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

[seekerz]

I suppose you can come up with your own system of right and wrong, as for Catholics, however, capital punishment has always been accepted as a valid option for States to use. It has never been - and is not now - considered immoral.

On a secular note indeed…

Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment…

*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Avery Dulles, 2001)

Inasmuch as the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute criminals there is no question of “usurping the divine prerogative” regarding life and death. The more relevant question is whether the murderer can be said to have paid for his crime merely via incarceration. That appears doubtful.

Ender

This is not “my own system of right and wrong” it is our system, as I just exhaustively illustrated. The Church’s historical view of capital punishment is modulated by the prevailing social context as you seem to acknowledge i.e. consideration of situations where society cannot be protected from murderers in alternative ways.

I do not get your line of reasoning regarding the doubtfulness of the murderer having paid for his crime. He has been paying for it and could continue to do so without being executed. Why would you doubt that?

 

[Ender]

This is not “my own system of right and wrong” it is our system, as I just exhaustively illustrated.

You claim that capital punishment is wrong. The Church teaches that capital punishment is a right belonging to States. Since your belief is directly contradicted by what the Church teaches I’m not sure what you mean by “our system.” It certainly isn’t the Church’s.

The Church’s historical view of capital punishment is modulated by the prevailing social context as you seem to acknowledge i.e. consideration of situations where society cannot be protected from murderers in alternative ways.

I don’t acknowledge this at all; in fact I repudiate it. There is simply nothing in the history of the Church to support this contention.

I do not get your line of reasoning regarding the doubtfulness of the murderer having paid for his crime. He has been paying for it and could continue to do so without being executed. Why would you doubt that?

I don’t doubt that an imprisoned murderer is being punished; what I doubt is whether the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and since that is the definition of justice I don’t believe that imprisonment is the just punishment for certain crimes.

Ender

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Murder is a particularly heinous sin, especially if deliberate.
But God Himself did NOT universally apply the Death Penalty
in the Old Testament, even though HE HIMSELF called for
it’s establishment and use. He frequently showed mercy to
people who, under Law, committed capital crimes, including,
but not limited to, murder.
This is something that those who loudly insist on executing murderers
seem to forget: many OTHER sins call for the death penalty too,
including probably some of the sins that they themselves have committed.
To be consistent, THOSE PARTICULAR advocates of the Death Penalty
should present themselves to the magistrates and ask to be executed.
After all, they wish it on someone else.
Once again, the death penalty is NOT “sinful.” Strictly speaking,
it is STRICT Justice. It is Justice WITHOUT Mercy.
And, sorry folks, but those who call for Justice-Without-Mercy,
WILL, themselves, be GIVEN justice-without-mercy when the time comes.
Especially if they call for strict Justice to be inflicted on a REPENTANT Christian person.
QUESTION: Is Mr. Davis a repentant person? Has he ever repented of his violent deed?
Jesus himself said so: He who shows no mercy, will be SHOWN no mercy.
Magistrates ARE charged by God with keeping Law and Order, to be sure.
But they are NOT exempted, merely because of their Office, from the New Testament’s
emphasis on mercy, regardless of out of context quotations from St. Paul about them
not “bearing the sword in vain.”

 

[seekerz]

Eternal rest grant unto him oh Lord, and let perpetual light shine on him, may he rest in peace.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The above prayer for Mr. Davis’s soul is very kind, and it is generous of the poster
to pray it for him.

What I want to know is,
WAS the evidence of this man’s guilt strong beyond reasonable doubt?

Most importantly, if he WAS guilty of deliberate murder,
did he EVER express remorse or, better yet, repentance for
having committed the deed?

As much as I stress MERCY over strict justice on these Forums, and I do,
still,
if he WAS guilty, and died WITHOUT any repentance or contrition,
then all the kind prayers in the world won’t help him now.
If he WAS guilty of this, I sincerely hope he repented before he was executed.
Jaypeeto4

 

[seekerz]

The above prayer for Mr. Davis’s soul is very kind, and it is generous of the poster
to pray it for him.

What I want to know is,
WAS the evidence of this man’s guilt strong beyond reasonable doubt?

Most importantly, if he WAS guilty of deliberate murder,
did he EVER express remorse or, better yet, repentance for
having committed the deed?

As much as I stress MERCY over strict justice on these Forums, and I do,
still,
if he WAS guilty, and died WITHOUT any repentance or contrition,
then all the kind prayers in the world won’t help him now.
If he WAS guilty of this, I sincerely hope he repented before he was executed.
Jaypeeto4

He died declaring his innocence and praying for the souls of those charged with his execution. I do believe that indicates he made his peace with God; considering the circumstances, it doesn’t hurt to be generous I think.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Such generosity is very commendable.

He died declaring his innocence AND praying for the souls of those executing him?
I can’t confess that I could be so magnanimous were I being unjustly executed
by other sinners. I would hope I could, but without an INCREDIBLE infusion of
unusually great grace, I doubt it.

If he WAS innocent, this execution was not only merciless,
it was an ABOMINATION crying to heaven for Vengeance.

I have read enough articles on the internet and elsewhere about attorneys and judges,
including prosecutors, having exculpatory evidence SUPPRESSED so as to win their case and deny all future appeals. Attorneys are capable of dastardly pride and a win at all cost attitude, too. And IF that happened in this case, those attorneys should
be terrified, yes WAAAAY beyond terrified, for the eternal state of their own souls.

Jaypeeto4

 

[seekerz]

And IF that happened in this case, those attorneys should
be terrified, yes WAAAAY beyond terrified, for the eternal state of their own souls.

Jaypeeto4

Which is why his prayers were so meaningful.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Which is why his prayers were so meaningful

I agree with you on this.

 

[SanAgustin]

Our Lord died in the cross, the result of that time’s “justice system” and their version of the death penalty. Most of the apostles were martyred, many were even crucified.

The cross is a reminder of our Lord’s sacrifice and triumph in his resurrection, but I can’t look at it and dismiss that it was an instrument of death, another travesty of the human sense of justice.

For Christians to be for the death penalty, specially today, is really baffling. What irony that our Lord and Savior was a victim of a system that we seem to applaud so readily.

Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

 

[Linda_Marie]

He died declaring his innocence and praying for the souls of those charged with his execution. I do believe that indicates he made his peace with God; considering the circumstances, it doesn’t hurt to be generous I think.

This thread is not about Troy Davis but about Manuel Valle.

CASE NO. 94,754
MANUEL VALLE,
Appellant

This Court
set forth the following historical facts of the crimes:
On April 2, 1978, Officer Louis Pena of the Coral Gables Police Department was on patrol when he stopped appellant and a companion for a traffic violation. The events that followed were witnessed by Officer Gary Spell, also of the Coral Gables Police Department. Officer Spell testified that when he arrived at the scene, appellant was sitting in the patrol car with Officer Pena. Shortly thereafter, Spell heard Pena use his radio to run a license check on the car appellant was driving. According to Spell, appellant then walked back to his car and reached into it, approached Officer Pena and fired a single shot at him, which resulted in his death. Appellant also fired two shots at Spell and then fled. He was picked up two days later in Deerfield Beach. Following his jury trial, appellant was also found guilty of the attempted first-degree murder of Spell and after a non-jury trial, he was found guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
<…>
The trial court found the existence of five aggravating factors:
(1) Valle was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person;
(2) the killing was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody;
(3) the killing was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws;
(4) the killing was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification; and,
(5) the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties. (3R. 900-903)

It seems that everyone thinks that there should be only forgiveness for criminals, never punishment for crimes, never imprisonment to protect citizens from their violence.

We should just empty the prisons and close them, because any and all punishment is unforgiving and unmerciful.

Just disband the police force altogether, don’t bother arresting anyone. Scrap all the laws about murder, stealing, assault, rape, all crimes because any punishment for doing these things is only exacting vengeance and “Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.”

 

[seekerz]

This thread is not about Troy Davis but about Manuel Valle.

It seems that everyone thinks that there should be only forgiveness for criminals, never punishment for crimes, never imprisonment to protect citizens from their violence.

We should just empty the prisons and close them, because any and all punishment is unforgiving and unmerciful.

Just disband the police force altogether, don’t bother arresting anyone. Scrap all the laws about murder, stealing, assault, rape, all crimes because any punishment for doing these things is only exacting vengeance and “Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.”

My mistake about the thread’s subject. Seems like this is the execution season because there are several similar, simultaneous threads.

As for forgiveness, it is neither optional for a Christian, nor incompatible with justice, due process and punishment.

 

[Linda_Marie]

My mistake about the thread’s subject. Seems like this is the execution season because there are several similar, simultaneous threads.

As for forgiveness, it is neither optional for a Christian, nor incompatible with justice, due process and punishment.

That punishment by the State includes the death penalty, according to the doctrine of the Church.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

Peter was told to leave his sword in its sheath because it was time for the Passion. He was supposed to suffer and die.

If Peter was never supposed to use a sword, why was he carrying it in the first place? Why didn’t Jesus insist that all his followers not carry swords if there were no instances in which it is acceptable to God to use them?

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

With some killers, the only way for people to be protected is to have them put to death. They continue to kill in prison, both prison guards and other inmates.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That punishment by the State includes the death penalty, according to the doctrine of the Church.

The state does not operate by doctrines of the Church.

Peter was told to leave his sword in its sheath because it was time for the Passion. He was supposed to suffer and die.

If Peter was never supposed to use a sword, why was he carrying it in the first place? Why didn’t Jesus insist that all his followers not carry swords if there were no instances in which it is acceptable to God to use them?

I can’t remember where I saw it originally, but some of the early Church fathers believed the ‘sword’ was similar to that of a sacrificial knife. When we check the Greek used, we see that the word used was used as ‘knife’.

G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh’-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Below are passages from some who questioned, or understood ‘swords’ in other ways.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one;” [Luke 22:36] and the disciples answered, “Lo, here are two swords.”

It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.

Jerome: With what sword then shall he perish, that takes the sword? By that fiery sword which waves before the gate of paradise, and that sword of the Spirit which is described in the armour of God.

Let’s look at your question another way. If Peter was supposed to carry and use a ‘military’ style sword, why didn’t the Popes carry one throughout history, to the present day?

With some killers, the only way for people to be protected is to have them put to death. They continue to kill in prison, both prison guards and other inmates.

The key word is ‘some’. We don’t make, or enforce, laws because of the potential of some.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Just as you say ‘some’, one can say ‘many’ of those confined are bound from future aggressions. 2267 is a teaching of the Church, which states, ‘…does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.’ The state, overlooking some of the teaching of the Church, cannot be viewed as 100% in alignment with Church teaching by members of the Church, in my opinion.

 

[SanAgustin]

It seems that everyone thinks that there should be only forgiveness for criminals, never punishment for crimes, never imprisonment to protect citizens from their violence.

We should just empty the prisons and close them, because any and all punishment is unforgiving and unmerciful.

Just disband the police force altogether, don’t bother arresting anyone. Scrap all the laws about murder, stealing, assault, rape, all crimes because any punishment for doing these things is only exacting vengeance and “Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.”

Well speaking of “vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord”, let’s look at the full quote shall we?

Romans 12

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18 If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine,** I will repay**, says the Lord.”
20 Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty,** give him something to drink**; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”
21 Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

Please, you know very well nobody is saying that criminals should just run amok or be rewarded for their crimes. You know that. What we’re saying is the Church doesn’t teach that they should be killed in a modern society were we have options (like prison) that protect the innocent.

I’m not sure what your point about Peter’s “sword” is, in the long run I never pictured our first Pope as some type of militant warrior importing justice with his mighty sword, but as following Christ in all ways and ultimately being a victim of the unjust Roman capital punishment of the cross.

 

[Norminha]

American Justice system is nothing else but a double moral.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Well speaking of “vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord”, let’s look at the full quote shall we?
Please, you know very well nobody is saying that criminals should just run amok or be rewarded for their crimes. You know that. What we’re saying is the Church doesn’t teach that they should be killed in a modern society were we have options (like prison) that protect the innocent.

I was mainly responding to Prodigal’s posts from which I understand that he is against all forms of punishment, even imprisonment since it boils down to vengeance and vengeance belongs to God.

Originally posted by Prodigal Son1
The key word is ‘some’. We don’t make, or enforce, laws because of the potential of some.

Actually, we do. Most people are law abiding. It is because of the few who murder, rape, steal, bash, mug, etc that made the laws a necessity in the first place.

In practice, we see that our current justice system is not protecting the innocent since it releases killers, rapists, people who violently assault others during the commission of other crimes. These people go on to kill again, rape again, assault again. The families of the victims of these repeat killers always ask, “Why was the killer released? Why is my loved one dead when the State knew? Why didn’t the State protect my loved one?”

The moments before Carl Williams’ murder
What will be the consequences for this murder? The guy is already in prison and Australia does not have the death penalty. The only thing left is more prison, but no one is safe from this killer, even in prison.

I’m not sure what your point about Peter’s “sword” is, in the long run I never pictured our first Pope as some type of militant warrior importing justice with his mighty sword, but as following Christ in all ways and ultimately being a victim of the unjust Roman capital punishment of the cross.

No, Peter was not a ‘militant warrior imparting justice with his sword’, but rather carried it because it was the custom to go armed in case of attack by robbers or bandits. Just the fact that he and other disciples carried swords and Jesus did not tell them to get rid of them says that there are times when the use of a sword or other lethal weapon is acceptable under God’s laws. The commandment is “Thou shalt not murder.” not “Thou shalt not kill.”
Sword of Saint Peter


Sword in Archdiocesan Museum


The copy of St. Peter’s Sword displayed in Poznań Archcathedral.

Hardly a dagger or eating knife.

Sometimes, you have to kill to defend yourself and this is not a sin. It is not murder. Sometimes the State has to kill to defend the the people of the State, and this also is not a sin and likewise, is not murder.

While they were asking for clemency for cop killers, why didn’t the bishops ask for clemency for the white supremacist dragging killer?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I was mainly responding to Prodigal’s posts from which I understand that he is against all forms of punishment, even imprisonment since it boils down to vengeance and vengeance belongs to God.
Actually, we do. Most people are law abiding. It is because of the few who murder, rape, steal, bash, mug, etc that made the laws a necessity in the first place.

You understand wrong, or choose to spin what I have said for biased reasons. I hope it’s not the latter.

We do not arrest people because of a potential to break the laws.

No, Peter was not a ‘militant warrior imparting justice with his sword’, but rather carried it because it was the custom to go armed in case of attack by robbers or bandits. Just the fact that he and other disciples carried swords and Jesus did not tell them to get rid of them says that there are times when the use of a sword or other lethal weapon is acceptable under God’s laws. The commandment is “Thou shalt not murder.” not “Thou shalt not kill.”
Sword of Saint Peter

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Miecz_św_Piotra_RB1.JPG/350px-Miecz_św_Piotra_RB1.JPG
Sword in Archdiocesan Museum

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ecz001_szymonp.jpg/200px-Miecz001_szymonp.jpg
The copy of St. Peter’s Sword displayed in Poznań Archcathedral.

Hardly a dagger or eating knife.

I provided the Greek used and quotes from Jerome and Chrysostom, who viewed the ‘sword’ differently than the military sword. Since that time how many ‘armed’ Popes has the Church had following the example you portray?

Sometimes, you have to kill to defend yourself and this is not a sin. It is not murder. Sometimes the State has to kill to defend the the people of the State, and this also is not a sin and likewise, is not murder.

While they were asking for clemency for cop killers, why didn’t the bishops ask for clemency for the white supremacist dragging killer?

Killing someone in prison, through execution, is not defense, in my honest opinion. The situation you describe is the right of the state to have officers take down someone holding and threatening hostages, or showing a propensity to kill to prevent from being taken into custody.

Calling for the abolition of the death penalty is asking for clemency for all on death row.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Cool Pics, Where is Jesus’ sword?

 

[Linda_Marie]

You understand wrong, or choose to spin what I have said for biased reasons. I hope it’s not the latter.

I guess I understood wrongly.

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
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.

Please explain what you mean then, that justice belongs to God, not the State.

I provided the Greek used and quotes from Jerome and Chrysostom, who viewed the ‘sword’ differently than the military sword. Since that time how many ‘armed’ Popes has the Church had following the example you portray?

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

machaira

1. a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh

1. a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword

2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke

2b) a straight sword, for thrusting

This word is used 29 times:

Matthew 10:34: “to send peace, but a sword.”
Matthew 26:47: “a great multitude with swords and staves, from the”
Matthew 26:51: “his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the”
Matthew 26:52: “unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for”
Matthew 26:52: “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Matthew 26:52: “the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Matthew 26:55: “against a thief with swords and staves for to take me?”
Mark 14:43: “a great multitude with swords and staves, from the”
Mark 14:47: “one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest,”
Mark 14:48: “against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?”
Luke 21:24: “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all”
Luke 22:36: “garment, and buy one.”
Luke 22:38: “behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them,”
Luke 22:49: “shall we smite with the sword?”
Luke 22:52: “against a thief, with swords and staves?”
John 18:10: “Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote”
John 18:11: “unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the”
Acts 12:2: “the brother of John with the sword.”
Acts 16:27: “prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself,”
Romans 8:35: “or peril, or sword?”
Romans 13:4: “he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister”
Ephesians 6:17: “of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word”
Hebrews 4:12: “than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder”
Hebrews 11:34: “of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed”
Hebrews 11:37: “were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and”
Revelation 6:4: “and there was given unto him a great sword.”
Revelation 13:10: “he that killeth with the sword must be killed with”
Revelation 13:10: “be killed with the sword. Here is the patience”
Revelation 13:14: “which had the wound by a sword, and did live.”

Read more: bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G3162/machaira.htm#ixzz1YqCIG7X2

Only Peter’s makhaira did not qualify as a sword, but all the rest do?

THE “CHURCH” AND THE LAY ARISTOCRACY, CA. 950: The Case of Saint Ulrich of Augsburg A bishop’s role as defender of his city meant that he had to concern himself with military matters. Between 886 and 908 TEN German bishops fell in battle. In the year 1000 Bishop Bernard commanded forces of Emperor Otto III and fought with lance that contained nail of the true Cross. The admittedly unworthy Pope John XII in 960s fought as armed soldier to defend Rome.

Swords About the Cross

The Military Orders

Wars of the Papacy and the Papal States