Conservative catholics and the death penalty

[Kendy]

Are there other means available? Many times people break out of prison and many times they are paroled or given a light sentence and then return to society to stalk and kill women and children.

Really, how many? When prisoners break out of prison it is big news. It does not happen that often. Sure airplanes crash but it’s pretty safe to fly.

We can’t even protect prisoners from being killed by other prisoners. The priest who molested so many children in Boston was murdered by another prisoner within a week of his incarceration. We can’t keep gangs or drugs out of prisons. Do we really have such secure places to keep serial rapists and child molesters away from society?

I find it confusing that the Vatican press office has seemed to determine that the death penalty is always illicit. Are they reading the same Catechism that I am? Yes, JPII believed that we have secure enough prisons or other means, but he still said that the state may execute criminals.
Pedophilia for example is pretty incurable and those people need to be kept away from society, if the death penalty is deemed to be too much.

Yes, they are reading the same catchism you are and it says:

"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.
"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.’ [68]

 

[Orionthehunter]

Kendy, you and I agree that in America that the death penalty is not good policy. You have reached this decision based on your interpretation of the Catechism and to you it speaks quite clearly. I’ve reached in the exercise of my prudential judgment as a Catholic Christian that not having the death penalty is “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” as it says in the Catechism. My position is augmented by my Christian Catholic ethos that life is precious and that all life deserves as much time as possible on earth to make right decisions to serve and love our Creator.

But I disagree with your implication that the Church has taken a firm stand that it is always evil. It clearly has not. And the statement of right circumstances being “very rare” is a qualitative judgment that then requires prudential judgment. I’m like you and have reached the conclusion that “rare” is a very narrow circumstance, if at all. However, others may take a wider view of what is sufficeint to protect society and this is within the purview of their prudential judgment. As an anti-death penalty advocate, I don’t think our cause is served by over-reaching what the Church teaches or diminishing/denigrating anothers prudential judgment. Instead, we need to prevail upon them in ways that respects and appeals to their prudential judgment.

With regards to Fix’s comments regarding it is justified by “just retribution” as a means to make things right with the world, I disagree with his point. Just Retribution is something the restores. I don’t see how killing a killer does anything to restore the loss of a loved one or does anything for the victim. Vengeance is God’s. We need to remember our place and not take on tasks that are to be exclusively God’s.

 

[Kendy]

But I disagree with your implication that the Church has taken a firm stand that it is always evil. It clearly has not. And the statement of right circumstances being “very rare” is a qualitative judgment that then requires prudential judgment. I’m like you and have reached the conclusion that “rare” is a very narrow circumstance, if at all. However, others may take a wider view of what is sufficeint to protect society and this is within the purview of their prudential judgment. As an anti-death penalty advocate, I don’t think our cause is served by over-reaching what the Church teaches or diminishing/denigrating anothers prudential judgment. Instead, we need to prevail upon them in ways that respects and appeals to their prudential judgment.

If we could agree on what other secure means implies, and let’s say we agreed that such fool-proof means were indeed available, then could we then say that CP is in deed evil given the availability of alternative means.

Kendy

 

[Orionthehunter]

**If we could agree **on what other secure means implies, and let’s say we agreed that such fool-proof means were indeed available, then could we then say that CP is in deed evil given the availability of alternative means.

Kendy

“If we could agree”. Well, utopia won’t be found in this world so it proves my point. Prudential judgment allows disagreement without one being right and another wrong.

We also need to be careful about the application of the word “evil” and not over-reach. My Baptist friends say that alcohol is “evil”. My liberal friends say that commerce/capitalism is “evil”. My conservative friends say that “tolerance” is evil. Evil requires one to be either consciously in concert with Satan/doing harm or being so wreckless about the rightness/wrongness as to not care about the good. One can be wrong (guided by bad reasoning or bad facts or bad judgment) but that doesn’t necessarily take one to evil.

 

[Kendy]

“If we could agree”. Well, utopia won’t be found in this world so it proves my point. Prudential judgment allows disagreement without one being right and another wrong.

We also need to be careful about the application of the word “evil” and not over-reach. My Baptist friends say that alcohol is “evil”. My liberal friends say that commerce/capitalism is “evil”. My conservative friends say that “tolerance” is evil. Evil requires one to be either consciously in concert with Satan/doing harm or being so wreckless about the rightness/wrongness as to not care about the good. One can be wrong (guided by bad reasoning or bad facts or bad judgment) but that doesn’t necessarily take one to evil.

Ok.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Kendy
I also agree with you. My understanding is if you were in the rare circumstance in which you could only incarcerate 10 people however you had reasonability for 15 men convicted of extremely violent crimes then you could consider the option of using the death penalty. In the situations as exist in the US or even recently in Iraq there is no reason to use death penalties. I do not believe the Pope err in the statements about the death penalty or the sanctity of human life. I do not believe the Pope and the Magisterium are in conflict on these issues.

Just some FYI

1. I once took a law class in that class “justice” was defined as the judication of an issue- which means a fair trial.
2. Guilty does not mean committed a crime! Not guilty does not mean did not commit a crime. The verdict is the result of a trial, which attempted to find the truth but is not a guarantee of the truth.

Additionally I believe:
Killing teaches killing
All killings have many unintended consequences.
The actions of the criminal are the actions of the criminal, and the actions of the punisher are the actions of the punisher. So adding our sin to match other sins is a lose-lose scenario.

For example due to the recent actions in Iraq with the American captured, American held, and American handed over prisoner, we may well see future conflicts be more violent because the opposition knows if they surrender they may well be killed via capital punishment.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Kendy
I also agree with you. My understanding is if you were in the rare circumstance in which you could only incarcerate 10 people however you had reasonability for 15 men convicted of extremely violent crimes then you could consider the option of using the death penalty. In the situations as exist in the US or even recently in Iraq there is no reason to use death penalties. I do not believe the Pope err in the statements about the death penalty or the sanctity of human life. I do not believe the Pope and the Magisterium are in conflict on these issues.

Just some FYI

1. I once took a law class in that class “justice” was defined as the judication of an issue- which means a fair trial.
2. Guilty does not mean committed a crime! Not guilty does not mean did not commit a crime. The verdict is the result of a trial, which attempted to find the truth but is not a guarantee of the truth.

Additionally I believe:
Killing teaches killing
All killings have many unintended consequences.
The actions of the criminal are the actions of the criminal, and the actions of the punisher are the actions of the punisher. So adding our sin to match other sins is a lose-lose scenario.

For example due to the recent actions in Iraq with the American captured, American held, and American handed over prisoner, we may well see future conflicts be more violent because the opposition knows if they surrender they may well be killed via capital punishment.

All good reasons to oppose the death penalty. Good reasoning and exercise of your prudential judgment. Still doesn’t allow one to translate that those who disagree with your reasoning are “evil” or supporting an “evil”.

By the way, I’m adamantly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty in the US and what I understand to be the circumstances in teh Western World. My knowledge and understanding doesn’t allow me to pass judgment in cultures and circumstances I have limited understanding and knowledge.

 

[fix]

With regards to Fix’s comments regarding it is justified by “just retribution” as a means to make things right with the world, I disagree with his point. Just Retribution is something the restores. I don’t see how killing a killer does anything to restore the loss of a loved one or does anything for the victim. Vengeance is God’s. We need to remember our place and not take on tasks that are to be exclusively God’s.

I gave a link to explain my position earlier:

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution…

Retribution. In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self–assertive act of vengeance.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

That is traditional Catholic teaching.

 

[Leeta]

The Church says that the death penalty can be used by the State. Rare is still allowable.

If the Church said that abortion was evil except in the rare case of the mother’s life being in danger, then abortion would not be always intrinsically evil.

Opponents of capital punishment act as if the death penalty is to be opposed in every case. I thought that is why we have a judge and a jury and defense lawyers.

In Spain the maximum sentence is not life, but much less around 20 years or so. The Madrid bombers can only be in jail for 20 years. Now how is that protecting society?

People committ murders from our prisons. How is that protecting society? They use their smuggled cell-phones.

The death penalty according to the catechism may be used by the state. It is allowed.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I gave a link to explain my position earlier:

That is traditional Catholic teaching.

Fix, I should have been more clear. I don’t question either the “Catholicness” or reasoning of the article. But the thrust of the article requires the exercise of prudential judgment that the state has sufficient judgment and knowledge to exact the punishment and that the symbolism serves the purpose of anticipating God’s perfect justice.

As I said before, my prudential judgment has reached a different conclusion. While I know we won’t disagree that the State isn’t omniscient, we probably disagree with regard to the State’s judgment and knowledge but the disagreement is only of degrees. More fundamentally, I disagree that the death penalty is symbolicly positive. As much as it might demonstrate God’s perfect justice, I think it (at least in America today) denies to a greater degree God’s perfect mercy. It is this denial that in my prudential judgment the death penalty is more harmful than any good that comes from it.

God’s example of mercy is what the world needs more now especially in contrast to Islamic extremism. They have the market on trying to speak for God’s perfect justice (I abhor their misrepresentation). God is perfect Love and this is what the extreme Muslim’s are denying. It is this face of God that the world needs more.

Similarly, in the face of so much of the Culture of Death (abortion, euthanasia, racial and cultural hatred, sexual and emotional abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.), it is God’s mercy that will change people’s hearts. It is a hardness of hearts that is at the root of all these sins and evils. And in this context, I don’t believe that responding in kind (or appearing to respond in kind) is what we need.

Fix, I believe your prudential judgment and reasoning is within the bounds of Catholic teaching. And, I believe so is mine. We disagree.

 

[fix]

Fix, I should have been more clear. I don’t question either the “Catholicness” or reasoning of the article. But the thrust of the article requires the exercise of prudential judgment that the state has sufficient judgment and knowledge to exact the punishment and that the symbolism serves the purpose of anticipating God’s perfect justice.

As I said before, my prudential judgment has reached a different conclusion. While I know we won’t disagree that the State isn’t omniscient, we probably disagree with regard to the State’s judgment and knowledge but the disagreement is only of degrees. More fundamentally, I disagree that the death penalty is symbolicly positive. As much as it might demonstrate God’s perfect justice, I think it (at least in America today) denies to a greater degree God’s perfect mercy. It is this denial that in my prudential judgment the death penalty is more harmful than any good that comes from it.

God’s example of mercy is what the world needs more now especially in contrast to Islamic extremism. They have the market on trying to speak for God’s perfect justice (I abhor their misrepresentation). God is perfect Love and this is what the extreme Muslim’s are denying. It is this face of God that the world needs more.

Similarly, in the face of so much of the Culture of Death (abortion, euthanasia, racial and cultural hatred, sexual and emotional abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.), it is God’s mercy that will change people’s hearts. It is a hardness of hearts that is at the root of all these sins and evils. And in this context, I don’t believe that responding in kind (or appearing to respond in kind) is what we need.

Fix, I believe your prudential judgment and reasoning is within the bounds of Catholic teaching. And, I believe so is mine. We disagree.

Actually, I agree with you.

 

[estesbob]

"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.’ [68]

If it said non-existent you would have a case. And if the Church was opposed to the Death Penalty in every case they would not have inserted the word “practicially” IMO they could not have done so becuase that would have overturned 2,000 years of teachngs on Captial Punishment-something our Church can not do.

I, BTW, oppose the death penalty in all cases. My Church does not. It is very proper to state that one personally beleives that the Death Penatly is never accpetable-it is no proper for one to hold that out as Church teachnig.

 

[Flo77]

Anyone read the statement of Cardinal Martino acc. to the execution of Saddam Hussein?

CBC quotes Rev. Lombardi.

Catholic.news quoted Card. Martino.

 

[estesbob]

Anyone read the statement of Cardinal Martino acc. to the execution of Saddam Hussein?

CBC quotes Rev. Lombardi.

Catholic.news quoted Card. Martino.

Yes-there is no doubt the Vatican officals incudng the Pope oppose the death Penalty in all cases.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Anyone read the statement of Cardinal Martino acc. to the execution of Saddam Hussein?

CBC quotes Rev. Lombardi.

Catholic.news quoted Card. Martino.

I did and I hope that Fix reads it too. It proves both our points. Both the Cardinal and Priest mentioned in the article articulate that they have reached a conclusion exercising their prudential judgment. While I have reached the same conclusion as they that a greater purpose could have been served if he had not been executed, they were both quite clear that they were speaking in their role as moral leaders and teacher. At the same time, they properly didn’t preclude others from holding a different opinion unless it was motivated out of revenge. (Editorial comment: I do think it appears the Cardinal improperly over-reached by implying that the motive was revenge)

On a side note, when one views the pirated video of his execution, it is apparent that at least the motives of his direct executioners and those in attendence was an improper revenge. Even so, that doesn’t necessarily impute these motives to the state of Iraq and prudence requires us to reserve judgment unless we get additional facts.

Fix’s post (which I disagree with its application today in the death penalty) allows one to hold that his execution was appropriate as “just retribution” and this was a subject not addressed by the Cardinal or Priest in the article.

 

[Flo77]

Yes-there is no doubt the Vatican officals incudng the Pope oppose the death Penalty in all cases.

Would it cause great rabblement in the USA, if Benedict XVI would change the catechism and make the teaching “of death penalty being not acceptable in general and detail” to a general doctrine for the whole church?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Would it cause great rabblement in the USA, if Benedict XVI would change the catechism and make the teaching “of death penalty being not acceptable in general and detail” to a general doctrine for the whole church?

Flo, you raise a good point. I’ve read the words in the Catechism many times and reflected on it at great length. I think that this is one of the rare cases where the prudential judgment of the author of this section leaked into the wording such that it implies there is a black and white answer when we know its application requires the exercise of prudent judgment.

While I unequivocally oppose the death penalty, I think if there is to be a change in the wording it is to be changed to be clearer on the matter such that it reflects the thoughts articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas as well as those of JPII such that the context captures that the issue needs to include room for just retribution and exibiting just mercy.

 

[fix]

I did and I hope that Fix reads it too. It proves both our points. Both the Cardinal and Priest mentioned in the article articulate that they have reached a conclusion exercising their prudential judgment. While I have reached the same conclusion as they that a greater purpose could have been served if he had not been executed, they were both quite clear that they were speaking in their role as moral leaders and teacher. At the same time, they properly didn’t preclude others from holding a different opinion unless it was motivated out of revenge. (Editorial comment: I do think it appears the Cardinal improperly over-reached by implying that the motive was revenge)

On a side note, when one views the pirated video of his execution, it is apparent that at least the motives of his direct executioners and those in attendence was an improper revenge. Even so, that doesn’t necessarily impute these motives to the state of Iraq and prudence requires us to reserve judgment unless we get additional facts.

Fix’s post (which I disagree with its application today in the death penalty) allows one to hold that his execution was appropriate as “just retribution” and this was a subject not addressed by the Cardinal or Priest in the article.

I agree agin. I have always maintained one may be for or aginst the use of CP. That is what the Church teaches. I was only pointing out one of the traditional reasons CP is considered licit by Catholic teaching.

What I object to is the assertion, by many, that Catholics are bound to reject CP in every single case in every age.

 

[fix]

Flo, you raise a good point. I’ve read the words in the Catechism many times and reflected on it at great length. I think that this is one of the rare cases where the prudential judgment of the author of this section leaked into the wording such that it implies there is a black and white answer when we know its application requires the exercise of prudent judgment.

While I unequivocally oppose the death penalty, I think if there is to be a change in the wording it is to be changed to be clearer on the matter such that it reflects the thoughts articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas as well as those of JPII such that the context captures that the issue needs to include room for just retribution and exibiting just mercy.

I do not claim to be an expert, but I cannot see how the Church could ever claim CP is intrinsically wrong as that would contradict Her former teaching. Yes, I would welcome more clarity.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I agree agin. I have always maintained one may be for or aginst the use of CP. That is what the Church teaches. I was only pointing out one of the traditional reasons CP is considered licit by Catholic teaching.

What I object to is the assertion, by many, that Catholics are bound to reject CP in every single case in every age.

Me too. Although I’m against the death penalty, I’ve spent alot of time defending that your alternate judgment is within the teaching of the Church. Even though I think you are incorrect .