• 
  
  

• Featured Article

  

• Member's Area

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
• Subscribe
  
  Archive
  

  

• Images from Gallery

  Get the Flash Player to see the slideshow.
• 

Part One of Two:

One of many challenges of being a Catholic in modern America is applying principles of our faith consistently across political divides. We are all familiar with these divides – Republican Catholics are sternly opposed to abortion and gay marriage, yet are usually friendly to capital punishment, a militaristic interventionist foreign policy, and a mix of low taxes and weak government. Democrat Catholics love income redistribution, high social spending, an activist government to help the poor, and favor diplomacy and peaceful resolution of international problems. The sticking points for the Dems in the Catholic faith though are abortion, “discrimination against alternate lifestyles”, and the imposition of one specific set of “family values” on a diverse and secular populace.

 

Clearly Catholic Democrats probably have the more challenging set of mental gymnastics to undertake in order to reconcile creed with political affiliation. However, I and fellow GOP Catholics do not make things easier for them with our continued reliance on the concept of “prudential judgment” as both a sword and shield. We basically use this neat little concept to explain why it is OK when we disagree with B16 on the death penalty but not OK when that apostate John Kerry disagrees with the Church on abortion.

 

To explain a challenging concept in a paragraph is rough but here goes. Basically prudential judgment is the idea that the Church holds certain issues to be beyond its natural authority because other complexities are involved beyond simple moral theology. So the Church says war in general is wrong, however some wars are allowable (“just wars”) and the determination of whether a given war is just or not is often beyond the ability of the Magisterium to assess. Similarly murder by the state is generally wrong, but using the same just war mentality, some use of the death penalty by some states in some circumstances may be allowable. The Church cannot claim to be expert in issues of national security, intelligence assessment, sociology, criminology etc. so it states a general principle, iterates a few exceptions, and then gives its specific interpretations on a case-by-case basis from time to time.

 

The trick here is that these interpretations as issued are non-binding on the faithful, as long as the faithful are aware of the Church’s standards and are applying them differently with the application of reason and also in good faith (“prudentially”.) Take the conflict du jour in Afghanistan – the Vatican has opposed this intervention from day one and had urged the US Govt to find another solution to dealing with this nation state merger of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the Vatican cannot claim to know as much about the military and political situation in Afghanistan as the CIA can. It also cannot vouch that the suggested function of international law that it endorses would deliver a positive outcome or whether the time needed to achieve a just and peaceful solution to the problem of Afghanistan’s state support of AQ terror would put more innocent victims in jeopardy.

 

These uncertainties – beyond the ability of the Church to accurately or expertly comment upon – are what allow Catholic laity to differ from the blanket condemnation of the Afghan War. This dissent should not be entered into lightly, but rather should be done only after study of the Church standards on just war, a consideration of the Church’s specific (though non-binding) application of such principles to the case at hand, and prayer and reflection to ensure that the dissent is being made for good reasons and after “due diligence”.

 

If we compare this to abortion, a different and in some ways simpler situation emerges. Basically there is no “just war” in abortion; the taking of an innocent life is always and inherently wrong and can never be justified. Even in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, the Church never accepts any mitigating factor that would make the termination of a pregnancy less evil. For a mother or father to decide to kill their unborn child is always a grave moral evil and can never be justified by any combination of mitigating circumstances.

 

Interestingly though, if that same fetus was killed if his mom was blown up at Hiroshima, let’s say, the death might be requited to some degree as an unintended consequence of a just war. (Though we should add that

1) even WW2 was never declared as a just war,

2) that just war doctrine always urges combatants to make every effort to avoid inflicting casualties on civilian populations, and

3) finally that strategic bombing of civilian populations has been repeatedly and fiercely criticized by the Church in the 20^th Century and thereafter…)

But in the prudential judgment realm of international affairs and national security, there are at least some combinations of circumstance that could make that same death of that same child not morally right, but at least justifiable due to some other overriding concern – i.e. as an accidental consequence of a legitimate just war that a combatant made a reasonable effort to avoid causing.

 

Clearly this is a difficult and challenging moral issue. Cleary also American Republican Catholics do not really do our Catholic cause many favors by saying that 10,000 dead children at Hiroshima is OK (in our prudential judgment) but yet a poor woman in NYC who can’t afford another child is committing a horrible sin by having an abortion.

Neither of the above statements is wrong, but yet to the average person looking for an intuitive understanding of moral theology, or worse yet, to those who are hostile or skeptical of the Church in the first place, this seems like base equivocation. To the intuitive or skeptical observer, the above differentiation seems both contradictory and also shaped more by secular (i.e. political) values than by faith or ethics. If the Catholic Church is somehow cast as being the creature of the GOP, then all those who do not like that party will also feel free to ignore or discount the teachings of the Church as well.

 The issue becomes even more starkly juxtaposed when we discuss capital punishment. The CCC comes very close to saying that capital punishment is not allowed in first world countries with a functional criminal justice system, though it is not quite so specific. (See Paras 2266 -2267.)  http://www.scborromeo.org/index2.htm

 

The CCC instead states that capital punishment is allowable only as a last resort, and that any other reliable system of detention is preferable, as prison (for example) allows both punishment and a chance for repentance while also not dirtying the state’s hands with the deaths of its citizens. (And imprisoned persons wrongly convicted can later be released if the error is found, an option not open to those executed in error…)

 

Unlike just war doctrine in a relatively dangerous and unstable world, ungoverned by any effective and impartial system of international law, the doctrinal exception to the general rule against capital punishment would seem to apply only in some very exceptional cases, mainly outside of civilized stable society, or in some unusual “24”-like TV scenario involving an imprisoned terrorist whose colleagues threaten to kill others in order to secure his release. (Even a conventional prisoner inclined to kill guards or other prisoners while imprisoned can be dealt with effectively by modern penology through solitary confinement in so-called “ultramax prisons”.)

 

It can thus be said that modern society has no pragmatic need for the death penalty. As above, punishment, confinement, even deterrence can be attained through other methods not involving the state’s killing of its citizens. There is an economic cost to imprisonment (though also a benefit as many upstate NYC towns reliant on prisons as the town’s main industry can testify) but the Church has never stated that society may kill its more expensive citizens off for the sake of fiscal prudence. As many social science studies have shown, there is also no appreciable deterrence effect; people living in states with capital punishment have consistently been shown to be just as likely to commit felonies as those living in states without that punishment. Finally, the execution of some evil fiend  may well make victims and their families feel better, but again the moral acceptability of non-restitutive state killing is not a part of Catholic teachings.

 

Above and beyond the above issues is the fact that capital punishment is a less and less significant aspect of modern Christian life in the U.S.. (All facts following are from this Wikipedia article) :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

 

As of this writing, 13 states have banned the penalty, 2 have recently had their versions of such a law declared unconstitutional, and 2 have not used their theoretical penalties in the past 25 years. The other 33 states that use the penalty have executed less than 1,200 persons in the last 32 years. (There were 42 executions in the US in 2008, versus 60 people killed by lightning.)

Moreover, on average, 67% of capital convictions are eventually overturned, and only 10% of the overturned verdicts are retried, reconvicted, and eventually implemented. The cost to the state of seeking and sustaining a capital conviction is usually higher than if the state simply imprisoned the felon for life.

Europe and most of the rest of the world have banned capital punishment decades ago. Even the trend in the U.S. shows a declining pattern of usage, and one that has led to ornate and complex legal considerations in order to meet various constitutional requirements. Places like China and Saudi Arabia are still great fans of the death penalty, but this if anything should act as a discouragment to its continued use in America.

So the $1,000,000 question: if the death penalty is now so rare and so statistically irrelevant to the lives of most of U.S. citizens, why then do some love it so? More on target, why and how do orthodox Catholics continue to endorse it? And, to give a teaser relating to our title, what effect does this endorsement (and hence dissent from the Magisterial teaching) have on the public face of the Catholic Church on other significant issues, such as, oh say… abortion? 

Next Week: Meals to Idols, Broken Windows, and Hannibal makes his appearance…

34 As he went ashore he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.
35 And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a lonely place, and the hour is now late;
36 send them away, to go into the country and villages round about and buy themselves something to eat.”
37 But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?”
38 And he said to them, “How many loaves have you? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.”
39 Then he commanded them all to sit down by companies upon the green grass.
40 So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties.
41 And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all.
42 And they all ate and were satisfied.
43 And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish.
44 And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.

We must often draw the comparison between time and eternity. This is the remedy of all our troubles. How small will the present moment appear when we enter that great ocean.

– St. Elizebeth Ann Seton

12 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee;
13 and leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Caper’na-um by the sea, in the territory of Zeb’ulun and Naph’tali,
14 that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
15 “The land of Zeb’ulun and the land of Naph’tali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles –
16 the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.”
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
23 And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.
24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.
25 And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decap’olis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.

Trials and tribulations offer us a chance to make reparation for our past faults and sins. On such occasions the Lord comes to us like a physician to heal the wounds left by our sins. Tribulation is the divine medicine.

– St. Augustine

Yesterday we celebrated the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. As I attended mass in Michigan’s snowy Upper Peninsula, I listened intently to the otherwise well-spoken homily only to realize that the reason for this Solemnity was never discussed in any measure of detail. This is unfortunate, as in the small town in which my grandmother lives, a number of Catholics have left the Church in recent years to attend services at the nearby First Baptist Church. Given that one of the most misunderstood and widely challenged doctrines of the Church, by our protestant brethren, is the doctrine of Mary being the “Mother of God”, it is important that we understand what this title given to Our Lady means and what it does not mean so that we can explain it to anyone, protestant or Catholic, who inquires.

The title “theotokos” has been ascribed to Mary since the 2nd Century, with Justin Martyr being, perhaps, its most early proponent. This Greek term literally means “God bearer.” This title is of the utmost importance to our faith in that it reinforces both the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth. One of the greatest of all heresies, Arianism, denies the divinity of Christ. According to Arians, Jesus is not God and is not begotten, but is rather the greatest of all created beings. The title “Mother of God” directly combats this heresy by highlighting the fact that Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us, the second person of the trinity, fully human and fully divine. It is not meant to imply, as many mistakenly believe, that Mary somehow preceded God, created God, or is of a higher stature than her Son. Rather, it simply means that Mary is the mother of God the Son.

The title “theotokos” reinforces the virgin birth as well. In the Early Church, many gnostics and pagan philosophers found the idea of God being born of a woman deplorable. Indeed, many could not conceive of God being born of a woman without God, himself, having carnal relations with that woman. This is an error that is repeated by Muslims to this very day, and it is probably no coincidence that many of the Christian peoples encountered by Muhammed were less than orthodox. We know from Luke’s Gospel that this divine child, Jesus, was born of a virgin (Mary) without any carnal relations and by the power of the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies. The statement “Mother of God” proclaims this fact and ensures that it cannot be denied by anyone who desires to be truly and fully Christian.

Mary is truly the “Mother of God”. She is also our mother as brothers and sisters of our Lord, Jesus. Let us ask our mother to intercede for us before her Son, that we may faithfully and courageously proclaim Him in all circumstances and persevere to the end. “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God;
3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.
11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.
15 (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.’”)
16 And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

Every morning you put on your clothes to cover your nakedness and protect your body from inclement weather. Why don’t you also clothe your soul with the garment of faith? Remember each morning the truths of your creed, and look at yourself in the mirror of your faith. Otherwise, your soul will soon be naked with the nakedness of oblivion.

– St. Augustine

O Lord, my chosen portion and my cup;
you hold my lot in your hands (Ps 16:5)

The background of this Psalm verse is the ancient image of the cup containing the lots for each man, and God holding these lots.  Yet in this image two different conceptions about the meaning and challenge of time collide, conceptions that even nowadays still determine our struggle for the future. 

The pagan world view was also familiar with the image of the lots, but with entirely different premises: the world is a game of luck governed by the one rule - blind chance.  Time, altogether blind, spews out the lots, of this kind and that.  The Bible has fundamentally transformed this frightening image.  Indeed, there is the cup with the lots, containing winners and losers.  But this cup with the lots is held “in your hands”, in the hands of eternal Wisdom and eternal Love.  This is the indispensable premise that alone can provide for man any hope at all.  Because the cup is in his hands, the only losing lot would be the refusal to accept at all the lot from his hands. 

The Latin translation of the Bible has conferred on this inexhaustible Psalm verse still greater depth: In your hands, there rests my time.  In purely linguistic terms we could also translate: In your hands, there rest my temples.  Thus an image arises of ourselves entrusting our head, our temples, to God’s good hands.  It also becomes evident that man’s time is not merely the time reckoned by the revolutions of the sun, the earth, or the moon.  Far from it!  With man a new center of the world has appeared, a new unit of calculation: a heartbeat, constituting the measure of his existence, even the new measure of all being as such, and a new center of the world. 

To draw our existence out of this time, to acknowledge this time as our true time, and out of this awareness to model this our world - such is the call of this Psalm verse.  The time of the heart is transformed into sunlit time by the fact that our heart does not beat in a vacuum: our heart, conferring rhythm also on our brain and our mind, finds the true timing of its beat by putting itself into the hands of him who holds all our time in his hands - into the hands of eternal Wisdom, which is eternal Love and so our only true Hope. 

And so the, we put this new year, the new time and our future, into the hands of God: Lord, do accept us, and grant us your blessing!

From: Ordinariatskorrespondenz, no.1 January 4, 1979

36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan’u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
37 and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
38 And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.
39 And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Next Page →

• 
  

  	Enter your search terms
  	Web cafetheology.org Submit search form

• Categories

  Select Category Announcement    Events Book Discussion Contributors    Augustine    Cheryl Dickow    Craig Kelleher    Drusilla    Elizabeth Andrew    Geneviève Matthews    George Velez    Gromko    Holly Hamilton    Kay Vardeleon    Manny Amador    Michelle Friery    Nicholas Beck    NoelPoem    Penny Silvers    Raison D’être    Rebecca Ross    Sean Degidon    Shiela Borbon    Victor Dedaj Laughs of Faith News & Current Events Prayer Request Quotes & Excerpts    Catechism    Christoph Schönborn    Fulton J. Sheen    G.K. Chesterton    John Henry Newman    Pope Benedict XVI       Co-Workers of the Truth       General Audience    The Church Fathers Saint of The Day    Patron Saints    The Wisdom of The Saints Today’s Gospel Uncategorized

• Recent Posts

  • Hannibal Lecter, Prudential Judgment, & Abortion
  • Mark 6: 34 - 44
  • St. Elizebeth Ann Seton
  • Matthew 4: 12 - 17, 23 - 25
  • St. Augustine
  • Mary Mother of God
  • John 1: 1 - 18
  • St. Augustine
  • Co-Workers of the Truth 12/31
  • Luke 2:36-40
  • St. Pope Leo the Great
  • Luke 2: 22 - 35
  • St. Ephraem the Syrian
  • Co-Workers of the Truth 12/29
  • 4145

• Recent Comments

  • Henry on Mary Mother of God
  • Henry on Politically Correct Hypocrisy
  • Henry on The Bishops and Immigration Reform
  • Henry on No time for weakness
  • Henry on The Bishops and Immigration Reform
•