Another kind of Cafeteria Catholic?

[Cal_Catholic]

New website aims to educate faithful on death penalty, Catholics said to be among strongest backers of executions in CA

Full article…

 

[manualman]

I’m opposed to the DP myself, but I think it is disingenuous at best to label catholic DP supporters as “cafeteria catholics.” Unlike issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or divorce, the DP is NOT inherently evil in catholic teaching. Rather that catholic teaching is that it is a prudential judgement to be made by the state in which the DP is the last resort to protect the innocent of society when there are no other feasible options to do so. It is the prudential judgement of recent popes and most bishops that first world nations today do not have the need to use the DP, but prudential judgements are, by nature, not infallibly protected moral teachings.

 

[Adeodatus]

I’m opposed to the DP myself, but I think it is disingenuous at best to label catholic DP supporters as “cafeteria catholics.” Unlike issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or divorce, the DP is NOT inherently evil in catholic teaching. Rather that catholic teaching is that it is a prudential judgement to be made by the state in which the DP is the last resort to protect the innocent of society when there are no other feasible options to do so. It is the prudential judgement of recent popes and most bishops that first world nations today do not have the need to use the DP, but prudential judgements are, by nature, not infallibly protected moral teachings.

Well said.

 

[stuart12]

According to Joseph Ratzinger a while back, the issue of the dealth penalty is a negotiable issue. Catholics, in good faith, can disagree with the Supreme Pontiff on it (PP JP II at the time, who was opposed to it I believe).

 

[mlund]

It really does come down to prudential judgment. Does an execution of the guilty protect society from harm better than any permissible alternatives?

You might say that prison breaks are so rare that those incarcerated don’t threaten society anymore. They do, however, force the society already harmed by the offender to pay for his care for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, even with all that money flowing in the prisons aren’t orderly or safe institutions. Smuggling, criminal trafficking, contracts for murder, drug abuse, sodomy, battery, assault, and rape are all routine occurrences among inmates. We tend to overlook the fact that criminals still have human rights while incarcerated. We still have an obligation to justice while they are in our care. Even a man lawfully and justly scheduled for execution tomorrow must be protected from being assaulted, raped, or murdered by other inmates (or guards).

If a sentence of life in prison merely means that a murderer or rapist is restricted to attempting to murder or rape other inmates then it seems logical to me that execution IS still necessary to protect people from being victimized by the repetition of the criminal’s hideous offense. Furthermore, if criminals are discernibly emboldened by the prospect of life in prison being the ceiling of punishment rather than execution I’d think this should also be taken into consideration.

• Marty Lund

 

[Ender]

It really does come down to prudential judgment. Does an execution of the guilty protect society from harm better than any permissible alternatives?

This would certainly be what is implied by the Catechism (2267) but this really does miss the point. The primary objective of punishment (and this would include capital punishment) is not the protection of society but the redress of the disorder caused by the crime. That is, it is retribution - the demand of justice - that must be satisfied whether or not it is necessary for the protection of society. That point has been lost because of the wording of 2267 with its exclusive focus on protection.

Ender

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Still, I think its good practice in humiliry for us conservatives to agree and tow the line, even if it bugs us. The more it bugs us, the better, actually!

 

[canadianguy1143]

Still, I think its good practice in humiliry for us conservatives to agree and tow the line, even if it bugs us. The more it bugs us, the better, actually!

Probably so, but for a website to insinuate that any support of the DP is equivalent to cafeteria Catholicism shows a heretical agenda.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It really does come down to prudential judgment. Does an execution of the guilty protect society from harm better than any permissible alternatives?

You might say that prison breaks are so rare that those incarcerated don’t threaten society anymore. They do, however, force the society already harmed by the offender to pay for his care for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, even with all that money flowing in the prisons aren’t orderly or safe institutions. Smuggling, criminal trafficking, contracts for murder, drug abuse, sodomy, battery, assault, and rape are all routine occurrences among inmates. We tend to overlook the fact that criminals still have human rights while incarcerated. We still have an obligation to justice while they are in our care. Even a man lawfully and justly scheduled for execution tomorrow must be protected from being assaulted, raped, or murdered by other inmates (or guards).

If a sentence of life in prison merely means that a murderer or rapist is restricted to attempting to murder or rape other inmates then it seems logical to me that execution IS still necessary to protect people from being victimized by the repetition of the criminal’s hideous offense. Furthermore, if criminals are discernibly emboldened by the prospect of life in prison being the ceiling of punishment rather than execution I’d think this should also be taken into consideration.

• Marty Lund

Another question is are the other inmates and the staff and guards that work in the prison not also a part of society? Inmates in prison commit all manner of crimes upon other inmates, staff, and guards. So is locking criminals away protecting society?

Also with gangs some inmates are able to continue to run their criminal enterprises from the prison.

So again, does just locking up criminals really protect society?

This is part of the question that must be answered when considering the death penalty.

 

[cyberwolf001]

If the object of disagreement between a Catholic and the Church is something conservatives support it is negotiable. If however the object is something liberals support it then it is mandatory.

Once you cut through the walls of text that’s what it boils down to.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Jesus submitted himself to the “Death Penalty”.

How can it be evil, if our Lord God himself underwent it?

 

[cyberwolf001]

Jesus submitted himself to the “Death Penalty”.

How can it be evil, if our Lord God himself underwent it?

According to your faith he submitted to it even though he was innocent.

Your argument could be used to justify execution of the innocent. Not to mention torture.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Jesus submitted himself to the “Death Penalty”.

How can it be evil, if our Lord God himself underwent it?

I believe a better way to prove that Jesus supported the DP was when he said the following in Luke 17:2:

It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.

If you put a millstone around anyone’s neck and cast them into the sea, that would kill them.

 

[JimG]

The Church’s position against the death penalty is based on the fact that there are other alternatives by which to protect society, such as life imprisonment without parole.

From a theoretical standpoint, that is true. In actual practice, such an alternative is rarely put into place, for a variety of reasons. In my state, a life term nearly always entails possible parole after a number of years. In many cases, convicted murderers serving multiple life terms, come up for parole repeatedly. And paroled prisoners have gone out and killed again.

This state also has one option called the “hard 50,” which means the convict must serve at least 50 years before being eligible for parole. That is a harder sentence for a prosecutor to obtain than an ordinary conviction where the person is subject to parole, and harder still to obtain is a death sentence.

There are multiple factors which influence what type of sentence a prosecutor will seek. But it’s not so simple a matter as saying, let’s eliminate the death penalty and impose life without parole. That is not always easy to do.

 

[Ender]

The Church’s position against the death penalty is based on the fact that there are other alternatives by which to protect society, such as life imprisonment without parole.

The pope’s position against the death penalty was based on his belief that it was not necessary to protect society. The Church holds, however, that it is retribution - not protection - that is the primary objective of punishment and has supported the death penalty as a just sentence for the crime of murder, a perspective that is unaffected by concerns about protection.

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Church’s position against the death penalty is based on the fact that there are other alternatives by which to protect society, such as life imprisonment without parole.

I see you ignored everything I said in post #9.

That is unless you do not include prison inmates, prison staff, and prison guards as part of society.

 

[CMatt25]

If the object of disagreement between a Catholic and the Church is something conservatives support it is negotiable. If however the object is something liberals support it then it is mandatory.

Once you cut through the walls of text that’s what it boils down to.

Well I can see where you might get that idea. Because in fact CCC 2267 tells us what should be today.

“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.”

Couple that with thou shalt not kill and Christ having said on the mount that while we had heard an eye for eye, He was adding a “but”. And sometimes I myself wonder if “very rare” is kept in there to appease the politically conservative among the faithful on this issue.

But indeed however you slice it, what it boils down to nevertheless is indeed the words “very rare” certainly would indicate supporting the death penalty in hardly any cases, if at all. And yet we still have some Catholics strongly supporting the death penalty in many cases while referring to others as “cafeteria”.

 

[Ender]

Well I can see where you might get that idea. Because in fact CCC 2267 tells us what should be today.

Are you not aware that the issues involved here do not begin and end with 2267? The Church has been teaching - and writing - on this issue for nearly 2000 years; would you have us ignore everything else she has said that touches on this topic?

“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.”

This is an opinion based on a perception of the capabilities of the penal systems in modern nations; it is not a declaration of a moral law. How would one support this contention: by studying the theology of Aquinas or wading through Bureau of Justice Statistics?

Couple that with thou shalt not kill and Christ having said on the mount that while we had heard an eye for eye, He was adding a “but”.

Show us where the Church has ever made this argument in relation to capital punishment. That you believe it is one thing but that the Church has never made this connection is more meaningful.

And sometimes I myself wonder if “very rare” is kept in there to appease the politically conservative among the faithful on this issue.

The Church keeps it there because she cannot remove it.

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

But indeed however you slice it, what it boils down to nevertheless is indeed the words “very rare” certainly would indicate supporting the death penalty in hardly any cases, if at all.

What it boils down to is the need to balance everything the Church teaches and not merely select the phrases one prefers and ignore everything else. 2267 is an anomaly in Church teaching on capital punishment and can only be incorporated with everything else she teaches by seeing it as the prudential belief that, in current society, it does more harm than good. That is, it is a prudential choice, not a moral law.

Ender

 

[JimG]

I see you ignored everything I said in post #9.

That is unless you do not include prison inmates, prison staff, and prison guards as part of society.

I do agree with you that inmates, prison staff, and prison guards are part of society, and that they are not protected by the non-use of the death penalty.

My main point was that neither is the rest of society at large protected by non-use of the death penalty, and locking up violent offenders, because they do get out on parole. The position that modern society has other means to protect itself is true in theory but not as practiced.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do agree with you that inmates, prison staff, and prison guards are part of society, and that they are not protected by the non-use of the death penalty.

My main point was that neither is the rest of society at large protected by non-use of the death penalty, and locking up violent offenders, because they do get out on parole. The position that modern society has other means to protect itself is true in theory but not as practiced.

Thank you for your reply and I think we agree in a way.

Just to say, I support the right of a government to use the death penalty if it deems it is necessary but I am against the implementation of it in the United States.