Capital Punishment

Earlier this month, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the behest of Pope Francis, revised the paragraph on capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It now states quoting Pope Francis, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Despite the apparent absolute nature of that statement, in previous wording, the teaching is contextualized by explanations that, "Today … there is increasing awareness …. A new understanding has emerged …. [and] more effective systems … have been developed." Concurrently with the release of the next Catechism text, the Congregation sent a letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church explaining the revision. That letter gives a more detailed explanation of the changed understanding, quoting statements of St. John Paul II and situating the teaching in the context of the times.
Some people have criticized the revision as a denial of two millennia of consistent teaching teaching that the death penalty is legitimate. This could be a valid reaction if the new teaching explicitly stated that capital punishment is always, everywhere, and under all circumstances wrong; but it does not go that far. When read carefully, it says that capital punishment is wrong under contemporary circumstances, which implies (while refraining from saying so explicitly) that if circumstances were to change significantly, capital punishment might again become legitimate. If the "loophole" had been stated explicitly, proponents of capital punishment would doubtless have seized on it to justify continued support for the death penalty, just as they have used St. John Paul's wording that "cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent," to justify regular recourse to executions. It was necessary to remove the "wiggle room."

My own thinking on capital punishment has developed alongside that of the Church. I grew up accepting the conventional thinking that it was appropriate punishment for serious crimes. A major factor in changing my thinking was the pro-life movement. Tacitly acknowledging capital punishment, the movement decried the taking of innocent human life. But that was based on the sacredness of all human life, "from conception to natural death." The clear implication for me was that even the convicted criminal's life was sacred, no matter what his crime. St. John Paul II's words were also part of my growing understanding that we have no right to kill prisoners. Instances where the innocence of an individual was established after his execution, along with the more general fact of the occurrence of mistaken convictions (including accounts of police railroading their prime suspect while ignoring other possible explanations of a crime) mean that we cannot be certain that the prisoner is in fact guilty, even if we consider the crime to be worthy of death. To execute one who in fact did not commit the crime is a supreme injustice, which we should not risk perpetrating.
I have also become aware that the purpose of incarceration should not be to make the prisoner suffer. (Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deliberate infliction of suffering on those in custody clearly indicated to me what is wrong with the "make them pay" line of thought.) The terms "correctional institution." and even "penitentiary" indicate the purpose. Certainly, protecting the public from people who have shown a likelihood to harm them is one purpose of locking criminals up. Beyond that, however, unless all prisoners are to be held for life, the goal must be to turn them from their criminal ways, so that they can be safely returned to society. Capital punishment, however, ignores this purpose in favor of revenge.

Having come to see capital punishment as unnecessary, vindictive, and a denial of the humanity of the criminal, I fully support the revision to the Catholic Church's teaching. I'm afraid that many in the United States will be unwilling to give up their attachment to this degrading relic of earlier circumstances.

My 50th College Reunion

Perhaps European universities don't have something similar, but in the U.S. colleges and universities hold reunions for alumni who graduated in multiples of 5 years previously.

I was glad to be back at my university and see a good number of my classmates from 50 years ago. A couple of them, Dan and John, live nearby and I've had dinner with them every couple of years over the last 15 years or so. Together with Dave and their wives we formed a group who tended to hang out together, usually as part of larger groups. For example, Thursday evening we joined Barry*, his wife, and Art — who are from Cincinnati — for dinner at a nearby restaurant; and on Saturday all of us from that dinner were about half the group at a luncheon hosted by Brendan and his wife at their home.

*Barry (left in the above picture, with his wife) is the guy I was most in love with during my college days. Of course, I've never told him that. And although it was pleasant to see him, I'm no longer in love and the feelings were not reawakened. (His hair was dark brown 50 years ago.)

In addition to those side parties, there were official functions for the Class of 1964 as well as events for alumni from all the returning classes. The class functions included a reception Thursday evening (which Dan, John, Dave, and I went to before dinner with Barry); a breakfast Friday morning; a gathering Friday evening at which we were awarded 50-year medallions, preceded by a reception and followed by a fancy dinner; another reception and dinner on Saturday evening; a brunch on Sunday; and, since it's a Catholic institution, a reunion Mass Saturday evening.

Friday evening dinner scene

Classmate wearing the medallion we were given

At all of the events (except during Mass), there was time to chat with classmates. There were some, like Barry and Brendan, Jim — a roommate — and others, whom I had been friendly with during my college days. It was nice to be able to see them again, to "catch up" and basically to reaffirm out friendship. There were others whom I hardly knew (or didn't know at all) back then but who were enjoyable to chat with and become acquainted. Then there were classmates I'd have liked to see, but who didn't attend. (So if you're ever wondering about attending a class reunion, my advice is to do it. You'll probably enjoy it, and there will be people there who'd like to see you.)

For returnees of all classes, there was a Memorial Mass for deceased classmates on Saturday morning and a Reunion Mass on Sunday morning. There were also numerous panel discussions on various topics, campus tours, special-interest gatherings, events for children of alumni, etc. I attended all three Masses, a lunch which featured an alumna who is big at Goldman Sachs as speaker, and a couple of panels: one about a professor who was later recognized as a genuine hero of the underground attempts to stop the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews; the other about the history of the university, with my senior year roommate as a participant — we were able to chat and catch up afterwards. I would have liked to go to a discussion about the Church in the 21st Century, but the luncheon at Brendan's conflicted with it.

Both Saturday and Sunday mornings I got to campus early enough to take a lot of pictures, mostly of buildings I lived in and of the chapel. But there has been a lot of construction on campus during the past 50 years, some of it quite attractive, and a number of new buildings were part of my pictures of the older ones. When I got home I also took pictures of my "loot."

50 year medallion and lapel pin, reunion booklet, name tag & pin with yearbook photo, lapel pin for giving to alumni fund (fundraising is a major purpose — or at least ulterior motive — of reunions). 

There was also a larger booklet with updates from classmates who chose to contribute something. Interesting reading. One classmate mentioned becoming involved in ministry to gay Catholics around 1980. I had a chance to speak briefly to him and congratulate him on it. I commented that the Church is still figuring things out with regard to homosexuality, and he agreed. (Not that I think we're about to say that gay sex is okay, but there are issues such as same-sex adoption and parenting, dealing with same-sex civil marriage, celibate partnerships, ways of welcoming non-closeted gays into active participation in the Church.) Although I'd be willing to come out to my trusted friends in the Class of '64, I still need to be officially in the closet, so I'd never put something of the sort in a booklet for all to read.

The booklet asked for our favorite memory of our college days. At Brendan's luncheon, with several Bananas present, I realized that my favorite memory actually came after graduation and wasn't at the university. It was the Bananas Reunion I attended the following September (even though Barry wasn't there). 

Most of my classmates seem to have made lots more money than I have, and it's not uncommon for them to have winter homes in the south. It's easy to feel slightly out of place among them when they get to talking about those things. But objectively, I'm pretty well off, compared to most of the world, and comfortable by American standards; and if my career isn't what I had hoped for, it still has been a pretty good 50 years since graduation.

Pope Francis on Homosexuality

A couple of months ago, Pope Francis was asked if there is a "gay lobby" at the Vatican, and he answered that there is. On his way home from Rio yesterday, he gave an 80 minute press conference in which -among other things — he was asked about it. Here's a translation of what he said according to one report.

"There's a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I've never seen it on the Vatican ID card!"

"When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem … they're our brothers." —Emphasis added.

Another report gives a bit more context.

Addressing the issue of the gay lobby, Pope Francis said it was important to "distinguish between a person who is gay and someone who makes a gay lobby," he said. "A gay lobby isn't good."

"A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will -- well, who am I to judge him?" the pope said. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation -- we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."

The thing is, as the reference to the Catechism makes clear, this is not exactly novel. What is new is hearing it directly from the lips of the pope. Hopefully the publicity it gets will help more people learn what we've been saying all along.

I realize that this won't satisfy people who insist that the Church must not teach that gay sex is wrong, but hopefully it will help other people — people who can see nuances — realize that the Catholic Church doesn't hate, condemn, or exclude gay people.

Did You See This in the News?

I tweeted the link, but I'd like to note a few points about it.

Vatican City, Jul 9, 2013 / 12:07 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On July 1 Pope Francis invited a group of 200 homeless individuals to dinner at the Vatican, where they were served in his name by Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello.

Cardinal Bertello, president of the Governatorate of the Vatican City State, spent the entire evening with the special guests, with whom he chatted at length and shared personal experiences, according to the July 3 edition of L'Osservatore Romano.

“I welcome you in the name of the Pope. As you know, this is your home, and he is pleased that you are here,” he told the group of homeless persons before dinner was served.

The dinner took place near the grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes in the Vatican. “Our Lady who stands before us looks upon us with serenity,” the cardinal said.

“It that same gaze that I wish upon each one of you and upon those who care for you with so much love.”

The dinner was organized by the Circle of Saint Peter, a papal charity. The evening was only one of a number of such events it holds throughout the year at its shelter in Rome “as a concrete sign of the Pope’s charity.”

After his welcoming address, Cardinal Bertello invited the guests to pray and said that their response “was a great success.”
 
The group was brought to the Vatican by bus and was received by 122 members of the Circle of St. Peter, led by its president, Leopoldo Torlonia.

The homeless were among the many that come to the organization’s shelter each day for meals, a place to sleep, and clean clothing.

The menu for the dinner was prepared by chefs from Naples, and members of the Circle acted as waiters, along with their wives and children.

The Vatican Gendarmes Band performed for the guests, providing them with entertainment as they dined.

At the end of the evening, Torlonia thanked the guests for “accepting the invitation from Pope Francis.”

Each was given a gift pack with pastries, fresh fruit, and a rosary.

(Emphasis added)

I admire the Pope's decision to invite the people to the Vatican itself. It's a fine gesture of hospitality, treating them as honored guests like any others who might be invited to a garden party. It underscores the human dignity of the homeless.

But I think the everyday work of the Circle of St. Peter is even more important. The daily work of this papal charity in caring for homeless people in Rome is something I was unaware of until I saw this story. Obviously the Circle of St. Peter wasn't just established by Pope Francis, even if he was the first to think of bringing some clients to the Vatican. Clearly it's been around for some time, and serving people where they are every day does even more good than loading them on buses to bring them to dinner at the Vatican, IMO; but it doesn't get publicity, even in the Catholic press.

It's easy for us to think that all that happens in the Vatican is the stuff that makes headlines, so I'm glad that this event lifts the curtain a bit and shows us that there are good things happening that we've never heard about.

Some Thoughts about Pope Francis

When I heard Cardinal Tauran announce that the new Pope was "Georgium S.R.E. Cardinalem Bergoglio," my first thought, before he got to the last name, was, "What Cardinal is named George?" I couldn't think of any. I did recognize the last name, but I couldn't have told you anything about him. Since then, of course, I've read and learned a fair amount.

My impression is that he will change things more than any Pope since John XXIII and Paul VI. Pope Paul VI made some significant changes in the trappings of the papacy, doing away with the portable throne in which popes had been carried at public events, doing away with the triple crown with which popes had been crowned, and traveling outside Italy — the first pope in ages to do so voluntarily. John Paul I, in his month as Pope gave an image of a papacy that was approachable. His successors followed suit in this scaled back version of Renaissance monarchy.

Of course, what John XXIII did was to summon the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, gave the Church a new way of understanding itself and its work. George Weigel has suggested that with Vatican II the Counter-Reformation was over. Conventional wisdom is that it takes decades for the Church to assimilate the work of a council, and John Paul II and Benedict XVI did a lot to further that assimilation with their teaching.

Now comes Pope Francis. It's obvious from his actions of the past couple of days — ditching the red shoes in favor of black, popping into the hotel to pay his bill, placing his own call to the Superior General of the Jesuits — that the monarchical trappings are going to be much further reduced. But I think that the direction the actual work of the Church will take under his papacy is far more significant. Here he'll bring the most change since John XXIII and the Council.

Recently the phrase "New Evangelization" has become very common as a way of describing the task before the Church now that we're leaving the Counter-Reformation behind. As I understand it, it consists of an outreach to people around the world, but especially perhaps in lands and cultures which were formerly Christian but are now thoroughly secularized. This outreach, unlike that of earlier times, is seen as the responsibility of all members of the Church, not just priests and nuns. This is a role for which the laity need to be prepared.

In a pre-conclave piece on Cardinal Bergoglio as a possible Pope, John Allen had this to say:

Bergoglio has supported the social justice ethos of Latin American Catholicism, including a robust defense of the poor.

"We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least," Bergoglio said during a gathering of Latin American bishops in 2007. "The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers."

and

Bergoglio may be basically conservative on many issues, but he's no defender of clerical privilege, or insensitive to pastoral realities. In September 2012, he delivered a blistering attack on priests who refuse to baptize children born out of wedlock, calling it a form of "rigorous and hypocritical neo-clericalism."

and

He's also seen as a genuinely spiritual soul, and a man of deep prayer.

"Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord," Bergoglio said in 2001. "I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant'Uffizio or the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin."

and, finally

"We have to avoid the spiritual sickness of a self-referential church," Bergoglio said recently. "It's true that when you get out into the street, as happens to every man and woman, there can be accidents. However, if the church remains closed in on itself, self-referential, it gets old. Between a church that suffers accidents in the street, and a church that's sick because it's self-referential, I have no doubts about preferring the former."

Elsewhere, I've read of his visits to the poorer areas of Buenos Aires. What this all sounds like to me is what we read about Jesus: that he went around the villages of Galilee proclaiming the kingdom of God to all. All of which leads me to expect that the face of the New Evangelization will be more like the face of Jesus and less that of an institution recruiting new members than it would have been if Francis were not Pope. I'm hopeful.

Things Got Busy

Nothing too spectacular has been happening, but there's been a fair amount of little stuff to attend to — meetings, appointment with my dentist's cleaning woman (hygienist, to use the official title) (BTW, the dentist is also a woman). Working on the next schedule for liturgy ministers (people other than the priest who have special functions at Sunday Mass) was quite time-consuming for a couple of days earlier this week. I went to a symphony concert last week, and to two this week. Check out my music blog if you want more info about those.

Last week, I sent off an e-mail to "Tim" from the Race Committee, asking if he might want to take in a show with me sometime. He replied that he had "a lot on [his] plate" right now, but we could discuss it when sailing season resumes. It used to be that an answer like that would have me feeling completely rejected. But now I see it as less drastic. For one thing, it was probably an unexpected invitation. For another, he did indicate a willingness to explore the idea. So I'm choosing to take a glass-half-full attitude toward it. And even if nothing ever comes of it, it's not the end of the world. It was worth asking.

Immediately after posting the above, I came across a link to this article by James Martin, S.J., pointing out that it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church that we must treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. I think it's worth reading. Some of you may have reactions similar to some of the commenters, but what he quotes is official and I think deserves to be known.

In Contrast to the Riots

As long as I'm linking opinion pieces about current events, here's another, about an event much bigger in terms of the numbers participating, World Youth Day.

Edited to add: You can read what the Pope said during the event here.

Catholics and the LGBT Community

An alert reader (Cody Dickerson) has included a link to this article in a recent comment. It is titled "Joseph Sullivan: Catholics are reaching out to the LGBT community." It is from the Buffalo News, and the author, Joseph Sullivan is identified as a retired auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn.

There are two important things about this piece, IMO. First is the point it makes, that increasing numbers of Catholics are accepting of lgbt people. Second is the fact that the writer is a Catholic bishop who is pleased by this trend.

One reason I have for writing this blog is to let people know that the Catholic Church does not hate gays. Its official position is that homosexuals should be welcomed into our community. Obviously, we have our share of homophobes, but this article suggests that fortunately their number is decreasing. Yes, we have our teachings about sexual morality, but we have our teachings about other areas of morality too.  What we hope is that we will all grow closer to God and live increasingly holy lives through the power of his grace at work in us.

Gay Teen Suicide: A Catholic Response

Here is a link to a post by a Franciscan priest on his blog. You will note that he is reprinting something written by a Jesuit priest. So this comes with the backing of two priests. And Father Martin's comment that
"The Christian community must find a way to reach out more compassionately to gay and lesbian youths, help them feel welcome and valued, and help them know that they are beloved by God -- and by us. We must lead, as we do with any group, and as Jesus did, first with welcome, not condemnation."
is perfectly consistent with what I say in my "First Things First" comment at the top of my left column.

One of my constant efforts in this blog and especially in my comments is to make this point and to call attention to the two official statements I have linked in my "Resources." The first is the U.S. Bishops' statement, "Always Our Children," addressed to all Catholics, and especially to parents of gays. In it they say

"Our message speaks of accepting yourself, your beliefs and values, your questions, and all you may be struggling with at this moment; accepting and loving your child as a gift of God; and accepting the full truth of God's revelation about the dignity of the human person and the meaning of human sexuality. Within the Catholic moral vision there is no contradiction among these levels of acceptance, for truth and love are not opposed. They are inseparably joined and rooted in one person, Jesus Christ, who reveals God to be ultimate truth and saving love.





Accepting Your Child
How can you best express your love—itself a reflection of God's unconditional love—for your child? At least two things are necessary.


…
First, don't break off contact; don't reject your child. A shocking number of homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by their families. This, and other external pressures, can place young people at a greater risk for self-destructive behaviors like substance abuse and suicide.




Your child may need you and the family now more than ever. He or she is still the same person. This child, who has always been God's gift to you, may now be the cause of another gift: your family becoming more honest, respectful, and supportive. Yes, your love can be tested by this reality, but it can also grow stronger through your struggle to respond lovingly.




The second way to communicate love is to seek appropriate help for your child and for yourself.


…
You can help a homosexual person in two general ways. First, encourage him or her to cooperate with God's grace to live a chaste life. Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itself. This implies respecting a person's freedom to choose or refuse therapy directed toward changing a homosexual orientation. Given the present state of medical and psychological knowledge, there is no guarantee that such therapy will succeed. Thus, there may be no obligation to undertake it, though some may find it helpful.


…


God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God's love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it. St. Paul's words offer great hope:

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39)

…
Every person has an inherent dignity because he or she is created in God's image."





The other is from the Vatican, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1986, when Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI was its head. The title is "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." With the approval of Pope John Paul II, they wrote

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

…

We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses.

…

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

…

Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

" It is clear to me from this that the Church does not hate or exclude homosexuals. But as with much of our teaching, the problem is one of communicating it in its fullness. The Church's teaching about the morality of homosexual conduct is pretty clear to most people. But that is only the third stage of our dealing with gay people. All too many people, gay and straight, Catholics and others, make the mistake of extrapolating from that and assuming that it means that the Church "hates" or "excludes" LGBT. So we've got to do a better job of getting the first part of the message out, as these documents try to state it. I hope this has clarified things for you, who have done me the favor of reading it.

If you read "Time" magazine,

you may find interesting this response to the magazine's recent article on the Pope and the Catholic Church. It is from "National Review Online," and is written by George Weigel, the author of a biography of John Paul II.

Here is how Weigel describes himself on his blog; and here's what wiki has. IMO he is knowledgeable about the subject matter of his article.