Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspective

[Gathomas88]

Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspective

Preface

First off, in the interests of full disclosure, let me come right out and say that I do not support legalized abortion, and find its practitioners to be some of the least sympathetic people on the planet. They are, at best, misguided persons unwittingly enabling institutionalized acts of evil. At worst, they are actively evil individuals themselves, working to spread their evil in the world.

As such, from a purely emotional perspective, I find it hard to particularly care when they are killed. I am tempted to even say that they "deserve" it.

However, that is not the way of Christ, nor the way of the religion he founded. After all, were we not explicitly told in scripture to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," or that "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord?" Were we not also told to pay respect to even secular law with the famous statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?"

This is not to say that violence can not be justifiable under certain circumstances, of course. Nor is it to say that laws, and governments, cannot be resisted. However, certain circumstances and pre-requisites must first be met before such an undertaking can be attempted. Simply speaking, the current acts of petty terrorism we are seeing targeted against Planned Parenthood and abortion providers really meet none of them.

The following posts will explain why.

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspective

On the Subject of Obedience to Law

Undeniably, legal abortion is the "law of the land" in our current society.

As previously noted, Christ himself commanded us to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21). This is reflected in the teachings of the Apostles as well: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" (Peter 2: 13-14), and "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" (Romans 13: 1-7).

This is also reflected in the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas in the medieval Summa Theologica.

Summa Theologica Question 96. The Power of Human law: Article 4. Whether human law binds a man in conscience

For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community;... so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.

...

Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derive...

On the Subject of Defiance to Law

Now, this isn't to say that Christians are slaves to secular law.

To the contrary, it should be noted that there is an exception to all of the above in the case of "unjust" laws. This is found both in scripture - "We must obey God, rather than men!" (Acts: 5: 29) - and in the teachings of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas as well.

Augustine:

"A law that is not just seems to be no law at all." (De Lib. Arb. i, 5)

Aquinas:

On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first by being contrary to human good... or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him...

...

Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good:... and laws of this kind must nowise be observed

On the Subject of Whether Abortion Justifies Defiance to Law

Abortion is clearly an unjust law under Christian moral teaching. It can be resisted then, correct?

Yes, and no. The above sentiments come with caveats in scripture and historical Christian thought. "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two" (Matthew 5: 40-41).

Aquinas further expounds upon that as well.

Wherefore such (unjust) laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should yield even his right...

And...

Summa Theologica Question 96. The Power of Human law: Article 6. Whether he who is under a law may act besides the letter of the law?

Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.

One can resist unjust laws, but not in such a manner as to cause unnecessary disruption and discord to society. This brings us to our next subject.

 

[Gathomas88]

On the Subject of Violence Against Abortion Clinics

In New Testament Scripture, violence is used rarely to not at all. That much is self-evident. Violence is often rebuked, and people are told to endure indignities, rather than lash out - i.e. "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" (Matthew 5: 39).

However, as one ultimately cannot survive in this world without being able to defend themselves, Christianity is not by any means a pacifist religion. Later Christian philosophers have expounded upon the means by which secular authorities and Christians themselves may rightfully use violent force to correct wrongs.

Summa Theologica Question 42. Sedition

They note that violent sedition, and rebellion against secular authority, for example, can be justified, but only if...

Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a (unjust or tyrannical) government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government.

This ties directly into the subject of "just war" (also by Thomas Aquinas), which states that.

Summa Theologica Question 40. War

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior.

...

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.

...

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.

Here, any "Christian" argument in favor of terrorism against abortion clinics simply falls apart.

While the law is certainly harmful and unjust, terrorism clearly defies the first principle, by appealing to individual action, rather than legal or institutional redress. It defies the third, as well as the prohibition against disruptive sedition, in that there really is no rightful end to the acts in question. They are designed only to cause chaos and destruction, with no greater vision towards reform.

As stated by St Augustine...

"The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war." (Contra Faust. xxii, 74)

This brings us to...

 

[Gathomas88]

Conclusion

In short, terrorism against abortion clinics really cannot be viewed as being justifiable in a Christian context.

Abortion is the law of our society, which Christians are morally obligated to obey if just. While that law is presently unjust, and Christians can disregard and try to change unjust laws, they must primarily do so in a manner which does not cause unnecessary societal harm and discord. Our present society has near limitless methods by which such change might be pursued.

This renders justifiable violence against Abortion providers a non-starter almost from the very start. There is no lawful authority to command or supervise this violence, and really no end game in sight for what that violence is meant to achieve. Terrorism targeted against abortion clinics is simply hateful violence and chaos for its own sake. That is explicitly against both Christ's teachings, and the traditional theology put forward by the Christian religion for the last 2000 years.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Like abortion, one cannot easily defend slavery on moral grounds, yet that too was seen as a law of man best left alone by the church. The biggest fault of the bible is the inability to amend it or to correct its many moral contradictions.

What the New Testament says about slavery

 

[joG]

Conclusion

In short, terrorism against abortion clinics really cannot be viewed as being justifiable in a Christian context.

Abortion is the law of our society, which Christians are morally obligated to obey if just. While that law is presently unjust, and Christians can disregard and try to change unjust laws, they must primarily do so in a manner which does not cause unnecessary societal harm and discord. Our present society has near limitless methods by which such change might be pursued.

This renders justifiable violence against Abortion providers a non-starter almost from the very start. There is no lawful authority to command or supervise this violence, and really no end game in sight for what that violence is meant to achieve. Terrorism targeted against abortion clinics is simply hateful violence and chaos for its own sake. That is explicitly against both Christ's teachings, and the traditional theology put forward by the Christian religion for the last 2000 years.

That is a very interesting approach to the theme. I am not sure that I think it generally applicable. But I liked the treatise.
But what do you think. How would it be if you were forced to help pay for or otherwise assist in the abortions? Would that mean violence was more justified? Or would it make a difference, if it weren't preborn but Jews or challenged persons?

 

[Ancient Herald]

Render unto Ceaser is NOT about following the law of the country or the land, it is a sarcastic remark by Jesus that is criticizing the Pharisees for butt kissing Ceaser and trying to force him to do the same thing.

 

[Gathomas88]

Render unto Ceaser is NOT about following the law of the country or the land, it is a sarcastic remark by Jesus that is criticizing the Pharisees for butt kissing Ceaser and trying to force him to do the same thing.

*Ahem*

"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" - (Peter 2: 13-14)

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" - (Romans 13: 1-7)

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspective

Like abortion, one cannot easily defend slavery on moral grounds, yet that too was seen as a law of man best left alone by the church. The biggest fault of the bible is the inability to amend it or to correct its many moral contradictions.

What the New Testament says about slavery

That's actually a fairly decent example of what I'm talking about here as well.

By what I elaborated upon above, the Civil War was undeniably a "just war" in its aim of ending slavery. The various acts of terrorism engaged in by extremist Abolitionist groups before the war, however, were not.

They had no legitimate backing or real "end game." They ultimately aimed only to create violent chaos.

That is a very interesting approach to the theme. I am not sure that I think it generally applicable. But I liked the treatise.
But what do you think. How would it be if you were forced to help pay for or otherwise assist in the abortions? Would that mean violence was more justified? Or would it make a difference, if it weren't preborn but Jews or challenged persons?

I think Christians would certainly be justified in refusing to pay, and in substantially stepping up their efforts to have the laws supporting abortion revoked.

Resorting to violence, however, would be a bit more tricky. To be morally right, they would have to form a legitimate organization, and a clear set of demands, reasonably capable of actually effecting positive change. There would also have to be no better alternative available.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

You're also forgetting one thing.

Your god kills babies and endorses abortions too.

You can cherry pick all the verses you like, but you pro lifers ALWAYS ignore this aspect of the Bible.

So, to call it moral would be ignoring this aspect. Which is entirely dishonest.

Oh, and God calls it moral to kill babies too.

I have no more to say on the matter.

 

[Sherman123]

Conclusion

In short, terrorism against abortion clinics really cannot be viewed as being justifiable in a Christian context.

Abortion is the law of our society, which Christians are morally obligated to obey if just. While that law is presently unjust, and Christians can disregard and try to change unjust laws, they must primarily do so in a manner which does not cause unnecessary societal harm and discord. Our present society has near limitless methods by which such change might be pursued.

This renders justifiable violence against Abortion providers a non-starter almost from the very start. There is no lawful authority to command or supervise this violence, and really no end game in sight for what that violence is meant to achieve. Terrorism targeted against abortion clinics is simply hateful violence and chaos for its own sake. That is explicitly against both Christ's teachings, and the traditional theology put forward by the Christian religion for the last 2000 years.

Presumably, or I hope, you would have come to my and my peoples assistance as Jews under the thrall of the Third Reich. What lawful authority would there be to command or supervise that resistance? All that existed were sporadic terrorist groups, underground political movements, a few radical churches, and the like. What is the primary difference? Your explanation demonstrates great intelligence but it seems to me that it is more of an artful apologetic for pushing away an uncomfortable truth which is that if you really believe that abortion is murder than violence to prevent those murders should be justified.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

That's actually a fairly decent example of what I'm talking about here as well.

By what I elaborated upon above, the Civil War was undeniably a "just war" in its aim of ending slavery. The various acts of terrorism engaged in by extremist Abolitionist groups before the war, however, were not.

They had no legitimate backing or real "end game." They ultimately aimed only to create violent chaos.



I think Christians would certainly be justified in refusing to pay, and in substantially stepping up their efforts to have the laws supporting abortion revoked.

Resorting to violence, however, would be a bit more tricky. To be morally right, they would have to form a legitimate organization, and a clear set of demands, reasonably capable of actually effecting positive change. There would also have to be no better alternative available.

The emphasis you place on 'legitimate' organizations is disconcerting. The vast majority of resistance groups have lacked the benefit of a legitimizing government body. I'm not sure why this should render them illegitimate or immoral. It's much easier, and arguably better, to acknowledge that unique circumstances and will yield unique evaluations rather than attempting to graft an ironclad rule across the entire spectrum of violence.

 

[Paleocon]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspective

Preface

First off, in the interests of full disclosure, let me come right out and say that I do not support legalized abortion, and find its practitioners to be some of the least sympathetic people on the planet. They are, at best, misguided persons unwittingly enabling institutionalized acts of evil. At worst, they are actively evil individuals themselves, working to spread their evil in the world.

As such, from a purely emotional perspective, I find it hard to particularly care when they are killed. I am tempted to even say that they "deserve" it.

However, that is not the way of Christ, nor the way of the religion he founded. After all, were we not explicitly told in scripture to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," or that "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord?" Were we not also told to pay respect to even secular law with the famous statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?"

This is not to say that violence can not be justifiable under certain circumstances, of course. Nor is it to say that laws, and governments, cannot be resisted. However, certain circumstances and pre-requisites must first be met before such an undertaking can be attempted. Simply speaking, the current acts of petty terrorism we are seeing targeted against Planned Parenthood and abortion providers really meet none of them.

The following posts will explain why.

Essentially correct. I would not though, the caveat, that if one were to be present when an abortion was imminently being committed, the use of violence to terminate it would be entirely justified.

P.S. The civil war was justified on the North's end because it was the suppression of an unjustified rebellion, it would not have been justified as an actual state v. State war, had the union not had a claim to the South.

 

[Summerwind]

*Ahem*

"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" - (Peter 2: 13-14)

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" - (Romans 13: 1-7)

So why didn't everyone just butt out during either of the WWars? I mean it was the law of the land, Germany and it's acquisitions, to kill jews. Why didn't all Christians across the globe just honor those laws in Germany?

You folks are cherry picking trying to make sense of myths and fables.

 

[Paleocon]

So why didn't everyone just butt out during either of the WWars? I mean it was the law of the land, Germany and it's acquisitions, to kill jews. Why didn't all Christians across the globe just honor those laws in Germany?

You folks are cherry picking nutters trying to make sense of myths and fables.

Germany was aggressively attacking other countries, they had a right to defend themselves.

 

[rocket88]

Render unto Ceaser is NOT about following the law of the country or the land, it is a sarcastic remark by Jesus that is criticizing the Pharisees for butt kissing Ceaser and trying to force him to do the same thing.

No, that was a comment about what really matters in life. He's basically saying "Be a good citizen, but remember that God doesn't care about money."

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

You're also forgetting one thing.

Your god kills babies and endorses abortions too.

You can cherry pick all the verses you like, but you pro lifers ALWAYS ignore this aspect of the Bible.

So, to call it moral would be ignoring this aspect. Which is entirely dishonest.

Oh, and God calls it moral to kill babies too.

I have no more to say on the matter.

You seem to have forgotten what forum you're in. :roll:

 

[Paleocon]

BTW, there's one point you're not quite right in Gath.

Baby killers do deserve to die. That only the state can legitimately execute them does not nullify that.

 

[Summerwind]

Germany was aggressively attacking other countries, they had a right to defend themselves.

So the "lawful" killing of jews had nothing to do with it and those countries now that kill certain groups of people should be honored so long as they keep it within their own borders? So killing of those that turn away from Islam in the ME is perfectly okay, even if they are jews or christians, as opposed to atheists, which I have no doubt you'd be pleased to see eliminated.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

You seem to have forgotten what forum you're in. :roll:

It doesn't matter what forum one is in, in order to be objective and level headed, you explore all pros and cons about the stance you take.

You don't pick and choose what you like and don't like.

For many reasons, including that if you ignore the faults of the position that you take, then it will eventually be your undoing.

I'm sure this won't make any sense to your though, because when people become too emotionally invested in their stance, then nothing else matters.

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

Presumably, or I hope, you would have come to my and my peoples assistance as Jews under the thrall of the Third Reich. What lawful authority would there be to command or supervise that resistance? All that existed were sporadic terrorist groups, underground political movements, a few radical churches, and the like. What is the primary difference? Your explanation demonstrates great intelligence but it seems to me that it is more of an artful apologetic for pushing away an uncomfortable truth which is that if you really believe that abortion is murder than violence to prevent those murders should be justified.

The emphasis you place on 'legitimate' organizations is disconcerting. The vast majority of resistance groups have lacked the benefit of a legitimizing government body. I'm not sure why this should render them illegitimate or immoral. It's much easier, and arguably better, to acknowledge that unique circumstances and will yield unique evaluations rather than attempting to graft an ironclad rule across the entire spectrum of violence.

We're speaking primarily in the context of the "lone wolf" style terrorism which marks anti-abortion extremism here. Simply speaking, it accomplishes nothing, and there's no way it really could. It's just violence for violence's sake.

Admittedly, other forms of resistance vary in their degree of justifiability, and circumstances are commonly a bit more complicated than what I described. The principles I outlined are only really meant to serve as a "general rule," of sorts.

However, as far as "general rules" are concerned, whenever possible, resistance movements should not be undertaken without having a probable chance of success, or a viable endgame. They should also be reasonably be able to leave things better than they initially found them.

The American Revolution, for example, is a good example of this.

 

[Paleocon]

So the "lawful" killing of jews had nothing to do with it and those countries now that kill certain groups of people should be honored so long as they keep it within their own borders? So killing of those that turn away from Islam in the ME is perfectly okay, even if they are jews or christians, as opposed to atheists, which I have no doubt you'd be pleased to see eliminated.

The holocaust was "lawful" in the same way as the abortocaust.

And you're correct, Germany's internal misgovernment would have been no basis for foreign attack. And the same applies to the Muslim infidels, it would not be right for Christian countries to attack them on account of their persecution of Christians.

 

[Paleocon]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

The American Revolution, for example, is a good example of this.

Umm, no, the American Revolution fails the test on account of being a rebellion specifically against a legitimate government function (taxation).

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

It doesn't matter what forum one is in, in order to be objective and level headed, you explore all pros and cons about the stance you take.

You don't pick and choose what you like and don't like.

For many reasons, including that if you ignore the faults of the position that you take, then it will eventually be your undoing.

I'm sure this won't make any sense to your though, because when people become too emotionally invested in their stance, then nothing else matters.

So why didn't everyone just butt out during either of the WWars? I mean it was the law of the land, Germany and it's acquisitions, to kill jews. Why didn't all Christians across the globe just honor those laws in Germany?

You folks are cherry picking trying to make sense of myths and fables.

Again, you're both aware that this is the Religious Subforum, right? Coming down here to simply attack religion is actually infractible.

If you want to do that, go to the Philosophy subforum.

 

[Summerwind]

Re: Why Bombing Abortion Clinics is Wrong - A Catholic, "Just War," Perspec

It doesn't matter what forum one is in, in order to be objective and level headed, you explore all pros and cons about the stance you take.

You don't pick and choose what you like and don't like.

For many reasons, including that if you ignore the faults of the position that you take, then it will eventually be your undoing.

I'm sure this won't make any sense to your though, because when people become too emotionally invested in their stance, then nothing else matters.

Actually you might want to be sure which subforum you are in. The Religious Forum is a "safe harbor," for the Religious and being too negative will get you a thread ban and an infraction. Hence why G put it here, he didn't feel he could hold his own in the Philosophy Forum where this really belongs. He wanted to be where the rules keep him safe.