Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Mike_Dye]

This may have been covered in previous posts but I have to agree with the pope on this issue. Good ole’ Jeff Dahmer should have been given another wack at being a productive citizen. And surely Charlie Manson is thinking straight by now isn’t he?
And if occasionally one of society’s “best and brightest” falls through the cracks it’s only the wife and kids that get to reap all the benefits that only a deranged pedophile or sociopath can offer them.
Sometimes I wish someone would advise those in a position of moral authority to think for just a few seconds before they blurt out the first thing that pop’s into their mind.

 

[pnewton]

Sometimes I wish someone would advise those in a position of moral authority to think for just a few seconds before they blurt out the first thing that pop’s into their mind.

How in the world would you know how much time the Holy Father spent in contemplation of this issue?

 

[graciew]

The argument that all murderers should be treated mercifully and not executed contains within it the admission that death is the just punishment…so what is the argument for not using it in those cases where mercy should not be granted?

Ender

I do not have it.
What I know is that in my heart when reading the atrocities a person can do , I shoot them down straight ahead , maybe worse still. And that.may be human and fair but somebody has to help me pull my heart away from being so inconsistent and hateful.
Cause it is hatred what I sometimes honestly feel. God knows

 

[Ender]

I would say that its application would objectively be contrary to human dignity, but subjectively there would be no guilt.

I don’t agree that this. On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty.
This agrees with your comment that there is no guilt but neither is there any hint that the action was objectively wrong. Think of it this way: two people commit the same crime and both are executed. In one location there is no outcry; the incident is simply noted and the public moves on. In the other location, the brother of the executed man takes to the streets, inflames a mob and there is rioting. It is not reasonable to contend that these executions are objectively different. Either they are both contrary to man’s dignity or neither of them is.

I used that as a possible example for how using the death penalty could negatively affect the common good.

I accept that such conditions can exist.

The conflict with human dignity would start by not doing what is perceived to be the best route for society to take.

It is a sin to do anything we believe is wrong, but the term “conflict with human dignity” cannot be so broadly used that it means any sin at all.

The application in concrete historical circumstances is the determining factor for what makes its use in conflict with human dignity.

It may be a small point but I don’t accept the definition that doing something that turns out badly constitutes a conflict with human dignity. An act cannot retroactively become evil based solely on the consequences.

Ender

 

[Mike_Dye]

How in the world would you know how much time the Holy Father spent in contemplation of this issue?

You know, you are entirely correct. I have no idea how long the Holy Father spent contemplating the issue at hand. I was just working on the assumption that anyone who had thought the issue through would have came to a more logical conclusion.

 

[Ender]

Catholic theologian do not proof-text quotes out of the past to push forward an agenda that they believe in.

This is how you dismiss 2000 years of teachings? As proof-texting? Would that term not apply to the catechism as well given that it too pulls quotes out of the past to support its assertions? How can this be appropriate for the writers of the catechism and wrong for everyone else?

Any advocate for the death penalty, or any other issue, can dig through the history and find reams of quotes that can be made to support the particular agenda.

You can’t. Your “agenda” is opposition to capital punishment, but you can’t dig through historical church documents and find any support for that position beyond prudential objections to its use in particular circumstances.

This is like the scientist that chooses only data to prove what he wants proven, as opposed to questing for truth without bias.

I have done a lot of searching for “the truth”. I have done searches on the documents of most of the councils, dozens of the Fathers and Doctors, and any number of articles written by others on this topic. It is not a question of selecting only those quotes that support my “agenda”. I don’t need to pick and choose as most of those sources say pretty much the same thing - which, given that it is the teaching of the church, is not at all surprising. Wouldn’t we expect the church to be consistent? Does it make any sense to believe that the great theologians of the church would contradict one another?

Ender

 

[Ender]

What I know is that in my heart when reading the atrocities a person can do , I shoot them down straight ahead , maybe worse still. And that.may be human and fair but somebody has to help me pull my heart away from being so inconsistent and hateful. Cause it is hatred what I sometimes honestly feel. God knows

And the judge is specifically warned about bringing feelings like this into his sentencing…but this does not mean that he should not apply the just punishment for a crime, only that he should not lose sight of the humanity of the prisoner.*The only person who is fit to punish anyone is the one whose love has overcome the hatred which often rages in us when we desire revenge *(Augustine)
Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP

You seem to be interpreting the scripture reference overly literally.

SNIP It was obvious to the communal mind back then that in an unjust environment, using death as a punishment did not reflect humane values. In that sort of environment death engendered blood lust that was contrary to the common good.

That’s what Catholic teaching is addressing now by her persistant calls to abolish the death penalty around the world. The death penalty (the uprooting of the cockle) is further damaging the good rather than edifying them.

You make three errors.

1. I am using Catholic teachings, not interpreting scripture, myself. See below.
2. The death penalty supports the common good, if 2000 years of Catholic teaching mean anything, which, most certainly, they do.

What you are discussing is the perversion of teachings, that which includes “bloodlust” and then you 3) wrongly impose “human values” in a conversation wherein the primary concern is eternal values.

It is the responsibility of the Church to constantly emphasize eternal values and teachings, not to abandon them because some pervert those teachings with misunderstanding and non Catholic values.

please review. Many more upon request

1. 2260: “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.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (CCC 1995)

This is a commandment.

1. Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

“paramount obedience” What does "paramount obedience mean? It is a requirement.

1. 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) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)
2. Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

“ALREADY by (the unjust aggressors) fault, he has DISPOSSESSED himself of the right to life.”

Execution required by death penalty eligible fault.

1. “The normal moral reason for upholding capital punishment is reverence for life itself. Indeed, this is the reason why scripture and Christian tradition have upheld it, a fact which suggests that, if anything, it may be the abolition of capital punishment which threatens to cheapen life, not its retention.” Catholic scholar J. Budziszewski, Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, Jan. 25, 2002 conference, Pew Forum, titled “A Call for Reckoning: Religion and the Death Penalty”
2. Clement of Alexandria (153 - 217) Saint & Father of the Church:

But it is the highest and most perfect good, when one is able to lead back any one from the practice of evil to virtue and well-doing, which is the very function of the law. So that, when one fails into any incurable evil, – when taken possession of, for example, by wrong or covetousness, – it will be for his good if he is put to death. For the law is beneficent, being able to make some righteous from unrighteous, if they will only give ear to it, and by releasing others from present evils; for those who have chosen to live temperately and justly, it conducts to immortality. The Stromata, i. (Bk I, Ch 27)

1. Clement of Rome (Saint & Father of the Church), Bishop of Rome, 90-100 C.E

Clement argued that God alone rules all things, that He lays down the law, punishing rebels and rewarding the obedient, and that His authority is delegated to Church leaders. Clement went as far as to say that whoever disobeys these divinely ordained authorities has disobeyed God Himself and should receive the death penalty. First Epistle to the Corinthians (Ch 41) 96-98

1. Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)

Not having the death penalty or refusing to use it, would harm the sinner, eternally.

continued

 

[dudleysharp]

continued

1. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ

“There are certain moral norms that have ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, THEY ARE IRREVERSIBLY BINDING ON THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD”

“Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.”

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.”

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in EVERY AGE AND CULTURE of Christianity.”

"IT IS WRONG, THEREFORE, 'TO SAY THAT THESE SOURCES CONTAIN IDEAS WHICH ARE CONDITIONED BY HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. ON THE CONTRARY, THEY HAVE A ‘GENERAL AND ABIDING VALIDITY.’

"The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. ", “The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?”, 10/7/2000, at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3

“Paramount obedience”

1. “While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and primarily serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice–an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” " . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths." (p. 511-552)

“Yet the presence of two purposes–retributive and medicinal justice–ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (p. 522)

“Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty”, p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999)

(CAPS MY EMPHASIS, sharp)

" . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)."

“Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

 

[graciew]

And the judge is specifically warned about bringing feelings like this into his sentencing…but this does not mean that he should not apply the just punishment for a crime, only that he should not lose sight of the humanity of the prisoner.*The only person who is fit to punish anyone is the one whose love has overcome the hatred which often rages in us when we desire revenge *(Augustine)
Ender

I get you. You are helping me walk towards a given punishment. You are not changing anything.
You are doing it in obedience and good faith.
We do not know each other , we have never met ,and you do not know my inner process which I am trying to disclose in good.faith.
Would there be a bond between us in real life , would anything be different ? Say you arr not the judge .
No,I am wrong. You are walking with me and that does make a difference

 

[Ender]

Not having the death penalty or refusing to use it, would harm the sinner, eternally.

What is the source of this quote?

You cite Cardinal Dulles as the source for (11) but I think those comments were actually made by Fr. Hardon.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I get you. You are helping me walk towards a given punishment. You are not changing anything. You are doing it in obedience and good faith.

I started investigating this issue not long after I joined CAF. I entered these discussions at first just to counter certain arguments that I felt were invalid, but as the discussion became more pointed I found I needed to be able to support my position with what the church actually taught. My personal opinion - properly so - carries no weight, so before I could assert something I first had to find where the church (broadly speaking, to include the Fathers, Doctors, etc) asserted it. That investigation has led me to where I am now.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

You can’t. Your “agenda” is opposition to capital punishment, …

This is a lie. Furthermore, you know this to be a lie as you have been here long enough to know at one time I posted the opposing position as much as my current one. One agenda posters are discouraged here, according to the rules of the roads. Me thinks you doth protest too much.

I invite all to go to my profile and check the topics I post on to determine if I have an agenda, or an opinion, an opinion that is concert with the Holy Father and St. John Paul the Great under whom I learned much.

Then do the same for Ender and Dudley.

Let the facts speak for themselves.

This is how you dismiss 2000 years of teachings?

I dismiss nothing.

As proof-texting?

When I believe a quote is used counter to its proper historical context.

Would that term not apply to the catechism as well given that it too pulls quotes out of the past to support its assertions?

Of course not.

 

[graciew]

I invite all to go to my profile and check the topics I post on to determine if I have an agenda,

I do not need to PNewton.
We have shared threads . I remember one in particular when I started at CAF where I learnt from you the ability to follow attentively and not to stick to what you thought unnecessarily.
And I am now also learning from you and from SWolf from your experience in prison ministry.
I ministered in jail only and for about three years on a weekly basis. It is very difficult to forget that path. And we walked within Church rules,and correct me if I am wrong,we were basically " useless" from a strategic point of view,for people in prison or jail know that we could not be used to take info in or out of the facility,nor contact relatives,nor anything. And we were probably accepted also out of trust that we were in fact obedient and would respect rules.
I still remember when I crossed the gates for the first time wondering what on earth were my one hundred pounds doing there. I was deprived of everything,call it cel phone,purse,keys,but my pass and my Bible. From that moment on,I felt literally in God s hands and the ladies and men I visited too ,I prayed God would hold them in His hands .
A new story,from scratch. I loved that ministry with all my heart. It healed me more than I could do for any of them.
Peace PNewton

 

[pnewton]

And I am now also learning from you and from SWolf from your experience in prison ministry.

I got a chuckle from this. Just to clarify, my experience in a jail has been with a badge, for 28 years and counting. Needless to say, I work in a very pro-punishment environment, with very few who do not want an active and busy death penalty.

 

[graciew]

I got a chuckle from this. Just to clarify, my experience in a jail has been with a badge, for 28 years and counting. Needless to say, I work in a very pro-punishment environment, with very few who do not want an active and busy death penalty.

Now I have to look up the word " chuckle " !
Is it bad ??

 

[graciew]

I got a chuckle from this. Just to clarify, my experience in a jail has been with a ba?dge, for 28 years and counting. Needless to say, I work in a very pro-punishment environment, with very few who do not want an active and busy death penalty.

You should have seen me ran the first couple of times…not to carry the Good News , but to make sure I would not forget my way out.
God is a God of surprises.
And I am glad He is.

 

[Ender]

This is a lie.

Calm down. You used the word agenda with the implication that that’s what I was pushing. I applied “agenda” to you (in quotes) to suggest that if having and vigorously defending a position was an agenda then you had one as well. So what is it you felt was a lie? That you have an agenda (in the sense that applies equally to us both) or that you are opposed to capital punishment?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Calm down. You used the word agenda with the implication that that’s what I was pushing. I applied “agenda” to you (in quotes) to suggest that if having and vigorously defending a position was an agenda then you had one as well. So what is it you felt was a lie? That you have an agenda (in the sense that applies equally to us both) or that you are opposed to capital punishment?

Ender

On a forum espousing Catholic teaching and whose admin and owners to my knowledge have faithfully reflected Church teaching through the years, there is an obvious difference between those striving to conform their own agenda to the Churches ‘agenda’… pnewton being one of those as I too remember a time he had a foot on either side of the fence on this issue. Then there are those who stick rigidly to their ***own ***agenda, constantly calling into doubt the legitimacy of the Catechism and the wisdom of the Popes, harking back to a time which most suited their own agenda and dismissing all other teaching, historical and present day, as ‘opinions’ because they don’t support that agenda.

 

[Ender]

Then there are those who stick rigidly to their ***own ***agenda, constantly calling into doubt the legitimacy of the Catechism…

This is a… error. It would be a mistake to say to you what pnewton said to me as something is not a lie merely because it is wrong. The fact that you believe such nonsense simply means that you are mistaken, not that you are lying.

… and the wisdom of the Popes, harking back to a time which most suited their own agenda and dismissing all other teaching, historical and present day, as ‘opinions’ because they don’t support that agenda.

This is a…nother error. You really don’t seem able to understand what I say, and it should be apparent to even casual readers that - unless I spell it out - no one can have any inclination of why I say what I do. You say I do this or don’t do that *because *I find or don’t find support for my “agenda”. Do you not realize we are forbidden to judge about things we cannot know? I realize in citing Aquinas I’m just using one of those barely relevant old guys again but it’s the best I can do.Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things
I’m pretty sure your categorization of my intentions falls into the rash judgment category. I really wish you wouldn’t make this so personal. Not because I care so much but because it’s likely to get the thread shut down.

Ender