Question about the death penalty

[Ray_Scheel]

As I posted earlier, I would like to move to a different perspective in our discussion, one that is more philosophical in its approach.

Considering that the discussion to this point by those in opposition to the Death Penalty have steadfastly refused to recognize references to Church teaching prior to the era of JP II, how exactly is this a change from the direction many had been attempting to limit the discussion anyway? Any discussion of Church teaching that arbitrarily restricts considering the fullness of that teaching is a de facto exercise in futility as far as determining how to properly determine what the complete Church teaching on the matter is.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I know, just like there are other occasions when God call for death, or struck some down himself.

Exactly, the answer cannot always be yes, or no. More important to this thread the answer has never always been yes, or no.

Even though I am in the minority on this, I am believe you to be speaking truthfully here. I do not think the Church has reversed it’s position. However, in light of the fact that the Church at one time endorsed the death penalty and even had her own death statutes, the only conclusion is that the apparent reversal is based on the changes that have occurred in society. Most probably agree with me so far. The next step, in which I will lose some, is that if it is society that hase changed, then the opinion of the death penalty is an application of moral teaching, not direct moral teaching.

I am completely with you

This is essential because the Church can develop doctrine, but it can not white-out doctrine and write in new doctrine.

Well how about this. Morality comes from God, doctrine is the moral teaching. The Church cannot develop morality, it can STATE doctrine to teach Morality. Now the key is morality is encrypted in our soul which is known as Natural Law. The Church is the supreme interpreter of Natural Law (never the creator of Natural Law)

I believe this is what estesbob means when he says the Church will never be absolute on the subject.

Now my quandry is that no where in any teaching of the Church, at any level have I found one shred of support for the premise that society has changed to the point that the death penalty is no longer needed. It is simply stated, as if it is a given. For all one can tell, they get their information from CNN. They would not be the first to do so.

And that is what Cardinal Avery Dulles and others refer to as the “Prudential Judgment” aspect of the teaching. When is society able to select life and protect the innocent verses being reliant on death to protect the innocent.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…move to a different perspective…

1. Do you agree or disagree with the pope’s teaching that there is a “Culture of Death” that permeates our society today?

There has always been a culture of death reference the OT

1. If there is a “Culture of Death”, does the pope accurately describe its essence and its effects on our society?

3…

4…

1. …

6…

1. …

The Church has always opposed the “culture of death” as did Jesus. The Church has always held the killing of the innocent as sin. The issue is what is innocent, or who is innocent. Our Church has always taught “just war” which defines situation when some surrender their innocent standard. Similarly JPII and many others site a desire to kill as a condition by which one may surrender their innocents. Note: The culture of death to me is the willingness to kill the unborn in order to party more, drive a more expensive car, etc, etc.

 

[TMC]

As I posted earlier, I would like to move to a different perspective in our discussion, one that is more philosophical in its approach.
So I would like to propose a set of questions all based on Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”. My questios are:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the pope’s teaching that there is a “Culture of Death” that permeates our society today?

I agree that there is a Culture of Death that permeates society. I disagree to the extent that he suggests that this is new, or even particularly pronounced in today’s society. He is right that part of the trouble today comes from an excess of concern for efficiency and an unhealthy focus on productivity. But earlier times had their own Cultures of Death, sometimes driven by other factors. Of course, he is absolutely right to call us out on the current Culture of Death, and to point out the ways it is being advanced today. I do not intend to criticize EV as excessive, I’m just pointing out that each generation has its own issues. Today is not worse than previous eras, but all eras fall far short of the goal.

1. If there is a “Culture of Death”, does the pope accurately describe its essence and its effects on our society?

I think he has some particulars right and some I would disagree with, but the overall message that radical individualism and materialism leads to devaluing life (and vice versa) and that both lead to immoral choices and acts, is correct.

1. If there is a “Culture of Death” it is an essential part of the nature of the Church to oppose this culture and to move society towards a “Culture of Life”?

Yes. The Culture of Life is central to Christianity. It is an aspect of, and perhaps even a way of describing, the Kingdom that Christ came to establish.

1. If there is a “Culture of Death” and it is an essential part of the nature of the Church to move society to the “Culture of Life” this transformation must begin with forming ones conscience, “With regards to the imcomparable and inviolable worth of every human life”?

1. Is the “Culture of Life” rooted in the “Gospel of Life” whose nature is described by Pope John Paul II in EV?

1. Do you agree or disagree with Pope John Paul II’s description of the “Gospel of Life” and its being rooted in the Church’s mission of Evangelization?

1. Is it a moral imperative for a Catholics’s view of life to be rooted in the sacredness and dignity of all human life, without exception, understood in the light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice? (yes I did ask this one earlier).

I’ll take the liberty to answer these four together. These all point to the same thing, to me. The value of each person is central to Christ’s message. One of the radical messages of Christ, equally disturbing to some today as it was to many in 30 AD, is that all are truly equal before God. Each person has the same instrinsic value to God, each is equally loved by God, and we are charged to love each person (deserving or not) just as God loves us (even though we are not deserving).

Some Christians deride a complete focus on Love as soft or easy Christianity. They believe that “reducing” Christianity to this basic “love one another” point is somehow not embracing the tough parts of the Faith. That is funny to me, because this is the tough part. If everyone really, truly, saw all people as worthy of love, as reflections and images of God, then there would be no Culture of Death. If we all believed that each child was as deserving of protection as our own children, each person as lovable as our own spouse, each life as sacred to us as our own is, then we would have a Culture of Life. Really viewing the world like this does not come naturally (at least to me) and is difficult, to say the least.

I don’t think that we can get there in this life, but I think we are supposed to try. That is what I see the Culture of Life as being about.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Here is what I don’t understand.

Simply put, how can the death penalty be intrinsically evil and identified in the same category as abortion?

A civil government executing a criminal who has committed a crime which is punishable by death is not murder.

We may disagree with the state taking the best course of action. Also, the Church may say that there are better ways of dealing with the criminal, but it certainly is not murder.

And I believe claiming that the death penalty is “intrinsically evil” is an untenable position.

I think my conclusion is based more on the USCCB which I believe includes all items in the “culture of death” category to be intrinsically evil. I may be wrong of course. I think that EV also greatly enlarges the scope of life issues to include everything from conception to natural death. Again, apparently the word intrinsic evil gets some folks all flumoxed. We have to use special words in Catholic discussions it seems.

If you don’t want to call it intrisincally evil, then that is fine. I still contend that the Vatican has made its position known. If you want to claim wiggle room to continue supporting it, perhaps you can do so, but I again wonder why one would.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What reasons no longer apply? We still have murderers. We still have those we can not safely contain. Besides. The I do not think the analogy is apt. The law regarding bill of divorce was given to Moses and the teachin of Jesus given to the Church. To say the same applies now, or we entering a new covenant? The Church may not abandon doctrine. It can only develop a better understanding.

I don’t agree that we have people we cannot contain. I do agree however, that the Church is arriving at a better understanding of doctrine. Did Jesus condone the stoning of the adulterous woman? OT citations must be taken I would submit with care. I don’t understand your comment about a new covenant.

 

[Ender]

{Ratznger} endorsed the UN resolution calling for a cessation of the use of the DP worldwide. {New Year’s address to the diplomatic corps}

I have never questioned his position on the DP but a position is not an argument and, in this address, none was made.

So you are not persuaded or at least don’t find it analogous that God permitted divorce during the time of Moses but recinded it during the time of Jesus.? I assume it was because God believed we were ready to take on the burden of the more perfect rule. Could not the same be said about the DP? While perhaps not a true change in morality, it is as man conceives of it.

No, I do not find these issues analogous. It is one thing for Jesus to specify what is moral and what is not but that is not something the Church has the authority to do. She is required to explain the moral law, not define it or change it. If executions were moral prior to 1995, and if the Church has not defined the nature of the act to now be immoral, then executions are still moral. If she has changed the nature from moral to immoral then she has acted outside of her authority.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I don’t agree that we have people we cannot contain…

If you look at my wording I said safely contain. You and John Paul the Great are in agreement. I am not. (at least on this opinion). It is why we differ. However, please realize that this opinion is not a moral opinion, but rather a techinical opinion. I have written my reasons many times why I differ.

 

[pnewton]

Note: The culture of death to me is the willingness to kill the unborn in order to party more, drive a more expensive car, etc, etc.

Or, in my case, even hatred which wishes the death of the worse criminals because of their evil. I thought I would throw that one in, lest anyone think I am a total “hang 'em high” kind of guy. Yes, I often wish we would use more rope, but on this point I acknowledge I am merely falling into temptation and contributing to the culture of death in our society.

On the subject of the culture of death, it definilty existed in the time of the nation Israel. There were those who worshipped Molach and caused their children to pass through the fire. On these people, God was not kind. This is not a new battle. And given the right circumstances, God is willing to green light violence to deal with extreme incursions by Satan into society.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

. However, please realize that this opinion is not a moral opinion, but rather a techinical opinion.

(sarcasm)
But, but, but, since JP II said it, and ordered the CCC to be revised to include the claim, he must have meant to formally declare that full papal authority and protections were now extended to technical matters just on this one particular issue, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that presumption of simply just* haaas *to be a disobedient Catholic who rejects Vatican II.
(/sarcasm)

 

[Ender]

I realize that this is most likely impracticable for a number of reasons so I would suggest to you one book in particular by Cardinal Ratzinger, " Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures" (Ignatius Press, 2005). However, he also addresses this issue in other works such as “Introduction to Christianity”, “Truth and Tolerance”, …

I appreciate your recommendations but reading through several books, letters, and miscellaneous writings looking for comments relevant to this discussion is not going to happen. If you - or anyone else - can cite specific comments I’m open to discussing them but since you believe these documents support your position I think you are obligated to demonstrate how.

SpiritMeadow:

I still contend that the Vatican has made its position known. If you want to claim wiggle room to continue supporting it, perhaps you can do so, but I again wonder why one would.

I support the DP because I believe not only that it is allowed but that there are cases where it is the only moral response, that for instances of truly heinous crimes justice allows for no other response. There has been a lot of disagreement with this claim but rejecting my arguments is not the same as refuting them.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I appreciate your recommendations but reading through several books, letters, and miscellaneous writings looking for comments relevant to this discussion is not going to happen.

Actually I did reread EV, although you are totally correct, as a rule. I just believe it to be my responsibility to be always open to the Church’s position in this area specifiacally. Mostly I do ignore reading suggests, but not totally.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have never questioned his position on the DP but a position is not an argument and, in this address, none was made.
No, I do not find these issues analogous. It is one thing for Jesus to specify what is moral and what is not but that is not something the Church has the authority to do. She is required to explain the moral law, not define it or change it. If executions were moral prior to 1995, and if the Church has not defined the nature of the act to now be immoral, then executions are still moral. If she has changed the nature from moral to immoral then she has acted outside of her authority.

Ender

You don’t question his position you just don’t agree with it. Okay. I guess I’m rather puzzled that people argue that they sure wish the Church could change but alas it can’t, it has no authority, a very strange stance to take. I guess if i had come to the conclusion that the Pope was without authority to speak on an issue that was demonstrably barbaric, I might keep quiet about it, since my talking about it only would enhance those who wished to continue such a practice. I wouldn’t be wanting to give them ammunician. I’d be hoping I could convince people that it was wrong to continue just because it was.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If you look at my wording I said safely contain. You and John Paul the Great are in agreement. I am not. (at least on this opinion). It is why we differ. However, please realize that this opinion is not a moral opinion, but rather a techinical opinion. I have written my reasons many times why I differ.

I do not believe that those who are on death row in this country cannot be safely contained.

Well I hope you don’t mean technical opinon. Lives are at stake, so I;m sure you mean a serious legal objection to stopping the death penalty.

 

[pnewton]

I do not believe that those who are on death row in this country cannot be safely contained.

Well I hope you don’t mean technical opinon. Lives are at stake, so I;m sure you mean a serious legal objection to stopping the death penalty.

No, I meant technical opinion. I am not talking about a legal opinion, but a tecnical one. The FBI made the same mistake in Pelican Bay and Santa Rosa ran with blood for their error.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

(sarcasm)
But, but, but, since JP II said it, and ordered the CCC to be revised to include the claim, he must have meant to formally declare that full papal authority and protections were now extended to technical matters just on this one particular issue, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that presumption of simply just* haaas *to be a disobedient Catholic who rejects Vatican II.
(/sarcasm)

I really don’t see the point of the sarcasm. You believe that you are right. I just don’t get why you take such delight in feeling right about this kind of issue. It’s simply strange. I guess if I had come to the regretable conclusion that you have come to, I’d first be writing to every expert I could find to hopefully be proven wrong, or second, I 'd at least be profoundly sad. You seem gleeful in your self-designated “rightness.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I support the DP because I believe not only that it is allowed but that there are cases where it is the only moral response, that for instances of truly heinous crimes justice allows for no other response. There has been a lot of disagreement with this claim but rejecting my arguments is not the same as refuting them.

Ender

I have to admit you have me there. I did not anticipate any Catholic would make the argument based on the right to execute those found too evil to be allowed to live. You are right, I simply reject it as a moral choice. I wouldn’t waste a moment refuting it, since its clear that someone who comes to that conclusion is not going to be refuted. It’s entirely a subjective conclusion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, I meant technical opinion. I am not talking about a legal opinion, but a tecnical one. The FBI made the same mistake in Pelican Bay and Santa Rosa ran with blood for their error.

then I’m just totally lost. sorry.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Actually I did reread EV, although you are totally correct, as a rule. I just believe it to be my responsibility to be always open to the Church’s position in this area specifiacally. Mostly I do ignore reading suggests, but not totally.

It’s a good thing to do. Some people here have bothered to accumulate quite impressive documents and websites. I’ve benefited a lot from following links. Course some are silly, but truly some folks here are very good researchers and have obtained really good stuff worth everyone’s attention. But of course if yuou are not seeking answers, its probably not worth the effort.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I really don’t see the point of the sarcasm. You believe that you are right. I just don’t get why you take such delight in feeling right about this kind of issue. It’s simply strange. I guess if I had come to the regretable conclusion that you have come to, I’d first be writing to every expert I could find to hopefully be proven wrong, or second, I 'd at least be profoundly sad. You seem gleeful in your self-designated “rightness.”

The thing is that your post #213 reiterated the extreme to which you are taking your unquestioning adulation of opinions held by John Paul II that are incredibly outside of his area of competence.

I would be very surprised if your decision (that the prisons in the U.S. are technically capable of safely containing the typical offenders on Death Row) was based on any sort of practical experience or research by those in the field. I suspect that your “conclusion” is based primarily on statements by someone who’s primary (and nearly exclusive) exposure to penal settings was occasionally visiting his would-be assassin in a moderate security Italian penal psychiatric facility - under extraordinary security measures for that facility that had been specifically upgraded to accommodate that visitor and brought in extra staff when he visited that were cost prohibitive to maintain constantly - along with sound bytes from media sources uttered by individuals probably even less qualified that JP II to make judgments about the technological capabilities of existing prison facilities when applied to particular risk groups.

I would very much like to see references to any such formal research that establishes how those risks can be circumvented without violating other complaints raised by the courts (or the Vatican or the USCCB) about the treatment of prisoners that you have found. The researchers I know (I do database work and frequently help gather background data) are resigned to a perpetual risks from certain segments of the prison population for as long as they keep breathing.