Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Ender]

I have also never seen it described as prudential by an actual Church official, despite the many claims.

I cited Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB; surely they count as actual Church officials. As for your claim that 2267 has not been described as prudential it seems mere semantics to claim otherwise. I admit that no one has explicitly said “2267 is a prudential opinion” but that conclusion is surely the only one that can be logically drawn from the comments that have been quoted.

Cardinal Dulles said that it was the prudential opinion of USCCB that the death penalty in the U.S. conflicts with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.

Not so. Dulles said: “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded …” and “In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium …” There is nothing whatever in the statements of the JPII, Ratzinger, Dulles, or the magisterium that applies uniquely to the US.

He said that the Pope’s call to end the death penalty was prudential. He did not say that 2267 was ITSELF prudential …

Section 2267 of the catechism quotes JPII’s encyclical Evangelium vitae. That section **is **the Pope’s call to end the death penalty; calling either of them prudential automatically calls the other prudential as well. In fact there is no “other”; they are one and the same thing. Since you accept Dulles’ description of the JPII’s comments (in Evangelium vitae) as prudential I consider this question resolved.

Cardinal Ratzinger said that … there was room for disagreement on when the death penalty may be applied. … Nothing in his statement even suggests that the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is merely an opinion. He did not use the word prudential.

Name any Church doctrine about which someone could say there may be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics. Such a statement about a doctrine would contradict what the catechism says in 892: "To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent " which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” Since the faithful must assent to ordinary teachings (doctrine) there can be no question that 2267 is not doctrine as Ratzinger himself has said that we may, legitimately, disagree with it.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Who is paraphrasing?

It is rather obvious that 2267 is a paraphrase / minor rephrase of part of John Paul II’s Evangelium vitae, and there is a longer rephrase in paragraph 405 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. The phrasing in all three sections is close enough to being the same where statements about whether the ideas identified as prudential in one will be found stated quite similarly in the other two; on the “idea” level, the three passages are interchangeable and differ only in the technical level of presentation.

Considering the length and breath of citations on this presented and discussed in the other recent threads on this (here and here), trying to claim that a nearly identically expressed idea is prudential in one place but not in another is a type of hairsplitting I’m not inclined to pursue again in the absence of any new arguments supporting that idea.

 

[TMC]

Name any Church doctrine about which someone could say there may be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics. Such a statement about a doctrine would contradict what the catechism says in 892: "To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent " which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” Since the faithful must assent to ordinary teachings (doctrine) there can be no question that 2267 is not doctrine as Ratzinger himself has said that we may, legitimately, disagree with it.

OK, I give up. You just say over and over that Cardinal Ratzinger said that we can disagree with this portion of the Catechism. He never said that. He said that there can be legitimate disagreement on when the death penalty can be applied, but he did not say that there can be a disagreement over the teaching on the criteria to apply to that decision. They are not the same thing. Not even close. I will never convince you because you have made up your mind and no amount of authority or reason will prevail. I’m sure the Pope will speak on the issue again in the next few years, and you will have to come up with some other reason that statement is also optional. I’m wasting my time here, so I’ll just stop.

 

[Ender]

You just say over and over that Cardinal Ratzinger said that we can disagree with this portion of the Catechism. He never said that. He said that there can be legitimate disagreement on when the death penalty can be applied, but he did not say that there can be a disagreement over the teaching on the criteria to apply to that decision. They are not the same thing. Not even close.

Actually, I recognize the ambiguity in Ratzinger’s statement; it is not completely clear which point he is making, mine or yours.

I will never convince you because you have made up your mind and no amount of authority or reason will prevail.

If Ratzinger’s comment was the only reference you might have a point, but there is no ambiguity about the other two sources I cited. I have made up my mind - as have you - but I at least can point to documents that support my position.

I’m sure the Pope will speak on the issue again in the next few years, and you will have to come up with some other reason that statement is also optional. I’m wasting my time here, so I’ll just stop.

I am equally sure this issue will have to be readdressed but it won’t go the way you expect. The doctrine has not and will not change. As Dulles said: *"*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes."

Ender

 

[Al_Masetti]

The real core issue is “how do you treat the really hard core sociopath / psychopath killers who injure and kill witnesses, prison guards, or anyone to whom they take a dislike?”

Fr. Benedict Groeschel suggested locking these people up 24/7.

However, the courts have decreed that they cannot be locked up 24/7 with no contact outside their cells. And it is within this tiny window of time and opportunity that these miscreants do their terrible damage.

So, where does that leave us?

If society cannot protect itself from people who “demand” the right to injure and kill anyone they can reach, then where are we as a society?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

but he did not say that there can be a disagreement over the teaching on the criteria to apply to that decision.

He did not need to, because the doctrine of the Church is quite clear that the authority to determine those criteria (e.g. the technical capacity of the prison system) belongs to the States, not the Church.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

However, the courts have decreed that they cannot be locked up 24/7 with no contact outside their cells. And it is within this tiny window of time and opportunity that these miscreants do their terrible damage.

Not just the courts, as if you look at what the Church teaches are the rights of prisoners, a good portion of the methods that might help reduce the ongoing threat from the most dangerous have been ruled out by the Church for much, much longer than the recent shift to trying to discourage the death penalty as a general rule.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Not just the courts, as if you look at what the Church teaches are the rights of prisoners, a good portion of the methods that might help reduce the ongoing threat from the most dangerous have been ruled out by the Church for much, much longer than the recent shift to trying to discourage the death penalty as a general rule.

So … what do ya do?

How do we protect ourselves from these career predators?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I have to agree with the last two posters.
Clearly if there is no humane AND safe way of detaining these rabid cases, then medical euthanasia shold be used.
This though should not be performed with the pomp of vengeance, but with mercy and sorrow.
The Church may have a problem with this, but she cannot condone the vengeance of DP, and in the same breath, deny the mercy of euthanasia to a creature of dubious, or reduced humanity.
The primary principle of euthanasia though is that it should be voluntary, except in cases of real and present danger, when still the principle concept of mercy should be observed.

 

[Ender]

Clearly if there is no humane AND safe way of detaining these rabid cases, then medical euthanasia shold be used.

There is no difference whatever between forced euthanasia and an execution; the former is a euphemism for the latter.

The primary principle of euthanasia though is that it should be voluntary, except in cases of real and present danger …

Involuntary euthanasia is an execution; it is not possible to accept one and reject the other.

… when still the principle concept of mercy should be observed.

I believe that it perverts mercy as well as justice to be merciful to the unrepentant.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

There is no difference whatever between forced euthanasia and an execution; the former is a euphemism for the latter.
Involuntary euthanasia is an execution; it is not possible to accept one and reject the other. I believe that it perverts mercy as well as justice to be merciful to the unrepentant.

Ender

You are still motivated by vengeance.
This is OT theololgy rejected by Our Lord.
When you shoot a rabid dog, you aim fir a quick clean kill.
That is to be merciful.
The perverted human being has in a way, fallen victim to a kind of rabies, and humanity is no longer in control.
The time for punishment is gone.
That which was human is no longer rational.
Now is a time for mercy.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So … what do ya do?

How do we protect ourselves from these career predators?

For those cases at the very least, the death penalty has to be retain position as a fully acceptable option when it fits the crime and guilt is certain.

 

[Ender]

You are still motivated by vengeance.

You have no clue as to what motivates me; your charge is judgmental and uncharitable. Not incidentally you completely ignored my argument. My statements are either correct or incorrect and nothing about my personal nature affects the validity of my argument.

You have both rejected capital punishment and endorsed forced euthanasia; my claim is that you have merely put different labels on the same thing.

When you shoot a rabid dog, you aim fir a quick clean kill. That is to be merciful.

Apparently I misunderstood your definition of mercy. I agree that we should apply this level of mercy to the unrepentant killer.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You have no clue as to what motivates me; your charge is judgmental and uncharitable. Not incidentally you completely ignored my argument. My statements are either correct or incorrect and nothing about my personal nature affects the validity of my argument.

Sorry I am if I misjudge you, but your arguments seem to be judgement based, relying upon OT theology, rejected by Our Lord, as a misunderstanding, namely:
‘Eye for eye’ does not mean that you must take an eye for an eye, but rather that you may not take more than an eye for an eye.
Our Lord intended that we should take nothing in revenge.

You have both rejected capital punishment and endorsed forced euthanasia; my claim is that you have merely put different labels on the same thing.

Not quite. There is the element of motive, which weighs heavily upon the attitude of the executioner.
Euthanasia is executed without judgement of wrongness, only of need to prevent suffereing, and danger.

Apparently I misunderstood your definition of mercy. I agree that we should apply this level of mercy to the unrepentant killer.

Ender

You see, you still see the rabid dog as evil.
It is not evil, it is diseased and dangerous, but there is no positive prognosis. All that can be achieved is relief of suffering, and elimination of danger.

 

[Ender]

Sorry I am if I misjudge you, but your arguments seem to be judgement based…

My intent is to base my argument on what the Catholic Church teaches. I will accept that my position is incorrect only if someone can demonstrate that it is contrary to what the Church teaches.

… relying upon OT theology, rejected by Our Lord, as a misunderstanding …

Christ did not reject OT theology: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

‘Eye for eye’ does not mean that you must take an eye for an eye, but rather that you may not take more than an eye for an eye.

I agree with this. It is a requirement of justice that punishment not exceed the severity to the offense - but justice also requires that punishment not be less.

Euthanasia is executed without judgement of wrongness, only of need to prevent suffereing, and danger.

How can you justify forcibly euthanizing someone if there is no judgment of sin on the part of the victim? Unless the action is inflicted as punishment for a wrong committed there is no justification at all for doing it.

You see, you still see the rabid dog as evil.
It is not evil, it is diseased and dangerous, but there is no positive prognosis. All that can be achieved is relief of suffering, and elimination of danger.

I think there are a lot of people in the category of diseased and dangerous with no positive prognosis. Why should we not euthanize them all?

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

My intent is to base my argument on what the Catholic Church teaches. I will accept that my position is incorrect only if someone can demonstrate that it is contrary to what the Church teaches.

No. the Church now teaches that the judgemental attitude to DP should be relegated secondary to the practical necessity of defending the public.

Christ did not reject OT theology: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

This is not what I said. I said Our Lord rejected the erroneous interpretation of the law.

I agree with this. It is a requirement of justice that punishment not exceed the severity to the offense - but justice also requires that punishment not be less.

The Church allows the state to execute judgement, but does not detail how.
Our Lord allowed, even commanded that we demand not punishment commensurate, but that we forgive.
‘If a man take your coat, give him also your mantle’

How can you justify forcibly euthanizing someone if there is no judgment of sin on the part of the victim?

Euthanasia is not a punishment. It is a mercy to a sufferer, and a necessary expedient to protect the public. It is not performed in judgement, but with sorrow and mercy.

Unless the action is inflicted as punishment for a wrong committed there is no justification at all for doing it.

This of course requires a change in concept.
This is not a sentence from a legal court, but an informed decision by qualified persons that this is the best prognosis for both the offendor, and the public.
Judgement is to be set aside and replaced with sorrow and mercy.

I think there are a lot of people in the category of diseased and dangerous with no positive prognosis. Why should we not euthanize them all?

Ender

I think that is a very good question.
Does keeping them alive serve any purpose to them, or the public, or does it only prolong suffering?
Does the extent of their disease make them less than fully human?
Has the man become a beast?
These are very deep philosophical questions which some might find offencive.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Why is the USCCB so adamantly opposed to the death penalty … picketing prisons when some killer gets executed, etc, but is virtually silent and engages in inaction (e.g., does not picket) in the face of abortion?

Executions that get reviewed ten times before they are carried out against convicted killers seem to get preferential treatment over the emotionally engaged killing of unborn babies.

The Catholic Church seems to be taking an officially sanctioned action against execution of killers, but leaves it to dedicated laypeople to fight on against abortion.

I am NOT advocating punishment of mothers or even doctors in the case of abortion. But something more than silence is called for.

Seems to me that a judge in New Jersey stated that abortion is a legal execution. So, where is the Catholic Church with respect to the execution of innocent babies?

 

[TMC]

Why is the USCCB so adamantly opposed to the death penalty … picketing prisons when some killer gets executed, etc, but is virtually silent and engages in inaction (e.g., does not picket) in the face of abortion?

Executions that get reviewed ten times before they are carried out against convicted killers seem to get preferential treatment over the emotionally engaged killing of unborn babies.

The Catholic Church seems to be taking an officially sanctioned action against execution of killers, but leaves it to dedicated laypeople to fight on against abortion.

I am NOT advocating punishment of mothers or even doctors in the case of abortion. But something more than silence is called for.

Seems to me that a judge in New Jersey stated that abortion is a legal execution. So, where is the Catholic Church with respect to the execution of innocent babies?

USCCB does do a lot of pro-life work, and more for abortion and other pre-birth issues than anything else. Some info is available here: usccb.org/prolife/index.shtml

 

[AliciaCL]

I’ve always been against the death penalty except in very very rare instances where society really could not be protected otherwise. I think the death penalty for Saddam Hussein had to happen to prevent future problems. I worked as a lawyer in a death penalty state for a while. It always amazed me how intelligent people would take on an angry vengence attitude when asked if they supported the death penalty. It struck me as a bit like learning racism in the old south. Talk about body language, they would tense up all over just to respond the the question. It’s like they think they are protecting the crime victim(s) who are already dead. One simply adopts the view as absolutely true without considering the possibility that arguments against it may hold value. The central reaction to the question of death penalty always triggered this attitude of vengence. Payback. Well, justice simply can’t be had in the horrible murder cases where the death penalty is awarded. I knew one prosecutor who bragged about how many death penalty cases his office had “achieved.” There is many a lawyer whose job depends on the death penalty itself. I found it sickening. I also knew an appellate defense attorney who worked on death penalty cases. The attorney told me stories over and over of how the defendants (or their families) pay good money and get down right pitiful legal representation. The trial defense lawyer does so incredibly little, takes the money and has bragging rights to doing death penalty cases. It is inherently immoral I think, unless absolutely necessary for the likes of a Hitler or Hussein type. Life in prison without the chance or parole is the best solution. I believe there are good arguments it’s more economical too because of the tremendous saving on legal bills for the state. Death penalty cases are unbelievably tedious, every issue on the planet is explored in detail. I really think the deterrant argument is bunk. Show me one convicted murderer who thought about the death penalty when committing the crime.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I really think the deterrant argument is bunk. Show me one convicted murderer who thought about the death penalty when committing the crime.

Just to point out that statistically deterrence is going to be measured in those that thought about the death penalty and chose** not** to commit a crime, not those that didn’t care one way or the other.