Do you support the death penalty?

[dudleysharp]

To the contrary, everyone has the obligation to point out what they think are serious errors, if they find that the Truth is in jeopardy.

No only are there obvious contradictions within the Catechism, itself, there are nearly 2000 years of Catholic teaching, in conflict with the recent 8 years of new instructions (if the final amendments to 2267 were from 2003, which I think they are).

It seems unchallenged that PJPII secular based restriction on the death penalty has no historical. traditonal or rational backing, yet, that is what got it into the CCC.

 

[dudleysharp]

The US Bishops may “maintain” what they will.

The death penalty has been deemed justified by 2000 years of Church teachings, with some teachings mandating its imposition.

 

[dudleysharp]

Overwhelmingly, the Bishop’s complaints are secular, standard anti death penalty claims, which are much weaker than the pro death penalty positions.

It is a fact that the death penalty upholds “the legitimate purposes of punishment” in Church teachings, in direct conflict with the Bishop’s claim.

The Bishops 5 points are either contracted by the facts or give no reason to oppose capital punishment.

1. has been thorughly rebutted, herein
2. innocents are more at risk without the death penalty, as shown herein
3. All serious criminal sanctions cause anguish, which is the direct result of the criminals action. If sanction does not cause anguish, it can’t be a sanction.
4. Publicity? What nonsense. The more publicity severe sanctions get, the better, for many reasons.
5. Discrimination or bias is part of many human enteprises. We seek to improve those enterprises, not get rid of them.

But: Rebuttal to the death penalty racism claims

1. “Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias”
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html
2. “The Death Penalty and Racism The Times Have Changed”, Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, The American Interest, Nov/Dec 2010,
   the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=901
3. SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
   BY KENT SCHEIDEGGER
   cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPenaltyRace.pdf
4. Race, Sentencing and the death penalty.
   prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Race

and

1. McCleskey V Kemp

Baldus’database and work in McCleskey was quite poor.

Read Federal District Court Judge Forrester’s rejection of Baldus’ database for McCleskey.

A more thorough review is provided by Joseph Katz, who did the methodological review of the Baldus database, which was rife with errors and problems. I have it, if you care to research.

In addition, SCOTUS totally misunderstood the math involved.

They ignorantly wrote: “defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks.”

Totally inaccurate.

It was by odds of 4.3 times, which can mean a differential as low as 2%, “t w o” percent, as opposed to the 330% differential represented by 4.3 times.

SCOTUS blew it big time on this.

These two articles, below, give a good explanation of the Baldus problems:

“The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics”
By John Allen Paulos, Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1998
articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/12/opinion/op-2965

See “The Odds of Execution” within “How numbers are tricking you”, by Arnold Barnett, MIT Technology Review October, 1994
reocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/barnett.htm

 

[LPS]

No, I do not support the death penalty. I am pro-life from conception to natural death.

The Author of Life alone should remove the breath of life from His creation. NObody “gets away” with anything; the Bible is clear on that.

 

[dudleysharp]

Are you sure you want to defend the notion that we must use the Old Testament as our guide for how to mete out punishment?

Both God and the Church thought it perfectly fine.

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same commands from God, in the same circumstance, from the OT.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.

There are so many defenses of the death penalty, by the Chuch, over 2000 years, it is simply astounding in their breadth and depth, as opposed to the recent reversal of the latest amendment to the CCC, which occurred in 2003, I believe, for which little defense can be offerred.

 

[dudleysharp]

How do you know (Troy Davis) was guilty? Even Pope Benedikt XVI was among those who called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial. Most people doubt that which is the problem with Capital Punishment: make a mistake and you kill an innocent person. :

The case for Troy Davis’ guilt was overwhelming.

The facts of the case are very differnt than the fraud presented by anti death penalty activists.

Read the court record, as opposed to listenting to the anti death penalty nonsense.

Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby
Dudley Sharp, sharpjfa@aol.com

The Troy Davis campaign, like many before it (1), is a simple, blantant fraud, easily uncovered by the most basic of fact checking (1).

The 2010 federal court innocence hearing found:

" . . . Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis’s claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury’s judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989." (2)

“Ultimately, while Mr. Davis’s new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors.” (2)

“As a body, this evidence does not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr.
Davis’s trial.”(2)

“The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value.” (2)

None of this came as a surprise to anyone who actually followed the case, in contrast to the Save Troy Davis folks who were, willingly, duped.

1. a) “Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions, rightly, failed”,
   homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/troy-davis-worldwide-anti-death-penalty-deceptions-rightly-failed.aspx

b) "Troy Davis fairly convicted, not ‘railroaded’ "
savannahnow.com/column/2011-10-06/column-spencer-lawton-troy-davis-fairly-convicted-not-railroaded

1. “Innocence Hearing”, ordered by the US Supreme Court, US DISTRICT COURT, in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIV.,RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS, CASE NO. CV409-130
   multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf

 

[dudleysharp]

also relevant to this thread is the fact that by supporting the death penalty, catholics may come under attack by those of the political far left (of which i am a member, although i do not attack anyone for their beliefs). i once heard a liberal in america say: “the christians: they love all life, until it’s born!”

Coming under attack means nothing.

Knowing how to respond to that improper attack is a duty.

2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

“An ‘innocent’ human being”

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

“An ‘innocent’ person.”

Here are the 3 additonal, specific references, with citations.

The Catholic Church has made it very clear that the death penalty and abortion are very different topics, morally and theologically.

Catholics in good standing can support the death penalty and even an increase in executions, if their own prudential judgement calls for it.

Abortion is always an intrinsic evil.

Some teachings:

1. Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger)

“stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows”: “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.” (1)

1. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ

"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. " “No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.” (2)

1. Fr. John De Celles, “What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do” (3)

"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … *t is therefore never licit to … “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” “In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion.”

“Now, some will want to say that these bishops-and I- are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.”

"Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens? Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?

“Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems.”

(1) “More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?”, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 catholic.org/featured/headline.php NOTE: Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and delivered this with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

(2) (3) “The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3

(3) “What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do: Correcting Pelosi”, National Review Online, 9/1/2008 6:00AM
article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY1MzAwOTc5MmViMzUyYzM5YmY3OWFkYzdkMzY0YzM=

ALSO:

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082601.html

New York Cardinal - Pelosi Not Worthy of “Providing Leadership in a Civilized Democracy”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082605.html*

 

[dudleysharp]

Protecting ourselves from a convicted murderer does not mean that “all will be happy” (with the exception of those who feel as you do). The murder victims’ loved ones will probably not ever be happy about what has happened. They won’t be happy if the murderer is executed. They won’t be happy if the murderer is kept in prison, even the starkest prison, for the rest of his life. Neither of those actions will accomplish what they believe will make them happy - their loved one will still be dead and will not be coming home.

The best that execution may do is provide some means of closure (which may also be provided by the knowledge that the murderer is locked away for life with no chance of parole) and slake a person’s thirst for vengeance. Closure is good. Wanting vengeance is not.

We all need to follow Jesus’ teaching. We are supposed to forgive. Always. Forgiveness is the only way (IMHO) to provide permanent closure and regain happiness after the brutal loss of a loved one through murder.

Forgiveness does not exclude a just sanction, in fact a just sanction and particularly the death penalty may provide expiation, as the Church teaches.

The person to offer earthly forgiveness is dead.

No one stated or implied that execution made folks happy.

There is no earthly closure in the murder of a loved one or in the execution of the murderer.

There are two important points though.

Execution is the end of the legal process and, more importantly, for the murder victim survivors, is the fact that the murderer(s) can no longer harm or murder, again, a result which no other sanction can claim.

Whether the murder victim survivors want justice or vengeance is important. However, it is the criminal justice system which imposes sanction.

 

[dudleysharp]

i’d like to point out that so-called “death prone” jurors, those who make it through the voir dire (jury selection under lawyer scrutiny) part of a capital punishment trial, have been scienfically been determined to be much more likely to vote guilty. snip

furthermore, in places where the death penalty has been abolished, murder and other capital crime rates have usually gone down, not up, and in places where the death penalty is still in existence, like texas, murder and other capital crimes are rampant
snip

No. First all jurors in all cases must be able to give all of the available punishment options in any given case, meaning they must be able to uphold the law. It is the same for all jurors regarless of the crime or available sanctions in that case.

Secondly, prosecutors must be much more sure of the cases for which they decide to move forward with a death penalty, therefore making it more likley there will be a guiult verdict.

No, “where the death penalty has been abolished, murder and other capital crime rates have usually gone down, not up,”

Nonsense. They go in all different directions.

Facts matter:

Regarding violence - Detailed country by country review: “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

 

[dudleysharp]

Amanda Knox was just freed after she has been convicted of murder in Italy 4 years ago. Luckily Europe got rid of the death penalty or she would be celebrating her innocence in a coffin.

Just the opposite is true.

After 4 years, the appellate ruling set her free.

The same appelate ruling would have existed had the death penalty been in force.

If anything like the US death penalty appellate protocol existed in your imagined scenario, case, then she would have greater due process protections than with any lesser sentence, meaning that actual innocents would be less likely to die by execution than it would be that actual innocents would die in prison, while serving a life sentence.

BTW, the appeals process in the Knox case could last for a few more years. The prosecution is challenging the recent findings setting her free.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip Also, dude, the average wait to be executed in the US is 20 years; a death row inmate is significantly more likely to die of old age than to actually be executed.

its 10-11 years

 

[dudleysharp]

I don’t get Ender’s logic either. He’d rather see innocent people get wrongly executed and preserve the death penalty than make sure no innocent man is killed by false conviction by getting rid of the death penalty. The reasoning is to protect the innocent. If a murderer is locked up in a high security prison for the rest of his life, how can he harm the innocent?

No, what he said is that many more innocents are saved than put at risk by the death penalty.

He is correct.

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
2. Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
3. “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
   tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

1. “The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
2. The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents” scam
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
3. Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx
4. “At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

hastrman & ender -

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of “extreme gravity” (No. 2266), while also stating, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means.” (No. 2267)
:

This is one of the many contradicitons within the CCC.

2267: “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.”

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity.

With Numbers 35:31 there is: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.”

Deserves as in justice, retribution.

When it comes to commensurate or proportional sanctions, of course we can disagree on what that may mean, prudentially. However, with murder and its proper sanction, I think we are instructed with Genesis, Numbers and traditional Church teachings that the proper sanction for murder is death.
I
n addition, had EV been properly thought through (3,4), it would have concluded that innocents were better protected with the death penalty and, therefore, it is a greater defender of society and, as such EV would have not created the errors which were then wrongly put into the Catechism.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip

Also lets look at this from another angle since the “Ultimate Punishment” seems to be of such concern for those who scream “justice”.

Let me ask, which is the greater punishment of the most wicked. To kill them immediately or for them to sit alone in a cell for 20, 30, 40, 50 years??? Think before you answer.

OK

Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it’s a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.

Reality paints a very different picture.

First, there is always the possibility of getting out of prison.

More importantly, living murderers can harm and murder, again - executed murderers cannot. A very big deal.

Secondly, let’s look at those who actually face the death penalty and see what they choose.

What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.

This is not, even remotely, in dispute.

What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

No surprise.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip

Geez, killers are actually volunteering for DP now. Why do you suppose this is so? Because they believe they deserve it? I think not.

There was another Death Row killer here in CT a few years back. Michael Ross, created a situation by insisting on being put to death. And they granted his wish. However the part that wasn’t told of the story is how he actually lived in prison. He was truly feeling the pain. For he was a serial rapist killer and with young girls/women at that. Well in prison they rolled him around in a actual cage surrounded by guards at all times. Why? Because even the criminals didn’t want him around. But he didn’t recieve the DP, shocking isn’t it. No he went back to court to have the DP imposed on him and won the case. Fact is he chose death over being treated as he was by his peers.

You are in error.

Ross received the death penalty at trial and because the judges in Ct are so opposed to the death penalty, he had to volunteer for execution by wiaving his appeals.

Yes, he preferred death over life in prison.

But note only about 0.5% of those subject to the death penalty actually volunteer to be executed.

Don’t you think the 99.5% tell us the real impact of the death penalty, or are you suggesting it is the 0.5%?

 

[dudleysharp]

snip . It does seem that Amerio’s position is the most reasonable one. Do we really believe that person A can frustrate God’s plan for person B? What of the murder victim? Is he damned because his life was cut off before he righted his own ship? If it is unfair for the State to execute a criminal (after a decade or so) is it not even more unfair for God to allow disasters to snuff out lives without warning or even the possibility of repentance? God has granted the State the right to employ the death penalty. It seems a bit strained to claim that the State isn’t justified in doing what God allows.

Ender

I think Amerio’s position will, eventually, have an influence on correcting the many problems in current Chuch teaching on this topic.

 

[dudleysharp]

On some matters, as you know, that is most certainly not true.

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

1998

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.”

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.”

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” " . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)."

1. “Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
   therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

There is no claim by the Church that it anything but a prudential judgement. There can’t be.

As well, I think you misunderstand by saying “merely”.

 

[dudleysharp]

Sadly, you are reflecting only your lack of charity.

Reconsider.

Ender, seemingly, only using established Church teachings, has made a solid case, in what he sees as defending Church Truths. So far, no one has, sucessfully, refuted what he has presented.

I have seen no one showing an exhuberent thirst for blood, unless you are wrongly accusing those well known Church scholars, Saints, Popes, etc, whose quotes have been used, throughout.

I think that was just an unfortunate and uncalled for personal “dig”.

Do better.

If someone, with reflection, care and concern, finds an error in Chuch teaching, how uncharitable would it be not to point it out?

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.”

(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 2007)

It is more than safe to say that if PJPII had not, wrongly, introduced the restriction, there would have been no amendment to the CCC, because the amendment is based upon the restriction.

If the nature of the restriction was wrong, the amendment was wrong.

“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.”

(R.M. Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L, 2003)

The Catechisms main purpose is to give the faithful a dependable referrence of Chuch teachings for means of clarity, the opposite of what has happened, here.

 

[Ender]

It is justice alone that not only permits punishment (including capital punishment) but makes it an obligation. That I am unapologetic in explaining that fact hardly makes me blood thirsty

The crux of the defense seems to be that for 1900 + years, the church has taught that the death penalty was acceptable, and that is no doubt true.

No doubt, despite the fact that 2267 gets the point wrong.

However, NOW is not 1900 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or even 200 years ago. Circumstances change and the teachings of the church must and alway have adapted to changes in society.

Morality is timeless and doctrines assuredly do not change with the time. Development is one thing; change is quite another.

The same is true for the death penalty. Times have changed and most society’s ability to deal with violent criminals is different now than it was even 50 years ago, though admittedly still not perfect.

I don’t think the facts support this conclusion; in fact I think they refute it. The assumption is that only in the modern era have we been able to imprison people for very long periods of time and that simply isn’t true.

The present teaching ( and yes I believe it is beyond any rational discussion to claim that the church view on the death penalty is merely a prudential postion given the vast resources, including the catachism, the compendium on social teaching, papal statements and innumerable episcopal statements which demonstrate a clear consensus of the magisterium, exactly like the consensus on abortion or artifical contraception) takes into account these changes and the fact that we are better able to incarcerate violent criminals with less risk to society, than we were even 50 years ago.

First, it really doesn’t matter how many magisterial pronouncements there are about modern penal systems, any analysis of their capabilities is an opinion. It is ludicrous on its face to consider such an analysis doctrine. Think for a moment how one would defend an assertion as to what they can or cannot do. Would you be more likely to consult the works of Thomas Aquinas or the Bureau of Justice Statistics?

Second, even if the consensus is as you say, that consensus directly contradicts the consensus that existed for over 1900 years. There has been no growth or development in the creation of this new position. It is a reversal. Or, it would be if it weren’t prudential.

The undisputable teaching of the Church is that "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.

This is hardly indisputable inasmuch as it is factually incorrect. The Church never had the restriction this statement claims.

To this teaching, though admittedly not infallible, Catholics absolutely owe “religious assent”, with a respect of intellect and will to the Magisterium of the Church. Any attempt to claim error of the Church in this TEACHING, constitutes extreme pride and demonstrates a lack of spiritual humility, and an arrogance that frankly are almost beyond my ability to understand, coming from otherwise very observant Catholics.

I merely cited Cardinal Dulles, Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB. This diatribe applies to them at least as much as those who quote them.

Ender