California bishops call for end of use of death penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosephdaviyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
contd

The complaint that this Catechism has removed just retribution (and therefore, balance, redress, correction, etc.) from punishment is based upon the reality that 2267 has allowed an improper and inaccurate evaluation of secular penal standards to dominate over just retribution.

While the first sections of this chapter (through 2266) detail the importance of retribution, as reviewed, above, the later section (2267) provides little time for justice, which must dominate the utilitarian aspect of protection. The Church miscalculates in 2267 and fails to realize the rational reality that innocents are more protected when murderers are executed, even though the Church enforces that reality within 2265.

“While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and primarily serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice–an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” " . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths." (5)

“Yet the presence of two purposes–retributive and medicinal justice–ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (6)

Justice is the soul of sanction. All other results - protection, safety and deterrence - although beneficial and desired, are a result of sanction, not the reasons for it. Rehabilitation/redress/correction/redemption/expiation have a foundation in just retribution, but depend upon the free will choice of the criminal who we hope will, by grace, avail themselves of those choices.

“The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566)
“The just use of this power (execution), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

contd
 
contd

We have another obvious conflict between two standards:(a) “PARAMOUNT OBEDIENCE” to God (Trent, 1566) vs man’s accomplishments within the error prone criminal justice system (2267, Catechism, amended 2005).

There is this additional problem:

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (7)

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

footnotes upon request
 
yosephdaviyd said:
Tradition in the Catholic sense is LIVING - it isn’t stagnant or fixed. The writings of Augustine and Aquinas on Capital Punishment are outdated.
Click to expand...
JD:

You may wish to tell the Church that. They used both, extensively, threoughout the Catechism, as references.

THis topic is being reviewed in detail at:

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

We try to avoid the silliness of trashing those two great Saints and Doctors of the Church.

Outdated. Oh my.
 
dudleysharp said:
JD:

You may wish to tell the Church that. They used both, extensively, threoughout the Catechism, as references.

THis topic is being reviewed in detail at:

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

We try to avoid the silliness of trashing those two great Saints and Doctors of the Church.

Outdated. Oh my.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to do much of anything really. The California Bishops and paragraphs of the Catechism have already moved Catholic understanding of the unnecessity of the Death Penalty already. In 50 to 100 years the Church will be out of the business of telling governments that they are permitted to use it.

Moreover, anyone who isn’t willing to step up and pull the lever or inject the needle should just be quiet about this whole thing. People who talk tough about killing people but aren’t willing to do it themselves are lame and annoying.

If you want to know what Capital Punishment looks like just look at the Crucifix when you go to Mass tomorrow. That will change your mind about supporting it. :eek:
 
dudleysharp said:
We try to avoid the silliness of trashing those two great Saints and Doctors of the Church.
Click to expand...
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.

I’d suggest that you go to the Vatican, and set them straight so that they’ll change their minds about the marvelous benefits of a death penalty so that the Church should not stand with the civilized world that has abolished that barbarity, but stand as one with those nations that appreciate the death penalty, say China, Iran, and Sudan.

That change will do marvels for Catholic prosyletizing.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Beau says this thread is about California.

Take Lacey Peterson, who was murdered by her husband, Scott, and she and her fetus dumped in the Bay. Yes, he was convicted of murder on two counts.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Beau says this thread is about California.

Take Lacey Peterson, who was murdered by her husband, Scott, and she and her fetus dumped in the Bay. Yes, he was convicted of murder on two counts.
Click to expand...
There could have been a law in that state to that effect. I may be wrong, but the conviction probably hinged on his murdering his wife. If it were murder to kill a fetus, then abortion would have been outlawed in that state, which I doubt it is.
 
yosephdaviyd said:
I don’t have to do much of anything really. The California Bishops and paragraphs of the Catechism have already moved Catholic understanding of the unnecessity of the Death Penalty already. In 50 to 100 years the Church will be out of the business of telling governments that they are permitted to use it.

Moreover, anyone who isn’t willing to step up and pull the lever or inject the needle should just be quiet about this whole thing. People who talk tough about killing people but aren’t willing to do it themselves are lame and annoying.

If you want to know what Capital Punishment looks like just look at the Crucifix when you go to Mass tomorrow. That will change your mind about supporting it. :eek:
Click to expand...
YD:

If you want to be part of an informed, mature discussion, there is a lot you have to do.

Start by showing us Augustines and Aquinas’s errors. I showed the Bishops errors and neither of you two rebutted them.

Do you approve of life without parole or 30 years in prison? Please become a prison guard so we can see if you are lame and annoying. Please try to be less juvenile.

EEK? Oh my.

If you don’t understand the difference between the passion of Christ and its foundations, as opposed to the execution of a murderer and the Church’s biblical, theological, traditonal rational and historical support for that sanction, please review the topics a bit more.

Again, a more in depth review is being pursued at

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7121539#post7121539
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here is my take on this issue: While Democrat catholics would like to conveniently ignore the issue of abortion - a source of embarrassment for them, I’m sure - I will not ignore abortion whenever the issue of the sanctity of life is brought up, and that is because the the right to life of the unborn is the right from which all others proceed. If the bishops in California speak out against capital punishment publically, then my response is, "if you are concerned about the sanctity of life, then don’t help Barbara Boxer (who voted to allow partial birth abortion) get re-elected, otherwise I don’t take you seriously. So I’m not making this about abortion so much as I’m being critical of the bishops’ being too one-sided and counter productive in their advocacy for the sanctity of life and taking the opportunity to point this out. I don’t think I’m derailing the thread in doing so, just offering a different take on the subject.

Here is what Pope John Paul 2 said: “The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” Maximum determination. Do you think the California bishops are acting to preserve the sanctity of life with **maximum determination **when they help Boxer get re-elected? I don’t.

Since you asked, here is my take on the capital punishment issue: perhaps we should just lock them up and throw away the key. There probably was a time when executions actually helped protect people - like in the old west, for example. I must admit to not feeling very strongly about the issue. I am intrigued by the question of how to punish someone in jail for murder who murders again. For example, if the birdman of alcatraz killed a guy in jail, what would we do, take away his birds? That said, if we allow killers to think about what they did for the rest of their lives in jail, then maybe they will repent of what they did.

Ishii
 
dudleysharp said:
YD:

If you want to be part of an informed, mature discussion, there is a lot you have to do.
Click to expand...
There’s no “informed, mature discussion” to be made about the death penalty any more than there is to be an “informed, mature discussion” about why the Church should accept abortion.

The matter has been settled. The Church’s position is clear. There’s not a chance that the Church will decide that the death penalty ought to be applied more and that the alternative of long incarceration should be set aside.

You should start by talking with the bishop in your diocese and converting him to your position, then go on, bishop by bishop. But, I warn you that neither they nor the Pope is going to change, your dredging up long dead philosophers notwithstanding.
Do you approve of life without parole or 30 years in prison? Please become a prison guard so we can see if you are lame and annoying.
Click to expand...
What a prison guard wants is not governing.
Please try to be less juvenile.
Click to expand...
Please try to be less convinced that you are right and the Pope and the Magisterium are wrong.

You like to argue? Fine. There’s always someone out there willing to debate or just “jaw-jaw” about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You might find that as relevant as trying to convert the Church to call for more application of the death penalty in the 21st century.
 
ishii said:
Since you asked, here is my take on the capital punishment issue: perhaps we should just lock them up and throw away the key. There probably was a time when executions actually helped protect people - like in the old west, for example.
Click to expand...
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
 
YD:

Your comments represent some of the reasons why I referred you to the other thread. I look forward to seeing you there.
 
I agree with the Bishops of California that use of the death penalty does not make for a more just society and support their call for an end to executions. I also pray for the victims of crime and that those who are guilty of murder will repent of their sins and seek reconciliation with God.
 
yosephdaviyd said:
“We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty-- especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,”

%between%
Click to expand...
This is the section where a good Catholic may, or may not, agree with the bishops. Whether or not we can do this is debatable, and I would bet a dollar to a donut that they did not get (name removed by moderator)ut from professionals in the field to evaluate whether this was true or not. It has become a common opinion that is often repeated as if it is some self apparent axiom. Can we? Almost all the time, I think we can. I have known situations where such protection is a mirage.

Again, where are the experts weighing in on this opinion?
 
The Didache condemned abortion.

Not sure that it disapproved execution of convicted criminals.
 
pnewton said:
This is the section where a good Catholic may, or may not, agree with the bishops. Whether or not we can do this is debatable, and I would bet a dollar to a donut that they did not get (name removed by moderator)ut from professionals in the field to evaluate whether this was true or not. It has become a common opinion that is often repeated as if it is some self apparent axiom. Can we? Almost all the time, I think we can. I have known situations where such protection is a mirage.

Again, where are the experts weighing in on this opinion?
Click to expand...
I get your point Pnewton, but expert opinion is sporadic and it changes over time. In contrast, the truth is the truth is the truth - it is axiomatic. For the Church, the expert opinion has always come from the Holy Spirit - the spirit of Truth. Remember the expert opinions rendered before Humane Vitae was released? They all disagreed and are still disagreeing and the culture of death goes on. What makes our Church counter cultural is that we don’t rely on the wisdom of the world. Consult? At times yes. Rely? Never.
 
yosephdaviyd said:
Remember the expert opinions rendered before Humane Vitae was released? They all disagreed and are still disagreeing and the culture of death goes on. What makes our Church counter cultural is that we don’t rely on the wisdom of the world. Consult? At times yes. Rely? Never.
Click to expand...
I think the difference here is that there can never be an expert opinion on a spiritual matter: that time at which a soul inhabits the body and a person becomes a living being. Don’t get me wrong here. I do think there is still only a small of the worst murders that still pose a danger. I also can respect, but disagree with, not making policy for the more extreme cases. It is a good argument. I also readily acknowledge my perspective is unique on criminals. I have been working with them for 24 years now, of all shape and sizes, as it were.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Start a thread, then. Your statements are irrelevant here.
Click to expand...
Here is what Beau said earlier: ". *First you have to say if they are wrong as to capital punishment *

Which I did.

and Beau said: "Well, this thread actually is about California"

How about those Huskies beating USC!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top