When Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter with the accompanying footnote that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven ...", it was an awesome moment. The text has various interpretations, one of which has to do with the very nature of the "authority of the church". With that interpretation in mind - that human beings are not always told what the right thing is to do, but that we have to decide - and assign - "rightness" to an action or decision, the news has given two opportunities in the past several weeks for serious ethical reflection.
The first is the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi by Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill. The second is the desire of a thirteen year old girl - Laura Dekker - from the Netherlands to circumnavigate the globe in a sailboat, solo.
Both of these situations are complicated by a number of significant factors in orbit around them - but that's what makes them so interesting. The possibilities of oil or compensation for vicitms' families that might accompany the release of the only person convicted in the bombing of Pan Am flight 303, and the fact of Laura's parent's divorce - Is she trying to win their admiration? - these are certainly important elements in the big picture of these issues.
In his book The Genesis of Ethics, Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky writes: "In communities that study together, their very conversation is a tool of moral development." Just talking about it makes a difference.
On the surface of it, in the first instance the conflict is between justice and mercy. In the second instance perhaps the conflict is between the individual and the community, and there is also some tension between immediate and long-term goals this young woman is setting for herself - is what she deems to be "good" for her today going to prove to be "good" for her in the long run?
Today we consider the first. In this week's The Economist, the point is made that any political concessions we might hope to gain from Libya from this act of mercy are already a reality - they no longer pursue nuclear weapons; they cooperate in the fight against al-Qaeda; they have "curtailed support for other terrorists". "Why make such a controversial concession for a prize that has already been won?" If allowing al-Megrahi the ability to die in his home surrounded by family and friends was intended to further these goals, it was misguided. If the motive was a more pure form of compassion, The Economist says: "It was misconceived."
Misconceived Mercy? If mercy is "conceived" with some alterior motive in mind, is it true mercy? Isn't the very nature of "mercy" that it is "misconceived" - that is, that it makes no sense in terms of the categories of justice? Isn't mercy simply a gift? Maybe that's what makes it so difficult to offer. As al-Megrahi was welcomed home he was treated more like a hero than a terrorist on the receiving end of compassion. Perhaps the mercy conferred upon him would be more palatable to the rest of us if he at least gave some indication that he was aware of what he had been given. But mercy is never a quid pro quo arrangement.
The real question here is not whether the Scottish justice secretary was "right" in granting al-Megrahi this "homecoming". The question is this: Do any of us have the "right" to confer mercy on another? According to the text from Matthew 16, the answer is "Yes". Now ... do we have the heart for it (or the stomach?) - that's another issue entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment