Capital punishment and protection from error

[JReducation]

When the State denies punshment on those who commit moral evil ( such as abortion) it is in error. When the State extracts punishment on those who commit what the Church has recognized as evil,and the punishment is consitent with the crime, the State acts in the name God.

We have to clarify the Church’s parameters here. The Church defines abortion as the gravest sin against human dignity. But at the same time, the Church does not grant the State the right to indiscriminately punish for abortion.

The Church places certain moral duties on the State when it comes to abortion.

1. The State must acknowledge that it is morally wrong.
2. The State may not authorize it.
3. The State may punish anyone who performs an abortion.

Why is the parent not on the list of those who should be punished? Often the parent is a victim. It’s difficult to gauge the subjective culpability of the parent. The Church would certainly rule against the parent who forces the mother to subject herself to an abortion as is often the case with teens.

At the same time, the Church would be very compassionate to the person who procures an abortion when such a person’s freedom is compromised by one’s emotional state. The legal system is often incompetent to make these fine distinctions that the Church makes to determine culpability and degrees of culpability.

Whereas, it is black and white that the person performing the abortion is under no pressure to do so, if it’s illegal.

I say it this way, because we have places like China where the situation is horribly out of control. Healthcare providers are forced to perform abortions or face retribution. It’s difficult to gauge the degree that fear plays in the consent of the abortion provider. However, were it illegal, then pressure is no longer a factor on the side of the abortionist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Ender]

I believe that the demographics of the death penalty need to be considered because they do bear on the morality of the the death penalty. Otherwise more people are going to be executed because of their demographic than because of their actions. And to be executed based on demographics is intrinsically immoral.

I don’t think so. To be executed when you don’t deserve to be is immoral. It cannot be immoral to give you the penalty your crime deserves. What is immoral is to not receive a just punishment (without an appropriate reason). If your punishment is just, what do you have to complain about? If Bill and Bob commit the same crime, for which the just punishment is death, but only Bill receives this sentence, where is the argument that the solution to this inequality is to spare Bill rather than execute Bob? Why is it better to get both sentences wrong?

And I think that because of these and other practicalities, that when we are urged to use our “prudential judgment” we ought to follow John Paul II and Pope Benedict on this matter.

First, the claims of unfairness and bias are your own personal views; this line of argument was never taken by either JPII or BXVI. Second, if you want to concede the moral arguments I have been making and admit that the only objections to capital punishment are practical ones, then do so, but until that happens I will continue making the case for the morality of capital punishment and pretty much ignore the practical considerations.

Ender

 

[Ender]

1. No-one has said that papal teaching does not outlive the man, but that a Pope is not bound by the previous popes when they have not taught infallibly or on matters of faith and doctrine.

To claim this is to claim that ordinary doctrines may be created by the will of individual popes and this is untrue

1. Many teachings have changed or developed over the 2000 years of LIVING tradition that is the Catholic Church.

Again with the vagueness. We are not discussing “teachings”; we are discussing doctrines, which are not so subject to change as you infer.

The tradition that we* tradere* (hand on) is not a codified book of rules but the teachings of the living Christ who still speaks to us today through the Living Word, and who’s voice is always prophetic. It is Christ we hand on, not rules: the Truth not truths.

What a glib way to insist that truth is what we take it to be. If the traditions we receive are not truths then of what use are they?

1. You can only follow the lead of the Pope who is alive. This Pope is the Rock for our time and place, the one on whom the Church was built. Each pope is a pope in and of their own time.

This is complete nonsense. If we were to believe this there would be no reason to believe in the Church since it would represent absolutely nothing more than the personal opinions of the current Bishop of Rome. Morality is constant and unchanging; popes are not.

1. If the Popes cannot proclaim on moral truth then who can? And when the Popes proclaim we should listen.

If the proclamations of one pope are sufficient to wipe out the proclamations of all his predecessors then it is hard to believe the truth can even exist. Why would anyone believe what BXVI says when the next pope may reverse his positions?

The idea that truth is not fixed or that it comes from the mind of the pope is astonishingly bad. It is surely not a Catholic belief.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Nope I’ll stick with the moral objections thanks

And I’ll stick by my argument that where two classes (no social class, but categories) of people are treated differently, and this different treatment results in more being executed in one class than another, and where that class is demographically more poor, less well educated, less well represented then there is not “justice for all” and this is immoral.

These are not my personal views and biases thanks (If you want to hear about them I can start another thread) and they are the results of the research of highly respected institutions including the Church.

Also, using JPII and BXVI’s own arguments it is immoral since there are practical considerations why the death penalty should not be used in a modern state. It may not be immoral in a war zone, or an emergent state.

Therefore the application of the death penalty is immoral.

 

[sw85]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, brother JR – valuable as always!

 

[triumphguy]

To claim this is to claim that ordinary doctrines may be created by the will of individual popes and this is untrue
Again with the vagueness. We are not discussing “teachings”; we are discussing doctrines, which are not so subject to change as you infer.
What a glib way to insist that truth is what we take it to be. If the traditions we receive are not truths then of what use are they?
This is complete nonsense. If we were to believe this there would be no reason to believe in the Church since it would represent absolutely nothing more than the personal opinions of the current Bishop of Rome. Morality is constant and unchanging; popes are not.
If the proclamations of one pope are sufficient to wipe out the proclamations of all his predecessors then it is hard to believe the truth can even exist. Why would anyone believe what BXVI says when the next pope may reverse his positions?

The idea that truth is not fixed or that it comes from the mind of the pope is astonishingly bad. It is surely not a Catholic belief.

Ender

You are stretching everything I have said to an extreme…

Bottom line. If I was interested in what the Church teaches now I will first research what Pope Benedict says.

If I am interested in finding Church teaching that corresponds exactly with my own I will do that research too, but it might take me back farther than Pope Benedict. Then I get into a quandary: which Pope or Council is more right? And if they are pre-Vatican II for example then I start getting into all kinds of issues about the “validity” of VII.

That’s not the road I am willing to go down.

 

[JReducation]

The issue is that people are reading into a citation from a much longer document. The one paragraph in the CCC is part of a very long document. When one reads what Bl. John Paul wrote, he’s not changing the foundations. He’s addressing the issue of necessity and mercy. He’s saying two things. First, it’s rarely necessary, if ever. Second, mercy must always outdo justice, if we are to be true reflections Christ. He goes into the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church and points out how we have always believed this, but secularism is like a runaway train. The State no longer allows the Church to guide it, all in the name of secularism. If the Church can’t guide in specific situations, then the Church has to speak in broader terms. In broader terms, it is rarely justifiable, if ever, to use capital punishment.

That’s why the Church gives its blessing to religious communities like mine, whose sole ministry is to preach the Gospel of Life. Because there has to be a voice among Catholics that pulls it all together in a way that it’s comprehensible in light of what’s happening today. The hierarchy and councils explained this in light of what was happening at that time. The fundamental truth remains the truth. You can’t take rights away from the State or individuals. But States and individuals often forfeit those rights.

The tendency is to fight for the right of the Sate to execute, without challenging or setting parameters on how and when the State has the right to execute. The right to use capital punishment is not one of those rights that comes from the fact that it’s government. Government has committed atrocities in the name of law. Government needs a conscience. That’s what we must provide.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Ender]

The doctrine on the State’s right to execute is not on the same plane as the Immaculate Conception. In other words, it does not have to be embraced without a modification.

What a slippery explanation. Don’t you recognize how your approach to erasing 2000 years of Church teaching on capital punishment can and will be used by others to erase doctrines with which they disagree? You’ve taken the “truth changes with the times” position and I wonder how you would (now) defend the Church’s position on homosexuality or contraception against the very argument you have used against her doctrine that the State has the right to execute criminals.

We cannot modify the Immaculate Conception. It is what it is. The pope can certainly modify the rule that governs how and when the state exercises the right to execute.

The pope may be able to change rules, but he has no such free hand with doctrines.

If the Church were found to accept a blanket statement that says, “The state has a right to execute.” She would be sanctioning many evils such as…

Given that it is Church doctrine that States have the right to execute criminals for serious crimes it would appear that your assertion is a bit over the top. It is also Church doctrine that States have the right to wage war but I don’t think there is any rational argument to be made that this would have sanctioned Germany’s invasion of Poland or Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. You are way off the mark with this assertion.

Today’s pope most certainly has the right to say that he espouses the same principles as his predecessors, but that those principles cannot be exercised as they were once exercised, because the conditions have changed.

Perhaps, but what conditions have changed that alter what constitutes a just punishment for murder?

The fact that it is abused, gives the papacy the right to dictate the moral rules under which the State can execute.

Not exactly. JPII never asserted that the use of capital punishment had been abused. His position was not based on that contention.

Ender

 

[Ender]

cont…

JReducation:

That’s what Bl. John Paul II did. Anyone who wants to understand his rules has to read Evengelium Vitae. The CCC quotes one paragraph. The notation refers you to the entire document. Pope Benedict recently quoted the same document when he also spoke out against the use of the death penalty.

What was said is not all that complicated. It is the opinion of JPII that capital punishment ought not be used, but this opinion does not change the doctrine that it may be used.

There is no break with the past, if the principle is preserved. When the statement was codified by Trent, it was not codified as an infallible doctrine, but as a moral right. However, one forfeits certain rights, if one violates the rules that go with those rights.

This argument is again your personal invention; it was not used by JPII. You are also annoyingly vague. “The principle”? “The statement”? What specifically are you referring to? If it is the doctrine that States have the right to use capital punishment then I disagree. That doctrine appears to be infallibly taught.

In addition, one has certain moral rights as long as the conditions exist. If the conditions no longer exist, the right no longer exist.

Once again you use an undefined term. What are “moral rights”? Morality does not change with conditions but you seem very close to implying that it does.

This is why the Catholic Church today says that the use of the death penalty is rarely necessary, if at all. Today’s penal systems and institutions should be better than those of the 1500s.

Inasmuch as the traditional teaching of the Church was reiterated as late as 1992 you again exaggerate what has happened. Was there a significant change in penal systems between 1992 and 1995?

It is audacious to think that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI whimsically pulled something out of their sleeves and chucked every pope and council under the bed.

I thought so to when, except for the whimsical part, you first made this claim.

The fact that the pope has the right to change rules, implies that we have a duty to follow the new rules.

Rules? The Church has rules that specify the rubrics for the mass. When referring to moral behavior she has doctrines. The Church teaches the moral norm but she does not create it, contrary to your assertion that this is what popes do.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

Ender, I’m sorry, but I cannot put a six-hour Life Issues and Moral Theology workshop into a few posts and my summaries are not clear enough for you. The best I can do (if you’re a celibate male) is invite you to spend a week at our novitiate where you will learn these things in greater depth, with more details and many opportunities to ask questions. Suffice it to say that any pro-life ministry will give you similar answers to what I have given you. Maybe they are better writers than I am and you can understand them more clearly. I would refer you to the USCCB’s site where there is an entire section on life issues.

I will make this one observation, for someone who is Catholic, you’re very flippant in your manner of addressing clergy and religious. You’re almost dismissive. Therefore, I am not going to get into a debate with you to see which of us is right. Life is too sacred to reduce it to a battle of wits.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Ender]

… the Church no longer authorizes the state to act in God’s name.

You have no support for this claim as it would be a repudiation of 2000 years of Church teaching. This is a stunning allegation and I am amazed you can so casually assert it.

During Pope Innocent III’s reign, the pope dictated to the state.

And how about Innocent I’s reign? The pope was not dictating to the state then (405 AD) but his position was exactly the same. It was also the position taken by the Early Fathers who were on the receiving end of abuses by the State.

The Church does not entrust certain things to the state and this is one of the things that Pope John Paul pulled from the state in Evangelium Vitae.

Show us. That States are given authority by God is Church doctrine and no pope gets to arbitrarily change that. Goodness: the Church does not invent doctrine nor does truth change with time and place. If it was true of States in the past that their authority was from God then it is equally true today - that cannot change.

That being said, Pope John Paul disagreed with him and so does Pope Benedict.

No, this is incorrect too. Dulles actually agreed with JPII’s position so it isn’t clear what you think they disagreed about.

We have to go with the two senior theologians and hierarchy.

I always thought the two senior theologians were Augustine and Aquinas and that we had to go with the truth whoever proclaimed it.

Retributive justice is what Pope John Paul wrote out and Pope Benedict has seconded it.

This just gets worse and worse. Retributive justice is what the Church has taught; it is not dependent on the opinions expressed by popes. More to the point, I don’t think they expressed any opinions on retributive justice. That point was ignored by 2267 and unrecognizably muddied in 2266.

There is a common misunderstanding too that Pope Benedict addresses in one of his books on the OT. The fact that the OT mentions capital punishment does not bind the Church.

The fact is that the Church understands capital punishment based on God’s covenant with Noah. This is more than a mere “mention” of the practice, it was the direct word of God.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

You have no support for this claim as it would be a repudiation of 2000 years of Church teaching. This is a stunning allegation and I am amazed you can so casually assert it.
And how about Innocent I’s reign? The pope was not dictating to the state then (405 AD) but his position was exactly the same. It was also the position taken by the Early Fathers who were on the receiving end of abuses by the State.
Show us. That States are given authority by God is Church doctrine and no pope gets to arbitrarily change that. Goodness: the Church does not invent doctrine nor does truth change with time and place. If it was true of States in the past that their authority was from God then it is equally true today - that cannot change.
No, this is incorrect too. Dulles actually agreed with JPII’s position so it isn’t clear what you think they disagreed about.
I always thought the two senior theologians were Augustine and Aquinas and that we had to go with the truth whoever proclaimed it.
This just gets worse and worse. Retributive justice is what the Church has taught; it is not dependent on the opinions expressed by popes. More to the point, I don’t think they expressed any opinions on retributive justice. That point was ignored by 2267 and unrecognizably muddied in 2266.
The fact is that the Church understands capital punishment based on God’s covenant with Noah. This is more than a mere “mention” of the practice, it was the direct word of God.

Ender

Look, this is silly. Obviously, I’m not being clear enough for you to understand what I’m trying to say here. I can’t do more than this in a few posts. I really mean it when I said that I usually teach this in a six-hour workshop. That’s how long it takes me to break this down. I can’t seem to squeeze all of that into a few posts.

What are we doing here? We just debating back and forth with no benefit to anyone. Let’s drop it here and move on to something else.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Ender]

If I was interested in what the Church teaches now I will first research what Pope Benedict says.

This is inadequate. Church teaching on capital punishment did not begin with BXVI; it has been ongoing since the Church first existed. To know what the Church teaches now you have to know what she has always taught.

If I am interested in finding Church teaching that corresponds exactly with my own I will do that research too, but it might take me back farther than Pope Benedict. Then I get into a quandary: which Pope or Council is more right? And if they are pre-Vatican II for example then I start getting into all kinds of issues about the “validity” of VII.

There is no quandary if you accept that morality is constant and the Church has not taught error for 2000 years.

That’s not the road I am willing to go down.

In order to make sense of everything it is necessary to find a way to reconcile everything. It is not sufficient simply to choose either everything before JPII or everything after JPII.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

What a slippery explanation. Don’t you recognize how your approach to erasing 2000 years of Church teaching on capital punishment can and will be used by others to erase doctrines with which they disagree? You’ve taken the “truth changes with the times” position and I wonder how you would (now) defend the Church’s position on homosexuality or contraception against the very argument you have used against her doctrine that the State has the right to execute criminals…
Ender

Contraception and homsexuality are concerned with the human body, human relationships, sexuality, the family, the basic “cell” of the Church. You will never find a change in Church doctrine on these issues since they go back to fundamentals.

Another “fundamental” the Church has taught is the sacredness of life. That is the fundamental teaching which underpins the Church’s position on abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

The Church has recognized the right of States regarding Capital Punishment (but never abortion or euthanasia) in the context of the time. In the western world that context has changed, not the Truth or Church teaching on the sanctity of life.

**The woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:1-11):
**
She was guilty. She was guilty of a capital offence. An offence punishable by death under Jewish Law (not the Law of the Roman conquerors). She did not deny her guilt. Nor did she ask Jesus for mercy.

Jesus did not deny her offence, or seek to lessen the severity of her offence by explaining it away in sociological or psychological terms.

Jesus did not deny the Law, or change the Law, nor did he refute the justice of the sentence of death.

Jesus did not ask for mercy, nor did he ask for a lesser sentence.

Jesus made no pronouncement on the Law, or the crime, or the guilt, or the sentence at all.

What did he do?

He merely asked a question.

And to be fair to the Pharisees they were humble enough to listen to the question and apply it to their own lives.

“When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest…”

Humility, justice and mercy do not deny objective truth.

They do change the way we respond to objective truth.

 

[Ender]

When one reads what Bl. John Paul wrote, he’s not changing the foundations. He’s addressing the issue of necessity and mercy. He’s saying two things. First, it’s rarely necessary, if ever. Second, mercy must always outdo justice, if we are to be true reflections Christ.

I agree with your first point but reject completely your second. He never made such a claim nor would he as mercy does not outdo justice.Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism)
Ender

 

[Rence]

I think part of the issue is that the ability to detain dangerous criminals permanently is a relatively recent development. Until recent times, there was a great risk that a killer could escape to kill again. With the development of the modern penal system, it has become possible to revisit the teaching and refine it.

The problem is, criminals are not sufficiently contained so that they don’t continue to commit crimes. Some crime bosses still run their crime operations from within the walls of prison. Some drug dealers still run their operations from within the walls of prison. Some gang leaders still command from within the walls of prison. And of course, those prone to violence continue to be a threat to guards, other staff (like nurses and doctors), and to other prisoners, raping and beating them. I don’t agree with the opinion that criminals are contained in prisons well enough to avoid capital punishment. However, I can understand why others think they’re sufficiently contained: out of sight, out of mind. But just because you can’t see them in your backyard doesn’t mean they’re not there, and operating their businesses as usual…

 

[triumphguy]

Was Jesus just with the Woman in Adultery?

Was he merciful?

Did she die by stoning?

Did Jesus condemn her?

Did he tell her to go and sin no more?

 

[triumphguy]

The problem is, criminals are not sufficiently contained so that they don’t continue to commit crimes. Some crime bosses still run their crime operations from within the walls of prison. Some drug dealers still run their operations from within the walls of prison. Some gang leaders still command from within the walls of prison. And of course, those prone to violence continue to be a threat to guards, other staff (like nurses and doctors), and to other prisoners, raping and beating them. I don’t agree with the opinion that criminals are contained in prisons well enough to avoid capital punishment. However, I can understand why others think they’re sufficiently contained: out of sight, out of mind. But just because you can’t see them in your backyard doesn’t mean they’re not there, and operating their businesses as usual…

So, do you seek to reform the prison system, or just execute them?

I think it would be cheaper to reform the prison system than to continue executions (and the whole process).

 

[Ender]

I will make this one observation, for someone who is Catholic, you’re very flippant in your manner of addressing clergy and religious. You’re almost dismissive. Therefore, I am not going to get into a debate with you to see which of us is right. Life is too sacred to reduce it to a battle of wits.

I address the arguments presented regardless of who presents them - and that has gotten me in trouble with you in the past. I certainly don’t go out of my way to antagonize you but neither do I minimize my objection to your arguments because of who you are. I am astonished by some of the claims you make.

Ender

 

[Rence]

So, do you seek to reform the prison system, or just execute them?

I think it would be cheaper to reform the prison system than to continue executions (and the whole process).

There is no way to reform the prison system that would eliminate any possible ‘temptation’ or resource to the outside world in order to stop the crimes continuing while criminals are in jail. There are ‘humanitarian’ issues and moral issues involved with cloistering the prisoners and eliminating their contact from the outside world. They have visitors, phones, computer access, etc. In addition, because of the sheer number of inmates, the probability of getting staff assistance goes up with each person hired who has contact with the both the outside world and the prisoners. Add to that the fact that guards, doctors, nurses, counseler can be criminals too. Criminals wear many hats.

There is no way to contain a criminal who is bent on committing crimes. Even those dangerous enough to warrant isolation are not completely isolated.

It would be cheaper to execute them the first time convicted. They would cut costs by cutting repeat appeals. You can lobby for whatever you feel strongly about, and you very well should. But you can’t argue that executing a criminal is cheaper than supporting him/her throughout their sentence as well as paying for their continued crimes. It’s the repeated appeals, continued crime, and related nonsense that drives up costs.