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

[Holly3278]

I hope and pray that he is pardoned. The death penalty is not punishment, it is revenge and revenge is wrong.

 

[Rascalking]

I hope and pray that he is pardoned. The death penalty is not punishment, it is revenge and revenge is wrong.

No, it’s not “revenge”, and that’s a shallow way of looking at it. It’s for public safety, a deterrent, and the ultimate punishment for truly evil actions.

The denial to confront evil in the world (Eichmann? Osama Bin Laden? Hitler? Pol Pot? Kim Jong il?) is blood chilling. It truly scares me that people can’t understand that certian monsters need to be put to death in order to show others that we, as a society, do not tolerate the mass killings of innocent people.

Creepy. Really, really creepy.

 

[Ender]

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

By the fact that the Catechism contains both 2260 and 2267 it is at odds with itself. That’s kinda been my point.

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.

I haven’t claimed this authority; I’ve been citing the opinions of others who cannot be so easily dismissed. Haven’t you been reading the citations?

- 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. (Dulles)

*- Moreover, the *Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L. [canon lawyer] 2003)

- To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that,* it has included a prudential judgment** (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.* (Karl Keating, 2004)

*- The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J. Gregorian University, Rome -2007)

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’.

You should read more carefully if you really want to understand this topic.

Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

Your last sentence conflicts with scriptures, from the New Testament. It says nothing of ‘vengeance’ being a right and an obligation of the state.

*- Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *(Aquinas ST II-II 108,1)

• Legitimate* public authority has the right and duty** to inflict penalties *(CCC 2266)

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

Indeed, let’s look at the Greek usage:

From G1556; vindication, retribution: - (a-, re-) venge (-ance), punishment.

Vengeance (the infliction of a penal evil) means punishment or, ta-da … retribution.

Ender

 

[Rence]

Fully agree, if any of my family especially my children were the victim of a vicious crime resulting in their death, i’d pull the switch myself.

I must live in a totally different world. Most people I know would pull the switch on someone who murdered (even raped, maimed, or molested) their children, parents, siblings, etc. And you know what? I’m glad I live where I live among those who would do so, rather than among those who would set them loose on society again…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

What is clear to you still appears to be selective interpretation. If it were clearly addressed by the Church to mean retribution it would be more certain, or if the Church had actually used the term retribution instead of ‘redressing the disorder’.

To agree with your view, one would have to disregard other teachings from other men of the Church, the scriptures, and the Catechism itself.

Looking at the quote by Cardinal Dulles, one could apply it the same what John Paul II stated and not be in conflict, as the statement does not specifically reference the death penalty. It does address rehabilitation which is questioned how that can be achieved through the death of the individual. Deterrence, defense and retribution can be achieved through incarceration.

Looking at what Pius XII wrote, how does death bring about the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium? Death certainly seems to be an alternative, to me.

Does the Baltimore Catechism supercede the current Catechism of the Catholic Church? To me, it’s the same thing as finding contradictions within one Catechism; however, let’s look at ‘temporal punishment’. Isn’t this the punishment required by God as satisfaction for sin to prevent falling to the same sin again? If so, why is that punishment removed from God? Lastly, where does this passage specifically address the death penalty?

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 - Lesson 19

The chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin are: Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving; all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and the patient suffering of the ills of life.

The USCCB clearly states ‘reform’. Does death reform an individual? And yet again, the document does not specifically refer to the death penalty as a necessity.

The same questions, and absence of ‘death penalty’, come with St. Aquinas’ statement. Isn’t he also speaking of a ‘punishment’ due for all sins and not a specific sin as you seem to think?

Again, please cite your authority to determine one part of the Catechism as correct, wrong, or open to interpretation, or prudential judgment if you prefer. I apologize, but I cannot agree with your interpretation of the statements being provided.

 

[Ender]

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.

One of the great ironies of 2267 is that it allows for preventative executions: it allows a person to be executed if he appears to be a credible threat to others. Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that, according to 2267, a person may be executed for threatening a crime for which he could not be executed for committing?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Indeed, let’s look at the Greek usage:

From G1556; vindication, retribution: - (a-, re-) venge (-ance), punishment.

Vengeance (the infliction of a penal evil) means punishment or, ta-da … retribution.

Ender

The passage provided stated ‘Revenge/vengeance is mine saith the Lord.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I must live in a totally different world. Most people I know would pull the switch on someone who murdered (even raped, maimed, or molested) their children, parents, siblings, etc. And you know what? I’m glad I live where I live among those who would do so, rather than among those who would set them loose on society again…

Rence,

I am trying to rationalize this issue through a spiritual eye, and not by the laws of man, or more specifically the state. If you could provide a scriptural documentation, or other Church teachings that support the death penalty, it would give us more to think on. ‘Think on’ is the best I can offer in light of the statements by John Paul II, the Catechism, and the bishops seeking a stay.

I don’t think, even with a commuted sentence, that this individual will be ‘set loose on society again’. If the sentence was commuted to life, he still has a few sentences on top of life, some as long as 30 years. At 61, I can’t see him getting out.

 

[Ender]

The passage provided stated ‘Revenge/vengeance is mine saith the Lord.’

Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.”[5] It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.”[6] And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.”[7] To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”[8] And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. (Catechism of St. Thomas, Fifth Commandment)

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One of the great ironies of 2267 is that it allows for preventative executions: it allows a person to be executed if he appears to be a credible threat to others. Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that, according to 2267, a person may be executed for threatening a crime for which he could not be executed for committing?

Ender

In light of John Paul II’s statements, it seems that 2267 confirms the state’s right to end a life to save a life, or protect society. An example would be where a criminal took hostages and killed one. The state would have the right, in the eyes of the Church, to take the criminal out as opposed to letting him kill another hostage. Once that criminal has been taken prisoner, convicted, sentenced and place in prison, it is unlikely that he can be a threat to society again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.”[5] It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.”[6] And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.”[7] To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”[8] And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. (Catechism of St. Thomas, Fifth Commandment)

Ender

How much has the penal system evolved since the statements provided above? How do those statements rank higher than ‘prudential judgments’ of men of the Church from much more recent times? Are the older statements not ‘prudential judgements’ and open to the possibility of being wrong, as you say the more modern writings are?

 

[Ender]

If you could provide a scriptural documentation, or other Church teachings that support the death penalty, it would give us more to think on.

The entire history of the Church is replete with such references (equally relevant is that there has not been a single statement in opposition to it). That has been the position of the Church, unchanged, until the opinion expressed by JPII in 1995. But since you asked for them, now deal with them.

Popes
-* and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *(Innocent I, 405)

• “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Innocent III, 1210)

**- Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause *[that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. *(Leo XIII, 1891)

- “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII, 1952)

Ender

 

[Rence]

Rence,
I am trying to rationalize this issue through a spiritual eye, and not by the laws of man, or more specifically the state. If you could provide a scriptural documentation, or other Church teachings that support the death penalty, it would give us more to think on. ‘Think on’ is the best I can offer in light of the statements by John Paul II, the Catechism, and the bishops seeking a stay.

No, because my aim is not to change your mind or influence you in any way, shape or form. I just shared what I believed, based on my values, and there are no CCC references that are in conflict with what I believe regarding this issue. We have both read the same citations and have gotten different meanings from them.

You may also consider the Church’s influence over secular authorities in times past, when early world leaders executed prisoners for a lot less than rape or murder. When secular authorities based their civil laws on Church teachings, they made breaking those Church rules punishable by imprisonment, torture and death. Though these secular world leaders didn’t have the CCC to reference, they had many other Church references. The Church did not, that we know of, condemn the secular authorities for these actions at a time when political separation from the Church would have compromised whole nations. In other words, during this time, the Church had real influential power over secular authorities. If the Church was against capital punishment and/or mistreatment of prisoners, they would have put a stop to it when they actually had the power to do so. So I believe that the Bishops are asking for the State to have mercy on this criminal, I don’t think it’s because the State is breaking any Church law. It’s the Bishops’ job to fight for what they believe is right, just like any other citizen.

 

[Ender]

Church teachings supporting capital punishment cont.

Catechisms

• Catechism of St. Thomas: *And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.”[9] Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment.
• Catechism of Trent (1566): Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death…
• Baltimore Catechism (1891): *
  Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
  A. Human life may be lawfully taken:…
  3. By the lawful execution of a criminal…

*- Catechism of Pius X (1905): “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 the Catholic Church (1992): *“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.”

Ender
*

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The entire history of the Church is replete with such references (equally relevant is that there has not been a single statement in opposition to it). That has been the position of the Church, unchanged, until the opinion expressed by JPII in 1995. But since you asked for them, now deal with them.

Popes
-* and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *(Innocent I, 405)

• “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Innocent III, 1210)

**- Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause *[that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. *(Leo XIII, 1891)

- “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII, 1952)

Ender

Before ‘digging’ up more sources you feel you have interpreted correctly to support your view of the death penalty, I ask that you take time to respond to my post #65 so questions, and points, are not repeated.

Primarily with this post I have to ask, again, if this is an issue of prudential judgment, what makes the men of the Church’s prudential judgment more correct than the much more recent men of the Church? Without a proper response to that question it appears you are saying we are all at liberty to seek out things we can interpret to support our view and ignore other documentations.

Also, again, has the penal system not improved since those writings, specifically those from 405, 1210, and 1891? Even the writing from Pius XII comes from an era that the penal system has greatly improved, thereby giving greater protection to society. The one by Pius XII directly conflicts with John Paul II, which makes me refer you back to the question of which has a correct prudential judgment and how you know which has?

With the dated materials, and prudential judgments made by men of the Church knowing the capabilities of the penal system at that time, can you understand that it is possible that there is no conflict and both Pius and John Paul’s prudential judgments are correct, based on their knowledge of the availability to protect society during their times?

 

[Ender]

And even more support for capital punishment …

• Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata): "The Law, even in correcting and punishing, aims at the good of men. But when it sees any one in such a condition as to appear incurable, posting to the last stage of wickedness, then in its solicitude for the rest, that they may not be destroyed by it (just as if amputating a part from the whole body), it condemns such an one to death, as the course most conducive to health"
• Augustine (City of God): *“Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.”
• ***Salvian (On the Government of God): "So whatever is done on account of sin is not to be ascribed to God, since a deed is rightly ascribed to that cause which has made it unavoidable. For example, a murderer sentenced to death by the judge is actually punished by his own crime"

*- ***Aquinas **(Summa Theologica): *“Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

• St. Robert Bellarmine: " …**because it is often useful to those who are put to death, to be executed, that is, when they become steadily worse and there is no prospect of their returning to their (former) sanity of mind.”

-* Cardinal Dulles (2001): “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.”
*
-* Archbishop Chaput (2005): *“Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.”

*Has the position of the Church on capital punishment now been settled? Do you still think my position is mere cherry picking?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, because my aim is not to change your mind or influence you in any way, shape or form. I just shared what I believed, based on my values, and there are no CCC references that are in conflict with what I believe regarding this issue. We have both read the same citations and have gotten different meanings from them.

So we are allowed ‘different truths’, according to the different interpretations we arrive at? I have a difficulty with that train of thought.

You may also consider the Church’s influence over secular authorities in times past, when early world leaders executed prisoners for a lot less than rape or murder. When secular authorities based their civil laws on Church teachings, they made breaking those Church rules punishable by imprisonment, torture and death. Though these secular world leaders didn’t have the CCC to reference, they had many other Church references. The Church did not, that we know of, condemn the secular authorities for these actions at a time when political separation from the Church would have compromised whole nations. In other words, during this time, the Church had real influential power over secular authorities. If the Church was against capital punishment and/or mistreatment of prisoners, they would have put a stop to it when they actually had the power to do so. So I believe that the Bishops are asking for the State to have mercy on this criminal, I don’t think it’s because the State is breaking any Church law. It’s the Bishops’ job to fight for what they believe is right, just like any other citizen.

Wasn’t there a law in times past that allowed the stoning, execution, of adulterers, and the Head of our Church prevented the execution by referring the people to sins of their own?

Looking at more modern examples of men of the Church, than the very Head of the Church, I’ll ask you, as I asked Ender, if this is a matter of ‘prudential judgements’, why is the former’s more correct than the most recent? Also, do you think it’s possible that both are correct, even though they seemingly conflict, based on the differences of penal systems and capabilities to protect society in the different eras?

And the bishops are our ‘teachers’, to instruct in ways of the faith. What better way to lead than through example?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And even more support for capital punishment …

• Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata): "The Law, even in correcting and punishing, aims at the good of men. But when it sees any one in such a condition as to appear incurable, posting to the last stage of wickedness, then in its solicitude for the rest, that they may not be destroyed by it (just as if amputating a part from the whole body), it condemns such an one to death, as the course most conducive to health"
• Augustine (City of God): *“Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.”
• ***Salvian (On the Government of God): "So whatever is done on account of sin is not to be ascribed to God, since a deed is rightly ascribed to that cause which has made it unavoidable. For example, a murderer sentenced to death by the judge is actually punished by his own crime"

*- ***Aquinas **(Summa Theologica): *“Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

• St. Robert Bellarmine: " …**because it is often useful to those who are put to death, to be executed, that is, *when they become steadily worse and there is no prospect of their returning to their (former) sanity of mind.”
• Cardinal Dulles (2001): “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.”

-* Archbishop Chaput (2005): *“Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.”

*Has the position of the Church on capital punishment now been settled? Do you still think my position is mere cherry picking?

Ender

Going back further in time, or bringing out more statements that have a distinct appearance of cherry picked does not answer the many questions and points raised for your attention. It just places more conflict on the men within the same Church and places one’s prudential judgment over another, and in a position of contradicting each other. Can you not see the wrong in that?

It’s not about who can post the most quotes, according to a private interpretation. It’s about understanding the issue through the light of the Church, and Christ Himself.

Yes, it is cherry picking and ignoring, or discounting other great men of the Church to support a single view. I have asked you a few times, that if this is truly a matter of prudential judgments, isn’t is possible those men you are relying on are ‘wrong’? I don’t mean any disrespect, but am merely trying to show you that I have not seen how you can declare one group wrong over another, or even one part of the Catechism as wrong over another part.

 

[Rence]

So we are allowed ‘different truths’, according to the different interpretations we arrive at? I have a difficulty with that train of thought.

Ok…

Wasn’t there a law in times past that allowed the stoning, execution, of adulterers, and the Head of our Church prevented the execution by referring the people to sins of their own?

Sure…but what about all the “heretics” who wanted to break from the Catholic Church that were sentenced to death by the secular authorities in England. Did the Church come to their rescue?

Looking at more modern examples of men of the Church, than the very Head of the Church, I’ll ask you, as I asked Ender, if this is a matter of ‘prudential judgements’, why is the former’s more correct than the most recent?

You’ll have to explain the above. I apologize, but I don’t know what you mean by the above.

Also, do you think it’s possible that both are correct, even though they seemingly conflict, based on the differences of penal systems and capabilities to protect society in the different eras?

Again, what are you asking me, specifically? Who is both?

And the bishops are our ‘teachers’, to instruct in ways of the faith. What better way to lead than through example?

The Bishops who are not petitioning on behalf of criminals are also leading through their example.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure…but what about all the “heretics” who wanted to break from the Catholic Church that were sentenced to death by the secular authorities in England. Did the Church come to their rescue?

Then throughout history the Church, or more precisely the men of the Church, were correct in all secular matters, even through appearances of an absence of action leaving us to speculate the correct reason. Does this include the inquisition?

You’ll have to explain the above. I apologize, but I don’t know what you mean by the above.

It seems that arguments are being made that one can go by their own conscience, which is based on what the Church has taught throughout time. That teaching was based on, what Ender refers to as, ‘prudential judgements’ of the men of the Church. Why are older teachings on the subject more correct than what John Paul II taught?

Again, what are you asking me, specifically? Who is both?

Throughout the history of the Church, different men have made different statements on the necessity of the death penalty. Based on the times, of each man of the Church existence, couldn’t it be possible that the different statements were correct according to the systems to protect society during those different eras? For example, what was necessary in 410 is no longer necessary in 2011.

The Bishops who are not petitioning on behalf of criminals are also leading through their example.

So if we don’t hear of any bishop asking for mercy, we are to assume it is an example of being for the death penalty?

In my opinion, that’s a dangerous way to look at it. It would be more convincing to see a bishop stating the condemned should be put to death.