Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

Well not really a response as much as a clarification, I think.  Since I’ve received two comments, which is a lot for me (!), I figure it’s worth it.

One blogger wrote in to say that no political party in the U.S. meets all the criteria of the Magesterium. This is true. However, there is a crucial distinction between the church’s stance on abortion and the death penalty, as seen in the CCC.

On abortion:

2270    Human life must be respected  and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person–  among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271    Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

2273    The inalienable right to life of every innocent human being is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. (emphasis in the original)

Note the use of innocent in the above passages as well.

Now, note what the CCC says about capital punishment:

2267 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 an unjust aggressor.

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

…the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if practically non-existent.” (CCC quoting JPII’s Evangelium Vitae)

See the difference? Abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong. There is never an acceptable circumstance. Even though the Church states (correctly) that the cases where an execution is morally permissible are incredibly rare (which I agree with, obviously), there is still a tiny window left for the cases that truly deserve (can I use that word?) the death penalty.  It is not absolutely morally prohibited.

Thus, if you’re going to weigh one against the other, you would have to side with the pro-life (meaning against abortion) candidate, since that is the absolute moral evil. Besides which, I find it personally difficult to reconcile the doctrine many liberals espouse (including Sr. Helen Prejean and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) that the death penalty for criminals is wrong, but that partial-birth abortion, where a baby’s brain is sucked out of its skull while the baby is alive, is OK. That just seems wrong to me.

I decided in high school that if I was going to be pro-life it had to be all the way. So I studied my views and decided it was more important for me to be inline with my church than my party. Some of my partymates give me crap for this, but I figure whatever. And the Church does allow very, very rare instances of death penalty use.

I hope this clarifies the doctrine. I have not quoted everything the CCC has to say on these issues, nor have I included their biblical and doctrinal (i.e, the Didache) footnotes. But you can look it up yourself if you want more.

Got this from Adoro and I liked it!

Here are the rules: Share four things that were new to you in the past four years. Four things you learned or experienced or explored for the first time in the past four years. Then share four things you want to try new in the next four years.

Four New Things in the Past Four Years: (2003-2007)

1. I graduated from college
2. I got new lungs. :)(OK maybe that should have been first)
3. I got my apartment
4. I got my first real job

Four Things in the Next Four Years: (2008-2012)

1. I hope to be married.
2. I hope to have something published other than in our local papers
3. I will have bought a house/townhouse/something
4. Maybe a Master’s? We’ll see…