Pope repeats Church opposition to death penalty [CWN]

[JMJSHJ]

The qualification you provide is not a qualification of the state’s right to the death penalty, in the Catechism.

In your opinion.

The qualification in the Catechism is when there is no other way to prevent the oppressor from harming a person again. I’m not judging, I’m reading the Catechism.

So am I but I am also reading the following the links:

dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1273197/How-smuggled-mobile-phones-used-prisoners-commit-crimes-cells.html

George Moon sat back on his bed, made himself as comfortable as he could on the thin mattress and flipped open his dog-eared address book. The 62-year-old career criminal slowly ran a finger down the long list of numbers - each belonging to other members of his gang - before finding the one he wanted. He then dialled.

It took only a few seconds for the call to connect and then, keeping his voice low so as not to be overheard, Moon went into business mode. This call, like most of the others he made each day, was to a number in Panama where his colleague, Leo Morgan, had established strong links with a local cocaine cartel. Thanks to this well-placed connection, Moon was able to buy virtually pure cocaine at bargain-basement prices.

Of course Drug dealers never murder

corrections.com/news/article/1585

In 2003, Oldham County corrections officers were assaulted 35 times, according to state records. In every case but one, the inmate was not charged with a crime.
Larry Chandler is the warden at the Kentucky State Reformatory in La Grange, Ky. He says prisoners who commit crimes are often dealt with internally. “We do have due process hearing, an administrative hearing in the institution. It determines guilt or innocence and determines the penalty imposed.”
Four inmates were charged with seven counts of aggravated assault, but none faced a judge or jury, because corrections doctors judged them mentally incompetent or the proceedings were simply kept in-house.

News link why prisons are not the b all and end all of societal reform:

guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/27/convicted-offenders-crime-figures

More than 180,000 convicted offenders went on to commit a combined 510,000 offences within a year, according to the first detailed official figures revealing the scale of reoffending in England and Wales.

nytimes.com/2002/06/03/national/03CRIM.html

Criminologists generally agree that the prison-building binge of the last 25 years, in which the number of Americans incarcerated quadrupled to almost two million, has helped reduce the crime rate simply by keeping criminals off the streets. There has been more debate about whether longer sentences and the increase in the number of prisoners have also helped to deter people from committing crimes. The new report, some crime experts say, suggests that the answer is no.

A likely reason for the increase in recidivism, Professor Petersilia said, is that state governments, to save money and to be seen as tough on crime, cut back on rehabilitation programs, like drug treatment, vocational education and classes to prepare prisoners for life at home.

I have not made it personal, and cannot help it if it strikes a nerve. I am only providing my understanding of what the Catechism says, or doesn’t say as others propose.

As for the Popes, and bishops for that matter, each is Holy Spirit appointed, as all men of the Church in the past were. The men in present times have spoken, and I choose to follow their call, according to my understanding of life, from conception until natural death. What is absent in this discussion, is an opposing statement from any man of the Church, in these current times.

We have statements from men of the Church, that agree with the Popes, who qualify a person’s right to support the death penalty, within the confines of the qualifications listed in the Catechism.

You should be more careful about interpreting Church documents. All of the above links that I have provided may not be relevant or critical in the formation of Church teaching on the death penalty. The difference is I don’t try to make my beliefs as binding on others as you do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In your opinion.

So am I but I am also reading the following the links:

dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1273197/How-smuggled-mobile-phones-used-prisoners-commit-crimes-cells.html

Of course Drug dealers never murder

corrections.com/news/article/1585

News link why prisons are not the b all and end all of societal reform:

guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/27/convicted-offenders-crime-figures

nytimes.com/2002/06/03/national/03CRIM.html

You should be more careful about interpreting Church documents. All of the above links that I have provided may not be relevant or critical in the formation of Church teaching on the death penalty. The difference is I don’t try to make my beliefs as binding on others as you do.

It’s not opinion, and is an easy read. I am open to correction if you wish to parse the section that allows for open executions for reasons other than to protect society.

I should be more careful, because you’ve already interpreted Church documents? Where are the authoritative statements to support your ‘interpretation?’ I have provided the ‘exceptions,’ that I saw.

I have qualified the statements and have not attempted to make anything binding. I have tried to find where we could agree. Seems you think that the confines of the qualifications listed in the Catechism are subject to individual views?

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s not semantics, its what you keep saying. I have read the articles. Until the Vatican or the Pope comes and revises the Catechism regarding this section or this teaching then what is in the Catechism still applies.

 

[JMJSHJ]

It’s not opinion, and is an easy read. I am open to correction if you wish to parse the section that allows for open executions for reasons other than to protect society.

I should be more careful, because you’ve already interpreted Church documents? Where are the authoritative statements to support your ‘interpretation?’ I have provided the ‘exceptions,’ that I saw.

I have qualified the statements and have not attempted to make anything binding. I have tried to find where we could agree. Seems you think that the confines of the qualifications listed in the Catechism are subject to individual views?

2 high profile death penalties that I think would be relevant here are Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. I went to research what authoritative Catholic prelates have said about those 2 deaths and the results have been interesting.

With regard to Saddam Hussein, Cardinal Martino for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace condemned the Iraqi people for killing Saddam. However in the link below, the Vatican was quick to distance itself from the Cardinal

Cardinal Martino’s comments at that time were so strong that a senior Vatican official took the unusual step of telling reporters that the cardinal was not speaking for Pope John Paul II.

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47466

James Akin wrote a blog criticizing Cardinal Martino

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/a_disheartening.html

If the position of the Church is such that Saddam shouldn’t have been executed then shouldn’t there be a comment mentioning this other than Cardinal Martino?

Now with Osama Bin Laden, the Vatican did issue this statement:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101730.htm

The Vatican said the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, a man who sowed division and hatred and who caused “innumerable” deaths, should prompt serious reflection about one’s responsibility before God, not rejoicing.

Prodigal Son, you aren’t afraid to express your opinion in spite of how many people here may disagree with you. I am sure the Vatican isn’t either. Can you show me an authoritative document with regard to the 2 cases above?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

2 high profile death penalties that I think would be relevant here are Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. I went to research what authoritative Catholic prelates have said about those 2 deaths and the results have been interesting.

With regard to Saddam Hussein, Cardinal Martino for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace condemned the Iraqi people for killing Saddam. However in the link below, the Vatican was quick to distance itself from the Cardinal

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47466

James Akin wrote a blog criticizing Cardinal Martino

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/a_disheartening.html

If the position of the Church is such that Saddam shouldn’t have been executed then shouldn’t there be a comment mentioning this other than Cardinal Martino?

Now with Osama Bin Laden, the Vatican did issue this statement:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101730.htm

Prodigal Son, you aren’t afraid to express your opinion in spite of how many people here may disagree with you. I am sure the Vatican isn’t either. Can you show me an authoritative document with regard to the 2 cases above?

While there are times calls for sentences of individuals to be commuted, it is not the case in every instance; yet the men of the Church stand opposed to the death penalty in general with only exceptions when people are potentially in harm’s way from the oppressor… You speak of an incident where a cardinal spoke condemnation so strongly a Vatican spokesman stated the cardinal did not speak for Pope John Paul, who provided the wording we find in the Catechism. The cardinal’s words are in opposition of the death penalty in this instance. The spokesman that separated the words from the Pope was not an act of support.

While I appreciate many of the apologists, we have to remember they are not authoritative as ordained men of the Church are. This takes away nothing from their ability to speak apologetically for the Catholic faith, but there’s a difference in reference to political, or secular matters, which are outside the faith itself. Even in references we have guidance from men of the Church.

In the killing of OBL, which was not exactly a death penalty, we have an example of a death that happened that fulfills the qualifications of the Catechism the closet, especially in under the self defense wording. Those with rightful authority were defending themselves in a unique situation. At least it’s been reported there was not a ‘kill on sight’ order, but those that went in acted in a self defense mode of operation.

As I mentioned a distinction of apologists and the authoritative men of the Church, we have no other men of the Church that spoke out in opposition of the anti-death penalty statements from other men of the Church. The lack of that type opposing statement speaks a unifies message in itself. In fact, as you want an authoritative statement on two specific incidents, there are no supporting statements, from the authoritative men of the Church, in any instance of the death penalty carried out, in recent times.

I remember, in gun control discussions, asking for any statement from, any of the men of the Church, speaking against gun controls. The response, the majority of the time, was that one cannot take an absence of a statement as support for gun controls, even though supporting statements were endorsed by, and representing, the USCCB all together. On this issue, you provide a Vatican spokesman who said the cardinal did not speak for the Pope, and it appears to be we are to take that as support for the death penalty, in a single and international case where the executed had armies of supporters, only disbanded fully once Saddam was dead. But there are no statements from any of the authoritative men of the Church that spoke in favor of that single case of the death penalty, even the Pope who the spokesman stated the comments didn’t represent, and the one who’s word are recorded in the Catechism of the Church qualifying legitimate use of the death penalty.

Those who state ‘opinion’, or right to disagree, do so without supporting statements from of any of the men of the Church. That’s why I said I might could understand a right to support, as long as the confines of the qualifications of the Catechism are met. One cannot disagree outside of those limitations, in my opinion.

For me personally, it speaks loudly when statements from the authoritative men are unified; unified through the spoken statements, and without opposing statements from other men of the Church who don’t quite agree, or feel it necessary to somehow qualify.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Even if it is an entirely prudential judgement, one has a rather big ego to put his own moral reasoning up against the pope’s and to judge one’s own to be superior. I made that mistake myself after 9/11 when I dismissed the pope’s warnings about hasty entry into war when the justice was far from certain. I was a supporter of that war. He was right, I was wrong. Go figure.

This.

I would’ve kept the whole post since it was a good one but this pretty much covers it. Often the pro-death penalty people disregard the prudential judgments and breathing room given in the Catechism as well.

 

[CrossofChrist]

you’re the only one confused on this issue. all of the Catholic DP proponents are in line with the CCC and the rarity of use.

Not always. You may be though and then that’s ok.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Thankfully for us, the teachings of the Church do not consist of what was said “in recent times” but what has been said throughout all of time. Widening the scope past the last 20 years or so, you find the Church has always and everywhere taught that the death penalty is a morally licit punishment. And when you take the words of the current and two most recent Popes in that context, it sounds an awful lot like they are not making a moral judgment of the death penalty but a prudential judgment about the circumstances in which it is to be applied.

I recommend you read this article on the topic by the late Card. Avery Dulles. The issue is not near as simple as “the Pope said X, so shut up.”

I agree with all of what you said but the last sentence in the first paragraph. In fact, the late Cardinal also said, *“I cannot accept the dichotomy implied in (the)statement, “Arguments against the death penalty are prudential, not moral.” The decision whether and when to apply the death penalty cannot be properly made on the basis of abstract dogmatic considerations alone. Christian moral reasoning calls for a high degree of prudence.” *

 

[Hovannes]

I am against the death penalty *if *Society can keep violent predators from killing again. 100% against it.
But.
Society is incapable of that—at least here in the USA.
Repeat violent criminals still commit murders. Still attack the children and the elderly.
Our criminal justice system is incapable of containing dangerous criminals.
And therein lies the problem.
But then, what can we expect from a government who subsidizes abortion?:banghead:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am against the death penalty *if *Society can keep violent predators from killing again. 100% against it.
But.
Society is incapable of that—at least here in the USA.
Repeat violent criminals still commit murders. Still attack the children and the elderly.
Our criminal justice system is incapable of containing dangerous criminals.
And therein lies the problem.
But then, what can we expect from a government who subsidizes abortion?:banghead:

Can you please provide the number of people who have escaped death row and committed murder, still attacked the children and elderly?

 

[Theresaj]

I thought long and hard, and did some soul searching before I decided to reply to this post. If anyone reads or decides to reply to me I just ask that you too thoughtfully consider what I am attempting to say.

First, it is of the utmost importance to know I wasn’t raised Catholic. My mother is Protestant and my Father is agnostic. For the most part I was raised pro “choice”, with my Mom being the more it isn’t a baby of the two. My dad although agnostic is much more uncomfortable with abortion. But I was raised anti death penalty.

Every time the state of Texas executes someone they do so in the name of the citizens of the State. And how can we teach that life is sacred when the State takes lives? I am aware that these are men and women are frequently guilty of horrible crimes, but they are people who we can see, touch, listen to and when we kill them the State is sanctioning it.

I became pro-life, as I was called to become Catholic. But I still think that maybe to protect innocent life, to educate about the value of life, maybe we have to stop the State from taking life? There are many ways to create a culture of life. I honestly believe that ending the death penalty would open other’s eye’s to the evils of abortion. I know this is a backwards way to go about it, but I cannot have been the only person raised this way and found my way to a consistent value for life from being opposed to the death penalty?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Can you please provide the number of people who have escaped death row and committed murder, still attacked the children and elderly?

Here you go.

wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

You will also note that those who have been executed have not commited any murders since then.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I thought long and hard, and did some soul searching before I decided to reply to this post. If anyone reads or decides to reply to me I just ask that you too thoughtfully consider what I am attempting to say.

First, it is of the utmost importance to know I wasn’t raised Catholic. My mother is Protestant and my Father is agnostic. For the most part I was raised pro “choice”, with my Mom being the more it isn’t a baby of the two. My dad although agnostic is much more uncomfortable with abortion. But I was raised anti death penalty.

Every time the state of Texas executes someone they do so in the name of the citizens of the State. And how can we teach that life is sacred when the State takes lives? I am aware that these are men and women are frequently guilty of horrible crimes, but they are people who we can see, touch, listen to and when we kill them the State is sanctioning it.

I became pro-life, as I was called to become Catholic. But I still think that maybe to protect innocent life, to educate about the value of life, maybe we have to stop the State from taking life? There are many ways to create a culture of life. I honestly believe that ending the death penalty would open other’s eye’s to the evils of abortion. I know this is a backwards way to go about it, but I cannot have been the only person raised this way and found my way to a consistent value for life from being opposed to the death penalty?

Amen.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here you go.

wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

You will also note that those who have been executed have not commited any murders since then.

The list does not represent people on death row. There are those who received the death sentence for crimes committed after release, or escaping. The other noticeable factor was the years listed. It appears the state has become more effective, or the information is incomplete, as there are none listed since the 90s, with a reduction over the years up until then.

 

[pnewton]

Every time the state of Texas executes someone they do so in the name of the citizens of the State. And how can we teach that life is sacred when the State takes lives? I am aware that these are men and women are frequently guilty of horrible crimes, but they are people who we can see, touch, listen to and when we kill them the State is sanctioning it.

I am glad you replied. I have been back and forth on this topic for a long time. I have good reason to know that the occasion sometimes exists where a person can not be safely incarcerated with out threatening the lives of others. I think the final reason I have come to accept the Catholic position on the death penalty is the very issue you speak of. The risk that might accompany not having a death penalty is unbalanced against the culture of death that it perpetuates.