Catholics, Abortion and the Iraq War: A Pro-Life Priest's View

by Father Frank Pavone June 14, 2004

LifeNews.com Note: Father Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.

This column requires extra effort to explain what it is not. It is not an evaluation of the war in Iraq or of any national leaders.

It is, however, an observation, on the level of moral principle, about the relationship between abortion, war, and being pro-life. And even there, I am limiting myself to a couple of very simple and specific points, and not an exhaustive analysis.

In his historic speech to the United Nations in 1965, Pope Paul VI cried out, "War never again, war never again!" The world must heed these words. They don't just mean, "Don't fight!" They mean that we have to make justice and human rights so secure that the need to fight disappears.

Many ask whether one can be a good Catholic or be pro-life and support the war. The answer is yes, which is to say that Catholic and pro-life teaching do allow for circumstances in which war is justified, because sometimes war has to be waged precisely for the defense of life.

Even when war is justified, life is always lost in the process. But innocent life is never targeted, and that makes all the difference in the world. How many innocent lives, and how many children, have been deliberately targeted for destruction in the current war?

By comparison, every abortion deliberately targets and destroys a child; otherwise, it isn't even an abortion.

The purpose of war is not to kill the enemy, but rather to deprive the enemy of his ability to wage war and to destroy others' rights. There's a big difference between targeting military/communications equipment to disrupt the operations of the enemy, and just trying to kill as many people as you can.

No doubt, some will read this column and begin arguing with me that the war in Iraq is not justified. This column is not arguing with them, but precisely pointing out that it is OK for them to come to that conclusion. It is also OK for someone else to come to the conclusion that the war is justified.

What is not OK is for someone to say, "You are not pro-life because you support the war."

In fact, one may support the war precisely because he or she is pro-life and concludes that in this case, force is the only way to protect human life, human rights, and human freedom from the hands of those who would destroy it. Others may disagree with the conclusion, which is fine -- but don't deny the other person's right to come to the conclusion.

And do not miss the profound difference with abortion. There is no room for interpretations or evaluations of whether abortion may be justified. It cannot be, because its very essence is the deliberate targeting and destruction of a child. In war, we do not target a single child, whereas every abortion targets a child. Catholic teaching allows more than one position on war, but it does not allow more than one position on abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat577.html

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

According to Pavone I have the right to believe this war is unjust, right? I should also be able to come to the conclusion that capital punishment as Bush implements it is evil, right?

So if I've come to the conclusion that both President Bush and John Kerry participate in moral evils, may I now choose which I believe participates in less evil?

Ok, let's see...

President Bush - Capital punishment, an unjust war,

John Kerry - Abortion.

I know that capital punishment and the war can both be found to be permissable morally, and that abortion can never be found to be permissable. But if "me, myself and I" have come to the conclusion that capitial punishment is not permissable as Bush implements it, and that "me, myself and I" have come to the conlusion that the war is not permissable like Pavone says we are allowed to, then shouldn't I be able to use MY vote for Kerry because TWO evils by Bush trump ONE evil by Kerry?

Let me say this, I am NOT going to vote for Kerry. I am pro-Life and a Republican. But in voting for Bush I am overlooking what I consider to be two very morally reprehensible evils when I vote for Bush. I can understand why somebody like me might vote for Kerry because if his record on social justice while over looking his stance on abortion.

Why is an Apostle of the Church is teaching that it is morally reprehensible to vote for Kerry and overlook his evils when so many Catholics over look the president's evils and are encouraged to do so?

-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 29, 2004.

>According to Pavone I have the right to believe this war is unjust, >right?

You don't have the authority to determine if a war is just or not. According to Catholic theology:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. For the United States, that would be the President and the Congress.

> I should also be able to come to the conclusion that capital punishment as Bush implements it is evil, right? You might think it is evil or not. However, it is not an intrinsic evil, so you can't know for sure.

And to quote moral theologian Fr.Stephen F. Torraco:

one cannot morally justify voting for a candidate that embraces an intrinsic evil in order to avoid voting for a candidate with whose views (not intrinsically evil) one can legitimately disagree. There is no moral proportion between an intrinsic evil and a political view with which one disagrees, albeit legitimately.

1. Intrinsic evils are delineated by the Ten Commandments, otherwise known as the natural law.

2. An evil act is intrinsically so if the object of the act (the "what-ness") as distinct from its intention or circumstances, is evil. Object, intention, and circumstances constitute the "sources" of a human act. These are evaluated to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. If the object of the act is evil, no good intention or set of circumstances can make it good. Such an act is intrinsically evil. On the other hand, a bad intention or set of circumstances (how, ehen, or where something is done) can make an otherwise good action bad. Such an action would not be intrinsically evil.

3. An example of "proportionate reason" can be found in a number of situations:

-in the act of self-defense, the preservation of one's life against an aggressor that needs to resort to force to accomplish the self-defense, even if the forseen but unintended and unavoidable evil consequence is the death of the aggressor. The evil consequence is allowed for the sake of avoiding an equally grave or greater evil. There is a moral proportion between the good (self-defense) and evil (death of aggressor) consequence.

-in the case of ectopic pregnancy, in which an unborn child is lodged in the mother's fallopian tube. The child will die in that location, and the mother will die if the tube is not removed. Removing the tube to save the mother's life results in the unintended and unavoidable death of the child. The evil consequence is allowed for the sake of avoiding an equally grave or greater evil.

If you understand all this, you probably are starting to understand more moral theology than many cradle Catholics.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

I had a link in there someplace that didn't get posted. Let's try again:

You don't have the authority to determine if a war is just or not. According to Catholic theology:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. For the United States, that would be the President and the Congress.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Frank Pavone says in the article that Bill Nelson provided:

"No doubt, some will read this column and begin arguing with me that the war in Iraq is not justified. This column is not arguing with them, but precisely pointing out that it is OK for them to come to that conclusion. It is also OK for someone else to come to the conclusion that the war is justified."

Yet, Bill Nelson, right after providing the article says:

"You don't have the authority to determine if a war is just or not. According to Catholic theology: The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. For the United States, that would be the President and the Congress."

Frank Pavone is a priest, and you are not Bill. Are you saying that he is wrong? Are you saying that I'm not in a position to decide for myself what I think about the war? Frank Pavone says I may, so I think I'll listen to him, thanks.

-- WK (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 29, 2004.

W.K., a priest is a teacher. In this case he was avoiding the question. If you want to know if you have the authority to declare a war a just war or not, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I linked the appropriate section. Neither you nor I have that authority. Neither does the Pope or the Bishops.

This is the Catholic Church, we don't make things up as we go along...take care, and learn.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

C'mon man. Fr. Pavone was simply saying something that I've said all along. That it is ok for me "to come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is not justified."

I never said that I may determine with the authority of a congressman, president or bishop that it is unjustified. Not that what I say, other Catholics must adhere to. Not that I have the education, training and experience to come to an understanding of the Just War theory with enough wisdom as the Pope does. Not that I have the power to wage a war that is just. Why are you arguing that I'm saying that?!

All I have been saying is that the war in Iraq, which has already happened, upon which there has yet to be a definitive teaching made by the Church, a case that is still being debated by some of the world's best conservative theologians, IS still a case which is permissable for me, a humble grad student, to deem with my own conscience as UNJUSTIFIABLE.

As a Catholic human being I have the right to come to my own conclusions, using an informed conscience, about matters of faith and morals. Sometimes I may be wrong. I don't doubt that. But in this case, there are enough reasons to believe, according to Pavone, that this war in Iraq may have been unjust and that it is ok for us lay Catholics to come to those conclusions.

In the same way, it is ok for people to come to the conclusion that Capital Punishment, even though it is left up to our country's leaders to decide whether to implement it or not, is immoral.

Just because I don't have the authority to implement Capital Punishment or wage a just war doesn't mean I may not come to conclusions about whether they are good or evil.

We all have freedom of conscience. That is something not even you, Bill, can deny.

I will vote for Bush this year. But again, I can understand why Catholic democrats believe they have the right to form their own socio-religious and political beliefs using their own informed consciences.

-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 29, 2004.

Dear W.K.
I'm trying to isolate some strand of your belief which shows exactly waht you mean here.

''According to Pavone I have the right to believe this war is unjust, right? I should also be able to come to the conclusion that capital punishment as Bush implements it is evil, right?''

A right to think something would not alter the truth. A conclusion either positive or negative is never a license to summarily condemn what you may fail to understand. Fr. Pavone has his set of arguments and conclusions. They don't alter the truth either. Nor do mine, necessarily.

But there is a big difference between believing something to be immoral and unjust, and merely feeling scruples about that something.

In the scriptures we see the Pharisees often clashing with Jesus because He wasn't scrupulous in their way. In their hearts it was a no-brainer; this man cannot be the Messiah, He disregards our scruples about pleasing God absolutely. Many details led them to see it so. It wasn't so; only an obsession with their own scrupulous adherence to the Law. Jesus DID please God His Almighty Father absolutely. --But His only obsession was saving sinners. How could a Pharisee understand that? And when it came to hatred for Our Lord, they felt no scruples whatever. He was a sinner to them! You mustn't allow scruples about everything you perceive as evil to dominate you. There is one power over your heart that will NEVER mislead you; and it saves you from your own vulnerability to sin as well as false scruples. LOVE is the power.

Love all men as your own self; and Love Jesus Christ more than life itself. Love clears the mind; it elevates the soul's serenity. Love is a greater power than any correctness, any compulsion to judge. You must come to God with a heart that brims with love for Him and your neighbor. He will reward you with wisdom to know what is evil and what isn't. If you asked Fr. Pavone whether this is true or false, I think he'd say: Follow that advice. It will never fail you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 30, 2004.

C'mon man. Fr. Pavone was simply saying something that I've said all along. That it is ok for me "to come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is not justified."

You can come to that conclusion, but that doesn't make it so. Sorry. You don't have that authority because you don't have access to all the information nor do you have the responsibility to protect and defend the United States of America. Read the Catechism, I quoted the relavent section.

Take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

I should also point out that it is not your immortal soul at risk either, it is Bush's and the members of congress. Does that mean we can elect a jerk into the Whitehouse who ill make war indiscriminately? No, we are responsible for your votes, but after voting, the Congress really has oversite, not us. That is the way of our democracy. But you can't really determine if the war is unjust or not, you simply don't have the information. Maybe someday we will (so far the more info we get the more it seems to be justified). If the war were really, obviously, unjust (like if we invaded Canada to take over their beaver trade), that would be another thing.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

Remember, in the case of politics, it is very different. I make a vote that does have an outcome based on my perspective. I rely on my perspective to make a vote. Nobody has the right to say that I must vote a certain way. Not even the Church. Even the Church must step back and respect the fact that there are a multitude of complexities and situations and contexts in forming a "poltically informed" conscience. Both the macro-Church and the micro-Church may advise me to do vote a certain when it meddles in morals, but there are sooooo many issues involved with a vote, that it is irresponsible for the Church to teach that a certain vote puts my soul at risk. It's just a dangerous way of dealing with politics in the same way you deal with morals and faith. Priests and Bishops can deal with faith and morals all they want, but once they enter into the realm of politics, thats my realm. Not even a bishop or priest with a "poli. sci degree" or "law degree" will be able to tell me what to do with my vote.

-- Wk (Wk@Wk.com), July 31, 2004.

Chavez,

Your views contradict our Church teachings. Repent man!

-- jr (foo@bar.com), July 31, 2004.

W. K. can be the judge.

I have no views; I only believe what Christ taught us. Love one another. If you must, suffer for one another. If you lay your life down for your friends, there is no greater love.

And that is just about what our fallen soldiers do. Lay down their lives for you and me. They do it for love of us and our country. We should praise them, not judge them guilty of murder. They've died so that you and me should not have to suffer later.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 31, 2004.

WK, Yep, you have free will. It is the Church's responsibility to teach . If Hitler were running for president, it would be the Church's responsibility to tell you not to vote for him. But it is up to you not to.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.

Now it is coming out that King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt told the US that Saddam had WMDs and would use them on US troops.

So, just have patience, a lot of what Bush knew prior to going to war in Iraq will come out in due time. But rest assured he would not have gone in there if he did not have good reason to. If nothing else he has proven to be a man of his word after 9/11, (unlike a couple of others I could mention)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.