Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemency

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is absolutely maddening. Do you really not understand that just because I oppose the means you choose it doesn’t mean that I oppose the goal you are trying reach? I am not against immigration reform, an economy for the common good, or the best health care system for all. Why would you imagine such a thing? What we disagree about is what steps we should take to achieve those shared goals.

It wasn’t intended to be ‘maddening’. It was an expression of how I come to believe as I do.

We are at opposite ends on all issues, or so it seems. I am for an immigration reform that protects people where they currently are, as the Pope as called for. I am for social programs without generalized cuts that could affect those in need, or for the common good as Pope Benedict has spoken of. I am for a universal healthcare for all, again as the Pope referenced. I am for the abolition of the death penalty as per the goal set through the statement by the Pope.

To say the way we are doing it is wrong, or trying to do something wrong, is denying a process that can be improved, or beginning process in an attempt to achieve the goals. For me, sitting around arguing over how something can be achieved is delaying an action.

The relevance of this with regard to capital punishment has to do with what the Church does, and does not, teach as doctrine. There is no doctrine on how immigration reform should proceed, on how the economy should be structured, or on how health care should be delivered. There is, however, a doctrine on capital punishment, and it is this: States have the moral right to employ it.

Ender

I also question whether or not the ‘teaching’ on the death penalty is actually a doctrine, or an acceptance of the secular by the Church.

There are doctrines on the other issues, in my opinion, if we take the words of Christ to heart and stop trying to legalize it in such a way as we try and find ways to implement those teachings.

 

[Ender]

We are at opposite ends on all issues, or so it seems. I am for an immigration reform that protects people where they currently are, as the Pope as called for.

This is a distortion of what the Pope has called for. He has said nothing about “where people currently are”. I am for an immigration reform that is in the best interest of all people, regardless of where they are.

I am for social programs without generalized cuts that could affect those in need, or for the common good as Pope Benedict has spoken of.

Who isn’t?

I am for a universal healthcare for all, again as the Pope referenced.

This is another distortion. The pope has never called for universal health care nor is it Church doctrine.

I am for the abolition of the death penalty as per the goal set through the statement by the Pope.

And I support the doctrine of the Church, which does not.

To say the way we are doing it is wrong, or trying to do something wrong, is denying a process that can be improved, or beginning process in an attempt to achieve the goals.

No it isn’t. No one denies that things cannot be improved or opposes improving them.

For me, sitting around arguing over how something can be achieved is delaying an action.

Better no action at all than actions that make things worse. I oppose your proposals just as you oppose mine. If you don’t want to sit around any longer then why don’t you agree to implement my proposals? Are you opposed to fixing the problems?

I also question whether or not the ‘teaching’ on the death penalty is actually a doctrine, or an acceptance of the secular by the Church.

Of course it’s doctrine. *The **doctrine **remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)

There are doctrines on the other issues, in my opinion, if we take the words of Christ to heart and stop trying to legalize it in such a way as we try and find ways to implement those teachings.

There are no doctrines on the *solutions *to prudential problems. You cannot come to grips with the fact that the differences in our opinions about which solutions will work are not disagreements about doctrine but merely differences of prudential opinions.

Your position is based on an unwillingness to believe I may be a good person who is at worst mistaken. You cannot let go of the uncharitable opinion that I am immoral.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a distortion of what the Pope has called for. He has said nothing about “where people currently are”. I am for an immigration reform that is in the best interest of all people, regardless of where they are.

I guess we’re at the end of our discussion. What I write is my interpretation, just as yours is your interpretation. I don’t believe either is intended to be ‘distortion’. I, like you, can interpret fairly well. I don’t think I could have missed on entirely every point discussed.

This is another distortion. The pope has never called for universal health care nor is it Church doctrine.

And I support the doctrine of the Church, which does not.

Not another distortion. The same claim could be made about your ‘interpretation’. As for doctrine, show me where it is written that the death penalty is ‘doctrine’ of the Church.

No it isn’t. No one denies that things cannot be improved or opposes improving them.

Some deny starting a universal healthcare program, for many various reasons. Some claim the state is incapable of handling social programs and seem to call for cutting the budget in these areas because of their opinion.

Better no action at all than actions that make things worse. I oppose your proposals just as you oppose mine. If you don’t want to sit around any longer then why don’t you agree to implement my proposals? Are you opposed to fixing the problems?

No action leaves some people in crisis.

See, again apparent spins of what I said. I have always said things can be improved, but you don’t stop them, or cut their budgets, and call it improvement.

Of course it’s doctrine. *The **doctrine ***remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
There are no doctrines on the *solutions *to prudential problems. You cannot come to grips with the fact that the differences in our opinions about which solutions will work are not disagreements about doctrine but merely differences of prudential opinions.

Where is it written that the death penalty is a ‘doctrine’ of the Church? It supporting it is strictly a ‘doctrine’ what position does that put the Popes in, the ones that called for the abolition of the death penalty?

Your position is based on an unwillingness to believe I may be a good person who is at worst mistaken. You cannot let go of the uncharitable opinion that I am immoral.

Ender

I have tried my best to state what I wrote is for myself and explain how I arrive at what I believe. I have tried to avoid being uncharitable and assure you that I did not say you were immoral, or a bad person.

 

[Ender]

Not another distortion. The same claim could be made about your ‘interpretation’.

You said: “I am for an immigration reform that protects people where they currently are, as the Pope has called for” but nowhere in any document does the pope make a reference about immigration reform protecting people “where they currently are.” You don’t get to amend his comments and claim the changes were his.

As for doctrine, show me where it is written that the death penalty is ‘doctrine’ of the Church.

• The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *(CCC 2267, 1997)

*The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded **the right *and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (CCC 2266, 1992)

It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war;* **when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death ***in punishment of a crime (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. **Human life may be lawfully taken: **
1)… 2)… 3) By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism, 1891)

I have tried my best to state what I wrote is for myself and explain how I arrive at what I believe. I have tried to avoid being uncharitable and assure you that I did not say you were immoral, or a bad person.

If you contend that issues such as immigration and health care are moral and that yours is the moral position, what does that make my position if not immoral, and if my position is immoral then have I not behaved immorally in taking it? I contend that our disagreements are over prudential choices of what will or will not work, which means I think I am right and you are mistaken. You contend that our disagreements are over moral choices, which has to mean that you think you are making the moral choice and I the immoral one, but if I make immoral choices am I not behaving immorally? Are you trying to make a distinction between behaving immorally and being immoral?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You said: “I am for an immigration reform that protects people where they currently are, as the Pope has called for” but nowhere in any document does the pope make a reference about immigration reform protecting people “where they currently are.” You don’t get to amend his comments and claim the changes were his.

I have not amended his words and find irony in that accusation since you thought my views were somehow ‘uncharitable’. My interpretation is no more amending his words than yours is.

Words from His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, Regarding Immigration
During His Apostolic Journey to the United States
April 15-20 2008

Besides this, short-term measures: It is very important to help the families above all. In the light of the conversations that I have had with the bishops, the principal problem is that there be protection for the families, that they not be destroyed. What can be done should be done. In the same way, naturally, all that is possible must be done to work against the instability of the situations and against all the violations, and to help so that they can have a truly dignified life where they find themselves in this moment.

• The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclud*e, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. (CCC 2267, 1997)

Now you partially use 2267 as it appears to support a view? We cannot piece mill our Catechism as we see it might support a particular view.

The early Church did not accept soldiers into communion with the faith. That in fact changed overtime. Was it originally doctrine?

I don’t see the partial use of 2267 as a doctrine of our Church commanding the faithful to adhere to it or else find one’s self outside of communion with the Church.

If you contend that issues such as immigration and health care are moral and that yours is the moral position, what does that make my position if not immoral, and if my position is immoral then have I not behaved immorally in taking it? I contend that our disagreements are over prudential choices of what will or will not work, which means I think I am right and you are mistaken. You contend that our disagreements are over moral choices, which has to mean that you think you are making the moral choice and I the immoral one, but if I make immoral choices am I not behaving immorally? Are you trying to make a distinction between behaving immorally and being immoral?

Ender

Those issues are moral if you consider the teachings of Christ as moral; specifically to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless/stranger, and care for the sick. I think I am right and you are mistaken. Does the Church teach that one that is mistaken is morally wrong; not to my knowledge.

Since you find it necessary to say I ‘distort’, or ‘amend’ the Pope’s words, I think it best we just end the discussion between us. Pray for Intellect, knowledge, wisdom, guidance of the Holy Spirit, piety, strength of faith, and fear of the Lord, and let Him lead us in our journey.

God Bless,

 

[philokalia7]

I am an Anglo-Catholic who worships in a Continuing Anglican Church, we are traditionalists who practice Catholic Christianity in a Traditionalist Church. We are utterly intolerant of doctrinal innovation this is sacrilege against Catholic Christianity. One reason I am not a Roman Catholic is I believe Vatican II really screwed the RCC up. God is not against the death penalty, He instituted it! The RCC prior to Vatican II consistently supported the death penalty since the time of Christ. Vatican II truly and negatively changed the RCC. God does not change. James 1:18 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. These words mean that God does not change, He instituted the death penalty, and He has not changed His mind, neither will He ever change His mind. I would feel perfectly at home in Orthodoxy also. Apostasy is coming to the RCC according to the Fatima prophesies.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am an Anglo-Catholic who worships in a Continuing Anglican Church, we are traditionalists who practice Catholic Christianity in a Traditionalist Church. We are utterly intolerant of doctrinal innovation this is sacrilege against Catholic Christianity. One reason I am not a Roman Catholic is I believe Vatican II really screwed the RCC up. God is not against the death penalty, He instituted it! The RCC prior to Vatican II consistently supported the death penalty since the time of Christ. Vatican II truly and negatively changed the RCC. God does not change. James 1:18 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. These words mean that God does not change, He instituted the death penalty, and He has not changed His mind, neither will He ever change His mind. I would feel perfectly at home in Orthodoxy also. Apostasy is coming to the RCC according to the Fatima prophesies.

What about Christ’s teaching referencing ‘an eye for an eye’? Was this not a change? Was the new and everlasting covenant a change from the old?

The death penalty has existed since, and before the time of, Christ. Christ, Himself, was given the death penalty. All the Apostles, with the exception of John, suffered the death penalty; John survived his initial ‘execution’ of being boiled in oil. For over 300 years of the beginning of the Church, how many Christians suffered the death penalty?

 

[louis91766]

I am an Anglo-Catholic who worships in a Continuing Anglican Church, we are traditionalists who practice Catholic Christianity in a Traditionalist Church. We are utterly intolerant of doctrinal innovation this is sacrilege against Catholic Christianity. One reason I am not a Roman Catholic is I believe Vatican II really screwed the RCC up. God is not against the death penalty, He instituted it! The RCC prior to Vatican II consistently supported the death penalty since the time of Christ. Vatican II truly and negatively changed the RCC. God does not change. James 1:18 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. These words mean that God does not change, He instituted the death penalty, and He has not changed His mind, neither will He ever change His mind. I would feel perfectly at home in Orthodoxy also. Apostasy is coming to the RCC according to the Fatima prophesies.

Do women wear veils in your churches?

 

[comrade1789]

I didn’t see anywhere that Pope John Paul spoke of ‘paying a debt to society’ through the death penalty.

Nope, he didn’t. The implications though would mean that if we didn’t have the death penalty, we will probably have more fatalities in police actions. What I mean is, if the police are engaged with a known cop killer or other such, and they know that there is no death penalty, we will probably see more police-intiated executions without the benefit of a jury.

 

[starshiptrooper]

What about Christ’s teaching referencing ‘an eye for an eye’? Was this not a change?

When Christ was talking about and eye for an eye, He was speaking to a group of individuals and not to the state which has different duties, responsibilities, and rights.

Was the new and everlasting covenant a change from the old?

Christ said He did not come to abolish the law.

The death penalty has existed since, and before the time of, Christ. Christ, Himself, was given the death penalty. All the Apostles, with the exception of John, suffered the death penalty; John survived his initial ‘execution’ of being boiled in oil. For over 300 years of the beginning of the Church, how many Christians suffered the death penalty?

What is your point?

 

[SanAgustin]

The implications though would mean that if we didn’t have the death penalty, we will probably have more fatalities in police actions. What I mean is, if the police are engaged with a known cop killer or other such, and they know that there is no death penalty, we will probably see more police-intiated executions without the benefit of a jury.

This hardly seems like a valid argument to support the death penalty (not sure if that is your intent with this post).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When Christ was talking about and eye for an eye, He was speaking to a group of individuals and not to the state which has different duties, responsibilities, and rights.Christ said He did not come to abolish the law.

The poster I was responding to, said God doesn’t change. He changed covenants, and somethings were different as explained by Christ, even if the differences amounted to misunderstandings on man’s part.

Why would one think that Christ’s principles do not apply on a state level? Are state representatives exempt from His teachings? Does the secular world of state somehow supercede that which is spiritual?

What is your point?

My point was that the death penalty has always existed, but was not used properly in all instances, or we have to accept the death penalties according to state laws which were the laws used to execute Christ, the Apostles, and many Christians in the early Church.

We cannot just say, ‘it’s the state’s laws and we must abide’. If that were so, we jeopardize those things we view as unjust laws. In my opinion, with the existence of ‘unjust laws’ on other issues, we have to weigh all laws by the state and whether or not they are just or unjust, according to Christian teachings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

During this discussion we’ve seen people opposed and in favor of the death penalty. The state of Georgia has a case I’d like to see opinions on whether this particular case should be reconsidered, or not. This article also claims that Pope Benedict is among others calling for clemency in this case.

Troy Davis’ life in board’s hands

Even though Davis, 42, was condemned to die for killing a cop and prosecutors steadfastly stand behind his conviction, his innocence claims have attracted a host of dignitaries. Among them, former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher and former FBI Director William Sessions say Davis should be granted clemency.

 

[comrade1789]

This hardly seems like a valid argument to support the death penalty (not sure if that is your intent with this post).

No, its not my intent. Just to show what to expect.

 

[rlg94086]

During this discussion we’ve seen people opposed and in favor of the death penalty. The state of Georgia has a case I’d like to see opinions on whether this particular case should be reconsidered, or not. This article also claims that Pope Benedict is among others calling for clemency in this case.

Troy Davis’ life in board’s hands

Since Pope Benedict is against the death penalty in all cases, I would expect him to call for clemency in all cases.

As far as the application of Church teaching regarding this case, I would say that the State must be certain of his guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Has the case for his innocence been considered on appeal?

 

[SamH]

Since Pope Benedict is against the death penalty in all cases, I would expect him to call for clemency in all cases.

As far as the application of Church teaching regarding this case, I would say that the State must be certain of his guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Has the case for his innocence been considered on appeal?

Actually in 2007 an envoy delivered a letter from the Pope that asked that the matter be given a special review in light of the questions that had arisen. My understanding (despite what many news reports claim) there was not an outright plea for clemency. The Pope is a head of state and would not make such an undiplomatic request.

A two-day hearing was held in June 2010 in a federal district court in Savannah in front of federal Judge William Moore. Moore ruled that executing an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment, but that Davis and his legal team had failed to demonstrate his innocence. In his decision, Moore wrote: “while Mr. Davis’s new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors.”

The Pope’s request was honored as much as it could be by our legal system.

 

[seekerz]

The death penalty is not only wrong - it is uniquely wrong.

In our justice system:

we don’t shoot, stab or beat-up people to show that assault/bodily injury is wrong
we don’t break into people’s houses to show that breaking and entering is wrong
we don’t rape people to show that rape is wrong
we don’t set people’s houses on fire to show that arson is wrong
we don’t kidnap people to show that kidnapping is wrong
we don’t steal from people to show that stealing is wrong
we don’t destroy people’s property to show that destruction of property is wrong
we don’t sell/force drugs onto people to show that drug trafficking/abuse is wrong

yes, we do fine people (which is about making people pay for damage/harm done) for a variety of offences
yes, we do imprison people for certain crimes (in a known place, where they are usually accessible to loved ones; when the imprisonment is secret, it’s generally considered criminal - terrorist threats notwithstanding)

On a secular note, it’s about time the justice system caught up with our present level of civilization and stopped the only tit-for-tat ‘punishment’ that I can seem to identify as still being practiced among us. On a more spiritual note, I will have more to say…for now it is sufficient to note that justice and mercy are intricately linked and one does not negate the other otherwise there would be no hope for any soul. When a murderer can be made to pay for his crime without usurping the divine prerogative to arbitrate life and death, he should be.

 

[Seamus_L]

I have no problem with the death penalty in theory, but Troy Davis should not be executed tonight because the evidence against him is too inconclusive.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is not only wrong - it is uniquely wrong.

I suppose you can come up with your own system of right and wrong, as for Catholics, however, capital punishment has always been accepted as a valid option for States to use. It has never been - and is not now - considered immoral.

On a secular note, it’s about time the justice system caught up with our present level of civilization and stopped the only tit-for-tat ‘punishment’ that I can seem to identify as still being practiced among us.

On a secular note indeed…

Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment…

*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Avery Dulles, 2001)

When a murderer can be made to pay for his crime without usurping the divine prerogative to arbitrate life and death, he should be.

Inasmuch as the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute criminals there is no question of “usurping the divine prerogative” regarding life and death. The more relevant question is whether the murderer can be said to have paid for his crime merely via incarceration. That appears doubtful.

Ender

 

[seekerz]

I suppose you can come up with your own system of right and wrong, as for Catholics, however, capital punishment has always been accepted as a valid option for States to use. It has never been - and is not now - considered immoral.

On a secular note indeed…

Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment…

*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Avery Dulles, 2001)

Inasmuch as the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute criminals there is no question of “usurping the divine prerogative” regarding life and death. The more relevant question is whether the murderer can be said to have paid for his crime merely via incarceration. That appears doubtful.

Ender

The only relevant caveat,-] (which I should have included in my post) is the absence of an alternative way to protect society from a murderer - a situation which I am so hard-pressed to imagine as to consider it an inconsequential consideration. Life without parole (in solitary if necessary) will work just as well to satisfy the debt to society./-] - Excuse me, actually I did allow for that eventuality in my final para.