The following letter to the editor recently appeared in the New York Times. It was written by a Catholic ethicist at a respected Catholic University.
-----
> "Rudolph W. Giuliani and other
> Catholic politicians who say they op-
> pose abortion but do not wish to im-
> pose that view on the entire polity
> have support in Catholic teaching.
> Sts. Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas both favored legalization of
prostitution even though they thought
> prostitution evil. Their thinking was
> that “greater evils” would result if
> prostitution were banned and this
> outlet for aberrant sexual energy
> were unavailable.
> In so doing, St. Thomas Aquinas
> said, the “wise legislator” is
imitating God who, though all powerful and
> supremely good, tolerates certain
> evils lest greater evils ensue.
> Similarly, today legislators who
> truly think abortion immoral could
> vote to keep it legal since greater
> evils, multiple deaths of women
(especially poor women) from botched
> abortions as seen before Roe v.
> Wade, would follow.
> Catholic bishops, even though they
> are pastors and administrators and
> not professional theologians, should
> know this and cease harassing
Catholic candidates, thus making
Catholic candidates less electable."
----
This type of ethical reasoning is what is called utilitarian or situational ethics. In other words, there is no moral norm dictated by Scripture or tradition or Catholic social teaching etc. Rather, each situation calls for its own consideration and there are certain situations where a perceived evil (in this case abortion) is permissible because it will avoid greater evils. Another form of this argument takes the shape of what is called Christian realism. We are called as Christians to live a certain way in this world but we all know that this way does not work in the world - therefore we need to act realistically and this means engaging in certain behaviors that might seem unchristian.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this type of reasoning. I think it is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus. There is no qualification in the sermon on the mount - Jesus does not say "Turn the other cheek if you deem that it will work to your favor." Or "Give the man your cloak as well in certain situations." No, Jesus teaches a way of living in the world and he commands his disciples to follow it. He does not promise that this way will "work" in the world (whatever that means). In fact, he shows by his own life that the Christian way of living will likely not work. Jesus' way of life put him on a cross. I believe that the narrative of scripture prescribes a way of being in this world and we are to follow it regardless of the consequences, even if that means death.
Additionally, the writer of the above letter distorts the truth when he says that those arguing for abortion are backed by Catholic teaching. There is no other theme so consistently preached throughout the Papal Encyclicals of the 20th century than the respect and dignity of human life, than the belief that the image of God resides in human beings (at conception) and that this must be respected. This includes blanket condemnations on abortion, euthanasia, slavery, and any other institution that devalues life at any stage.
Finally, it irks me that evangelical Christians will jump on this abortion bandwagon and agree with all that I have said here in this instance. However, when it comes to war or the death penalty (both things that are inconsistent with a Christian way of life in my reading of Scripture) or a number of other issues, they slip into a utilitarian argument - "the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima ultimately saved lives" etc. How one can reconcile such an act of war with the demands of the Gospel, to use just one example, is beyond me. At least the writer of the above letter to the editor is consistent in his reasoning, as faulty as that may be.
Jesus preached the loving of ones' enemies, the turning of the other cheek, the walking of the extra mile. These concepts are not popular in today's society and they have been proven again and again not to "work," if by work one means the preservation of one's own life. But they are the words of our Lord. And our call is to take up our cross and follow him, even if we are someday placed on that cross.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jackson –
The question as applied to Giuliani and others is the degree to which you would require Christian politicians to write Christian social teachings into law. It is one thing to ask a Christian to take up the cross, turn the other cheek, etc. It is quite another ask the Christian politician to mandate, by force of law, that others do the same. Christ did not advocate that sacrifice be mandated by writ of Roman law, but that it be given freely as part of one’s devotion to God. The question is not one of morality in the abstract, but of the proper use of the civil law.
As I understand Giuliani’s position, he is personally opposed to abortion but does not believe it ought to be prohibited by law. There may be reasons to doubt Giuliani’s actual commitment to this position, but it is intellectually supportable.
The kingdom of God is at hand, but it is not yet here. In this interregnum, some toleration of evil must be allowed. While Christ will rightly judge all men at the end of time, civil leaders now need to be more circumspect.
I would guess that you actually agree with this point. You would agree that all sins should not be punishable as crimes. We would not want blasphemy, for example, to be punishable as a crime. Nor covetousness. Nor idolatry. Nor a host of other sins that, theologically speaking, are just as problematic as abortion, if not more so. God and the church may rightly judge such sins, but civil rulers should not. Americans disagree whether abortion should be included in that list. But that is a difference in degree, not in kind. The point is that, as a matter of civil law, all of us tolerate evil to some degree. Some draw the line at blasphemy; others at abortion; others farther down the line. There may be good theological or political or legal reasons for drawing the line in a certain place. But we cannot deny that such distinctions need to be made. Thus, the wise legislator chooses which evil he can tolerate and which he cannot. No decision in this sin-soaked world will be free from such complexities.
The Christian as a believer is rightly bound to the command of Christ to “come and die.” But the Christian as a legislator is in a different position. His obligation is to the preservation of the state, as well to the commands of Christ. Would you really deny the Christian legislator the right to make such public/private distinctions? I am not sure that you are intending to argue that Christians should be barred from public office, but that is where the logic of your argument takes you.
Hi Anonymous-
You make some excellent points here and thank you for bringing them to my and the readers' attention. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be taking a Niebuhrian/Lutheran two kingdoms approach? I understand and agree with you that this approach solves a lot of political problems - things such as how a Christian can serve in office or in the army etc. without compromising his or her Christian integrity. For example, Guiliani has a duty in the kingdom of heaven to support the integrity and holiness of life, including unborn life, but he also has a duty in the kingdom of earth and legislating abortion conflicts with that duty. Your position states that this is permissable given the current 'already/not yet' state in which we live.
This position certainly has merit and is long uplifted in the tradition (since Augustine) and so I respect it. However, I just do not support it. I am much more Hauerwasian in my approach - Jesus said the kingdom has come and as Christians, we live in this kingdom now! This needs to affect everything we do. In other words, if you are a legistlator, there is no way that you can be anything but Christian in that position - you cannot set aside your convictions. You cannot argue something that you do not believe. The logical outcome of your position is that a person must act according to the rules of the earthly kingdom and not the heavenly kingdom. Luther said as much - I disagree with this approach.
Your final question to me is one that I have struggled with for quite some time. Does my position (still being worked out in my mind by the way) mean that no Christians can serve in public office? Certainly this is what the Mennonites have concluded. But I'm not yet sure it needs to be - it seems obvious that the principles of Christ will not realistically work on a large scale (how does one turn the cheek to a nucleur threat). And if a Christian is called to uphold those principles, than perhaps he or she should not serve in office. This is the stance of the early church - no Christian served in public office or the army until the fourth century.
But I pose a further question, what is the good of having a Christian in office if he or she is not going to be guided by his or her Christian principles? (Which I think we see a lot of happening in government right now!) And I am not talking about legislating belief in God or public punishment of private sin or anything else permitted in a theocracy (in which we do not and should not live). I'm talking about taking a stance on issues (economics, war policies, etc.) congruent with the demands of the Gospel. Is this impossible for a Christian legistlator? Or has it never accurately been pursued to answer definitively?
Thanks again for the hard questions.
In July 2004 I was invited to a "garden party." With the election looming, much of the talk on that beautiful Sunday afternoon was political. As it turned out, my partner, Klaus, and I were -- as far as I could tell -- the only "conservatives" invited. When the conversation turned to abortion, the hostess asked me; "Do you want to force your morality on me?" Taken aback by the personalization of the issue and wanting to be a good guest, I replied, "No,of course not."
Now I wish I had had the courage to reply, "Yes, of course, that's what politics and public policy are about: forcing one's moral code on others."
Every law -- even the most trivial -- originates in someone's moral code. Christians base (or should at least base) their moral code on Jesus' teachings, and Catholics are required to accept the Church's interpretation of these teachings. In a post-Enlightenment world most Christians agree that, in the interest of a well functioning diverse (oh, how I detest that word!)society not every sin -- especially those sins that separate the individual Christian from God but do not disrupt the relationship of others to Him (blasphemy -- to use "Anonymous'" example) -- should be criminalized.
Thus, Mr. Lashier, with regard to Guiliani, I agree entirely with you when you write, "If you are a legistlator, there is no way that you can be anything but Christian in that position - you cannot set aside your convictions. You cannot argue something that you do not believe."
I hope Guiliani is not the Republican nominee in 2008. If he is, I may go fishing on November 4 -- and I hate fishing!
Meanwhile did you know that there is a Trident nuclear attack submarine with the name USS (City) of Corpus Christie.
Imagine a death machine capable of killing hundreds of millions of human beings with the name the Body of Christ?
And Christian America accounts for over 50% of the worlds armaments trade. It is also the biggest owner and user of WMD's.
Nobody, but nobody would even dare to try to dismantle such a death machine.
Puritan America can get collectively outraged at Janet Jackson's bare breast, or at a picture of a breast feeding baby on the cover of a parenting magazine---but not at the highly organised pornography of violence, or really the "culture" of death that rules in Amerika.
This "culture" of death is also brought to one and all courtesy of the gun "culture" of the highly influential NRA.
The dreadful sanity of the "normal" rules to here!
Post a Comment