As the dust continues to settle from the November election, it’s increasingly clear that “moral values” were instrumental in swaying Catholic voters to President Bush. This shift turned out to be more significant than anticipated, especially among Catholics who attend Mass on a weekly basis, where President Bush enjoyed a 56-43 advantage.
We all know that by “moral values” we're talking about the non-negotiable, hot-button issues of the day — abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and same-sex “marriage” — concerning which the Catholic position is clear and not subject to a diversity of opinions.
What about the “other” life issues? Unfortunately, in rightly emphasizing that some life issues are not on a par with the more foundational ones, pro-lifers are frequently accused of not caring about social justice concerns. The effect is that issues involving the poor, sick, imprisoned, marginalized, immigrant, and minority populations are cast as blue (and “negotiable”) issues. Yet all matters involving the dignity and protection of human life are truly “Catholic” issues. They're far too important to be left as scraps for anti-life forces.
Dating back to my days as a volunteer law clerk in the Los Angeles County Public Defender's office, I've been sensitive to the dehumanizing character of our criminal justice system. In my estimation, this “life” issue too often receives short shrift, even though approximately seven million Americans are currently in prison or jail, or on probation or parole.
Clearly, prison ministry was a priority to our Lord, who explicitly noted that we will be judged on how we treat those who are incarcerated (cf. Mt 25:31-46). That's why visiting the imprisoned to this day is considered a corporal work of mercy, right up there with feeding the hungry and caring for the sick (see Catechism no. 2447).
This also is a priority to Pope John Paul II, who has addressed criminal justice concerns many times. In his Message for the Jubilee in Prisons, he noted:
We are still a long way from the time when our conscience can be certain of having done everything possible to prevent crime and to control it effectively so that it no longer does harm and, at the same time, to offer to those who commit crimes a way of redeeming themselves and making a positive return to society.
I'm often called upon as a father to punish my children when they act inappropriately. If I were to fail to do this, I would be doing my family — and especially the offending child — a serious injustice. Yet I never discipline merely for the sake of doling out a punishment. Punishment is medicine ordered to the correction of my child, not a license for me to vent my rage or frustration. While I'm usually not this transparent as I mete out the punishment, I'm at least saying to silently, “This is for your own good” (cf. Heb 12:5-6). If my goal ever ceased to be the correction of my child, my discipline would lose its purpose and become vindictive, harsh, and possibly even abusive.
Something similar is at work when it comes to administering justice to the criminal. Far too often, we've undervalued, if not abandoned altogether, the necessary rehabilitative or restorative element that justifies the imposition of punishment in the first place. Retribution not ordered to the correction of the offender too easily degenerates into societal vengeance.
Some examples of this mindset identified by the US bishops include over-simplistic policies such as “three strikes and you're out” and “zero tolerance” for drug offenders; the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences; increased willingness to use isolation units; and the broadening application of the death penalty, among other things.
Unfortunately, “tough on crime” (like “affordable healthcare” and “no child left behind”) too often is used as rhetoric that plays upon our fear, rather than as reflecting a real commitment to address this serious issue at its roots.
Sometimes it seems that our society's answer to the problem of crime is to build larger jails and prisons, though tragically supply hasn't kept up with demand. Over the past 25 years, the number of persons under correctional supervision has increased nearly 400 percent. According to Bureau of Justice statistics, this amounts to a staggering 3.1 percent of all US adult residents, with a disproportionate number of those incarcerated being poor, aliens, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Despite the laudable efforts of our jail and prison chaplains, the Catholic Church, beset by a priest shortage and strained budgets, is having a difficult time meeting the spiritual needs of inmates.
If our efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade were to succeed tomorrow, such that in the coming year there are one million children born who would otherwise have been aborted, we can reasonably — even conservatively — project that tens of thousands of these children would eventually be incarcerated. What's the pro-life response to that?
The issue of “crime and punishment” is complex and certainly cannot be addressed in satisfactory detail here, but I can leave readers with this thought: When it comes to abortion, one of our most important and compelling messages is that we “love them both.” In other words, we're magnanimous enough to be “pro-woman” and “pro-child.” In truth, we can't be one without the other.
Similarly, I truly believe that we will not get a handle on our criminal justice system until we're “big enough” to embrace both victim and offender, offering them redemption and healing through Jesus Christ, who came to set captives free in the best and truest sense.
Leon J. Suprenant, Jr. is the president of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) and Emmaus Road Publishing and the editor-in-chief of Lay Witness magazine, all based in Steubenville, Ohio. He is a contributor to Catholic for a Reason III: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mass and an adviser to CE’s Catholic Scripture Study. His email address is leon@cuf.org.
Join Catholics United for the Faith and enjoy the many benefits of membership.
