Tiller, Roeder, Richert, and Luther
. . . We interrupt this broadcast to celebrate(!) a Lutheran-Catholic lovefest . . .
Recently, there has been a blogosphere brouhaha over questions pertaining to the murder of late-term abortionist scoundrel George Tiller. Our executive editor Scott P. Richert has made compelling arguments against Tiller's murder at his Catholicism GuideSite on About.com. And yet Scott, who is rightly described by his friendly debate opponents at Takimag.com as a "devout Catholic," has not made arguments that are what one (I speak as a Lutheran) would call "uniquely Catholic"—except for his citation of Aquinas and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which of course are wildly papist. (And imagine that, at Catholicism.About.com!)
Scott's argument is simply Christian.
The question he answered was initially posed by Richard Spencer, and it goes something like this: Did George Tiller deserve to die?
Here's Scott's answer: Yes, he did. "For the wages of sin is death." [I pick up my AK and an armload of clips.] But wait! There's more. So do the rest of us. Why? Because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We—you and I, Dear Reader—deserve to die, because we are part of that "all" mentioned by Saint Paul. [I put down my AK.]
This explains why we need a Redeemer, Scott says, following Saint Paul, as confessed by Lutherans, Catholics, and every Baptist who has walked the Romans Road.
"The question now becomes," Scott continues, "Who has the authority to kill?" And then he discusses the ways in which God delegates His authority over life and death to particular estates—those in government who wield the sword and "not in vain," to borrow again from Saint Paul. Others, too, such as fathers, entrusted with authority over their households, justly wield the shotgun against home invaders, and that includes those who would invade to destroy a father's begotten in the womb.
Did the suspect, Mr. Roeder, act based on this sort of biblical authority? Could he justly wield the sword against the wretched Mr. Tiller? Not by any reading of Saint Paul or any other Apostle or any Christian tradition. "Murder is murder," wrote Scott. And murder being sin, the wage of both Roeder and Tiller is death.
Over at Takimag.com, Dr. Paul Gottfried disagrees with Scott "on two points." "First, I do not see any moral parity between the mass-murderer George Tiller and the outraged Christian [sic] who took his life." Well, as Scott has argued, Roeder did not merely "take Tiller's life"—a benign description. To kill apart from divinely appointed authority is murder, and so Roeder did not merely kill but murdered the disgusting abortionist. And murder is one of those sins that is in many senses "mortal," or in Lutheran parlance something that suggests the absence of saving faith (pistis) in the heart.
Dr. Gottfried's phrase "moral parity" is also ambiguous, suggesting, perhaps, to the reader that Scott thinks there is no difference at all in God's eyes between a man who kills one and a man who slaughters tens of thousands of helpless children. Is that what Scott argued? No. The "parity" he described is the parity taught by Saint Paul, which may be called soteriological or [get ready, Scrabble players] harmartiological parity. Any sin can and does damn.
"Second," Dr. Gottfried continues, "Scott's attempt to prove his case by citing the bible and medieval philosophy is less than convincing." Now I agree completely with Dr. Gottfried's suggestion that the "evils of the modern managerial regime" cause a few head-scratchers for theologians today. (When Saint Peter, for example, tells us to "fear God and honor the king," how does this apply to Christians today? Aren't "we the people" "sovereign" in the popular understanding of American "democracy"? Should we honor and obey ourselves?) But the timeless truths of Scripture are not "simply outdated." No matter which branch of local, state, or federal government (or whichever elective body) winds up counting as "sovereign" in the current managerial shakedown, we have no cause to conclude that, as individuals, we may justly become lone gunmen and commit murder out of "Christian zeal" for justice.
In his first piece, Scott specifically cited Romans 3:8: "Christians take seriously both Romans 3:8, in which Saint Paul says of those who claim that we can do evil that good may come of it that their 'damnation is just'; and Romans 13, in which Saint Paul declares that the civil authority, not individuals, 'rightly wields the sword.'"
Dr. Gottfried finds these citations "far from compelling. Paul's epistle does not show that Tiller's killer acted wickedly 'because good cannot come out of evil.'" What then was the Apostle aiming at, according to Dr. Gottfried? The "leitmotiv of Romans, which pertains to actions taken [with] or without faith (pistis)."
Hot dog! Now here's something this Lutheran can get fired up about, against a "devout Catholic" (flaming papist) such as Scott. Indeed, "Scott may not read these passages in the same way as the Protestant Reformers. As he might know, they were pivotal texts for Luther." Oh, he might know, all right.
Romans . . . Luther . . . game on!
Except wait. Does Luther disagree with Scott's application of Romans 3:8? Well, yes and no. Luther thinks that the phrase "whose damnation is just" is applied by Saint Paul not to those who would "boast of their sins, but rather [to] such as think themselves righteous and trust in their own works to save them." In other words, those whose "damnation is just" are those who punch their ticket to Heaven with their own righteousness.
Tiller's alleged murderer likely did not think he was committing evil in order that good may come out of it. On the contrary, he likely thought that he was committing a just act by killing a killer. But here is where Luther would agree with Scott's application of Romans 3 to Roeder. For it is precisely when we think that our conception and execution (so to speak) of righteous deeds glorifies God that we highlight just the opposite, "for the greater God's righteousness shines forth, the more wicked appears our 'righteousness.'" In Romans 2, Saint Paul castigates the Jews, "Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."
If Roeder had been vilified by the left for keeping God's commandments, he would be worthy of honor, following in the footsteps of Christ, Who reminds us that those who hate you really hate Me. But the murder of Tiller was nowhere commanded by the "oracles of God"; it was committed (allegedly) out of Roeder's own conception of the justice of God. And as a result of Roeder's self-conceived righteousness, the name of God has indeed been blasphemed among unbelievers.
These were certainly "pivotal texts for Luther," as Dr. Gottfried suggests. But Luther did not think (by any stretch) that "pistis" was all that was necessary to make an action righteous, nor did he find such a notion to be the "leitmotiv" of Romans. He repeatedly denounced self-conceived works of righteousness—works done apart from God's revealed Word. This includes deciding for oneself which wicked monsters should live and which should die.
And Luther is right there with Scott on Romans 13. In fact, Luther is much more insistent on the Christian's duty to submit to the authority of evil rulers. "In contradistinction to the Jewish conception, [St. Paul] teaches that Christians must subject themselves also to the wicked and unbelievers." This included wicked pagan Romans who murdered innocent Christians in Saint Paul's day, and it includes wicked managerial elites who permit abortion in ours. Luther reminds us that, on the occasion of His trial, which was brought about by a half-phony local government under the thumb of a foreign ruler beholden to a distant and idolatrous emperor, Jesus Himself told Pilate that "thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." And here's a shocking thought: By God's standards, Jesus Christ was and is more innocent than all of the defenseless babies killed by George Tiller. And Our Lord told Peter to put away his sword.
The one exception, acknowledged by Luther, is when a civil government attempts to compel a Christian to do evil. In such a case, as the Scriptures say, "It is better to obey God rather than men." But no civil authority was compelling Roeder to perform an abortion, or to stand aside while his wife paid for one.
It goes without saying that there is much that Scott and Martin Luther would disagree about when it comes to interpreting Saint Paul's epistle to the Romans. But the suggestion that Scott's "devout Catholicism" would put him at odds with Luther on the question of the murder of George Tiller is absurd. Luther risked his own neck to preach against the Peasants' Revolt. Luther condemned the Buzzing Anabaptist Bees for assuming that they could judge the government evil and therefore take the law into their own hands. All of this did he in full agreement with Scott's interpretation of Romans 13.
. . . And now back to your regularly scheduled denominational warfare . . .
Entries(RSS)
The death score stands at Scott Roeder 1, and George Tiller 60,000. The bizarre difference from the world's point of view is that Roeder will be railroaded into a gas chamber with extreme prejudice, while the Judas Iscariots all shout about right-wing extremists. Tiller will be viewed by (ahem) polite society as a hero -- or quite possibly a martyr -- for womens' rights. Now does anybody out there seriously believe that we live in a Christian nation?
... and let's not pretend that our government does not use hitmen, assassins, and other heartless scum to get rid of people, both here and abroad, who get in its imperial way.
Mr. Wolf,
One point raised on another discussion went something along the lines of "If you consider abortion murder, how is it different than intervening in the murder of someone who the police refused to help. Say you called the police and they refused to act while your neighbor was being attacked, are you not morally compelled to intervene even if the government refuses to act?"
It would be nice if you and the Chronicles readership could address this.
Just when my moral compass needed alignment dear Luther is there to guide. Thank you so very much Mr. Wolfe. Whoops! Let me get back to MSNBC and those other paragons of virtue.
I agree with Mr. Whitmoore. The murder of Tiller would seem to be a case of justifiable homicide. The common law has long recognized the use of deadly force to protect innocent human life. The common law though not strictly biblical, has its roots in a thoroughly Christian milieu. I don't know exactly what Aquinas said about the defense of the helpless or innocent, but my guess is that he wasn't against it.
And besides, if ever a man needed killing, it was Tiller. Roeder should see a good priest, make his confession and the world should move on. I'm not a going to lose a lot of sleep over the theological intricacies of offing this particular monster.
Jeremiah,
In this case it is against the law to help your proverbial neighbor, man's law, of course. Just goes to show that man is a wicked being. Let those who make the laws of the land embrace their sins and serve the god of Marxism, meanwhile we should go about serving our God.
To those who would justify Roeder's murder of Tiller, I merely point out that Tiller--at the moment he was murdered--was not himself engaging in an act of murder. Without such immediacy of circumstances, the "defense-of-the-innocent" argument in Roeder's favor is extremely problematic, at best.
That said, this whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had some years ago with a trusted priest re Jack Kevorkian. In brief, I argued that--since his "assisted suicides" were not merely life-destroying, but soul-destroying, as well--that a just person or persons would be justified in abducting and imprisoning the monster until the end of his natural life. Of course, this would entail seeing to all his material and spiritual needs. I know it would not be that simple. E.g., what if he needed a doctor, etc. etc. However, since the stakes involved were higher than life itself, and since we were talking imprisonment, not execution, I felt my argument passed moral muster.
My priest friend disagreed. And thus we left the hypothetical matter unresolved between us.
The whole case positively reeks of Federal skulduggery. The accused killer, a convicted felon, certainly managed to obtain a firearm without difficulty and moreover showed up on the one day when Tiller would be unarmed and not wearing his bulletproof vest. I would not be surprised in the least if the DHS or FBI handed Roemer the gun and told him Tiller was unarmed and unprotected. The first of two back-to-back perfect examples right there in the flesh to make the snapping-turtle-sans-facelift's Soviet-style DHS report seem prescient.
Considering how many pro-lifers and erstwhile conservatives seem willing to justify the alleged killer's actions, is it really necessary to spin out theories of government involvement designed to justify a crackdown?
“Without such immediacy of circumstances, the “defense-of-the-innocent” argument in Roeder’s favor is extremely problematic, at best."
The law normally requires the use of unlawful violence be imminent before self-defense is justified. Tiller's continued violence against children was "imminent". 18 to 20 hours later, like clockwork, Tiller would open the doors of his abortuary for business and the violence would commence. Saying that the bankruptcy of the automotive industry is imminent could mean that the industry might go under in the next few moments or in the next few months. I would argue that "imminent" is not limited to seconds or minutes but instead includes an element of certitude of the predicted event. Roeder could be damn certain that Tiller would pick up a scalpel Monday morning and begin to hack children to death.
Roeder's act was justified. He did what needed to be done. The rest of us are just cowards.
It could be that Roeder agonized over the decision to murder another human being, I can't know of his private thoughts so whether or not he thinks he performed a righteous act isn't for me to say. The old defense line that Tiller "needed killin'" may be true.
James Wambaugh wrote that cops in LA once referred to the murder of someone who deserved to be shot down like a rabid dog "misdemeanor homicide".
I know that murder is a deadly sin, as well as being a crime. Tiller's sins are between him and God, but Roeder has arranged the meeting.
Those are the few cliche`s that come to mind on this subject.
Stats reasoning is no different than asserting that you kill a criminal when he is not presenting a threat to anyone on the ground that he will "like clockwork" do so. But we know that cannot be done and is a crime.
Those who would endorse the killing of Tiller reflect a lack of faith in God, to punish the guilty and deliver the innocent from suffering. It is indeed a difficult question that our society permits wicked killers like Tiller to be abroad. But how does he differ from the Roman soldier and bureaucrats who slaughtered the innocent as part of their duties in the First Century (not least, slaughtering Christians)? Yet, Paul did not command taking up the sword to vindicate God's justice, but to look to Him for whom "vengeance is mine", Romans 12, and then submit to the rulers established in the world.
Can the faithful deny God's sovereignty by assuming for themselves His power in the world to vindicate His justice. No question mark necessary, as the answer is obvious.
Tiller was a serial killer of hundreds if not thousands of the most innocent, a serial killer - a murderer - who covered his foul deeds, as do so many malefactors, with the cloak of a noble cause - protecting the lives of the mothers and defending their "fundamental right." He was thereby and more importantly a sinner against the Living God.
Roeder is not a serial killer and is certainly not a killer of innocents; however, he is a killer and a murderer and is thereby a sinner against the Living God. He like Tiller would cloak his sin in a noble cause - ridding the world of a serial killer and protecting the lives of those innocent ones who would have fallen under Tiller's knife or scissors.
The difference between the two men is that Tiller under currently prevailing law was not a criminal, and Roeder under currently prevailing law is a criminal, the state saying that he is guilty of the crime of murder according to the statues.
Tiller, the serial killer of innocents, was an usher in a church. Roeder murdered him in the church. Two sinners found themselves in church: the one, Tiller, perhaps trying to assuage the modicum of guilt or hide it, and the other, Roeder, obviously so arrogated by his "holy" mission that he was willing to break a fundmental Christian tenet that the church is sanctuary. (I suppose that there could be a Chronicles discussion about this.)
Were I a member of the jury at the trial of Roeder, I assert jury nullification in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. I would tell my fellow jurors that in that tradition, we, the jury, sit in judgment of our peer, Mr. Roeder, to determine if he is guilty or not guilty under the king's law (the laws of Kansas) and to adjudge the king's law itself. I would point out that we, the jury, a collection of the fallen race of Adam, cannot arrogate to ourselves to sit in judgment of God's law. Both men, Tiller and Roeder, are sinners against Him and will answer to Him. I would further say that Roeder is obviously guilty of the crime of murder under that statues of the State of Kansas. I would then tell my fellow jurors that I am going to vote "not guilty" or to acquit because the law of Kansas allows the serial killer, the murderer of the innocents, to ply his trade without lifting a hand to defend those would would be murdered or representing the interests of those who had been murdered; but that same state would send to jail a man who acted, albeit immorally and illegally, to stop the serial killer.
It would likely end in a hung jury since I would not likely be able to convince eleven others of the ancient obligations of a jury in the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
I hope that Mr. Roeder comes to realize that he must confess and repent of this sin. His first step will be to see his "righteous act" as sin. Blessed are indeed the poor in spirit, i.e. those who understand that they are sinners against the Living God - the first small step on the Christian Way.
Mr. Whitmoore @3,
I think that is a great question. I certainly would never suggest that there is never a time when it is justifiable—or better, a man's duty—to use deadly force. The scenario you provided is different in two ways, I think.
The first is that you mentioned the police refused to help, but what they were refusing to do was execute the laws such as they exist. In other words, your neighbor's would-be murderer does not have some "legal right" to kill your neighbor. By contrast, I am not suggesting that Roe. v. Wade is a good decision. It is, however, along with a host of other equally immoral laws protecting "abortion rights," recognized by the government(s) that rule our land(s). But the laws that govern abortion in our land do not force people to have abortions; if they did, a Christian would be obligated to disobey, for "it is better to obey God rather than men." In the USA, there is no abortion law that a Christian must disobey, unless it his his offspring (son, grandson) whose life is threatened.
The second is the word neighbor itself. Your neighbor is part of your life, and someone whose life and property you should protect. Moreover, your neighbor is someone whom God puts in your path, as the Good Samaritan teaches. That does not apply to everyone in the world. We may know that evil is being perpetrated in locations all over the globe, but we are obligated to help those whom God has placed in our paths.
In fact, C.S. Lewis points out, in The Screwtape Letters, that it is the devil's desire to lure our charitable thoughts away from our immediate surroundings and project them onto causes far flung. I do not know much about Roeder's personal life, but we can be certain that, even if he didn't recognize it, he had neighbors, in some sense, to whom he owed a Christian duty, which he cannot fulfill now because he committed murder (allegedly) and is now incarcerated.
Ours is a society of lone gunmen, of naked individuals who are supposed to construct for themselves a set of loyalties that may or may not coincide with loyalty and duty toward father, mother, wife, children, family, neighbors. But God established these estates, and as creatures we are bound to live accordingly. Similarly, he established civil government to wield the sword, a power that is ultimately His. Do governments abuse it? Yes. When they do, are we then permitted to take up the sword ourselves? Only within the spheres or estates God has ordained.
It seems to me that Mr. Wilder strikes the right attitude a Christian should take regarding the abortion holocaust and Mr. Roeder's intervention- let God hand out justice in the world to come. The killing of "Dr." Tiller will not halt the holocaust any more than the assassination of Tiberius or Antoninus Pius would have ended the Roman penchant for abortion and child(chiefly female) infanticide. A majority of Americans are morally corrupt to some degree and the government of the American people reflects that just as Rome and the Romans were morally corrupt to a great degree. That said, if on the jury for Mr. Roeder's trial, I would vote to acquit. Perhaps I am a hypocrite or morally confused.
Moral confusion is widespread today and always has been in any age I can imagine. For instance, Dresden and the cities of Japan needn't have be bombed to win World War Two yet the pilots and bombadiers followed orders and killed hundreds of thousands, including children. I can't blame any of the fliers for doing their duty but would a pilot who refused to bomb Dresden have been morally right? He would have been court martialed, that's for sure.
Something more similar to what Roeder did was what Task Force Love of the American Army did when they liberated Dachau on 29 April, 1945. Horrified by what they saw at Dachau, these American soldiers rounded up the German soldiers at Dachau, chiefly Waffen SS, and gunned them down, over 300 men. On reflection, what the American GIs did was wrong but I can't really blame the Americans or feel sorry for the Germans.
Paul Gottfried’s article on Takimag.com on the Tiller shooting is a disturbing turn towards behavior that may seem like righteous zeal or justified murder but in reality is heading towards anarchy in the guise of morality.
If you believe that Scott Roeder killed the wicked Dr. George Tiller, then you should have no problem believing that John Brown killed the wicked pro-slavery folks of Kansas by hacking them to death. You should have no problem with the four terrorists who bombed Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in1970 which killed a man but was done to stop the wicked government from illegally bombing Vietnam and you should have no problem with Tim McVeigh’ s attack upon the Murrah Federal Building in response to deaths at the hands of the ATF and the FBI of all those who died at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Indeed, Gottfried could hoist a glass with Bill Ayers, who after all, resorted to terrorism in the Weatherman Underground against government murdered millions with its actions in Southeast Asia. What’s the moral difference? Murder is murder right? And before anyone says right wing murder = good, left wing murder = bad, please stop. For the ideology is all the same, the belief that social change can be brought about by violence. Roemer certainly thought so which is why he killed George Tiller. The aforementioned would also agree, the wicked must be dealt with right? Who cares if they are sanctioned by law or happen to be the authorities themselves?
We can debate the logic of the Hitler example but we must remember one thing, abortion is not forced upon us. All abortion could end today if no decided to have one (that was not true under the Nazis where abortion was state policy). Hitler may have come to power through elections but once in power forced conformity upon the populace or face a prison camp.
You can kill George Tiller but someone has already taken his place, so nothing was really accomplished by this act other to damage the movement for which Roeder claimed to serve, as the”righteous” so often do. I don’t disagree the Right to Life movement has been ineffective, but not because they have failed to lead an insurrection against abortion ala John Brown. And are the abortion doctors any less guilty of murder than those politicans who allowed them to do so through canyons of the law? Or how about those who write the checks to fund Planned Parenthood? Or those who still advocate for abortion in the media? How many people do you wish to kill or imprison for their crimes?
Those who would unleash anarchy to serve a moral end have no more claim to righteousness than those anarchists and nihilists who simply wish to tear everything down, because there would be no beginning or an end to whom you would inflict devine punishment. We’re all guility to a certain degree for allowing abortion to exist (and it would continue to exist even if it were outlawed across the country). But to destroy the village in order to save it? No, that’s not an option I choose to take part in nor should other men good will either
Thank you for the response Mr. Wolf.
Turnabout being fair play, and since stats led his comment @11 by quoting me (without attribution) @8, I lead by quoting stats.
"The law normally requires the use of unlawful violence be imminent before self-defense is justified."
There is considerable difference between "imminent" (stats's word) and "immediacy" (my word) when it comes to potentially lethal defense of self or innocent neighbor. stats's choice of word to interpret the law is redolent of the kind of execrable rationalization behind our attack on Iraq.
By stats's definition, at least, I was a coward because I did not kill Tiller. Excuse me for taking no offense at his epithet. It--and his "thinking"--belong on Hannity.
@Sean Scallon #17
A well written post and one that has given me pause for thought.
I should point out though that I don't believe abortion was Nazi state policy. Why would it be? They were keen to increase the population of their new reich. They did enact compulsory sterilization and euthanasia but not abortion.
@Mark Higdon #19
Mark, not everyone you disagree with is a putative neocon.
@ 20 "...is a putative neocon."
Chris, you have put your own ink in my pen and written what I was not even thinking when I posted @19. I can only speculate on your choice and use of that "n" word, since I neither chose nor used it myself. Perhaps it takes one to know one. However, I'll leave to stats the final word on how to characterize his political orientation.
In reference to 17 above: Tiller was a murderer and got what he deserved while the victims of the other killers most likely did not. Even so, I think Mr Scallon has nailed it on the head.
Regardless, I think that if I were on the jury at Roeder's trial, I would do as Mr Peters has described, and for the same reasons. Call me morally confused if you wish.
One thing that is sickening to me is how the media, in an emotionally manipulative manner, has portrayed the victim, a serial killer who murdered so many babies, as a 'family man' mourned by his own children. Of course he is mourned by them, but convicted murderers are also mourned by their families when they are executed. I just cant muster any sympathy for a man like that.
# 17 "And are the abortion doctors any less guilty of murder than those politicans who allowed them to do so ...?" And are the people who voted for those politicians less guilty than the politicians?
I was quite surprised at Paul Gottfried’s article. From the reaction to the murder of Tiller in many different Catholic and/or pro-life forums, it is evident that many sympathize with Roeder. He may be correct in claiming that others are planning to do as he has done. Scott Richert and others have argued valiantly against the immorality of self-appointed pro-life vigilantes going out and murdering abortionists. It is indeed moral anarchy, as Sean Scallon states.
Furthermore, the pro-abortion ruling establishment will use such actions, if they continue, as an opportunity to put the pro-life movement out of business entirely. Through inept opportunism, the movement is already out of business politically, but still provides a lot of outreach and assistance to pregnant women in difficulties and thus saves tens of thousands of lives. Now all pro-life organizations must contend with zealous vigilantes in their own ranks, being shunned by otherwise sympathetic people who don’t want to be considered terrorists, and infiltration by provocateurs from the FBI, DHS, or SPLC.
I don’t think the latter has happened yet, but it will soon. The tactics used against Moslems and white supremacists will be used against pro-lifers. Provocateurs will spin webs of fake conspiracy to entrap “lone wolves” and will also succeed in entrapping many who just talk vigilantism without any intention of practicing it. Keep in mind that all you need to prove conspiracy in court is some wild talk caught on tape and one overt act to further the conspiracy. And the overt act can be something legal (e.g. buying a gun or buying materials which could be used to make bombs) and can be carried out by the provocateur himself.
@ Mark Higdon #21
Quote 1.
"stats’s choice of word to interpret the law is redolent of the kind of execrable rationalization behind our attack on Iraq."
The neo-cons were, of course, the architects of the Iraq war, and hence the ones making the "execrable rationalisations".
Quote 2.
It–and his “thinking”–belong on Hannity.
Hannity is a neo-con examplar.
I think those two examples are sufficient evidence to suggest you were accusing stat of being a neo-con without you actually writing the word. We are allowed to draw reasonable inference aren't we?
“stats’s choice of word to interpret the law is redolent of the kind of execrable rationalization behind our attack on Iraq.”
You numbskull. "Imminent" is the word that is used in most statutes. Immediacy was your word choice, but is never used in any statutes dealing with self-defense that I have read. In your post you suggested that Roeder had no legal argument to justify his killing. I countered by quoting the actual law in many states (including Kansas).
Now somehow this makes me an execrable neo-con and perhaps tangentially responsible for the war in Iraq?!!!
There is an argument under the law that Roeder's act was justified. The argument is so strong in fact, that judges at the federal level will not allow the argument to be made. The defense of justifiable homicide is foreclosed to all those who kill abortionist. Ever wonder why? Perhaps they are afraid the jury might agree.
And after reading the arguments against Roeder's action, my statement still stands. Roeder did what needed doing. The rest of us are mere cowards. Tiller's violence was imminent. Tiller's murder, according to my reading of the law, was justified.
At this point I think that just about everything has been said on either side of the "was Roeder justified?" debate. It is now necessary for pro-life, especially Catholic pro-life organizations to exclude anyone who advocates or attempts to justify the murder of abortionists. This is necessary not merely to preserve the moral credibility of the pro-life movement, but the effectiveness and very existence of such organizations. Advocates of murder within pro-life groups can be assumed to be either cowards attempting to gather enough courage to go on their own killing spree or government provocateurs.
re # 23;
"And are the people who voted for those politicians less guilty than the politicians?"
Of course they are less guilty than the politicians. Elections do not include specific instructions to the office seekers on the ballots. Not everyone who was gulled into voting for GW Bush is guilty of Bush's war crimes. Politicians gain office by whatever means they can find, then proceed to do whatever they wish and/or whatever they are directed to do by the bosses of their parties.
The flim-flammed electorate can't be condemned for what our self ordained "leaders" do.
One thing this episode teaches us, or some folks anyway, is what sort of country we live in. There are folks out there who sit behind their keyboards and post under pseudonyms and avatars about our "duty" or the "moral courage" necessary to commit murder, while calling Christians who live according to 2,000 years of biblical teaching and tradition "cowards."
And there are folks out there who think the answer to all of our problems is in "whiteness" or the increasingly amorphous "Western Civilization." Restore the churches as museums (or better, the shrine of Thor or Zeus), and magically the morality of "the West" will reappear. Whatever that is.
And there are those who have in their homes (but not likely on display) family pictures snapped by George Tiller in an abortuary with a "cleaned up" and "dressed up" freshly murdered baby. There are people out there who colluded with Tiller as "chaplains" and performed "baptisms" of these murdered infants.
And there are courts that have found nothing wrong with Tiller's actions. And there are politicians (our President included) who protect the "rights" of monsters such as this to behave the way they do.
And there are politicians who make careers for themselves and lots of money by declaring their outrage over abortion and don't do a damn thing about it.
And our televisions and movie screens and computer screens are filled with Hollywood imbeciles who weep bitterly for George Tiller, because his work was so very noble.
And there's Notre Dame. And the ELCA.
What this episode teaches is that seeking political solutions to moral and cultural problems is a chasing after the wind. Vanity, says the preacher.
Christians need to see these events not in political terms but as more evidence (do we need more?) that our society is profoundly wicked. Does the Church have an answer for such evil? You bet She does. But it won't come from voters' guides or candidates or ballot initiatives—or even from protests.
We don't need another Comstock. We need a St. Patrick.
Can I add to #29? All the focus on doctors' roles and politicians' roles in all of this makes us forget that a LARGE number of women want to kill their children and an even LARGER number think it's ok to do it if you want to (yes, I know some young girls are misled by bad people.) If people started having "intimate relations" with corpses the main problem wouldn't be that there is or isn't a law against it or that this or that person aided and abetted it. The problem would be that people want to have intimate relations with corpses. Same goes for abortion.
True story. A lady at Church said (regarding "choice") to my wife "no man's going to tell me what to do with MY body." My wife's response: "It's a good thing Christ didn't say that to us women."
Mr Wolf, your third paragraph sounded difficult to believe, until I found a site with such pictures. There is nothing that can be said. Aside from the complete bizarreness of it, how in the world could such things be?
A general note. When I suggest that the views of a poster on this site might be a better fit for Hannity's site, my intended implication is that the grade level there might be more appropriate to the poster's work.
I am rather surprised by the number of people that thought that Roeder was justified in his act. I would second the idea that if in your daily rounds of life, you come upon someone in the imminent act of killing someone else, you may use deadly force if that is the only way to stop them but the law wants you to use less than deadly force if possible. Driving out to Kansas and killing a guy whom you do not run into in your neighbhorhood or town who is not in the act of killing anyone is stretching this idea, to say the least. And leaving aside the idea of what sort of church would have Tiller as an usher, let alone a member, do we really want to start a trend of killing people in churches because we think they are bad people? Aren't there people who would like to come into our churches and kill us because we are supposedly a threat to what they believe? Throughout Western civilization, the act of shedding blood in a church has been regarded with such horror that such a sanctuary was held to have to be reconsecrated. The other thing that occurs to me is that the killer took away the chance for Tiller to repent of his way of life and thus glorify God. We can hope he repented at the last minute as God does not desire the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live. What if someone had whacked Norma Jo McCorvey (aka "Jane Roe") or Bernard Nathanson. Nathanson was just as odious in his abortion days as Tiller. Not only did he perform over 70,000 abortions but he was one of the leaders of the early movement to remove abortion laws. Norma Jo was of course, the one who brought suit in Roe v. Wade. Now they are pro life, and are Catholics. Glory to God! And there are others, including a lady OB/GYN who used to run an abortion clinic and now has a prolife, NFP only gyno practice. There is much rejoicing in heaven over such conversions and it really gives the prolife movement a big shot in the arm morale wise. McCorvey stated that the thing that brought about her conversion was not people screaming at her as she went to work as a clinic escort, but meeting a Christian who, while mincing no words as to the wrongness of her prochoice stance, showed love and the Gospel to her. Same story as Nathanson, whose godmother at his Catholic baptism was Joan Andrews Bell, whose non-violent witness at abortion clinics led to a lengthy jail term.
If you killed Hitler, the Reich might have ground to a halt, or at least taken a big hit. If you kill an abortionist, another one will just take his place. Also, if killing the abortionist is justified, what about killing women who have had abortions? Aren't they guilty of murder? I'm not talking about women who felt pressured or forced by parents or husband or boyfriend to have the abortion, but those who freely chose the act. No, I don't think we want to go down that road. Maybe if every prolife person in America did some sort of nonviolent civil disobedience and sat in the doors of abortion clinics, that might help, but that was tried and the government used the racketeering law to cripple Operation Rescue. Abortion will end in this country when people have a change of heart. And that takes the difficult job of changing people's minds one at a time. All political attempts to end Roe have foundered, and indeed, Roe could be overturned tomorrow and at least 49 states would probably keep legal abortion. If they didn't it would move underground. Going out and shooting people might give someone a righteous thrill but it's not the real answer.
Mr. Aaron Wolf proves himself once again as one of the most clear-thinking and eloquent Paleo-con writers. Spot on theology Mr. Wolf and true wisdom in councelling faith before politics. I'm proud that there is a solid Lutheran writing the things you do. Continue the excellent work.
I agree that Mr. Aaron Wolf hit the bullseye in his comments @ #29. Unfortunately far too many people expect too much from politics. Politics is a blunt instrument, not a surgical scalpel. Moreover, political solutions are sold in the same manner as the old patent medicines. Just one bottle of Jones' Horse Liniment will cure all your ills! Most definitely... One generally effective way to improve the operating efficiency of most organizations is to utilize specialization of labor. So, when you continue to give an organization, especially a governmental organization, an increasingly diverse tasks, it becomes necessarily less and less competent at any of them. There is no salvation in politics. Instead, each soul is saved or damned individually. With all due respect to political parties and their acolytes, there is no way to save our communities from the top down. Instead, we save them also one individual and family at a time.
Mr. Rutowicz @ 33,
Sir, what is solid Lutheran?
Charlemagne @35,
One who believes and lives out (to the best of his ability) the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Such creatures are hard to find today.
I have been abroad and away from computers and, thus, unable to follow, much less take part in this discussion. Where some go seriously astray is in accepting the Enlightenment/Liberal assumption that 1) because something needs doing, I have a right to do it, and 2) whatever I have right to do I probably ought to do.
Consider the case of education. Children should be taught, but whose business is it to see that they are taught? Everyone's or the parents. To take a coarser example, a married woman should be comforted by a male, but whose business is it to comfort her? Everyone's or her husband's? If a man is smacking his wife, I may be justified in intervening-if I know the couple and understand the situation, but am I obliged? Certainly not. Every station in life--those of husband, wife, parent, child, citizen--has its duties. There is certainly a higher Christian morality than simply doing the duties incumbent on one's station, but that morality hardly ever teaches us to invade someone else's sphere of duty.
The Christian Church has always taught that it is wrong to kill the innocent, including babies, including unborn babies. (It has also taught that contraception is evil. Should we shoot the dispenser of condoms?) Early Christians did not, however, interfere when pagans killed their born or unborn babies. They were content not to kill their own or to allow the infanticide to be practiced by their brothers and sisters. When the Empire became Christianized, it outlawed abortion, though practically speaking this meant little, and it was not until (if I recall correctly) the 7th century that abortion was made a capital crime. Under the Empire, by the way, abortion was legal, but a married woman who aborted her child without her husband's consent faced the death penalty.
Until Christians give up their busy-bodying and meddling and self-righteous posturing, they will never be in a position to do any good. How many pro-life mothers have taken time away from their own families to demonstrate against what anti-Christians will do simply because they are anti-Christian? Because an abortionist should be executed in a Christian society, does not mean that a citizen in a post-Christian society has the duty or right to carry out the sentence. Such free-lance actions are immoral and subversive. The killer of an abortionist deserves to be executed, unless, as Mr. Wolf sagely suggests, the dead baby is a close relative. There is much more that could be said, but the main point I wish to convey is that the right to life argument is not Christian but Liberal, and Christians who use Liberal weapons will see those weapons turned against themselves.
@37: Dr. Fleming, apropos your remark that "the right to life argument is not Christian but Liberal", if I understand it, then would it be correct for me to say that it is the God-imposed duty of a pregnant woman, and her husband, to protect the developing life in her womb so that it will eventually be born and nurtured within the context of a family-community cultural nexus? That it is not a matter of a right of the baby, but of the parents being obedient to the natural and divine laws? That to abort the baby in the womb is a violation of that duty and God is being disobeyed? That if someone shoots another person and kills him he has not taken away any right to live but only a life?
Yes, you have it right. St. Thomas says, in this connection, that while it is ius (right) for a parent to take care of a child, this "right" cannot be converted into a claim upon the parent, because a child has no such claim. This is his illustration, in fact, of why a right is not a claim. If we get back to the classical and Christian understanding of morals, we can then speak of particular duties imposed by nature and by God rather than of abstract rights that everyone--per impossibile--is supposed to owe everyone else. This is an approach that Augustine and Thomas derive from Paul, and Augustine sagely points out that we cannot help everyone equally, because we lack the resources. Why confine ourselves to saving American babies? Why not travel the world in search of babies to save? I don't think I have to spell out the evil consequences of this immoral philosophy of rights, because they are all around us.
I have been following the discussion of Tiller's murder and its moral implications on many conservative websites (both mainstream and alternative). Not until I read Dr. Fleming's response in this combox did I finally see the correct response to this issue. Its all in his book, The Morality of Everyday Life, and, after reading it, my reaction to Tiller's death is the same as Fleming's. Its just like he said in the book, most people in this discussion can only see things in terms of universal rights, isolated individuals, and the abstract state. These are the only players on the stage of liberal ethics. Hardly anyone else has pointed this out, though, with the exception of Aaron Wolf.
This is not encouraging. There are many sincere conservatives and Christians who want to live virtuously, but where will people be taught the truth when men like Wolf and Fleming are gone? Watching other people discuss this same topic on other websites and in other publications has shown me how ignorant of our Christian traditions we really are.
The trouble is that Christians have become lazy and have handed over their duties to the lying politicians. Tiller will be held accountable by God for his role in infanticide, but Roeder is equally as guilty of murder also. Aaron Wolfe is indeed right, this trying to moralize Tiller's murder shows us how depraved our society has become and how corrupt Christianity has become as well.
Roeder's murder solves nothing. OK you whacked one abortionist, but another will take is place for sure. Christians need to follow what Christ said and follow him and live godly lives. This is how Christianity spread throughout antiquity, and it worked rather well.
Living by example is the best way to get a person to convert to your way of life/thinking. What kind of witness is Roeder? Not a very good one, plus the moron has given the Left another example as to label Christians "right wing nutjobs"!
#41. "Where will people be taught the truth when men like Fleming and Wolf are gone? Mr. Wolf is, I believe, quite young and Dr. Fleming certainly seems spry enough. Let us trust that "men like them" will not (forgive the Lincolnism) perish from the earth.