Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[frankadams]

Actually, no.

A great many have gone to lengths explaining why they are free to disregard what you believe of the church in the matter.

Remember, yours is not the difinitive authority on church teaching. Just another opinion.

In actuality, the decisions I have arrived at in the matter were brought about specifically because of church teaching.

Read the posts. Read the posts. Over and over the quotes cite Catholic statements on the death penalty as “opinion.” Over and over I am told that the Church is ignorant as to the realities of the modern penal system. Over and over, I am told that the Pope and the Vatican and the bishops can call for the abolishment of the death penalty all he wants, but that the judgment is left up to the state.

The “church teaching” which many of the posters employ is largely limited to the assertion that Church teaching on abortion is absolute, but that Church teaching on the death penalty is not.

Perhaps you might then correct me as to what other Church teachings inform your support for executions. As was mentioned recently by another poster, the Pope stood on our soil and called for us to abolish the death penalty. Our local magisterium has repeated this call countless times. So have Pontifical councils. If your conclusion from all of this is that the Church supports the death penalty, and that then is why you support the death penalty, I question your logic.

I repeat: the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB oppose the death penalty. You disagree with that position. But, as you have pointed out numerous times, you are allowed to disagree with the Church on this particular life issue.

 

[frankadams]

I have noted a great many on the CAF that disagree with the church on the issue, for many reasons, but have never found an individual disagree simply because they could.

I think you know that is not my assertion. If it helps, how about “I can disagree with the Church on this issue and I do disagree with the Church on this issue!” And no, as I made clear on the original post, this is not an actual quote, just a pithy summary of what has been told me dozens of times over the past few weeks.

Again, the defense of their disagreement on CAF overwhelmingly consists of telling me why they may disagree with the Church on capital punishment while they must agree with the Church on abortion. If you review the posts (and many similar ones), this line of thinking is by far the predominant one.

 

[frankadams]

My crazy idea is that we stand with Holy Mother Church on all “sanctity of life” issues. Just a suggestion.

 

[vz71]

Read the posts. Read the posts…
I repeat: the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB oppose the death penalty. You disagree with that position. But, as you have pointed out numerous times, you are allowed to disagree with the Church on this particular life issue.

Please cite a specific post in which I have stated that I disagree with the church on this life issue.

Once you review all of my posts (throughout CAF) and discover you are wrong…do not chide others about reading posts when it is fairly obvious you are not.

 

[frankadams]

Please cite a specific post in which I have stated that I disagree with the church on this life issue.

Once you review all of my posts (throughout CAF) and discover you are wrong…do not chide others about reading posts when it is fairly obvious you are not.

Consider me “duly confused.” Do you, like the Pope and the USCCB want our country to abolish the death penalty?

 

[vz71]

Instead, so many of these posts are dedicated to telling the rest of us “I’m allowed to disregard Church teaching on capital punishment and war. And so I do.”

I think you know that is not my assertion. If it helps, how about “I can disagree with the Church on this issue and I do disagree with the Church on this issue!” And no, as I made clear on the original post, this is not an actual quote, just a pithy summary of what has been told me dozens of times over the past few weeks.

I see…
So it is not a quote (even though the quote marks are there), it is a paraphrase of what you believe some are saying.

 

[vz71]

Consider me “duly confused.” Do you, like the Pope and the USCCB want our country to abolish the death penalty?

What I want is the death penalty removed as a legal means of punishment in countries where it is a viable solution to keep a criminal away from the public forever.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I really dislike this form of argument. Surely you realize that it is a call to dismiss everything written by Sts. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas as this argument applies to everything they ever wrote and said. Basically you are claiming that since they were not right about everything they cannot be trusted about anything. You are trying to defend your position on the death penalty by sacrificing the greatest theologians in Church history and half of the New Testament. You sure that’s what you want to do?

Ender

When a Catholic needs to deny Saint Paul’s inspired epistles, that person has departed from Catholicism.

 

[frankadams]

What I want is the death penalty removed as a legal means of punishment in countries where it is a viable solution to keep a criminal away from the public forever.

Would this mean that you favor removing the death penalty in America?

 

[Margarite]

Should abortion ever actually be defined as a crime, in some states some people would eligible for the death penalty.

If all life is intrinsically sacred to God, then shouldn’t there be absolutely no reason to put a person to death no matter how heinous of their crime so there remains the possibility of their soul being saved? After all, if Christianity is about saving one’s soul, then shouldn’t the death penalty be removed no matter what the reason since it removes the possibility for saving that soul?

The Catholic Church is against the death penalty unless, it is thought that the person would escape and kill more people. The Church has never supported the “Eye for an Eye” idea.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Margarite:
The Catholic Church is against the death penalty unless, it is thought that the person would escape and kill more people. The Church has never supported the “Eye for an Eye” idea.
Actually, it’s more complex than that – a person in prison may manipulate the Corrections Officers by threatening their families. That explains how so many prisons are actually run by the inmates.

A person facing a life sentence may choose to threaten or kill police, witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or judges to escape punishment, secure in the knowledge that he cannot get a worse punishment than the one he already faces.

 

[Margarite]

Actually, it’s more complex than that – a person in prison may manipulate the Corrections Officers by threatening their families. That explains how so many prisons are actually run by the inmates.

A person facing a life sentence may choose to threaten or kill police, witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or judges to escape punishment, secure in the knowledge that he cannot get a worse punishment than the one he already faces.

So what are you saying?

 

[SoCalRC]

I really dislike this form of argument. Surely you realize that it is a call to dismiss everything written by Sts. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas as this argument applies to everything they ever wrote and said. Basically you are claiming that since they were not right about everything they cannot be trusted about anything. You are trying to defend your position on the death penalty by sacrificing the greatest theologians in Church history and half of the New Testament. You sure that’s what you want to do?

No. I simply argued that, in isolation, their words are not infallible utterences to be individually applied.

St. Paul’s writings are essentially eavesdropping. He was writting to specific groups on specific subjects. So generalizing always must be taken with caution.

In the case of St. Augustine, a quote was being applied to the death penalty, possibly in contradiction to St. Augustine’s written position on the subject.

The question is not the importance of the writings but the principle of Sola Scripture vs. the concept of Church primacy. You are arguing that the Magisterium is getting in the way of the ‘proper’ understanding of Holy Tradition and the ‘proper’ understanding of Sacred Scripture. That is not a Catholic argument, since it represents a rejection of the Holy and apostolic nature of the Church.

Look at your editing. The Church does not reject St. Augustine’s principle of mercy with regard to the condemned, it currently reinforces it.

Similiarly, the Church has never formally rejected the principles of delayed ensoulment expressed by St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Thomas Equinas. In fact, it has papal authority ranging from Innocent III through at least Pius IX. And the Church has specifically not rejected the teaching in recent decades, both Donum Vitae and the Declaration on Procurred Abortions argue that there is no theological or scientific reasons to abandon it.

Last, but not least, the Church has not rejected celibacy and its relationship to religious grace.

In other words, none of the teachings noted has been rejected. Only guidance on approprite application has been provided.

So the only one “sacrificing” the thelogians is you. I’m pointing out the importance of the Church in proper understanding and application. But, as we have seen, you have your own ideas on that authority as well.

 

[vz71]

Would this mean that you favor removing the death penalty in America?

I used to believe so.
However, I am now seeing instances where the criminal can reach out and inflict harm from within his cell.

Given that, I see no means of protecting the public by locking the criminal away.

However, I see no problem in limiting the death penalty to only the instances where this is demonstrated. Life in prison first, then death if they show an influence beyond jail.

 

[SoCalRC]

When a Catholic needs to deny Saint Paul’s inspired epistles, that person has departed from Catholicism.

Interesting. Ender makes the argument that I am attacking important theological thought, but all the teachings I cited are still held to be true. The point was that proper application requires the Magisterium. That is why we are not Protestants.

You go further and assert that my supporting the authority of the Magisterium, as opposed to individually applying Sola Scripture on moral questions, seperates me from Catholicism.

Given your tone and absolute assertion of moral authority, one would assume that you, not I, were supportive of Rome’s position on the subject at hand. But, in fact, I favor reverent support of the teaching, if, for no other reason than our dogmatic obligation to obey. You and Ender argue that the Pope and the bishops are incorrect.

What a pecular point of view to be asserting that one’s own definition of proper Catholicism is superior to that of Rome’s! Are you sure your are not confusing the Evangelical thought that dominates your politics with Catholic dogma?

 

[Brendan]

If I recall correctly, St. Paul taught that all Christians should be celibate, turning only to marriage if they were too weak.

You don’t recall correctly.

St. Paul said in 1 Cor 7 that celibacy is a special gift from God.

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn

…

It is certainly well and a good thing that a person choose the celibate life, and if those who ARE called to celibacy cannot remain so, it is fine if they choose to marry.

St. Paul was simply restating what Christ had already taught in Matthew 19:12

"

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it

St. Augustine wrote that it was the duty of every bishop to plead for mercy for each person condemned to death.

Fine, no issues there. Note that St. Augstine never said that the bishop had the right or duty to prohibit it.

And St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with St. Jerome, Pope Innocent III, and St. Augustine that abortion was not murder until the fetus had assumed a human form.

Yes, they all distinguished abortion as being a seperate sin from that of murder. The Church still hold to that as well. Note that none of those above every considered abortion not to be gravely sinful. Simply that abortion and murder may be defined differently and carry different penalties.

This is why we are not Protestants. These are saints, tremendous examples of the faith. But they were still men. We believe that Jesus was/is God, so what did he say?

Here is What Jesus said to Noah

Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Unfortunately, on the death penalty, not much.

Really? See above?

I follow the Holy Catholic and apostolic Church:

As do I, including the declaration of every Pope and the teachings of every Doctor.

When the Vicar of Christ comes to the US and calls for an end to the death penalty, and the princes of the Church include this call in the local Catechism, I listen.

Did you listen to where they said that it was the decision of the State?

 

[frankadams]

I used to believe so.
However, I am now seeing instances where the criminal can reach out and inflict harm from within his cell.

Given that, I see no means of protecting the public by locking the criminal away.

However, I see no problem in limiting the death penalty to only the instances where this is demonstrated. Life in prison first, then death if they show an influence beyond jail.

Thanks for the clarification. That is a differently nuanced view which seems to give the offender the “benefit of the doubt” before making use of the penalty. I find it more respectful of life than the more preemptive approach (executing all those who* potentially* could kill again). I see that as opening the door to the mentality that since we can never have absolute certitude, we ought to execute liberally.

 

[SoCalRC]

Did you listen to where they said that it was the decision of the State?

I can find no such delegation. Normally, the Church is quite clear. For example, CCC 2309 delegates final moral determination for the Just War criteria to appropriate public authority. Similarly, the criteria for CCC 2313 is the ‘laws of nations’. And, in the case of refusing medical treatment, the Church again delegates final determination to patients, if able, and to their caregivers and entrusted representatives if not.

But, while CCC 2266 recognizes civil authority, CCC 2267 does not. It cites papal moral authority. It does afford the possibility of licit applications of the death penalty, but does not delegate the determination.

The local Catechism (UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS), which is approved by Rome, specifically addresses the use of the death penalty in the US. Again, no delegation is made and the authority cited is Papal (Pope John Paul II speaking in the US on the subject).

As for the rest, I am not comfortable debating the precise meaning of scripture. That is why I limited myself to repeating then Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretations (a trained Catholic theologian) and footnotes from the NAB (approved for individual study by the American Catholic Church).

All three teachings cited remain accepted Catholic doctrine, the point was that scripture interpretation is varied. For example, St. Paul’s meaning on celibacy has been interpretted by self described Christian groups to both extremes.

My point was and is that, for Catholics, the proper interpretation and application is the Church’s. Sola Scripture and individual interpretation are concepts we dogmatically reject.

 

[Amolibri]

Thanks for the clarification. That is a differently nuanced view which seems to give the offender the “benefit of the doubt” before making use of the penalty. I find it more respectful of life than the more preemptive approach (executing all those who* potentially* could kill again). I see that as opening the door to the mentality that since we can never have absolute certitude, we ought to execute liberally.

Good one, Frank.
Well, gosh, pre-emptive war…pre-emptive execution…that’s not culture of death? Any way one wants to explain it away… killing by the state is not in keeping pro life values.
yeah, I know all the “exceptions” … the “depraved” reaching out from their cells… Gotta come up with something better than that.
www.nyadp.org

 

[SoCalRC]

Good one, Frank.
Well, gosh, pre-emptive war…pre-emptive execution…that’s not culture of death? Any way one wants to explain it away… killing by the state is not in keeping pro life values.
yeah, I know all the “exceptions” … the “depraved” reaching out from their cells… Gotta come up with something better than that.
www.nyadp.org

It isn’t that I do not appreciate Frank’s sharp wit myself, but I feel compelled to stress that I have great empathy for individuals who support the death penalty, Catholic or not.

Having served as a combat medic because of my faith, I would have identified myself as fairly conservative with regards to Catholic pro life teachings. But, much as Sister Helen Prejean, a long time activist for abolition of the practice, many of the emotions expressed by death penalty supporters resonate with me.

I first began objecting to the death penalty literally as an act of obedience, in response to Evangelium Vitae. I had doubts, but the teaching did not conflict the absolute moral certainty of my conscience. Over time, as we have seen things like DNA evidence and the Innocence Project, my doubts have vanished. The correctness of the Church now seems self evident to me. But I still have empathy for others emotions to the contrary.

That is why I always state that arguments that undermine the authority of the Church concern me more than dissent on the teaching itself. We each must commit a lifetime to developing a true Christian conscience, but attacks on the Faith hurt us all.

Peace