The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIntrinsic evil vs. run-of-the-mill evil
by Richard McBrien on May. 04, 2009
As we approach the Notre Dame commencement ceremonies (on May 17) at which President Barack Obama will address the graduates and receive an honorary doctorate of laws, much to the consternation of a certain segment of the U.S. Catholic community, it is long past the time when a major theological fallacy needs to be exposed and rebutted.
That fallacy consists of the assumption that only an intrinsic evil is to be held against a public figure, such as the president of the United States, a U.S. senator, a member of the House of Representatives, or the governor of one of the 50 states.
Since abortion is regarded as an intrinsic evil, anyone who is deemed pro-abortion (the assumption is that pro-choice is equivalent to pro-abortion) is, by that fact, deemed unworthy of any honors conferred by the Catholic church or any Catholic institution.
Some have even gone so far as to say that such individuals, if Catholic, should be barred from the reception of Holy Communion.
In the face of outraged protests against the invitation that Notre Dame extended to President Obama, it has been pointed out that these same people did not protest a similar invitation that the university extended to President George W. Bush during his first year in office.
Although President Bush had not yet launched the preemptive war in Iraq, over the strong opposition of Pope John Paul II, he had already established an unenviable record as governor of Texas in presiding over the largest number of executions in the entire country: 152.
Indeed, even in December 2000, a month after the presidential election, Governor Bush signed off on three more executions, bringing the total number of executions in Texas that year to 40 -- an all-time record for any state since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976.
The counter-argument from certain types of Catholics is that capital punishment isn't intrinsically evil; therefore, then-Governor Bush deserved a pass.
But Pope John Paul II, in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae ("The Gospel of life"), made it very clear that there are, for all practical purposes, no circumstances under which the death penalty can be imposed, no matter how heinous the capital crime.
The pope wrote that the State "ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (n. 56).
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Ah, some say, but the pope allows for that rare exception when capital punishment might be allowed. Therefore, it cannot be intrinsically evil, because what is intrinsically evil can never be allowed.
But if only intrinsically evil actions are to be counted against a public official, a whole series of evils could be ignored, including the waging of an unjust war, torture, the denial of human rights, and on and on.
Even granting the counter-argument that the pope allowed for rare exceptions, by what reasonable moral standards would 152 executions over the course of Governor Bush's two terms in Texas be considered "rare"? And by what moral standards would 40 executions in the year 2000 alone be considered "rare"?
And yet less than a year later, in May 2001, the University of Notre Dame invited now-President Bush to be its commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Where were the same Catholics who are now protesting the invitation to President Obama? Did they also protest the honor to be accorded to George W. Bush because of his presiding over more executions in Texas than any other governor in the United States?
No, they did not. And why not? Because they did not, and do not, regard capital punishment as an intrinsic evil, like abortion, even though Pope John Paul II unmistakably condemned the death penalty, as does The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2267), which the pope himself cited.
If the only moral condemnations of the church that a Catholic is required to take seriously are its condemnations of intrinsic evils, then why, by the same process of "logic," can we not argue that the only teachings of a pope that we are required to accept are infallible teachings?
But if that were the case, not a single teaching of Pope John Paul II in all 26 and a half years of his pontificate, would have to be accepted, because not once in his entire pontificate did he issue an infallible pronouncement.
Let's finally put the intrinsic-evil argument to rest.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
With your mastery of logic,
With your mastery of logic, dear Father O'Brien, it is you who should be receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. Thank you so very much, as always.
Bravo! We would do well in
Bravo! We would do well in fact to investigate the several distinguished academic and theological honors the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien has in fact received. Yet, we each give him the greatest honors by reading his work most carefully and prayerfully.
And those who do not believe our fine new President "deserves" an honorary law degree are not familiar with his outstanding achievements at Harvard Law School, including and most remarkably as the distinguished editor of the prestigious academic Harvard Law Review, as a community organizer, as a very young US Senator, as President of these United States of America, one nation, under God, indivisible,.
For that matter, his wife Michelle also merits a similar honorary degree for her own achievements in the field, Honoris causa.
To tell the truth, our president does honor to the University of Notre Dame itself by agreeing to accept this honorary degree; the status of Notre Dame as a university only increases by his acceptance, and as a truly Catholic center of Higher Learning in particular, no matter what the mercenaries may preach.
O' master of logic, if it was
O' master of logic, if it was wrong for Notre Dame to honor President Bush because of a multiplicity of extrinsic evils that he committed, is it not then wrong for Notre Dame to honor President Obama for the multiplicity of intrinsic evils that he is committing?
The statement of the Master
The statement of the Master of Logic was if the invitation to president Obama was wrong then should also the invitation to president Bush. And if the invitation to President Bush was 'right' then should also the invitation to President Obama. But that was not the main point of the Master of Logic on his article above, the main point is where were those people who were attacking President Obama's invitation when President Bush was invited ?
Hai, Now that's a Dodge if
Hai,
Now that's a Dodge if ever I saw one.....'splains why Chrysler went bankrupt!
Yes, it is about
Yes, it is about consistancy,thank you for pointing it out. Consistancy is a two way street. Yet I keep hearing one side point out how the other side is not consistant. Why, as Christians is it so difficult to just be fair in listening to the other side? And why is there such a willingness not to reflect on how ones own side may, indeed, have the same double standard for which we are condeming the other side? Self-rightousness is death to the spiritual life. Let's be willing to work on it a bit
Good summation Sieber! It
Good summation Sieber! It brings out the utter immaturity of McBrien's argument. When you read his supporters, one gets their not so subtle intention. Christ is risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!
By all means, yes, let's do
By all means, yes, let's do away with the concept of intrinsic evil. Then let's discuss the acceptable forms of slavery, racism, infanticide, oppression and war. Since these aren't *necessarily* evil concepts or actions any more, let's find out where the wiggle room is and get to work!
And since it seems that this crowd all seems to think that Bush should not have been honored because of his evil actions, then you agree that Obama shouldn't be honored. See you at the protests on May 17!
I'm glad all here are so logical.
We not only should be logical
We not only should be logical but also fair.
We could all be there on May 17 as long as you can promise there would be as many banners, slogans and posters condemning President Obama's policy as President Bush's and condemning ND's policy in inviting both.
Can you guarantee that ?
Yes, many pro-life advocates
Yes, many pro-life advocates are inconsistant when it comes to the issues. Also, many, some that I have debated with, do think that the Church is not against the death penalty which is unfortunate. However, the inconsistency in one instance does not make the protest in another incorrect. If one wants to critique pro-life advocates and call for consistance by all means please do so. It must be done. Yet, we should not ask pro-life advocates to take a step back when they get it right for the sake of consistency.
You make an exellent point
You make an exellent point here.
The USCCB Statement,
The USCCB Statement, Catholics in Political Life, which clearly states:
"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
... was made in 2004.
Bush was honored by ND in 2001.
End of story.
"end of story", I don't think
"end of story", I don't think so. George W. Bush was honored by St Vincent college, a small catholic college in Pennsilvana in 2006. This was after the statement made by the Bishops that you quote, as well as after the invasion of Iraq which was not supported by the vatican on moral grounds.
So it was allright to honor
So it was allright to honor those who act in defiance of Catholic fundamental moral principles before USCCB issued that statement ?
Hmmmm...
Father McBrien, You are so
Father McBrien,
You are so cool,so intelligent, logical and devastatingly exact in your pronouncements. Well done!
More fundamentally, is it not
More fundamentally, is it not time to question the whole notion of intrinsic evil? And what of Papal infallibility which has done enormous harm to the church in order to convert devotion to dogma? Both are just ways to say, "Don't ask me to explain, my mind's made up!"
"question the whole notion of
"question the whole notion of intrinsic evil?" I sure hope not. Are there not certain acts that are flat out wrong, regardless of the circumstance?
In what specific ways has Papal Infallibity been harmful to the Church?
Have the infallible declarations of the Ecumenical Councils been harmful too?
I can not recall the dogmatic
I can not recall the dogmatic constitutions and documents of the Second Vatican Council having been declared ex cathedra; thank you for this new information.
In this thread, I believe we all do well to read more carefully the history of the imposition of Infallibility and in particular the excellent treatise by the great popular theologian and former professor of our present Pope, the Reverend Father Hans Kung, entitled simply "Infallible?"
If you examine closely the history of the First Council and the papal cancellation of the follow-up despite prior understandings (as the whole People of God were to be declared infallible in consensus), you might discover the answer to your second query and the source of the imposition of a more imperial structure upon the Church of God. You may then find the harm you seek.
Or you might simply look it up in the excellent HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism edited by the learned and Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, under the item Infallibility.
And while you're at it, why
And while you're at it, why not question the whole Trinity thing too and the 7 sacraments. After all, neither of those are in the Bible. Sorry to interrupt your day...your appointment at the cafeteria is ready now.
The idea that I am condemned
The idea that I am condemned to perdition by not accepting the "infallible" doctrines of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception (which I do not!) is simply laughable.
As said above, devotion was declared dogma. What a farce.
Yes, it would be laughable if
Yes, it would be laughable if the Church said people go to hell if they don't believe in the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception BUT the Church does NOT say that. I think you've got all kinds of things mixed up together in your head, and, as with so many, you take one little piece of a picture and make it the whole picture. Church teachings are many-sided and multi-dimensional, rooted in a stupendous history, and theology/philosophy that comments on the Church's core teachings can seem puzzling and downright paradoxical--even impossible--to a mind not educated to handle this type of intellectually and poetically intense language. I don't think you know much about the Church at all. 'A little learning is a dangerous thing.'
A little learning is a
A little learning is a dangerous thing.Unfortunately there are some theologians and academics who demonstrate this all too well. The Church has 2000 years of Sacred tradition and scripture to draw upon and the additional guarantee from Christ that she would be protected from moral error by the Holy Spirit ensuring that the gates of hell would never prevail against her.
Excellent maybe R Mc Brian
Excellent
maybe R Mc Brian will
open both eyes
of the one-eyed moralists
Keep up the good work!
I agree. Except "The
I agree. Except "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" was not published until 2002. And the bishops document "Catholics in Political Life" was not published until 2004. How do they apply to Bush in 2001? But all that is quibbling like the arguments over whether Pope Benedict or ordinaries can dispense with those documents in their own actions.
Much as I admire him, President Obama has done some bad things lately; and he has pledged to do more. It is one thing to honor someone who has the character to repent after the commission of a crime such as actively blocking aid to a people in need, as President Clinton did in the case of Rwanda. It really is another thing to honor someone who is still committing the crimes. Because that is what they are - crimes.
Could you at least state what
Could you at least state what crimes you think the president is committing? He may be disagreeing with your morality but I don't know of any crime he is committing under U.S. law. I think I and maybe others here would like to know these crimes that are being committed. I do think this is a serious charge you are making here; hope you can substatiate it or are you just slandering him?
Amen.
Amen.
Thanks, Father McBrien, for
Thanks, Father McBrien, for calling a "spade", a "spade". This is so needed, no matter where one stands.
You can try but I don't think
You can try but I don't think the people who do not want President Obama at Notre Dame or anywhere else for that matter, are going to buy your argument.
Jesus said he would leave the flock of sheep to go after the one who needed saving. President Obama wants to give the women who choose abortion because they don't see another way to go (and please people, I said THE WOMAN doesn't see a way out, not you) the assistance they need so they at least, can choose life for the baby. For the few, and I imagine there are a few, who just don't care this won't work. But think if helping to pay for the hospital or food stamps or day care would prevent an abortion wouldn't that be a good thing? Going after the one who is separated from the flock but can be helped sounds like what Jesus would want and that is what President Obama is trying to do.
Sometimes evil wraps itself up in moral clothing but you can usually pick it out by an all or nothing attitude and quite frankly, President Obama is not the one I would say has the all or nothing attitude. How many babies have been killed because a woman couldn't afford the healthcare or childcare or has no place to raise a child? We can say don't help pay for these things, people should take care of themselves and say at the same time we want abortion outlawed which isn't going to happen and guess what? By not helping to pay, we may be killing babies. The high road is a very slippery one and the devil is just waiting for someone to think they won't slip on it.
Excellent summary of the
Excellent summary of the theological issues. Unfortunately the only "logic" that explains the protests on the Obama Notre Dame visit compared to the lack thereof in George Bush's is very simple. The Bishops, etc., who are vigorous in the criticism are Republicans pure and simple. What they don't perhaps realize, insular that they are, is how foolish they make the Church leadership appear to our friends in Europe, etc.
Follow the money The same
Follow the money
The same rich republican billionaires who denied Rosemary Radford Ruether her well deserved and professorial chair call the shots in dioceses across the nation.
Republicans' Money speaks louder than Rome.
I believe it would be more
I believe it would be more accurate to say "the bishops who run the dioceses"
Oh, please! Father M. should
Oh, please!
Father M. should read his catechism a little closer. Whether we like it or not, it clearly states that war and capital punishment are evils that can at times be justified when certain conditions are met. The question, it seems to me, is the level of authority of JP II's declaration on capital punishment. "Levels of authority." This should sound familiar to Fr. M.
Pope John Paul II made it
Pope John Paul II made it clear those "certain conditions" can never be morally met.
Warfare and the death penalty are now morally and justly obsolete and must be abolished.
Civilized nations throughout the world have aboished the death penalty. Why have we not, and where does this leave us?
My state has.
Texas has not.
Civilized nations throughout the world, and the Vatican State, have signed the prohibition of cluster bombing, a form of sowing land mines which explode much later in the curious face of children or under a farmer's ox-driven plow. The USA, Israel and Russia, producers, distributers and end-users all, have not. Our allies and clients in Sri Lanka now use them against ethnic Tamil civilians.
We reap what we sow.
Lady Diana Spencer stood bravely against the use of landmines. We must do no less, though we share her fate.
Pope John Paul II made it eminently clear there no longer remain the circumstances by which the death penalty and warfare might be jsutified. Pope John Paul II and his successor strongly condemn the unjustifiable and genocidal US invasion and occupation of Iraq for oil.
Would you twist this level of authority to your convenience and prejudice and confusion? Would you risk such a level of dissent from Papal moral authority?
At last! A well-reasoned
At last! A well-reasoned response to the absurd and shameful diatribe against President Obama and Notre Dame. When will these narrow thinking Catholics get beyond the one issue of abortion to the many other ways in which to kill human beings? Our nation prides itself on family values, and yet we don't mind starving people to death, or letting them die due to a lack of basic healthcare, or letting them die in the cold and on the street, alone and abandoned, or refusing them welfare for any decent length of time, to say nothing of the gross injustice of the entire capital punishment system. We also say nothing about the bishops who fail to address their own moral failure in regards to priests who killed the souls of vulnerable and innocent children, or against priests who beat and abuse women in their parishes, killing the faith of these women in the process, or against priests who steal funds from the parish and thus from the poor, depriving the poor of needed funds for the necessities of life. Wake up! Indeed, there is more than one way to kill humans. Protest all of the ways, not just the one.
Excellent!!!
Excellent!!!
Thank you for a reasonable
Thank you for a reasonable voice in all the rhetoric.
Dear Rev. Father
Dear Rev. Father McBrien,
Thank you for this and all your consistently brilliant insight eloquently and lucidly and patiently expressed.
The very recent report from Amnesty International regarding this pro-life matter of moral theology might be found at the link:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGAMR510572009&lang=e&rss=rec...
which also provides further information regarding the state of Texas under the bloody Bush regime.
We might also recall last year's National Catholic Reporter article which reported the head of the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace declaring the death penalty homicide.
Thank you once again and please keep the faith and us focused upon her!
Sincerely yours always,
frere charles
But the Death Penalty is not
But the Death Penalty is not condemned as such. If the death penalty is necessary, it is not condemned. The death penalty can be necessary, and good, honest, faithful Catholics can disagree about when and under what particular circumstances it is necessary. This does not make Bush less evil, but it does mean that Catholics who supported him made merely an intellectual error (except, of course, those who outright disregard Church teaching on the death penalty).
On the other hand, abortion is condemned as such. There are not circumstances under which abortion is permissible. Catholics cannot, without denying the teaching authority of the Church, disagree about when abortion is acceptable. Catholics who thoughtfully support abortion are not making intellectual errors. They are making moral errors.
Also, Dr. McBrien didn't seem to care about the teaching authority of the Church last week. How do you appeal to the Church's magisterium on the death penalty in one column after encouraging people to "take a vacation" from the Church?
It's a word game
It's a word game Anonymous
The true spirit, as articulated by JPII is that "Self Defense" is allowed. "Punishment" by death is never allowed. Done, period, over -- stop playing the game, you're too smart to believe that.
Well, yes. With John Paul II,
Well, yes. With John Paul II, I don't think that it's very likely that any actual instances of the Death Penalty in a country with a efficient prisons can actually be just.
But, at the same time, Catholics of good conscience can disagree about when the death penalty is just. Even if it's difficult for you or I to imagine a morally justified execution, such a thing is possible. No Catholic can imagine a morally justified abortion.
I should point that you said "you're too smart for that," and not "you're too moral for that" or "you're too faithful a Catholic for that." Exactly my point. People who err on the practical application of the death penalty may only be making an intellectual error. It is possible to think like a Catholic, with the the Church, and support the Death Penalty today in America, even if it's not possible to think like a smart Catholic and arrive at the same conclusion.
It is, however, not possible to think a like a Catholic, smart or otherwise, and decide that abortion is moral. These people are not necessarily making an error of the intellect (though many of them certainly do); they are making errors of the will. Granted, many of those Catholics who are pro-capital punishment or pro-choice are making both errors, but at the root of each are fundamentally different failures.
Dear "Anonymous of May. 05,
Dear "Anonymous of May. 05, 2009"
I suppose you didn't hear about that poor little girl in Brazil about 2 months ago. She is nine, and was raped by her stepfather, and became pregnant with twins. She only weighed about 66 pounds and her doctors stated (and many medical persons who post on this website and others) agreed that she should not give birth--because she and her babies would all die.
The girl's mother had her undergo an abortion and the child's mother and the
doctors were all excommunicated by the archbishop of Racife. The good archbishop never paid a pastoral visit to see the child, her mother, or the doctors---it was just excommunicate the adults.
If the abortion hadn't occured---there would be three innocent deaths. Oh, by the way, the stepfather (who also raped an older girl who is mentally challenged) is in jail---but he's not excommunicated. He only raped young girls. In the Church's eyes---raping kids----what's that? A crime or something?
And there are all sorts of
And there are all sorts of perfectly Catholic frameworks of moral reasoning that can be considered here: toleration of evil, double-effect, proportionalism, etc.
Just because killing two infants in utero is less evil then letting them die with their nine year old mother doesn't make abortion just. No one is favor of nine year old girls having babies. In the case cited, the excommunication was incurred latae sententiae, that is, whether the ordinary recognized it or not. Should the ordinary have recognized it in the stupidly public way that he did? No, of course not. Does this have anything to do with the question of abortion in the US today? No, of course not.
When people talk about abortion, they're talking about abortion as opposed to carrying the child to term. If the child's not going to be carried to term regardless, it becomes a different sort of question. If Barack Obama were only in favor of abortions that were certainly going to end up as miscarriages / stillbirths anyway, then I don't know what all the fuss would be about. But the rhetoric of abortion isn't concerned with that; it's all about choosing whether or not to kill your baby.
Anonymous, you posit "It is
Anonymous, you posit "It is possible to think like a Catholic, with the the Church, and support the Death Penalty today in America."
OK, so what you're saying is that you don't agree with JP II. Because the Death Penalty as applied in America today is explicitly a means of retribution, not a means of self-defense. There is no argument there, and if you wish to disagree with JP II then that's your choice, but please don't manufacture "wiggle room."
The problem here is that people want to see themselves as arbiters of the value of one life over another. Thus the argument of "innocent" life somehow being a more perfect creation. Applying an adjective to "life" is not sound Theology. You must look at the word "life" in a stand alone context. Because life is what God gives and life is what God can take. It is not up to us to decide on God's behalf which life He created is more worthy than another. To say that you can play God and do his job for him is well.....a little shaky.
Where did I say I disagree
Where did I say I disagree with John Paul II?
I said that the Catholic Church recognizes that the death penalty is sometimes justified, and I said that a faithful, but not terribly bright, Catholic could think that it is frequently justified here. After all, how is a society to defend themselves? If you can jail murderers and rapists, and keep them from murdering or raping again, good. But if the choice is actually execution or letting a murderer, who will murder again, free, then I think the choice is clear. Catholics are opposed to the death penalty because we value life, and opposition to death penalty should be grounded in that.
Catholics who support the death penalty are making an error of judgment. But if I wanted to be in a Church that only had smart people, I would not be a Catholic. Many Catholics who support the death penalty may also be making the error of wanting it as punishment. Then, just like pro-choice Catholics, their problem is that they think killing is moral and they're indifferent to the teachings of the Church.
The real mystery is how there are Catholics who support one, and not the other, of death penalty and abortion. After all, both are, at the heart of it, a valuing of one person's life over that of another. After all, you must look at 'life' in a stand-alone context, unborn life doesn't deserve to die more than anyone else.
Padre, Anonymous is still
Padre, Anonymous is still playing the game.
Let's just take our ball and go home . . .
Father McBrien - You cannot
Father McBrien -
You cannot begin to understand, I think, what an incredible source of
sanity, hope and peace you are for many of us. Thank you always.
Please take very, very good care of yourself so that you can continue to take care of us beleagured John XXIII Catholics. We need you badly!
As a fellow beleaguered John
As a fellow beleaguered John XXIII Catholic, I urge you to enjoy his "Veterum Sapientiae".......just Google it, you'll love it!
Veterum Sapientia indeed...
Veterum Sapientia indeed... How fitting for those who wants to understand catholic teaching from its source ! By the way John XXIII didn't require catholic to use Latin as the liturgical language in the document... if that was you are driving at...
AMEN!
AMEN!
Fortunately, Fr. Mc Brien,
Fortunately, Fr. Mc Brien, Pope Benedict and his theologians agree with you, even when certain elements of the American Catholic Church do not. At least they can see the validity of most -- if not all -- of the theological arguments you make in this newspaper week after week. Someone over there does indeed appreciate you as much as we do!
Amen
Amen
AMEN!
AMEN!
Mr McBrien - did you
Mr McBrien - did you protest Bush's speech back in 2001? I'll presume you didn't since you neglected to reference any past column (you have the habit of doing that) in which you decried the university's invitation because of Bush's use of the death penalty.
The Catechism recognizes that the State has the right to utilize the death penalty in order to protect its citizens. 40 executions in a year does not mean there were 40 prosecutions that year - everyone knows that a criminal sentenced to die lives on Death Row for many years. So while Bush had the opportunity to grant pardons, he obviously believed that these criminals deserved the penalty (as determined by a jury of peers, by the way) and society was safer with them receiving the punishment determined by the court of law.
Still, 40 executions in one year pales greatly in comparison to the 1+ million abortions each year. There is no similarity in kind or number. You've presented a strawman argument that has no basis in comparison.
What you don't like is that this scandal is crystallizing the difference between orthodox Catholics who faithfully follow Christ and his Church, and the heterodox Catholics who are of the world. I venture to say you're embarrassed of the 350,000+ people who signed the petition, the more than $10 million that's being withheld by donors and alumni, and the vibrant pro-life Catholics at Notre Dame.
You want to put the intrinsic evil argument to rest because you are on the wrong side of the argument.
xlgd0708 - First of all,
xlgd0708 - First of all, John Paul II said effectively there is no case in which the Death Penalty is allowed. Specifically, only in cases of self-defense. So, self-defense is entirely different than punishment. Punishment, or revenge, by taking a life is intrinsically evil - pure and simple.
You continually use the word "penalty." Penalty is revenge, spite, retribution, pay back - none of which resemble "self-defense," and none of which are preserved in the Catechism.
And, by the way, if you knew anything about Fr. McBrien - you would know that he's enjoyed being a little thorn in the side of the University's Administration for decades. Trust me, he doesn't care about the Newman PAC, or the "supposed" dried up donations. He cares about the truth.....
"Effectively" is not
"Effectively" is not synonomous with "absolutely".
Para 2266 from the CCC - "...the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. " This is under the section titled "Legitimate Defense".
Justice, to be authentic, requires penalties, like it or not. My son breaks a window, the penalty is that he pays for the replacement. I break the speed limit, the penalty is I pay the ticket. I rob a bank, the penalty is I stand trial and if found guilty, I go to jail. You help procure an abortion, the penalty is automatic excommunication. We die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, the penalty is eternity in Hell.
I don't support the death penalty, by the way - just the Church's teaching. But it doesn't share equal footing with abortion in the hierarchy of evils. That's what I am objecting to here - the false equal weighting of the two. Abortion is multiple times much worse than the death penalty.
I think the reasons so many people would like the two to be equal are a) so few people actually will be personally involved with capital punishment, it makes it easy to oppose and makes them feel good about opposing it; and b) so many people either know some one who's had an abortion and doesn't want to appear judgmental, or they've had one themselves that they don't want to face facts and seek forgiveness and healing for their actions. But that's just my opinion, based on personal experience and observation.
And yes, I know he enjoys being a thorn in the side - he enjoys his exaggerated popularity more than anything else. There's a word for that - it's called pride.
In no way am I considering
In no way am I considering abortion anything but a horror. But to use your thinking, I think it's absolutely the reverse. It's easy to find the slaughter of an unborn child to be an absolute evil (I'm a father of 5 myself). What is difficult is to not want to cave into the desire for revenge on a killer. That's what makes Christ's message difficult.
And to McBrien - accuse him of pride if you want to, I'm not by any means a McBrien worshipper. But my point was to your point regarding him being bothered by the charade that the Cardinal Newman Society is playing with his "click here to condemn" website. McBrien could not possibly care less about Patrick O'Reilly (intentional misp).
Padre Pio is the father of
Padre Pio is the father of five children??!
Oh, Lordy, first Marcial and now this!
When will it ever end!
I've been outed....touche,
I've been outed....touche, frere
Dear LGD, You write thusly,
Dear LGD,
You write thusly, '"Effectively" is not synonomous with "absolutely".'
And by this very thin edge of the wedge drive home allowances for the bloodbath of state sponsored homicides in Texas under Bush and Perry which go directly against the intent of the dogma of Pope John Paul II. Read the very recent report from Amnesty International which discusses Texas, and Bush, carefully and in particular.
Consider the statement of the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace which declared last November the death penalty homicide.
And if not those authorities, then consider this one:
Thou shalt not kill.
Effectively is the same as absolutely.
The Pope said there is no reason for the death penalty to be imposed anymore in modern society, that modern facilities keep society safe from homicidal maniacs. Except society is not safe from immoral maniacs like Bush and Perry and the government itself.
Jesus in his discourse found no exception to the absolute commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill, and in fact cancelled the lex talionis: "eye for an eye." In fact Jesus says even to call someone a fool makes us liable for Judgment.
Effectively is synonymous with absolutely, my brother.
"b) so many people either
"b) so many people either know some one who's had an abortion and doesn't want to appear judgmental, or they've had one themselves that they don't want to face facts and seek forgiveness and healing for their actions. But that's just my opinion, based on personal experience and observation."
Yes that is your personal experience and observation that is full of flaws.
They are many people who are not opposed to outlawing abortion actually would never ever considering abortion in their lives. The so called extreem pro lifer likes to create a straw man of pro choice people as pro abortionist who support and enjoy doing abortion. Great many people who do not think that abortion should be made illegal would not even consider abortion as a choice. The same way as if I support the building of a mosque in my neighborhood would not mean that I am considering to convert to Islam one day.
We in the U.S. do not have a
We in the U.S. do not have a "jury of our peers" system. That is Great Britains system. We have the right to an IMPARTIAL jury which can be made up of peers or non-peers.
And yet in so-called capital
And yet in so-called capital cases, anyone who objects on moral grounds to the death penalty is not allowed on the jury, which therefore packs it with those eager to lynch.
Several studies readly available examine the racial demographics of death row.
Note to Igdo 708: Remove
Note to Igdo 708: Remove moat from eye before continuing to pontificate.
Catholics should protest all
Catholics should protest all injustice but, as J. Harrington pointed out above, past failures, poor decisions, and inconsistencies do not mean that we give President Obama and Notre Dame a free ride. The university is flagrantly at odds with the teaching of Catholic bishops. By all means, invite the president to a debate on abortion, but do not HONOR him with a degree and a speech to which there will be no opportunity to make rebuttal.
I hope Fr McBrien is not saying that Catholics should remain silent as some sort of "payback" for past lack-of-protests.
So you are saying a
So you are saying a distinguished former Law Professor, after a brilliant career of studies at Harvard Law School including the extraordinary and honorable appointment as editor of the Harvard Law Review, must not receive from a lesser (than HARVARD!) center of higher education an honorary law degree, because why?
Our fine and upstanding President brings honor to the University of Notre Dame in deigning to receive this honorary degree, perhaps even more than this gesture honors our President. It is a sign of this great man's humility and openness and spirit, despite whatever snobby, arrogant and outraged snortings some may put on, most probably upon not political, not ideological, but racial grounds. We disguise our deepest prejudices with the mildewed shroud of false religion. Our president comes to Notre Dame in kindness; let us kindly receive him with grateful humility and with deepest affection. Let us learn from this great Law Professor one lesson at least:
Reaching out with the audacity of Faith, Hope, and Charity.
The question at the heart of
The question at the heart of the debate is this: Is the directly intended killing of an innocent human person ever morally justified? President Obama says yes, sometimes. In fact, millions of times. The Church says no, never.
Just as the abolitionists in the time of slavery held the moral high ground in the face of hostile political power, the our Church leaders (and many others, thank God) hold the moral high ground now. It's disappointing to witness Notre Dame and Fr. McBrien fashioning a fig leaf for the abortion apologists.
Fr. McBrien: Does it not make
Fr. McBrien:
Does it not make more sense for us to say that the Catechism has mis-categorized it's statements on Capital Punishment?
What the Catechism really allows for is the taking of a life in "self-defense," of an individual or a community, not for "punishment."
If you could just say that there is no case in which a government can "exact retribution" in the form of taking a life, wouldn't we be able to take the sails out of the intrinsic argument?
Why wouldn't it make sense for the Vatican to sort of reclassify institutional murder as only allowable under the same circumstances as "Just War?"
Because just like with the
Because just like with the death penalty (declared homicide by the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace last November), the Vatican no longer can find any conceivable circumstances under which modern and by definition indiscriminate warfare could be considered "Just."
I have to say I have a hard
I have to say I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the whole "intrinsic evil" thing. As near as I can make out, an intrinsic evil would be an action whose direct outcome would be so evil that no mitigating circumstance could render it moral. Killing a fetus, for instance, could not be considered "good" no matter how much it might benefit a troubled and confused mother--or the unborn child destined for a hellish existence. Seems to me war, which the Church teaches can be "just", is similar. Killing of civilians (they don't get killed only in theoretically anesceptic wars dreamed up by armchair philosophers) in war is always evil. And isn't the killing of combatants too? Jesus, of course, said to "turn the other cheek," but we assume he meant something else, which doesn't exclude napalm, land mines, razor wire, cluster bombs and thermonuclear devices. The Church teaches that the intrinsically evil endeavor of war can be "just" under strictly circumscribed conditions (that few observe). Why not define the conditions for a "just" abortion?
Kindly update your
Kindly update your theology.
Lately the Popes are declaring the end of the "just war theory" and finding modern warfare so indiscriminate and disproportional that it can never be considered just. Intrinsically, therefore, evil.
Yet some bishops like the SOA's Morlino still bless our bombs and subs and secret dirty armies.
Go figure. It is all indeed baffling and bemusing.
The answer to your closing and most excellent question might be found within the voluminous writings of American Catholic moral theologian, the Reverend Father Charles Curran.
Post new comment