Our Greatest Sin: Quick to Judge, Exclude and Comdemn

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/final-ministry/trial-before-sanhedrin/

Good people can rightly disagree on a number of issues. We often forget that. Our culture is heavily polarized. We've grown accustomed to the culture wars. Our political parties have drawn hard lines between each other to where working across the aisle can be considered scandalous instead of wise and prudent. Both the professional media and social media have a role to play in these divisions, as well.

What bothers me the most is not that people disagree on important issues. Disagreement will happen. It's that we can be so quick to judge, exclude and condemn.

For example, anyone who has looked at the hard issues around war, peace and violence knows that there are rarely easy answers. This is specially true with nations with long and complicated histories. I've been in academically tedious debates over the nuances of Just War Theory. Folks may argue from a Christian perspective either for or against war. I can appreciate the points on all sides. But what I can't understand is that some folks are just so eager to go to war. At the drop of a hat, it's All Systems Go.

It's the eagerness to go to war that keeps me up at night.

My own Catholic Church has a long history of theological debate over this issue. But even if war is somehow deemed to be "necessary," it should always be a last resort. It should always come with great sadness. It should always be seen as a sin that all else has failed to prevent it, including our own individual efforts. But when we go to war, I just don't see much regret or sadness. I see triumphalism. I see blood lust. I see dehumanizing of the opponent and cheers over bombings.

I see this playing out around other issues:

Anyone who has looked at the issues around immigration knows that there are no easy answers. There are desperate, hungry people at the border. At least some of their desperation (if not all) is the result of our own policies. But there are points to be made about maintaining borders and knowing who comes and goes. Good people can rightly disagree. But what bothers me is that some of my fellow Americans are just so eager to shut the door to our neighbors before hearing their concerns. They find some technicality in the laws as an excuse to shut their hearts and minds, but let's be honest: The law isn't the real reason for their push to exclude.

Take the death penalty. Sometimes a person on death row has another story to tell. His legal team may be screaming, "Wait! Don't execute! We found new evidence!" I'm shocked by how often they have great difficulty even getting the testimony heard. Before even seeing the new evidence, others say, "Sorry, too late, the case is closed!" They don't even want to hear the evidence. I've worked with groups petitioning the state governor just hours before an execution trying to halt the process so it can be re-evaluated. What's the rush? A life is at stake!

Abortion. Anyone who is a parent knows the great responsibility that comes with parenting. It's an enormous life vocation that challenges every fiber of your being--and that's even if you have a supportive family, access to medical care, gainful employment and are in a socially-acceptable relationship. You don't have to convince me how difficult the life circumstances of some folks may be. But what bothers me the most is how quick many are to devalue the life in the womb and find a reason to abort. Maybe we'll never agree on when life truly begins, but there are many medical indicators that it's very early, and many faiths teach that it's conception. Why the rush to devalue that life?

Take the current NFL protests against police brutality started by Colin Kaepernick. Virtually all the opposition is focused on the method of protest while all but ignoring the stated reasons for the protest. We should all be saying, "Gosh, something extremely important must be going on to compel these players to make such a bold and dramatic statement, even to the point of risking their entire careers over it." It should make us stop in our tracks and listen to their concerns. The whole nation should proverbially sit down and talk this out. Instead, many are quick to shout them down before hearing their concerns. These athletes are practically shaking us, trying to tell us that something big is going on that we aren't paying enough attention to. But we're still avoiding it, so quick to deny before hearing what they have to say.

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
- James 1:19-20

By contrast to these examples above, God is slow to anger (Psalms 103:8 and 145:8). God is eager to love (John 3:16), eager to forgive (Matthew 18:21-22) and eager to include (Mark 2:13-17). Jesus was constantly including people that society wanted to exclude, marginalize or offer only a secondary status. Dozens of verses directly attest to this. This is not just a description of God's behavior, but rather we are called to follow their example (James 1:19-20).

People often cite the example of Jesus overturning tables in the table as an example of biblically-justifiable anger.  Yes, but we forget that Jesus was also slow to anger. This does not mean we rush in angrily as a general way of life. Jesus' one example of anger does not mean that all of our anger is justifiable. It means that righteous anger has a role, but that role is not open-ended. The same is true with teachings about war and violence. Perhaps they are justified in some rare instances, but we should be very slow to choose them and always do it with sadness and much regret.

Probably no other instance in the Bible speaks to this more than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus himself. It was a sham trial, a mockery of justice. There was no case against Jesus, Pilate even said so. The crowd shouted "crucify him!" When Pilate tried to reason with them, the crowd only shouted louder. Mob mentality ruled. Nothing puts the masses into a rage more than challenging the social hierarchy. Jesus was constantly putting the last first and including where society wanted to exclude. How different is that from us today who want to exclude the immigrants, condemn the prisoners, dehumanize the unborn or the people in other nations, and shout down those kneeling for justice?

In every one of the examples above, I see a reenactment of the same sham trial. It's the same mockery of justice and mob fervor. The same mob fervor that put Jesus on the cross is the same impulse that puts immigrants in detention centers and separates their families. It's the same impulse that rushes a person to the execution chamber despite compelling evidence of innocence. It is the same sham trial that finds the flimsiest of excuses in the law (or in Church Teaching) to rationalize evil and rush to war, rush to abortion and rush to exclude, condemn and dehumanize. Those who work with the poor, the suffering and the marginalized know that the crucifixion is an ongoing reality in their lives.

"Black lives matter."
"Crucify them!"
"This prisoner may be innocent."
"Crucify him!"
"This fetus is a child."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These immigrants are our brothers and sisters in need."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These Islamic nations are our neighbors too!"
"CRUCIFY THEM!!!"

Good people can disagree. Even though I have pretty strong opinions about all of these issues, I can at least respect the points from people who differ. But what I can never be comfortable with is the resistance to even hearing the points on the other side. It's the eagerness to exclude, condemn and judge before hearing what others have to say that is so hard to reckon with. Those are signs there is something more going on than mere disagreement. It means that people are resisting the message and resisting the messenger. Where is the resistance coming from? Where is the real discomfort coming from?

Pope Francis, the Death Penalty, the 2nd Amendment and Fundamentalism

It reads like a headline from the Babylon Bee: 

Catholics Upset Because Pope Francis Doesn't Want Them To Kill People Anymore.

The truth is often stranger than fiction, as the saying goes.

Pope Francis has recently updated Catholic Church teaching by declaring that the death penalty is "inadmissible."

Controversy has erupted. Some argue over whether Church teaching can truly "change" at all. Others take issues with the updated teaching itself.

I wonder why so many people seem to want the death penalty. I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) the argument that the death penalty may at some times be regrettably necessary. But even so, it should always be a last resort and something very sad. It means all other options have failed (and that those other options have been tried and tried again), and that's nothing to celebrate. I wish I saw as much passion from people working hard for envision alternatives to the death penalty as I do from those who want to keep it.

Still, I've been struggling with trying to figure out what actually happened with Francis' pronouncement. I wholeheartedly support the Church moving more clearly in the direction of love, life and nonviolence, but when I try to "work out the theological math" so to speak, I have been left skeptical. My issues have nothing do with whether or not doctrine can develop (as some argue), because I'm convinced it can and has (see below under the section "Fundamentalism"). My questions are about the theological implications of the pronouncement itself.

Here's why:

If the death penalty is "inadmissible" in every single case and condition--including cases of absolute self-defense--then the Catholic Church has taken a step toward a paradigm of nonviolence and pacifism. That would be huge.

If not, then what has happened is that Francis has simply clarified the teaching that was already there and changed the wording to prevent misunderstandings. The real leap forward came with Pope John Paul II.

As I explained in a previous article, the death penalty has already been de facto inadmissible in the previous version of the Catholic Catechism. That Catechism contains this line: "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty." However, what follows is a very strict conditional clause: "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." It even goes on to spell out that such cases where the death penalty could be admissible in modern society "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." If that weren't enough, the Catholic Church even put this section about the death penalty under the category of "Legitimate Defense" just to make sure there would be no confusion. 

In short: The Church is not supporting the right of nations to dole out God's punishments, but it does not deny the right to legitimate defense, even if such instances are only hypothetical in the modern world.

For reasons that I have a hard time understanding, many people took that to mean the death penalty was still up for debate. It's not. Simple reading comprehension will tell you that. And this was long before Francis.

The U.S. 2nd Amendment and Other Matters of Interpretation

Church teaching is one thing; how that teaching is interpreted is wholly another.

Catholic blogger Jack Quirk penned a blog entry that gets to the heart of the matter. He mentions how Francis' update to the Catechism negates "prudential judgment" interpretations. This is key. Many take some parts of Catholic Church teaching more literally than other parts. To that latter category, they apply "prudential judgment," which is a fancy way of saying they take the teaching prayerfully and seriously but not authoritatively or literally. Francis is saying that you cannot apply prudential judgment to this teaching--it speaks from a higher level of authority.

In addition, a lot of people were reading the Catechism on the death penalty the way many American conservatives currently read the 2nd amendment: They read the first part divorced from the second part in a manner reminiscent of Justice Scalia. In the 2nd amendment, the opening clauses states that the people have to right to bear arms, but that right is nestled within the necessary condition of a well-regulated militia. Most Constitutional scholars have read it that way since the passing of the Bill of Rights. However, the more recent Scalia style of interpretation separates the first part from the latter context. In other words, the "right to bear arms" now stands alone, largely divorced from its context, namely, the condition of a "well-regulated militia."

Many apply that same interpretative style to the Catholic Catechism on the death penalty. As stated above, the first part says that yes, the Church cannot totally rule out the use of the death penalty. But then there is the conditional clause: There must be no other way to save lives and/or protect the common good. With current resources for incarceration and sociological studies overwhelmingly denouncing the death penalty as a deterrent, it is almost impossible to claim the death penalty is "necessary" for protection. However, many Catholics just read the first part saying the Church cannot rule out the use of the death penalty and stood it on its own. They regarded the prevalence of executions through history as the backing of tradition and they just ignored or downplayed the second part about necessary defense. The door was open just a tiny crack but they attempted to drive a truck through it. That's the problem Francis was trying to address, I think.

If we read carefully the previous Catechism, the death penalty is not actually supported--only self-defense is a legitimate use of force, not the death penalty. However, the previous Catechism seems timid about saying that outright, even though that's really the only logical conclusion to take from the text itself. So I see Francis as saying 'let's quit beating around the bush and just tell it like it is.' I don't think Francis is taking away the option for "legitimate defense" and moving the Church towards pacifism, even though he may personally want to do that and I would be sympathetic to that, as well, but that would be a rather significant can of worms to open. 

Maybe I'm wrong and Francis has indeed introduced pacifism. Case in point: Moral theologians will say that through "double effect" reasoning, an execution--which is "inadmissible"--could still happen, but the primary motive would be to protect the common good and the death of the prisoner would be a regrettable secondary outcome. Others (like Stephen Schloeder) argue that Francis has put the death penalty into a category that makes double effect reasoning null and void, as "inadmissible" sounds a lot like "intrinsically evil." This is fodder for moral theologians to hash out in the coming years.

I believe all that Francis did was try to put an end to opportunistic readings of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty. The Church is against it and this is authoritatively said--no more prudential judgment readings nor separating out isolated statements out of their context.

Fundamentalism

Most of the controversy about this move by Francis is over whether doctrine can truly "change" at all. Some claim that everything that appears to be a change in Church teaching is only an adaptation to the signs of the times and not actual doctrinal evolution. Others--especially Church historians--cite instances of legitimate change in Church teaching over its 2,000+ year pilgrim journey.

The whole controversy over doctrinal development is really just the Catholic Church wrestling with its own form of fundamentalism.  In Protestant Fundamentalism, the defining issue is the literal interpretation of the Bible. In Catholic fundamentalism, the claim of fundamentalists is that the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) can never be wrong on matters of faith and morals. Both camps deny history, deny the written word and bend over backwards to try to make all the pieces fit, instead of just admitting that an absolute, unchanging, literal interpretation of either Scripture of Magisterial pronouncements is the actual error.

Just War Theory

Many have noted the similarities between the theologies of the death penalty and Just War Theory. A change in one could bring about a change in the other. Stay tuned . . .

2 Takeaways from Pope Francis Statement on Capital Punishment

Pope Francis recently made bold comments on capital punishment. He called it "contrary to the gospel" and flat out "inadmissible." In these words, we are seeing the culmination of what's been building over the course of several pontificates—John Paul II, especially, but other popes, as well.

There are, at least, two developments happening in Church teaching that I see:

1. Defense, Not Punishment. I assume that Catholic theology would still support some executions if they meet the conditions for the moral category of "necessary defense."  

What I think Pope Francis is saying is that if the death penalty is administered to defend human lives, then it is not actually the death "penalty" at all. It's not done as a punishment. Through double-effect reasoning, the intention would be to protect life rather than to punish wrongdoings. If somehow God's justice if done through this, that's frankly none of our business.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church comes very close to saying this. However, the language is muddy enough to allow confusion: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" [See Catechism, #2267, emphasis added by me.]

The clause that begins with "if" seems to be lost on supporters of the death penalty. The state is not charged with doling out God's punishment. Take away the necessary aspect of defense and the act of executing an aggressor loses any moral justification.

The classic example is a wagon train moving westward in the mid 1800s American frontier. If someone attacks the wagon train and puts the lives of others at risk, the pioneers may have no choice other than to execute the attacker, even if they successfully capture him. There are no prisons to speak of or even any law enforcement at all. They simply don't have the resources to render the attacker "harmless." They have every reason to believe that if they were to release him he's simply going to kill again. As unfortunate as it may be, execution may be the only option to protect the lives of the pioneering party. This is, however, not an act of carrying out God's justice by doling out punishment; rather, it's primarily an act of self-defense—doing what is necessary to protect the common good.

I'd still like to believe that Jesus has opened up a way that would not require any violence, even in the most tragic circumstances. It would also not surprise me in the least if Francis were completely nonviolent himself. However, traditional Catholic teaching has supported the use of some violence in limited circumstances to protect the common good, and I don't read Francis as contradicting that.

2. The State is Not the Arbiter of God Justice. Francis is distancing the Church from the unfortunate theology that sees the state as the administrator of the justice of God. Proponents of this theology like to cite Roman chapter 13 as a proof text.  However, they are forgetting the larger, more consistent biblical message that only God is the Lord over life and death (see 1 Samuel 2:6 and Deuteronomy 32:39).  

The notion that the political state is always* the administrator of God's justice is seriously problematic at best and absurd at worst *("always" added later due to comments below).

The church has always respected the role that governments play and acknowledges they have a legitimate realm of decision-making—true. Governments are charged with protecting the common good, and to the extent that they do that, they may indeed be a conduit for the goodness of God—absolutely. That is why Christians can and should prophetically challenge governments in our quest to make way for the Kingdom of God.  

But given the evil in the world perpetuated by governments, to say that governments are sanctioned by God to do what they do is to deny the obvious. Governments made legal the practice of human trafficking in the form of slavery. The government of Nazi Germany attempted the extermination of the Jewish people and ended up killing over 6 million people in death camps. The government of communist USSR killed millions and sent untold numbers of thinkers, artists and outcasts to die in Siberian work camps. The list could go on and on of heinous acts carried out under the mantle of "justice" by various state entities.

The human tendency to abuse power is bad enough without the underlying (false) belief that this power is sanctioned by God.

What is "sinful" and what is "illegal" are not always the same thing. For example, most governments no longer punish adultery outright through the courts, yet it still remains one of the most serious sins for a Christian. Yet, few people still believe it is the job of the government to settle the score on behalf of God. Adultery is a wound that needs considerable work to heal and atone for, but few see the government as having the authority to do that. In a likewise manner, a murderer does indeed have issues to account for with the victims and with God, but it is not necessarily the job of the state to settle every bit of that.

Christians apply Romans 13 very selectively. It seems to only pertain to the death penalty and a few other affairs but they fail to bring it up on any number of other issues. It makes no sense that we should just blindly submit to the state when it is conducting executions yet challenge the government on everything else it does. Besides, it surprises me that many of the same people who mistrust the government implicitly on just about everything seem to blindly trust the same government to make decisions of life and death in a very flawed criminal justice system.

Pope Francis is making it clear that governments cannot claim Catholic Church support for executions any longer. Francis is on solid ground to state that the Church revokes all support for the death penalty. The Church would not deny the state the right to punish criminals. But it is saying that punishing with an execution is not moral:  The right to life of the convinced criminals, coupled with the opportunity to repent and reform, should come before whatever punishment the state deems appropriate.