Intro: Mark Shea introduces the topic by linking to bronze age fanatics who stone the guilty and the horrible judicial decision to end Terri Schindler-Schiavo's life. In Mark's comment box, one commenter has declared the death penalty to be immoral and equivalent to murder (he has since backtracked to the position that the death penalty is immoral in the modern age, because of modern means). Mark rightly corrected him about the Church's teachings on the death penalty.
Because my comments were going to be long and slightly off topic, I decided to blog them here rather than pollute Mark's comment box. Thanks to those who stopped by to take a look.
With the murder of John Geoghan in prison, I would think that the statement (from the CCC 2267) -- 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 -- would pretty much be seen as a utopian pronouncement.
I simply don't believe that it is possible to prevent crime in prison. I'm not saying that we cannot improve prisons, but unless we believe in "immanentizing the eschaton" or that the America is the New Israel bringing the Kingdom to Earth, then a perfect prison system is simply unreasonable.
It is reasonable to believe that hardcore or psychopathic murders will continue to murder. Druce killed before and he can kill again.
To say that prison guards should have forseen Geoghan's murder uses the same logic as those who say homosexuals (even those who refrain from sex) should be not be ordained because of the homosexual preference for adolescent boys. The demand we never ever again see a priest commit sexual crimes again is equivalent to the demand for perfect prison guards.
I don't demand perfect systems. I'm really untouched by the arguments that take the position that some innocents might be subject to capital punishment (yes, even if I were that innocent).
However, I am always amazed that almost all of those opposed to capital punishment -- even the most liberal/leftist of commentators -- can be found to say, "well, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but in this case I'd make an exception." That's simply a dishonest position to take. The honest position is stated: "I'm for the rare application of the death penalty."
That last pretty much sums up my opinion of capital punishment. I doubt that I will ever "oppose" the death penalty because 1) it's application is not always immoral and 2) no system is perfect: the flaws of fallen humanity ensure that some killers will have the opportunity to kill again. The balance that must be struck is one that ensures order, both in open society and in prisons.
Well, it's been difficult to put this up. For some reason, my ISP decided to up and change its dial-up numbers. I only know that much, because I can only see the front page directing me to the new information. Their server seems barely able to display a text page (which is what it is, my ISP is very sparing in the use of images).
That and the new soapbox I've posted has made for a full week (research, dontcha know) -- Pictures, Big and Small. There are quite a few more links to show than what was provided. There is much more to say as well. One reason that the post was not longer is because I was on a deadline. The other reason was deliberate. I wanted the pictures to provide the story rather than blather away my opinions. Actually, there is only one place I give my opinion, and it's clearly marked.
Still, I could add more commentary, and I may do that in the future.
I've added a new category off to the side where I'll post my Soapbox pieces published at GIGO-Soapbox.org.
You do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Rom 11:18)
I have been accused of selecting reading material on the criteria of whether it will be useful in on-line arguments (more accurately: I've been accused that it appears that I do so). In a different accusation (by someone else long ago), I've been told that I'm encyclopedic. I'm not sure what to make of this, other than that I should argue from ignorance. In any case, both are untrue. I select my reading material based on the apparent value it will have for me, whether it be to bring laughter, to enjoy the tale (usually with a moral lesson), or to shore up perceived weaknesses in my knowledge. It so happens, I believe this nation to be in dire straits, and I am very willing to study the charts that may help navigate these hazards.
The title of this essay borrows from Mark P. Shea's book of the same title. The truth is: I read a book; I digest the ideas therein; and if it is good, I will integrate those ideas. And so I have a startling argument (at least I hope it is a startling argument) that is and was wholly unplanned. I am sure that this will be self-evident. For I need to beg my perspective, my Catholic perspective in a largely diverse Protestant nation. I do not wish to insult my Christian brethren, but I cannot deny I claim to see the truth of the matter, and an essay will fail to bring up the necessary proofs to back up my bald assertions. An essay is too short.
I have on one of my bookshelves or in one of my book piles an old textbook on government. I remember clearly one idea that it taught me. All constitutions have written and unwritten components, even the American constitution. At one extreme, the American constitution relies heavily on its written component. On the other extreme is the British constitution which lacks the formal document we Americans have, but have no doubt that the British constitution is real. Our founding fathers, before they declared their separation, laid claim to their constitutional rights as British subjects.
As a Catholic, I believe in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and I realize that many Protestants hold to sola scriptura to a certain extent whether that be strongly held or weakly held. Sola scriptura is just a fancy Latin way of saying solely based on the Bible. Mark Shea has a nice way of describing the Catholic interaction of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the lens through which the light of the Truth of Sacred Scripture is viewed. In the Protestant world, each man himself is a judge of the Truth of Sacred Scripture. I'm sure that I'll get objections to that last statement, but I doubt many Protestants would submit to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture made by the Catholic Church.
There is a rough parallel, a rough analogy between written and unwritten parts of a constitution and Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. To be sure, constitutions are man-made inventions and subject to the condition of fallen men. It is with this in mind that drove John Adams and our founding fathers to declare that our constitution was written for a Christian people. Only a moral people could be bothered to follow it.
"Perfesser" J., our Anglican-in-exile, believes that the Catholic Church is a far more conservative institution than the Anglican Communion because the Catholic Church has a pope. Well, this is only partially right. It is wrong in the sense that a pope placed in charge of the Anglican Communion would make it a conservative institution. It doesn't work that way, and it misses the point. It also ignores that the Orthodox Church has survived fairly well without a pope (although it is arguable that the Orthodox Church is slightly more liberal than the Catholic Church and has not fared as well in confronting the heresy of modernism).
The secret is Sacred Tradition. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are Apostolic. They trace their authority back to the apostles and therefore back to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now Professor J. understands the need for obedience. He rightly points out that Justice Moore should have obeyed the authority of the federal courts. Many Republicans and conservatives understand the need to preserve the rule of law. I understand that Supreme Court justices are tasked to interpret the Constitution just as the Supreme Pontiff is tasked to interpret the Sacred Scripture (another rough analogy, I know).
I don't deny Marbury v. Madison, and the need and constitutionality of judicial review. But I asked Professor J. what I believe to be the most important point. The good professor failed to address it -- probably because I failed to stress it -- so I repeat it here: "I have to ask, which is the more supreme: the hundred years of case law (precedent), or the original text of the Constitution as it reads now?"
The rough analogy is to ask whether our good professor should accept the Episcopal Church's twisted interpretation of Sacred Scripture (with all its emanations and penumbras) or Sacred Scripture itself. Precedent is a rough analogy to Sacred Tradition. Precedent is the lens through which we interpret the Constitution.
C.S. Lewis makes the point in The Abolition of Man that only those who acknowledge all of Tradition (I am not strictly speaking of Sacred Tradition here, and additionally I distinguish between small 't' traditions and capital 'T' Traditions) are capable of judging a change in Tradition. Those who have one foot inside Tradition and one foot outside Tradition -- those who selectively pick and choose which parts of Tradition they follow -- really are the sort of people who are placing themselves above Tradition. They claim for themselves, they appoint themselves to be judges of Tradition. It doesn't take much for some other bright folks to ask, "By what authority?" These questioners may understand the question correctly and know that the innovators don't have the authority they've claimed to usurp, or they will incorrectly answer the question and attempt to place themselves above Tradition as well, and chaos will ensue.
The Catholic Church claims to be obedient to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and it is there that her authority lies. She can defend and preserve the Deposit of Faith because she is obedient to it. It is a feedback loop. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition gives the Church authority. And the Church therefore cannot use her authority in defiance of Sacred Tradition and Scripture or she will lose that authority. The entire institution will collapse (even if it's in slow motion). Some people, including some Catholics, believe that someday the Catholic Church will ordain woman priests or priestesses. But that cannot happen. The Church has ruled that discussion closed, and to rule otherwise now would be to chop away at her foundational roots.
I have tried to impress upon our good professor the importance of Secret Agent Man's discourse on Orestes Brownson. It is important to understand what I mean when I say that Episcopal Church has placed herself above Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Whenever anyone decides for himself selectively what parts of Tradition he obeys, he is no longer obedient to Tradition, but has declared himself above Tradition -- an imperfect judge to be sure, to reject the experience of thousands of generations and in the case of Christianity to reject the revelation of God. It does no good to say that such a person is obedient to most of Tradition, for that person will have no grounds to object when his brother decides to reject even more Tradition. Only from obedience springs authority.
And so I am back to my question about the hundred years of precedent that has twisted the meaning of our Constitution into something other than it clearly reads. This is something our good professor cheerfully acknowledges (or maybe not so cheerfully, but I am rhetorically minded today). Our good professor also acknowledges that the Supreme Court is selective in its enforcement of the Constitution, expanding the meaning of some clauses and allowing other clauses to go unenforced. Could we not say that the Supreme Court has placed itself above the Constitution? Indeed, I am saying just that!
I have argued that the Supreme Court has claimed for itself the right to amend the Constitution. It claims the right to add to the Constitution as it has added the privacy right to support abortion and strike down sodomy laws. Eventually, the Supreme Court will claim the right to redefine marriage. It claims the right to subtract from the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment is lifeless and the Second Amendment is threatened with oblivion. The Supreme Court claims the right to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever it says it means. Can anyone doubt that it stands above the Constitution? And sadly, the executive and legislative branches have ceded any right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution themselves, and what was once thought to be the weakest branch of government is arguably the most powerful (lower courts even claim the power to compel the state legislatures and city councils to enact taxes!). The Fifth Article of the Constitution, the only authorized power to amend the Constitution, cannot compare with the ease and rapidity to amend that Supreme Court claims for itself.
If we agree that the Supreme Court stands above the Constitution, then we must understand that the court is no longer obedient to the Constitution -- it is not below the Constitution. It begs the question, "By what authority?"
[This essay was originally posted at GIGO]