Over the last months on BeingFrank we have discussed, debated, and rehashed certain topics (e.g., capital punishment, just war, Communion, salvation, contraception and abortion).
This week’s post has arisen from a question from another blogger on the issue of abortion.
“Could you please tell me how you honestly feel about the bombings of abortion clinics?”
This is a very good question and relates to the Church’s position on justice. I have decided to answer this in a simple question and answer format that will walk through to the answer – to make it easier to read. I debated whether or not to put all this into a pdf and just post a link to that which would make my blog shorter, but then many wouldn’t read it if I did that, so I have laid it all out here. It’s easy to follow.
- Foetus at 22 weeks
——————————————–
Is an unborn baby a person?
Yes. Read this article and this article to see why.
Is abortion murder?
Yes, it is the voluntary taking of an innocent human life.
Is abortion a particularly heinous type of murder?
Yes, the womb should be the safest and most loving place for a baby. The baby is defenceless, vulnerable, and innocent. It can’t get away, cry out, hide, or defend itself. The person (mother) who is supposed to love it the most, is helping to murder it, and the doctor who is supposed to protect it and help deliver it, is executing it.
Is abortion child abuse?
Yes, the worse kind.
For those doctors who perform many abortions, are they guilty of multiple murder?
Yes.
Are they guilty of infanticide?
Yes, similar to those doctors who worked for Adolf Hitler.
Are doctors more guilty than others because of the study they have done and what they know about the human body, pre-natal development, and biology?
Yes.
Is ignorance a legitimate defence for a doctor in this regard?
No, considering the knowledge and expertise that a doctor has in these times**, there is huge ethical doubt that the foetus can be treated so callously and maliciously. This being the case, and considering the gravity of the issue (human life at stake), the safest path should always be taken, i.e., not to kill the foetus. Moral theology and natural ethics have always attested to “taking the safest path” where is there is doubt.
Doctors know enough for this doubt to be present in their minds. But many don’t follow the doubt, which constitutes gross negligence. This is called wilful ignorance and is a serious sin of omission – i.e., what they have failed to do, at a natural level. Many know it is a baby with human nature in all its potential, and don’t care.
** there is ample scientific/empirical and ethical/philosophical evidence to show that the foetus is ontologically independent from the mother, i.e., another being – with separate DNA, a human being, a baby, with human nature in all its potential, and therefore a person with rights. Read this philosophical argument as to why a foetus is a person with rights.
Is ignorance a legitimate defence for the mother?
Possibly. A mother’s guilt could range from ‘no guilt’ to ‘complete guilt’ depending on the ignorance and free will involved. If the mother is young, and has huge pressure to abort from parents, and friends; and is under extreme psychological suffering, and is only given ‘half-information’ by doctors, then her guilt may almost be nothing. If the mother just wants to get rid of a problem that has arisen from her promiscuity, or because it will interfer with her career, or her cosy life, then she could well be completely guilty of murder.
Interesting to note that recent evidence is emerging of modern-day witches using abortion as a form of human sacrifce where they “soak-up” the life force of the baby. This is satanic.
Do foetus’ have a right to life.
Yes, every innocent person has a right to life.
Can a person be asked to renounce the right to life in certain situations?
Yes.
The right to life is inalienable, but not inviolate.
It can be subordinated to another higher good. Natural life is not the ultimate good in this life – God is the ultimate good in this life.
Innocent People:
Even innocent people can sometimes have the right to life ordered to another higher good, e.g., a soldier, in a time of war is called upon by the State to make the ultimate sacrifice of his life for the common good. The State does not seek the soldiers death, but it may occur in the pursuit of something higher – peace. It is not directly willed by the State, but tolerated. It is normally a voluntary thing where a soldier signs up of his own accord. Sometimes a draft is used. His right to life is subordinated to a higher good, in the natural order.
We also see this with martyrs in the supernatural order. They voluntarily give up their life for Christ, the Kingdom, and Eternal Life – their ultimate and highest good. Jesus said that some would be asked to make this sacrifice for his sake, and some respond with ‘yes’. Jesus isn’t wanting to kill everybody, but desires that the greater good at stake be sought, i.e., love of God and supernatural life, above natural life. The giving of this life, the blood of the martyrs, becomes an expiation for sins, and a gift for other causes, and can be the “seed upon which the Church is sown”. Pope Benedict has recently just spoken of this.
With abortion, there is no higher good, in fact it is disgustingly far lower – it is murder plain and simple often because people are selfish.
Please give an example where the life of the baby is subordinated to a higher good?
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the pregnancy will either take or endanger the life of both the mother and child if left to take its course, a difficult decision is forced upon the family. In this situation, the higher good is the protection of the life of the mother and the child is wilfully removed and permitted/allowed to die – but the death of the baby is not willed, it is tolerated. This is the principle of double affect.
However, in other medical situations, a mother can voluntarily renounce her right to life, for the higher good of the child. St Gianna Beretta Mola is an example here.
How are most abortions performed?
By sucking the baby out of the womb with a type of vacuum cleaner, but first the baby is torn limb from limb to remove it in this way. Some are scraped from the womb. Some are given a lethal injection, they die in a terrible way in the womb, and then the dead baby is expelled.
Should the State prosecute and punish those who commit this crime?
Yes, absolutely.
Why should the State prosecute this crime?
Because one of the prime reasons for the existence of the State is the protection of the common good. Abortion murders the next generation of citizens and denies them their true right to life. It also denies them the possibility of ordinary baptism.
Is it a duty/obligation of the State to prosecute?
Yes, for the sake of the common good.
What does this obligation involve?
Two ends:
(1.) Seeking and upholding Justice, on behalf on those already murdered/aborted through proportionate punishment, reparation/expiation, medicine, & deterrence for the crimes.
(2.) Active defence of the innocent, – preventing those who commit the crime from doing so, and saving those who could or will be murdered/aborted.
These two ends are sought to protect the overall common good. Catholic Tradition and Sacred Scripture has always attested to 4 sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (justice):
- Murder of the innocent (Gen 4:10)
- Sodomy (Gen 18:20-21)
- Oppression of Widows and Orphans (Ex 21-23)
- Cheating Labourers of Their Due (Deut 24:14-15)
(let the reader understand the proper meaning of vengeance: in this sense it refers to the verb “to avenge”, – to set right, to seek justice on behalf of…)
In upholding justice and defending innocent life, can the State use reasonable force to do this?
Yes, depending on the circumstances.
If it was law, which it should be, the State would empower police to use reasonable force to stop such crimes being carried out against children in abortion clinics. Just look at what the State does now to stop other violence against children and innocents.
What should happen to those who are found guilty of this heinous crime?
Human Justice should be applied to them through temporal punishment, which produces reparation/expiation for the crime, which in turn leads to medicine/healing of the offender & the comon good; and all of this providing deterrence for others.
What does this temporal punishment involve?
The removal of certain rights and liberties.
Why the removal of certain rights and freedoms?
It is part of the punishment; by removing certain rights and liberties their free will is subordinated to the rights of the Common Good.
Which rights and liberties can be removed?
The right to own property, the right to make a living, employment liberties, the right to a good name (reputation), the right to certain civil freedoms (incarceration), the right to procreate while incarcerated…etc…and there are many others…
Can the right to life be taken off you if you commit certain crimes?
Yes.
If a person commits heinous crimes, with pre-meditation, and indifference, with no regard to the suffering they cause, and with no remorse, then they can forfeit their right to life, just as they forfeit other rights. This is where the 4 ends of justice are applied, especially in a Catholic sense.
(1) Punishment proportionate to the crime. If one takes multiple life callously, then one forfeits one’s right to life. It is not about revenge, but about justice. (2) Reparation and expiation for the crime is paid for by one’s very life – the highest price. Reparation gives the criminal a way of paying, making up for his sin, in the ultimate way – his life. Jesus paid an infinite price for the eternal punishment (Hell) of our crimes/sins with His death – thereby showing his love for us. Our sins still have a temporal punishment due to us even after we have been forgiven by God of the eternal punishment – this is what is often called ‘penance’. For those who have committed serious crimes, their penance can be to offer/sacrifice their temporal natural life to repair and expiate the damage done to the victim/others and to the common good, and as a sign and expression of remorse and love. The State can also ask for this expiation. (3) Medicine is found because it makes the sinner/criminal face up to what he’s done. By being faced with death for one’s crime; one often faces up to one’s sins and repents, and prepares for that meeting with one’s Maker. (4) Deterrence is achieved by others seeing such good application of justice and they are encouraged to respect and act in accord with the civil and natural law.
Should abortionist doctors receive the death penalty?
Yes (theoretically) – if it is still applicable.
Why does the State fail to fulfil this duty/obligation to prosecute abortion?
Because politicians and citizens have enacted immoral unjust laws and protection for those who commit this crime – similar to what happened in Nazi Germany (persecution of the Jews, death camps…etc…)
Does the State support abortion formally?
Yes, it directly funds it and wills that citizens have direct access to it.
Should Christians and men of good-will obey such a law, or let such a law go uncontested?
No. They should fight against it.
Didn’t St Paul say that Christians must obey human authority?
St Paul is speaking about just laws and smaller civil matters; or lesser unjust laws. In the case of murder of the innocent, a Catholic is bound to disobey such an unjust law, and further, to fight against it.
Do individual citizens have a right to fight against it?
Yes, within their power, talents, and circumstances.
Do individuals have a duty (obligation) to fight against it?
Yes, within their power, talents, and circumstances.
Can an individual use reasonable force in protecting the innocent?
Yes, in certain circumstances, e.g., a neighbour’s life is in danger from an attacker in their home; an individual has the right to use reasonable force to protect the life of the neighbour.
When the State abdicates its responsibility to seek and uphold justice, including protection and defence of the innocent, for the common good, can individual citizens then apply this public justice and defend the innocent themselves?
Not normally, but sometimes yes, and only in certain very grave circumstances, and even then, many other conditions must be met. Prudence is required - “…right reasoning about what to do in a particular situation”. Many things must be weighed up including the possibility of achieving the desired goal/end, the risks to the persons who perform the act of justice and defence, the risks to the overall cause.
What are these conditions?
Consideration of the common good, consideration of the achievement of the end goal (stopping abortion), consideration of the risks to the individual. If the majority, and hence the common number in society are for abortion, any minority or individual acts of justice against abortionists will be viewed as “violent unjust acts”, even though they could very well be just and moral. And this perception would harm the overall goal of the pro-life movement, and even the Church, of stopping abortion. It would seriously damage the cause. Therefore, while the majority still support it, the minority who oppose it, should been seen to be acting justly, (even though any act of reasonable force to stop abortion could well be truly just), and they should try to stop abortion through other means: peaceful protest, demonstrations, marches, legal dialogue, visible witness, lobbying, debates, conferences, education….AND ABOVE ALL BY PRAYER.
Only in very rare situations can individuals apply public justice – e.g., when the majority need to overthrow an evil dictatorship (cf. the current situation in Zimbabwe), but even then many other conditions must be met, e.g., they have a reasonable chance of success, it’s the only option remaining,…etc…etc…similar conditions to a just war: here and here. It seems the the Spanish civil war was such a just case.
Be careful not to confuse these just actions to uphold justice and the common good with “Revolution”, or the actions which flow from ”Liberation Theology” which are wrong and which use evil means to attain either an evil end or a so called “good end”.
So, can an individual, or a group of individuals, in these times, use reasonable force to uphold public justice against those who commit abortion?
No, for the reasons outlined above. In other times and circumstances it might be permissible. This is what I subscribe to.
Comments, questions anybody?
Have a read of the article – there are some great quotes there. My personal favourite is “we must be ready to stand, even in front of blazing guns”! That takes some serious guts to say that when it is a very real reality. I just wanted to draw your attention to it so that you might take a little time today to thank God for the peace we have in our country, and pray for the same in theirs.
Recent Comments