This topic started to make some headway in the Comments section on my Catholic Peace post. It a point worth bringing to the forefront.
Capital Punishment is executing someone who is guilty of a crime. It is a valid punishment according to the Catholic Church. CCC 2267 states that “the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”
This is in a similar thread to war. As we examined in the last post, warfare could, in theory, be just.
However, what is the purpose of the punishment? Is it for revenge for the crime? Is it to “give justice” to the victim’s family? No.
The purpose of punishment is to make things right. It is to make a disordered situation ordered again. What about “giving justice to the victim’s family?” Isn’t that what I just said? No again.
Punishment is to make things right in the grand scheme of things. With most capital offenses, someone was killed. Making that situation right would for the deceased to rise again. The next aspect of making things right would be to preserve the common good from then forward.
In a different age, preserving the common good would equate to the death penality in many circumstances, hence why is is allowable by the Church. That being said, in the world in which we live, the death penality is no longer the only course of action we have in perserving the peace of the society.
In the Church, one of the pillar truths that we build our moral law upon is the dignity of the human person. Each person is a human person, with a soul, created by God, no better or worse than any other among us. They might have done evil things and have fallen deep into the darkness with thought; however, they all still have the immortal soul created by God. He loves everyone. We should strive to do the same.
The death penality was used, in my mind morally, when no matter what other course of action was taken, the lives of other people were constantly in danger. It is related to legitimate self-defense. If the only way to perserve the lives of others was to end this life, then the fundamental love towards oneself was key. The intention was not to kill the person on death row, but to save the lives of all others.
The death penality is used now, immorally, when in our society we have the means and the ability to “lock someone up and throw away the key”. As John Paul II says, when there are bloodless ways of making things right, i.e. perserving the public good, then we must execute those ways. Our understanding of the dignity of the human person does not allow us to use death as an option when it is not the only option.
Although the Catechism and traditional Church teachings tell us that we can use capital punishment without falling into sin, that is the broadest application of moral law.
This is one of the differences between the American mindset and the Catholic mindset. The American mindset is to have a law, follow the letter of the law and we’ll all be happy. If we’re at a red light at 4 a.m. with not a car around us, we tend to stay at the red light until it turns green. In Italy, the mindset looks at the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to maintain order while driving as so both directions of traffic have a protected throughfare. The spirit of the law does not prohibit one from running a red light when he or she is the only one there. This is true of the Church as well.
The Church gives us this moral directive: Capital punishment is not wrong, but only must be used to protect the common good and be in proportion to the crime. We see this as being what it is: The Church saying it’s okay for us to use it since we are protecting the common good and it is a proportional response.
However, the spirit of the law is different. The law is telling us that, under the gravest of circumstances, we may be forced to use the dealth penality. In those cases, it is acceptable. Those situations do exist. If we lived in a small village in a third world country, someone has just killed another member of the community. He did it out of cold blood and he wants to do it again. The only way we have to restrain him is by using our hands and our usual form of grave punishment would be to exile him. There is reasonable knowledge that if we tell him to go, he will instead go into hiding to plan and then execute his next murder. While this is a very simplified example, it could be said that capital punishment would be allowable.
It is for that reason the Church says that it allows capital punishment. In the United States, however, we have prisons. We do not need this provision. We can maintain the criminal’s human dignity while also maintaing the common good. We are not trapped between the moral rock of dignity and the hard place of the common good. We do not need to exercise a “last option” clause.
We, as Americans, have used loopholes to allow us to continue doing immortal acts. Our criminal justice system needs to be reformed to raise the dignity of the person to the focus of our penalities and punshiments.

One of our stops while at Notre Dame was the opening session of the Catholic Peace Fellowship conference. One of Vanessa’s previous professors gave the opening talk. The conference topic, The Soldiers Came Asking: Christians in the Iraq War, was a time-sensitive topic and it was obvious that the group was not about peace chatter but peace actions.
The conference, which could be seen as part of a Catholic radical movement, professed that war should no longer take place. “Christ said what you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me. Right now, we are going and killing other people in war.”
How much do I personally agree with this? Honestly, I do not know. I do not like to see the death, the bloodshed, the pain, or the after-effects of war. At the same time, there is a need for the “legitimate defense by military force” as cited in the Just War Theory (CCC 2309)
This post is an attempt to crystallize my beliefs on the topic (to steal diction from the DoD, as noted from AFI 36-3204 among others).
First, I am going to look at the broader picture and work my way towards the exact.
Do situations exist which could merit the removal of power of a dictator or the defense of a country against aggressors?
Yes. Men with evil intentions or simply evil men rise up to power. They can and do abuse that power. They commit evil acts upon his people and upon innocents of other countries. Those people should not be in power.
Who should be the ones to act upon such an evil?
As Christians, we are called to action and prayer to end all evil wherever it may be. Our prayers should not be prayers of hate; we should ask God for the conversion of their souls and for the safekeeping of those under their care. Our actions must be in accordance with what the Gospel professes.
Therefore, is a just war possible?
Strictly speaking, yes. The Catechism has a clear-cut rubric for defining whether an act of war is just or not. The standards for a just war, as defined in the Catechism, are for those looking out for the common good, which are the governments. As Christians, however, we must look beyond our heads of state as to determine what conditions exist for a just war.
What other conditions, besides CCC 2309, exist for a just war?
First and foremost, all actions taken in war must maintain the dignity of the human person. Every person must be seen as a member or potential member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Death should be seen as the final and absolute last option. Torture or abuse should never be considered much less carried out. We must take care that if we are forced to act with force, we must- both as a country and as individuals soldiers- act properly. If a military force, at any level, violates the dignity of a human person, then the war is no longer just. This condition may seem overly strict but it is that way deliberately.
In that case, is there ever a just war in reality?
Perhaps not. The European Theatre in WWII may have been the closest if it was not one.
How are we to rid the world of evil?
In our society, law enforcement has progressed past hanging someone in courthouse square a few hours after capturing him. In an equal way, we must advance past the use of deadly force and try to advance global peacekeeping to a new level. In the Prayer of St. Francis, we pray that “where there is hatred, let me sow love.” The use of force does not equal tough love.
What are we called to do as individual Catholics?
We are called to be the peacemakers. What does this mean? That is something for your conscience to figure out.
What about my personal thoughts on war?
A just war could possibly exist. I do not think we are currently engaged in one and doubt that there will be one anytime soon. The outcome might be good; however, the end does not justify the means. No end, no matter how great or glorious, justify the means. Between the warhawk-style of entry without a clear global mandate, no realistic direct threat or action against U.S. by Iraq and a constantly changing reason for sending troops, I think the United States did not go to war in the right manner. With the abuses we have heard about in the mainstream press and those we have not yet heard, the war is not being carried out in a just manner on the front itself. With our government skirting around international treaties, or at the least finding loopholes, the war is not just from an administrative perspective. The defensive characteristic of this war can be questioned as well; it is an argument that I am not prepared to engage myself in though.
Am I going to run to protest the war on the Mall in D.C.? Probably not. Will I aggressively counter-recruit military prospects? Probably not, although, making sure young kids who are signing up know all the options out there is laudable.

---

It is also true that peace is more than the absence of war or a balance of power (Gaudium et Spes, 78). True peace and justice are in the same spirit. For peace to reign supreme, all men must be equal and must be treated as such. We, as individuals, must constantly be striving towards a mastering of self. Our passions, prejudices and vices must all be mastered so that we can be beacons of peace and love to all that we meet. It is a concept that I fail to live.
Gaudium et Spes says it better than I could:

A firm determination to respect other men and peoples and their dignity, as well as the studied practice of brotherhood are absolutely necessary for the establishment of peace. Hence peace is likewise the fruit of love, which goes beyond what justice can provide.
That earthly peace which arises from love of neighbor symbolizes and results from the peace of Christ which radiates from God the Father. For by the cross the incarnate Son, the prince of peace reconciled all men with God. By thus restoring all men to the unity of one people and one body, He slew hatred in His own flesh; and, after being lifted on high by His resurrection, He poured forth the spirit of love into the hearts of men.
For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace and bringing it about.

When we discuss peace, we can be the “little heads of state” that we all think we are, but first, we must be the head of state of our own hearts. Being an instrument of peace is to be an instrument of love for true peace has origin in God the Father and it is he who is love.

November 2nd, All Souls’ Day, is one of the few occasions where black vestments are allowed by the Church (the other are liturgies for the dead: funerals and the like). While I’ve never actually seen black vestments in use, I am interested in learning more about their usage.

While at Notre Dame, I saw a set of black vestments on display at the museum attached to the basilica and the homily at St. Austin’s yesterday made mention to them as something thrown out with good reason.

The more I think about them and reflect upon what symbolism they could still represent, the more I would like to see them used more.

Black vestments “fell out of style” during the post-Vatican II reforms. Along with the liturgy and the calendar, vestments were changed as well.

Traditionally, black vestments were worn on Good Friday and Offices of the Dead (inclusive of funerals). During the post-Vatican II reforms, red vestments were permitted for Good Friday and violet or white were allowed for funerals and the like.

Black vestments were mostly set to gather dust in the closet if kept at all. In addition to being cheaper, since vestments are rather expensive, there is a sound theological reason not to use the black. White vestments symbolize the resurrection and new life. Death is the passing from this life to the new life in Christ and so white vestments would be proper.

However, the mourning that black vestments represent is just equally as proper. Today, we speak of God’s saving grace being the first and foremost and so we should be joyful at an occasion of his grace being used to save one of us. God’s grace is what saves us, without it, we would truly receive what we deserve which is eternal damnation. That being said, the mourning of the black vestments is still proper. Death is a sad event, although it can be joyful as we think of our loved ones ascending to the heavenly banquet.

We are not instantly canonized. The white, symbolizing our new life, is a sign of our, we pray, soon-to-be “canonization” after death. However, black vestments symbolize that we’re not there yet, we need prayers and that it’s acceptable to mourn. If we all were instantly canonized at the moment of death, All Souls’ Day would have no purpose. We would celebrate and remember our dead through All Saints’ Day exclusively. We pray that all who we mourn for will be raised to the altars and through God’s saving grace, I hope and believe that most will. Our prayers for the faithful departed that they may rest in the peace of Christ are still needed; it’s not something pre-Vatican II that we can ignore in the 21st century.

Likewise, I am not at all saying that we shouldn’t use white, but simply offering that we shouldn’t be so quickly to ignore the option of black vestments. As No. 39 of the General Introdution to the Order of Christian Funerals (the actual name of the funeral rite) states:

The liturgical color chosen for funerals should express Christian hope but should not be offensive to human grief or sorrow.

All of that being said, personally, I think I would want something like the following:
Office of the Dead:
I haven’t personally seen this done, but it’s something I personally like. Usually, there are a few days between death and the full funeral rite (vigil, liturgy and burial). Somewhere in that time, having an Evening Prayer of the Office of the Dead would be nice. If a deacon or priest is able to lead it, I would like alb/surplice with a black stole and black cope. As mentioned in the Order of Christian Funerals, the timing of the Office can vary. For example, if the funeral is the evening before burial, Morning Prayer would be proper before the rite of committal. The Office of the Dead would be a time of mourning and prayer. The prayer would be directed to God through the psalms and reading handed down to us. It would help soothe our grief, reminding us of God’s infinite love. Also, it would be a prayer towards God asking for the repose of the soul that has now left this earth. I would wish to be a private affair, close family members and friends only.

Part 1: Vigil for the Deceased
This is usually done in the funeral home chapel and is known also as the “Christian Wake”. Many familes have a rosary instead. I would much prefer to have an actual vigil. The priest, in accordance with whatever the norms are at the time, should be dressed with alb/surplice with a black stole.
The vigil itself would go in the usual fashion. Greeting, song, prayer, scripture, prayer, Our Father, prayer and blessing.
This would be the first “public” service. While most people would wait until the funeral liturgy itself, this would be an occasion for those who would be unable to attend to pray in the presence of the deceased and a chance to offer condolences to the family. The goals of this rite would be similar to the Office of the Dead mentioned above as well prayer with the deceased, keeping vigil over the body until funeral liturgy would take place. Traditionally, the vigil would last until the funeral the next morning. Modern circumstances do not usually merit the traditional treatment, which is fine with me (It is still a laudable tradition nonetheless).

Part 2: The Funeral Liturgy
The liturgy would begin at the funeral home with the Transfer of the Body to the Church: a short reading and prayers. The procession would head to the church.
The Liturgy would include reception at the church and Mass. As far as vestments are concerned, I am mixed. At the funeral and burial, I could see the desire for white vestments to be used. The Church is bringing the deceased in a special way towards the resurrection of Christ, that is, the grief is met by the Eucharstic Sacrifice. The sorrow of death is met by the joy of the Risen Christ. At the same time, it is a great catechetical opportunity that could be futhered by black vestments. The more I ponder it, I would say white would be better. While we don’t know the state of the soul, white can be used to symbolize the hope of his rising to new life.

Part 3: Rite of Committal
This is the “final act of the community of faith in caring for the body of its deceased member” (No. 204). It is the short graveside service consisting of scripture and prayer. As this is usually directly following the Liturgy, vestments from Mass would be proper, with the exception of the chasuble.

In the Catholic tradition, the first anniversary of a death is usually remembered by a votive Mass. For future celebrations, I would probably remain with white vestments.
Remember to pray for the faithful departed.

As part of the trip to Notre Dame, we explored Chicago and with it, the Chicago Transit system. The experience on the “L” included some random incidents.
After we landed, almost 90 minutes late, at O’Hare, we were going to meet Vanessa, our host, at Wrigley’s Field. We knew that we had to take the Blue Line from O’Hare to the Addison stop. From there, we would get on a bus to the actual field. As planned, we exited at the Addison Blue Line station. We realize that frankly, we weren’t exactly sure which way to take the bus. We had a good idea, but checking something like that isn’t a bad thing.
We ask the station operator in the booth. An old gentleman, maybe 70 years old, steps out and tells us that “we’re way way off”. He tells us that we need to continue on the Blue Line until the loop, transfer to the Red and head out to 35th street.
Since it was our first trip to Chicago, we didn’t argue. We relayed a change in plans- to meet downtown to save time- to Vanessa and headed back on the Blue Line.
After meeting up, we shared our story with Vanessa with me adding in that I had no idea how I was so off with determining the right stops.
“We got off at Addison and were told we were at the wrong stop.”
“Wrigley Field is on Addison! I was waiting for you on Addison.”
“What?”
We looked into the situation further. Wrigley Field is on Addison. U.S. Cellular Field (White Sox Field) is just off the Sox-35th Stop of the Red Line.
Did he hear us wrong? Or was it something to do with the rivalry between the Cubs and the White Sox? Who knows but just a taste of what was standard for our dealings with the Chicago Transit Authority.

Just a short post this afternoon from Notre Dame, IN. So far, it has been an amazing trip with a fun evening in Chicago and a couple of great tours of the campus. This morning, we sat in a Christian Traditions class that was quite stimulating followed by various tours- Catholicism all abound. Our host, Vanessa, was able to get a tour guide to open the usually-locked Log Chapel.
I’ll discuss all these things in more details later- must be off to continue the weekend!