Related articles and links |  1 of 2

•

After the tragic September death of U.S. boxer Levander Johnson from brain injuries suffered in a lightweight title fight, an editorial La Civilta Cattolica, an influential Jesuit magazine, condemned professional boxing as "a form of legalized attempted murder."

The piece was published toward the end of what could be called the year of the boxer. In 2005, we have been treated to three thoughtful and moving depictions of the "sweet science": a PBS special on the first African-American champion, Jack Johnson, and two Hollywood offerings, Million Dollar Baby and Cinderella Man. Indeed, our culture seems fascinated with the sport at a time when no boxing heroes currently dance in the ring.

Despite the culture's fascination, Christians have been at best ambivalent about how sweet this science is. This Catholic editorial—which was summarized in Catholic News Service (from which I will quote in italics)—falls clearly on the side of moral opprobrium. But when you examine its arguments one by one, you realize that the case against boxing is no stronger than it is against any sport.

The editorial is troubled, for example, because boxing has left more than 500 boxers dead over the last 100 years.

Indeed, we should be troubled, and more troubled than the editorial lets on, for the number of deaths is likely double that, according to an article in The Journal of Combat Sport. This anti-boxing study covers everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-death-and-boxing. But in the end, when it compares death rates of professional and amateur boxers with those of industrial workers, it is forced to conclude, "While death rates in professional boxing are higher than the average for all workers, they still compare favorably to the average for other industrial workers."

Add to that the 1,600 football-related deaths since 1931, according The Annual Survey of Football Injury Research—well, one can see that something more than the mere number of deaths has to be considered when evaluating the morality of a sport.

Then there is this: Unlike other sports that also include an element of risk, the violence of boxing is intended and inevitably provokes physical damage, the magazine said. For that reason, it goes against the basic commandment, "Do not kill," it said.

But Christian ethics have never held that an action that inadvertently results in death is equivalent to attempted murder—even if one is deliberately attempting to injure the other party.

Now, as to whether it is morally permissible to deliberately inflict temporary harm on another: Let's remember that most competitive sports involve just this sort of aggression. Football, soccer, and basketball all require intense intimidation. One aims to dominate one's opponent physically and devastate him psychologically to gain the edge that leads to victory.

A key difference in boxing, of course, is that destabilizing one's opponent physically is the direct aim, whereas in other sports, it is but an indirect and inevitable consequence of other goals (like opening a hole for a fullback). It is precisely the directness and simplicity of boxing that is so unnerving: it exposes the aggression inherent in nearly all sports. This theme will be developed in future columns, but suffice it to say here that many sports demand a deliberate and intense aggression that takes its toll on soul and body.

Professional boxing, it said, is an industry controlled by powerful economic organizations which are often "pitiless and cruel," and for which the boxer is simply a moneymaking machine.

next page... |  1 of 2

October (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49