… or is it just a word for “covering my moral butt?”
Richard Myers at Mirror of Justice posts on the three potential stumbling points for a Catholic institution inviting President Bush: death penalty, Iraq War, and torture.
imo, the last one is the clearest and most troubling. By the Archbishop Burke abortion standard, the president could not be invited to speak under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Like most politicians, he probably never participated in procuring or assisting in an actual abortion. But his stance on torture is a clear correlation to that of pro-choice politicians. It might be even more so.
Unlike a scenario involving the free exercise of liberties, the US military is under a much tighter command structure. Granted that rogues might be involved in the actual evils committed under American authority, a leader is still responsible for taking a clear moral stand on such events.
Myers is willing to give the president a pass on the death penalty:
I’d say that Bush’s support for the death penalty is not inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. I’d agree with Avery Dulles (here) that the Church has not (yet) taken the view that the death penalty is always immoral, and that the decision about whether it is permissible in certain conditions is a prudential judgment on which people can reasonably disagree.
I’d like to float the notion that Myers misses the boat on this. He speaks of a theoretical support for the death penalty, but this trikes me as a careful dodge.
In reality, we have a series of approaches to the death penalty in the US. There are federal standards as well as thirty-some different ones–one for each state that permits it. When I was reading a bit of John Grisham’s local interview yesterday, it struck me that the “prudential judgment” appeal is a very holey and wornout cloak to be using.
The president and most other death penalty proponents do have a theoretical view of the practice. And on this view, there is indeed leeway for discussion and belief. But government figures also preside over a justice system that is actual, not theoretical.
One governor made a proper distinction. He was able to disentangle his theoretical view in favor of the death penalty from an honest assessment that it was immoral as practiced.
The refusal to consider such an approach is itself immoral. Or, at best, ignorant.
For President Bush’s stance on the death penalty to be in keeping with Catholic social teaching, he would have to be free of taint in the unfair system administered in Texas. Plus, he would have to be free of taint in the federal process of executing criminals.
Death penalty apologists who fail to take into account the actual practice in their nation or state really have nothing more substantive in their ideological backpack than “it’s a woman’s right to choose.” In the Archbishop Burke approach, two lines form to the right: disinvite and hypocrisy.
12 May 2007
Prudence on the Death Penalty
Posted by catholicsensibility under Commentary, PoliticsLeave a Comment
… or is it just a word for “covering my moral butt?”
Richard Myers at Mirror of Justice posts on the three potential stumbling points for a Catholic institution inviting President Bush: death penalty, Iraq War, and torture.
imo, the last one is the clearest and most troubling. By the Archbishop Burke abortion standard, the president could not be invited to speak under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Like most politicians, he probably never participated in procuring or assisting in an actual abortion. But his stance on torture is a clear correlation to that of pro-choice politicians. It might be even more so.
Unlike a scenario involving the free exercise of liberties, the US military is under a much tighter command structure. Granted that rogues might be involved in the actual evils committed under American authority, a leader is still responsible for taking a clear moral stand on such events.
Myers is willing to give the president a pass on the death penalty:
I’d like to float the notion that Myers misses the boat on this. He speaks of a theoretical support for the death penalty, but this trikes me as a careful dodge.
In reality, we have a series of approaches to the death penalty in the US. There are federal standards as well as thirty-some different ones–one for each state that permits it. When I was reading a bit of John Grisham’s local interview yesterday, it struck me that the “prudential judgment” appeal is a very holey and wornout cloak to be using.
The president and most other death penalty proponents do have a theoretical view of the practice. And on this view, there is indeed leeway for discussion and belief. But government figures also preside over a justice system that is actual, not theoretical.
One governor made a proper distinction. He was able to disentangle his theoretical view in favor of the death penalty from an honest assessment that it was immoral as practiced.
The refusal to consider such an approach is itself immoral. Or, at best, ignorant.
For President Bush’s stance on the death penalty to be in keeping with Catholic social teaching, he would have to be free of taint in the unfair system administered in Texas. Plus, he would have to be free of taint in the federal process of executing criminals.
Death penalty apologists who fail to take into account the actual practice in their nation or state really have nothing more substantive in their ideological backpack than “it’s a woman’s right to choose.” In the Archbishop Burke approach, two lines form to the right: disinvite and hypocrisy.