« Canon Quote #208 | Home | Canon Quote #226 »
Goodness, Evil, and pro-life
Posted August 14, 2007 , By Joshua LeBlanc
It seems that my best thoughts, or those that I assume to be my best, come to me whenever I am in the presence of the Eucharist, most especially during Mass. Being that I am a theologian, I tend to sometimes theologize while Father is homilizing. This is not because the homily is boring, but rather because it often provokes thought in me that just spirals out of control. Anyway, this past weekend something Father said set off in my head concerning Good and Evil.
St. Thomas says that Evil is a privation of the Good, namely for evil to exist some Good has to be lacking. It is analagous to the scrientific principal of heat vs. cold. There really is no such thing as cold, cold simply exists because there is a lack of heat. In other words, cold is a privation of heat.
The way to follow this is simple - something has to have a creator for it to exist, I mean that just makes sense. What creates heat? The sun creates heat. What creates coldness — nothing really. There is no source that beams down coldness from the heavens. The same with Goodness. Whom is the creator, source, and Goodness Himself? God is. Whom is the creator of evil — there is no creator of evil. God alone is the principal creator of all things and since God is complete Goodness, he cannot create evil. But then again, how does evil come about? Whenever we fail to do the Good, evil exists. In this way, evil is never an independent reality but always is interdependent upon Good to exist.
The reason I bring this topic up is because I was thinking recently about Colorado Right to Life’s Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson. In this letter, various pro-life leaders criticize Dr. Dobson for supporting the Supreme Court’s ban on partial birth abortion. There are some leaders in the pro-life movement who insist that it is never morally permissible to support any sort of legislation that will in any way allow the killing of any children. In other words, they want 100% no exceptions before they will sign on to any legislation. Don’t misunderstand me, I think these thoughts are noble, but they are idealistic not realistic.
The abortion machine in the United States did not come into power by allowing abortion completely and fully overnight. No, it started in by chipping away at the right to life by taking away one right at a time eventually setting us up for Roe v. Wade. Logically, it seems that we have to do the exact same thing to make abortion illegal in the United States — we have to chip away at it one granule at a time.
But what about the principle "One can never do evil so that a greater Good may come about?" Well, let’s look that that for a moment. Imagine you are on a school bus with 50 other individuals and the bus happens to steer out of control and plummet into a ravine. Everyone is left unconsious except for yourself. Immediately, your senses tell you that the greatest good would be to save everyone, but you immediately realize that is not possible, so what do you do. St Thomas says
Now the lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen in preference; and therefore the constant man is compelled to bear with the lesser evil through fear of the greater evil, but he is not compelled to bear with the greater evil in order to avoid the lesser. (Summa, 47, Article. 2)
Well, it seems rather obvious that you do everything to the best of your ability to save everyone possible, even knowing that you can’t save everyone. It is always a greater good to save some than to save none. There is no sin in this case if you cannot save everyone, but you have tried. Rather, to sit there and say "since I cannot save all, I shall save none" is objectively sinful as Aquinas says "Sin is the greatest of evils, and consequently a constant man can nowise be compelled to sin" (Summa 47, Article 2)
Let’s look back at the pro-life movement. The issue is whether one can support legislation that allows abortion under limited circumstances in deference to legislation which allows unrestricted abortion? The answer would seem obvious, but let’s work it out logically.
The greatest good would be to have legislation that would prohibit abortion 100% of the time, but notice Aquinas doesn’t say you have to accept the Greatest Good but the Greater Good. Aquinas recognizes that not always will the Greatest Good be available, because if it were, we wouldn’t be discussing this question to begin with. This is the ideal and the preference, but unfortunately not always the reality. Realistically, this sort of legislation cannot and will not be passed in the United States in our current social atmosphere. So let us look at the options — either support legislation which permits unbridled abortion or legislation which limits abortion under certain circumstances. In this situation, supporting the limited legislation is the Greater Good — it is all we can do. The only other alternative is to say "No, I will not support that legislation." and what do you end up with? Instead of protecting some children you have protected none! I now ask you, which is the Greater Good? Which is the lesser evil? To do anything other than support legislation which protects some rather than none is therefore objectively sinful.
In the end, there will still be some who say "No we can save them all" and I have to answer that that individual is not living in a reality situation, but some sort of utopian society. It would be great to completely banish abortion from the United States, but until that time comes do we really want to continue to allow abortion to run rampant in the United States with no restriction? At this point in time, this is our only option.
Topics: Commentary |
August 15th, 2007 at 8:33 am
How many scheduled abortions have been canceled with the PBA ban? None. Have you read the actual ruling? It is horrific. Please read the ruling and tell me if it is a victory or even an incremental step towards ending abortion. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
August 15th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Aethril, My point still stands — any legislation that is passed that limits abortion is always a greater good than continued legislation that does not limit it. Yes, I have read the legislation which say "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." Not only does this limit abortion, but in turn gives states the right to limit abortion, a right that had been taken away from them whenever Roe v. Wade made legal abortions the law of the land. I think we can agree that this law is not the ideal, but to say that it in no way helps the pro-life cause is folly.
Also, on another note I can understand that sometimes where will be fundamental disagreements between pro-life leaders, but I believe it to be unacceptable to openly and publicly attack another pro-life leader. While a statement from the groups was thought by them to be necessary, I don’t think it was necessary to publicly criticize Dr. Dobson, even if he happens to be objectively wrong in a matter. The issue was handled poorly and completely circumvents the principle of subsidiarity. If the matter was handled with Dr. Dobson privately and he refused to listen, then that should have at least been noted in the letter, thought I still propose it inappropriate for pro-life leaders to air their dirty laundry out in public. Also, I have it on good authority that at least one of the original signers of the letter has rescinded their signature.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Who rescinded? Brian Rohrbough? Rev. Tom Euteneuer? Flip Benham? Bob Enyart? Judie Brown? None that I know of.
We could agree that legislation that limits abortion is good. Legislation that limits some abortion and allows others is wicked. The PBA ban does not save one single baby. Dobson has even admitted this
http://www.focusaction.org/Articles/A000000246.cfm
Who do you follow… Aquinas or God? As you stated in the OP, Aquinas is concerned with doing the lesser evil and the greater good. God teaches to do no evil that good may come of it.
The part of the ruling you quoted shows your ignorance of what is written in the ruling.
If you have time, please read:
http://www.kgov.com/bobs_writings/open_letter_to_dr_dobson_re_evil_pba_ruling
You said it is, “unacceptable to openly and publicly attack another pro-life leader”. Did this come from the Bible?
August 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
hi nice post, i enjoyed it
August 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Aethril, I have been told by various sources that Fr. Euteneuer has rescinded his name, even though I have not asked him personally (even though he is a close personal friend) I have spoken to various sources in the pro-life movement who have told me this is the case.
Now, you say that we could agree that laws that limit abortion are good, yet you equate any law that doesn’t limit all abortion to be evil. I could agree with that, only if the current law in the United States made abortion illegal and there was legislation on the table that would make some abortions legal, but that is not what we have. While it may be true that the legislation may not save even one child, it doesn’t make abortion in the United States any easier to get, if anything it makes it more difficult even though not impossible. It seems to me from your argument that you only approve of any legislation that prohibits abortion 100%. While I support that legislation as well I recognize that any legislation that serves to make abortion more difficult and limit it in anyway is a good and not evil because it doesn’t allow any more evil than already exists.
Concerning Aquinas or God, I’m educated enough to recognize that there are other besides myself who understand the teachings of God and His Church, the Catholic Church, better than I ever could. To assume that in my narrow years of existence on this earth I could presume to know everything there is to know would be asinine, so therefore I rely on great theological giants like Aquinas and their superior use of reason. He isn’t nicknamed "the angelic doctor" for nothing. Also, regarding it being unacceptable to attack another pro-life leader." First, you assume that I rely only on the bible as my source of God’s revelation. As a Catholic, I also recognize that God has given us a tradition, as St. Paul says in his 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Thirdly, I recognize that he gave us an authoritative Church whom St. Paul Says in 1 Tim. 3:15 is "the pillar and bulwark of truth."
Now, getting that fact out of the way, I will however note several scripture verses:
1 Cor. 6:1-6 "When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?"
James 4:11 "Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge."
Matt. 5:23-26 "Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."
Matt. 18:15-27 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
As you can see, scripture clearly exhorts us to go to our brother and to settle our disagreements there, no where in scripture do we find evidence telling us to go to the public forum for such matters.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Every effort was made to give this letter to Dobson himself before going to the press. Dobson is a celebrity and therefore cannot possibly read every letter that’s addressed to him. Sometimes the only way to speak to a giant is to shout at him from the rooftop.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
You realize that the epistles are letters written to a specific people and reading other people’s mail and assuming everything is meant for you can be confusing?
The scriptures you provide deal with individual attitudes. James 4:11, Matt. 5:23-26, Matt. 18:15-27 speak of private issues between individuals. Abortion is murder, and murder is a public issue. When a major pro-life/pro-family ministry openly supports a wicked ruling and after repeated attempts by other individuals and groups to convince them otherwise a call to repentance is just what the Bible ordered. I call that scripturally sound you call it an attack.
I do not believe you have read the entire ruling. Generally, those who read it are moved to tears. If you will not read it, please read a summary of the 40 page ruling:
http://www.kgov.com/files/docs/CRTL-PBA-Ruling-Analysis.pdf
August 21st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Aethril,
You make some large assumptions in your last comment about me. First you assume that I have not read nor have no knowledge of the scriptures. I agree that the letters of Paul are written to the particular people they are addressed to, but do you declare that what they say has no bearing on how we deal with one another? Also, Matthew 18:15-27 makes it clear that if you cannot solve a private dispute amongst yourselves to bring it to the Church — finished! If you want to make your argument, I would like you to please substantiate it. You claim that it is entirely biblical, so please point to something as evidence.
Also, I have read the ruling and I have also read many commentaries on the ruling. I am not a lawyer and I do not claim to be, but let me assure you this — I agree that much of what the document says is horrible. I do not agree that it is a manual for telling doctors how to do abortions — abortionists already know this. I am and have been saddened by many parts because this is not the way that it should be, but unfortunately it is the way it is. Do I want better — yes. I want a country where there is no such thing as a right to kill another human being because they aren’t considered “viable”. I’m not saying that I would have written such a piece of legislation, but will I support those Supreme Court justices who are attempting to do the best they can within the framework they have, yes I will.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“First you assume that I have not read nor have no knowledge of the scriptures.”
That is not true; but since it is your blog feel free to say whatever you want to distract from the issue.
“… do you declare that what they say has no bearing on how we deal with one another?”
No, that was an interrogative sentence not declarative sentence.
“… Matthew 18:15-27 makes it clear that if you cannot solve a private dispute amongst yourselves to bring it to the Church — finished!”
Three words… Denver Bible CHURCH. The Open Letter explains attempts to reach Dobson.
Maybe you could ask your “close personal friend” if he really has rescinded his signature. He could be added to the list of Groups Celebrating this Evil Ruling.
Judgment begins in the house of God. The people who signed the Open Letter to Dobson care enough about him to admonish him. Admonishing is not an attack it is an act of love. If you believe we are not to judge others and if you believe we are not to rebuke others you will have to rip a lot of pages out of your Bible.
The signers of the Open Letter have been encouraged that Dobson admitted in his May 2007 Action Letter that not even “a single human life” would be saved from the PBA ban. http://www.focusaction.org/Articles/A000000246.cfm
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Here are some highlights from the Open Letter on coloradorighttolife.org you may have missed.
*Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito concur that both the partial-birth abortion (PBA) ban, and their ruling, allow the abortionist to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel and then kill him
*Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, regarding a still living unborn child, ruled that (p. 22) “the removal of a small portion [‘say, an arm or leg'] of the fetus is not prohibited” and that’s after the baby is pulled outside the mother as far as to his bellybutton (p. 22).
*The ruling even permits a textbook partial-birth abortion, if for example the mother is over “dilate[d]” (p. 24) and the baby, by “inadvertence,” is delivered up to the neck as in typical PBA. Then the abortionist can kill him by “intact D&E” (p. 24), i.e., by partial-birth abortion, exactly in the cruel manner you have just described. An abortionist only needs to maintain that his original “intent” was to deliver the baby up to the navel before killing him. “If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point [the bellybutton] by accident or inadvertence [and then killed] no crime has occurred” (p. 18).
Hear that? If the doctor says, “oops”, he can continue with the gruesome partial birth abortion.
1) The abortionist may partially deliver the unborn child all the way to the bellybutton, but not “past the navel.”
2) Then “a leg might be ripped off,” etc. to “kill the fetus.”
3) Or alternatively, “find… less shocking methods to abort…”
* Incrementalism is fine; compromised incrementalism violates God’s enduring command, Do not murder.
* Partial-birth abortion was one of the quickest ways to kill the baby, but it was also the most difficult to witness and contemplate, for the abortionist’s staff, for the politician, and for society. Other more hideous late-term techniques are now legally preferred, although less visibly blatant, compared to a child killed once he is mostly outside his mother. This ban pushes the crime of late-term abortion back into the darkness of the womb, where it can lurk out of the public consciousness.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
While it may take one at a time, because the wicked people will rally against a once for all ban against any and all abortion, that is immediate, that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. Also, the so-called PBA that Dobson supported not only allowed for children to still be aborted, and be aborted by partial-birth at that, it didn’t provide anything that would save a single unborn child’s life. Not one.
And to quote Aethril [because I agree with him]: “Incrementalism is fine; compromised incrementalism violates God’s enduring command, Do not murder.”
Of course, that’s not his quote really. But he did quote it before I did.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
This will be my final comments on the subject.
First, Aethril you assume that Denver Bible Church has some sort of authority. I recognize that there is one true Church, the Catholic Church and all all other “Churches” ooutside of the Orthodox, aren’t true Churches and are really ecclesial communities (see http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9838) If there isn’t one Church, then I can create the Church of Josh and claim to be authoritative. Christ says “Church” and not Churches.
Also, you site what the Justices say. Note that none of the Justices are saying that they these procedures are OK with them, but that legally they are permissible? It seems to me that from your perspective you would prefer that instead of and limits that this legislation passed, that you would prefer that PBA continue. I would still like to see scriptural citations that prove your point that this is “scripturally sound.”
From my point of view, I have agreed to play within your scriptural framework and yet you have chosen to unsubstantiate your claims from scripture. Again, this is my final word on this matter. From this point on, feel free to contact me via email if you have anything further to discuss with me.