Massachusetts bishops speak out against death penalty for alleged Boston Marathon bomber

[SWolf]

So we agree that our understanding grows and deepens over time. And as a result some teachings change. As this one is changing.

In the example listed, Judaism is not Christianity, and we are under no obligation to submit ourselves to Jewish norms.

Church teaching doesn’t contradict previous Church teaching. To say so would be to say the Holy Spirit did not protect the Church from errors in faith and morals, which would make the Catholic Church a false church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the example listed, Judaism is not Christianity, and we are under no obligation to submit ourselves to Jewish norms.

Church teaching doesn’t contradict previous Church teaching. To say so would be to say the Holy Spirit did not protect the Church from errors in faith and morals, which would make the Catholic Church a false church.

Alright, but everything posted here has been Church teaching from scripture to CCC to Aquinas to just war, to the DP and then to sola scripture teaching and understanding of the whole. Be it others understanding. So what new definitive teaching is referenced and to what level of teaching authority is it? Even encyclicals have levels of defined dogma from infallible to probable. So other than here…

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

In the case of the defendant he is a Holy Warrior for Allah and non repentant, not that I read much into it personally but its a fact of conscious, and my question is of what justice is applied here and understanding of justice and justice applied? I mean I could sola read also…

“In these cases, where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say that it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor,” the Vatican leader said. "I underscore the verb ‘stop.’ I’m not saying ‘bomb’ or ‘make war,’ just ‘stop.’ And the means that can be used to stop them must be evaluated."Pope Francis 2014 Christian Post

 

[Darryl1958]

I honestly don’t know which I think is right here - execution or life in prison. I don’t feel 100% that the death penalty will accomplish anything. But I still think that if the state did decide for the death penalty I would respect the decision as lawful and just.

I just wish the Bishops would pound the pavement for ALL social issues like this. Think Indiana. It’s much more satisfying to be politically correct in your social justice, isn’t it?

As long as the death penalty in this instance is recognized as the act of extreme and radical mercy that it is rather than some higher form of justice, which it is not, then there is a case for mercy hat may be made.

But yes, it is not a breach of justice to execute this man. To execute a mass murderer and someone who deliberately maims children in the name of God does not make him into a martyr. His sins are egregious and real enough.

In terms of mercy though, does not repentance need to play some kind of a role too?

When Jonah criticized God for the mercy that he showed to Nineveh after Nineveh repented, Jonah was incorrect to believe that a world without guilty people always getting just punishment was a farce, and God instructed him why this was so.

But at what point does a world of mercy without repentance make the very concept of justice into a farce? At what point would Job be correct in his complaints?

I think that the bishops need to show us how they struggle with those kinds of questions too.

 

[FollowChrist34]

As long as the death penalty in this instance is recognized as the act of extreme and radical mercy that it is rather than some higher form of justice, which it is not, then there is a case for mercy hat may be made.

But yes, it is not a breach of justice to execute this man. To execute a mass murderer and someone who deliberately maims children in the name of God does not make him into a martyr. His sins are egregious and real enough.

In terms of mercy though, does not repentance need to play some kind of a role too?

When Jonah criticized God for the mercy that he showed to Nineveh after Nineveh repented, Jonah was incorrect to believe that a world without guilty people always getting just punishment was a farce, and God instructed him why this was so.

But at what point does a world of mercy without repentance make the very concept of justice into a farce? At what point would Job be correct in his complaints?

I think that the bishops need to show us how they struggle with those kinds of questions too.

Yes. Does the state have a compelling interest in justice over mercy here - to me that is the question. I am just glad it’s not my call. I think if I were a state official I would feel compelled to lean toward the death penalty given the circumstances. If I were a bishop I would argue for mercy, leniency, life in prison.

(BTW, I went for the Bruins over the Canucks in 2011. I sincerely hope we can still talk and exchange civilities…)

 

[TMC]

In the example listed, Judaism is not Christianity, and we are under no obligation to submit ourselves to Jewish norms.

Odd position to take, given that you began this conversation by citing Jewish norms. So I guess we now agree that cherry picked verses from Genesis are not dispositive.

Church teaching doesn’t contradict previous Church teaching. To say so would be to say the Holy Spirit did not protect the Church from errors in faith and morals, which would make the Catholic Church a false church.

You seem to be saying that Church teaching is always and ever unchanging. Surely you don’t deny that Church teaching evolves and changes? Otherwise how do you explain the many changes over the last two millennia? The Church grows in understanding and adjusts accordingly. That is one of the ways the Spirit guides and protects the Church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The Church was against the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh too. I was for it. To be honest, I am not sure I would want to be in a Church where Bishops openly supported the death penalty. I’d rather walk around with my own guilt at not agreeing with them on this. I can think of other issues where I have bigger gripes…

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CAPPUNSH.HTM

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes. Does the state have a compelling interest in justice over mercy here - to me that is the question. I am just glad it’s not my call. I think if I were a state official I would feel compelled to lean toward the death penalty given the circumstances. If I were a bishop I would argue for mercy, leniency, life in prison.

(BTW, I went for the Bruins over the Canucks in 2011. I sincerely hope we can still talk and exchange civilities…)

I am quite sure that if the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, then this is the kind of case that it must merit the ultimate penalty, much like Timothy McVeigh.
On a state level, the very existence of a death penalty predicates that it must be used in cases such as these. This is an act of war, an act of treason, the grossest kind of ingratitude of a nation that opens its doors to those in need only to be murdered on account of that. It is the vilest and evilest and most unrepentant of acts, without mitigating circumstances.

For the bishops, this would be like making the argument against abortion by first using cases of rape and endangerment of the mother’s life as the showcases.

 

[7_Sorrows]

This was an act to cause fear and as many deaths and injuries as possible.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I am quite sure that if the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, then this is the kind of case that it must merit the ultimate penalty, much like Timothy McVeigh.
On a state level, the very existence of a death penalty predicates that it must be used in cases such as these. This is an act of war, an act of treason, the grossest kind of ingratitude of a nation that opens its doors to those in need only to be murdered on account of that. It is the vilest and evilest and most unrepentant of acts, without mitigating circumstances.

For the bishops, this would be like making the argument against abortion by first using cases of rape and endangerment of the mother’s life as the showcases.

I sympathize with your view. As I say, I did support the death penalty against McVeigh (and a number of serial killers, etc.). There used to be a widespread argument that after WWII, the German nation had committed such atrocities against humanity that they effectively forfeited their own. It’s a hard case to refute. I have a tough time getting as worked up about defending a McVeigh as an unborn child or elderly sick person.

I do think the state has a responsibility to protect itself. Leaders must make decisions based on that primary goal. Religious leaders have a different job if you will - to guard our souls. What would Jesus do? Not the same thing Caesar would do. What I am saying is that I think if you are not torn on this there is something wrong with you. Seriously, conscious should pull you one way; duty the other.

But look at France or England or our good friends to the north, Canada. What would they do with a Timothy McVeigh? I don’t think they would put him to death. Whenever I hear that statement from Europeans - that America is out there with the likes of Iran, Syria, etc. when it comes to the death penalty, it sends a chill down my spine.

In sum, I don’t know where I stand.

 

[BobCatholic]

Did you, or would you not, forgive him, even if he didn’t?

Would God forgive him if he didn’t?

 

[Ender]

Prooftexting a single line from a 2,500 year old manuscript is not a valid argument for anything.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that this is the church’s interpretation and not mine? I’m not the one who has singled out that passage; the church did that.So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. (1)

1. Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)

Would you argue that we should also hold to the teaching of Genesis 9:4?

I would argue we should hold to what the church teaches.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. (CCC 2260)

Why do you say “if”? We don’t need to make this hypothetical.

I didn’t say anything; I was citing what Cardinal Dulles said. Those were not my words, they were his.

The Pope is actually teaching that seeking revenge (“retribution”) on killers by killing them is wrong. That is not “overthrowing” anything.

If that was actually what Francis was saying then he would be overthrowing 2000 years of church doctrine on the nature of punishment. Retribution is not wrong; it is in fact the primary objective of all punishment, as the catechism points out.*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)

*We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment *(USCCB, 1980)Vengeance, properly understood, is an obligation of the State. It is a matter of justice.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[GaryTaylor]

And the means that can be used to stop them must be evaluated."Pope Francis 2014 Christian Post

Its the same point as the CCC on the death penalty. The Church admits these people exist, it admits the understanding of justice, and in a rare instance the DP, what it doesn’t do is explain how to stop the rare peoples who we submit to the consequence of the death penalty. The law does, such as with mitigating circumstance, mental heath etc. Justice has no different meaning than just war. And we are speaking of justice specifically which is not Gods mercy defined. God isn’t a different God than Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah. Nor was He with Elijah, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah or Daniel.

God destroyed Sodom and Abraham pleaded for compassion with empathy for the righteous, there were not ten righteous obviously, but there were people saved as a result of the intercession.

Gods doesn’t change, its mercy till justice. He judges and rejects those who rejected Him in the final analysis. And how this translates to humans has been documented on the thread from Pope to social community. Which in this case we are talking a “Federal death penalty” not state of Mass.

Love your neighbor is instituted by Christ and man is still in transition of the teaching and of upholding the spiritual law. Just as doctrine evolves in definition so did Gods word. But man not observing the spiritual has not changed and nor has sin. God didn’t change, He commanded man to change, man is in transition and today is not an example of the growth and evolution of modern civil man. Man has regressed not improved and hardened his heart again by large

Even those who fully understand justice and mercy and see no need for justice which may result in death, it doesn’t resolve the fact its exist and in fact may be applied by man and God through His will.

You’ll have to stop just war to stop the death penalty imho, we have not reached this point with holy warriors for Satin and mass terrorism and mortal sin in Gods name. And its a fact God allows you to defend yourself which may result in the death of others. The Federal Count is defending mankind and applies justice. Its mercy is dependent on you. Like with God non cooperation leaves justice and rejection.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Associated Press DURHAM, N.C. – The man accused of killing three North Carolina college students — their family says because they were Muslim — is scheduled to appear in court for a hearing to determine whether he could face the death penalty.

Durham County District Attorney Roger Echols said in court documents last month he plans to seek the death sentence if 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks is convicted of first-degree murder.

Hicks is charged with the Feb. 10 killings of 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat; his wife, 21-year-old Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha; and her sister, 19-year-old Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha.

Police say he appears to have been motivated by a long-running dispute over parking spaces at a Chapel Hill condominium complex. The victims’ families are adamant that they were targeted because they were Muslims.

This is a state case, and the point to start in changing the overall Federal standards. States have already abolished the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

That quote doesn’t state that the death penalty is intrinsically an exercise of retributive justice.

It doesn’t, but then no one was discussing that point, nor, as I’ve pointed out before, is there such a thing as an intrinsically good act.

As with any human act, the justness depends on the circumstances and intentions with which it is applied. Card. Dulles says one side of the coin, while the Pope is saying the other side of the coin… ie That if one were to deny that the death penalty could be an unjust exercise of hate and revenge, he is denying Church teaching.

Dulles never said anything like that. That idea was no part of his comments, nor did Dulles disagree with JPII about the use of the death penalty, so he was hardly on the other side of anything. Most of his comments were directed at explaining what the church actually taught and how she reached those positions. It was basically a history lesson.

Ender

 

[GaryTaylor]

Even to admit in the end of the sequence allowing only the Federal Court left enacting the death penalty of a rare instance of evil-CCC, the complications are astonishing. The war on terrorism without a DP means incarceration of all terrorists. Of what bigger threat would we have as an example of a need to uphold the death penalty. Same argument for the right to bear arms. There is no argument for abortion since there is no correct justice applied to life in the just serving the greater good, the justice applied is discrimination of a sex as a right, not medical need but want, nor is there an excuse to continue the excess of state by state DP cases or state by state excess with abortion. The equality of women as equal citizens doesn’t triumph Gods order or mans of reproduction in society over time, let alone the issue of right of life and due respect for human life is full blown discrimination to genocidal proportions of a peoples obviously in real need of protection.

 

[TMC]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that this is the church’s interpretation and not mine? I’m not the one who has singled out that passage; the church did that.So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. (1)

1. Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)
   I would argue we should hold to what the church teaches.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. (CCC 2260)
   I didn’t say anything; I was citing what Cardinal Dulles said. Those were not my words, they were his.
   If that was actually what Francis was saying then he would be overthrowing 2000 years of church doctrine on the nature of punishment. Retribution is not wrong; it is in fact the primary objective of all punishment, as the catechism points out.*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)

*We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment *(USCCB, 1980)Vengeance, properly understood, is an obligation of the State. It is a matter of justice.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)
Ender

That was the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching is changing. If you believe the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then I would expect you to accept that.

 

[SWolf]

You seem to be saying that Church teaching is always and ever unchanging. Surely you don’t deny that Church teaching evolves and changes? Otherwise how do you explain the many changes over the last two millennia? The Church grows in understanding and adjusts accordingly. That is one of the ways the Spirit guides and protects the Church.

Name a Church teaching that has not just been clarified, but reversed.

 

[TMC]

Name a Church teaching that has not just been clarified, but reversed.

The permissibility of slavery.
The permissibility of charging interest.
The possibility of salvation for non-Catholic Christians.
The possibility of salvation for non-Christians.

The Church now explains each of these changes as a clarification, extension or development of past doctrine. But viewed from the pre-change perspective, each appears to be a clear reversal of doctrine. The same thing is happening with this teaching.

 

[SeannyM]

Name a Church teaching that has not just been clarified, but reversed.

The geometrical dimensions of he earth comes to mind.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see the argument as new nor the Kingdom come in relation to mercy and justice. What I see is a lack of summary in how to establish this society on earth in the middle of the journey of the Church in its love story and in this period of social transition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

The argument would be the Church is wrong at some point in teaching, obviously rejected. As there is in fact just war. Then there is no sense in debating aspects of Church teaching with anything after the Roman martyrs with non violence, which doesn’t stand to reason. That is a argument of no authority but opinion in regards to scripture. God chose to spread Christianity through the Roman empire and through Constantine.

In other words its assumption is the premise is right and the Church is in error and the Church needs to get back to being the Church. Fact is the Church was never not the Church nor is there another authority to interpret scripture on earth.

The axiom cannot be proven only argued and without scripture authority or historic evidence of continuity. The Church is a factual reality and historic reality and testimony in how Gods people arrive in this moment. imho.