A Consistent Life Ethic

Today is the March for Life. Less than a week ago, there was a botched execution by lethal injection in Ohio, AS we speak, soldiers are putting their lives on the line in wars. Occasionally the “right to die” shows up on the news. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, life is sacred: 

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.” CCC 2258.

According to the Fifth Commandment, we are not to kill. That would seem to cover not only abortion and euthanasia, but also the death penalty and war. Are we to be absolute pacifists? Are we forbidden from taking a life under any circumstances? The answer is can not be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.  

A degree of elucidation in required to fully explain the position of the Church. The key to understanding the distinction is the concept of self-defense. Those things which can be justified, that is, war and the delth penalty, are bound up in the idea that all people have a right to legitimate self-defense (As an aside, this could also be examined to inform the individual conscience on gun rights, but that is a different post altogether). In short, individuals and societies have the right to preserve their own lives. Abortion  is not preserving life. Euthanasia is not preserving life. However both war and the death penalty may be avenues of preserving life. 

There are those absolutely opposed to the death penalty, and though my view on this issue is more restrictive than most, I concede that at times it is necessary. Their argument is basically that all human life is sacred, and it is not our prerogative to end a life. This is true, but only to a point. In most cases, the death penalty is not needed. We must first reflect on why criminals are separated from the general population. Punishment is one reason, but  not the primary reason. More important than punishment is correction. In my state, the department that oversees parole, and prisons and whatnot is the Department of Corrections. Their mission is to not simply punish criminals, but prepare them to rejoin society in a productive capacity. While this rehabilitation is being done, society is to be protected from them. When we shift our view that the penal system is primarily about punishment, and less about penance, then our legal system will fail. The death penalty then, is not acceptable only by virtue of what the perpetrator has done, but may be acceptable if there is no other way to protect society.  

What about war? in light of the fifth commandment, how can war possibly be justified? Truly is is very hard to justify a war, and I have annoyed (if not outright angered) more than one “patriot” by suggesting that most of the wars the United States got herself embroiled in do not pass muster as a just war. There are four criteria that must be met:

1. All diplomatic avenues must be exhausted, that is, every attempt at resolving the conflict peacefully must have been tried, and all efforts have failed.
2. The evil that comes about due to the war must be less than if the war was not waged.
3. The war must be in defense of one’s own nation, or a weaker nation requesting aid.
4. There must exist a reasonable chance of winning the war. 

A war can be justified only if all four criteria can be met at one and the same time. As a result, I am generally a pacifist. The American Revolution was justified. The War of 1812 failed on points 1 and 3. The Mexican War failed on point 1 and 3. The Civil War failed on point 1. The Spanish American War failed on point 1. World War I and World War II were both justified. Korea and Vietnam failed on point 2. The First Gulf war was just, as was the recent war in Afghanistan, but the more recent Gulf War (or Operation: Iraqi Freedom or whatever you want to call it) failed on the first 3 points. So yeah, most wars are unnecessary. (Note: these are my own personal prudential judgments, we can disagree on any or all of these, and still be faithful Catholics.)

Previously, I said that everyone has the right to defend their own life. That does raise a question form the “pro-choice” camp: does that not, then allow for abortion in the case that the mother would die without one? The short answer is “no”. This answer demands an explanation. What we need to look at is what we mean by “direct abortion”. A direct abortion is a procedure such that no effort whatsoever is made to save the life of the child. That is, the intent and purpose of the procedure is exclusively to kill the unborn child. If a prcedure is done that removes a diseased or improperly functioning organ, yet every effort is made to ensure the life of the child, even if chances of survival are very small, this is not a direct abortion. Yes, some may say I am splitting hairs, but it is also the best way I know of to explain the distinction. (If anyone has a better explanation, i welcome your comments). 

Lastly I am going to address euthanasia. Extraordinary treatment can be refused, provided the intent is not to directly cause death. Feeding tubes cannot be removed. The patient cannot be denied water. Medical care can be discontinued if it is understood that death is inevitable, but not willed. 

There you have it a brief (very brief) rundown of the Church’s teachings on some major life issues. The key is protecting as lives of as many people as possible, and protecting the lives of the innocent in particular. This has been my first blog in a while, so I know the writing leaves a bit to be desired. I will be writing agian soon, so until then God bless you and yours!

P.S. Nest time, I promise it will be on something a little bit lighter and more fun!