Death penalty - abortion comparison

[DaveBj]

A letter writer to the Birmingham news recently made an ignorant comment wondering why “pro-life” people could support the death penalty. My reply:

blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2011/05/your_view_support_for_death_pe.html

A recent letter writer wanted someone to “explain how the conservative thinkers fervently support the right-to-life position while at the same time fervently supporting the death penalty” (“For life and death penalty?” Your Views, May 16). I only wish all the essay exam questions I had to answer in college had been this easy.

Here’s the explanation.

A child in the womb is completely innocent, because he or she has not yet been born and therefore has not been able to commit any crimes. On the other hand, a murderer has deliberately chosen to take another human life, and the law of God requires that such a person be permanently removed from human society in order to prevent him or her from murdering again. Thus, a position in support of capital punishment is actually a pro-life position.

Anyone who cannot see the difference between killing an innocent child in the womb and killing a deliberate murderer either is comatose or has completely lost touch with any civilized moral standard.

DaveBj

 

[Hokomai]

Which law of God would that be?

 

[dmelosi]

A letter writer to the Birmingham news recently made an ignorant comment wondering why “pro-life” people could support the death penalty. My reply:

blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2011/05/your_view_support_for_death_pe.html

DaveBj

I agree with most of your response, but the CCC says that the death penalty should be only used if there is no other way to keep the convicted murderer from killing again, which would be in very rare cases. I would have also put in their statistics…how many of the guilty are put to death each year (murderers) versus how many of the most innocent (abortions) were put to death each year.

 

[SteveGC]

Pro-life people do not, by default, support the death penalty. Seems as though his/her argument was that “conservatives” support both. Perhaps there is a correlation with that, but I don’t think the correlation should be attributed to God’s providence - and it certainly isn’t attributed to a requirement that murderers be permanently removed by death.

I like your Peter Kreeft quote.

 

[starshiptrooper]

DaveBj, that was an excellent response.

 

[RosaryFan]

A letter writer to the Birmingham news recently made an ignorant comment wondering why “pro-life” people could support the death penalty. My reply:

blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2011/05/your_view_support_for_death_pe.html

DaveBj

Nice answer! However, I would have expounded on the fact that pro-lifers don’t “fervently support” the death penalty. The culture of death would like to think we do so they have a reason to think we’re hypocrites, but we really don’t. I believe we are merely accepting of it in EXTREME cases.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I wanted to edit my answer but I ran out of time. :doh2: DaveBj, I agree with most of what you wrote. However, the possibility of a future crime does not justify the death penalty. Punishing people because they might do something wrong in the future is ridiculous.

RosaryFan:

I believe we are merely accepting of it in EXTREME cases.

If something is moral, you don’t merely accept it, you support it.

 

[Corki]

I agree with most of your response, but the CCC says that the death penalty should be only used if there is no other way to keep the convicted murderer from killing again, which would be in very rare cases. I would have also put in their statistics…how many of the guilty are put to death each year (murderers) versus how many of the most innocent (abortions) were put to death each year.

That’s not exactly what the CCC says

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 are more in conformity to 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 definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The threshold is not whether the criminal would kill again but whether people’s safety can be protected.

I am against the death penalty but do not think that protecting the lives of convicted criminals is anywhere near protecting the lives of the innocent unborn.

It’s a little like saying that heavy petting is in the same category as rape. Yes, they are both sins against chastity and yes, we should be against both but there is no real comparison.

 

[RosaryFan]

I wanted to edit my answer but I ran out of time. :doh2: DaveBj, I agree with most of what you wrote. However, the possibility of a future crime does not justify the death penalty. Punishing people because they might do something wrong in the future is ridiculous.

If something is moral, you don’t merely accept it, you support it.

The Church does not “support” the death penalty. The Church recognizes its necessity in extreme cases. The Church also doesn’t “support” speeding tickets. That’s not to say that the Church is against speeding tickets in all cases.

 

[YankeeRC]

The CCC offers us guidance on spirit of the law interpretation. Its position is certainly understandable in cases of wrongful accusation.

However, cases of wrongful accusation are based on*what-if *arguments and can be biased by political and social views.

The trouble is *what-if’s *can lead to a moral relativism quagmire, much like when Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate. The argument may be ‘I am choosing the lesser of two social evils by voting for this candidate’ or even ‘I am pro-life except in cases or rape, incest and life saving necessity’, all the while ingnoring that voting for a pro-choice candidate is asissting in abortion and murder.

 

[DaveBj]

Which law of God would that be?

Genesis 9:5-6, confirmed by Church Age by Paul in the 13th chapter of the letter to the Romans.

DaveBj

 

[SteveGC]

Genesis 9:5-6, confirmed by Church Age by Paul in the 13th chapter of the letter to the Romans.

DaveBj

??

Are you performing some individual exegesis here?

Are you asserting that the Church teaches us to support the death penalty as a general rule? Or that Her position is that all murderers must themselves be put to death?

 

[Willy_Jose]

*3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*/

• excerpted from
  Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
  Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
  Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
  (memorandum sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.)

 

[DaveBj]

??

Are you performing some individual exegesis here?

Are you asserting that the Church teaches us to support the death penalty as a general rule? Or that Her position is that all murderers must themselves be put to death?

Exegesis (critical explanation or analysis of a text), individual or otherwise, is unnecessary when the plain meaning of the text is obvious. So, no, I am not performing individual exegesis.

I am not making any statements about what the church teaches or doesn’t teach. I have studied the CCC passage on the subject of the death penalty, and I have read the many threads on CAF on the subject and have participate in some of them. My only aim is to point out what God had to say on the subject. If you have an argument, take it to Him, not to me.

Back to the original point, which is that opposition to abortion is not incongruent with support for the death penalty.

DaveBj

 

[Hokomai]

Seems a pity to kill so many people because of a few lines in the Bible.

 

[SteveGC]

Exegesis (critical explanation or analysis of a text), individual or otherwise, is unnecessary when the plain meaning of the text is obvious. So, no, I am not performing individual exegesis.

I am not making any statements about what the church teaches or doesn’t teach. I have studied the CCC passage on the subject of the death penalty, and I have read the many threads on CAF on the subject and have participate in some of them. My only aim is to point out what God had to say on the subject. If you have an argument, take it to Him, not to me.

Back to the original point, which is that opposition to abortion is not incongruent with support for the death penalty.

DaveBj

While I agree that some passages in Scripture are clear enough in their meaning, the other vital element to remember is that what we conclude from our own reading of Scripture is to remain within the framework constructed by the teaching authority of The Church, wouldn’t you agree? Seems as though your blanket statement, “…the law of God requires that such a person be permanently removed from human society…” without any expansion into Church teaching, moves beyond this framework.

Furthermore, even if you ignored the framework, these passages you cite do not seem to me to be as obvious in their meaning, atleast in terms of full support for capital punishment. From your participation in threads on this subject, do you find many in agreement with your interpretation here? No offense, but it seems a bit careless to pronounce that you know what God has to say on a particular subject. Out of curiosity, why didn’t you use Church teaching to guide you in your response to this writer, as opposed to suggesting that God requires all murderers to be murdered?

I don’t mean to be confrontational with you. I really don’t. I’m just exploring your reasoning, and how you balance Church teaching with your public pronouncements of matters regarding faith and morals.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The Church does not “support” the death penalty. The Church recognizes its necessity in extreme cases. The Church also doesn’t “support” speeding tickets. That’s not to say that the Church is against speeding tickets in all cases.

The difference between speeding tickets and the death penalty in this case is the fact that the Church has said nothing about speeding tickets while she has said plenty about the death penalty. It may suprise you to read some of those statements on the death penalty, for they do merely accept the death penalty, but support it.

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of the Council of Trent

Here, we can clearly see that the Church regards the just use of the death penalty as a very good thing.

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.(Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495)

“Uphold” means to ‘support. So Pope Innocent was not accepting the death penalty but supporting it.’

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

I came into the Chruch at Easter this year and throughout my time in RCIA a lot of my values changed. I used to be pro-choice and for the death penalty. Now however, after learning that life begins at conception and the Catholic Churches standing on the subject, I’m very much pro-life! A baby, is a gift whether the mother is 14 or is 29. Now I’m not saying that young girls should try to get pregnant, but everyone makes mistakes. Becoming pregnant is a wonderful blessing, while aborting the baby is a grave sin.

I used to think that if someone killed another human being or committed an atrocious crime, then they deserved the death penalty. I’d like to add that I’m a Criminal Justice major. Again, after going through RCIA and begining to read and study the bible, I see an inmate on death row as an opportunity to save someone. Is it not said in the bible that we should not judge others? I believe that people who committ horrible crimes should be locked up for life. Their day will come when God will judge them. That is not something that should be left to us.

 

[SteveGC]

The difference between speeding tickets and the death penalty in this case is the fact that the Church has said nothing about speeding tickets while she has said plenty about the death penalty. It may suprise you to read some of those statements on the death penalty, for they do merely accept the death penalty, but support it.
Here, we can clearly see that the Church regards the just use of the death penalty as a very good thing.
“Uphold” means to ‘support. So Pope Innocent was not accepting the death penalty but supporting it.’

This wasn’t addressed to me, but I wanted to interject and ask: Would you agree that the boundaries set forth in CCC 2267 (below) must provide the framework within which we support the death penalty?

CCC 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 to 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 definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."This is the point I was trying to make with the OP (DaveBj). On the one hand, I agree with him - The Church clearly supports the death penalty…but only under certain, specific circumstances…circumstances which actually make the necessity of it quite minimal. And thus, my issue (if you can even call it that) is to make sure that we as Catholics accurately portray the Church’s position (and by divine association, God’s position) when we are responding publicly to these issues, and bringing God into the discussion. Of course, as DaveBj stated to me earlier, he was not trying to state Church teaching, but simply that God allows for the slaying of criminals, which is essentially a true statement, but needs qualifiers I think.

 

[RosaryFan]

The difference between speeding tickets and the death penalty in this case is the fact that the Church has said nothing about speeding tickets while she has said plenty about the death penalty. It may suprise you to read some of those statements on the death penalty, for they do merely accept the death penalty, but support it.
Here, we can clearly see that the Church regards the just use of the death penalty as a very good thing.
“Uphold” means to ‘support. So Pope Innocent was not accepting the death penalty but supporting it.’

As SteveGC has already pointed out…

CCC 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 to 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 definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an** absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”**

This sounds to me like acceptance in extreme cases rather than support or upholding. The Catholic Church supports and upholds marriage as being between man and woman; celibacy prior to marriage; and not using artificial birth control. THOSE issues are “supported” by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not advocate for the death sentence.