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

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemencycatholicnewsagency.com/news/ahead-of-inmates-execution-florida-catholic-bishops-seek-clemency/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Tallahassee, Fla., Aug 24, 2011 / 06:19 am (CNA).- The Catholic bishops of Florida have asked Gov. Rick Scott to stay the execution of Manuel Valle, who was convicted in the 1978 shooting murder of a police officer. “True peace can only be achieved by forgiveness,” they said. “Governor, we ask you to stop state sanctioned killing.”

“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance,” the bishops said in an Aug. 3 letter. “We affirm the right and duty of the State to assure public safety and punish the guilty by incarceration, which allows the inmate an opportunity for reflection on their offenses and sorrow for the pain they have caused others.”

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemencycatholicnewsagency.com/news/ahead-of-inmates-execution-florida-catholic-bishops-seek-clemency/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Bless them. I continue to hope that there will come a time when I can say, without any doubt or reservation, that our government respects the value of a human life.

I’ll continue to pray that Governor Scott, and all other similarly empowered politicians, would follow Governors George Ryan’s, Winthrop Rockefeller’s, and Toney Anaya’s examples.

Pax,
OA

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Bless them. I continue to hope that there will come a time when I can say, without any doubt or reservation, that our government respects the value of a human life.

I’ll continue to pray that Governor Scott, and all other similarly empowered politicians, would follow Governors George Ryan’s, Winthrop Rockefeller’s, and Toney Anaya’s examples.

Pax,
OA

Amen.

 

[SamH]

I pray he is forgiven, but he still needs to pay his debt to society.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I pray he is forgiven, but he still needs to pay his debt to society.

John Paul II

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

 

[SamH]

John Paul II

So what is the problem?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So what is the problem?

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

…ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

 

[estesbob]

Amen!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing is wrong?

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing is wrong?

Stop it! Asking questions like that is exactly your problem. Crazy talk! It’s crazy talk!

 

[Ender]

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

What a disappointment; the positions the bishops took are just unsupportable.

“True peace can only be achieved by forgiveness"

They appear unfamiliar with Paul VI’s perspective: “If you want peace work for justice.” There is no support for the idea that forgiveness lessens the punishment one deserves for his crimes. Justice (not forgiveness) is a requirement of peace and justice demands a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. The Church has always taught that punishment and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive.

“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance"

It is hard to understand how they could say this inasmuch as the Church has always recognized a State’s right to execute criminals. Are they suggesting that the Church supported disrespect for life and helped promote a culture of violence for 2000 years? As for a culture of “vengeance” they apparently don’t recognize that there is problem with retribution only when it is exacted by the individual. Retribution is in fact not just the State’s right but its obligation, as it is the primary objective of, and justification for, punishment.

“An execution re-opens the emotional wounds of victim’s families and does not bring back or honor their loved one"

This just gets worse and worse. Following this “reasoning”, we should not punish murderers at all as no punishment can bring back the dead.

They referred to the biblical murderer Cain and noted that God punished him, but also marked him to protect him from those wishing to avenge Abel’s murder.

This argument would have more force if they could cite anywhere in all of history where the Church used this example to explain her position on capital punishment. What they should have referred to were the scripture passages the Church uses. The problem with that of course is that those passages don’t support their position (cf Gen 9:5-6).

"Modern society has the means to protect itself without the death penalty"

This claim is dubious at best but in any event it doesn’t acknowledge that protection is a secondary objective of punishment. The bishops ignored the primary objective, which is retribution.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What a disappointment; the positions the bishops took are just unsupportable.

“True peace can only be achieved by forgiveness"

They appear unfamiliar with Paul VI’s perspective: “If you want peace work for justice.” There is no support for the idea that forgiveness lessens the punishment one deserves for his crimes. Justice (not forgiveness) is a requirement of peace and justice demands a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. The Church has always taught that punishment and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive.

“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance"

It is hard to understand how they could say this inasmuch as the Church has always recognized a State’s right to execute criminals. Are they suggesting that the Church supported disrespect for life and helped promote a culture of violence for 2000 years? As for a culture of “vengeance” they apparently don’t recognize that there is problem with retribution only when it is exacted by the individual. Retribution is in fact not just the State’s right but its obligation, as it is the primary objective of, and justification for, punishment.

“An execution re-opens the emotional wounds of victim’s families and does not bring back or honor their loved one"

This just gets worse and worse. Following this “reasoning”, we should not punish murderers at all as no punishment can bring back the dead.

They referred to the biblical murderer Cain and noted that God punished him, but also marked him to protect him from those wishing to avenge Abel’s murder.

This argument would have more force if they could cite anywhere in all of history where the Church used this example to explain her position on capital punishment. What they should have referred to were the scripture passages the Church uses. The problem with that of course is that those passages don’t support their position (cf Gen 9:5-6).

"Modern society has the means to protect itself without the death penalty"

This claim is dubious at best but in any event it doesn’t acknowledge that protection is a secondary objective of punishment. The bishops ignored the primary objective, which is retribution.

Ender

Your comments seem kind of harsh towards the statements made by the bishops. Why didn’t you comment on Pope John Paul II’s view of the death penalty? John Paul II very well spoke on the subject of ‘protection’.

Just as the good bishops referred to Cain and Abel’s situation, St. Paul also gave clarification of who justice belongs too.

Rom 12:17 To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God but also in the sight of all men.
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men.
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.

Paul received the message from the very Head of the Church.

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

**Mat 5:39 But I say to you: Resist not evil; but if a person smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if one is disposed to sue thee and get away thy coat, relinquish to him also thy cloak.
Mat 5:41 Whoever compelleth thee to go one mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 Whoever demandeth of thee, give to him: and whoever wisheth to borrow of thee, deny him not.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say to you: Love your enemies; and bless him that curseth you; and do good to him that hateth you; and pray for them that lead you in bonds, and that persecute you:
Mat 5:45 that ye may be the children of your Father that is in heaven, who causeth his sun to rise upon the good and upon the bad, and sendeth his rain upon the righteous and upon the unrighteous. **

 

[Ender]

Your comments seem kind of harsh towards the statements made by the bishops. Why didn’t you comment on Pope John Paul II’s view of the death penalty? John Paul II very well spoke on the subject of ‘protection’.

He did speak on the subject of protection but that doesn’t change the fact that protection is a secondary aspect of punishment or that the primary objective is retribution, a subject he regrettably did not address.

Just as the good bishops referred to Cain and Abel’s situation, St. Paul also gave clarification of who justice belongs too.

I’m not impressed either by the bishops personal interpretation of scripture or of yours. Either you can cite Church documents supporting your position or you (and they) can’t and unless you can find some evidence that the Church agrees with you I see no reason to do so. There are a number of documents showing how the Church views this topic, just none that support your interpretation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing is wrong?

I don’t know. Why do we fine people to show that stealing is wrong? Why do we imprison people to show that kidnapping is wrong? Or do we in fact punish people to show that crime is wrong and that the level of the punishment must be set relative to the seriousness of the crime?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I pray he is forgiven, but he still needs to pay his debt to society.

Well said. An awful lot of people, and apparently Catholics as well, don’t understand that forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment as an aspect of justice.

God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good. (JPII)

People seem to believe that merely going to confession where sins are forgiven balances the books and gives us a clean slate, but this is not so. The sin may be forgiven but the debt is not paid.

*That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. *(Paul VI)

We do not pay the debt by forgiving the murderer; that is a debt he alone can pay, and he will pay it either in this life or in the next.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He did speak on the subject of protection but that doesn’t change the fact that protection is a secondary aspect of punishment or that the primary objective is retribution, a subject he regrettably did not address.

Apparently the Pope disagrees with the ‘primary objective’ being retribution. Maybe that’s why it was not addressed.

…ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

n any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

I’m not impressed either by the bishops personal interpretation of scripture or of yours. Either you can cite Church documents supporting your position or you (and they) can’t and unless you can find some evidence that the Church agrees with you I see no reason to do so. There are a number of documents showing how the Church views this topic, just none that support your interpretation.

Ender

I just provide a piece of John Paul II writing for the third time. That seems to fit quite well with the bishops, Pope and my interpretation. Please read Evangelium vitae and see there is a thought out view, with an expressed interpretation of scriptures used by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Ender]

Apparently the Pope disagrees with the ‘primary objective’ being retribution. Maybe that’s why it was not addressed.

I doubt that JPII disputed the primary objective of punishment; in any event that point is made in the Catechism in 2266. That the concept is ignored in 2267 doesn’t change what was just said.

I just provide a piece of John Paul II writing for the third time. That seems to fit quite well with the bishops, Pope and my interpretation. Please read Evangelium vitae and see there is a thought out view, with an expressed interpretation of scriptures used by Pope John Paul II.

I know what is in Evangelium Vitae and in the Catechism. The problem I have with them is that they are not consistent with everything else the Church has said on the subject. I recognize that the pope and the bishops oppose capital punishment but that doesn’t change the fact that the arguments they use to support that position are weak at best and at worst are simply wrong.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I doubt that JPII disputed the primary objective of punishment; in any event that point is made in the Catechism in 2266. That the concept is ignored in 2267 doesn’t change what was just said.
I know what is in Evangelium Vitae and in the Catechism. The problem I have with them is that they are not consistent with everything else the Church has said on the subject. I recognize that the pope and the bishops oppose capital punishment but that doesn’t change the fact that the arguments they use to support that position are weak at best and at worst are simply wrong.

Ender

You are picking and choosing only that which can be interpreted to support your view. John Paul II gives further understanding of what the Catechism states.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

Previously to that statement he said:

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

With the penal system as it is today, how is it absolutely necessary to execute the accused over a life sentence?

Now, instead of picking and choosing you state, 'I recognize that the pope and the bishops oppose capital punishment but that doesn’t change the fact that the arguments they use to support that position are weak at best and at worst are simply wrong.

Why is it some people say the Pope and bishops arguments are weak, or simply wrong, yet on other issues they are only right? It appears to be to support an individual, and non-authoritative, view on certain issues. It also seems to me to be placing an authoritative decision, or interpretation, over the men of the Church.

Tell me this, where does Christ teach us to take vengeance, or retribution?

Either we are pro-life, or not. We cannot be partially pro-life. It either applies to the dignity, and quality, of life for all, from conception to natural death, or it doesn’t.

 

[Ender]

You are picking and choosing only that which can be interpreted to support your view.

Given that everything the Church had said on the matter prior to 1995 supports my position while only Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 version of the Catechism support yours, the charge of picking and choosing is more applicable to your position than mine.

John Paul II gives further understanding of what the Catechism states.

No, EV was written in 1995, the Catechism was revised in 1997. In any event they say the same thing and each points to the other as the basis for the opinions they express. And let’s be clear about that: what those documents express (on this subject) are opinions, not doctrine.

With the penal system as it is today, how is it absolutely necessary to execute the accused over a life sentence?

Asserting that modern penal systems adequately protect society is one of those opinions I just referred to. The claim is dubious on its face, but in any event it cannot possibly be considered doctrinal. More to the point, as protection is merely a secondary objective, the validity of capital punishment cannot be determined simply by whether or not security requires it. It is the primary objective - retributive justice - that must in all cases be satisfied regardless of what is needed to satisfy secondary ones.

Why is it some people say the Pope and bishops arguments are weak, or simply wrong, yet on other issues they are only right?

I can’t comment on what other people say about other topics; I will, however, reaffirm what I just said: the arguments the bishops used in their opposition to capital punishment in this case ranged from weak to false.

Tell me this, where does Christ teach us to take vengeance, or retribution?

It should be sufficient to cite what the Church teaches on the subject given that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God … has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Dei Verbum 10)

*“It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth, such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation, provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy” *(Pius XII, 1954)

Either we are pro-life, or not. We cannot be partially pro-life. It either applies to the dignity, and quality, of life for all, from conception to natural death, or it doesn’t.

If you believe this then how do you accept that there can be any situation where capital punishment can be used? The Church has clearly said this but it would fail to meet your criteria of “life for all.”

Ender

 

[Rascalking]

The families of the victims of the right to want retribution. Regardless of what we say-we should never forget the victims. So many Catholics seem too-I know it’s hip and cool to hug murderers and give them warm fuzzy feelings-but lets try to remember the henious crime they did.

If someone is guility of premeditated cold blooded murder, execution is too good for them.

I’m glad one there will be one less monster in the world .