Question about the death penalty

[Reformed_Rob]

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.

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Is anyone here supporting the death penalty?? I personally believe that with our current legal system, which I’m not a lawyer or judge, but I’ll put it in the context of our nation in general, there is enough reason to believe that many people are on death row that do not actually belong there.

Which is a big part of the argument, one which has helped me understand the Church’s approach.

But I separate the big issues from the little issues. Ontologically looking at the issue of capital punishment is different than the development of culture through the millenia.

That may not be the right mindset. But I believe it’s a Catholic mindset. Basically, “what is the truth and why?” and then “how does that apply now perhaps differently than in other times and places?”

 

[pnewton]

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.

I have searched for years to see if either the Vatican or the USCCB have used any research, professional opinion or technical expertise. I have never found one whit. It is as I said earlier, it is as if they get all their feedback from the world filterer through CNN.

 

[Ender]

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.

There are some things which in fact the Church does not have the authority to change; a perfect example of which is the prohibition against women priests: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women… (JPII)” The Church is not the author of moral standards and she has no authority to change them.

I guess if i had come to the conclusion that the Pope was without authority to speak on an issue

The Pope has the right to speak on any topic and the duty to speak on moral ones; what he does not have is the authority to define morality.

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 certainly free to disagree with my arguments but you really shouldn’t distort them. I have said that justice (as the Church defines it) is the duty of the state to enforce and that there are cases where the demands of justice require the life of the sinner as expiation for his sins. In saying this I have quoted any number of popes and doctors of the Church; this position is not so much my personal opinion as it is my understanding of the opinions of those I quote.

I have tried several times to focus the discussion on the concepts of justice, mercy, forgiveness, and punishment in general as they apply to capital punishment in particular but with a singular lack of success. I understand these to be infertile ground from which to find support to oppose the death penalty.

Ender

 

[TOME]

Pnewton,
I agree with you that a academic question, or exercise, cannot be separated from reality and if or when it is this often shows that what we are experiencing in reality is an exercise in pride rather than the search for truth. Still, as I tried to explain, in such discussions like this one, attempting to be “academic” or “objective”, as much as this is possible, serves our purpose better in the beginning because we are not blinded or distracted by particulars which although have great emotional weight for the individual may in fact be an exception not the rule. More importantly, it is better to establish or identify our moral principles first then apply them. Principle, by their nature, form the foundation by which we can then judge an act to be “right” or “wrong”; “good” or “evil”.

My next point I want to proceed with a little more caution, although it may not appear this way, because I may be responding to something you wrote but something you did not intend and that I misinterpeted. If I did misunderstand what you meant I apologize ahead here and now.

I found a danger in your words, “What is best is what works”. The danger I find in these words is an underlying morality based on “Utilitarianism”. Amoung other faults with this philosophy I find the biggest harm stemming from this philosophy is the reduction of the human person to an object whose worth is based on its effeciency - what can or cannot produce. In his book “Memory and Identity” Pope John Paul II writes how, “Utilitarian anthropology and the ethic derived from it set out from the conviction that man tends essentially towards his own interest or the group to which he belongs.” (pg 35). This directly opposes the “Theology of the Cross” - the anthropology revealed in scripture. If what is best is what works" , what works best for whom? Who decides what the “Best” is and is this decision based on objective moral values from which we can perceive the “Good” from which the “Best” can and should be derived? Or is the way the “Best” is determined is based on relative moral norms that can chang with time and circumstance?

While I agree with you it is the duty and responsibility of the State, that is “Legitimate Authority” to apply moral laws my question then is because if it is law does that automatically make it moral? Again is the moral law based on objective principles or are these principles contingent and relative? If these laws are relative and contingent then doesn’t this make “Legal Postivism” and "Utilitarianism the legitimate moral philosophies that must be the foundation of the State? However, if the moral law is something objective, does a state that execute immoral laws remain a legitmate authority? But hasn’t the Church from the time of the Apostles, always taught that the moral law is based on objectived principle revealed to us by God through scripture and the Apostolic Traditions as interperted by the Magisterium of the Church which is always guided by the Holy Spirit? You brought up Didymus, and yes he free acknowledged his guilt, however, he was executed under a system of government and laws we call today the “Pax Romana”. Are you familiar with how this system actually worked?

You brought up that I introduced the question of the need of seeing human dignity and sacredness of each human person in light of the Paschal Sacrifice. We are Catholics and the Paschal Sacrifice (perpetuated and celebrated in the Eucharist) is at the
center of our faith - there is no CATHOLICISM nor CHRISTIANITY without the Eucharist, without the Paschal Sacrifice, our faith really becomes just one amoung many religions of the world. So I fail to see the irrevelance of the Paschal Sacrifice, and if I may expand this to the Paschal Mystery that includes the Incarnation,
to this discussion and it is certainly no circular argument, how can it be? I think Pope John Paul II explains this much better than I in Evangelium Vitae than I and more importantly, he understood its centrality to our understanding of the question of the sacredness of life.

Few if any of us can approach the topic we are discussing as theologians and we, from what I have read are all approaching this as good Americans seeking what is best for our country, I have no doubt about this and I hope you share my conviction. Still, doesn’t the whole of the New Testament teach that we are to be in this world but not of it? And doesn’t Christ himself point the way how we can be both when he uses the symbol of yeast, that is how we are not in but seperate in society but transforming society itself? So, although we are not theologians in the strict sense of the word, we are citizens but before that we are Catholics. Being an American is who we are and we should be extremely proud of this fact, but being Catholic is WHAT we are.

 

[TOME]

Ray_Scheel,
I must disagree with you that in the contempory teaching of the Church, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and in greater depth in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”, there has been a refusal to recognize references to prior Church teachings on the Death Penalty (DP). I am tempted to ask you to show me where in EV or in the CCC the Church states categorically that the State does not retain the right to exercise the DP but that would be wasting your time because such a statement does not exist so I will not ask you to look for one.

In Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 9) St. Paul provides us with a “Principle” I think is revelant to this discussion. In this chapter, St. Paul writes about himself as being an apostle whose apostleship is equal to that of the Twelve. Here he lists the rights he has as an apostle (rights that were later listed in the Didache) but in stating his rights he makes the point I believe is revelant for us. He tells the Corinthians although he has these God-given rights for the good of the Church of Corinth he did not exercise these “Rights”.

My point is, times and circumstances can and do dictate that for a greater good it may be necessary not to exercise a ligitimate right. This goes for the State as well as for an individual. In EV, I believe Pope John Paul II presents a rational argument for the Church’s teachings why the right of the State to exercise its ligitimate authority to exercise the DP must be highly restricted if exercised at all.

But I find it difficult to discuss the Holy Father’s teaching because too many of us here have either not read this encyclical or have limited their knowledge to a few sentences or paragraphs. This is the reason for my posing the questions I did earlier so we might have a deeper discussion based on a fuller knowledge of the text in question.

As a professor at the University of Lubin in Poland, Pope John Paul II as apriest and later bishop was a noted Moral Theologian author of the work “Love and Responsibility” (which was well received and influencial back in the early 1960’s when it was published) and in 1974 “The Structure of Self Determination as Core Theory of the Person”. There are other works but the point I make in bringing these two up is they both reflect a deep understanding of the metaphysics, anthropology, and morality of Saint Thomas Aquinas which was the predominant phisolophical system in the Church. So when Pope John Paul II wrote he was writting from the knowledge and tradition of Catholic doctrine. But how would you know this if you don’t atleast read his encyclical? Better if you don’t read EV along with Veritatis Splendor (1993) and Fides et Ratio (1998).

I nmy spare time over the past years, I did read a few books on moral theology and doctrines of the Church especially in regards to the subject of self defense and I must say I found what I read in EV and the Holy Father’s other encyclical a development of doctrine, but always rooted first in scripture and all Church’s teachings.

 

[TOME]

To those involved in this discussion that are involved in one way or another I have a question. Do we have the technology, here and now, to keep the general population (perhaps we can call it society) relatively safe from murderers, even the most henious murderers. That is we have the capability to keep these murderers in jail?

Is the reform of the penal system itself a matter of lack of technology or a result of the lack political will ( which includes the economic cost) to affect change?

 

[pnewton]

To those involved in this discussion that are involved in one way or another I have a question. Do we have the technology, here and now, to keep the general population (perhaps we can call it society) relatively safe from murderers, even the most henious murderers. That is we have the capability to keep these murderers in jail?

Is the reform of the penal system itself a matter of lack of technology or a result of the lack political will ( which includes the economic cost) to affect change?

For some, the most brilliant, it is lack of technology. I believe the bigger problem, though is lack of resolve, not to on the side of funding, though, but on the side of deprivation of rights. To properly keep a real high maximium security, we will have to eliminate many of the rights that are considered sacrosanct.

 

[TOME]

Ender,
Here is something from “Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures” that I think is revelant to our discussion especially in light of my bringing up the “Culture of Death”:

“Europe has developed a culture that, in a manner hitherto unknown to mankind, excludes God from public awareness. His existence may be denied altogether or considered unprovable and uncertain and, hence, as something belonging to the sphere of subjective choices. In either case, God is irrevelant to public life. This is a purely functional rationality that has shaken the moral consciousness in a way completely unknown to the culture that existed previously, since it maintains that only that which can be demonstrated experimentally is “rational”. Since morality belongs to a different sphere altogether, it disappears as a specific category; but since we do after all need some kind of morality, it has to be discovered anew in some other way. In a world based on calculation, it is the calculation of consequences that determines what should be moral and immoral. In this way, the category of the good vanishes, as Kant clearly showed. Nothing is good or evil in itself; everything dependson the consequences that may be thought to ensure upon an action” (pg 30 -31)

Later he writes of modern philosophies that have been inspired by the Enlightenment,"… These philosophies are characterized by their positivist - and therefore anti-metaphysical - character, so that ultimately there is no place for God in them" (pg 40)

On the next page Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to write that the modern philosophies which have come to us from the Enlightenment have lost their sense of history and have cut themselves off from their historical roots (i.e. their Christian roots)and without these roots it has lost its guiding principle and now,"…The guiding principle is that man’s capability determines what he does. If you know how to do something, then you are also permitted to do it; to know how to do something, but not be able to do it, is a state of affairs that no longer exist, since it would run counter to liberty - which is the absolute supreme value." (pg 41).

 

[TOME]

Pnewton, But we can pretty much keep murderers from escaping our jails and when we do read or hear of an escape these are exceptions rather than the rule?

And going from the point that escape is not the problem what the problem is is the sub-culture that is life in a correctional facitily and perhaps the legal system itself which allows the releast of murderers who are a threat to society because there has been no outward contrition or change of behavior and attitude and should, therefore remain in jail?

 

[pnewton]

Pnewton, But we can pretty much keep murderers from escaping our jails and when we do read or hear of an escape these are exceptions rather than the rule?

Yes, escape is an exeption. Violence inside the jail is one of the two big problems. The second is violence outside of the jail that is controlled from inside of the jail.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Ray_Scheel,
I must disagree with you that in the contempory teaching of the Church, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and in greater depth in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”, there has been a refusal to recognize references to prior Church teachings on the Death Penalty (DP).

There has however been a complete focus on only one of the reasons the Church teaches the State is authorized to use the DP (defense from an immediate threat), with no indication one way or the other about other things under which the Church has taught the DP was within the State’s legitimate right (avenging crime). Focusing on one point does not constitute a retraction of the other.

In EV, I believe Pope John Paul II presents a rational argument for the Church’s teachings why the right of the State to exercise its ligitimate authority to exercise the DP must be highly restricted if exercised at all.

I see you pose one of the central questions to this a bit later on that I’ll address more in a minute, but I will point out here that it is an argument rooted in great part on a technical determination that is at odds with reality. If the pope were to declare that modern methods of harvesting and manipulating adult stem cells were sufficient to cure the diseases for which stem cell applications are being sought, no one would dispute that he had made a factual error. He says the same thing about modern prisons and suddenly his opinion is authoritative and must be used as the basis of further decision making - never mind that it was just as wrong.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

For some, the most brilliant, it is lack of technology. I believe the bigger problem, though is lack of resolve, not to on the side of funding, though, but on the side of deprivation of rights. To properly keep a real high maximium security, we will have to eliminate many of the rights that are considered sacrosanct.

I agree with this assessment. TOME, if you would review some of the more recent DP threads, you’ll find multiple examples of how the majority of the currently exhibited risks come from the times these most dangerous inmates are still allowed contact with the outside world, be it through lawyers working for they syndicate carrying orders through for them or attacking staff when given opportunities during court-mandated times they have to be allowed of of their cells for a bit.

Yes, escape is an exeption. Violence inside the jail is one of the two big problems. The second is violence outside of the jail that is controlled from inside of the jail.

And this one.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Your rather crass assessment of JPII’s capabilities aside, I have some considerable understanding of prison systems and how they work, but of course that does not really seem to be the substance of your criticism. It seems more aimed at continuing to assert that you understand the world and the magisterium better than it understands it or itself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have searched for years to see if either the Vatican or the USCCB have used any research, professional opinion or technical expertise. I have never found one whit. It is as I said earlier, it is as if they get all their feedback from the world filterer through CNN.

Actually this is not meant in any pejorative sense, but is a serious question for me. This is a pattern I see here wherein the Vatican, present and past popes of the 20th century, the USCCB, priests and relgious are routinely mocked here as not knowing Catholic teaching correctly. Now twice I 've seen people claim the USCCB not only need not be followed in anything they pronounce but that they are even heretical (at least twice). Apparently JPII and Benedict are largely wrong on the DP and evolution. Priests and nuns in this country are “improperly taught” in “liberal” catholic universities. The common laity is thus also badly taught in almost every repect.

There is a constant refrain here that the average Catholic thinks they can “substitute” their opinion for the Vatican, yet we are told that on some issues the Vatican is incorrect because the “document” specialists here say so.

My question is: is there any entity or person/s you rely on as always giving you correct catholic teaching, or in fact do you each decide based upon your own research what correct teaching is?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There are some things which in fact the Church does not have the authority to change; a perfect example of which is the prohibition against women priests: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women… (JPII)” The Church is not the author of moral standards and she has no authority to change them.
The Pope has the right to speak on any topic and the duty to speak on moral ones; what he does not have is the authority to define morality.
You are certainly free to disagree with my arguments but you really shouldn’t distort them. I have said that justice (as the Church defines it) is the duty of the state to enforce and that there are cases where the demands of justice require the life of the sinner as expiation for his sins. In saying this I have quoted any number of popes and doctors of the Church; this position is not so much my personal opinion as it is my understanding of the opinions of those I quote.

I have tried several times to focus the discussion on the concepts of justice, mercy, forgiveness, and punishment in general as they apply to capital punishment in particular but with a singular lack of success. I understand these to be infertile ground from which to find support to oppose the death penalty.

Ender

Okay, I guess the bottom line for me, is that I just find it amazing that some one can claim that the pope has “no authority”…etc. Apparently the Pope doesnt know this, nor do his numerous advisors and experts. I just can’t get past the claim that a layperson has got it right and the poor vatican is somehow unable to figure out its own authority. If I came to the conclusion you have I would determine one of two things was at work: The Church was and is horribly mislead, to the point it no longer is the Church, or I am most likely very wrong in my conclusion. Who in authority have you checked with at the Vatican to confirm your conclusions? I assume you desire to be sure you are correct in your analysis of Church authority.

I am not trying to be rude. I sincerely don’t get it. Perhaps I have a bit to much deference to authority, though I have never thought so, but this seems the extreme in arrogance to me. Am I misunderstanding something? Perhaps my own faith journey is the culprit, I came to faith and the Church directly because I concluded that millions of believers, tens of thousands who were undoubtedly as smart and smarter than me do and did believe. My arrogance was obvious to me and I stopped being an agnostic rather abruptly. My point is only that if I conclude I am right and the Church wrong, I’d be continuing my investigation since I would find it most unlikely (possible no doubt) that I was correct.

I have stated here many times that I do believe in primacy of conscience though not as distortedly often defined here. So it is possible I believe to honestly disagree with the Church. But I can’t say as I’ve ever disagreed that they did not understand their own historical record better than I did. That I find hard to fathom.

Hopefully you will accept what I have written in the manner I intend. It is not a slap at you, but an honest question. I may be misinterpreting what you mean. I wish to understand.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Your rather crass assessment of JPII’s capabilities aside,

Crass? What other practical experience or detail scholarly involvement are you aware of him having on the subject? I’m giving him credit for having at least set foot in a modern prison more than once, which is further than most of those producing the sound bytes have done. As pnewton has pointed out, those within the heirarchy making these techincal determinations have been more than circumspect as far as what they are basing their claims on from a factual / scientific standpoint.

I have some considerable understanding of prison systems and how they work,

Yes, I was aware you thought so when you told someone with 20+ years of direct corrections experience that he needed to learn what “maximum security” meant while summarily dismissed the current status of the scholarly outlook on many of the issues surrounding how to safely and perpetually contain the incorrigibles under the limitations of mandated allowances for freedoms on their part based on human rights decisions. However, someone who tunes out both practical experience and scholarly consensus on a subject more often than not winds up with very flawed ideas on the subject.

but of course that does not really seem to be the substance of your criticism.

The only way you could have not noticed the sheer repetition of the times where I referenced that particular problem would be if you were tuning out things that didn’t fit the conclusion you wanted (namely, repeatedly claiming I’ve argued things that I have not - and have sometimes already directly contradicted - to try to maintain an air of being above responding to requests to reconcile your claims with what can be firmly established.

It seems more aimed at continuing to assert that you understand the world and the magisterium better than it understands it or itself.

I do think that, as the Church itself agrees is the case with all purely scientific or technical determinations, that those in scholarly studies of practical criminal justice issues combined those in management positions where those studies are applied are in the authoritative position to make determinations about their field. There is no declared special exception to recast as a matter of faith and morals the purely technical/scientific part of a determination of what capabilities of prison systems as currently implemented and what might be accomplished without bankrupting the governments responsible for maintaining them.

 

[preacherman]

Let us look at it from this point those of you who oppose the death penalty have that right and you make good points but how many of you can honestly say that you consider life valuable if someone killed without any thought one of your relatives or close friend?

 

[Christine_Blake]

Ok, I know as Catholics we should oppose the death penalty, correct? At least that’s what I understand the church teaches. So what do you do when you are in a discussion with people who are in favor of it and are a little trigger happy when it comes to execution? Some of my friends (who are various protestant denominations) are gung-ho death penalty and I’m uncomfortable when they say things like “oh, he should just be killed right out”, etc. I just don’t know how to react to them. Thoughts?

The best answer I’ve gotten was from a nun who worked with those on death row…she argued that you never know when a person will repent and to shorten their life before they have an opportunity to know Jesus is the real sin. Everyone should have their ENTIRE natural life to come to know Jesus…that was enough for me…remember the prodigal son? Should his family allowed him, what 5 years to return? 10? no, his father welcomed him whenever he was ready to return home…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Pnewton, But we can pretty much keep murderers from escaping our jails and when we do read or hear of an escape these are exceptions rather than the rule?

And going from the point that escape is not the problem what the problem is is the sub-culture that is life in a correctional facitily and perhaps the legal system itself which allows the releast of murderers who are a threat to society because there has been no outward contrition or change of behavior and attitude and should, therefore remain in jail?

I don’t know how germane this is but my experience is thus: death row’s are very secure. I’m not sure if there are any excapes from state death row facilities. I don’t believe so, but may be wrong. Max Security systems are just that. Few excape these facilities either. Few excape general walled prisions either. Where escapes occur are from minimum facilities, unwalled, unfenced, and jails. These not always, but usually don’t house serious offenders except those awaiting court appearances.

Very little rehab work is done. the waiting lists in many prisions for rehab programs is so long that many young offenders with relatively low sentences (3-5 yrs) often get NO rehab programs and thus have no help in breaking the ties of crime.

Prisoner on prisoner crime varies of course based on the severity of the institution. The more violent serious offenders tend to continue that behavior with other inmates. I don’t know if this is lack of a solution or money. Probably both.

It is rare that a breakout occurs in a normal prison, and even less likely that any member of the public is harmed. These cases make the news every time. We aren’t hearing of them often,and the escapees are normally quickly rounded up and returned.

My inclination is to say that our prisons suffer from lack of funding more than anything else. I think we have good solutions but not the money to do them. The public likes its criminals out of sight, and doesnt have much enthusiasm for spending money on them afterward.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Actually this is not meant in any pejorative sense, but is a serious question for me. This is a pattern I see here wherein the Vatican, present and past popes of the 20th century, the USCCB, priests and relgious are routinely mocked here as not knowing Catholic teaching correctly.

We are pointing out that they are simply not adderssing certain points of Catholic teaching that we must presume is still in force. Failing to mention the state’s obligation to avenge crime one way or the other does not revoke it by default, and it is clear they know that as well I do.

Now twice I 've seen people claim the USCCB not only need not be followed in anything they pronounce but that they are even heretical (at least twice).

No dice.

First, you are the one that keeps expanding the targeted criticisms into claims other are making blanket accusations of heresy, those misrepresentations by you were challenged, and you elected to not address the challenges at all but have merely repeated the charge.

Second, the claim was that documents produced by the USCCB committees were not binding. It is you that keeps exaggerating what was actually pointed out to try to make a straw man out of it, and are continuing to do so even after prior attempts at correction.

Third, it is a matter of verifiable fact that the Divine Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith ordered the USCCB’s Jewish relations working group (not the USCCB as a whole) to retract a document that made a clearly heretical claim. Further, that was only brought up by me in the first place as a counterpoint to illustrated that the Vatican did actually step in when actual heresy was put forth to counter your claim that I was effectively saying that the USCCB’s confusing language about the DP constituted heresy (something I never actually did) and laughing at the straw man you created by pointing out that if it was heresy the Vatican would have intervened (but, again, I never said it was heresy, that was your straw man argument).