Either Peace or Life – Benedict XVI Debunks a False Dilemma

(Hat tip: Amy Welborn)

Sandro Magister writes:

ROMA, November 16, 2006 – In the second of his two addresses to the Swiss bishops on their “ad limina” visit, Benedict XVI replied to what is, perhaps, the objection most commonly directed against the pope and the Church hierarchy by progressive Catholic circles.

The objection is that, in the areas of life and the family, the Church’s hierarchy preaches truths defined as non-negotiable, pure, and solid, binding even in political decisions, while in the areas of peace, justice, and the protection of the environment, it waters down “Christian distinctiveness” and makes feeble statements, acquiescing to the temporal powers.

According to the progressive Catholic circles, the priority should be reversed. The Church should put in the first place the struggle for peace, justice, and the defense of nature, and should be more understanding toward modern “subjectivity” in the areas of life and the family.

Benedict XVI told the Swiss bishops that he has reflected a great deal on this. And his conviction is that, in effect, there exists in today’s world a division between “two parts of morality.”

Peace, justice, and the defense of nature are the object of what is almost a new religion, regardless of the proposed solutions, which according to the pope “are often very one-sided and are not always credible.”

But on life and the family, there is a large following for an “antimorality” contrary to the morality proposed by the Church.

Benedict XVI’s response is that it is necessary “to reconnect these two parts of morality, and make it clear that they must be inseparably united.”

In fact, “it is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible.”

In this, pope Joseph Ratzinger places himself squarely on the path of his predecessor.

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Before someone rushes to say that the Holy Father is endorsing the "seamless garment" approach, it appears that what he's actually saying is this: first, protect the right to life; only then, will an ethos of peace and justice be possible.