Baltimore: basilica illuminated in honor of death penalty repeal [CWN]

[livingwordunity]

I just came from confession there earlier today. It truly is a beautiful Basilica, so yes put that on your “to do” list for sure! And while there, walk down one block hang a right to 114 West Saratoga Street and visit St Alphonsus Church
St John Neumann Shrine, St John Neumann was pastor there 1851-1852. From the Basilica, you can walk there in under three minutes! That’s where I usually go to confession and First Saturday Mass.
View attachment 17163
Now about the comments on my home state, the great er, not so great state of Md. We also have the dishonor of employing pond scum here. Dr. Leroy Carhart, and I use the term doctor loosely, has been doing late-term abortions at Germantown Md. Many on here are familiar with his evil doings…29-year-old Jennifer McKenna Morbelli, just one of his victims. God rest her soul!..Ah yes, Maryland, my Maryland…not!

Peace, Mark

Yes. I am well aware of Leroy Carhart because I lived in Maryland before recently moving to Ohio. I think the ones who say “good for Maryland, a Pro-Life state” have no idea what goes on there because either they don’t live there or maybe because some don’t think that abortion is murder.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I am for a real end to the death penalty not one that ignores the death penalty for the innocent (abortion).

Livingwordunity, it’s really admirable that you are so fired up about defending the innocent. I think that’s very commendable!!

However, it’s also commendable to rejoice with your brothers and sisters when small steps are taken toward the realization of the justice we all seek in common.

That your brothers and sisters are rejoicing at the repeal of the death penalty is no indication that they are not real seekers of justice for the innocent and the unborn, just as you are. Nor does it indicate that they are unaware (or are ignoring the fact) that there is a lot more (hard) work to be done with respect to justice for the innocent.

So your refusal to rejoice with them comes across as a judgment on their joy or an admonition that, when good is done in one place but not in another, the good that is done cannot be celebrated as good. This is a very strange and even puritanical way of looking at things. It’s like saying to someone who has received good news of a loved one’s health and well-being, “How can you be happy when somewhere someone else’s loved one is still suffering?”

Also, I don’t know that an “All or Nothing” approach to implementing the goals of being pro-life is very practical. But that’s what you appear to be advocating. You seem to be saying, “Why get rid of the death penalty if you can’t stop abortion, too? What’s the use? Shouldn’t all this death end all at once?” And yes, of course it should. But if that’s your expectation, then I’m afraid you’ll never actually see an advance for the cause of life that you can be happy with, even when those advances are actually made (as in the repeal of the death penalty in Maryland).

We’re on a journey. We all want to be at our destination as soon as possible, if not immediately. But in the meantime, we’re on the journey. We need to be okay with being on the journey, okay with not being there yet…and keep moving forward. Otherwise, we run the danger of coming to despise the journey and our fellow travelers, and we may wind up abandoning the Way altogether.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[livingwordunity]

Grace & Peace!

Livingwordunity, it’s really admirable that you are so fired up about defending the innocent. I think that’s very commendable!!

However, it’s also commendable to rejoice with your brothers and sisters when small steps are taken toward the realization of the justice we all seek in common.

That your brothers and sisters are rejoicing at the repeal of the death penalty is no indication that they are not real seekers of justice for the innocent and the unborn, just as you are. Nor does it indicate that they are unaware (or are ignoring the fact) that there is a lot more (hard) work to be done with respect to justice for the innocent.

So your refusal to rejoice with them comes across as a judgment on their joy or an admonition that, when good is done in one place but not in another, the good that is done cannot be celebrated as good. This is a very strange and even puritanical way of looking at things. It’s like saying to someone who has received good news of a loved one’s health and well-being, “How can you be happy when somewhere someone else’s loved one is still suffering?”

Also, I don’t know that an “All or Nothing” approach to implementing the goals of being pro-life is very practical. But that’s what you appear to be advocating. You seem to be saying, “Why get rid of the death penalty if you can’t stop abortion, too? What’s the use? Shouldn’t all this death end all at once?” And yes, of course it should. But if that’s your expectation, then I’m afraid you’ll never actually see an advance for the cause of life that you can be happy with, even when those advances are actually made (as in the repeal of the death penalty in Maryland).

We’re on a journey. We all want to be at our destination as soon as possible, if not immediately. But in the meantime, we’re on the journey. We need to be okay with being on the journey, and keep moving forward.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I get what you are saying. I just don’t like how the governor is going to expect a pat on the back for this when he is a big supporter of “abortion rights”. I find the arrogance and hypocrisy of it disgusting. And I think that too much celebration of this will make most people believe that it was the only issue that needed fixing since most in our culture of death can’t even see that abortion is the taking of a human life.

 

[Debora123]

Grace & Peace!

Livingwordunity, it’s really admirable that you are so fired up about defending the innocent. I think that’s very commendable!!

However, it’s also commendable to rejoice with your brothers and sisters when small steps are taken toward the realization of the justice we all seek in common.

That your brothers and sisters are rejoicing at the repeal of the death penalty is no indication that they are not real seekers of justice for the innocent and the unborn, just as you are. Nor does it indicate that they are unaware (or are ignoring the fact) that there is a lot more (hard) work to be done with respect to justice for the innocent.

So your refusal to rejoice with them comes across as a judgment on their joy or an admonition that, when good is done in one place but not in another, the good that is done cannot be celebrated as good. This is a very strange and even puritanical way of looking at things. It’s like saying to someone who has received good news of a loved one’s health and well-being, “How can you be happy when somewhere someone else’s loved one is still suffering?”

Also, I don’t know that an “All or Nothing” approach to implementing the goals of being pro-life is very practical. But that’s what you appear to be advocating. You seem to be saying, “Why get rid of the death penalty if you can’t stop abortion, too? What’s the use? Shouldn’t all this death end all at once?” And yes, of course it should. But if that’s your expectation, then I’m afraid you’ll never actually see an advance for the cause of life that you can be happy with, even when those advances are actually made (as in the repeal of the death penalty in Maryland).

We’re on a journey. We all want to be at our destination as soon as possible, if not immediately. But in the meantime, we’re on the journey. We need to be okay with being on the journey, okay with not being there yet…and keep moving forward. Otherwise, we run the danger of coming to despise the journey and our fellow travelers, and we may wind up abandoning the Way altogether.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Ender]

Not quite, it is moral only in certain circumstances. Those of us that feel it is immoral, feel that way because we do not believe that the conditions required for moral application of the death penalty exist in the developed world today.

The morality of any penalty depends on it being a just punishment for the crime, that is, neither too harsh nor too lenient. Since the church throughout her history has acknowledged the right of states to employ it, she has always recognized that it is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. This is not surprising as God himself set this as the appropriate penalty for that crime.

It is one thing to believe that the use of capital punishment would have a generally bad effect on society (which is why I think JPII opposed its use) but quite another thing to say its use is immoral. The protection of society is a secondary objective of punishment and does not control its use. The primary objective is retributive justice. It’s use is always moral, although at times it may not be advisable.*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
Ender

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And I think that too much celebration of this will make most people believe that it was the only issue that needed fixing since most in our culture of death can’t even see that abortion is the taking of a human life.

I’d urge a little perspective–this is a small thread on a big forum run by a relatively small group of committed people who are part of a very very big Church ministering to a very very very big world. I don’t think anyone here is in danger of over-celebrating in such a way as to give a wrong impression.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Debora123]

The morality of any penalty depends on it being a just punishment for the crime, that is, neither too harsh nor too lenient. Since the church throughout her history has acknowledged the right of states to employ it, she has always recognized that it is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. This is not surprising as God himself set this as the appropriate penalty for that crime.

It is one thing to believe that the use of capital punishment would have a generally bad effect on society (which is why I think JPII opposed its use) but quite another thing to say its use is immoral. The protection of society is a secondary objective of punishment and does not control its use. The primary objective is retributive justice.
*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
Ender

Please read the entire setion in context rather than just cutting and pasting the one sentence you can use to try to back up your claim concerning the Church’s views on this issue:

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

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

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

2267, and the paragraph following specifically address the Death Penalty.

 

[Ender]

Please read the entire section in context rather than just cutting and pasting the one sentence you can use to try to back up your claim concerning the Church’s views on this issue:

2267, and the paragraph following specifically address the Death Penalty.

I am well aware of what that entire section says. The part I cited goes to a specific point: what is the primary objective of all punishment? The answer to that quite particular question is given in the section I excerpted and is not modified in the slightest by what is said anywhere else. No surprise there, this has always been what the church has taught.

Ender

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I am glad they got rid of it, but that is about the only thing Maryland will ever do that the Church supports. Now to address the other 999 things they support that offend Catholics everywhere.

 

[Debora123]

I am well aware of what that entire section says. The part I cited goes to a specific point: what is the primary objective of all punishment? The answer to that quite particular question is given in the section I excerpted and is not modified in the slightest by what is said anywhere else. No surprise there, this has always been what the church has taught.

Ender

In the one little sentence you cut out and posted, they are talking about penalty/punishment in general. Just a couple paragraphs down from that, they address the death penalty specifically and what the terms are for that.

You can believe what you want about the Death Penalty, but you can’t negate what the Church teaches about it.

 

[livingwordunity]

You can believe what you want about the Death Penalty, but you can’t negate what the Church teaches about it.

There is a strong suggestion in the teaching of the Catholic Church that we shouldn’t need the death penalty but, interestingly, never an absolute prohibition of it (i.e. saying that it’s intrinsically evil as abortion is).

 

[thewanderer]

There is a strong suggestion in the teaching of the Catholic Church that we shouldn’t need the death penalty but, interestingly, never an absolute prohibition of it (i.e. saying that it’s intrinsically evil as abortion is).

However, the Church does give very specific conditions under which it is moral. That is what Deborah has been pointing out.

 

[Debora123]

There is a strong suggestion in the teaching of the Catholic Church that we shouldn’t need the death penalty but, interestingly, never an absolute prohibition of it (i.e. saying that it’s intrinsically evil as abortion is).

As myself and others have pointed out numerous times, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty states that it is to be used only when absolutely necessary. This is not negotiable.

Fortunately, we now have the means to keep prisoners locked up to where the dp is no longer necessary.

“Twenty-five years ago, our Conference of bishops first called for an end to the death penalty. We renew this call to seize a new moment and new momentum. This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land.”
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up abortion as if I support it.

 

[LongingSoul]

St Augustine made clear that the death penalty can be validly used by the legitimate public authorities in certain times by Gods authority…

The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.

(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)

St Augustine isn’t saying that the death penalty use is subject to the discernment of that public authority but that its subject to divine authority, which as Catholics we look towards the Church’s discernment. Some believe that John Paul was an anti-pope but most catholics believe he is a very holy and even saintly man whose discernment reflects Gods voice of authority on the matter. Who can we trust to make Gods will for public authorities known to us if not a good holy man at the seat of Peter?

 

[livingwordunity]

As myself and others have pointed out numerous times, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty states that it is to be used only when absolutely necessary. This is not negotiable.

The part that’s negotiable is that the Church leaves it up to governments, on a case by case basis, to decide this as in how the state of Maryland could decide whether they needed it or not. And and in this case, they decided to repeal it. This is quite unlike something like say…abortion, which the Church will always condemn as intrinsic evil no matter what a government has to say about it.

 

[thewanderer]

The part that’s negotiable is that the Church leaves it up to governments, on a case by case basis, to decide this as in how the state of Maryland could decide whether they needed it or not. And and in this case, they decided to repeal it. This is quite unlike something like say…abortion, which the Church will always condemn as intrinsic evil no matter what a government has to say about it.

While the Church left the discernment process of whether it is moral in a given situation to the government in question She did not leave it up to said governments to determine what the universal standard of morality is for the death penalty, and, in fact, has explicitly said what those conditions are. The death penalty is allowable only when it is the only possible way to protect the lives of other humans. That is what the Church teaches and that is non-negotiable. Whether this universal non-negotiable principle applies in any particular scenario is, of course, debateable, but not the principle itself.

 

[livingwordunity]

While the Church left the discernment process of whether it is moral in a given situation to the government in question She did not leave it up to said governments to determine what the universal standard of morality is for the death penalty, and, in fact, has explicitly said what those conditions are. The death penalty is allowable only when it is the only possible way to protect the lives of other humans. That is what the Church teaches and that is non-negotiable. Whether this universal non-negotiable principle applies in any particular scenario is, of course, debateable, but not the principle itself.

Where in the universal teaching of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) is the term “non-negotiable” used in reference to the death penalty?

 

[thewanderer]

Where in the universal teaching of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) is the term “non-negotiable” used in reference to the death penalty?

Here is what the CCC has to say about it.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty,** when** this is the only practicable way to defend the** lives** of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

I don’t know about you, but it is generally accepted that if the CCC, the official teaching of the Catholic Church, makes a universal statement, it is to be accepted as the non-negotiable teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

Where in the universal teaching of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) is the term “non-negotiable” used in reference to the death penalty?

The onus is on you to justify your dissent in the light of the Churches strong objections to the death penalty today.

 

[livingwordunity]

There is a strong suggestion in the teaching of the Catholic Church that we shouldn’t need the death penalty but, interestingly, never an absolute prohibition of it (i.e. saying that it’s intrinsically evil as abortion is).

The onus is on you to justify your dissent in the light of the Churches strong objections to the death penalty today.

Dissent? Just because someone used the term “non-negotiable” and I asked them where in Church teaching they saw this? Why is the onus on me to search for and find a term that someone else brought up in the discussion? And how is what I said different than what you said?