Good Lord..
..that was a long post.. ;)
- posted by Doug @ 2:54 PM    Comment

 
As promised..
"Wait a minute!" you say, "How come you claim Durbin, Kennedy, Daschle, et. al. aren't 'really' Catholic because they disagree with the Pope on abortion, but you give a pass to these Southern Republicans (like Pryor) who favor the death penalty, even though the Pope's against it?" (OK, maybe you didn't say that. Maybe it's just the voices in my head...)

So is it true that someone who's anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is in accord with the teachings of the Church and someone who's pro-choice and anti-death penalty is against the Church? In a word, yes. It is true that the Church is now encouraging the cessation of capital punishment, but that is not the same as teaching as a matter of faith that it is always and everywhere a grave evil, as is the teaching on abortion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of all of the current teachings of the Faith. [Note: the link provided seems to be from the first translation from the Latin. The quotes provided are from my desk copy, the 2nd edition "revised in accordance with the official Latin text.] It discusses abortion and capital punishment almost together, in the chapter on the Fifth Commnadment ("Thou shalt not kill"). In no. 2270, the Catechism proclaims:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

(Emphasis added.)

In no. 2271:

Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. [...] "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."

The quote in 2271 is taken from the Didache, some of the earliest extant non-Biblical Christian writings. The Catechism goes on to explain that the penalty for "formal cooperation in an abortion" is excommunication (2272).

Meanwhile, the Catechism is much less forceful in its suasion against capital punishment. In 2266, we find:

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Continuing in no. 2267:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

The paragraph goes on to require the use of non-lethal means if they are sufficient "to protect people's safety", and to include the Pope's opinion in his encyclical Evangelium vitae that the cases where capital punishment is necessary "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." Nonetheless, this has certainly not been the Church's constant teachings over the centuries. While the Church Fathers were mostly against capital punishment (especially since they were often on the receiving end of it), the Church did not condemn it and in fact used it during the Middle Ages when the the Church was the government of a temporal state (the Papal States).

Let us take a look at the aforementioned Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical on the sanctity of human life. The Holy Father addressed this letter not just to the clergy or all Catholics, but to "all People of Good Will". To those of you who are not Catholic or are not familiar with Catholic doctrine, a papal encyclical is a letter from the Pope to the Church as a whole on some matter of faith or morals. It is not necessarily infallible in that he is not speaking ex cathedra (from the chair [of Peter]), but it does demand acceptance as from the highest teaching authority within the Church. The Second Vatican Council declared:

"Religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents (one of which could be an encyclical), from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, No. 25).

Evangelium vitae (EV for short), along with various homilies and statements given by the Pope, is generally given as the basis for the position that Catholic teaching equally condemns abortion and capital punishment. However, this position does not hold up when reading the letter. Abortion is mentioned dozens of times in the letter and is condemned in the strongest possible manner, e.g. at no. 58: "Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an 'unspeakable crime'." It is obvious that this Pope is strongly opposed to the death penalty. Still, capital punishment is mentioned only three times. Once, in no. 27, he sees "signs of hope" in the fact that public opinion is more and more opposed to war as a means of conflict resolution and that there is "growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of "legitimate defence" on the part of society." Next, in no.40, he concedes that the Law in ancient Israel provided for the death penalty in many cases. Finally, he discusses the death penalty in the context of "legitimate defen[s]e" such as when a police officer must shoot a criminal in order to save an innocent's life (cf. no. 55). He teaches that punishment must fit the crime, and that it should allow for the redemption of the offender. It "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society."

Unfortunately, even with today's prison system, it is not always possible to keep prisoners behind bars. Consider the case of the 'Texas Seven', a group of convicted violent offenders serving sentences ranging from 30 years to life in prison. They managed to escape from this maximum-security facility and subsequently murdered a police officer. I would argue that any person who takes a life, and in the judge and jury's opinion appears likely to do so again (e.g. serial murderer, terrorist, etc.) should be liable for the death penalty. [Note that none of the Texas Seven would likely have originally gotten death sentences under this system; their case was used for illustration only.] This stance appears to me to be completely consistent with Catholic doctrine and teachings.
- posted by Doug @ 1:36 PM    Comment

 
One damn cool ad..
'Cog', an ad for the new Honda Accord.
- posted by Doug @ 6:56 PM    Comment

 
On Deck
Reconciling Pro-life (anti-abortion) and Pro-Death Penalty positions..
- posted by Doug @ 6:08 PM    Comment

 
Babies are fun..
.. espcially once they learn how to smile. :)
- posted by Doug @ 5:25 PM    Comment

 
Anti-Catholic bias?
  So a lot of commentary has been made recently on the topic of William Pryor, one of President Bush's appellate court nominees who is being filibustered by the Senate Democrats (along with Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen). I thought I'd go ahead and throw my two meager pennies into the foaming, frothing fountain of fulmination that is the blogosphere.
  First, some background. Pryor is currently the Attorney General for the state of Alabama. He has been nominated by Pres. Bush to a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a devout Catholic, and firmly believes in the Church's teachings, including the one that says abortion is immoral. He has espoused the opinion that Roe v. Wade was a shoddily-argued opinion and that its Constitutional underpinnings are weak and suspect. He has also, as shown in this Commitee for Justice brief supporting his nomination, shown an ability to set aside his personal beliefs to follow law and precedent.
  The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in the Senate at large, oppose his appointment to the bench based mainly on his stated opposition to Roe v. Wade. They are currently engaged in a filibuster, preventing the Republican majority from confirming him. Some, including Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Hugh Hewitt (scroll down to the post made at 8AM today) and Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review Online, have accused these Democrats of an "anti-Catholic bias" and condemning them for essentially imposing a religious test for office -- something forbidden by Article VI of the US Constitution. Ponnuru allows that the test imposed here is one of viewpoint, rather than strictly religion.
  I believe RP is on the right track here. What the Democrats are trying to do (and have been doing for many years) is establish a litmus test for the federal bench that would bar anyone who disagrees with the methodology used in deciding Roe v. Wade. While this would certainly have the effect of barring faithful Catholics (and other Evangelicals) from judgeships, it is not specifically directed at Catholics, or even the religious in general.
  Indeed, several of these Democratic Senators, such as Sens. Richard Durbin and Ted Kennedy identify themselves as "Catholic". (To what extent this self-identification has meaning when they disagree with and work against many of the Church's tenets is unclear.) It is doubtful that they would participate in the opposition to Pryor if the animus for said opposition was anti-Catholicism.
- posted by Doug @ 5:20 PM    Comment

 
First post!
OK.. that was lame. But I'm just testing this blogger thing out right now.
- posted by Doug @ 4:28 PM    1 comment