CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: What does the Catholic Church Teach?

In 1966 less than half of the American Population supported capital punishment. Today, 75% of Americans support the death penalty. Controversy over whether or not capital punish is moral, should be legal or not, and if it is legal when it should be applied splits America. Unfortunately Catholics in the pew are also split on the issue.

The official teaching of the Church states that in theory, capital punishment is the ultimate legitimate sanction available to the state, but must be applied only under very strict guidelines and only for self-defense of society when no lesser sanctions will be effective.

Recent popes while affirming this traditional position, have said again and again that, "only for self-defense of society when no lesser sanctions will be effective," must be seen in view of modern society's ability to administer justice and protect society through "lesser means," as, for example, using, "life in prison without parole."

Those identified as moderate or liberal Catholics are strong supporters of the Church's position and the pope's teachings on Capital Punishment.

What about Conservative or Reactionary Catholics? One might expect them to be more supportive of capital punishment as political conservatives are.

One site claiming to be "truly Catholic" exemplifies the most extreme reactionary position I have seen on this issue. It tries to accept the brief, general statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However,  this site, absolutely opposes the recent popes' teaching. They exaggerate a sound theological principle that there is a distinction between an infallible papal statement and other  papal statements that must be taken seriously by reducing the popes' statements on capital punishment to "just his opinion."

You, dear reader, owe it to yourself to read  the argument made on this site and form your own opinion.

No one will deny that Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Network represents a Conservative Catholic source of information and teaching. There is an article on this  "conservative" site that is very well written, logical, easy to understand, and it presents the teaching on capital punishment that any bishop or liberal catholic will find acceptable.  Read it. Compare it to the first statement.

If nothing else this post (especially the last link) should present the official teaching of the Catholic Church on Capital Punishment and show the diversity of thinking going on during these "culture wars."

Sex Abuse and both/and ?

Can there be a middle ground in the ever widening sex-abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church? John Allen of the NCR asked this question yesterday and provided his judgment on that issue

I consider myself a Vatican II Progressive Catholic, but deeply impressed into my being is an appreciation of and commitment to the "both/and" characteristic (sacramentalism, analogical imagination) of Catholicism. I understand, but appreciate less, the "either/or" view of life. The world always appears in terms of gray, thus the both/and view is essential. However, we are sometimes (often?) called upon the make specific and clear choices.

The sex-abuse scandal is a complex situation and the issue of Benedict's action makes it more so. Those who have read my previous posts should know that I believe:

•  That the primary response of individuals and "the Church" must be compassion and assistance to the victims of abuse.
• That prevention of further abuse must occur even if that calls for dramatic or major changes in Church administration, internal procedures, and practices (E.g. optional celibacy, Married priests secrecy,).
• That abusers should also be treated with compassion, but should always be prosecuted to the full extent of Civil and Canon law. The goal must be the protection of the community (society) and not revenge. 
• That we must stop talking about "mistakes." Call things what they are: "illness" or "moral" evil as the case may be. In both civil life and the Church no one ever seem to do anything "wrong" these days. Everyone seems to only "make mistakes." Abusers my be ill; they make bad or sinful decisions. An adult doesn't just mistakenly abuse a child or anyone subject to his influence, authority or power.
• What has been said of abusers applies even more so to priests, bishops, and a system that neglects, covers up or "makes mistakes" about sex abuse. I have experienced the culture in which deviant behaviors (E.g. alcoholism, sexual behaviors)  were interpreted only as moral/spiritual problems. That is the culture that many Church leaders grew up in. However that day must pass.

I long for and struggle to discover the kind of both/and view and decisions that will move us forward. I must admit it's a difficult. Any of, you, my readers, have any insights or suggestions? Send a comment!!!

When it comes to the current crisis, especially regarding the Holy Father, John Allen asks whether there is a middle ground.  Based on his extensive knowledge and experience, he makes two points.

The two cases from Pope Benedict's past that have recently come to light, one in Munich and one from his years at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, raise important questions, and the pope needs to answer them in order to move ahead. (Emphasis added)

 We live in a new age, a time that requires, demands, transparency. Look at our political life. Think of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, the whole debate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or recent accusations of "back room politics" and health care reform. People can no longer, and will never, accept "cover-ups, appeals to secrecy, etc.

People want, increasingly demand, the "truth" and admission of wrong doing from their leaders. Whether or not Benedict has told the "truth" or allowed or participated "cover ups," it will eventually become necessary to provide a credible explanation and, if necessary admission of wrong doing by commission or omission.

Allen's second point is that:

Those questions, however, have to be seen in the context of his overall record on the crisis, and particularly since 2001, when John Paul II put then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in charge of reviewing the case files, there's a lot to be said for that record.

I believe any objective observer will agree that some positive change has occurred since 2001. The question is whether there has been enough "positive changes" and if they are the correct changes in the right places.
If you have an opinion leave a comment.

Sadly, Allen reports that response his article(s) has been divided between the two extremes: those who claim that he's part of the extreme Left and doing a "hatchet job" on the Church. At the opposite extreme, commentors  say things like, "Don't you ever get tired of being an apologist for the Vatican?"

John  ends by asking, about very controversial issues, "Is there room for a middle ground?"

My answer right now is "I don't know, but I hope so."

What about you, my readers? Do you have an opinion?

Now it's not enough to be against gays themselves?

Today CNN reported on a young grade school student who was "disenrolled" (I.e. kicked out) of a Catholic Parochial School. Why? Because the parents were partnered lesbians!

Now a child will suffer for the "sins" of the parents. The pastor took the action, and was supported in a public statement by the Chancery (I.e the bishop) because the same-sex couple were violating the teaching of the Church forbidding same-sex sexual behavior.
 
How did the pastor or bishop know that the couple were having sex?

Regardless of their private behavior, was it appropriate to punish the child? And you better believe the child will be negatively affected.

Where is the compassion of Christ in this situation? I am distant from the actual incident, but at least as reported, I see no reaching out with care, love and compassion to the child.There seems to be no compassion offered to  the couple either. Again as reported, for church leaders to say, adults should know the teaching and obey it or suffer the consequences, seems hardly Christlike  [I will certainly will correct distortion of facts, if they are brought to my attention].

One has only to recall the Mexican Cardinal who uttered such hateful words about homosexuals. The Vatican had to remind the Cardinal that even the Catholic Catechism  requires respect for homosexuals. What about the often (usual?) formal, impersonal treatment or total neglect of sex abuse victims here in the U.S?

The argument about the hurtful outcome for the child and other children in the school and the "scandal" caused to the laity" are those commonly dragged out. Some churchmen must begin to realize that the laity are hard to scandalize. The most recent case I can remember of the laity being scandalized is at the cover-up behavior of bishops who hid the crimes of pedophilia.

Just think of what a Catholic/Christian response of love and compassion might look like. The clergy would plainly state there was a pastoral concern for the child and the couple. They could, personally and through others show deep understanding, support and love for the child. They could speak with (not to) the couple and at least appreciate their lives and love for each other.

Thirteen years ago when Cardinal Laveda was archbishop of San Francisco, he was able to work with others to discover a way for same-sex couples to share health benefits and remain employed by Catholic agencies without violating Catholic teaching or principles. Can't at least this kind of solution be arrived at?

We need to act with the love and compassion of Christ FIRST and then deal with the words we use to express the beliefs Catholics hold.

Earlier in the day I had been commenting on a friend D's joy and happiness over being a godparent; the hope he has to support, nurture and love DA, and the big celebration the family had. I shared with him my joy in becoming Confirmation sponsor for my nephew who is 14.

After hearing about the above "incident," I began to ponder what kind of Church these youngsters will grow up into: one showing greater compassion or one so bound to statements of "teachings" and "correctness" that love and compassion will wither. I do agree here with the Holy Father that what we need  is to maintain hope. 

AVATAR and RELIGION?

I went to see Avatar six days after it was released. The theater was packed and the audience intense as the movie unfolded. I was gobsmacked  at the action and the out-of-this world special effects.

Partial Synopsis.
It was also, as many have commented, a "Good versus Evil" film, especially for those left of center. It was pro-environment, as seen in the way the Na' Vi,  people lived  in harmony with their planet, Pandora.  The "bad corporate guys" (Parker Selfridge) arrive with the military (really a private security force led by Col. Miles Quaritch, a retired Marine) to do the bidding of the capitalist exploiters (RDA Corporation). The search is for "unobtainium," (un-obtain-ium), a rare mineral, worth two million dollars a kilo. As Adriana Barton of the Globe and Mail says, "...many terrible things are [unleashed on Pandora]: greed, brutality and a bewildering array of savage beasts, not to mention a biotech means of going native..."

Jake Scully, an ex-Marine paraplegic, is recruited and agrees to undergo a new bio-tech process  that combines his DNA with Na' Vi  DNA to produce an "avatar" that is physically identical to the Na' Vi  but controlled by a genetic link to Jake. Jake is recruited by Col. Quaritch to spy on the Na' VI and report back the best means to defeat the Na' VI. As his avatar, Jake infiltrates the Na' VI.

At first Jake tries to fulfill Quaritch's orders to find the Na' Vi's weaknesses. After being  there for awhile and, especially after being saved from an attacking animal by Neytin, his eyes and heart are opened to the beauty of the Na Vi, their peacefulness and harmony with their planet. In religious terms he is converted.

There's no question but that the Na Vi are deeply connected to the natural elements in their world. In fact they communicate and receive energy by touching the ends of their long tails to fronds of the native vegitation, a practice that also connects Na Vi to each other. There is also no question that the tree over the deposit of unobtainium is sacred and alive, in a way similar to the ent Trees in LOR. This film has a spiritual/religious theme and message. So too, the "Force" in Star Wars ("The Force be you" reminds Catholics of  "The Lord be with you" spoken at every Mass). Jake's need to decide whether he will stand against or with the Na Vi, is similar to choosing the red or blue pill in 1999's The Matrix. Comparisons to other religiously themed modern movies is entirely appropriate.  Is Avatar exhibiting a pantheistic spirituality? Does it "preach" a fringe, extreme eco-religion?

Vatican criticism of Avatar.
Apparently that is what the Vatican thinks. Gaetano Vallini, writing in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican's official paper) expressed neither outrage or enthusiasm over the film in general. He did, however, strongly suggest that Avatar portrayed a form of nature religion or "pantheism." Immediately blogs began debating how "religious" or "spiritual" the film is.

There should be no debate as to whether the film has a definite religious/spiritual message, whether intended or not. It does, and many, many in the audiences perceive a religious theme. But they differ on what it is. [See other article links at the end of this post].

The divinization of man [sic] and universal consciousness.
Why has the Vatican seen pantheism in the film? Isn't this a matter for dialogue? Christians, at least Catholics, appreciate Francis of Assisi's  view of a sacral quality of nature in his Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon. True, Francis distinguished between God and creation/creatures. But one can not deny that for him, creation/creatures are sacred.

The Church, especially the Eastern Church has always emphasized the "divinization of man [sic]," humankind progressively participates in divine life-- we "become gods."  In the Twentieth Century Roman Church, Tielhard de Chardin speaks of Christ as the Alpha and Omega and the evolution of all of creation to consciousness. De Chardin was a visionary French Jesuit priest, palaeontologist, biologist, philosopher, and theologian. His major works are:
The Phenomenon of Man,
The Divine Milieu, and
Toward the Future.Is this"pantheism?" Let's dialogue over it.


There certainly are forms of religion and spirituality that deny a transcendent God, but accept a transcendent universe. Others deny any transcendence to a this-worldly existence. We often apply "pantheism" to each of these. It seems to me that the Vatican too quickly assumed too great a gap between traditional Christian views and a vague reference to "nature religion." Why can't there be dialogue between those who view things differently. The "fault" or "blame" if there is any in this lack of dialogue, falls on both/all sides.


Why is the "Church" so often critical?
My concern is with my own Catholic community. So very often official or semi-official statements are very critical and seldom praise ideas, events, behaviors and modern worldviews. The "Church" often looks upon contemporary culture and sees only a glass  half-empty. If the hierarchy would assume that modern culture is essentially good, at least a glass half-full, there could be a rapprochement with seeming opponents.

In the case of Avatar, why not speak positively about the film and offer dialogue over "religion" and "spirituality?" Instead of acting in a defensive mode, it might be better to raise questions and enter into dialogue, even debate, over how to grapple with the questions in a search for truth.

Very many modern films have religious/spirituality themes. The Church would be wise to take them seriously and grapple with the issues they raise. Yes, there is a spiritual hunger out here, especially among the young (True a small number are trying to identify with  Christianity and Catholics  through rather superficial identity markers) who find "religion" irrelevant to their search for meaning  and life.


Can we reach out to the other?
In the end all I can say is, "Let's give the 'other' the benefit of the doubt and assume s/he has something worthwhile to offer. Let's not assume that the 'Church' is always right and only needs to repeat and repeat it's position and that others will accept and follow along. The People of God have never validated Paul VI's position on birth control. More than half of all Catholics accept the legitimacy of being gay and support at least civil unions. There is overwhelming support for married clergy and strong support for ordination of women. The Vatican says these are un-discussable issues. Doesn't this illustrate extreme defensiveness and, maybe, a fear that much of the logic of their argument is unsound?

Questions for you, my blog readers!!
Is the Church speaking a language you can hear and listen to?
Do you feel that the Church listens to people like you? 


On Avatar see also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

http://community.livejournal.com/tothehometree/