Peter EspeutONE OF the regrets I have about Jamaica's semi-literate society is that we seem unable to engage each other in genuine intellectual debate. So few people understand the rules of logic that pretty soon the exercise breaks down in disarray. And when people use the same words to mean different things (ambiguity) it is impossible to proceed.
This is why I am pleased that two persons responded to my piece of three weeks ago where I presented the teaching of the Catholic Church on the intrinsic goodness of man, and The Gleaner printed them together last Tuesday (January 16). Debate is good and rare and I hope there will be more light than heat. Last week was also the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" observed by those Christian Denominations that wish Jesus' prayer "That all may be one" (John 17) to be answered. Debate and polylogue between people who claim the same Jesus as their guide is work towards this goal, because views which profoundly conflict cannot all be correct, and it is only truth which will set us free.
One of the difficulties of debating with Martin Henry one of those who has entered the debate is that he is an avowed fundamentalist and I am not. For me, theology is "Faith in search of reason", so we begin with Holy Scripture and we use our God-given intelligence and the rules of logic and we end up with theology. For fundamentalists, theology is the same thing as bible study, and this is why Mr. Henry, after saying that I need to get my theology right, then proceeds to quote a series of scripture passages as his "right theology". Those of my tradition would say that Mr. Henry has not yet started to do theology, which puts him in good company, for many Jamaicans from all social backgrounds are fundamentally anti-theological (and some even anti-intellectual).
One of the discoveries of the discipline of theology is that the doctrinal and ethical teachings of the Bible have developed and evolved through time. This is anathema to fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is a seamless whole from beginning to end and cannot contradict itself. They believe that all they have to do to win a religious argument is to find a string of words from anywhere in the Old or New Testament which supports their position, quote them, and then rest back in victory. This is the approach which both protagonists took last Tuesday.
Those who do theology eschew this "proof text" approach. All of the Bible Old and New Testament is 100 per cent true, but as God reveals himself and his word to mankind, there is development of doctrine. Let me give an example. In Genesis it says "I killed a man for wounding me, a boy for striking me. Sevenfold vengeance is taken for Cain, but seventy-seven fold for Lamech" (Gen 4:23). Here, the ethical position is that the punishment must be far greater than the offence (death for wounding, many lives for one). Later, the Mosaic law says, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, would for wound, stroke for stroke" (Ex. 21:23). This is an advance over the ethic of Genesis, for retaliation (Talion) is limited to only one for one. Jesus goes further, and says, "You have heard it said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; but I say to you " (Mt 5:38). For Christians there is to be no retaliation; not even feelings of anger are acceptable; not even name-calling is acceptable. Only forgiveness is to be available seventy-times-seven-fold.
And so it matters from where in the Bible is quoted to explain God's law, and we misrepresent God when we quote from passages superceded by others.
Pre-Christian
I can almost see my protagonists tearing out their hair at this approach. They want to be able to quote from the Old Law to defend their ethic of retaliation and still call it Christian! I would like to seriously suggest that many persons in Jamaica who call themselves Christian, may really be Pre-Christian in their understanding of God and theology!
Mr. Henry suggests that he is so knowledgeable on the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, that my argument expressed in the January 11 article which started this whole debate "is a remarkable departure which could well be considered heretical" by my Archbishop. I would like to suggest that if anyone wants to know what our doctrine really is, they must read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the jaundiced views of detractors. Space does not permit lengthy quotations, but here is a short extract from paragraph 299:
"The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the "image of the invisible God", is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the "image of God" and called to a personal relationship with God. Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his Creation, though not without great effort, and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work. Because Creation comes forth from God's goodness, it shares in that goodness "and God saw that it was good very good" for God willed Creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of Creation, including that of the physical world."
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is pro-life. A sinner must be given a chance to repent. Capital punishment is a last resort. Let me quote again from the Catechism (revised paragraph 2267): "Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offence incapable of doing harm without definitively 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 non-existent".
I hope that the debate will continue, and that we will stick to the issues. Truly, it is the truth which will set us free!
Rev. Peter Espeut is a Graduate in Theology (First Class Honours) from St. Michael's Seminary/United Theological College and is a Deacon in the Roman Catholic Church.
