Writing at Catholic Culture in a post election analysis, Phil Lawler states what has been stated repeatedly: “But even those who argue that the war cannot be justified in terms of classic Catholic moral teaching should agree on two points: First, the case is debatable; the arguments for and against military action rested on prudential decisions, and could not be decided with the same apodictic force as the argument against deliberate killing of the innocent unborn.” That some people debate the merits of a particular argument does not reduce the moral force of those compelled by the argument. They may be wrong, even horrifically wrong, but the gravity of the proposed harm is not dependent on the presence of indecisive people. Put plainly, that there are those that do not find the personhood of the unborn infant compelling does not all the sudden make abortion a prudential consideration. Likewise a person convicted of the insanity of the Iraq enterprise is not dependent upon an absensce of squishy people to act according his beliefs.
Some will argue a conflation has taken place. Indeed in the case of abortion, there are two categories of people: those that find it wrong, and those that are wrong. In the case of war there are 4 kinds of people:
- Those that do not believe prudence could allow one to correctly find a particular war not in our interest. (Correctly is used in this context as being absent an error in particulars. In other words, I’m speaking of an apples to apples comparison.)
- Those that believe a particular war to be righteous, but believe one could correctly conclude otherwise.
- Those that believe a particular war was evil, but believe one could correctly conclude otherwise.
- Those that believe it to be a violation of reason to find a particular war just.
I would agree that type-3 people should discount their view of a particular war when pushed with a grave intrinsic evil. (The circumstances for when intrinsic evils should be discounted in a particular election is beyond my scope here.) However and in particular when retrospective views are included, those that voted on the basis of the Iraq War (or a threatened war with Iran) very often resided in group 4. Since my interest is to help those disillusioned with the lack of Catholic life support given our common interest in the end of abortion and other issues, there is a certain gross condescension that is perceived when we are told that we should cede our deeply held convictions to those that hold squishy opinions and even those that hold a contrary opinion. (And yes, those voting 3rd party or refusing to vote and making these claims are unserious, but that is also beyond the scope of this entry.)
Again since my intention is to help those disillusioned by Catholics not ‘voting life’, let me ask simply if there are people being convinced by this argument? Perhaps in 2000 and 2004 where the Supreme Court loomed heavily over the election, there was perhaps a greater openness. In the 2002 and 2004 elections many people were more ambiguous about the cause of Iraq. At least as manifested in 2006 and 2008, that ambiguity has seemed to have largely disappeared. Needless to say the ambiguity over particular politicians’ policies with regard to the economy was lost in the 2008 election. The point, if not clear, is that suggesting there is a debate when there is indeed not a debate is counterproductive, or at least insisting to those that have left the debate that they should act as if there is a debate is counterproductive. All that is left is a caution about pride in one’s own wisdom, which needless-to-say can come across as sanctimonious.
In the end, I suspect this entry to be unsatisfying for one-issue voters. This also will not satisfy those that think grave offenses against life only come packaged as instrinic evils. Nor will it convince people that are convicted that gay marriage is an issue in every race, including dog catcher. Most likely I will be dismissed as being of the other side or from the enemy. The pro-life movement cannot and will not win dismissing all other issues as unimportant. It will not win when it demands what amount to Pyrrhic victories. I want the pro-life movement to win.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In