I prefer telling people I support the abolition of abortion than that I’m “pro-life”, given that there’s plenty of people who support abolition but aren’t remotely “pro-life” when it comes to the death penalty, drone attacks or unjust warNow, my problem is this: what does Marc, and others, mean by the the death penalty negates a pro-life Catholic? When? How? Has the Church officially said the Death Penalty is an evil? Is it now banned? For most of its history, the Church allowed for the use of Capital punishment. Only in recent decades has that turned around. Perhaps its inevitable that it will eventually reject such practices. Many Orthodox Churches have already come out and all but officially banished the use of executions for any reason. Certainly modern liberalism rejects capital punishment of any sort, but that's for different reasons.
Still, no matter what, I'm a little itchy about saying that anyone regarding the death penalty may not be sincerely pro-life. Same with war actually, but that's for another post. Right now, I'm curious. What does it mean to say they aren't? Does he mean those who love the smell of napalm in the morning? That group of people who apparently have fantasies about torturing innocent babies? Who?
There's something strange in the Catholic blogosphere that I've not noticed in Protestant counterparts, and I'm having a hard time getting my head around it. There's a sort of vague judgmentalism that you can't pin down. A 'they be the villains' without the need to define just who the 'they' is. In fact, when I've seen people protest such swipes, those who have made such statements will back off and say 'I'm not saying anyone who supports the death penalty' yadda, yadda, yadda. And yet, it's said. Even when the Church has not, as far as I know, changed its 2000 year long approach to the subject. Will it? Probably. Based on the trends I'm noticing. But even if it does, is there really something wrong with people who believe what the Church always taught until a couple years ago? And if not, shouldn't we define our statements a little better, rather than throw them out there without any qualifiers? And if so, what's it say about the Church itself?
Not that Mr. Barnes is the only one who does it. It simply caught my eye as I read over his piece today.
Here's a statement from Pope John Paul II: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html
ReplyDeleteHonestly, my opposition of the death penalty has nothing to do with my being pro-life. It has to do with all the people they keep finding innocent after the fact. One is too many.
That's been the basis for my opposition to the death penalty, though I realize it is not without problems. My beef is that the Church has historically allowed for the DP, and only in recent decades has moved toward advocating its ban. Fine. But those who still hold to what the Church taught for some 2000 years until recently ought not be labeled as sub-pro-life. It's become a vague swipe, with no substance and the ability to slip out and deny specifics. When this swipe is made, try holding the person's feet to the fire. They will inevitably say 'it's only meant for this or that vaguely defined group.' In short, until the Church finally makes an executive decision, the little phrase about 'the Death Penalty' should not be so loosely tossed about.
ReplyDeleteForgive me, this may be long. (part 1)
ReplyDelete*deep breath*
That's been the basis for my opposition to the death penalty, though I realize it is not without problems. My beef is that the Church has historically allowed for the DP, and only in recent decades has moved toward advocating its ban.
Well, I would like to recommend Jonah Goldberg here (I recommend his original article that he links in that post as well):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278602/death-penalty-jonah-goldberg
Heck, even Daily Kos half agreed with it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114255/-For-once-Jonah-Goldberg-is-right-on-the-death-penalty-no-less
Now the catch (because there's always a catch)
Say a Catholic (like say... Mark Shea) says something like:
"But we still have laws and external fixes in order to limite the damage evil people do. So there’s also a place for taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of monsters and maniacs."
The catch is, guns are extremely low tech. Anyone can make one. Even in prison.
As both professor haley (warning: he is a character) and even I to an extent point out: the only way to really prevent evil people from doing evil things is... to kill them. And that's the main question: how much you willing to "pay". Is the risk of evil people committing evil worth not killing them? Or is the risk of an innocent man getting caught worth preventing the evil that bad men might do?
We've been doing our best to answer this question since civilization began I think and to reduce it to just being "pro-life" I think does a disservice to the ancient debate.
There's something strange in the Catholic blogosphere that I've not noticed in Protestant counterparts, and I'm having a hard time getting my head around it. There's a sort of vague judgmentalism that you can't pin down. A 'they be the villains' without the need to define just who the 'they' is. In fact, when I've seen people protest such swipes, those who have made such statements will back off and say 'I'm not saying anyone who supports the death penalty' yadda, yadda, yadda. And yet, it's said. ... And if not, shouldn't we define our statements a little better, rather than throw them out there without any qualifiers? And if so, what's it say about the Church itself?
ReplyDeleteI at first was going to say that this or that feature is endemic to P/C faiths but then as I thought about it, I realized not so much, as I think it's self selecting. Thus, you have the people who are... let's call them the passionate zealots. They not only believe in black and white, they like having authority declaring black and white and to bring that authority down on dissenters. Then you have the people who are... let's call them waffling liberals (there, I'm trying to insult everybody). They believe in lots of shades of gray and want things to just, you know, let everyone figure it out.
Now you can probably see why the zealots would drift towards Catholicism and waffles would drift towards Protestantism. So umm... hang on, lost my train of thought.
Oh! So anyway, I think some of what you're noticing is just the debate tendency of our age. Even the secular in America think it's wrong to judge people. But of course we need to. So everybody's gotten in the habit of slamming down on someone as being wrong and damnable (don't mean the swear, I mean literally, believe they are going to hell) and like Hitler and kicks puppies too, but they coach it in generalities. That way, if anyone (say one of those people that could be in that group) confronts them about it and the person is faced with... you know, a real human being not a caricature - they have the easy out of "oh I didn't mean YOU, you're not like them, it's those people. Over there somewhere." It's just more of the "you can't win" tactics everyone has to use nowadays because nobody has a sense of fair play any more. (you know, like all those people over there somewhere...)
;)
I think you're onto something there. In fact, within Protestant denominations, there's more willingness to call the spade a spade, since you are free to find the denomination that settles with your own preferences. In Catholic world, there's just the one Catholic Church. The task there is to make sure I and the Church are one and the same. Of course I can't say it that way, but there's something about that singular Church that brings out some pretty interesting discussions.
ReplyDeleteFor this, I just had to stop when Marc wrote that. I'm sure he didn't mean anyone who opposed the death penalty couldn't be pro-life. So it must be the other way around. But how can you say that if the Church hasn't and you're a good Catholic not wanting to make yourself coequal to the Magisterium? And that's where I think a lot of what you notice comes in. Someone makes the point, but leaves wiggle room if anyone says 'hey, you can't say that about this or that person.' All in all, not the best way to advance truths, IMHO.
And here's another example live.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/01/fairy-tales-vs-hard-head-realism.html/comment-page-1#comment-143935
A few posts ago you say “an awful lot of gun rhetoric is marked by the smell of heresy.” Perhaps I err by inferring some relationship between that statement and the folks in the combox. If so, I apologize.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/01/fairy-tales-vs-hard-head-realism.html/comment-page-1#comment-143967
Yes. And I explained what I meant. The explanation did not claim that all those who make prudential judgments are heretics. But then you knew that.
See? It's those people... over there.
This is why when it comes to the internet, I always demand specifics from people (and... tend to overload on specifics myself)
I noticed that little exchange too.
ReplyDeleteAnother tendency I've noticed over the years:
ReplyDeleteMark, IMHO, you give the “Can’t Do Brigade” *far* to much credit. Are they *truly* passive and defeatist? Or might it be that they are rationalizers? Moral escapists. They want rights without responsibilities. Seems to me it’s more socially acceptable to say “It won’t work”, than to say, “I don’t care and I won’t help.”