THE TABLET
THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY FOUNDED IN 1840
THE US ELECTIONS
CHOOSE THE GREATER GOOD
Given the fraught state of American politics prior to November’s presidential election, Pope Francis was guaranteed headline coverage when he labelled Kamala Harris a “baby killer” because of her views on abortion. She wants new federal legislation to guarantee women the rights they lost when the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. But the Pope’s argument applies equally to virtually every American president and presidential candidate since the Roe v. Wade judgment. (Donald Trump’s position is opaque.) They have all tacitly accepted that women have the right to seek an abortion up to about the end of the first trimester, and they have not sought to repeal legislation. They are all equally “baby killers”.
Francis was only partly faithful to the absolutist line taken by John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, which ruled that “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is ... never licit to obey it, or to ‘ take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’,” quoting from a 1974 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For Francis added that Trump was equally at fault in calling for the mass deportation of millions of migrants who are in the United States illegally: “Both [Harris and Trump] are against life.”
The question before US voters in November was a choice between the “lesser of two evils”, the Pope said. American Catholics must make up their own minds. Yet most of the US Catholic bishops have said that banning abortion was the “pre-eminent priority” before the electorate, not one to be prudently balanced against other issues. There is nothing
surprising about this dilemma: it is in the nature of the messy business of politics. Graham Brady, former chair of the Conservative 1922 Committee, records in his memoirs how David Cameron, then prime minister, complained: “The fact is a lot of politics is just shit; it’s choosing the least bad option.” The expletive here underlines how exasperating making the choice can be.
Nor is Pope Francis out of line with opinion in the Catholic Church generally. The Catholic bishops of England and Wales implied in 1996 that voters could choose the greater of two goods rather than the lesser of two evils. In a line they have repeated since, they said: “The question must be: can an elector be confident that the person for whom he or she is voting is the best of those offering themselves ... This consideration will discourage [choosing] solely on the basis of one policy issue, even where the attitudes of a candidate on such an issue are at variance with Catholic teaching.”
A deeper issue concerns the nature of law. Does having no law criminalising abortion mean that it is positively approved of, in the sense that Pope John Paul II intended, therefore making those who support or vote for the repeal of such a law “complicit in the sin of another”? Or, as in the common law tradition, does the absence or removal of such a law mean neither approval nor disapproval, on the principle that one should be free to do whatever one’s conscience dictates – except for those actions that the law forbids? Does calling abortion in every circumstance “murder”, as Pope Francis does, oversimplify a grave and complex issue that may call for balancing the interests of the unborn against the interests of the mother? The answer is not always easy or straightforward.
JUST WAR PRINCIPLES
UKRAINE’S RIGHT TO SHOOT BACK
While defending Ukraine’s right to self-defence, the western alliance supporting it is hesitating whether or not to allow the use of long-range missiles to attack targets in Russia itself. There
is a strong argument that it would be justified, but with reservations. Ukraine already has supplies of British Storm Shadow missiles and their French equivalent, Scalp-EG, and has used them against military targets in areas occupied by Russian forces, including in Crimea. But Russia has warned that to go further than that would be to cross a red line, and the whole Nato alliance could find itself at war – even possibly a nuclear one. That line would presumably only be crossed if Russia retaliated by force against a Nato member.
Under just war principles, given that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was immoral and illegal, Ukraine has a right to shoot back. The Russian bombardment of Ukraine includes the use of missiles which have devastated population centres and infrastructure. London experienced something similar in 1944, when it was attacked by German V1 and V2 weapons. Britain continued with the far more devastating and indiscriminate aerial bombing of German cities, including, notoriously, Dresden in early 1945. It was undoubtedly a war
crime. So Britain has to be aware of its own history before telling Ukraine what it may or may not do. Ukraine has already used shorter-range guided missiles, including some supplied by Nato members, against Russian military targets. It has also invaded Russian territory with the help of weapons supplied by allies including Britain.
Nevertheless, the moral point is a sensitive one. Ukraine needs not only British and French permission to use the longrange missiles inside Russia, but also US permission, as its technology is used in the missiles’ guidance systems. That makes Britain, France and the US legally and morally complicit in such decisions. But the line has already been crossed, as all three western countries are committed to ensuring Ukraine’s survival. Guaranteeing the ends means providing the means. In this case, the threat of attacks from military bases on Russian territory justifies Ukraine neutralising such threats by counter-attack.
One essential qualification is necessary. Whatever the provocation, civilian or indiscriminate targets must be offlimits. Any guarantees that Ukraine gives in this respect should be independently verified. It cannot be an eye for an eye. The Russian people are not the enemy.
2 | THE TABLET | 21 SEPTEMBER 2024
For more features, news, analysis and comment, visit www.thetablet.co.uk
