Sensibility, Intelligence, our Pope and the Death Penalty

I am pretty much against the death penalty...for a good number of prudential, intelligent, practical reasons...but largely because it offends my sensibility. It disgusts me emotionally! Happily, my sensibility (feelings) and my intelligence agree; I am clear in my view, but tentative as I recognize a number of very good reasons in favor of capital punishment. It is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a moral absolute like adultery, abortion, or torture.

Intelligence and sensibility are to be strongly contrasted: the first is our capacity to know reality; the second is our subjective feeling about the reality we experience. Human intelligence (unlike that of the angels and the Trinity) always flows out of sensibility: in this we stand with St. Thomas and St. John Paul and against Plato and Descartes! Intelligence, properly exercised, leads us beyond our subjectivity to know what is different from us; sensibility is our unavoidable but limiting physical/psychological vulnerability to reality as it presents itself. Intelligence, at its best, recognizes sensibility in its validity and limitation, and transcends it in disciplined, obedient, communal study to open up to the real beyond how it impacts the individual, vulnerable body/psyche. When we feel something, it says something about the "something" and about "ourselves" and so we need to separate out the two of them. My family is of Irish descent but my Dad hated the bagpipes. I don't know why, but he did have a defect in his ear that effected his swimming and kept him out of World War II so I think something in his ear may have made the sound painful for him. If he were asked to judge a bagpipe contest, he would have to humbly decline. We are pretty much all against the death penalty...in our feelings...but it is far from clear that our feelings are validly judging (an intellectual task) reality. Our contemporary sensibility may blind us to the reality about the death penalty for several reasons:

1.  Weakened sense of the supernatural. Even the most pious among us are "secular" in that we live, breathe, work, feel, think, decide and act with little or no sense of God and the supernatural. Modernity is "disenchantment" in regard to our Creator and Savior, heaven and hell, angels and devils, spiritual combat and eternal life. It has re-enchanted itself with control, prosperity, health, and  self-fulfillment. To such a sensibility, the application of the death penalty is most vile. Contrast: just over a century ago the little St. Therese praying for the death-row conversion of the sinner murderer!

2.  Weakened sense of authority. Modernity is the rejection of authority: that of tradition, of the Church, of the past, of paternity and implicitly of the Fatherhood of God. Authority is viewed suspiciously, not as an image of the loving Father, but as the imposition of the stronger, oppressive will on another. So, we have the inevitable comparison of the application of lethal force by the state with that by the murderous individual. In reality, they are contradictory, not similar: the policeman, soldier and executioner (with exceptions to be sure) are acting, in principle, to protect innocent life. This distinction is largely lost. It is like comparing the amputation done by a surgeon to that of a psychopathic torturer. They are polar opposites. And so, we see that the most modern, contemporary and up-to-date Western countries (excepting the USA) have all outlawed the death penalty, as they became more secular and suspicious of authority.

3.  Confusion of revenge and  retribution. Revenge is an act of hatred; however understandable, it is inherently evil. Retribution is an act of justice; inherently good. The police who arrest; the jailer who retains; the prosecutor who accuses; the jury who convicts; and the judge who sentences...they are not acting in revenge, but in truth, in duty, for the final good of the community and even of the accused. Retribution is misconstrued as revenge because of the weakened sense of the moral order. Anecdote: my brother found his young son laying, uncharacteristically, on his bed in the middle of the day. "What's up, Joe?" he asked. "I am punishing myself."  "Why?" "I ran in the street to get a ball and I should not have."  (Aside:  Joe is now a Catholic priest and PhD in theology.) Was this the childish workings of the overcharged superego of a first-born boy? I think not! I see it as the innocent, childlike intuition of the moral order! Good must be rewarded; bad punished! At our particular judgment, we will immediately see the gravity of our sins and will cry out for correct retribution:  "I must do (the equivalent of) two hundred millennia in purgatory!" Even the damned (if there be any; we can, with Balthasar hope not) will cry out in truth:  "Exactly! I chose against heaven and for hell and that's what I want and what I deserve and God is truly Just and Good!" It is arguable that a Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds needs to be executed; but that intelligent argument is dismissed as revenge by the secular, modern sensibility.

4.  Weakened sense of evil.  The ontological gravity of evil is minimized, along with everything supernatural, as it is psychologized ("Oh, he had a rough childhood!") and sociologized ("Oh, he is a victim of an unjust economic order!") We do well to consider Lucifer and his demons and even fictional, cultural analogues: Hannibal Lector; the Joker; Darth Vadar and his mentor; Kaiser Sozi (Kevin Spacey in "The Usual Suspects").

5.  Exaggerated sense of human competence. A prevalent argument against capital punishment is that our sophisticated prison system is able to protect society from the predators. At the same time we hear horror stories about prison culture: rape, gangs, stabbings, murders, and the psychological torture intrinsic to solitary confinement. Arguably a quick death is more humane than a semi-eternity in the hell of sodomy, gang violence, and desolate solitude. The evidence that current prison systems can protect and deter competently is flimsy at best.

Thought experiment: imagine a poor, underdeveloped country has an outburst of vicious gangs who kidnap for ransom children of the affluent. If they don't get their money, they rape, torture and kill the little ones...videotaping it. Most of us (and not only the affluent) suddenly find prudential reasons to implement the death penalty. Mostly, though, the image...prolonged torture of the little ones...is so repugnant to our sensibility that it vastly overwhelms our disgust for the death penalty.

Question of the century: Why is it that the modern, liberal sensibility is so horrified by (the very limited) capital punishment of the guilty but so tolerant of (vastly greater) abortion of the innocent?

Renunciation of the death penalty is an intelligent, promising position. But Pope Francis' elevation of it into a final, absolute prohibition is confused, irrational, authoritarian and heretical. It is confused because it is unclear: is he saying the act is inherently evil (contradicting tradition) or that it is not inherently evil but that he has been granted a invincible, infallible intuition that it will never again, anywhere, anytime be required by prudential wisdom? The later is ludicrous on the face of it. It is irrational because he is elevating his sensibility (however prevalent in modernity) into a dictum while dismissing rigorous intellectual consideration. Emotionalism and anti-intellectualism are the hallmarks of his pontificate: witness his avoidance of the dubia! It is authoritarian in that he is using the authority of the Chair of Peter (I write this on that feast day) to impose his sentimentality without regard for the bishops, cardinals, tradition or Magisterium. He is heretical in that he is contradicting what is clear, longstanding Church teaching. The sensibility is so prevalent, however, that there is virtually no serious push-back. A handful of cranky conservatives like myself are the only ones who are.

However, there are signs of hope. His recent statement on married priests and women deacons was heartening. Let us pray for him, our spiritual Father, that his pronounced theological deficiency be remedied by the Holy Spirit! St. Peter pray for us!

Laracy Law of Inverted Consequences

In my 20-or-so years in supervision at UPS, a counter-intuitive pattern pronounced itself clearly: whenever I was working strenuously, exercising my abilities even beyond their limits, everything seemed to go wrong: my numbers were bad and I was being called in, almost daily, for "career counseling" (euphemism for "ass-kicking.") Alternately, in periods when I was working minimally, exerting myself not at all, everything seemed to go well: I was receiving accolades for my fine performance. I call this the "law of inverted consequences":  work hard and things go bad; do nothing and things go swell. I am surprised someone more famous and brilliant hasn't discovered this law. To be sure: it is not absolute. On occasion hard work pays off; and things don't always go well for the lethargic. Witness the three little pigs and the big bad wolf!

The moral to be drawn from this reality is not to lay in bed watching soap operas and smoking pot! No: we have to pull ourselves out of bed, brush our teeth, and apply ourselves to the best of our ability to the tasks before us. This is important for our character. Our singular creativity and masterpiece (in cooperation with God's grace to be sure) is our character; consequences beyond ourselves are almost completely out of our control. It is very healthy to recognize this.

This point of view is...to say the least...contradictory of our technocratic, meritocratic, efficiency-adoring, activist, careerist, Self-worshiping culture!

The moral to be drawn from this fact is:  GRATITUDE!

If you are getting straight-As or making good money or fabulously popular and attractive...give thanks! Perhaps 2% of your success is attributable to you; 98% is beyond yourself.

If you are working vigorously, doing your very best and maybe better than your best and getting nowhere...give thanks: that you have energy, focus, discipline and motivation. And keep up the good effort. Perhaps 2% of your failure is due to you; the rest is beyond your control. You are the victim of circumstances:  accept what you cannot change serenely and offer up your suffering for the souls in purgatory!

In all things...we are in the hands of God...let us do our best with what we are given...surrender ourselves to the good and the bad...and give THANKS in all things!

American Church: 1970-2020

Our American Church over the last half century can be understood as the interplay of four competing groups:  Standard Parish Vatican II Catholicism, Traditionalism, Progressive Revisionism, and Evangelical Neo-Catholicism.

Across the USA parish life is remarkably uniform and consistent. It is like McDonalds: your burger- fries-shake are exactly the same in San Diego and NYC; so is your liturgy, homily, and music. Generic parish Catholicism harmonizes or inculturates Catholicism with mainstream middle class life. It is serene, bland, and comforting. It proclaims a God who is loving, merciful, accepting and inclusive. He is comfortingly free of wrath, awe-full transcendence, and excessive demands. All are welcome and none are offended.  Liturgy is warm, friendly, casual, and insipid. Family-friendly, its vigor omes from combining the best in Catholicism and American culture. It unfailingly preserves the sacramental life, faithfully teaches the basics of the faith, and fosters a wholesome ethos of charity, care of the poor, and virtuous living. God's grace is at at work bringing forth holiness in this modest, mundane setting. It is the Great Catholic Mystery: modestly but persistently, across the entire continent, the sacraments efficaciously convey grace; the faith is proclaimed, not always inspiringly or beautifully but with a certain down-to-earth indefectibility. Rarely is real heresy heard in the Sunday homily. In an unpretentious, almost humdrum manner, God's grace is at work awakening holiness of life in virtual anonymity.

Unfortunately, it often mimics the weaknesses of the broader culture it befriends. Notwithstanding the all-male priesthood, there is a softness, an avoidance of fierce virile energies; little drama or conflict; no mention of spiritual combat, demons, hell, sacrifice and fasting. There is a pervasive presumption: everyone is going to heaven and there is nothing to fear. The prevailing model is popularized psychology: "I'm okay; you're okay." Fierce,  traditional expressions of Catholicism (pro-life movement, Latin mass, Marian devotions, renewal movements) are tolerated but hardly advocated by the clergy. No mention of "chastity" (much less of contraception, co-habitation, pornography or masturbation.) The Culture War is largely ignored in a retreat from agonistic struggle with  Cultural Liberalism and so that the young to wander, without a clue, into the swamp of sexual license. Most couples seeking the sacrament of marriage are already living together and contracepting; they are given a vague, non-offending suggestion about refraining from sex before marriage; they feel entirely comfortable and welcomed. Large numbers quietly exit the Church, into secularism or move vigorous evangelical expressions of Christianity and many more cultivate a lukewarm, water-downed kind of Catholic-Lite. A majority of Catholics and most parishes fit this description.

Traditionalists probably include no more than 5 to 10% but are a strong, persistent presence. These react against the post-Vatican II Church and strive to retrieve elements of the Tradition that have been lost: Latin mass, theology of St. Thomas, a stronger sense of the supernatural (heaven and hell, saints, demons and angels), pious practices and a fiercely counter-cultural defiance of Cultural Liberalism and its sympathizers within the Church. Most seem to be white, educated, affluent, and competent competitors in our meritocratic economy. They have zero influence in the academy, and little in the parishes and chanceries. They are not a continuation or replication of the pre-Vatican II Church, but are a distinctively contemporary phenomena, structured by their antagonism to late-modernity as the progressives are by their accommodation to the same. The late-Tridenine Church I knew 1950-65 was already a harmonious honeymoon of a confident Catholicism with  the emergent, triumphant American Imperium. Its spirit was open, hopeful, collaborative. Today's traditionalism is defensive and sometimes fueled by fear, anxiety, anger and condescension. It is lacking in ecumenical ardor as it accentuates what is distinctive to Catholicism and is suspicious of all that is outside the Church. Their priceless contribution is that they retain, retrieve and develop sacred traditions that are forgotten by the mainstream and despised by the progressives.

Progressives number perhaps 20% of the Catholic population but have inordinate influence for several reasons: they prevail in Catholic academia and among the intelligensia; they are militant and aggressive; and, allied with the dominant secular elites (media, entertainment, etc.), they exert relentless pressure on the broader Church to discard Catholic traditions dissonant with the liberation of sexuality from marriage, chastity and fidelity. Even at secondary and primary levels of education they inhibit a wholesome Catholic catechesis of gender and sexuality in their disparagement of hetero-normativity, homophobia and patriarchy. They elevate and moralize a leftist political agenda which takes on a sacred character and then demonizes the opposition.

Evangelical Neo-Catholicism centers on the person Jesus Christ as it gestalts perennial elements of Catholicism around that salvific relationship, with a sensibility that critically accepts positive aspects of modernity. It's Godfather is unquestionably St. John Paul II along with his able assistant Pope Benedict (who had slightly stronger sympathies for the traditionalists). It is a personalism rooted in revived classical metaphysics.  The contemporary lay renewal movements (charismatic, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation, etc.) as well as new religious communities fervently embrace and embody this vision. Its relationship to the Enlightenment and late-modernity is sophisticated and nuanced: cautiously separating the wheat from the chaff. For example, both popes, out of their personal engagement with Nazism and Communism, combined an appreciation for the USA in its experiment in liberty with a critique of materialism, consumerism, technologism and cultural liberalism.   It retains a robust sense of the supernatural that is dramatically involved with earthly life. Perhaps 20% of American Catholics belong to this group but it was unquestionably the dominant paradigm during the three decades of the double pontificate.

Pope Francis cannot be pigeon-holed into this four-part typology. He is definitely NOT generic American Catholicism. He has spent little time here; barely speaks English; does not know us and does not seem to like what he thinks he knows of us. He is a puzzling blend of the other three: his homilies frequently reflect traditional themes of piety, a passionate love of the forgotten, a sense of the supernatural, and often an intimate closeness to our Lord Jesus. But his decisions, appointments and casual remarks have given a huge boost to the progressives in their eagerness to befriend cultural liberalism (not to mention Chinese communism.) He is anathema to the traditionalists; and a huge disappointment to the Neo-Catholics. For the average parishioner, he is not such big change from his two predecessors.

The dynamism of the American Church can hardly be captured by this 4-part model. Three smaller movements are significant and interesting: New Age Spirituality, Catholic Worker type identification with the poor, and the sophisticated neoconservative, highly political Catholicism identified with First Things.

New age themes include interest in yoga, zen, alternate approaches to health/ healing, and the pantheist traditions of Asia. These are fashionable with some retreat houses and progressive religious sisters. It attracts the liberal leaning, affluent, educated who react allergically to traditional and evangelical Catholicism. It merges with mainstream psychology and compatible aspects of Catholicism to develop an new enlightened spirituality. Theologically and politically, it sympathizes with the progressives but lacks the appetite for cultural, theological and political war and prefers a retreat into personal wholeness.

The Catholic Worker continues to be a tiny, but influential presence in the American Church. Its classical expression (Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin) combined traditional piety with closeness to the poor, pacifism and anarchism. My understanding is that the various Catholic Worker homes vary in their combination of these elements. It is inspirational and impressive for its real intimacy with the poor which contrasts with the "limousine liberalism" of progressives who advocate for governmental assistance to the poor but hardly tolerate (to quote Pope Francis) the "smell of the sheep."

Last is the sophisticated political conservatism of the First Things community including R. Reno, George Weigel, Neuhaus and Novak of happy memory. Their's is an erudite and passionate affirmation of the values of American capitalism and culture in light of traditional/evangelical Christianity. It allies itself with Evangelicals and Pentecostals in the culture war with progressives. Recently Reno has even endorsed, in some degree, the Trump agenda even as he is uninhibited in his criticism of Pope Francis, who clearly reciprocates the disapproval.

The American bishops seem mostly to, unsurprisingly, model Standard Parish Catholicism: they are decent, intelligent, competent, pious men who are overwhelmed by the demands of a huge bureaucracy and the divergent currents of their flock. A critical mass seem to belong to the school of John Paul and Benedict and, allied with a handful of traditionalists, have been able to keep in check the progressives, who are surging with energy under Francis. This battle is inevitable and will persist: the temptation to adapt to culture is perennial. If Francis lives long enough he will, of course, create our episcopacy into his (mostly) progressive image. But the future belongs to the Evangelical Neo-Catholics: most of the new priests lean strongly traditional; most of the flourishing new orders are conservative; the lay renewal movements continue to surge with energy; and the splendid theological legacy of John Paul and Benedict is a gift that will continue to give into this millenium.

Full discloser: I myself am a passionate Evangelical Catholic; am comfortable and friendly with traditional and generic parish Catholics, but fiercely opposed to progressive revisionism. I am allergic to anything new-age; inspired by the Catholic Workers; and largely in accord with First Things.