Abortion Doctor Geroge Tiller Murdered this morning

[pismopal]

For those who like to throw around haphazardly the word “an act of terrorism” earlier in this this thread. Without really recognizing it as an act of a fanatic.
Where is the outrage for the politically/ religiously motivated murder of the army officers, over this past weekend?
Where are threads put up for them? Oh, that’s right, it’s pretty hard to instigate a commotion amongst Catholics who are pro-life in the case of such equivalent isolated incidents…

I’m tired of this nonsense from the pro-choice side trying to exploit the event with disingenuous outrage, when they’re really just using the tragedy to slam pro-life people in a selective matter (as evidenced by not a whisper about equally tragic murders.)
The media is guilty of this as are some people in this thread.

Absolutely…and I don’t have to shed crocodile tears to show how fair and even or holy that I am about the innocent abortionist being killed. Just because he was murdered doesn’t mean he was innocent. He had huge amounts of blood on his hands and only skated through a criminal trial for mis -applying the abortion statutes in his procedures because of a conflict of political interests.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Any thought expressed in the public domain, in the vain of : the Doctor deserved to be murdered, the doctor had it coming - so what ect., will not be taken well by anyone except a small angry vocal group soo full of resentment, hate and anger that they will take what they can get, like a murder of a doctor that performed abortions.

This is the equivalent of hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, to find out if it hurts when you do so. Knowing what we know now, why feed into your own meltdown?

This is not the way to handle this.

Thank you for** venting** your opinion, and letting us share in* your*meltdown.

 

[jimpres]

The murder of Dr. Tiller was tragic. However, where is the outcry for the 60,000 other humans killed by Tiller.

John Paul II called abortion murder.
Fr. Corapi calls it genocide, murdering one class of people.
One commandment “thou shalt not kill”

I am sorry he was killed but not sorry he is gone.

 

[RobbyS]

I suppose you can say most of any group believe anything, if you give your self the authority to define the members of the group, and to deny that the leaders of the group are accurately representing their own beliefs.

I never said that the pro-life position was radical, extreme or marginalized. It is not. But it is also untrue that most pro-choice people are atheists or agnostics. Many religious people, and several large religions, including some Christian sects, are pro-choice. Misrepresenting that fact does not advance the pro-life cause.

Many people, including Catholics, are pro-choice because they are largely ignorant of the facts of history and of human development. Justice Brennan, a mover in the abortion cases, had an almost medieval notion of the unborn. Blackmun’s opinion relies on a lot of false history about Anglo-American abortion law. But it is interest, not morality, that determines men’s actions. Any child is a burden, an unwanted one is an unwanted burden, and it is easy to blind ourselves to inconventient truths.

 

[Veridical16]

Absolutely…and I don’t have to shed crocodile tears to show how fair and even or holy that I am about the innocent abortionist being killed. Just because he was murdered doesn’t mean he was innocent. He had huge amounts of blood on his hands and only skated through a criminal trial for mis -applying the abortion statutes in his procedures because of a conflict of political interests.

Yes, when Nero died, or the King Herods in Jerusalem died, I don’t think it was unholy for the early Christians to say “huh. so he was killed last week? Around Tuesday…that’s news to me…” without shedding a tear for them.

Just like Saddam’s death. I did not rejoice or anything, but I didn’t waste my time pretending to have compassion or outrage that he was executed (like i heard from people using it as an excuse to hate Bush around that time ) because it was the life he chose; he was a mass murderer. That didn’t mean I approved or thought well of his executioners either…but I think it’s very deceiving of those trying to point out “hypocrisy” , attempts to confuse those who aren’t aware or strong in their faith to recognize what is…
pontificating “oh but you’re supposed to be Christians!!” as if the world is all white, when Christians are opposed to one man’s actions…but all black to Catholics, when the rest of the world thinks something heinous is morally right.
They lack understanding if anything. It smacks of the devil’s work…

Just as we are commanded to hate the sin’. We hate the sin’ that murder was an action taken, but that doesn’t mean we forget the sins’ of the man who was murdered and may have been unrepentant about.
May God have mercy on his soul. At least the killer has a chance to repent still as far as we can see. The guy who was murdered committed heinous crimes against humanity, the blood of the innocents.

 

[Wowbagger]

I’ve read the last six pages that’ve gone up since my big post started getting some attention. In it, I argued that: first, while Roeder’s action was not justified, killing George Tiller was also not the murder that so many posters are calling it; second, that, someday, under certain circumstances (which have not today been met), violent resistance to abortion may be both permitted and required of all Catholics and able persons of good character; and, third, given points one and two, we should take care to clearly, carefully condemn Roeder’s action without sweepingly condemning all actual or hypothetical anti-abortion violence. I founded this on what I considered fairly obvious principles laid out in the Summa and the Catechism, showing how the principle of double effect leads to the doctrine of self-defense leads to the doctrine of armed resistance, and I invited comment on my logical process.

The responses to my argument so far have been surprisingly positive. Thank you, masondoggy, Gabriella San, and others–I was a little nervous when I posted that I was going to get run out on a rail and possibly banned, and I’d hate to get cut off from the CAF community. I’m glad to know I’m not totally nuts.

The negative responses have fallen into a few basic categories.

First have been the “you’re just wrong” responses. From Disciple96’s “Murder is murder is murder” to agatina’s “This was murder” to TMC’s early post, where he twice denied that the principle of self-defense applied here without any argument to gnjsdad’s post where he pleaded for someone to “correct” such dangerous thoughts, I trust that I can leave these posts to one side. There’s nothing for me to respond to in a post that simply says, “You’re wrong! Period!” I’m grateful for all comments, but such posts do nothing to help me see your point of view. What’s more, most of them rest on misunderstandings of the position I and others you’re responding to are taking.

To reaffirm: I do not argue that “murder” is ever acceptable. I argue that, under certain circumstances (which were not met in the Roeder case), violent resistance to abortion is not, strictly speaking, murder, under any Catholic understanding of the word “murder.” I argue that to kill a practicing abortionist may be (and, in this case, is) evil, but it is not an intrinsic evil like murder would be. Telling me that “murder is wrong” is not only unhelpful; it misses the whole point.

There were a few other criticisms made that I can answer very briefly. rlg90486 notes that “If a “misguided fanatic” reads the justifications for Roeder’s actions on fora such as these, he may very well go through with the murder/assassination of another abortion doctor. Why not?” This is a critique of the consequences of the argument, not of the argument itself. I’ll add that a potential abortionist killer would have to stretch the truth pretty darned hard to prove that “all other means of redress have been exhausted” and “such resistance will not provoke worse disorders,” which my “justification” would require, but, since rlg is not addressing the substance of my argument or anyone else’s, but is merely pointing out that the consequences could be unpleasant, it still fails to helpfully critique anyone’s claims.

wanner47 wrote: “How can you say on one hand, ‘Roeder’s actions were justified’ and on the other hand ‘Roeder’s actions were immoral’? It’s one or the other.” I can answer this easily enough: I never said Roeder’s actions were justified. I was quite clear in my post: Roeder did not meet the stringent requirements for violent resistance. His action was unjustified and immoral. However, the mere fact that Roeder was wrong does not mean we can sweepingly condemn all hypothetical anti-abortion violence, forever.

While I’ve been writing this, TMC quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia to support his claim that self-defense applies only in the case of an act already begun. He’s right. This does not, however, speak to the principle of armed resistance, which is what my claim is based upon. Though the principle of armed resistance draws on the more basic principle of self-defense, even a casual reading of the Catechism entry on it shows that its operation is quite different. Indeed, that the operation of the principle of armed resistance is properly understood in the light of precisely the sort of systemic, legal, ongoing genocide abortion represents. The principle of armed resistance deals with situations for which the strict operation of the personal self-defense principle does not and cannot account. I wish I had made this distinction clearer in my OP, but I ran into the character limit and had to cut. I would be very interested in seeing TMC’s categorical condemnation of all anti-abortion violence in light of CCC 2243.

(Continued)

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Many people, including Catholics, are pro-choice

well thats half right.

 

[Wowbagger]

adamsapple wrote: “If you’re not sorry that Tiller was murdered, then just say so - it’s okay. But don’t try to philosophize about something that is a clear-cut case of murder.” I must disagree with every part of this sentence. First, I am sorry Tiller was killed. To paraphrase JPII, killing is always a human tragedy. Whatever else we think of him, the fact that he will never grow old and see his grandkids graduate grade school and tell stories around the dining room table is, simply, a tragedy. Period. The fact that he apparently died unrepetent for thousands of murders compounds that tragedy; the tragedy is already there, no matter how you slice it. The fact that his life was taken unjustly, and the further fact that his killing will likely damage the cause of life throughout the country are tertiary facts which make it all the more painful. I think rlg hit the nail on the head: it’s true that you can’t directly force an emotion in yourself, but, if you don’t feel some pity and some sadness over Tiller’s death, something’s gone wrong somewhere in you. If you’re so consumed by anger over his life that you can’t see the sadness in his death, it means that sin has taken hold of you somewhere. So, no, I’m not happy that he’s been killed, and I don’t believe it’s a-okay to feel nothing for the man.

The clause claiming that this is a “clear-cut case of murder,” though, is a cheat. It avoids the questions my post raises while attributing all of the energy and careful consideration I have put into this as nothing more than an outlet for a strong emotional response against Tiller. If that weren’t insulting enough, I’m not even feeling the emotional response I am supposedly outletting. So, again, this post isn’t so much a counter-argument as a potshot.

The serious responses to my argument–the ones that actually critique the argument in some way–in fact number only two. They are both interesting ideas, and they deserve response. Unfortunately, I don’t think either holds up very well in light of Catholic thought. They are these:

(1a) No Catholic may ever act against civil authority. Ever. (KingTheoden: “We must submit to civil authority that is given to us, which unfortunately means we have to work within a pretty rotten system.”)
(1b) No Catholic may ever act violently against civil authority. (AdamsApple: “You’re responsibility includes legitimate protest. It does not include violence.”)

In neither case are any Church documents or teachings cited in support of these claims of absolute (or semi-absolute) submission to the current political regime. Both, in fact, directly contradict Church teaching, which, in a number of places (notably CCC 2243) specifically permits violent action against civil authority under certain extreme circumstances.

They can also both be shown to be wrong by the example of common sense: if we adopt (1a), then the disciples and the entire early Church acted immorally by violating civil authority and worshipping Christ. So, too, were the nonviolent civil rights protesters immoral for violating local civil authority and protesting in what was a clearly illegal (but not immoral) manner. If we adopt (1b), we have a slightly stronger case, but we must still condemn anyone in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia who resisted the reigning political regimes with violent action or sabotage. We would have to condemn the French Resistance as an immoral resistance movement against the local civil authority. We would have to condemn the American Revolution as an immoral act of violence against the civil authority of the British Crown. We would have to label every illegal, foreseen killing in history “murder,” which is an extreme position that falls outside the mainstream of all Catholic thought.

For these reasons, I do not believe that “civil authority” critiques are successful in showing that all anti-abortion violence is wrong.

(2) Killing an abortionist (George Tiller or any other) always prevents such an abortionist from repenting. Because the act puts their immortal souls in extreme jeopardy, such acts are always wrong.

This is a very interesting objection. As with the first argument about civil authority, no one has cited any documents or even scripture to support this, but it seems, on a gut level, to be absolutely right. If we kill these people, they might get sent to Hell! And isn’t that our fault, for taking them before their time?

And the honest answer is, I can’t speak to what God does about situations like this. I don’t understand the divine will, and I don’t understand how God’s plan interacts with human free will and eternal destiny. All I know is this: it’s not in my hands. Nor can it be. Are we to say that we can never kill anyone who is in a state of mortal sin, no matter how many other lives they threaten? I think not. Indeed, I think the very existence of the principles of double effect, self-defense, armed resistance, and just war show that it is between the sinner and God—no one else. To abdicate our other duties in order to give such a person another chance to repent may be, in some cases, the right decision. I gladly concede that. But surely it is not always the right idea to let the murderous slaveholder keep killing his unruly slaves, nor to let the abortionist keep killing babies, or to let the serial killer kill your wife. Sometimes, the Church unquestionably calls us to act–lethally–against another human being, and does not ask us to consider the state of that person’s immortal soul.

We should pray for the immortal souls of the murderers, but not to sacrifice other people’s lives for their hopeful redemption. That’s between a sinner and God.

I’m gonna go see Up now. Got to get out of my head after such heavy thinking!

 

[IrishRose]

Yes, conservatives realize that taxing the wealthy unfairly causes problems and decreases revenues to the state. Most proponents of tax increases for the wealthy are more interested in punishing the wealthy by redistributing the money they earned and fomenting class envy than they are in enacting fair and sensible tax structures which will maximize tax revenues.

Well, perhape they’re taxed unfairly where you live but not so in Minnesota

“Minnesota’s low and middle income families are paying a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes than the wealthiest Minnesotans. This is the conclusion of the 2009 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study (MTIS) prepared by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.”

The DFL proposed raising the income tax on adjusted (taxable) income over $250,000 (the tax rate would have remianed the same up to $250,000, only the amount over that would have been subjected to the increase) in an attempt to even things out and to help avoid making the cuts to healthcare programs but Pawlenty didn’t think it was “fair”. Apparently it is fair to raise regressive taxes rather than those that are more progressive and based on the ability to pay.

It is not just the social programs that you prolifers so hate to fund that will be cut. Without the state aid they get many municpalities will either have to raise property taxes (very painful for those on fixed incomes) or make serious cut to services like police and fire departments and public works. Personally, I like it when the roads get plowed in the winter and would like to see that service continue.

Finally, do not presume to know what volunteer work I do or what money I contribute to various charities. Also, I’m single and no longer have any deductions I can itemize so I’m also paying my share in taxes and according to the figures referenced in the link above, I’m paying 2.2% more that those with twice my income.

 

[onetruechurch]

I recommend listening to Barbara McGuigan (pronounced McWiggin) on EWTN Open Line. She was on today June 2 and gave a beautiful presentation. It can be found in the EWTN recent Open Line archives. She reminded us that Cain was a very evil man when he killed his brother but God protected him from being killed himself. Barbara, like many of the posters here on CA brought up the fact that murder is wrong even if the object of the killing is evil. She also stressed the fact that there is a big difference between being just anti-abortion and being pro-life. Those of us who are truly pro-life should feel no guilt or responsibility because an immoral man who was anti-abortion but not pro-life killed an abortionist. We did not incite him to do the killing.

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

I just read on Fox News that Tiller’s funeral will be at a Methodist church. Is that an error or is it normal for Lutheran church-goers to have a funeral service at a completely different denomination’s church?

 

[Angels_Unaware]

It is not just the social programs that you prolifers so hate to fund that will be cut.

This a bizarre and twisted accusation. The prolife position is **not **synonymous with the conservative Republican party and its political positons on taxation.

The Catholic Church has the best historical record on social justice of any philanthropic group in America. We are always actively supporting the poor in both our community and abroad in my parish.

I get so tired of hearing such exagerrated and warped representations of people who are prolife. It is just bizarre.

 

[KingTheoden]

I certainly am not succumbing to sentimental emotion, I’m trying to obey the teachings of the Church, all of them. I believe that one of them is also that I am not the arbiter of who is and is not deserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness any more than I am the arbiter of who lives and dies.

I don’t condone violence and I don’t practice it. And I don’t tell God who I think He should forgive either. I pray that His will be done.

But I think we are in agreement that abortion is horrible and is murder and is a sin against God and is in direct violation of the teachings of Christ’s Church. I join you in prayer that Our Lady will intercede for all of us sinners.
*
“O, my Jesus, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Your mercy.*”

No problem with this post at all. Just to add, in case there was misunderstanding, I was not refering to you in my post; in fact I had no one in mind at the time, but now I do…

WowBagger, I am new to the Church so I could be in error (I should add my newness to my signature line). However, it is my understanding that we have to obey the law, so long as it ‘lawful.’ And, if we are compelled to break the law, we must be prepared to accept the consequences, even if those are unjust.

We do still have a partially functioning judiciary, generally good police, and some semblance of a representative government. Granted, things are pretty bad and our real effects possible are shrinking. Still, we cannot take the law into our own hands.

As true Christians, we have no doubt that this Tiller practiced obscene evil (and the liberal Protestant warm/fuzzy churches are co-conspirators as far as I am concerned). He was proud and he did this for money. All and all, pretty damning. But, we are not God and it is not our place to return eternal judgments. Further, we cannot just go around killing people wantonly. I am sure the Kansas Constitution has rights to trials and recourse of the law, rights denied to Tiller’s victims.

I will take another look at your post WB, but I do not find a problem with my argument against vigilante acts predicated on the need to go through civil authority.

Maybe we can get creative in shutting down clinics. Using unusual regulations, enviornmental laws, civil injunctions, etc. They have written more laws than any person can know. Perhaps we need to turn their system on themselves.

I also iterate that I have not an iota of saddness that this wicked killer is gone.

 

[KingTheoden]

It is not just the social programs that you prolifers so hate to fund that will be cut. Without the state aid they get many municpalities will either have to raise property taxes (very painful for those on fixed incomes) or make serious cut to services like police and fire departments and public works. Personally, I like it when the roads get plowed in the winter and would like to see that service continue.

Sort of off topic, but 1) I am willing to bet that orthodox Catholics are very supportive of charity and programs to help people 2) having the state as the mechanism to collect, handle, and dispurse charity has proven to be extremely wasteful and rife with corruption.

Hardly any of our tax money goes to the needy person who is hungry. Furthermore, if taxes were very low and the government focused on defense and a few other things, we would all have a lot more money to use to help explicitly through donations at church or implicitly by working less and volunteering more.

 

[RobbyS]

Sort of off topic, but 1) I am willing to bet that orthodox Catholics are very supportive of charity and programs to help people 2) having the state as the mechanism to collect, handle, and dispurse charity has proven to be extremely wasteful and rife with corruption.

Hardly any of our tax money goes to the needy person who is hungry. Furthermore, if taxes were very low and the government focused on defense and a few other things, we would all have a lot more money to use to help explicitly through donations at church or implicitly by working less and volunteering more.

Don’t think she understands how the government works. When he was education secretary, Bill Bennet took to calling sochool administration “The blob.” But one might as well call it the songer. Pour water on a sponge and little of the water makes its way to the bottom. Spend a million new dollars in a large school district and less than half makes its way to the classroom. That’s because the school district is a government agency, and most of the money that goes into it just goes to maintain the bureaucracy.

 

[wanner47]

I just read on Fox News that Tiller’s funeral will be at a Methodist church. Is that an error or is it normal for Lutheran church-goers to have a funeral service at a completely different denomination’s church?

This is just a guess, but I would assume that they are having the funeral in a bigger church since they are expecting more people than can comfortably fit in Tiller’s home church.

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve read the last six pages that’ve gone up since my big post started getting some attention. In it, I argued that: first, while Roeder’s action was not justified, killing George Tiller was also not the murder that so many posters are calling it; second, that, someday, under certain circumstances (which have not today been met), violent resistance to abortion may be both permitted and required of all Catholics and able persons of good character; and, third, given points one and two, we should take care to clearly, carefully condemn Roeder’s action without sweepingly condemning all actual or hypothetical anti-abortion violence. I founded this on what I considered fairly obvious principles laid out in the Summa and the Catechism, showing how the principle of double effect leads to the doctrine of self-defense leads to the doctrine of armed resistance, and I invited comment on my logical process.
…

There were a few other criticisms made that I can answer very briefly. rlg90486 notes that “If a “misguided fanatic” reads the justifications for Roeder’s actions on fora such as these, he may very well go through with the murder/assassination of another abortion doctor. Why not?” This is a critique of the consequences of the argument, not of the argument itself. I’ll add that a potential abortionist killer would have to stretch the truth pretty darned hard to prove that “all other means of redress have been exhausted” and “such resistance will not provoke worse disorders,” which my “justification” would require, but, since rlg is not addressing the substance of my argument or anyone else’s, but is merely pointing out that the consequences could be unpleasant, it still fails to helpfully critique anyone’s claims.

While I didn’t answer your “big post” directly (what big post? …I must have missed it. ), I will answer your statement here. Your statement that “violent resistance to abortion may be both permitted and required of all Catholics and able persons of good character” is inane. The Church is not going to reverse course and recommend killing abortionists.

That said, you complain about my response to your argument (which wasn’t in response to your argument ) by saying I am not “addressing the substance” of your argument. However, since you are saying that we shouldn’t “sweepingly condemn(ing) all actual or hypothetical anti-abortion violence,” you are, indeed, indirectly encouraging anti-abortion violence. If you can find a place where the Church is directly condoning violence against abortionists, then provide it. Otherwise, you are making an argument for violence that is contrary to Church statements. I hope people don’t follow your advice/logic, because I don’t wish to see further actions by Roeder-like “misguided fanatics.”

 

[joe_clark]

This a bizarre and twisted accusation. The prolife position is **not **synonymous with the conservative Republican party and its political positons on taxation.

The Catholic Church has the best historical record on social justice of any philanthropic group in America. We are always actively supporting the poor in both our community and abroad in my parish.

I get so tired of hearing such exagerrated and warped representations of people who are prolife. It is just bizarre.

In U.S., there is the perception that, the prolife position and or movement is synonymous with the conservative Republican party along with their conservative political positions, and they are both seen as sisters holding hands. (just like the stock market, it is what people believe, not what is true) I have heard The Republican Party is also referred to as the party of embryos and Homo’s and this is not good for Marriage between a man and a women.

For the Republican Party and their candidates, IT GETS VOTES, especially in a conservative district. Ever wonder about the timing of: 1. same sex marriage and gay rights legislation just seem to be on the ballot, always in red states, out of nowhere in that district, just around election time? The Republican candidates use this legislation to bring the faithful to the voting polls and the candidates recieve the residual affects, they get elected.

In public, The Catholic Church is clearly holding hands with the Republican Party. This is OK until the Republican Party goes astray, because the church goes with it. I always believed it is not good for any church to cozy up to ANY political party. Political winds blow in different directions at different times, and it is not consistent or compatable with the church.

I told the story before of a friend who was trying to get elected in PA as a state rep. He is married with beautiful children, pro-life, a good catholic in his church and community, but…(cue scary music) a democrat. Imagine that? When we exited the church that Sunday before the election, whereupon the magical voting guides were found on everyones windshield. The names in bold black were the candidates endorsed by the church. (indirectly) HOWEVER, all the republican candidates names were in Bold and the democratic candidates were all in light print. Here is the sad thing, the Republican challenger was non-committal on life? SOO, one size fits all? Sometimes I feel that people are programmed and fall into routines and this is not good.

The church should speak and engage the political parties but not get too close with them. Politics is like a washing machine that dirties the clothes instead of cleaning them.

 

[ClementRome]

Outta curiosity, and this is just a hypothetical question; if the act of George Tillers murder was an act of divine retribution(as has happened MANY times in the OT and the NT, Herod being struck down in Acts comes to mind), how would the faithful respond to it? If George Tillers murder was an act of divine retribution then we could be condemning God.

We have to remember that times when extremely excessive sin happens, God can sometimes intervene, like in Sodom and Gomorrah. Like just recently, the plane of a large abortion provider crashed right in front of an abortion memorial. To close off our mind to the possibility would be ignorance in my opinion.

 

[Fitz]

Outta curiosity, and this is just a hypothetical question; if the act of George Tillers murder was an act of divine retribution(as has happened MANY times in the OT and the NT, Herod being struck down in Acts comes to mind), how would the faithful respond to it? If George Tillers murder was an act of divine retribution then we could be condemning God.

We have to remember that times when extremely excessive sin happens, God can sometimes intervene, like in Sodom and Gomorrah. Like just recently, the plane of a large abortion provider crashed right in front of an abortion memorial. To close off our mind to the possibility would be ignorance in my opinion.

A cold blooded murder in a church is not God’s hand. It was an act of an unstable man. What you are saying is what pro-life people are being accused of on leftie blogs. Don’t compare evil acts to the bible.