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

[irenaeus1]

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.

Are you sure about this? I believe that the Church has actually used the term ‘obligation’ or ‘duty’ in the context of the state’s right to have recourse to the death penalty in certain circumstances. Your statement seems to be at odds.

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.

You are being selective here: God commanded Gen 9:6 and Ex 21:12 AFTER Abel’s murder. Why did not Noah or anyone else notice the apparent conflict for millenia? BTW, you are missing the point of John 8 which was not a statement on the state’s right to impose the death penalty.

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.

What do you mean that the right is not absolute?. If you mean that the state cannot abuse this right to use of the death penalty indiscriminately, then agreed. But the Church has said that it is morally licit for the state to have recourse to the death penalty for certain grave circumstances.

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.

You are presuming that the state could never abuse theri rights??? We are not talking about the abuse of a right, we are talking about the right itself.

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.

So I presume by this, you acknowledge that a murderer deserves to physically die for his crime?

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.

Not quite. Certain conditions must be met to receive a plenary indulgence. If a murderer has truly repented and had a conversion of heart, then I suppose he would voluntarily accept his penalty of death as just and the acceptance of his punishment takes on the value of expiation (penance), which is also required to receive a plenary indulgence. And again, the Church never saw in the past the apparent conflict you see since the Church has taught BOTH the state’s right to have recourse to the death penalty for certain grave circumstances AND plenary indulgences.

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.

So then, life in prison without perole could also be deemed as unmerciful.

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.

So what about this bishops who supported the use of the death penalty in the past???

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.

So the Church taught a moral condradiction in the past???

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

No - “Forgiveness does not preclude punishment” means simply this: that even if one is forgiven, that does not necessarily mean that the punishment due for sin has been completely remitted.

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./quote]

No, because the Church never taught, for example, that the state has the right to protect through legislation those who murder their unborn children. On the contrary, the Church has always taught that abortion is wrong while SIMULTANEOUSLY teaching that the state has the right to impose the death penalty for certain grave crimes.

 

[Ender]

I’ve seen the argument of being at liberty to disagree with the Pope on capital punishment.

The Pope himself (as Cardinal) stated this. This point isn’t in dispute.

Now I see you seem to question my belief in the Catholic faith.

You’re the one who said *“Historically, yes the Church actively condoned the penalty and used it. I would like to think that we were better than that!” *It was your own opinion of the Church I challenged.

Do I have to believe in the death penalty to be Catholic?

We may legitimately disagree over when capital punishment should be used, but not over whether its use is moral.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re the one who said “Historically, yes the Church actively condoned the penalty and used it. I would like to think that we were better than that!”
Ender

Please show me where I said that?

Edited to add: It was my mistake. You seem to question another person’s belief in the Catholic faith. I didn’t make the statement you’re referencing, but I don’t see how it conflicts with what the Popes have said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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./quote]

No, because the Church never taught, for example, that the state has the right to protect through legislation those who murder their unborn children. On the contrary, the Church has always taught that abortion is wrong while SIMULTANEOUSLY teaching that the state has the right to impose the death penalty for certain grave crimes.

I thought I explained the grey area to be as viewed by those outside the Catholic Church, but the point is missed when you omit part of the post.

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.’

 

[JReducation]

I think the problem on this issue is that too many Catholics are so busy defending their right and the rights of the state that they are losing focus of the fact that some day they will have to give an account for their immortal souls. They risk the soul for the sake of preserving a principle.

In this case what the current Magisterium is saying does not contradict what previous magisteriums have said. The circumstances have changed. The moral law remains the moral law. When the rubber meets the road, the law is not about the right of the state, but about the sacredness of life. It is to this that the current Magisterium is speaking and those who support the death penalty, simply because it was always so, run the grave moral risk of handing over to the state the power to make decisions about human life.

The state has never and will never submit to the moral criteria of the Church. Therefore, it is very risky to give the state so much power, when there is potential for abuse and for moral depravity

The Magisterium has grappled with this question more than some people on this thread. Those who claim to teach catechism to the popes need to remember that they are not in a position to do so, because they do not have access to the big picture that the popes have, nor do they know as much about theology, moral law and canon law as do the popes. Popes don’t make it a habit to contradict each other.

If a contemporary pope says something that sounds different from what said by a previous pope, he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he has carefully considered this and looked at it from many angles. If we read Evangelium Vitae, Bl. John Paul puts this whole question into its proper context. Today’s state cannot be trusted with such grave responsibility. History has proven this.

The Church of the past made the mistake of trusting the rulers of the world with this responsibility and with the authority to decide for themselves when to execute and when not to do so and these rulers turned on the Church and on innocent people. They abused that power and disregarded the moral criteria that govern that right.

John Paul denounces the state for this. He puts before us the unrelenting campaign of governments, especially that of the United States and Europe against human life. He denounced the fact that in the name of democracy the USA and Europe kill the unborn child, export murder of innocent people and in the end, violate the moral law without conscience and impunity.

Now we have Catholics who still believe that the states of today can be trusted with the decision of who lives and who dies, when they have committed crimes against humanity, including our own government.

Since the state does not know where to draw the line, it is the proper role of the bishops in that region to draw it for the state and it is the duty of Catholics to support the bishops, not the politicians. For this, we shall give an account to God. The bishops are not asking for the unreasonable. Mercy is never unreasonable. As Pope Benedict said, “there is no moral reason to keep capital punishment alive today.” Bl. John Paul reminded us that we must take a stand for life, even if it means finding alternative means to punish criminals and giving up the right to execute. It seems that some people are so hung up on their rights, that they do not see the danger. We need to see that we live in a culture of death where states can kill and allow others to kill. This has to end, even if it means making sacrifices in other areas.

As Bl. John Paul said, the two issues are not separate. As others have said, just because the Constitution grants us the freedom to disagree with the Church does not mean that we have a right to throw a monkey wrench in the good work that she is trying to do. If you cannot support the good work of the bishops, then just be quiet and let them do their work, but don’t sabotage it by contradicting them. Such actions do not good for the Church or for you as an individual. Doing battle withe the Magisterium on a moral question is very risky business. The Magisterium will alwasy win, because as today’s gospel says, it has the power to bind and unbind, whereas the individual Catholic does not have such authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[St_Francis]

Does no one find it ironic that the bishops who did nothing about the killing of the innocent Terry Schiavo are now asking mercy for the condemned killer of a police officer?

 

[irenaeus1]

I think the problem on this issue is that too many Catholics are so busy defending their right and the rights of the state that they are losing focus of the fact that some day they will have to give an account for their immortal souls. They risk the soul for the sake of preserving a principle.

Not any busier than the Church for the previous 2000 years.

In this case what the current Magisterium is saying does not contradict what previous magisteriums have said. The circumstances have changed. The moral law remains the moral law. When the rubber meets the road, the law is not about the right of the state, but about the sacredness of life.

First you say circumstances have changed; then you state that it is not about the right of the state, but about the sacredness of life. Well, isn’t that what it has always been about. Surely, nothing has changed here. And hence, the problem.

It is to this that the current Magisterium is speaking and those who support the death penalty, simply because it was always so, run the grave moral risk of handing over to the state the power to make decisions about human life.

So you admit that it was ‘always so’ prior???

The Magisterium has grappled with this question more than some people on this thread. Those who claim to teach catechism to the popes need to remember that they are not in a position to do so, because they do not have access to the big picture that the popes have, nor do they know as much about theology, moral law and canon law as do the popes. Popes don’t make it a habit to contradict each other.

The problem here is that the bishops have done a lousy job clarifying the reasoning and the basis for the supposed ‘change’. Allow me to summarize: the two main points that the current Church leadership use as the basis for the current position on the death penalty are the dignity of the human person and the modern state of corrections systems. The first one regarding the dignity of the human person makes no sense since the dignity of the human person is precisely why the death penalty was imposed in the first place. Second, the state of a society’s corrections system is a matter of prudential judgment… the bishops have no authority in criminology. I hope you understand my dilemma: the fact that steady improvements in penal systems is a matter of prudential judgment… as mentioned earlier in this thread, to whose penal systems is being referred? The US’s? Russia’s? Spain’s? Swaziland’s? an indigenous tribe isolated in the jungles of Africa? And how do we know when a particular society’s penal system has sufficiently improved? So now, the Church’s position on the death penalty is based on the state of the corrections system – a position neither biblical nor theological in nature.

If a contemporary pope says something that sounds different from what said by a previous pope, he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he has carefully considered this and looked at it from many angles. If we read Evangelium Vitae, Bl. John Paul puts this whole question into its proper context. Today’s state cannot be trusted with such grave responsibility. History has proven this.

That’s NOT what EV states; in fact, JPII states that our penal systems have experienced steady improvements.

The Church of the past made the mistake of trusting the rulers of the world with this responsibility and with the authority to decide for themselves when to execute and when not to do so and these rulers turned on the Church and on innocent people. They abused that power and disregarded the moral criteria that govern that right.

This may be true in part, but are you also willing to say that the Church made a mistake in her teachings regarding the death penalty?

John Paul denounces the state for this. He puts before us the unrelenting campaign of governments, especially that of the United States and Europe against human life. He denounced the fact that in the name of democracy the USA and Europe kill the unborn child, export murder of innocent people and in the end, violate the moral law without conscience and impunity.

okay.

Now we have Catholics who still believe that the states of today can be trusted with the decision of who lives and who dies, when they have committed crimes against humanity, including our own government.

Hey, it was JPII who said that the penal systems of the modern world have experienced steady improvements.

 

[irenaeus1]

Since the state does not know where to draw the line, it is the proper role of the bishops in that region to draw it for the state and it is the duty of Catholics to support the bishops, not the politicians.

Then the question becomes, JReducation, why now? Where was the Church on this issue for 2000 years. You mean to tell me that the state actually did know where to “draw the line” prior to our modern age?

For this, we shall give an account to God. The bishops are not asking for the unreasonable. Mercy is never unreasonable. As Pope Benedict said, “there is no moral reason to keep capital punishment alive today.” Bl. John Paul reminded us that we must take a stand for life, even if it means finding alternative means to punish criminals and giving up the right to execute. It seems that some people are so hung up on their rights, that they do not see the danger. We need to see that we live in a culture of death where states can kill and allow others to kill. This has to end, even if it means making sacrifices in other areas.

Or to the contrary, it seems that some people will blindly follow any manner of teaching even if it may be a break from sacred tradition. Believe me, I have spent way more time than I should have needed studying this topic, including asking bishops directly for guidance, and the best they can do is quote EV without even attempting to demonstrate that the current teaching is continuous with and not a break with sacred tradition. So I’m asking for help; they just don’t seem up to the task.

As Bl. John Paul said, the two issues are not separate. As others have said, just because the Constitution grants us the freedom to disagree with the Church does not mean that we have a right to throw a monkey wrench in the good work that she is trying to do. If you cannot support the good work of the bishops, then just be quiet and let them do their work, but don’t sabotage it by contradicting them.

This is silly since I could produce numerous statements from bishops (from the not too distant past) advocating the use of the death penalty (without providing any of my own words) that would contradict the current leanings of the Church onthis issue. So again, that’s the problem. Simply bringing up the discontinuity and asking for clarification is not sabotage.

Such actions do not good for the Church or for you as an individual. Doing battle withe the Magisterium on a moral question is very risky business.

But I have been told by the Church that there can be legitimate disagreement on the application of the death penalty; so then why is only a single side of the argument being taught?

The Magisterium will alwasy win, because as today’s gospel says, it has the power to bind and unbind, whereas the individual Catholic does not have such authority.

I wonder if that’s what Athanasius thought when we was one of the lone bishops teaching orthodoxy against most other bishops of his time who were heterodox.

 

[Ender]

In this case what the current Magisterium is saying does not contradict what previous magisteriums have said.

There is no evidence whatever than any previous magisterium has ever held or proclaimed what is in 2267.

The circumstances have changed. The moral law remains the moral law.

And this is the moral law:* - …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.* (Dulles)

The state has never and will never submit to the moral criteria of the Church. Therefore, it is very risky to give the state so much power, when there is potential for abuse and for moral depravity

Yet for 2000 years this is exactly what the Church has done. It has explicitly affirmed and reaffirmed this principle at least since Pope (St.) Innocent I in 405.

…they know as much about theology, moral law and canon law as do the popes.

I’m sure that’s true. I do, however, know more about this issue than you, and, depressingly, it would appear more than a whole lot of bishops as well.

If we read Evangelium Vitae, Bl. John Paul puts this whole question into its proper context. Today’s state cannot be trusted with such grave responsibility. History has proven this.

This is a new interpretation; I’ve not heard anyone make this argument before and I see no basis for believing it is accurate.

The Church of the past made the mistake of trusting the rulers of the world with this responsibility and with the authority to decide for themselves when to execute and when not to do so and these rulers turned on the Church and on innocent people.

Is it your position then that this has been a 2000 year mistake by the Church?

Since the state does not know where to draw the line, it is the proper role of the bishops in that region to draw it for the state and it is the duty of Catholics to support the bishops, not the politicians.

Catholics have no such duty to support the prudential opinions of bishops. Respectfully consider them, yes; obey them, no.

If you cannot support the good work of the bishops, then just be quiet and let them do their work, but don’t sabotage it by contradicting them.

You mean like the good work they did on Obamacare? How about the good work they do by not condemning Catholic politicians who support abortion? Are we to be quiet about that as well? If their position cannot stand up to rational argument then why should that position be considered rational? So far the only argument being presented is “They are bishops therefore they must be right. Don’t think about it, just obey.” Look at your own arguments; there isn’t a one of them that stands up to scrutiny. If the bishops are so plainly correct then why is ***everyone ***finding it so difficult to defend their position? I have no theological background and no expertise in this area. All I have is interest in the subject and a computer, which has allowed me to discover what the Church has said on this subject, and what I have found contradicts you and 2267.

Ender

 

[louis91766]

There is no evidence whatever than any previous magisterium has ever held or proclaimed what is in 2267.
And this is the moral law:* - …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.* (Dulles)
Yet for 2000 years this is exactly what the Church has done. It has explicitly affirmed and reaffirmed this principle at least since Pope (St.) Innocent I in 405.
I’m sure that’s true. I do, however, know more about this issue than you, and, depressingly, it would appear more than a whole lot of bishops as well.
This is a new interpretation; I’ve not heard anyone make this argument before and I see no basis for believing it is accurate.
Is it your position then that this has been a 2000 year mistake by the Church?
Catholics have no such duty to support the prudential opinions of bishops. Respectfully consider them, yes; obey them, no.
You mean like the good work they did on Obamacare? How about the good work they do by not condemning Catholic politicians who support abortion? Are we to be quiet about that as well? If their position cannot stand up to rational argument then why should that position be considered rational? So far the only argument being presented is “They are bishops therefore they must be right. Don’t think about it, just obey.” Look at your own arguments; there isn’t a one of them that stands up to scrutiny. If the bishops are so plainly correct then why is ***everyone ***finding it so difficult to defend their position? I have no theological background and no expertise in this area. All I have is interest in the subject and a computer, which has allowed me to discover what the Church has said on this subject, and what I have found contradicts you and 2267.

Ender

The problem with Ender’s reasoning is this (as pointed out by JREducation):
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the power to loose and bind, whereas Ender has no such power. Catholics must listen to the living Magisterium and teaching of the Catholic Church and not to anonymnous bloggers on the internet.

 

[irenaeus1]

The problem with Ender’s reasoning is this (as pointed out by JREducation):
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the power to loose and bind, whereas Ender has no such power. Catholics must listen to the living Magisterium and teaching of the Catholic Church and not to anonymnous bloggers on the internet.

The real problem here is that the Church cannot reverse its teaching; otherwise, it was either teaching error then, or it is teaching error now. Which is it?

If it is not deemed a change but rather a development, then please explain how.

Second, hasn’t the living Magisterium stated that there can be legitimate diversity of opinion by the Catholic faithful on the application of the death penalty? If so, then those opposed to the current leanings of Church leadership (even anonymous bloggers) are not in ‘disobedience’ to the Magisterium.

 

[Ender]

The problem with Ender’s reasoning is this (as pointed out by JREducation):
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the power to loose and bind, whereas Ender has no such power. Catholics must listen to the living Magisterium and teaching of the Catholic Church and not to anonymous bloggers on the internet.

If there is a problem with my reasoning no one has yet pointed it out, which is not surprising as “my reasoning” is nothing more than what the Church teaches. All of you who claim that my position is contrary to that of the Magisterium miss the point that “my” position is the Church’s position.

It should also be pointed out that while the Church has the power to bind and loosen, she does not have the power to bind and loosen arbitrarily. That is, she has the power to discern right and wrong but not the authority to invent it.

As for “listening” to the Magisterium, I agree that we are to do that. My point, however, is that listening does not mean assenting when the Magisterium speaks prudentially, which is what they have done in this case.

Finally, even we anonymous bloggers have access to Church documents so the issue is not whether I am anonymous but whether I am right, and so far no one has presented any kind of defense of 2267 beyond “the bishops don’t like capital punishment.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

The real problem here is that the Church cannot reverse its teaching; otherwise, it was either teaching error then, or it is teaching error now. Which is it?

You are right that the Church cannot reverse its teaching.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. 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)

She is not teaching error now, however, as the current opposition to capital punishment expressed in 2267 is a prudential opinion about its use, it is not a moral objection about its nature.

If it is not deemed a change but rather a development, then please explain how.

Good question. It is a bit strange to discover that 2267 cites Evangelium Vitae as the basis for this new position … and EV cites 2267.

Second, hasn’t the living Magisterium stated that there can be legitimate diversity of opinion by the Catholic faithful on the application of the death penalty? If so, then those opposed to the current leanings of Church leadership (even anonymous bloggers) are not in ‘disobedience’ to the Magisterium.

Even the USCCB recognizes the prudential nature of the current position. In a 2005 document they said

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty.

It is inconceivable that they would say of any doctrine that they offer no judgment or that their goal was not to proclaim it. It is in fact their responsibility to proclaim the Church’s doctrine, but it is of course valid to say that they hope to persuade others to agree with their opinions.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

With claims of ‘what the Church teaches’ I have to wonder what position that places the Pope, and bishops in, that belief the death penalty should be abolished?

Our views, of what the Church teaches and has taught, are personal, and sometimes biased. What makes one decide their view is correct over everyone else, including current men of the Church? Do you not think they have a better understanding of the Church’s teachings throughout history?

Why are ‘teachings’ be held up as doctrines, or dogma even?

 

[irenaeus1]

With claims of ‘what the Church teaches’ I have to wonder what position that places the Pope, and bishops in, that belief the death penalty should be abolished?

Similarly, I have to wonder what position this places past popes and bishops that boldly proclaimed the state’s right of recourse to the death penalty without any hint or mention of abolition.

 

[JReducation]

The problem with capital punishment is not whether or not the state has a right to impose it on a criminal. The Church is not challenging that, nor is she changing her position on this. What the current Magisterium is dealing with is what in moral theology is called “the oughtness of an act”.

One can have a right, but there can be a serious moral question as to when he ought to or not exercise it. A simple case here is punishment. Authority has the right to punish, whether it’s the state or a parent. However, there is a right time and a wrong time. There is a right way and a wrong way.

In this case, Evangelium Vitae poses that in today’s world, there is rarely, if ever, a legitimate reason for using capital punishment, because the state has other means to punish wrong doers and other means to protect innocent life.

It also presents us with the sacredness of life and the need to withhold on the use of capital punishment to impress upon the world the message that life is sacred and that human beings, even criminals, have dignity. The Magisterium says that it is difficult to be credible in our defense of the sacredness of life and the protection of human dignity while at the same time promoting the use of the death penalty when other means are available to satisfy justice and protect innocent lives.

The Church feels that at some point she must take a stand in defense of life and at this point, she is unwilling to concede any margin to the state, because the state is dangerous.

Our problem is that we are not stopping to contemplate the fact that the state is dangerous, especially in the USA. We act as if the state has our interest at heart and as if the state were moral, which is not the case. We have to realize that the government of the United States is not going to stop at capital punishment, but that it will push forward with the destruction of life, simply because it has the power to do so. Our government does not use moral law to guide its actions.

While so many Catholics are busy questioning the prudential judgments of the Church, we are ignoring the state. This poses a great danger to our safety as a nation. We must exercise the same tenacity and invest the same energy in challenging the state’s assumptions on life and death as we are investing in analyzing the Church’s position on the use of the death penalty. But we’re not seeing that in the USA. We’re not seeing Catholics confront the state and demand an explanation as to why it feels justified in taking a life. The state cannot arbitrarily exercise its rights. Otherwise, it will abuse them. When that happens, we are on a slippery slope. We should take example from those countries where the state has free reign with capital punishment, people live in fear.

I fear the state, more than I fear the pope. I think that I’ll go with the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

What I really don’t understand is the ‘do as I say, but not as I do’ attitude coming from some Catholics. The fact is, Popes in the past have done nothing to stop the civil authorities burning of protestants, and even wrote a papal bull saying that Lutherans should be burned. Local priests and bishops knew, and knew very well, that turning over supects for ‘heresy’ would result in them being tortured and/or killed by the civil authorties. Yet they did it anyway, and without reprimand from the Vatican. The Vatican felt that heretics were dangerous enough to be put to death. So the claim that the Church is against inmates’ execution is just plain false.

So, how one can say that the Church is against the execution of dangerous criminals who pose a threat to society is beyond me. The Church speaks for itself, both in words and by actions (or lack thereof). I believe what the Church is saying, is for the State to take its responsibility and authority seriously in matters of executions.

Just look at recent posts of Catholics being in favor of a modern-day inquisition, and being in favor of burning heretics, all using Church documents they’ve dug up to support their position. You can’t have it both ways folks…

 

[irenaeus1]

The problem with capital punishment is not whether or not the state has a right to impose it on a criminal. The Church is not challenging that, nor is she changing her position on this. What the current Magisterium is dealing with is what in moral theology is called “the oughtness of an act”.

okay… so why did it take 2000 years for the Church to figure out that society ‘ought not’ to impose the death penalty?

One can have a right, but there can be a serious moral question as to when he ought to or not exercise it. A simple case here is punishment. Authority has the right to punish, whether it’s the state or a parent. However, there is a right time and a wrong time. There is a right way and a wrong way.

Agreed, but again why did it take the Church 2000 years to figure out that society imposing the death penalty was the ‘wrong way’ to impose punishment?

In this case, Evangelium Vitae poses that in today’s world, there is rarely, if ever, a legitimate reason for using capital punishment, because the state has other means to punish wrong doers and other means to protect innocent life.

But as already noted, some societies have had the ability to successfully incarcerate indefinitely since about the 1500’s. 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. So, again I ask, why did it take so long for the Church to figure out that society ought not impose the death penalty?

It also presents us with the sacredness of life and the need to withhold on the use of capital punishment to impress upon the world the message that life is sacred and that human beings, even criminals, have dignity. The Magisterium says that it is difficult to be credible in our defense of the sacredness of life and the protection of human dignity while at the same time promoting the use of the death penalty when other means are available to satisfy justice and protect innocent lives.

But wait, that reasoning has already been used by scripture, and guess what? Sacredness of life is used in scripture as reasoning in support of the death penalty. BTW, the dignity of the human person is not new to the Church, so why did it take 2000 years for the Church to figure out that the sanctitiy of human life should preclude society from imposing the death penalty?

The Church feels that at some point she must take a stand in defense of life and at this point, she is unwilling to concede any margin to the state, because the state is dangerous.

But wait, JPII stated in EV that the modern world’s penal systems have experienced steady improvements, which would seem to indicate that the state’s authority was more dangerous in the past than it is now… which is it?

Our problem is that we are not stopping to contemplate the fact that the state is dangerous, especially in the USA. We act as if the state has our interest at heart and as if the state were moral, which is not the case. We have to realize that the government of the United States is not going to stop at capital punishment, but that it will push forward with the destruction of life, simply because it has the power to do so. Our government does not use moral law to guide its actions.

Interesting observation considering that capital punishment is actually quite rare in the USA.

While so many Catholics are busy questioning the prudential judgments of the Church, we are ignoring the state.

Not necessarily true. I can pay attention to more than one thing at once.

This poses a great danger to our safety as a nation. We must exercise the same tenacity and invest the same energy in challenging the state’s assumptions on life and death as we are investing in analyzing the Church’s position on the use of the death penalty. But we’re not seeing that in the USA. We’re not seeing Catholics confront the state and demand an explanation as to why it feels justified in taking a life. The state cannot arbitrarily exercise its rights. Otherwise, it will abuse them. When that happens, we are on a slippery slope. We should take example from those countries where the state has free reign with capital punishment, people live in fear.

So are you saying that these other societies have not sufficiently experienced improvements in their respective penal systems? Be careful how you answer that.

I fear the state, more than I fear the pope. I think that I’ll go with the pope.

St. Paul said that you are to fear the state, so I’m glad you are acting biblically. And who said anything about fearing the pope? Would have feared Pope Pius XII?

 

[louis91766]

The real problem here is that the Church cannot reverse its teaching; otherwise, it was either teaching error then, or it is teaching error now. Which is it?.

The Church has not changed its teaching on anything at all?
But we have seen changes in the teaching in the following areas:
Should heretics be burned at the stake.
Slavery.
Charging of interest on loans
Should women wear headcovering in Church
Can a marriage be annulled because of a slight defect in consent which was not apparent for 20 years.
Can a Jew be saved.
Altar girls and women saying the Communion service.