Newspaper Page Text
4
m
r
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, March 29,1973
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
rtev. Francis J. Donohue, Editor John E. Markwalter, Managing Editor
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Send Change of Address to P.O. Box 10027, Savannah, Ga. 31402
Published weekly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and August and the last week in December.
At 202 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Subscription Price $2.76 per year by Assement Parishes Diocese of Savannah Others $5 Per Year
The Death Penalty
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Two weeks ago the Bishop of
Nashville, Tenn., Bishop Joseph Durick, issued a
pastoral letter which addressed itself to the issue of
capital punishment. We offer part of what he had to
say as a guest editorial.)
Of the arguments voiced supporing
the death penalty, the most often heard
is the argument that it deters crime.
Several years ago, the Presidential
Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice,
mentioned before, reported that it had
found the deterrent argument less than
convincing.
The dintinguished Kansas psychiatrist,
Karl Menninger, M.D., in his
widely-complimented book on crime and
corrections, “The Crime of
Punishment,” flatly denies the deterrent
argument. His book was based upon
lengthy interviews with offenders and
corrections officials.
A former U.S. Attorney General
(Ramsey Clark), once asked why anyone
should assume capital punishment would
deter crime. Crimes which once possibly
led to electrocution are committed by
persons on impulse, in anger, et cetera,
or by persons who plan the act, namely
the pre-meditated crime. Certainly, those
who are so overwhelmed by emotion or
passion that they would kill, would not
pause to consider the consequences. The
second general group would be aware of
the possible penalty, but they never
intend to be its victim, for just as they
plan crime, they also carefully plan to
avoid arrest and conviction. Dr.
Menninger maintains these same points.
It should also be noted that the
so-called “hardened” criminal lives in a
veritable world of violence, where brutal
and sudden death is commonplace, and
where often life is little better than
brutal.
Another argument in behalf of the
death penalty is that it removes from
society someone “dangerous” to it, or
“unworthy” of it. Not only does such a
proposal grossly overlook the aims and
achievements of modem corrections
policies, but it is also un-Christian and
un-go dly.
As a matter of record, in the past
capital punishment has most often
affected persons who were poor or of
minority groups. In other words, it most
often was inflicted upon persons unable
to secure for themselves expert legal
representation. The late criminal lawyer,
Clarence Darrow, observed 30 years ago
that the walk to the death chamber has
been from the “beginning, a procession
of the poor, the weak, the unfit.”
Into this discussion, certain specific
theological observations should be
noted. Christian tradition has always
maintained the right of the state to
impose the penalty of death. In support
of that position, several Old Testament
texts are often quoted. One, for
instance, is Genesis (9:6), “Whoever
sheds the blood of man, by man shall his
blood be shed.” Another example is in
Numbers (35:16), “If a man strikes
another with an iron instrument and
causes his death, he is a murderer and
should be put to death.”
There are no New Testament passages
sanctioning the death penalty; only
those which uphold public authority, as
found in the writings of St. Paul.
In response to these aspects, the
Roman Catholic bishops of Canada, who
recently appealed to their Parliament not
to re-institute the death penalty, said,
“We consider it an illegitimate use of the
Bible, especially the Old Testament, to
quote texts in order to argue, in our
time, for the retention of the death
penalty . . .Each such Old Testament
text must be weighed against any
passages in the New Testament where
Jesus constantly rejects the normal
human tendency to redress injury by
injury and calls instead for generosity.
He established a norm that violence and
hostility are not corrected by
counter-measures of violence and
hostility.”
The Protestant theologian, Charles S.
Milligan, calls the citation of Old
Testament texts to advocate the death
penalty, in the face of New Testament
admonitions to love and be merciful,
“strange logic.” He further holds that we
must “strive for the mind which was in
Christ Jesus and to bring it to bear upon
the issues of our time. This, he proceeds
to say, requires a thorough
understanding of sociological facts, some
of which were discussed above, regarding
the question of capital punishment.
Finally, he notes, “Without minimizing
justice, the distinctive witness of the
Christian is found in compassionate
concern.”
The Jewish theologian, Rabbi Israel J.
Kazis, holds that consultation of Old
Testament passages cannot alone reveal
the true position of Judaism toward the
death penalty. It does note passages such
as those mentioned above, but also
points out that the theology of Israel
was developing then and, citing other
procedures and requirements, there later
evolved many restrictions upon the use
of capital punishment. He holds that
“from our discussion of the provisions
and restrictions imposed by the Rabbis
upon the procedure in the trial of capital
cases, we believe that it is reasonable to
maintain they they did not look with
favor upon capital punishment.”
In summary, the argument that the
death penalty deters crime is of strong
question. The theological arguments in
its behalf are weak. Let us treasure life,
not gamble with it. I would earnestly ask
that the death penalty not be renewed in
Tennessee.
-BISHOP JOSEPH DURICK
OUR PARISH
“And now speaking for women in the Church, we have
Sister Gregory, Sister Dominic, and Sister Thomas Aquinas!”
#&968SBXS6SSSSSBS6GBX&H&X&
“Cleansing” the POWs
Reverend Andrew M. Greeley
Copyright 1973, Inter/Syndicate
The Catholic Church, to whom witch hunts
are not unfamiliar, now seems to be in the
midst of yet another. Father Philip Berrigan
announces that the returning POWs are war
criminals and priests and seminarians in Denver
protest against the hiring of a retired colonel as
a public relations person at the Denver
seminary. Apparently, these worthy clerics
think that all professional soldiers should starve
to death.
In the strict, legal sense of the word, most of
the POWs are not war criminals. Despite
Communist propaganda, most of the targets
deliberately bombed during the war were
military targets. If the United States had
deliberately embarked on a policy of
exterminating the Vietnamese population
(which would have been a war crime) it could
have done a much quicker and more efficient
job. Indeed, it is very likely that we were even
more careful to minimize civilian casualites
than we were in World War II. If the returning
POWs were war criminals simply because they
were military aviators, then George McGovern
was also a war criminal in World War II. Indeed,
he was probably more of a war criminal because
much less care was possible about hitting
civilian targets in those days of “saturation”
bombing. Does Father Berrigan suggest that the
Senator was a war criminal?
are to be written off as war criminals because
they do not share the same factual judgments
or moral evaluations.
For a plausible case can be made that the
war was justified to resist the expansion of a
totalitarian tyranny. If the Saigon regime is not
exactly democratic it at least has the advantage
of being inefficient. An inefficient dictatorship
is much to be preferred to an efficient one.
There can be no pretense that the Russia of
Joseph Stalin was an appropriate ally in 1942.
I am not convinced of the logic of this
argument regarding South Vietnam, but I think
it must be insisted that the overwhelming
majority of the American people were
convinced of it in 1965. The war was entered
for a very moral reason: To defend Southeast
Asia from Communist tyranny. It may not be
Father Berrigan’s morality or the “Academic
Eight’s” morality, and it may be based on a
misreading of the situation, but the decision
nevertheless was a decision based on a moral
judgment.
Like all fanatics, the Catholic radicals cannot
abide moral ambiguity or the uncertainty and
obscurity of judgments that have to be made in
a diffiuclt and complex world. There is only
one morality-their own, And everyone else is a
sinner and must be punished.
But, it is argued, the war was an immoral
war and anyone who participated in it was
immoral. Thus, the POWs and the unfortunate
colonel were war criminals even if they never
dropped a bomb.
Here one gets to the nub of the fanaticism of
Berrigan and the Catholic radicals. They are not
only sure that they have the correct factual
information about the war; they are also sure
that they have made the only correct moral
judgment. Anyone who disagrees is both
ignorant and in bad faith - in short, a sinner to
be condemned.
But was the war that clearly an immoral
war? I do not deny that a case can be made for
the proposition that it was. My own hunch is
that it was because the means used exceeded
the appropriate proportion for the good to be
obtained and the harm to be avoided. But all
such a plausible case can do is justify a person’s
refusing to serve in the war. It is not, I think,
strong enough to be so self-evident that others
I am not exactly an admirer of certain types
of the military mind. But in the world in which
we live, one cannot dispense with the
professional military. Many of them are
unselfish human beings who have dedicated
their lives to the service of their country as they
see that service required. To make a class
judgment against them is an act of intolerable
prejudice and bigotry. It is to be hoped that
Archbishop Casey of Denver resists the
pressures put on him by the bigots in his
diocese.
There is, however, a solution. The sob sister
from the NEW YORKER who canonized
Father Berrigan tells us that in his presence one
feels like falling on one’s knees and seeking
absolution. Perhaps we could assemble all the
POWs and the Denver colonel in Father
Berrigan’s presence. They could fall on their
knees aryl seek absolution; then he could
impose a suitable penance and impart
absolution.
Then they would be morally clean again.
If You
Plant
A Poppy-
Joseph A. Breig
With love for unborn children and their
mothers, I offer the following truths to the U.
S. Supreme Court - which couldn’t decide
“when life begins” - and to the people of
America and all other nations in which
abortions are multiplying.
1. WHERE THERE IS GROWTH, THERE
IS LIFE. If you plant a poppy seed and it
germinates, it begins at once to grow and
develop -- invisibly underground at first, then
above ground.
The new plant grows and develops because it
is alive; because it is animated by poppy life;
poppy soul, if you insist on the term “soul”.
If nothing interferes, the plant will mature
and flower for God’s glory and our delight. At
every moment from germination, it is the same
plant, living by the same life.
If at any time the plant is unrooted, poppy
life is killed.
2. WHERE THERE IS GROWTH, THERE
IS LIFE. When the ovum of a female animal
(say a dog) is fertilized, it begins instantly to
grow and develop, because dog life is present.
At every moment, it is the same dog, living by
the same dog life. If the new life is destroyed,
the dog is killed.
3. WHERE THERE IS GROWTH, THERE
IS LIFE. When a human ovum is fertilized, it
begins at once to grow and develop because
human life, human soul, has entered into it. By
the power of its human life, the fertilized
human ovum, from the moment of conception,
forms for itself a human body, tiny at first, but
growing with astounding speed. At every
moment, it is a particular human being, living
by the same human life.
If at any moment the new life is destroyed,
human life is killed. A human being is slain.
Human life' is not poppy life, not dog life.
Dogs and poppies and all other visible creatures
on earth - save only the human - possess only
temporary life; life which ceases to exist when
the plant or the body dies.
Human life is of another order altogether.
Human life is permanent; immortal. It lives as
long as God the Creator lives - forever.
Those who intentionally destroy innocent
human life, at any time after its conception,
must one day face that human being in
eternity; and face also the God who creates
each human life in his own image and likeness.
Such are the plain truths about abortion.
Making
Deliquents
Reverend Joseph Dean
1. Begin with infancy to give him everything
he wants. In this way he will grow up thinking
the world owes him a living.
2. When he picks up “dirty” words, laugh at
him. That will make him think he is cute. He
will run off and pick up some other words that
will blow your mind.
3. Never give him any spiritual training until
he is 21, and then let him decide for himself.
By the same logic, never teach him the English
language. Maybe when he is old enough he may
want to speak Bantu instead!
4. Praise him in his presence to all the
neighbors, show him how much smarter he is
than the neighbors’ children.
5. Avoid the use of the word “wrong.” It
may develop in the child a “guilt complex.”
This will prepare him to believe that when he is
punished later on for wrong doing, society is
“against” him and he is being “persecuted.”
Questions
And Answers
Monsignor John F. McDonough
QUESTION: Why is the sin of despair such a terrible sin?
ANSWER: To despair is to have lost confidence in Christ, our hope, our Savior. It is a
denial not only of the reality of God but also the concern and compassion that God has
for us. Despair is the negation of the virtue of hope.
The virtue of hope is orientated towards God. It is theological, God-centered. To hope
is to wait for God, it is waiting for Christ, it is waiting for “someone.” We know what it is
to anticipate a pleasant visit. In these circumstances we are in a state of watchfulness,
always listening. Such is the psychological state of Christians who truly hope. Just as the
guard who longs for the coming of the dawn. The Lord who comes is the Savior, the
Redeemer. Christian waiting is, consequently, anxious and confident at the same time. It
bursts from a soul which is conscious of its misery and sin, but also certina that the one
who will come is good and strong enough to save it. ‘The hungry He has filled with good
things. Out of the depths I have cried unto you, my Lord!’
Hope in Christ? We have the most beautiful example of this in the awaiting of Israel.
For the Christian, Israel represents before all two great permanent values: faith in
monotheism and hope in the Savior Messiah. And this waiting was truly alive. With each
popular manifestation the heart of a religious Israelite beat with hope; wouldn’t this be
the hour of the accomplishment of the Divine plans? Each time his eyes saw the outline
of the Messianic Kingdom - conceived in too nationalistic a manner, certainly - but
penetrated with the strength which saves. Each woman of Israel when she became a
mother asked herself - and she could quite legitimately ask herself - if the baby which she
caressed was not perhaps the Chosen one of the Lord. When Simeon had received the
announcement of the birth of the Messiah, when he saw Him with his eyes, he
pronounced his NUNC DIMITTIS. Now he could go to God. He had seen the Savior.
What more could be awaited here below?
The literature of the Old Testament has left us numerous testamonies of hope; above
all in the writings of the Prophets. Behold the Lord is going to come, shouted the heralds
of Divine Revelation. Behold the Day of the Lord is at hand! The Day of Salvation and
the Day of Wrath! Day of Judgment! Day of Reconciliation! The time approaches!
Salvation comes! The entire history of Israel is crisscrossed with these cries of expectation
and these dramatic reminders. The Psalms are the perfect chant of hope of a people who
wait for salvation. All Christians know the famous Psalm 129, “Out of the depths I have
cried unto You, 0, my Lord. I have put my hope in the Lord and I am sure of His Word!”
Israel awaits the Lord as it awaited the liberation from the Babylonian captivity. Thus
ought to be our hope!
6. Pick up everything after him: his shoes,
his books, his clothes. Do everything for him so
he will be experienced in throwing burdens on
others.
7. Let him read anything he wants. Have no
concern whatsoever for what goes into his
mind. Provide him with sterilized cups for his
lips, but let his brain drink out of any dirty
container for words and ideas.
8. Quarrel frequently in the presence of your
children. In that way they will be prepared for
broken homes later on.
9. Give him all the spending money he
wants; never let him earn his own.
10. Satisfy every craving of the child for
food, drinks and everything that has to do with
sense of taste and touch, gratifying every
sensual desire.
11. Take his part against police, teachers and
neighbors. They are all prejudiced against your
child.
12. When he gets into real trouble, always
defend yourself and say: “I never could do
anything with him.”