This is an issue that has gnawed at me for some time. \u00a0When things settle down in my life, I must \u00a0put my thoughts out on the subject. \u00a0Long and short off the top of my head: as a liberal agnostic I rejected the death penalty because, well, that\u2019s what liberals and many secular non-religious types did. \u00a0The reasons were many: authority sucks, who\u2019s to say what\u2019s true, there are no criminals, only victims of oppressive and unjust societies, executions are so \u2018medieval religious\u00a0inquisitor\u2019, all you need is love, and on and on. <\/p>\n
When I became a Christian, I was confronted by many who actually supported the death penalty. \u00a0After my ordination, I met many more who could argue\u00a0passionately,\u00a0eloquently\u00a0 and with a nod toward the\u00a0sanctity\u00a0of life and the justice of God and a host of other issues for its use. \u00a0I also met others who\u00a0vehemently\u00a0opposed the death penalty. \u00a0But 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. \u00a0I 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.<\/p>\n
I also noticed that the overwhelming majority of those who outright rejected the death penalty tended to skirt at least some of those beliefs. \u00a0Not all, but most typically rejected some if not every one of those ideas: no Hell, God certainly didn\u2019t really send his Son to die on the Cross (for what? \u00a0There\u2019s no Hell), what\u00a0sanctity\u00a0of life, etc. \u00a0 I remember a\u00a0professor I had, Professor Walt,\u00a0who railed against the death penalty with the same passion he railed against the archaic notion of life\u2019s sanctity. \u00a0Plus, most tended to embrace the more liberal notion that the right of the individual to define his or her own reality reigned\u00a0supreme,\u00a0 as opposed to old notions of greater truths that needed fealty and obedience.<\/p>\n
In the face of this, and the fact that I tended toward a more traditional take on\u00a0Christianity,\u00a0 I felt at odds with my opposition to the death penalty. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0Naturally, friends and\u00a0colleagues\u00a0who 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? \u00a0That has happened, too. <\/p>\n
As a liberal, that was the chance you took. \u00a0Rights\u00a0trump life after all. \u00a0Hence the overwhelming tendency of modern nations that reject the death penalty to allow for abortion rights. \u00a0Rights trump life. \u00a0But as a sanctity of life guy, that was a\u00a0dilemma. \u00a0Plus, especially in\u00a0terms\u00a0of liberalism Western Civ. style, there has always been a latent tendency to sympathize more with Bonnie and Clyde than Ozzie and Harriet. \u00a0Not that any liberal would dismiss the concern for the innocent, but it\u2019s a chance worth taking. \u00a0Again, abortion rights advocated by death penalty opponents. \u00a0In it\u2019s\u00a0weird\u00a0way, it\u2019s very consistent. \u00a0But 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\u00a0ultimate\u00a0protection.<\/p>\n
Then I came into the Catholic Church. \u00a0On my way in, I was assailed by some colleagues, especially of the more fundamentalist camp. \u00a0I remember one hitting me on this subject. \u00a0Turns out the Church doesn\u2019t stand on ancient teachings, but changes its teachings to fit the latest and hippest. \u00a0He gave me the death penalty as an example. \u00a0See! \u00a0For thousands of years the Church had taught one thing, and now it was tossing it out the window.<\/p>\n
Given everything I was about to give up, and the upheaval and trials we were about to endure, you better\u00a0believe\u00a0I didn\u2019t want to do it for a tradition as willing to keep with the times as any\u00a0other\u00a0progressive mainline tradition I could join and still remain an ordained clergy. \u00a0So I took this objection to those in the know \u2013 Catholics I had met, clergy I knew, the Catholic Blogosphere, and lo and behold, all was light. \u00a0The Church \u2013 I was informed \u2013 had never just \u2018banned\u2019 the death penalty. \u00a0It wouldn\u2019t. \u00a0The teachings regarding the death\u00a0penalty\u00a0were rooted in too many doctrines upheld for thousands of years. \u00a0What 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.<\/p>\n
That worked! \u00a0One, it all but trounced the whole \u2018Catholicism changes to keep with the times like any other traditions, just slower\u2019 argument. \u00a0Two, it upheld the emphasis on mercy and grace. \u00a0Three, it allowed a both\/and rather than either\/or approach, and by allowing for its use in the most extreme circumstances, admitted that\u00a0the\u00a0innocent\u00a0and the law abiding were not\u00a0expendable\u00a0for the sake of Sauron. \u00a0There are times when evil must be eradicated because the\u00a0innocent\u00a0cannot be put in\u00a0jeopardy.<\/p>\n
Great. \u00a0Now I could sleep. \u00a0I was also informed that if you didn\u2019t agree with this,\u00a0and\u00a0were completely against the death penalty, the\u00a0Church\u00a0allowed for agreeing to disagree on the subject. \u00a0It was the best of both worlds! \u00a0I wasn\u2019t condemned for being at odds with the Church as I worked things out in my heart and mind, and it\u2019s approach of \u2018mercy in all ways until it compromises the innocent\u2019 was almost drawing me to change my own\u00a0positions.<\/p>\n
And then\u2026BAM! \u00a0It comes out that Pope Benedict, in addition to \u2018a growing number of Bishops\u2019 called for the absolute abolition of the death penalty. \u00a0Period. \u00a0End of debate. \u00a0FWIW, I was already\u00a0bothered\u00a0by the Catechism\u2019s take on the subject. \u00a0On my way in, I read that and was a bit puzzled. \u00a0For\u00a0none\u00a0of the classical arguments for the death penalty seemed to be touched upon. \u00a0Just 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\u00a0limited\u00a0to Just War. \u00a0And the most bothersome part, the idea that our wonderful and\u00a0infallible\u00a0incarceration systems were just fine when it came to\u00a0preventing\u00a0crimes. <\/p>\n
That last part still gets me. \u00a0Where is the data for that? \u00a0Where are the facts? I mean, they don\u2019t prevent crime. \u00a0Everyone knows that. \u00a0If you say we need to end traffic laws\u00a0because\u00a0you\u2019ve concluded \u00a0they do more harm than good, then show me the data. \u00a0If you say we need to end traffic laws because of the little elves who live in the traffic lights, now you\u2019ve really lost me. \u00a0And the super-irony is that there are few groups more critical of the multiple deficiencies of our judicial and penal systems than the \u00a0American Catholic Bishops! \u00a0How this\u00a0otherwise\u00a0corrupt and\u00a0unjust\u00a0and inept\u00a0institution\u00a0can suddenly smack it out of the ballpark when it comes to protecting the innocent seemed to push\u00a0credulity\u00a0to its limits.<\/p>\n
In addition, of course, I was met with those who had once so proudly\u00a0declared\u00a0the\u00a0Church\u2019s\u00a0balanced and clear teaching. \u00a0Suddenly, you were ignoring the clear\u00a0teaching\u00a0of the Church if you were, you know, holding on to what had been the clear teaching of the\u00a0Church\u00a0
<\/b>So here I stand, still working things out. \u00a0My 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. \u00a0When the argument is \u2018obey or you\u2019re stupid and hate\u00a0the\u00a0Church\u2019, that\u2019s not an argument. \u00a0That\u2019s 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. \u00a0That\u2019s yelling and hollering in the hope that nobody stops to say \u2018wait a minute, we\u2019re the proof that our prisons can protect the innocent.\u2019 \u00a0It\u2019s also making cases that are not accurate. \u00a0Too many who advocate the sudden abolition point to almost anti-Catholic\u00a0stereotypes\u00a0about the Church of yore, suggesting that Catholics who don\u2019t want to accept the change want a Church that slaughters heretics, butchers Jews, tortures\u00a0infidels\u00a0 \u00a0Nothing like appealing to Bill Maher\u2019s appraisal of Catholic\u00a0history\u00a0to make a point.<\/p>\n