Question about the death penalty

[TOME]

Ender,
First, thank you for the list you provided me and I am going to take the liberty to say you provided this list for all to read.

I hope you realize that although my hope is to pursuade all, or maybe some or maybe just one, as I wrote earlier this has become a secondary goal. I think it is more important that we, as Catholics, know the what and the why of all current teachings of the Church. This is the reason for my insistence (although, at times, annoying to some if not all) that in this discussion we all take time to actually read such Documents as Evangelium Vitae in their entirity. And I now include in my appeal the documents who kindly provided as well.

I would like to add a couple other points about what I hope all will read. The first is about a catechism, as I wrote earlier all catechisms are references and hopefully having read an answer we will all take the time to look behind the answer and study an answer more fully. This goes not for this particular topic but any topic one of us might be persuing.

My second point is again I preceive a danger in the habit on relying on a specific statement alone, even from a list of documents such as you provided, when formulating an opinion - again I think to proceed this way could cause someone to miss the fullness of what is being taught or in rare occasions missing the teaching altogether having lifted a sentence out of context.

As for Evangelium Vitae, I hope I did an adequate enough job of communicating my desire to address what I though was the basis theme of this encyclical through the questions I have been proposing, namely, given the times we live the exercise of the right of the State is not, as you put it - better than I have been putting it - prudent.

Perhaps going back to the whole question of the DP, maybe I should have stated my question in a different way, that is, I do not deny the States rights to exercise the DP, but is this right without limitations? And if there are limitations, what are the moral principles each of us believe to be the guiding norms of the State to exercise this right. And do our personal norms reflect traditional Catholic moral principles?

Now as I am writing this I hear this little voice saying to me I am changing tactics again. Subjectively I don’t think I am doing this but because of this little voice maybe objectively I am. Either way, as I stated earlier I know that even with a change in tactics I am still using a means that has little or no hope for success if my goal is primarily to change opinion. My primary goal remains to get of us to clarify her or his opinion by clearly identifying the moral principles which have formed the basis of our choice of conscience.

 

[TOME]

Ender,
I would like to respond to your post where you draw the comparison between the Supreme Court and the Law and the Church and the Moral Law.

Accidentally they may seem the same, however, ontologically, they are totally different. Again, the Church is the sacramental presence of Chist on earth, through her, God speaks and we find the fullness of Divine Revelation. The US Supreme Count does not have the guarentee of the Holy Spirit to guide it. I could go on but this could lead this discussion of ecclesiology which would probably be best addressed in another thread.

 

[AndyF]

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?

Right!

You could tell them the truth which would make matters worse. Tell them they are in a state of mortal sin has they desire them to die. (implication by desire). Therefore they knowingly sever themselves from their end, and require absolution. Being protestant isn’t an excuse, it is a fault, as they are deliberately out of the fold of the Church.

Even if they don’t believe you, then you cast enough doubt for them to take the responsibility and duty to study Dogma to determine if it is true, all the harder to accept when a person as adopted false doctrine. If they ignore that then they further sin.

Actually, all those citizens who know dogma states that it is a mortal sin have also severed themselves, and that is a lot of people. And with this electronic age of communication, it is hard to see any of them being saved who haven’t deliberately received the Word and rejected it. Sadly, the very Dogma they reject also has the solution to their problem.

AndyF

 

[pnewton]

Right!

You could tell them the truth which would make matters worse. Tell them they are in a state of mortal sin has they desire them to die. (implication by desire). Therefore they knowingly sever themselves from their end, and require absolution. Being protestant isn’t an excuse, it is a fault, as they are deliberately out of the fold of the Church.

Where in the world do you get that people who are pro-death penalty are in the state of mortal sin. That’s baloney.

 

[AndyF]

pnewton:

Ref: Newadvent/Sin

A sin of omission,however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with it’s fulfillment.

One’s position then is that he adopt such a resolve in favor of the offender for the purpose of protecting him from the sin of others.

The sin meets a formal class, because those who are charged have freely transgressed the law as shown him by his conscience, or by the lay of the Church, or by the Church herself. The Church and her body form the consciousness of the world, and it is their duty to inform and teach the nations.
They have been taught, sandals need to be shaken at this point.

It is the internal class desiderium, as it is the desire for what is sinful.

The source capital vice is found in the decalogue: Thou shalt not kill. They are classed mortal in the three prerequisites, they had the knowledge, they have the free will to desire the law be enacted, and it is a grave matter.

AndyF

 

[bjmiller100753]

pnewton:

Ref: Newadvent/Sin

A sin of omission,however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with it’s fulfillment.

One’s position then is that he adopt such a resolve in favor of the offender for the purpose of protecting him from the sin of others.

The sin meets a formal class, because those who are charged have freely transgressed the law as shown him by his conscience, or by the lay of the Church, or by the Church herself. The Church and her body form the consciousness of the world, and it is their duty to inform and teach the nations.
They have been taught, sandals need to be shaken at this point.

It is the internal class desiderium, as it is the desire for what is sinful.

The source capital vice is found in the decalogue: Thou shalt not kill. They are classed mortal in the three prerequisites, they had the knowledge, they have the free will to desire the law be enacted, and it is a grave matter.

AndyF

Andy,

You’ll have to forgive me for having a tough time understanding exactly what it is you’re trying to say here but could you please tell me how what you wrote above relates to the following passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "2266 - Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalty commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." Yet according to you, belief in the death penalty is a mortal sin. Are the writers of the CCC guilty of a mortal sin here and are all Catholics who accept this passage of the CCC in mortal sin as well???

B. J.

 

[pnewton]

The source capital vice is found in the decalogue: Thou shalt not kill.

This does not, never has, never will refer to all taking of life. The very God who dictated these words also gave a death penalty in the same law. The Church does not base its opposition to the death penalty on this commandment and, in fact, had its own death penalty statutes.

 

[TOME]

AndyF,
So far during this discussion my position and those of Pnewton and others have been on the opposite side of this debate. However, here I am in general agreement with his response. As I have written, contemporary Church teaching does not deny or reject the State’s fundamental right to exercise the Death Penalty. And from this I have implied, although I may not have stated this a clearly as some would like or as maybe I should have, that to hold a view different from what has been expressed by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae and through the Catechism of the Catholic Church automatically is a cause of excommunication or is a Mortal Sin.

Actually, the views expressed by Pnewton and all others are vitally important in the life of the Church. Vatican II called on all the faithfull to full participation in the life of the Church. Our participation must be rooted in our mature faith which means if we are to give our consent to the teachings of the Church this consent must come from the act of our intellect and will not from blind obedience. Also, on questions such as this, the Church, has in effect said what is demanded is a choice based on a well conscience. A conscience informed on first the moral principles that can be perceived through the Natural Law and second, and more importantly, the Moral Principles revealed to us through Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church as taught by the Authentic and Ordinary Ministry of the Magisterium. This is why I wrote above that what has been expressed so far is a vital, it has been a diologue of Catholics seeking understanding. I think if it not wrong then it is unwise to introduce a concept of mortal sin when clearly what has been expressed, as far as I can see, has not been in contrdiction of any Church teachings.

The question has been the Church acknowledges the right of the State to exercised the Death Penalty, as Catholic Americans this presents us with a political question which, according to Church Teachings, must be settled by the political process (this comes from the priciple of subsidiarity). So the debate boils down to based on the moral principles of our Catholic Faith what is the best way to exercise this right with the goal of promoting the true common good.

 

[Ender]

I would like to respond to your post where you draw the comparison between the Supreme Court and the Law and the Church and the Moral Law.

This was an analogy; I was not equating the two. The point of the analogy - and the point where the Supreme Court and the Church are the same - is that both are called to explain the laws that exist, not to create new laws. Neither the Church nor SCOTUS may decide what the laws should say, they may only explain what the laws do say.

The Church no more has the authority to decide that the death penalty should be immoral than the Supreme Court has to decide it should be illegal. This goes to the point that SpiritMeadow made about the authority of the Pope.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My second point is again I preceive a danger in the habit on relying on a specific statement alone, even from a list of documents such as you provided, when formulating an opinion - again I think to proceed this way could cause someone to miss the fullness of what is being taught or in rare occasions missing the teaching altogether having lifted a sentence out of context.

I accept that individual sentences and even paragraphs can be misunderstood and taken out of context, but I do not accept that an entire document must be studied before specific points contained within it can be understood. I am prepared to give the exact reference so others can read and judge for themselves whether my citations are misunderstood or out of context but I cannot accept that specific claims in one part of a document can be discounted because someone finds it inconsistent with his overall interpretation of the document. Individual citations would be meaningless with that degree of subjectivity.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

This is an academic exercise only:

I said I would give my opinion on what it would take to house high risk, violent, homicidal inmates for life. Realize that I know this proposal could never be allowed in our current society as we lack the resolve to do anything perceived as cruel and too few understand the real problems with long term housing. Just consider that this is a mental exercise to develop an capital punishment alternative.

First, I would have each one housed in a one man cell. The nature of a sociopathic individual means that their definition of society must be revised. I would not allow communication between inmates. This would be tricky, because it would mean that silence would have to be enforced strictly. The only way to do this to some or even most of this type of inmate would be to forcibly gag anyone who talked for as long as it took for the inmate to realize that we would not allow them to talk to each other. As a precaution, I would rotate inmates from cell to cell to slow down any building of a code.

Perhaps the harshest thing to some of you, but what I consider essential, is that I would not allow any more communication with the outside. Not by mail, phone or in person. This would include family. I saw a video from a visitation area where a hidden camera was placed where a gang member used hand language to communicate with his mother during a visit. They would talk about normal family life while he was signaling who he needed killed. The mother took the information and agreed to pass it on. The point is that any communication is a conduit that can be used to organize with other inmates or retaliate against others. I would likewise not allow any visits of any kind. The only humans they would interact with from a certain point on would be their guards.

I would allow no privileges whatsoever. The state would provide shelter and food, even decent food, but nothing more. No writing materials would be allowed inside. Outside media would only be what the institution provided. Basically, what I am advocating is that, as an alternative to death, we let the family and friends make their farewells, then we warehouse them until their natural death.

While some items might be debatable, the basic opinion I am offering is that this level of severity is what it would take to make a reasonable effort to safely house some people for life.

 

[bjmiller100753]

This is an academic exercise only:

I said I would give my opinion on what it would take to house high risk, violent, homicidal inmates for life. Realize that I know this proposal could never be allowed in our current society as we lack the resolve to do anything perceived as cruel and too few understand the real problems with long term housing. Just consider that this is a mental exercise to develop an capital punishment alternative.

First, I would have each one housed in a one man cell. The nature of a sociopathic individual means that their definition of society must be revised. I would not allow communication between inmates. This would be tricky, because it would mean that silence would have to be enforced strictly. The only way to do this to some or even most of this type of inmate would be to forcibly gag anyone who talked for as long as it took for the inmate to realize that we would not allow them to talk to each other. As a precaution, I would rotate inmates from cell to cell to slow down any building of a code.

Perhaps the harshest thing to some of you, but what I consider essential, is that I would not allow any more communication with the outside. Not by mail, phone or in person. This would include family. I saw a video from a visitation area where a hidden camera was placed where a gang member used hand language to communicate with his mother during a visit. They would talk about normal family life while he was signaling who he needed killed. The mother took the information and agreed to pass it on. The point is that any communication is a conduit that can be used to organize with other inmates or retaliate against others. I would likewise not allow any visits of any kind. The only humans they would interact with from a certain point on would be their guards.

I would allow no privileges whatsoever. The state would provide shelter and food, even decent food, but nothing more. No writing materials would be allowed inside. Outside media would only be what the institution provided. Basically, what I am advocating is that, as an alternative to death, we let the family and friends make their farewells, then we warehouse them until their natural death.

While some items might be debatable, the basic opinion I am offering is that this level of severity is what it would take to make a reasonable effort to safely house some people for life.

Well written! The only thing I would add is that there must be absolutely ZERO chance of parole. The Charles Manson parole hearings are a travesty of the justice system and a mockery to those families who had relatives slaughtered by Manson and his cohorts. If this came to pass, then and only then, could I in good conscience come out against the death penalty.

 

[TOME]

Ender,
I read your responses and I have to admit that my initial reaction to both post (#s 288 and 289) were I had a fundamental disagrement with them, but I could not say why.

But after some thought I think I can articulate why I disagree.

I would like to address post 289 first. Part of where we difffer I see is in our methodology. I think it is important to read a document, such as an encyclical, first. After an initial reading then begin to analyze the document the best I can by studying the footnotes and other reference materials, as best and as practically possible, and read what others have written about it. It is also helpful to have atleast some knowledge of philosophy - especially Thomistic Philosophy because of the historical influence St Thomas’ philosophical system has had on Church teaching (which is why your reference to Don Scotus caught my eye) and then begin to make some judgements.

Also, part of my disagreement to the approach you suggest is I find it to be too close to what Catholics criticize protestant of doing in their approach to scripture.

I want to comment on your post 288 but I just do not have the time right this minute - the dog needs to be walked.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is an academic exercise only:…

Wow
This reminds me of a warden from the main Oklahoma prison (speaking in the early '80), he was explaining his job had many, many perks because there was so much excess labor available so no cooking, cleaning, yard work, etc.etc all done by murders, no thieves need apply. He explained most murders were normal people who made a limited amount of bad decisions. Thieves were untrustworthy, once a thief always a thief. The plan mentioned seems improper to me

Well written!.. The Charles Manson parole hearings are a travesty of the justice system and a mockery to those families who had relatives slaughtered by Manson and his cohorts…

I think there are problems here. Suppose a drunk driver kills the only child of couple who spent 2 decades and thousands trying to have children. He sits beside a man who killed is 87 year old Dad who suffered from debilitating illnesses. So if the family is base of the inmate’s treatment what are the proper punishments?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have never understood why the rural states as Utah, Kansas do not build massive prison systems, extremely isolated and rent out the service to the dense populated state. It would seem this would help many aspects. Escape would be harder because the isolated location plus the need to move thousands of miles once outside the walls. Second allow no privacy the law states many things are privileged speech and cannot be used against you in court, however that is different than requiring privacy.

 

[bjmiller100753]

I think there are problems here. Suppose a drunk driver kills the only child of couple who spent 2 decades and thousands trying to have children. He sits beside a man who killed is 87 year old Dad who suffered from debilitating illnesses. So if the family is base of the inmate’s treatment what are the proper punishments?

I’m honestly not sure what it is you are trying to say here, so if I answer something you weren’t intending to say, forgive my misunderstanding. Ender’s “intellectual exercise” is for inmates who would otherwise be eligible for the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty is only applied to those persons guilty of 1st Degree Murder. I don’t think either of the cases you cite above would be tried under 1st degree murder; thus neither of those people would wind up in Ender’s “theoretical prison.”

 

[bjmiller100753]

I’m honestly not sure what it is you are trying to say here, so if I answer something you weren’t intending to say, forgive my misunderstanding. Ender’s “intellectual exercise” is for inmates who would otherwise be eligible for the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty is only applied to those persons guilty of 1st Degree Murder. I don’t think either of the cases you cite above would be tried under 1st degree murder; thus neither of those people would wind up in Ender’s “theoretical prison.”

Please substitute “pnewton” for “Ender” in the above post.

 

[AndyF]

bjmiller:

Sorry for the confusion.

In the case where the incarcerated is no longer a threat to society, (CC2267) society as a rule still abides by the old testament law of an eye for an eye, and we know this no longer true.

So we see here the offender is now in need of protection by those who wish to abide by Christ’s law, and that includes everyone on this planet. The protection comes in the form of voicing and actions to the electorate and civil bodies ones disagreement that the offender is to be executed.(If he tried to escape or injured someone then that makes a new case.)

Those who oppose it, have failed to realize this because of the compounding sin of obstinately that remaining outside of our Institution of Truth, the Church effects. If they would accept Her, they would know it is an error. So we can see their claim is based on ignorance they brought on to themselves by remaining out of the fold.

The discernment of what is common good also suffers and makes it more prone to error by the same collective obstinacy. The existence of common good, that is to those fallible that it applies to(man), also assumes the potential for common evil, and we have seen the horrors of this. So in a sense we are seeing full circle the effects of society distancing itself from the Church(God), and the initial stage is rejection of God’s moral laws that would be the foundation common civil law.

Brief:

CC1918 "There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1).

CC1919 Every human community needs an authority in order to endure and develop.

CC1920 "The political community and public authority are based on human nature and therefore . . . belong to an order established by God" (GS 74 § 3).

CC1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. **To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means. **

If this doesn’t clarify, let me know

AndyF

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m honestly not sure what it is you are trying to say here, so if I answer something you weren’t intending to say, forgive my misunderstanding. Ender’s “intellectual exercise” is for inmates who would otherwise be eligible for the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty is only applied to those persons guilty of 1st Degree Murder. I don’t think either of the cases you cite above would be tried under 1st degree murder; thus neither of those people would wind up in Ender’s “theoretical prison.”

Please substitute “pnewton” for “Ender” in the above post.

Lets try this, what is the correct punishment for

1. a drunk driver kills the only child of couple who spent 2 decades and thousands trying to have children.
2. a man who killed is 87 year old Dad who suffered from debilitating illnesses.

and what is the minimum crime to qualify for pnewton’s theoretical prison?

 

[bjmiller100753]

Lets try this, what is the correct punishment for

1. a drunk driver kills the only child of couple who spent 2 decades and thousands trying to have children.
2. a man who killed is 87 year old Dad who suffered from debilitating illnesses.

and what is the minimum crime to qualify for pnewton’s theoretical prison?

1. I don’t know.
2. I don’t know.

The minimum and only crime to qualify for pnewton’s theoretical prison is conviction of first degree murder; that is someone who is sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole or someone sentenced to death.