Kerry's last Catholic leg
As I pointed out previously, John Kerry has defended his position on abortion and same-sex marriage by asking of his detractors, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?" As if this bait-and-switch weren't lame enough, I indicated at the time that Catholic theology is far from defining capital punishment as intrinsically evil.
Now at a timely moment, Kathryn Lopez at NRO has dredged up from the bowels of the Internet an April 2001 essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles that breaks down the issue in fascinating theological detail. (hat tip: Catholics for Bush)
Both Lopez and Dulles argue against the death penalty, even while acknowledging the authority of the State to enforce it. While neither goes to this level in the linked articles, both seem to make the case that a politician who favors the death penalty is far from disqualified from earning a Catholic's vote. In reading Dulles' arguments, I would go so far as to say a Catholic legislator is well within church doctrine to support the death penalty in a general sense, as long as he lobbies to build in safeguards to ensure it is applied fairly and to shy away from its use in all but the most egregious cases.
In an interesting detail I was unaware of until now, it appears even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops aren't as keen on denouncing capital punishment as I had been led to believe. Dulles points out in a footnote that there was more than a little dissent on the matter when they made their "statement" against the practice in 1980.
The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two–thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.In any case, Dulles makes a strong stand that one's support for or against the death penalty - a criminal matter between the State and a capital defendant - clearly has no relation to one's support for or against the taking of an innocent life in abortion. The only question remains: when will our bishops stand up and defend the faith?
Comments
I think this is one of the reasons religion should stay out of politics. And politicians should stop using religion.
Posted by: Ricky Vandal | April 10, 2004 05:39 AM
You provide us with very little context with which to judge that statement, Ricky. Why exactly do you feel that way?
'Religion', in terms of how it informs individual perspective, should not and cannot be totally divorced from politics. All law is an expression of the morality of the lawmaker, so in a republic the legislature would ideally reflect the morality of the people. Where else should the people and their lawmakers form their conscience, except through religion?
On the other hand, using your religion - or your political opponent's, or the lack thereof in either case - as a club with which to beat the drums of religious intolerance is not only unfair and despicable, it approaches being a violation of the 'no religious test' clause of the Constitution.
My comments in my posts about Catholicism are intended to inform Catholics and non-Catholics alike what the proper position of the Catholic Church is with regards to these issues, and how Senator Kerry measures up. It says something about a candidate when he says he is a member of a religion, but he ignores the teachings of that religion when he campaigns. As a positive example, I hold great respect for Joe Lieberman because he apparently observes the restrictions of the Jewish Sabbath rather strictly, even when inconvenient during a political campaign.
Posted by: Chris | April 10, 2004 10:00 AM
Oh, dear. It seems I just fed a troll - check out his website. (Just once, and never return - we don't want to encourage him.)
Posted by: Chris | April 10, 2004 10:12 AM
Ah, yes, now there's some faulty logic going on there; to understate the situation. Perhaps it was put best in the comments section the article you sited when tomboy sarcastically stated, "You are a forward thinking guy, ricky.". Here we have proof positive that the American educational system is in freefall!
Posted by: Richard | April 11, 2004 01:51 AM
What is a troll?
Other than his over the top admiration for Jenna Bush, he seems normal enough. I hope that isn't the same as saying Deniro's character was odd but drove his cab well.
Posted by: Richard | April 11, 2004 09:43 AM
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/t/troll.ht.. />
I think your comparison comes very close, Rick. Read "The Scourge of Outsourcing" - especially the end. I'd rather not quote it.
When I responded to him, I thought he was a typical atheist lib, but in his blog he tries to sound conservative. IMHO, he's either trying to pull the Blue-Collared Green trick in reverse, or he's a very confused paleo - but I repeat myself.
Posted by: Chris | April 11, 2004 11:17 AM