Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

Rich:

I am not sure why you are playing this disingenuous game.This is a serious discussion.

The two previous Pope’s cannot, rightly, call for an end to executions, based upon a factually inaccurate prudential judgement founded on “defense of society”.

The factual evidence contradicts the statements in both EV and CCC.

As those inaccurate facts can be the only foundation for them calling for the end of the death penalty, there can be no “rightly so” when assessing their stance, which is provably “wrongly so”.

It is not my opinion vs the Popes. The facts are what they are.

It is the facts which contradict the two Popes and the CCC.

This is not a matter of theology but of criminology and penology, because those two Popes and the CCC made it so, by using a prudential judgement based in “defense of society”.

The Popes and the CCC are simply and obviously in error in their assessments and the evidence of that is overwhelming and not contradicted. I presented a very small number of those many, daily problems with incarceration. You didn’t rebut any of it, because you cannot. That is the norm.

Rich writes:“You are citing 20 year old statistics.”

Yes, but it doesn’t matter. That is the point. The numbers are enormous, that man’s efforts at “defending society” through penology are overwhelmed with the huge number of errors made by government officials and because of that unjust aggressors harm additional millions of innocents. That is what that review tells us.

That was the point. How you missed the entire point of the entire discussion is a mystery.

That has always been the state of mankind’s managements. The Popes and the CCC appear to dismiss that just as you do, if they even considered it, which it appears they did and do not. Had they done any assessments of the various states of the worlwide prison systems, they would have concluded that executions represent a much greater “defense of society”.

Rich writes: You want to hang escapees?

How you missed the obvious point is hard to imagine. Escapes of very dangerous people are a constant within prison systems. Some of those unjust aggressors go on to murder and harm, again. That is the constant state of the “defense of society” with the prison system.

I think we all have a responsibility to question and challenge inaccurate Church teachings - a responsibility which is heightened when the Church uses prudential judgements which are contrary to the facts and which are an effort to overturn eternal teachings with very recent secular and inaccurate foundations, which is, precisely, the situation we are dealing with.

I admit it is very odd that the Popes, the CCC and others have allowed this to happen, but the facts are what they are and facts fully contradict what the Popes and the CCC are putting forward and we are all allowed to disagree with them, based upon careful consideration of the facts, because this is a prudential judgment.

More importantly, we must disagree with them, because they are factually in error. In addition, we must not overlook the error of trying to replace eternal Church teachings with secular considerations.

Rich writes: Now you’ve changed the topic from American criminals to Al-Qaida terrorists. Make up your mind.

I never changed the topic. It is a presentation of how the secular “defense of society” fails, worldwide, on a constant basis, in all jurisdictions, to prevent unjust aggressors from harming additional innocents.

It is factual certainty that the death penalty is a greater defense of society and of innocent persons than is incarceration.

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
2. Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
3. “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
   tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

 

[dudleysharp]

I note that you are not Catholic. Perhaps it not best to come here and insult our Papa if you do not understand what he means to us. The two men you dismiss so blithely are extremely educated and intellegent men. No Catholic should take a dissenting view with them lightly. They are not “coming to terms with Church teaching”. That is the one thing they know far better than any of us. It is the application only that we can take issue with. Anything more, well defense of the Church should start at the beginning with the keys of Peter. The Apologetics Forum is the place for that.

Dear pnewton:

I have a great deal of affection and respect for both PJPII and PB. I know of their intelligence and knowledge. I have never insulted them.

I am pleading for a thorough explanation of how they could have, possibly, come to their assessments, given that the facts and eternal Church teachings are in conflict with their position. I have been waiting for that explanation since 1995. It has never been produced, which should raise curiosity, at the least, red flags, at most.

There is no indication that I take this discussion, lightly. Quite the contrary is the evidence. I have been speaking with Catholic scholars about these issues since 1997. As Ender, I and others have presented, for years, there are many thoughtful and knowledgeable Catholics who also have similar concerns, as they should.

First, the two Popes are offering their own personal opinions, which are prudential judgements, in this discussion.

Secondly, the facts contradict their position.

I see no evidence that either Pope or the CCC evaluated worldwide penal systems in reaching their conclusions, which must have a foundation in facts.

Had they done so, they would have found that the facts are that a “defense of society” standard, based upon penal security, shows a consistent pattern of allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, and it is a reliable truism that executed criminals do not harm and murder, again.

How the two Popes concluded that as a “defense of society” it was best to spare all criminal’s lives and therefore sacrifice more innocents is a complete mystery. But, that is the un contradicted reality.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Popes and the CCC are attempting to lift a secular and inaccurate prudential judgment, presented in 1995, above the eternal teachings of the Church, founded on theology, biblical studies, tradition, morality and reason, which have existed for 2000 years.

Of course, good and loyal Catholics should say “wait a minute”. let’s reconsider this.

The obvious conflicts within the CCC demand it.

Even the recently amended CCC, tell us that “defense of society” is NOT the primary purpose of sanction.

Rationally, based upon Church teachings, it is arguable that “defense of society” is third or fourth down the list of importance in reasons and outcomes for sanction. Even in this recent CCC, it is, at least, third down that ladder.

Add to that, the reality that executions are an enhanced defense of society and spares more innocent lives, then there are obvious, thoughtful reasons to reconsider what those two wonderful Popes have stated and what the CCC presents.

 

[Ender]

You are citing 20 year old statistics.

Those who believe that CCC 2267 is doctrine and not prudential opinion should consider this statement carefully. The complaint here is that 20 year old statistics are not valid in judging whether society today is in fact sufficiently defended by incarceration. The point, however, is implicitly conceded that the validity of the claim made in 2267 is a statistical question, not a moral one. Whatever statistics we look to, whether 20 years old or last weeks news, we are evaluating data. What we are not doing is making a theological argument. This is what makes Dudley’s position so strong: he’s not making a theological appeal, he’s presenting data and the data he presents overwhelmingly support his contention. Once the moral question is off the table there is no argument to sustain the claim that society is better off without capital punishment than with it because the facts appear to contradict that assertion.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Whatever statistics we look to, whether 20 years old or last weeks news, we are evaluating data. What we are not doing is making a theological argument. This is what makes Dudley’s position so strong: he’s not making a theological appeal, he’s presenting data and the data he presents overwhelmingly support his contention. Once the moral question is off the table there is no argument to sustain the claim that society is better off without capital punishment than with it because the facts appear to contradict that assertion.

Ender

Ender:

I and, I am sure, many others have asked the Popes/Church to defend these new teachings since 1995, based upon the facts.

I have never seen a defense of this new position, with facts, ever. I have spoken to a number of scholars on this point and all they can say is some version of “good point” with no rebuttal.

16 years of presenting no facts to support what must be a fact based prudential judgement.

It is because they have no support and they know it. There can be no other reason.

How did this happen?

As you know, I have recently been told that many options were presented for feedback and that the Church selected the most popular.That is a horrible method, if true.

The only thing that, for me, gives than any credibility is that

1. I had found 4 or 5 drafts of various amendments to this CCC section online, prior to a final being selected.
2. Add to that the many problems within this CCC section, that should never have been amended into the CCC and
3. that a prudential judgement is, now, in the CCC. I don’t think a prudentiall judgment had ever been in any other Catechism, before, and, by definiton, it seems inappropriate that a prudential judgement should find any place within a Catechism, as seems clear and self evident by the extensive discussion of the topic since 1995, based upon lack of clairty and conflict, two things which are, traditionally, the goal of any Catechism to relieve, not expand.

It appears plausible that such a method, sadly, may have been used.

I can only hope it wasn’t done in such a fashion.

Does anyone not know that

1. livng unjust aggressors harm and murder, again, at astoundingly high levels and that
2. man’s errors in managing criminal justice/prison systems is a major part of that problem and that it has always been so? and that
3. executed unjust aggressors never harm or murder, again? ( I am only speaking of the execution of persons whereby the sanction is both proportional and within the realm of Church teachings).

 

[Ender]

I and, I am sure, many others have asked the Popes/Church to defend these new teachings since 1995, based upon the facts.

From what I have read, both by the pope and about his comments, I suspect that he didn’t base his position on statistics. I would guess that it was an assumption that prisons actually worked more or less as intended but that the problem he was addressing was a societal one where nations were losing their respect for human life and that employing capital punishment simply added fuel to that fire.

I disagree with that presumption but I think that was what prompted him (JPII) to take the position he did and I’m guessing that there was no statistical analysis of any kind done to evaluate actual penal systems because that simply wasn’t his concern.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

From what I have read, both by the pope and about his comments, I suspect that he didn’t base his position on statistics. I would guess that it was an assumption that prisons actually worked more or less as intended but that the problem he was addressing was a societal one where nations were losing their respect for human life and that employing capital punishment simply added fuel to that fire.

I disagree with that presumption but I think that was what prompted him (JPII) to take the position he did and I’m guessing that there was no statistical analysis of any kind done to evaluate actual penal systems because that simply wasn’t his concern.

Ender

I have heard this before and have seen no evidence to support it.

To make such a change in Church teaching, you would “guess” the Pope and CCC
“assumed prisons worked more or less as intended”.

I believe the Church used 8 years (1995-2003) to arrive at a final conclusion on this amendment. You would think someone would have made a minimal effort to fact check their assumptions. After all, it is the Catechism and it is amendment to it.

As this is a prudential judgement and its foundations must be based upon facts, how difficult would it have been to make sure the assumptions were correct? Or viewing a truism, such as living unjust aggressors harm and murder, again, executed unjust aggressors do not.

If the secular world is losing their respect for human life, why would the Church change their eternal teachings on this sanction, as opposed to re emphasising and re stating all of the well known traditional Church teachings that show Her death penalty support is based upon respect for human life?

It would be terrible for the Church to establish a precedent that She would just give up her eternal teachings because She has given in because of secular disgrace. This is a time to stand up for Church teachings, not to surrender Her position to secular tastes.

What a terrible choice and in a Catechism, no less.

Even in secular discussions, everyone knows that criminal sanctions are based upon that which we value.

Fines are a sanction because we respect the capital we work for.
Community service is a sanction because we value labor.
Incarceration is given because we value freedom.
Caital punishment is a sanction because we value life.

How can anything be a sanction, if what is taken is not valued? It can’t. It could not be more fundamental.

If the Church based Her decision on the foundation you present, then this change is much., much worse than I could have imagined.

 

[pnewton]

Dear pnewton:

I have a great deal of affection and respect for both PJPII and PB. I know of their intelligence and knowledge. I have never insulted them.

I am pleading for a thorough explanation of how they could have, possibly, come to their assessments, given that the facts and eternal Church teachings are in conflict with their position. I have been waiting for that explanation since 1995. It has never been produced, which should raise curiosity, at the least, red flags, at most.

Rationally, based upon Church teachings, it is arguable that “defense of society” is third or fourth down the list of importance in reasons and outcomes for sanction. Even in this recent CCC, it is, at least, third down that ladder.

It is third in listing of punishment, not in application of the death penatly. Remember that for something to be contradictory, it must contradict in the exact same way. Captital punishment can have different criteria than other forms of punishment.

The teaching of the Holy Father (doctrine) does not contradict Church teaching. His conclusions are different, and those we are free to disagree with, based on the accuracy on non-doctrinal factors.

Catholics can not however just reject doctrine because we see it as inconsistent when viewed sideways. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that imprisonment is preferred to death when it can achieve its end.

 

[dudleysharp]

It is third in listing of punishment, not in application of the death penalty. Remember that for something to be contradictory, it must contradict in the exact same way. Captital punishment can have different criteria than other forms of punishment.

The teaching of the Holy Father (doctrine) does not contradict Church teaching. His conclusions are different, and those we are free to disagree with, based on the accuracy on non-doctrinal factors.

Catholics can not however just reject doctrine because we see it as inconsistent when viewed sideways. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that imprisonment is preferred to death when it can achieve its end.

Dear pnewton:

To be clear, I was speaking about punishment/sanction and I was accurate in my assessment.

Secularly, capital punishment MAY have different criteria than other sanctions, but from a Catholic perspective, as a matter of doctrine of all sanctions, it never has and the Church cannot just, willy nilly, change 2000 years of teaching on the death penalty/all sanctions, when those changes are in obvious conflict with those teachings, as well as in conflict within the latest CCC, itself.

Note that the teachings on the death penalty have been extraordinarily strong for 2000 years, both as a product of biblical text and the Church’s very strong endorsements of that biblical text through the voices of Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, theology, reason and tradition.

No such strength in teaching exists for life without parole or other incarceration, unless you have something I am unaware of. Do you?

You are in error on the Pope’s teachings.

There is a huge contradiction between the teachings based on that 2000 years and those starting in 1995, one having 2000 years based in morality and Church teachings, the other based upon secular/utilitarian foundations rooted in the ever changing and wildly divergent “defense of society”, respectively.

One is based in truth, the other in a wrongly concluded prudential judgement which must be based in secular facts, but which was not, respectively.

Catholics are clearly not rejected doctrine of these Church teachings since 1995. They are rejecting an inaccurate, secular assessment, if any assessment was done, based upon an every changing human prudential judgement of prison security.

It is the opposite of doctrinal teachings and of truth, therefore any loyal Catholic can and should reject it, based upon that assessment. And they are free to do so based upon the post 1995, which are a prudential judgments, which by nature, can never be doctrine.

Yes? No?

The conflict could not be more obvious or more grave.

Do the two divergent teachings contradict? How could they not is the obvious question? How could eternal truths not conflcit and contradict with a human based, improper assessment in a prudential judgement of secular security? That is, precisely, what we are dealing with.

Please note:

The following is taken from paragraph 121 of the General Directory for Catechesis (1997):

“This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition.” The Magisterium of the Church intends to render an ecclesial service for our times with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, recognizing that it is:

–”a sure norm for teaching the faith”: the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a clear response to the legitimate right of all the baptized to know from the Church what she has received and what she believes; it is thus an obligatory point of reference for catechesis and for the other forms of the ministry of the word."

Clear? Doctrine?

Does anyone believe that is what exists in 2258-2267? How could they?

 

[pnewton]

Dear pnewton:

To be clear, I was speaking about punishment/sanction and I was accurate in my assessment.

Secularly, capital punishment MAY have different criteria than other sanctions, but from a Catholic perspective, as a matter of doctrine of all sanctions, it never has and the Church cannot just, willy nilly, change 2000 years of teaching on the death penalty/all sanctions, when those changes are in obvious conflict with those teachings, as well as in conflict within the latest CCC, itself.

Nothing Blessed John Paul II did was “willy nilly.” And yes, doctrine can change, and does, in the Catholic Church. No, the current doctrines are **not **in conflict with the past.

You are in error on the Pope’s teachings.

No, I am not. I do not see the contradiction you do. Since neither Blessed John Paul, or Pope Benedict see the contradition you do, there is no need for me to defend my position any further.

 

[dudleysharp]

Nothing Blessed John Paul II did was “willy nilly.” And yes, doctrine can change, and does, in the Catholic Church. No, the current doctrines are **not **in conflict with the past.

No, I am not. I do not see the contradiction you do. Since neither Blessed John Paul, or Pope Benedict see the contradition you do, there is no need for me to defend my position any further.

If it is not willy nilly show me how it was developed and with what facts. There is zero evidence of devolpment, in doctrine, and there is no support, in fact, for the change, unless you have some source you wish to point us to, In reality, both doctrine and facts contradict the post 1995 teachings, as I have detailed.

You can say that “doctrine” has changed with this newer teaching, but both the Popes and the Church disagree with you. I have found no Church confirmation that the post 1995 teachings are a doctrinal change.

Can you show me where your claim is confirmed? I suggest that you cannot. That is why all good Catholics are free to disagree with this teaching and remain Catholics in good standing, which is the teaching.

What you are saying is not the teaching.

I understand that you do not see the conradictions. I see that, clearly, just as I see them in the teachings.

You are a very thoughtful person and I, very much, thank you for your comments and consideration.

 

[pnewton]

If it is not willy nilly show me how it was developed and with what facts.

I have posted my reasons, as have you. I have no need to repost them. I am content leaving you the last point.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Would it help if someone could elaborate on development of doctrine in this case?

 

[dudleysharp]

Would it help if someone could elaborate on development of doctrine in this case?

I have looked for that since EV in 1995 and have not found it. No scholar I have taked to has been able to direct me to anything nor have I been able to find such, myself.

Some in the Church leadership appears to have been swept up in the secular anti death penalty movement in Western Europe and the US. That is very clear wth almost all of the various Church statements since 1995 and by other Church affiliates, such as the US Bishops since 1980. It is as if the Church teachings on the topic, since the time of Jesus, have been wiped away and been replaced by the secular.

The EV death penalty teachings are not doctrine, but are based within the same foundation as the last two Popes and the latest amendments to the CCC - which, for the two Popes, is a total abolitionist position, which cannot be based on their newest foundation of “defense of society”, because it is a prudential judgement, contrary to the facts and previous Church teachings. The post 1995 teachings find that the death penalty is all but unnecessary because “defense of society”, through secular and inconsistent criminal justice systems, is so secure (utilitarian foundation) that the eternal teachings on the subject are no longer relevant, but have been overwhelmed by that secular standard, to the extent that a secular foundation has all but done away with the Church’s prior 2000 years of teachings, which are either non existant or minimized in the post 1995 statments and teachings.

It was the EV death penalty teachings which were amended into the CCC.

How folks don’t see the conflicts and contradicitions between the pre and post 1995 teachings is a mystery.

 

[dudleysharp]

I have posted my reasons, as have you. I have no need to repost them. I am content leaving you the last point.

Yes, you have posted that it is not a doctrinal change and I agree.

 

[dudleysharp]

PJPII and PB have both presented a total abolitionist position.

The question is “Can it be in conflict with doctrine?”.

Both of their positions appear to be founded in the non doctrinal position, based upon the foundations of EV since 1995 and the amended CCC.

Is it possible that those two Popes preach a non doctrine position of total abolition of the death penalty, when there has been 2000 years of doctrinal develpment in support of the death penalty?

It is my belief that any Pope is given the latitude of speaking personally, as with prudential judgements, as within EV. I have seen nothing to contradict that.

Does anyone have an objection to that?

Is there a reasoned assessment that such preaching is in conflict with doctrine?

What do we find, even in the newly amended CCC? We find that the primary function of sanction is justice, or just retribution? If that is so, which appears has always (until 1995) been the case in Church teachings, based upon development of doctrine, and the Church re affirms that within the CCC, how is it that the primary function can be so minimized by a secondary, utilitarian issue, “defense of scociety” to the degree that the primary purpose is done away with entirely, by a call for complete abolition?

The CCC also teaches a non doctrinal position, which, I find, is based upon improper secular evaluation of the facts and which calls for all but total abolition, based upon “defense of society”. How can defense of society make a doctrinal primary purpose all but a non existent need?

How does a secondary purpose so overwhelm a primary one that there is a call to negate the primary function via total abolition of the death penalty, which both Popes call for?

My question is “Do we see conflict and contradiciton in that?”. I do. Some don’t.

I sent my ongoing review of that section of the CCC to a Catholic scholar. He wouldn’t read it. Didn’t want to waste his time. His reply: “The Church is wrong. Period.” Just a prudential opinion.

To me, this all seems to do the opposite of clarify doctrine, a primary purpose behind all Catechisms.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

" I sent my ongoing review of that section of the CCC to a Catholic scholar. He wouldn’t read it. Didn’t want to waste his time. His reply: “The Church is wrong. Period.” Just a prudential opinion.

Do you honestly believe that the Pope is going to read what you’ve written, slap his forehead, and cry out, “How wrong John Paul and I have been! Bring on the gallows!”?

With due respect for what you’ve written, arguing for the death penalty at this point in history is pointless unless you think the Church is going to do an about-face. I may be wrong, and it’s just my opinion, but I doubt it.

 

[Ender]

With due respect for what you’ve written, arguing for the death penalty at this point in history is pointless unless you think the Church is going to do an about-face. I may be wrong, and it’s just my opinion, but I doubt it.

The reply by the scholar Dudley referred to was unhelpful in this regard: the Church is not wrong on this topic inasmuch as the Church’s position has not changed. What is expressed in 2267 is not Church doctrine but personal opinion so while the claims 2267 makes may be wrong that does not mean the Church is wrong.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Do you honestly believe that the Pope is going to read what you’ve written, slap his forehead, and cry out, “How wrong John Paul and I have been! Bring on the gallows!”?

With due respect for what you’ve written, arguing for the death penalty at this point in history is pointless unless you think the Church is going to do an about-face. I may be wrong, and it’s just my opinion, but I doubt it.

I expect some future Pope to pay attention to other voices, such as these:

Please review the first three numberd sections, from some very solid scholars.

prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Yes, I am for the death penalty. But, I don’t want you to misunderstand.

My arguments, here and elsewhere, with Catholicism. are based upon

1. the strength of 2000 years of Catholic teachings in doctrine, by biblical and theological scholars, Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, a tradition fully supportive of execution, as founded in respect for life;

vs

1. an admitted prudential judgment, with apparently, no development in doctrine (which I don’t believe can exist with a prudential judgment, anyway), whereby the confirmable facts and reason contradict that a “defense of society” standard makes execution all but, completely, unnnecessary, with reason telling us that executed unjust aggressors never harm and murder, again, and that living unjust aggressors are allowed, as confirmed in both fact and reason, by the world’s criminal justice systems, way too often, to harm and murder, more innocents, again, meaning the Church has chosen to spare unjust aggressors lives at the cost of more innocents harmed and murdered - a situation that I would gather no one could have possibly foreseen as occurring, but which has.

I am unaware that a prudential judgment has ever been put into a Catechism before and based upon this one, I hope it is a wake up call never to do such, again.

I never expected any response for the Pope, based upon my comments, anymore than I would have expected that such a change in teachings would or could occur, based upon an inaccurate secular foundation, which would. also, be never.

As I have written, I do expect the Church to change Her current position because, I think She must. I just don’t know when.

 

[pnewton]

With due respect for what you’ve written, arguing for the death penalty at this point in history is pointless unless you think the Church is going to do an about-face. I may be wrong, and it’s just my opinion, but I doubt it.

You may see it as pointless, but it is still a debatable topic in which Catholics can hold varying opinions. Indeed, it may be pointless here, as we are unlikely to change anyone’s mind, but it is allowable.

 

[1voice]

I could agree 100% if we could also end murders. Then there would be no cases where use of the death penalty would serve the interests of justice and protection of innocent lives.

There are multiple cases of people being convicted that … it turns out later (dna, new evidence etc…) … did not commit any crime.