Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[LittleSoldier]

“Can The Church Ban Capital Punishment?” by Christopher Ferrara.
crisismagazine.com/2011/can-the-church-ban-capital-punishment

Excerpt:

“A reversible Magisterium would be no Magisterium at all, but rather a human agency bereft of the promises of Christ—like the Protestant sects which have abandoned doctrine after doctrine over the centuries since Luther began the process of abandonment. And so it is with Catholic teaching on the morality of capital punishment. According to the constant teaching of the Church, God Himself has ordained that legitimate civil authority shall have the right and duty to punish deliberate murder (and other grave crimes) with the penalty of death. Capital punishment honors the Fifth commandment, because it vindicates the sanctity of human life.”

For me the key word here is “legitimate.” What is “legitimate” civil authority? I also have some problems with the phrase “God Himself has ordained that legitimate civil authority shall have the right and **duty **to punish deliberate murder (and other grave crimes) with the penalty of death.”

Seems to me what the author (who is not the Magisterium) is saying is that all murderers (which assumes that people convicted of all types of murder have been found guilty beyond all doubt - an impossibility amongst fallible humans) and those who have committed other grave crimes (whatever those are) must be executed (so much for the sanctity of human life). And that is not Church teaching.

And what of the innocents who are executed? Does that honor the Fifth Commandment? Execution of innocent people found guilty of murder is murder itself - state-sponsored murder which in most cases is unnecessary as we have the capacity to keep innocent people safe. We just need to start doing it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“Can The Church Ban Capital Punishment?” by Christopher Ferrara.
crisismagazine.com/2011/can-the-church-ban-capital-punishment

Maureen Faulkner, the victims’ widow, has written in her book “Murdered By Mumia” that she finds the future prospect of Jamal out of prison frightening.

Excerpt:

"I was asked if, given all the time that had passed, it wouldn’t be better for me and my family if the Third Circuit decided to give Abu-Jamal life in prison (Life Without Parole or LWOP) and have this all end. This idea was not new. In the past I had often thought of or been asked by friends about the same thing. I had never been asked this question in public, but I knew my answer before the reporter had finished the question.

“I explained that I was wise enough to know that in our legal system, LWOP is not what it seems. I explained to the reporters that unless Jamal is executed, my family and I will have to live every day of the rest of our lives knowing that a future governor could set Jamal free with the stroke of a pen, and that I had no doubt that Jamal’s misguided and uninformed supporters and friends would relentlessly lie about the facts to future generations in order to perpetuate the myth that Jamal is a victim of a racist justice system, then demand his release. To support this idea, I noted that over the years I had repeatedly seen governors commute the sentences of murderers – especially those who had grown old in prison – simply because they cut a sympathetic image of a harmless old man, a grandfatherly type . . ., a person who committed a crime in a bygone day who had been ‘punished enough.’

“I told them I wanted to be certain that Jamal could never be free again – that he would die alone in prison away from his family like Danny had died alone on the street on December 9, 1981. I told them that in my heart, I firmly believe that a person who knowingly and violently takes the life of another person, especially a police officer, should forfeit their own life. We owe that to our law enforcement officials…

"After the press conference, I walked away feeling uplifted by the fact that I had not only expressed my desire to see Jamal executed, but that I had a chance to explain why I felt that way. I also felt good about expressing my feelings, as a survivor, about capital punishment and why my family and I need to see Jamal executed.

"I had thought long and hard about these things and I was comfortable with my feelings and my rational need for CLOSURE that ALL SURVIVORS have.

“There is nothing more frightening to me than the thought of Mumia Abu-Jamal alive and maybe even walking the earth a free and dangerous man, and in Danny’s name, I will never allow that to occur.”

emphasis added.

I am sorry for the death of Mr. Faulkner. But the thought of executing his alleged killer makes my blood run cold as does the vengeance-seeking behavior of Ms. Faulkner. Yes, LWOP should mean Life in Prison without the Possibility of Parole - so why don’t we change the system so that it means exactly that instead of killing people?

Yes, people who commit crimes should be punished. But we should always show mercy and forgive, while keeping the innocent safe. I’m certainly not saying Mr. Faulkner’s murderer should ever be set free (if he is alive). But certainly life in prison without any possibility of parole would keep the innocent safe and also allow for exoneration if it is ever found that he is innocent. It would also give him the continuing opportunity to make peace with God and perhaps even to serve God in a prison setting.

I like the example of St. Maria Goretti - an 11 year-old girl who forgave her murderer before she died from loss of blood caused by the many times he stabbed her. This CHILD, who has been canonized with her own murderer present at the ceremony, puts most of us to shame. She followed the example of Jesus - she forgave. We should also forgive; always, everywhere, every time we are hurt and that includes the hurt caused by the murder of any loved one.

Closure may be obtained with the knowledge that the alleged perpetrator will be kept in prison under high security (unless he is exonerated) for the rest of his life. Or perhaps it won’t be. But what would really make Ms. Faulkner happy is not going to happen.

Nothing short of a miracle will bring Mr. Faulkner back to life. Not even executing Mumia-Amu-Jamal.

 

[pnewton]

But something has changed. that thing is the world we live in. …But today, in our society it is (nearly) impossible to justify the death penalty.

This is precisely why statements about ending the death penalty today are not doctrine, but an application of doctrine. We are still free to believe the world is not as nice, or not as advanced, as even the Holy Father thinks it is. Yes the world has changed, but it is not quite utopian enough in my opinion to think that we now have the means to safely incarcerate the worst out there, and keep them from killing again for the rest of their life.

 

[Ender]

For me the key word here is “legitimate.” What is “legitimate” civil authority?

The various state and federal governments are all legitimate civil authorities. There is no reason whatever to doubt this.

I also have some problems with the phrase “God Himself has ordained that legitimate civil authority shall have the right and **duty **to punish deliberate murder (and other grave crimes) with the penalty of death.”

You left out the part where the author claims this is the constant teaching of the Church and then cites the Catechism of Trent to make his point. If you reject his position then you really need to explain how he misinterprets what was written in that document.

Seems to me what the author (who is not the Magisterium) is saying is that all murderers (which assumes that people convicted of all types of murder have been found guilty beyond all doubt - an impossibility amongst fallible humans) and those who have committed other grave crimes (whatever those are) must be executed (so much for the sanctity of human life). And that is not Church teaching.

Seems to me that you have distorted what he said. Given that he never used the word “all” you probably shouldn’t infer that he did.

And what of the innocents who are executed? Does that honor the Fifth Commandment? Execution of innocent people found guilty of murder is murder itself -

I recognize that you strongly oppose capital punishment but this argument is outlandish. Murder requires intent and there is no intent to execute innocent people. Clearly neither the State nor the Church agrees with you.

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. *(Aquinas)

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

The various state and federal governments are all legitimate civil authorities. There is no reason whatever to doubt this.

You mean the ones that have allowed abortion, an intrinsic evil, the slaughter of the most innocent human beings in the world, to exist LEGALLY? Or the ones that are responsible for Sharia Law? Oh, I doubt it all right. So “legitimate” civil authorities can be responsible for immoral laws? If you expect me to believe your claim you will have to provide more than your opinion. Why would you ever expect me to just take your word for anything? Are you infallible? Are you the Magisterium?

You left out the part where the author claims this is the constant teaching of the Church and then cites the Catechism of Trent to make his point. If you reject his position then you really need to explain how he misinterprets what was written in that document.

Oh please! I responded to a post. I am not required to provide evidence to backup or substantiate in any way what another poster posted. That is not my responsibility. There are not enough hours in the day for me to read the complete text of every reference I run across. I found one recently that was 133 pages long and it was just one of the four or five references in that one post alone. If you wish to read the complete reference, go right ahead but don’t ever tell me that I have to research anything about anyone else’s post.

Seems to me that you have distorted what he said. Given that he never used the word “all” you probably shouldn’t infer that he did.

Do you know what “seems to me” means? I will provide a definition for you:

“to appear to be something, or to appear to have a particular quality”

macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/seem

It means that what I have written is what it appears to mean to me. And my rationale for my theory as to why the author stated what he stated is that “all” is implied. I’m not writing infallible Church doctrine here and have never claimed to be. But certainly I am entitled to my opinion, am I not? I never stated “This is what it means.” I gave my opinion. OK?

I recognize that you strongly oppose capital punishment but this argument is outlandish. Murder requires intent and there is no intent to execute innocent people. Clearly neither the State nor the Church agrees with you.

I think this is perhaps the third time you have introduced a straw man recently as responses to my posts, but I’m not sure. I do not strongly oppose capital punishment. As I have stated numerous times I agree with Church teaching on everything. Please quit mischaracterizing my position!! Aren’t you the one who has been claiming that we don’t have to follow all of the CCC? And you tell me the Church doesn’t agree with me? Wow. That is just simply amazing.

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.(Aquinas)

Ender

Is Aquinas the Magisterium? Was he infallible when he made statements while he lived on earth? Were his statements infallible? Are we required to accept everything he said as absolute Truth? If you want to provide Church teaching please provide real Church teaching, not the opinion of a fallible non-Magisterial person. Also, the key word here is “unintentionally.” The Church teaches that no evil means can be used, even if to obtain a good end. Do you disagree with that Church teaching? If there is any question of a person’s guilt of a crime such as capital murder then killing that person is an evil means used to obtain a good end. “Seems to me” their lives just aren’t important to some people. And I am sure that executed innocents have been executed by people (the ones who works for those “legitimate” civil authorities) who know they are innocent, thereby establishing both intent and illegality. Have you heard of the term “railroaded?” Or “patsy?” If you really believe that innocents are not intentionally put to death with knowledge of their innocence I’m afraid you are living in a dream world. As for the word “murder” I am not using it in a legal sense - at least the legal definition as used by those “legitimate” civil authorities. There is a higher Authority and His laws are never unfair or unjust or simply wrong. I guess I should never say that Jesus was murdered as He was executed by a legitimate civil authority, even though the intent to kill Him was there and Pilate knew He was oh so innocent. My deepest apologies. I will never make this mistake again and will be sure to tell anyone who states that “abortion is murder” that he/she is absolutely incorrect.

I take that back. I will not say that to anyone about abortion or the execution of innocents who have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a system so flawed that I am absolutely astounded that you can’t seem to see it.

And please stop mischaracterizing my position. The Church does not disagree with me. YOU are the one who claims that we don’t have to follow all of the CCC, not me.

 

[tominrichmond]

So much of this discussion is at cross purposes.

First, nowhere does the CCC state that we cannot execute offenders because we have life imprisonment. What the CCC ***actually says ***(#2267) is that because of the “possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm” the cases in which the DP is applied should be “rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Note, the CCC does *not specify *what these “possibilities” are for rendering offenders harmless, nor which countries actually possess these possibilities. It is entirely an open question as to whether such possibilities actually exist in any given country.

In the United States, for instance, such possibilities for rendering offenders harmless do not actually exist. For those who think life imprisonment is what the CCC was referring to I would reply-- it is pure speculation, but even if this is what was meant, life imprisonment categorically does not render offenders harmless. Inmates regularly attack and even kill fellow inmates or prison staff, escape, or are subject to some form of parole or pardon. We can’t constitutionally impose life imprisonment in solitary isolation and/or eliminate the chance of of executive clemency. Therefore, we have no reliable “possibilites” of rendering offenders harmless to the level of a moral certainty.

The CCC, whatever it meant by these unspecified “possibilities” couldn’t have meant life imprisonment in the United States. I don’t know about what possibilities other countries might have for rendering offenders harmless.

No one can say that a Catholic may not advocate for the death penalty, as Pope Benedict stated: “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.”

The good news is, however, based on statistics for 2011, the number of murders punished by imposition of the death penalty in the US is a miniscule one half of one percent. So, truly, for whatever reason, we do in fact execute only “rarely” as the CCC urges.

And for those who wring their hands about our supposedly broken and unfair criminal justice system, not one death penalty imposed since its restoration in 1976 has been shown to be certainly in error about the guilt of the accused.

There are, and always will be, some cases in which guilt is clear-cut, the circumstances egregious, and the offender so violent that no means can protect society, which includes fellow-inmates and prison staff. See here for some notorious examples:seeking4justice.blogspot.com/search/label/Rendering%20Offenders%20Harmless.

 

[Faithdancer]

And for those who wring their hands about our supposedly broken and unfair criminal justice system, not one death penalty imposed since its restoration in 1976 has been shown to be certainly in error about the guilt of the accused.

“Certainly,” implies perfect certitude. So we can restate your sentence as: “not one death penalty imposed since its restoration in 1976 has been shown to be 100% in error about the guilt of the accused.” So then there was some percentage of error, or a possibility of error? What is the acceptable percentage?

This argument seems to contradict the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

 

[tominrichmond]

“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.”
–Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

There is certainly no requirement that Catholics oppose a just and moderate use of the DP. If you will look here: seeking4justice.blogspot.com/search/label/Rendering%20Offenders%20Harmless you will see some instances that demonstrate our inability to render some offenders harmless. Prison does not stop some offenders from being continued threats to others, fellow inmates, prison staff, or the public in the cases where escapes happen (and they do happen).

No, whatever the Catechism means when it refers vaguely to the “possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm,” it certainly cannot be referring to imprisonment, which decidedly does not, empirically and factually, render offenders harmless.

Perhaps someday the authors of the new teaching will enlighten us as to just what the CCC is referring to in this passage, but until then, the US in fact complies with the Catechism’s desire that executions be “rare”-- death sentences are handed down in a miniscule .05% of murder cases. “Rare” indeed.

 

[tominrichmond]

“Certainly,” implies perfect certitude. So we can restate your sentence as: “not one death penalty imposed since its restoration in 1976 has been shown to be 100% in error about the guilt of the accused.” So then there was some percentage of error, or a possibility of error? What is the acceptable percentage?

This argument seems to contradict the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

No, you’ve got it 180 degrees backwards. I’m referring to convictions, which means offenders who have been tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and on top of that have had their convictions vetted exhaustively by state and federal appeals courts, parole boards, and governors’ offices (reviewing clemency petitions). In none of these death penalty cases has it been demonstrated that the “system” failed, i.e., that a factually innocent person was executed.

I was not suggesting that the guilty have to prove their innocence, I was challenging the faulty notion that the “system” is broken or that innocent people are being executed.

 

[stanczyk]

It is deeply saddening to see the lengths some Catholics will go to in order to justify the gratuitous use of the death penalty. Simply put, there is no valid use of the death penalty in the modern justice system, because lifetime imprisonment is always an option. The threat posed by violent prisoners to prison staff and other inmates is not so great as to constitute a threat as against “society,” and to argue otherwise is absurd.

I will be saying a prayer that Catholics who go through mental gymnastics to rationalize the gratuitous use of the death penalty will soften their hearts and instead take up the cause of life.

Please, i beg all of the Catholics who support the death penalty to read the Evangelium Vitae, to pray, to think about the repugnant consequences of their rationalizations, and come over the pro-life side of this debate.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It is deeply saddening to see the lengths some Catholics will go to in order to justify the gratuitous use of the death penalty. Simply put, there is no valid use of the death penalty in the modern justice system, because lifetime imprisonment is always an option. The threat posed by violent prisoners to prison staff and other inmates is not so great as to constitute a threat as against “society,” and to argue otherwise is absurd.

I will be saying a prayer that Catholics who go through mental gymnastics to rationalize the gratuitous use of the death penalty will soften their hearts and instead take up the cause of life.

Please, i beg all of the Catholics who support the death penalty to read the Evangelium Vitae, to pray, to think about the repugnant consequences of their rationalizations, and come over the pro-life side of this debate.

:clapping:

 

[pnewton]

It is deeply saddening to see the lengths some Catholics will go to in order to justify the gratuitous use of the death penalty. Simply put, there is no valid use of the death penalty in the modern justice system, because lifetime imprisonment is always an option.

Is it really?

The threat posed by violent prisoners to prison staff and other inmates is not so great as to constitute a threat as against “society,” and to argue otherwise is absurd.

And you** know** this how? How many violent prisoners have** you** fought with? How many prisoner deaths, or lives of guards, would it take to equal a significant number to be worth consideration to someone like you?

I will be saying a prayer that Catholics who go through mental gymnastics to rationalize the gratuitous use of the death penalty will soften their hearts and instead take up the cause of life.

I find this to be uncharitable and disingenuous, an insult veiled as prayer? "Mental gymnatstics. “gratuitous.” Come on now.

Please, i beg all of the Catholics who support the death penalty to read the Evangelium Vitae, to pray, to think about the repugnant consequences of their rationalizations, and come over the pro-life side of this debate.

I am on the pro-life side. I am for the protection of** innocent** life first, and then the protection of the guilty whenever feasible.

I am convinced that under the banner of pro-life, innocent life is forfeited. I am* not* surprised that the actual logic of the situation is not addressed, but rather rhetoric and insults are used to avoid discussion of substance. That is the nature of our country today. To this poster, I have reaad EV, sought the mind of the Church, and tried to understand the other side. I recommend that you do the same, if you wish to discuss this intelligently, and seek charity of judgementalism.

 

[Samson01]

I’m starting to change my views on the death penalty to pro-life. Mostly because I have lost my faith in the justice system that is corrupt.

 

[stanczyk]

I find this to be uncharitable and disingenuous, an insult veiled as prayer?

I’m sorry you took it that way. The prayer is sincere. If you find it insulting perhaps that should be impetus to reconsider your position and come over to the pro-life side.

 

[Ender]

Simply put, there is no valid use of the death penalty in the modern justice system, because lifetime imprisonment is always an option.

Prior to 1995 the Church had never based the application of capital punishment on its need to protect society. What justifies its use is not defense but retributive justice and that standard does not change with time or the capabilities of a nation’s penal system.

I will be saying a prayer that Catholics who go through mental gymnastics to rationalize the gratuitous use of the death penalty will soften their hearts and instead take up the cause of life.

By mental gymnastics I assume you mean presenting an argument you are unable to address. Whatever the state of my heart, what is relevant here is the validity of my position, something entirely unaffected by your comments. As for taking up the cause of life, I’ll have to take comfort in being on the side of every major figure in the Church prior to about 1960.

Please, i beg all of the Catholics who support the death penalty to read the Evangelium Vitae, to pray, to think about the repugnant consequences of their rationalizations, and come over the pro-life side of this debate.

And I suggest you read some of the myriad Church documents written before this that address capital punishment. Pius XII (1939-1958) wrote rather extensively on this subject. You need to broaden your reading list a bit.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

I’m sorry you took it that way. The prayer is sincere. If you find it insulting perhaps that should be impetus to reconsider your position and come over to the pro-life side.

Or perhaps you should do more research and find out a Catholic can in good conscience support the death penalty.

. Neither supporting or opposing the death penalty is a pro-life issue. . Unfortunately, many of the people that believe there is a moral equivalency between the two use it as an excuse to support pro-abortion candidates.

. Here’s what Pope Benedict the 16th had to say about the issue:

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.

BTW: I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. but it important that we not mischaracterize church teaching on this or any other moral issue, lest we lose credibility among those who are not properly catechized.

 

[Ender]

I’m starting to change my views on the death penalty to pro-life. Mostly because I have lost my faith in the justice system that is corrupt.

I divide the arguments about capital punishment into two categories: moral and prudential. It is valid to oppose it on either ground but I think it is important to keep the arguments separate. The Church is the source of moral arguments and (e.g.) the Bureau of Justice Statistics is a source of prudential data. That you disapprove of capital punishment because you believe our justice system is corrupt says nothing at all about whether the death penalty is morally justified. In general I tend to avoid the prudential arguments.

Ender

 

[Samson01]

I divide the arguments about capital punishment into two categories: moral and prudential. It is valid to oppose it on either ground but I think it is important to keep the arguments separate. The Church is the source of moral arguments and (e.g.) the Bureau of Justice Statistics is a source of prudential data. That you disapprove of capital punishment because you believe our justice system is corrupt says nothing at all about whether the death penalty is morally justified. In general I tend to avoid the prudential arguments.

Ender

Like I care. lol.

 

[stanczyk]

. Here’s what Pope Benedict the 16th had to say about the issue:

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.

You’re mischaracterizing this quote. There is indeed not a moral equivalency between the death penalty and abortion, but there is a moral equivalency between abortion and murder. When the death penalty is applied gratuitously, it is nothing less than murder. As the Evangelium Vitae instructs us, the morally legitimate usage of the death penalty is so rare in modernity as to be practically nonexistent. So what then-Cardinal Ratzinger was really saying in that quote is that in theory we may debate about whether or not the death penalty, when morally permissible, is a good idea. But in practice, the legitimate use of the death penalty is nonexistent.

 

[Dranu]

*Underlined and bolded by me for emphasis:

CCC 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.

Clearly true. No one would deny a retributive limiting principle and no one would say you can’t do it when it is the only practicable way to defend lives (even if that is not the only reason that you can use it.) This sentence only claims you certainly can use the death penalty in such circumstances, not that you can’t use it in others such as for rehabilitation of the soul by bringing death closer to the murderer’s mind)

"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.

Now this is the one I have trouble with, and it’s the only sentence that appears it might remove considerations of facilitating rehabilitation and societal teaching from our consideration if there is no substantial threat of human life. Evangelium Vitae, which it seems to quote, does not seem to really make the same limiting principle. If it derives its authority from that source, ought we infer the Catechism meant to follow the source? I also find it very difficult to determine whether this is merely prudential or not. If anyone knows a good authoritative source on finding the distinction between the prudential and moral judgments I would love to have it (please PM me).

I really hope the Magesterium makes a clear declaration on this sometime soon.

"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.’

I have no serious qualms about calling this merely prudential in itself.