I quite agree with the first and the third, but, fraternally, I question the second. According to our faith, if a man shows up at your house with the intent to kill you, you have the right to apply all necessary force–up to and including lethal force–to prevent him from succeeding. This operates under the principle of double effect: as the Catechism writes, borrowing from Aquinas, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” (CCC 2263)
Similiarly, if a gunman comes to your house with the intent to kill your children, you may apply necessary (perhaps lethal) force to prevent that, as well. Similarly, if you encounter a gunman on the street who intends to mug and kill a hobo, you have a right and duty to defend the hobo, too. If you are at a friend’s house and that friend tries to shoot his own children, you have the right and duty to apply necessary force–up to and including lethal force–to act in the child’s self-defense. If you are a spy operating behind enemy lines and you see a duly appointed local law enforcement officer preparing to execute a Jewish baby, you have the right and duty to act in the child’s self-defense–and, because local law is against you, this will very possibly (and regrettably) mean no less than lethal force. If you are a citizen of a nation in which you see a duly appointed local law enforcement officer preparing to execute a Jewish baby, you still have the right and duty to act in the child’s self-defense, just as the spy would. If you are a citizen of a nation where you see a private citizen legally preparing to carry out the execution of a Jewish baby, you have the right and duty to act in the child’s self-defense. If you are a citizen of a nation where you see a private citizen legally preparing to carry out the mass execution of Jew babies, you have the right and duty to act in the children’s self-defense. And, finally, if you are a citizen of a nation where you see a private citizen legally preparing to carry out the mass execution of unborn babies, Jewish or otherwise, you have the right and duty to act in the children’s self-defense.
This does not mean that Mr. Roeder’s assassination was legitimate. While defense of the innocent is the right and duty of all Catholics, the Church holds that five conditions must be met before violence or lethal force may be permitted in defending against local civil law:
Those conditions were clearly not all met in this case, and so Mr. Roeder’s decision to take the life of Mr. Tiller was illegitimate and immoral. However, I take issue with the claim that Mr. Roeder was unequivocally in the wrong. It seems to me that he was not. It appears to me that the teachings of the Church (as well as sound common sense) clearly illustrate that, in slightly different circumstances, in slightly different times, conducted in the right mindset, Mr. Roeder’s actions could have been condoned. Dr. Tiller of course had the inalienable right to life, and our Church is not about “an eye for an eye,” but the Holy Church does show us how Mr. Tiller’s life could nonetheless have justifiably been taken under the related principles of double effect, the right to self-defense, and the right to armed resistance. Armed resistance in such cases is not vigilantism; it is a defense of natural human law against those in power who assail it. It is a restoration of the fundamental rights upon which all valid civil law, all legitimate civil authority, is founded.
I do not condone Mr. Roeder’s actions, nor am I advocating further acts of violence against abortionists. Such acts clearly fall short of the high standards the Church sets for such acts of armed resistance, and will undoubtedly cause great setbacks for the anti-abortion movement with few repercussions for the pro-abortion-rightsers. I do, however, object to those who condemn Mr. Roeder with a too-broad brush, or who equate his unjustified killing with the brutal murders which provoked it.
I am, as ever, open to fraternal correction by my brothers and sisters here at CAF. Because this is a fairly radical position by mainstream American standards, and I am not comfortable with holding radical positions, I would be grateful to anyone who is able to show me that I have gone wrong somewhere in my chain of reasoning or in my understanding of Church teachings. (I would appreciate it, however, if responses consisted of more than, “You’re an example of everything that’s wrong with the anti-abortion movement!” or “I am shocked and horrified that anyone who professes to be Catholic could say such a thing!” I am open to convincing, but such statements are unhelpful.)
