Prisons and Popes

A few thoughts on the government's recent decision to rescind prisoners' voting rights and the passing of Pope Francis. What a combo! Plus, a preview of my trip to Israel.

I have recently returned from Israel - a rather profound and affecting visit. It was a very intense time - both in terms of the schedule but also what I saw and heard. It has affected me deeply and I am still processing everything. I will be writing much more about this in the coming weeks, but thought I would quickly share two images with you before I write this Substack on prisons and the Pope.

One is the burnt out door handle of a bomb shelter in one of the kibbutz’s attacked on October 7th. You might note the position of bullet holes; shots fired intentionally at where the victims were desperately holding the door handle. Those behind this door handle did not survive.

The other image is more positive and in keeping with Easter. This was a photo I took in the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Tradition has this as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion. Even for those not religious, it is a place of immense beauty and meaning.

I will share much more over the coming weeks, but for now, to two topical issues …

To vote or not to vote (to poorly paraphrase Shakespeare)

It may surprise people (or not) but I don’t agree with the government’s recent announcement to remove voting rights from prisoners.

I get why such a policy may be popular in some quarters, but I have always believed that people should be able to vote for the system that incarcerates them. I argued this in the past while in parliament and my view has not changed.

In some ways, the act of voting gives further legitimacy to the courts to put someone in prison. The prisoner is involved, by voting, in the system that is locking them up. You could even go as far to say they choose it!

I do get the counter-arguments including that prison already removes fundamental rights such as freedom of association, and that basic liberties such as being able to move about freely are curtailed. As the counter-arguments go, just as these rights and liberties are removed or restricted, so too voting.

But I would simply return to my core reflection – by voting, the prisoner is affirming their connection to the very system that is putting them in prison. I think there is also a material difference between voting and being able to walk about society if say, a convicted violent offender. We place someone in prison to keep society safe – the freedom of everyone else is given priority over the rights of the convicted individual. With voting, the dynamic is different for there is negligible harm to anyone if a prisoner votes, and the exercising of that right does not diminish the rights of others.

I am sure the change will go ahead and in the grand scheme of things, it is not the most significant issue facing our society. It is ultimately a virtue signal of sorts and while popular with many, it is not a policy that is going to make New Zealand safer, the economy stronger, or our education system more robust.

Sede Vacante

To understand Pope Francis, you need to understand that mercy and evangelisation were two key focuses of his pontificate and yet frequently misunderstood by many.

In reading the various tributes to the Pope, I feel there is often a lack of understanding of what the Pope was about and sought to achieve. While always sincere and genuine, those paying tribute seem to think of him as a nice guy, running a social service, promoting social justice, and wanting warm fuzzy relationships between other religions.

This would be a superficial understanding of the man and what he was doing. The Pope’s aim was always to bring people to Jesus. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. He was the Vicar of Christ, or Pope, after all.

For those particularly in politics and media, commentary on the Pope’s life is often a projection of their own values and wants. So, you read comments on how the Pope was a champion for the vulnerable, for social justice, and for inter-faith dialogue.

He was of course, all of this, championing such causes that you would expect of a man who spoke often of mercy.

But his desire to identify with the most vulnerable and serve those in need was not motivated by simply ‘being nice’ or ‘being kind’ - the mantras of modern Western societies. Serving the poor, speaking up for the most vulnerable, was an invitation to meet Christ. In being merciful, both the person receiving mercy and the one exercising it are changed, and for the Pope, drawn closer to the face of the God he served.

Often the Pope’s words were only understood in a human context. This is best illustrated when the Pope was quoted as saying “who am I to judge” when asked about those in the LGBTI+ community seeking God. He was right to say people should not be so judgmental. But he was not saying there should be no judgement - and this applies to much more than just issues of sexuality! As Pope, he knew that God is the final judge and a merciful one at that - but a judge nevertheless for there is both right and wrong, good and evil, poor choices and good choices.

For the Pope, other humans are to show mercy before judgement for their role is to draw people to knowing the real judge, God. By showing the mercy of God, by being less judgmental of others, we can provide an opportunity for the person of Christ to be seen more clearly and our lives changed accordingly.

Two other quick reflections. Like Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis was keen to show the dignity of suffering at the end of life. He accepted his suffering and his inevitable death. His numerous public appearances, while clearly dying, were intentional.

That he died at Easter is, in my opinion, no coincidence. Suffering and death are a key part of the Easter story, as too is the resurrection. He lived out the Easter story and now shares it’s victory.

Finally, not all was good and right with his pontificate. One area of particular interest to me was his approach to the Chinese Communist Party. His desire to create a rapprochement with the regime and protect the interests of the Church there was understandable, but it also blinded and silenced him. The abuses of this regime needed to be called out in a way he called out many other abuses around the globe. Be it the threats towards Taiwan or the imprisonment of Cardinal Zen, the repression of the Uyghurs or arrest of house Christians – he was silent. I am sure his intentions were good, but in this instance, I fear he failed.

This all said, may he rest in peace after a life full of service, mercy, and evangelisation.