P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Amen, and God Bless you for the work you do.
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
It’s the snarky tone of yours that makes me ignore most of what you write - so I have no idea if you make sense or not.
As soon as I see stuff like “unless, as is possible, you believe that contract killings are acceptable so long as no convict is hurt” then I totally switch off.
It makes me believe you no longer practice law (if you ever did) since you would not get away with that in a courtroom.
Stay away from the ad hominems and you’ll get a better argument from me.
Of course executions are effective. But they do more harm to society than good. Try reading what Dulles, the Bishops and the Popes say.
If we rounded up all criminals into the Nevada desert and nuked them that would solve the crime situation wouldn’t it?
So why not do that? Because of what it would make society into.
J
Jerry_Westerby
Guest
you haven’t disputed the FBI’s report that convicts operate gangs from inside prison, and part of “operate” means they order people murdered. since you’ve already used a cost/benefit analysis as an argument against the DP (although what on earth a cost-benefit analysis has to do with with CCC is unclear), its a natural assumption that you’re accepting a certain number of innocent deaths at the hands of DP-eligible convicts who you insist remain alive. there’s nothing wrong with a cost/benefit analysis, by the way, but you should be honest enough to admit that’s what you’re doing.
so how many innocent deaths ordered from inside prison are acceptable to you?
you’d be surprised what goes on in courtrooms.
Westerby
T
triumphguy
Guest
I’ve been in a lot of courtrooms.
Admittedly they were British and so probably more polite than the ones you are used to.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Some weigh the secular to achieve morality for whatever reasons. Christ taught the men He chose and appointed, as did they to their successors, to seek conversions of the heart. The Church today teaches us to seek conversions of the heart. We can’t legislate morality. That’s part of the problem, as I see it. Man thinks he can legislate God’s will. God most certainly could force Himself, but does not. Man cannot do a better job than God through governments.
A funny thought hit me as I was getting ready for bed. Vatican state is a country in it’s own right…a country without the death penalty. Ok, they use Italy’s penal system; however, Italy banned capital punishment in 1889. Have they gone astray of Church doctrine?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I have a question for you. How many innocent deaths ordered through errors in capital punishment is acceptable to you?
J
Jerry_Westerby
Guest
since you’ve made a cost/benefit analysis of the DP, how many innocent deaths caused by DP-eligible convicts are you willing to tolerate? Since you haven’t disputed any part of the FBI report, I’m assuming you can’t disagree with its findings that this is happening.
I’m not interested in comparing the relative level of politeness in British and American courtrooms.
Westerby
T
triumphguy
Guest
Or just put aside the question of Capital Punishment and focus on reforming the system, because the Pope says we should.
Or Mr. Wesserby, my learned friend, nuke 'em all, since this constant dribble of executions just makes the USA look Mickey Mouse.
This guy, His Excellency Sheikh Professor Doctor President, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia agrees:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/7248002.bin
Or Mr. Wesserby, my learned friend, nuke 'em all, since this constant dribble of executions just makes the USA look Mickey Mouse.
This guy, His Excellency Sheikh Professor Doctor President, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia agrees:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/7248002.bin
F
Franciscanguy
Guest
I was thinking about this last night as I was playing a video game where you have to make decisions about who lives and who dies and what are you willing to do to get what you want. (Heavy Rain for PS3). What struck me was that my internal dialogue was similar to those in favor of the death penalty. Long story short what I was basically arguing to myself was utilitarianism. I had made a conscious decision to sacrifice lives to save other ones (that I “liked” or “identified with” more). I’m not saying this argument is being obscured with who we “like” but I think I am hearing utilitarianism from some people here.
And on utilitarianism the arguments I am hearing are parallel to the arguments people in favor of abortion make. The greater good is to allow to the woman to have the abortion ( for various reasons). We can talk about church teaching and innocence vs guilt but the reasoning sounds the same.
And on utilitarianism the arguments I am hearing are parallel to the arguments people in favor of abortion make. The greater good is to allow to the woman to have the abortion ( for various reasons). We can talk about church teaching and innocence vs guilt but the reasoning sounds the same.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Vatican had the death penalty until 1969.A funny thought hit me as I was getting ready for bed. Vatican state is a country in it’s own right…a country without the death penalty. Ok, they use Italy’s penal system; however, Italy banned capital punishment in 1889. Have they gone astray of Church doctrine?
And, as already noted multiple times, the Catechism does provide allowance for the Death Penalty, as does the previous Catechism of the Council of Trent and various authoritative writings throughout the history of the Church. Thus, it is appropriate for Catholics to hold the position that the state has the right to kill in certain specific cases and not just in cases where the criminal represents a danger to others though that is certainly one of the justified reasons for it to be used. Any suggestion to the contrary would be wrong.
Having said that, you are correct in noting that doctrines can and do develop over time. From that perspective, I actually think the stance in the current CCC is appropriate with one exception in that it ignores previously stated dogma that the Death Penalty can be used for purposes of punishment. There is a stark difference between narrowing or developing doctrine and going against it. In addition, to suggest that a complete ban of the death penalty has somehow become official Church doctrine and is therefore binding on Catholics, is wrong. As long as someone is within the Tradition of Church teaching on the subject, how it is interpreted is a matter of one’s prudential judgement. Am I suggesting that persons should ignore the last two popes and several of our bishops? No. I am suggesting that they carefully consider their words, inform their consciences, pray, and then make a decision.
As I have noted before, my own preference would be that the Death Penalty would become exceedingly rare. For example, in cases where gang leaders are still running their gangs, intimidating witnesses, etc. from behind bars; or, in cases where criminals have become so violent that it is a legitimate danger for staff every time they have to interact with them; that might be a place where I would consider its use. Again, as I have noted earlier, with strict judicial review.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Thanks for posting a picture so big that it has distorted the size of the thread.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Jwinch I’m actually in 99.9% agreement, with you with a couple of caveats.
Using the gang-leader example. If the state thinks it’s cheaper to execute the guy rather than reform the system (proper funding, staffing etc) then that is wrong.
Secondly:
You are going to have to try the putative gang-leader, and so is the state willing to implicate the prison officials, lawyers and other public officials who make this person’s activities possible (charge them with conspiracy)? Or will the trial and execution be a whitewash of the system?
For these and other reasons I think it is always better to listen to the Pope(s) and Bishops, since they are not as tuned out as Wesserby thinks.
Using the gang-leader example. If the state thinks it’s cheaper to execute the guy rather than reform the system (proper funding, staffing etc) then that is wrong.
Secondly:
You are going to have to try the putative gang-leader, and so is the state willing to implicate the prison officials, lawyers and other public officials who make this person’s activities possible (charge them with conspiracy)? Or will the trial and execution be a whitewash of the system?
For these and other reasons I think it is always better to listen to the Pope(s) and Bishops, since they are not as tuned out as Wesserby thinks.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Agreed. I don’t think financial costs should come into play. In fact, I have no idea how that showed up in the conversation.
If the state has evidence of prison officials, etc. who, through dereliction of duty or willing participation, made these things possible then they should take appropriate action as necessary to include criminal charges if they are warranted. That’s part of why I believe in strict judicial review.
Its always good to listen to them no matter what the situation. However there are areas where they are speaking with more authority than others. One must carefully weigh those things in light of an informed conscience and, as long as one does not deny something which rises to the level of magesterial teaching, make their own decisions. In a situation such as this, even if every bishop on the planet agreed with the Holy Father that the death penalty should be abolished, it would be hard to define that as magesterial due to the previous dogmatic statements the Church has made on the subject.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, he said all of that … but what is he evaluating? All of the comments you cited go to the point that the death penalty* “does more harm than good.”* He is giving practical reasons why it ought not be used; he is not making a moral argument that it may not be used. He is giving a rationale for the thinking behind the prudential judgment opposing its use.
Finally, regarding the comment that Catholics “should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops”, it shouldn’t be necessary to point out that the obligation here is to take their recommendations seriously, but “be attentive to” does not mean “must accept”. We are obliged to accede to doctrines; “be attentive to” suffices for opinions. Dulles was quite clear about this as well:
*Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4100
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
If this is what you believe then you have greatly misunderstood the arguments being made. In fact you have the positions largely backwards. What is the sole justification the Catechism gives that allows the death penalty to be used? Is it not “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings”? Is it not a utilitarian judgment that allows us to execute someone in order to make our own lives safer? We balance the threat to our lives against his right to live and decide to sacrifice him to save ourselves.
I suppose you could validly say that there is a degree of utilitarian reasoning involved in any prudential judgment; we are after all trying to determine the course of action that yields the best result. Utilitarian reasoning is invalid with regard to abortion since abortion is an intrinsically evil act but it is not invalid with regard to capital punishment since that is not intrinsically evil. There are practical considerations to make and this is entirely proper.
Ender
F
Franciscanguy
Guest
I guess I can’t buy the appeal to “tradition” as well. Tradition speaks to theological and moral ideas which remain fairly consistent. The practical day to day, so to speak, it really doesn’t. Thomas Aquinas denies the possibility of the Immaculate Conception. He also loves to rail on Jews. To say things never change is naive.
The ethical question of the DP has to do with the “consistent ethic of life” for me. If we are serious about it we should be consistent on it. Otherwise anything goes. If we accept the DP I see no reason not to accept euthanasia.
We join the likes of such great company in having the death penalty as: Chad, Sudan, Uganda, Libya, Cuba,Afghanastian, Bahrain, China, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Maylasia. Those are people I want to be associate d with .
I find the “drug dealer” argument a little weak as well. Can we agree that in vast majority of the cases (even the ones active now) that it is both uncalled for and over used?
The ethical question of the DP has to do with the “consistent ethic of life” for me. If we are serious about it we should be consistent on it. Otherwise anything goes. If we accept the DP I see no reason not to accept euthanasia.
We join the likes of such great company in having the death penalty as: Chad, Sudan, Uganda, Libya, Cuba,Afghanastian, Bahrain, China, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Maylasia. Those are people I want to be associate d with .
I find the “drug dealer” argument a little weak as well. Can we agree that in vast majority of the cases (even the ones active now) that it is both uncalled for and over used?
T
triumphguy
Guest
I don;t think I’ve ever written on these forums that capaital punishment is per se morally wrong (though I did think that at one time).
I’m arguing about is:
A. What I perceive to be a resistance to what the Pope teaches in this matter, and a certain interpretation of what people like Dulles have written.
B. A seeming willingness to apply CP because it is expedient not because it is most right.
C. A seeming unwillingness to address the underlying societal issues.
D. And that CP is not a cure for societal ills (and Dulles addresses this in the work I cited) , and should be used as a last resort in extreme circumstances.
And that in the circumstances wesserby talks about I can absolutely guarantee that the system would never entertain the thought of executing such a criminal - too many officials, lawyers, and prison officers would be involved for them to be comfortable prosecuting such a case.
E
Ender
Guest
This is the traditional teaching of the Church and it is what the Church has taught since the issue was first raised. This teaching has never been repudiated.
*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 Church has never taken an absolutist position against all killing; she has always recognized that, as unfortunate as it might be, there are times when killing another human being is justified and she has repeatedly taught that they are: in self defense, in a just war, and capital punishment.
Ender
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
- One poster keeps referring to the protection of the innocent in reference to imprisoned gang members still in control of fellow gang members; yet offers no thoughts on innocents affected through error of the capital punishment system in place. Why is one group of innocents an acceptable loss and the other has no acceptable losses?
- I do use scriptures quite a bit. It was scriptures that led me to the Catholic Church. As far as being so litigious with faith, by trying to know 2000 years of Church documentation, I don’t believe it was intended to be so for the laity. I believe the differences, or definitions, of doctrinal development are for the authoritative men of the Church.
Christ told us to ‘be as little children’. My approach maybe too simplistic for some, but it works well for me and I believe that is having faith like a little child.
Christ taught forgiveness and love, even towards our enemies; while using specific examples of ‘an eye for an eye’ from the Old Testament. Christ taught that those who fight to save their lives, will lose their lives, and those who give their lives will save their lives. To me that’s a call to give our lives to His teachings and He will take care of us eternally. With that said, I am no different than anyone else. I desire to live a long life, but I want to live it according to His will, not mine.
St. Paul wrote for us not to repay evil for evil, but to do good before all men. In my honest opinion, executions are directly repaying an evil for an evil, or an eye for an eye. We’ve all heard the Church teaches ‘no evil can be done to accomplish good.’ To me, we kill someone, an evil, so that innocents maybe protected, a good. Then when adding in that innocents have died erroneously through capital punishment, I really have to question the goodness being achieved.
I do agree that the Church has spoken in favor of ‘state rights’. This is still removed in reference to individual support as Christians in my opinion. What I believe we are seeing is a qualification, or defining, of the morality in supporting a particular state right.
Now that is only my personal perspective, or prudential opinion if you will. I don’t disagree with people disagreeing with men of the Church. We all must follow our faith formed consciences, and that is with a realization that there are instances where we are accountable.
I am open to continue forming my faith based conscience with advice from laypersons, as well as the men of the Church; however, when messages are masked with condescension, or other tones that appear to lack charity as required of us all, I am quick to discount the message entirely because it’s difficult to associate a good coming through a bad actions, according to how I believe we are to interact with each other, as taught by scriptures and our Church. Also, it doesn’t help me when I see arguments presented and questions I put forth ignored.
I’ll repeat once more, doctrines develop and I believe we’re seeing a development in our lifetime. Maybe I’m wrong, but no one has made me think otherwise up to this point in my life. As I said, this is my ‘prudential opinion’. I have tried to explain my personal opinion and how it is the best approach, for me, to categorize myself as pro life, from conception to natural death. It is not a judgement towards anyone else. If I’ve appeared to be too deeply involved, it’s for the sake of life, and not meant to be offensive to anyone.
I will probably slow down posting in this thread, but will continue following it and asking questions when I have one.
E
Ender
Guest
I think everyone understands what the Catechism says; the dispute is over whether the teaching is prudential or doctrinal. If it is prudential (as surely seems the case) then we may be morally justified in disagreeing with it.
Most of the practical arguments for using capital punishment are made in response to practical arguments made against its use and these inevitably arise because the Catechism itself gives a practical reason for its use: when it is necessary to protect society.
These arguments are certainly valid but they are not moral, they are practical. I am less interested in them because they have nothing to do with Church teaching on the subject. I am primarily concerned with the moral aspects of capital punishment.
No on argues that it is a cure for societal ills. The primary argument for its use is to satisfy the obligation of justice.
Ender
- Status