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

[Prodigal_Son1]

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 .

Do you believe Pope John Paul II, and the bishops from the article, based their comments on being ‘hip and cool’, or just for ‘warm fuzzy feelings’? I don’t.

Christ gave us a new way, specifically abrogating ‘an eye for an eye’. The Pope and bishops go back to Cain and Abel and who specifically cast judgment on Cain. There’s more theology behind the statements of the Pope and bishops than ‘hip and cool’, or ‘warm fuzzy feelings’.

 

[Rascalking]

Do you believe Pope John Paul II, and the bishops from the article, based their comments on being ‘hip and cool’, or just for ‘warm fuzzy feelings’? I don’t.

.

Funny you mention that. I DO think it’s because the bishops/Pope John Paul II (whom I admire and love dearly-imagine that, admiring someone with whom you don’t agree on everything) wanted to show how compassionate and loving they were.

You can be against the death penalty, and that’s fine-I have my opinion, you have yours.

 

[Ender]

Christ gave us a new way, specifically abrogating ‘an eye for an eye’.

No, he didn’t. What we are told is that the punishment must fit the crime; that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment.

The Pope and bishops go back to Cain and Abel and who specifically cast judgment on Cain.

This is false as well. The bishops incorrectly cited Cain and Abel to make their point but neither JPII, the Catechism, nor any other document (that I have so far found) in the entirety of Church history uses that example as a basis for opposing capital punishment.

There’s more theology behind the statements of the Pope and bishops than ‘hip and cool’, or ‘warm fuzzy feelings’.

Actually, there is very little that is theologically sound in any of their statements, especially those of the bishops.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

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.

Read it closely. Pope John Paul II specifically said:

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

Now, are you telling me that the Pope was, and the bishops are, wrong? If so, then what else are they wrong about?

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.
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.
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)

Let’s use ‘gun control’ as an example. People fight to keep regulations down, even though there are many examples of accidental deaths, and criminal acts using guns. Way more examples than convicted murderers escaping and harming society further.

Let’s go to the direct Head of our Church. Where does Christ teach that retributive justice is primary? Just because John Paul II doesn’t speak on it means he neglected to speak on it. It could very well be that it is not a primary consideration and that’s why he did not speak on it.

*“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)
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

What Pope John Paul II said was very well what the Church clearly stated, and as you pointed out was well after 1954 when times, and the penal system, changed to a point of it being unnecessary to execute people.

As you say John Paul II failed to address the primary reason for executions, it appears that Pius XII failed to specifically say ‘capital punishment’. A long term prison sentence is also a ‘vindictive punishment’.

 

[Rascalking]

No, he didn’t. What we are told is that the punishment must fit the crime; that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment.
This is false as well. The bishops incorrectly cited Cain and Abel to make their point but neither JPII, the Catechism, nor any other document (that I have so far found) in the entirety of Church history uses that example as a basis for opposing capital punishment.
Actually, there is very little that is theologically sound in any of their statements, especially those of the bishops.

Ender

Um…yeah, what Ender said. Totally on target.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, he didn’t. What we are told is that the punishment must fit the crime; that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment.

Please provide the verse and scripture where Christ says that.

This is false as well. The bishops incorrectly cited Cain and Abel to make their point but neither JPII, the Catechism, nor any other document (that I have so far found) in the entirety of Church history uses that example as a basis for opposing capital punishment.
Actually, there is very little that is theologically sound in any of their statements, especially those of the bishops.

Ender

After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before God, who asks him about the fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the question: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). “I do not know”: Cain tries to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the case, when all kinds of ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”: Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses to accept the responsibility which every person has towards others. We cannot but think of today’s tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters. Symptoms of this trend include the lack of solidarity towards society’s weakest members-such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children- and the indifference frequently found in relations between the world’s peoples even when basic values such as survival, freedom and peace are involved.

1. But God cannot leave the crime unpunished: from the ground on which it has been spilt, the blood of the one murdered demands that God should render justice (cf. Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From this text the Church has taken the name of the “sins which cry to God for justice”, and, first among them, she has included wilful murder. 12 For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of antiquity, blood is the source of life. Indeed “the blood is the life” (Dt 12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself.

Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4:11-12). He is punished: he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes man’s environment. From being the “garden of Eden” (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of friendship with God, the earth becomes “the land of Nod” (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will be “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will follow him forever.

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: “Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”.13

Below comes from the very same document.

…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

 

[Ender]

Now, are you telling me that the Pope was, and the bishops are, wrong?

I’m telling you JPII was expressing a prudential opinion about the advisability of using capital punishment in current society. What he was not doing was abrogating the position taken by the Church during its previous 1995 years.

Let’s use ‘gun control’ as an example.

Let’s not. The issue here is capital punishment.

Let’s go to the direct Head of our Church. Where does Christ teach that retributive justice is primary?

I already answered this: in CCC 2266 with the statement that: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”

“Redressing the disorder” is a phrase meaning retribution, as the USCCB explained in 1980: *“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.”

What Pope John Paul II said was very well what the Church clearly stated, and as you pointed out was well after 1954 when times, and the penal system, changed to a point of it being unnecessary to execute people.

The quote from Pius XII went to the point about the propriety of retribution. It was not meant to answer every question, and certainly not this new one. Changes in penal capability does not affect the unchanging moral nature of retribution. What Pius said then will not change with the times.

As you say John Paul II failed to address the primary reason for executions, it appears that Pius XII failed to specifically say ‘capital punishment’. A long term prison sentence is also a ‘vindictive punishment’.

As I said, I can address only one point at a time and Pius’ statement was not about capital punishment in particular but retribution in general. But if you want one on capital punishment, how about this one?

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m telling you JPII was expressing a prudential opinion about the advisability of using capital punishment in current society. What he was not doing was abrogating the position taken by the Church during its previous 1995 years.
Let’s not. The issue here is capital punishment.

I did not say that John Paul II abrogated. I said Christ abrogated the ‘eye for an eye’.

I already answered this: in CCC 2266 with the statement that: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”

“Redressing the disorder” is a phrase meaning retribution, as the USCCB explained in 1980: *“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.”

Where do you get ‘Redressing the disorder’ means retribution?

The third justifying purpose for punishment became the ‘primary’ in your arguments up to this point.

Then time passed, the penal system became more capable of separating murderers and protecting society with that separation.

The quote from Pius XII went to the point about the propriety of retribution. It was not meant to answer every question, and certainly not this new one. Changes in penal capability does not affect the unchanging moral nature of retribution. What Pius said then will not change with the times.
As I said, I can address only one point at a time and Pius’ statement was not about capital punishment in particular but retribution in general. But if you want one on capital punishment, how about this one?

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, *denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

Ender

It seems you cling to what one Pope said over another. The Church has ‘evolved’ with the times. What was once necessary, is no longer necessary. Pope John Paul II explains it very well. With that said, I am only qualified to accept the teachings of the men of the Church and not question them, or declare them negligent, wrong, or weak in their statements.

One more time, please go to the Head of our Church and show me where Christ taught man to seek ‘retribution’???

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let’s not. The issue here is capital punishment.

Ender

It was an example of comparison. You omitted the connection, where I said:

Let’s use ‘gun control’ as an example. People fight to keep regulations down, even though there are many examples of accidental deaths, and criminal acts using guns. Way more examples than convicted murderers escaping and harming society further.

Please give example of how keeping a murderer in prison for life still endangers society?

 

[Rascalking]

Please give example of how keeping a murderer in prison for life still endangers society?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Now the discussion goes from primary justice to preemptive executions being necessary.

And a convicted murderer who is in jail for life can repent and never kill another person.

I used gun control as an example of something I believe is needed because of the excessive accidental deaths, and criminal use; many more than examples of convicted murderers escaping prison and causing harm to society, even those inside the walls of the prison. Do you agree we need more stringent laws around gun control? I’m fairly certain they can’t be used to cause accidental deaths, or in crimes if we approach the issue strictly.

The Church does not teach preemptive controls.

 

[Rascalking]

The Church does not teach preemptive controls.

Your going to have to better than that.

When someone commits a first degree, premeditated murder-and you have solid proof-you execute them both for the reason that it’s punishment, and for the deterrent factor. An exectued muderer cannot kill again.

Babbiling about “primary justice to preemptive executions” isn’t addressing the topic.

As fun as a roaring debate on gun control would be, save it for another thread.

 

[Debora123]

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your going to have to better than that.

When someone commits a first degree, premeditated murder-and you have solid proof-you execute them both for the reason that it’s punishment, and for the deterrent factor. An exectued muderer cannot kill again.

Babbiling about “primary justice to preemptive executions” isn’t addressing the topic.

As fun as a roaring debate on gun control would be, save it for another thread.

I can do no better than to follow His teachings, and the teachings of the men of the Church today.

Okay, twice now I’ve stated the reason given for the gun control mention in this discussion, and twice now the comparison is ignored. Let’s put them in the same sentence and see what happens. In comparison, how many gun related accidental deaths, and crimes involving guns, have happened over the last 10 years and how many convicted murderers have escaped and killed someone? If it’s still unfair, just list how many convicted murderers have escaped and killed someone?

At this point, let me remind those supporting the death penalty, that John Paul II called the necessity very rare, if not practically non-existent. Now, let’s view that against the current inmate. Has he escaped and killed others? Has he killed guards, or other inmates? In summary, how has he proven to continue to be a danger to society while behind the bars of the prison?

Those supporting the death penalty are supporting it generally, that is for every single individual to have received the sentence. There doesn’t seem to be a desire, or distinction, to try and save any of the condemned. Again, where does Christ teach us to condemn a fellow human being to death?

 

[Rascalking]

IOkay, twice now I’ve stated the reason given for the gun control mention in this discussion, and twice now the comparison is ignored.

The comparison is ignored because people are to polite to say it’s irrelevant.

 

[JackyB]

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 .

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The comparison is ignored because people are to polite to say it’s irrelevant.

The single question was ignored also. That was how many convicted murderers escaped prison and killed others?

Also, relevant to this discussion, were several other questions ignored in your response. Please see below, copy and pasted for your convenience.

At this point, let me remind those supporting the death penalty, that John Paul II called the necessity very rare, if not practically non-existent. Now, let’s view that against the current inmate. Has he escaped and killed others? Has he killed guards, or other inmates? In summary, how has he proven to continue to be a danger to society while behind the bars of the prison?

Those supporting the death penalty are supporting it generally, that is for every single individual to have received the sentence. There doesn’t seem to be a desire, or distinction, to try and save any of the condemned. Again, where does Christ teach us to condemn a fellow human being to death?

 

[Rascalking]

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.

Thanks man. I would to if it was a member of my family.

 

[Rascalking]

The single question was ignored also. That was how many convicted murderers escaped prison and killed others?

]

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks man. I would to if it was a member of my family.

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.