One Catholic voice on death penalty takes on another (Prejean vs. Scalia)

[Scott_Lafrance]

Philip P:

So let God rank sin, not the state. I mean, how exactly is this supposed to work? A man who kills his wife in a fit of passion should be killed, but a multiple offense sexual predator should be really really killed? Or maybe you see law and order as being linked more to punishment than to security. Let’s kill that guy who killed his wife, that’ll learn him! Bet he thinks twice before killing again…oh wait, he’s dead.

The death penalty, like abortion, like any other question of public policy, is really a question of what sort of a people are we. We do not have to kill our prisoners. We have a choice. Are we a people who kill, or a people who choose life?

This applies to you as well. Read it this time.

Scott_LaFrance:

I’d recommend going back and rereading my posts. I have maintained from the begining of this thread that the death penalty should only be used for the unremorseful and unrehabitable few sociopathic multi-murderers. You’re assumption that I want to gas jaywalkers is crude and beneath your apparent level of intelligence.

 

[tuopaolo]

Richardols:

Shows you how little he knows. Certainly, the Pope’s teachings aren’t infallible, but to dismiss them as just the Pope’s personal opinion, no more weighty than the Pope’s opinion of the best restaurant in Rome

You seem to be talking about Pope John Paul II’s pastoral teachings. I believe Pope Benedict XVI pastoral teachings on the matter are significantly different and since it is he who is now our pastor it is his opinions that matter. I also don’t remember reading Scalia ever “dismissing them as just the Pope’s personal opinion, no more weighty than the Pope’s opinion of the best restuarant in Rome”

Even as John Paul II’s loyal lieutenant Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI wrote:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

defide.com/documentation.html

shows how little he respects the Pope and how little he values what the head of our Church says.

The present head of our Church is Benedict XVI, not John Paul II. Deceased popes completely cease being head of the Church after their death or resignation. Also, he does not place little value on what the head of our Church says. Cardinal Dulles described Scalia as an “exemplary Catholic” and Fr George Rutler authored a little piece that was given the title “Scalia is Right” in the National Catholic Register.

Now, there’s a Supreme Court Justice who needs to be replaced!

He’ll likely be the next Chief Justice.

 

[Richardols]

tuopaolo:

You seem to be talking about Pope John Paul II’s pastoral teachings. I believe Pope Benedict XVI pastoral teachings on the matter are significantly different and since it is he who is now our pastor it is his opinions that matter.

So, you think that B16 is going to call for more death penalty use? Just because he is German, you cannot presume that he is bloodthirsty. Is there even one country in Europe that hasn’t abolished it?

And, you believe that we can now throw everything JPII wrote into the dustbin as his opinions no longer matter?

The present head of our Church is Benedict XVI, not John Paul II.

Thanks for the news. Sometimes it’s so hard to keep up with what’s happening.

Deceased popes completely cease being head of the Church after their death or resignation.

I should hope so.

Cardinal Dulles described Scalia as an “exemplary Catholic”

Great to see him go to Mass every Sunday. Even to receive Communion.

Fr George Rutler authored a little piece that was given the title “Scalia is Right” in the National Catholic Register.

Rutler is the pastor of or an associate at some moneybags church in NYC; he’s not a Church theologian.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

David_Paul:

Surprised any Catholic wants Justice Scalia off the court.

Off the court is a little too strong, but I think that if he’s in favor of executing the mentally retarded, he could use a compassion infusion. How he can be so sure that a minor or someone mentally retarded has had a proper formation of conscience is beyond me.

I hope it okay to disagree with Sister Prajean on some things, and to disagree with Justice Scalia on others. One thing I know for sure: neither one of them is speaking ex cathedra.

Richardols:

So, you think that B16 is going to call for more death penalty use? Just because he is German, you cannot presume that he is bloodthirsty. Is there even one country in Europe that hasn’t abolished it?

And, you believe that we can now throw everything JPII wrote into the dustbin as his opinions no longer matter?

As for our dear Pope, like John Paul II, he had experience with the Nazis. This might well have convinced him of the dangers of enshrining the death penalty as a perogative of the state. Governments fall into the wrong hands, societies tilt in extreme directions. It would be well to keep the death penalty off the table, if at all possible.

The Church does not withhold the death penalty as a means of societal self-defence when it is really necessary. I’m with that. But there were no truly secure prisons in the time of Aquinas or Augustine. In the United States, our best research indicates that having the death penalty instead of life in prison is not an additional deterrent. We do not need it. Since we know we do not apply it evenly and sometimes even sentence incorrectly, we ought to refrain from it.

 

[condan]

Richardols:

Shows you how little he knows. Certainly, the Pope’s teachings aren’t infallible, but to dismiss them as just the Pope’s personal opinion, no more weighty than the Pope’s opinion of the best restaurant in Rome shows how little he respects the Pope and how little he values what the head of our Church says.

Now, there’s a Supreme Court Justice who needs to be replaced!

Here we go again…

Justice Scalia has a brilliant legal mind, is a devout Catholic and is correct in his understanding of papal teaching. In addition, his son is a devout priest so he must be doing something right in terms of his own private religious practice.

Justice Scalia’s job is to determine if the death penalty, as applied in certain situations, is constitutionally sound, not whether or not it is popular. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide if particular federal legislation violates the standards set forth in the Constitution. Their job is not to set public policy, yet they have done so consistently over the last 50 years, whether it be birth control, abortion, sodomy, public displays of faith and the death penalty, just to name a few. In each case mentioned, the Court has found meaning that does not in actuality exist in the Constitution. Rather, they have molded and stretched the Constitution to meet their own personal views of public policy (e.g., overpopulation).

 

[jimmy]

Richardols:

So, you believe that we are still under The Law?

The law has nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church acknowledges the states right to capital punishment. Read the Catechism.

 

[condan]

tuopaolo:

He’ll likely be the next Chief Justice.

One can only hope! My fear, however, is that he will be filibustered by the Democrats as part of the “deal” worked out yesterday.

 

[chicago]

Scott_Lafrance:

What I find horrific is when people want a 100% ban on capital punishment, and convicted violent criminals escape to kill again, or better yet, continue to take life in prison. Capital punishment is still acceptable as societal retribution for the most violent and unrehabilitable of society. Canon Law agrees with me, and this position is in complete union with JPIIs statements. Canon Law agrees with me, and this position is in complete union with JPIIs statements. He did not call for a complete ban on the practice, but rather called for a curtailment of its use, a postion I completely agree with.

Why is it that everybody always forgets about his homiletic comments from his last Mass in the U.S. (celebrated in commemoration of the Sacred Heart in St. Louis):

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

 

[mikev]

Philip P:

I think we’re selling ourselves short. Why not push for people who are both opposed to abortion AND the death penalty?

I agree, however, a wrong and a right are better than two wrongs. Sometimes we must take what is available and then push on.

Abortion is always evil. the death penalty, which I don’t support (as already stated) might not be.

 

[tuopaolo]

BLB_Oregon:

Off the court is a little too strong, but I think that if he’s in favor of executing the mentally retarded, he could use a compassion infusion.

I’ve not read anything to indicate that he favors executing the mentally retarded. Just because one seeks to uphold the constitution does not mean that one favors legislation allowing the execution of the mentally retarded. The question of whether the mentally retarded should be executed is a separate question from the question of what the constitution actually says or does not say about it.

The Church does not withhold the death penalty as a means of societal self-defence when it is really necessary. I’m with that. But there were no truly secure prisons in the time of Aquinas or Augustine. In the United States, our best research indicates that having the death penalty instead of life in prison is not an additional deterrent. We do not need it. Since we know we do not apply it evenly and sometimes even sentence incorrectly, we ought to refrain from it.

Cardinal Dulles (who btw does not support the use of the death penalty at the present time in the United States) disagrees with your presentation of the tradition and has expressed skepticism about the secure prisons argument. Applying it “evenly” if it is a problem would be equally a problem for other forms of punishment – that doesn’t mean we should get rid of them or it.

 

[tuopaolo]

condan:

One can only hope! My fear, however, is that he will be filibustered by the Democrats as part of the “deal” worked out yesterday.

The deal was terrible. I consider them to be traitors. Most likely they were just concerned with looking good and some of them were concerned with presidential aspirations. But I know one Democratic leader … I think it was Reid … said he’d support Scalia but not Thomas IIRC.

 

[tuopaolo]

Richardols:

So, you think that B16 is going to call for more death penalty use?

I’m pretty sure he won’t make strong exhortations for the cessation of the death penalty since as Cardinal Ratzinger he already wrote: "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty"

Just because he is German, you cannot presume that he is bloodthirsty.

The fact that he is German didn’t even enter into my mind.

And, you believe that we can now throw everything JPII wrote into the dustbin as his opinions no longer matter?

No but his pastoral opinions, his prudential judgments such as wrt to the death penalty no longer matter as he is no longer our pastor. When it comes to pastoral guidance and prudential judgments it is our current Pastor, the Roman Pontiff, we should look to (we should look also to our local bishop and to a lesser extent other bishops)

Rutler is the pastor of or an associate at some moneybags church in NYC; he’s not a Church theologian.

He’s more of a theologian than you or I and certainly more of a theologian than that Sister.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

tuopaolo:

The deal was terrible. I consider them to be traitors. Most likely they were just concerned with looking good and some of them were concerned with presidential aspirations. But I know one Democratic leader … I think it was Reid … said he’d support Scalia but not Thomas IIRC.

Some of the stipulations that have not been illicited as part of the agreement are that if the Democrats attempt to resume filibuster in what the REPUBLICAN 7 deem not to be an “exteme case”, then the 7 republicans vowed to add their votes to the other 48 and pull the trigger on the “Nuclear Option”. Basically the agreement says that the 7 Democrats would not prolong the Filibuster on Brown, Owens, and Pryor, with not commitments on the others (who are still being vetted on ethics reports, in my limited understanding). THe 7 democrats would give the majority the 60 votes they needed for cloture. If Haas or any of the others are filibustered, and the 7 Republicans who signed the agreement deem that it is another stall tactic, they will pull the trigger on the Parlimentary Procedure and end the filibuster. I think that in this manner, both side sorta get what they want. It isn’t perfect, but if it gets the Senate back to work, then so much the better.

As much as I enjoy Rush and Hannity, don’t just listen to the Republican talking points, look at the whole thing in perspective and do your hoomework.

 

[KBarn]

Philip P:

What a bizarre argument. Why this need to “rank” evils? What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?

Capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil! That is the teaching of the Church.

1. Abortion is always gravely sinful and can never be justified.
2. Capital punishment may be justly applied.

There is no ranking of evils. One is absolutely evil. One is conditionally good.

 

[David_Paul]

Scott_Lafrance:

As much as I enjoy Rush and Hannity, don’t just listen to the Republican talking points, look at the whole thing in perspective and do your hoomework.

If you enjoy them, you should know the “talking points” are a reflection of the mainstream Republican thinking. . Both Rush and Hannity are always behind the base by at least a day (sometimes weeks). RNC is behind by days, weeks, months and sometimes years.

They all confirm views already held.

The left is convinced Rush, Hannity and other conservatives in the media create these views.

Btw…putting things in “perspective” or in “context” is a common tactic liberals use to obscure what was said or done.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

David_Paul:

If you enjoy them, you should know the “talking points” are a reflection of the mainstream Republican thinking. . Both Rush and Hannity are always behind the base by at least a day (sometimes weeks). RNC is behind by days, weeks, months and sometimes years.

They all confirm views already held.

The left is convinced Rush, Hannity and other conservatives in the media create these views.

Btw…putting things in “perspective” or in “context” is a common tactic liberals use to obscure what was said or done.

Just because I advocate doing ones homework and thinking long-term and globally does not make me a liberal. Just ask my good friend Richardols if I would be invited to a potluck get-together for MoveOn.org.

 

[David_Paul]

Scott_Lafrance . . . As I mentioned, the “homework” has already been done. Those who listen to Rush and Hannity do so to have their views confirmed and find (to their great delight) the MSM is wrong and there are tens of millions who believe as they.

Far as “thinking long term”…another Liberal talking point.

Yeah…let’s “think long term”…

Abort babies because they will starve to death if we don’t. Create life to destroy it because some day it might save lives. Allow Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer, Reid, PFAW, the ACLU, the NCJW, NOW, NARAL and others to block decent, good, honest people from the Federal bench because…“long term”…it might help the pro-life movement.

Yeah sure.

All your comments are typical of the left. And denigrate the intelligence and free will of those who hold sincere beliefs.

Not saying you are one, but you mimic the talking points of liberals.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Philip P:

Sure, but those certain cases don’t exist in America today. It’s not either/or people. JPII was successfully anti-abortion and anti- death penalty. Surely as Catholics we should rise to the challenge of reforming our politics to make this a possibilty for Americans, too.

If you’re going to claim the label of pro-life, you need to be prepared to go all the way. Womb to tomb.

**It’s a bold statement to say there are no cases for capital punishment in America today. John Paul II never said there is absolutely no case for capital punishment. He said it’s difficult to make a case for capital punishment. **

---

Are you saying abortion and capital punishment are both intrinsically evil? Are you taking the Cardinal Bernardin “seamless garment” approach? I don’t object to anyone being anti-capital punishment. I object to those who equate abortion and capital punishment. Abortion is intrinsically evil, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil.

---

I agree to be pro life means womb to tomb, which is one reason I oppose the war in Iraq. I also agree we have to be extreme careful administering capital punishment. Prison ministry is a corporal work of mercy. I would rather see someone incarcerated and have the chance to repent than be put to death without that chance. However, I’m not willing to say there are no circumstances ever for capital punishment.

 

[Philip_P]

KBarn:

Capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil! That is the teaching of the Church.

1. Abortion is always gravely sinful and can never be justified.
2. Capital punishment may be justly applied.

There is no ranking of evils. One is absolutely evil. One is conditionally good.

So only intrinsic evils count, huh? But like I said before, it’s really a question of what sort of people we want to be, one that kills or one that chooses life. You can throw up whatever rationalizations you want, but in the end you’ve got to ask yourself what you’re trying to prove here. That the state CAN execute? Of course it can, but should it? Is this really the type of nation we wish to be?

 

[KBarn]

Philip P:

So only intrinsic evils count, huh? But like I said before, it’s really a question of what sort of people we want to be, one that kills or one that chooses life. You can throw up whatever rationalizations you want, but in the end you’ve got to ask yourself what you’re trying to prove here.

You assume that when I re-iterate Catholic doctrine that I am somehow in favor of capital punishment, that I am rationalizing a position that opposes yours. So what your wording implies is that you think that the authentic Catholic position contradicts yours. Maybe you are the one rationalizing? What are you trying to prove?

I do not favor it, but I believe that there are times when capital punishment may actually be necessary to defend society, for example, when a violent man in a prison population still exhibits a grave threat to his fellow inmates and prison guards or for terrorists whose very crime seeks to undermine all of civil society by advocating the murder of innocents.

For a bit of historical context, each but one of the 164 popes who ruled the Papal States incorporated capital punishment into the criminal justice system of his temporal reign. St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas are among those who supported its use when the necessity should arise.

All that being said, I appreciate that you are so passionately pro-life. I really do. I respect your position on capital punishment. It reflects part of the spectrum of legitimate belief on the subject. But you have to understand that my position is also legitimate, that I advocate a reasonable Catholic position, one that would let prudence, not absolute prohibition, guide the State’s administration of justice. And ultimately, according to the Church, the question of capital punishment is one of prudence.