Bishops seek to stop Florida execution [CN-USA]

[Ender]

the State should be cognizant of it’s grave responsibility to reflect the mercy and love of God in its judicial decisions.

Cite a document supporting this claim. Here, for example, is a statement from the Catechism on the responsibility of the state: *Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
*

Such mistaken judgments have been made and, if “Thou shalt not kill” is indeed an absolute value (and I believe it is), then the State is subject to the very same condemnation from God as is the person who murders.

Once again you make a claim without supporting documentation; which in this case is not surprising as it is a complete misunderstanding of the commandment, as the Catechism of Trent makes clear:

*Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

Note also that Trent explains that the commandment prohibits murder, not killing.

The presumption at present is that executions are not just and the State bears the responsibility of proving that an execution is just before passing sentence.

A punishment is just if it is commensurate with the severity of the crime; that alone determines whether it is just. If the Church allows executions now, as at least theoretically she does, and allowed them in the past (which no one disputes) then it can only be because she sees the punishment as just.

If an execution is unnecessary and is carried out anyway, it is unjust.

I meant unnecessary to obtain a secondary objective … like protection.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I stand by my statement that there are people who are in that category and that they do not reflect the teachings or spirit of Jesus in holding that stance.

Sure, just as there are people whose opinions are no more than sanctimonious ignorance and do not reflect the actual teachings of the Church. Not you of course.

Indeed, it boggles the Christian imagination to think that Jesus could have pulled the switch …

The Church has long held that these actions are not appropriate for the clergy while at the same time holding that they are necessary for the state.

We know instinctively that this is not what Jesus would have done or supported. Indeed, we are given the example of Jesus interrupting a public execution of a woman caught in adultery and releasing her from those who would condemn her to death.

Cite something, anything at all, that suggests this is the way the Church interprets this incident.

we find that the emphasis Jesus places on mercy is greater than that placed on judicial action or the letter of the law.

Mercy trumps justice? Cite something supporting your opinion.

I think our courts should imitate the actions of Jesus in this respect and be merciful in justice, rather than vengeful.

The state has the positive obligation to be just and punish the criminal. This is not vengeance as you use the term; it is a duty.

Ender