California bishops call for end of use of death penalty

[Brendan]

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.

No, Monte got it right.

The law does not recognize that a fetus is not a person, but they actually ARE persons.

Their status is pretty much what slaves were before the 14th Ammendment, or Jews under the Nazis.

The too were not legal persons, but the actuallity and the law were not in sync.

 

[Brendan]

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."

When you did the bolding, your forgot to bold the word “effective”.

If murders are being commited in prison, or if gang members are orchestrating public harm from within the prison walls, then the means you are referring to are, by definition, NOT effective means.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

No, Monte got it right.

The law does not recognize that a fetus is not a person, but they actually ARE persons.

No, they are not. In our country, one becomes a legal person upon one’s birth. That’s the law. Before that, with few exceptions, one does not have the rights and privileges accorded a legal person. A fetus is not a person, therefore.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

When you did the bolding, your forgot to bold the word “effective”.

If murders are being commited in prison, or if gang members are orchestrating public harm from within the prison walls, then the means you are referring to are, by definition, NOT effective means.

Yes. As the Catechism said, “effective.” Your examples may those where incarceration alone, unless one is wholly isolated (and there are prisons where that is done), is not sufficient. But, even there, recourse to 23/1 might still be used as an alternative to the death penalty, if it is considered workable.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The great failure of 2267 is that it has caused people to believe that the use of the death penalty should hinge solely on whether or not it is needed to protect society. This has caused a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of punishment itself. Protection is only a secondary objective of punishment and by itself cannot justify any punishment. Punishment must be measured by whether or not it satisfies its primary objective: is it just? We don’t get to execute people simply because we believe it will make our society safer; we may - and we should - execute them if that is the appropriate punishment for their crimes, a consideration that has been completely lost in these discussions.

Ender

The failure of 2267? The Catholic Catechism got it wrong, and you guys know better than the Church?

Of course, if you and other like-minded individuals are so confident of your position, y’all are welcome to work to get the Church to change its mind and to reject protection of society as primary in favor of punishment of the convicted.

 

[pnewton]

The failure of 2267? The Catholic Catechism got it wrong, and you guys know better than the Church?

I think someone on another thread called 2267 just the personal opinion of Pope John Paul II. I guess this bishop’s statement may be viewed as just their personal opinion too, as they serve the church and the line at the cafeteria.

Perhaps the deluxe copy of the Catechism comes with White-Out.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

I think someone on another thread called 2267 just the personal opinion of Pope John Paul II. I guess this bishop’s statement may be viewed as just their personal opinion too, as they serve the church and the line at the cafeteria.

Perhaps the deluxe copy of the Catechism comes with White-Out.

LOL - Funny! PNewton! I think you are absolutely right!

 

[Brendan]

No, they are not. In our country, one becomes a legal person upon one’s birth. That’s the law. Before that, with few exceptions, one does not have the rights and privileges accorded a legal person. A fetus is not a person, therefore.

Monte said “person”, not “legal person”. It is a person weither the law recognizes it or not.

Following your example, would you really say that “no person was harmed in the Holocaust” since Jews were not legal persons?

No, of course not. A fetus DOES have rights, the rights iniate to all humans. Was is happening now is that those rights are being ignored by the law, not that those rights are non existant in the first place.

 

[ishii]

Monte said “person”, not “legal person”. It is a person weither the law recognizes it or not.

Following your example, would you really say that “no person was harmed in the Holocaust” since Jews were not legal persons?

No, of course not. A fetus DOES have rights, the rights iniate to all humans. Was is happening now is that those rights are being ignored by the law, not that those rights are non existant in the first place.

Of course Monte was referring not to the legal definition of “person” but to the actual definition of person. Mere “legality” does not define what’s right or wrong. To hide behind the legal definitions - “they’re fetuses, not persons” is to ignore morality. When debating slavery, did proponents say, " they’re 3/5 human so the institution should stay legal" ? The fact is, the only way people can defend the practice of abortion is by de-humanizing the unborn child, calling them mere “fetuses” and by fatalistic comments like " legal abortion is the law of the land and I don’t see it changing anytime soon, but I’m pro-life". Those kind of comments (and their logical extention: not voting for the most effective and electable pro-life candidate - usually a Republican) are excuses for giving up on protecting the unborn.

Ishii

 

[dudleysharp]

But, you have no problem saying about our bishops and the Pope, “Let’s look at these 6 errors of the Catholic Bishops.” and

“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.”

You insult our bishops, then decide that churchmen of centuries ago are more relevant to the question as it has to do with the modern world than those who compose the Magisterium today…

Rich:

I think it important to see how often the California Bishops are referenced within the Catechism - zero - and then how many times Aquinas and Augustine are referenced within that same document - many. In addition, both Saints are Doctors of the Curch, a designation which no current California Bishops is at risk of achieving.

I didn’t insult the Bishops, I rebuked them with a review of their errors and requested that they review instead of indoctrinate. I would be more than willing to review the Bishops errors with anyone but, so far, no one has seen fit to try and review the Bishop errors, specifically.

 

[dudleysharp]

The failure of 2267? The Catholic Catechism got it wrong, and you guys know better than the Church?

In such a discussion as this, there are often challenges and responses.

I did a detailed review of all of the Ca Bishops errors within their statement, the subject of this thread.

No one responded to the specifics of my review. I suspect it is because it is easy to the errors of the Bishops and those supporting the Bishops do not wish to review the Bishop’s errors, even more.

But they should be reviewed in detail.

Rich, I think it was you (but that doesn’t matter) that suggested I read 2267. I had both read it and had begun, but not finished my review of 2267, which I posted, hereto.

Again, no one responded, not even the party that suggested I read 2267.

The benefit of these threads is the ability to look in depth on these topics. I suggest those like JD and Rich, who are avoidinbg such an in depth review, resist it because their positions fail under scrutiny.

But, only an in depth review can reveal that. I have given detailed responses and encourage any in depth rebuttal, to which I and others will likely respond.

There is a much more in depth review of this topic at

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=470545

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Rich:

I think it important to see how often the California Bishops are referenced within the Catechism - zero - and then how many times Aquinas and Augustine are referenced within that same document - many. In addition, both Saints are Doctors of the Curch, a designation which no current California Bishops is at risk of achieving.

There’s a bit of a difference. Those saints are not part of the Magisterium, howsoever “great” philosophers they are (being a saint doesn’t make one’s opinions infallible); rather, the task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Yes, even the California bishops you look down on. It is not some long dead, and in Augustine’s case, long, long dead philosophers who determine what the Church shall teach and what the faithful are to believe.

Why debate this? I would not debate why the Church should reverse its position on polygamy, either, even knowing that such was certainly sanctioned in Scripture.

I didn’t insult the Bishops, I rebuked them with a review of their errors and requested that they review instead of indoctrinate.

And, their response?

I would be more than willing to review the Bishops errors with anyone but, so far, no one has seen fit to try and review the Bishop errors, specifically.

The right people for that would seem to be the bishops themselves, but I honestly cannot envision the Church turning from its current position to an actively pro-capital punishment position.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I suggest those like JD and Rich, who are avoiding such an in depth review, resist it because their positions fail under scrutiny.

“My” position doesn’t fail. I have no personal position. I believe, rather, that what the Church teaches in 2267 is authentic Catholic teaching, and that the Church is not going to reverse itself about capital punishment.

Debate is therefore simply pointless, just like a debate about why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is wrong or whether there was ever a female Popess.

 

[pnewton]

Rich:

I think it important to see how often the California Bishops are referenced within the Catechism - zero - and then how many times Aquinas and Augustine are referenced within that same document - many.

However, they are not reference in the section on the death penalty. Why?

The Catholic Church recognizes development of doctrine.
The Catholic Church looks at the context, including the historical contex, instead of proof-texting.

The Catholic Church does not say the death penalty is inherently evil, like abortion. Therefore in the fifth and thirteenth centuries, it was necessary. God has passed on his charism of leadership and interpretation from the dead to the living.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

However, they are not reference in the section on the death penalty. Why?

The Catholic Church recognizes development of doctrine.
The Catholic Church looks at the context, including the historical contex, instead of proof-texting.

Excellent points! I didn’t think of those, but you did well to show the why of the change from 13th century to 21st century Catholic thought on capital punishment.

The Catholic Church does not say the death penalty is inherently evil, like abortion. Therefore in the fifth and thirteenth centuries, it was necessary. God has passed on his charism of leadership and interpretation from the dead to the living.

Whether it was necessary or not, the Church was wise enough to take into account the milieu in which it lived. Even then, the bishops were not enthusiasts of the death penalty, but society was not ready for rehabilitation of criminals nor for a concept of alternatives to execution. Again, good thinking!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not so very long ago, I watched a program about the Aryan Brotherhood in prison. Evidently, those leaders in prison not only operate drug trade outside of the prison, but order executions outside as well, and not just a few of them, either. I don’t particularly doubt that the MM and MS-13 and other gangs do the very same thing.

And too, there are the killings and maimings and rapes in prison itself. It’s undeniable that simply incarcerating some of the worst killers does not protect others. Nobody can say that it does.

Imaginably, the creation of supermax prisons, and a lot of them, plus severe restriction of communication within prisons and between prisoners and those outside, could truly make it possible to protect society. But that’s not the case now. Perhaps those who are appalled by the continuation of capital punishment would do well to work for creation of massive numbers of supermax-type prisons first, instead of simply opposing capital punishment without also advocating doing whatever it takes to protect others from some of the worst killers.

 

[Ender]

The failure of 2267? The Catholic Catechism got it wrong, and you guys know better than the Church?

That section of the Catechism is not in accord with what the Church has consistently taught about punishment in general and capital punishment in particular. If you think my position is so obviously flawed you should be able to demonstrate it with relative ease.

Of course, if you and other like-minded individuals are so confident of your position, y’all are welcome to work to get the Church to change its mind and to reject protection of society as primary in favor of punishment of the convicted.

Good, let’s start here since this perfectly illustrates my point. The Church has already stated what the primary objective of punishment is and it isn’t protection. Reread 2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” Redressing the disorder has nothing whatever to do with protection; it is a reference to retribution. Well, it didn’t take long to satisfy this objection; do you have any more?

pnewton:

I think someone on another thread called 2267 just the personal opinion of Pope John Paul II. I guess this bishop’s statement may be viewed as just their personal opinion too, as they serve the church and the line at the cafeteria.

Perhaps the deluxe copy of the Catechism comes with White-Out.

How about statements from these cardinals, what do you consider them to be?

"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. " (Cardinal Dulles)

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger)

Ender

 

[Ender]

And too, there are the killings and maimings and rapes in prison itself. It’s undeniable that simply incarcerating some of the worst killers does not protect others. Nobody can say that it does.

The claim in the Catechism that “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…” is so obviously an opinion that it is not credible to suggest otherwise. This is not a moral question; the statement can only be supported or refuted by providing relevant numbers from something like the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Making a claim about the capabilities of various criminal justice systems is no less an opinion than making a claim about the capabilities of the New York Jets. So long as this statement is part of the Catechism it is simply irrational to claim that that book contains no opinions.

As you point out, this is not only an opinion but it appears to be one that is contradicted by the evidence.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

That section of the Catechism is not in accord with what the Church has consistently taught about punishment in general and capital punishment in particular…

How about statements from these cardinals, what do you consider them to be?

"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. " (Cardinal Dulles)

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger)

Ender

Since those two statements are in line with the section that you claim is not consistent with what the Church has taught, I say, “Huh?” Do you notice that the statement from the Pope does not grant diversity of opinion about the death penalty. Rather, it grants diversity of opinion on applying the death penalty (Cardinal Dulles’ “prudential judgement”). Thus, the only diversity allowed is the very area in the Catechism that you do not believe.

For example, one can not have the diversity of opinion that the death penalty “balances the scales”, deters crime or brings the family of the victim closure. At least if one believes in the death penalty for these reasons they are dissenting from the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue. That is fine for non-Catholics. Not so good for Catholics.

 

[Ender]

Since those two statements are in line with the section that you claim is not consistent with what the Church has taught, I say, “Huh?” Do you notice that the statement from the Pope does not grant diversity of opinion about the death penalty. Rather, it grants diversity of opinion on applying the death penalty (Cardinal Dulles’ “prudential judgement”). Thus, the only diversity allowed is the very area in the Catechism that you do not believe.

It is a stretch to interpret Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement this way but impossible to interpret Dulles like that. Dulles said nothing about applying the death penalty, he spoke about the nature of the teaching in 2267. He called it prudential and explained why. Nor is he alone in his understanding:

…"the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching." (R. Michael Dunnigan J.D. J.C.L [canon lawyer], 2003)

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating, 2004)

For example, one can not have the diversity of opinion that the death penalty “balances the scales”, deters crime or brings the family of the victim closure. At least if one believes in the death penalty for these reasons they are dissenting from the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue. That is fine for non-Catholics. Not so good for Catholics.

Except for the question of “closure” your other comments are directly counter to what the Church teaches today. There are four objectives of punishment, including deterrence and retribution, and retribution, which is the primary objective, is precisely about balancing the scales; that is the very meaning of “redressing the disorder.”

Ender