Well, that's Archbishop Lipscomb from Mobile. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
Do a little Google search, folks. This priest has been suspended.
Fr. Trosch has a point of course: although Mr. Hill's actions were reprehensible, there is no moral equivalence between what he did -- once in his life -- and what your typical abortionist churns out daily.
+J.M.J+
I think I recognized the name. Isn't he the one who appeared all over the media a decade ago calling the murder of abortionists "justifiable homocide"?
In Jesu et Maria,
Anyone else notice how predictable it is that the media has chosen to feature this whackjob instead of focusing on the vast majority of pro-lifers out there who find his thinking disgusting and reprehensible?
Um, Jeff.
Murder and murder.
Let's not belittle what Hill did.
Fr. Trosch has been suspended. He lend new meaning to the phraise Judas Priest.
What Paul Hill did was worst. He had helped make it possible for millions more children to be killed & their killers portrayed as Martyrs. Thanks to scum like him & Fr Judas Trosch Prolifers are associated with murder & not abortionusts. Hill got what he deserved. May God have mercy on his soul.
Um, David, not all murders are created equal. There's a qualitative moral difference between murdering unborn children daily for money and murdering one of these murderers in order to stop them.
Here's a link to a copy of a 1993 letter that Bishop Lipscomb sent to Fr. Trosch:
http://www.trosch.org/wri/ohl-tp1.htm
What is that difference? Does it tend to justify what Hill did?
"For vengance is yours as it belongs to my most special children," saith the Lord to Paul Hill and Fr. David Trosch.
Obviously, the difference is in the motive. And no, it doesn't justify what Hill did. This isn't rocket science, David. Stealing $1,000 from a poor family in order to buy drugs is not on the same level as stealing $50 from a drug dealer in order to feed one's children. Both are stealing, both are crimes, both are mortal sins -- but they aren't equal in gravity, and a normal person should be far more outraged at the former than the latter.
More typical accuracy and fairness coming from the Mystical Body of Journalists.
I don't get it, Jeff. I'm no advocate of the death penalty here, but I'm always amazed at the people who out of the woodwork to either (1) excuse what these people did or (2) try to change the subject.
In this context, you sound like you're minimizing, by contrasting what you THINK is the intention of Paul Hill with the intention of abortion providers.
Next, you'll tell us how much better he is than all of us, because he was willing to die for his beliefs.
Don't make him a martyr.
The word used in Exd 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill" is the Hebrew ratsach (Strongs 07523).
www.blueletterbible.org defines ratsach:-
1) to murder, slay, kill
a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1) premeditated
2) accidental
3) as avenger
4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
This is the same word used in Num 35:27 "And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge and the revenger of blood kill (ratsach) the slayer (ratsach); he shall not be guilty of blood."
Here the same root word ratsach is used both for the original murder and the "revenger of blood" whom is putting to death the original murderer. While legal, the revenger's action still violates "thou shalt not kill".
The same word is used in Deu 4:42 "That the slayer (ratsach) might flee thither, which should kill (ratsach) his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live".
Here the same root word ratsach is used for someone who accidently killed his neighbour (accidental manslaughter).
See http://www.blueletterbible.org/c...rd=07523&
page=1
Scripture appears to use the same word for murder, the death penalty, and for accidental killing. They are all covered by "thou shalt not kill".
God Bless
What if Hill's main motive wasn't to avenge abortion but to make himself famous (like so many other infamous killers)? Then are his crimes equivalent to abortion?
And what if the abortionist genuinely believes he is helping women? Again: do we look at motive or action?
Of course when you put it that way Jeff then what Hill was worst. Killing one man who kills babies for a living Vs making it possbile for thousands of baby killers to do their work with impunity so they can kill more babies.
The guy who steals $50 from a drug dealer to feed his kids at leasts saves their lives.
Hill saved nobody. Most likely (& I hope I'm wrong) he didn't even SAVE himself.
If you check out the Trosch website, it leaves no room for doubt that Trosch is waaayyy out there on the lunatic fringe. Among other things, he accuses Pope John Paul of desecration of the Eucharist (one of the most heinous things a priest could be accused of). Why? Because he has "failed" to remove every bishop who is in any way at fault vis-a-vis the priest abuse scandal. This guy has only nodding acquaintance with logic, much less Catholic moral teaching.
Fr. Trosch's supposed refutation of Abp. Lipscomb's teaching on the non-permissibility of kiling abortionists rests much more on repeatedly calling him a "liberal" than on any actual argument.
Finally, Fr. Trosch repeatedly refused obedience to Abp. Lipscomb, and publicly defied him. As a priest who has had to obey his bishop more than once in a difficult matter, I find Fr. Trosch's attitude and behavior reprehensible and despicable. It is an insult to the priesthood. That alone should render Fr. Trosch beyond the pale for faithful Catholics.
I'm not making anyone a martyr. Paul Hill committed murder and was justly executed for it. But I'm a little stunned at what seems like hugely disproportionate righteous indignation from people whom, I suspect, are more worked up over Paul Hill's crime than they are over the paid child-murderers in their own neighborhood. I hope I am wrong.
Good one Fr. Johansen!
Chris:
It's amazing how you appeal to the Catechism to correct Scripture when it obviously permits killing at times, and then appeal to Scripture to correct the Catechism to correct Scripture when it too permits killing at times.
You appear to be bound and determined to torture any text until it says what you want it to.
Jeff,
The damage that Paul Hill and other killers of abortionists do to the cause of ending abortion in America is immense.
That you don't seem upset in the least about that damage is what troubles me.
>people whom, I suspect, are more worked up over Paul Hill's crime than they are over the paid child-murderers in their own neighborhood.
People are more worked up when one of their own turns into a Judas. If a "Prolifer" commits an evil in the name of Life it's worst than the evil done by the Pro-aborts. Why should the cause of Life be dragged down because of his selfish sin?
Also speaking for myself I'm VERY WORKED UP over how this dead git has made the Prolife cause needlessly harder because he is a selfish blood thirsty gimboid.
Make no mistake Hill is worse. People who follow his Dark path can look forward to sharing a room for all eternity with the very people they despise.
Kathy,
I think both subjective and objective factors come into play.
Here's a link to a text from the Catechism on this:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ca...sm/
p3s1c1a4.htm
First off, I believe that what Paul Hill did was wrong, however, it does seem to me to be a real difficult issue.
Suppose a man broke in a schoolhouse and took a roomful of 20 first grade students hostage. He starts executing them. Would the average Christian (and even society) not say that if a person came along and killed the hostage taker and saved some children, it would be justified and even heroic?
Society (and the law) says that a fetus is fundamentally different than a child. Therefore it is logical that Paul Hill is a murderer, but the mythical person in my example used justifiable force and is a hero.
In contrast, many Christians believe that an unborn child is a child no different than the first graders in my example. Assuming that, under what Christian logic is therefore one killing acceptable and the other not? Or would both killings be unacceptable?
>There's a qualitative moral difference between murdering unborn children daily for money and murdering one of these murderers in order to stop them.<
You know, just once. Just one little murder.
The language of equivocation italicized above is the first step on a path that leads to the murder Paul Hill committed.
Can somebody explain to Kory the difference between self-defense Vs a private individual murdering an evil doer?
Suppose the babies being murdered at the abortion clinic downtown were *born* rather than unborn. And let's say the children being murdered are between birth and three months of age. Does that change things for you?
Would it change things if mothers were paid handsomely by the government to bring their young babies to the clinic for euthanization?
Would it change things if you were the father or grandfather of one of those babies?
Our thinking needs to be fine-tuned on this point. We may not be there yet, but there may well come a time when it is open season on all children in this country and, yes, organized violence will be the only means of stopping it.
Kory,
You hit on the real dilemma here for those who want to support killing in some cases but not in others. This case clearly shows the false logic of their position. This is why we must always and consistently uphold "thou shalt not kill", even though we get accused of all sorts of things when we do.
The answer to the kidnapping of a classroom of kids scenario is simple. You are justified to use force in their defense. You should act with the intent of not killing. If, in so doing, you accidentaly kill the criminal then you have not done anything wrong. If, however, you act with the deliberate intent of killing the criminal, when there are reasonable alternatives (eg shooting to disable), then you are guilty of murder (although your guilt might be reduced).
Perhaps it helps to recall Christ's example. Although his country was occupied by a brutal foreign power, and many Jews wanted to oppose it by armed force, Christ never took up the sword and forbade his followers to take up the sword. In almost all cases there are better solutions to killing.
God Bless
BTW flakes like Hill aren't found in the Prolife movement.
take a look!
http://www.prochoiceviolence.com
Thank you, Mr. Prophecy.
Consider the defeatism in Jeff's scenarios.
It's stunning.
BenYachov,
With respect, self defense has nothing to do with my question or example. I never indicated that person saving the first graders was acting in his own self-defense. My example was meant to convey that he was an outsider who uses deadly force to stop another person in the process of murdering the first graders. Assume he had the option to do nothing and allow the rest of the first graders to die.
Again, my question is not to justify what Paul Hill did. It is to understand precisely why Christians should believe it is wrong.
Of course, nowhere in the Newsday article does it mention that Trosch has been suspended, leaving it to readers to conclude that he speaks with a priest's (and therefore the Church's) authority.
This line of thinking will not end well for you Jeff.
What about a 10 year old pregnant girl who was gang raped by her Father & Brothers? Is it Ok to murder her unborn child?
The answer is no. What does Tradition say? "If a private individual takes it upon himself to slay an evil doer he shall be counted a murderer. Even more so because he has dared to usurp that which belongs to God alone" - St Augustine.
Pre-meditated Violence by private individuals is NEVER justified. Even. Neither is direct abortion. Ever.
Case closed.
Did Paul Hill kill the abortionist while he was proforming an abortion?
No.
If I shot the killer of 1st graders while he was walking down the street is that wrong. Ummmmmm! Yeh.
Your example is flawed & there is no aquivalnce between the senario you describe Vs what Hill did.
What Hill did was premeditated. In the senario you discribe the Christian who kills the "first grade killer" IS NOT doing anything premeditated.
There is an interesting post and discussion here(http://www.livejournal.com/users/
prester_scott/272729.html?nc=2
on this LiveJournal. What say you, wise ones? I'm genuinely curious.
Jim, I don't know what you're talking about with your rape scenario. I read it twice and still don't get it. I'm not talking about avenging crime that has already happened: I'm asking whether it is *always* wrong in *every* circumstance to stop murderers from murdering with lethal force.
oops... I meant http://www.livejournal.com/users...2729.html?
nc=28
Oscar,
I think that article is aces.
Cory please read the link Oscar provides. God Bless.
Why doesn't anyone answer Jeff's direct questions and other scenarios he has proposed?
To that, I would add another - would it have been evil for a private individual, given an opportunity, to kill or incapacitate Hitler or Stalin in their killing heydays? Why or why not? And what separates the two?
What if a known escaped serial killer was walking down the street skulkily and I had a chance to stop him (with a gun), and let us say that the chances the police would get there before he killed again were very low?
What if Paul Hill only meant to stop the abortionist from commiting further abortions and killed him accidentally? Then would it have been OK?
These questions need to be answered simply for the sake of moral clarity.
BenYachov,
I would agree that if Paul Hill's killing of an abortion doctor was vengeful (which I think it probably was), it was murder. I agree with you 100% that vengeful killings are always murder, no matter what wrong the person may have done to you or others. However, vengeful is not the same as premeditated. And I don't agree with your statement that pre-meditated violence is always wrong.
Nevertheless, what if Hill's action was neither vengeful (it was protective of the unborn) and it was not premeditated (he did it on the spur of the moment as the abortionist was preparing to abort a baby). What then was his sin?
All that Jeff and Kory are saying (as well as myself) is that we want to know exactly WHY it is wrong. Is it because he killed intentionally (i.e. would trying to stop him from killing more babies with non-lethal force have been OK?) or is it because he is a private individual (i.e. trying to stop Hitler or Stalin would have been wrong also since they were the "legitimate" authorities) or because the abortionists activities are done legally?
Kory and Jeff- I am glad you brought this up. I too am troubled with the moral reasoning in this situation. And it's good that you question it so that we who are not already sure of the moral logic here can reason it out. I am ambivalent, i'll admit. Since I believe abortion is murder, I've been hard pressed to find a line of reasoning that makes it wrong for Hill to eliminate the murderer. Maybe Chris Sullivan's argument makes the most sense.
With regard to BenYachov's comment just above, does that mean that in wartime, a Resistance fighter (say in occupied France during WWII) would not be justified in killing occupying Nazi soldiers?
Jeff I can't figure out what you are talking about either.
Are you arguing the mortal sin Hill commitied was less evil than the one done by an abortionist?
Are you arguing that one day we must commit violent revolution against the state?
Are you arguing because abortion & paying the goverment to euthanize your three month old baby are the same somehow violence against abortionist is less mortally simful?
What's the story guy?
The late Rev. Hill (may the Lord have mercy upon his soul) played into the hands of the pro-abortionists as John Brown did the "slavocracy's" in 1859.
After Harper's Ferry and his previous exploits, the Southern fire-eaters used Brown to create a syllogism that aided them greatly: John Brown was a blood-thirsty insurrectionist. John Brown was an abolitionist. Therefore, all abolitionists were blood-thirsty insurrectionists.
Thanks to Rev. Hill and his whacked-out supporters, the abortionists now have a handy club with which to beat the pro-life movement. In fact, I bet Dr. Dean will say something to that effect some time soon.
This is a useful reference (from the archives of First Things) Killing Abortionists: A Symposium
>With regard to BenYachov's comment just above, does that mean that in wartime, a Resistance fighter (say in occupied France during WWII) would not be justified in killing occupying Nazi soldiers.
I reply: A French Resistance fighter is a soldier fighting in a war against an enemy invader. He is not a private individual. There is no moral difference between him & an Allied soldier (who is also not a private individual) who kills Nazi soldiers according to the Rules of War.
There is NO comparision. None!
I read the Article in First things long ago.
Kory, thomas & the rest of you need to read that article.
Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT A MORAL THEOLOGIAN! Seek those who are smarter than me. My mind is made up.
Thanks for the link, Oscar.
Basically it is arguing that situationally, Hill committed murder because it was outside the clinic and and abortion wasn't immediately imminent. Other options were still available.
This is logical, but it leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. The word "imminent danger" is pretty subjective (as the Iraq War arguments also prove). Hill can (and does) say that once the doctor got inside the building, abortions were guaranteed, therefore his steps from the parking lot to the clinic are when the danger to the unborn was imminent.
If we are to justify killing, we need to find a way to wriggle out of direct divine law, carved into stone, "thou shalt not kill".
We need to find a way to wriggle out of Christ's own actions in a society beset by injustice, brutal occupation, and killing.
We need to find a way to wriggle out of Christ's command not to take up the sword "for all who take the sword will die by the sword".
There have never been and never will be any shortange of sophisticated sounding arguments justifiying murder. But they all crumble before direct divine command.
Our problem is that we tend to use violence as the first solution rather than the last resort.
We lack faith that the power of love will overcome so we seek short term solutions.
Instead of trusting in God, working with him over a long period of time, using Christ's methods and not Casesar's, we instead seek immediate solutions by killing.
Instead of realising that killing never solves the problem we again resort to it.
Hill's murder didn't solve abortion. Neither would murdering Hitler solve WWII (some other tryant would take his place). Only the power of love, the way of Christ, can do that. The power of death can never overcome the power or evil because it is the way of the evil one. Only trust in God and his ways can overcome evil.
God Bless
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a private individual and a Christian who was, in fact, imprisoned by the Nazis for plotting Hitler's assasination. Was he guilty of plotting a murder?
Jim,
I am arguing that if there is reasonable certainty that killing a murderer is going to save lives, one's culpability is, at the very least, substantially diminished.
I don't think this applies to Paul Hill, especially because of the long-term damage done to the pro-life movement, but I can't be sure.
The bizzare thing about this is that if Paul Hill were convicted of murdering the local serial killer he would not, I suspect, be so widely derided.
Jeff,
I don't know. Ask an orthodox moral theologian. I do know what Paul Hill did was murder.
Kory,
Hill couldn't know. Thus he had no right. Read the First Things article. You will learn a lot. The same goes for everyone.
Jeff,
If Bonhoeffer plotted to assasinate Hitler then he was plotting murder.
His error was the sin of dispair - to loose hope that the way of Christ could overcome evil and turn instead to the way of the devil - always a liar and a murderer who still presents countless arguments in favour of killing to us today.
Turn instead to the example of the early Christians. It took 300 years of patient suffering to overcome the Roman empire. But they resisted the temptation to resort to the sword. And they did overcome.
God Bless
Kory, Jeff & dave have all raised good questions. There is a lack of moral clarity here. It does seem that killing abortionists is logically equivalent to many scenarios where a reasonable person would think killing to be justified.
For myself, I must have faith and believe what the the bishops of Church teach on this, that such killing is wrong, but I can not see the logic in it for myself.
I wish I had the intellect to see it "clear as day" like some of you do.
In time ben the logic will come.
I hate to send more people to Fr. Trosch's wacked-out website (at least Trosch has the honesty to post it), but the theological argument against Hill and others developed by Fr. Michael Walsh at the request of Abp. Lipscomb, seems to me to be clear, concise, and convincing:
http://www.trosch.org/wri/ohl-
tp...p1.htm#position
"If Bonhoeffer plotted to assasinate Hitler then he was plotting murder."
As I understand it, Catholic moral theology allows for Tyrannicide, provide various principles are fulfilled, akin to the just war principles. I may be wrong on that, but that's what I always understood.
According to everything I've read the misguided Hill sincerely believed that what he did was morally right and that until his death. How do we deal with that?
Thanks Fr. Rob,
I read that post.
I did not find the first point convincing. This means that I would not be justified in defending my neighbor with lethal force if I saw somebody trying to stangle him, and the police were not present.
The second point was more convincing, but it implies that revolution can never be justified, and so seems at odds with the sections of the Catechism 2242 & 2243.
I still don't understand the logic here. I must proceede only by faith.
Disclaimer: I believe it's wrong to kill abortion doctors.
Having said that, I also think that we need to do a better job of elucidating our opposition to the actions of people like Mr. Hill.
Fr. Johansen linked the argument made by Fr. Walsh, which is very solid in many ways. At the same time, it still leaves certain questions unanswered. For instance, in his discussion of the right of defense of an innocent third party, Fr. Walsh points to the work of early 20th century moralist Hieronymus Noldin, who argues that a forceful defense of a 3rd party is only licit when the third party is someone related to the person taking defensive action or is a holder of public office, like a police officer. But what is the basis for such an assertion? I recognize Noldin's (and Walsh's) point, but what is the justification for such a stance. Would it then be illicit for a German resistance fighter to use (potentially lethal) force against a Nazi guard who is about to kill a concentration camp prisoner, simply because that prisoner is neither related to the fighter, nor a holder of public office?
Fr. Walsh also points to Noldin's statement that forceful defense may be employed only at the actual moment of the attack. While I again recognize the intention, this seems difficult to understand in real-life circumstances. Take the Nazi example again: if the attack occurs indoors, is the resistance fighter morally prohibited from using force against the Nazi *before* he enters the bulding wherein he will kill an innocent person?
Perhaps the answer to this and the other questions is an affirmative one; either way, I think it's important for us to grapple with these sorts of questions to ensure that our opposition to the acts of Mr. Hill et al does not also require opposition to other acts which we may be inclined to accept as morally permissible.
Thanks for the cite to the First Things symposium. Good stuff. Very tough issue for us regular schmoes to chew on.
Interesting thread. Paul Hill was justly executed for murder. We should not forget this. We should also not forget that if the killing of unborn children were not legal no murder would have been committed by Paul Hill. Unjust violence begets violence. Also, let us leave to the media the awkward cicumlocution "abortion doctor". The plain speaking term "abortionist" is much more concise and accurate.
Excellent points, Chris. I think this subject brings out some surprising attitudes in American Catholics. For my part, I talk a good line, but I'm not sure I really believe there are babies being murdered within a few blocks of my shop as I type this comment. It helps a little to ask myself, "What if these babies were three months outside the womb? What if these babies were my nieces and nephews?" But the truth is that the horror of it hasn't hit home for me. 1.3 million *legal* murders per year ... that's genocide, and almost anyone would be calling for a revolution if these victims were not unborn.
Today a former Presbyterian Minister will be executed by lethal injection in the United States for killing a doctor who performed abortions, ie killing unborn babies. I understand the Roman Catholic Church's stand is to not condone violence against abortion. My question is...If a bank robber is executing hostages in a bank it is ok for someone in the bank or for a passerby or for a police sniper to use violence to shoot and kill the burgler in order to save the hostages lives...If someone is shooting kids in a school it is OK for another student or teacher or parent or the police to use violence to shoot and if neccissary kill that person in order to save the students. BUT IT IS NOT OK to use violence to subdue, shoot, or kill a doctor who is going to kill may innocent babies day after day. Isn't this a double standard insinuating it is OK to use violence to save adults or kids in a school but it is not ok to use violence to save unborn babies???? Could not using violence aganst abortionists who kill more babies every day than people who were killed in 9/11 be considered a Just War according to St. Augustine? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
Hill didn't want to defend babies. He wanted to kill an abortionist. After the man was down, Hill pumped several more shots into him to make sure he was dead. That's called murder - morally as well as legally. In general, ambushing and shooting someone is not to be confused with using (lethal) force in defense. There is no double standard.
James,
In a sense you are right and there is a double standard. The only way to resolve the double standard is to uphold "thou shalt not kill" always and everywhere. Anything else undermines the whole pro-life position.
As for the so-called "Just War" defense, you would need to satisfy all of the catechism conditions before it would be justified. This murder violates pretty much all of those conditions: there is no likelyhood of sucess, the action is individual and not subjected to the authorities responsible for the common good (the state AND the church), the consequences are worse than the act (it discredits the pro-life movement), there are heaps of non-violent alternatives.
Kenin has a good point, although it's possible that Hill was so upset about abortion that he got carried away in the act of killing and allowed hatred to dominate him him. Hatred is never from the Holy Spirit, always from Satan. That fact that ALL killing naturally tends to a devaluing of human life and a hatred for whom you are killing is a strong indicator of its inherant immorality. Allways.
God Bless
'Evil begets evil' is how I understand this situation too. Evil ripples out into the universe. The waves go on almost but not quite into infinity. The effects of the abortions, of the murder of the abortionist, the execution of the murderer will be stilled only by the coming of Christ again.
Only the blood of God is sufficiently emollient to wash away spreading stain.
>If a bank robber is executing hostages in a bank it is ok for someone in the bank or for a passerby or for a police sniper to use violence to shoot and kill the burgler in order to save the hostages lives.
I reply: In this case the violence is imediate & you may use sufficient force to stop the attacker & if the attacker is killed because the only sufficient force avalible is deadly then so be it. Also proforming such an act will clearly save lives.
Hill OTOH didn't know for certain why Dr Gunn was going in the clinic. He CLEARLY used excessive force. The FACT that he pumped bullets into Gunn's corpse demonstraights that. He didn't try to wound him or mame him he used deadly & excessive force.
Did Gunn's death stop any abortions? Most likely it just delayed them. If I shot (& I would do so in a heartbeat) some slime ball shooting first graders or bank hostages I could name the Children & people I saved.
Can Hill name the children he "saved"? Most likely Ghunn's future victims still wound up in a pail sometime later at the hands of one of his comrades in death.
Hill actions can NEVER be justified. You can't do evil so that good may come from it. Never.
Chris,
There is no double standard. The Public authority may slay evil doers under certain conditions I don't want to go into because it would be too long to post. A just war is waged by the Public authority against an unjust agressor.
In the case of self defense or Third party defense against and unjust agressor, you AREN'T using premeditated deadly force. You are ONLY using sufficient force. If the only force that is sufficient is fatal you have no control over that.
I don't see the double standard. But as you rightly point out you have to use the Just War theory on the micro level.
Jeff,
Imagin how a person would feel if he lived next to a consentration camp in Nazi Germany? Would it be right for him to get a gun & go into the camp & start shooting guards? Leave out for a second the fact he wouldn't get out alive. Would it be moral? Naturally based on what you have posted so far you will say no. Is such a person less mortally sinful than the guards he killed (granting that such an action is a mortal sin). I say no.
Because that is the case we have with Paul Hill. Comparing him to someone who would shoot a criminal hostage taker is misguided an a FALSE analogy.
To continue............
Part two
Naturally you will agree with that Jeff. Think of my hypothetical guy who starts shooting Nazi guards. Does his act save the lives of the concentration camp victims? No it's not likely they could escape. Or that it will stop the genocide. (Besides switching back to Paul Hill, "Rev" Hill couldn't shout "Ok unborn people the Doctor is dead. MAKE A BREAK FOR IT! Get out of the Clinic!".)
Plus it's MORE likely after such an insident the camp victims would be treated harsher by the Nazi in retaliation. In a like manner innocent Pro-Lifers have had to endure increased persecution from the Pro-aborts because of Hill. Anti-Free speach Bubble laws are partly Hill's fault.
Moral of my tale. Shooting the guards willy nilly doesn't help the Jews in the camp. If anything it INCREASES the evil the camp victims will have to suffer. Well.... Paul Hill didn't save any lives. Thanks to this godless twit even MORE lives will be taken.
Bottom line I 100% disagree with you Jeff that Hill's actions where less mortally sinful than His abortion doctor victim's actions (granting both sins are still MORTAL). Hill was clearly worse in my estimation.
You can take it or leave it.
Jim,
Not knowing who the guards were or what they were doing, it would obviously be wrong to shoot them. Even if the guards were in the process of committing murder, but shooting them would not save any lives and would only add to the misery, it would still be wrong to shoot them.
However, if it were possible to save innocent lives -- and only possible by using lethal means against the killers and their collaborators -- then I'm not at all prepared to say this is wrong.
The question, in my mind, is whether such circumstances might also exist with respect to abortion (and euthanasia). As others have pointed out, it is unlikely that Paul Hill saved any lives by his actions, and even if he had, non-lethal means would have been still more effective. But I cannot say that killing an abortionist to save the life of a child is *always* and *everywhere* categorically unjustifiable.
Jeff wrote:
""What if these babies were three months outside the womb? What if these babies were my nieces and nephews?" But the truth is that the horror of it hasn't hit home for me. 1.3 million *legal* murders per year ... that's genocide, and almost anyone would be calling for a revolution if these victims were not unborn."
I reply: Yes let us NEVER forget the horror. However my sugesstion let's use groups like ldi.org to fight the horror.
If Tyrannacide is moral under certain cicumstancies remember American is a Republican Democracy. Thus the people are the Tyrants here. How many tyrants have to be killed besides one Austrian shrimp with a funny mousache.
Also, the abortionists clearly have the greater culpability. Their victims are innocent and helpless. Their motive is profit. Murder for them is not an act of desperation, but a way of life. Furthermore they are culpable not only for their own sins, but also for the sins they have provoked in others (namely Paul Hill). That does not lessen Mr. Hill's guilt, but it increases their own.
>The question, in my mind, is whether such circumstances might also exist with respect to abortion (and euthanasia).
I reply: Good question. I would say no because of the nature of abortion genocide Vs oh.......killing Jews in the camps. The Jews primary threat were the Nazis. The Baby's primary threat is his/her mom who doesn't want to be Pregnant. How do you use force against her without harming the one you wish to save? It is the Mothers & or those who Pressure the Mothers into killing their kids who are the primary threat.
Thus in my judgement we have no "circumstances might also exist with respect to abortion (and euthanasia) where we might use violence to save human life. That's my take on it.
Jim -- That's a good point, about the mother. It certainly complicates things. Euthanasia is a different story.
I see the post I thought I put up way earlier today didn't make it somehow, so I just wanted to put my apology to Abp. Lipscomb on the record.
Also, Hill was absolutely not justified. He murdered in cold blood, not just an abortionist, but a clinic volunteer, and would have gladly killed another. Do I disagree as strongly as possible with what they were there to do? Absolutely. Did they "deserve" the "death penalty" as meted out by "God's man" on the scene? No. Hill and his ilk don't seem to get the fact that repentance is possible, that people can turn away from sin and seek God's forgiveness. Whenever I pray at a mill (as I am concerned about "the abortionist in my backyard"), or in special intentions, I pray especially for the staff there. And we have seen people come out of the industry, praise God. So did God say to Hill, "Okay, these folks are unrepentant unto death, go ahead and shoot 'em for me"? Besides the simple wrongness of taking life in life's name, it's a huge presumption on the Divine Will.
Still and all, may God rest Paul Hill's soul. Perhaps even he had a moment of repentance at the end.
Thank you Jeff. But in Euthanasia the person is the primary threat to himself. Now involintary Euthanasia OTOH.....Well I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead.
It sounds like many of the arguments are centering around the problem of authority. According the apostle Paul the government is God's ordained authority to administer justice. The problem comes when a government ceases to properly administer justice (allowing abortions) and in some cases actively pursues injustice (financing abortions).
Frankly, I believe revolutions were started over much less (our own American Revolution comes to mind).
What's a Christian to do? Take justice into his own hands. Who gave him that authority?
Perhaps Mr. Hill should have just winged him.
Much of the discussion revolves on the idea that Paul Hill used excessive force. Would it have been legitimate if he had abducted the abortionist and held him captive indefinitely? Alternatively, he could have abducted him and amputated his arms so he couldn’t perform abortions in the future. This latter case is not a perfect solution since the abortionist could still participate in the abortion industry as a medical consultant or clinic operator.
Ben made the observation that the mother is the prime instigator of the abortion, because she is the one commissioning it. Would it be permissible to abduct her and hold her captive until she gives birth, thereby preventing the abortion without killing anyone?
If the U.S. government legalized infanticide of, say, infants born with disabilities (as the government of The Netherlands has done), would we still be arguing about whether it was immoral to use deadly force (if necessary) to prevent the killing? Perhaps we pay too much deference to the State that has legalized killing by implying that only the State can authorize one to stop it. There is something absurd in arguing that one must obey the law when the lawmaker has rendered (and insists on continuing to render) the law unjust -- as our government certainly does with regard to abortion.
The best argument against Hill's conduct is similar to the proportionality component of the Just War theory: Hill had no moral right to kill because he knew or should have known that consequences of his act would make ultimate victory less likely. His act was immoral much as a State that conducts a war that will not to a moral probability improve matters conducts an immoral war. People don't much like this component of the Just War theory because it means that a country has to absorb an injustice if fighting a war will only make things worse and cannot fight in the name of "hopeless causes." It also makes any nuclear war (even in retaliation for a nuclear attack) immoral -- something our Cold Warrior Catholics really hated to hear.
Realize that Jeff's arguments would also justify killing the pregnant mother who intends to have an abortion, if there are means (say, an artificial womb) to save the unborn child.
Is Jeff going to say that this is a case of justified killing?
The thing is (in response to the last several comments), not only does force have to be proportionate, etc., it has to be a last resort. When you ambush and shoot an individual not at that moment armed or anything, you are not doing "defense." You are committing "murder."
Kevin,
That last point is very murky to me...if a person is a known serial killer, despot, abortionist, or murderous terrorist, but he isn't doing anything at the moment, one is obliged simply to let him go his way?
Certainly I understand the point that gunning an unarmed person down in cold blood is immoral, though I would like to know how that applies to someone like Bonhoeffer who wished to assassinate Hitler. However, as some others asked, what about abducting and holding captive someone like the people listed above?
"The thing is (in response to the last several comments), not only does force have to be proportionate, etc., it has to be a last resort. When you ambush and shoot an individual not at that moment armed or anything, you are not doing "defense." You are committing "murder."
Does that mean that all executions and death penalties in America are murders? (since they are not the last resort or in defense)
It would seem then that Bonhoeffer was not justified, unless CCC 2242 & 2243 would apply here.
What is, it think, difficult to understand is that leagal abortion is clearly the worst evil the world has seen since Good Friday. More have died because of legal abortion than all of the other wars America has been involved with combined--and these victims are innocent. Yet, violence is not justified to stop this worst of all evils.
It seems from the discussion above that it is not justified owing to 2 main reasons: 1, there is no proper "authority" to lead the effort; and 2, there is not a "good probability of sucess".
Am I getting this right?
Thank you all for actually talking about this issue. Thank you Jeff for raising concerns I have had. I think many of us as Catholics condemn the actions of a man like Paul Hill because everyone tells us to, and we often don't think about why his actions are wrong. So we dealt with the real issue, rather than just spout off PC platitudes
The excellent film THE MISSION explores the very dilemna we are dealing with here. Which priest was right? DeNiro's character who took up arms to defend the outnumbered and under armed Guarani Indians who were about to be slaughtered by the Portugese slave traders, or Iron's character, who prayed, monstrance in hands, and lead the Guarani children on a grim march to martyrdom?
But it's clear to me that the murder of the abortion doctor and his body guard are unequivocally wrong, and the murderer was justly and rightly put to death for doing so. But is the situation really so different from that of Deniro's character in The Mission?
Dave,
When you go after Hitler, you do so because there's no alternative - no higher authority you can hope to convince to outlaw what he's doing. That's not the case in the US.
Red Herring,
State action, as in capital punishment, is a separate case (notwithstanding that there are other reasons to oppose capital punishment - like the need for justice to be modified by mercy).
19 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
