Yes, I did want that to be a question mark at the end of my title. And yes, I apologize for being so terrible at updating my blog. In return, I shall try to post a few this weekend. I've got three topics on my mind, and I hope they play out logically and sort of systematically. Bear with me here.
First, I want to talk about the purpose of theology. Thomas Aquinas talks about theology being the highest science because its subject is the greatest subject (ie, God) that we can study. Anselm talks about theology as "faith seeking understanding." But when theologians try to "build a framework" that is chalk-full of highfalutin vocabulary and largely inaccessible to any but the most studied audiences, I have to really call into question the mindset of the theologian.
But before I get into criticizing people who make a great deal of every last detail of doctrine, I should just make my point. Theology is really about two things: how to live your life, and how to take care of your soul. The soul portion of this could be modified or understood as the pastoral lens. That is, priests and ministers study theology so they can better help the people in their care to find hope, faith and love. The life portion is most clearly illustrated in ethics, and it is (in my opinion) supposed to be an application of pastoral aspect of religion in real life. I think these two aspects are most important because I believe this is why people go to church, and why every religion (at least that I can think of) has both a system of eschatology and ethics.
Every piece of theology, then, must be evaluated in relationship to these two broad functions of religion. Every dogma and piece of doctrine should either be designed to pastorally guide someone or ethically direct someone. Of course, it should never be the case that the two aspects of religion are completely divorce, so what you believe pastorally should be reflected in what you believe ethically.
Let me provide an example. The doctrine of "imago dei" (human beings being made in the image and likeness of God) is useful pastorally because it means that we have a special relationship with God. This in turn means that humanity is essentially good and has a great destiny and can be understood as a positive understanding of the world and our relationship to it. For those who have a negative self-image or a sense of worthlessness, this doctrine can be incredibly helpful. On the ethical side of things, however, this means that the way we treat other human beings is reflective of how we are treating the images and likeness of God. Human social interaction becomes much more important when we understand our work as being directed at God. As Jesus says in Matthew 25, "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done it unto me." Thus, imago dei serves as both a pastoral message of hope and a strong social norm.
We can do this with many other doctrines within Christianity. But at some point we end up finding doctrines that are, frankly, quite puzzling. For example, I find much of the nuanced view of systematics to be neither helpful ethically nor pastorally. If I have to imagine God, for example, as completely immutable, unemotional and unchanging, I might begin to think of God as uncaring, which is a rather unhelpful concept of God. Similarly, I might think of my work as being unnecessary, which prevents any sense of necessity for living an ethical life.
We can do this with all sorts of doctrines. The Lutheran doctrine of sola fides is unhelpful ethically, just as a more rigorous view of casuistry is unhelpful pastorally. Doctrines about the Trinity or the human-divine nature of Jesus are only helpful insofar as they can be applied to ethics or pastoral work. Understandings of God as transcendent or "wholly other" can also be unhelpful.
What I mean to say is, when I go to Mass and take the Eucharist, does having a nuanced understanding of transubstantiation or satisfaction theories of atonement enable me to be spiritually enrichened? When I go out into the world and conduct my everyday business, does an understanding of Jesus as being "of two natures" and Mary as "theotokos" really help me to be a better person?
The history of the Church is sometimes a history of condemning persons who just happened to not share the same view on a minimally important issue. It seems to me that condemning Arius for not understanding Jesus as both divine and is far less important than stopping the slaughter of innocents in the Crusades or torture in the Spanish Inquisition. Why are we worried about getting the fine points of our doctrines of "the wholly transcendent" right while we grossly neglect our ethical obligations, or our pastoral duties?
This is particularly applicable today. Rome has been preoccupied with making the Mass translations "more accurate" (though less idiomatic) and condemning people who think women can become priests. Instead, it should be focusing on how to reach out to women in general, LGBTQ men and women, people who have been sexually abused by clergy, and women who have undergone traumatic events. Rather than condemning mandated birth control, the Vatican ought to be listening to the needs of the people.
I think by and large the laity gets this. Catholics today tend to be more concerned about social justice issues and less concerned about every word that comes out of the Vatican. Catholics DON'T believe in the inherent evil of birth control, abortion or homosexuality. Catholics DO believe in the grace of God, the importance of the love command, and the need to aid the poor and afflicted. Most of all, I think, Catholics believe in the true Christian message, preached by Jesus, in the Gospels.
Anything that does not further aid people pastorally or guide people in a loving way to live their lives like Jesus is at best unhelpful, and at worst, utterly worthless theologically.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Monday, August 9, 2010
Iures mores non est
I've been thinking a lot lately about ethics (no surprise, especially because in a month I'll be in classes for my MTS in Christian Ethics (Not counting down or anything).
What has struck me as fascinating is A) the prevalence of Emotivism expressed by even a lot of people I know, and B) the all-to frequent confusion between jurisprudence and ethics.
To let me clear up, first of all, something being legal does not make it ethical, conversely, even if something is ethical, it is not always legal.
To be sure, laws are supposed to be based on ethics. It matters little what sort of ethics (Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Judaeo-Islamic-Christian ethics or what-have-you). All that is clear is that laws are based on ethics (hence, why certain countries have laws that parallel predominant religions' guidelines as well as differences in these countries correlating to this). Thus, we see laws related strongly to religious faith and ethical theories.
However, often times laws stray away from their ethical origins. Such situations include traffic laws, which, though they have life-protecting influences, are not based off of any acknowledge ethical code (some, such as yielding and stopping laws may, but speed limits are often arbitrary).
On a similar note, what is ethical is often illegal. For example, in the nineteenth century in the United States, slavery was legal, and rescuing people from slavery was illegal.
So the fact remains that there are many laws which don't reflect any ethical principle, as there are many ethical principles which don't factor into the law-making process. So, even though the legal system is predominantly based on ethics, it does not submit completely to ethical scrutiny. Similarly, ethical principles often escape or are ignored utterly in the legal process.
St Augustine taught that any law which does not follow truth and ethics is no true law. Thus, a so-called law, whether civil or religious, if it does not stand up to ethical criticism, is not a law that can be enforced, in good conscience.
Nietzsche, as well, in "Genealogy of Morals" (though, admittedly a controversial work) pointed out that what he saw as bad ethics, had affected the development of laws and were thus, (in his view of ethics) a result of bad ethical practices and ignored true ethics.
One might wonder how something like this comes about. The most obvious answer is that people who function as law-makers are motivated by the same things as regular people: money, power, love, salvation, etc. However, the ability to gain more power is easier in a ruling position, and, as the saying goes, "power corrupts." Thus, oftener than not, rulers and law-makers often cater to interests specific to themselves, which go against common ethical sense.
Because of this fact, Thomas Hobbes wrote that in situations in which the people's best interests are not being served, the people are obligated to remove the government. While I am not advocating any drastic measures, what I do mean is that one must not confuse ethics with laws. Often times what's ethical may not be legal, or vice versa. However, you have an ethical duty to follow the ethical over the legal, every time.
What has struck me as fascinating is A) the prevalence of Emotivism expressed by even a lot of people I know, and B) the all-to frequent confusion between jurisprudence and ethics.
To let me clear up, first of all, something being legal does not make it ethical, conversely, even if something is ethical, it is not always legal.
To be sure, laws are supposed to be based on ethics. It matters little what sort of ethics (Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Judaeo-Islamic-Christian ethics or what-have-you). All that is clear is that laws are based on ethics (hence, why certain countries have laws that parallel predominant religions' guidelines as well as differences in these countries correlating to this). Thus, we see laws related strongly to religious faith and ethical theories.
However, often times laws stray away from their ethical origins. Such situations include traffic laws, which, though they have life-protecting influences, are not based off of any acknowledge ethical code (some, such as yielding and stopping laws may, but speed limits are often arbitrary).
On a similar note, what is ethical is often illegal. For example, in the nineteenth century in the United States, slavery was legal, and rescuing people from slavery was illegal.
So the fact remains that there are many laws which don't reflect any ethical principle, as there are many ethical principles which don't factor into the law-making process. So, even though the legal system is predominantly based on ethics, it does not submit completely to ethical scrutiny. Similarly, ethical principles often escape or are ignored utterly in the legal process.
St Augustine taught that any law which does not follow truth and ethics is no true law. Thus, a so-called law, whether civil or religious, if it does not stand up to ethical criticism, is not a law that can be enforced, in good conscience.
Nietzsche, as well, in "Genealogy of Morals" (though, admittedly a controversial work) pointed out that what he saw as bad ethics, had affected the development of laws and were thus, (in his view of ethics) a result of bad ethical practices and ignored true ethics.
One might wonder how something like this comes about. The most obvious answer is that people who function as law-makers are motivated by the same things as regular people: money, power, love, salvation, etc. However, the ability to gain more power is easier in a ruling position, and, as the saying goes, "power corrupts." Thus, oftener than not, rulers and law-makers often cater to interests specific to themselves, which go against common ethical sense.
Because of this fact, Thomas Hobbes wrote that in situations in which the people's best interests are not being served, the people are obligated to remove the government. While I am not advocating any drastic measures, what I do mean is that one must not confuse ethics with laws. Often times what's ethical may not be legal, or vice versa. However, you have an ethical duty to follow the ethical over the legal, every time.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Qui bono si Deum esse?
I have lately been contemplating a question about God and God's existence. I have not been contemplating whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not it matters if God exists. This train of though has been fueled by my constant interaction with Agnostics/Atheists as well as reflections on Pascal, Feuerbach, Heidegger and Dostoevsky.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Ethos (parvae animae II ex III)
The appeal to the Ethos is partly one of the most shameful tactics that is widely used today, but also one of the most popular. I, myself, have appealed to the Ethos in some of my blog pieces.
The Ethos is the part of us that is who we are. It is our character, our morals, ethics, what we identify ourselves with and as. The word ethics is derived from Ethos. And our Ethos is called upon every day when we make decisions that demonstrate our loyalties and the groups with whom we associate.
Radio talk show hosts are some of the most Ethos oriented rhetoricians around. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage all call on their listeners to adopt certain beliefs and attitudes based on their political standing. Their particular brand of conservatism is recommended to all conservatives based on their identification as conservatives.
Patriotism too, is definitely an area of great Ethical appeal. We watch movies and read books about how great being America is. We justify our belacose actions by stating that those who don't like war are un-American. We have bumper stickers that tell us to support our wars and our corrupt politicians. Country artists tell us that putting "a boot up [terrorists' (or possibly just Middle Easterners')] ass is the American way."
Rhetoricians of ancient days did the same thing. King Leonidas appealed to the Spartans as Spartans to stand against the Persians. The Crusades appealed to Christians' sense of Christianity to wage war against the Muslims. Cicero himself often started his speeches with the phrase "Friends, Romans, country men" appealing to their national identity to attract their attention and sway their opinions.
Preachers and ministers today use Ethos as well. We rally upon people's sense of Christianity (which I myself have done), and ask them to do things unquestioningly because of this (which I try to avoid). When the phrase "as Christians" is used in a sermon or homily, we automatically feel duty-bound towards it.
But, this, of course, can have many negative implications. Last night, as I was speaking with Alexa on the phone, we discussed Evangelism and the many implications that have arisen with it. Many are the Christians who view themselves as Evangelicals and who unquestioningly follow the commands of their pastors. Jerry Falwell will say something like "as Christians we must prepare for the final days by preparing Jerusalem," and his congregation will send money to extremist militant Zionist factions for this exact purpose. Other congregations will protest anything that aids in the homosexual rights campaign because they're leaders tell them to "as Christians."
Truly, the worst part of Ethos is that it is mindless devotion. Pathos is served by our instincts and feelings, but Ethos is only defined by who we think that we are. As an American I might think that it is most important to support our battles. Even though it may not make sense to say that our soldiers who are in a completely foreign, far off country are fighting for our freedom, as an American I am appealed to in order to garner my support. My sense of Americanism is greater than my sense of logic.
Similarly, the question of ethics arose during the Englightenment. When Christianity lost its control of some peoples (the French most specifically), then on what authority should we follow the morals and ethics we have been taught to follow? Our sense of Christianity no longer applies, so why should we love our neighbor or do good to them who abuse us?
I think, as many philosophers, including Kierkegaard, Hume and Kant, that our sense of morals is not rooted in our belief, but in something greater.
Similarly, I think that we should not let ourselves be told to follow certain idealogies because of with whom we associate, but rather that we should apply more logic to our decisions and actions. If we truly identify ourselves as Christians, we should, in fact, follow the teachings of Jesus, but not without logical discussion and inquiry. Otherwise, we are liable to be swayed by any man or woman who claims to be an authority on Christian duty.
The Ethos is the part of us that is who we are. It is our character, our morals, ethics, what we identify ourselves with and as. The word ethics is derived from Ethos. And our Ethos is called upon every day when we make decisions that demonstrate our loyalties and the groups with whom we associate.
Radio talk show hosts are some of the most Ethos oriented rhetoricians around. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage all call on their listeners to adopt certain beliefs and attitudes based on their political standing. Their particular brand of conservatism is recommended to all conservatives based on their identification as conservatives.
Patriotism too, is definitely an area of great Ethical appeal. We watch movies and read books about how great being America is. We justify our belacose actions by stating that those who don't like war are un-American. We have bumper stickers that tell us to support our wars and our corrupt politicians. Country artists tell us that putting "a boot up [terrorists' (or possibly just Middle Easterners')] ass is the American way."
Rhetoricians of ancient days did the same thing. King Leonidas appealed to the Spartans as Spartans to stand against the Persians. The Crusades appealed to Christians' sense of Christianity to wage war against the Muslims. Cicero himself often started his speeches with the phrase "Friends, Romans, country men" appealing to their national identity to attract their attention and sway their opinions.
Preachers and ministers today use Ethos as well. We rally upon people's sense of Christianity (which I myself have done), and ask them to do things unquestioningly because of this (which I try to avoid). When the phrase "as Christians" is used in a sermon or homily, we automatically feel duty-bound towards it.
But, this, of course, can have many negative implications. Last night, as I was speaking with Alexa on the phone, we discussed Evangelism and the many implications that have arisen with it. Many are the Christians who view themselves as Evangelicals and who unquestioningly follow the commands of their pastors. Jerry Falwell will say something like "as Christians we must prepare for the final days by preparing Jerusalem," and his congregation will send money to extremist militant Zionist factions for this exact purpose. Other congregations will protest anything that aids in the homosexual rights campaign because they're leaders tell them to "as Christians."
Truly, the worst part of Ethos is that it is mindless devotion. Pathos is served by our instincts and feelings, but Ethos is only defined by who we think that we are. As an American I might think that it is most important to support our battles. Even though it may not make sense to say that our soldiers who are in a completely foreign, far off country are fighting for our freedom, as an American I am appealed to in order to garner my support. My sense of Americanism is greater than my sense of logic.
Similarly, the question of ethics arose during the Englightenment. When Christianity lost its control of some peoples (the French most specifically), then on what authority should we follow the morals and ethics we have been taught to follow? Our sense of Christianity no longer applies, so why should we love our neighbor or do good to them who abuse us?
I think, as many philosophers, including Kierkegaard, Hume and Kant, that our sense of morals is not rooted in our belief, but in something greater.
Similarly, I think that we should not let ourselves be told to follow certain idealogies because of with whom we associate, but rather that we should apply more logic to our decisions and actions. If we truly identify ourselves as Christians, we should, in fact, follow the teachings of Jesus, but not without logical discussion and inquiry. Otherwise, we are liable to be swayed by any man or woman who claims to be an authority on Christian duty.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Abortion
I know, it's the dreaded A word. And I'm sure you are expecting a tirade against how evil it is and how it is an affront to all that is good and right in the world.
Sorry to disappoint.
The truth is, there's something faulty in the way that anti-abortion lobbyists lobby. One cannot attack abortion from a strictly Catholic standpoint, and here is why.
A lot of pro-life activists claim that abortion is "the murder of innocents" (not to be confused with innocence). There is one very large doctrinal problem here, and we have St. Augustine to thank for it.
First off, the issue of abortion is not about whether or not we are murdering babies. It gets turned into that by those arguing from a purely pathological standpoint (appealing to one's feelings=pathos). When we use terms like "murder" especially around something as cute as a baby, then it evokes strong emotions. But really, the issue of abortion is about two things: redemption and conception.
Conception is easy enough to understand. The argument is focused on when life begins--whether or not it starts with the unification of egg and sperm or sometime after. This is precisely why abortions are illegal in the third trimester. This is why infanticide is illegal. Proponents of abortion point out that there is something very different about an embryo and a real baby. Anti-abortionists point out that it is still living in a somewhat scientific way (imagine that, using science to back up theology (thanks Vatican I)).
Redemption is the question of letting natural consequences go as they should. This argument isn't heard as often, but once in awhile an pro-lifer will say something like, "Well, I don't support abortion except in cases of incest and rape" (viz official Mormon Church doctrine). This asks the question of whether or not somebody can be forgiven for their sin, or whether they must suffer the natural consequences (viz The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
But aside from these arguments, the question of innocence must come up. Calling unborn babies innocents is an entirely Protestant, even Zwinglian (most especially the Anabaptists) approach. From a Catholic approach, babies are not innocent. Thanks to St. Augustine, and later emphasized through the Council of Trent, the official Catholic Church states that babies are born into the world stained with the sin of Adam (original sin). This is why Catholics baptize their babies before anything can happen, to remove that sin and make the baby finally innocent. Thus we cannot argue that we are "murdering innocents."
Secondly, Thomas Aquinas can step into the picture and show us why and how Euthanasia and the death penalty are far bigger causes to take on than abortion. According to Aquinas' metaphysics, all things are made up of a combination of potential and action. That which does, has more action, and that which might possibly do is more potential. Rocks have more potential, and angels have more action. Human beings sit somewhere between animals (potential) and angels. While this is kind of hoaky, this goes to show that unborn baies are almost completely potential, as they haven't done anything yet. Thus, an elderly person, who has done a lot with his or her life, or a convict should therefore be more defended than a guilty, mostly potential entity.
So, if we're attacking abortion, let's not mince words. Why don't we flat out say that we prefer people to accept the consequences of their actions, or that we think the fetus is ethically alive?
Sorry to disappoint.
The truth is, there's something faulty in the way that anti-abortion lobbyists lobby. One cannot attack abortion from a strictly Catholic standpoint, and here is why.
A lot of pro-life activists claim that abortion is "the murder of innocents" (not to be confused with innocence). There is one very large doctrinal problem here, and we have St. Augustine to thank for it.
First off, the issue of abortion is not about whether or not we are murdering babies. It gets turned into that by those arguing from a purely pathological standpoint (appealing to one's feelings=pathos). When we use terms like "murder" especially around something as cute as a baby, then it evokes strong emotions. But really, the issue of abortion is about two things: redemption and conception.
Conception is easy enough to understand. The argument is focused on when life begins--whether or not it starts with the unification of egg and sperm or sometime after. This is precisely why abortions are illegal in the third trimester. This is why infanticide is illegal. Proponents of abortion point out that there is something very different about an embryo and a real baby. Anti-abortionists point out that it is still living in a somewhat scientific way (imagine that, using science to back up theology (thanks Vatican I)).
Redemption is the question of letting natural consequences go as they should. This argument isn't heard as often, but once in awhile an pro-lifer will say something like, "Well, I don't support abortion except in cases of incest and rape" (viz official Mormon Church doctrine). This asks the question of whether or not somebody can be forgiven for their sin, or whether they must suffer the natural consequences (viz The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
But aside from these arguments, the question of innocence must come up. Calling unborn babies innocents is an entirely Protestant, even Zwinglian (most especially the Anabaptists) approach. From a Catholic approach, babies are not innocent. Thanks to St. Augustine, and later emphasized through the Council of Trent, the official Catholic Church states that babies are born into the world stained with the sin of Adam (original sin). This is why Catholics baptize their babies before anything can happen, to remove that sin and make the baby finally innocent. Thus we cannot argue that we are "murdering innocents."
Secondly, Thomas Aquinas can step into the picture and show us why and how Euthanasia and the death penalty are far bigger causes to take on than abortion. According to Aquinas' metaphysics, all things are made up of a combination of potential and action. That which does, has more action, and that which might possibly do is more potential. Rocks have more potential, and angels have more action. Human beings sit somewhere between animals (potential) and angels. While this is kind of hoaky, this goes to show that unborn baies are almost completely potential, as they haven't done anything yet. Thus, an elderly person, who has done a lot with his or her life, or a convict should therefore be more defended than a guilty, mostly potential entity.
So, if we're attacking abortion, let's not mince words. Why don't we flat out say that we prefer people to accept the consequences of their actions, or that we think the fetus is ethically alive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
