Category Archives: discussion

Capital Punishment and Pope Leo

1 Reply

Dear Folks,

Recently, Pope Leo mentioned that those who favor capital punishment are not pro-life. This has confused many people, and I would like to offer some reflections.

First, remember that the term “pro-life” is not rigorously defined. In math, science, and philosophy they taught us to define our terms clearly so we know what they really meant so that everyone using them could understand them the same way. When we use terms that carry much emotional weight but are not rigorously defined, let us remember what is and what is not being accomplished.

Now let us consider capital punishment and respect for human life.

In the Old Testament, God mandated capital punishment, beginning with the covenant of Noah: “Whoever spills human blood, that person’s blood will be shed; for in the image of God has God made man (Gen 9:6).” This taught that all human life was sacred, whether an aristocrat or a peasant, man or woman, little baby, vigorous adult, or infirm senior citizen, their lives had a value that could not be compared with any other value. There was no amount of money, nothing on earth that could compare to the value of human life.

Remember, though, that was not the response to Cain when he killed his brother Abel (Gen 4). More on that later.

As we go through the Bible, we see that God teaches some things gradually, not because He is learning as He goes, but because people can only be brought along so fast. Our kindergarteners are bright and enthusiastic, but they are not learning calculus. They are not ready.

When some Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce and He said they should not be separated they were surprised. “They said to him, ‘Why did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ He replied, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning (Matthew 19:7-8).’” This suggests that God led His people along gradually, and some things they were not yet ready to receive, but that God wanted from the beginning. This may explain His treatment of Cain.

Around the time of the exile, there was more reflection on the individual, personal rights, and personal responsibilities. In Ezekiel 18 we see God reveals what He really wants.

“Do I derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? Asks the Lord God. Would. I not rather rejoice to see them turn away from their wickedness and live (Ezekiel 18:23).”I would encourage reading the whole chapter. A very nasty Saul of Tarsus was responsible for the deaths of many Christians, but God did not strike him down but called him to repentance and sainthood. God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

We remember the one time when Jesus was presented with a question about capital crime, He didn’t want her killed; He wanted her to “go and sin no more (John 8:1-11).” This does not by itself resolve the issue, but it is worth considering in the discussion.

For many centuries, the Catholic Church held that capital punishment was a proper way to enforce the law and deter crime. Things started to shift starting with Pope Saint John Paul. As I remember it, he started by appealing to authorities not to execute particular criminals. He taught extensively about the culture of death, (which considered killing a way to solve problems) and how that contrasted with a culture of life. Toward the end of his papacy, after laying the groundwork, he taught that we can do better than capital punishment in most cases. Pope Francis pushed it farther. Now it appears that Pope Leo is

moving in that direction.

There are some arguments against capital punishment that I find unpersuasive to the point of being irritating. I saw a t-shirt that said, “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”. I believe it is common to imprison kidnappers,

but I never saw a t-shirt that said, “Why do we lock up people who lock up people to show that locking up people is wrong?” When people claim it is inconsistent to be antiabortion and pro-capital punishment, that tells me that they have not taken the effort to understand the other point of view, and that is irritating. I’m reminded of the 5th amendment that says that no one can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Punishing convicted criminals calls for some things that we shouldn’t do to innocent people.

Do some people deserve to be put to death? I think so. In fact, one could make a case that there are some awful people who might deserve to die slowly and tortuously. Imagine, though, what it would do to our souls to inflict such a thing? What would it do to our society? Imagine having that job. I would be concerned about someone who is not repulsed at the thought.

Someone said, “if he took someone’s life should he be able to keep enjoying his life?” I say, “Who said he’ll get to enjoy it?” I’m not arguing this out of niceness. If I had my way a vicious murderer would be put in twenty-three hour a day lockdown, with Mother Angelica, Bishop Robert Barron, Trent Horn, and other such videos pumped into his room. I also have a recipe for brown rice and tofu. Let’s see how he does with fifty years of that. He might beg for a lethal injection. I recognize this idea would have to be adjusted by others who know more about this stuff, but you get the idea. If a few of those souls could be redeemed, that would be a good thing.

If we treat every human life from conception to natural death as sacred in a way that is deeper than human choice, deeper than our personal merits, and transcending all other categories, I suggest that we will be a better society and better people, and will put us in a better position to fight abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and other manifestations of the culture of death.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Immigration Conversation

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,
There has been a lot of conversation about immigration and how to deal with immigrants. There has been a lot of criticism, but I’m not seeing things move toward a solution. It’s very easy to attack what others are doing and easy to repeat general principles, but harder to come up with practical solutions that others can criticize. I think if we really want to make the situation better, we would focus on some basic questions:
1. How many people should we let move into the country? (and if the answer is, “as many as want to, even if it’s a billion,” then it is only fair to say that out loud, and then deal with how do we plan to absorb so many people). People dedicated to helping others generally learn to be able to help long term, there must be some boundaries, trying to be generous but recognizing our limitations.
2. If we believe in any limits, how do we prioritize who gets in and how doesn’t?
3. How do we vet them/screen them (especially to screen out terrorists, drug dealers, violent criminals, human traffickers and the like)?
4. How do we care for them while they are going through the process?
5. How do we encourage people to come in according to our laws and discourage people from breaking our immigration laws?
6. How do we deal with those who have violated these laws (wanting to be humane but wanting to disincentivize law breaking).
I think if we start with these questions, we can move the conversation in a more productive direction. I think we should avoid accusing others, but serious ask ourselves, “Am I really interested in improving the situation, or do I just want to attack people I don’t like?” Working together, I think we can accomplish a lot.
Blessings,
Fr. Jim 

A More Peaceful World

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

This Sunday’s Gospel deals with people that Jesus could not convince.

Mark 3:20-35 Jesus is casting out demons, and His opponents claimed that He was possessed and that he drove out demons “by the power of the prince of demons.” Jesus shows how illogical that is and warned against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It seems from the context that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is refusing to see. Helen Keller said, “The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.”

Some will not see because they don’t want to and will say or do anything to defend against a new idea. Those who refuse to see cannot be forced to see. If even Jesus couldn’t convince them, we are not going to do better than Jesus.

I continue to be concerned about the state of conversation in society today. There is a lot of interaction, but not a lot of understanding. The chasm between sides seems to be growing

wider, and the hostility between them growing fiercer. I chose not to include examples but ask you to think of some from your experience. I bet you can. I’ve noticed that what we say sounds more convincing to us than it does to the people who

disagree with us. There seem to be many occasions when someone presents his argument and ends with the triumphant equivalent of “checkmate. Case closed” and the other person says, “No, not even close.” Some are not convinced because we didn’t make a case that spoke to their point of view, and if we learn more about their point of view we can try again and maybe succeed. Usually there are some bits of information that support one point of view, and other

bits of information that support the other point of view. We tend to put more weight on what supports our narrative. Some people, it seems hammer the details in their favor and ignore the details against. I can’t tell if they are doing it on purpose.

At some point, we need to realize we aren’t going to make progress and need to give up. Jesus spoke of shaking the dust from our feet and moving on (Matt 10:12; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5

and 10:11). Sometimes it takes a while for a new idea to take root, to mature, and to grow. We can’t generally change the basic architecture of our thinking in a minute; sometimes it takes

years. I’ve caught myself getting angry when I think someone is not trying to understand. I need to check myself. First of all, they may be trying. Second, getting angry is a futile waste of energy at best, and destructive at worst. I just need to accept that I can do what I can do.

I think it is critical to be realistic about what the situation is and how much we can do about it. There is a lot of bad thinking, bad logic, and bad ideas, and it’s going to be that way for the

foreseeable future. We need to resign ourselves to the fact that we can’t fix it, but maybe we can make it a smidge better. If we can get someone to think something they’ve never thought before, ask a question that they’ve never asked before, look at things from a different angle, that moves us forward. If others hurl abuse, call people names, and get nasty while we respond calmly, respectfully,

and persistently, over time those who are open will see where wisdom lies.

One final thought: let us all be carefully on guard against our own human tendency to refuse to see the truth. None of us are immune.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Jesus has Authority Over Evil

Leave a reply
Dear Folks,
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ first miracle is casting out an unclean spirit. He had just been
in the desert facing temptation by Satan, then He started preaching, called the first disciples,
and now this. It was the first blow in a battle that would culminate on the cross. He did not
come merely to fight this evil or that evil, but evil itself. Ultimately, our enemy is not
people who do evil, but evil itself. How much the devil is personally involved and how
much is just human sinfulness is not a question to spend time with (too much interest in the
devil is a bad idea: he is the greatest of all seducers).
There is no doubt there is much evil in our society today, and that we are broken into
factions that are getting farther apart, more hostile and more suspicious of each other as
time grows on. How can we fight this evil? How can we bring healing? How can people
who disagree have constructive and fruitful dialog? I have some thoughts.
Our greatest weapon against evil is our relationship with God (Ephesians 6:10-17). If we
want a better world, the first step is to fall more deeply in love with God.
It is very human to believe that what seems obviously true to me is obvious to everyone
else, if they will only admit it. Until we recognize (and keep reminding ourselves) that
intelligent people of good will can see things differently from us, we cannot have good
dialog, and we will tend to get louder and angrier instead of increasing understanding.
It is easier to see faults in others than in ourselves (Matthew 7:1-5). This is an unconscious
thumb on the scale. If we do not remember that and compensate for it, we will keep talking
past each other. When we call out the faults of people on our side more energetically than
the those on the other side, it will be a great step forward for dialog and healing. Also, we
are not called to judge the state of their souls but call out bad ideas and bad
behaviors. Arguments that support our point of view seem stronger. Arguments against
our point of view seem weaker. This is another unconscious thumb on the scale. We can
have better dialog if we keep it in mind.
It is easy to look back on atrocities committed in the past and say with hindsight we would
not have participated; we would have resisted. Oh really? We have the advantage of
knowing what we know and being raised by and surrounded by people who support our
point of view. How do we know that if that were different, we would not be different? Dr.
Philip Zimbardo was involved in the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which they simulated a
prison setting and observed people’s behavior. Many behaved quite differently from how
they expected. Dr. Zimbardo came to Aquinas College and talked while I was there. I
remember his final comment was that the more people thought they were immune to being
influenced, the more easily they were influenced, and the more concerned they were of
being influenced, the better they could resist. Humility is called for.
I strongly recommend the book “Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save
America From the Culture of Contempt” by Arthur C. Brooks. He reminds us that dialog
with people who disagree with us is a gift. It helps improve our ideas and sharpen our
perspective. I know I have failed many times: I have spent most of my life picking up bad
habits. I suspect I’m not alone. If we work together, we can do great things.
Part 2 Next week.
Blessings,
Fr. Jim

Jesus teaching: be phronimos

Leave a reply

 

Phronimos

There is a teaching of Jesus that does not get talked about much, but I think it’s important (full disclosure: I think everything Jesus taught is important).  I’m going to break one of the rules they taught me in theology and mention a Greek word: phronimos (wise, shrew, prudent, clever, cunning, crafty).

I first encountered the word in the parable of the dishonest steward in Luke 16:1-8.  The parable is about a steward who is going to be fired, so he crafts for himself a retirement plan by calling in those in debt to his master and reducing the amount of their debts. This way they owed him a favor, and when he got canned, they would take him into their homes as a guest. “And the master commended that steward for being phronimos (v. 8).” Then Jesus says, “For the children of this world are more phronimos in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.”

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’ public teaching begins with the Sermon on the Mount and ends with three parables about the last judgment.  The Sermon on the Mount ends with the admonition that a man who is phronimos will build a house on rock rather than sand (Matt 7:24-27). The first of the parables about the judgement tell us that a bridesmaid who is phronimos will bring extra oil for her oil lamp (although nowadays she would bring extra batteries for her smart phone) (Matt 25:4).

Jesus also has some sayings that don’t use the word, but seem to be teaching something similar: “Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? (See Luke 14:25-33).”

What really got my attention was “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd (phronimos) as serpents and simple as doves (Matt 10:16).”  What makes that even more interesting (at least to me) is that if you look at the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was popular at Jesus’ time (the Septuagint), in Genesis chapter we meet the serpent in the garden and learn that “the serpent was the most cunning (phronimos) of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made (Genesis 3:1).” I think Matthew’s readers would have immediately made the connection.

Why am I going through all this?  I’m glad you asked.  There is a lot of energy being expended in public discourse today that I don’t think is moving us forward. I want to move forward. Consider, for an internal combustion engine to move us forward, there have to be explosions (rapid burn of fuel).  But that isn’t enough. The explosions have to be contained, first so that they are not destructive, and second so that energy can be channeled in a useful direction. There will always be some energy dissipated because of friction between the parts, but engineers who design the engines try to keep that to a minimum so that as much of the energy as possible may be channeled toward getting the work done.

It’s one thing to want something to happen (that is motivation). It’s another to be willing to do something about it. It is yet another thing for that something to be effective in moving us toward where we want to go.  I suggest that being phronimos is about giving our efforts the best chance of moving forward.

More on this later.

Charitable Discussion

Leave a reply

venn diagram

Right now there’s some really important conversation going on, and I am distressed that it is not being done well in many corners. There are three concerns: the spread of the virus, the destruction of the economy, and the deterioration of civil liberties.  They are all huge, and how we navigate the current situation is going to be enormous for human well-being in the future.

We must work together and follow proper procedures to defeat this virus.  It is only with the cooperation and sacrifices of all of us that this can be dealt with.  We remember that our actions impact many other people we cannot see.

Poverty kills. We cannot keep food coming without an economy. We cannot keep our healthcare system going without an economy.  When people bring up the economy, some will accused them of prioritizing money over human lives and being willing to kill people for their greed.  Wait a minute here. Think of how we usually work. Can there be any doubt that if we made all cars so they couldn’t go faster than 25 miles per hour that would save lives? Think of how many terrible accidents would be avoided.  It would inconvenience us and slowly reduce productivity, but it would save lives. Why haven’t people made the same case?  Life does have some risk, and absolute security does not exist on this planet.  We can have the discussion of how we balance the risks and the harms of the decisions involved. We don’t have to rule the discussion off limits.

If we are going to destroy someone’s life’s work, hope and dreams, and reduce them to poverty, they are going to want to ask if the particular rules that do it are necessary for our safety, or if they were just put together arbitrarily. When people think that rules are made that are inconsistent to the point of being capricious, that concern needs to be addressed. When someone says, “You are just being inconvenienced” they are demonstrating a lack of awareness and sensitivity. Some people are being inconvenienced. Some people’s lives are being destroyed.

I’m not a historian, but as I understand it, totalitarian governments often start during a crisis, and, of course take extraordinary steps to deal with it (so far so good).  But then, there continue to be more and more authoritarian decisions that seem less and less necessary to deal with the crisis, but if you question them, you are immediately attacked for being unconcerned about the crisis and the well-being of the nation. It is the nature of human beings that people in power tend to think they should have more power. Our country was founded on limited government with checks and balances to keep this in check, and many countries that did not do this fell into totalitarianism. This was dramatized in George Orwell’s book Animal Farm. If it ever becomes out of bounds to challenge government practices, we are in dangerous territory.

That said, I cannot overemphasize the importance of being responsible when challenging. When people who are protesting details of the lockdown leave their cars and gather close together closely without masks, they are making their opponents’ case for them. When someone says, “If you are afraid you can stay inside, but don’t make everyone else do it.” They are not taking into account that they are affecting more than themselves and risking more than themselves.  They are risking other people they come into contact with. We think of the people who work in grocery stores who can’t control who they come into contact with. We think of the health care workers who have been working long hours and who have not been seeing their families for fear of infecting them.  These are unprecedented times, and strong action is called for, so it would be good to be careful about assuming the worst too easily about our elected officials.

How we deal with this time will have deep and lasting effects on our future. The conversations we have are essential to that.  If we want others to take our concerns seriously, it would help to take their concerns seriously. If we want them to give our motives the benefit of the doubt, it would help to give their motives the benefit of the doubt. May charity rule our hearts.