Talk about rigging the debate. While nothing may be higher on the Catholic agenda than abortion (even more, it appears at time, than war and poverty), it doesn't mean the death penalty is some minor issue unrelated to Catholic teaching. A Catholic who supports the death penalty is a cafeteria Catholic. The church is not neutral on the death penalty and it is clearly in opposition to church teachings even if abortion is the only litmus test . . . Posted by Michael at 2:20 pm on September 27, 2005
This is a very important issue and the kind of factual question that journalists wrestle with all of the time. I wish I had the time (it's column day) to dig out all of the links you need on this, right now.
Amy Welborn! If you are out there, please leave us a comment or two.
The Vatican has certainly expressed strong doubts about whether the death penalty can be used in a just way in a society torn up by racism, poverty, etc. But the death penalty itself has not been completely written off. Also, this is not an issue on which the church has been united for, oh, 2,000 years or so -- such as abortion (where the condemnation is from the highest levels of the pre-schism universal church).
Just war theory is also ancient, but people within the church often wrestle with application. John Paul II condemned the war in Iraq, but this was not raised to a level of doctrinal certainty. Abortion has been at that level for centuries and centuries.
Economic justice is a perfect example of a topic where the goal is sure, but the means are not. What has caused more poverty in the U.S. in the past few generations -- lack of commitment to economic justice or the fragmentation of the modern family?
Rome (and Eastern Orthodoxy, too) would say the best answer is both-and.
But there is the rub. Which modern American political party is on the correct side of both of those issues?
Michael wrote: "A Catholic who supports the death penalty is a cafeteria Catholic."
That may be true in your church, but not in the Vatican's church. A Catholic may also argue that the death penalty can be just, but that it is racist in this culture. There are lines people draw in different places on that issue. On abortion, the church's teachings are ancient and universal. Catholics in modern America will argue about this (and they do and the press must cover that), but the doctrinal issue is quite clear.
Meanwhile, back to the original issue that started this discussion (keep those comments coming).
The New York Times also has a report out about the frightening rhetoric of that Cheryl F. Halpern woman, the new chairperson at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Once again, we are told -- note the sneer quotes -- that she is committed to "objectivity and balance" in public television and radio. There's more:
Ms. Halpern's commitment raised concerns among some broadcast executives who said her predecessor, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, used "balance" to justify providing the financing for at least one conservative program, featuring the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, and for monitoring programs that have been critical of the Bush administration.
Oh my gosh! Someone attempted to justify starting one -- that number does appear to be one -- conservative commentary program in a nation that is as strongly divided on political and cultural issues as this one? In the age of conservative talk shows and, yes, even the dreaded Fox News? What were they thinking? Ratings? Looking for bipartisan support?