Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[Starwynd]

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?

 

[mercygate]

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?

That was certainly the position taken by the late Pontiff.

 

[AmyS]

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?

Well…? In California we have had a few cases were the murderer has murdered more people in prision, some have even escaped and killed more. Overall, I know what you are saying. It should hardly ever happen. and hardly ever does in California.

 

[bilop]

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 Church allows and has always allowed the death penalty for especially heinous crimes, and dangerous criminals. It is sometimes necessary to protect society.

Abortion has nothing to do with it. There is no correspondence between murdering an innocent baby and the state executing a convicted criminal.

Imminent death may be more likely to lead a criminal to repentence than long term incarceration with all the pathologies of prison life.

God Bless

 

[mercygate]

The Church allows and has always allowed the death penalty for especially heinous crimes, and dangerous criminals. It is sometimes necessary to protect society.

Abortion has nothing to do with it. There is no correspondence between murdering an innocent baby and the state executing a convicted criminal.

Imminent death may be more likely to lead a criminal to repentence than long term incarceration with all the pathologies of prison life.

God Bless

“The gallows doth wonderfully concentrate the mind” (as Dr. Samuel Johnson so memorably observed).

 

[vz71]

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?

I see a straw man here.

Abortion should be a crime. But there is no reason to connect the prosecution of this crime with the death penalty.

So why are you?

 

[Starwynd]

No straw man in my mind.

If it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill, period. Abortion and the death penalty winds up killing a person. And in some states some who have an abortion would be eligible for the death penalty.

So there is no real appreciable difference between the two, unless you want to make a semantic argument over it or split hairs. And I absolutely hate those to no end. Semantic arguments only show that people are good at playing word games, and not interested in an honest discussion.

And the reason why it is wrong is because

all life is intrinsically valuable and sacred.

Even the lives of those who commit heinous crimes.

And to me, it seems that supporting the death penalty is saying the not all life is intrinsically valuable and sacred, because somebody is being killed. And killing people, no matter what the reason, is wrong.

 

[SoCalRC]

Abortion and the death penalty are related teachings. We know this, because EVANGELIUM VITAE, which declared abortion an infallible teaching, explained it.

This is also reflected in the Universal Catechism:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense 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.” - CCC 2267

Some Catholics interpret the possibility of licit applications of the death penalty as meaning that the issue is up to each Catholic to decide for his/herself. However, unlike other specific instances, like just war or the refusal of medical treatment, moral interpretation is not assigned to a non Church entity. So, the ultimate authority on each instance remains the Church.

The local Catechism in the US is the UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS. In keeping with the papal declaration in the Universal Catechism, it is the appropriate local application of doctrine. It states that our (the US’s) increased use of the death penalty devalues human life and contributes to the problems of abortion and euthanasia. In support of this interpretation, it cites Papal statements made in the US with regards to the death penalty.

The USCCB has also been active in attempting to educate US Catholics on the the attack to a culture of life that the death penalty, as exercised here, represents. That work began with a pastoral statement in 1980, and has continued to the present (here is the statement from 2005):

usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

Some Catholics argue that, because it is not infallible, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is not binding. However, that is seemingly not in keeping with Church Dogma:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - LUMEN GENTIUM (emphasis added)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Catholics must follow the absolute certainty of their moral conscience. So, some Catholics, in good faith, may disagree with the Church on the death penalty. However, as the Catechism warns, such Catholics must be conscious of the possible error of their own moral conscience and dutifully seek full communion with Rome.

Abortion is different in that we hold direct abortion to be infallibly a “grave moral disorder”. That is, there is no room for disagreement. However, it is incorrect to disconnect the two since both are based on the inalienable rights of the human person, as explained by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council. Dissention on one potentially undermines our “every stage”, “every condition” belief about life - thus undermining the other.

 

[Ender]

killing people, no matter what the reason, is wrong.

This statement is simply not true if by wrong you mean immoral. We know from numerous sources that killing in self defense or in just wars is not immoral. It is also the current doctrine that the death penalty is not necessarily immoral. The command is not “you shall not kill anyone under any circumstance” but “you shall not deliberately kill the innocent.”

Since abortion is the deliberate killing of the innocent it is always immoral, while killing in self defense, in war, or even via executions are not.

Ender

 

[Starwynd]

Aren’t you really talking about justification? If so, is there a difference between justification and morality? It seems to me that because some things can be justified, doesn’t necessarily mean they are morally right to do so.

 

[bilop]

Aren’t you really talking about justification? If so, is there a difference between justification and morality? It seems to me that because some things can be justified, doesn’t necessarily mean they are morally right to do so.

No, you’re no understanding.

In some cases, killing can not only be justified, but a positive moral good.

Say a madman assaults your family. You have not only the right, but the duty to kill him if it is necessary to stop the assault.

Or a hostile nation invades your country. Again, it is your duty to kill, if enrolled in the armed forces.

In these cases it wouldbe immoral NOT to kill.

The biblical prohibition, and the moral law, is against MURDER, the killing of INNOCENTS.

The death penalty, self defense, killing in war, are not murder.

God Bless

 

[Super_Grover]

Starwynd,

From your other post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3645185#post3645185

“I’m sorry but I have many problems with abortion and cannot make my mind up on the matter. I do believe it’s wrong yes, but the thing that makes it problematic for me is that if you make abortion illegal, then that means you end up forcing women to give birth. And to me, that is equally as deplorable.” (emphasis mine).

Starwynd,
I wish you the best in your search for answers. It is certainly good that, rather than decide that you are a “pro-choice Catholic”, you sense the tension in your Catholicism and your views on abortion and are trying to make sense of it, as evidenced by the fact that you are posting here. But in something as fundamental as this, and with the Church teaching so unambiguous, I respectfully suggest that you should examine your duty as a Catholic. What I will say may be yet another aspect of Catholicism that you will find difficult, but here goes. When you have difficulty with a Church teaching, do not assume that the Church is wrong, assume that you are wrong. Pray and study. God gave you an intellect, and He wants you to use it. Usually, you will come to understand the Church teaching. Even if you don’t, you must accept it and not use your intellect in a prideful way that assumes its superiority to Church teaching.

This argument about the death penalty is part of the “seamless garment” confusion that is used constantly to confound pro-life efforts to protect the unborn. Cardinal Bernardin helped to drag abortion down to just one of many “complex issues” like, war, healthcare, prisoner treatment, nuclear disarmament, and on and on. Those who favor abortion throw Bernardin in the face of pro-lifers as supposedly lacking “a consistent ethic of life” if they don’t also buy into a lot of what are frankly the pet causes of a certain segment of our population, such segment being overwhelmingly pro-choice.

But make no mistake, the Church is clear that there is no “social justice” issue like abortion in terms of clarity regarding the evil that is done, or the numbers that are killed. The catechism is clear that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” and never justified. The death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and can be justified in certain, rare circumstances. The two issues cannot properly be equated.

You are not right that giving birth is equally deplorable as taking the life of a baby who has committed no wrong, but I understand the point that you are trying to make. Women facing unwanted pregnancies are in a terrible position. And, ironically, their situation is often made all the worse because, rather than liberate the woman, “choice” can liberate the man to the detriment of the woman. He can push a woman into an unwanted abortion. He can wash his hands of it and say, “well, I didn’t want her to have it, she chose to have it”, and rather than have a father for the child, the woman just has some guy that she can pursue for child support. Women who have had abortions are often plagued with psychological problems to an extent that is underreported.

These women need our love and our support. And if you continue to explore these issues, you will come to learn that Catholic pro-lifers aren’t the caricatures of the rabid, sign-wielding, clinic-blocking, screamers that you see in the popular media. Many of them work in crisis pregnancy centers, they pray the rosary for life, they collect baby clothes and toys, and they take pregnant women into their homes.

You said in a post that you have recently come into the Church and were even possibly looking for a different circle of friends. My guess is that your “pre-conversion” friends may not, by and large, be pro-life. Pro-life is not viewed as chic, and telling people at a cocktail party that you are pro-life will not earn you the same plaudits as telling people that you raised money for Planned Parenthood. Jesus warned us that we may not always be liked by others for what we do in His name.

This issue is obviously important to you, and you should have all the help you can get. Prayer is more powerful than we can ever fully understand. If you have not prayed a rosary before, try it, and ask Jesus and Mary to help guide your exploration of this issue.

 

[frankadams]

The Church allows and has always allowed the death penalty for especially heinous crimes, and dangerous criminals. It is sometimes necessary to protect society.

The Church no longer allows the death penalty for “especially heinous crimes.” It is permitted only “when there is no other way to protect society” circumstances which the Catechism states are “rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

 

[frankadams]

Abortion is different in that we hold direct abortion to be infallibly a “grave moral disorder”. That is, there is no room for disagreement. However, it is incorrect to disconnect the two since both are based on the inalienable rights of the human person, as explained by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council. Dissention on one potentially undermines our “every stage”, “every condition” belief about life - thus undermining the other.

Well-stated. I often try to connect the two for the pro-abortion/ anti-death penalty crowd, stating that if the Church opposes the execution of a vicious serial killer, it would be nonsensical for it to not also oppose the execution of an innocent unborn child. I think we as Catholics speak with considerably more moral authority on abortion when we truly embrace the “consistent ethic of life.”

 

[bilop]

The Church no longer allows the death penalty for “especially heinous crimes.” It is permitted only “when there is no other way to protect society” circumstances which the Catechism states are “rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

If a person would commit a particularly heinous murder (dismemberment, cannabilism, mass murder, mutilation, etc.) I don’t see how anyone can argue that society can be protected from that level of evil except through capital punishment.

Do you honestly think that sort of evil can be deterred from murdering a prison guard or another inmate if the situation suits them, or the mood strikes them? Especially if they have no fear of the death penalty? What are you going to do to them, give them a second life sentence?

The “rare, if not practically nonexistent” statement is an opinion on a matter that lies outside the realm of faith and morals, and is therfore not binding on Catholics.

Just like the current (and previous) Pope’s opinion that the Iraq war was a bad idea. They may very well be right. But, it is an opinion outside their realm of authority. It is to be respected, but is not binding. Catholics may serve in the U.S. armed forces in good conscience.

The competent authority to decide on the justness of a war, or the need fro the death penalty, is the legitimate civil authority of a nation.

God bless

 

[SoCalRC]

Or a hostile nation invades your country. Again, it is your duty to kill, if enrolled in the armed forces.

In these cases it would be immoral NOT to kill.

No, a nation may have the right to use military defense, but certain criteria must be met:

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." - CCC 2309

If, for example, the occupying power is disproportionate in might, thus giving very limited aspects for success, then armed response could be morally incorrect. The inherent evils and injustices of war could be invoked unjustly.

Further, our obligation is to serve, but not necessarily to kill. That is why I served as a combat medic in Vietnam. One cannot go against the moral certainty of one’s conscience:

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” - CCC 1776

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself…” - CCC 1790

So society must provide alternatives to killing in war for individuals constrained by conscience and faith:

“Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” - CCC 2311

“The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. <>” CCC 2312

Remember, if we were to use your reasoning, Jesus’ response to his unjust imprisonment, torture, and execution would be ‘immoral’.

The Church accepts and has expanded upon St. Augustine’s assertion that there are licit applications of violence under an application of “Love thy neighbor”. However, it has never abandoned our deep roots of resisting evil without resorting to violence, which date to the earthly ministry of Christ. So, while it is legitimate to argue that a violent response is morally licit, it is not correct to argue that Catholics who cannot, in good conscience, resort to deadly force are morally deficient.

 

[frankadams]

If a person would commit a particularly heinous murder (dismemberment, cannabilism, mass murder, mutilation, etc.) I don’t see how anyone can argue that society can be protected from that level of evil except through capital punishment.

Do you honestly think that sort of evil can be deterred from murdering a prison guard or another inmate if the situation suits them, or the mood strikes them? Especially if they have no fear of the death penalty? What are you going to do to them, give them a second life sentence?

The “rare, if not practically nonexistent” statement is an opinion on a matter that lies outside the realm of faith and morals, and is therfore not binding on Catholics.

Just like the current (and previous) Pope’s opinion that the Iraq war was a bad idea. They may very well be right. But, it is an opinion outside their realm of authority. It is to be respected, but is not binding. Catholics may serve in the U.S. armed forces in good conscience.

The competent authority to decide on the justness of a war, or the need fro the death penalty, is the legitimate civil authority of a nation.

God bless

I repeat, the heinousness of a crime has no bearing whatsoever on the justification for the death penalty. Re-read the Catechism if necessary.

You state that any heinous criminal may kill again. I cannot disagree with you. We can never guarantee 100% that a criminal, successful murderer or otherwise, will not kill. However, by employing your line of reasoning, we should be increasing the death penalty a thousandfold. Attempted murderers, for example, seem just as dangerous as those whose aim was slightly better. People guilty of vicious assaults who happened to target a strong and healthy victim can kill again as easily as those whose assaults actually killed a weaker person. I for one don’t want to live in the version of America to which your application of logic would lead us.

The “rare, if not practically non-existent” statement of which you speak is in the Catholic Catechism. If you wish to dismiss that as mere “opinion,” that is your prerogative. I politely disagree.

I think this links back to the original issue of this post. The Church is pro-life across the board. They have called for America to join the rest of the industrialized world and put and end to capital punishment. They called for America not to invade Iraq. In both cases, the Church’s unrelenting drive to protect human life is behind her reasoning.

It would seem to make sense that most Catholics would fall in line with this consistent pro-life approach. I would expect some divergence from Church teaching, but not much.

Instead, on these forums, the overwhelming majority of the posters announce time and time again that they are not *bound *by Church teaching on war and capital punishment, and therefore they can and do support the American uses of executions and war.

It as though they rejoice in finding a licit way to oppose the Church on these two very important issues. The mentality is, “I am not morally bound to agree with the Church, so I will just form my own independent opinion.” (Strangely, this “independent” opinion which as odds with the Church corresponds exactly with the political party most of them support).

The bottom line: Mother Church is consistently pro-life; the majority of the posters here are not.

 

[Super_Grover]

1.31 million killed by abortion in a year, 42 killed by capital punishment.

The point about Bernardin is made again. Look at this thread and see how those shrouded (seamlessly) in their “consistent ethic of life” are hitting over the head those who oppose the greatest moral evil ever to befall our nation, and arguing that they are not authentically pro-life.

42 people were executed in the United States in 2007, all were men, 28 were white, 14 were black. We have good statistics on this because every one of these people had to be investigated by the police. They were charged by prosecutors. They all had attorneys. They were tried by a jury. The judge also ensured that there was sufficient evidence to have the case go to a jury. A sentence of death was decided based on aggravating factors. That sentence was separately imposed by either a judge, jury, or both. There were numerous appeals.

By contrast, the latest statistics I could find for abortion were from 2000. I can’t tell you how many victims were male and how many were female. There was no advocate appointed to represent the interests of each person who was to face death. There was no due process whatsoever. The number killed in 2000 was 1.31 million. Nameless, faceless, helpless, guiltless, and no advocate but those people far removed from them, like the pro-life advocates being dressed down by fellow Catholics on this very message board.

Think of it this way. For every criminal executed, an entire town of 31,190 innocent souls was snuffed out.

Bernardin’s seamless garment would make enemies of those who should be allies, and provides false cover for those who truly are enemies.

We are taught that by their deeds we shall know them. The postings on these boards certainly are “deeds” in that they affect how and whether people address the greatest abomination in our nation’s history (and it’s not hunger, nuclear weapons, opposition to gay marriage, capital punishment, homelessness, or any of the social justice issues that will get you invited to speak on a university campus). I’ll go out on a limb here, and I’ll be happy to stand corrected if I am wrong. I’m going to guess that in the last election, the president that Frank("consistent ethic of life’)Adams voted for was reliably pro-choice.

Sorry if that is in poor taste, but sometimes people have to be called out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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 Church’s position is that the death penalty is permissible if it is necessary to protect society (and that it should be rare.)

Examples of such necessity would be criminals who kill Corrections Officers in prison, or who kill witnesses, judges, jurors, police, and so on. A case can be made that for such people there must be something more than a life sentence, or society will collapse.

I doubt any jury would regard a woman who has aborted her child as a threat on that scale – although the abortionist, being a serial killer might be a different matter.

 

[frankadams]

1.31 million killed by abortion in a year, 42 killed by capital punishment.

The point about Bernardin is made again. Look at this thread and see how those shrouded (seamlessly) in their “consistent ethic of life” are hitting over the head those who oppose the greatest moral evil ever to befall our nation, and arguing that they are not authentically pro-life.

42 people were executed in the United States in 2007, all were men, 28 were white, 14 were black. We have good statistics on this because every one of these people had to be investigated by the police. They were charged by prosecutors. They all had attorneys. They were tried by a jury. The judge also ensured that there was sufficient evidence to have the case go to a jury. A sentence of death was decided based on aggravating factors. That sentence was separately imposed by either a judge, jury, or both. There were numerous appeals.

By contrast, the latest statistics I could find for abortion were from 2000. I can’t tell you how many victims were male and how many were female. There was no advocate appointed to represent the interests of each person who was to face death. There was no due process whatsoever. The number killed in 2000 was 1.31 million. Nameless, faceless, helpless, guiltless, and no advocate but those people far removed from them, like the pro-life advocates being dressed down by fellow Catholics on this very message board.

Think of it this way. For every criminal executed, an entire town of 31,190 innocent souls was snuffed out.

Bernardin’s seamless garment would make enemies of those who should be allies, and provides false cover for those who truly are enemies.

We are taught that by their deeds we shall know them. The postings on these boards certainly are “deeds” in that they affect how and whether people address the greatest abomination in our nation’s history (and it’s not hunger, nuclear weapons, opposition to gay marriage, capital punishment, homelessness, or any of the social justice issues that will get you invited to speak on a university campus). I’ll go out on a limb here, and I’ll be happy to stand corrected if I am wrong. I’m going to guess that in the last election, the president that Frank("consistent ethic of life’)Adams voted for was reliably pro-choice.
.

I will reiterate my original statement: We as Catholics speak to the world with greater moral authority on abortion when we also agree with the Church’s other teachings on life. Most of the posters here gleefully point out that they are not bound by Catholic teaching in regards to capital punishment and war and therefore disregard those teachings as mere opinion. If your belief is that opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment and unjust war gives us greater moral authority, I politely disagree.