Standmickey: The “innocence” argument and the Consistent Life Ethic

It is important to remember that Catholic teaching on the dignity of man is not contingent on the degree of innocence or guilt with which a soul is burdened. In a literal sense, none of us is “innocent”; even the unborn carry the stain of original sin that must be washed away by the waters of Baptism, and obviously the rest of us have to answer for a multitude of personal sins. Every human being, the unborn child as much as the mass murderer as much as you or I, is in need of redemption.

Literal sense? Yes, someone has thus reinforced the belief of some American Orthodox that the Romans subscribe to some belief of "inherited guilt," which they correctly find repulsive. Innocent/and guilt, used with respect to original sin, cannot be used but equivocally.

My point in saying this is not that abortion, torture, capital punishment, and the like are justifiable by virtue of the guilt that we all share (nor is it my intention, obviously, to pass any kind of judgment on the fate of the souls of unbaptized aborted children, a question that is best left to God in His mercy). My point is exactly the opposite: the Church teaches, based on the example of the life of Christ, that human dignity is not earned, either by good deeds that we have committed or evil deeds that we have not committed (i.e. crimes that have been committed by prisoners but not by unborn children). Nor does an individual forfeit his or her human dignity by the commission of evil acts. Rather, such dignity is intrinsic to every human being and shared equally by all individuals, because every individual is created by the Father, redeemed (or has the potential to be redeemed) by the Son, and sanctified (or has the potential to be sanctified) by the Holy Spirit.

Of course human dignity is unearned -- any gift from God that is given without our cooperation is unearned. Here we see how problematic "dignity" can be, when it is used not only to affirm that those who are guilty of a crime should not be punished beyond what they deserve, but that certain punishments which were formerly deemed to be proportional to their defense are no longer so, all in the name of protecting human "dignity".

And when we look at this larger principle, it becomes clear that it is not licit for a anyone, particularly a Catholic, to call himself pro-life while supporting (either explicitly or by a failure to condemn) torture, capital punishment, and unjust war. For in the end, the belief in which this hypocrisy is rooted– the belief that victims of such atrocities are “less innocent” than victims of the atrocity that is abortion–is simply not valid.

Once again, "innocence" is used but equivocally. Does anyone "deserve" God's mercy, strictly speaking? No. Should we be merciful to those who have injured us, in certain situations? Probably. But that does not mean that God's mercy overrides the demands of justice, or redefines the notion of justice.

Poor reasoning once again at work at that blog.