Is lack of favor of the death penalty one issue in which the Church is closer to liberals than conservatives?

[meltzerboy]

There are different reasons for their opposition. Here’s what the Swiss theologian Romano Amerio had to say in his Iota Unum:

Opposition to the death penalty stems from two diverse and incompatible sets of reasons, and can only be evaluated in the light of the moral assumptions on which it is based. Horror at a crime can coexist with sympathy for human weakness, and with a sense of the human freedom that renders a man capable of rising from any fall as long as his life lasts; hence opposition to the death penalty. But opposition can also stem from the notion that every person is inviolable inasmuch as he is a self-conscious subject living out his life in the world; as if temporal life were an end in itself that could not be suppressed without frustrating the purpose of human existence. Although often thought of as religiously inspired, this second type of reason for rejecting capital punishment is in fact irreligious. It overlooks the fact that from a Christian point of view earthly life is not an end in itself, but a means to life’s moral goal, a goal that transcends the whole order of subordinate worldly goods. Therefore to take away a man’s life is by no means to take away the transcendent end for which he was born and which guarantees his true dignity.

The Church’s opposition is based on the concrete circumstances in the time we live in. Similarly, the Church had shown opposition to the death penalty be practiced in the early Church; not in principle, for you’ll struggle to find a Church Father against capital punishment per se, but in practice since the Church has always preferred bloodless means if possible.

I suppose the reason liberals are against capital punishment comes from their Enlightenment roots, seeing our mortal life as all there is. Voltaire’s Candide comes to mind.

Thanks for the information. I agree that Enlightenment humanistic philosophy may be an origin of liberal thought regarding the death penalty as well as other issues.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ll take Vastly Different Reasons for $100.
*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. When death came to be understood as the ultimate evil rather than as a stage on the way to eternal life, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham found it easy to dismiss capital punishment as “useless annihilation.”

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel. * (Cardinal Dulles)

Ender

Interesting information, and I agree. This would be a good topic for “Jeopardy,” wouldn’t it? And the answer is…

 

[oldcelt]

That’s a good question, meltzerboy, and the simple answer is yes. You can see how people get uncomfortable being associated with “Liberals” though! There are several issues with which the Catholic teaching is more in line with the Democrat position, the death penalty being one of them. Immigration is another. Economic stuff is another. Gun control is another. We’re also not big on war-mongering, although the Dems have been more guilty than the Republicans of that lately.

The Catholic Church’s teachings do not fit neatly into either political party’s platform, and I think it’s a good thing when we are all reminded of that.

I agree entirely, although some would like to portray the Church in another light, the Church has wisely gone its own way throughout time.

Personally, I would fear true life in prison far more than the death penalty and I have some interesting ideas to make the life sentence even more fearful.

 

[oldcelt]

Thanks for the information. I agree that Enlightenment humanistic philosophy may be an origin of liberal thought regarding the death penalty as well as other issues.

Meltzer,

Understanding that there are multiple branches of Judaism, do you have any feel for the consensus of opinion in your faith at this time?

John

 

[livingwordunity]

I think that liberals use opposition to the death penalty as a convenient tactic to argue for abortion. They confuse the issue with the fallacy of equating abortion with capital punishment. But the Church doesn’t equate abortion (which the Church says is murder) with a court sentencing a convicted murderer to death.

 

[trevorhall]

I am a conservative, and growing up in the Texas panhandle, supporting the death penalty is the same as loving your mother, so to speak. I formerly favored the death penalty, but I now oppose it. Although I practice limited criminal law, I am confident that the judicial system is insufficient to determine truth in every situation. We have seen this particularly here in Texas where, for example, DNA evidence has exonerated men wrongly imprisoned for years. Second, I have come to agree fully with the Church on its position on application of the death penalty. Those guidelines essentially render the penalty void in modern society.

Christians are free to disagree on this topic, and I respect those who favor it. Frankly, I feel that, under our system of government, the individual states should be free to decide the issue. I would vote against it (though it will never be an issue in Texas).

 

[pnewton]

Rather, it is one of the areas where liberals are close to the Church.

That is a better way of putting it. Yes, it is one of a few areas in which the Democratic Party is closer to Catholic teaching. However, liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican, we are dealing with categories that change over time and seldom define any individual.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzer,

Understanding that there are multiple branches of Judaism, do you have any feel for the consensus of opinion in your faith at this time?

John

John, my feeling is Jews are evenly split between being pro- and anti-death penalty.

 

[meltzerboy]

Rather, it is one of the areas where liberals are close to the Church.

That sounds like a better way of putting it.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

You know, I have always gotten into semantic arguments with family members on the death penalty v Thou shalt not murder. I fail to understand how someone’s guilt means that someone else should kill them. Wouldn’t that person be a murderer then? Isn’t that so true that there is a history of executioners covering their faces?

Preventing someone from a chance to have a contrite heart doesn’t seem like a good choice to me.

 

[livingwordunity]

You know, I have always gotten into semantic arguments with family members on the death penalty v Thou shalt not murder. I fail to understand how someone’s guilt means that someone else should kill them. Wouldn’t that person be a murderer then? Isn’t that so true that there is a history of executioners covering their faces?

Preventing someone from a chance to have a contrite heart doesn’t seem like a good choice to me.

The argument can be made that if the person is enough of a danger to society that the death penalty is for the protection of society to keep him from killing again. It’s not that uncommon, even in the US, for a convicted murder to escape or be let off after a short sentence and then kill again. Secondly, a priest can be offered to people on death row for their chance to confess and repent. I think it should be legal but only for cases of extremely dangerous killers who pose a risk of escaping and killing again. And a priest should be available to them just before the execution if they request it.

 

[andrewstx]

In re: immigration, you may wish to consider re-reading the catechism on that subject.

(Besides, I don’t know too many conservatives who have positions that are opposed to anything on immigration as stated in the Catechism)

In re: economic issues. I suggest you take a really good look at the teachings of the Church. Particularly Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Centesimus Annus, and Deus Caritas Est. As a matter of a fact, CA absolutely condemns the social assistance state that modern day liberals are constantly trying to foist on the populace.

Just sayin’

Just thinking out loud. If public assistance is removed from the hands of the government as ‘modern day liberals are constantly trying to foist on the populace’, what are the results likely to be?

If private charity is relyed on only what would be the result? We have gone though this before in the Great Depression of the 30s and it not really workout too well and that was a time when we lived in extended families. Now I think it would be even worse. It took Roosevelt and his New Deal and WWII to get us back on our feet again.

If only privately funded assistance was the way again, who would decide who the ‘deserving poor’ are and are not?

Would people who live together without marriage, women who had abortions and homosexuals who are poor and ill be denied food and health care? Would people who get cancer from smoking be denied health care?

This comes across as so self centered and selfish to me. Is this an excuse for people not to pay taxes and selfishly keep their ‘own’ money?

I really cannot force myself to understand the point of view of the right. I was raised by a Mother who was completely self centered and would not wet on me if I was aflame.
She left me not a penny. If I had been like she I would not have signed the papers allowing her cremation as she desired But I did sign the papers.

 

[markomalley]

Just thinking out loud. If public assistance is removed from the hands of the government as ‘modern day liberals are constantly trying to foist on the populace’, what are the results likely to be?

Interestingly, there is a school of thought out there that says that Roosevelt’s policies actually elongated the Great Depression and had it not been for WWII, we may never have recovered.FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
As far as the morality of those programs, consider the words of JPII:By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. **In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. **It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

- Encyclical Centesimus Annus, 48
​

Was Pope John Paul II some right-wing ideologue who completely destroyed the teaching authority of the Church?

Perhaps you could cite for me policies in place by Catholic social service agencies that say they should deny providing assistance to single mothers and so on. Just to make it easier on you, you could perhaps cite policies by Baptist social services or Methodist Social Services. [NB: I have no doubt that you have anecdotes ready…I am not interested in anecdotes, I want to read policies where the service agency directs that assistance not be given]

As far as drug addicts are concerned, do they need money so they can buy more drugs to pump in their veins or do they need to get off the drugs and get help on the addictive behavior? We’re always told that an addict needs to hit “rock bottom” before he’s ready to accept that he needs help. Surely continuing to provide financial assistance just enables the addict to avoid that “rock bottom” experience. And then with addicts (in the most profound way, but not exclusively) need spiritual support that is best provided by the gospel. Government, by the reading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists as being part of the Constitution (still don’t know how that works), has utterly excluded itself from being associated with Christian support to people. The worst part is that the religious social service agencies that make the mistake of accepting government monies remove the spiritual works of mercy from their arsenal of spiritual warfare weapons as well.

As Pope Pius XI said, as reiterated by Pope Bl. John XXIII, said:34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity,** and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism**. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

- Encyclical Mater et Magistra
​

FWIW

 

[Ender]

Would people who live together without marriage, women who had abortions and homosexuals who are poor and ill be denied food and health care? Would people who get cancer from smoking be denied health care?

This comes across as so self centered and selfish to me. Is this an excuse for people not to pay taxes and selfishly keep their ‘own’ money?

I really cannot force myself to understand the point of view of the right.

It is surely true that you do not understand the point of view of the right, as the caricature of it you described above shows. If you start with the assumption that “the right” is peopled with the selfish and self centered I can see how you might think your description of them is accurate. If, however, you accept that their motivations are as noble as your own you would be forced to view the issue differently.

Have you considered the possibility that the people who take positions in opposition to your own actually believe what they say, that they really think your policies are harmful and theirs are the helpful ones? Why do you find it so easy to believe those who differ from you are evil rather than (from your perspective) simply mistaken?

Ender

 

[meltzerboy]

Interestingly, there is a school of thought out there that says that Roosevelt’s policies actually elongated the Great Depression and had it not been for WWII, we may never have recovered.FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
As far as the morality of those programs, consider the words of JPII:By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. **In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. **It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

- Encyclical Centesimus Annus, 48
​

Was Pope John Paul II some right-wing ideologue who completely destroyed the teaching authority of the Church?

Perhaps you could cite for me policies in place by Catholic social service agencies that say they should deny providing assistance to single mothers and so on. Just to make it easier on you, you could perhaps cite policies by Baptist social services or Methodist Social Services. [NB: I have no doubt that you have anecdotes ready…I am not interested in anecdotes, I want to read policies where the service agency directs that assistance not be given]

As far as drug addicts are concerned, do they need money so they can buy more drugs to pump in their veins or do they need to get off the drugs and get help on the addictive behavior? We’re always told that an addict needs to hit “rock bottom” before he’s ready to accept that he needs help. Surely continuing to provide financial assistance just enables the addict to avoid that “rock bottom” experience. And then with addicts (in the most profound way, but not exclusively) need spiritual support that is best provided by the gospel. Government, by the reading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists as being part of the Constitution (still don’t know how that works), has utterly excluded itself from being associated with Christian support to people. The worst part is that the religious social service agencies that make the mistake of accepting government monies remove the spiritual works of mercy from their arsenal of spiritual warfare weapons as well.

As Pope Pius XI said, as reiterated by Pope Bl. John XXIII, said:34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity,** and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism**. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

- Encyclical Mater et Magistra
​

FWIW

Thank you, markomalley, for the information about FDR’s economic policies. But UCLA economists: how can you trust those liberals’ views? BTW, I’m fairly sure Roosevelt was in favor of the death penalty, as were so many people of all political persuasions in those days.

 

[meltzerboy]

It is surely true that you do not understand the point of view of the right, as the caricature of it you described above shows. If you start with the assumption that “the right” is peopled with the selfish and self centered I can see how you might think your description of them is accurate. If, however, you accept that their motivations are as noble as your own you would be forced to view the issue differently.

Have you considered the possibility that the people who take positions in opposition to your own actually believe what they say, that they really think your policies are harmful and theirs are the helpful ones? Why do you find it so easy to believe those who differ from you are evil rather than (from your perspective) simply mistaken?

Ender

Is that the way most conservatives think of liberals, as having well-meaning and noble motivations, not evil but just mistaken? Anyhow, “andrew” didn’t exactly call the Republican politicians evil, just selfish and self-centered. Of course, this description may well apply to most politicians.

 

[Ender]

Is that the way most conservatives think of liberals, as having well-meaning and noble motivations, not evil but just mistaken?

There isn’t an actual surfeit of good will but there is a reason behind the quip that a conservative is a person without a heart and a liberal is a person without a brain. Liberals will argue that conservatives have the soul of a miser - conservatives hold that liberals have the brains of a stump.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

Thank you, markomalley, for the information about FDR’s economic policies. But UCLA economists: how can you trust those liberals’ views? BTW, I’m fairly sure Roosevelt was in favor of the death penalty, as were so many people of all political persuasions in those days.

I was, as you know, responding to Andrew’s allegations about conservative economic policies.

As far as those two UCLA economists – they are hardly the only ones who have come to that conclusion…it is fairly widely acknowledged (if not fully accepted) in the neoclassical and Austrian schools…in fact, by anybody other than the Keynesian view of economics.

See post #12 for my understanding of the Church’s thought process on the subject. You never did come back to me in regard to the logic of the liberal thought process behind their views.

 

[meltzerboy]

I was, as you know, responding to Andrew’s allegations about conservative economic policies.

As far as those two UCLA economists – they are hardly the only ones who have come to that conclusion…it is fairly widely acknowledged (if not fully accepted) in the neoclassical and Austrian schools…in fact, by anybody other than the Keynesian view of economics.

See post #12 for my understanding of the Church’s thought process on the subject. You never did come back to me in regard to the logic of the liberal thought process behind their views.

Oh, I was joking about your trusting professors from UCLA, or mostly liberally-minded academia in general. Insofar as liberal thought relative to the death penalty is concerned, I don’t know if there is one uniform and coherent argument. Some claim unalterable mistakes may be and have been made, others that the death penalty doesn’t serve any purpose as a deterrent, still others that the legal system is unfair to begin with. I would think the conservative caution against entrusting too much power in the State would be one of the good secular arguments in opposition to the death penalty. I also agree with another poster that the Enlightenment humanistic philosophy of the 18th century that places great value on individual human life and liberty may be a source of liberal thinking on the issue.

 

[jtkalehua88]

The Church is neither Republican nor Democrat, it is neither Conservative or Liberal. It is Truth, simple as that. Mother Church is Truth. Unlike any of the 2 political parties I just mentioned. Mother Church is above the two-dimensional, two-party political division. It is divinely inspired.