Crime and Punishment

C.S.Lewis has an excellent essay somewhere about the real basis of our penal system. It is retribution. He says that retribution is the only really just reason for the punishment of criminals, and the only reason that is fair and brings dignity to the human person.

First of all, retribution is not the same thing as revenge. Retribution is a just punishment which suits the crime. It has no other aim but to allot to the criminal the proper consequence for his action.

'Civilized' people confuse retribution with revenge and consider it to be a barbaric form of punishment, and in many primitive societies it is barbaric. The thief has his hand cut off. The rapist is castrated. The murderer executed, etc. However, the principle of retribution need not be barbaric. A civilized society with a fair judicial system and a network of prisons can mete out retribution in a fair and equable way.

The other motives for punishment, Lewis points out, seem humane, but lean intrinsically to injustice. So, for example, one might have rehabilitation as a motive for punishment. However, if rehabilitation is the motivation do we keep the criminal locked up until he is sufficiently reformed and rehabilitated? If so, a petty criminal might have to be locked away far longer than a murderer for a murder of passion might be repented of and the prisoner reformed quite quickly whereas a petty burglar may never be reformed. Shall he be locked away until he is a changed man? That would be unjust.

The same thing applies for the motivation of protecting the public from dangerous criminals. Shall we lock a criminal away simply for that motivation? If so, we may have to lock a person up for life even if he has committed no crime, but because he threatens to do so. Again, the wrong motivation for punishment leads to injustice.

Rehabilitation and protection of the public are beneficial side effects of punishment, but they cannot be the motivation for punishment.

Retribution is not only more objective and fair, but it also is based on the dignity of the human person. This because it takes human choice seriously and metes out a just and predetermined consequence for a person's chosen action. This is not sentimental, nor is it bound by false motivations for punishment.

If retribution is the proper basis for the punishment of criminals, then some will argue that the death penalty is demanded. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." One who has taken a life should give his life. Perhaps. But then, there are many ways that a life may be taken. Life imprisonment is also a way that a life may be taken.

What the criminal does with his life in prison is another discussion altogether, but if the purpose is retribution, then a way for him to make reparation would be built into the occupation of his time behind bars. A severe punishment like solitary confinement or hard labor may be the retribution most appropriate rather than execution.

Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty

Here's the church's teaching on the death penalty. It's clear. While the death penalty is not totally excluded, the church teaches that, in practice there's no need for it. Just because it's not totally excluded doesn't mean you can be in favor of it.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people‘s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent. (CCC, 2267)

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. (Pope John Paul II, Mass in St. Louis, MO, January 27, 1999)

Death Penalty and Abortion

It is clear from the whole teaching of the Catholic Church that if we are to take a pro-life position then we must be against the death penalty. A fully Catholic pro-life politician will therefore be opposed to both abortion and the death penalty.

However, it is also true that we are obliged to weigh the moral issues with subtlety and with the full exercise of our reason. While it is true that both abortion and the death penalty end a human life, it is not accurate to equate the two issues completely.

In terms of moral theology there are several reasons why abortion and the death penalty are not of equal weight.

The first is the question of proportion. While every individual life is sacred, we also have to consider the number of human lives in question. Comparatively few prisoners are executed in the United States. This website reports 52 executions in the USA in 2009. This website reports on abortion statistics. The last year reported was 2005, in which there were well over a million abortions. Generally speaking in the United States about 50 criminals are executed every year. This compares to well over a million abortions each year.

The second issue we need to consider is ability to resist the violence which takes life. The criminal being executed has no way to resist the executioner. However, he or she does have the full process of law and numerous appeals through all the courts of the land before the execution takes place. It is true that many of those executed are from the underclass and do not have the best lawyers money can buy, but they do have recourse to the legal process and they do have pro life lawyers to defend them and pursue their appeal at every opportunity.

In addition to this, the criminal had the choice not to commit the crime for which he or she is being executed. Of course there are many factors which affect the individual's free choice--economic, social, educational etc. Nevertheless, individuals still do have the free choice to commit a crime or not.

The unborn infant has absolutely no choice or ability to resist the violence inflicted upon them. The unborn child is a totally innocent victim. The condemned criminal is not.

This brings us to the third issue: guilt of the condemned. While innocent criminals may be executed, every opportunity is taken to ensure that the innocent are not condemned. Most often the criminal is guilty himself of a violent crime. The unborn child, on the other hand, is completely innocent of any crime.

The fourth issue is one of personal or corporate responsibility. In the case of abortion individuals are making monumental decisions about the death of an innocent child. The abortionist, the people working in the clinic, the person procuring the abortion and the woman who asks for the procedure are all incurring a crime based on their rational decision. In the case of the death penalty the individual is put to death by the will of the people, decided by a democratic process, and executed anonymously so that it remains, as much as possible, the action of the corporate body done through legal means in the name of the body politic. We may disagree with this process, but it would be incorrect to equate the culpability of those who enact the death penalty with those who participate in abortion.

When considering the morality of an action we weigh up three factors: the action itself, the circumstances and the intention. The action itself is either objectively wrong or right. It is objectively good or evil. The circumstances and intention do not affect the objective goodness or evil of an action, but they do determine the person's culpability.

Therefore we must consider the circumstances and intention of those seeking abortion and those seeking the death penalty. In many cases those seeking abortion are in circumstances of difficulty and pressure--health wise or in other ways. They have an intention of finding an easy way out of an intractable problem. However, there are also many cases of abortion in which the circumstances are not difficult and abortion is simply chosen in for contraceptive or economic reasons. Many abortions are chosen for 'social' reasons. The circumstances and intentions surrounding abortion are complex, but the ultimate reasoning is that it is better to take an innocent life than to continue with the problems the pregnancy presents.

The circumstances and intentions of a state execution, on the other hand, are very different. The circumstances are clear: the prisoner has committed a heinous crime. His legal appeals are exhausted. The intention is that the state end his life as an act of justice. The culpability of this action is negligible compared to the culpability of a person who procures an abortion for self centered 'social' reasons.

Finally, we need to consider the culpability of a person who is not personally involved in abortion or execution, but who takes a position  in favor of abortion and a person who is in favor of the death penalty. A good Catholic should be against both. However, a person who is in favor of the death penalty, for the reasons above, is not as culpable as the person who is in favor of abortion.

I hope no one will mis-understand this post. I should state clearly that I am opposed to the death penalty, and do not wish to support it in any way. Nevertheless, it is important to think through these moral issues with both clarity and compassion.

Speaker of the House

Pro Life Catholic Speaker of the House of Representatives: John Boehner. At last Nancy Pelosi can 'spend more time with her family.'

This article reports on further gains by pro life politicians in Congress. This is a battle which will eventually be won simply by the fact that the pro life cause is in favor of life and the pro death cause is in favor of death. That which favors death will die. That which favors life will live. Simple.

Elgar and Newman

Blessed John Henry Newman's poem Dream of Gerontius is a narrative poem relating the deathbed experience of an old man. At the climax he dies and experiences the beatific vision. The sight of God makes him exclaim--suddenly aware of his shame and unworthiness, 'Take me away!" Then the angel over seeing his passing directs him to the purgatory he longs for.

Newman's poem was set to music by fellow Catholic, English composer Edward Elgar. The oratorio (I believe) is rarely performed in the USA. In England it is a favorite of local amateur choral societies. Here is the legendary mezzo soprano--Dame Janet Baker--singing the Angel's Farewell--in which the angel lovingly guides the soul to the purgation that awaits him. Bewdiful.

Here's the text:

Softly and gently, dearly-ransom'd soul,
In my most loving arms I now enfold thee,
And, o'er the penal waters, as they roll,
I poise thee, and I lower thee, and hold thee.

And carefully I dip thee in the lake,
And thou, without a sob or a resistance,
Dost through the flood thy rapid passage take,
Sinking deep, deeper, into the dim distance.

Angels, to whom the willing task is given,
Shall tend, and nurse, and lull thee, as thou liest;
And masses on the earth, and prayers in heaven,
Shall aid thee at the Throne of the Most Highest.

Farewell, but not for ever! brother dear,
Be brave and patient on thy bed of sorrow;
Swiftly shall pass thy night of trial here,
And I will come and wake thee on the morrow

I challenge you to take a moment and listen to this piece of music once, following along with the text. Then listen again and pay attention to the way Baker colors practically every word. She was known as one of the finest interpreters of song in English ever. Listen to the way she uses the music and her skill to bring forward the meaning of each word. Amazing!

The Angel Pilot

The angel pilot appears at the opening of Dante's Purgatorio:

So that the white and the vermilion cheeks
Of beautiful Aurora, where I was,
By too great age were changing into orange.


We still were on the border of the sea,
Like people who are thinking of their road,
Who go in heart and with the body stay;


And lo! as when, upon the approach of morning,
Through the gross vapours Mars grows fiery red
Down in the West upon the ocean floor,


Appeared to me--may I again behold it!--
A light along the sea so swiftly coming,
Its motion by no flight of wing is equalled;


From which when I a little had withdrawn
Mine eyes, that I might question my Conductor,
Again I saw it brighter grown and larger.


Then on each side of it appeared to me
I knew not what of white, and underneath it
Little by little there came forth another.


My Master yet had uttered not a word
While the first whiteness into wings unfolded;
But when he clearly recognised the pilot,


He cried: "Make haste, make haste to bow the knee!
Behold the Angel of God! fold thou thy hands!
Henceforward shalt thou see such officers!

Purgatory

I just use Google image search to find the pictures for this blog. When I typed in 'purgatory' this image came up. I think it's pretty interesting. What do you see in it?

Great and Little Saints

St Therese writes:  "all the Saints will be indebted to each other……who knows the joy we shall experience in beholding the glory of the great saints, and knowing that by a secret disposition of Providence we have contributed there unto...and do you not think that on their side the great saints, seeing what they owe to quite little souls, will love them with an incomparable love? Delightful and surprising will be the friendships found there—I am sure of it. The favoured companion of an Apostle or a great Doctor of the Church will perhaps be a young shepherd lad; and a simple little child may be the intimate friend of a patriarch."

We had a beautiful example of this truth tonight at our All Saints' Day Mass. We venerated the relics of Pope St Gregory the Great and Pope St Pius X along with two little girls: the French girl--  Therese Martin and the Italian peasant child Maria Goretti. 

This then, makes us ask the question that Therese would have been delighted to ask, "What is great and what is small in God's kingdom?" For the great ones must be small and the small ones must be great and the last must be first and the first must be last and the one who would be greatest among you must be the one who serves and unless you become like a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

It must be true then, that Pope St Gregory the Great and Pope St Pius X were also little ones. The two little girls show reveal the marvel that if the two great men were saints, then they must have been little children as well.

This is what is most striking both about Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Beneath the pomp and power of the papacy both men have a certain child like quality about them. There is a simplicity and delight in them that mixes the wisdom of age with the innocence of childhood.

For a whole study on a 'great' saint and a 'little' saint check out my book, St Benedict and St Therese--The Little Rule and the Little Way.  

All Saints Day

This evening at 7pm at Our Lady of the Rosary parish we will celebrate All Saints Day with a special solemn Mass.

The Litany of the Saints will be sung, during which first class relics of ten saints may be venerated. The relics will be place at stations around the church so that we are 'surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses.' By each relic will be an image of the saint and a votive lamp. Y'all come if you can!

The preservation and veneration of the relics of the saints is an ancient tradition in the church dating back to the first Christian martyrs. The remains of those martyred were gathered up carefully and kept in a place of honor. Their above ground tombs often doubled as an altar so the tradition of relics of the saints being embedded in the altar was established.

By the veneration of the saints we connect with the historicity of the saints. These are not legends, myths or fairy tales. These bones remind us that each one was an ordinary person made extraordinary by the grace of God, and if these bones could speak they would each, in their way sing the praise of God who made them and his Son who redeemed them and the Holy Spirit who gave them life eternal.

The first class relics on display will be those of:

1. Pope St Gregory the Great
2. Pope St Pius X
3. St John Neumann
4. St Therese of Lisieux
5. St Catherine Labore
6. St Theresa of Avila
7. St Margaret Mary Alacoque
8. St Padre Pio
9. St Maria Goretti
10. St Elizabeth Ann Seaton

UPDATE: Our All Saints Day liturgy was v. beautiful. A large turnout of the faithful from across Greenville. Instead of prayers of the faithful Dr Ballard (our relic rescuer extraordinaire) led us in singing the Litany of the Saints, during which I processed and censed all the images and relics of the ten saints. After which, the faithful reverently went about to the ten stations to venerate the relics. After the litany we sang all eight verses of For All the Saints and moved into the offertory.

What was beautiful was to see the large number of families with young children there. Afterward several cradle Catholics commented that they had never done anything like that before and had never seen a relic nor knew how to venerate the relic. Nevertheless, it was encouraging to see Catholics come together and be enthusiastic about doing something very Catholic.

We must do more of this sort of thing...you know, processions and pilgrimages and so forth

Anglican Catholics to Keep Buildings?

Here's one Church of England official who doesn't have a problem with members of the new ordinariate occupying Church of England buildings.

I wonder what other Anglicans think of such a proposal?