Michael Perry beat me to it, but . . . a few thoughts on the Muhammad execution, and it's connection to the larger debate about the content and implications of our -- that is, of Catholics' -- pro-life commitment:
First, it seems to me that the execution of Muhammad (like the execution of, say, Tim McVeigh) is a challenge to abolitionists (like me) to reflect carefully on the reasons why we oppose capital punishment. After all, Muhammad committed horrible crimes (there is no danger, in this particular case, so far as I know, that the wrong person was executed) and I am not aware of any troubling deficiencies in his representation or in the review of his case. Why, exactly, should he not be executed?
The answer is probably not, I think, "because it is never justifiable, given the dignity of the human person, for the public authority to kill a human being." Punishment can be morally justified and the Church has always taught (and still, so far as I understand it, still teaches) that capital punishment can also, in some (exceedingly rare) circumstances, be justified. So, why shouldn't we impose this punishment? It is simple to say "because this is not one of those exceedingly rare circumstances." Why not?
Now, what happened to John Muhammad is not, I think, the same thing, morally speaking, as what happens when a doctor causes the death, by abortion, of an unborn child; what happened when Virginia's lawmakers authorized capital punishment for aggravated murders, or when it was decided that Muhammad's was such a murder, was not the same thing, morally speaking, as what happens when legislatures decide to exclude unborn children from the law's protections against lethal private violence. Still, I think our laws should not authorize, and we should not impose, capital punishment. Why?
Some reasons are easy: Capital punishment is very expensive (and its "benefits" do not seem to outweigh its "costs"); it seems (even more so than punishment generally) difficult to distribute in a way that maps with the exactness we should want onto culpability; it is final (and so mistakes cannot be corrected); etc. What else?
For me, two lines of thought do most of the work. (I think I owe both of them to Cardinal Dulles, but I might have him wrong): First, opposition to capital punishment expresses my commitment to the idea that the modern state is not absolute, though it has troubling pretensions to absolute-ness; second, a society that manages to restrain itself from imposing capital punishment might turn out to be (though, it is far from clear that it will in fact turn out to be) more pro-life generally; a society that is able to say "we will not execute, though we could, and though we would gain some benefits from doing so, even a duly convicted murderer" might also manage to say "we will not indulge the pernicious idea that some people have a fundamental moral right to cause the deaths of other vulnerable people who depend on them, just because it seems beneficial to do so."
UPDATE: Over at National Review Online, Kathryn Lopez has these thoughts about her opposition to capital punishment. Bottom line: "We can do better."
This weekend (Thurs.-Sat.) is the annual Fall Conference of Notre Dame's Center for Ethics & Culture. "The Summons of Freedom: Virtue, Sacrifice, and the Common Good" is the theme. (The full schedule is here.) This conference, for me, is always one of the highlights of the year.
Many MOJ-ers and MOJ-friends will be on hand (including not just Michael Scaperlanda, but an additional complement of Scaperlandas!). If you are around and awake on Saturday morning, my own lecture on "Religious Freedom in America today" starts at 10:45 a.m. (Of course, those of you interested in hearing from a great scholar, instead of from me, will go hear Russ Hittinger at the same time.)
As much as I admire Bob Hockett, I was not wild about his "Republican Party as Pakistan" post to which Michael Perry recently called our attention. Given how thoughtful and helpful Bob's posts have been here at MOJ, I am choosing to believe that the "Pakistan" post is actually the work of an uncharitable partisan who has stolen Bob's password, and not of the irenic and amiable Bob Hockett. After all, the post traffics in the tired (and, frankly, hurtful) claim that social-conservatives in the American political arena can be helpfully, non-insultingly analogized to the "theocratic militant[s]" who throw acid on girls in Afghanistan, and I can't see how such trafficking actually does much for dialogue among people who proceed from shared faith commitments to, perhaps, different policy-applications of those commitments.
In response to Bob's last post, a few quick thoughts: First, it is not at all the case that opposing the proposal that passed the House is -- the Stupak amendment notwithstanding -- (anything like) "aim[ing] at stifling the Magisterium itself." That the (purported) end of the House's proposal is one that is consonant with a reasonable (even compelling) application of the Church's social teachings certainly does not mean that the House's (current) view on the best means for achieving that end must be endorsed by faithful Catholics.
Second, I would think that the reactions to the House vote that are more troubling to Bob are those of the many, many furious Democrats who are insisting that the House proposal should be rejected if Stupak is not stripped. Surfing through the left-leaning blogosphere, it would be easy to come away with the impression that public funding for abortion is more important to a not-insignificant number of the Party's base than is health-care for the currently uninsured -- indeed, that the base is somewhat Taliban-ish in their wild-eyed devotion to the public subsidization of the abortion license.
Today, at halftime of Notre Dame's pathetic disappointing loss to Navy, this ad -- which describes a research project that uses adult stem cells and proclaims Notre Dame's commitment to life from conception to natural death -- ran. And, this new webpage, on Notre Dame's Initiative on Adult Stem Cells and Ethics, was launched. Among other things, the new webpage has this:
The Catholic Church has been a robust participant in the ethical debate over stem cell research. It has vigorously opposed the use and destruction of embryos on the grounds that it constitutes the unjust taking of innocent human life for the benefit of others.
The Church’s argument follows from two premises.
First, as modern embryology confirms, the human embryo is a living, complete, whole, integrated, self-directing, member of the human species who will, if given the proper environment, move itself along a trajectory of development to the next mature stage.
Second, all human beings possess an equal moral worth and dignity, regardless of age, condition of vulnerability or dependence, circumstance, or the value of their life as judged by others.
Thus, Catholic researchers and research institutions are morally prohibited from participating in such research, either directly (i.e., deriving the embryonic stem cell lines), or indirectly (i.e., “there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place.” Id.).
At the same time, the rich tradition of the Church embraces “science [as] an invaluable service to the integral good of the life and dignity of every human being,” and “hopes …that the results of [biomedical] research may also be made available in areas of the world that are poor and afflicted by disease, so that most in need will receive humanitarian assistance,” (Id.)
In service of this goal, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently urged scientists and research institutions to “dedicate themselves to the progress of biomedicine and [to] bear witness to their faith in the field.” (Id.).
Concretely, in the same instruction, the Church explicitly noted that “research initiatives involving the use of adult stem cells, since they do not present ethical problems, should be encouraged and supported.”
Notre Dame is uniquely situated to take up this charge by exploring cutting-edge adult stem cell research (along with other forms of stem cell research that do not require the use and destruction of human beings at any stage of development) in the name of the common good.
In this way, Notre Dame aims to bear witness to the proposition that respect for the dignity of the human person and devotion to excellence in science are integral and indispensable components of the richest understanding of the ends of biomedical research.
This is, of course, not enough; Notre Dame (and, of course, other Catholic universities) needs to do more to move the ball, and spread the word, on the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. But, it seems to me, this is a good thing. Lots and lots of people (true, many of them were probably throwing things at their TV, angered by the Irish's performance) were reminded, on NBC, of the inviolable dignity of every person.
Today is "Guy Fawkes Day" (or, more precisely, for our friends across the Pond, tonight is Bonfire Night),
When I was in first grade, my public school celebrated Guy Fawkes Day. It did not strike me as strange at the time, though it certainly does now. (Probably because of this guy, Henry Garnet, S.J., who was executed for not revealing the Gunpowder Plot, about which he is sometimes said to have learned in confession.) Should it? Would a public school's celebration of Guy Fawkes Day communicate to Justice O'Connor's famous "reasonable observer" that she was an outsider in the political community? Certainly, that was long the celebration's purpose. General Washington raised some eyebrows when he told his soldiers to refrain from burning the Pope in effigy as part of their celebration:
As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.
In any event, instead of burning Fawkes, or waxing rhapsodic about how liberty, individualism, and all that is good were saved when the (alleged) Plot was thwarted, maybe we should read a little Eamon Duffy, and think about what England was.
I suspect I speak for many MOJ readers and bloggers when I say how wonderful and inspiring it has been to have had Michael's faith-filled dispatches from the Camino these past few weeks. What a blessed experience this been for him, and for all of us. Thanks, Michael!
Although the show has been on for nearly 20 years, I am pretty sure I've seen every episode of the original Law & Order series. (Don't worry -- this is not going to become a TV blog. After all, it is a "law" show.) This notwithstanding its (to me, maddening) tendency to mis-handle story-lines that involve the Catholic Church, priests, abortion, assisted suicide, etc. A recent episode, "Dignity", was a striking exception. Well done! Steve Dillard has more at First Things.
Following up on Rob's post, which called our attention to two recent federal-district-court opinions, here's another decision, out of the European Court of Human Rights, that seems troubling for similar "political authority overreaching and interfering in church polity" reasons.
