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

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just letting y’all know.

There’s been too much ad hominem on here. Specifically, saying that people who favor the death penalty are putting their nations’ or parties’ beliefs ahead of the faith. Aside from the fact that the same can be said for opposition to it, the Pope himself has said there is legitimate disagreement on this issue. “Putting country (or party) ahead of religion” is not legitimate.

Therefore, I will report it every time anyone makes such a claim.

Now argue decently.

I was stating why I, personally, couldn’t agree with your position, while showing my allegiance to the Church so my comments were not mistaken to be ‘anti-Catholic propaganda’.

I’ve already explained, it’s not everything said without discerning, but in the matter of morals and appearances of different things being said by men of the Church I prefer to defer to the Pope’s understanding of how it all works together. I wouldn’t put myself into a position of claiming to understand better than he, or going so far as to say he’s mistaken, or wrong. On this particular issue, I see an alignment with the Gospel message in scriptures, and feel it’s a safe bet his teaching, or recognition, on the abolition of the death penalty is correct. It’s a matter of a well formed faith based conscience for all of us, and no one is forcing another to go against their conscience, but we argue our views with the passion of our faith up front.

 

[Hastrman]

I was stating why I, personally, couldn’t agree with your position, while showing my allegiance to the Church so my comments were not mistaken to be ‘anti-Catholic propaganda’.

I’ve already explained, it’s not everything said without discerning, but in the matter of morals and appearances of different things being said by men of the Church I prefer to defer to the Pope’s understanding of how it all works together. I wouldn’t put myself into a position of claiming to understand better than he, or going so far as to say he’s mistaken, or wrong. On this particular issue, I see an alignment with the Gospel message in scriptures, and feel it’s a safe bet his teaching, or recognition, on the abolition of the death penalty is correct. It’s a matter of a well formed faith based conscience for all of us, and no one is forcing another to go against their conscience, but we argue our views with the passion of our faith up front.

Then why did you, in your last several posts, seem to go out of your way to imply that those who disagree with you are putting their country/party before the Faith?

Besides, a conscience uninformed by reason and facts cannot, I think, be said to be “well-formed”—you have to make your own prudential judgments, the Pope’s infallibility is not the same thing as omniscience.

Suppose you are hunting with the Pope. Now if the Pope says “it is wrong to shoot if it might be a person”, he is correct, and, because speaking on morals, infallible. But if the Pope says “that movement over there is a deer”, he could be wrong, and if you shoot, you could kill someone. That’s why you have to look.

Perhaps it is because my great-grandfather was excommunicated just for advocating his country’s independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but I do not share your faith in the Pope’s judgment. The Holy Spirit preserves him from teaching error on faith and morals; it does not preserve him from making every other error it is possible to make. It was either Leo XIII or Pius X who excommunicated my great-grandfather, prostituting the power of binding and loosing to a valueless, indeed counterproductive, alliance with the Hapsburgs. And those two popes are one of the greatest theologians ever to occupy the Chair of Peter, and an actual saint, respectively.

 

[irenaeus1]

<<<"'In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.>>>
Since the Roman Catholic Church has been teaching the full respect for life, this papal quote clinches the argument that the current teaching of the Catholic Church is the abolition of the death penalty.

So the Catholic Church was not fully respectful for the right to life in the past?

 

[irenaeus1]

I was stating why I, personally, couldn’t agree with your position, while showing my allegiance to the Church so my comments were not mistaken to be ‘anti-Catholic propaganda’.

So if the next pope states that he has determined that the penal system of the US has not sufficiently improved to warrent abolition of the death penalty, would you obey your prelates and change your position? Just curious.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please discuss the issues not each other

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The US is one of the most advanced countries in the world. Ours, and the world’s in general, penal system has technologically advanced over the years, to a point that our Popes recognize the non-necessity capital punishment in all cases. This includes countries well behind the US in technology.

This particular case stands out for no reason as an extreme danger to society. This crime happened 33 years ago, by a person whose criminal record prior to the event was passing worthless checks. It doesn’t lessen the circumstances of the particular crime, but there is no history of a present danger, especially if his sentence was commuted to life behind bars. Because of the list of charges associated with the single crime, he has a couple of 30 years sentences in addition to the capital punishment sentence. It is highly doubtful that this man would ever see the light of day as a free man. We don’t know what caused this person to the extreme of killing another. Was it mental condition, despair, drugs, or what weakness it may have been we don’t know. We have seen a calling for ‘justice’ without an apparent consideration of any factor other than he has been sentenced by the state.

We see the arguments that the state is incapable, on many fronts, all the time. Yet, for some reason the state is 100% correct in this instance?

What is being asked, in light of human dignity, is mercy. Our hope as Christians is in mercy. We should ltake opportunities to forgive whenever possible, so that we maybe forgiven. As Pope Benedict said in essence, abolition of the death penalty is a consequence to our belief in the sanctity of life for all. It would be hard to convince the world of our sincerity if we propose life for all and at the same time ask for death penalties to be given, or carried, out. There is strength in the message if unified to include all life.

 

[Ender]

The US is one of the most advanced countries in the world. Ours, and the world’s in general, penal system has technologically advanced over the years, to a point that our Popes recognize the non-necessity capital punishment in all cases. This includes countries well behind the US in technology.

Whatever - morality is not affected by technology.

What is being asked, in light of human dignity, is mercy.

The problem with this argument is that, if you want to claim that life in prison is the merciful punishment, you have to concede that execution is the just punishment. When you appeal for mercy - or in this case clemency - you are asking for a lesser punishment than the crime would ordinarily deserve. Are you prepared to make that concession?
*- In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness. *(JPII)

We should take opportunities to forgive whenever possible, so that we maybe forgiven.

There is no contradiction between forgiveness by the individual and punishment by the State. I made this point before.
- At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. (JPII)

As Pope Benedict said in essence, abolition of the death penalty is a consequence to our belief in the sanctity of life for all. It would be hard to convince the world of our sincerity if we propose life for all and at the same time ask for death penalties to be given, or carried, out.

I think this is a better question:
*- Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution?

Ender
*

 

[irenaeus1]

The US is one of the most advanced countries in the world. Ours, and the world’s in general, penal system has technologically advanced over the years, to a point that our Popes recognize the non-necessity capital punishment in all cases. This includes countries well behind the US in technology.

But wait, some societies have had the ability to successfully incarcerate indefinitely since about the 1500’s. Many historians have noted this, and I’ve seen some of these dungeons and prisons in Europe. Based on this, it seems then that capital punishment has not been justified for some time now if we solely base recourse to the death penalty on whether rendering the aggressor unable to do harm in a bloodless manner as the only criterion - at least for certain societies, but this was never mentioned by the Church.

What is being asked, in light of human dignity, is mercy.

So the Church was not being merciful in the past, correct? And remember, human dignity is precisely why scripture exhorts men to have recourse the the death penalty.

Our hope as Christians is in mercy. We should ltake opportunities to forgive whenever possible, so that we maybe forgiven.

Forgiveness does not preclude punishment. Otherwise, God (as well as the Church) has been seriously unjust in the past. BTW, couldn’t the same argument be used that if we are to take every opportunity to forgive, then sentencing a person to life in prison w/o parole could also be considered unmerciful and unforgiving.

 

[JOHN_DEVANEY]

I really appreciate all the comments concerning state sponsored execution. I would like to believe that all these comments were reflective of me.

However, let us not forget that without the death penalty we may have become some kind of religious, but it would not have been Catholic or Christian.

Christ came to die for us not by his hands but ours. God created the “Divine Right of Kings.” to facilitate societies control over one and another This became the authority of God by which we did what was required of us. While it may be distasteful it was required and we did it.

John Devaney Jr

 

[Pat_the_elder]

The death penalty is just wrong! It debases us and reduces us to the level of murderers. There have been one or two posters who appeared to be positivly gleeful in their outlook towards kiling another human - others have cited historical references to back up their beleif hat the CC did ( and still does) allow the death penalty. Historically, yes the Church activly condoned the penalty and used it. I would like to think that we were better than that!
If we didn’t move on then we would still be hanging people for sheep stealing or sending them to the colonies for not knowing their place.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is just wrong! It debases us and reduces us to the level of murderers.

How do you know that either statement is true? That is not what the Church teaches so where do you look for an explanation of what is right and what is wrong?

Historically, yes the Church activly condoned the penalty and used it. I would like to think that we were better than that!

I see that you list yourself as a Catholic - is it your belief then that the Church has been wrong on this issue for 2000 years?

If we didn’t move on then we would still be hanging people for sheep stealing or sending them to the colonies for not knowing their place.

The issue is not whether the use of the punishment has been abused but whether there are crimes (e.g. murder) for which it is the appropriate punishment. Saying that its use is wrong for sheep nipping doesn’t address that question.

Ender

 

[louis91766]

So the Catholic Church was not fully respectful for the right to life in the past?

I know that previously there was execution of heretics by burning at the stake and it was thought to be OK. However, the teaching has changed and heretics are no longer burned at the stake, but they are dialogued with.

 

[irenaeus1]

The death penalty is just wrong! It debases us and reduces us to the level of murderers.

Upon what authority do you make such a statement? Was God wrong when he inspired Gen 9:6 or Ex 21:12? Was the Catholic Church wrong for 2000 years when she affirmed the right of the state to execute criminals? Were St. Augustine, Innocent I, St. Thomas Aquinas, Innocent III, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XII, etc. wrong on this issue?

 

[irenaeus1]

I know that previously there was execution of heretics by burning at the stake and it was thought to be OK. However, the teaching has changed and heretics are no longer burned at the stake, but they are dialogued with.

I was referring to the ‘official’ position of the Church in regards to the death penalty; i.e., the Church’s position of the right of the state to have recourse to the death penalty for those guilty of grave crimes - did this make the Church disrespectful for the right to life?

 

[JReducation]

I was at mass today and I was praying over this whole issue. Some thoughts came to me that I throw out there for reflection.

First:

There is tendency to misunderstand what the Church has always taught about the state’s right to execute. The right to execute does not mean that the state has a moral obligation to do so. This is actually revealed to us in Scripture. One event is the murder of Abel. The Lord puts a seal on Cain so that no one may kill him or they will be punished for doing so. In the NT we see the woman caught in adultery. According to the law, the state had the right to execute; however, Jesus runs interference. We would not accuse God of obstructing justice.

The state’s right to execute is not absolute. It can only be exercised according to moral law. It is not the right or duty of the state to make moral law. That is the prerogative of the Church. Morality is revealed by God and interpreted by the Church.

Second:

If we truly believe that the state has a right to execute a criminal, then we have to absolve the Nazi government, the Communist government, the Fascist governments, and the Muslim governments. They are all legitimately instituted governments. And the people who they condemn to death have violated a law in their codex. Even secularism does not absolve states from violations of human rights.

To make this simpler, in Muslim countries it is a crime to blaspheme the name of Mohammad. It is a crime to convert to Christianity. These crimes are punishable by death.

A blanket statement that the state has the right to execute criminals gives these governments the right to execute those whom they judge to be criminals.

On the other side of this, if we say that the freedom to execute without the intervention of the Church applies to the USA, that does not work either. Moral law was not revealed just for the USA. The moral law is the same for the USA, Iran, Nazi Germany, Cuba, China and others. Either the state has the right to execute according to its discretion or the state has to submit to moral guidelines to discern when execution is justifiable.

Third:

We cannot wrench theology out of context. While it is true that God is a God of Justice, it is also true that his mercy exceeds his justice. The Crucifixion is the best example. Jesus was not the sinner. However, the Father, out of pure mercy, offers the son for the salvation of the sinner. God does not execute humanity. Instead, he allows his son to be execute to save the rest of humanity from death.

Fourth:

If we truly believe that the death penalty should be applied to those who warrant it, because it’s the just thing to do and because we believe it is God’s will, then we must agree with Luther. There is no such thing as a Plenary Indulgence.

When the Church grants a Plenary Indulgence, what is she saying? She is saying that although we deserve to suffer in purgatory for our sins, she dispenses us from that punishment. The Church does so, because she has the power to bind and unbind. Therefore, she has the power and authority to apply mercy instead of justice.

Fifth:

If we believe that there cannot be mercy without justice, then we must reject the very idea of Mercy Sunday and the revelations that Jesus made to Sister Faustina and which Bl. John Paul accepted as legitimate. Had he not accepted them as legitimate, he would not have instituted Mercy Sunday and the Plenary Indulgence that comes with it. However, the Church believes and teaches that God will withhold justice and be generous with mercy. All man has to do is to repent and ask for mercy.

Sixth:

Laymen, deacons, priests and religious do not have the right or authority to contradict the bishops on moral issues. We are not the successors of the Apostles. They are. As long as they teach truth, we must give religious assent. On this question, there is no error being taught. The bishops are preaching mercy. Mercy is truth. The bishops are preaching repentance and conversion. This is also truth. They are saying that every human being should be given the opportunity for repentance and conversion. This is also truth. They are not saying that the criminal should be released to do more harm. That would be immoral.

Finally:

People want to say crimes must be punished, because it’s the just thing to do. Imprisonment is a punishment. As long as you do not violate human dignity and human rights, there is no moral contraindication here. A moral contraindication would be imprisonment for something that does not deserve imprisonment. The Church is saying that unless there is no other way to protect human life, there is no reason to execute. There are other ways to punish crimes. The Church is not taking a position against punishment, simply a position against the abuse of power by the state.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How do you know that either statement is true? That is not what the Church teaches so where do you look for an explanation of what is right and what is wrong?

I see that you list yourself as a Catholic - is it your belief then that the Church has been wrong on this issue for 2000 years?

I look to the Church and have provided quotes from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to support my view. I’ve also stated that I believe the Popes have a much more extensive knowledge of what the Church has taught throughout it’s history, than I, and possibly anyone posting on this forum. With discernment I trust that extensive knowledge and believe they can teach us knowing, how what appears to be a conflict among some of us is, in reality harmonious with the teachings of previous Popes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Forgiveness does not preclude punishment. Otherwise, God (as well as the Church) has been seriously unjust in the past. BTW, couldn’t the same argument be used that if we are to take every opportunity to forgive, then sentencing a person to life in prison w/o parole could also be considered unmerciful and unforgiving.

The wages of sin is death and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Does this mean we may be forgiven for our sins because we believe, yet will suffer eternal damnation? That’s what the statement, ‘Forgiveness does not preclude punishment’ seems to say, unless we forgive so that we may be forgiven. Justice belongs to God, not the state.

If we submit to the state’s ‘right’ to capital punishment, there becomes a grey area between the state’s right on other issues of life that we believe to be unjust. I believe the grey area becomes clear if we’re pro-life for all, from conception to natural death. I also believe this is what Pope Benedict was making reference too in his statement.

‘In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.’

We witness to the world by what we believe, and through a full respect for the right to life we show the world how serious we are on all issues involving being pro-life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see that you list yourself as a Catholic - is it your belief then that the Church has been wrong on this issue for 2000 years?

Ender

I’ve seen the argument of being at liberty to disagree with the Pope on capital punishment. Now I see you seem to question my belief in the Catholic faith. Do I have to believe in the death penalty to be Catholic? If so, why can some be at liberty to disagree, but I cannot agree with the last and current Pope, and the bishops in Florida, where I happen to live?

 

[Ender]

First: The right to execute does not mean that the state has a moral obligation to do so. This is actually revealed to us in Scripture. One event is the murder of Abel. The Lord puts a seal on Cain so that no one may kill him or they will be punished for doing so.

This much I agree with, but then I don’t think anyone has suggested that all murderers be executed regardless of circumstances.

In the NT we see the woman caught in adultery. According to the law, the state had the right to execute; however, Jesus runs interference. We would not accuse God of obstructing justice.

Jesus did not interfere, in fact he explicitly gave permission … but this incident is about something else and the Church has never used it as a basis for her teaching on capital punishment.

Morality is revealed by God and interpreted by the Church.

And the Church has unambiguously supported the moral right of States to employ capital punishment.

Second: If we truly believe that the state has a right to execute a criminal, then we have to absolve the Nazi government…

Not at all, any more than believing that having freedom of choice means that all of ones choices are acceptable.

A blanket statement that the state has the right to execute criminals gives these governments the right to execute those whom they judge to be criminals.

No one supports the misuse of capital punishment, but the fact that rights are misused does not mean they shouldn’t be granted.

Either the state has the right to execute according to its discretion or the state has to submit to moral guidelines to discern when execution is justifiable.

The Church has provided those moral guidelines: when the severity of the crime warrants such a severe punishment - e.g. murder.

Third: While it is true that God is a God of Justice, it is also true that his mercy exceeds his justice.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
*A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. *(Baltimore Catechism)

*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)

Ender

 

[Ender]

cont.

Fourth: If we truly believe that the death penalty should be applied to those who warrant it, because it’s the just thing to do and because we believe it is God’s will, then we must agree with Luther. There is no such thing as a Plenary Indulgence.

I’m a Catholic; I certainly have no obligation to agree with Luther. The Church has taught both that indulgences are valid and that capital punishment is just. Why should I doubt either?

Fifth: If we believe that there cannot be mercy without justice,… However, the Church believes and teaches that God will withhold justice and be generous with mercy. All man has to do is to repent and ask for mercy.

Even if “all” a man has to do to receive mercy is to repent, surely those who do not repent will not receive mercy. Given that, on what basis do you argue that we should be merciful to the unrepentant?

Sixth: Laymen, deacons, priests and religious do not have the right or authority to contradict the bishops on moral issues.

True. Vague but true.

As long as they teach truth, we must give religious assent.

Religious assent is an obligation we owe to doctrine; it is not one we owe to opinions and personal judgments about prudential issues.

The bishops are preaching mercy. Mercy is truth. The bishops are preaching repentance and conversion. This is also truth.

Is it your claim that they are calling for mercy for the repentant and unrepentant alike?

They are saying that every human being should be given the opportunity for repentance and conversion. This is also truth.

Everyone has such an opportunity now, with or without capital punishment.

*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. *Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. (Romano Amerio)

Finally: People want to say crimes must be punished, because it’s the just thing to do. Imprisonment is a punishment. As long as you do not violate human dignity and human rights, there is no moral contraindication here.

It is not enough to punish someone; what is required is that the punishment be just. That is, neither too harsh nor too lenient. Imprisonment is indeed a punishment but that says nothing about whether it is the just punishment for the crime of murder.

The Church is saying that unless there is no other way to protect human life, there is no reason to execute.

No, the Church has not said this. In the prudential judgment of the current magisterium it is believed that the use of capital punishment in current society is harmful. Big difference.

Ender