E
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tominrichmond
Guest
The odd thing about this topic is that when people talk about dissent, they are looking at the wrong group.
The traditional teaching is that the DP is justified not just because in this or that case it might be necessary to restrain an evil-doer.
The traditional teaching is that recourse to the DP is a vindication of the value of life, a vindication of the Fifth Commandment, and is totally in harmony with the natural virtue of justice. See this good summary by Cardinal Avery Dulles: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html).
This traditional teaching is why the drafters of the CCC could not simply say, “no more death penalty.” The CCC talks about pragmatic reasons there could be recourse to the DP but is utterly silent about the traditional teaching. NOTE, the CCC did not (and could not) change, alter, or revoke the traditional teaching.
The dissent comes on this issue when Catholics declare that the DP is immoral, or should never be used, or is un-Christian. That position is simply heretical, and would imply that the Church has erred in teaching the contrary for milennia.
It cannot be emphasized too much by the way, that WE EXECUTE PEOPLE ONLY RARELY IN AMERICA, i.e., in only .02% of murder cases. Most of these executions are after trials and sentencing hearings that show the offender is highly likely to re-offend and continue to commit acts of violence. THAT is why juries vote for execution.
Society has a right to defend itself. The real shame is when it does not because of misplaced pity or an utterly speculative and unrealistic notion that God needs more time to save the offender from himself.
The traditional teaching is that the DP is justified not just because in this or that case it might be necessary to restrain an evil-doer.
The traditional teaching is that recourse to the DP is a vindication of the value of life, a vindication of the Fifth Commandment, and is totally in harmony with the natural virtue of justice. See this good summary by Cardinal Avery Dulles: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html).
This traditional teaching is why the drafters of the CCC could not simply say, “no more death penalty.” The CCC talks about pragmatic reasons there could be recourse to the DP but is utterly silent about the traditional teaching. NOTE, the CCC did not (and could not) change, alter, or revoke the traditional teaching.
The dissent comes on this issue when Catholics declare that the DP is immoral, or should never be used, or is un-Christian. That position is simply heretical, and would imply that the Church has erred in teaching the contrary for milennia.
It cannot be emphasized too much by the way, that WE EXECUTE PEOPLE ONLY RARELY IN AMERICA, i.e., in only .02% of murder cases. Most of these executions are after trials and sentencing hearings that show the offender is highly likely to re-offend and continue to commit acts of violence. THAT is why juries vote for execution.
Society has a right to defend itself. The real shame is when it does not because of misplaced pity or an utterly speculative and unrealistic notion that God needs more time to save the offender from himself.
S
Spider42
Guest
I’m not sure what you point here is. If you are insinuating that I am falsely presenting Church teaching, I’ve given you references. The Universal Catechism, the Local Catechism, papal encyclicals, the dogmatic constitution of the church, and the pastoral constitution of the Church.This must be a very new teaching because not only did the Church not condemn the use of capital punishment in it’s 2000 year history but at times used it. So it must not have been participating in a culture of death back then. Does the Church today condemn the execution of nazi war crimianls? Did it ask for their lives to be spared back in 1946? I find it very strange that this “teaching” was never universaly applied throughout it’s history. That’s a big flip.
As a matter of historical record, the Church did advise leniency towards WW-II war crimiinals. Pointing out that more than 40,000,000 had already died world wide and that vengence would not bring them back. This is often cited in otherwise dubious claims that the Church had Nazi sympathies.
I don’t know how it could be made any simpler, the Church has always recognized the tension between the 5th Commandment and the death penalty. Likewise, the Church has always been aware of Jesus’ brushes with the subject in the synoptic Gospels, as well as the extensive martyrdom of early Christians. Take, for example, the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
500 years ago, the Church believed that the death penalty best represented the balance for right to life overall. Today things are different, and the living Magisterium has concluded that right to life is best represented by not killing anyone and that societies, particularly modern western societies, can afford life long incarceration. This is undoubtedly true, since it has become the norm, with the US being one of the few exceptions - yet enjoying no measurable benefit in public safety, exactly the opposite.“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.” - Part III, 5, #4, emphasis added
This is why we have a living Magisterium. We no longer live in the 1st century or the 16th. The modern apostles help move us towards a better application of the natural law. This is true on abortion, slavery, and the death penalty.
Yes, the Church generally leads the laity, it took over a millenia to stamp out the common practice of infanticide among gentile converts, but the Church has the special gift of authority from God.
Pax Christi
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
The traditional teaching is not wrong and those that believe the death penalty should not be applied now are not saying that traditional teaching is wrong.The odd thing about this topic is that when people talk about dissent, they are looking at the wrong group.
The traditional teaching is that the DP is justified not just because in this or that case it might be necessary to restrain an evil-doer.
The traditional teaching is that recourse to the DP is a vindication of the value of life, a vindication of the Fifth Commandment, and is totally in harmony with the natural virtue of justice. See this good summary by Cardinal Avery Dulles: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html).
This traditional teaching is why the drafters of the CCC could not simply say, “no more death penalty.” The CCC talks about pragmatic reasons there could be recourse to the DP but is utterly silent about the traditional teaching. NOTE, the CCC did not (and could not) change, alter, or revoke the traditional teaching.
The dissent comes on this issue when Catholics declare that the DP is immoral, or should never be used, or is un-Christian. That position is simply heretical, and would imply that the Church has erred in teaching the contrary for milennia.
It cannot be emphasized too much by the way, that WE EXECUTE PEOPLE ONLY RARELY IN AMERICA, i.e., in only .02% of murder cases. Most of these executions are after trials and sentencing hearings that show the offender is highly likely to re-offend and continue to commit acts of violence. THAT is why juries vote for execution.
Society has a right to defend itself. The real shame is when it does not because of misplaced pity or an utterly speculative and unrealistic notion that God needs more time to save the offender from himself.
What we are saying is that over time, we have come to a better understanding of that teaching and what it means. Therefore, we now understand the teaching to mean that the death penalty should only be used in cases where there is no other way to protect society from the offender. This is not a change in teaching, this is simply a better understanding of that teaching.
The Jewish culture also accepted the death penalty, yet the rabbis that were in charge made it so difficult to use that it was basically eliminated. That is not to say that the teaching no longer exists or that it was wrong, but simply that they, like the Catholic church have come to a better understanding of that teaching.
Taking a life is always something serious and should never be taken lightly. There are certainly cases where taking a life is justified, but it should always be a last resort. It should never be the first desire of a civilized people.
Do people re-offend in prison, certainly, but this to me should be a call to better secure our prisons and not a call to expand the death penalty.
S
Spider42
Guest
You do not need to address straw men, I am right here. And, if you read carefully, I have specifically cited the *Magisterium’s *assessment of US application of the death penalty. I have, likewise, used the *Magisterium’s *definition of dissent (quoting both doctrinal notes and the dogmatic constitution of the Church).The odd thing about this topic is that when people talk about dissent, they are looking at the wrong group…
…The dissent comes on this issue when Catholics declare that the DP is immoral, or should never be used, or is un-Christian. That position is simply heretical, and would imply that the Church has erred in teaching the contrary for milennia.
I have made a point of repeatedly stressing that the word *dissent * is encouraged because it afford the apostles proper respect for their special position as “authentic teachers” (Lumen Gentium #25). And the example I used was myself, I can ‘disagree’ with a talking head on the TV, I am in ‘respectful dissent’ when I disagree with the judgement of the Magisterium.
And, repeatedly, I have stressed that this particular form of dissent does not rise to the level of Sacramental unworthiness and that it in no way makes anyone a better or worse Catholic.
This is important because if we ignore, say, CCC 2478, which I cite above, we are no longer instructing and behaving as Christians. I would not presume to know your motivations, but when someone starts proclaiming that complete agreement with the local princes, expressed passionately, is ‘heresy’, they are usually acting out of emotion, not reason. And, the sort of emotional turmoil that leads us to describe our fellow Christians in judgemental and uncharitable ways is often a turmoil within. Our own battle with our true moral conscience, which is externalized in anger.
What I always remind my students is that the first simple formula for the entire faith presented by the Church is the two commandments of love, the second is a good expression of the second of these - the Golden Rule, as expressed in the Gospel of Matthew. (Compendium of the Catechsim, appendix B).
And the Church is well aware that, despite all the extra cost and overhead, and relatively small use, we still manage to condemn and even execute innocents, and our application represents a strong racial bias. Racism is dogmatically held to be intrinsically evil as well (Gaudium et spes).It cannot be emphasized too much by the way, that WE EXECUTE PEOPLE ONLY RARELY IN AMERICA, i.e., in only .02% of murder cases. Most of these executions are after trials and sentencing hearings that show the offender is highly likely to re-offend and continue to commit acts of violence. THAT is why juries vote for execution.
Well, St. Paul was a torture murderer bent on exterminating the Christian faith before his salvation. His writings represent about half the New Testament. And the Church has to be aware of the criteria nations will be held to by the Son of Man (Matthew 25).Society has a right to defend itself. The real shame is when it does not because of misplaced pity or an utterly speculative and unrealistic notion that God needs more time to save the offender from himself.
More fundamentally, the Church has to honor not just the 5th commandment, but the 8th as well. Jesus is the “truth, the light, and the way”. Shouting that something is “unrealistic” does not make the statement true. Most modern nations have overwhelmingly abandoned the death penalty as a barbaric anachronism, and suffer no measurable ill effect because if it. Being a global institution, the Church has to base it’s understanding of faith on this measurable reality.
But, again, no one can be forced to accept the faith against his/her will, and the Church does not expect people to ignore the certainty of their moral conscience, She only expects them to remain aware of the always present possibility of moral error (CCC 1790) and the Church’s special position with regards to faith and morals (Lumen Gentium #25).
Moving the goalposts to where we are is basic human nature, as is demonizing anyone who disagrees with us. But Jesus places a higher expectation. We often fail Him, but this does not make the expectations “unrealistic”, just a lifelong endeavor.
Pax Christi
J
J_Peterson
Guest
That’s an interesting way to look at it, I never though of it that way. Even when it is necessary it shouldn’t be celebrated but mourned.Remember, the simplest formula of the faith is the Two Commandments of Love (Compendium to the Catechism, Appendix B). When you love the people you want to execute, to the point that you would mourn their death like your own spouse or child, then I would say that the second commandment placed on each of us by Christ is fullfilled. Until that time, I would strongly urge every Catholic to start with the presumption that the Church is correct and that our individual moral consciences need to grow.
After all, we have an apostolic Church, it is a shame not to use it!
Pax Christi
T
tominrichmond
Guest
“And the Church is well aware that, despite all the extra cost and overhead, and relatively small use, we still manage to condemn and even execute innocents, and our application represents a strong racial bias. Racism is dogmatically held to be intrinsically evil as well (Gaudium et spes).”
Totally false. There is not ONE, not ONE reliably documented case of a factually innocent person being executed in the US since the re-introduction of the DP in the 1970s. But even if one could be shown, it is logically immaterial to the morality of the use of the death penalty. We are much more careful today about prosecuting and executing offenders than at any time in history, with multiple levels of legal safeguards and high evidentiary standards, including DNA and other scientific means of proving guilt that did not exist in former times.
If your belief that this modified modern position of the CCC was really “magisterial” you would be incorrect that any Catholic could dissent from it. A teaching that truly belongs to the corpus of Faith and Morals is infallible, and cannot be dissented from without sin.
The reality is, the current modified teaching is not magisterial at all, or binding on any Catholic in conscience. This is why the Holy Father himself could say that “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, June 2004).
If the proposition that “the death penalty may only be legitimately invoked rarely if at all” were truly magisterial, the Pope could not say it was a matter of legitimate diversity of opinion.
The error, as I said before, is that people try to elevate the modified modern position into the only permissible Catholic position, as if the prior (and truly magisterial teaching) could be ignored or relegated to the trash can.
Totally false. There is not ONE, not ONE reliably documented case of a factually innocent person being executed in the US since the re-introduction of the DP in the 1970s. But even if one could be shown, it is logically immaterial to the morality of the use of the death penalty. We are much more careful today about prosecuting and executing offenders than at any time in history, with multiple levels of legal safeguards and high evidentiary standards, including DNA and other scientific means of proving guilt that did not exist in former times.
If your belief that this modified modern position of the CCC was really “magisterial” you would be incorrect that any Catholic could dissent from it. A teaching that truly belongs to the corpus of Faith and Morals is infallible, and cannot be dissented from without sin.
The reality is, the current modified teaching is not magisterial at all, or binding on any Catholic in conscience. This is why the Holy Father himself could say that “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, June 2004).
If the proposition that “the death penalty may only be legitimately invoked rarely if at all” were truly magisterial, the Pope could not say it was a matter of legitimate diversity of opinion.
The error, as I said before, is that people try to elevate the modified modern position into the only permissible Catholic position, as if the prior (and truly magisterial teaching) could be ignored or relegated to the trash can.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
Totally wrong. I am opposed to it both on a religious and political level.
Politically-The state should not have the power to murder its own citizens.
Religiously-Pretty much the entire core of love and forgiveness at the heart of God’s message.
Politically-The state should not have the power to murder its own citizens.
Religiously-Pretty much the entire core of love and forgiveness at the heart of God’s message.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
I looked for stats on homicides in prison. The most recent comprehensive statistics I found from department of justice were from the 2000-2002 period, and there was something like 83 homicides nationwide in local jails and state prisons during that period. Two states had by far more than any other: Texas and California, both of which have the death penalty. But… homicide in general was the least common cause of death (of things that were individually broken out). Suicide and AIDS were both much more prevalent causes of death in prison. Homicide in prison was following a decades-long downward trend.
Makes me think this whole premise that we need to execute more people to prevent some huge rash of prison murders is overblown.
Report from DOJ can be found at bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1126
Makes me think this whole premise that we need to execute more people to prevent some huge rash of prison murders is overblown.
Report from DOJ can be found at bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1126
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
Out of curiosity how often do death penalty cases get an exhaustive re-examination of the evidence or consideration of new evidence AFTER the execution?Totally false. There is not ONE, not ONE reliably documented case of a factually innocent person being executed in the US since the re-introduction of the DP in the 1970s. But even if one could be shown …
Clearly there are cases of exhoneration upon re-examination or consideration of new evidence BEFORE execution, in which case of course we say the system works, the innocent person is spared. But often times it is with monumental effort to get the case re-opened, against strong opposition from the state. How often does it happen that there is nobody willing to take up the cause? How often does the state convince the courts that there is no grounds to re-open the case; the original evidence was airtight, etc.
Given the limited resources and lack of any possible positive outcome for the executed person, I doubt that there is much effort put into re-investigation after the fact. And it’s not often that the legal system re-hears a case on behalf of a dead man to factually establish that he was innocent. So it’s almost a self-evident truth that there are no reliably documented cases of a factually innocent person being executed in the US, and there probably never will be, doubly so because most people executed come from poor families who can’t afford to endlessly push against the legal system out of their personal wealth, and would have to depend on charity or pro-bono work to pursue a post-mortem exhoneration.
If it were easy to factually document the persons’ innocence, it would have been done before the execution. In many cases it may not be easy to factually document, but I don’t think from that we can conclude that mistakes are never, or even rarely, made. It’s just that the mistakes are hard to prove to begin with, and are unlikely to ever be given a full hearing even if new evidence comes to light after the fact.
E
Ender
Guest
I appreciate your attaching a link to your data. I’ve looked for this information in the past and it is indeed hard to fine. According to Table 5 (if I read it correctly) there were 16 murders committed in 2001-2002 by inmates already convicted of murder, an annual rate that appears fairly constant.I looked for stats on homicides in prison. The most recent comprehensive statistics I found from department of justice were from the 2000-2002 period, and there was something like 83 homicides nationwide in local jails and state prisons during that period.
Does 16 recidivist murders a year justify the assertion that we are “effectively repressing crime”?Makes me think this whole premise that we need to execute more people to prevent some huge rash of prison murders is overblown.
Ender
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
When you consider the total population of American prisons, 16 sounds like a low number to me. I do not think it is justification for the death penalty IMO.I appreciate your attaching a link to your data. I’ve looked for this information in the past and it is indeed hard to fine. According to Table 5 (if I read it correctly) there were 16 murders committed in 2001-2002 by inmates already convicted of murder, an annual rate that appears fairly constant.
Does 16 recidivist murders a year justify the assertion that we are “effectively repressing crime”?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This point seems lost in most arguments about the use of capital punishment. The primary objective of punishment is not the protection of society (as one might incorrectly assume from CCC 2267) but is in fact retributive justice. It is not the prevention of future crimes but the restoration of the order disturbed by the one already committed that justifies punishment.The traditional teaching is that recourse to the DP is a vindication of the value of life, a vindication of the Fifth Commandment, and is totally in harmony with the natural virtue of justice.
You make another point that is poorly grasped: holding that capital punishment is immoral or un-Christian is in fact a heresy and has been called so in the past.The dissent comes on this issue when Catholics declare that the DP is immoral, or should never be used, or is un-Christian. That position is simply heretical, and would imply that the Church has erred in teaching the contrary for milennia.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
That is a reasonable objection: so where does the number of murders cross the line from acceptable to unacceptable?When you consider the total population of American prisons, 16 sounds like a low number to me. I do not think it is justification for the death penalty IMO.
For comparison, a lot of people oppose capital punishment because they believe innocent people are occasionally executed. Would you consider 16 faulty executions a year to be a low number as well? In fact there is little reason to believe that there have been that many innocents executed since capital punishment was reinstated back in the 70’s but it is interesting to compare the number of murders we know to have happened to the relatively much smaller number of innocents alleged to have been executed.
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.