THE NEW MORALITY

You didn't make it, Unborn Child.

They wouldn't let you be.

To your bud of life, they took a knife.

It's the "New Morality"

They didn't mean to hurt you, Love!

You have to understand.

Forgive them for what they did.

Their Life was so well planned.

They couldn't take you with them

up the ladder of success.

Money meant more to them

than a child, heaven~blessed.

Tell me, little Unborn child,

what did the Creator say?

Did He wrap you in His love,

and wipe your tears away?

You hover on the edge of time.

I see your faceless form.

You laugh whenever children play,

Oh, God, for you I mourn!

He sent His only Precious son

to teach us all "the Way".

Still we kill the unborn ones.

It happens every day!

You didn't make it, Unborn Child.

They wouldn't let you be.

They just expelled a blob of cells.

It's the "New Morality"

Amerose

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003

Answers

ed,

im sorry, but i must point out your logical fallacy here. yes, it is sad that there is abortion in the world, but the war in iraq is going to change nothing about that. what your saying is we should have left iraq to a tyrant who has killed over four million people, who liquidates those who dont please him, cuts off the ears of those who he thinks might abandon his army, preforms experiments on citizens with his new weapons, gassed five thousand civilians in a random town all in one day to try out his new VX gas formula... lets take a look at the lesser of evils here. two thousand people die in a war to oust such an evil tyrant (who has killed more than twice that many in one day before). you dont seem to get it. abortion isnt a new thing to those people, we're not teaching them anything. we are protecting their lives though, since saddam is going to liquidate their children sooner or later anyway.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 28, 2003.

And once we do overturn Roe v Wade, Ed will sneer and say "this wasn't a moral victory! Why look at all those drug users! Until you solve THAT problem, you haven't done anything!"

And once we solve that problem he'll sneer and gripe: "that's nothing, until you solve marital infidelity, you've done nothing. Your new morality is a waste of time!"

You can serve some people on golden platters and they'll complain that it's not on platinum.

"Once upon a time a man and his dog went for a walk along a lake shore. A stranger watched them stroll along the bank with a grumpy expression on his face. The man lifted up a stick and hurled it into the water. At once the dog ran lightly over the surface of the water and retrieved the stick, dry shod, and returned to his master. The dog's feet were barely wet. To this the stranger piped up "what'sa matter?! Can't your dog swim?"

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Paul, the doctrin of "the lesser evil" has no place in christian life. God never only gives us evil options. One can never beat the devil at his own game. One cannot get rid of tyrants by being a greater or more powerful one, one can only hope to change hearts. More christians, I think, lose their faith because of the social injustice they see around them than anything else. Many young persons become priest to "make a difference". We cannot "make a difference" without God, and we cannot bend God's demand to love even tyrants to suit our situation. You are right, abortion is not knew, neither is tyrany, yet the "People of God" have survived and infact grown stronger not through military force but through their unyielding faith. Make a difference in your own circle and you will see how much the world changes. I am not saying we must ignore tyrants like Saddam, there are other ways if we have the guts to try them.

Ed, lovely poem.

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

The principle of the lesser of two evils certainly is a valid element of Christian morality. Certainly GOD doesn't give put us in situations where we have to choose between two evils. GOD doesn't even put us in situations where we are tempted by ONE evil! So what? A lot of situations come our way that are not from God. If an armed intruder breaks into your home, you may have to choose between taking violent action against the intruder, or allowing him to take violent action against your family. Is either of these choices something that God would desire for us? Of course not. Both such actions are, in essence, against the will of God. But an innately evil act can be justifiable when it is the lesser of two evil possibilities, AND there is no innately good option available. A man who has been unable to find employment in spite of his best efforts to do so may have to choose between stealing food or letting his family starve (yes, there may be other options in America, but maybe not in a lot of other places). Obviously neither choice is a moral good. But stealing food may be a justifiable evil under these circumstances.

A rather extreme example of this principle was presented in the film Sophie's Choice. A Jewish mother in a Nazi death camp was told to choose which one of her two children would go to the gas chambers. If she didn't make a choice, both would go. Or, to put it another way, if she didn't choose one or the other, she would thereby choose both by default. Her only moral option in such circumstances was to choose the lesser of two evils.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 28, 2003.

Paul,

would you say that worshipping a false man-made god is evil? yes, i am thinking Crusades (and beyond), the lesser evil being the death of non-Catholics who refuse to abandon their evil practices. does ecumenism mean that it is not evil to worship a false God and to follow a faith system that allows you to kill others that do recognise Jesus' divinity (as i believe Islam does)?

btw Ed, a moving poem. did you write thus? if so, you have a gift.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.

The whole point to the Catholic Just war tradition is that sometimes war can solve problems! It solves the immediate problem of an unreasonable and unstoppable threat to life and limb.

When the barbarians are coming and have proven themselves to be unwilling to negotiate and unwilling to cease their destructive path, Christians are faced with two choices: to die and accept the loss of those we are to protect, or to resist them thus keeping them from doing greater crimes and losing those we are to protect.

If we're attacked individually we may simply turn the other cheek and accept death. But if we are parents or rulers then our primary responsibility is the common good - sometimes this may mean we surrender, other times that we resist evil doers. It's a prudential decision we need to make - based on as many facts as we can muster not based on attitude, opinion, or feelings.

This was St Augustine's problem when the Vandals came storming across northern Africa and earlier when heretics began killing Catholics.

He saw clearly that martyrdom was acceptible for those who felt so called - but also that it's not martyrdom if they're killing you "just because you're in their way" and not for the faith. After all "martyrion" is greek for "witness". If you're not allowed to witness for your faith, then you've simply been murdered.

He also saw however that the work of evangelization then 400 years in the making could be wiped out overnight by barbarians. So what is the Christian to do? This is where Just war theory began.

If Christians choose to resist barbarians for the sake of those in our charge (the common good), then we must follow certain moral guidelines in the actions of resistence. Those satisfied, our decision is a prudential one - and thus is moral.

Thus mothers who fear they and their daughters are about to be raped may simply let it happen. Or they could resist by calling on some police authority for protection. If there is no police, they can brandish weapons, warn their would be attackers, and if that fails, shoot the attackers so as to incapacitate them.

Others may poo poo their decision as precipitated, overkill, etc. but then, these others typically are a) not there and b) not at risk.

Just war theory hinges on several factors: the ones who are charged with making the decision have to be in the know. It's not 3rd parties who are on the hot seat. Nor do 3rd parties far from the circle of knowledge of particulars have moral veto power.

Catholic morality - at least in this situation - does not admit the role of "back seat drivers" simply because they are not in condition to know all the facts.

If you know for sure that an enemy is threatening the peace, and you know for sure - as best you can - that there is no practical alternative to hostilities, and that your action will not provoke worst consequences, then you - the one responsible for the common good, can authorize the use of force, which itself must be proportional and respect non-combatants, and even combatants who choose to surrender etc.

If these criteria are fulfilled then it's not up to uninformed 3rd parties to veto or sit in judgment especially if they are not in possession of the key information as to threat, alternatives, and likely consequences based on questions of probable fact rather than possibilities...

These 3rd parties may certainly have their opinions and voice them. They may claim - based on the knowledge they do have, that they disagree with the conclusions reached by those in authority - but it is not ultimately their call to make.

For Catholic just war theory, individuals do not have the right to declare war (or peace). That decision has always been thought to pertain to those who are in charge of the common good (kings, rulers, civil government). Clergymen have never been the ones who make the call. They can state what the moral principles are, and they can insist that these principles be respected.

For example: in 1994, The US invaded Haiti to effect a "regime change" and to re-install Aristide (an ex-priest who is a Marxist).

Now Haiti was no direct threat to the United States. No grave and lasting danger was present in the regime, except that it was feared Haitians would flee to the US.

Prior to invasion, the Clinton administration imposed an embargo on Haiti, thereby wiping out the middle class, making everyone poor.

After reducing the nation to utter ruin, the US stormed ashore and without bloodshed installed Aristide, who was supposed to restore "democracy" but who continues to rule there as a Marxist dictator.

At the time the UN did not condemn the action. There was no great moral debate about the "invasion".

It wasn't a just war according to Catholic moral doctrine, but oddly nobody cared.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Thanks Ian, I did not write it. Someone named Amerose did. It reflected my sentiments exactly.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Joe, I think we are talking at two different levels here. You obviously believe that the "common good" outweighs the evil of killing inocent persons. I do not.

You are obviously quite bright, as was St. Augustine, but neither of you are infallible. The Just-war theory is not the same as self defence. In self defence the idea of non-combatants being killed is not there, and that makes all the difference. Even in this highly technical war, we expected civilian deaths. I maintain that one cannot judge that 2000 casualities is acceptable but that 3000 is too much. The minute we begin to count human lives like that we are not talking morality but politics. All war is wrong because by its nature, it accepts the killing of innocent persons. Prudence is not equal to morality as you suggest. Prudence has to do with taking care of the future. That was never Jesus's concern. You are right when St. Augustine saw the Vandals approaching, he saw the need to stand up and fight, but remember war is not the same today. The concept of co-latteral damage was unheard of. Sure the Vandals might have rampaged and raped all the innocent ones but that does not give us the right to do the same even in the smallest degree and St. Augustine did not think up the just-war theory with deaths of civillians in mind because it was not part of war in those days. There were no bean crunchers to tally up the likelyhood and say "well we'll probably kill 2750 civillians so that's acceptable".

The anology with the parent etc is obviously a different situation as no chance of innocent lives are at stake. I know you will say like so many others that Saddam deliberately put his own civilians at risk but that is not the point. If someone is holding a hostage and threatening to blow up a building, should we just go in with guns blazing and kill them both for the common good?

I would also like to say something about the 3rd parties you keep refering to. Every one of these "3rd parties" is affected by what happensin Iraq most of them more so than USA.

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

If you think we went into Iraq to free those people, you are indeed naive. Those politicans could not care less about them.

This is about, oil,money, and power. The Chinese and Russians have killed millions. Do we care? We care so much that they receive most favored nations status. Where there is a buck to be made, they will make it.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Beautiful, thought-provoking piece of writing there Ed.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 28, 2003.

Ed - so who here is in support of abortion? Help me understand your logic here. Abortions in the US are legal and therefore everything the US does is evil, should be called into question, is not sincere, etc.?

If you want to talk about abortion, fine. If you want to talk about the Iraq war, fine. But your attempt to demonstrate a morality linkage here has no validity.

As for oil, money, etc., actual fact is that the nations that most opposed the Coalition, namely France and Russia, were the ones that stood to financially benefit the most from Saddam staying in power. And if you need me to walk you through that, I'd be happy to. But I'm sure you're bright and informed enough to understand this on your own. I take exception to your flagrantly false statements as to motives.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

AMEN BOB

hey joe, looks like theres another sensible person on our side

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 29, 2003.

Angelo, you are confusing different things: intentional murder of innocents is very different from the unintentional deaths of civilians. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

This is why abortion is always evil and why capital punishment may sometimes be morally acceptible. I'm NOT saying that capital punishment is preferrable or better. I'm just saying that sometimes, given specific circumstances the Church recognizes that it may be licit. Personally, I'd prefer convicted criminals be converted.

This is also why civil and canon law recognize that men who go out of their way to harm and kill someone are more guilty than those who accidentally hurt or kill someone.

Surely you see the difference between Iraqi soldiers machinegunning a crowd (*intentionally, purposefully killing people) and an American bomb that goes astray, misses a tank and wipes out a house.

If the US specifically TARGETTED CIVILIANS, THEN YES, THAT'D BE IMMORAL. But we don't.

And it's not a matter therefore of saying "2750" is acceptible. 9/11 was a case of people INTENTIONALLY TARGETTING CIVILIANS. If you can't see the difference....

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

What has abortion got to do with it? If a politician will kill innocent babies, are you going you believe anything that he tells you?

If he votes to kill those kids, he doesnt get my vote, even if he will deliver two Cadillacs to my garage, personally.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.