“The right to life comes first”

A pet peeve of mine in discussions which attempt to “weigh” various life issues for their relative importance is when people use quotes from authoritative ecclesial sources which state that “the right to life comes first” in order to argue that abortion is “the most important” moral-political issue for Catholics. One often cited example is a quote from Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, a quote which summarizes very well the Catholic view on the right to life, but which is also often misunderstood and abused by Catholics:

The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues. This is why Blessed John XXIII listed it as the first human right in his great encyclical on world peace, Pacem in Terris. And as the U.S. bishops stressed in their 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life, the right to life is the foundation of every other right.

It is important to understand what Archbishop Chaput is saying and what he is not saying, so that we do not misuse his words. Contrary to how many Catholics hear the words, “the right to life comes first” and “abortion comes first” are not equivalent statements. That human beings have a “right to life” is a fundamental moral principle of Catholicism. Abortion is a particular moral issue, a particular instance of the outright denial of the fundamental right to life.

“[The right to life] precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues” does NOT mean “abortion precedes every other social issue or group of issues.” To say that the “right to life precedes and undergirds” every other social issue is to say that the right to life is the fundamental moral principle by which Catholics approach every moral issue. It is the principle which undergirds or supports the Church’s positions on abortion, war, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc.

Because we believe that the right to life is fundamental, that it precedes and undergirds all moral issues, we therefore believe that abortion must always be wrong, because nothing can justify the killing of innocent persons.

Likewise, because we believe that the right to life is fundamental, that it precedes and undergirds all moral issues, we therefore believe that unjust wars must always be wrong, because nothing can justify killing persons without a just cause.

Catholics who use quotes like Chaput’s to argue that abortion is the “most important” issue are absolutely right when they say that “not all social issues are equal.” But when Chaput in the above quote, or when other ecclesial statements insist that “the right to life comes first,” the Church is teaching us that each and every issue in which the right to life is threatened is a priority, and that these “life issues” come before other “social justice” issues which may not directly threaten human life (debates about taxation, for example).

The right to life for all human beings is fundamental, it undergirds all social issues, and as Fr. John Kavanaugh, S.J. wrote in a powerful article in America magazine in 1997, it must be the moral absolute of the Catholic, or else ethics itself is impossible:

There is always a reason, always a desired purpose for every killing: to defend my life, my name, my property, my family, my heritage, my race, my nation, my religion. In each case, a moral “absolute” is invoked: but it is never the absolute value of human life. The value of a person is the one value that is expendable. There is, after all, one thread of logic that unites the mind of Timothy McVeigh, found guilty of the abominable Oklahoma City terror, with those who seek his death: the view that there are acceptable, even commanding reasons to kill.

This is the constant pattern of evil, whether we eliminate a person or exterminate a people. In every case there is a “higher” value that provides exception to “Thou shalt not kill.” Killing in the name of a “higher value,” however, is a subtle killing of ethics itself. For in killing persons, the foundation of moral experience is itself violated.

To do ethics, to be ethical, presumes a radical affirmation of personal dignity. In every moral choice is an implicit yes to personal existence. But intentional killing of humans is a radical no to personhood. It undercuts the ethical universe itself.

[…]

Inviolability of human life is the limit situation in ethics. If we violate it, we violate the moral order and the claims it makes upon us.

Such a moral absolute is, admittedly, a demanding one. This may be why it has always been rejected throughout history when men and women have found it more realistic to declare others dispensable [1].

Let us not emasculate the Church’s insistence that the right to life for all human beings is fundamental and undergirds the Catholic approach to all ethical issues by drawing lines indicating that some lives are more valuable than others, or by falling for the myth that “the Church teaches that abortion comes first.” The Church calls us to something greater. The Church calls us to the fullness of life.

____________________________________

[1] Kavanaugh, John. “Killing persons, killing ethics.” America 177, no. 2 (July 19, 1997): 24. Canadian Reference Centre, EBSCOhost (accessed October 30, 2007).