I am a baptized Mennonite and confirmed Catholic, and my thinking cannot be fully understood without reference to both traditions. I was raised with the strongest possible grounding in gospel nonviolence within the Anabaptist tradition (albeit its more culturally assimilated strain), and it\u2019s still primarily from that perspective that I come to the CLE. I believed in the CLE long before I ever heard the term and would express bewilderment at different political camps being pro-life on some issues but pro-death on others. The full CLE in its broadest, most absolute sense has always been my understanding of what nonviolence means, as the full logical and moral extent of Christian pacifism. I love defying political stereotypes by telling people that I\u2019m pro-life\u00a0because<\/em>\u00a0I\u2019m a pacifist.<\/p>\n The way I was taught nonviolence growing up tended to center opposition to war, largely for historical reasons, with opposition to all other violence as a natural extension. But I\u2019ve always understood pacifism (especially in the Christian nonviolence tradition) as encompassing much more than opposition to war, just as being pro-life encompasses much more than opposition to abortion, neither of which by any means lessens opposition to both. I recognize a certain degree of subjectivity in what<\/em> is emphasized and how<\/em>, which may make me inclined to point out (despite my strong resistance to the ranking of issues) certain unique features of war: in particular, that it\u2019s mass killing, the type of violence that kills by far the most people in a single occurrence<\/em> \u2013 including unborn, elderly, and all stages in between \u2013 while other forms of killing such as abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty also kill large numbers of people in totality, but one at a time.<\/p>\n But every form of violence has certain features that are unique to it. So while my own personal commitment to the CLE arises most fundamentally from a broadly understood commitment to peace, I ultimately cannot believe any one form of violence is objectively worse or worthier of attention than all others. If every human life is truly inherently sacred, then the lives of those killed individually cannot be less worthy, nor their killings less a desecration of the divine image, than those killed\u00a0en masse<\/em>; the lives of those killed at any point after birth cannot be less worthy, nor their killings less a desecration of the divine image, than those killed by being torn from their mothers\u2019 wombs; and so on.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve had my share of frustration with some modernized Mennonites and politicized Catholic peace activists getting wishy-washy about abortion. The problem, though, isn\u2019t people considering other life issues equally as<\/em> important as abortion; the problem is people not considering abortion an important issue in the first place. There is no reason for its importance to be in any way diminished by the importance (yes, even the equal importance) of other life-and-death issues. On the contrary, reverence for life should be the rising tide that lifts the boats of all life issues together, all of them enhancing, not threatening, each other\u2019s importance.<\/p>\n I also support the efforts of the Catholic Nonviolence Initiative<\/a> to nudge official Catholic teaching further along its trajectory toward embracing nonviolence more fully. But my greatest frustration has been just trying to get many lay Catholics on board with where the official teaching actually is.<\/p>\n Catholic social teaching (CST) includes a basic presumption against taking life, based on the principle of human dignity inherent in the\u00a0imago Dei<\/em>, with some fairly stringent (in theory, if not in practice) exceptions to that presumption, which have gradually narrowed throughout the development of CST. My hope is for those exceptions to continue to narrow to the point of disappearing altogether \u2013 ideally, even to the point that the Catholic Church becomes\u00a0as<\/em>\u00a0well known for being a peace church as for being a pro-life church (without becoming any\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0well known for its pro-life stance, nor weakening it in any way; in fact, I believe a more robust and well publicized peace teaching would only\u00a0strengthen<\/em>\u00a0the Catholic Church\u2019s pro-life teaching).<\/p>\n A problem with exceptions for violence is that they easily become a de facto norm. Hence there are practicing Catholics taking active-duty military positions and training to kill on command with little or no room for moral discretion (despite that even just war theory makes clear that not all war killing is justified), or even being in charge of the world\u2019s largest nuclear arsenal for that matter, without any apparent sense of moral conflict. We sometimes hear prayers at the very altar of Christ\u2019s sacrifice \u2013 the only sacrifice from which Christians of all nationalities truly derive their freedom \u2013 referring to the military as \u201cprotecting our freedoms,\u201d without any sense of contradiction. I\u2019ve expressed concerns<\/a> in my parish about how prayers for the military are worded, which seemed to move the needle a bit, but those quasi-messianic tropes are tenacious creatures and will keep popping up like weeds without some badly needed catechetical pesticide soaking deeply and broadly into the soil of the Church Universal.<\/p>\n Julia Smucker at a protest of police violence<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n There will always be a need for particular people to focus on particular projects at particular times and places. Much good and necessary work is done by individuals and groups dedicated to promoting alternatives to abortion, war, euthanasia, the death penalty, gun violence, domestic violence, police violence, xenophobic violence and whatever other violence rears its head. It\u2019s true that none of us can do everything, but that doesn\u2019t mean each of us is limited to only one thing. We can all contribute time and talent to a particular project for which we see a particular local need, or for which we are recruited and\/or have relevant skills to contribute, and then do the same for a different project as needs and possibilities arise. As long as various human needs and anti-human violence abound, various people will be needed personally prioritizing various kinds of work at any given time \u2013 and, hopefully, consistently opposing all violence, whatever they happen to be working on.<\/p>\n Just showing up to advocate on multiple issues can give us credibility across the board. A couple of years ago I attended a protest against the separation of families at the US-Mexico border, where I politely approached a woman who held a sign saying, \u201cWhere is the pro-life outrage?\u201d I told her that\u00a0I<\/em>\u00a0was part of the pro-life outrage (which her sign assumed would be absent), and she thanked me for being there.<\/p>\n My experiences and deep foundational beliefs lead me to consider all human lives as inherently worthy of protection, and all attacks against human life and dignity as equally worthy of opposing wherever they arise. For those who insist on separating one issue from all others \u2013 which seems to happen most often with abortion, whatever the reasons<\/a> \u2013 I don\u2019t know if my reasoning will be convincing. My conversations with people who take this view often leave me with the impression that they won\u2019t be satisfied that I take the moral weight of abortion seriously enough unless I give all other life issues\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0moral weight in relation to it, and that saddens me. It saddens me because, while my mind has changed on large and small matters during my life so far, I can\u2019t imagine changing it in the direction of becoming more favorable to violence. And since I am already absolutely, categorically opposed to abortion as a form of violence, the only way for me to give it preeminence among my own values over all other life issues would be to become\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0strongly opposed to other forms of violence. And that, for me, would be unthinkable.<\/p>\n ===================================<\/p>\n For more of our posts from Julia Smucker, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The Price of Violence: When Dehumanizing the Vulnerable Hurts One\u2019s Own Causes<\/a><\/p>\n What Does it Mean to be Inconsistent?<\/a><\/p>\n Is Abortion Different from Other Violence?<\/a><\/p>\n To Know a Person is to Recognize a Human<\/a><\/p>\n Defining Reproductive Justice: An Encounter<\/a><\/p>\n On Praying for the Military<\/a><\/p>\n For more of our posts from various religious perspectives, see<\/em><\/p>\n The Vital Need for Diversity<\/a>\u00a0\/ Sarah Terzo<\/p>\n The Consistent Life Consensus in Ancient Christianity<\/a>\u00a0 \/ Rob Arner<\/p>\n The Early Christian Tradition<\/a> \/ Rob Arner<\/p>\n Fratelli Tutti \u2013 Consistent-Life Excerpts<\/a><\/p>\n The Consistent Life Ethic: My Christian Perspective<\/a> \/ Jim Hewes<\/p>\n Abortion and War are the Karma for Killing Animals<\/a>\u00a0\/ Vasu Murti<\/p>\n Why the Interfaith Approach is Important<\/a>\u00a0\/ Rachel MacNair<\/p>\n Breaking Stereotypes in Fearful Times<\/a>\u00a0\/ John Whitehead<\/p>\n Ancient Roots of the Consistent Life Ethic: Greece<\/a>\u00a0\/ Mary Krane Derr<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/title-graphic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/1-blog-Smucker.jpg\")
Atheism<\/h5>\n
Christianity<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Hinduism<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Interfaith<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Islam<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Paganism<\/strong><\/h5>\n