To expand a bit more on the question raised by f in the comments: what does the phrase "culture of death" really mean? Is it anything more than a partisan catch-phrase used by the pro-life movement?
I really ought to get out my copy of Evangelium Vitae, or find an online copy and link to it, and quote from JPII. But I have some other things I need to do tonight, so will limit myself to a couple of comments:
I think there are two main aspects to the cultural tendency we’re talking about here. One is in fact the increasing willingness to take innocent ife for utilitarian reasons: abortion and euthanasia. War and capital punishment obviously have some relevance here, too, but are not exactly the same thing, in that these at least in principle distinguish the innocent from the guilty, whereas guilt and innocence in their ordinary senses have no place in the thinking that justifies abortion. No need to belabor those; I think most people understand the moral issues involved there.
The other is more subtle and has to do with a increasingly widespread belief, which is pushed with evangelical fervor by some people, maybe most egregiously by that Singer fellow at one of the Ivy League schools–Princeton, I think: the belief, mentioned in the previous post, that human life is nothing special, no different from any other form of life. This can be seen, with reason, as a kind of death wish, a desire to have done with the moral and spiritual burdens we all carry by pronouncing them meaningless, mere illusions generated by the activity of our brains. Personally I think this is nonsense, but it can be argued very plausibly on purely intellectual grounds (like so many other dead-end skepticisms, e.g. Hume’s).
If there is in fact no such thing as the human, except perhaps in an elemental biological sense, then there is no reason to go to any particular trouble to save human lives that are unproductive or troublesome, and no reason not to–for instance–develop ways of manufacturing humans suited for specific tasks. It would be no more an ethical problem than breeding bloodhounds or bird dogs. I have heard such ideas propounded with an obscene enthusiasm.
The death of the human is the death of the moral.
–Maclin Horton
I agree with your reading of EV.
I think a further and deeper point would be that a culture of death is one that is antagonistic or even “merely” neutral to God. The pope indicates this in several places, I think.
Right now I don’t have the time or the conditions to contemplate a well thought out reply to any of these interesting posts and comments. I was a suscriber to C&T, and as a young newly married idealist, with two tiny children, the horizon seemed endless as far as being engrossed in the culture proposed by C&T. Now, 12 years and 7 children later, I still re-read the back issues fondly, remembering the idealism of my youth, and trying to incorporate something of the dream. I do homeschool. I live on 3 acres of woods, and have a tiny, yet productive garden. I buy most of my goods at thrift stores. My family recently became Eastern Rite Catholics (were previously Western Rite Catholics), and I have learned how to “write” icons. I see clearly the influence of C&T on my life, and although I didn’t go off the grid, I realize I am not a C&T failure. Glad to see the conversation is going to continue!!!
It’s always a delight to find out that the magazine meant something to people. That whole idea of a “C&T failure” is an emotion I think the mag unintentionally fostered in some people, which bothers me. If it makes you feel any better I’m not sure there are any C&T successes. More later on this topic.
Kevin–
Yes, you are fundamentally right about the antagonism to God. That’s the ultimate death-wish. Somewhere in C.S. Lewis (I think) there’s a really vivid line about the Satanic determination to do or suffer anything rather than submit to God. That inevitably becomes a gravitational pull toward, if not actually a lust for, death.
Good Evening,
I shall try to be brief.
Why do you mention abortion and euthanasia together? Does not the morality of each need separate consideration?
Is it always the case that abortions are carried out, or that euthanasia is practised, ‘for utiliterian reasons’? I put this as an ordinary, not a rhetorical, question.
Are we right to think that it is death which is desired above all else? A mother might long to give birth to a child, but not to child with two heads; if she terminates her pregnancy, is her only motivation the seeking of death? I might wish for my spouse a long and happy life, but not a painful and lingering death; is it only lust for death which would lead me to end the life of my suffering spouse?
Enough. Time to get the kettle on.
(Who, for crying out loud, is ‘that Singer fellow’? [God bless him.])
I mean ‘utilitarian’ !
Well, f, the comments section of a blog is not a very good place to start a from-square-one debate about these questions, but, brief answers to your questions:
(1) Abortion & euthanasia are mentioned together because they both involve the taking of human life. Obviously each can raise some different questions, the most obvious being where euthanasia is self-chosen, not imposed by others, which is always the case for the aborted child.
(2) I don’t quite understand this question: what other reason than the utilitarian (i.e. practical) would anyone have? Maybe you are implying “trivial” along with “utilitarian”? That’s not what I mean. “Utilitarian” could encompass both fairly trivial reasons and extremely serious ones, but having in common that the desired result is practical. No one (I suppose) has or performs abortions because they’re so beautiful or spiritually uplifting, but rather to achieve a very practical result–no child.
(3) Likewise: of course the mother contemplating abortion isn’t thinking “Death! Death!” but that is exactly what she’s seeking: that is, the goal is to have no baby, and the goal can only be reached by the death of the unborn child. Same for the other case: no, it isn’t lust for death, but it’s quite plainly and certainly a desire to impose death. One can have all kinds of sympathy for such a case but still be clear-headed about what’s involved, just as one can sympathize with someone who steals out of need and still believe that stealing should be illegal. (By the way, America’s foremost advocate of euthanasia, Dr. Kevorkian, was in fact pretty clearly motivated by a lust for death. He’s a sick character.)
In any event I must say I don’t have a lot of patience for these kinds of hard-case arguments. They are not what the debate is fundamentally about. If someone proposed a law banning all abortions except those in clear cases of massive fetal damage, the advocates of legal abortion would fight it like tigers. The hard cases are useful for them insofar as they help to engage emotions but everyone on both sides knows that they aren’t the real issue.
I’ve heard the “Culture of Death” aptly summarized as a society that sees death as the answer to its difficulties. Of course, death is not the solution–it’s the problem.
God bless Peter Singer? The guy who holds that a beloved puppy is more a person than an unwanted infant? Who holds that humans hold no value unless valued?
Don’t you really mean to say “God bless Satan”?
The Culture of Death is a spot on expression that aptly depicts the culture in which we live. As the dominant culture, its impact is tendential and thus particularly effective as it influences the thinking of all subjected to it, including those who deem themselves “pro-life,” not just its infamous disciples like Peter Singer. Indeed, its influence in “pro-life” and “Catholic” circles is particularly deadly.
Earl E. Appleby, Jr.
Director, Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)
Blogmaster, Life Matters!
Perhaps even more insidious is the use of the term “culture of life” by those who see it as a key buzzword to pacify Catholics. This use of a papal term by the likes of Bush, who is far from agreement with the Popes in its meaning, is particularily deceptive.
My eldest and I were going to go to DC for the March for Life but were dissuaded by reports of a snowstorm in Washington. Instead we went to the small demonstration in Columbus [where we both got frostbitten]. Later that night in the motel room we watched CNN’s coverage of the March: Republican after Republican praising our Great Prolife President who was going to build the “culture of life”. I ended up glad I hadn’t attended; I doubt I could have stomached it, even if I had , as planned, carried a sign that said “bombs kill babies too”…