Protecting Life By Taking It Away (Jeff Jacoby Raps Catholic Church's Defense Of Murderers Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 12/12/05 | Jeff Jacoby

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's a copy of an e-mail message I wrote to Jeff Jacoby:

Dear Jeff,

You're one of my favorite people to read because I appreciate your integrity, civility, intelligence. (Give yourself a pat on the back, mumbling --- as I do, when I'm complimented --- "True, true..." ) ;^D

Brother, let me share a few roving thoughts here on the death penalty and related issues.

I read somewhere that 500 people a year were murdered by murderers who had already been convicted of previous murders. I think that was in California alone. (Don't quote me on this, because I can't remember the exact figure.) That certainly impressed me with the importance of removing murderers from society permanently.

I have always been in favor of a life-sentence-without-possibility-of-parole for murderers, seeing it as an effective way to protect society. My only exception would be if the offender re-offends while in prison. In other words, if the convicted criminal assaults another prisoner or a guard while in prison, he (or she) is demonstrating that even imprisonment, in this case, is not sufficient to protect society. In such cases I think execution (swift and certain) would be justified.

I don't know why the Catholic Bishops didn't try to build a Biblical case against the death penalty. The could have at least cited Genesis (in re: Cain) where the murder was completely unprovoked, against an innocent, God-pleasing man, and a brother at that, and yet the murderer's life was not only spared, but protected by God.

In another murder-most-foul, God spared King David's life though his deeds were despicable, because he was repentant.

The Bishops ought also to have cited and commented upon the pro-death-penalty Scriptures which were deployed so effectively in your column. Brushing them off lightly, or ignoring them altogether, certainly seems like pastoral incompetence to me.

Anyhow, our positions may be fairly close, yours and mine, even though we still disagree at some points. The Catholic Church has never taught (and will never teach) that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong; and since you have challenged me to wrestle with this question, I thank you for it.

Now, on to the question of torture:

I have made a list of conservative, pro-life writers who have come out unequivocally against torture. It includes: Eve Tushnet, Roberto Rivera, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Shea. And Nat Hentoff, who's not exactly conservative but he is blessedly pro-life. And oh yes: Jeff Jacoby!!

What am I doing with this list? I don't know. Certainly not organizing a committee (although perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea.) I copied out the list, and now I gaze at it every day. I read the names. Then I read them again. Somehow it makes me feel better about being a human being living on Planet Earth, knowing that there are people out there whose souls revolt against torture, and who will speak out and not back down.

Did I thank you before? OK, I thank you again.

God bless you.

(signed)

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

Precisely.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

"Jacoby is no doubt a Protestant obsessed with bashing anything that comes from the Catholic Church. I get really tired of the constant attacks on my church."

I do too. There is a general theme of anti-Catholicism among certain conservative Protestants that manifests itself in arguments that the Church is "liberal" on some issue or another, and that it is, thus, the enemy.
Yes, we have our share of crazy Jesuits and a questionable USCCB, but this hardly makes the Church a tool of the Left. Put to this test, Protestantism fares even worse as the home of John Shelby Spong, Vicky Gene Robinson, the anti-war United Methodist leadership, and the socialism-advocating, Israel-attacking Presbyterian Church-USA. The point being that we shouldn't take so silly and superficial an approach when evaluating other strands of Christianity. If people would read the Catholic catechism and papal encyclicals on social and economic policy, they would become acquainted with a beautiful, cohesive system of genuine conservatism that has little in common with mainstream media blurbs citing the USCCB.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jeff Jacoby is an observant Jew and a social conservative who takes the Catholic Church seriously.

Why? Because Jacoby is seriously interested in defending and preserving the Judeo-Christian foundations of civilization, and the most significant worldwide defender of those foundations happens to be the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic, I consider Jacoby to be a valued dialog partner --- in Jesus' words, "A true Israelite, in whom there is no guile."

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

I have no problem with Jeff Jacoby whatsoever; my previous posts about "Catholic bashing" were intended to address a particular trend I have been seeing in some conservative circles. I was responding to DaGMan's statement that he gets "really tired of the constant attacks on [his] church," and did not mean my concurrence to be an assault against Jacoby. I guess I got a bit off topic. As regards Mr. Jacoby, I disagree with his article, but do not have any personal antagonism towards him. I apologize for my lack of clarity if my posts (which were not about Jacoby himself) appeared to convey that message.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for your clarification. Jeff J. is one of the ablest socially-conservative Jewish columnists; even when I disagree with him, I always think he's worth my time and attention.

[dbz77]

Jacoby is no doubt a Protestant obsessed with bashing anything that comes from the Catholic Church. I get really tired of the constant attacks on my church.

Jacoby is a Jew.