Keeping the Faith-Part II-John Paul and Ol' Sparky

I wasn't counting on this being a multi-parter, but I got a good comment on part one from "Florida Politics," a Democratic contributor over at Political State Report.

You claim "Martinez has the courage and conviction to stand by the church"; really? I look forward to hearing him speak against the war on Iraq and oppose the death penalty.

On the war in Iraq, see: http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/On the death penalty, see: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/dea.htm

Martinez is simply cherry picking and church tenets that are consistent with his politics, and ignoring church teachings that are politically inconvenient.

The same is of course true of Democrats, but I think it is fair to say that the "social justice" positions of the Catholic Church are by far more consistent with the assertions of the Dem Party than the Repubs.

OK, FP, I'll pick up that gauntlet. My quick take is that abortion is clearly evil in the eyes of the church, while capital punishment and war can be proper under the right situations. I'll tackle the war later; let's take a look at where the Catholic church stands on capital punishment; the Catholic members of the Peanut Gallery are strongly encouraged to either confirm or question my quick research.

The definitive modern Catholic take on the death penalty seems to be 1995's Evangelium Vitae . Here's section 56-

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".[46] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.[47]

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[48]

Thus, John Paul II's stand isn't quite a prohibition but more of (dare I borrow a Clintonism) making it safe, legal and rare, using it only on violent criminals who'd likely kill again even behind bars. Cardinal Dulles comments in this First Things article-

The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that “Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.” Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the “Consistent Ethic of Life” at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the “classical position” that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.

Although Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a “consistent ethic of life,” he made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed in Evangelium Vitae (1995) that “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.” But he wisely included in that statement the word “innocent.” He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty.

However, the mood of the church has swung towards a near, but not quite total, cessation of capital punishment; more from Dulles-

The Catholic magisterium in recent years has become increasingly vocal in opposing the practice of capital punishment. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system,” cases in which the execution of the offender would be absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Again at St. Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it was “both cruel and unnecessary.” The bishops of many countries have spoken to the same effect.

The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

Thus, it appears that Catholics can remain faithful and disagree on exactly when to apply capital punishment.

However, that's not true of abortion, which John Paul comes out forcefully against. Here's the best quote I saw in Evangelium Vitae in section 20-

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).

John Paul didn't pull out that kind of flamage against the death penalty, FP. He also didn't do that with Iraq. That's why Martinez and other pro-death-penalty and anti-abortion folks can still be in good graces with the church.

Comments

[Florida Politics]

Mark, I hesitate to get into a debate with you about things religious; you certainly outclass me in that field, among others. Having said that, I think you soft pedal the Church's stand on the death penalty, and, in turn, give Martinez a pass on what appears to be politically based hipocrisy.

I say this after reviewing, though admittedly not in depth, materials on several "official" Catholic web sites. The American Catholic site on the death penalty, "The Death Penalty and the Catholic Church", puts it this way: the "Catholic Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases, and Pope John Paul II often speaks out against capital punishment". Indeed, the "core" of the homily, during the Papal Mass in St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999,

was a challenge to America to heed this mercy and thus become unconditionally pro-life in every situation: abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, racism, poverty, even capital punishment. "I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary," he said. "Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform."

See also "Statements by the Holy Fatheron the Death Penalty". U.S. Bishops, understandably enough, posit the same position:

First articulated in 1974, the bishops' position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment. Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

"The Death Penalty: Why the Church Speaks a Countercultural Message" (from the American Catholic site).

To be sure, there is some arguable equivocation, particularly in the earlier 1995 Evangelium Vitae which you quote. Be that as it may, it is fair to say that the Catholic Church "opposes" the death penalty. Hence, Martinez and other Catholic death penalty advocates - and make no mistake, Martinez is pro death penalty - are, to put it politely, not in accord with the Church.

As far as the war goes, I think the Church's position is clear: as the American Catholic puts it, "The Roman Catholic Church, led by Pope John Paul II, opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

None of this is to say that Democratic Party Catholics display less hipocrisy, particularly on the abortion issue; Democrats are equally culpable. However, it is noteworthy that Kerry is being hammered while Catholic Republicans seem to get a free pass, whether they are pro-choice (like Tom Ridge and Rudy Rudy Giuliani) or pro-death penalty (like Jeb Bush, and many, many others).

Indeed, one of the few consistent politicians I can think of - though I suspect he is not one of your faves - is my former Congressman, David Bonior, who was both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

On a side note, I am sorry to see you are leaving Florida; you will be missed.

[Peter Sean Bradley]

I'm going to repost some of my comments from your earlier post here to stay current in the discussion -

"I can't let Florida Politics attempt at mischaracterizing the clear teachings of the Catholic church pass without challenge.

Despite the best efforts of the left to equate the Catholic church's teachings on abortion with the death penalty and/or its just war doctrine are not equivalent. The Church has for two thousand years taken a uniformly consistent position against the killing of innocent life. The earliest historical records shows that Christianity forbade abortion and infanticide from the beginning. The Church has never waivered on its position that infanticide and abortion - which are forms of murder - are absolutely immoral like all other forms of murder. For a Catholic to claim a prudential option to commit murder or infanticide would involve a rejection of that clear and definite teaching.

In contrast, the Church has not taken a position against either war or capital punishment. The Catechism recognizes that both are within the legitimate prudential judgments of legitimate authority and, subject to certain conditions and constraints, are legitimate state actions. The Church's prudential judgment presently is that capital punishment should not be imposed because it's not necessary for social protection. But it has never taught that capital punishment is objectively evil. (Although this may be anathema for Florida Politics, Scalia has a very good essay on the subject in First Things.)

A Catholic should be open to the teaching authority of the Church. I know that I was; I have moved from a pro-capital punishment view to an anti-capital punishment position. But that is a decision that rests properly with the well-formed conscience of the individual, unlike abortion which is always objectively evil. If Martinez disagrees, then that is properly - under the consistent teachings of the Church which do allow a broad role for well-formed individual conscience - literally a matter for his conscience."

Having said all that, I don't think Florida Politics understand the role the magisterium plays in this area. The Pope is exercising his teaching authority with respect to the death penalty. I think the Pope is doing the right thing. I think he should be listened to. But the Pope is not saying that the death penalty is "objectively evil."

In fact, the Catholic Catechism discusses the death penalty under the topic of self defense and notes that "legitimate defense can be a grave duty for those charged with the protection of others." (CCC 2265) The Church, in fact, still recognizes the legitimacy of the death penalty. ( 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 Catholic church clearly treats the morality of the death penalty and abortion very differently, which makes sense because the moral implication of the two subjects are very different. Attempts to conflate the two topics seem to be either an effort to confuse the subject for rhetorical advantage or the result of a proof-texting approach to the issue.

[Florida Politics]

Mr. Bradley claims he "can't let Florida Politics attempt at mischaracterizing the clear teachings of the Catholic church pass without challenge." Bradley then proceeds to argue that "the Catholic church's teachings on abortion with the death penalty and/or its just war doctrine are not equivalent [and the] church clearly treats the morality of the death penalty and abortion very differently".

All that may be true, but it is irrelevant to my original points, which were: (1) "the Catholic Church 'opposes' the death penalty", (2) "The Roman Catholic Church, led by Pope John Paul II, opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq.", and (3) "Martinez and other Catholic death penalty advocates . . . [and Iraq war supporters are therefore] not in accord with the Church."

That, as Bradley argues, the Church's opposition to abortion is more pronounced than its opposition to the death penalty does not change the fact that the Church "opposes" the death penalty. Likewise, the Church very clearly opposes the Iraq war. My previous citations to the American Catholic (and the Pope's own words, to wit: "I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary ....") make this clear; Bradley of course cannot and does not refute this.

Stated differently, my point was simply that the Church "opposes" both the death penalty and the war in Iraq; it is beside the point that "the Catholic church's teachings on abortion with the death penalty and/or its just war doctrine are not equivalent."

But Bradley magnifies his error, by making the following assertion: "the Church has not taken a position against either war or capital punishment." This is simply untrue: as my citations to the American Catholic make abundantly clear, the Church has "taken a position", it opposes both the death penalty (though it is not necessarily the "moral equivalen[t]" of abortion) as well as the war in Iraq.

Indeed, Justice Scalia - someone Bradley apparently admires - accepts as a given that the Church opposes the death penalty, but Scalia thinks the Church is wrong:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday criticized his church's position against the death penalty, saying that Catholic judges who believe capital punishment is wrong should resign.

The devout Roman Catholic said after giving it "serious thought" he could not agree with the church's stand on the issue.

Scalia questioned the church's opposition to the death penalty late last month at a conference on the subject in Chicago. He was asked about it again Monday at Georgetown University, a Catholic school.

The Vatican under Pope John Paul II has been strongly anti-death penalty, and the pope has personally appealed to leaders to commute death sentences. In 1999, he said capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are part of a "culture of death."

"Scalia questions Catholic stance on death penalty". To repeat, Scalia acknowledges that the Church opposes the death penalty - something Bradley is unwilling to admit, going so far as to actually (and incorrectly) say "the Church has not taken a position against either war or capital punishment" - but argues the Church is in error.

I am hardly in a position to argue that the Church is right or wrong (unlike Bradley, who like Scalia and other "conservative" Catholics who disagree with (oppose?) the Church's view on these issues), but I am on firm ground in asserting that the Church formally "opposes" both the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Indeed, it is a fairly obvious point. (Heck, even the Florida Catholic Conference observes that "[t]he Papal Commission on Justice and Peace expressed opposition to the death penalty as early as 1976. Over the last three decades, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued statements against it four different times, and the Florida Bishops six times.")

I am on equally firm ground in pointing out that Martinez is being a hipocrite by supporting the death penalty and the war in Iraq.