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

[chicago]

tuopaolo:

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 upheld the proper position that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion doesn’t necessarily mean that he won’t also express a view and teach in unison with what John Paul did before him.

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)

There probably aren’t a whole lot of bishops in the U.S. who will come out in support of the death penalty. Most will suggest refraining from it’s use.

We also must be careful about dismissing what John Paul articulated as mere “prudential judgement and opinion”. It may have well been the case (and I would argue so) that he was going beyong that; challenging us theologically and spiritually to grow in such wise that he was, instead, opening up a new road and perspective in these discussions of understanding life issues. Such teaching in no way denyies the traditional teaching, of course, but neither does it limit us to the traditional understanding and force us to view things only under those terms. If this is, indeed, what he was about then his postulations and exhortations are lasting in legitimate weight beyond his mere judgements about the penal system during earthly life.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Long term thinking is a term of the left? Liberals are the only ones entitled to think about future ramifications of actions taken today? Long term thinking is a bastion of conservatism. Short term thinking is more the style of “progressives”. Lets let gays marry because it makes them feel good about themselves, rather than, same sex marriage will have long term negative ramifications for the family, children, and the country as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that God forbids it. My comments may “mimic” the left because I am intelligent enough to study both sides. My comments denigrate free thinking? Free thinking is one of the 4 cornerposts of Liberal Ideology. It supposes man’s complete intellectual independence from God’s Jurisprudence, with is the mother of all heresy. Our intellect, and indeed our capacity to think is supposed to be constrained by the Moral Law provided by God through the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was a “free thinker” and look what happened as a result. No, my friend, I am the conservative one here. Using terms like freedom of thought and insulting your intelligence are terms popular with the Social Elite of the Liberal Ideologists. Peter Singer would cry foul if anyone tried to interfere with his “right” to postulate his intelligence and think without moral constraint. Be careful at whom you point a finger, three of them always come back at you.

 

[Philip_P]

KBarn:

Maybe you are the one rationalizing? What are you trying to prove?

Long reply - post 1/2
What’s at stake is the promotion of the full spectrum of Catholic social teaching rather than a narrow selection. If I spend much of my time on these forums focused on death penalty, the war, and economic issues, it’s because the most folks here have already been won over on abortion and euthanasia.

Anytime you bring up an issue on these forums, abortion is always thrown in, as if it is the only issue that matters. Having the correct position on abortion apparently absolves you from all sins, and from any responsibility to look to the rest of Catholic Social Teaching. This is gravely defective. While abortion is a great wrong, it’s hardly the only thing wrong with our society. Furthermore, it’s going to be a while before it is remedied. The late JPII also often spoke of the creation of an authentic culture of life in order to combat abortion. If he was right, then focusing solely on one issue is not enough – we must push our nation to choose life consistently at every juncture. I doubt any other approach has much chance of succeeding.

Now, where I suspect most people get caught up, though I haven’t seen it explicitly mentioned yet on this thread, is when it comes to voting. All nuances and qualifications disappear in voting, because at that point you’re not articulating a philosophy, you’re making a concrete decisions – yes or no, candidate a or b. It’s really, in a sense, a highly artificial form of decision making. Did everyone who voted for Bush support the war? Or where there some who supported the war, but with grave reservations? Or did some completely oppose the war, but believed he could get some traction on abortion? Such distinctions are obliterated in the moment of the vote, which is why we all need to be careful judging people by their voting habits.

But for all this, voting is when we, the electorate, have the loudest voice. I think some people here are afraid conceding any ground on the death penalty opens them to charges that they should not vote Republican (I’m assuming, that the folks here who vote non-Republican aren’t DP supporters). They stress that abortion is worse than DP as a defense of their vote

(in the quest for honesty and disclosure, for the record I voted for Kerry. I’m not saying this to try to convince you that your vote was wrong if you voted for Bush – the election is long over and we need to move forward. Nor am I suggesting who you should vote for in 08 – how can anyone possibly know which party, much less which candidate, they’ll vote for so far into the future? Also, my reasons for voting, short form – Against the war. Think first term policies weakened us. Don’t expect Bush to be able to deliver much on abortion or embryonic stem cells. But it’s all prudential – I’m not going to say anyone was wrong to vote for Bush, if they truly believed he was the best candidate).

MORE…

 

[Philip_P]

Long reply - post 2/2

Voting, and politics in general, is about prudential decisions. Our faith gives us definite values which we are working toward, but no one can know, absolutely, what the full and ultimate results of any course of action will be. An anti-DP voter might vote Democrat, for instance, only to find that his preferred candidate changed his position in a bid to attract some moderate-conservative voters. Or, one might vote Republican based on opposition to embryonic stem cell research only to find her Republican governor pushing for state funding of this research and her Republican congressional reps voting to overturn the president’s federal restrictions. And if, in order to support the preferred candidate on a supposed “non-negotiable,” the voter had to ignore the candidate being on the wrong side of Catholic social teaching on other “negotiable” issues, where does that leave us?

Discussions such as these forums are the grass roots, and with enough momentum down here it will trickle up to the national party level. That’s why the consistent ethic of life is vital, regardless of political orientation or party sympathies. There is no pro-life party. What’s more there cannot ever be simply one pro-life party. It is absolutely essential that we create a pro-life ferment in BOTH parties, and the only way to do that, the only one that cuts across party lines and political ideologies, is the Consistent Ethic of Life.

 

[Richardols]

tuopaolo:

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

Fine. There’s been so much talk of the Panzer Pope who’s going to go around smacking people down that I thought his nationality might have come into your mind.

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.

No longer matter?

Nevertheless, I doubt that B16 is going to start encouraging the death penalty. He’d be going against world opinion in doing so.

Only in the United States are there so many Catholics in love with the death penalty. I don’t think that B16 is going to cater only to those folks.

 

[KBarn]

Philip,

So your reason for opposing capital punishment in all its forms is prudence. My reason for allowing it should the necessity of its use arise is one of prudence as well.

We are not engaging in a battle of dueling doctrines, we are using the same doctrine and prudential judgment to arive at our positions.

Now, you advocate a position that I will try to sum up simply, though I have to admit that it is probably more complex and nuanced. In order to create a culture that values life, we must choose life at all times when we have the choice.

Here is my position stated succinctly.* In order to create a culture that values life, we must make our committment to justice the centerpiece of our culture*.

Now, if justice is best served through the application of capital punishment (that is a big *if *admittedly), then it should be applied. That position completely squares with the teaching of the Church, as does yours.

You shouldn’t have told me that you voted for Kerry. I can understand why a Catholic wouldn’t vote for Bush and opt to vote for a third party like the Constitution Party. I mean that Kerry voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban! In a country where more than 1000 babies are murdered in that way per year, 59 executions of violent criminals in a year seems hardly worth mentioning.

 

[tuopaolo]

Richardols:

Nevertheless, I doubt that B16 is going to start encouraging the death penalty. He’d be going against world opinion in doing so.

I agree with that but I also doubt that he will go around discouraging the death penalty or calling for its cessation. So his approach – I expect – will be markedly different from his immediate predecessor.

 

[tuopaolo]

chicago:

Just because he upheld the proper position that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion doesn’t necessarily mean that he won’t also express a view and teach in unison with what John Paul did before him.

By saying that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion he already does not act in unison with what John Paul did before him since John Paul didn’t say the same thing and certainly did not stress it the way Cardinal Ratzinger did. In any case, I don’t expect Benedict XVI to make strong and frequent exhortations for the non-use of the death penalty.

There probably aren’t a whole lot of bishops in the U.S. who will come out in support of the death penalty. Most will suggest refraining from it’s use.

I don’t know if it’s “most” but I agree that some will suggest refraining from its use and that their number will be more than those who suggest not refraining (this doesn’t mean that it is most because there will be some who just remain silent)

We also must be careful about dismissing what John Paul articulated as mere “prudential judgement and opinion”.

Cardinal Dulles described it as a “prudential judgement” in his little piece in the National Catholic Register (which I’ll quote below)

It may have well been the case (and I would argue so) that he was going beyong that; challenging us theologically and spiritually to grow in such wise that he was, instead, opening up a new road and perspective in these discussions of understanding life issues.

I seem to recall Cardinal Ratzinger making a statement as to whether it was doctrinal development or not, but unfortunately I don’t remember with clarity which way he opined. In any case a number of people said it was not and that doctrinal development cannot happen overnight, etc.

Here is what Cardinal Dulles said in the National Catholic Register:

“It is with great reluctance that I take issue with Justice Scalia, who is rightly regarded as one of the outstanding legal experts of the nation and an exemplary Catholic. I agree with what he says about the constant Catholic tradition in favor of the death penalty and the harmony of that tradition with the system of criminal justice that undergirds the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But I differ with Justice Scalia in his interpretation of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae.”

And apparently Cardinal Dulles not only disagrees with Scalia but also with you as regards interpreting what John Paul II said in EV. Dulles continues:

“Following the Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 2109),** I interpret the defense of society as including not only physical defense against the criminal but also the vindication of the moral order.** This interpretation agrees with the principle that the primary purpose of the punishment that society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (Evangelium Vitae, No. 56).”

Cardinal Dulles’ point is made even more explicit as he continues:

“If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).”

So in Cardinal Dulles’ view John Paul did not deny that the death penalty could be rightly exercised as a matter of “retributive justice.”

He continues:

"I doubt whether the tradition is reversible at all, but even if it were, the reversal could hardly be accomplished by an incidental section in a long encyclical focused primarily on the defense of innocent human life. If the Pope were contradicting the tradition, one could legitimately question whether his statement outweighed the established teaching of so many past centuries. "

And here he terms what John Paul did a “prudential judgment”:

“I believe that the Pope, without contradicting the tradition, is exercising his prudential judgment that in our time adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defense of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred.”

ncregister.com/Register_News/031902dul.htm

Cardinal Dulles has a much more extensive piece on the death penalty in First Things and you can probably find it on the First Things website.

 

[Richardols]

Why are the death penalty loving American Catholics so insistent on its use?

Okay, the Church tolerates it. The Church also tolerated it when people were being hanged for ordinary crimes (all felonies were consider capital crimes in most countries until about 200 years ago.)

But, the Church,** I hope**, no longer would tolerate the death penalty for thieves, and I know that Western nations have abolished it even for murder. Is there any reason Americans can’t go along with this wide consensus?

Is there such a profound love of violence and such bloodthirst in the hearts of Americans that they must have opportunities to contribute to the Culture of Death? And, if so, why must this craving for death appear in the hearts of some Catholics? It’s one thing for some ignorant Fundamentalist white trash hillbilly to want to “hang 'em all and let God sort 'em out,” (I don’t expect better from that sort), but, it’s another thing to hear similar notions from members of our Church.

Just me, but I consider an anti-abortion Catholic who actually supports the death penalty (rather than just acknowledges that the Church doesn’t forbid it) to be a hypocrite.

In the 21st Century, a consistent life ethic should be a consistent life ethic.

 

[Richardols]

****“I believe that the Pope, without contradicting the tradition, is exercising his prudential judgment that in our time adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defense of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred.”

Exactly so. Bloodless means of defending society are always to be preferred - especially in our modern times, when we have the means to do so.

 

[Philip_P]

KBarn:

You shouldn’t have told me that you voted for Kerry. I can understand why a Catholic wouldn’t vote for Bush and opt to vote for a third party like the Constitution Party. I mean that Kerry voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban! In a country where more than 1000 babies are murdered in that way per year, 59 executions of violent criminals in a year seems hardly worth mentioning.

It would have been dishonest of me to try to “hide” who I voted for. But, let’s be clear, I’m no party loyalist. Votes are always in context - I voted for Kerry because out of the two options available, he was the better in my judgement.

Now, if I were to try to deny that his position on abortion has often been wrong, I would run into trouble. Similarly, though, those who voted for Bush need to acknowledge where their candidate falls short. And at all times, regardless of who we voted for, we must keep up and spread the consistent ethic of life philosophy.

I think we (Catholics, not partisans) have a real opportunity here. The GOP would like to increase its Catholic margin. The Dems realize that their Catholic constituency is vulnerable. A number of the 06 senate races should be close (the most interesting one should be Santorum-Casey in PA). Too soon to say much about 08, but judging from the last couple of races it may be close, too. Let the parties know we’re serious about Consistent Ethic of Life and we stand to make real progress across the political spectrum.

 

[Philip_P]

KBarn:

Now, if justice is best served through the application of capital punishment (that is a big *if *admittedly), then it should be applied. That position completely squares with the teaching of the Church, as does yours.

That’s a big **if. **I’ve never been able to buy into justice being served by death; the farthest down that road I could go was defense of society, and that no longer seems to apply.

 

[tuopaolo]

Richardols:

But, the Church,** I hope**, no longer would tolerate the death penalty for thieves, and I know that Western nations have abolished it even for murder.

The Church doesn’t just “tolerate” the death penalty; the Church teaches that the death penalty is rightly exercised by the State provided that it is – as with all things – exercised with prudence, i.e. justly.

Pat Buchanan expressed support for the death penalty for some cases of rape.

I think having the death penalty for petty thieves is needlessly excessive punishment, but I would be open to it for cases when the thievery involves stealing a ginormous amount of money – like say a trillion dollars – for mere personal profit and causes catastrophic damage to society or when it is an act of terrorism (like stealing critically needed vaccines all over the country and thereby causing millions of flu deaths)

Is there any reason Americans can’t go along with this wide consensus?

Maybe because they tend to be mistaken on a lot of things like abortion? A consensus of a group of things is only significant when the things in question reliably ascertain what is right in the first place.

Is there such a profound love of violence and such bloodthirst in the hearts of Americans that they must have opportunities to contribute to the Culture of Death?

Capital punishment, ideally, is part of the culture of life.

In the 21st Century, a consistent life ethic should be a consistent life ethic.

A consistent life ethic, ideally, should include a support for capital punishment.

 

[Richardols]

tuopaolo:

The Church doesn’t just “tolerate” the death penalty; the Church teaches that the death penalty is rightly exercised by the State provided that it is – as with all things – exercised with prudence, i.e. justly.

Sounds like tolerance to me, as the Church attaches conditions to its use.

Pat Buchanan expressed support for the death penalty for some cases of rape.

Buchanan said that? Well then, we have an obligation to reinstate the death penalty for rape.

Capital punishment, ideally, is part of the culture of life.

I suggest that pro-choicers could argue that, from their point of view, the right to abortion is life-affirming.

A consistent life ethic, ideally, should include a support for capital punishment.

Your opinion, fine. I disagree seriously. I believe that anyone who actually supports capital punishment is as much a part of the Culture of Death as any New York City abortionist.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

Katherine and Richard,

From reading your posts, I assume your favorite justice would be Ginsburg or Souter? Never saw the “Right to Privacy” in the Constitution. But then, the founders really supported Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay-Marriage, and the complete removal of religion from the public sphere. Scalia can be a bit caustic, but when it comes to sane jurists on the court, he, Thomas, and Rehnquist are as good as they come.

 

[tuopaolo]

Richardols:

Sounds like tolerance to me, as the Church attaches conditions to its use.

But there are conditions for the use of ice cream also. Eating 25 gallons of icecream every day for example would be a sin. That doesn’t mean that the Church “tolerates” ice cream. Same thing with video games. Video games that preach an immoral message are not right but that doesn’t mean that the Church “tolerates” video games. Ditto for guns. Using guns to murder is not right but that doesn’t mean that the Church “tolerates” guns.

 

[KBarn]

Philip P:

I think we (Catholics, not partisans) have a real opportunity here. The GOP would like to increase its Catholic margin. The Dems realize that their Catholic constituency is vulnerable. A number of the 06 senate races should be close (the most interesting one should be Santorum-Casey in PA). Too soon to say much about 08, but judging from the last couple of races it may be close, too. Let the parties know we’re serious about Consistent Ethic of Life and we stand to make real progress across the political spectrum.

Philip,

Let me begin by saying that I like you. You are a very thoughtful person, and honest on top of it all.

I agree that we as Catholics should pursue a consistent life ethic. But I think that means knowing when to use capital punishment in a way that is consistent, not on abolishing it all together. Now, probably in 99% of the cases in which it is used in the United States, it should not be used. I think that the use of capital punishment should be practically non-existent. But I think the option should be on the table should it become a necessity. I will illustrate with a hypothetical.

A man is convicted of murder (perhaps several). He makes deadly weapons while in prison out of seemingly innocuous items such as toilet paper and woodchips and uses them to persistently attack fellow inmates and prison guards. Even when in solitary confinement he has proven to be gravely dangerous. (Incidently, these kind of men DO exist.) I think in such a case, in which not even incarceration can protect people from a dangerous criminal, capital punishment SHOULD be on the table.

That is my position. You will probably find that it is not all that different from yours. I am certain that my position squares with Catholic doctrine and tradition. Yours does as well. That is not the issue.

I am not asking you to defend your position because I agree that it is legitimate. All I am asking is that you agree that mine (and similar positions) are also legitimate. There is a wide variety of legitimate positions on the subject that are supported by Catholic doctrine.

 

[grotto]

RICHARDOLS: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_29_119i.gifYou don’t need to pick on my white trash, hillbilly, fundamentalist friends. You need to work on your apples and oranges!

 

[Richardols]

grotto:

RICHARDOLS: You don’t need to pick on my white trash, hillbilly, fundamentalist friends.

Why not?

 

[Richardols]

NWUArmyROTC:

Katherine and Richard,

From reading your posts, I assume your favorite justice would be Ginsburg or Souter? Never saw the “Right to Privacy” in the Constitution. But then, the founders really supported Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay-Marriage, and the complete removal of religion from the public sphere. Scalia can be a bit caustic, but when it comes to sane jurists on the court, he, Thomas, and Rehnquist are as good as they come.

I thought we were discussing the death penalty on this thread. So, at this moment, Justice Kennedy is my favorite.