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

[livingwordunity]

There are two basic options for punishing murderers: execute them or imprison them. You object to executing them because of the possibility of executing an innocent person; I made the point that there is a down side to not executing them in that innocent people will be murdered by recidivist killers. It is assumed that a small number of innocent people have been executed since capital punishment was reinstituted in 1976 - worst case would be about a half dozen. We also know, however, that there are over 100 times more recidivist murders than that.

There is no choice that frees us from the problem of innocent people dying. We only get to choose between more dying or fewer and it isn’t immediately clear why choosing the option that gets more innocent people murdered is preferred.

Good point.

 

[Ender]

Why do you believe that your personal opinion would trump the teaching of the legitimate authority of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

I have not offered my personal opinion; I have been presenting the Traditional teaching of the church. The one opinion I have given is that 2267 is a prudential judgment and even this is no more than the position taken by Cardinal Dulles. My opinion about what is or is not moral is irrelevant … which is why I have taken care to support whatever assertions I make with citations of the church’s teachers.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I have not offered my personal opinion; I have been presenting the Traditional teaching of the church. The one opinion I have given is that 2267 is a prudential judgment and even this is no more than the position taken by Cardinal Dulles. My opinion about what is or is not moral is irrelevant … which is why I have taken care to support whatever assertions I make with citations of the church’s teachers.

Ender

Your personal opinion about what is and is not moral, informs your whole perspective. To say…

Here is how I understand 2267:
1st part: The first clause is accurate; the clause beginning with “when this is…” is not. The church has never had the caveat that capital punishment be limited to its necessity for protection.

…This seeming disjunct comes down to your misinterpretations though. To think that capital punishment could attract ‘caveats’ is to mistake it for an institution in an of itself, rather than being a tool or instrument that merely serves the law. Any caveats would pertain to the law, not the penalty.

and…

2cd part: This presents two reasons for not using capital punishment: because it “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good” and other punishments are “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” The first is prudential, the second is troubling. Gn 9:6 explains that the life of a murderer is forfeit because of the dignity of the life of the victim. 2267 reverses that and holds that the life of a murderer is protected because of the dignity of his life.

‘Tis only troubling when the death penalty is mistakenly seen as a tenet rather than a prescription. Within the same bible verses God says “ As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” (Gen 9.7) How would we justify the practice of celibacy if we were not looking past the literal sense of the words to the Divine objective for the prescription? To withhold the procreative faculty deliberately is a natural response to man’s humble recognition that he is an unworthy and undeserving creature of an unfathomably perfect Creator. It isn’t an affront to God or contradiction to the prescription to withhold the Noahide Law within the environment of contemporary society.

Your arguments have demonstrated discord with both Aquinas and Cardinal Dulles views . Selective editing whilst serving a secular purpose in this broken world, does not serve the authenticity of traditional Catholic doctrine at all. Even Cardinal Dulles himself, quoting Pope Benedict on the developments since Vatican II says…

**“The misinterpretations [sic] must be overcome before an authentic reception can begin. Traditionalists and progressives fell into the same error: They failed to see that Vatican II stood in fundamental continuity with the past.” **

And on top of that, Cardinal Dulles falls clearly on the side of the Church in saying that the death penalty should not be used in our contemporary society …

“The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.”

Contemporary theologians, Popes, Church historians and anthropologists have no disagreement with 2267. Why, I am wondering, does Ender?

 

[CaptFun]

Meanwhile, the abortion death penalty for babies expands in America and especially in Maryland.

It’s just like how when given a choice between putting Jesus to death or putting the convicted killer to death the crowd chose to spare the guilty but put the innocent to death. It’s good to have mercy on the guilty. But to do so while having no mercy for the innocent is still very wicked.

I think it’s premature to celebrate this when the political leaders of Maryland still have blood on their hands for the relentless cold-blooded mass murder of innocent babies, even many at late-term.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year < Applies to 5 people in Maryland (***convicted criminals ***on death row).

Meanwhile the abortion mills roll on killing innocents by the hour.

A hidden cause of Baltimore’s population loss: abortion
Baltimore Sun ^ | January 23, 2012 | Diana Schaub
Posted on January 26, 2012 4:22:37 PM PST

Population increase is a natural sign of political health. By that measure, Baltimore has been sick a long time. Six straight decades of depopulation have reduced the city by a third.

The “experts” assert that immigration is the key to a population rebound. In his Persian Letters, Montesquieu reflects on the fate of the great cities of Constantinople and Isfahan: “People, attracted for a thousand reasons, ought to flock to them from every direction. Yet they are decaying internally and would long since have perished, had not their sovereigns in almost every century caused entire new nations to enter and repopulate them.” Reliance on immigration can stave off collapse but does not remedy the fundamental causes of decline.

Not as well-known is that Maryland has a very high abortion rate (third highest among the states in 2005, the year that the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene stopped collecting abortion statistics). The breakdown by jurisdiction reveals that Baltimore City is driving those deadly numbers, and also that the abortion rate among African-American women is at least triple the white rate.

For comparison: In 1970, Baltimore City abortion rates for single white and black women stood at 7.43 and 10 respectively (the abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44), with the married women’s rates half that. By 2005, the Baltimore rate was 86.2. The National Abortion Rights Action League, which cites that figure, did not provide the African-American rate, but it would be substantially higher.

Lest one think that poverty accounts for this shift, the poverty rate in Baltimore has remained relatively fixed at around 20 percent for decades.

(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com …

baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-abortion-population-20120123-8,0,1218817.story

Oh well. ONE night of leaving the lights on at the Cathedral is appropriately insignificant for all the “Justice” this actually accomplishes. Once one considers it does not apply to the innocent unborn … a work of Shakespeare comes to mind.

 

[Ender]

…This seeming disjunct comes down to your misinterpretations though. To think that capital punishment could attract ‘caveats’ is to mistake it for an institution in an of itself, rather than being a tool or instrument that merely serves the law. Any caveats would pertain to the law, not the penalty.

The caveat* “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings” *applies to the use of capital punishment. That is, it applies to the penalty.

‘Tis only troubling when the death penalty is mistakenly seen as a tenet rather than a prescription.

It is both. A prescription is “the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions”, which God plainly did in Gn 9:6. It is therefore also a tenet: "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true."

Within the same bible verses God says “ As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” (Gen 9.7) How would we justify the practice of celibacy if we were not looking past the literal sense of the words to the Divine objective for the prescription?

Different topics call for different arguments; what is true of one may not be true of another. Celibacy is a practice instituted by the church for the priesthood which may be changed at any time. Capital punishment was mandated by God and is* “necessary for all time.”*

Your arguments have demonstrated discord with both Aquinas and Cardinal Dulles views.

Asserting this and demonstrating it are very different things and require more than creative interpretations of their comments.

Selective editing whilst serving a secular purpose in this broken world, does not serve the authenticity of traditional Catholic doctrine at all. Even Cardinal Dulles himself, quoting Pope Benedict on the developments since Vatican II says…

I have no need to selectively edit comments; they support my position just as they are. As for Dulles’ statement, it was about Vatican II but since the new position on capital punishment came about thirty years later his comment in this case is not relevant.

And on top of that, Cardinal Dulles falls clearly on the side of the Church in saying that the death penalty should not be used in our contemporary society …

I have never disputed that. The reason I quote Dulles is that he was explicit in identifying 2267 as a prudential judgment. He was in agreement with it but he understood what it was, just as he understood the Traditional teaching on the matter.

Contemporary theologians, Popes, Church historians and anthropologists have no disagreement with 2267. Why, I am wondering, does Ender?

Mostly I disagree with the arguments used against capital punishment which invariably are contrary to church teaching. It is one thing to say “as a practical matter we’re better off not using it” and quite another to claim “the use of capital punishment is immoral except in the most unusual circumstances.”

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Mostly I disagree with the arguments used against capital punishment which invariably are contrary to church teaching. It is one thing to say “as a practical matter we’re better off not using it” and quite another to claim “the use of capital punishment is immoral except in the most unusual circumstances.”

That Pope John Paul II made a point of reiterating that the death penalty is “cruel and unnecessary and not in keeping with human dignity” is our genuine invitation to open our hearts and minds to the Holy Spirit. Reason precedes faith and reasoning requires open mindedness and flexibility. From the compilation of the CCC in 1992, through Evangelium Vitae and the revision of the CCC in 1997, we are left with no doubt about the nature of the death penalty in Catholic understanding. We can legitimately argue the necessity of applying it within the circumstances we live in, but we can’t deny that by its nature, it has the capacity, to be both an instrument of evil, counter to its divine objective, as well as having been an instrument of good within human society that served a divine objective.

We are privileged apart from anything else, to live during one of the most important doctrinal developments in recent history and have every reason to hope that this development will arrest the culture of death that is an affront the the sacred moments when life begins and when it ends. The sanctity or meaninglessness of life are established within the mysterious events of conception and death and Pope John Pauls vision on these particular moments is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ender]

That Pope John Paul II made a point of reiterating that the death penalty is “cruel and unnecessary and not in keeping with human dignity” is our genuine invitation to open our hearts and minds to the Holy Spirit.

Yes I understand what JPII said and I consider it an unfortunate comment. If we accept it as accurate then we have no choice but to accept that for 20 centuries the church sanctioned a cruel punishment that was against human dignity. Are you comfortable accepting that the church was so wrong for so long?

Reason precedes faith and reasoning requires open mindedness and flexibility. From the compilation of the CCC in 1992, through Evangelium Vitae and the revision of the CCC in 1997, we are left with no doubt about the nature of the death penalty in Catholic understanding.

This is inaccurate. The 1992 version of the catechism contained the Traditional teaching on capital punishment and an accurate description of what that tradition was. The change occurred between the 1992 and 1997 versions.The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (1992)

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. (1997)
What is disturbing is not simply that the teachings are different but the description of the traditional teaching is different. We may be able to change what is taught now but we cannot change what was taught in the past.

We are privileged apart from anything else, to live during one of the most important doctrinal developments in recent history and have every reason to hope that this development will arrest the culture of death that is an affront the the sacred moments when life begins and when it ends.

If only the church hadn’t supported the culture of death for two millennia…

The sanctity or meaninglessness of life are established within the mysterious events of conception and death and Pope John Paul’s vision on these particular moments is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Do you ever wonder why the Holy Spirit would allow the church to teach error for so long?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
That Pope John Paul II made a point of reiterating that the death penalty is “cruel and unnecessary and not in keeping with human dignity” is our genuine invitation to open our hearts and minds to the Holy Spirit.

Either the Church in the last 20 centuries is heretical or the Church now is heretical? Why are you setting up a false dichotomy from the outset here? People do tend to do that in many areas of life thinking that it protects them in some way, but it really only stunts their growth and maturity on matters. A thing the spiritual exercises teaches one is not to make hard and fast decisions based on confusion or doubt. Reserve those judgement until the ‘final analysis’.

Reason precedes faith and reasoning requires open mindedness and flexibility. From the compilation of the CCC in 1992, through Evangelium Vitae and the revision of the CCC in 1997, we are left with no doubt about the nature of the death penalty in Catholic understanding.

This is inaccurate. The 1992 version of the catechism contained the Traditional teaching on capital punishment and an accurate description of what that tradition was. The change occurred between the 1992 and 1997 versions.The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (1992)

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. (1997)

What is disturbing is not simply that the teachings are different but the description of the traditional teaching is different. We may be able to change what is taught now but we cannot change what was taught in the past.

If you had posted the preliminaries to the 1992 version, it shows more accurate context…

*“2266**Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason **the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” *

In dealing with the fourth commandment the CCC quotes Sirach 30.1 “A father who loves his son will whip him often, so that he can be proud of him later.” and we ourselves invoke Proverbs 13.24 “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”

That this is not an appropriate prescription across the board for today, is not rejecting the teaching or making it an error in the past. Humankind is by nature evolutionary. God created us this way. We have to embrace that to our understanding of doctrine also lest we stagnate and become irrelevant against the will of God.

If only the church hadn’t supported the culture of death for two millennia…
Do you ever wonder why the Holy Spirit would allow the church to teach error for so long?

None of us has the capacity to know the future and dictate the minds of our descendants. Church doctrine doesn’t do that either. That you believe that because doctrine defends the death penalty as not intrinsically evil, it automatically makes it an intrinsic good, is the error on your part.

 

[Ender]

Either the Church in the last 20 centuries is heretical or the Church now is heretical? Why are you setting up a false dichotomy from the outset here?

JPII called the death penalty cruel, unnecessary, and an affront to man’s dignity. He argued that modern penal systems have rendered it unnecessary but if it is cruel now it how could it have been less cruel in the past? If it offends man’s dignity now how could it not have equally offended that dignity in the past? Has man’s dignity changed? If the present position contains a repudiation of the former position on moral grounds then how can the earlier stance be considered moral?

If you had posted the preliminaries to the 1992 version, it shows more accurate context…

The part I left out had nothing to do with the point being made. The description of the traditional teaching on capital punishment was significantly different between the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism and my point stands: how can the past change?

That this is not an appropriate prescription across the board for today, is not rejecting the teaching or making it an error in the past.

It is if the reasons for the change include a condemnation of the former position.

None of us has the capacity to know the future and dictate the minds of our descendants. Church doctrine doesn’t do that either.

The church does teach, however, that morality does not change with time or place so if capital punishment is an offense against man’s dignity today then it was equally offensive in the past. If it was not contrary to his dignity in the past then it cannot be opposed to it today.

That you believe that because doctrine defends the death penalty as not intrinsically evil, it automatically makes it an intrinsic good, is the error on your part.

I’m sure I’ve made errors but that isn’t one of them. I’m not sure there is such a thing as an intrinsic good so I would never have considered that argument. It would be better to respond to the arguments I actually make than to invent reasons for why I make them.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

JPII called the death penalty cruel, unnecessary, and an affront to man’s dignity. He argued that modern penal systems have rendered it unnecessary but if it is cruel now it how could it have been less cruel in the past? If it offends man’s dignity now how could it not have equally offended that dignity in the past? Has man’s dignity changed? If the present position contains a repudiation of the former position on moral grounds then how can the earlier stance be considered moral?

But you have to release the whole idea that capital punishment is an’ institution’ rather than a means to an end. If you equate it with circumcision which is ‘cruel and unnecessary’ in the culture we now live in and see how Paul spoke of it …

**“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” **Gal 5:2-4

But see what God commanded to Abraham back in Genesis 17:10-14…

“This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.””

“My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant” He says.

These type of developments accompany the pilgrim Church and mankind through the natural evolution of faith and far from being an affront to the laws, they shed new light on their fundamental core and bring the Kingdom closer to us.

 

[Ender]

But you have to release the whole idea that capital punishment is an’ institution’ rather than a means to an end. If you equate it with circumcision which is ‘cruel and unnecessary’ in the culture we now live in and see how Paul spoke of it …

First, I don’t equate the two at all and second I don’t know what you mean about capital punishment being an institution, so it’s perhaps inaccurate to suggest that that’s the way I view it.

“My” view of the death penalty is simply that which the church traditionally taught at least until 1995, neither more nor less.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

First, I don’t equate the two at all and second I don’t know what you mean about capital punishment being an institution, so it’s perhaps inaccurate to suggest that that’s the way I view it.

“My” view of the death penalty is simply that which the church traditionally taught at least until 1995, neither more nor less.

Ender

I hope that in time, you’ll have confidence to incorporate the strong and deliberately worded 2267 into that view of traditional Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

I hope that in time, you’ll have confidence to incorporate the strong and deliberately worded 2267 into that view of traditional Church teaching.

I already have. I consider the traditional teaching the moral explanation for the use of capital punishment and 2267 the practical objection to its use in modern societies.

Ender

 

[imidiwan]

Hi ! my name is imidiwan i’m from morocco and i’m new catholic . i have the message from the God in dream before 15 days in i want to change my life , be another person and have new friends .
Plz contact to me i want to know more and more .
:tiphat: ow.ly/m4ILk :tiphat:

 

[universityprof]

I already have. I consider the traditional teaching the moral explanation for the use of capital punishment and 2267 the practical objection to its use in modern societies.

Ender

Not sure there is a moral explanation for killing someone (capital punnishment or other). All we need to do is read the ten commandments “Thou shalt not kill.” It does not say thou shalt not kill with the exception of this or that. We get to mixed up with this teaching or that teaching of the Church when we should be looking at the Bible and the 10 commnadments. Pretty simple interpretation.

 

[LongingSoul]

Not sure there is a moral explanation for killing someone (capital punnishment or other). All we need to do is read the ten commandments “Thou shalt not kill.” It does not say thou shalt not kill with the exception of this or that. We get to mixed up with this teaching or that teaching of the Church when we should be looking at the Bible and the 10 commnadments. Pretty simple interpretation.

My observation of some death penalty proponents, is that they see the fifth commandment as the exception to the death penalty. That strange view has arisen out of firstly beholding the death penalty as a sacred and enshrined institution in and of itself. The Death Penalty. … rather than a mere legal tool of the State in service of the communities safety and wellbeing. The Church has dis-endorsed its use as being in service to the will of God in this day and age. It is now cruel and unnecessary and not in keeping with human dignity.

 

[mitex]

Can’t we just save both Babies and stop the death penalty?

Many of you are making it out like we can’t do both. Of course we can!

 

[Ender]

Not sure there is a moral explanation for killing someone (capital punishment or other). All we need to do is read the ten commandments “Thou shalt not kill.” It does not say thou shalt not kill with the exception of this or that. We get to mixed up with this teaching or that teaching of the Church when we should be looking at the Bible and the 10 commandments. Pretty simple interpretation.

It might be a simple interpretation but it is not an accurate one; at least it is not one the church has ever made. She has always taught that an execution is in fact an exception to the commandment against killing.“The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows 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. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, 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 the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.” (Augustine, City of God)
Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church has dis-endorsed its use as being in service to the will of God in this day and age. It is now cruel and unnecessary and not in keeping with human dignity.

It is not possible for the same act to be moral in the past and immoral now or vice versa. If capital punishment is cruel today it has always been cruel. If it offends human dignity now it offended it equally when the church herself applied it. It is one thing to argue that it is unnecessary, as that determination actually could change from one instance to another, but cruelty cannot change. If capital punishment is cruel today then the church is guilty of supporting cruelty for 20 centuries.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

It is not possible for the same act to be moral in the past and immoral now or vice versa. If capital punishment is cruel today it has always been cruel. If it offends human dignity now it offended it equally when the church herself applied it. It is one thing to argue that it is unnecessary, as that determination actually could change from one instance to another, but cruelty cannot change. If capital punishment is cruel today then the church is guilty of supporting cruelty for 20 centuries.

Ender

Ritual circumcision is considered cruel now but was considered godly in the past. (Circumcision for health purposes though isn’t cruel.)

The ban on women speaking in Church is considered unjust now but was appropriate to the past. (Male only Priesthood of course serves a natural purpose).

The death penalty is now a cruel and unnecessary option but considered godly in the past. (The killing of Osama Bin Laden is a just end though).

We have to honour the true evolutionary nature of man and the ‘pilgrim’ nature of the Church on earth in reconciling the past and the present.