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

[Rascalking]

We do things because we are imperfect ourselves. It does not reflect the teachings of Christ, who was perfect. Christ sought forgiveness for His own persecutors. Christ abrogated the ‘eye for an eye’ teaching.

Ok, ok, ok-I get it. Your against the death penalty. I’m for it. We disagree. Great.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who knows? It’s happened before, and it’ll probably happen again.

It’s clear that we disagree-look on the bright side-the death penalty will soon be abolished and you can give hugs and warm fuzzies to those who murder others.

This “debate” will go no where. Good luck my friend.

That reminds me of another question that was ‘overlooked’. Did John Paul II, and the bishops, make their statements in hopes of being ‘hip and cool’, or for the ‘warm fuzzy feelings’? You don’t have to answer, I just wanted you to know that I recognize ad hominem statements.

As for the ‘it happened before, and it’ll probably happen again’ statement, many more will die accidental deaths, and criminal deaths, from the lack of stringent gun controls than escaped prisoners convicted of murder. This is relevant when we consider this person was convicted in a ‘shooting’ death of another.

 

[Owlpride]

That reminds me of another question that was ‘overlooked’. Did John Paul II, and the bishops, make their statements in hopes of being ‘hip and cool’, or for the ‘warm fuzzy feelings’? You don’t have to answer, I just wanted you to know that I recognize ad hominem statements.

As for the ‘it happened before, and it’ll probably happen again’ statement, many more will die accidental deaths, and criminal deaths, from the lack of stringent gun controls than escaped prisoners convicted of murder. This is relevant when we consider this person was convicted in a ‘shooting’ death of another.

He responded to JP thing.

I’m anti death penalty too but think it should be on the books in the case of Eichmann, Saddam. That sort of thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He responded to JP thing.

I know, when he refers to them it’s ‘wanted to show how compassionate and loving they were’. When it’s another Catholic it’s ‘hip and cool’ and ‘warm fuzzy feelings’.

 

[FLGreg]

I used to believe the same thing some of you Cafeteria Catholics are posting here: “Kill 'em all, Let God Sort them out”. Having been absent from the Church for almost twenty years, I was led back to The Way as a result of a miraculous event at the hands of Our Holy Mother.

Since then, I have a newfound appreciation for the Magisterium. As a former poker player, I am “all in” this time. I know I don’t have many posts here and my next statement is going to greatly ruffle the feathers of you posters with several thousand entries that act like they have all the answers. However, if you don’t understand the concept of the Sanctity of Life under any circumstances – from conception to natural death then perhaps the Catholic Church is NOT for you.

I know this has been posted previously: The Catechism is crystal clear on is matter:

2267 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 to 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 definitely 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 nonexistent."68

I also struggled with accepting the teachings of The Church on this one. If you have a modicum of understanding of the teachings of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and the concept of Old versus New Covenant/Testament you would understand that Lex Talionis has been supplanted with His teachings of love and forgiveness.

Our death penalty here in Florida is via lethal injection since “Old Sparky” was retired. I know it is cliché but consider this: Would Jesus Christ push the plunger down on this man? You Café Catholics have to ask yourselves - Vengeance is whose?

Have a Blessed Day!!

 

[Debora123]

I used to believe the same thing some of you Cafeteria Catholics are posting here: “Kill 'em all, Let God Sort them out”. Having been absent from the Church for almost twenty years, I was led back to The Way as a result of a miraculous event at the hands of Our Holy Mother.

Since then, I have a newfound appreciation for the Magisterium. As a former poker player, I am “all in” this time. I know I don’t have many posts here and my next statement is going to greatly ruffle the feathers of you posters with several thousand entries that act like they have all the answers. However, if you don’t understand the concept of the Sanctity of Life under any circumstances – from conception to natural death then perhaps the Catholic Church is NOT for you.

I know this has been posted previously: The Catechism is crystal clear on is matter:

Great post. Agree 100%. :clapping::extrahappy:
I also struggled with accepting the teachings of The Church on this one. If you have a modicum of understanding of the teachings of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and the concept of Old versus New Covenant/Testament you would understand that Lex Talionis has been supplanted with His teachings of love and forgiveness.

Our death penalty here in Florida is via lethal injection since “Old Sparky” was retired. I know it is cliché but consider this: Would Jesus Christ push the plunger down on this man? You Café Catholics have to ask yourselves - Vengeance is whose?

Have a Blessed Day!!

 

[Rascalking]

I know, when he refers to them it’s ‘wanted to show how compassionate and loving they were’. When it’s another Catholic it’s ‘hip and cool’ and ‘warm fuzzy feelings’.

Yup, and I stand by that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yup, and I stand by that.

So you believe one to be real and the other to be false?

Why can’t a ‘student’ learn properly from a ‘teacher’?

If this is not what you meant, please elaborate.

 

[Rascalking]

So you believe one to be real and the other to be false?

Why can’t a ‘student’ learn properly from a ‘teacher’?

If this is not what you meant, please elaborate.

Where in the world did you get the “Believe one to be real and other to be false?”

I’m sorry, I don’t have a clue what your saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where in the world did you get the “Believe one to be real and other to be false?”

I’m sorry, I don’t have a clue what your saying.

One was considered, by you, to be showing love and compassion, the other was looking to be ‘hip and cool’ for ‘warm fuzzy’ feelings. It appears the first is sincere, according to your explanation, and the latter is for other reasons.

Catholics are students, learning from the men of the Church who are the teachers. Your view seems to say the teacher is sincere, but the student learns for other reasons.

If that’s too hard to understand, how is it men of the Church expressing themselves on issues, like the topic of this thread, are showing love and compassion, but other Catholics who learn from those men are seeking to be ‘hip and cool’, looking for ‘warm fuzzy’ feelings?

Really, it seems you accept the men of the Church as sincere and reject those who learn from those men because you don’t believe in their sincerity???.

 

[Rascalking]

One was considered, by you, to be showing love and compassion, the other was looking to be ‘hip and cool’ for ‘warm fuzzy’ feelings. It appears the first is sincere, according to your explanation, and the latter is for other reasons.

Catholics are students, learning from the men of the Church who are the teachers. Your view seems to say the teacher is sincere, but the student learns for other reasons.

If that’s too hard to understand, how is it men of the Church expressing themselves on issues, like the topic of this thread, are showing love and compassion, but other Catholics who learn from those men are seeking to be ‘hip and cool’, looking for ‘warm fuzzy’ feelings?

Really, it seems you accept the men of the Church as sincere and reject those who learn from those men because you don’t believe in their sincerity???.

I think I’ve made my points clear.

Best of luck. I’m going to prepare for the upcoming hurricane.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think I’ve made my points clear.

So I am interpreting your points correctly? Why do you judge them differently?

Best of luck. I’m going to prepare for the upcoming hurricane.

From someone in Florida, all in storm’s path are in prayers. God bless and best of luck to you.

 

[Ender]

if you don’t understand the concept of the Sanctity of Life under any circumstances – from conception to natural death then perhaps the Catholic Church is NOT for you.

It isn’t clear what you mean by sanctity of life but if you mean by it that the Church does not accept killing under any circumstances then you are mistaken.

I know this has been posted previously: The Catechism is crystal clear on is matter:

A large part of the problem of course is that the Catechism has been anything but clear. I’ve already pointed out that 2266 identifies the primary objective of all punishment as retribution while 2267 limits the use of capital punishment based solely on one (of three) secondary objectives. Beyond that, what are we to make of 2260, which not only cited the command God gave in Gen 9:5-6 that murderers be executed but helpfully added “This teaching remains necessary for all time”?

Section 2267 contains three parts: part one is wrong as a matter of fact, part two reverses the meaning of Gen 9:6, and part three is unarguably an opinion. This hardly corresponds to crystal clarity.

I also struggled with accepting the teachings of The Church on this one.

I can help with this one: section 2267 is a prudential opinion and not a teaching of the Church.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

If you have a modicum of understanding of the teachings of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and the concept of Old versus New Covenant/Testament you would understand that Lex Talionis has been supplanted with His teachings of love and forgiveness.

People keep saying this but there is absolutely nothing in any part of scripture that supports the idea that sins do not deserve a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime.

You Café Catholics have to ask yourselves - Vengeance is whose?

Vengeance (properly understood) is not just a right but is an obligation of the State.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It isn’t clear what you mean by sanctity of life but if you mean by it that the Church does not accept killing under any circumstances then you are mistaken.
A large part of the problem of course is that the Catechism has been anything but clear. I’ve already pointed out that 2266 identifies the primary objective of all punishment as retribution while 2267 limits the use of capital punishment based solely on one (of three) secondary objectives. Beyond that, what are we to make of 2260, which not only cited the command God gave in Gen 9:5-6 that murderers be executed but helpfully added “This teaching remains necessary for all time”?

It really seems like ‘cherry picking’, then we have to add your interpretation over the Popes and bishops. 2266 does not say retribution. You arrive at that with a ‘private interpretation’.

Your reliance on 2260 would place the Catechism at odds with itself when reading 2267.

2267 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 to 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 definitely 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 nonexistent."68

Section 2267 contains three parts: part one is wrong as a matter of fact, part two reverses the meaning of Gen 9:6, and part three is unarguably an opinion. This hardly corresponds to crystal clarity.
I can help with this one: section 2267 is a prudential opinion and not a teaching of the Church.

Please cite where you receive your authority to determine which parts of the Catechism are ‘wrong’ and ‘is a prudential opinion and not a teaching of the Church’, especially over Pope John Paul II and our bishops. It really appears to be selective acceptance for biased reasons. Catechism means instruction. How does that appear that it represents less than teachings of the Church?

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
People keep saying this but there is absolutely nothing in any part of scripture that supports the idea that sins do not deserve a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime.
Vengeance (properly understood) is not just a right but is an obligation of the State.

Ender

As you rely on an old covenant, please show us under the new and everlasting covenant where it states ‘sins deserve a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime’.

Your last sentence conflicts with scriptures, from the New Testament. It says nothing of ‘vengeance’ being a right and an obligation of the state. I am open to correction if you want to provide the scripture and verse.

Rom 12:19 Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.
Rom 12:20 But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.
Rom 12:21 Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.

If you question the Douay Rheims use of ‘revenge’, let’s look at the Greek used.

ἐκδίκησις
ekdikēsis
ek-dik’-ay-sis
From G1556; vindication, retribution: - (a-, re-) venge (-ance), punishment.

 

[Rence]

A convicted murder who is in jail for life and not on death row can kill a guard. Another inmate. If they escape, they can kill someone else. So, let’s say Fred kills three more people in jail. What do we do? Give him another life sentence? Take away dessert?

If you execute a murderer I’m fairly certain they can’t kill anyone else.

This person was a dangerous criminal, and the State has a responsibility to proect all citizens, as described above. The State found him to be an endangerment to other prisoners, and especially, the prison guards. From the court case documents:

wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/briefs/94754answerbrief.pdf

the trial court imposed the death penalty for the first degree murder of Luis Pena. (3R. 897-908, 6189-93). The trial court found the existence of five aggravating factors:

(1) Valle was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person;
(2) the killing was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or
effecting an escape from custody;
(3) the killing was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws;
(4) the killing was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner without any
pretense of moral or legal justification; and,
(5) the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties. (3R. 900-903).

The second, third and fifth reasons were merged and were not treated as separate factors. Id. The lower court found that there was no evidence of any statutory mitigating circumstances. (3R. 904-907). The court further found that the evidence did not
establish any nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, or alternatively, that any such mitigating circumstances were outweighed by the aggravating factors. (3R. 906-907).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This person was a dangerous criminal, and the State has a responsibility to proect all citizens, as described above. The State found him to be an endangerment to other prisoners, and especially, the prison guards. From the court case documents:

And what do we have on the inmate’s record since incarceration?

Why is it allowable to question our bishops on an issue like this, but no other issues that are vague, or lack definition; e.g. proportionate reasons?

 

[Rence]

And what do we have on the inmate’s record since incarceration?

There is no sufficient evidence to prove whether or not his records truly speaks for his future conduct because he’s always in a state of appeals. For someone with a higher-than-average IQ, it’s not far fetched to speculate that it’s part of his plan to “behave”.

Why is it allowable to question our bishops on an issue like this, but no other issues that are vague, or lack definition; e.g. proportionate reasons?

I’m not questioning the Bishops. They have a moral responsibility to fight for what is right. They think he doesn’t deserve to be excecuted, and they’re making their beliefs known. Rather than questioning the Bishops, I am agreeing with the State. I do have the right to follow my own conscience as well. What it boils down to is that the CCC allows for the execution of criminals that are found to be a continued threat, and he was found to be a continued threat despite appeals. The Bishops can appeal on their own all they want. Whether or not the State heeds the Bishops’ call is something only time will tell.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no sufficient evidence to prove whether or not his records truly speaks for his future conduct because he’s always in a state of appeals. For someone with a higher-than-average IQ, it’s not far fetched to speculate that it’s part of his plan to “behave”.

While it is possible, it is still speculative. We could also speculate on a 61 year old’s ability to endanger society from behind bars.

I’m not questioning the Bishops. They have a moral responsibility to fight for what is right. They think he doesn’t deserve to be excecuted, and they’re making their beliefs known. Rather than questioning the Bishops, I am agreeing with the State. I do have the right to follow my own conscience as well. What it boils down to is that the CCC allows for the execution of criminals that are found to be a continued threat, and he was found to be a continued threat despite appeals. The Bishops can appeal on their own all they want. Whether or not the State heeds the Bishops’ call is something only time will tell.

His continued threat is based on the crime he was sentenced for, with no consideration of the person since.

Do you also agree that others have a right to follow their consciences in other issues like ‘proportionate reasons’?

 

[Ender]

It really seems like ‘cherry picking’, then we have to add your interpretation over the Popes and bishops. 2266 does not say retribution. You arrive at that with a ‘private interpretation’.

I’ll explain this one last time. Frankly I consider this one of the greatest harms caused by 2267 in that most people no longer even understand the true nature of punishment.

*- The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)

*- “The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.” *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

*- “A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium." *(Pius XII, 1954)

*- God requires a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin *(Baltimore Catechism, Q220)

*- The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence, and reform. …
**The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution **or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. *(USCCB, 1980)

*- the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which **restores him to the equality of justice ***(Aquinas ST I-II 87,6)

Citations from a half dozen Church documents should be seen as a bit more than cherry picking. I find it a rather complete explanation of the fact that by the phrase “redressing the disorder”, the Church is clearly speaking of retribution.

Ender

 

[Rence]

While it is possible, it is still speculative. We could also speculate on a 61 year old’s ability to endanger society from behind bars.

His continued threat is based on the crime he was sentenced for, with no consideration of the person since.

It’s not speculative just because some people speculate. Others certainly don’t have any reason for thinking it speculative. We can always disagree with a court’s decision…what little good that will do. Being that the ones who heard the testimony and examined the evidence convicted him, I’m confident this was the best choice for our society. I can’t see how someone can contest their decision given he/she hasn’t seen the evidence and heard the testimony. That’s their job, that’s what they are supposed to do. Despite appeals, it was determined he had a fair and impartial trial, and was sentenced accordingly. The Bishops are within their right to try and get the judgement changed. Only time will tell if they will succeed.

Do you also agree that others have a right to follow their consciences in other issues like ‘proportionate reasons’?

Yes.