Reader Question: The Wages of Sin

Richard Spencer, the managing editor of Taki's Magazine, has responded to last week's "Reader Question: Was the Murder of George Tiller Justified." He treats the post as if it were entirely a response to an earlier article of his, rather than simply in part, and in doing so mistakenly assumes that certain things (such as my discussion of a possible just-war justification for the murder of George Tiller) were occasioned only by his remarks.

He objects, therefore, that "Nowhere do I attempt to justify the Tiller murder in terms of just war" and that he "evoke[d]" [sic] just-war theory "only as evidence that Christianity does not entail universal pacifism" (a fact which I had noted in the previous piece but which Richard oddly removed when he quoted that passage). Thinking that I had treated his article "as if just war were the crux of my argument," he found my response "disappointing."

So, let me make it clear: I do not believe that just-war theory was the crux of Richard's argument. But neither can I find in his article any Christian justification for killing. In responding to Ramesh Ponnuru and commenters on this website, in addition to Richard, I discussed the three main Christian justifications for killing: just-war theory; self-defense; and regicide. Richard mentioned none of these in anything more than passing.

Instead, Richard based his argument for why the murder of George Tiller might be justified on the question that formed the title of his original post: "Did George Tiller Deserve To Die?" He repeats that question in his response, arguing that, if the pro-life movement "wants its words to be taken seriously, then it should discuss whether George Tiller deserved to die."

But there's a reason that I did not address that question, in that way, in my previous post. For the Christian, it's not a question that needs to be asked, because the answer is obvious. Saint Paul states it clearly in Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death . . . "

Here's the rub, and the reason I didn't address Richard's question in the last post: Saint Paul's statement is universal. Anyone who has sinned deserves to die.

Christians understand what this means, but Richard, to put it gently, isn't a traditional Christian. The sin of Adam and Eve brought death into this world; our personal sin confirms our own death sentence. That is why we needed a Redeemer, and it is why Saint Paul goes on to say " . . . but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Now Richard might well object that this is just a rhetorical trick and point out that I know what he means: Did George Tiller's particular actions make him more deserving of death than other men? It's true: I do understand what Richard means. But it's also true that this is not a rhetorical trick, but the very heart of the Christian understanding of justice, both divine and human.

For the Christian, having recognized that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and therefore have earned death, "the wages of sin," the question now becomes: Who has the authority to kill? The answer is that, universally, such authority belongs solely to God; but in particular circumstances, killing may be justified. Murder is murder, but not all killing is murder.

And that's where the doctrines of self-defense and just-war theory come into play. The Catechism of the Catholic Church places both under the heading of "Legitimate defense," and in paragraph 2265 notes (emphasis added):

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

This is from the second edition of the current Catechism. The same paragraph in the first edition is shorter but more specific in its examples (emphasis added):

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the state.

Despite the difference in wording, both editions are clear: The criterion for legitimate defense is legitimate authority or responsibility to protect the one being defended. If one has that responsibility or authority, then one, as in the case of self-defense, "is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow" (para. 2264).

The alleged murderer of George Tiller was not responsible for the lives that Tiller had ripped from the wombs of their mothers. Sadly, the mothers on the table and the fathers paying for the abortions were. Those unborn children were not his children; they were not part of his extended family; and he did not hold legitimate authority that made him responsible for the "common good" of the "civil community."

Over the past year, in a number of posts at Taki's Magazine, Richard Spencer has been critical of what he regards as a universalist, egalitarian tendency in Christianity in the modern world that threatens to undermine historic ethnic, national, and familial ties between people. But in this case, those who (like Paul Gottfried, Spencer's colleague at Taki's Magazine) make the argument that the alleged killer of George Tiller was a "principled Christian" whose action was "profoundly moral" are the ones falling into the trap of universalism.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear: If we do not have the authority to take another's life, then to do so is not a "profoundly moral" act but an evil one. It does not matter how "reprehensible" the person in question may be (and there are few people more reprehensible than a man who murdered 60,000 unborn children). The Nietzschean nihilist or the modern neopagan (or any others who do not accept the Christian revelation) may not find that answer satisfying, but their own denial of the Church's authority does not give them the authority to redefine the teaching of the Church.

If you have a question that you would like to have featured in our "Reader Questions" series, send me an e-mail at catholicism.guide@about.com. Be sure to put "QUESTION" in the subject line, and please note whether you'd like me to address it privately or on the Catholicism blog.