Collateral Damage

This week, in stark contrast to the Christmas celebration, those churches who include certain saints' days and other observances in their calendars observed the Martyrdom of Stephen (Dec. 26) and Holy Innocents (Dec. 28). This year, churches following the Revised Common Lectionary and Calendar will read the gospel from Matthew 2:13-18, which is the same reading as for Holy Innocents.

"Holy Innocents" is the title given by the church to the infants of Bethlehem slaughtered by King Herod in an attempt to be rid of Jesus, proclaimed to him by the Magi as the new "King of the Jews." Though there is some historical question of whether the massacre actually occurred and how many infants might have died if it did occur, historians are generally agreed that Herod certainly could have ordered the deaths. (He did, after all, kill his own sons, one of his wives, and several other members of his family.)

Of course, in Matthew's story line, the attempt to kill the infant Jesus is also part of an historical reenactment by Jesus of the travels into and out of Egypt by the Hebrew people, where he and his parents flee to, and reside in, Egypt until after Herod's own death so that, in Matthew's words (quoting Hosea), "Out of Egypt I called my son," directly comparing Jesus to Moses.

But to use a phrase coined by the US military, probably during the Viet Nam War, the Holy Innocents were "collateral damage." The point of the death warrant was Jesus, but just to be sure, included any male child in Bethlehem under age 2. The movies usually show the massacre as a massive slaughter, but historically, the number actually slain would have been closer to a half dozen, possibly as many as 10 or 12. Yet, in terms of morality, one would have been too many.

In the history of the world, the number of innocent deaths due to the predations of war and civil unrest are astronomical. And the ethicists and theological moralists continue to debate when and whether murder becomes simply that form of justifiable homicide now labelled "collateral damage." Today's news, telling of the carnage at and after the assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto in Pakistan, includes this phrase. Some hairsplitters have claimed that, if it's done by a terrorist, it's murder, but if it's done by the military or other agents of a legitimate government, then it's only "collateral damage."

But, really, how much difference does it make to those on the "wrong end" of the bullet or the blast? When and how is it possible to justify the deaths of the innocent? Read more about this at Common Dreams.