John Allen Jr. warns of a bill in Uganda that would further criminalize homosexuality and even introduce the death penalty for homosexuals under certain circumstances. Part of the bill includes encouraging turning in homosexuals to the government. He goes on to say:
To date, there’s been little public comment from Uganda’s Catholic leadership.
In some ways, the bishops are between a rock and a hard place. They may not like the harsher elements of the bill, but they also share the suspicion that Western forces are trying to cram a liberal social agenda down Africa’s throat, and they don’t want to discourage efforts to defend African values. (In truth, bishops across Africa feel this way, including many seen in the West as “liberal” on matters such as the environment, trading relationships and armed conflict. Assertion of a Western campaign to subvert Africa’s family values loomed large during the recent Synod for Africa in Rome.) [reference]
I don’t agree with the rock and a hard place analogy. I see no reason the Uganda bishops can’t talk about this issue. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and as John Allen Jr. notes persons with same-sex attraction “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity,” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” The bishops can certainly protest on these grounds while also stating that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” It certainly would not be Western liberal pressure to preach the truth which must be preached in and out of season even if misinterpreted by some.
John Allen Jr. also notes it is difficult to determine the actual chances the bill has of going through. Maybe the bishops there see this as not going through, but they should be speaking up regardless about Catholic teaching on this subject.
The question facing Ugandan Catholics is how to apply those principles to the debate sparked by Bahati’s bill. One thing seems clear: Whatever stand they take has to be their own choice. Efforts from the West to force their hand are likely to be counter-productive, as the Anglican reaction illustrates.
Historically, Africa’s bishops and other Catholic leaders haven’t had a particularly high global profile. From time to time they might complain about international neglect, but they came to accept it as the way of the world. Today, however, demographic change has turned the Catholic church upside down, putting a global spotlight on Africa.
Now that they have the world’s attention, the question is: What will Catholic leaders in Uganda have to say?
“Whatever stand they take has to be their own choice.” Sounds pretty relativistic to me. I don’t see what other possible stand could be taken. If they decide to say nothing and the bill has a good chance of success I can hardly see that as nothing but failing to do good and to allow unjust persecution.
There is some irony here of this being published in the National Catholic Reporter where John Allen Jr. certainly seems to want to bishops to speak up while the rest of the staff wants the bishops to shut up when it comes to health care here in the states.
Hat Tip Fr. Ray Blake
24 comments
The irony is more than being “published by NCReporter”, its the fact the Allen has such amazing credibility among the credulous catholic press (present blogmaster excepted!).
The irony is more than being “published by NCReporter”, its the fact that Allen has such amazing credibility among the credulous catholic press (present blogmaster excepted!).
The Catholic bishops can, should, and often do oppose the death penalty for virtually any crime. From a Catholic perspective, homosexual acts – even criminal homosexual acts – should no more expose a defendant to risk of the death penalty than any other traditionally capital offenses such as homicide, armed robbery, or kidnapping.
The Catholic Church is opposed to homosexual acts. The Catholic Church is also opposed to the death penalty.
Regardless of the chances of the law passing or not, this is what’s called a “teachable moment.” The bishops should take this opportunity to teach the flock (and the public at large) what the Church has to say about human sexuality and human dignity.
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1st Cornthians 6:9-10, NIV.
Now as for Capitol Punishment, executing a criminal who has committed a capitol offense (e.g., murder, rape, treason, pedophilia, child abuse, etc.) is actually TOO merciful to the criminal. It ends the misery of his life here on Earth too quickly. Rather, criminals found guilty of a capitol offense by a jury of their peers should be subjected to life imprisonment in solitary confinement. The guilty criminal should be held captive in a small room surrounded by four bare walls, a low ceiling and a floor. He should have a cot for sleeping, a sink for washing, and a toilet bowl for defecating and urinating. A bright lamp should be affixed directly overhead his cot to be left shining continuously throughout the imprisonment so that day or night he may contemplate the severity of his heinous crimes. The guilty criminal should be afforded bread, water, air, and toilet paper; nothing else. No TV. No internet. No books. No newspapers. No pencils or pens. No windows. No visitors. No nothing. If the criminal gets sick, then let him die in his sin. If the criminal goes crazy, then let him die in his sin. If the criminal injures himself or endangers his own life, then let him die in his sin. Let God Almighty take him to eternal justice.
The penalty for the commission of a capitol crime must be capitol, and the imprisonment described above certainly is that. Yet I predict that not a single liberal Democrat so-called Catholic enamored with the false gospel of social justice and peace at any price would be willing to support the abolition of the death penalty if the solitary confinement described above were the only alternative. And yet such solitary confinement is ALL that the criminal guilty of a capitol offense deserves. I agree with the social justice Catholics: only God has the right to take life. Therefore, set the criminal in complete, total and utter isolation until God calls him to eternal justice. In this fashion we truly meet the demands of justice here on Earth, and we send a very clear signal to criminals intent on capitol crimes that it is better to be dead and meet God than to be imprisoned in solitary confinement.
Although I agree with minimal recreational resources for capital criminals, what is described above is “cruel and unusual”, something forbidden by our Constitution and by the virtue of charity. Are we to treat another human being, no matter what he has done, with the same cruelty he exhibited against his victim?
Jeff, does the law call for capital punishment for those with SSA or for those who actually commit homosexual acts?
That’s a big difference.
Certainly if it applied simply to those with SSA, then it would be the “unjust discrimination” described by Cardinal Ratzinger. But if the law applied to the crime of homosexual behaviour, legislators would be well within their rights to make it illegal. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would agree with that.
Certainly a state has a right to forbid evils such has homosexual acts, which the Catechism describes as a crime that ‘cries out to heaven for vengeance,’ with serious penalties, especially in a country where homosexual behaviour causes the spread of AIDS which threatens the lives of so many innocent women and children. Capital punishment for these crimes, which was the Old Testament Biblical penalty, is not forbidden by anything in Catholicism. It’s really up to the Ugandans to decide what’s appropriate for their society. And frankly, it’s pretty arrogant and pompous for us to try to be telling them how they should run their country.
Does anyone know of a reliable source of info from the Church and bishops in Africa? I know that finding reliable info from Latin America can be difficult even if you read the languages, which I do, but don’t know how to find out if maybe the bishops have, in fact weighed in. Thank, AnneG in NC
Re the death penalty (which I know this post is not about), a question. I have read numerous accounts of sorrow and repentance by convicted criminals at the moment of their impending demise, imposed by the state for their crimes. My question is: how is it more charitable to let someone deny their guilt and live out their natural life incarcerated without repentance and the probable eternal punishment in hell rather than facing certain execution with a chance for repentance? Thanks, AnneG in NC
“how is it more charitable to let someone deny their guilt and live out their natural life incarcerated without repentance and the probable eternal punishment in hell rather than facing certain execution with a chance for repentance?”
The Church has never held that it is the prospect of imminent death that leads the guilty to repent, although it sometimes works out this way. Rather it is the mercy of God that leads the guilty to repent, sometimes aided by the prospect of imminent death, sometimes aided by the prospect of much less imminent death followed by eternal punishment.
Both prospects are pretty much show stoppers for those in the right frame of mind. And the right frame-of-mind comes from grace.
The Church’s teaching is: to intentionally and directly take a human life is never licit except as an absolute last resort in self-defense or in defense of another. This is why the death penalty in modern industrialized nations is said to be almost never licit.
With all the crap going on in the US, I wouldn’t try to tell an African bishop what to scream about.
I imagine the African bishops have far more dire problems than capital punishment (CP) whether for mass murderers, for political opponents, or for corporate CEO’s (latter two examples were executed by social justice saints like Che and Fidel).
Really CP is about punishment not societal protection. I could protect myself – if they don’t take my guns.
You all need to get a hold of a Catechism of the Catholic Ch. before it was revised in 1997 and see how CP was treated. I blame a bunch of liberal Vat bureaucrats that pushed it past the Pope.
Here’s an OT Genesis quote:
“Who spills man’s blood
By man shall his blood be spilled.
For God made man in His image.” I.E., human life is sacred and the murderer deserves capital punishment.
Anyhow, this Pope wrote that Catholics may disagree with the Pope on CP, but not on abortion which has been recognized as objectively evil for 2,000 years. Opposition to CP is a recent renovation.
BTW: all you so-called catholics that voted for Obama because he was pro-life (stealing from the rich and opposed to CP and FOR murdering 45,000,000 unborn babies, ESCR, etc.): what say you on his wanting CP for the poor, misunderstood 9/11 planners?
Here’s your penance: sign the Manhattan Declaration.
The Ugandans are proposing the death penalty for homosexuals who rape children and disabled persons – and the smart set here in the US what the bishops to speak up against it? That is hilarious. Imagine the headlines: “USCCB Speaks Up for Child Rapists”. The law also bans the promotion of homosexual perversion… I would write more but I am now gong to check out Ugandan real estate prices.
The Ugandans are proposing the death penalty for homosexuals who rape children and disabled persons – and the smart set here in the US what the bishops to speak up against it? That is hilarious. Imagine the headlines: “USCCB Speaks Up for Child Rapists”. The law also bans the promotion of homosexual perversion… I would write more but I am now going to check out Ugandan real estate prices.
General question regarding the Death Penalty:
Can we say that the death penalty is always wrong in developing countries? I have always understood the Church’s stance to be that the death penalty is wrong when there is a lesser punishment which will still protect society (i.e. life imprisonment in a modern max-security installation). However, that condition is not always an option in all nations.
Response to Paul:
I agree that perpetrators of heinous crimes should not be given luxuries, but I believe that God desires not the death of a sinner; rather, He wants the sinner to repent. The conditions you propose seem to inhibit conversion and repentance. Namely, I think the convict should AT LEAST be allowed religious reading material and pastoral visits. Indeed, I think that denying a criminal the opportunity to confess to a priest is a spiritual form of murder.
Edmund said: I agree that perpetrators of heinous crimes should not be given luxuries, but I believe that God desires not the death of a sinner; rather, He wants the sinner to repent. The conditions you propose seem to inhibit conversion and repentance. Namely, I think the convict should AT LEAST be allowed religious reading material and pastoral visits. Indeed, I think that denying a criminal the opportunity to confess to a priest is a spiritual form of murder.
What if the crimes or acts of war are jihadi or Islamic terrorist, in nature, the perpetrator believes he has done the will of Allah in committing them. What sort of spiritual reading and counsel should he be given?
Marion, I didn’t say the Church says imminent execution is what causes repentance. I have read numerous accounts by those opposed to the death penalty for any reason of testimonies of criminals repenting just before execution and that was used to justify being against capital punishment. The CCC teaching is rather narrow, seems to me. It isn’t meant to deal with any extraordinary circumstances, but with those that are most common. We can’t participate in intrinsic evil, but this seems to be a matter of prudential judgment, natural law and mercy.
No, Joanne, executing a convicted criminal is not mercy killing. That is a euphemism for euthanasia, something totally out of this discussion. I was asking about execution, capital punishment by the state. My question is: Is it more merciful or charitable to correct someone so they are brought to repentance or tolerate their sin and let them go to hell?
“My question is: Is it more merciful or charitable to correct someone so they are brought to repentance or tolerate their sin and let them go to hell?”
The answer in general would be that it is our Christian duty to correct the sinner in the hope that they are thereby brought to repentance. This is generally accomplished through words and example.
Saint Thomas Aquinas points out that sometimes the sinner is not open to correction, that indeed attempts at correction sometimes hardens them in their sin, and so, in these cases, it is better not to correct them.
Ultimately, however, it is the sinner’s own decision to continue in his sin and fling himself body and soul into Hell. No one can decide this for another.
Whatever the sinner’s dispositions, the civil authority has the duty and the obligation to protect its citizens from being made victims of crime, and it is therefore legitimate for the state to protect itself by imprisoning those who threaten the public order. In modern industrialized societies, this duty may nearly always be accomplished without resorting to capital punishment.
From my experience with homosexuals, the phrase “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” to them means you must agree with their views or you are doing violence to them.
TShaw wrote:
“You all need to get a hold of a Catechism of the Catholic Ch. before it was revised in 1997 and see how CP was treated. I blame a bunch of liberal Vat bureaucrats that pushed it past the Pope.”
Your claim is outlandish. The changes made in the Catechism for the second edition were done to specifically reflect JPII’s teaching on the death penalty in Evagelium Vitae (which had not yet been promulgated when the first edition of the Catechism came out in 1991).
I blame George Weigel for popularizing the theory that all magisterial teaching that conservatives disagree with is due to liberal forces in the Vatican pressuring/smuggling their ideas into papal texts.
BillyHW wrote:
“Certainly a state has a right to forbid evils such as homosexual acts, which the Catechism describes as a crime that ‘cries out to heaven for vengeance,’ with serious penalties, especially in a country where homosexual behaviour causes the spread of AIDS which threatens the lives of so many innocent women and children. Capital punishment for these crimes, which was the Old Testament Biblical penalty, is not forbidden by anything in Catholicism.”
There’s so much wrong with this statement that it is hard to know where to begin.
– First of all, the major cause of AIDs in Africa is heterosexual promiscuity and marital infidelity, so this law would constitute unjust discrimination unless all adultery and fornication were punishable by death, not just homosexual acts.
– Second, there is plenty in Catholicism that would forbid the use of the death penalty in this situation. The death penalty is to be reserved only for those situations where it is impossible to adequately protect the public through means of imprisonment. That is not up for dispute. What Cardinal Ratzinger once said was that Catholics may in good faith disagree with the prudential judgment of the recent ordinary magisterium that these conditions vitually never exist in modern inductrialized societies. Even given this right to disagree (if we can equate a cardinal’s theological opinion to be of equal weight to papal teaching), there’s little justification for saying that there is no other way to protect society from such offenders.
– Third, we have a clear example of how the Lord Jesus dealt with someone caught in a sexual crime (Jn 8). He corrected (and certainly did not excuse) the offense, but he also specifically intervened to stop the person from being punished with death. Remember that adultery was also a capital crime in the Old Testament.
– Fourth, it is not homosexual acts, but unjust killing that the catechism says “cry out to heaven for vengeance” (see no. 2268). Ironically in your zeal to persecute gays you are in fact advocating the very thing that the catechism in fact condemns with such force.
Actually the crimes which call to Heaven for vengeance are willful murder, the sin of Sodom (homosexual rape), oppression of the poor and depriving workers of their just wages. These are all based on things God actually said and/or has done.
Michaelus: CCC 1867 notes that the crimes you mention “cry to heaven” but does not make mention of “vengeance”. (Vengeance is there in the original quote from Genesis regarding Cain’s murder of Abel, but not in Gen 18:20 regarding Sodom.)
And there are so many clear places in the New Testament where it is emphasized that vengeance is for the Lord alone (“vengeance is mine, says the Lord”) and not for us (“let no one return evil for evil”) that the wrongness of executing Sodomites should be obvious.
I’m very frustrated by Christians who go out of there way to find justifications for killing. The command of the Lord is clear: “Love your enemies.”
At the end of the day, even taking into account Pope John Paul II’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae, the Church has never declared capital punishment intrinsically evil. And if the Church did, it would pretty much disprove the infallibility of the Church and the Pope.
And JPII’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae left a loophole large enough for whales to swim through.