Ohio Catholic bishops seek to end death penalty

[catharina]

Ohio Catholic bishops seek to end death penalty

foxnews.com/us/2011/02/05/ohio-catholic-bishops-seek-end-death-penalty/

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati and Bishop Frederick Campbell of Columbus are among 10 Catholic church leaders in Ohio who have signed a statement urging the state to stop using the death penalty, weeks after an Ohio Supreme Court justice issued the same call.

Ohio put eight people to death last year, the most since 1949, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

The statement signed by the Catholic bishops said they believe capital punishment is wrong in nearly all cases and that “just punishment can occur without resorting to the death penalty.”

Former state prisons director Terry Collins and Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer also recently called for an end to capital punishment in Ohio. Pfeifer, a Republican, helped write Ohio’s death penalty law and was one of its leading proponents as a state legislator in the 1970s and 1980s, but he said it’s being used in cases for which it wasn’t intended.

… ."

 

[Dale_M]

Here is the statement from the Catholic bishops of Ohio:

The Catholic Bishops of Ohio agree with recent comments made by both Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer and former Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Director Terry Collins that Ohio’s elected legislative leaders ought to debate
and ultimately abolish the death penalty.

Murder rightly evokes moral outrage and a call for justice. It also calls for spiritual healing and caring support for all those impacted by such a tragedy. Just punishment - punishment that reflects the seriousness of the offense, seeks restoration for the offense, and protects society – is a foundational moral principle within our justice system.

Just punishment can occur without resorting to the death penalty. Our Church teachings consider the death penalty to be wrong in almost all cases. Every human being is a child of God, no matter what sins the person commits. Every human life has infinite dignity because it is designed by God to be immortal.

Today, given the means available to the State for dealing with crime, cases where it is absolutely necessary to use the death penalty are practically nonexistent. In other states and countries, life imprisonment has shown itself to be an effective alternative. Life imprisonment respects the moral view that all life, even that of the worst offender, has value and dignity.

We concur with Judge Pfeifer that today is an “opportune time in Ohio to seriously debate and discuss whether or not we have the death penalty”. We urge Governor Kasich, Attorney General DeWine, and our elected legislative leaders to pursue such debate. Fair and effective punishment is possible without the death penalty.

ohiocathconf.org/I/DP/pressreleaseDP2711.pdf

 

[catharina]

Here is the statement from the Catholic bishops of Ohio:

ohiocathconf.org/I/DP/pressreleaseDP2711.pdf

Thanks.

 

[Ender]

Here is the statement from the Catholic bishops of Ohio:

Just punishment - punishment that reflects the seriousness of the offense, seeks restoration for the offense, and protects society – is a foundational moral principle within our justice system.

This seems a bit disingenuous inasmuch as punishment has four objectives, not merely two and there is no discussion of the fact that protection, like the objectives not mentioned (deterrence and rehabilitation) is only of secondary importance. The primary objective is retribution - justice. I would be able to take these pronouncements more seriously if they dealt more honestly with the subject.

Just punishment can occur without resorting to the death penalty.

I think this is the heart of the argument and it deserves more consideration then simply being pronounced true and moving on without explanation of how this is so.

Our Church teachings consider the death penalty to be wrong in almost all cases.

This is incorrect. The opinion expressed in the Catechism is that the death penalty is in almost all cases unnecessary for protection, not that it is wrong. Those are entirely different concepts.

Every human being is a child of God, no matter what sins the person commits. Every human life has infinite dignity because it is designed by God to be immortal.

Every human life has infinite dignity because man is made in the image of God. Something we know because God tells us so … as the explanation for why the life of a murderer is forfeit in payment of his crime.

Today, given the means available to the State for dealing with crime, cases where it is absolutely necessary to use the death penalty are practically nonexistent.

Unnecessary for protection perhaps, but not perhaps unnecessary to meet the demands of justice. Nor is anyone’s personal estimate of the penal capabilities of the modern state binding. This is opinion, nothing more, and we are quite free to disagree with it.

In other states and countries, life imprisonment has shown itself to be an effective alternative.

Define “effective” in moral terms. The concept makes no sense since the calculation of effectiveness has nothing whatever to do with moral values.

Ender

 

[AcolyteLector]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Sounds good to me.

As the use of the death penalty varies from state to state, and even as the Church tolerates the use of the death penalty in certain cases, there is nothing wrong with Catholic bishops, as citizens and clergymen, wanting Ohio to join those states that have abolished that penalty for crime. I applaud those men.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The reference to capital punishment in the Constitution is in the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

and in the 8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Those Amendments could be amended to remove references to capital crime, or a new amendment passed to abolish the use of capital punishment, but as criminal law is considered the perogative of the states, the way to abolition would best be done state by state.

I doubt that it will be abolished nation-wide as there are some states that will always be holdouts for the death penalty - Texas, I think is such a state.

 

[Ender]

As the use of the death penalty varies from state to state, and even as the Church tolerates the use of the death penalty in certain cases, there is nothing wrong with Catholic bishops, as citizens and clergymen, wanting Ohio to join those states that have abolished that penalty for crime. I applaud those men.

They are not presenting their opinions as citizens but as clergymen, relying on the moral authority of their office to sway the opinions of their followers, so it really would have been better if they had presented a moral argument to support their position. I recognize the disadvantage this places them at and it really should cause some people to wonder: if so many bishops and clergy oppose capital punishment why are the arguments against it’s use so weak?

Ender

 

[Joe_5859]

I think we should keep in mind that this is a press release, not a pastoral letter for the faithful of Ohio. A comprehensive articulation of Catholic moral principles as they relate the the death penalty would not be appropriate for a press release.

It’s a brief statement intended to be disseminated via the media. They’re simply striking while the iron is hot and piggy-backing off the previous comments of a few of Ohio’s important leaders in an attempt to persuade the newly elected governor to take up this issue.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

What wonderful news of Divine Mercy. I love the trend I see in our Catholic Church. My Bishops here in Ohio have joined in with the Bishops of Korea and California who also have recently called for and end this inhumane practice.

I love this statement the most:

Every human being is a child of God, no matter what sins the person commits. Every human life has infinite dignity because it is designed by God to be immortal.

As soon as we can see the face of Christ in EVERYONE, starting with ourselves, peace will prevail.

 

[Dale_M]

This seems a bit disingenuous inasmuch as punishment has four objectives, not merely two and there is no discussion of the fact that protection, like the objectives not mentioned (deterrence and rehabilitation) is only of secondary importance. The primary objective is retribution - justice.

I wouldn’t call their statement disingenuous, although I do agree that there is room to discuss theories of justice. For example, I disagree very much that retribution = justice. I think its entirely possible to have justice without retribution or retribution without justice.

Catholic Bishops of Ohio:

Just punishment can occur without resorting to the death penalty.

I think this is the heart of the argument and it deserves more consideration then simply being pronounced true and moving on without explanation of how this is so.

To be fair, the bishops did call for a debate on the subject.

Catholic Bishops of Ohio:

Our Church teachings consider the death penalty to be wrong in almost all cases.

This is incorrect. The opinion expressed in the Catechism is that the death penalty is in almost all cases unnecessary for protection, not that it is wrong. Those are entirely different concepts.

On a practical level, I’m not sure that it makes a difference. Perhaps instead of using the word “wrong” they could have written “wrongly used.”

Every human life has infinite dignity because man is made in the image of God. Something we know because God tells us so … as the explanation for why the life of a murderer is forfeit in payment of his crime.

That isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches. It urges respect for the human dignity of the criminal:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"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.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

 

[Ender]

I wouldn’t call their statement disingenuous, although I do agree that there is room to discuss theories of justice. For example, I disagree very much that retribution = justice. I think its entirely possible to have justice without retribution or retribution without justice.

This is one of the reasons I am so disappointed with what 2267 says: it has muddied the concept of justice to the point where it has been completely lost. The primary objective of punishment is retribution; that is the meaning of the statement in 2266 that *“the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *We have become so uncomfortable with the concept of retribution that not only do we not recognize it as necessary but we are coming to believe it is inappropriate.

That isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches. It urges respect for the human dignity of the criminal …

What is claimed is that the use of capital punishment somehow diminishes a person’s dignity but nowhere is it explained why anyone should believe this is so. It is commonly asserted but never defended.

Ender

 

[Dale_M]

What is claimed is that the use of capital punishment somehow diminishes a person’s dignity but nowhere is it explained why anyone should believe this is so. It is commonly asserted but never defended.

I don’t have any specialized knowledge, but for the sake discussion I will offer my understanding of it. What the Catechism is saying is that even the life of a murderer has value. He still has the inherent dignity of being human and the taking of his life is a loss not just to himself. Human life has value - full stop.

The execution of a prisoner may deprive him of the opportunity of repentance. It certainly deprives him the opportunity of atonement. Being alive, even in prison, he is able to pray for the person he killed and their family. He also may be able to influence the lives of others in the prison, bringing them into conversion.

 

[Ender]

What the Catechism is saying is that even the life of a murderer has value. He still has the inherent dignity of being human and the taking of his life is a loss not just to himself. Human life has value - full stop.

Taking the life of a criminal may represent a loss but that certainly says nothing about whether taking it diminishes a person’s dignity. In fact, if the person’s life didn’t have dignity then taking it wouldn’t be a loss. An execution is a meaningful act specifically because the life of any human being, including a criminal’s, has meaning and dignity. If this weren’t true then an execution would have no more significance than slaughtering a cow in a packing plant. There is no reason to believe that executing someone diminishes his dignity, despite its being regularly asserted.

The execution of a prisoner may deprive him of the opportunity of repentance. It certainly deprives him the opportunity of atonement. Being alive, even in prison, he is able to pray for the person he killed and their family. He also may be able to influence the lives of others in the prison, bringing them into conversion.

Rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment but, like protection, it is a secondary objective, and it is valid to point out that 2267 says nothing about it. It makes no statement that it should even be considered. It is also regularly forgotten that execution, if freely accepted, is itself expiatory - although you wouldn’t know that from anything the Catechism says on the subject.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t have any specialized knowledge, but for the sake discussion I will offer my understanding of it. What the Catechism is saying is that even the life of a murderer has value. He still has the inherent dignity of being human and the taking of his life is a loss not just to himself. Human life has value - full stop.

The execution of a prisoner may deprive him of the opportunity of repentance. It certainly deprives him the opportunity of atonement. Being alive, even in prison, he is able to pray for the person he killed and their family. He also may be able to influence the lives of others in the prison, bringing them into conversion.

This isn’t just your opinion. There have been numerous examples of such true “jailhouse” conversions that have done more good in prison than by taking the man’s life.

 

[Dale_M]

Taking the life of a criminal may represent a loss but that certainly says nothing about whether taking it diminishes a person’s dignity. In fact, if the person’s life didn’t have dignity then taking it wouldn’t be a loss. An execution is a meaningful act specifically because the life of any human being, including a criminal’s, has meaning and dignity. If this weren’t true then an execution would have no more significance than slaughtering a cow in a packing plant. There is no reason to believe that executing someone diminishes his dignity, despite its being regularly asserted.

Execution diminishes human dignity because it violates it. Abortion, similarly diminishes human dignity because of its violation. Proponents of the death penalty often say that a murderer has forfeited his right to life. That is not the position of the Catholic Church.

Rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment but, like protection, it is a secondary objective, and it is valid to point out that 2267 says nothing about it.

2267 says nothing about rehabilitation because it is irrelevant to the matter. Its point is that human life has value. All of us. And that this human dignity is never lost. We should never dehumanize others.

It is also regularly forgotten that execution, if freely accepted, is itself expiatory - although you wouldn’t know that from anything the Catechism says on the subject.

Yes, if freely accepted execution can be expiatory. The Catechism seems to be addressing those cases (perhaps the vast majority) where execution is not freely chosen.

 

[Ender]

Execution diminishes human dignity because it violates it.

This is an assertion, not an explanation, nor do I see why it should necessarily be so.

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. (CCC 27)

Nothing about executing a person changes his relationship with God, so in what way can it be considered a violation of his dignity? Does anyone believe that being executed somehow diminished the dignity of the martyrs? Don’t we rather consider their dignity enhanced by the way they endured their martyrdom?

The strongest argument against your position, however, is that the Church always has supported the right of the State to apply capital punishment. Either such punishment is not a violation of human dignity or the Church supported the violation of human dignity for nearly two millennia.

Proponents of the death penalty often say that a murderer has forfeited his right to life. That is not the position of the Catholic Church.

Actually, this is exactly the position of the Catholic Church. I’m travelling for the next few days and don’t have access to all my notes, but Pius XII said something like this (paraphrasing) “by his action he has forfeited his right to live.”

2267 says nothing about rehabilitation because it is irrelevant to the matter.

The problem with this argument is that rehabilitation is, along with protection and deterrence, a secondary objective of punishment and since 2267 is about punishment then one would expect that all of its objectives would be relevant … especially the primary objective which, like rehabilitation, is not mentioned. One can hardly argue that the primary objective could possibly be irrelevant.

Its point is that human life has value. All of us. And that this human dignity is never lost. We should never dehumanize others.

You simply assert that capital punishment is dehumanizing without trying to explain what makes it so. I’ll ask again: given this - (CCC 357) *Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person - *how does his being executed affect a person’s dignity given that it is based on his being made in the image of God, which man cannot alter? It is the sinner who wounds his own dignity, not the State which imposes a just punishment.

Yes, if freely accepted execution can be expiatory. The Catechism seems to be addressing those cases (perhaps the vast majority) where execution is not freely chosen.

Whether or not the condemned person freely accepts his punishment matters as far as expiation is concerned but is irrelevant as far as the justness of the punishment is concerned. Not only does the Catechism not discuss expiation but it ignores justice as well which is an even more serious oversight.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The strongest argument against your position, however, is that the Church always has supported the right of the State to apply capital punishment. Either such punishment is not a violation of human dignity or the Church supported the violation of human dignity for nearly two millennia.

No one denies that the Church has supported that right. What has changed is that few believe that the “right” needs to be exercised any more.

The problem with this argument is that rehabilitation is, along with protection and deterrence, a secondary objective of punishment and since 2267 is about punishment then one would expect that all of its objectives would be relevant … especially the primary objective which, like rehabilitation, is not mentioned. One can hardly argue that the primary objective could possibly be irrelevant.

It isn’t. Punishment is meted out in the form of long or life sentences.

Whether or not the condemned person freely accepts his punishment matters as far as expiation is concerned but is irrelevant as far as the justness of the punishment is concerned. Not only does the Catechism not discuss expiation but it ignores justice as well which is an even more serious oversight.

Justice is served by conviction and long term incarceration of the criminal. Killing criminals for the commission of felonies might have been considered appropriate in more barbaric times several hundred years ago, but it is no longer necessary today. Crushing murderesses under a weight of stones or drawing and quartering murderers is, at least in my opinion, barbaric.

 

[Ender]

No one denies that the Church has supported that right. What has changed is that few believe that the “right” needs to be exercised any more.

This doesn’t respond to the argument made that capital punishment was improper because it violated man’s dignity, and my response that it could hardly be a violation of his dignity if the Church supported it as a right of States.

It isn’t. Punishment is meted out in the form of long or life sentences.

Again, this doesn’t go to the arguments being made which went to the issue that 2267 only deals with one of the secondary objectives of punishment while it ignores the other three objectives, including, more significantly, the primary one.

Justice is served by conviction and long term incarceration of the criminal.

Possibly so, but simply asserting it isn’t the same as demonstrating why it is so.

Killing criminals for the commission of felonies might have been considered appropriate in more barbaric times several hundred years ago, but it is no longer necessary today. Crushing murderesses under a weight of stones or drawing and quartering murderers is, at least in my opinion, barbaric.

Once again your comment isn’t relevant to the discussion. No one is arguing in favor of drawing and quartering or even of executing people for stealing; the issue is whether it is appropriate to execute murderers. Nor is your appeal to the barbaric habits of “hundreds of years ago” accurate as the Vatican had the death penalty on its books until 1969.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This doesn’t respond to the argument made that capital punishment was improper because it violated man’s dignity, and my response that it could hardly be a violation of his dignity if the Church supported it as a right of States.

I am not arguing that it violates a person’s dignity, it may not. I am simply stating that it is no longer necessary except in very narrow instances.

Again, this doesn’t go to the arguments being made which went to the issue that 2267 only deals with one of the secondary objectives of punishment while it ignores the other three objectives, including, more significantly, the primary one.

2267 may be wrong. The Catholic Church may alsoo be wrong about a lot of things, but how does that affect imposition of the death penalty or the current refusal of Church leaders to cheerlead for it?

Possibly so, but simply asserting it isn’t the same as demonstrating why it is so.

I fail to see why a demonstration is necessary.

No one is arguing in favor of drawing and quartering or even of executing people for stealing; the issue is whether it is appropriate to execute murderers.

Under narrow circumstances it is appropriate. The murderer who is already doing life and kills in prison might be a good example of the need for it.

Nor is your appeal to the barbaric habits of “hundreds of years ago” accurate as the Vatican had the death penalty on its books until 1969.

It was and is still barbaric even if a priest or bishop pulled the handle to drop the trap on the miscreant. The death penalty at the Vatican wasn’t infallible doctrine else it could not have been dropped from the books then.