In no particular order, here are a few stories that may or may not have anything to do with each other, but ones I've noticed:
In case you missed it, Nigerian Christians are reaching out for help in the wake of near genocidal atrocities being visited on the Nigerian Christian community. This is not new. Variations of this has been happening since at least the early 90s when I had friends from Nigeria, warning of what life is like when you're the minority under a Muslim majority. But then, it's also not easily pinned on the US government. Since it doesn't aid the Left's multi-cultural narrative, and those who would cozy to the Left can't use it to trash America or Conservatism, it's been mostly crickets and cicadas. Here is a link to a story about one Nigerian bishop pleading for help.
Meanwhile, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, former Protestant fundamentalist pastor, has weighed in on the death penalty. Here is his piece. As I say, I'm of two minds about the issue. Part of me leans against the Death Penalty, if for no other reason that if an innocent man is executed (and it has happened), there's no making amends. On the other hand, much of the reasoning behind opposing the DP has the odor of secular 'because there ain't nothing more important than life in this material world!' Bad reasons can be given, just as good reasons can be given, on both sides. Nonetheless, I notice that the worst reasons are on the opposition's side, with fewer strong - and Christian - reasons to be against it, while the arguments for capital punishment's restricted use seem to align more strongly with a traditional, orthodox Christian world view where this old world isn't the only thing to think about. FWIW, here is a link to one Orthodox point of view which, as usual, allows for a certain amount of agreeing to disagree on the issue.
Finally, the latest big news is that some Catholic leaders have sent a letter apparently accusing Pope Francis of being a heretic. I won't wade into that. Pope Francis is clearly a child of Latin American liberation theology, and its Marxist roots and perspectives clearly influence how he approaches a host of issues. Whether heretic or not is for others to say. As usual, those who support Pope Francis have resorted to the typical name calling, snobbery, accusation and insinuation, rather than merely talk. Since Pope Francis became pope, that has been the case. If many of his supporters insist there was a time when they sat down and reasonably discussed difficulties with Pope Francis, I never saw it. From the first, it was attack with both barrels. And this is often from those who once had no problem blasting popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Again we're treated to the old 'that which liberalism once condemned, the Left now endorses - and vice versa.' Here is one article unpacking the issue.
And in the 'It's not all about Christians' category, we have this unfolding story about China's war on its own Muslim population. As can be expected, it's not getting much coverage in the US press. That's because Chinese (Communists no less) waging an eradication campaign against Muslims flies in the face of the Left's carefully constructed Multi-Cultural narrative. That narrative relies on a very basic template: evil white Christians from Europe and America/Everyone else awesome. The Left's propaganda organs in the press have made it clear, as with the sad case of Jazmine Barnes, that they couldn't care less about actual minority suffering or oppression. They care when they can exploit it. Chinese doing this simply reminds us of the sad truth that the worst the West or America ever did is no worse than the rest of the world, in which these things still occur. So, no news is proper news in this case.
Showing posts with label Death Penalty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Death Penalty. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2019
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Death Penalty arguments fact check
Mark Shea begins his call to end the Death Penalty with the usual manner: suggesting those who disagree are conservatives who yearn with unbridled lust for the increase in human slaughter. Mark feels no compunction about judging those who disagree with him, as I found out when he informed me I only want to increase human slaughter. FWIW, I really don't ask when I get to kill, nor do I wish to increase human slaughter. For the record.
Anyway, Mark appeals to the Catechism for explaining the call to end the Death Penalty:
The fact that the Catechism under Pope John Paul II was published near the zenith of crime in America, but the low ebb of crime in Europe, suggested that it was far too reliant on a regional, and temporary, social development. And not only that, but it ignored the part of the development (the State's ability to prevent crime while crime was exploding across the United States), that seemed to contradict the very statement.
Of course my problem isn't with Pope Francis saying we should put the kibosh on the Death Penalty. My problem is this idea that the Church only taught that because, unlike us today, it was just all legalism and obsessed with power. You know, not awesome like we are. That smacks far more of modern progressivism than anything linked to a historic understanding of the Church and the development of doctrine. In fact, it sounds awfully Protestant, if you get down to brass tacks, and I don't mean that as an insult.
So to clarify, most who are troubled by the Church's move to change its teaching likely do not want to slaughter babies, throw grannies off of cliffs, or toss banana peels in front of nursing homes. Most seem to be troubled by the fact that, in the end, the Church is changing because of external pressures from decidedly non-Christian perspectives, rather than expanding on, and developing, the doctrine within the context of its own Faith tradition.
As a final note, Mark's reader Thomas Tucker gets it. If somehow this is just a development of doctrine, that happens. But if Pope Francis is saying what he appears to be saying, that the Death Penalty was always wrong, then he is changing Church teaching. And what is more, he's saying the Church was always wrong - at least until now. And that is more than problematic.
Anyway, Mark appeals to the Catechism for explaining the call to end the Death Penalty:
And by no small coincidence, that is what the Catechism (2267) says too:
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”Problem is, this line:
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crimeWhich we can then follow with this headline:
2 North Carolina Prison Workers Killed in Fiery Escape AttemptThat does not seem like the State has effectively prevented crime.
The fact that the Catechism under Pope John Paul II was published near the zenith of crime in America, but the low ebb of crime in Europe, suggested that it was far too reliant on a regional, and temporary, social development. And not only that, but it ignored the part of the development (the State's ability to prevent crime while crime was exploding across the United States), that seemed to contradict the very statement.
Of course my problem isn't with Pope Francis saying we should put the kibosh on the Death Penalty. My problem is this idea that the Church only taught that because, unlike us today, it was just all legalism and obsessed with power. You know, not awesome like we are. That smacks far more of modern progressivism than anything linked to a historic understanding of the Church and the development of doctrine. In fact, it sounds awfully Protestant, if you get down to brass tacks, and I don't mean that as an insult.
So to clarify, most who are troubled by the Church's move to change its teaching likely do not want to slaughter babies, throw grannies off of cliffs, or toss banana peels in front of nursing homes. Most seem to be troubled by the fact that, in the end, the Church is changing because of external pressures from decidedly non-Christian perspectives, rather than expanding on, and developing, the doctrine within the context of its own Faith tradition.
As a final note, Mark's reader Thomas Tucker gets it. If somehow this is just a development of doctrine, that happens. But if Pope Francis is saying what he appears to be saying, that the Death Penalty was always wrong, then he is changing Church teaching. And what is more, he's saying the Church was always wrong - at least until now. And that is more than problematic.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Is Pope Francis the Catholic the Church has been waiting for?
That seems to be the gist of what he is saying. I know, it can be those rascally translators. But assuming it's not a conspiracy of bad linguistics, there is this little bit from a piece about the Death Penalty:
Here's the thing. It's one thing to apologize for the sins of the past. It's one thing to apologize for what Catholics did. But it's another thing to apologize for what the Church officially taught. And it's yet another thing to suggest that for the first 2000 years, things were pretty bad, but thank goodness we're here to set them right. That statement about the Church's teaching, that back then it was just too legalistic, too concerned for maintaining power, but now we're more Christian, is troubling at best. Especially since many of the notions feeding into this new notion of dignity sound much more external than the result of some internal revelation brought about by careful studying of the ancient Faith.
I understand that this is a rather ugly way to spin the Pope's words. But it's also a common modern, progressive view, this idea that we are the generation God has been planning on. Hence the ease with which we condemn to complete judgement, not those sitting next to us or down the street, but those who came before. It's like saying God finally got it right by creating us. We're not looking farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants. We are the giants, looking back with unbelievable contempt on all those dwarfs who came before.
I have no problem with arguments against the Death Penalty. I've always felt Christians of good will could agree to disagree on that issue, and both sides brought fair points to the table. Likewise, I understood that there wasn't really a compromise with this one. If you think the Death Penalty should be banned or allowed, there is no real middle ground.
But the arguments used by the Church, from the Catechism's strange declaration of the State's infallible ability to protect people without Capital punishment, to this, where we find out that the Church was a legalistic mess, but it's much better now, just suggest something is amiss. Not to mention that if we're changing one teaching based on that idea of how wrong the Church was, it stands to reason we can change other teachings based on the same logic.
“Let us take responsibility for the past, and let us recognize that these means were dictated by a more legalistic mentality than Christian,” [Pope Francis] said.See that? A lot of Catholics are appealing to the Church's track record regarding slavery, or the abuse or sins of the past to explain this away. Catholics did wrong, the Church wasn't clear enough, Christians sin, so we're here to apologize.
Here's the thing. It's one thing to apologize for the sins of the past. It's one thing to apologize for what Catholics did. But it's another thing to apologize for what the Church officially taught. And it's yet another thing to suggest that for the first 2000 years, things were pretty bad, but thank goodness we're here to set them right. That statement about the Church's teaching, that back then it was just too legalistic, too concerned for maintaining power, but now we're more Christian, is troubling at best. Especially since many of the notions feeding into this new notion of dignity sound much more external than the result of some internal revelation brought about by careful studying of the ancient Faith.
I understand that this is a rather ugly way to spin the Pope's words. But it's also a common modern, progressive view, this idea that we are the generation God has been planning on. Hence the ease with which we condemn to complete judgement, not those sitting next to us or down the street, but those who came before. It's like saying God finally got it right by creating us. We're not looking farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants. We are the giants, looking back with unbelievable contempt on all those dwarfs who came before.
I have no problem with arguments against the Death Penalty. I've always felt Christians of good will could agree to disagree on that issue, and both sides brought fair points to the table. Likewise, I understood that there wasn't really a compromise with this one. If you think the Death Penalty should be banned or allowed, there is no real middle ground.
But the arguments used by the Church, from the Catechism's strange declaration of the State's infallible ability to protect people without Capital punishment, to this, where we find out that the Church was a legalistic mess, but it's much better now, just suggest something is amiss. Not to mention that if we're changing one teaching based on that idea of how wrong the Church was, it stands to reason we can change other teachings based on the same logic.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
My problem with the Death Penalty
Contrary to what some esteemed Catholic apologists suggest, I don't want to increase human slaughter. Nor do I not give a flip what the Faith teaches. I also can see some very good, Christian reasons for abolishing the Death Penalty. For that matter, I can see some very practical reasons. As the Left gains power and influence, it makes it clear that my type is a thing of the past. And it will use any tool or weapon in its arsenal to see my type eliminated from the public forum, if not altogether. So taking the Death Penalty away from that arsenal, even if for a time, isn't a bad idea.
Still, there are also good, Christian reasons for it, especially if you tend to hold to pre-modern notions of Christianity. That's not to say if you oppose it you are automatically some modern compromiser. There are obviously areas here where good Christians in good faith can agree to disagree.
But my big beef has always been on why the Catholic Church, all of a sudden, within only the last few decades, has chosen now to change its near-2000 year consistent teaching on the subject. Why now? What is different now than, say, 70 years ago when Pope Pius XII actually used arguments now mocked and ridiculed by Death Penalty opponents? What is the big difference?
In the Catechism, the main statement about why now, what is it about now, that allows us to abolish the Death Penalty is that the State now has the ability to prevent crime. I don't even know what that means. And when I follow this story, I'm not sure the State is any better at preventing crime than it was a hundred years ago. That's not getting into areas like prison violence and prisoners harmed or even killed by other prisoners. That's just keeping dangerous criminals from escaping.
Again, I have no problem listening to the debate. As a non-Catholic, I opposed the Death Penalty on practical grounds: I could see me being someone falsely accused and wrongfully executed. Once I became Catholic, I liked the Church's take on the issue: rarely used, but sometimes if the need to protect the innocent is on the line.
But to say we can now abolish it altogether because the State is near a point of effectively preventing crime? First, shouldn't we wait until it's there if that is the reason? Second, is it really any closer than it ever has been to preventing crime? That has been my beef with the Church's call to end the death penalty. The main reason for justifying the timing of the change in teaching just doesn't seem real. It doesn't seem to be a fact. It doesn't align with what is happening in the world. And if someone says we can eliminate traffic laws because leprechauns now live in traffic lights and can control the cars, you can be the first thing I'll ask is 'are their really such things as leprechauns, and are they in fact living in the traffic lights and able to control cars?' If the answer is no, then it's back to the drawing board.
Still, there are also good, Christian reasons for it, especially if you tend to hold to pre-modern notions of Christianity. That's not to say if you oppose it you are automatically some modern compromiser. There are obviously areas here where good Christians in good faith can agree to disagree.
But my big beef has always been on why the Catholic Church, all of a sudden, within only the last few decades, has chosen now to change its near-2000 year consistent teaching on the subject. Why now? What is different now than, say, 70 years ago when Pope Pius XII actually used arguments now mocked and ridiculed by Death Penalty opponents? What is the big difference?
In the Catechism, the main statement about why now, what is it about now, that allows us to abolish the Death Penalty is that the State now has the ability to prevent crime. I don't even know what that means. And when I follow this story, I'm not sure the State is any better at preventing crime than it was a hundred years ago. That's not getting into areas like prison violence and prisoners harmed or even killed by other prisoners. That's just keeping dangerous criminals from escaping.
But to say we can now abolish it altogether because the State is near a point of effectively preventing crime? First, shouldn't we wait until it's there if that is the reason? Second, is it really any closer than it ever has been to preventing crime? That has been my beef with the Church's call to end the death penalty. The main reason for justifying the timing of the change in teaching just doesn't seem real. It doesn't seem to be a fact. It doesn't align with what is happening in the world. And if someone says we can eliminate traffic laws because leprechauns now live in traffic lights and can control the cars, you can be the first thing I'll ask is 'are their really such things as leprechauns, and are they in fact living in the traffic lights and able to control cars?' If the answer is no, then it's back to the drawing board.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Death Penalty Opponents
Are these your allies?
Mark Shea posted a couple days ago, once again reasoning that if you still hold to the Church's traditional approach to capital punishment, then your allies are the likes of barbaric Muslim societies and Communist tyrannies. He even included a cute graph like the one above (I deliberately used a different graph that outlined the world's countries a little better).
If you look at the above chart, there is quite a variety of countries without and with the death penalty. Look carefully. Yes, most Muslim countries have it, so does China. But so does Brazil. So does Japan. So does India. Argentina. Mongolia. I'm not sure there's any trend I can spot there.
Those that have abolished the death penalty? Secular Turkey in the Muslim world. Nepal. Mostly countries aligned with post-Christian Europe. S. America has the death penalty, as well as liberal abortion laws and progress views on gay marriage. Russia has the death penalty, loose abortion laws, and right now no move to recognize gay marriage. Europe, which seems to be the go to reference point for those who wish to abolish the death penalty altogether, is a living, breathing example of post-Christian values: gay marriages, abortion for the longest time, several moving toward legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I thought of this as yet one more country that banned the death penalty embraces gay marriage. And let's not forget, the United States that brought us federally supported abortion rights was, at the time, also attempting its first round of banning the death penalty. My point is, it's an incredibly weak, almost ludicrous argument. Most of my life I opposed the death penalty outright, though I knew that brought a few problems. I was happy to embrace the Church's (then) teaching that it should be rare in deference to mercy if at all possible, but not if it compromises the ability to protect widows and orphans.
But now, many leaders in the Church, leaning heavily on the State's new-found ability to prevent crime, are seeking to abolish the death penalty altogether. And in lieu of a better reason, apparently some have sought to find reasons of their own to do so, including guilt by association. Looking at the map above, it's easy to see why 'if you support the death penalty, then you're in the camp of barbarism' is really no better than 'because now the State can prevent crime.' We'll have to do better than either of those to justify jettisoning a 2000 year old consistent teaching.
Mark Shea posted a couple days ago, once again reasoning that if you still hold to the Church's traditional approach to capital punishment, then your allies are the likes of barbaric Muslim societies and Communist tyrannies. He even included a cute graph like the one above (I deliberately used a different graph that outlined the world's countries a little better).
If you look at the above chart, there is quite a variety of countries without and with the death penalty. Look carefully. Yes, most Muslim countries have it, so does China. But so does Brazil. So does Japan. So does India. Argentina. Mongolia. I'm not sure there's any trend I can spot there.
Those that have abolished the death penalty? Secular Turkey in the Muslim world. Nepal. Mostly countries aligned with post-Christian Europe. S. America has the death penalty, as well as liberal abortion laws and progress views on gay marriage. Russia has the death penalty, loose abortion laws, and right now no move to recognize gay marriage. Europe, which seems to be the go to reference point for those who wish to abolish the death penalty altogether, is a living, breathing example of post-Christian values: gay marriages, abortion for the longest time, several moving toward legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I thought of this as yet one more country that banned the death penalty embraces gay marriage. And let's not forget, the United States that brought us federally supported abortion rights was, at the time, also attempting its first round of banning the death penalty. My point is, it's an incredibly weak, almost ludicrous argument. Most of my life I opposed the death penalty outright, though I knew that brought a few problems. I was happy to embrace the Church's (then) teaching that it should be rare in deference to mercy if at all possible, but not if it compromises the ability to protect widows and orphans.
But now, many leaders in the Church, leaning heavily on the State's new-found ability to prevent crime, are seeking to abolish the death penalty altogether. And in lieu of a better reason, apparently some have sought to find reasons of their own to do so, including guilt by association. Looking at the map above, it's easy to see why 'if you support the death penalty, then you're in the camp of barbarism' is really no better than 'because now the State can prevent crime.' We'll have to do better than either of those to justify jettisoning a 2000 year old consistent teaching.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Because the state can protect us from criminals
This man was apparently let out of prison early. He then allegedly went on to gun down Colorado's corrections chief. Look, I said I opposed the Death Penalty. I knew there were a few problems with that. Especially once I became a Christian. Ironic, I know. Most I knew who opposed the DP did so for reasons I increasingly saw as incompatible with classical Christian doctrines. I also struggled with the idea that it could lead to the innocent dying. It might be rare, but as far as we know, the verified cases of innocent people being executed are also rare. Both numbers might be higher than we imagine.
Which is why I found solace in the Church's position: mercy if at all possible, but not at the expense of protecting the widow and the orphan, the innocent so to speak. Nonetheless, I was always a little skittish about that section in the Catechism that seems, in an almost off handed way, to suggest it might be time to end the practice altogether. Not because it says it might be time, but the reason it gives: because now the State can protect us from criminals.
I'm not even sure what that means. At first it just bothered me. But the more I've looked into things, I've realized that the State is no more able to 'protect us' than it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. And this case in Colorado simply drives the point home. Like the inmates killed in a nearby prison over the last year, the young mother killed a few years ago by an escaped convict, now this man killed by an inmate accidentally let out early because of a clerical error, it's obvious that the State can't 'protect us.'
Call me silly, but I expect the Church to be right. I could buy the argument that the entire capital punishment process is a lumbering mess, that our justice system is in disarray, and that in the end there are a thousand things wrong with this country so often maligned and insulted that one loses track of what is wrong. How can such an inept and corrupt nation ever be trusted with the awesome power of life and death? Of course the same things then must be said about warfare, and even self protection. To the liberal's credit, all of these should (should, though with liberal presidents not always) be condemned outright. Nothing, and I mean nothing, to kill or die for after all.
But to rest the abolition of capital punishment on something that is so clearly false. What does it even mean? Just because you are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not give you the right to say wrong things. You can't say 2+2=1. You can't say squares are round. You can't say driving is safer because pixies and leprechauns are now living in the traffic lights. And you can't say we can basically change 2000 years of understanding a subject because of something that is so easily and demonstrably false. For if you do it for this topic, there is not one thing in the world to suggest you won't do it for another. So get back to the drawing board and reflect. Either keep the teaching where it was, or at least find reasons to change it based on what is true, not on what is almost clear as day wrong.
Which is why I found solace in the Church's position: mercy if at all possible, but not at the expense of protecting the widow and the orphan, the innocent so to speak. Nonetheless, I was always a little skittish about that section in the Catechism that seems, in an almost off handed way, to suggest it might be time to end the practice altogether. Not because it says it might be time, but the reason it gives: because now the State can protect us from criminals.
I'm not even sure what that means. At first it just bothered me. But the more I've looked into things, I've realized that the State is no more able to 'protect us' than it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. And this case in Colorado simply drives the point home. Like the inmates killed in a nearby prison over the last year, the young mother killed a few years ago by an escaped convict, now this man killed by an inmate accidentally let out early because of a clerical error, it's obvious that the State can't 'protect us.'
Call me silly, but I expect the Church to be right. I could buy the argument that the entire capital punishment process is a lumbering mess, that our justice system is in disarray, and that in the end there are a thousand things wrong with this country so often maligned and insulted that one loses track of what is wrong. How can such an inept and corrupt nation ever be trusted with the awesome power of life and death? Of course the same things then must be said about warfare, and even self protection. To the liberal's credit, all of these should (should, though with liberal presidents not always) be condemned outright. Nothing, and I mean nothing, to kill or die for after all.
But to rest the abolition of capital punishment on something that is so clearly false. What does it even mean? Just because you are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not give you the right to say wrong things. You can't say 2+2=1. You can't say squares are round. You can't say driving is safer because pixies and leprechauns are now living in the traffic lights. And you can't say we can basically change 2000 years of understanding a subject because of something that is so easily and demonstrably false. For if you do it for this topic, there is not one thing in the world to suggest you won't do it for another. So get back to the drawing board and reflect. Either keep the teaching where it was, or at least find reasons to change it based on what is true, not on what is almost clear as day wrong.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
A Catholic struggle with the Death Penalty
This is an issue that has gnawed at me for some time. When things settle down in my life, I must put my thoughts out on the subject. Long and short off the top of my head: as a liberal agnostic I rejected the death penalty because, well, that's what liberals and many secular non-religious types did. The reasons were many: authority sucks, who's to say what's true, there are no criminals, only victims of oppressive and unjust societies, executions are so 'medieval religious inquisitor', all you need is love, and on and on.
When I became a Christian, I was confronted by many who actually supported the death penalty. After my ordination, I met many more who could argue passionately, eloquently and with a nod toward the sanctity of life and the justice of God and a host of other issues for its use. I also met others who vehemently opposed the death penalty. But I noticed some things: those who supported it were likely to allow for armed combat and other means for protecting the nation, while those opposed typically opposed all warfare and violence. I also noticed that those who supported the death penalty tended to adhere to more traditional and literal understandings of the Christian faith: God actually did send His Son to die on the cross, hell exists, there are absolute truths, sanctity of life and all that.
I also noticed that the overwhelming majority of those who outright rejected the death penalty tended to skirt at least some of those beliefs. Not all, but most typically rejected some if not every one of those ideas: no Hell, God certainly didn't really send his Son to die on the Cross (for what? There's no Hell), what sanctity of life, etc. I remember a professor I had, Professor Walt, who railed against the death penalty with the same passion he railed against the archaic notion of life's sanctity. Plus, most tended to embrace the more liberal notion that the right of the individual to define his or her own reality reigned supreme, as opposed to old notions of greater truths that needed fealty and obedience.
In the face of this, and the fact that I tended toward a more traditional take on Christianity, I felt at odds with my opposition to the death penalty. The best I could cling to was that no justice system is infallible, and with the chance for the innocent to be executed, rejection of capital punishment was the only safe course to follow. Naturally, friends and colleagues who disagreed were quick to ask what about the innocent who might die because a killer who might otherwise have been executed is allowed to live? That has happened, too.
As a liberal, that was the chance you took. Rights trump life after all. Hence the overwhelming tendency of modern nations that reject the death penalty to allow for abortion rights. Rights trump life. But as a sanctity of life guy, that was a dilemma. Plus, especially in terms of liberalism Western Civ. style, there has always been a latent tendency to sympathize more with Bonnie and Clyde than Ozzie and Harriet. Not that any liberal would dismiss the concern for the innocent, but it's a chance worth taking. Again, abortion rights advocated by death penalty opponents. In it's weird way, it's very consistent. But as a non-liberal Christian, I was never entirely happy, and there were times where it seemed the blood of the innocent screamed for justice, and the lives of the innocent demanded the ultimate protection.
Then I came into the Catholic Church. On my way in, I was assailed by some colleagues, especially of the more fundamentalist camp. I remember one hitting me on this subject. Turns out the Church doesn't stand on ancient teachings, but changes its teachings to fit the latest and hippest. He gave me the death penalty as an example. See! For thousands of years the Church had taught one thing, and now it was tossing it out the window.
Given everything I was about to give up, and the upheaval and trials we were about to endure, you better believe I didn't want to do it for a tradition as willing to keep with the times as any other progressive mainline tradition I could join and still remain an ordained clergy. So I took this objection to those in the know - Catholics I had met, clergy I knew, the Catholic Blogosphere, and lo and behold, all was light. The Church - I was informed - had never just 'banned' the death penalty. It wouldn't. The teachings regarding the death penalty were rooted in too many doctrines upheld for thousands of years. What it does say is that we should opt for mercy whenever possible BUT still be prepared under the most extreme of circumstances to execute for the protection of the widow and the orphan.
That worked! One, it all but trounced the whole 'Catholicism changes to keep with the times like any other traditions, just slower' argument. Two, it upheld the emphasis on mercy and grace. Three, it allowed a both/and rather than either/or approach, and by allowing for its use in the most extreme circumstances, admitted that the innocent and the law abiding were not expendable for the sake of Sauron. There are times when evil must be eradicated because the innocent cannot be put in jeopardy.
Great. Now I could sleep. I was also informed that if you didn't agree with this, and were completely against the death penalty, the Church allowed for agreeing to disagree on the subject. It was the best of both worlds! I wasn't condemned for being at odds with the Church as I worked things out in my heart and mind, and it's approach of 'mercy in all ways until it compromises the innocent' was almost drawing me to change my own positions.
And then...BAM! It comes out that Pope Benedict, in addition to 'a growing number of Bishops' called for the absolute abolition of the death penalty. Period. End of debate. FWIW, I was already bothered by the Catechism's take on the subject. On my way in, I read that and was a bit puzzled. For none of the classical arguments for the death penalty seemed to be touched upon. Just the idea that we must default to mercy, ignoring other areas in the Catechism about the need for justice and demand to protect citizens including, but not limited to Just War. And the most bothersome part, the idea that our wonderful and infallible incarceration systems were just fine when it came to preventing crimes.
That last part still gets me. Where is the data for that? Where are the facts? I mean, they don't prevent crime. Everyone knows that. If you say we need to end traffic laws because you've concluded they do more harm than good, then show me the data. If you say we need to end traffic laws because of the little elves who live in the traffic lights, now you've really lost me. And the super-irony is that there are few groups more critical of the multiple deficiencies of our judicial and penal systems than the American Catholic Bishops! How this otherwise corrupt and unjust and inept institution can suddenly smack it out of the ballpark when it comes to protecting the innocent seemed to push credulity to its limits.
In addition, of course, I was met with those who had once so proudly declared the Church's balanced and clear teaching. Suddenly, you were ignoring the clear teaching of the Church if you were, you know, holding on to what had been the clear teaching of the Church
So here I stand, still working things out. My post-Catholic conversion approach of mercy in all cases unless the innocent must be protected is still there, and far too many advocates of the Change are giving me no reason to change again. When the argument is 'obey or you're stupid and hate the Church', that's not an argument. That's almost, if I may be so bold, an admission that this really is a sudden and radical alteration of traditional teaching without any clear foundations for doing so. That's yelling and hollering in the hope that nobody stops to say 'wait a minute, we're the proof that our prisons can protect the innocent.' It's also making cases that are not accurate. Too many who advocate the sudden abolition point to almost anti-Catholic stereotypes about the Church of yore, suggesting that Catholics who don't want to accept the change want a Church that slaughters heretics, butchers Jews, tortures infidels Nothing like appealing to Bill Maher's appraisal of Catholic history to make a point.
Nope. I'm still out on this one. Breaking down the reasons will come about in the future. For now, consider this link. Another popular impression is that the Church used to allow for things like the death penalty in the barbaric middle ages, but we're so past that now. If you read this, you realize that the call to completely abolish the death penalty is rather new, and rather radical. And it's been within the living memory of Catholics today that Popes not only allowed for its use, but may actually have advocated its use. It also reminds us that there are many, many issues beyond the divine perfection of our judicial system's abilities in protecting the innocent. Food for thought. For now, I remain where I became as a Catholic: always try to avoid Capital Punishment unless the innocent are clearly at risk by using any other means. I'll need to see better than what's been served to believe it should be altered any more.
When I became a Christian, I was confronted by many who actually supported the death penalty. After my ordination, I met many more who could argue passionately, eloquently and with a nod toward the sanctity of life and the justice of God and a host of other issues for its use. I also met others who vehemently opposed the death penalty. But I noticed some things: those who supported it were likely to allow for armed combat and other means for protecting the nation, while those opposed typically opposed all warfare and violence. I also noticed that those who supported the death penalty tended to adhere to more traditional and literal understandings of the Christian faith: God actually did send His Son to die on the cross, hell exists, there are absolute truths, sanctity of life and all that.
I also noticed that the overwhelming majority of those who outright rejected the death penalty tended to skirt at least some of those beliefs. Not all, but most typically rejected some if not every one of those ideas: no Hell, God certainly didn't really send his Son to die on the Cross (for what? There's no Hell), what sanctity of life, etc. I remember a professor I had, Professor Walt, who railed against the death penalty with the same passion he railed against the archaic notion of life's sanctity. Plus, most tended to embrace the more liberal notion that the right of the individual to define his or her own reality reigned supreme, as opposed to old notions of greater truths that needed fealty and obedience.
In the face of this, and the fact that I tended toward a more traditional take on Christianity, I felt at odds with my opposition to the death penalty. The best I could cling to was that no justice system is infallible, and with the chance for the innocent to be executed, rejection of capital punishment was the only safe course to follow. Naturally, friends and colleagues who disagreed were quick to ask what about the innocent who might die because a killer who might otherwise have been executed is allowed to live? That has happened, too.
As a liberal, that was the chance you took. Rights trump life after all. Hence the overwhelming tendency of modern nations that reject the death penalty to allow for abortion rights. Rights trump life. But as a sanctity of life guy, that was a dilemma. Plus, especially in terms of liberalism Western Civ. style, there has always been a latent tendency to sympathize more with Bonnie and Clyde than Ozzie and Harriet. Not that any liberal would dismiss the concern for the innocent, but it's a chance worth taking. Again, abortion rights advocated by death penalty opponents. In it's weird way, it's very consistent. But as a non-liberal Christian, I was never entirely happy, and there were times where it seemed the blood of the innocent screamed for justice, and the lives of the innocent demanded the ultimate protection.
Then I came into the Catholic Church. On my way in, I was assailed by some colleagues, especially of the more fundamentalist camp. I remember one hitting me on this subject. Turns out the Church doesn't stand on ancient teachings, but changes its teachings to fit the latest and hippest. He gave me the death penalty as an example. See! For thousands of years the Church had taught one thing, and now it was tossing it out the window.
Given everything I was about to give up, and the upheaval and trials we were about to endure, you better believe I didn't want to do it for a tradition as willing to keep with the times as any other progressive mainline tradition I could join and still remain an ordained clergy. So I took this objection to those in the know - Catholics I had met, clergy I knew, the Catholic Blogosphere, and lo and behold, all was light. The Church - I was informed - had never just 'banned' the death penalty. It wouldn't. The teachings regarding the death penalty were rooted in too many doctrines upheld for thousands of years. What it does say is that we should opt for mercy whenever possible BUT still be prepared under the most extreme of circumstances to execute for the protection of the widow and the orphan.
That worked! One, it all but trounced the whole 'Catholicism changes to keep with the times like any other traditions, just slower' argument. Two, it upheld the emphasis on mercy and grace. Three, it allowed a both/and rather than either/or approach, and by allowing for its use in the most extreme circumstances, admitted that the innocent and the law abiding were not expendable for the sake of Sauron. There are times when evil must be eradicated because the innocent cannot be put in jeopardy.
Great. Now I could sleep. I was also informed that if you didn't agree with this, and were completely against the death penalty, the Church allowed for agreeing to disagree on the subject. It was the best of both worlds! I wasn't condemned for being at odds with the Church as I worked things out in my heart and mind, and it's approach of 'mercy in all ways until it compromises the innocent' was almost drawing me to change my own positions.
And then...BAM! It comes out that Pope Benedict, in addition to 'a growing number of Bishops' called for the absolute abolition of the death penalty. Period. End of debate. FWIW, I was already bothered by the Catechism's take on the subject. On my way in, I read that and was a bit puzzled. For none of the classical arguments for the death penalty seemed to be touched upon. Just the idea that we must default to mercy, ignoring other areas in the Catechism about the need for justice and demand to protect citizens including, but not limited to Just War. And the most bothersome part, the idea that our wonderful and infallible incarceration systems were just fine when it came to preventing crimes.
That last part still gets me. Where is the data for that? Where are the facts? I mean, they don't prevent crime. Everyone knows that. If you say we need to end traffic laws because you've concluded they do more harm than good, then show me the data. If you say we need to end traffic laws because of the little elves who live in the traffic lights, now you've really lost me. And the super-irony is that there are few groups more critical of the multiple deficiencies of our judicial and penal systems than the American Catholic Bishops! How this otherwise corrupt and unjust and inept institution can suddenly smack it out of the ballpark when it comes to protecting the innocent seemed to push credulity to its limits.
In addition, of course, I was met with those who had once so proudly declared the Church's balanced and clear teaching. Suddenly, you were ignoring the clear teaching of the Church if you were, you know, holding on to what had been the clear teaching of the Church
So here I stand, still working things out. My post-Catholic conversion approach of mercy in all cases unless the innocent must be protected is still there, and far too many advocates of the Change are giving me no reason to change again. When the argument is 'obey or you're stupid and hate the Church', that's not an argument. That's almost, if I may be so bold, an admission that this really is a sudden and radical alteration of traditional teaching without any clear foundations for doing so. That's yelling and hollering in the hope that nobody stops to say 'wait a minute, we're the proof that our prisons can protect the innocent.' It's also making cases that are not accurate. Too many who advocate the sudden abolition point to almost anti-Catholic stereotypes about the Church of yore, suggesting that Catholics who don't want to accept the change want a Church that slaughters heretics, butchers Jews, tortures infidels Nothing like appealing to Bill Maher's appraisal of Catholic history to make a point.
Nope. I'm still out on this one. Breaking down the reasons will come about in the future. For now, consider this link. Another popular impression is that the Church used to allow for things like the death penalty in the barbaric middle ages, but we're so past that now. If you read this, you realize that the call to completely abolish the death penalty is rather new, and rather radical. And it's been within the living memory of Catholics today that Popes not only allowed for its use, but may actually have advocated its use. It also reminds us that there are many, many issues beyond the divine perfection of our judicial system's abilities in protecting the innocent. Food for thought. For now, I remain where I became as a Catholic: always try to avoid Capital Punishment unless the innocent are clearly at risk by using any other means. I'll need to see better than what's been served to believe it should be altered any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)