Over the weekends of May it is common to be invited to a first communion liturgy. My own son’s first communion was held at a special 2 pm mass on the first Sunday of May. My nephew Joseph’s first communion, however, was scheduled to take place in the context of the regular Sunday morning liturgy at his parish. The church is also undergoing some major renovation so all of the pews have been removed and the church can only seat about half of its normal capacity. Suffice it to say that when we arrived about fifteen minutes before mass time the church was abuzz with conversation, family members trying to find grandma and grandpa, the choir practicing, and the clanking of folding chairs and babies crying.
I imagined that some of the gathered visitors were wondering whether the congregation would ever quiet down and settle itself to enter into the holy and celebrate the sacred mysteries.
Nevertheless, when the cantor announced the gathering hymn and the congregation stood and began to sing along the Easter hymn, the assembled body took on a different demeanor. With the procession of the cross, candles, gospel book, first communicant class, gospel book, and presider, the gathered body soon began to take shape as “church”. Despite the peculiar acoustics and the awkward seating, the priest intoned the greeting in song, “The Lord be with you” and we responded with a resounding “and also with you.” The pastor welcomed everyone and made note of the first communicants.
This was then followed by the Gloria; the cantor intoned the ancient hymn and the congregation sang the refrain. Besides piano and guitar a nice addition was the sound of bongo drums. Unlike some parishes where only the cantor sings the verses, seemingly the entire church was singing the hymn.
While the Gloria was sung, the pastor, accompanied by one of the servers bearing a holy water pail, went throughout the church sprinkling holy water on all gathered.
By the last lines of the Gloria: For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen. The entire church was alive with a fervor not found in every parish. The concluding refrain of Glory to God in the Highest and peace to His people on earth echoed through the nave and reverberated for a second or two before the priest intoned the “Let us pray….”
A reverent silence filled the space as it seemed every eye, ear, and heart was attuned to prayer. After the opening prayer another amen sounded forth as the people quietly seated themselves.
Gracefully and without fanfare a young man seated in the middle of the church stood and made his way to the ambo where he beautifully proclaimed the first reading. Afterwards he left the sanctuary and returned to his seat. A reverent silence followed. Then one of the choir members came to the ambo and chanted the refrain of the responsorial psalm; the congregation repeated the verse at his invitation. After the psalm, another period for silent reflection followed. Then a woman near the front of the church stood and walked to the sanctuary where she proclaimed the second reading with great reverence. After she returned to her seat the holy silence reigned until the deacon stood and bowed before the priest for a blessing. The cantor intoned the alleluia and the congregation stood. The deacon, now accompanied by two candle bearers walked to the main altar where the gospel book stood. He picked it up and held it high for all to see as he walked around the altar and down to the front of the sanctuary before ascending the sanctuary steps. The alleluia verses continued for some time and the deacon deliberately took his time reaching the ambo. With the congregation on its feet the alleluia came to a flourishing conclusion. The deacon proclaimed the Gospel and when complete he once again held the book aloft for all to see as the cantor intoned the alleluia once more.
The homily followed whereby the congregation received an exhortation to go forth and live the message of Christ, called to be the Body of Christ in a hungry world. All were encouraged to recall the close connection between baptism and first communion.
After a renewal of our baptismal promises and the intercessory prayers, the Liturgy of the Word had come to a close and the Liturgy of the Eucharist was about to begin.
We were all invited to come forward with our gifts and place them before the altar. The choir led the church in song as the assembled came forward to the altar. Though there was some noise from the metal folding chairs, it was the sound of a church in procession, a pilgrim people moving forward toward Christ. While this act was taking place the altar was being prepared for the Eucharistic Prayer.
The gifts of bread and wine were brought forth at the presentation of the gifts by the fist communicants and they then gathered about the altar. The presider then invited all to stand. Then he began to sing the mass, “The Lord be with you,” and all sang in reply: And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God. It is right to give him thanks and praise.
If we truly believe that lex orandi, lex credendi, then truly this liturgical experience was proof of that axiom for as soon as the priest and congregation began the liturgical dialogue of the Eucharistic prayer something began to happen: something mystical, something holy. The fact that the priest sang the entire Eucharistic prayer is of great significance. Indeed the way we pray does something to us, indeed prayer changes us. Though I was at prayer during mass it was difficult for me to not observe the change that was occurring to those gathered for mass – including myself.
Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I am not convinced that as the priest prays this prayer not only are the bread and wine changed, but we are changed as well, so as to become his body here on earth.
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.
When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
The memorial acclamation was sung heartily by all: When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
While Father continued to sing the Eucharistic prayer the choir began to sing. Their voices started in low but continued to build into Lord hear us, Lord hear our prayer.
In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.
At this father paused and the cantor and choir led the congregation in the chant of lord hear us, Lord hear our prayer.
Father continued:
Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with {Benedict} our Pope, {name of local bishop}, our bishop, and all the clergy.
Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.
Again the refrain of “Lord hear us, Lord hear our prayer” resounded through the
church.
Through him, with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen!
Happily the great amen was undeniably great for the assembled believers had all just taken part in one great act of prayer. Though Eucharistic Prayer II is the shortest of all Eucharistic prayers there was no lack of grace present in the church this morning. By the end of the prayer I felt a unity with all those gathered, as if we had all together encountered something unique and holy. We had been plunged into the paschal Mystery of the dying and rising of Christ, we had united our lives to that of Christ and he who shared in our humanity had allowed us to share in his divinity.
If it is true that our prayer determines our belief and event he way we live then the celebration of the Eucharist has confirmed this beautifully.
The “Our Father” was then prayed by all in unison with one voice, symbolizing the unity that had been brought about by the liturgy. At the Communion Rite the church, that is the Body of Christ, approached the Eucharistic ministers so as to receive the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, so as to most fully become the Body of Christ, and to truly become what we receive.
Now why do I go into such detail describing the Sunday Mass? Perhaps because some Catholics have yet to experience the beauty and grace of the liturgy properly executed.
In no way shape or form am I speaking disparaging of the Tridentine Liturgy or the faith of those who were very attached to the old mass. What I am concerned about are those who seem to be clamoring for the Latin Mass but have no recollection of it from the past but seem to desire the Tridentine Rite for personal reasons.
There is a romantic concept that with the reintroduction of the Latin Mass, people will be more spiritual and reverent and more people will return to church. The problems and challenges the Church faces today will not single-handedly be corrected with the celebration of the Latin Mass.
Theological musings can be found in Henri De Lubac’s Méditation sur l’Eglise written nearly a decade before the Second Vatican Council convened:
“The Church is a mystery of faith” and as such “it follows that we cannot run away whenever we feel like it into another age – not even if we don’t actually intend a negative attitude in doing so. We cannot avoid the problems of our own day, any more than we can excuse ourselves from its tasks or run away from its battles. If we are to live in the Church (for we are the Church as Pope Pius XIII has reminded us in Mystici Corporis Christi), then we have to become involved in with the problems she faces now, and the assent of our intelligence is owed to her doctrine as we find it set out today. It would be a big mistake for us to think that we could ever rediscover the faith of the past in its exact tenor and all its richness, at the expense of all that has been clarified since…for time cannot be reversed; even error and revolt, however complete their overthrow, impose a new lifestyle and a different emphasis on the life of faith, as on the expression of truth” (The Splendor of the Church, pp 20-21, Henri De Lubac, Ignatius Press, San Francisco: 1986).
Saturday, September 6, 2008
How does one reconcile the traditional church position regarding the death penalty with John Paul II’s argument in Evangelium Vitae?
How does one reconcile the traditional church position regarding the death penalty with John Paul II’s argument in Evangelium Vitae? What do St. Augustine and St. Thomas say about the death penalty? What positions do contemporary moral theologians take? What has Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said about the death penalty? Is the Church’s current teaching teaching on capital punishment a contradiction or a repudiation of its past support?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains capital punishment in these words: “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When the guilty party willingly accepts it, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.[1]
The catechism continues: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor [i.e., the convicted murderer], authority [should] limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.[2]
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent’.”[3]
In John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, (The Gospel of Life), he stated that “the nature and extent of the punishment [for capital crimes] must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity; in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements to the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”[4]
The paragraph in the second (1997) edition of the Catechism reads: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (2267). This replaces the first (1992) edition, which said: “the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty”[5] (Emphasis mine). This change in the second edition of the Catechism was clearly influenced by the pope’s 1995 encyclical.
John Paul further elaborated on his opposition to the death penalty in a pastoral visit to the U.S. “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently…for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”[6]
Many who oppose the death penalty place it alongside abortion and euthanasia as to be equally condemned. However, in 1983 Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his Consistent Ethic of Life, made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion and euthanasia.[7] And as recently as 2004, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia…. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”[8] (Emphasis mine).
According to the Catechism, in situations where the death penalty is morally permissible,[9] it is left to those who have public responsibility to make such a decision whether the conditions in a particular case justifies execution. When John Paul wrote: “such cases [of executing the criminal] are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (EV no. 56), it is important to note that the phrase “very rare” and “practically non-existent” does not translate as non-existent.
It may seem that Church teaching is ambiguous concerning capital punishment, especially in light of Pope John Paul’s encyclical and Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo where he wrote “a legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding capital punishment may exist. How do (we as) theologians interpret such diversity?
Scripture is often mentioned in support of the death penalty. The passage from Exodus: “An eye for eye,” is most often cited. Opponents quote Ezekiel (33:11): “As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live.” In fact, there are many more offenses that were capital crimes, such as adultery or striking or cursing a parent. Nevertheless, there seems to be a progression of mercy, such as is in Ezekiel and in the New Testament’s Sermon on the Mount where Jesus focuses on mercy and reconciliation, rather than the stringent requirements of capital justice.
In the early Church Christians refused to participate in war and capital punishment, but when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. “Tertullian argued that Christians should refrain from participation in civil government, because, among other things, it would entail the condemnation and execution of criminals…” and “Saint Ambrose, in a letter written to a magistrate concerning capital punishment, Ambrose instructed that the example of Jesus and the adulteress should be followed as a model.”[10]
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued in favor of the death penalty because, as he believed, it would deter the wicked and protect society. St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century A.D.: The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions as when God authorizes...the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law...[11] St. Thomas Aquinas responded in part: We observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away…the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death’ for the sake of the common good.[12]
In the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, commenting on the Fifth Commandment, it states: “The prohibition does not apply to the civil magistrate, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which he punishes the guilty and protects the innocent. The just use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment that prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.[13]
Recently it has been argued that, “It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes and numerous catechisms is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).
Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree, ‘The State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death’.”[14]
Yet even Augustine was willing to make exceptions. While he supports the right of the state to use capital punishment, he urged: “Do not have a person put to death, and you will have someone who can be reformed.”[15] “This is mirrored in Evangelium Vitae in paragraph 27, to seek to render “criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”
For those who claim that there is no precedence for a pope to question the legitimacy of capital punishment, the ninth-century Pope St. Nicholas I taught: “Without hesitation and in every possible circumstance, save the life of the body and soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul (emphasis mine).”[16] So Pope John Paul II was not completely breaking from tradition.
Also consider that in American society the death penalty is often pursued as a method of retaliation rather than divine justice; hence John Paul’s critique of such application. John Paul, in his encyclical and many other speeches and homilies was principally concerned that capital punishment further eroded the respect for the dignity of human life.
I further agree with Professor David Smolin when he states: “The death penalty should generally not be employed, he (Pope John Paul) seems to imply, both because it is no longer necessary to the protective function of the state, and also because its use (particularly when unnecessary to protect human life) has the inadvertent cultural impact of furthering the culture of death represented by practices such as abortion and euthanasia”(emphasis mine). However, in spite of the attractiveness of that argument, I, like Smolin, can also agree with [Supreme Court] Justice Scalia when he suggests that “the popularity of the death penalty in the United States is a sign that Americans still discern God’s authority over and behind the state; from this perspective maintenance of the death penalty is a helpful antidote to the democratic tendency to forget that God’s authority (rather than the people’s authority) is the ultimate foundation of state authority.”[17]
It does seem a paradox that one can appreciate both the pope’s belief that the death penalty seemingly perpetuates the culture of death and others’ argument, [like Justice Scalia’s], that considers the death penalty a tangible sign of God’s ultimate authority over human life.
However, Professor Steven Long argues, as long as “wrongful homicide” [abortion] is “legally affirmed and protected as a right” then the “primary medicinal end of the death penalty” is obstructed from view due to the “radical [cultural] devaluation of life.”[18]
I would agree that the application of the death penalty does, in reality, add to the killing of our culture of death; instead of fostering justice for the common good, as St. Thomas argued, justice is actually hampered due to a lack of an understanding of the dignity of human life. In other words, capital punishment may still be biblically and theologically valid, but “the prudence of its application is affected by the culture of death.”[19] Pope John Paul II taught that justice could only be found when and where every human life is “respected, protected, loved, and served.” He asked, “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? (EV no. 20)”[20]
What, I believe, John Paul II was emphasizing in Evangelium Vitae was the intrinsic dignity of the human person, especially in our modern culture that has compromised human dignity, particularly through abortion and euthanasia. Therefore, I argue, as do others, that in order to redress the harm – indeed the injustice and evil – wrought by abortion and euthanasia, we ought not impose the death penalty so as to emphasize that all human life is sacred – guilty and non-guilty.
Yet, it is important for the critics of the death penalty to recall what Avery Cardinal Dulles of Fordham University said: “The Catholic Magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.”[21]
One could argue that the death penalty does more harm than good given our current cultural situation where there is such an unparalleled contempt for human life. In Evangelium Vitae John Paul II argues that the use of capital punishment will not improve our society due to its widespread acceptance of abortion and the mentality of a culture of death. In fact, “the death penalty may in fact reinforce our worst instincts, so that it is more medicinal not to inflict such punishment” because the death penalty reinforces “a notion that life is expendable.”[22]
Consequently, this would explain why the teaching of the Catechism maintains that refraining from the death penalty is more in keeping with the current societal conditions of the common good. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger explained the current teaching along similar lines: “Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue [the death penalty] as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances.”[23]
This clearly underlines John Paul’s assertion that “If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment ‘You shall not kill’ has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person.”[24] (Italics mine). Therefore if the state withholds execution of those who deserve death, this act will drive home the sanctity of each and every human life, especially the unborn – those who are innocent of a crime and have done nothing to merit death.
Although this teaching is not taught infallibly, Catholics should still seek religious submission of mind and will to the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.[25]
There are those who argue for the application of capital punishment with recourse to the right and duty of legitimate public authority to safeguard human dignity and promote the common good; others argue against capital punishment on grounds of human dignity and the common good.
Abortion and euthanasia both take innocent lives; capital punishment takes the lives of convicted murderers. Therefore there is an amount of toleration for diversity of opinion concerning capital punishment. However, Pope John Paul wrote in Evangelium Vitae that the cases where the executions of the convicted criminal are necessary are very rare, if practically non-existent. Nevertheless, others maintain that they are not completely non-existent.
I believe the best argument against capital punishment relates to its application in light of the culture of death. The intrinsic worth of the human person as created in the image of God is obscured by the cultural diminishment of the value of human life. It follows then that by applying capital punishment, the intended desire, namely to show honor and respect for the human life of the slain, is not achieved; rather human life is further devalued by the exacting of another human life, even though biblically and theological it can be argued to be just and equitable.
When justice is limited to bloodless means of punishment, the good of all human life is respected and the momentum of a nefarious mentality that views human life as disposable decreases.
Due to the contempt for human life described in Evangelium Vitae, the application of capital punishment is not fostering the common good, but is actually harmful. Using St. Thomas’ reasoning, in today’s situation the death penalty may lead to the commission of more numerous, grievous sins by strengthening and encouraging the idea that human life is dispensable.
Therefore, Pope John Paul’s acknowledgment of the state’s right to employ the death penalty, while insisting on its limited use, is not a contradiction of Catholic tradition nor does it mean that that “a development of doctrine has occurred.”[26]
Therefore it would seem clear that Catholicism and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive. Both the Catechism and the pope’s encyclical do not necessarily contradict the principle that the state has the right to employ capital punishment; they do, nevertheless, seem to signify a shift in understanding, as I have shown and described in the above paragraphs.
However, Catholic social teaching is built upon two equal foundations: the innate dignity of the human person and the common good. “Moreover, for John Paul II, the punishment of any crime should not only seek to redress wrong and protect society. It should also encourage the possibility of repentance, restitution and rehabilitation on the part of the criminal.”[27]
Unfortunately our society looks to violence for quick solutions to multifaceted human problems. Opposition to capital punishment is a clear expression of our belief in the matchless worth and dignity of each human being from the moment of his or her conception, as creatures made in the image and likeness of God. The pope’s teaching is evident: even those who have taken human life are to be treated with the utmost dignity.
In John’s gospel when Jesus refuses to condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery, his words and actions make us acutely aware of the dignity of human life.[28]
As I have stated above St. Augustine asked that the death penalty not be used on anyone, not even on those who have committed the most heinous of crimes. Augustine’s argument was based on his claim that the human dignity of being made in the “image of God” can be obscured but never erased.
St. Thomas Aquinas justified the use of the death penalty when used for the sake of preserving the common good of society. At the same time, however, he also argued that if a convicted criminal could be imprisoned and kept from being a danger to society, hence removing his threat to the common good, the state would not be justified in killing such a criminal.
Since Vatican Council II, especially in its document, Gaudium et Spes, the inviolable right to life has come to the fore: “There is an ever growing awareness of the sublime dignity of the human person, who stands above all things and whose rights and duties are universal… The social order and its developments must constantly yield to the good of the person, since the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around.”[29] The document continues: “everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity… The teaching of Christ even requires that we forgive injustices, and extend the law of love to include every enemy, according to the command of the New Law…”[30]
In conclusion I reiterate that the Church is consistent in upholding the dignity and sacredness of human life from the moment of conception until natural death.
In “Confronting a Culture of Violence,” the U.S. bishops state: “A consistent ethic of life remains the surest foundation of our life together.” As we become more aware of the Gospel challenges of our Christian vocation through theological reflection to daily achieve greater union with Christ, we will envision a culture of life and a civilization of love that will no longer include the death penalty. Pope John Paul seemingly places the dignity of the human person at the heart of the Church’s mission. “To rediscover and make others rediscover the inviolable dignity of every human person makes up an essential task, in a certain sense, the central and unifying task of the service which the Church and the lay faithful in her are called to render to the human family.”[31]
Archbishop Charles Chaput helps us to understand that, “The Church’s critique of capital punishment is not an evasion of justice. Victims and their survivors have a right to redress, and the state has a right to enforce that redress and impose grave punishment for grave crimes. It is not an absolute rejection of lethal force by the state. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.”[32]
Consequently, rather than claiming that capital punishment is unjust, the pope was arguing for the promotion of Gospel values. For the pope (and bishops) it seems that abolition of capital punishment would reiterate the belief in the unique worth and dignity of every human being from the moment of conception, as creatures made in the image and likeness of the God who is indeed the Lord of all life. Therefore, to bring about the culture of life, Christians must proclaim the truth of the human person: a steadfast affirmation of the value and sanctity of all human life.
According to the Catechism, the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish criminals in cases of extreme gravity with the death penalty. Nonetheless Pope John Paul exhorted us not to impose the death penalty so as to emphasize that all human life is sacred, in hopes of reversing the dangerous precedent of the prevailing culture of death that has cheapened life and rendered it disposable.
In analyzing John Paul II’s encyclical and the Catechism, the punishment of crimes should both seek to redress wrong and protect society. It has long been part of our tradition to leave open the possibility of repentance, restitution and rehabilitation on the part of the criminal. In America many hold the death penalty to be the best way to deal with capital crime. However, the Church holds a belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, creatures made in the image and likeness of God - even those who have taken life must be treated with dignity.
It would seem that the growing number of opponents to capital punishment and the traditional adherents of the church teaching that permits capital punishment will continue to coexist in tension for years to come. Though Evangelium Vitae was not a repudiation of past teachings, there does, however, seem to be some evolution in the understanding of the application of capital punishment.
Therefore, in light of the current cultural situation, withholding the employment of capital punishment will actually serve to promote the value of life as opposed to the former support of capital punishment. The pope, in his wisdom, has directed the Church in a new direction without rejecting, contradicting, or repudiating its past support of capital punishment.
THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
At the death of Pope John Paul II accolades for his teaching and his ministry were legion. Many leading Christian leaders, including Evangelicals, extolled his memory. As a Catholic I was encouraged by this unity among Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike. One of the main reasons for such high praise for Pope John Paul II was his constant and consistent teaching on the dignity of all human life and his challenge to the Culture of Death.
But what about his condemnation of the death penalty? Attempting to weave the seamless garment of a consistent life ethic is difficult business among our Christian neighbors – and even Catholics. One can quote Pope John Paul II on any subject and many Catholics will get teary-eyed, but quote his Saint Louis speech or Evangelium Vitae, which, for all practical purposes, called for an end to the death penalty, and your Christian friends may suddenly look at you as if you are speaking Latin.
I have heard “good Christians” give citations of Genesis 9:6, “... If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” and from Deuteronomy, “If a man guilty of a capital offense he is to be put to death.”(Dt. 21:22) Even many Catholics hold this view, and although they often do not cite scripture, they do convey the same idea.
Of course, there are other passages in Exodus that can be cited which call for the death penalty. “Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death” (EX 21:15); “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.” (EX 21:17). “If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where they shall say to those city elders, ‘This son of ours is a stubborn and unruly fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to death. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel, on hearing of it, shall fear.” (Exodus 21:18-21) I’d say. Many of us would have been stoned to death years ago.
There are others like it. “You must keep the Sabbath as something sacred. Whoever desecrates it shall be put to death. (EX 31:14). Anyone who does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.(EX 35:2) According to these strictures, death row should be extremely crowded - or empty. Are there Christians who would seriously consider applying these Scriptures today? I doubt it.
Even if Pope John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church had not called for a moratorium on the death penalty, the Word of God ought to challenge Christians. St. Paul wrote, “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them...do not repay anyone evil for evil... Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink...do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good” (Rom. 12.20). “Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13.9 10). If there can be any justice in exacting pain upon the criminal it ought to be done by our overflowing graciousness and hospitality.
Many Catholics are sincere in their beliefs, but Catholics are not the only ones slow to take up the protest – so are our Bible-Christian brothers and sisters as well. Clearly the punishment of wrongdoers is justified in the Catholic and Christian Tradition, but punishment should also have a medicinal, redemptive purpose. Therefore, must we offer the convicted murderer upon the altar of American justice? How much more ought Christians to love the notorious sinners, those most in need of the Lord’s mercy – and ours? Is not the call of the gospel to love the loveless? Are we not all loveless? St. Paul wrote, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5.8). Therefore, what gives us the right to cast stones? Did not Christ himself say, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?” (Jn. 8.7)
Many Christians who legitimize their stance on the death penalty also claim as a tenet of their faith that no one is good, “all have fallen short of the glory of God” even the newborn is stained with the effects of Adam’s sin. Therefore those who claim that the convicted murderer deserves death betray an inconsistency in their theology. Christ came to call the sinner – even the most wretched. Was not Christ’s blood enough to cover the sins of murderers?
There is another great irony in this owing to the fact that for many years Protestants condemned the Catholic Church for its complicity in the Inquisition. How many people were put to death for heresy, not to mention other crimes, is still debated. However, as we entered the new millennium, the Pope called upon all Catholics to ask for forgiveness for the sins of the members of the Body of Christ throughout history. He has also asked us to work for the abolishment of the death penalty. As any student of history knows, or should know, the post-
Reformation violence and bloodshed in England, Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, did not discriminate between Protestants and Catholics, and those executioners and mercenaries who dealt the lethal blows were Protestant and Catholic alike.
The New Catechism of the Catholic Church, in referring to the death penalty, calls the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity very rare, if not practically non-existent. The U.S. Bishops have called capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary punishment.”
There will be those who argue that in the letters of Saint Paul one will find legitimate authority given to the Christians to execute the criminal in such verses as Romans “Let everyone be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves,” (13:1-2) or “For it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”(Rom.13:4). Had we literally obeyed that then perhaps slavery would never have been abolished and abortion would never be opposed since both were legally sanctioned.
However, the passage from Paul continues: “Whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.”(Rom. 13:9-10). Or previously in Chapter 12, “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them.... Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Vss 14 and17a). Christ said, “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Mt. 9:13)
Is not the call of the gospel to love the loveless? In the words of the hymn My Song is Love Unknown written by Samuel Grossman in the 1600's, the message of the gospel is clear. My song is love unknown, My Savior’s love to me, love to the loveless shown, that they might lovely be. O who am I that for my sake My Lord shall take frail flesh and die? Are we not all loveless? Dare we claim for ourselves moral and spiritual superiority and condone the state sanctioned killing of yet another citizen?
Catholics maintain that we are born in a state of original sin, inherent to each individual, yet Catholics do not claim that human nature is totally corrupted. Suffice it to say my reason for delineating these points of reference is to challenge the position of some pro-lifers who distinguish between innocent life and guilty life. Catholics are called to be pro-life across the board, from the moment of conception until natural death, be it innocent or guilty life.
Christian pro-lifers who claim that the babies eliminated by choice are innocent and the convicted murderers are guilty, deserving of death, betray an inconsistency in their own theology. Christ came to call the sinner – even the most wretched. Was not Christ’s blood enough to cover the sins of murderers?
However, the execution of the guilty party removes his opportunity for conversion and repentance, or in the least, cuts the time short. And the decision to execute belies the tenet of faith that holds that no one is beyond the scope of God’s mercy.
I have been told “sin is sin” when I have tried to differentiate between venial and mortal sin. Yet if sin is sin, then why are some sins so grave that we must call for the death of the sinner? Did not God say in Ezekiel “I do not desire the death of the sinner”? Why then do we?
Christ came to call the sinner, even the most wretched! Christ Jesus was pro-guilty life, thank God! Christ Jesus was for Barabbas, who, though guilty, He took the guilty man’s place. Of course, we recognize ourselves in Barabbas.
During his ministry, how did Jesus respond to those who were guilty of a capital crime? One of his opening salvos in the Sermon on the Mount, was Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. We must show mercy to even the worst sinner, even ourselves. Later in the same chapter, (5:21-22, 25-26) "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,'...and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”
Christ taught us that we must love our enemies, not that it would be a good idea, but that we must love them. It is a mandate from the Lord himself. It is a difficult one to hear let alone heed. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt 5:43-48).
In the Hebrew Scriptures, When Cain slew Abel, the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He answered, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" The LORD then said: "What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil.... You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth." Cain said to the LORD: "My punishment is too great to bear...anyone may kill me at sight." "Not so!" the LORD said to him. "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold." (Genesis 4:9-15)
The Word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live.” (EZ. 33:11)
Returning then to the New Testament, in Matthew, “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”(Mt. 6:14-15). Or "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Mt 7:1-2)
The gospel of Luke offers the same words, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.”(Lk. 6:36-37). We must recall that “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” (Lk. 19.10) Is it not our task to carry on the work of the Lord? Did not Christ say that we are to raise the dead, not add to the killing?
Jesus said, "Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful," and "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost." What about the good shepherd of Matthew 18? Christ did not give us an exception to the rule ‘love thy neighbor.’ Otherwise, the Good Shepherd would have remained with the loyal ninety-nine sheep and let the one lost one plummet over the edge of the cliff to its death.
What about forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation? The Christian journey teaches us to love those especially difficult to love. In one of the Catholic prayers associated with the rosary, one of the lines reads, “...lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most in need of mercy.” What better example than those who have taken the life of another.
The Lord Jesus said, ‘forgive as I have forgiven you. If you do not forgive others their offenses committed against you, I will not forgive you your offenses against me?’ No man, by killing another, can restore the deceased to life, nor bring about any happiness in this world or the next; only an injustice and an assault upon the law of charity.
Mother Teresa said and wrote that we are called to love those in the world, those in our midst who is the most unlovable. In another of her famous quotes, she reminded us that it hurt Jesus to love us. Therefore we must also love our neighbor until it hurts. As Christians, we ought to apply these teachings of Christ to our understanding of capital punishment. The prisoners upon death row, both the guilty and the wrongly convicted, must be afforded the dignity of a human beings created in the image and likeness of God.
Until now we have yet to see Christ face to face with someone guilty of a crime punishable by death. In John 8. 3-11, the famous story dealing with the Woman Caught in the very act of Adultery places us there. “The scribes brought a woman to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” When Jesus answered them he said, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” In response, they went away one by one. Left alone with the woman, Jesus did not condemn her, but told her: “Go, and sin no more.” Jesus dismisses the woman and He is caught in the very act of mercy.
In Luke’s Passion narrative, Jesus himself is a victim to the state-sanctioned death penalty. Archbishop Fulton Sheen referred to the so-called “good thief” to Christ’s right as the thief who stole paradise. He is the only person in all of the gospels promised paradise on the spot. Imagine it: a convicted felon, dying upon the gibbet of the cross – the equivalent of the electric chair under the Roman Empire – is the first person to be promised paradise, and all on his execution day! What does this say to us as we whisk the inmates off hogtied to a gurney dispatching them to the netherworld?
Finally, let us recall the last parable Christ spoke in the Gospel of Matthew 25, “…the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least ones of mine, you did for me.' (Mt. 25.31-46) Jesus did not say “when I was in prison you executed me!” Jesus did not say, “Deprive the prisoner of his life because of his heinous crime and the exorbitant costs of maintaining him as an inmate.” Jesus said when I was in prison, you visited me. Christ’s words should be enough, but no treatise on this issue would be complete without consulting the Apostle Paul, he himself executed by the state for his subversive views, and Saint John, exiled to the Isle of Patmos for his. ( St. Paul’s letter to the Romans was quoted above).
In John’s first epistle, “Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness”(1 Jn 2:9). “In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another....There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.” (1 Jn. 4:9-11, 18-20).
In conclusion, therefore, let us cast away our fear of loving the unlovable. Let us abandon ourselves to mercy and seek to love as God loves. May all faithful Catholics and faithful Christians, work to abolish the death penalty in the name of Christ, the Prince of Peace! Let us remember that the merciful are blessed and whatsoever we do to the least ones in our midst, we do to Christ!
The Christian journey teaches us to love and forgive those especially difficult to love. Even murderers must be afforded the dignity of human beings created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the Precious Blood of the Lamb of God.
However, the execution of the guilty party removes or shortens his opportunity for conversion and repentance, or in the least, it cuts the time short. Execution also seems to deny that God is capable of forgiving all sin. And Capital Punishment can neither restore the victim’s life nor lessen the grief and pain of the survivors. Only mercy and love can uplift and assuage grief. We must stand with victims of crime –including the children of those who are incarcerated. “We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals…The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life” (US Bishops 1999).
As the US bishops have written, “The antidote to violence is love, not more violence.” Pope John Paul II wrote, “…a sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform” (Evangelium Vitae, 27).
Jesus said, love your enemies not execute your enemies. We must challenge political thinking in order to change hearts. The scaffold is still dripping blood and the scarlet blade is still poised to execute justice. For those who quote the Hebrew Scriptures in support of the death penalty, the Lord is clear in Ezekiel, "As I live, I do not desire the death of the sinner but that he turn back to me and live. Do I derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live? (Ezek. 18.23,32)."
The United States is the only Western industrialized nation today that utilizes capital punishment. Increasingly the bishops have spoken out against its use, and Pope John Paul II and individual bishops have sought clemency for persons scheduled to be executed. There are forceful reasons for opposing capital punishment—its utter inhumanity and its complete irreversibility, as well as concern about its discriminatory use and an imperfect legal system that has sentenced innocent people to death. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “If...non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (CCC 2267). Executing the guilty does not honor victims, nor does it uplift the living or even assuage their pain – only love and forgiveness can do that. State-sanctioned killing affects us all because it diminishes the value of all human life. Capital punishment also cuts short the guilty person's opportunity for spiritual conversion and repentance. The consequences of widespread loss of respect for the dignity of human life—seen in pervasive violence, toleration of abortion, and increasingly vocal support for assisted suicide and research that destroys human embryos—make it all the more urgent to reject lethal punishment and uphold the inviolability of every human life. “Our witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 22). Thus we are called to extend God's love to all human beings created in his image, including those convicted of serious crimes. In so doing, we can help to make "unconditional respect for life the foundation of a new society" (The Gospel of Life, no. 77).
The author, Victor Hugo, an avid abolitionist of the death penalty in the Nineteenth Century, wrote the following words in his novel Les Misérables concerning a convicted murderer placed upon the scaffold of the guillotine.
“He whom man kills God restores to life. He whom his brothers drive away finds the Father....We may be indifferent to the death penalty and not declare ourselves either way so long as we have not seen a guillotine with our own eyes. But when we do, the shock is violent, and we are compelled to choose sides, for or against. Some admire it, others loathe it. The guillotine is the law made concrete; it is called the Avenger. It is not neutral and does not permit you to remain neutral....I didn't believe it could be so monstrous...Death belongs to God alone.
By what right do men touch that unknown thing?”
Hugo prayed that one day criminals “that were once scourged with anger shall be bathed with love. The Cross shall replace the gallows.” Let us pray. It is time to abolish the death penalty. Let us pursue justice without vengeance, and build a culture of life where we will be so committed to the dignity of human life that we will not sanction the killing of any human person for any reason.
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph no. 2266. (The Catechism will be denoted as CCC).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, 25 March 1995, paragraph no. 56.
[5] 1992 version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph no. 2266.
[6] Pope John Paul II’s homily, January 27, 1999, St. Louis, MO.
[7] Avery Cardinal Dulles, Catholicism & Capital Punishment, FIRST THINGS, vol. 112, April 2001, pp. 30-35.
[8] Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles, memorandum of Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, first made public in July 2004.
[9] CCC 2267.
[10] “He Beareth not the Sword in Vain: the Church, the Courts, and Capital Punishment,” by Patrick M. Laurence. Ave Maria Law Review, Spring 2003.
[11] Augustine, City of God, Book 1, chapter 21.
[12] Summa Theologiae, Part II-II, Q. 64, art. 2
[13] Roman Catechism, Council of Trent, Part III, paragraph II.
[14] “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty” by Steven A. Long. The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52.
[15]Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 13, paragraph no. 8.
[16] Robert Fastiggi, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18
[17] David Smolin, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18
[18] Steven Long, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Judie Brown, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18
[21] Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things vol. 112, pp. 30-35.
[22] Laurence, He Beareth the Sword Not in Vain.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] no. 25 (1964).
[26] Laurence, He Beareth Not the Sword in Vain.
[27] Ibid.
[28] John 8:1-11
[29] Gaudium et spes, No. 26.
[30] Ibid., Nos. 27-28.
[31] Evangelium Vitae, No. 45.
[32] Justice, Mercy, and Capital Punishment By the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., March 2005, USCC.
The Moral Treatment of Returning Warriors in Early Medieval and Modern Times by Bernard J. Verkamp
The Moral Treatment of Returning Warriors in Early Medieval and Modern Times by Bernard J. Verkamp. Paperback: 195 pages Publisher: University of Scranton Press; New Ed edition (December 15, 2006).
Bernard J. Verkamp’s The Moral Treatment of Returning Warriors (University of Scranton Press) is a tour de force of research on the practice of the imposition of penances upon warriors returning from war. The author has compiled hundreds of resources into a dense though easily read narrative. In a seamless manner he methodically analyzes how soldiers returning from war have been treated morally. He then takes his readers on a journey into the past in hopes of retrieving the sanity for present, and future, soldiers who will return from the madness of war.
Bernard J. Verkamp’s The Moral Treatment of Returning Warriors (University of Scranton Press) is a tour de force of research on the practice of the imposition of penances upon warriors returning from war. The author has compiled hundreds of resources into a dense though easily read narrative. In a seamless manner he methodically analyzes how soldiers returning from war have been treated morally. He then takes his readers on a journey into the past in hopes of retrieving the sanity for present, and future, soldiers who will return from the madness of war.
From a reading of Returning Warriors one could rightly lament that western civilization has gone down the dead end road of war for far too long. One might ask whether it is even possible – or advisable – to turn around and return to an attitude of an earlier time in all its exactness.
The premise of Dr. Verkamp’s book is that in our modern time we have come to accept war as not only a necessary evil but as inconsequential to those involved in the killing. The author attributes this to the therapeutic society whereby “what were once described as wrongdoings and shortcomings are now often extolled as indicative of a liberated ego or dismissed as sickness and social maladjustment. Moral pain or feelings of guilt or shame, which were once considered the natural, interior complements of virtuous behavior are either ridicule, or reduced to psychic difficulties.”
Verkamp argues convincingly that soldiers returning from war today have experienced an “uneasy conscience” with the blood of fellow human beings on their hands. Without calling for an unrealistic return to an idealized Christendom, he discredits the modern therapeutic notion that the moral guilt and shame experienced by returning warriors can be treated and cured like any other neuroses and shows how specific elements of the ancient ritual of penance can be incorporated and assimilated in both secular and religious ways to assist returning warriors to return to society today.
In the first millennia of Christianity penances of one sort or another came to be imposed upon warriors returning from just wars as well as unjust. Though not truly universal in its application, the imposition of penances for killing in a just war could and did often mean something other than the imputation of guilt, namely that of shame; there was great shame associated with the killing of a fellow human being.
As such in the past it was assumed that soldiers returning from battle would feel guilt and be ashamed for their wartime killing and other behaviors associated with the ignoble tasks and abuses of war. The returning warrior was encouraged to work through such feelings through “rituals of purification, expiation, and reconciliation.” Unfortunately in the modern era today feelings of guilt and shame associated with war are either denied or classified simply as post-traumatic stress or survivor guilt.
Returning warriors oftentimes received penances owing to the dubious nature of a war or conflict, whether it was just or unjust. Verkamp points out that “even a war that was deemed just could become an occasion for sin” since the “motives and dispositions of those fighting might be less than good…Warriors engaged in a just war had to examine their consciences about their motives for fighting and the traits of character, or lack thereof, they displayed in battle. The battlefields could become an occasion for sins of cowardice, anger, pride, avarice, sloth, or any of the other vices.”[2]
The author takes the time to delineate the difference between guilt and shame: “guilt is aroused by the transgression of boundaries set by the conscience and is accompanied by fear of reprisal, shame occurs when an idealized goal is not reached and carries with it the threat of abandonment. The experience of shame, therefore, is relative to what one is, to one’s plan of life, to what one aspires to do, and to those persons with whom one aspires to associate.” He adds: “Relief from shame will be sought by any kind of good work that will restore confidence in the excellence of one’s person, or in other words, purify one by returning him to that mode of being...most in keeping with the paramount ideal of the culture to which he belongs.”
Transgressions which gave rise to a sense of sin and guilt might also have generated a sense of shame, in that the soldier might have been mortified and disgraced by his sinful deeds.” Yet a soldier might experience shame but not experience guilt. One might have engaged in a just cause, but still feel shame due to his act against the sanctity of life and the Christian call to love one’s enemy. There is evidence to suggest that many a warrior had “frequent misgivings about the killing he was doing on the battlefield.” Some “retired from fighting…perhaps motivated…to some extent by feelings of shame over the killing they had done in battle.” Those who fasted or gave alms “may very well have been trying to prove to themselves, and to their Christian fellows…their continued capacity to do good.”
With the crusades “came the concept of war that was spiritually beneficial to those” involved. In modern times there have been those who, as in the past, have taken delight in war and its spoils, but there are far more warriors who “feel guilty and ashamed of the killing” and other acts of atrocities they have done during combat. Sometimes the guilt is brought on because of “doubts about one’s worthiness to survive when others did not.” It is commonly called “survivor’s guilt”. Many soldiers believe that even if it is necessary to kill they still believe it is wrong to kill a fellow human being, no matter how noble the cause of the war. This has shattered many a soldier’s ideals, leaving him “disillusioned, disoriented, empty, and aimless, no longer capable of sustaining the will to achieve any goal, least of all a lasting relationship of love….they feel bitter, desolate, polluted and defeated—all symptoms of what is meant by the feeling of shame.” Regrettably, the moral feelings of current returning soldiers have by and large not been taken seriously.
Verkamp argues that due to “the triumph of the therapeutic modern society has found it difficult to deal with the returning soldier’s pangs of conscience. Some of the material is reminiscent of Dave Grossman’s book On Killing that details how soldiers are trained to kill and come to consider it just a part of the job.[3] Many of the soldiers who have negative feelings are encouraged to forget about it, and those who do not or cannot are diagnosed as sick with “shell shock” “battle exhaustion” and post-traumatic stress disorder” and psychiatric care is utilized to cure them of their guilt and shame, besides their anxiety, grief, irritability, depression, withdrawal, insomnia, nightmares, and startle reaction. This approach tended to ignore the “profound moral pain” and reduce all symptoms to stress or as neurosis. Those who express feelings of guilt or disturbances of conscience are told that such feelings are inappropriate.
Even religious leaders may attempt to smooth over the concerns with assurances that God is on our side and the war was just. The author points out that returning soldiers “might have very good reason to feel guilt or shame, or at least a sense of regret and tragedy, depending upon how they judge the deeds they have done over against one or another set of religious or secularist principles.”
It would seem that even if war is necessary it is still a tragic event, and the effects of war should elicit at least regret, if not remorse and sorrow. From the example of the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima and Nagasaki those who ordered the bombing ought to at least feel ashamed of the deed if not guilty.[4]
Verkamp calls for us to go beyond a therapeutic approach by stating “soldiers returning from modern warfare might stand to gain considerably from the kind of examination of conscience,” namely a “moral evaluation of the soldiers’ past deeds on and off the battlefield.” This has to be a lot more than just swapping “war stories” which is often a way of avoiding painful memories or personal feelings connected to the experience of war. This must “’involve a deeper probing’ than psychotherapy is capable of by challenging the returning soldier to objectively “evaluate” their personal actions with reference to “the dictates of the just-war theory” and assess the consequences of their behavior in relationship to others.
The secular and religious benefits of such an examination of conscience might reveal that “’deeply held convictions’ have indeed been personally violated, with terribly ‘real and permanent’ consequences, like the death or maiming of innocent noncombatants, or the destruction of whole villages” and he may identify himself with a military force that was “mechanically ruthless” and share in its heedless “dedication to violence.”
Verkamp suggests, with other scholars, that the returning soldier might benefit from the penitential practice of contritio cordis; such heartfelt contrition is not a self-loathing or self-flagellation, but rather compunction of heart “meant to be an expression of regret over the pain that one’s deeds have caused others.” If a soldier recognizes that his behavior or complicity in war has caused unnecessary loss of life and wanton destruction, then would he not weep with grief?
And soldiers who examine their consciences and humble themselves in contrition can turn from death to “live in the future that makes sense of the past” by paying their debt to the dead by bearing life and peace to the living. They may then profit from confession, if by that it is understood that confession is “a plea for forgiveness from others—from God, but also from one’s fellow human beings” in that they have an obligation to seek forgiveness from those offended.
Keeping with the medieval structure of the rite of penance, absolution would then follow confession. But what could that mean in a secular world? “The absolution conferred…was understood to be in the name of all the members of the corpus Christianum, both living and dead, including those who had been wronged.” As such, the four-step process of penance allowed for “reintegration or reconciliation of the penitents with the rest of mankind,” especially their seeking forgiveness from those against whom they have offended and with whom they want to be at peace.”
The fruit of penance is restitution, an expression of resignation whereby penitents “begin to repair some of the negative consequences of sin to themselves, their fellow human beings, and the world at large. Understood in such wise, the performance of penances by returning soldiers might still make some sense if by such acts they can give something back to the world against which they have sinned” and that the absolution “in the final analysis be a process of reconciliation.”
Though the author is not calling for a return to a twelfth century socio-political framework, he is urging our secular culture to revisit certain features of the religious ritual of penance. Certainly an alternative approach accommodating modern advances in psychiatric care could accommodate the age old ritual of penance.
Through their guilt and shame the returning warriors can be reincorporated into the body of the human community. The only questions: will the soldiers recognize their moral pangs of guilt or shame? And if so, will the community take their moral pain serious?
Verkamp states in his introduction, “I very much have in mind to say something about our present situation.” Indeed he does. In our pluralistic culture secularists and religionists alike have much to glean from this well-conceived treatise on the abandoned practice of the imposition of penance upon the returning warrior, especially when one begins to enumerate the implications it holds for our own time and the current unstable state of world affairs.
[1] Henri De Lubac reminds us in his Méditation sur l’Eglise that “it would be a big mistake for us to think that we could ever rediscover the [faith of the] past in its exact tenor and all its richness, at the expense of all that has been clarified since” nor can we “run away whenever we feel like it into another age – not even if we don’t actually intend a negative attitude in doing so…for time cannot be reversed; even error and revolt, however complete their overthrow, impose a new lifestyle…” Prophetically he declared: “we must also remember that we are a long way off from having either fully listed or completely explored the wealth [of theology] laid down for us throughout the past” for nothing should put “an end to discussion and reflection alike” or discourage “the raising of new questions” (The Splendor of the Church, pp 20-21, 27, Henri De Lubac, Ignatius Press, San Francisco: 1986).
[2] According to a 2004 study conducted by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (July 2004), 1 in 8 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan experience anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic syndrome. Providing counseling to servicemen and service women should be utilized to help soldiers readjust to civilian life, yet an obstacle for many soldiers receiving care has been the stigma of shame that they fear in admitting they are troubled by their war actions. Unfortunately this reflects the popular sentiment that seeking mental health services is only for the “mentally ill.”
[3] Human beings are innately reluctant to take human life and the military techniques developed to overcome that aversion are examined in his book. “We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the infliction of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it,” Grossman writes.
[4] Nearly 700,000 Iraqi civilians have died since combat operations began in March 2003. It is estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 1.6 million have been displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.
The Catholicity of Johnny Cash
The Catholicity of Johnny Cash
Here these days one cannot escape Christian music. It’s everywhere. I’m talking about the sweetly syrupy sappy lyrics that focus on “me and Jesus” and remind us that once saved you’re free, the struggle’s over, the rapture’s at hand, and thank God I’m no longer enslaved to tradition, religion, ritual – especially the long dark arm of Catholicism.
I’m sure I am doing many Christian artists an injustice, but so much of the music has no connection to daily life whatsoever. Listening to some of the songs, one imagines a separate ethereal world where charity and love prevail while the rest of sinful humanity is just waiting to be left behind in a world completely devoid of grace or glory.
In 2003 at the death of Johnny Cash, there was much ado about his musical career. Later I saw the film Walk The Line in early 2006 and that summer our family traveled to Tennessee and North Carolina. In the process I immersed myself in the music of Johnny Cash. I was no stranger to Cash for both my grandfather and dad usually had radios set to the local country station, so there was a certain romanticism associated with the songs. In the process I sought to listen to every recording Johnny Cash ever made. I prefer classical music, Gregorian chant, and Rock and Roll, yet there is something to a lot of the traditional country music and their ballads.
The reason I feel compelled to write this article is due to the effect of listening to his music. I dare say Johnny Cash was a Catholic – even if a lower case catholic. Allow me to explain. One of my favorite songs, found on his album Personal File released posthumously, is “No earthly good.” The song begins:
“Don’t brag about standing or you’ll surely fall …
you’re shining your light, and shine it you should,
but you’re so heavenly minded you’re no earthly good.
If you’re holding heaven, then spread it around.
There’s hungry hands reaching up here from the ground.
Move over and share the high ground where you stood…
so heavenly minded, you’re no earthly good.
The gospel ain’t gospel until it is spread
but how can you share it where you got your head?
There’s hands that reach out for a hand if you would…”
What an indictment against some Christians’ ministry which is solely focused upon getting people saved so they can keep a running tally of the number of salvations as they eagerly await the rapture and the destruction of the world.
Another song with a similar theme worth mentioning is “A Half a Mile a Day.” It is written from the perspective of a man who visits a church one evening where several members are witnessing to their salvation. One man reports,
“I’m going to heaven as fast as I can go
like an arrow from a bow.”
Another says,
“I’m sailing into heaven…on a sea of blue,”
Yet another announces,
“I’m flying into the portals of heaven on silver wings!
Sailing over all the troubles and trials down below straight on in.”
Obviously Johnny did not subscribe to this point of view because the last person to stand is a little old lady who claims that she’s making it to heaven about a half a mile a day. The woman admits the difficulties, her stumbling, the way to heaven is not rapid transit. Instead she says
“I believe that if I’ll heed the things he had to say
even I might get to heaven at a half a mile a day.”
No talk of rapture here. She’s too busy living the kingdom. She continues,
“Lord, when I let you lead, I don’t make any speed
because I have to stop and touch the ones who need so much
and then sometimes others pull me off of your narrow way,
and by my mistakes I barely make a half a mile a day.”
Powerful imagery of a Christian concerned for justice and peace.
A poignant scene from Walk the Line involved Johnny’s recording agent and the officials from the record company. The men are concerned that Johnny’s audience – which was, according to the men, predominantly good Christians – would be scandalized by his recording of an album from Folsom Prison. Johnny replied, “Well, then, maybe they’re not really Christian.” Whether or not he actually said it, I do not know, but it would seem to represent his feelings and beliefs for the lost and forsaken of this world.
His signature song Man in Black embodies his credo.
“I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down.
Living in the hopeless, hungry side of town…
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
but is there because he’s the victim of the times….
“Well were doing mighty fine, I do suppose
in our streak of lighting cars and fancy clothes,
but just so we’re reminded of the ones who are held back,
up front there ought to be a man in black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old.
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold.
I wear the black in mourning for the lives that could’ve been
each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And I wear it for the thousands who have died believing that the Lord was on their side.
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
believing that we all were on their side….”
In “Life is Like a Mountain Railway” he sings,
“Life is like a mountain railway
with an engineer that’s brave.
We must make the run successful
from the cradle to the grave;
heed the curves and watch the tunnels,
never falter, never fail.
Keep your hand upon the throttle
and your hand upon the rail.”
The earthiness of his songs are sacramental encounters with a God who is not far away or just waiting in the wings waiting to swoop down and take the “raptured elect” while the rest of us sorry suckers are left behind to suffer the chaos of tribulation.
In his popular song, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” a man awakens after an all night drunk. On his walk home he sings,
“In the park I saw a daddy with a laughing little girl that he was swinging
and I stopped beside a Sunday school and listened to the songs they were singing…
then I headed down the street and somewhere far away
a lonely bell was ringing
and it echoed through the canyons of my disappearing dreams of yesterday.
On a Sunday morning sidewalk I’m wishing Lord that I was stoned
‘cause there’s something in a Sunday that makes a body feel alone.
And there’s nothing short of dying that’s half as lonesome as the sound
of the sleeping city sidewalk and Sunday morning comin’ down.”
The song “What on earth will you do for heaven’s sake?” Johnny asks,
“Did you turn a frown with a smile?
Did you lift a lowly heart about to break?
Would you also give your cloak
to one who took away your coat?
What on earth will you do for heaven’s sake?
Did you feed the poor in spirit and befriend the prosecuted?
Will you show the bound that all the chains can break?
Will you be one of the meek,
did you turn the other cheek,
would you give a little more than you would take?
Did you shine your little light upon the children of the night?
What on earth will you do for heaven sake?”
There are many songs with these themes, but of particular interest to Cash seemed to be the plight of the imprisoned. In “Give My Love To Rose” a man recently released from a San Francisco prison is found lying nearly dead along the railroad tracks. The former prisoner asks the passerby to give his love to his wife Rose and his son. I find the version from his American IV: The Man Comes Around album. His voice had aged and the way he sings the song has so much more feeling than from his earlier crooner days.
Other songs such as “Another man done gone”; “There Ain’t No Good Chain Gang”; “I Hung My Head”; “I Got Stripes:’ “Busted”; “Don’t Take Your Guns To Town”; “Sam Hall”; “25 Minutes To Go”; Joe Bean; and “Greystone Chapel” all deal with men in prison or men awaiting their execution.
In his American III: Solitary Man he includes the song “Mercy Seat”. The song is about a death row inmate pondering his fate on the very day of his execution. The man claims,
“Well it all began when they took me from my home
and put me on death row –
a crime for which I’m totally innocent, you know.”
The man rambles on and on as his contorted conscience begins to get the best of him.
“…in a way I’m yearning to be done
with all of this weighing of the truth,
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
and anyway I told the truth
and I’m not afraid to die.
“I hear stories from the chamber.
Christ was born into a manger
and like some ragged stranger
he died upon the cross,
might I say it seems so fitting in its way
he was a carpenter by trade,
or at least that’s what I’m told...
In heaven his throne is made of gold
The ark of his testament is stowed a throne of which I’m told
all history does unfold…
“It’s made of wood and wire
and my body is on fire
and God is never far away….
into the mercy seat I climb,
my head is shaved my head is wired
and like the moth that tries to enter the bright light,
I go shuffling out of life
just to hide in death awhile
and anyway I never lied.
And the mercy seat is waiting
and I think my head is burning…
“And the mercy seat is burning
and I think my head is glowing,
and in a way I’m hoping to be done
with all of this twisting of the truth,
an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth,
and anyway there was no proof,
and I’m not afraid to die.
“And the mercy seat is glowing,
and I think my head is smoking,
and in a way I’m a hoping to be done
with all these looks of disbelief,
a life for a life and a truth for a truth,
and I’ve got nothing left to lose
and I’m not afraid to die.
“And the mercy seat is smoking
and I think my head is melting,
and in a way that’s helping
to be done with all this twisting
of the truth, an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth,
and anyway I told the truth but I’m afraid I told a lie.”
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the song truly rouses the listener’s conscience.
The song “The Green, Green Grass of Home,” affirms the goodness of creation and the human longing for home, as told through the eyes of a condemned man within his cell.
Johnny Cash’s music is rooted in the good earth and embodies an Incarnational theology that echoes John’s gospel, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.”
Cash even sang the popular tune Paradise.
“Daddy, won’t you take me back to Muehlenberg County,
down by the Green River where Paradise lay?
‘I’m sorry, my son, but you’re too late in asking.
Mr. Peabody’s coal train done hauled it away.”
“The coal company came with the world’s largest shovel,
stripped all the timber and tortured the land.
They dug for the coal till the land was forsaken,
wrote it all down to the progress of Man.”
Such lyrics certainly evince an attitude of reverence for the earth and natural resources, especially the tongue in cheek reference to “the progress of man” and the overt adjective of torture.
A.P. Carter’s song “Keep on the Sunny Side of Life,” encourages us that good will conquer evil. There is no need for despair or hopelessness. The paschal mystery of Christ promises life, hope, and goodness. The words continue:
“Though we meet with the darkness and strife,
the sunny side we may also view.
Let us greet with a song of hope each day,
though the moments be cloudy or fair,
let us trust that our savior always
will keep us everyone in his care.”
“Oh, the storm in its fury broke today,
crushing hopes that I cherish so dear,
storms and clouds will in time pass away
and the sun again will shine bright and clear.”
We hear a man singing about a God who loves all of his creation, as charged with his grandeur. But this is no Pollyanna approach to life, neither is it an escapist theology based upon the preaching of prosperity and a promise of rapture when the going gets tough.
Cash’s music is pious-free and Catholic friendly. Even two of his last songs, “The Man Comes Around” – which seems to be influenced by all the talk of rapture – and the traditional “God’s Gonna Cut You Down,” both deserve to be listened to for within them contain ageless truths.
Johnny admits in the liner notes that the song The Man Comes Around was a difficult song and it took him a long time to write; it is about Christ’s Second Coming. In one line he asks,
“Will you partake of that last offered cup
or disappear into the potter’s ground,
when the Man comes around?”
In this I hear a Eucharistic theme – intended or not. In the Book of Revelation Jesus speaks:
“I stand at your door and knock. If you open the door I will come in and sup with him and him with me.”
In John’s Gospel Jesus says,
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst…Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you… Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (Jn 6:35, 53-55, italics mine).
Christ is with us, and throughout Johnny Cash’s career his songs challenged the status quo and called us to see the worth of every human being, even the men in prison, the men on death row, those killed on both sides of war or the tragic end of the native American Ira Hayes (one of the marines who lifted the flag at Iwo Jima).
“God’s gonna cut you down” may seem harsh to Catholic ears, but the truth is that one day we will all die and render an account to God for the gift of our life. As Saint Benedict wrote; Keep death ever before you.
“You can run on for a long time…
sooner of later God’ll cut you down.
Go tell that long-tongue liar,
go and tell that midnight rider,
the rambler, the gambler,
the back-biter,
tell ‘em that God’s gonna cut ‘em down.”
Is this not the hound of heaven? It is written in Ezekiel 33 that if we fail to call the sinner to repentance we will be held accountable for his sinfulness. As the song says, “What is done in the dark will be brought to the light…” We are our brother and sister’s keepers. We must foster the common good and pursue peace through justice.
I would have liked for Johnny Cash to have sung a few traditional Catholic hymns before his death, but, alas, we will have to be content knowing that he is now singing them in heaven. Imagine Johnny singing “Whatsoever you do,” “We are the light of the World,” Make Me a Channel of Your Peace,” or “I Am the Bread of Life.”
“Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do to unto me.”
The hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, weary, anxious, imprisoned, soldiers, war veterans, orphaned, abandoned, aged, insulted, and lonely took heart in Johnny’s songs. It was to the poor in spirit, the meek and humble, those mourning in sorrow, those hungering and thirsting for justice, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, and the persecuted that Johnny sang for. Sowing love in place of hatred, preaching pardon and peace in the face of injury and war, hope and joy in place of despair and sadness, and self-giving and faith rather than selfishness or doubt were his messages. And he took all of these themes from the gospel message.
Hence the catholicity of Johnny Cash’s music comes through in the sense of God’s sacramental presence in the world around us, the commitment to both faith and human reason, an emphasis upon the communal aspect of our baptismal call and a love for the saints – and sinners.
May we all keep on the sunny side of life, greeting each and every day with a song of hope, knowing that through the storms of life Christ is with us. And when Christ comes to raise our mortal bodies, may we awaken in the sweet by and by of the peaceful valley of paradise, meeting on that beautiful shore of the banks of Jordan our loved ones and the communion of saints with whom we have journeyed unaware.
Here these days one cannot escape Christian music. It’s everywhere. I’m talking about the sweetly syrupy sappy lyrics that focus on “me and Jesus” and remind us that once saved you’re free, the struggle’s over, the rapture’s at hand, and thank God I’m no longer enslaved to tradition, religion, ritual – especially the long dark arm of Catholicism.
I’m sure I am doing many Christian artists an injustice, but so much of the music has no connection to daily life whatsoever. Listening to some of the songs, one imagines a separate ethereal world where charity and love prevail while the rest of sinful humanity is just waiting to be left behind in a world completely devoid of grace or glory.
In 2003 at the death of Johnny Cash, there was much ado about his musical career. Later I saw the film Walk The Line in early 2006 and that summer our family traveled to Tennessee and North Carolina. In the process I immersed myself in the music of Johnny Cash. I was no stranger to Cash for both my grandfather and dad usually had radios set to the local country station, so there was a certain romanticism associated with the songs. In the process I sought to listen to every recording Johnny Cash ever made. I prefer classical music, Gregorian chant, and Rock and Roll, yet there is something to a lot of the traditional country music and their ballads.
The reason I feel compelled to write this article is due to the effect of listening to his music. I dare say Johnny Cash was a Catholic – even if a lower case catholic. Allow me to explain. One of my favorite songs, found on his album Personal File released posthumously, is “No earthly good.” The song begins:
“Don’t brag about standing or you’ll surely fall …
you’re shining your light, and shine it you should,
but you’re so heavenly minded you’re no earthly good.
If you’re holding heaven, then spread it around.
There’s hungry hands reaching up here from the ground.
Move over and share the high ground where you stood…
so heavenly minded, you’re no earthly good.
The gospel ain’t gospel until it is spread
but how can you share it where you got your head?
There’s hands that reach out for a hand if you would…”
What an indictment against some Christians’ ministry which is solely focused upon getting people saved so they can keep a running tally of the number of salvations as they eagerly await the rapture and the destruction of the world.
Another song with a similar theme worth mentioning is “A Half a Mile a Day.” It is written from the perspective of a man who visits a church one evening where several members are witnessing to their salvation. One man reports,
“I’m going to heaven as fast as I can go
like an arrow from a bow.”
Another says,
“I’m sailing into heaven…on a sea of blue,”
Yet another announces,
“I’m flying into the portals of heaven on silver wings!
Sailing over all the troubles and trials down below straight on in.”
Obviously Johnny did not subscribe to this point of view because the last person to stand is a little old lady who claims that she’s making it to heaven about a half a mile a day. The woman admits the difficulties, her stumbling, the way to heaven is not rapid transit. Instead she says
“I believe that if I’ll heed the things he had to say
even I might get to heaven at a half a mile a day.”
No talk of rapture here. She’s too busy living the kingdom. She continues,
“Lord, when I let you lead, I don’t make any speed
because I have to stop and touch the ones who need so much
and then sometimes others pull me off of your narrow way,
and by my mistakes I barely make a half a mile a day.”
Powerful imagery of a Christian concerned for justice and peace.
A poignant scene from Walk the Line involved Johnny’s recording agent and the officials from the record company. The men are concerned that Johnny’s audience – which was, according to the men, predominantly good Christians – would be scandalized by his recording of an album from Folsom Prison. Johnny replied, “Well, then, maybe they’re not really Christian.” Whether or not he actually said it, I do not know, but it would seem to represent his feelings and beliefs for the lost and forsaken of this world.
His signature song Man in Black embodies his credo.
“I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down.
Living in the hopeless, hungry side of town…
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
but is there because he’s the victim of the times….
“Well were doing mighty fine, I do suppose
in our streak of lighting cars and fancy clothes,
but just so we’re reminded of the ones who are held back,
up front there ought to be a man in black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old.
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold.
I wear the black in mourning for the lives that could’ve been
each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And I wear it for the thousands who have died believing that the Lord was on their side.
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
believing that we all were on their side….”
In “Life is Like a Mountain Railway” he sings,
“Life is like a mountain railway
with an engineer that’s brave.
We must make the run successful
from the cradle to the grave;
heed the curves and watch the tunnels,
never falter, never fail.
Keep your hand upon the throttle
and your hand upon the rail.”
The earthiness of his songs are sacramental encounters with a God who is not far away or just waiting in the wings waiting to swoop down and take the “raptured elect” while the rest of us sorry suckers are left behind to suffer the chaos of tribulation.
In his popular song, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” a man awakens after an all night drunk. On his walk home he sings,
“In the park I saw a daddy with a laughing little girl that he was swinging
and I stopped beside a Sunday school and listened to the songs they were singing…
then I headed down the street and somewhere far away
a lonely bell was ringing
and it echoed through the canyons of my disappearing dreams of yesterday.
On a Sunday morning sidewalk I’m wishing Lord that I was stoned
‘cause there’s something in a Sunday that makes a body feel alone.
And there’s nothing short of dying that’s half as lonesome as the sound
of the sleeping city sidewalk and Sunday morning comin’ down.”
The song “What on earth will you do for heaven’s sake?” Johnny asks,
“Did you turn a frown with a smile?
Did you lift a lowly heart about to break?
Would you also give your cloak
to one who took away your coat?
What on earth will you do for heaven’s sake?
Did you feed the poor in spirit and befriend the prosecuted?
Will you show the bound that all the chains can break?
Will you be one of the meek,
did you turn the other cheek,
would you give a little more than you would take?
Did you shine your little light upon the children of the night?
What on earth will you do for heaven sake?”
There are many songs with these themes, but of particular interest to Cash seemed to be the plight of the imprisoned. In “Give My Love To Rose” a man recently released from a San Francisco prison is found lying nearly dead along the railroad tracks. The former prisoner asks the passerby to give his love to his wife Rose and his son. I find the version from his American IV: The Man Comes Around album. His voice had aged and the way he sings the song has so much more feeling than from his earlier crooner days.
Other songs such as “Another man done gone”; “There Ain’t No Good Chain Gang”; “I Hung My Head”; “I Got Stripes:’ “Busted”; “Don’t Take Your Guns To Town”; “Sam Hall”; “25 Minutes To Go”; Joe Bean; and “Greystone Chapel” all deal with men in prison or men awaiting their execution.
In his American III: Solitary Man he includes the song “Mercy Seat”. The song is about a death row inmate pondering his fate on the very day of his execution. The man claims,
“Well it all began when they took me from my home
and put me on death row –
a crime for which I’m totally innocent, you know.”
The man rambles on and on as his contorted conscience begins to get the best of him.
“…in a way I’m yearning to be done
with all of this weighing of the truth,
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
and anyway I told the truth
and I’m not afraid to die.
“I hear stories from the chamber.
Christ was born into a manger
and like some ragged stranger
he died upon the cross,
might I say it seems so fitting in its way
he was a carpenter by trade,
or at least that’s what I’m told...
In heaven his throne is made of gold
The ark of his testament is stowed a throne of which I’m told
all history does unfold…
“It’s made of wood and wire
and my body is on fire
and God is never far away….
into the mercy seat I climb,
my head is shaved my head is wired
and like the moth that tries to enter the bright light,
I go shuffling out of life
just to hide in death awhile
and anyway I never lied.
And the mercy seat is waiting
and I think my head is burning…
“And the mercy seat is burning
and I think my head is glowing,
and in a way I’m hoping to be done
with all of this twisting of the truth,
an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth,
and anyway there was no proof,
and I’m not afraid to die.
“And the mercy seat is glowing,
and I think my head is smoking,
and in a way I’m a hoping to be done
with all these looks of disbelief,
a life for a life and a truth for a truth,
and I’ve got nothing left to lose
and I’m not afraid to die.
“And the mercy seat is smoking
and I think my head is melting,
and in a way that’s helping
to be done with all this twisting
of the truth, an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth,
and anyway I told the truth but I’m afraid I told a lie.”
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the song truly rouses the listener’s conscience.
The song “The Green, Green Grass of Home,” affirms the goodness of creation and the human longing for home, as told through the eyes of a condemned man within his cell.
Johnny Cash’s music is rooted in the good earth and embodies an Incarnational theology that echoes John’s gospel, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.”
Cash even sang the popular tune Paradise.
“Daddy, won’t you take me back to Muehlenberg County,
down by the Green River where Paradise lay?
‘I’m sorry, my son, but you’re too late in asking.
Mr. Peabody’s coal train done hauled it away.”
“The coal company came with the world’s largest shovel,
stripped all the timber and tortured the land.
They dug for the coal till the land was forsaken,
wrote it all down to the progress of Man.”
Such lyrics certainly evince an attitude of reverence for the earth and natural resources, especially the tongue in cheek reference to “the progress of man” and the overt adjective of torture.
A.P. Carter’s song “Keep on the Sunny Side of Life,” encourages us that good will conquer evil. There is no need for despair or hopelessness. The paschal mystery of Christ promises life, hope, and goodness. The words continue:
“Though we meet with the darkness and strife,
the sunny side we may also view.
Let us greet with a song of hope each day,
though the moments be cloudy or fair,
let us trust that our savior always
will keep us everyone in his care.”
“Oh, the storm in its fury broke today,
crushing hopes that I cherish so dear,
storms and clouds will in time pass away
and the sun again will shine bright and clear.”
We hear a man singing about a God who loves all of his creation, as charged with his grandeur. But this is no Pollyanna approach to life, neither is it an escapist theology based upon the preaching of prosperity and a promise of rapture when the going gets tough.
Cash’s music is pious-free and Catholic friendly. Even two of his last songs, “The Man Comes Around” – which seems to be influenced by all the talk of rapture – and the traditional “God’s Gonna Cut You Down,” both deserve to be listened to for within them contain ageless truths.
Johnny admits in the liner notes that the song The Man Comes Around was a difficult song and it took him a long time to write; it is about Christ’s Second Coming. In one line he asks,
“Will you partake of that last offered cup
or disappear into the potter’s ground,
when the Man comes around?”
In this I hear a Eucharistic theme – intended or not. In the Book of Revelation Jesus speaks:
“I stand at your door and knock. If you open the door I will come in and sup with him and him with me.”
In John’s Gospel Jesus says,
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst…Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you… Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (Jn 6:35, 53-55, italics mine).
Christ is with us, and throughout Johnny Cash’s career his songs challenged the status quo and called us to see the worth of every human being, even the men in prison, the men on death row, those killed on both sides of war or the tragic end of the native American Ira Hayes (one of the marines who lifted the flag at Iwo Jima).
“God’s gonna cut you down” may seem harsh to Catholic ears, but the truth is that one day we will all die and render an account to God for the gift of our life. As Saint Benedict wrote; Keep death ever before you.
“You can run on for a long time…
sooner of later God’ll cut you down.
Go tell that long-tongue liar,
go and tell that midnight rider,
the rambler, the gambler,
the back-biter,
tell ‘em that God’s gonna cut ‘em down.”
Is this not the hound of heaven? It is written in Ezekiel 33 that if we fail to call the sinner to repentance we will be held accountable for his sinfulness. As the song says, “What is done in the dark will be brought to the light…” We are our brother and sister’s keepers. We must foster the common good and pursue peace through justice.
I would have liked for Johnny Cash to have sung a few traditional Catholic hymns before his death, but, alas, we will have to be content knowing that he is now singing them in heaven. Imagine Johnny singing “Whatsoever you do,” “We are the light of the World,” Make Me a Channel of Your Peace,” or “I Am the Bread of Life.”
“Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do to unto me.”
The hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, weary, anxious, imprisoned, soldiers, war veterans, orphaned, abandoned, aged, insulted, and lonely took heart in Johnny’s songs. It was to the poor in spirit, the meek and humble, those mourning in sorrow, those hungering and thirsting for justice, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, and the persecuted that Johnny sang for. Sowing love in place of hatred, preaching pardon and peace in the face of injury and war, hope and joy in place of despair and sadness, and self-giving and faith rather than selfishness or doubt were his messages. And he took all of these themes from the gospel message.
Hence the catholicity of Johnny Cash’s music comes through in the sense of God’s sacramental presence in the world around us, the commitment to both faith and human reason, an emphasis upon the communal aspect of our baptismal call and a love for the saints – and sinners.
May we all keep on the sunny side of life, greeting each and every day with a song of hope, knowing that through the storms of life Christ is with us. And when Christ comes to raise our mortal bodies, may we awaken in the sweet by and by of the peaceful valley of paradise, meeting on that beautiful shore of the banks of Jordan our loved ones and the communion of saints with whom we have journeyed unaware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
