OT: Capital Punishment--The Catholic View

Whistle
21

I’ve always believed that the problem with the “sanctity of life” argument is that it tends to equate “human life” with “physical human life”–rather a strange position for a Christian to take, as if physical death is the worst that can happen to a person. It’s a kind of a shortcut way to avoid argument over such basic issues as precisely why is it bad to kill human beings for no good reason. Obviously, we prefer not to have to go back to the basics at every turn, but it does appear to me that at this juncture in Western Civilization (abortion, euthanasia, various bio-engineering proposals like human cloning, etc.) we do need to think it out and express it all thoroughly. However, the idea of physical death being the ultimate evil for an individual is not such a strange position for one who is a product of the Enlightenment.

Speaking of which, I’m working my way (slowly) through Pierre Manent’s “The City of Man” (execrable translation from the French by a Frenchman who’s English is not really idiomatic–anyone here ever here of the “Battle of England”? Says here it took place in 1940.). In the early going he makes a major point of stressing that the Enlightenment set out to discredit the ethics of virtue, on which the Greco-Roman as well as the Christian way of life was based. To do so also required destroying the idea of human nature, as well, and reducing human persons to individual instances of no discoverable nature rather than personal expressions of human nature. This is essentially an embrace of the Hobbesian view, by which man’s highest concern amounts to physical survival. Obviously I simplify; Manent is speaking of Montesqieu at this point and his argument and explication are far more complex.

Zubivka, if you’re lurking out there–you might want to give this guy a try.

22

Hey I would love to keep reading this interesting stuff but I am off to midnight mass!

23

As I understand it, it’s the idea that human life
is of value and deserves respect and protection
under every circumstance. This isn’t the idea
that physical life is all that matters in human
life; nor is it the idea
that death is the worst thing that could happen
to us.

A practical manifestation is this:

If at 30, in robust good health, I go to my doctor
and say ‘I want pills which I can use to put an
end to my life,’ or even ‘I want an order in my
records that if ever I’m suddenly stricken
with something life threatening, then I’m not
to be given life-sustaining treatment,’
he should say:

Are you depressed? Are you unhappy? Are you in
pain? What is it that’s leading you to ask for this?
What can you and I do to make you more happy?

The real force of the sanctity doctrine is this:

If at 75 I wheel my wheechair up to my doctor
and make the same request, he should respond
in exactly the same way. Damned good idea. Best

24

Hey I would love to keep reading this interesting stuff but I am off to midnight mass!

Yeah, we were at Midnight Mass last night, too. I have to say, I can’t seem to hear “Lo! How a rose e’er blooming” enough. So simple, yet moving.

As I understand it, it’s the idea that human life
is of value and deserves respect and protection
under every circumstance. This isn’t the idea
that physical life is all that matters in human
life; nor is it the idea
that death is the worst thing that could happen
to us.

Sounds good, and yet… Whence does human life derive its value, and why does it deserve “respect and protection under every circumstance”?

It appears that this is a good example of several things, two of which are:

  1. The way in which Christian values get subsumed in secular culture, but with little examination of their origin, justification and real meaning.
  2. The way in general in which we use “shorthand” or “coded language” or “labels” to communicate. However, in the situation outlined in #1, you have to wonder how much communicating is really going on.

For example, let’s ask Jim, whether human life ends at death? After all, don’t his examples suggest as much? So, doesn’t that mean that physical, bodily life is the bottom line? And aren’t there, in any case, an awful lot of people out there, animated by what appear to be true humanitarian impulses, who “feel” the same way? Aren’t they against war, oppression and injustice in the third world, terrorism, and for abortion, euthanasia, etc.? Or some mix and match grab bag of positions, but you get the idea: they appear to live in an essentially Hobbesian universe in which their personal physical security and convenience (including the time and manner of their death) is the bottom line.

Now let’s take Jim at age 75. He’s been taking pills that have sustained his life, but they’ve also made him a little cranky and, with a bomb belt strapped on and a submachine gun in his lap, he’s wheeled his chair into a hospital, taken hostages and is reading a rambling diatribe against the health care system, his children, grandchildren and God, as a prelude to detonating his devices. But Jim’s eyesight isn’t what it used to be and he’s failed to notice a police officer in a corner of the lobby, and that officer is debating whether to terminate this situation in the obvious way. Unfortunately, the officer has never had to use his/her gun on a real human being before and came on shift right after hearing a sermon in which the priest “invoked the idea that human life is of value and deserves respect and protection under every circumstance.” What to do? And time is getting short!

I think the idea of the “sanctity” of human life derives from the doctrine of creation, with its further corrolary that man is created in the image of God. Without that foundation I think we do inhabit an essentially Hobbesian universe. But in our created universe is human life of value? and not only “of value” but deserving of “respect and protection under every circumstance”? And how shall we manifest that respect? The Christian answer runs something like this, I think.

Because man is in God’s image, the crown of His creation, to erase that image from existence appears to be an act of blasphemy against God, a denial of God’s goodness in creation and an assault upon God himself, in the only and worst way possible. It’s even seems like a usurpation of God’s place. But man is body and soul and we know that it isn’t possible to simply “erase” any man from existence; end his physical life on this earth, sure, but not end his existence. Nor is that our intent; we’re not even wishing for poor Jim to suffer eternal punishment for his demented plan–we’ll leave that to God. For that reason we whisper in the cop’s ear: “Go ahead, pull the trigger!”

Are we, then, callous about ending human life through war, capital punishment, indifference to disease and starvation? No, because man is, after all, body and soul. Without that union, man cannot function as God’s image and so we do not take these decisions lightly. But what of our “life after death”? That life is surely not in the body, and so what has happened to God’s image in man, since man’s unity seems to have been destroyed? That is precisely where the Christian hope of resurrection with Jesus comes in. It is for this reason that we are not paralyzed in the face of evil and are able to act resolutely, with regret but ultimately with a clear conscience.

And the priest’s sermon on respect for and protection of human life? That, too, has been honored and carried out in its truest sense. Jim’s demented plan has twisted and disfigured God’s image within him–perhaps under the influence of life sustaining pills, perhaps as a result of a life devoted to “much learning” (Acts 27:24). But we know that if anyone can heal and transfigure that image, it is He. With faith in God’s goodness and mercy and with due respect for all concerned we urge the officer to protect human life, giving each his due, by sending Jim on to that next stage.

The Christian, then, is absolved of the common accusation of hypocrisy–if only he will study his faith and think through its implications. There is an all embracing consistency that does justice to all God’s creation, if we ourselves will embrace it. I believe that this faith is based on 1) sound philosophical insights into creation, 2) sound history in God’s assumption of human nature in Jesus, His self-revelation to us in the face of the Messiah, and in 3) the justice that this faith does to human nature itself: it holds out to us a vision of what we all, in our best moments, wish to be, the best of humanity. Other religions, philosophies and ideologies also hold out visions to us. Many of them are admirably consistent. None of them, I believe, can lay claim to all three justifying criteria that I have outline.

Now, since it’s Christmas and I’m on a regular typing toot, here’s a little extra bonus, another interesting link to First Things, this time to the 1/04 issue:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0401/public.html#mary

Those of you who have persevered to this point probably are aware that I’m not a huge fan of the current pontiff in every respect. One area, however, in which IMO he has done outstanding work has been in ecumenism, and especially in reaching out to the Eastern churches. Some of you have no doubt read how the Russian and Greek have slapped away every proffered hand of friendship, but I suspect few have read of this Pope’s very real achievements in this field. Statements of theological understanding have been signed between Rome and several Eastern churches, most prominently the Copts, Armenians and Assyrians. These understandings have advanced to such an extent that the only obstacles to complete unity are ecclesial issues: the existent of Uniate churches with their own Patriarchs presents a problem that will need to be resolved with great understanding on both sides, but the groundwork has been laid.

In these theological discussions issues of great complexity and fundamental importance have been resolved: especially re Christological doctrine. Many of these differences arose historically in what were truly political and ethnic disputes, but in which theological symbols were used as cudgels to beat the opponents in this sad story. Rome’s role in this was largely very honorable (I speak here of the early centuries, not of the later schism between Rome and Constantinople). Rome has shown great flexibility in these discussions. Basically, these agreements state that, while different terminology has arisen over the centuries, we all believe the same thing when put forward in simple language; let’s leave it at that. Actually, Rome has usually been very willing to go the extra mile: in reunion talks the Vatican has never insisted on the “filioque” clause, for example, as a condition–only that it be respected and not controverted. For these reasons, I place a good deal of credence in what FT reports about these ecumenical discussions. FT is no fringe publication, and the willingness of a scholar of Dulles’ stature to be associated with it is a good indication of the caution which FT exercises.

In my view, Rome has, under the pressure of circumstances, become somewhat self absorbed with events in the West; I am very hopeful that this outreach to the East will prove fruitful for the Church’s future. Two areas in the new Catechism that seem to reflect this new relationship, in my view, are very fundamental. One is the use of “assumption” language in referring to Jesus’ reality as incarnate Word; this is new. The other has to do with language about “tradition.” Traditionally (sorry, can’t help it), and under the influence of Protestant understandings of these issues, “tradition” has been contrasted with “revelation,” which last word is taken to mean “scripture.” If I understand the Catechism correctly (and I think I do), what is being said is something like this: “revelation” is, properly speaking, Jesus himself–not a book; Jesus in person is the revelation of God’s glory to us, and in his body the Church; “tradition,” as the etymology indicates, is what has been “handed down,” both in writing (what is called “scripture”) and in other ways, such as the constant practice of the Church. A little historical reflection will reveal the sense that this makes, since it is the Church that decided upon just what “writings” were truly handed down from the Apostles and are worthy of respect, trust, and study.

Well, once again, Merry Christmas!

25

I see things rather simply here. Human life is of value
and deserves respect and protection under every
circumsntance because it is God’s gift to us and because
of the special intrinsic values it realizes. Also human
life has meaning in extreme circumstances, for
example when one is dying or severely
disabled. I don’t expect
this to be a proof, however, that human life deserves
respect and protection under every circumstance.
I typically don’t expect proofs about fundamental
issues of morality. Rather it expresses an attitude
toward human life which, if one takes it up, as I have,
makes sense of things; especially if you have
a lot to do with the disabled and the dying.

Again, one sees the meaning of the doctrine
in practice. Consider again the physician-assisted
suicide debate. One of the Church’s objections
to legallizing suicide is that in any large population
there will be people who want to commit suicide
because they are clinically depressed. That includes
the dying, etc. Consequently
a fair number of requests for suicide will come
from people who are making them
not because they’re dying or in pain but
because they’re clinically depressed. But
physicians aren’t particularly good at detecting
clinical depression; further, as many requests
will come from nursing home patients, it’s
unrealistic to suppose the physician will
function as more than a rubber stamp (physicians
often have hundreds of nursing home patients,
whom they rarely see). The appropirate
medical response to clinical depression isn’t
to give the depressed person the means to
kill herself, obviously.

The response I’ve read from the pro-choice
advocates is that of course these people are
depressed, they’re dying, after all! Which rather
misses the point.
There’s a fundamental difference in attitude:
the Catholic view sees these people as if they
were young and healthy, as deserving as much
respect, consideration and protection as anybody
else. Under no circumstance will it write them
off as in: 'Let’s give ‘em what they want, people
in these circumstances are better off dead.’
As many people don’t know the Catholic
arguments here, let me add a couple more
(these are also given by the AMA);
If we legalize physician assisted suicide,
everybody will have the right to suicide but
nobody will have the right to medical care.
So many people won’t have any
real choice.

Also many will request suicide out of guilt,
so as not to be a social and financial burden.
Also it may become expected of the old and
sick to ask to be put down, so as not to be
a social and financial burden. Today’s choice
may become tomorrow’s duty.
Many will request suicide because they’re
receiving inadequate medical treatment or
becuase they’re receiving inadequate pain control.
Once again, it’s unrealistic to suppose that such
requests won’t be granted, especially when originating
within nursing homes.

The slippery slope: we are likely to move from legal suicide
to legal euthanasia–because some people will be
too sick or disabled to take the pills or keep them down.
They will assert their right under the 14th amendment equal
protedction guarantee to the same ‘happy death’
as those less sick. Indeed, once physician assisted
suicide is legal, laws prohibiting active euthanasia
are likely to become unenforceable. This may have
terriific costs.

There are numerous people, ‘late presenters’ too
frightened of doctors and hospitals, to go for help
until it’s too late to save them. They’re afraid the
doctors will kill them. This may increase drastically
once doctors do start killing patients, and of course
there will be the occasional mistake–‘You meant
I should give the lethal injection to the patinet
in THAT bed? Ooops!’ which will get publiciized.
So many will die needlessly who would have
been saved if they’d sought help sooner.
And then there’s fear of the liquidation of
the elderly and the disabled…

Catholic thought has always recognized
a right to kill in self defense, of course. Best

26

I’ve been following this discussion and want to thank elendil and others for their erudite contributions. I’m new to this board, but this discussion surpasses much of what I’ve seen on a few boards dedicated exclusively to Catholic issues and concerns, so I am grateful for this unexpected Christmas gift.

I have neither the training nor knowledge to enter into the debate over morality of capital punishment, but in reading through this thread, it appears that elendil’s original point was whether JPII’s stand is prudent, given the possible confusion it may cause:

Within the Church there is considerable uneasiness as to whether this is a wise or prudent course of action, given the very real possibility that this will lead to confusion among both the faithful as well as other interested persons as to the actual status of Catholic teaching on these topics…By doing so he may offend some few persons concerned for clarity and probity, but he may (and I’m imputing motives here) gain new friends for the Church among fashionable elite intellectuals, who are more commonly disposed to accuse the Church of hypocrisy.

While I agree with elendil on much of what is said here, I don’t (with all due respect) find these imputed motives very persuasive. In fact, the tone (but not the text) here sounds suspiciously like the “Mater, si, Magistra, no” position that Buckley penned after the publication of the Blessed John XXIII’s encyclical. But the Roman Pontiff will not become a member of New York Review of Books editorial board anytime soon, and any positive press he has received in such circles has been begrudgingly given (usually as a nod to his pro-Solidarity stance or anti-Iraq war position). So what elite intellectuals could possibly be the target for JPII’s writings on this topic? He is certainly savvy enough to know that Garry Wills will not come a knockin’.

There has always been a discomfort with both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to papal pronouncements on “political” issues, and, while I could be wrong, I sense that more is at stake here in this argument.

To this let me add another observation, somewhat blunter in tone but offered in the spirit of the discussion: Why is it that when orthodox Catholic writers and organs of opinion express their views on politics, they tend to be rather conservative, even those that claim to be independent of the “mainstream” (e.g. New Oxford Review)? I’m not referring here to pro-life issues, per se, but the other issues which everyone acknowledges are matters of one’s prudential judgment (e.g. tax cuts or farm subsidies). There are exceptions, of course, but I think anyone who reads the Catholic press regularly would recognize what I’m talking about. Sadly, groups such as the Catholic Worker (at least here in Los Angeles) have conflated fighting for the rights of workers with heterodoxy (unlike their founder), as have many others. Is this a uniquely American phenomenon? I’m genuinely curious, but if this is too far from elendil’s intention in posting this thread, perhaps I should start another. I don’t mean to deflect the thread from capital punishment, but I think there is a connection.

Again, thanks to all for this engaging conversation.

27

Jim wrote:

As I understand it, it’s the idea that human life
is of value and deserves respect and protection
under every circumstance. This isn’t the idea
that physical life is all that matters in human
life; nor is it the idea
that death is the worst thing that could happen
to us.

Well, if that’s the catholic viewpoint, then as much as I hate to admit it, I cannot disagree. Except, I think that should extent to all life, as much as phisically possible, not just us humans. Part of my resentment for a religion like catholicism is this “we’re so holy” attitude, mouthing respect for life, so long as that life has a “soul”, of course. I don’t buy that.

Elandil wrote:

Whence does human life derive its value, and why does it deserve “respect and protection under every circumstance”?

Can I say it deserves respect simply because it exists, everywhere on earth? And, that it is here somehow as part of the way the universe operates, and as such is a good thing.
No God talk necessary.
And from there I can say it deserves respect, because of its existence in the scheme of things, which I am a part of and otherwise would not be. It wouldn’t make any rational sense to deny that, because of the vary fact that you are here.
Does that make sense to anyone I hope?

So, i’f i’m christian, and I respect life because, say, we were created in the image of God, or something like that, (a religious reason) then what happens if I loose my religion? Suppose my cat dies and I get mad at God or someone finds another gospel that refutes jesus for example? Then, there’s no shield to stop me from hurting the innocent masses, because I got my morality, my respect for life, from something that now is gone to me.

On the other hand, one cannot refute that life is an intrinsic part of the earth, and if you accept that because it is that way, than that is how it should be, and as such deserves respect, which I think stands to reason, how does that get refuted? You can’t loose that I don’t think. So, your morality is based on facts you can see.
Additionally, I would not loose this if my cat dies because in observing the basic fact of life in how it operates on the earth, I would know that death is as natural a part of life as birth is, that it has to be this way. If it died in an unnatural manner, perhaps that would bother me moreso, but in remembering my respect for life based on the rules and facts of it, I would not lash out so long as I keep my senses.

Elandil wrote:

I believe that this faith is based on 1) sound philosophical insights into creation, 2) sound history in God’s assumption of human nature in Jesus, His self-revelation to us in the face of the Messiah, and in 3) the justice that this faith does to human nature itself: it holds out to us a vision of what we all, in our best moments, wish to be, the best of humanity. Other religions, philosophies and ideologies also hold out visions to us. Many of them are admirably consistent. None of them, I believe, can lay claim to all three justifying criteria that I have outline.

I think I can claim 1 and 3, but since God isn’t a part of my philosophy, #2 really doesn’t apply anyway. And I think my #3 is better, because it includes more life.

28

If God isnt a part of your philosophy, then its pretty hard to acept your POV on Catholicism, aint it?

Dont bother quoting what minor people say, Whatever the Pope says, I believe. That is the Way.

29

Yes, I feel too that the concern for life must extend
beyond human life. But that’s no reason to reject
the ‘sanctity of human life’ doctrine–at most
the difference is one of emphasis.

Also the Church has long believed that God’s wishes
and plans are manifest to us in nature, so that
non-theistic arguments are available concerning
these issues. Papal encyclicals on these issues
are directed to ‘all people of good will,’
which includes people of other faiths
and also atheists. Catholicism isn’t much
into Bible thumping.

So as an atheist I find that the ‘sanctity of human
life’ doctrine resonates deeply–that all of us,
are worthy of protection and respect,
young and old, strong or sick, able or
disabled, living and dying, that nobody gets
written off–and I’m extremely wary of
phrases like ‘insufficient quality of life.’
I like the idea that every condition of
life has meaning. Atheists, myself
included, helped out at Mother Theresa’s
home for the destitute and dying
in Calcutta–and when one sees that very
practical application of the sanctity
doctrine (we gather up people dying in the
street, wash them, put them on cots) because
they have worth and their dying has
meaning, well, one doesn’t need to believe
in God to understand the doctrine
and its value.

It’s possible for an atheist to be morally
a Catholic.
Best

30

If you are an Atheist then why
are you butting your 2 cents
into a thread about
Catholicism?

Hmmm?

Confessionals are on
the right.

31

I’d like to take some time and space here to try to draw some of the latest posts together, to see if we can come up with a certain thematic unity in the thread.

Childers wrote:

If you are an Atheist then
why are you butting your 2 cents
into a thread about
Catholicism?

I don’t see why a thread about Catholicism should be a thread for Catholics only. A little later I’ll be quoting you stating that you hold by what the Pope says. This Pope has frequently urged Catholics to evangelize the world, to make Jesus and his body the Church known to all, so I’m puzzled by the personally offensive tone that you’ve adopted here–you would not appear to be following the Pope’s wishes in this respect. I can certainly understand someone being irritated by bad faith discussion–I have certainly done so myself on occasion-- but it would be unfair to make such an accusation against Jim based on what he has said. Your tone seems uncalled for and unhelpful. I have tried to point out what I believe is a real incongruity in Jim’s position, and will do so again very shortly.

stoner wrote:

Also the Church has long believed that God’s wishes
and plans are manifest to us in nature, so that
non-theistic arguments are available concerning
these issues.

I would say: not exactly. The Church has always taught that the nature of God and of man are manifest to those who examine created things, so that in this way we learn about the moral law of nature. So, wishes, in this sense, yes, but I don’t believe the Church has ever taught that God’s “plans” are known in this way.

It’s possible for an atheist to be morally
a Catholic.

I seriously question whether this can be done in an intellectually consistent way. I understand that non-believers may sympathize with Church teaching, may even wish that they could be believers (“help my unbelief,” as the father of the demon-possessed boy said), but if an atheist should support Catholic moral positions intellectually or theoretically, I think it would necessarily have to be for reasons other than those which Catholics would advance, since Catholic moral positions are firmly based on a theistic foundation. And to that extent an atheist, even while accepting Catholic conclusions or positions, would not “be morally a Catholic,” but something different.

Childers wrote:

Whatever the Pope says, I believe. That is the Way.

That’s far too blanket a statement for any orthodox Catholic to accept, and goes beyond what any Pope I have heard of has ever claimed. For a Catholic, that’s absurd.

mjacobs wrote:

Well, if that’s the catholic viewpoint, then as much as I hate to admit it, I cannot disagree. Except, I think that should extent to all life, as much as phisically possible, not just us humans.

I don’t think there’s any doubt but that the Catholic position entails respect for all God’s creation, commensurate with the degree of being with which each category of creation has been endowed. Since man has been endowed with reason, with the ability to foresee the effects of his actions and plan accordingly, it follows that in the Catholic view man would have a special responsiblity toward the rest of creation, one of stewardship.

Can I say it deserves respect simply because it exists, everywhere on earth? And, that it is here somehow as part of the way the universe operates, and as such is a good thing.
No God talk necessary.

Yes and no. Respect for its existence, yes, but not apart from God. I don’t think it makes sense to talk about existing things without also bringing in their createdness. That’s another topic, but one I believe is susceptible of rational evaluation, even demonstration.

I think I can claim 1 and 3, but since God isn’t a part of my philosophy, #2 really doesn’t apply anyway. And I think my #3 is better, because it includes more life.

As for #2 not applying, I think it’s fair to say that historical fact always applies in a discussion of truth. That’s not to say that it’s an easy thing to ascertain all the time.

chortle wrote:

While I agree with elendil on much of what is said here, I don’t (with all due respect) find these imputed motives very persuasive. In fact, the tone (but not the text) here sounds suspiciously like the “Mater, si, Magistra, no” position that Buckley penned after the publication of the Blessed John XXIII’s encyclical. But the Roman Pontiff will not become a member of New York Review of Books editorial board anytime soon, and any positive press he has received in such circles has been begrudgingly given (usually as a nod to his pro-Solidarity stance or anti-Iraq war position). So what elite intellectuals could possibly be the target for JPII’s writings on this topic? He is certainly savvy enough to know that Garry Wills will not come a knockin’.

I hope you won’t mind if I firmly reject being pushed into WFB’s corner. It’s true, I am imputing motives to the Pope, but I do so on the basis of JP2’s own autobiographical writings, as well as the writings of those who know him. It seems clear that the Wojtyla’s self identity is very much bound up with being what Poles call an intelligent (pronounced with a hard “g”): a member of the intelligentsia. Indeed, the tone in which he wrote about his meeting with the phenomenologist Gadamer left one wondering whether he might not have asked Gadamer for his autograph. It is precisely these “elite intellectuals” whose good opinion I believe he would dearly like to gain, because they are the people (like Rocco Buttiglione and others) with whom he identifies, with whom he has associated throughout his papacy and even whose opinions he has sought when writing encyclicals. If you read through “Crossing the threshhold…” with this idea in mind, I think you’ll gain a new perspective. And this is definitely a book whose footnotes you don’t want to skip over; the footnotes make much clear about JP2’s intellectual development and overall point of view. For example, his discussion of what he considers to be Thomist philosophy and its relation to Kantian personalism, as well as the kinship–even identity–he claims to have discovered between Kantian personalism and the “evangelical counsels” (which he appears to equate with Christian moral philosophy) speaks volumes.

To this let me add another observation, somewhat blunter in tone but offered in the spirit of the discussion: Why is it that when orthodox Catholic writers and organs of opinion express their views on politics, they tend to be rather conservative, even those that claim to be independent of the “mainstream” (e.g. New Oxford Review)? I’m not referring here to pro-life issues, per se, but the other issues which everyone acknowledges are matters of one’s prudential judgment (e.g. tax cuts or farm subsidies).

I would suggest two probabilities:

  1. I suspect orthodox Catholics naturally feel a kinship with conservatives (not libertarians) because the Church is founded in great part on tradition. Moreover, traditional conservatives tend to support Catholic moral positions, even when, like Jim, they may not do so for the same reasons up and down the line.
  2. The fundamental Catholic principle of social philosophy is the principle of subsidiarity, which states a clear bias in favor of limited government. It should not, then, be surprising that conservatives and Catholic intellectuals should frequently find themselves sharing at least similar positions or predispositions. BTW, only a week or two ago we had a fairly lengthy thread going called something like: Christianity “and” or “versus” Socialism. These issues received a fairly detailed airing in that thread; you might like to look it up.

if this is too far from elendil’s intention in posting this thread, perhaps I should start another.

By no means. I think you assessed my interests and concerns very accurately. As you’ll see, almost all the threads here tend to be fairly wide ranging.

32

[quote]Even the Saddam Husseins and Adolph Hitlers of the world deserve compassion and to know of God’s love (and forgiveness). [quote]

As for Saddam Hussien, his punishment will be consistent with the faith and teachings of Islam.. I can garauntee that if he gets the death penalty, he will be beheaded in town square. A practice still rather common in Saudi Arabia. While I am generaly against this sort of thing, veiwing it merely as a show for dumb peasants… I saw let them have their show.

33

mjacobs brought up an interesting point about respect for all being, which I addressed under the idea of creation, and the Christian duty to be a wise steward and to behave responsibly and respectfully toward all creation. Obviously, the technocratic and exploitative attitudes toward creation that are common in our society are shared by many, both Christian and non-Christian. But here’s an area in which I think the Church has been way ahead of the curve: family planning. The Church has always opposed (since Apostolic times) the use of powerful chemicals to ravage women’s bodies to prevent children, as well as other contraptions that force women to submit to distorted male ideas of human sexuality. Instead, the Church promotes the safe, gentle, cooperative art of Natural Family Planning. Of course, the secular forces that dominate this society don’t want word to get out how effective NFP is and what all its many benefits–physical, psychological, and spiritual–are. To its shame, many in the Church do little or nothing to promote this deeply responsible, transformative and beneficial way of life.

Since we’re talking about life issues, I thought this might be relevant.

34

Point taken. When you said “elite,” boy, you really meant elite! You’re talking inside a very small Beltway, indeed.

The fundamental Catholic principle of social philosophy is the principle of subsidiarity, which states a clear bias in favor of limited government. It should not, then, be surprising that conservatives and Catholic intellectuals should frequently find themselves sharing at least similar positions or predispositions.

Understood and agreed, but there is considerable latitude in how subsidiarity can be applied, and, short of an extreme form of socialism, one would think there would be more diversity on these issues among orthodox Catholics (hence, my query). Surely we can be apply the teaching of Rerum Novarum in a way that doesn’t lead inexorably to membership in the Republican National Committee.

Your knowledge of these areas is most impressive, elendil, so I will probe a bit further, if I may.

In both this thread and a previous one (on Christianity & Socialism), you imply that the Catechism should be taken with a grain of salt (on this issue, at least). I understand–perhaps wrongly, for I am way out of my league here)–that the CCC is a compendium of the Church’s teachings. This Catechism in particular was the product of what we might call “textbook” collegiality–fruit of an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops worldwide, with drafts shared and commented on by bishops, with the entire effort directed by Cardinal Ratzinger and approved of by the Pope. On what basis, then, are those of us in the pews (or bishops, for that matter) supposed to decide where the “flaws” are, as Cardinal Dulles might put it? You may answer that when the CCC differs from the traditional teaching of the Church, we may take these teachings to be less than binding. But this is no easy matter, a potential loophole of considerable proportions.

Indeed, precisely I suspect because some Catholics might go this route, the main editor of the CCC text, Christoph (now Cardinal) Schonborn wrote in an essay published in Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Ignatius, 1994) that some of the more speculative ideas of 20th century theologians were excluded, with only the tried-and-true making the final cut. It seems a rather easy out for Dulles to say of the section on capital punishment, “Well, that’s one of the flawed parts!” Could we not be seeing the beginning of a deeper understanding of the notion of justice in JPII’s writings and in the CCC that may, in Newman’s terms, lead to a true development of doctrine? Again, I’m mostly asking here, but it seems to me we should be open to this possibility.

On this same general topic of “Just how bad a pope has JPII been, anyway?” I am curious as to whether you share the somewhat revisionist view of his papacy by some orthodox writers with regards to his overall governance of the Church. According to this view, he’s been a disaster, saying all the right things but failing to back up his threats with any concrete actions–e.g. appointing bishops who don’t follow through on Vatican directives on the liturgy. Just how far does your critique extend?

35

This is from the 1986 Pastoral letter from American Bishops
concerning economic justice. It doesn’t strike me as
conservative, to the contrary. Further the Church, or
leaders in it of the stature of the Pope, have allied themselves
with some important non-conservative positions, e.g. oppostion to the
DP, ardent opposition to both Iraq wars…



2. Economic Inequality

  1. Important to our discussion of poverty in America is an understanding of the degree of economic inequality in our nation. Our economy is marked by very uneven distribution of wealth and income. For example, it is estimated that 28 percent of the total net wealth is held by the richest 2 percent of families in the Untied States. The top ten percent holds 57 of the net wealth [41]. If homes and other real estate are excluded, the concentration of ownership of “financial wealth” is even more glaring. In 1983, 54 percent of the total net financial assets were held by 2 percent of all families, those whose annual income is over $125,000. Eighty-six percent of these assets are held by the top 10 percent of all families [42].

  2. Although disparities in the distribution of income are less extreme, they are still striking. In 1984 the bottom 20 percent of American families received only 4.7 percent of the total income in the nation and the bottom 40 percent received only 15.7 percent, the lowest share on record in U.S. history. In contrast, the top one-fifth received 42.9 percent of the total income, and the highest share since 1948 [43]. These figures are only partial and very imperfect measures of the inequality in our society [44]. however, they do suggest that the degree of inequality is quite large. In comparison with other industrialized nations, the United States is among the more unequal in terms of income distribution [45]. Moreover, the gap between rich and poor in our nation has increased during the last decade [46]. These inequities are of particular concern because they reflect the uneven distribution of power in our society. They suggest that the level of participation in the political and social spheres is also very uneven.

  3. Catholic social teaching does not require absolute equality in the distribution of income and wealth. Some degree of inequality not only is acceptable, but also may be considered desirable for economic and social reasons, such as the need for incentives and provision of greater rewards for greater risks. However, unequal distribution should be evaluated in terms of several moral principles we have enunciated: the priority of meeting the basic needs of the poor and the importance of increasing the level of participation by all members of society in the economic life of the nation. These norms establish a strong presumption against extreme inequality of income and wealth as long as there are poor, hungry, and homeless people in our midst. They also suggest that extreme inequalities are detrimental to the development of social solidarity and community. In view of these norms we find the disparities of income and wealth in the United States to be unacceptable. Justice requires that all members of our society work for economic, political and social reforms that will decrease these inequities.

36

I have to give some credit here to christianity/judaism re: the responsibility of being a steward of all things, I agree that is the position we are in, be it given to us from God or otherwise. And at least some practice this way:

http://www.christianveg.com/
http://www.jewishveg.com/

Here are a few interesting quotes:

The Midrash teaches: “G-d says to Israel, “My children, whenever you give sustenance to the poor, I impute it to you as though you gave sustenance to Me…” Does then G-d eat and drink? No, but whenever you give food to the poor, G-d accounts it to you as if you gave food to Him.” (Midrash Tannaim)

And from there…

Animal agriculture wastes our food resources. It takes 8 to 12 pounds of grain to produce one pound of edible beef in a feedlot. Half of U.S. farmland grows livestock feed. A meat-centered diet requires about seventeen times the land area per person than would be required for a purely vegetarian diet.



And God said: “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit–to you it shall be for food.” (Gen.1:29)



And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, > every green herb for food. (Gen. 1:30)



Jesus said that God feeds the birds of the air (Matt. 6:26) and does not forget sparrows (Luke 12:6). The Hebrew writings forbid inhumane slaughter or cruelty towards beasts of burden (Exod. 23:5; Deut. 22:6–7, 25:4). Yet, in the United States, virtually all food derived from animals is obtained through intensive “factory farming” methods. Nearly ten billion land animals are slaughtered each year, over a million every hour, and the number of aquatic animals killed for food is
far greater. These animals suffer greatly from stressful crowding, barren environments that frustrate their instinctive drives, amputations without anesthesia (including debeaking, dehorning, tail docking, and castration), and other painful procedures (Bernard Rollin, Ph.D., Farm Animal Welfare).

37

Well, chortle, these are deep waters, indeed. Moreover, I strongly suspect from the unnecessarily adulatory tone (“Your knowledge of these areas is most impressive, elendil” - if you insist, however, you should use the vocative particle “O”: “Your knowledge of these areas is most impressive, O elendil!” :slight_smile: Sorry, I have to have my jokes.) that you have more settled views than you let on. :wink: However, lest I forfeit my well earned reputation for rash conjecture, here goes.

You’re talking inside a very small Beltway, indeed.

In matters like this, nose counting isn’t the true measure of influence, nor of the importance any given person may attach to the opinions of a particular group or category of persons. Moreover, given his background, you’d hardly expect him to be seeking affirmation from American “intellectuals.” We in America do not have the same elitist outlook, the same sense of belonging to an actual social class called the “intelligentsia,” that Europeans do.

Surely we can be apply the teaching of Rerum Novarum in a way that doesn’t lead inexorably to membership in the Republican National Committee.

Perhaps you could suggest some ways to “apply the teaching of Rerum Novarum” outside the political arena. In the meantime, those who are engaged in the political arena will need to look for a vehicle for influence. Although I’m not a member of the RNC I still think chances of influencing American life in a Christian direction are more promising from that direction than through working with the DNC. I would point to the example of the late Robert Casey, governor of Pennsylvania, an ardent Catholic and as ardent a New Dealer as you could hope to find. He was sneeringly anti-GOP, but was still blackballed by the Dems because of his pro-life views.

The other way Catholics can try to infuence American life is to wait and let the bishops issue pastoral letters and lobby Congress. As Jim rightly notes, those pastoral letters have not usually been construed as terribly conservative documents from a political or economic standpoint. And most people still count the bishops among the orthodox.

On what basis, then, are those of us in the pews (or bishops, for that matter) supposed to decide where the “flaws” are, as Cardinal Dulles might put it? You may answer that when the CCC differs from the traditional teaching of the Church, we may take these teachings to be less than binding. But this is no easy matter, a potential loophole of considerable proportions.

The only basis for any type of intelligent judgment is the same as it’s always been: informed knowledge. There’s no shortcut, no magic intellectual litmus test, no other way to form your conscience, and ultimately no one else can do it for you. I would also take issue with your characterization of the the CCC as containing “teachings,” as if it were promulgating new doctrine. Your earlier characterization of it as a “compendium” is more accurate by far. You cannot expect completeness, ultimate depth of treatment, or perfection in any compendium. I understand the teaching function of the CCC, but that’s a different use of the term. Since Catholic truth does not change, if the CCC appears to differ from received Catholic doctrine, you should assume one of two things: that you’ve misunderstood the CCC somehow and need to deepen your understanding of the matter in question, or that you’ve come across a flaw. However, I seriously doubt that Dulles was suggesting that the CCC contains doctrinal error; rather, I think he was indicating that he may disagree with some of its emphases. I don’t know what his areas of criticism or disagreement are, so I can’t say whether I would agree or disagree with him. I quoted Dulles as an example of the opinions of one who is generally considered to be a moderate, measured and informed voice in the Church. Finally, I would reject your implicit suggestion that some could use the idea of “flaws” in the Catechism to pick and choose what teachings of the Church to accept. A compendium of doctrine, by its very nature avoids novelty and includes only what is universally acknowledged, the “tried-and-true” as you say in your next paragraph.

On the other hand the CCC is not intended to shut off intellectual inquiry–if it were, where would be the need to judge of true or false “development of doctrine”? In the paragraph I just quoted you hint at alarm for the plight of the faithful, led astray by those who claim to find flaws in the CCC, or themselves willfully and speciously rejecting doctrine, using the “flaw” excuse to mask their unworthy motives. In your next paragraph, however, you appear eager to accept some “deeper understanding of the notion of justice,” some “true development of doctrine.” No offense intended, but I do rather suspect that you haven’t placed all your cards on the table. In any event, you can’t have it both ways: whether in judging the relative merits of the CCC or the truth of falsity of some purported development of doctrine, informed knowledge and genuine passion for truth are all you have to rely on. Should you suggest that we wait for infallible papal pronouncements, I would respond: 1) they have been few and far between, and God has not absolved us from using his gift of reason in the meantime, and 2) in the hypothesis I presented re capital punishment it is unlikely in the extreme that such a statement will be forthcoming.

some of the more speculative ideas of 20th century theologians were excluded, with only the tried-and-true making the final cut.

The French have a saying: plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. My concerns for the CCC have little or nothing to do with concerns that doctrinal innovations may have crept in. What most concerns me is the continuing resurgence of the Augustinian tradition in the Church at a critical juncture in its history. Do a search on my posts if you care to learn what I think about that. In 25 words or less–well, OK, maybe a few more than 25–I believe that, from an intellectual/history of thought standpoint, this Augustinian tradition led more or less directly to the Protestant Revolt, to the rise of dangerous modern ideologies and philosphical schools, and to basically all of the most troublesome currents in the church during the past several hundred years.

Could we not be seeing the beginning of a deeper understanding of the notion of justice in JPII’s writings and in the CCC that may, in Newman’s terms, lead to a true development of doctrine?

We could be, but how would you assess the odds for that? Mankind has been pondering justice, in writing anyway, for quite a few millenia–pretty much since the invention of writing. The ancient philosophers are generally accorded their share of insights into this matter. For the last two millenia in the Christian world saints and scholars, fathers and doctors have all had a thing or two to say about justice. There are even some of us who believe that God assumed human nature and also weighed in on the subject. I don’t recall his followers seeking to abolish the death penalty in the aftermath of the Son of God’s public career–and the history of the Body of Christ over the last two millenia should count for something, surely. On the other hand, we have a Pope who believes that Christian moral thought is embodied in the “evangelical counsels” and that those are essentially the same as Kantian personalism. Is it possible that Christianity has been misunderstanding Jesus for the better part of two millenia, but now, thanks to Kantian personalism, is on the brink of “a deeper understanding of the notion of justice”? Call me a skeptic.

On this same general topic of “Just how bad a pope has JPII been, anyway?” I am curious as to whether you share the somewhat revisionist view of his papacy by some orthodox writers with regards to his overall governance of the Church. According to this view, he’s been a disaster, saying all the right things but failing to back up his threats with any concrete actions–e.g. appointing bishops who don’t follow through on Vatican directives on the liturgy. Just how far does your critique extend?

In an earlier post I gave my views on what I consider some of the strong points of this papacy, as well as some of the strongest points of the CCC. In both areas, in that post, I assessed those strong points as potentially of great significance. On the other hand it would hardly be “revisionist” to suggest that attention to administration has not been this Pope’s strongest point–it’s a widely shared view, even among my best nearly inside the Vatican sources. I do find his publication of autobiographical writings to be highly inappropriate, yet revealing in a number of directions, the most important of which I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In that regard, it’s worth noting that not too long ago he issued an encyclical on the importance of philosophy to the Church, and quite rightly, but his own autobiographical writings have undermined that initiative to no small extent, as have the writings of some of his closest collaborators and aides. Again, I’ve already outlined the problem area, above. Finally, I’m not so sure he has, in fact, said all the right things. I could certainly have wished for more leadership in the recent sex scandal, and I don’t like Bishop Marcinkus evading Italian justice by remaining inside the Vatican walls. I would very much like to hear more publicly from Rome re NFP, as well. I am also concerned that he may have frittered away some of his moral authority on quixotic crusades when he should have been getting to know potential bishops a little better.

38

'Quote:
It’s possible for an atheist to be morally
a Catholic.

I seriously question whether this can be done in an intellectually consistent way. I understand that non-believers may sympathize with Church teaching, may even wish that they could be believers (“help my unbelief,” as the father of the demon-possessed boy said), but if an atheist should support Catholic moral positions intellectually or theoretically, I think it would necessarily have to be for reasons other than those which Catholics would advance, since Catholic moral positions are firmly based on a theistic foundation. And to that extent an atheist, even while accepting Catholic conclusions or positions, would not “be morally a Catholic,” but something different.’

I didn’t mean the statement you quoted to express the obviously
mistaken view that an atheist could endorese all Catholic
moral positions for precisely the reasons Catholics do.
I did mean that an atheist could hold the same positions
for reasons that are significantly (though of course
not entirely or ultimately) the same. Often fundamental Catholic
moral doctrines, which Catholics give a theological
underpinning, can be accepted for their own sake.
So, I argued above, that atheists can accept the
sanctity of life doctrine, from which follows a
pro-life, anti-euthanasia position. Atheists
can’t get on the bus at the beginning of the ride,
as it were, but they can get on it at the first
stop. I’m opposed to abortion for largely the
reason Catholics are; when talking with
Catholics about social issues, there is little
sense of reaching the same conclusions
by a different path. To the contrary.

This is in no way to denigrate the role of theism
as an underpinning for Catholic morality; but it
is to point out again that Papal encylicals on
social and moral issues appeal
to atheists on grounds that are meant to be
accessible to them, too. The tone of such
things has never been that you’ve got to
be a Christian or a believer to get the point.

Also it goes some distance towards explaining why
professional medical ethics has historically been Catholic medical
ethics. When physicians became professionalized
in the 19th century, and wanted a professional
code of ethics, they found a largely finished
medical ethic in place in the Church, which made
excellent sense to them, whether or not
they were Catholics or even religious, and so they
adopted it.

The same thing is true of Roman Catholic Just War
Theory, which is the professional ethics of the
military in the West and is part of general secular
thinking, too. Best

39

Jim,

I certainly don’t wish to deny the significance of any of the examples you give (just war, medical ethics, etc.); they’re all perfectly correct, but I attribute these phenomena to human inconsistency, the urge to have one’s cake and eat it also.

40

Will you say why?