Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[Amolibri]

Not only that, but the expiation alone can be reason enough

Pope Pius XII said as much in 1952

Here is what Pope Pius XII had to say about it in a speech to medical professionals.

Pius XII, "Speech to the International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System (September 13, 1952)

**What is really interesting about this speech is that it was given to medical professionals as a call for them to protect the Right to Life.**Pope Pius was making a point that the Right to Life did not exclude the death penalty, as the criminal, by their own actions, had deprived themselves of the right to life.

Interesting, then, that recently medical professionals have refused to administer lethal injections…

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have made this clear on several occasions, as have most of the posters here. This means that while your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops oppose the death penalty, you are free to enthusiastically endorse it. And while your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops spoke out forcefully against this war prior to its beginning, you were free to enthusiastically endorse it.

And using that logic, I could say that since you have never opposed cannibalism on this thread, you “enthusiastically endorse it.”

Let’s try this – let’s debate ideas, and not attack other people.

 

[Amolibri]

And using that logic, I could say that since you have never opposed cannibalism on this thread, you “enthusiastically endorse it.”

Let’s try this – let’s debate ideas, and not attack other people.

 

[Ender]

the

It seems that the Church has long held that the primary reason for punishment, including the death penalty, was redress and expiation, while the next reason in order of priority was protection from future harm. JPII does not seem to contradict that with respect to other penalties, but seems to reverse these two priorities only as to the death penalty – placing the protection from future harm at the top, and not allowing for the death penalty even for redress and expiation unless the person is a future threat.

If you look at 2266 you will see this: *“the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *There has been no change in this teaching. As you mention, however, this fact is ignored in 2267 where only the protection of society is mentioned. It is simply not possible to square what is said in 2266 with the statement in 2267 and since 2266 represents the unchanging teaching of the Church, I see no solution other than to take 2267 as at best inadequate and at worst incorrect.

The difficulty with making this argument is the counter: “do you think you know better than the pope?” I am clearly saying that a brilliant pope presented an argument that does not accord with what the Church has always taught and that is a hard position to take. Nonetheless, other than responding “because the pope says so” I have not heard a single argument based on Church teaching that supports this new position. I will also note that there are no footnotes either in the catechism or Evangelium vitae that reference any prior statement to support it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Not only that, but the expiation alone can be reason enough

This is an argument that has been completely overlooked in this debate: the need for the expiation of the sin. We need to recognize that the mortal life of the individual is not the highest priority and that it is better to lose one’s life if that is necessary to save one’s soul. This is recognized even in prayers for the good person:

*"the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health **if *it would be conducive to his salvation." (CCC 1512)

This is a connection that has been lost in this discussion where the emphasis has been placed solely on the protection of society. What of the protection of the soul of the sinner?

*“it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins” * (Council of Trent)

"One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.* Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins." *(CCC 1459)

What have we done for the criminal by letting him retain his life for a few more years if we cause him to lose his soul forever?

Ender

 

[mapleoak]

This is an argument that has been completely overlooked in this debate: the need for the expiation of the sin. We need to recognize that the mortal life of the individual is not the highest priority and that it is better to lose one’s life if that is necessary to save one’s soul. This is recognized even in prayers for the good person:

*“the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health **if ***it would be conducive to his salvation.” (CCC 1512)

This is a connection that has been lost in this discussion where the emphasis has been placed solely on the protection of society. What of the protection of the soul of the sinner?

"it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins" (Council of Trent)

"One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.* Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins.*" (CCC 1459)

What have we done for the criminal by letting him retain his life for a few more years if we cause him to lose his soul forever?

Ender

Well said. It can actually be a disservice to the criminal not to hold him justly accountable for his actions.

 

[Super_Grover]

The difficulty with making this argument is the counter: “do you think you know better than the pope?” I am clearly saying that a brilliant pope presented an argument that does not accord with what the Church has always taught and that is a hard position to take. Nonetheless, other than responding “because the pope says so” I have not heard a single argument based on Church teaching that supports this new position. I will also note that there are no footnotes either in the catechism or Evangelium vitae that reference any prior statement to support it.

Ender

Thank you. It’s not the answer that I was hoping for, because that is a wall that I came up against as well. I guess that this position of JPII in the CCC is not to be accorded as much deference as I was previously according it.

There seem to have been other ways to express the potentially dubious institution of capital punishment in the “modern age” without altering past church teaching, and it has nothing to do with penal technology. It seems that the right and duty of the state to impose capital punishment presupposes states that are not so unmoored from moral grounding as we and many other countries now are. For all the great things that we (the U.S.), and other countries with a Christian tradition do, our ability to engage in appropriate moral reasoning has so diminished, it may be legitimate to question whether we have the moral authority to impose this type of sentence. We have a major contender for the presidency who would allow a baby born alive to wither and die from neglect simply because the baby was born during a surgical procedure gone awry (a botched abortion), and there is no widespread outcry that this advocate of infanticide is unqualified to assume our highest office. What was once hideous and ghoulish and almost unthinkable is becoming more and more accepted. I certainly understand the argument that the death penalty can actually foster greater respect for life by exacting the ultimate punishment against the guilty who unjustifiably take life, but have we decayed too much to appreciate such nuance? Isn’t it legitimate to question whether the “state” that kills millions of innocents, and is tacking ever so surely toward infanticide and euthenasia and eugenics (and whatever Frankenstein laboratory horrors await our near future such as organ harvesting from clones) is the same type of state referred to in past church teachings on capital punishment? I know that’s not the tenor of JPII’s argument (as far as I know), it’s mine. If I can think of it, I’m sure it’s been thought of before, so is there any scholarship out there that takes this approach?

 

[Amolibri]

Well said. It can actually be a disservice to the criminal not to hold him justly accountable for his actions.

I’ll be asking Sr Helen Prejean when I see her next week.

IMO, no DP opponent has ever said that a criminal not be held “justly accountable”…that is absurd.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll be asking Sr Helen Prejean when I see her next week.

Wasn’t she a finalist in the last Papal election?

IMO, no DP opponent has ever said that a criminal not be held “justly accountable”…that is absurd.

That’s not the issue. The issue is there is no other way to protect society from some people.

Imagine a criminal facing a life sentence without parole. Imagine this criminal knows he can beat the rap if he kills a witness – or if he kills the prosecutor, the judge or a juror.

And now imagine that if he does that and gets caught, the worst that can happen to him is that he faces two life sentences without parole.

Imposing the death penalty on such a person is well within the position taken by the Church.

 

[mapleoak]

IMO, no DP opponent has ever said that a criminal not be held “justly accountable”…that is absurd.

Inadequate justice where it is due is not only a disservice to the criminal, but especially to society which has been thus harmed and will continue to be harmed.

 

[vz71]

Abortion and the death penalty are not on par with one another.

You have made this clear on several occasions, as have most of the posters here. This means that while your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops oppose the death penalty, you are free to enthusiastically endorse it. And while your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops spoke out forcefully against this war prior to its beginning, you were free to enthusiastically endorse it. I simply made the observation that by doing so, you contribute more and more to the culture of death which your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops routinely decry.
I pray that our Church might one day speak with a more united voice on all issues that seek to respect the sanctity of human life.

Wow.
The leap in logic here defies belief.

Refusing to place abortion and the death penalty on par with one another is not an enthusiastic endorsement.

While you speak of “respect the sanctity of human life.”
You may also want to include in that respect for other people and respect for church teaching.

The church has never placed the two on par with each other.

I have never enthusiastically endorsed the death penalty on this thread or any other. Your accusation is illogical, baseless, and quite personal. I demand an apology.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Your point has been made. You support the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on abortion because you must. You completely go against the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on the death penalty and war because you may.

If you really want to know what I think, ask.
Your ESP has failed you. You really do not know what I am thinking.

I apologize for the presumption. I will ask.

All other things being equal, which do you think is more of a harm to meaningful communion with Rome?
-believing that abortion should remain legal
-believing that the death penalty should remain legal and that the decision to go to war with Iraq was morally justified

I would also like to know the “why” behind your response.

Please know that I have no problem if you wish to nuance your answer, qualify your answer, thoroughly explain your answer, or even criticize the question itself.

 

[frankadams]

While you speak of “respect the sanctity of human life.”
You may also want to include in that respect for other people and respect for church teaching.

Regarding “respect for other people,” I am trying to limit the issues to those that most directly impact the “sanctity of human life.” I realize that things like racial discrimination, material privations, lack of respect, and others practices are indeed connected to the sanctity of life. But in abortion, capital punishment, and war, people very literally live or die based on a country’s decisions.

The church has never placed the two on par with each other.

You’ve made this the main thrust of most of your posts on this thread. I have articulated my affirmation that while both issues directly engage the “sanctity of life,” and that the Church considers both issues vital in battling a “culture of death,” the Church has not placed them “on par” with each other in terms of the “intrinsic evil” of said acts.

 

[SoCalRC]

Protecting society from harm does not necessarily apply only to sufficiently holding captive one who is deemed dangerous. It can be said that just expiation which serves as a deterent is a means of protecting society.

But there is little to suggest that the death penalty acts as a deterent. Remember, there are very few industrialized nations left using it and our statistics on recidivism and violent crime are generally worse, not better.

Also, the local Catechism, the UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS, argues that the expanded use of the death penalty propogates a culture of death. Notice that the Supreme Court just expanded the death penalty to non homicide crimes, that is, crimes in which the victim does not die. In such a culture, how exactly does one distinguish between “just expiation” and unjust applications?

 

[SoCalRC]

You’ve made this the main thrust of most of your posts on this thread. I have articulated my affirmation that while both issues directly engage the “sanctity of life,” and that the Church considers both issues vital in battling a “culture of death,” the Church has not placed them “on par” with each other in terms of the “intrinsic evil” of said acts.

What I find interesting is how narrowly people would like to define a very broad Catholic teaching.

In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

In these instructions to the lay faithful, Pope John Paul II is citing the Pastoral Constitution of the Church. That is, he is invoking dogmatic writings.

These ideas are not particularly new. Notice that when Pope Pius is quoted on the death penatly, he is asserting that the state has no right to abridge the right to life. That the criminal relinquished the right, leaving the state no alternative for its role of public defense.

Similiarly, in defending the death penalty centuries before, the Council of Trent argues that it is in keeping with life, the fundemental purpose of the law, that makes the practice licid.

St. Augustine argued that it was every bishops duty to plead for mercy for those sentenced to death more than a millenia earlier.

And Tertullian, who is often cited as a clear and early voice about early Christian’s beliefs about abortion, spoke quite clearly on Christian’s participating in war or executions as well.

Like you, I find it strange that one teaching that rests (per the Church) wholly on the authority of the Church is professed to be held, while the Church’s correctness and even authority is strenously questioned on related teachings.

 

[Ender]

For all the great things that we (the U.S.), and other countries with a Christian tradition do, our ability to engage in appropriate moral reasoning has so diminished, it may be legitimate to question whether we have the moral authority to impose this type of sentence.

That’s kind of a two edged argument: if our moral sensibilities have become that dimmed, how can we even ask the question? But I think the answer is the same in either case. The state’s authority is from God and God has granted the state the authority to execute the wicked.

I certainly understand the argument that the death penalty can actually foster greater respect for life by exacting the ultimate punishment against the guilty who unjustifiably take life, but have we decayed too much to appreciate such nuance?

I think it is a given that if the Church is unwilling to make this argument then it will certainly not occur to the populace.

Isn’t it legitimate to question whether the “state” that kills millions of innocents, and is tacking ever so surely toward infanticide and euthenasia and eugenics (and whatever Frankenstein laboratory horrors await our near future such as organ harvesting from clones) is the same type of state referred to in past church teachings on capital punishment?

I don’t think so. Christ himself recognized Pilate’s authority over him even though it was wielded so improperly. A bad state retains that authority as surely as a good one.

Amolibri:

IMO, no DP opponent has ever said that a criminal not be held “justly accountable”…that is absurd.

Actually, this question has not even been addressed - given that 2267 speaks solely about the need to protect society. If life in prison actually protects society adequately then the criminal may not be executed even if that is necessary for the full remission of his sin and reconciliation with God.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

even if that is necessary for the full remission of his sin and reconciliation with God.

“In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.” - CCC 2298, with cross reference to CCC 2267

This is the problem with the ‘instrument of God’ model of death penalty theology. We cannot absolutely know the mind of God. It is a presumption on our part to assert we do. So if we label ourselves as rightous avengers when we are potentially risking our own salvation, particularly when we know that our activities sometimes claim innocent lives.

On the other hand, who is even the justly convicted felon to know his/her part in God’s plan either? Using your logic, the convict could rightously pursue suicide as proper atonement for sin. But should Saul have killed himself for his sins, instead of becoming St. Paul?

 

[Super_Grover]

That’s kind of a two edged argument: if our moral sensibilities have become that dimmed, how can we even ask the question? But I think the answer is the same in either case. The state’s authority is from God and God has granted the state the authority to execute the wicked.
I think it is a given that if the Church is unwilling to make this argument then it will certainly not occur to the populace.
I don’t think so. Christ himself recognized Pilate’s authority over him even though it was wielded so improperly. A bad state retains that authority as surely as a good one.

Ender

Stop making so much sense.

 

[SoCalRC]

Stop making so much sense.

Actually, the Church has made this argument in the past. Then, in light of modern communism and other geo political realities, it has concluded that unjust rule can exist and, correctly, be resisted.

Think of the consequences of such reasoning. One could argue that Saddam Hussain was empowered by God, so the US was thwarting God in overthrowing him. The 5+ years of resulting chaos and chronic failure in bringing stability reflects God’s displeasure…

The Church now notes that any governance that abridges the inalienable rights of the human person is not a reflection of God’s will, but a consequence of rejecting it. That view would allow that Saddam was not annointed by God, but a violent tyrant who managed to hold power largely because he received a great deal of external assistance (ex. he was a convenient mutual enemy of Iran).

Rather or not military regime change was just (in the Catholic sense) remains a seperate question, but at least the possibility of it being just exists.

 

[mapleoak]

Notice that the Supreme Court just expanded the death penalty to non homicide crimes, that is, crimes in which the victim does not die. In such a culture, how exactly does one distinguish between “just expiation” and unjust applications?

That is why I underlined the word “just” in just expiation. When it comes to respect for life, our government has a ways to go.