Archbishop Chaput urges end to capital punishment

[triumphguy]

No, I consider the question of whether Jesus spoke directly about capital punishment to be irrelevant. If the only thing that matters is what the Gospels record Jesus as having said then of what use is anything but those four books of the Bible? The Church does not rely solely on Jesus’ words in forming her doctrines and neither should we. Scripture, Sacred tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magisterium form the basis for Church teaching and all three of them have recognized the moral justification for capital punishment.

Ender

That’s right: and now successive popes have spoken against capital punishment in the developed world.

Maybe it’s a prophetic word to encourage us to fix our societies and our justice systems.

I don’t know: maybe recent Popes have had a certain animosity to the “culture of death”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And here’s another you might have missed (Mat 15:4) * For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’*

I don’t think Christ was as anti-death penalty as you believe him to be.

Ender

I haven’t missed Christ’s use of Mosaic law to show the Pharisees the hypocrisy of their accusations against the disciples. Again, this has nothing to do with man’s law of capital punishment. It concerns a misinterpretation of righteousness by the Pharisees and scribes.

Christ taught forgiveness and love. There is nothing in His teachings that shows pro-death penalty. I believe it’s greatly mistaken to try and convey such a message.

The Church has for centuries endorsed capital punishment. If you take the position that Christ never did then you have to accept that the Church has been wrong on this point for 2000 years.
And you have misunderstood it. It applies to individuals, not States. Theirs is a different obligation than yours and mine.

Ender

Time doesn’t help either side in this discussion. To take your position is to say the Church is wrong, even for a much shorter time period.

We can search the history of the Church and find differences between the various men of the Church through time; I gave examples of public penances, indulgences, not allowed to marry a person of another faith, etc. What is happening in this discussion is that people are trumping current leaders of the Church with leaders who give support to something they personally view as righteous. In my opinion, it’s picking and choosing for secular views.

It’s not for the laity to determine if the differences in the teachings are right or wrong. Christ’s instructions to the men of the Church said whatever we ask would be answered by them, when two or more of them gathered in His name.

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

It seems that as the world has evolved, teachings can also evolve. This gives possibility of those men of the Church, with what appears to be differences in teaching, could all be correct. Penal systems have changed over time, no matter how many deficits one tries to point out to justify the death penalty it’s much more secure than it was just 100 years ago. Go backwards and the security becomes much more deficient. There never will be a perfect system. We could easily argue back against the deficiency of capital punishment. Where is the concern for the innocents that have been put to death under those deficiencies? Is it acceptable because we get some of them right?

The men of the Church in present times are also the voice of Christ, just as those men were in past times.

We’re discussing one of man’s laws, and in a country claiming to be a democracy. We have have affect on legislation through our support of certain politicians. In that way we are not removed from the actions taken by a government.

With that thought in mind, let’s step back and look at how we personally feel about the issue. Do we support the government in this action? That very much counts or else people can say, the government/state is allowing abortions and we’re not guilty of it happening.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

death penalty opponents have become so detached from what the Church teaches that what the Church teaches as “rare” becomes for them “never”.

I’ve given repeated real-world examples of how the prison system is unable to prevent capital offenders from re-offending in the context of narcotics prison gangs, yet this example of continuing real world carnage (murders, narco-trafficking, extortion, etc) from imprisoned convicts is not enough.

but the Church teaches that the DP can be imposed, so if this teaching has meaning, then even the most ardent anti-DP advocate must believe that the DP may be properly imposed.

so, when? apply hypothetical facts to the Church teaching and give an example of when the DP is proper.

if the anti-DP advocates can’t articulate such, I submit you’ve substituted your morality for Church teaching.

Westerby

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

death penalty opponents have become so detached from what the Church teaches that what the Church teaches as “rare” becomes for them “never”.

I’ve given repeated real-world examples of how the prison system is unable to prevent capital offenders from re-offending in the context of narcotics prison gangs, yet this example of continuing real world carnage (murders, narco-trafficking, extortion, etc) from imprisoned convicts is not enough.

but the Church teaches that the DP can be imposed, so if this teaching has meaning, then even the most ardent anti-DP advocate must believe that the DP may be properly imposed.

so, when? apply hypothetical facts to the Church teaching and give an example of when the DP is proper.

if the anti-DP advocates can’t articulate such, I submit you’ve substituted your morality for Church teaching.

Westerby

Under the very same teaching the Church states, ‘the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68.’ Then we move on to the current teaching from the Pope and other men of the Church. Would you please provide current teachings from authoritative men of the Church supporting the death penalty?

As you find deficiencies in the penal system, please address the deficiencies of the system of capital punishment; what about the innocents that are mistakenly put to death?

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Under the very same teaching the Church states, ‘the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68.’ Then we move on to the current teaching from the Pope and other men of the Church. Would you please provide current teachings from authoritative men of the Church supporting the death penalty?

As you find deficiencies in the penal system, please address the deficiencies of the system of capital punishment; what about the innocents that are mistakenly put to death?

I asked you for a factual example of a situation where the DP is permissible, not a repeat of the rule in generic terms.

so far as I can tell, you are defying the Magisterium by interpreting the CCC so that the permissive part of the rule can never be imposed.

when are executions absolutely necessary? example…

Westerby

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I asked you for a factual example of a situation where the DP is permissible, not a repeat of the rule in generic terms.

so far as I can tell, you are defying the Magisterium by interpreting the CCC so that the permissive part of the rule can never be imposed.

when are executions absolutely necessary? example…

Westerby

I am not defying the Magisterium and have said that twisting another poster’s words is not an honest tactic in a discussion.

I believe the acceptable death by government officials is in the hands of law enforcement to save lives immediately in threat from danger. An example would be in the even of hostage taking.

Now, as you have stated I am defying the Magisterium, please explain how ‘the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68’ is a blanket statement for everyone sentenced to death by the state?

The Magisterium has indicated there are exceptions, even though ‘very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’ Not everyone on death row is a participant of a gang, as you keep referring too.

We are Catholics. We are prolife, from conception to natural death. The world sees us against abortion, but divided on other means of death. I have posted a link to the statement made, by an authoritative man of the Church, ‘In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.’

Once more, and I don’t know if there is anyone, please show me an authoritative man of the Church who currently supports the blanket use of capital punishment?

 

[austenbosten]

I am not defying the Magisterium and have said that twisting another poster’s words is not an honest tactic in a discussion.

I believe the acceptable death by government officials is in the hands of law enforcement to save lives immediately in threat from danger. An example would be in the even of hostage taking.

Now, as you have stated I am defying the Magisterium, please explain how ‘the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68’ is a blanket statement for everyone sentenced to death by the state?

The Magisterium has indicated there are exceptions, even though ‘very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’ Not everyone on death row is a participant of a gang, as you keep referring too.

We are Catholics. We are prolife, from conception to natural death. The world sees us against abortion, but divided on other means of death. I have posted a link to the statement made, by an authoritative man of the Church, ‘In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.’

Once more, and I don’t know if there is anyone, please show me an authoritative man of the Church who currently supports the blanket use of capital punishment?

I don’t know what all the hub-bub about ending the death penalty. First of all most Western nations have already ended capital punishment. Second DP is a long, arduous, judicial process, it’s not “guilty”; slam the gavel and flip on the switch. Death row inmates have numerous months for appeal.

I think Catholics need to be worried a little bit more about all the numerous and mundane laws that are putting untold amount of people in prison. Not to mention that more and more kids are engaging in heinous crimes that are giving them life sentences and permanently destroying their lives. These are real crises not the DP which the numbers are consistently declining over the years as states are progressively moving away from it.

 

[triumphguy]

death penalty opponents have become so detached from what the Church teaches that what the Church teaches as “rare” becomes for them “never”.

I’ve given repeated real-world examples of how the prison system is unable to prevent capital offenders from re-offending in the context of narcotics prison gangs, yet this example of continuing real world carnage (murders, narco-trafficking, extortion, etc) from imprisoned convicts is not enough.

but the Church teaches that the DP can be imposed, so if this teaching has meaning, then even the most ardent anti-DP advocate must believe that the DP may be properly imposed.

so, when? apply hypothetical facts to the Church teaching and give an example of when the DP is proper.

if the anti-DP advocates can’t articulate such, I submit you’ve substituted your morality for Church teaching.

Westerby

Change the system, or execute 'em.

Which do you think the Pope(s) would suggest in the 21st century?

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t know what all the hub-bub about ending the death penalty. First of all most Western nations have already ended capital punishment. Second DP is a long, arduous, judicial process, it’s not “guilty”; slam the gavel and flip on the switch. Death row inmates have numerous months for appeal.

I think Catholics need to be worried a little bit more about all the numerous and mundane laws that are putting untold amount of people in prison. Not to mention that more and more kids are engaging in heinous crimes that are giving them life sentences and permanently destroying their lives. These are real crises not the DP which the numbers are consistently declining over the years as states are progressively moving away from it.

Good point: use the money from all the legal process (billions of dollars worth) and put it into meaningful prison reform.

Also I think the reason why people get excited about the debate is this:

Imagine if most men did not beat their wives but the Church said it’s OK in certain rare situations.

Why get upset, you might say, it’s very rare.

 

[JimG]

I don’t know what all the hub-bub about ending the death penalty. First of all most Western nations have already ended capital punishment. Second DP is a long, arduous, judicial process, it’s not “guilty”; slam the gavel and flip on the switch. Death row inmates have numerous months for appeal.

I think Catholics need to be worried a little bit more about all the numerous and mundane laws that are putting untold amount of people in prison. Not to mention that more and more kids are engaging in heinous crimes that are giving them life sentences and permanently destroying their lives. These are real crises not the DP which the numbers are consistently declining over the years as states are progressively moving away from it.

I have to agree with this. Too many people are being imprisoned, and that’s not good.

Also, extreme cases make for bad law. Sometimes laws are passed because of outrage over some particular crime, and the law has bad side effects, such as the “three strikes and you’re out” type of laws, wherein a third conviction for a relatively minor crime can send a person to jail for life.

The thing about the death penalty is that it is rarely sought, because the hurdles are so high. I can recall a death penalty being sought in this state a few years back, in a case of home invasion and murder. The invaders repeatedly raped and sodomized the occupants, then forced them to rape and sodomize each other. They forced them to withdraw money at gunpoint from their ATM’s. Finally they took them to a field and shot each person in the head while kneeling. Then they ran over their bodies with a truck.

The crime might never have been solved but one of the victims unaccountably survived. The death penalty was sought, and if I recall correctly, obtained. Of course they have not been executed. It’s only been a few years. Appeals will be ongoing I suspect for another decade at least, and by then the death penalty might be repealed again.

In any case the Church’s current position seems to be that modern societies “have the means” to prevent criminals from being a threat to society. That’s the basis of favoring no more death penalty. But I don’t see how a judgement about a society “having the means” to protect its members without resorting to the death penalty can be anything but a prudential judgment of what modern societies ought to be able to do, rather than what they are actually able to do.

The intricacies of the justice system and the penal system are not so easy to sort out.

 

[Ender]

Prodigal Son1:

I don’t know: maybe recent Popes have had a certain animosity to the “culture of death”

Yes, they have. This is why they (prudentially) oppose the use of capital punishment.

There is nothing in His teachings that shows pro-death penalty. I believe it’s greatly mistaken to try and convey such a message.

If it is greatly mistaken to convey such a message then you are stating that the Church herself has been greatly mistaken for nearly 2000 years because that was exactly the message she taught.

To take your position is to say the Church is wrong, even for a much shorter time period.

There is no reason for me to claim the Church is wrong since I have been saying that her current opposition is prudential, not doctrinal.

We can search the history of the Church and find differences between the various men of the Church through time; I gave examples of public penances, indulgences, not allowed to marry a person of another faith, etc.

Do not compare formal teaching of the Church with the misconduct of individuals. The teaching of the Church on this issue was consistent from the very beginning going back to St. Paul.

What is happening in this discussion is that people are trumping current leaders of the Church with leaders who give support to something they personally view as righteous. In my opinion, it’s picking and choosing for secular views.

You have an historically inaccurate view of who held which position.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 Dulles)

It seems that as the world has evolved, teachings can also evolve. This gives possibility of those men of the Church, with what appears to be differences in teaching, could all be correct.

Do not confuse evolution with repudiation. If the current position was doctrine it would be a complete reversal of previous doctrine.

Penal systems have changed over time…

Do you really believe the morality of capital punishment is determined by advances in penal systems? If that was so then the morality of its use would be determined not by theologians but by sociologists and statisticians.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Would you please provide current teachings from authoritative men of the Church supporting the death penalty?

The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Change the system, or execute 'em.

Which do you think the Pope(s) would suggest in the 21st century?

I wish the Pope(s) would come up with a concrete solution to preventing prison gangs from continuing to operate from behind bars, because incarcerating these criminals isn’t working.

I know that people opposed to the DP in defiance of the CCC rely on meaningless handwave arguments instead of addressing facts.

Westerby

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If it is greatly mistaken to convey such a message then you are stating that the Church herself has been greatly mistaken for nearly 2000 years because that was exactly the message she taught.

The opposing side is saying the current Church is mistaken, without responding to the point of evolving; penal systems and teachings becoming more defined.

There is no reason for me to claim the Church is wrong since I have been saying that her current opposition is prudential, not doctrinal.

Yes, you have. You’ve also avoided saying that the past teachings are also prudential.

Do not compare formal teaching of the Church with the misconduct of individuals. The teaching of the Church on this issue was consistent from the very beginning going back to St. Paul.

Are you saying the men of today are exhibiting misconduct? I wasn’t saying there was a misconduct, but a defining, or evolving of teaching through time.

You have an historically inaccurate view of who held which position.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 Dulles)
Do not confuse evolution with repudiation. If the current position was doctrine it would be a complete reversal of previous doctrine.
Do you really believe the morality of capital punishment is determined by advances in penal systems? If that was so then the morality of its use would be determined not by theologians but by sociologists and statisticians.

Ender

The support of capital punishment was not ‘doctrinal’ at any time, in that it could not be changed. If that were so, then our Pope would be in error more than in a prudential judgment.

I believe it’s man’s desire for vengeance, or retribution, that views a penal system as inadequate so as not to have the ability to protect the public through other means than capital punishment. This is because of the lack of addressing the innocents executed through a flaws legislation of capital punishment.

I have asked, sincerely, what authoritative men of the Church today teach support for capital punishment? Some continue to search history to find snippets to support their view on capital punishment, while discounting current teachers as ‘mistaken’.

I have said that I can see how men that seem to be on different sides of the issue through time could have possibly been correct, according to the times they lived in.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
Ender

Is that statement correct over statements made in more recent years?

SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM
BULLETIN

II ORDINARY SPECIAL ASSEMBLY FOR AFRICA
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
4-25 OCTOBER 2009

This Synod calls for the total and universal abolition of the death penalty.

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO HIS EXCELLENCY
Mr. HÉCTOR FEDERICO LING ALTAMIRANO,
NEW AMBASSADOR OF MEXICO
TO THE HOLY SEE*

Friday, 10 July 2009

One can never sufficiently insist that the right to life must be recognized in its full breadth. In fact every person deserves respect and solidarity from the moment of his conception to his natural death. This noble cause, in which many men and women are courageously involved, must also be supported by the civil authorities in the promotion of just laws and effective public policies that take into account the very great value that every human being possesses at every moment of his life. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge joyfully the initiative of Mexico which, in 2005, eliminated capital punishment from its legislation, as well as the recent measures that some of its States have adopted to protect human life from its origins. These measures regarding such a fundamental issue must be an emblem of your country, of which you must feel justifiably proud since upon the recognition of right to life “every human community and the political community itself are founded” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, n. 2).

INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE
AT THE 62nd SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ADDRESS OF H.E. MSGR. DOMINIQUE MAMBERTI

New York
Monday, 1st October 2007

The most important part of our work in this context is to ensure that the inherent right to life is respected everywhere. This fundamental right must be protected from conception until natural death. Therefore, we must work to stop and reverse the culture of death embraced by some social and legal structures that try to make the suppression of life acceptable by disguising it as a medical or social service. In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I wish the Pope(s) would come up with a concrete solution to preventing prison gangs from continuing to operate from behind bars, because incarcerating these criminals isn’t working.

I know that people opposed to the DP in defiance of the CCC rely on meaningless handwave arguments instead of addressing facts.

Westerby

The Popes teach morality. Governments legislate laws.

Was the early Church responsible to overthrow governments of the past? Look at the Roman Empire that ruled.

No one is in defiance of the CCC. I see you’re going to continue to twist the truth of what anti capital punishment people are posting, but it’s simply not true. While we have tried to address every point, there seems to be several overlooked from those who cling to the right of capital punishment.

 

[triumphguy]

I wish the Pope(s) would come up with a concrete solution to preventing prison gangs from continuing to operate from behind bars, because incarcerating these criminals isn’t working.

I know that people opposed to the DP in defiance of the CCC rely on meaningless handwave arguments instead of addressing facts.

Westerby

I think if you read through Church teaching you would see quite a few concrete examples of how prisons (indeed any human institution) should be run.

As they are now - overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded etc etc they are doomed to fail both society and the inmates.

I think that Capital Punishment is a red herring to “prove” that the “government” is tough on crime. Like most “tough on crime” laws they oversell and under deliver.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I think if you read through Church teaching you would see quite a few concrete examples of how prisons (indeed any human institution) should be run.

As they are now - overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded etc etc they are doomed to fail both society and the inmates.

I think that Capital Punishment is a red herring to “prove” that the “government” is tough on crime. Like most “tough on crime” laws they oversell and under deliver.

so you have nothing concrete to add, other than “somewhere the Church tells us how to make it better”? tell me what this is because I’m dying to know. because I’ve explained, repeatedly, and cited an FBI source, that shows prison gang leadership is able to communicate with the outside using attorneys (who have the constitutional privilege of client-attorney communications), using minor convicts and their attorneys, codes in regular letters and by other means I’m not going to discuss. my experience: I was approached, as defense counsel for someone in prison but having nothing to do with prison gangs, to pass on messages through my client. I refused, but I guarantee you that other lawyers don’t.

Westerby

 

[triumphguy]

So because someone approached you to pass on messages we should support the death penalty?

Does not compute.

Underfunded, understaffed, overcrowded due to a lack of political will and a reliance on “tough laws” that do little to address the real problems.

My real beef with the death penalty in western countries is that it obscures the real needs of society, and ignores the reasons why there is so much crime in a “rich” country like the USA which purports to be a world leader. Meanwhile the poor and marginalized pay the price.

As to concrete solutions: yes I’ll do some research for you because you’re obviously dying to know.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

So because someone approached you to pass on messages we should support the death penalty?

Does not compute.

Underfunded, understaffed, overcrowded due to a lack of political will and a reliance on “tough laws” that do little to address the real problems.

My real beef with the death penalty in western countries is that it obscures the real needs of society, and ignores the reasons why there is so much crime in a “rich” country like the USA which purports to be a world leader. Meanwhile the poor and marginalized pay the price.

As to concrete solutions: yes I’ll do some research for you because you’re obviously dying to know.

(emphasis added)

whatever you do, just stop misrepresenting my argument – if you do nothing else, stop misrepresenting me. I said I didn’t pass on messages but that prison gangs use attorneys to pass messages through to the outside and that’s how they order killings, among other serious offenses. I’ve also explained how attempting to monitor confidential communications causes monumental problems and actually hasn’t worked either.

Westerby