Death Penalty: Applause for Rick Perry’s ‘Ultimate Justice’ at Republican Debate

[tbcrawford]

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/death-penalty-applause-for-rick-perrys-ultimate-justice-at-republican-debate/#.TmlHqJTMw-o.email

From conception to natural death. No exceptions. That’s life in the image and likeness of God.

Death Penalty: Applause for Rick Perry’s ‘Ultimate Justice’ at Republican Debate

Full document here. Catholic teaching clearly and strongly calls for the end to the death penalty in the United States. Period. Anyone supporting it is not pro-life. Period. priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/penaltyofdeath.pdf

Well said I could not agree with you more

 

[tbcrawford]

I should add to my comments that I feel there are far too many people who consider themselves pro-life but have no problem at all with the death penalty and are too ready to resort to military intervention.

 

[SanAgustin]

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the death penalty is intrinsically disordered in exactly the same way as abortion.

Number of convicts killed via capital punishment last year: 46
Number of babies killed via abortion last year: ~1 million

It’s like comparing paper cuts to atomic bomb blasts.

Personally, I’m opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, but there is no way in the world I give them equal weight when I enter the voting booth.

Of course the reality is more nuanced and complex. There are a TON of politicians out there who claim to be “pro-life”, but really don’t do anything that affects or reduces the numbers of abortions. They however directly have signed and approved the killing of fellow human beings, which they had a direct hand at preventing.

Heck, there is a candidate out there that gets applauded by the number of people he has personally made sure have been killed. We know of at least one that was very likely, if not outright innocent.

Should they get our vote because they say what we want to hear on one issue, but on the other are directly responsible for the preventable deaths of many (and in case of war potentially hundreds of thousands)?

 

[Blacksword]

Of course the reality is more nuanced and complex. There are a TON of politicians out there who claim to be “pro-life”, but really don’t do anything that affects or reduces the numbers of abortions. They however directly have signed and approved the killing of fellow human beings, which they had a direct hand at preventing.

Heck, there is a candidate out there that gets applauded by the number of people he has personally made sure have been killed. We know of at least one that was very likely, if not outright innocent.

Should they get our vote because they say what we want to hear on one issue, but on the other are directly responsible for the preventable deaths of many (and in case of war potentially hundreds of thousands)?

I must say that was a low point in American politics last week when the Moderator was going to ask that certain candidate about the fact that his state leads the nation in executions, and the Moderator was interrupted by people cheering. Cheering simply for death, cheering for killing people itself.. I sat there and thought how sad it is how little humanity has changed. Those people at that GOP debate would have doubtless fit right in with the delirious crowds at the Colisseum, screaming for the next gladiatorial death match.

 

[davidmlamb]

That would certainly be idea to find a candidate like that.

But let’s look at the issues:

• Abortion: the intrinsically evil killing of millions of innocent unborn children every year.
• Death penalty: at least theoretically can be used in a moral way and claims the lives of less than 100 guilty prisoners each year.

More babies will be murdered by abortion in the next 30 minutes than criminals executed via capital punishment in an entire year.

Given the choice between a candiadate who favors abortion and wants to end the death penalty and a candidate who favors the death penalty and wants to end abortion, the choice for me is clear.

The government is not aborting babies, their mothers are and they freely choose to abort them. Prisoners on death Row ARE being murdered by the government.

David

 

[MillTownCath]

Did anybody actually read what I posted?

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/penaltyofdeath.pdf

*We reaffirm our common judgment
that the use of the death penalty is unnecessary and
unjustified in our time and circumstances.
Our nation should forgo the use of the death
penalty because
The sanction of death, when it is not necessary
to protect society, violates respect for human
life and dignity.
State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes
all of us.
Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by
factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed.
We have other ways to punish criminals and
protect society.
*

 

[MillTownCath]

According to the CCC, the death penalty is allowed in very specific circumstances where the person to be killed would otherwise be a significant danger to society, other prisoners, guards, etc. In addition, it is morally allowable to protect one’s family from attack or other harm which may lead to the death of the attacker. Finally, the Church allows “just war” which certainly will lead to the death of some.

There are a very few exceptions, but they simply don’t come up in countries like the U.S.However, this right should not be
exercised when other ways are available to punish
criminals and to protect society that are more
respectful of human life

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/penaltyofdeath.pdf

 

[AlwaysCurious]

I respect Ron Paul more than most, but he wants to get rid of federal disaster relief entirely. There’s nothing “pro-life” about that.

I suppose you could always write in your own name.

 

[MillTownCath]

I must say that was a low point in American politics last week when the Moderator was going to ask that certain candidate about the fact that his state leads the nation in executions, and the Moderator was interrupted by people cheering. Cheering simply for death, cheering for killing people itself.. I sat there and thought how sad it is how little humanity has changed. Those people at that GOP debate would have doubtless fit right in with the delirious crowds at the Colisseum, screaming for the next gladiatorial death match.

Indeed, I wouldn’t expect applause for murder from the “pro-life” party.

 

[Contarini]

The government is not aborting babies, their mothers are and they freely choose to abort them. Prisoners on death Row ARE being murdered by the government.

David

While this doesn’t condone a pro-choice political position, I think it is a valid consideration to set against the numerical one.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We don’t even need to get into a debate about whether or not the death penalty is immoral. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the death penalty is intrinsically disordered in exactly the same way as abortion.

Number of convicts killed via capital punishment last year: 46
Number of babies killed via abortion last year: ~1 million

It’s like comparing paper cuts to atomic bomb blasts.

But that’s not how the ethics of defending life works. Life is not quantifiable.

Taking even one innocent life is monstrous.

The difference between killing one innocent person and killing millions of innocent people is trivial compared to the difference between killing one innocent person and killing no innocent people at all.

Atomic bomb blasts kill; paper cuts don’t (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances). So the analogy is not only irrational but morally offensive.

Personally, I’m opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, but there is no way in the world I give them equal weight when I enter the voting booth.

I certainly agree that outright opposition to the death penalty is nowhere near as important as outright opposition to abortion. However, when you have a party whose culture seems to glorify the taking of life in every case except for abortion, you should surely start to wonder at what point it’s meaningful to speak of voting “prolife” when voting for such a party (unless one finds a candidate who clearly stands out against those attitudes–I think Ron Paul does, for all my problems with his ultra-libertarian stance).

Edwin

 

[exnihilo]

I respect Ron Paul more than most, but he wants to get rid of federal disaster relief entirely. There’s nothing “pro-life” about that.

I dont quite follow. There is a single candidate who is in word and historical voting acts consistently against abortion and war and who has strong reservations about the death penalty because of the many people wrongly convicted and you then go to opposition to FEMA to find fault?

FEMA did not exists before the 1980s. If you read up on FEMA you’ll find they actually run things like you’d expect a government bureaucracy to: incompetently and with much waste. Disaster relief is the job of the Church. The Red Cross is another great organization which has long before government been helping people in disasters and even war. It makes no sense to me to have the Church and the Red Cross and the incompetent government handling disaster relief.

 

[tbcrawford]

The government is not aborting babies, their mothers are and they freely choose to abort them. Prisoners on death Row ARE being murdered by the government.

David

Completely agree with this statement ! It is barabric that a ‘civilised’ country still has the death penalty.

 

[lisahiku]

Is it barbaric that a “civilized country” sends 18 year old young men and women to afghanistan?

I see on here time and time again that everyone who supports the death penalty is prochoice. That is FALSE.

I support the death penalty. I am against abortion.

The OFFICIAL TEACHING of the catholic church is that the death penalty may be imposed on heinous crimes. If prison truly rehabilitated criminals, why do they REOFFEND?

If I would have been in the crowd, I would have been on my feet clapping at Rick Perry’s statements!

 

[yosupman]

This is incorrect. The Church does now and always has recognized that the death penalty is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. The current magisterium has expressed their opinion that it should not be used but that is not a moral condemnation.

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, 2001)
The Catechism says a number of things. Section 2267 does state that capital punishment should not be used unless it is necessary for protection, but 2266 identifies the primary objective of all punishment … which is not protection but retributive justice, and it is this which is the obligation of the state to ensure, not protection.
Catholics have no obligation to oppose capital punishment.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
It too bad that Catholics don’t take this position about those who support abortion, which is an action the Church actually opposes.

Ender

Ender - you mentioned we are under no obligation to oppose the death penalty. I would say at least under the magisterium and actions of JPII, he believed we should. I think there is an argument to say that the official position (prudential teaching) is that the death penalty is not needed in an advanced society such as ours. This teaching was repeated many many times. And Lumen Gentium states in paragraph 25, we understand the forcefulness of a popes teaching by the manner, and number of times its repeated. See below:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

 

[lisahiku]

Ender - you mentioned we are under no obligation to oppose the death penalty. I would say at least under the magisterium and actions of JPII, he believed we should. I think there is an argument to say that the official position (prudential teaching) is that the death penalty is not needed in an advanced society such as ours. This teaching was repeated many many times. .

Advanced society??? Like when Huckabee paroled a murderer who then went and gunned down FOUR innocent cops in a coffee shop, unprovoked mind you!
If that murderer would have been executed, those 4 cops would be alive today and their children would have their parent. THAT is prolife!

 

[lisahiku]

When the Pope “ex cathedra” regarding the death penalty, I MIGHT change my mind. Until then…no way!

 

[kama3]

Advanced society??? Like when Huckabee paroled a murderer who then went and gunned down FOUR innocent cops in a coffee shop, unprovoked mind you!
If that murderer would have been executed, those 4 cops would be alive today and their children would have their parent. THAT is prolife!

If the murderer was in prison, the cops would be alive today as well. The problem is that the murderer was freed, not that he was not killed.

Dangerous criminals should be eliminated from the society. This can be done without killing them.

 

[lisahiku]

Again, the church teaches that the death penalty may be used in heinous crimes.

 

[yosupman]

Again, the church teaches that the death penalty may be used in heinous crimes.

Lisah…I made a point to point out this teaching is of the non-infallible magisterium. The church will never teach the death penalty is flat out intrinsically evil. I’ve just said that we are obliged to accept with acsent of mind and will those teachings that are not proclaimed infallibly. I think an argument can be made that especiall JPII stated any number of times that the death penalty is not needed in a society where we can lock criminals up for life. This teaching was definitely part of his ordinary magisterium. At least that’s my take.

By the way Lisah…I have the same feelings about criminals that have done bad things. the gut reaction is to line them up and fire away. But the Catholic way calls for stopping them from their behavior, which at times might be killing them, but if we are able to stop the criminal without killing, then that would be the preferred way. Once the criminal is stopped we are called to pray for that criminal.