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

[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.

It really is necessary to understand that prudential teachings do not impose on us any obligation to assent. Your recognition that the teaching on capital punishment is prudential completely undermines your appeal to Lumen Gentium inasmuch as that document talks about the obligation owed to infallible and ordinary teaching - and is completely silent on prudential opinion because no obligation exists.

This teaching was definitely part of his ordinary magisterium. At least that’s my take.

No, it isn’t, or Cardinal Ratzinger wouldn’t have said Catholics may have a difference of opinion on the issue and Cardinal Dulles wouldn’t have said flat out that it was prudential. Even the USCCB hasn’t come out and claimed the teaching is obligatory.

Ender

 

[lisahiku]

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.

But they don’t get locked up for life. They are often freed early, paroled, and they very very
often REOFFEND!

 

[Ender]

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.

This is an astonishing claim and I find it so incredible I can’t find the words to express how ridiculous this position is. Most people don’t have a problem recognizing that the difference between the death of a million innocent people and one not only is not trivial but is appallingly worse than that of one innocent person compared to none.

However, even if one believes what is in fact unbelievable, it is irrelevant since the choices you presented don’t exist. There is no option where no innocent person will die; all we can choose is between more and fewer, not some and none. The recidivism rate among murderers is significant, and this is above and beyond the murders that are committed by those still incarcerated. Failure to execute killers leads directly to the death of some number of innocents. You may say that this number is exceptionally small … yet it is not zero - and you’ve already told us that’s the key stat, so no matter how you look at it there is no argument that capital punishment is even remotely comparable to abortion.

Ender

 

[MillTownCath]

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

What do you mean when you say “the church” ? The passage I read in the Catechism states it can only be used in extreme circumstances which for the most part don’t even exist anymore.

 

[ProVobis]

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

You are right. Pro-life is pro-life, not just pro-fetus-life or pro-American-life or pro-good-guy-life. Calling the killing of innocent civilians as a result of your dropping bombs in Iraq “collateral damage” is downright pro-death.

 

[estesbob]

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

Fortunately we are not shackled by your personal definiton of “pro-life”. I prefer to go with the Pope:

• 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*.

Pope Benedcit XVI

 

[estesbob]

You are right. Pro-life is pro-life, not just pro-fetus-life or pro-American-life or pro-good-guy-life. Calling the killing of innocent civilians as a result of your dropping bombs in Iraq “collateral damage” is downright pro-death.

In you opinion. The Church disagrees with your opinion. There is no moral equivalance between supporting a war and supporting abortion:

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.

Pope Benedict XVI

 

[wondrousgnat]

I remember the 1980 election quite well. Many candidates stated that being pro-life was the first priority. Then came the day after elections and waht happened? “Prolifers” won the presidency, the house and the senate. 7 of 9 justices were Republican appointees [one of the Democratic ones, Byron White, was also prolife]. And they got to appoint the next 5 justices. I see a lot of broken promises and many prolife liberals I know crossed over to vote Republican. And now distrust them. Now pro-life is practically a nonissue.

The death penalty? I am always worried that an innocent may be executed. Also people can repent and turn their lives to Christ whilef they are allowed to live. I have also heard that the expenses involved with execution is greater than life in prison.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

:

In you opinion. The Church disagrees with your opinion. There is no moral equivalance between supporting a war and supporting abortion:

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.

Pope Benedict XVI

Still puzzles me how so many (not all) who are trying to get voters to believe that the
Republican party is really the party of death by these same worn out arguments. So
they just justify their vote for abortion supporters saying that’s NOT why they’re voting
for them, it’s because they are really more pro-life than the other candidate who happens
to be a bonafide anti-abortion candidate.:shrug

 

[Dan_Daly]

I don’t have to point out that the Church teaches the death penalty is always wrong, because others have already do so clearly.

I do have reservations about how pro-life Governor Perry really is, but it has nothing to do with the death penalty. It has to do with abortion. In 2008 he endorsed Mayor Rudy Guliani for President- the most pro-abortion candidate in the Republican field. Perry made this endorsement with full knowledge of Guliani’s stance on abortion, and said as much at the time. The fact that he saw abortion as such a minor issue, is very revealing I think. I leads me to draw one of two conclusions:

1. Perry really doesn’t think abortion is wrong.

or

1. Perry think’s abortion is wrong, but thinks stopping it is an extremely low priority.

Both are horrible.

The only candidate who I’ve decided I’m willing to vote for so far is Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I respect him. I also respect that he is running on an actual message, and not on self promotion and talking points. Herman Cain is someone I’m considering but haven’t reached a conclusion on.

Michelle Bachmann is interesting. One of the things that has made me very hesitant about her is the whole situation with her leaving her church. Yes, she belonged to a protestant church that teaches the Pope is the anti-Christ. That’s bad, but what is far worse to me, that she “dealt with the issue” by leaving her church. I would have disagreed with an argument on why her faith thinks that, but I could have respected her in that disagreement. If religious convictions and affiliation are something to be readily cast aside in pursuit of personal political gain, that makes me VERY hesitant about trusting someone’s judgement and character.

Rick Santorum has done similar things in the past, by putting aside his supposed pro-life positions in order to campaign for pro-abortion politicians.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[exnihilo]

I remember the 1980 election quite well. Many candidates stated that being pro-life was the first priority. Then came the day after elections and waht happened? “Prolifers” won the presidency, the house and the senate. 7 of 9 justices were Republican appointees [one of the Democratic ones, Byron White, was also prolife]. And they got to appoint the next 5 justices. I see a lot of broken promises and many prolife liberals I know crossed over to vote Republican. And now distrust them. Now pro-life is practically a nonissue.

I thought it was the early 2000s when the Republicans had the presidency, both houses of Congress and 7 of 9 justices. There was a great Joe Sobran article about this that I cant seem to find. But the uselessness of Republicans to stop abortion is clear.

If you come to understand more clearly government it all makes sense. Politicians always run on change. No matter what party they are always running to change something. I’ve never heard of a politician who runs on a platform of everything is OK as it is. Some mega issues become part of a party’s very identity. If the party were to actually solve the problem they’d lose their identity. If the Republicans had gotten rid of abortion in the early 2000s what would they run on? Would they run on cutting government spending? Absolutely. So they made sure they increased it rather than decreased it so they’d have something to run against. It is better to have many issues to run on than just one.

:
Still puzzles me how so many (not all) who are trying to get voters to believe that the
Republican party is really the party of death by these same worn out arguments. So
they just justify their vote for abortion supporters saying that’s NOT why they’re voting
for them, it’s because they are really more pro-life than the other candidate who happens to be a bonafide anti-abortion candidate.:shrug

I see both parties as death parties and vote for no one. I see no solution from within the current political process. The only solution I see is America bankrupting itself and falling apart. From the ashes may be reborn a nation with some small amount of virtue. Meanwhile I ignore politics, save for one presidential candidate who is consistently pro life, and look to influence the world through other avenues than the force of government.

 

[lisahiku]

Until Pope Benedict speaks “ex cathedra” and states that teh death penalty is NEVER to be used, I will continue to support the death penalty.

I will also use my conscience in voting for candidates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

:


Still puzzles me how so many (not all) who are trying to get voters to believe that the
Republican party is really the party of death by these same worn out arguments. So
they just justify their vote for abortion supporters saying that’s NOT why they’re voting
for them, it’s because they are really more pro-life than the other candidate who happens
to be a bonafide anti-abortion candidate.:shrug

Absolutely, and that’s particularly to be believed when abortion candidate supporters either misstate the teachings of the Church or the history of abortion in the U.S. and the two parties’ approaches to it. We’ll be seeing a lot more of this from the Obama people before this election is over. We saw it in the 2008 election, and plenty of it. They have even more money now with which to push their propaganda. It is unfortunate in the extreme that some of the Ron Paul worshippers are going to be used by the abortion lovers in this effort.

 

[exnihilo]

It is unfortunate in the extreme that some of the Ron Paul worshippers are going to be used by the abortion lovers in this effort.

How do you figure Ron Paul supporters will be used by abortion lovers?

 

[Ridgerunner]

How do you figure Ron Paul supporters will be used by abortion lovers?

One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be aware that some Ron Paul supporters say they won’t vote at all if their man is not nominated, or will write him in if he isn’t, thus wasting what might otherwise be a prolife vote.

And we can fully expect the Democrat party to support and encourage that point of view, just as we saw them do in the last election.

 

[exnihilo]

One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be aware that some Ron Paul supporters say they won’t vote at all if their man is not nominated, or will write him in if he isn’t, thus wasting what might otherwise be a prolife vote.

And we can fully expect the Democrat party to support and encourage that point of view, just as we saw them do in the last election.

Ah, well I am someone who will not vote for any presidential candidate who is not consistently pro life. I cant vote for evil of any sort. It seems to me you are bending the definition of pro life a bit though from my perspective. I see pro life as supporting not taking innocent life in the womb and once it leaves it. I see being pro life as being pro all human life even if they are born under a different government. I see pro life as a universal principle. In my opinion most politicians have a very different meaning when they are pro life.

Practically speaking I’ve voted for candidates who claimed to support protecting life in the womb in the past and their election changed nothing. As noted above the Republican Party controlled the presidency, both houses of Congress and the SCOTUS in the early 2000s. If there was ever a time abortion would have been repealed in some way, if electing Republicans is the way to do that, then it would have happened. The fact that it did not happen tells me voting Republican is worthless to this cause. I dont know any other explanation. Do you?

 

[estesbob]

I remember the 1980 election quite well. Many candidates stated that being pro-life was the first priority. Then came the day after elections and waht happened? “Prolifers” won the presidency, the house and the senate. 7 of 9 justices were Republican appointees [one of the Democratic ones, Byron White, was also prolife]. And they got to appoint the next 5 justices. I see a lot of broken promises and many prolife liberals I know crossed over to vote Republican. And now distrust them. Now pro-life is practically a nonissue.

The death penalty? I am always worried that an innocent may be executed. Also people can repent and turn their lives to Christ whilef they are allowed to live. I have also heard that the expenses involved with execution is greater than life in prison.

The Republicans did not win the house in 1980. Byron White was not pro-lfe. Had Bork not been blocked by the ted Kennedy Led democrats Roe V Wade would have been overturned in 1990 in the Casey vs Planned parenthood.

 

[yosupman]

It really is necessary to understand that prudential teachings do not impose on us any obligation to assent. Your recognition that the teaching on capital punishment is prudential completely undermines your appeal to Lumen Gentium inasmuch as that document talks about the obligation owed to infallible and ordinary teaching - and is completely silent on prudential opinion because no obligation exists.

No, it isn’t, or Cardinal Ratzinger wouldn’t have said Catholics may have a difference of opinion on the issue and Cardinal Dulles wouldn’t have said flat out that it was prudential. Even the USCCB hasn’t come out and claimed the teaching is obligatory.

Ender

Ender - I think you missunderstood me. The church teaches that even when the Pope is not infallibly proclaiming, or making a definitive statement on faith or morals that we are to give that teaching religious assent, and obey that teaching. Of course the teaching must be pertaining to faith and morals Thats exactly just what I quoted from in Lumen Gentium 25.

Now you can argue with me and say you do not believe that the Pope taught that the death penalty is not needed in our current circumstances.

You cannot argue with me and say we are not to obey the ordinary teachings of the church on faith and morals, even when the Pope is not making an infallible declarations, but rather expounding upon a teaching of faith and morals that give us a better more fuller understanding. That is exactly what Lumen Gentium says.

I think you need to read Ludwig Ott’s book on the levels of doctrine and assent we must give. You seem to think there is only infalliable teachings and that’s it. Sorry Charlie. It don’t Beze workin’ dats ways.

 

[estesbob]

Ender - I think you missunderstood me. The church teaches that even when the Pope is not infallibly proclaiming, or making a definitive statement on faith or morals that we are to give that teaching religious assent, and obey that teaching. Of course the teaching must be pertaining to faith and morals Thats exactly just what I quoted from in Lumen Gentium 25.

Now you can argue with me and say you do not believe that the Pope taught that the death penalty is not needed in our current circumstances.

You cannot argue with me and say we are not to obey the ordinary teachings of the church on faith and morals, even when the Pope is not making an infallible declarations, but rather expounding upon a teaching of faith and morals that give us a better more fuller understanding. That is exactly what Lumen Gentium says.

I think you need to read Ludwig Ott’s book on the levels of doctrine and assent we must give. You seem to think there is only infalliable teachings and that’s it. Sorry Charlie. It don’t Beze workin’ dats ways.

As has been pointed out repeatdly the Pope specifically said Catholics could in good conscience support the death penalty. The problems with these discussions is when people try and raise support of the death penalty to the same moral equivalency as abortion and eunthanasia

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ah, well I am someone who will not vote for any presidential candidate who is not consistently pro life. I cant vote for evil of any sort. It seems to me you are bending the definition of pro life a bit though from my perspective. I see pro life as supporting not taking innocent life in the womb and once it leaves it. I see being pro life as being pro all human life even if they are born under a different government. I see pro life as a universal principle. In my opinion most politicians have a very different meaning when they are pro life.

Practically speaking I’ve voted for candidates who claimed to support protecting life in the womb in the past and their election changed nothing. As noted above the Republican Party controlled the presidency, both houses of Congress and the SCOTUS in the early 2000s. If there was ever a time abortion would have been repealed in some way, if electing Republicans is the way to do that, then it would have happened. The fact that it did not happen tells me voting Republican is worthless to this cause. I dont know any other explanation. Do you?

One has to understand context. To Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of the Church, “prolife” means opposing abortion, generation of fetuses for experimentation and industrial purposes, government-permitted infanticide and euthanasia, because the Church does not oppose just war or capital punishment.

To someone else, and it appears you would be included in that number, the term “prolife” might also include “pacifism” and “opposition to capital punishment”.

Understanding as I do that you are protestant and do not feel yourself compelled to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, you can certainly define “prolife” in any way you choose. Jains, who oppose even swatting flies, could define “prolife” to include protection of all life of every kind.

But in the context of CAF, which has a largely Catholic membership, it is at least mildly distracting to the casual reader to see someone posit that being “prolife” includes things not taught by the Church.

One really does have to realize, though, that however one views “prolife” from the Church’s view to those of people who won’t even step on an ant, refusing to oppose those who promote abortion and infanticide is, itself, promotion of abortion and infanticide. So, those who refuse to oppose abortion and infanticide are complicit in the destruction of millions of lives every year. No way around that. We choose our battles in life and we live with the moral consequences.

Possibly you don’t know the Republican party never had a sufficient majority in Congress to reverse Roe vs. Wade and cases following it. Possibly you don’t know that every “prolife” member of the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican president and that every Democrat appointee supports abortion on demand.