009 | 1:31pm
Tim Bayly says:
This is a very weak piece, depending more on dance like a butterfly than sting like a bee. Even on the matter of the morality of Bonhoeffer's commitment to kill Hitler, it's mostly equivocation. But one phrase exposes the underlying commitments of the author.
Precisely how do we come to the point of referring to any words spoken or written about the inexorable slaughter, worldwide, of somewhere around forty to sixty million little babies each year as "overheated rhetoric?" Fifty million unborn babies made in the Image of God, friends--plus or minus ten million. And if the numbers are staggering, the despicable deed is more so. The place of greatest safety created by our Heavenly Father to protect the most defenseless human beings, and fifty million times a year mothers pay a man to go in there and murder their little one. If I'd ended the previous sentence with an exclamation point rather than a period, would that constitute "overheated rhetoric?"
The most awful condemnation of a wicked act found in Scripture is reserved for parents murdering their own sons and daughters. God says this sin is so terribly wicked it hadn't "entered My mind that they should do this abomination:"
They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind. (Jer. 7:31)
...and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind... (Jer. 19:5)
They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jer. 32:35)
So now, again, precisely what would one have to say or write to be guilty of "overheated rhetoric" about this extreme wickedness that is such an abomination that it never entered the Mind of God?
There's much else not to like about this post, but "overheated rhetoric" says it all.
Precisely how do we come to the point of referring to any words spoken or written about the inexorable slaughter, worldwide, of somewhere around forty to sixty million little babies each year as "overheated rhetoric?" Fifty million unborn babies made in the Image of God, friends--plus or minus ten million. And if the numbers are staggering, the despicable deed is more so. The place of greatest safety created by our Heavenly Father to protect the most defenseless human beings, and fifty million times a year mothers pay a man to go in there and murder their little one. If I'd ended the previous sentence with an exclamation point rather than a period, would that constitute "overheated rhetoric?"
The most awful condemnation of a wicked act found in Scripture is reserved for parents murdering their own sons and daughters. God says this sin is so terribly wicked it hadn't "entered My mind that they should do this abomination:"
They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind. (Jer. 7:31)
...and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind... (Jer. 19:5)
They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jer. 32:35)
So now, again, precisely what would one have to say or write to be guilty of "overheated rhetoric" about this extreme wickedness that is such an abomination that it never entered the Mind of God?
There's much else not to like about this post, but "overheated rhetoric" says it all.
6.4.2009 | 3:06pm
Mark Shea says:
If we are to err, let us err on the side of life.
A good summation to a fine piece. If you add, "If we are to err, let us err on the side of treating prisoners humanely" you could finish the job of forming your thoughts on torture in a way fully compatible with the Catechism.
Oh, and if you've alienated Matt Beck, you are clearly doing something very right. Well done! Keep it up.
For related thoughts to your article, see John Zmirak's piece over at Inside Catholic today. Basic argument: killing Tiller was a violation of Just War teaching. Seems reasonable to me.
A good summation to a fine piece. If you add, "If we are to err, let us err on the side of treating prisoners humanely" you could finish the job of forming your thoughts on torture in a way fully compatible with the Catechism.
Oh, and if you've alienated Matt Beck, you are clearly doing something very right. Well done! Keep it up.
For related thoughts to your article, see John Zmirak's piece over at Inside Catholic today. Basic argument: killing Tiller was a violation of Just War teaching. Seems reasonable to me.
6.4.2009 | 5:12pm
Jeanette says:
Thank you David for the clarity...
"Tiller was murdered and in nation of law the murderer must be held accountable for his deed. That's a given. What is not is the belief that Christianity is a religion that espouses a dogmatic pacifism or non-violence a la the Mahatma. If I recall correctly Aquinas held that under certain circumstances the killing of a tyrant was just. Indeed, I think grace had nothing to do with Hitler's survival, the failure to assassinate was a tragedy. I do not condone the murder of Tiller, but I do oppose pacifism passing itself off as THE Christian option."
...you do remember your Aquinas correctly (for those who do yearn for a little clarity, please read Summa II-II q. 64, a. 3 and II-II q. 42, a. 3) . Comparing Bonhoeffer, and von Stauffenberg for that matter, with Scott Roeder is apples and oranges. I am surprised to find this at "First Things."
"Tiller was murdered and in nation of law the murderer must be held accountable for his deed. That's a given. What is not is the belief that Christianity is a religion that espouses a dogmatic pacifism or non-violence a la the Mahatma. If I recall correctly Aquinas held that under certain circumstances the killing of a tyrant was just. Indeed, I think grace had nothing to do with Hitler's survival, the failure to assassinate was a tragedy. I do not condone the murder of Tiller, but I do oppose pacifism passing itself off as THE Christian option."
...you do remember your Aquinas correctly (for those who do yearn for a little clarity, please read Summa II-II q. 64, a. 3 and II-II q. 42, a. 3) . Comparing Bonhoeffer, and von Stauffenberg for that matter, with Scott Roeder is apples and oranges. I am surprised to find this at "First Things."
6.4.2009 | 5:51pm
sherry says:
I would say within the context of these comments, is a lot of overheated rhetoric, oddly personal and designed to wound someone who is addressing the very real process of discernment that comes with having an active and informed conscience.
George Tiller committed attrocities, for which God will address the consequence, but so also, the man who killed him committed an attrocity, in front of children, in front of families, in front of people who now have the scar of having witnessed a murder while in the process of praying to God, for which he too, shall face the justice and judgement of our all loving, all just God.
The man who killed Tiller is no hero, just as George Tiller is no hero. Both chose to act sinfully, knowingly. There is an issue of degree in that one committed the acts on a regular perpetual basis, and the other, once, but both shall bear the scars and consequences upon their immortal souls. If we believe human life is sacred, then it is always sacred, even when it profanes itself. God did not strike down Cain, He did not call down pillars of fire on the cities that rejected Him. He did not strike the men who crucified His son, nor forget them when His son asked for their forgiveness.
As people committed to life, we do no kindness, no charity by attempting to prove how clever and pure we are, in being righteous over this man's act or that' man's death. We should not be rejoicing in any evil, but only in what is good. His death rather than conversion is not a good but a actual tragedy, he was murdered. A bad man was murdered, rather than saved. His testamony, if he had chosen to turn from Saul to Paul, would have been wonderous to behold, and that option is now forever lost. I will not subscribe to the notion that murdering this man, even knowing his sins, was anything but an evil act.
Further, people serious about the cause for life are now assigned the label of radical and terrorist by those who seek to further the acceptance and access and practice of abortion. We bear that despairing man's anger and subsequent label with the opposition, making the message that Abortion is always wrong, always evil, and never necessary, harder to hear.
George Tiller committed attrocities, for which God will address the consequence, but so also, the man who killed him committed an attrocity, in front of children, in front of families, in front of people who now have the scar of having witnessed a murder while in the process of praying to God, for which he too, shall face the justice and judgement of our all loving, all just God.
The man who killed Tiller is no hero, just as George Tiller is no hero. Both chose to act sinfully, knowingly. There is an issue of degree in that one committed the acts on a regular perpetual basis, and the other, once, but both shall bear the scars and consequences upon their immortal souls. If we believe human life is sacred, then it is always sacred, even when it profanes itself. God did not strike down Cain, He did not call down pillars of fire on the cities that rejected Him. He did not strike the men who crucified His son, nor forget them when His son asked for their forgiveness.
As people committed to life, we do no kindness, no charity by attempting to prove how clever and pure we are, in being righteous over this man's act or that' man's death. We should not be rejoicing in any evil, but only in what is good. His death rather than conversion is not a good but a actual tragedy, he was murdered. A bad man was murdered, rather than saved. His testamony, if he had chosen to turn from Saul to Paul, would have been wonderous to behold, and that option is now forever lost. I will not subscribe to the notion that murdering this man, even knowing his sins, was anything but an evil act.
Further, people serious about the cause for life are now assigned the label of radical and terrorist by those who seek to further the acceptance and access and practice of abortion. We bear that despairing man's anger and subsequent label with the opposition, making the message that Abortion is always wrong, always evil, and never necessary, harder to hear.
6.4.2009 | 6:06pm
CEK says:
I apologize if I've misrepresented your beliefs on torture earlier, Elizabeth, but didn't you say as much on your blog a few weeks ago? iirc, you had made a consequentialist case for commiting a great moral evil to save lives, and are now here making an argument against that very sort of consequentialism.
And isn't it, well, a little odd that you're referencing the 'complexity' of torture? Appeals to complexity are more traditionally in the quiver of the pro-abortion camp.
And isn't it, well, a little odd that you're referencing the 'complexity' of torture? Appeals to complexity are more traditionally in the quiver of the pro-abortion camp.
6.4.2009 | 6:41pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
CEK - I may have written something vaguely pro-torture (I believe it was while I was admittedly under the influence of a glass of wine, which I had disclosed) but I believe even in that remark (and if no there, certainly elsewhere) that I am still not fully, finally and in all ways settled on my feelings re torture. On one hand, I abhor it, on the other, well...you've heard all the arguments.
You write: "you had made a consequentialist case for commiting a great moral evil to save lives, and are now here making an argument against that very sort of consequentialism."
But there ARE distinctions between the moral evil of taking someone's life vs the moral evil of both terrifying and discomforting someone (waterboarding) but NOT taking their life, in order to save, say...the people of Chicago. I always have a problem with the idea looking at 10,000 body bags and saying, "whew that's pretty evil...but at least we didn't waterboard."
You write: "And isn't it, well, a little odd that you're referencing the 'complexity' of torture? Appeals to complexity are more traditionally in the quiver of the pro-abortion camp."
Torture is complex for the very reason that it is NOT taking a life. Pro-aborts will talk about "degrees of development" or "degrees of aliveness" or even "degrees of humanity" but somehow, particularly in the case of those like our president, who support late-term abortion, those complexities never translate into putting down the forceps. Therefore, one must wonder if their arguments on "complexities" are mere pretense.
For me - admittedly not fully formed - the fact that torture is not the taking of a life, and -though disturbing and perhaps evil- it can be the source of saving many lives. Who saves a life saves the world entire! :-)
As I said, I really need to put all of my thoughts down on paper, because it IS very complex, to me. On one hand, I can see torture as part of the "collective of sin" where all sin, no matter how distinct, is connected. On the other, if I know you know about a bomb at JFK, and I can scare you and discomfort you into telling me where it is, I may do that and (like Bonhoeffer) take my chances on grace. Since you'll still be alive, and not dead, and I'll be able to go to confession about it, it's a chance I'll take! :-)
When I think about torture, I think about the fact that Jesus consented to BE tortured, for the sake of all of us. Which means that he had to consent to allow those who knew not what they did, to torture him, because the torture had, for all of its evil, a greater purpose.
Something to chew on, no?
You write: "you had made a consequentialist case for commiting a great moral evil to save lives, and are now here making an argument against that very sort of consequentialism."
But there ARE distinctions between the moral evil of taking someone's life vs the moral evil of both terrifying and discomforting someone (waterboarding) but NOT taking their life, in order to save, say...the people of Chicago. I always have a problem with the idea looking at 10,000 body bags and saying, "whew that's pretty evil...but at least we didn't waterboard."
You write: "And isn't it, well, a little odd that you're referencing the 'complexity' of torture? Appeals to complexity are more traditionally in the quiver of the pro-abortion camp."
Torture is complex for the very reason that it is NOT taking a life. Pro-aborts will talk about "degrees of development" or "degrees of aliveness" or even "degrees of humanity" but somehow, particularly in the case of those like our president, who support late-term abortion, those complexities never translate into putting down the forceps. Therefore, one must wonder if their arguments on "complexities" are mere pretense.
For me - admittedly not fully formed - the fact that torture is not the taking of a life, and -though disturbing and perhaps evil- it can be the source of saving many lives. Who saves a life saves the world entire! :-)
As I said, I really need to put all of my thoughts down on paper, because it IS very complex, to me. On one hand, I can see torture as part of the "collective of sin" where all sin, no matter how distinct, is connected. On the other, if I know you know about a bomb at JFK, and I can scare you and discomfort you into telling me where it is, I may do that and (like Bonhoeffer) take my chances on grace. Since you'll still be alive, and not dead, and I'll be able to go to confession about it, it's a chance I'll take! :-)
When I think about torture, I think about the fact that Jesus consented to BE tortured, for the sake of all of us. Which means that he had to consent to allow those who knew not what they did, to torture him, because the torture had, for all of its evil, a greater purpose.
Something to chew on, no?
6.4.2009 | 8:10pm
cricket says:
There seems to be the tacit assumption on the part of everyone writing of the Tiller killing that the abortionist was killed for the evil he had done. How do we know he was not killed for the evil he was about to do on Monday morning? What if you were the father of the 8 1/2 month kid he was going to slice up next morning? If a man holds a gun to my child's head and he's squeezed the trigger halfway am I still allowed to pray his heart will be changed or may I open fire on him in conscience? What if he's only squeezed a quarter?
6.4.2009 | 9:01pm
Jason says:
As a pro-choice, secular liberal I realize I'm not the intended audience for this blog, but I found this paragraph particularly interesting:
We are told that these abortions are necessary to spare the life or mental health of a fragile mother who may not be able to endure the physical or psychological rigors of childbirth. The American Medical Association has quietly conceded that—as we do not live in the nineteenth or even the early twentieth century, when a cesarean section was all but a death sentence for a woman—there really is no medical reason for such an abortion. One may additionally argue that delivering a baby feet first, then shoulders, is by no means a simple or easy sort of delivery, so the dangers it purports to spare a woman are not obvious.
If this paragraph were accurate, then I would certainly oppose these types of late-term abortions, as would everyone I know who calls themselves pro-choice (as is, I'm somewhat ambivalent). But where's the evidence supporting these contentions? Is there a medical study which reviewed the reasons given for late-term abortions? (not the commonly cited survey asking for reasons why the abortion wasn't conducted earlier...). I'm no expert on this, but as far as I know, if a late-term abortion is carried out to protect a woman's health, two doctors must certify that carrying the fetus to term would cause "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
Is the implication of the above paragraph that doctors can't be trusted to make this judgment honestly? Are you saying that people like Tiller say this is the case when it actually isn't because they take some perverse pleasure in carrying out late-term abortions?
We are told that these abortions are necessary to spare the life or mental health of a fragile mother who may not be able to endure the physical or psychological rigors of childbirth. The American Medical Association has quietly conceded that—as we do not live in the nineteenth or even the early twentieth century, when a cesarean section was all but a death sentence for a woman—there really is no medical reason for such an abortion. One may additionally argue that delivering a baby feet first, then shoulders, is by no means a simple or easy sort of delivery, so the dangers it purports to spare a woman are not obvious.
If this paragraph were accurate, then I would certainly oppose these types of late-term abortions, as would everyone I know who calls themselves pro-choice (as is, I'm somewhat ambivalent). But where's the evidence supporting these contentions? Is there a medical study which reviewed the reasons given for late-term abortions? (not the commonly cited survey asking for reasons why the abortion wasn't conducted earlier...). I'm no expert on this, but as far as I know, if a late-term abortion is carried out to protect a woman's health, two doctors must certify that carrying the fetus to term would cause "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
Is the implication of the above paragraph that doctors can't be trusted to make this judgment honestly? Are you saying that people like Tiller say this is the case when it actually isn't because they take some perverse pleasure in carrying out late-term abortions?
6.4.2009 | 10:45pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Jason, my understanding is that the "two physicians must certify" rule is the law in France, (via Wikipedia) and in some but not all states in the US (I believe Florida is one that does require two-to-certify). I cannot possibly speak to whether or not doctors are making honest judgments in those certifications.
I do know that when Congress was legislating to ban partial birth abortions, the AMA did in fact state that the procedure was never medically necessary. That legislation passed, Bush signed it and of course it was immediately set aside in the courts, but the AMA's statement had a lot to do with its passage to begin with, and some doctors were making such statements back in the 1990's:
/"The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." AMA President Daniel Johnson Jr., M.D., in New York Times, May 26, 1997.
/"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D & X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about D & X." Report by Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, May 1997.
/ "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997.
As to the rest, I only started figuring out that I should put some articles into my harddrive for easy reference after I stopped being able to find some of them on search engines. For instance this no longer exists: "...M. L. Sprang and M. G. Neerhof. 1998. Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy. Journal of the American Medical Association 280:744-747. In writing for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Drs. M. LeRoy Sprang and Mark G. Neerhof, conclude with the following statement:
"Intact D&X (partial-birth abortion) should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion."10..."
I could give you a half-dozen citations quoting doctors and the newspaper of the AMA on the dubious "need" for partial-birth abortions, but because they are compiled at pro-life sites, I would understand your reluctance to put all your trust in them (aside: pro-lifers, please don't email me yelling at me that all pro-life sites are 100% trustworthy, I'm not debating it, I'm simply saying that someone who wants to be convinced is going to want citations not attached to such sites). But many prominent physicians, including C. Everett Koop have publicly stated that partial birth abortions, which involve the breech delivery of the baby, spare the mother little bodily stress. My own opinion is that it can't help but contribute to her psychological stress, as well, but that's jmo.
For what they're worth to you, here are some links, anyway:
people for life
lifenews
bad medicine
USCCB
I do know that when Congress was legislating to ban partial birth abortions, the AMA did in fact state that the procedure was never medically necessary. That legislation passed, Bush signed it and of course it was immediately set aside in the courts, but the AMA's statement had a lot to do with its passage to begin with, and some doctors were making such statements back in the 1990's:
/"The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." AMA President Daniel Johnson Jr., M.D., in New York Times, May 26, 1997.
/"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D & X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about D & X." Report by Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, May 1997.
/ "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997.
As to the rest, I only started figuring out that I should put some articles into my harddrive for easy reference after I stopped being able to find some of them on search engines. For instance this no longer exists: "...M. L. Sprang and M. G. Neerhof. 1998. Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy. Journal of the American Medical Association 280:744-747. In writing for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Drs. M. LeRoy Sprang and Mark G. Neerhof, conclude with the following statement:
"Intact D&X (partial-birth abortion) should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion."10..."
I could give you a half-dozen citations quoting doctors and the newspaper of the AMA on the dubious "need" for partial-birth abortions, but because they are compiled at pro-life sites, I would understand your reluctance to put all your trust in them (aside: pro-lifers, please don't email me yelling at me that all pro-life sites are 100% trustworthy, I'm not debating it, I'm simply saying that someone who wants to be convinced is going to want citations not attached to such sites). But many prominent physicians, including C. Everett Koop have publicly stated that partial birth abortions, which involve the breech delivery of the baby, spare the mother little bodily stress. My own opinion is that it can't help but contribute to her psychological stress, as well, but that's jmo.
For what they're worth to you, here are some links, anyway:
people for life
lifenews
bad medicine
USCCB
6.4.2009 | 11:06pm
Jim says:
@Tim Bayly: (off topic) I certainly can't presume to know the mind of God, and I'm not a scholar of the Old Testament, but if sacrificing a child hadn't entered into the mind of God, then just who was it who asked Abraham to kill him a son?
6.5.2009 | 12:13am
wildiris says:
Just because as Christians we are to refrain from using murder to stop a murderer, doesn’t mean we are supposed to simply turn our backs on an evil situation and do nothing at all.
A facet of this case I have yet to see addressed is the role his church and pastor (ELCA Lutheran, I believe) played in all of the events leading up to this violent end. The fact that his pastor appears to have done nothing over the years to chastise him and dissuade him from continuing on his evil path means that this pastor, and by extension the church itself, must share some responsibility, along with the shooter, for Mr. Tiller’s murder, ...in my humble opinion, anyway.
A facet of this case I have yet to see addressed is the role his church and pastor (ELCA Lutheran, I believe) played in all of the events leading up to this violent end. The fact that his pastor appears to have done nothing over the years to chastise him and dissuade him from continuing on his evil path means that this pastor, and by extension the church itself, must share some responsibility, along with the shooter, for Mr. Tiller’s murder, ...in my humble opinion, anyway.
6.5.2009 | 12:17am
Nick in Virginia says:
Jason,
You asked if Tiller took "some perverse pleasure in carrying out late-term abortions? "
No, he took $5,000 for each late-term abortion (well, MAYBE he also took that perverse pleasure you mentioned, but there is no doubt about the money).
For 60,000 abortions (as Tiller himself supposedly claimed), that comes out to $300,000,000. A pretty strong motivation for being pro-choice, don't you think?
But I'm sure, like a pro athlete discussing his multi-million dollar contract, that he wasn't "doing it for the money".
When Clinton was President, he vetoed an anti partial-birth abortion bill, based on the word of a "medical advisor" who said the law was unnecessary because, among other reasons, they were hardly ever performed. That doctor then went on TV (I believe I saw him on Sally Jesse Raphael) and bragged that "I lied through my teeth" to the President so he could protect the "right" to a partial-birth abortion. Maybe that doctor was George Tiller, I have absolutely no idea of his name. But I do remember the wide smile on his face when he bragged about "lying through his teeth". Like many things in the liberal agenda, the necessity for this procedure is based on lies and misrepresentations.
Personally, I am a little pro-abortion, but I am definitely anti Roe v. Wade ("The right to an abortion emanates from the penumbra of the right to privacy" - not in my book, but I wasn't serving on the SCOTUS, so my thought doesn't count). I am also definitely against partial-birth abortion. That is one of the most horrific procedures devised by man (but I'll bet most libs who think waterboarding is torture think partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right). And to think that a baby can be killed like that for basically ANY reason, such as a young girl getting cold feet as the delivery date approaches, should make anyone with the slightest touch of humanity fight against it with all their might.
You asked if Tiller took "some perverse pleasure in carrying out late-term abortions? "
No, he took $5,000 for each late-term abortion (well, MAYBE he also took that perverse pleasure you mentioned, but there is no doubt about the money).
For 60,000 abortions (as Tiller himself supposedly claimed), that comes out to $300,000,000. A pretty strong motivation for being pro-choice, don't you think?
But I'm sure, like a pro athlete discussing his multi-million dollar contract, that he wasn't "doing it for the money".
When Clinton was President, he vetoed an anti partial-birth abortion bill, based on the word of a "medical advisor" who said the law was unnecessary because, among other reasons, they were hardly ever performed. That doctor then went on TV (I believe I saw him on Sally Jesse Raphael) and bragged that "I lied through my teeth" to the President so he could protect the "right" to a partial-birth abortion. Maybe that doctor was George Tiller, I have absolutely no idea of his name. But I do remember the wide smile on his face when he bragged about "lying through his teeth". Like many things in the liberal agenda, the necessity for this procedure is based on lies and misrepresentations.
Personally, I am a little pro-abortion, but I am definitely anti Roe v. Wade ("The right to an abortion emanates from the penumbra of the right to privacy" - not in my book, but I wasn't serving on the SCOTUS, so my thought doesn't count). I am also definitely against partial-birth abortion. That is one of the most horrific procedures devised by man (but I'll bet most libs who think waterboarding is torture think partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right). And to think that a baby can be killed like that for basically ANY reason, such as a young girl getting cold feet as the delivery date approaches, should make anyone with the slightest touch of humanity fight against it with all their might.
6.5.2009 | 1:48am
Jason says:
Elizabeth,
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm fairly convinced by your references and what I've read elsewhere that many doctors on both sides of the abortion question believe the dilation and extraction procedure is rarely if ever medically necessary (although a few seem to disagree). I think the controversy over the partial birth abortion bill was over whether the language was so broad that it also covered dilation and evacuation which - as I understand it - most doctors do believe is medically necessary for the health of the woman at least in some cases, although there is disagreement about how common these cases are. I'm actually unsure which procedures Dr. Tiller performed.
I find this discussion quite interesting because I've always thought that the fact that pro-lifers aren't more militant is evidence of a fundamental uncertainty about their beliefs. While there is something horrifying about killing anyone, pro-lifers have fewer qualms about killing Hitler than killing an abortion doctor because they are certain that Hitler must be stopped, while the fact that so many seemingly intelligent and otherwise ethical people disagree with them about abortion has to give them a certain pause. Your last paragraph suggests some sympathy with this view, although I'm not sure you fully embrace it.
I find the alternative arguments for a disanalogy between Bonhoeffer and Roeder unconvincing: from a purely consequentialist standpoint, this killing seems unlikely to impact any particular legislation, but it will probably make it harder for women to obtain the kinds of abortions Dr. Tiller provided, and it will make other doctors more reluctant to follow in his footsteps. Bernard's claim that Bonhoeffer was acting as part of a broader war begs the question of whether it would have been acceptable to assassinate Hitler absent any organized resistance (I would think in that case the need to do so may have been even greater!).
If I'm right that this sort of uncertainty about the wrongness of abortion explains the disanalogy, I'd be interested to probe it further: does this imply that the belief that murder is wrong and the belief that abortion is wrong have different sources? Does Catholic theology allow for this?
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm fairly convinced by your references and what I've read elsewhere that many doctors on both sides of the abortion question believe the dilation and extraction procedure is rarely if ever medically necessary (although a few seem to disagree). I think the controversy over the partial birth abortion bill was over whether the language was so broad that it also covered dilation and evacuation which - as I understand it - most doctors do believe is medically necessary for the health of the woman at least in some cases, although there is disagreement about how common these cases are. I'm actually unsure which procedures Dr. Tiller performed.
I find this discussion quite interesting because I've always thought that the fact that pro-lifers aren't more militant is evidence of a fundamental uncertainty about their beliefs. While there is something horrifying about killing anyone, pro-lifers have fewer qualms about killing Hitler than killing an abortion doctor because they are certain that Hitler must be stopped, while the fact that so many seemingly intelligent and otherwise ethical people disagree with them about abortion has to give them a certain pause. Your last paragraph suggests some sympathy with this view, although I'm not sure you fully embrace it.
I find the alternative arguments for a disanalogy between Bonhoeffer and Roeder unconvincing: from a purely consequentialist standpoint, this killing seems unlikely to impact any particular legislation, but it will probably make it harder for women to obtain the kinds of abortions Dr. Tiller provided, and it will make other doctors more reluctant to follow in his footsteps. Bernard's claim that Bonhoeffer was acting as part of a broader war begs the question of whether it would have been acceptable to assassinate Hitler absent any organized resistance (I would think in that case the need to do so may have been even greater!).
If I'm right that this sort of uncertainty about the wrongness of abortion explains the disanalogy, I'd be interested to probe it further: does this imply that the belief that murder is wrong and the belief that abortion is wrong have different sources? Does Catholic theology allow for this?
6.5.2009 | 2:34am
Bernard says:
Jason, I did make a distinction between participating in a wider war and acting alone - on the basis that acting alone is effectively rebelling against the state, ie. starting a new war. This is sometimes legitimate, but (as the Church teaches, and as others here have said) the situation must be dire, there must be a realistic hope of a successful outcome and the potential for worse evils to arise must be small. There is all the difference in the world between me serving as a soldier in a pre-existing war (as I have done), and me deciding to start a war!
The question about killing Hitler, then, is perfectly consistent with my view - it could have been legitimate, depending on the likely outcomes. If Hitler was the animating force of the NAZI party, and his death could have reasonably been expected to lead to a collapse in the German government and its replacement by a better one, then his killing by an individual could have been a good thing. If he would have been swiftly replaced by his deputy, and a thorough purge of potential opponents immediately implemented, it is hard to see that it would even serve its intended purpose, let alone be morally legitimate.
The question about killing Hitler, then, is perfectly consistent with my view - it could have been legitimate, depending on the likely outcomes. If Hitler was the animating force of the NAZI party, and his death could have reasonably been expected to lead to a collapse in the German government and its replacement by a better one, then his killing by an individual could have been a good thing. If he would have been swiftly replaced by his deputy, and a thorough purge of potential opponents immediately implemented, it is hard to see that it would even serve its intended purpose, let alone be morally legitimate.
6.5.2009 | 9:37am
Salaam says:
Jason,
Yes, I believe uncertainty plays a part. I think the source of this uncertainty is more the wonder of other otherwise ethical folks on the other side, as you said, than uncertainty about the immorality of the act itself.
But I think there a much more important reason, which has been alluded to in the various writings above. That is, the instinctive desire for survival, to co-exist in a society with others of different beliefs, and avoid what would become a very destabilizing conflict, along with everything that would accompany that conflict.
I have absolutely no uncertainty on the principle that abortion is murder. But I'm afraid to engage in anything other than moral suasion. What would people say about me? 'Militant'?! Worse yet, what would they do to me? Acting on principle in this case would just be too much of a violation of social norms.
So I sacrifice principle for utilitarianism, and I'm ashamed about it. But there we are. Of course, by the way, there are a lot of other things happening in the world to which I display the same moral cowardice.
Of course, another reason that the pro-life movement distances itself from such 'militancy' is for PR.
Yes, I believe uncertainty plays a part. I think the source of this uncertainty is more the wonder of other otherwise ethical folks on the other side, as you said, than uncertainty about the immorality of the act itself.
But I think there a much more important reason, which has been alluded to in the various writings above. That is, the instinctive desire for survival, to co-exist in a society with others of different beliefs, and avoid what would become a very destabilizing conflict, along with everything that would accompany that conflict.
I have absolutely no uncertainty on the principle that abortion is murder. But I'm afraid to engage in anything other than moral suasion. What would people say about me? 'Militant'?! Worse yet, what would they do to me? Acting on principle in this case would just be too much of a violation of social norms.
So I sacrifice principle for utilitarianism, and I'm ashamed about it. But there we are. Of course, by the way, there are a lot of other things happening in the world to which I display the same moral cowardice.
Of course, another reason that the pro-life movement distances itself from such 'militancy' is for PR.
6.5.2009 | 11:21am
Jason says:
Bernard - fair enough. I guess the question in your case is whether one has Bonhoeffer had much better reason to believe that killing Hitler would stop subsequent deaths than Roeder had to believe that killing Tiller would stop subsequent abortions. I'm still not fully convinced of this - there were other Nazis who supported the final solution in positions of power, and Hitler is widely believed to have had a negative impact on the war effort - killing him might have prolonged the war resulting in millions of additional deaths. I'm not certain that you're wrong about this, but it seems to me that a judgment either way has to be pretty tentative given the large number of considerations in play. More tentative (at least I would argue) than the conviction among many pro-lifers that killing Tiller was not the moral equivalent of killing Hitler.
Salaam - let me try to make an analogous argument in the case of an upstanding Aryan in Nazi Germany. Let's suppose the war ended in a stalemate, peace was made, but the holocaust continued. An upstanding Aryan could argue that going around and killing those who perpetrate the holocaust would destabilize German society and endanger the tens of millions of people who benefit from the existing social contract (flawed as it may be). As you hint, this strikes me more as an argument from cowardice than one from principle. Incidentally, which utilitarian calculation are you doing? Are you asking, "What would result if I committed act X, everything else held constant?" or "What would result if all pro-lifers decided to act in way X?" I'd guess the individual act would not lead to social unrest, but might reduce the number of abortions. I'm more uncertain about the collective change in behavior.
Salaam - let me try to make an analogous argument in the case of an upstanding Aryan in Nazi Germany. Let's suppose the war ended in a stalemate, peace was made, but the holocaust continued. An upstanding Aryan could argue that going around and killing those who perpetrate the holocaust would destabilize German society and endanger the tens of millions of people who benefit from the existing social contract (flawed as it may be). As you hint, this strikes me more as an argument from cowardice than one from principle. Incidentally, which utilitarian calculation are you doing? Are you asking, "What would result if I committed act X, everything else held constant?" or "What would result if all pro-lifers decided to act in way X?" I'd guess the individual act would not lead to social unrest, but might reduce the number of abortions. I'm more uncertain about the collective change in behavior.
6.5.2009 | 12:01pm
Jason and Salaam,
You two have nailed it. The outcry against the Tiller murder raised by the pro-life camp is really just uncertainty, cowardice, and pragmatism. There is nothing truly "moral" about any of this casuistry. It's just a failure to look facts in the face and admit that, yes, sometimes violence does indeed work.
I myself am very much against abortion, but that is because I think that having an abortion is an unchivalrous and churlish thing to do, not because I have some misty sense of the sacredness of all life. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I haven't been vouchsafed the full measure of human kindness, but I find the contemporary pro-life movement very unappealing, and its arguments wholly unpersuasive, especially now. A vicious, mass-murdering abortion provider is finally dispatched in a fitting manner, and the first thing the pro-lifers can think of to do is lament it. That's pathetic.
Now, I certainly agree that there is a place in the Church for the strong pro-life position, for those who feel they are called to work tirelessly for the redemption of every soul, especially the most wretched. But such people are saints. They suffer greatly for performing their acts of charity, and they accept that suffering with silence and consecrate it to Christ. They are not a bunch of eggheads from the blogosphere spouting pacifist intellectual tripe. If you want to be a saint, that's fine. If you want to be a man of the world, that's fine too; but you cannot do both. There are only two paths to greatness: you can either be a martyr or a warrior. Any vacillation between the two is not "a healthy balance," it is smallness and weakness.
So please spare me all this garbage about the need to not usurp the will of God. Everyone can see it's just a cop-out. Either stand up for what you believe in, or go home. Period.
You two have nailed it. The outcry against the Tiller murder raised by the pro-life camp is really just uncertainty, cowardice, and pragmatism. There is nothing truly "moral" about any of this casuistry. It's just a failure to look facts in the face and admit that, yes, sometimes violence does indeed work.
I myself am very much against abortion, but that is because I think that having an abortion is an unchivalrous and churlish thing to do, not because I have some misty sense of the sacredness of all life. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I haven't been vouchsafed the full measure of human kindness, but I find the contemporary pro-life movement very unappealing, and its arguments wholly unpersuasive, especially now. A vicious, mass-murdering abortion provider is finally dispatched in a fitting manner, and the first thing the pro-lifers can think of to do is lament it. That's pathetic.
Now, I certainly agree that there is a place in the Church for the strong pro-life position, for those who feel they are called to work tirelessly for the redemption of every soul, especially the most wretched. But such people are saints. They suffer greatly for performing their acts of charity, and they accept that suffering with silence and consecrate it to Christ. They are not a bunch of eggheads from the blogosphere spouting pacifist intellectual tripe. If you want to be a saint, that's fine. If you want to be a man of the world, that's fine too; but you cannot do both. There are only two paths to greatness: you can either be a martyr or a warrior. Any vacillation between the two is not "a healthy balance," it is smallness and weakness.
So please spare me all this garbage about the need to not usurp the will of God. Everyone can see it's just a cop-out. Either stand up for what you believe in, or go home. Period.
6.5.2009 | 12:27pm
DWiss says:
For a long time I had hoped that First Things would add the capability for readers to post their comments regarding published articles. I've changed my mind now that it is possible. Elizabeth Scalia has written a very thoughtful column on the issue of abortion and it ought to help clarify everyone's thinking on the subject.
But it is how the comments devolved from the main theme of the column to criticism of Elizabeth's unformed opinion on torture that has my blood pressure up. I have been uncomfortable with the torture debate since it bagan becuase I think what we're really talking about is partisan politics instead of the morality of torture. In other words, if Bush did it, it's bad. Or, the U.S. is a bully nation and deserves what it gets.
But, read this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/british-holidaymaker-is-beheaded-by-alqaida-1696414.html.
This beheading of an innocent man by our enemies received how much attention from the U.S. torture critics? How much from the Spanish courts so eager to prosecute Bush administration officials for "atrocities". If we are horrified by torture and against it under any circumstances, aren't we against it anywhere and by whomever practices it? Or is it that we are against it when it was practiced by a U.S. Republican administration? While we were beating our collective breast over our inexcusable behavior, this British man was beheaded and we barely noticed. Didn't actually serve the political narrative, I guess.
I am not proud of the waterboarding episode. I wish it hadn't happened. I wish it wasn't thought necessary. But we are up against an enemy who beheads innocent people for ideological reasons. And that is why, if I may take the liberty of saying so, Elizabeth is unsure of her opinion of American style torture. See, the victims walk away with their heads on their shoulders. They'll be dry in an hour or so.
But it is how the comments devolved from the main theme of the column to criticism of Elizabeth's unformed opinion on torture that has my blood pressure up. I have been uncomfortable with the torture debate since it bagan becuase I think what we're really talking about is partisan politics instead of the morality of torture. In other words, if Bush did it, it's bad. Or, the U.S. is a bully nation and deserves what it gets.
But, read this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/british-holidaymaker-is-beheaded-by-alqaida-1696414.html.
This beheading of an innocent man by our enemies received how much attention from the U.S. torture critics? How much from the Spanish courts so eager to prosecute Bush administration officials for "atrocities". If we are horrified by torture and against it under any circumstances, aren't we against it anywhere and by whomever practices it? Or is it that we are against it when it was practiced by a U.S. Republican administration? While we were beating our collective breast over our inexcusable behavior, this British man was beheaded and we barely noticed. Didn't actually serve the political narrative, I guess.
I am not proud of the waterboarding episode. I wish it hadn't happened. I wish it wasn't thought necessary. But we are up against an enemy who beheads innocent people for ideological reasons. And that is why, if I may take the liberty of saying so, Elizabeth is unsure of her opinion of American style torture. See, the victims walk away with their heads on their shoulders. They'll be dry in an hour or so.
6.5.2009 | 12:40pm
ignatius nacy says:
The comparison of Tiller's assassin to Bonhoeffer is so odious that I'm wondering if I should even bother reading First Things anymore.
6.5.2009 | 2:16pm
Tim Bayly says:
>was it who asked Abraham to kill him a son?
As Kierkegaard saw so clearly, it was God Himself. So now you're left with the question, does God lie?
No. God is true though all men are liars.
As Kierkegaard saw so clearly, it was God Himself. So now you're left with the question, does God lie?
No. God is true though all men are liars.
6.5.2009 | 3:02pm
Salaam says:
Jason,
To answer your question, I think the individual and collective consequences are related. That's why we don't automatically steal even if we knew we'd certainly get away with it. Intuitively, we calculate the consequences.
The principle of it all, which encourages such action. The consequences to the individual discourage it. Then there's the probability of success, success being not only stopping that particular abortionist, but reducing or ending abortions in the long run. To take action, I have to believe that there's light at the end of the tunnel. And that can only occur if enough people, eventually, start doing what I'm doing. But I know most won't, because of the consequences of both individual and collective action. So I refrain.
The Aryan's argument is not necessarily cowardice. Perhaps in my case, it is, but generally speaking, it could just be another case of the Trolley Problem.
To answer your question, I think the individual and collective consequences are related. That's why we don't automatically steal even if we knew we'd certainly get away with it. Intuitively, we calculate the consequences.
The principle of it all, which encourages such action. The consequences to the individual discourage it. Then there's the probability of success, success being not only stopping that particular abortionist, but reducing or ending abortions in the long run. To take action, I have to believe that there's light at the end of the tunnel. And that can only occur if enough people, eventually, start doing what I'm doing. But I know most won't, because of the consequences of both individual and collective action. So I refrain.
The Aryan's argument is not necessarily cowardice. Perhaps in my case, it is, but generally speaking, it could just be another case of the Trolley Problem.
6.5.2009 | 7:56pm
R Hampton says:
What you will not find in the Bible: Thou shalt not kill* (Except in times of war, self-defense, or preventing abortions, or within TX, OK & FL)
6.5.2009 | 8:31pm
Jason says:
Matt,
Thanks for your comment - I think we largely agree about how pro-lifers ought to regard this, but I should add a clarification. My view is that Roeder is an evil terrorist, and is the moral equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. I classify him there for two reasons: first, because he kills in the name of a controversial moral principle, and second, because I think he is in fact completely mistaken about that principle. The reason he is Bin Laden rather than Bonhoeffer is precisely because he is wrong to think that abortion is the moral equivalent of the holocaust. This is the uncomfortably fine line between heroism and evil.
Thanks for your comment - I think we largely agree about how pro-lifers ought to regard this, but I should add a clarification. My view is that Roeder is an evil terrorist, and is the moral equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. I classify him there for two reasons: first, because he kills in the name of a controversial moral principle, and second, because I think he is in fact completely mistaken about that principle. The reason he is Bin Laden rather than Bonhoeffer is precisely because he is wrong to think that abortion is the moral equivalent of the holocaust. This is the uncomfortably fine line between heroism and evil.
6.5.2009 | 10:44pm
Jim Batley says:
Genesis 9:5-6 DRB For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.
Murder is declared to be a sacrilege, for man is made in the image of God.
If providentially constituted authorities fail in their duty, God may use a man or a beast as the instrument of His wrath.
But the duty of a Christian excludes such action:
Romans 12:19-21 DRB Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. 21 Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.
Murder is declared to be a sacrilege, for man is made in the image of God.
If providentially constituted authorities fail in their duty, God may use a man or a beast as the instrument of His wrath.
But the duty of a Christian excludes such action:
Romans 12:19-21 DRB Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. 21 Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.
6.6.2009 | 11:46am
Michael says:
This is a fine article and dovetails wonderfully with the Biblical ethics course I teach. I love the inclusion of Bonhoeffer. Unless Ms. Scalia objects, I hope to use this post in my class.
Some quick thoughts:
If the comments on the Tiller murder are any guide, the Pro-life movement seems to have lost its moral bearings. Robert P. George's comments are illustrative. He sees in this act a threat to our tradition of the rule of law. No where does he acknowledge that (1) The murderer was caught. (2) He will be tried. (3) Even though the state has decided not to seek the death penalty, the Fed probably will. Justice for both the murderer and Dr. Tiller will be served.
The question for the pro-lifers, and the one Ms. Scalia contemplates, is this:
Can the pursuit of a moral end sometimes justify the use of immoral means? The Biblical answer is unambiguously yes. From Exodus 22 (the law of Rodef or Pursuer) and the Levitical admonition to not standby while your neighbor's blood is shed" we learn that circumstances arise when a moral end requires an immoral means.
Is this just proof texting? Ms. Scalia reminds us that Boenhoffer didn't think so, but the he knew his Scripture and undoubtedly recalled that God exhalted a deceiver (Gen 38:14-19), rewarded lying (Ex 1:15-21), protected a self-serving liar (1 Sam 12:12-13, 20:1, 26:6-7), and instructed Samual to lie (1 Sam 16:2-3).
Moral clarity requires prudential reflection if only because God did not create a black and white universe. He gave us lives to be ordered to His moral values, not ours. Murder for Murder raises exactly the moral fog through which He expects us to navigate. For the murderer of Dr. Tiller the fog has lifted and the murderer will suffer God's judgment - Not for the murder of Tiller, but for stealing from God the pleasure of wrecking vengeance on an unspeakably evil man.
Some quick thoughts:
If the comments on the Tiller murder are any guide, the Pro-life movement seems to have lost its moral bearings. Robert P. George's comments are illustrative. He sees in this act a threat to our tradition of the rule of law. No where does he acknowledge that (1) The murderer was caught. (2) He will be tried. (3) Even though the state has decided not to seek the death penalty, the Fed probably will. Justice for both the murderer and Dr. Tiller will be served.
The question for the pro-lifers, and the one Ms. Scalia contemplates, is this:
Can the pursuit of a moral end sometimes justify the use of immoral means? The Biblical answer is unambiguously yes. From Exodus 22 (the law of Rodef or Pursuer) and the Levitical admonition to not standby while your neighbor's blood is shed" we learn that circumstances arise when a moral end requires an immoral means.
Is this just proof texting? Ms. Scalia reminds us that Boenhoffer didn't think so, but the he knew his Scripture and undoubtedly recalled that God exhalted a deceiver (Gen 38:14-19), rewarded lying (Ex 1:15-21), protected a self-serving liar (1 Sam 12:12-13, 20:1, 26:6-7), and instructed Samual to lie (1 Sam 16:2-3).
Moral clarity requires prudential reflection if only because God did not create a black and white universe. He gave us lives to be ordered to His moral values, not ours. Murder for Murder raises exactly the moral fog through which He expects us to navigate. For the murderer of Dr. Tiller the fog has lifted and the murderer will suffer God's judgment - Not for the murder of Tiller, but for stealing from God the pleasure of wrecking vengeance on an unspeakably evil man.
6.8.2009 | 8:14pm
Blake Helgoth says:
It seems to me that no one is considering the principle of double effect. It is not an evil means to a just end if the act itself is required to bring about the end (and the proportional evil outcome is not greater than the good end). It is one act that has two consequences. I do not think we know enough of the facts to judge the man who killed Tiller. Many other legal means were tried several times to stop him. None of them worked. How many things does one have to try before it is licit to say nothing else will work, I must use lethal means? I am not advocating murdering abortionist. I am just looking at the moral act involved here and wondering if the pro-life movement has not been too quick to judge the killer. Regarding pacifism, what would happen if a community turned out in thousands (armed or unarmed) and said we will not stand for this abortion facility being in business in our town? Maybe we should look at our own moral culpability. Maybe we are not really willing to do what it takes. Maybe we have become to complacent.
6.9.2009 | 2:58pm
David says:
I wonder where the figure of 60,000 late -term abortions came from? Dr. Tiller may have done 60,000 abortions. But he certainly did not do 60,000 late-term ones as Ms. Scalia repeats unquestioningly from another blog and is repeated later by those who suggest a financial impetus for his work. They couldn't have all been late term, because there have been fewer than 60,000 late-term abortions in the US since Roe v Wade (most estimates suggest between 1,000 and 1,800 a year), and even if there were, Dr. Tiller could not have done them all. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
6.17.2009 | 11:50pm
Jake says:
Content aside, this article was superbly written.
Content considered, this is an excellent article. I too agree that any attempt by one sinner to justify his/her actions by the actions of another sinner is dangerous.
Content considered, this is an excellent article. I too agree that any attempt by one sinner to justify his/her actions by the actions of another sinner is dangerous.
6.19.2009 | 5:06pm
Tom says:
Noone favors abortion. I wish there would be not one more.
Two points:
1. If it was switched to where we men carried the baby and took care of it for 18 years, there is no way No one favors abortion. I wish there would never be another.
Two points:
1. If it were switched to where we men carried the baby and took care of it for 18 years, there is no way we men would let a government tell us we HAD to carry it. We must admit a lot of this is about control.
2. The world is so overpopulated that 10,000 die each day, and this will continue to grow exponentially.
62 year-old Christian, conservative, middle manager, white guy, in the bible belt.
we men would let a government tell us we HAD to carry it. We must admit a lot of this is about control.
2. The world is so overpopulated that 10,000 die each day, and this will grow expotentialy
Two points:
1. If it was switched to where we men carried the baby and took care of it for 18 years, there is no way No one favors abortion. I wish there would never be another.
Two points:
1. If it were switched to where we men carried the baby and took care of it for 18 years, there is no way we men would let a government tell us we HAD to carry it. We must admit a lot of this is about control.
2. The world is so overpopulated that 10,000 die each day, and this will continue to grow exponentially.
62 year-old Christian, conservative, middle manager, white guy, in the bible belt.
we men would let a government tell us we HAD to carry it. We must admit a lot of this is about control.
2. The world is so overpopulated that 10,000 die each day, and this will grow expotentialy
9.29.2009 | 2:28pm
Edward Amsden says:
I have read and heard a great deal of reasons why Scott Roeder was wrong to kill George Tiller. All I can think of, though, is a particular and troubling text in Genesis, which seems conveniently ignored. I here this lack of consideration justified by saying that it's just a statement of how much God values life. That it is. But it is a command, just as "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." is command. Where is the justification for taking it only symbolically? Where? If someone can show me a real justification, I'll reconsider.
"He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
Our governing authorities showed no inclination to do justice to this man. Scott Roeder, a man, did justice. What was he to do. What are we to do? Stand by and watch as more innocent unborn beings, created in the image of God, are slaughtered without so much as an attempt at justification? Who is going to fight for them? This is no longer a matter of legality, it is a matter of war, lacking only the army on one side.
Maybe someone can reason with me why this isn't so. I'd like that. (This commen wasn't nuanced and reasoned, nor was it intended to be.)
"He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
Our governing authorities showed no inclination to do justice to this man. Scott Roeder, a man, did justice. What was he to do. What are we to do? Stand by and watch as more innocent unborn beings, created in the image of God, are slaughtered without so much as an attempt at justification? Who is going to fight for them? This is no longer a matter of legality, it is a matter of war, lacking only the army on one side.
Maybe someone can reason with me why this isn't so. I'd like that. (This commen wasn't nuanced and reasoned, nor was it intended to be.)
12.18.2009 | 10:39am
Esther Waverly says:
This is very insightful and well written. I am writing my senior thesis on whether or not Bonhoeffer's idea was justified and have been having trouble deciding where I stand. I guess I could argue that Bonhoeffer did the right thing for that particular moment and situation in history, but that this does not mean we should follow him or try to use his situation to justify other assassinations...??
1.4.2010 | 10:34pm
ugg stores says:
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, wh
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, whatever help she needs - research, constant care and attention, all of it.ugg stores the most frustrating thing i find in all of your writings is the glaring, horrifying fact that healthcare is a privledge in this country. those that need it the most, ugg storescan't have it. no matter how desperate and dire their situation. can MHA (Mental Health America of LA) help you in anyway?discount ugg your situtation is SO unique that there most be some work around whatever "rules" are in place. i'm sure you've researched every angle - it must exhaust you to have people throw out ideas.
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, whatever help she needs - research, constant care and attention, all of it.ugg stores the most frustrating thing i find in all of your writings is the glaring, horrifying fact that healthcare is a privledge in this country. those that need it the most, ugg storescan't have it. no matter how desperate and dire their situation. can MHA (Mental Health America of LA) help you in anyway?discount ugg your situtation is SO unique that there most be some work around whatever "rules" are in place. i'm sure you've researched every angle - it must exhaust you to have people throw out ideas.
