On Friday, CNN published a brief article describing the differences between John F. Kennedy and John F. Kerry in the eyes of Catholic voters. The moral of the story is pretty obvious at this point. Namely, more observant Catholics favored Bush by 13 points because of his conservative stances on social issues like abortion. What hasn't been so obvious is this.
"Only 29 percent of churchgoing Catholics favor the death penalty for murder. Among less observant Catholics, nearly two-thirds support the death penalty."
This took me very much by surprise and should have surprised the author as well. I had to re-read it a couple times for it to sink in. Opposition to the death penalty is something more often associated with the left side of the spectrum, with the occasional moderate exception, such as myself. There's a known correlation, which the article mentions, between regular church attendance and support for conservative causes. Why, then, do so many wishy-washy Catholics support the death penalty?
I think the author wrote the wrong story – the less interesting one.
Thoughts? Comments?
” My point was: if you’re wishy-washy, then you’re wishy-washy, and that point still stands.”
I’m still a little mystified by that line–from what was said above, there is room for active support of the death penalty (e.g., as in opposing its abolishment) in a 1st World Country, albeit cautiously. The term wishy-washy is getting thrown around promiscuously. 🙂 How is Dulles on weak ground over there?
Funky asks:
Why, then, do so many wishy-washy Catholics support the death penalty?
Because they’re wishy-washy. Duh! The current teaching is clear: the death penalty is not necessary for morality, justice, and the preservation of civiliation, ergo it ought not be practiced. Catholics (sic) who reserve the right to overrule the clear teaching of the church couldn’t care less, ergo they’re wishy-washy.
My $0.02
I think the average American supports the death penalty, though not strongly (although I haven’t any stats to back this up). It stands to reason that non-observant Catholics, because there are so many of them, average out to be, well, average. So it seems that they simply follow the patterns of the rest of society. Observant Catholics, on the other hand, are much more likely to listen to the Holy Father’s opinions on the matter than the GOP’s, even though they do agree with the GOP on any number of other issues.
I also think it’s somewhat artificial to put Catholic politics into a conservative box. The nation’s stances on any number of issues have changed greatly over the past few decades, whereas the Catholic positions really haven’t. The appellatives “conservative” and “liberal” are ever-changing, whereas Catholic morality and political thought don’t change much. American conservatism has been formed around a Protestant mold, and as such, doesn’t fit Catholicism well. For example, America is fiercely individualistic, which I tend to believe has a lot to do with the Protestant sensibilities (if not doctrines) of the Founding Fathers. Luther introduced a radical rethinking of man’s relationship with God; strictly a me-and-Christ approach which tended to throw out the communal, ecclesial relaions with the Trinity. Catholicism can’t exist without a common relationship with the Lord; we ask that God remember the merits of the saints, and we believe that the prayers of the faithful are efficacious at achieving salvation for others, whereas the Reformers believed (at the risk of oversimplifying) that one’s individual relationship with Christ is what saved. Just look at the back page of a Chick tract (I’m really not implying that all Protestants are like Jack Chick). Say that little prayer and mean it, and you’re good to go. In Catholicism, say a prayer, and you might be okay, but to be more sure, get baptized and receive the Eucharist to be assimilated to the Mystical Body of Christ. Where is this all going? America takes its cues from Protestant ideals of individualism, rejecting dependence upon others as necessary. You can see this in the U.S. public’s worship of the idol of democracy. (Not to open up a whole new can of worms, but) Catholicism and democracy simply do not mesh particularly well, while Protestantism and democracy are a perfect fit.
It is worth noting that Kerry is staunchly opposed to the death penalty. I was very surprised that never came up in the debates.
Revenge is fun.
Giving up revenge requires that we seriously consider the claims Christ makes on us, including on our need for retribution.
Definitely the author wrote the less-interesting article.
Steve, you overstate your case: the death penalty may be necessary to preserve the safety of the state’s citizens. Many Catholics, including the Pope, think that the death penalty is not necessary for a 1st-World nation, and thus oppose it in the US for most, if not all circumstances (I fall in the “Most” category).
So those who do support the death penalty are not in violation of “the clear teaching of the church” as you said, nor it is wholly unncessary for justice, etc., as you had earlier asserted as well.
The last paragraph was not properly word: those who support the death penalty are not necessarily in violation of the church. Bush seems in violation, and evidently, even Santorum is getting wary of the system. But there is room for supporting the penalty on some level, unlike abortion.
Tom, I disagree. Democracy is a loose term: do you mean a simple majority rule? If so, it doesn’t fit anyone well, as it isn’t even individualistic. If the mob doesn’t like you or your opinions, and majority rule is the only rule, that’s it.
Just about any reasonably liberal government tends to be a republic, whether or not you still have dukes or monarchs floating around. The balancing of individual rights with the demands of the public is not a problem with the Church, which teaches both an eternal truth but also mercy for individuals. I’m not sure what you see as a problem with democarcy, Tom, since rampant individualism is anarchy, not democracy. Democracy’s problem is rather a mob rule, as Plato (whose master was lynched by a democracy) noted. Then again, a mob is what did in our Savior, huh?
Democracy, while often touted by various politicians, is not really what we ever see, it’s a republic. And America, if not Europe, is a republic that often commends its martyrs in the military and also those who died or suffered for domestic struggles. M.L. King is probably the best recent example of that. But this can get us into the separate problem of America as a religion (which some neocons are arguably guilty of), but any political system can be idolized. But so can anything that is not God, so that’s nothing special about political systems.
Yeah, Jerry, I meant that: i.e., the “first world nation” bit. I’m aware that difference of opinion on the death penalty goes pretty high up, and it is merely prudential. Even seen Cardinal Dulles be pretty “wishy-washy” on it recently. But I’d have to say that active support of the death penalty in a 1st world country is different than agreeing it might theoretically become again “prudential” to have it. My point was: if you’re wishy-washy, then you’re wishy-washy, and that point still stands.
Cheers!