Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[KindredSoul]

Insert long list of Bible Quotes here

None of the verses supporting capital punishment for non-violent offenses are from the New Testament. The Old Testament Laws, when it came to punishment, were confined to and intended to be confined to the Israelite Legal system of that era, just as surely as U.S. Law is intended to be confined to the U.S. legal system. That’s not to say many of the condemned practices aren’t still immoral in God’s eyes, but it is to say that the human-enacted punishments prescribed for them are by no means intended to apply in every nation and/or for all time. As for how harsh these punishments were, such harsh punishments applied to thieves and adulterers, whom most people agree are definitely doing something wrong though I would certainly not advocate putting them to death under modern law. It was characteristic of Jewish Law to use seeming overkill for all manner of morality breeches; in the ancient world, such harsh consequences were often the only way to get anyone to take a legal code seriously, since they lacked the extensive prison system of today (for thieves and the like) and the full understanding of of postmortem punishment (for more “private” forms of immorality). Since Israelite society as a religiously observant society was part of God’s plan, He implemented a Law that would actually have half a chance at seeing that to fruition. Thus it was.

Meanwhile, the New Testament quotes you cite, which have far more to do with God’s universal and eternal law (as opposed to the Law of the Old Covenant era being more directly concerned with pre-Christ Israel), do not prescribe capital punishment for any non-violent crimes, nor do they prescribe it at all seeing as how the New Covenant is not intricately and irrevocably tied to any one nation’s legal system like the Old was. The New Covenant affirms the moral teachings of the Old Covenant Law (hence the “Law is good”) but never claims that we must or even should observe the legal teachings (punishments, etc.) of the Old Covenant Law.

While some of these verses are direct orders to murder our fellow (wo)men) others are a preview of what our loving Father is going to do to our brothers and sisters once they leave this vale of tears.

Just to make sure you’re aware of this, what punishments are and aren’t just for God Himself to inflict upon His own creation when they willingly and unflinchingly break His law is not something that your or anyone else’s opinion, including mine, decides. God is not just some cosmic being with a lot of power; as the Creator, as God, He is intrinsically different than any created being, even a hypothetical one who somehow had His power. Since He created everything from nothing, using no pre-existing materials, and is thus the Maker and rightful Master of all in a way that humans could never be masters of even their own inventions, certain rights automatically belong to Him that of course do not belong to a created being, even if they had god-like power. Not to mention is the (acceptable) theory that Hell is so unbelievably painful because that’s just what it feels like (worse than eternal Fire) to be 100% separated from God. If that is true (as it is acceptable to believe, so far as I know) then it isn’t as though God made a torture chamber so much as He is just totally cutting people off from Him and letting them deal with the painful, infinitely-worse-than-withdrawal-symptom consequences of their decision. And who could dare say God is unjust for just giving people what they pursued (or at least embraced) their entire lives: Freedom from Him? It isn’t His fault, after all, that they didn’t believe Him when He quite zealously said that would be a worse fate than any torture imaginable.

That said, what God will or won’t do has nothing to do with how humans should or shouldn’t punish those who violate God’s law, thus postmortem punishment has no bearing on this discussion, although you believe the following:

And as we all know, the religious do take their queue from the deity, as has been demonstrated ( and still is, in some parts of the world) ad nauseum.

To that, I simply state the obvious (or at least I should hope it is obvious): Just because many religious people possess such hubris as to think they possess the same rights as God doesn’t mean that God Himself believes they do, unless He explicitly gives them the command to act in such a way (and last I checked, we do not live in ancient Israel). The latter just doesn’t follow from the former, and to say that it does is to presume far too much unless one is deliberately ignoring the basic tenants of logic.

How is this not relevant?
This is a Catholic forum and this thread discusses the acceptability of putting people to death.

Actually, the thread is about the acceptability of putting people to death who may very plausibly be innocent of the legitimately capital crimes of which they were convicted when the accuser is aware of that possible innocence. Even if you were right in every other way in this discussion (which you haven’t demonstrated) it would still be irrelevant to the actual point of this particular thread. You would, for instance, have to show that Ancient Israelites thought it was okay to kill an Adulteress who the executioners actually had good reason to think was innocent to even begin to have a relevant point to this thread, and even then it wouldn’t apply to Catholicism so much as to Ancient Israel’s legal system, as indicated above.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (from above)

From Summa Theologica.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. Colored Emphasis Mine

Your quote from Aquinas, particularly what I have highlighted, provides the key to understanding what individual Christians believed, even those who were incredibly wise and prominent, as opposed to what Christianity teaches. Aquinas, as did the early Fathers and people throughout the Middle Ages, lived in a society that believed harsh penalties, including the Death Penalty, were appropriate for crimes that we would not apply them to today. No one would say, for instance, that a forger deserved death today. But such were the values of society, and just so you know (as I’m sure you do) this was inherited from the way society was long before Jesus Christ was born, and long before Christianity came to the nations…so blaming Christianity for this would be a false cause fallacy.

Anyway, moving right along, Aquinas and others like him grew up believing (as it is easy to absorb societal values when they are exceedingly popular) that it was a simple fact of life that forgers and the like deserved death, even though no one could argue that they gleaned such beliefs from Catholicism itself, and they rightly observed that Heresy is in fact worse than relatively minor (in modern eyes) offenses for which death was deemed appropriate. Therefore, it was easy to logically conclude (without it ever being infallibly set in stone, mind you) that if death was appropriate for these lesser offenders, it was appropriate for heretics. Since all the Church Fathers and people down until modern times lived in similar cultures, the same influence would have applied to them quite easily.

In other words, until very recently, human beings as a race (certainly in Western culture) simply tended to believe that death and harsh punishments were far too often appropriate for deeds that we today would balk at as far as deserving such measures, and this carried over to heresy. As we have established, this was simply the culture of humanity, and in no way does this attitude have its origins (nor can it even find a true basis) in Catholicism, as the attitude existed even when pagan religious were rather dominant, and even then it was sometimes not the religions themselves that prescribed such culture–it was largely a human-attitude phenomenon, not a religious one.

That culture, as might be easily expected, crept into the mindset of people of all belief systems who lived within such society, and it would have crept in regardless of whether or not those people were Catholic, Protestant, atheist, etc. Because, at its core, the attitude was not religiously based; it was cultural, and devoutly religious thinkers, accepting it as a fact of life (like Aquinas, like Augustine) understandably tried to justify it based upon their religion, not out of malice, but precisely because they felt obligated to reconcile what they saw as an undeniable truth (such was how strong the ethic of harsh punishment permeated society, as any survey of world history shows) with their religious faith that was so important to them.

Just because we respect and cherish such saints and laud their exceptional intelligence and knowledge of the Faith doesn’t mean we believe they were personally above such a simple thing as being influenced by the unbelievably dominant culture of the times, which had been dominant for thousands of years. Their intentions may have been impeccable, which is why we admire them and why they are saints; their conclusions, however, were not always so.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[ChadS]

For the execution of an innocent man to be morally equivalent to abortion, the State must have knowledge that the person is, in fact, innocent. That is true in abortion, the child is, without doubt, guilt of no crime.

If a person went through a fair and just trial, then the culpability of the State in the execution is substantially less than an abortion.

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned here but the quote from Scalia that started this thread comes from a case where new evidence arose that proved that the person convicted of the crime was indeed innocent. The problem, however, was that the person’s trial had been completely impartial, fair and within the law - no chance for a mistrial or vacating the verdict. He had also exhausted all avenues of appeals. The new evidence exonerating him didn’t come to light until after the last appeal had been heard. Scalia stated that it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to determine guilt or innocence only if the Constitution was violated. In his opinion it would then be completely legal to execute an innocent man since procedurally and legally he’d been found guilty.

Whether or not this man had exhausted all appeals and only awaited the executioner there seems to be something incredibly unjust and inhumane to condemn a man to death because procedurally the wheels of justice worked the way they were supposed to. It’s a horrible mistake to execute somebody that was innocent and only discovered after the execution but to do so knowingly only because this person had been through the whole process and he couldn’t do another appeal is just despicable.

ChadS

 

[Ender]

I certainly agree with the OP that it is not okay to shrug off possible evidence that someone on Death Row may be innocent by saying “Hey, you’ve had your fair trial.” Such at attitude says, “Whether we were right or wrong, you’ve already had your chance, so even if this new evidence could call your guilt into question, we’ve already decided to kill you…so there’s nothing wrong with that.”

This is not quite what is being asked. The point seems to be whether the action of the Justices who denied an additional appeal to someone on death row who claimed to have exonerating evidence was moral. What you left out of your description were the constraints of the applicable laws that the Justices have to interpret in coming to a legal conclusion, and the point that cannot be ignored is that they are obliged to come to a legal conclusion - based on US law - and not a moral conclusion based on their own personal beliefs.

If the laws say that a prisoner has (e.g.) five appeals but no more how is a judge supposed to rule when a prisoner tries to make a sixth appeal? If Justices were free to rule however they thought best you might have a point in claiming that they acted inappropriately in denying the appeal, but if they are bound to apply the law then how can they be held morally responsible if the law dictates the course of action and they simply confirm what the law says?

Re your response to Lapin Lascif: very nicely argued.

Ender

 

[KindredSoul]

This is not quite what is being asked. The point seems to be whether the action of the Justices who denied an additional appeal to someone on death row who claimed to have exonerating evidence was moral. What you left out of your description were the constraints of the applicable laws that the Justices have to interpret in coming to a legal conclusion, and the point that cannot be ignored is that they are obliged to come to a legal conclusion - based on US law - and not a moral conclusion based on their own personal beliefs.

If the laws say that a prisoner has (e.g.) five appeals but no more how is a judge supposed to rule when a prisoner tries to make a sixth appeal? If Justices were free to rule however they thought best you might have a point in claiming that they acted inappropriately in denying the appeal, but if they are bound to apply the law then how can they be held morally responsible if the law dictates the course of action and they simply confirm what the law says?

I get that there are legal limitations on the role of the Supreme Court…but if if ChadS (in his post right above yours) is correct about the details of the case, then it seems that this would be one of those rare but existing situations where man’s law obligates someone to make a decision that contradicts what God’s law would have us do. If I know a person may very plausibly be found innocent with the new evidence, and the law says they are to be executed anyway with no other chance, is it alright for me to comply in that process, or is it one of the cases where I am actually obligated by God’s law to have no part, directly or otherwise, in upholding his impending sentence whether the secular law demands my compliance or not? If I were in the convicted’s shoes, or even if I knew him–well, to be honest, even as a stranger who doesn’t know him at all–this seems to be a case where what God would have a person in the Justice’s shoes do and what the secular law (even if that law is the Constitution) would have them do are in direct conflict. And if that is in fact the case, just as in any situation where that is the case, we know which Law trumps which.

Re your response to Lapin Lascif: very nicely argued.

Ender

Thanks.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[ern42]

Yeah they were killed by the state after the church found them guilty of not going along with their doctrines (HERESY), guilty of having their own thoughts. So if you were against the church, now you were passed to the state, which did the churches dirty work.
I wonder why our nations founders were so adament about seperation of church and state. Why they crossed the Atlantic in search of religious freedom.

Was John Huss burned alive because he didn’t pay his taxes, or maybe he robbed someone, or he just maybe killed someone? NO, he was burned alive because after the church saw him as a threat, he was handed over to the state authorities and excecuted.
Name one crime that John Huss did against the state?

Actual Qoute: “Hus was called before the Council of Constance, a meeting of church leaders at Constance, Germany. There he was condemned, largely for the ideas expressed in On the Church and for supporting Wycliffe. He was burned at the stake on July 6, 1415, even though he had been promised safety if he attended the council to defend himself.” English Encyclopedia.

So don’t tell me the state is only responsible for the innocent blood of thousands. Ignorant fools might belive those lies, but the reality is recorded forever in history. Recorded forever in God’s book of judgement. God sees all and know all!

 

[Ender]

this seems to be a case where what God would have a person in the Justice’s shoes do and what the secular law (even if that law is the Constitution) would have them do are in direct conflict. And if that is in fact the case, just as in any situation where that is the case, we know which Law trumps which.

To make the situation as stark as possible let’s assume that a death row prisoner has undeniably exhausted all legal appeals but has incontrovertible evidence of his innocence. He now issues one more appeal: how is the judge to rule?

It is tempting to conclude as you have done that the judge must set aside the oath he took on assuming his office, ignore his legal obligations, and rule based on his (and our) personal belief that executing an innocent man is wrong. As tempting as it is however I’m not sure that winning this battle would be worth losing the war, by which I mean that once you have given approval to the idea that the outcome is more important than the means by which you obtain it you really have opened the door to the-ends-justify-the-means judicial rulings. If you set aside legal obligation in this case how can you justify not setting it aside in all manner of other cases to the point where you could in fact never get it back?

I will point out also that the courts are never the last appeal; that obligation lies with the highest executive (Governor or President). They have the power to grant clemency and can do so without destroying the integrity of the judicial system.

Ender

 

[KindredSoul]

Yeah they were killed by the state after the church found them guilty of not going along with their doctrines (HERESY), guilty of having their own thoughts. So if you were against the church, now you were passed to the state, which did the churches dirty work.
I wonder why our nations founders were so adament about seperation of church and state. Why they crossed the Atlantic in search of religious freedom.

Was John Huss burned alive because he didn’t pay his taxes, or maybe he robbed someone, or he just maybe killed someone? NO, he was burned alive because after the church saw him as a threat, he was handed over to the state authorities and excecuted.
Name one crime that John Huss did against the state?

Actual Qoute: “Hus was called before the Council of Constance, a meeting of church leaders at Constance, Germany. There he was condemned, largely for the ideas expressed in On the Church and for supporting Wycliffe. He was burned at the stake on July 6, 1415, even though he had been promised safety if he attended the council to defend himself.” English Encyclopedia.

So don’t tell me the state is only responsible for the innocent blood of thousands. Ignorant fools might belive those lies, but the reality is recorded forever in history. Recorded forever in God’s book of judgement. God sees all and know all!

If your logic was sound, then all Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, are in as much trouble as Atheists often say. Clearly by your logic, a religion is proven false by the misdeeds of its followers. In such a case, then when the Bible-Only believing Puritans burned witches in Salem, I suppose that means they disproved the faith of Bible believers everywhere…

Actually, I will not even begin to get into the accuracy of your claims of individual cases of heretics being treated horribly, because that is irrelevant to whether or not the religion of Catholicism is good or bad, just as the Salem Witch trials and other occurrences like them are irrelevant as to whether or not Protestantism is good or bad. Your fallacy of holding against a religion what its adherents (even those in prominent positions) have done has already been addressed earlier in this thread; in the discussion against Lapin Lascif’s assertion, just on the very previous page of the thread, such a fallacy is shown to be illogical and presumptuous. That is, if you care to actually see that instead of just slandering a good religion for what its sometimes not-at-all good followers may do. People, even religious people, do bad things; if that made their belief systems bad in themselves, then no belief system is good or true, not Atheism, not Catholicism, not “Bible-Only” Christianity, nothing…

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

To make the situation as stark as possible let’s assume that a death row prisoner has undeniably exhausted all legal appeals but has incontrovertible evidence of his innocence. He now issues one more appeal: how is the judge to rule?

It is tempting to conclude as you have done that the judge must set aside the oath he took on assuming his office, ignore his legal obligations, and rule based on his (and our) personal belief that executing an innocent man is wrong. As tempting as it is however I’m not sure that winning this battle would be worth losing the war, by which I mean that once you have given approval to the idea that the outcome is more important than the means by which you obtain it you really have opened the door to the-ends-justify-the-means judicial rulings. If you set aside legal obligation in this case how can you justify not setting it aside in all manner of other cases to the point where you could in fact never get it back?

I admit that the stakes are high and doing what is right can sometimes cause upheaval. However, I suppose that’s just the way it is if ever a legal system in any way calls upon a person to comply in an act that will directly result in the commission of something that, according to God’s Law, is gravely unjust. When two powerful laws clash and one must be chosen over the other, it is bound to be messy. I wish that weren’t so, but it seems undeniable. Consider if the Constitution were amended to say that a person may be put to death for attending Mass (this is just an extreme example to make the point–I am not playing the part of a paranoid conspiracy theorist). Let us imagine that only once in a blue moon the state ever executed that Constitutional Right. Should a Catholic Supreme Court Justice, out of fear of social and legal upheaval, rule in favor of that Constitutional “right” of the state because of the ramifications of going against the grain? Again, I admit that this is messy. But sometimes, when the law and what is right directly clash, it would naturally not be assumed to be neat and tidy.

I will point out also that the courts are never the last appeal; that obligation lies with the highest executive (Governor or President). They have the power to grant clemency and can do so without destroying the integrity of the judicial system.

You may have a very good solution here, one that completely sidesteps the admittedly unwanted messiness I have just noted above. I would think, however, that if a Catholic Supreme Court Justice wanted to do what’s right in this situation, that he or she, while trying to keep things orderly by obeying the constitution, should use his or her monumental influence and legal expertise to persuade the Governor or President to grant such clemency, while before hand explicitly persuading the accused party to seek such. It may not be their legal obligation or job description, but sometimes doing what is right suggests that we go above and beyond the call of duty. If this is possible in such a non-disruptive way, I say that a Catholic Justice should exploit that possibility, and in fact has a moral duty to do so.

I do believe we may have come to a good and practical solution that respects both the Constitution and God’s Law…but that solution must be pursued with much vigor by any involved parties truly seeking and wishing to do the right thing, and I’m not certain whether or not that will be attempted or done. Let us pray…

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[ChadS]

This article in the New Yorker details the case of Cameron Willingham who was convicted and executed for a crime he did not commit. There were even serious questions about his guilt prior to his execution. It also appears that the highest executive in this case, the Governor of Texas, had access to the information that cast serious doubt on his guilt, but it appears the evidence went unheeded or ignored. How could a judge possibly appeal to the final arbiter of the death penalty for clemency when reports that establish innocence are ignored?

newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

ChadS

 

[estesbob]

This article in the New Yorker details the case of Cameron Willingham who was convicted and executed for a crime he did not commit. There were even serious questions about his guilt prior to his execution. It also appears that the highest executive in this case, the Governor of Texas, had access to the information that cast serious doubt on his guilt, but it appears the evidence went unheeded or ignored. How could a judge possibly appeal to the final arbiter of the death penalty for clemency when reports that establish innocence are ignored?

newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

ChadS

It appears from the evidence presented at the trial that they had preety strong evidence of his guilt:

clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm

BTW-the Governor of the State of Texas has no power to commute a death sentence.

 

[ChadS]

It appears from the evidence presented at the trial that they had preety strong evidence of his guilt:

clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm

BTW-the Governor of the State of Texas has no power to commute a death sentence.

If you would read the article you would find out that all the “evidence” presented at trial was wrongly interpreted. As of now the State of Texas has launched its own independent investigation to determine what went wrong with the initial investigation.

The article is a little on the long side but definitely worth the read. Even if the Governor can’t commute the death sentence he didn’t have to sign it, unless of course the Governor is just a rubber stamp with no real power.

ChadS

 

[Ender]

Consider if the Constitution were amended to say that a person may be put to death for attending Mass … Should a Catholic Supreme Court Justice, out of fear of social and legal upheaval, rule in favor of that Constitutional “right” of the state because of the ramifications of going against the grain?

We don’t have to artificially invent such a situation: as the Constitution is currently interpreted a mother has the right to kill her unborn child. What you are suggesting is that every Catholic judge has a moral obligation to ignore that law and rule as if it didn’t exist. If this were done it would simply obliterate the rule of law. Do you think you could grant such authority only to Catholic judges? Wouldn’t atheist judges claim an equal right to rule based on their understanding of morality and ignore laws that conflicted with it? What would laws mean if they could be summarily replaced with the personal opinions of the judges who are supposed to interpret them?

This is not a question of the fear of being socially ostracized nor is as trivial as “going against the grain”, it is a question of being ruled by laws or by men. It would be good to recall Thomas More’s response (in the play A Man for All Seasons) when his friend admitted that he would cut down every law in England to pursue the devil. Thomas More replied: “Yes, and when the last law was down, and when the devil turned on you, where would you hide with all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws. Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow?” What was proposed to Thomas More is what you propose now.

Ender

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

I think it is time for the rest of to refer to another book-that is Tolkiens “The Hobbit” Recall the creatures that turned to stone when the sun came up and recall the inadvisibily of feeding these creatures.

That is some sound advice, Estesbob.
One should always avoid a fight that one is bound to lose.

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

Of these only 2 or 3 talk about the death penalty.

I was asked to provide chapter and verse for the divine instruction to kill our gay brothers and old ladies gathering herbs.

Your defense of God, by stating that only some of His critiques of witches and gays involve instructions for murder, strikes me as odd.

Let me put it plainly: did your loving god order the murder of people for perceived sexual indisgression and ‘sorcery’ or not?

The death penalty for sins was abolished because Christ took our sins.

Ah, yes. Besides the fact that Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the law was to be fulfilled, the butchery of people for imaginary crimes was OK then, but now it isn’t required anymore.

I wonder, Timbothefiveth, if you have ever seen someone being stoned to death.
In some parts of the world, Afghanistan for example, religious men still murder people this way for such heinous offenses as having an affair.

If you like, I can send you a video or two of people who are executed in this way.

I wonder if you have the stomach to watch it.

I also wonder when obfuscation, sophistry and casuistry become indistinguishable from a bald-faced lie.

It seems that the ninth commandment isn’t taken very seriously by some.

 

[estesbob]

If you would read the article you would find out that all the “evidence” presented at trial was wrongly interpreted. As of now the State of Texas has launched its own independent investigation to determine what went wrong with the initial investigation.

The article is a little on the long side but definitely worth the read. Even if the Governor can’t commute the death sentence he didn’t have to sign it, unless of course the Governor is just a rubber stamp with no real power.

ChadS

The governor of Texas has no power to stop an execution. that power is reserved for the board of pardons and paroles.

I was protesting in Huntsville the night Mr Willingham was executed-his guilt or innocent is irelevant to me as i oppose the death penalty in all circumstances/

 

[KindredSoul]

We don’t have to artificially invent such a situation: as the Constitution is currently interpreted a mother has the right to kill her unborn child. What you are suggesting is that every Catholic judge has a moral obligation to ignore that law and rule as if it didn’t exist. If this were done it would simply obliterate the rule of law. Do you think you could grant such authority only to Catholic judges? Wouldn’t atheist judges claim an equal right to rule based on their understanding of morality and ignore laws that conflicted with it? What would laws mean if they could be summarily replaced with the personal opinions of the judges who are supposed to interpret them? This is not a question of the fear of being socially ostracized nor is as trivial as “going against the grain”, it is a question of being ruled by laws or by men.

There simply are no truly good arguments for defying God’s Law. If it’s okay for a Catholic to defy it for any reason, it is not being treated as God’s Law but as a mere private moral compass. I know that’s all that non-Catholics see it as, and thus they would want a piece of the action if a Catholic judge let it guide him, but aren’t we to see it as more than that, regardless, even if staying true to it might cause major upheaval? Can we, even if for significantly practical reasons, demote the Law of God to one private Moral Compass among many simply because the greater secular society admittedly has no way of determining it is anything more than that?

It would be good to recall Thomas More’s response (in the play A Man for All Seasons) when his friend admitted that he would cut down every law in England to pursue the devil. Thomas More replied: “Yes, and when the last law was down, and when the devil turned on you, where would you hide with all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws. Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow?” What was proposed to Thomas More is what you propose now.

Wasn’t St. Thomas More, in fact, martyred for refusing to follow secular demands that violated his Catholic conscience? I somehow doubt that applying his words in a play to the situation at hand is taking those words or the friend’s suggestion (if the play represented St. Thomas More truly) in the correct context when Thomas More himself evidently agreed that one must never break God’s Law, no matter what the secular Law demands, which is indeed my own argument.

So much is that my sole argument, in fact, that if it can be clearly demonstrated to me that the Justices’ decision is not a case of putting Catholic Morality on the back burner for the “greater good,” or otherwise separating their morality from their governmental profession (a ludicrous practice in itself that is a rotten fruit of secular democracy, one that suggests that you can turn your morality off if your job says you must) then I will have no further argument. I can think of just such a demonstration, but until someone else comes up with it I am not confident that it is valid, so I will await such a demonstration from someone truly in favor of the Justices’ ruling. Here is a hint to the demonstration I am thinking of: God’s Law requires honesty as much as it requires anything else.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[ChadS]

The governor of Texas has no power to stop an execution. that power is reserved for the board of pardons and paroles.

I was protesting in Huntsville the night Mr Willingham was executed-his guilt or innocent is irelevant to me as i oppose the death penalty in all circumstances/

I truly appreciate that and the witness it provided.

ChadS

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I was asked to provide chapter and verse for the divine instruction to kill our gay brothers and old ladies gathering herbs.

You said the Lord wants us to kill them. I just showed where it says He dissaproves of the death penalty. Your assertion is false.

I wonder, Timbothefiveth, if you have ever seen someone being stoned to death.

I have not. Like I said, I am opposed to the death penalty and I just showed you where in the bible it says the death penalty is bad.

It seems that the ninth commandment isn’t taken very seriously by some.

I’m not telling a lie. What exactly do you think I was lying about.

Ah, yes. Besides the fact that Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the law was to be fulfilled,

He “fulfilled the law” and I believe that is why some Mosaic laws don’t apply anymore. I also showed the verse where He frowned on the death pnealty, which I presume includes when it’s used in Afghanistan.

Do you not understand or are you intentionally distorting Christian teachings?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Yes, it is needed for the safety of society. In prison, guards are attacked and killed by inmates and inmates kill and rape other inmates in prison. The idea that it is not needed in modern society anymore is just another example of how modernism has found its way into every fiber of the Catholic Church since Vatican II