Check out this poster and let me know what you think. I’m still kinda’ going through my thoughts on this.
Jill Stanek seems pretty outraged by it.
I spotted the above graphic on the Holy Angels Youth Group website (out of Chagrin Falls, Ohio).
Although the graphic was certainly well-intended, it bothered me.
The annual March for Life is scheduled on or near January 22, the anniversary of the infamous U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout all of America in 1973.
Although the M4L website states it is “the collective effort of grassroots prolife Americans to assure that our state and federal laws shall protect the right to life of each human in existence at fertilization,” I think clearly the March is by-and-large a huge demonstration taking a stand against abortion.
Particularly for the above graphic to state the March is to make a statement “against the death penalty,” and to even list it first – before abortion – offends me.
On the one hand, not putting abortion first does bother me. But I’m also for a consistent ethic of life. I’ve got to think about this one a bit. The thing is, to put it bluntly, it feels a little hippie to me. I know that sounds crazy but it just feels a little like what a pro-life poster the Nuns on the Bus would put up (if they were actually pro-life.)
The thing is, I know there’s a good number of people who are not opposed to the death penalty who are anti-abortion. And while I don’t agree with the death penalty I do believe they’re coming to their stance from an honest perspective that I respect.
I think the poster is attempting to get a different crowd to the March for Life. And that’s good. But if it dilutes the message at all it’s certainly problematic.
I’m interested to know what you think. I haven’t made up my mind yet.
January 3, 2013 at 7:07 pm
I agree. Pro-life leaders need to switch now, to dedicated leaders in the fight against abortion, which is the only one legal at any time. It is also the most serious of these issues. I'm outraged; they've caved to liberal pundits.
January 3, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Paul Zummo- The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the Church “does not exclude” recourse to the death penalty when it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” It adds, however, that today such cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” This, in my understanding, is the basis of our Holy Father's opposition to the Death Penalty. Can you explain to me (or just point me to links) where I am wrong? Both Popes seem like a pretty official opposition, no?
January 3, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Awful…truly awful. It has become political in the worst of ways. So bad is this that it may be the first year in a decade I don't march. And whoever said it doesn't include contraception is dead on right, but the death-penalty fits in more with a liberal agenda. Awful, awful development…and satan is laughing in glee.
January 3, 2013 at 7:55 pm
This, in my understanding, is the basis of our Holy Father's opposition to the Death Penalty. Can you explain to me (or just point me to links) where I am wrong?
You actually just cited the passage that proves you're wrong. As you say, the Catechism states "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." Is there any similar language in Church teachings concerning abortion and euthansasia?
Both Popes seem like a pretty official opposition, no?
That both Popes personally oppose the death penalty does not signify that the Church is officially opposed to the death penalty. To hold such a view is akin to taking the Protestant caricature view of papal infallibility.
I would add that as of noon today more abortions were performed in the United States than there have been executions carried out since the re-institution of the death penalty in the early 1980s. Even if one opposes the death penalty – as I do – it is absurd to claim it of remotely equal importance to the issue of abortion, and it is certainly not on the same level when it comes to absolute Church teaching. Euthanasia and human trafficking are other matters and Church teaching regarding these issues is unambiguous. I'm not sure I would detract from the abortion issue by bringing those into the March for Life, but I can see where it would be useful to incorporate them into a broader pro-life message.
January 3, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Awful. There is one purpose of the March for Life. We can tackle the paramount life issue without have to tack on every other affront to human dignity that exists. I think Nellie Gray would be appalled at the attempt to hijack the purpose of the March. Also, as an ad, the design is terrible. Too much text and the use of red is a bad idea.
January 3, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Huh.
January 3, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Personally I don't think we'll see too many people holding anti-death penalty or anti-trafficking signs. Mostly it will be people standing up for the unborn. As it always is and as it should be.
January 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Wow, Nuns on the Bus redux! The March for Life has always been about abortion, not DNC talking points on the death penalty. Human trafficking has no place at this march either- the court decision was about abortion and none of the other issues.
January 3, 2013 at 10:18 pm
I am not "pro-life"; like most political labels, it's an oversimplified fetishistic slogan. I am merely anti-murder. Call me kooky.
Combating the Culture of Death by opposing the death penalty is like opposing the Cathars by insisting on the property rights of clergy—the Cathars went by the wayside because the newly-founded mendicant orders showed the orthodox approach to asceticism. If the Church had any sense (and to paraphrase Belloc, without God it wouldn't last two weeks), it would be advocating the death penalty in certain cases. It would also be pushing for reforms of justice systems to ensure that capital verdicts were more certain, but it is a scandal for Church documents to claim that we can render offenders "incapable of doing further harm"—has nobody in the hierarchy seen the murder and rape stats in our prisons?
Besides, if you actually bother to read arguments against the death penalty, at least half the time, they use the premise that heinous criminals are not worth killing. How exactly does that advance the recognition of human dignity, the denial of which is at the root of everything that makes up the Culture of Death?
January 3, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Sophia's Favorite:
Even though I am opposed to the death penalty, your arguments in favor are actually quite compelling. It is not at all unreasonable to argue that the death penalty is actually a sign of how highly we value the sanctity of life in that we view the act of murder as so heinous, the only appropriate punishment is death. I'm not quite there yet, but there is a lot of merit to it.
January 3, 2013 at 10:36 pm
It dilutes the message and that is never a good thing.
January 3, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Anyone who "only cares about abortion" is A-OK in my book, and I thank God for that person. There is no more serious crime taking place so many times a day in the United States — and certainly not under the sanction of our federal government. If people want to have a march against human trafficking, they should have one. There should be one. So then, do it! Don't crash the March for Life.
January 4, 2013 at 2:47 am
Also, isn't our lack of respect for life via abortion the reason euthanasia would occur, and isn't abortion something that helps facilitate human trafficking?
January 4, 2013 at 3:30 am
This is the official poster? I am enraged. The MARCH for Life was started because of Roe v. Wade, which is legalizing abortion. The reason why we march is to end abortion.
And if we protect life, the most innocent and helpless life, all other protection of life will fall into place. Bishop Loverde of Arlington, Va, wrote about this before the election.
I understand protecting life at all stages, but March for Life is abortion. The list should include only those actions that are intrinsically evil. The Death Penalty should NOT be on the list, particularly first header. This isn't even doctrine in the Church as wrong.
It just feels like that USCCB's Seamless Garment is back to haunt us.
Nellie Gray is probably rolling in her grave.
January 4, 2013 at 3:41 am
I'm thinking I agree with the majority here. It's held on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And it feels like it's diluting the message.
I don't believe this is the official poster though.
As far as the death penalty goes, I'm against it. But I must admit that I sometimes wonder if you accept as a given that liberal judges and parole boards are going to let out dangerous criminals, perhaps the death penalty is necessary to save lives. It's something I'm puzzling until my puzzler is sore.
January 4, 2013 at 3:46 am
Mark 9:40
I would assume that those who would be against these other 'invasive' topics would also be pro-life, no? Oftentimes, I find, that those who denigrate the dignity and respect of human life through abortion have equal disdain for the born as well…fruits of the the same philosophically vile tree.
January 4, 2013 at 3:52 am
In short, not wild about it nor offended by it. If you wish to offend me, tell me abortion is wonderful. Then we come to " them fightin' words"
January 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm
I live in Charlotte.
When the DNC was here last summer, our Bishop placed large pro-life/religious freedom banners on the walls of a Catholic church near the convention. The building and property belong to the diocese, but the VERY liberal parish is staffed by Jesuits. The parishoners stood on the steet with signs that read much as these. It was very clear their hope was to downplay the abortion message and up the "social justice" so as to justify their political leanings.
January 6, 2013 at 7:19 pm
It was a harsh mistake when Pope Innocent IV made burning heretics mandatory on secular rulers in 1253 and it is an opposite and soft mistake for the last two Popes to in effect attack capital punishment in real life while wording the catechism to cover two opposite positions on it. When a man ( and I've seen three cases of this on tv) rapes and kills a 5 year old or 11 year old girl and then strangles her to death, this is the little girl's last experience of life on earth. And you think a life sentence of hanging out in a cell with probably part time work, three meals a day and full medical coverage and a small tv satisfies as punishment? You see him as repenting in a life sentence but what if he commits self abuse sexual sins during your proposed life sentence until his death forty years later? You have enabled him to now enter a worse part of hell than he originally earned. What does any of this have to do with the God of the Bible who appoints in Romans 13:4 the state as what ?…a sworded minister of His wrath against evil doers. That's the New Testament inspired by the Holy Spirit DURING
an empire which had totally secure life sentences in the Roman mines and an empire that had faulty trials as in Christ's case. You had the spectacle of John Paul II calling the death penalty "cruel" in St. Louis in 1999 while representing a Bible which has God give over 34 death penalties in its pages as Cardinal Dulles pointed out in First Things years ago. Raise evidentiary standards in death penalty cases to exclude aggregate circumstantial cases e.g. to protect the innocent. But when a man is seen on video entering a motel room with a little girl and later leaving with a bag which he puts in a dumpster and it has her raped and dead body, then that man should be given several months to repent as in Dicken's day and then he should be executed. Here's the Holy Spirit after Christ rose and ascended….inspiring these words in Romans 13:4 concerning the state:
" but if you do evil fear for not without reason does the state carry the sword for it is God's minister, an avenger to execute WRATH against him who does evil.". Sound like a symbolic dress sword to you? That's what some Catholic scholars are saying so as to provide cover for the new approach of two Popes.. Go to Acts 12:2…" He ( Herod) had James the brother of John killed by the sword." The Greek for sword "machaira" is used there and in Romans 13:4.
January 6, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Correction: eliminate " to provide cover"….this goes to motive which I have no right to judge in respect to said scholars.