Eric Giunta
"Clarity, please, or silence": An open letter to the bishops of Florida
By Eric Giunta
Human Events has just published an insightful and courageous piece by Rev. Michael Orsi of Ave Maria School of Law, wherein the good Father carefully elucidates the difference between perennial Christian teaching (reflecting immutable natural law) and prudential judgment in applying that teaching: "Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not a Right"
The courage of this piece should not be lost on readers. Fr. Orsi is a Catholic priest, and we can safely assume it was only after much moral reflection that he decided on composing this piece, a charitable critique of the United States Catholic Bishops' statements relating to public policy.
The truth must be embraced regardless of whose mouth it comes out of. Still, familiarity breeds contempt, and especially in light of recent history, the Bishops should be particularly precise and focused in their public remarks.
Sadly, such clarity and discretion continue to elude these statements. And the Bishops' endorsement of the Democrats' single-payer healthcare plan is just the latest example. Orthodox Catholics have long echoed the late Henry Hyde's characterization of the Bishops' Conference as "the Democratic Party at prayer," and while this is not strictly fair, it is true that the Bishops have never found a spending provision or government-enlargement proposal lacking their approval (unless such proposals have involved subsidization of culture-of-death liberalism).
Without commenting on the merits of the proposed health-care reforms it does seem evident that men of goodwill (orthodox Christians included) can subscribe to the same fundamental set of moral principles and come to a prudential disagreement on what policies best advance those principles. In her official statements the Catholic Church has always made the distinction between non-negotiable truths which bind the truth and prudential judgments, which are worthy of serious consideration but are not strictly binding. These distinctions are often blurred when bishops' statements on prudential matters are lifted from their overall pastoral context.
And so, for instance, no bishop has ever threatened Catholic politicians with ecclesiastical sanctions for supporting capital punishment or the Iraq War, despite the fact that such support contradicts the Church's official policy positions.
Father Orsi's latest article interests me for two reasons. For starters, in keeping with the noble tradition of Christian-democratic social teaching, he concedes that society does have a responsibility to provide care for the weak and the unfortunate:
Secondly, Father Orsi's analysis reminded me of a letter I sent several months ago to the Florida Catholic Conference, to which I never received a reply. It concerned what was then the latest public pronouncement by the Florida bishops on the imminent execution of a heinous murderer. I believed, and still do, that their statement lacked the proper nuance displayed in Fr. Orsi's Human Events piece, and so failed to do full justice to authentic Catholic social teaching.
I reproduce below my correspondence in full, in the form of an open letter:
Your Excellencies:
As a practicing Catholic of the Miami Province, I wish to share some thoughts and concerns I have with regard to Your routine pronouncements on state executions of capital offenders.
Having as I do a literate grasp of the history of Catholic doctrinal development, and a well-researched understanding of why the Church has adopted the positions she has in applying her social doctrine to the circumstances of today, I am concerned that in Your pronouncements on some issues there are not sufficient clarifications made between immutable moral principles and prudential judgments.
It is my understanding, by the natural law and by the divine law explicated in the Church's living tradition, that today's magisterial consensus against the employment of capital punishment by lawful authority is of the latter kind: a prudential judgment. Though I believe this is unintentional, Your pronouncements sometimes give the impression that capital punishment is contrary to human dignity, and may only morally be applied when it is the only means available to mitigate the harm a convicted criminal might inflict on society.
It is my understanding that this is not an accurate representation of Catholic social teaching. Not only do the Scriptures (of both Testaments) presuppose and illustrate the natural right of the state to execute capital criminals, but the tradition of the Church is consistent in its teaching that capital punishment serves a justly retributive end when applied to criminals who have committed particularly grave moral offenses (particularly, though not exclusively, murder). Some modern pronouncements on capital punishment which have emanated from the Holy See sometimes give the impression, by their wording, that those condemned of capital crimes have a right to life, and that capital punishment inherently violates human dignity, but it seems to me that when there are apparent contradictions in magisterial teaching, we are to employ what our present Holy Father has called "a hermeneutic of continuity," interpreting the current magisterium in light of, and not in contradiction to, the prior tradition. I have found the work of the late Avery Cardinal Dulles rather enlightening in applying this hermenutic to capital punishment.
Now, I appreciate that there are factors extrinsic to the death penalty which render its application undesirable, particularly in the light of modern circumstances. For instance, the prudential determination that it coarsens societal mores with regard to the respect for the sanctity of life. I understand and appreciate this determination, whatever private reservations I and other Catholics may have concerning it. My point, Your Excellencies, is that I wish that Your statements were clearer and more nuanced in this regard, that they made clear that capital offenders do not have a right to life, that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral (even when bloodless means are available to render an offender "harmless"), and that orthodox Catholics (and others of good will) may ethically disagree with Your prudential judgment on this matter.
My paramount concern is that Catholics who do not have as sophisticated an understanding of their faith might be led to draw false equivalences between capital punishment and, say, abortion, euthanasia, and other offenses which really are inherently evil and really do violate the right to life of innocent persons. My concerns are not hypothetical, but are based on the situations I and several of our Catholic brothers and sisters have encountered in trying to accurately portray the Church's social doctrine to those who would misuse Your episcopal pronouncements to justify such equivalences.
I appreciate Your taking the time to consider my concerns, and ask Your prayers for myself, my family, my work, and my studies, as I in turn continue to ask God's blessings on You and Your ministry of preaching the Gospel and administering Christ's mysteries to His people. Begging Your blessing, I remain
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Eric Giunta
© Eric Giunta
Human Events has just published an insightful and courageous piece by Rev. Michael Orsi of Ave Maria School of Law, wherein the good Father carefully elucidates the difference between perennial Christian teaching (reflecting immutable natural law) and prudential judgment in applying that teaching: "Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not a Right"
The courage of this piece should not be lost on readers. Fr. Orsi is a Catholic priest, and we can safely assume it was only after much moral reflection that he decided on composing this piece, a charitable critique of the United States Catholic Bishops' statements relating to public policy.
The truth must be embraced regardless of whose mouth it comes out of. Still, familiarity breeds contempt, and especially in light of recent history, the Bishops should be particularly precise and focused in their public remarks.
Sadly, such clarity and discretion continue to elude these statements. And the Bishops' endorsement of the Democrats' single-payer healthcare plan is just the latest example. Orthodox Catholics have long echoed the late Henry Hyde's characterization of the Bishops' Conference as "the Democratic Party at prayer," and while this is not strictly fair, it is true that the Bishops have never found a spending provision or government-enlargement proposal lacking their approval (unless such proposals have involved subsidization of culture-of-death liberalism).
Without commenting on the merits of the proposed health-care reforms it does seem evident that men of goodwill (orthodox Christians included) can subscribe to the same fundamental set of moral principles and come to a prudential disagreement on what policies best advance those principles. In her official statements the Catholic Church has always made the distinction between non-negotiable truths which bind the truth and prudential judgments, which are worthy of serious consideration but are not strictly binding. These distinctions are often blurred when bishops' statements on prudential matters are lifted from their overall pastoral context.
And so, for instance, no bishop has ever threatened Catholic politicians with ecclesiastical sanctions for supporting capital punishment or the Iraq War, despite the fact that such support contradicts the Church's official policy positions.
Father Orsi's latest article interests me for two reasons. For starters, in keeping with the noble tradition of Christian-democratic social teaching, he concedes that society does have a responsibility to provide care for the weak and the unfortunate:
-
The only [health] right that one human being owes to another is "medical care." This means care and treatment for an immediate need. For instance, a person has a right to expect that civil society would provide for an emergency appendectomy even if he is without sufficient means to pay for it. Biblical support for medical care can be found in the Golden Rule and the story of the Good Samaritan. On the other hand, while preventive medicine such as an annual check-up or the right to elective surgery may benefit some people no where is it found as binding in the natural law or the Christian tradition.
Secondly, Father Orsi's analysis reminded me of a letter I sent several months ago to the Florida Catholic Conference, to which I never received a reply. It concerned what was then the latest public pronouncement by the Florida bishops on the imminent execution of a heinous murderer. I believed, and still do, that their statement lacked the proper nuance displayed in Fr. Orsi's Human Events piece, and so failed to do full justice to authentic Catholic social teaching.
I reproduce below my correspondence in full, in the form of an open letter:
Your Excellencies:
As a practicing Catholic of the Miami Province, I wish to share some thoughts and concerns I have with regard to Your routine pronouncements on state executions of capital offenders.
Having as I do a literate grasp of the history of Catholic doctrinal development, and a well-researched understanding of why the Church has adopted the positions she has in applying her social doctrine to the circumstances of today, I am concerned that in Your pronouncements on some issues there are not sufficient clarifications made between immutable moral principles and prudential judgments.
It is my understanding, by the natural law and by the divine law explicated in the Church's living tradition, that today's magisterial consensus against the employment of capital punishment by lawful authority is of the latter kind: a prudential judgment. Though I believe this is unintentional, Your pronouncements sometimes give the impression that capital punishment is contrary to human dignity, and may only morally be applied when it is the only means available to mitigate the harm a convicted criminal might inflict on society.
It is my understanding that this is not an accurate representation of Catholic social teaching. Not only do the Scriptures (of both Testaments) presuppose and illustrate the natural right of the state to execute capital criminals, but the tradition of the Church is consistent in its teaching that capital punishment serves a justly retributive end when applied to criminals who have committed particularly grave moral offenses (particularly, though not exclusively, murder). Some modern pronouncements on capital punishment which have emanated from the Holy See sometimes give the impression, by their wording, that those condemned of capital crimes have a right to life, and that capital punishment inherently violates human dignity, but it seems to me that when there are apparent contradictions in magisterial teaching, we are to employ what our present Holy Father has called "a hermeneutic of continuity," interpreting the current magisterium in light of, and not in contradiction to, the prior tradition. I have found the work of the late Avery Cardinal Dulles rather enlightening in applying this hermenutic to capital punishment.
Now, I appreciate that there are factors extrinsic to the death penalty which render its application undesirable, particularly in the light of modern circumstances. For instance, the prudential determination that it coarsens societal mores with regard to the respect for the sanctity of life. I understand and appreciate this determination, whatever private reservations I and other Catholics may have concerning it. My point, Your Excellencies, is that I wish that Your statements were clearer and more nuanced in this regard, that they made clear that capital offenders do not have a right to life, that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral (even when bloodless means are available to render an offender "harmless"), and that orthodox Catholics (and others of good will) may ethically disagree with Your prudential judgment on this matter.
My paramount concern is that Catholics who do not have as sophisticated an understanding of their faith might be led to draw false equivalences between capital punishment and, say, abortion, euthanasia, and other offenses which really are inherently evil and really do violate the right to life of innocent persons. My concerns are not hypothetical, but are based on the situations I and several of our Catholic brothers and sisters have encountered in trying to accurately portray the Church's social doctrine to those who would misuse Your episcopal pronouncements to justify such equivalences.
I appreciate Your taking the time to consider my concerns, and ask Your prayers for myself, my family, my work, and my studies, as I in turn continue to ask God's blessings on You and Your ministry of preaching the Gospel and administering Christ's mysteries to His people. Begging Your blessing, I remain
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Eric Giunta
© Eric Giunta
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
