California bishops call for end of use of death penalty

[Rich_Olszewski]

This thread is about executions of criminals.

What crimes have babies been convicted of that they are deserving of capital punishment?

Abortion is NOT Capital punishment. Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. How does abortion fall under that definition? I don’t see it.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, I have hope that things will change with the new archbishop in Seattle. When the Seattle Archdiocese invited a “catholic” Democrat Abortion rights governor to a conference, I wrote to the archdiocese to protest. The reply I received was, “the conference isn’t about abortion, Gov. Gregoire is an expert on these issues, blah blah blah”. I then wrote the archbishop, and he replied: the governor is an expert, blah blah blah.

Well, we don’t have anything but pro-abortion politicians in the Seattle area. We’ve got Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee, both rabid pro-abortionists (see here and here). Both are 100% NARAL and 0% NRLC. Our governor is pro-abortion (and self-identifies as Catholic to boot). Our senators are pro-abortion (and one self-identifies as Catholic). The state representatives and senators are pro-abortion (see here).

If the bishop is going to have any current politician give a talk, he’s got slim pickings.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If the bishop is going to have any current politician give a talk, he’s got slim pickings.

Well, this thread actually is about California.

 

[Suudy]

Well, this thread actually is about California.

Umm, thanks moderator. But I was responding to Ishii regarding the Seattle archbishop.

 

[Adeodatus]

The two issues are related. I am merely showing that you can’t take these particular bishops seriously on the issue of the sanctity of life. They talk big when it comes to the sanctity of life as it relates to capital punishment, but when it comes to sponsoring rallies for pro-abortion rights people like Boxer, they throw out the welcome mat. I don’t take them seriously.

Ishii

A sadly common hypocrisy of American Catholics.

“I’m going to have my baby’s brain sucked out through a hose.”
“OK. As long as the process is safe.”
“Did I mention that already in the womb he has raped and murdered four people?”
“OHHHH, dark and bitter injustice! That rapist has the right to liiiiiive! Call the governor!”

Just in case anyone needs remediation:
Abortion = absolutely forbidden according to the Catholic Faith
Death Penalty = not absolutely forbidden according to the Catholic Faith

I’d be happy if the Death Penalty were never employed ever again. But it’s my duty as a Catholic to see that Abortion is stopped, and stopped forever.

If a Catholic of whatever rank condemns the Death Penalty but does not stand up at least as firmly against Abortion then I do not consider what he or she has to say as relevant.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

A sadly common hypocrisy of American Catholics.

“I’m going to have my baby’s brain sucked out through a hose.”
“OK. As long as the process is safe.”

NO woman talks like that, NO woman would say such a thing. Ask your wife if women speak so coarsely and unfeelingly.

But it’s my duty as a Catholic to see that Abortion is stopped, and stopped forever.

I believe that the best you can do is “try to see that abortion is stopped…” Unfortunately, I’m convinced that it’s here to stay.

If a Catholic of whatever rank condemns the Death Penalty but does not stand up at least as firmly against Abortion then I do not consider what he or she has to say as relevant.

You might do better not to be so quick to cut off dialogue. There are people who, out of ignorance and a dependence on the secular culture, need to have things pointed out to them and explained. If you dismiss them as irrelevant, then there’s no conversation possible.

 

[ishii]

Then so be it. Abortion rights politicians do not deserve to be given the respect that such a platform gives them. To allow Gregoire to speak at the conference is to gloss over her pro-abortion rights views - to say, “we don’t really think her abortion rights views matter much.” We need to have zero tolerance for abortion rights politicians - especially catholics ones.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Well, this thread actually is about California.

Actually its about the California bishops wanting to halt executions. But my response to the thread is to contrast their approach to capital punishment with their approach to abortion. On the one hand, they are outspoken on the opposition to capital punishment, but on the other hand, they invite pro-infanticide politicians to speak at archdiocesan events on Church grounds. I am merely pointing out that judging by their recent actions, they seem to care more about the sanctity of life of serial killers than they do about the innocent unborn children. That is why my first response was, “are the bishops going to invite pro-capital punishment politicians to speak at an archdiocese event?” Of course they wouldn’t. But they certainly have no problem inviting abortion rights supporters to their events.

I note that it is Democrat catholics who most seem to dislike anyone bringing up the topic of abortion, and I don’t blame them - I would have a difficult time explaining why I support Democrats who vote for abortion rights. What they don’t seem to understand is that all of the human rights come back to the basic fundamental right to life of the unborn.

Ishii

 

[Adeodatus]

NO woman talks like that, NO woman would say such a thing. Ask your wife if women speak so coarsely and unfeelingly.

Coarsely and unfeelingly? Good point, Rich. Sucking a baby’s brains out with a hose is coarse and unfeeling. It’s worse and lower than I am in the worst, lowest moment of my worst, lowest day. And dozens of women do it every day. So I don’t really care how they talk. Because it doesn’t mean squat. I care what they do. And what they do is have their baby’s brains sucked out through hoses, and their little bodies ripped apart by knives, just for the sake of their own vanity. Just to get their freak on with regularity. Just because they want to.

Coarse and unfeeling? Oh, yeah, you’re right on target.

I believe that the best you can do is “try to see that abortion is stopped…” Unfortunately, I’m convinced that it’s here to stay.

Here to stay? Do you know what is here to stay, Rich? Whatever we say is here to stay. This is a democracy, right? So we decide what’s here to stay. Now correct me if I’m wrong but you vote Democrat, right? I don’t want to misrepresent you and I apologize in advance if that isn’t true. But if someone votes Democrat, it is he who is causing abortion to be here to stay. That’s their platform. If everybody voted Republican, then no more abortion. Not instantly… they’d have to stick with it. But we could pass a constitutional amendment and then that’s it, brother. So let’s do that. Who is stopping us from doing that? The guy who goes into the booth and checks “Democrat”. That’s who is doing it. And he’s a man… a human being. He has free will. He can change and do the opposite. Why doesn’t he? Because he doesn’t want to.

Abortion isn’t here to stay. It’s here as long as you and I decide to tolerate it. Shame on us, brother.

 

[ishii]

A sadly common hypocrisy of American Catholics.

“I’m going to have my baby’s brain sucked out through a hose.”
“OK. As long as the process is safe.”
“Did I mention that already in the womb he has raped and murdered four people?”
“OHHHH, dark and bitter injustice! That rapist has the right to liiiiiive! Call the governor!”

Just in case anyone needs remediation:
Abortion = absolutely forbidden according to the Catholic Faith
Death Penalty = not absolutely forbidden according to the Catholic Faith

I’d be happy if the Death Penalty were never employed ever again. But it’s my duty as a Catholic to see that Abortion is stopped, and stopped forever.

If a Catholic of whatever rank condemns the Death Penalty but does not stand up at least as firmly against Abortion then I do not consider what he or she has to say as relevant.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Abortion is NOT Capital punishment. Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. How does abortion fall under that definition? I don’t see it.

Got it. Thank you for the clarification, Rich.

NOT OK to kill a person by judicial process.

OK to kill an innocent person.

If abortion is killing an innocent person, then the abortionist should be charged with first degree murder. But we could not execute the convicted abortionist.

But it’s perfectly OK to kill an innocent person.

So, if you get “ticked off” at someone who is innocent, it is OK to kill that person. OR, if you are not “ticked off” but just decided someone you do not know should be killed, it is perfectly ok to kill them … kind of like a serial killer psychopath. As long as you don’t first get a court order to kill that person. If you have a court order to kill someone, it is NOT OK to go ahead and execute that person.

Did I summarize that correctly?

[me talking: sounds a little schizophrenic, doesn’t it?]

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Here to stay? Do you know what is here to stay, Rich? Whatever we say is here to stay. This is a democracy, right? So we decide what’s here to stay. Now correct me if I’m wrong but you vote Democrat, right? I don’t want to misrepresent you and I apologize in advance if that isn’t true. But if someone votes Democrat, it is he who is causing abortion to be here to stay. That’s their platform. If everybody voted Republican, then no more abortion. Not instantly… they’d have to stick with it. But we could pass a constitutional amendment and then that’s it, brother. So let’s do that. Who is stopping us from doing that? The guy who goes into the booth and checks “Democrat”. That’s who is doing it. And he’s a man… a human being. He has free will. He can change and do the opposite. Why doesn’t he? Because he doesn’t want to.

Abortion isn’t here to stay. It’s here as long as you and I decide to tolerate it. Shame on us, brother.

Don’t blame us Democrats while believing that the GOP stands there with lily white hands. If not as many as the Democrats, there are still enough Republicans who want abortion to be available to help keep it available.

If I truly thought that a Republican win in '10 and '12 meant that abortion would be gone in a year, I might be willing to hold my nose and take something to keep me from gagging, and go to pull the GOP lever. But, I don’t see that.

And, just consider the mood in America. Where’s the agitation to abolish abortion? Go talk even to the Tea Partyists. What do they say - “less government, less taxes, less government programs.” I hear nothing from the big guns among them about making their focus the abolition of abortion.

I don’t hear any ground swell from ordinary working class Dems-in-the-street about abolition, either.

What I do hear is - “it’s the economy, it’s the bloated government, it’s those giveaway programs giving seniors pensions and health care.” Abortion is not just on the back burner, it’s on the back burner in the small kitchen in the shed outside the house.

BTW, I am likely to vote for neither party for the Presidential elections.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Got it. Thank you for the clarification, Rich.

But it’s perfectly OK to kill an innocent person.

Did I summarize that correctly?

No, you did not. Under U.S. law, one becomes a “person” when one is born, not before that.

Fetuses are NOT persons under the law.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Actually its about the California bishops wanting to halt executions. But my response to the thread is to contrast their approach to capital punishment with their approach to abortion.

First you have to say if they are wrong as to capital punishment.

Look, this is not an abortion forum. The issue does not have to be brought into each thread.

 

[dudleysharp]

Let’s look at these 6 errors of the Catholic Bishops

1. The infliction of the death penalty does not make for a more just society.
2. We believe that each human person is created in God’s image.
3. We are compelled to teach a consistent ethic of life and
4. to speak publicly that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life … and does not reduce violence in our soci

4a) the death penalty does not promote human dignity.

1. the death penalty is deeply flawed — with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects.
2. A moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not.

Replies:

1and 2) Justice is the foundation for the death penalty, just as for all sanctions in criminal justice are.

CCC: 2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

1. Killing is self defense, a just war and with capital punishment are all licit within the Catholic Church. The Bishops seem to wrongly believe that the seamless garment teaching has been adopted by the Catholic Chuch. I hasn’t been and cannot be, patriculalry with its lack of understanding.
2. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

4a) It serves human dignity in that the death penalty provides what is earned and deserved in a manner that promotes justice.

1. The poor are overwhlemingly those who commit capital murders. White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as black murderers.
2. Of course it serves the common good - it represents justice and it also saves innocent lives.

It appears that the Bishops should study Catholic teaching and tradition on the topic, as well as not simply follow the basic anti death penalty line but, instead, broaden their review, to fully understand what they are addressing, as opposed to their self indoctrination.

 

[Adeodatus]

Don’t blame us Democrats while believing that the GOP stands there with lily white hands. If not as many as the Democrats, there are still enough Republicans who want abortion to be available to help keep it available.

It always seems to come back to this “lily white hands” thing. I don’t even agree with the Republicans on many issues. That’s not the point. If the choice is between the Nazi party and the Clown party, I have to vote for the Clowns because they’re against the Shoah. Their preposterous views on public transportation don’t even come into it.

If I truly thought that a Republican win in '10 and '12 meant that abortion would be gone in a year, I might be willing to hold my nose and take something to keep me from gagging, and go to pull the GOP lever. But, I don’t see that.

That’s easy to say, but every time someone votes Democrat he only makes the abortion situation worse. If the Republicans dominated, we would see action on abortion. It would not come fast enough, but it would come. The Democrats are the pro-abortion party and the Republicans are the anti-abortion party. That’s the bottom line here.

And, just consider the mood in America. Where’s the agitation to abolish abortion? Go talk even to the Tea Partyists. What do they say - “less government, less taxes, less government programs.” I hear nothing from the big guns among them about making their focus the abolition of abortion.

I don’t hear any ground swell from ordinary working class Dems-in-the-street about abolition, either.

What I do hear is - “it’s the economy, it’s the bloated government, it’s those giveaway programs giving seniors pensions and health care.” Abortion is not just on the back burner, it’s on the back burner in the small kitchen in the shed outside the house.

Maybe. A lot of it depends on the media… even Fox News isn’t pro-life. You never hear anybody report on 40 Days for Life or anything like that. We as Catholics are probably not doing enough. We’re not making the issue visible. There’s enough of us that we could handle this whole thing at the ballot box, if we wanted to. Probably even despite the sabotage of those ‘Catholic’ millionaires in Cape Cod and Hollywood.

BTW, I am likely to vote for neither party for the Presidential elections.

Well, as long as you vote for a pro-life candidate from a party with a pro-life platform, that’s good enough for me. I only singled you out because you were nice enough to respond, and with coherence.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Let’s look at these 6 errors of the Catholic Bishops.

It appears that the Bishops should study Catholic teaching and tradition on the topic, as well as not simply follow the basic anti death penalty line but, instead, broaden their review, to fully understand what they are addressing, as opposed to their self indoctrination.

I suggest that you read the Catholic Catechism, which, while it might not suit those who are certain that the bishops, the Pope, and the clergy are in error, believing that they are more knowledgeable than the Church and the Magisterium, is something that is trusted to be something more than self-indoctrination and a “line”:

Catholic Catechism No. 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 with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

 

[yosephdaviyd]

It appears that the Bishops should study Catholic teaching and tradition on the topic, as well as not simply follow the basic anti death penalty line but, instead, broaden their review, to fully understand what they are addressing, as opposed to their self indoctrination.

Tradition in the Catholic sense is LIVING - it isn’t stagnant or fixed. The writings of Augustine and Aquinas on Capital Punishment are outdated. They had no clue that one day prisons could be secure enough to hold people for their entire lives and they had no understanding of judges being able to impose life sentences without the possibility of parole.

As soon as people start seeing the face of Christ on every living human they will stop murdering them and start showing them mercy, compassion, and empathy.

 

[dudleysharp]

I suggest that you read the Catholic Catechism, wh****

This is being reviewed in great detail at

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7121539#post7121539

but,

I have. In regard to 2267, for which I have not completed my response:

HEREAFTER, THE CATECHISM HAS SOME PROBLEMS

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.”

This passage could hardly be more misleading.

The traditional teachings of the Church neither exclude recourse to the death penalty nor so restrict it as to make it, virtually, useless, as 2267 imagines. Much more often, biblical instruction and tradition insist on the death penalty being imposed, describes those many sins/crimes for which it shall be imposed and, otherwise, reviews the legitimacy of the death penalty.

The works of biblical scholars and theologians through today (2010) provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings in conflict with that support. This is reinforced with both the word and deeds of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit in the New Testament (see paragraphs/references 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, within Reference 2 and see also 5, below).
The extraordinary limitations on the death penalty, imposed by the imaginings of 2267, conflict with reason, reality and established Church teachings.

There is an obvious conflict between:

(a) the ill conceived 2267 “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” and

(b) 2267 rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM” and 2265 the “common good” “REQUIRES” an unjust aggressor be rendered “UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM”, which is in concert with 2260 “If ANYONE sheds the blood of man, by man SHALL his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for ALL TIME" – all of which contradict (a). My CAPS for emphasis.

The contention that the new limitation in (a) above is a product of evolving doctrine is in error. It is, instead, a doctrinal disaster which conflicts with well known teachings. (review all of Reference 2, starting with 1-4, therein and see also 5, below).

Such obvious conflicts shouldn’t exist within the Catechism and show how poorly considered and constructed this subject was.

2267: “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.”

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiciton.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

contd

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity.

2267 "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).

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. Do the authors of the Catechism have no grasp of reality? (4) Apparently not.

The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution. “Unable to inflict harm” (2265) has the same meaning as “impossible to do harm”.

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.

It is as if the Church didn’t consider that executed murderers cannot harm, again, but that livings murderers can and do.

Why has the Church chosen to depend upon widely varying and error prone incarceration systems, when the reality is that so many innocents are caused further suffering by known unjust aggressors, because of the failings in those systems?

It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such sufferring. (3&4)

And why has the Church done this when it commands “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” ? 2265

Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.

The only way to, humanly, make a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is to execute them. Rationally, factually, there is no other way.

What the Church has done is to reverse its longstanding emphasis on protecting innocents. This Catechism, to the contrary, has decided to give much more deference to guilty murderers than it has for protecting the innocent or defending society.

There are at least four Church recognized foundations for criminal sanction; 1) defense of society against the criminal; 2) rehabilitation of the criminal; 3) retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression and 4) deterrence.

There is a 5th, biblical instruction, theology, tradition and reason which must guide the 4 others. They aren’t mentioned, because they are a constant.

All of those foundations are better met with the death penalty than by lesser sanctions.

cont