Governor Ralph Northam, Democrat of Virginia, outlawed the death penalty in his state today. Glory, glory, hallelujah! Let's have a sidebar.
You know, if you've never been a right-winger in America, you won't understand what it's like to put those pot-smoking, relativist, bleeding-hearts in their places, about whatever it is they overlook, especially abortion. I suppose I should say--again--that the philosophy and logic that underlies a pro-abortion position is still manifestly absurd. Whether it is driven by consequentialism, utilitarianism, or some combination of things, a human being cannot be intentionally destroyed, for convenience, "liberty," or any number of unworthy reasons.
The next thing that is almost required to be said is that capital punishment and abortion are not alike, even if we reach a point where we do not accept either one.
The Catholic Church--putative guardian of what makes for a good human life well lived--has recently stated its opposition to capital punishment in even stronger terms than it had previously. If I struggled in any sense to conform my mind to its thought on the matter, I might describe the most recent formulation of the question as "clever." But in my experience, I had reasoned to a place of steadfast opposition, well before holy Church had clarified its position.
It is notable that many observers noticed that she did not describe capital punishment as "intrinsically evil," which would have meant that every sentence of this nature imposed in the past would have been unjust, and rightly so. I am by no means a brilliant theologian, but it goes without saying that the Catholic Church would have a serious problem on its hands, if it implicated itself dogmatically in something that it had proclaimed to be everywhere and always wrong. It's hard enough for Catholics to defend themselves, without creating obvious and irreconcilable contradictions. Which is to say that a gradual realization that capital punishment is inconsistent with upholding the dignity of all persons made in the image of God--especially in the current situation--makes more sense than to pronounce upon all past situations, as if we had known everything we know now.
In my limited understanding and intellect, I don't think anyone has intended to pronounce upon what a known guilty murderer deserves; the most relevant question is, "Is taking such a person's life a matter of strict moral necessity?" What does it cost us, to show even the smallest amount of mercy, in such a case?
Furthermore, I think it has been persuasively argued that the present system of the death penalty in even the vaunted United States of America, costs everyone else involved dearly, in the maintenance of their own dignity and well-being, to say nothing of what we do to the image of God in those condemned.
I have often said that the book "Dead Man Walking" by Sister Helen Prejean, should be required reading for all of those interested in this question. Not everything she throws against the wall sticks, as it were, but most of it does. I think the most proper response to that account is sadness, and anger. I still feel the loss of Patrick Sonnier, and it seems that I should, though obviously we never met, and he was as guilty as anyone you could find.
It challenged me, in ways I did not expect. Do I really believe that forgiveness is possible, and that ultimate forgiveness is desirable for every person? Is there some injustice that could be committed against me, which would cause me to deny the inherent human dignity of the person who committed that offense? What is the goal of the criminal justice system? Are the means we use ordered to that end?
These are good questions, and all of them deserve concrete answers, even if the questions are posed by bleeding-heart, pot-smoking hippies.
Comments