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

[Hastrman]

What I said was that 2267 contained prudential judgment and error; I certainly never said either about anything else in the Catechism. Nor was that my position alone as it was Cardinal Dulles who claimed it was prudential and Kevin Flannery S.J. of the Pontifical Gregorian University who claimed it was in error.

I would not say per se that it’s prudential judgment, so much as it is a statement of fact—and the Church has no authority about matters of fact. E.g., the pope speaks with authority if he tells you it is wrong (negligence) to fire at a noise that might be a deer, but might also be another human being. But he has no authority to say whether it is a deer or a human. The pope has the authority to say under what conditions the death penalty is permitted—but he has no authority to say whether those conditions currently exist, or don’t, in any community.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

This is the second time you’ve made reference to the comments of “other great men”. I challenge you to provide a single relevant citation from anyone prior to JPII that supports 2267.
Prodigal Son1:

Rom 12:19-21… Mat 5:38-45 …

I asked for a citation from someone in the Church that supported 2267; I’m not interested in your personal interpretation of Scripture. Besides, if your interpretation of those passages was correct it would eliminate not only capital punishment but punishment of any kind.

I’ll explain why 2267 is in error. It makes the claim that:

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

The problem is, as Professor Flannery points out:

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.

The best demonstration I can make that this conclusion his valid is to make this offer: if you can find a single statement in all of Church history that supports the claim made in 2267 then I will recant my position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And where does that leave John Paul II’s statement of ‘very rare, if not practically non-existent’?

That’s a matter of opinion about the capabilities of modern penal systems. Surely you cannot consider the ability of the prisons in say Alabama to secure prisoners to be a matter of Church doctrine.

Ender

 

[louis91766]

I asked for a citation from someone in the Church that supported 2267; I’m not interested in your personal interpretation of Scripture. Besides, if your interpretation of those passages was correct it would eliminate not only capital punishment but punishment of any kind.

I’ll explain why 2267 is in error. It makes the claim that:

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

The problem is, as Professor Flannery points out:

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.

The best demonstration I can make that this conclusion his valid is to make this offer: if you can find a single statement in all of Church history that supports the claim made in 2267 then I will recant my position.

Ender

Apparently, the teaching of the Catholic Church on the death penalty has changed and the Church is now against the capital punishment. This is seen in various authoritative declarations such as the one given by the Catholic bishops of Florida recently:“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance…”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s a matter of opinion about the capabilities of modern penal systems. Surely you cannot consider the ability of the prisons in say Alabama to secure prisoners to be a matter of Church doctrine.

Ender

I guess it was also a matter of opinion when he spoke of a dignity of life.

There’s no sense discussing it any further. That specific part of the Catechism is wrong, everyone besides who you can use to support your view was only stating opinion, or just using a prudential judgement that you’re at liberty to disagree with. It just seems like a pick and choose to make it fit your beliefs.

 

[Linda_Marie]

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

I don’t agree. Not penalizing this behaviour sends the message that it is all right; they will not be punished. It is not executing the killer that promotes the culture of violence. Respect for life by the general public is diminished because killers are not punished. The lives of the innocent victims mean nothing.

Incarcerating murderers puts everyone else in the prison with them at risk, both prison guards and other inmates.

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
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

Firstly, I do not agree that the current penal system is so advanced as to protect the citizenry. I think that is wishful thinking.

Recidivism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

    Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

    Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.

    The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

Secondly, this statement is conditional, not absolute. This is a big IF and where it becomes a matter of prudential judgement.

“IF bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order …”

From the current state of our lawless streets, I’d say that bloodless means have been proven not sufficient to protect public order.

I was looking for a particular story that was in the news here yesterday about a murderer who had been given life in prison, was released on parole and killed again, twice. Australia does not have the death penalty - not only did he not face execution, but a ‘life sentence’ did not actually mean he would spend the rest of his life behind bars. I couldn’t find that story, but the search for killer repeat offenders got pages and pages of hits. Every time, the question the victims’ families ask is, “Why was this known killer not dealt with before they killed my loved one?”

How many innocent people must be murdered before their lives are considered at least as important as the lives of the killers? One, ten, thirty, a hundred?

Where is the mercy shown to them?

 

[louis91766]

I don’t agree.

I thought that the teachings of the Catholic bishops was an authoritative teaching which requires the submission of the intellect and will of all Catholics under pain of mortal sin?

 

[lisahiku]

The Catholic Church allows the death penalty.
May be used in heinous crimes. Thank God!

 

[louis91766]

The Catholic Church allows the death penalty.
May be used in heinous crimes. Thank God!

The bishops teach:“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance…”
Doesn’t sound to me like they approve of capital punishment?

 

[Linda_Marie]

I thought that the teachings of the Catholic bishops was an authoritative teaching which requires the submission of the intellect and will of all Catholics under pain of mortal sin?

This was the State Catholic Bishops’ Conference speaking. The USCCB and the state conferences are not the Magisterium and they do not speak for the Magisterium. Nothing they say is binding.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I don’t agree. Not penalizing this behaviour sends the message that it is all right; they will not be punished. It is not executing the killer that promotes the culture of violence. Respect for life by the general public is diminished because killers are not punished. The lives of the innocent victims mean nothing.

Incarcerating murderers puts everyone else in the prison with them at risk, both prison guards and other inmates.

Firstly, I do not agree that the current penal system is so advanced as to protect the citizenry. I think that is wishful thinking.

Secondly, this statement is conditional, not absolute. This is a big IF and where it becomes a matter of prudential judgement.

“IF bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order …”

From the current state of our lawless streets, I’d say that bloodless means have been proven not sufficient to protect public order.

I was looking for a particular story that was in the news here yesterday about a murderer who had been given life in prison, was released on parole and killed again, twice. Australia does not have the death penalty - not only did he not face execution, but a ‘life sentence’ did not actually mean he would spend the rest of his life behind bars. I couldn’t find that story, but the search for killer repeat offenders got pages and pages of hits. Every time, the question the victims’ families ask is, “Why was this known killer not dealt with before they killed my loved one?”

How many innocent people must be murdered before their lives are considered at least as important as the lives of the killers? One, ten, thirty, a hundred?

Where is the mercy shown to them?

It is simply a false argument and scare tactic to infer that innocents are dying because we don’t kill capital-offense-level criminals. Not executing criminals does not mean we must turn them free.

And before you (or anyone else) wants to talk about the threat to security guards, let me remind you that we’ve executed far more innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit than we’ve lost prison guards to violence committed by people on death row or life in lieu of the death penalty.

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

The Catholic Church allows the death penalty.
May be used in heinous crimes. Thank God!

Stop for a second and ask yourself whether you’d say that to the Pope’s face. Then consider what his response would be.

I hardly think he’d give you a high-five and say, “Right on Sister!”

On the upside, he’d probably say a prayer for you.

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

This was the State Catholic Bishops’ Conference speaking. The USCCB and the state conferences are not the Magisterium and they do not speak for the Magisterium. Nothing they say is binding.

How very Protestant of you. With that level of individuality, you’d make a great American.

The bishop is the authoritative moral, ethical, and religious teacher for his diocese. What does YOUR bishop say on the subject?

Pell Says Abolishing the Death Penalty Won’t be Easy.

Cardinal Pell said that sensitivity is needed in pursuing such an aim.

“The difficulty is to be active in a way that might help our cause,” Cardinal Pell said. “You could very easily try to be active in this area and be counter-productive. I welcome any sorts of activities that’s likely to convince our neighbours not to use the death penalty.”

Pax,
OA

 

[Hastrman]

“IF bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order …”

From the current state of our lawless streets, I’d say that bloodless means have been proven not sufficient to protect public order.

I was looking for a particular story that was in the news here yesterday about a murderer who had been given life in prison, was released on parole and killed again, twice. Australia does not have the death penalty - not only did he not face execution, but a ‘life sentence’ did not actually mean he would spend the rest of his life behind bars. I couldn’t find that story, but the search for killer repeat offenders got pages and pages of hits. Every time, the question the victims’ families ask is, “Why was this known killer not dealt with before they killed my loved one?”

How many innocent people must be murdered before their lives are considered at least as important as the lives of the killers? One, ten, thirty, a hundred?

Where is the mercy shown to them?

This. Just this.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

This. Just this.

You see there is a solution to this problem that doesn’t require us to risk killing innocents on accident, and doesn’t deprive the guilty a chance for earthly repentance.

Pax,
OA

 

[Hastrman]

You see there is a solution to this problem that doesn’t require us to risk killing innocents on accident, and doesn’t deprive the guilty a chance for earthly repentance.

Pax,
OA

“I find that nothing focuses a man’s mind like the knowledge he will be hanged on the morrow.”—Samuel Jonson

No there isn’t a way to do it. We’ve tried it, and our crime rates skyrocketed. Then we brought the death penalty back. Guess what, they went down.

Europe doesn’t count, there are always less fights in rest-homes than in places where people under 50 exist in large numbers. Japan doesn’t count either (aside from the fact they have the death penalty), not only are they even more geriatric than Europe, their prisons are hellholes and their organized crime puts a high priority on protecting respectable people (they began as vigilante groups, plus it’s easier to do business).

That “rather a thousand guilty go free” garbage sounds noble, but in practice, it means thousands upon thousands more victims. We are not immortal or omnipotent, therefore we have to accept that we’re not omniscient, either, and do the best we can.

 

[Ender]

Apparently, the teaching of the Catholic Church on the death penalty has changed and the Church is now against the capital punishment.

This is not correct.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

This is seen in various authoritative declarations such as the one given by the Catholic bishops of Florida recently:“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance…”

This is not correct either as the statements from the Florida bishops are not authoritative; they are not even in all cases correct. They are the poorly conceived opinions of those particular bishops. Nor should we expect ever to see the Church repudiate the use of the death penalty, since, as I’ve pointed out to Prodigal Son1, morality does not change with the time and if capital punishment was valid in the past (when it was unambiguously allowed by the Church) then it is just as valid now.

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. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t agree. Not penalizing this behaviour sends the message that it is all right; they will not be punished. It is not executing the killer that promotes the culture of violence. Respect for life by the general public is diminished because killers are not punished. The lives of the innocent victims mean nothing.

The problem with the assertion in 2267 that not executing someone is *“more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” *is that it reverses the meaning of Gen 9:6, the very passage that identifies the source of that dignity. We are told in that passage that murderers are to be executed because the victim was made in the image of God. This new interpretation turns that around and claims that murderers are not to be executed because they are made in the image of God. As you said, the life of the victim is forgotten.

Firstly, I do not agree that the current penal system is so advanced as to protect the citizenry. I think that is wishful thinking.

It is certainly a debatable question, about which we are free to disagree.

From the current state of our lawless streets, I’d say that bloodless means have been proven not sufficient to protect public order.

From the statistics provided in the survey you cited it appears that about 55 people a year die at the hands of people who were imprisoned for homicide, released, and committed homicide again. (272,111 * 1.7% imprisoned for homicide * 1.2% recidivists). I’m with you: that’s not exactly protecting the public order.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"lisahiku:

The Catholic Church allows the death penalty. May be used in heinous crimes. Thank God!

Stop for a second and ask yourself whether you’d say that to the Pope’s face.

Given that the Church has for 2000 years recognized the right of States to use capital punishment I seriously doubt there would be a problem stating that fact to the pope or anyone else.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is simply a false argument and scare tactic to infer that innocents are dying because we don’t kill capital-offense-level criminals. Not executing criminals does not mean we must turn them free.

But we in fact do let them loose and they in fact do kill again at a rate of 40-60 people a year.

And before you (or anyone else) wants to talk about the threat to security guards, let me remind you that we’ve executed far more innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit than we’ve lost prison guards to violence committed by people on death row or life in lieu of the death penalty.

No we haven’t. No one knows with any surety that we’ve executed even one innocent person and even those groups raising this issue have fewer than a dozen candidates that could be considered reasonable possibilities for improper execution since 1976 when the Supreme Court again permitted capital punishment. Worst possible case, we wrongfully executed one person every three years, during which time about 150 innocents were killed by repeat killers. There is no question that people are safer when killers are executed the first time they kill.

Ender