Question about the death penalty

[estesbob]

What is your take on the discussion over the majority of this thread as to whether the Church actually has the ability to make such an assessment (particularly in light of the actual risks still present made clear over the past few years) and whether the rate at which capital punishment is assessed already qualifies as “rare”.

49 executions in a country of 300 million would seem to indicate they are rare. i believe that even one is too many but one can hardly claim executions are common in this country.

 

[SoCalRC]

What is your take on the discussion over the majority of this thread as to whether the Church actually has the ability to make such an assessment (particularly in light of the actual risks still present made clear over the past few years) and whether the rate at which capital punishment is assessed already qualifies as “rare”.

I’m not sure why this is so confusing to so many. When the Church assigns moral authority, it does so expressly. For example, CCC 2309 includes the phrase “the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to…” So we know, for certain conditions of war, who, ultimately, must decide.

Similiarly, CCC 2278 contains the phrase “[t]he decisions should be made by…” so, again, when it comes to deciding what qualifies as “over zealous” treatment and death with human and Christian dignity in end of life situations, we know who ultimately should make the decision.

But CCC 2267, while leaving open the theological possibility of a licid use of the death penalty, closes with a paragraph that starts “Today, in fact…” and closes with a Papal assessment.

You keep insisting that there is a deference to Civil Authority, but the question remains, where? In other instances of moral decision making, the Church makes it clear, not just in the Catachism, but in Doctrinal Notes. In this case the Church makes no assignment. It presents the Pope as the best moral assessment. This is wholly the Pope’s right. In fact, to question the Pope’s authority on such a matter is expressly prohibited by Dogmatic Constitution:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

We can create a smokescreen of lousy math (300 Million vs. 49 makes no sense, since executions are highly concentrated), but it is moot. There appears to be no quote from the Church assigning case by case decision making on morality to anyone other than the Vicar of Christ.

 

[goofyjim]

I will always vote prolife. This means against abortion but when given the opportunity it will tag on against the death penalty and I will continue to work to have the death penalty overturned.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It presents the Pope as the best moral assessment. This is wholly the Pope’s right. In fact, to question the Pope’s authority on such a matter is expressly prohibited by Dogmatic Constitution:

But you know full well that I’m referring to the technical assessment he made, not the moral one, so what exactly is your point here? (That is, aside from trying to intentionally maintain a sense of confusion about the distinction by repeatedly suggesting those who are blowing away your smokescreen are in disobedience of some sort.)

 

[pnewton]

rather than list the names here, I’ll post a link
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

I still stand by what I said. These people were not exonerated, or proven innocent. They had charges dismissed, acquitted or pardoned. Some were even released on their first appeal. That is how the system works. I am not suggesting at all that they should not have been released, just that they still might have been guilty, if unproveable, or guilty of a lesser charge.

 

[SoCalRC]

But you know full well that I’m referring to the technical assessment he made, not the moral one, so what exactly is your point here? (That is, aside from trying to intentionally maintain a sense of confusion about the distinction by repeatedly suggesting those who are blowing away your smokescreen are in disobedience of some sort.)

No, I know only that you proposed “as taught by…” the Church.

Where is the teaching distinguishing ‘technical’ form ‘moral’? That is another invetion.

The question becomes “specific application”. Again, let’s look at the Catechism:

usccb.org/catechism/general/q&a.htm

As noted, it is “universal Catechism”, whose principle audience is the Bishops themselves. The Bishops, in turn, can develop region specific Catechisms. In this case, it would be the UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS. The text has been given “recognitio”, that is, approved by both the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Clergy.

Checking the index on the Death Penalty will lead to two references. The death penaly in the context of Church teaching the the specific subject, and the death penalty in reference to our obligations to the “Life and Dignity of the Human Person”.

The first reference indicates that, while Church teaching permits the possibility of the death penalty, the application in the US is not valid. It cites Pope John Paul II’s homily in St. Louis from 1999 for direct, Papal assessment. The second reference singles out use of the death penalty in the US as something that specifically threatens “the value of human life”.

It is not my place to judge people who disagree with the Church. But I do insist that they stop pretending that it is proper Catholicism to do so. You stated that the Church teaches that it is up to civil authority. However, as we have seen, the Church clear states when it delegates final moral judgement. The Universal Catechism makes no such delegation, it states Rome’s assessment as “fact”. Further, the official interpretation of the teaching as it specifically pertains to US Catholics says that, as applied in the US, it is not only illicit, but a detriment to the Faith.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I still stand by what I said. These people were not exonerated, or proven innocent. They had charges dismissed, acquitted or pardoned. Some were even released on their first appeal. That is how the system works. I am not suggesting at all that they should not have been released, just that they still might have been guilty, if unproveable, or guilty of a lesser charge.

Actually guilty is not the same as having commited a crime. That is fundemental law. Guilty means convicted by a jury, even if done incorrectly. In the same manner people commit crimes without being convicted so they are not guilty.

Let us look at one
117. Laurence Adams Massachusetts Conviction: 1974, Charges Dismissed: 2004
Laurence Adams left a Massachusetts prison 30 years after his conviction for the 1972 robbery and murder of a transit worker in Boston. Superior Court Judge Robert Milligan overturned Adams’ conviction in 2004 because police had withheld important evidence. The District Attorney recommended that Adams be released on his own recognizance. (Boston Globe, May 20, 2004). Charges against Adams were formally dropped on June 7, 2004. (New York Times, June 8, 2004). Adams had been convicted at age 19 on the testimony of two witnesses, both of whom had unrelated charges against them dropped after their testimony. The government’s key witness testified that Adams had admitted to the offense in a discussion in a private home, but subsequently discovered records indicated that the witness was actually incarcerated at the time that he alleged the conversation took place. The witness was in fact incarcerated with one of a pair of brothers who were suspects in the case. The second witness recanted her testimony against Adams just prior to her death. The court-appointed attorney for Adams was also representing one of the two brothers at the same time he was representing Adams. (Boston Globe, May 21, 2004). Adams was originally sentenced to death in 1974, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, after declaring the state’s death penalty statute unconstitutional. Adams had always maintained his innocence. He earned a bachelor’s degree in Sociology while in prison.** Adams’ appellate attorney, J. J. Barter, said “it’s not a matter of him being there but not being culpable. He wasn’t there**.” (Boston Globe, April 30, 2004).

Yes, that is how the system works

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Where is the teaching distinguishing ‘technical’ form ‘moral’? That is another invetion.

Presuming that a teaching that specifically limited itself to moral issues must now extend to scientific/technical is the invention. We have repeatedly asked for someone, anyone, to provide a citation to a Church teaching making that extension. All we get is that we are in disobedience if we do not simply cede a claim that you consistently refuse to back up, with just a bit of patronizing backpedaling when you realize you’ve yet again taken the accusations of disobedience to a level you cannot substantiate and get called on it.

 

[pnewton]

Actually guilty is not the same as having commited a crime. That is fundemental law. Guilty means convicted by a jury, even if done incorrectly. In the same manner people commit crimes without being convicted so they are not guilty.

I stand corrected. I was using the term “guilty” in an objective sense and that was confusing. Acquittal is only a “not guilty”. It is not indicative of innocence. That migh be a better way of saying it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

Where is the teaching distinguishing ‘technical’ form ‘moral’? That is another invetion…

Presuming that a teaching that specifically limited itself to moral issues must now extend to scientific/technical is the invention. We have repeatedly asked for someone, anyone, to provide a citation to a Church teaching making that extension. All we get is that we are in disobedience if we do not simply cede a claim that you consistently refuse to back up, with just a bit of patronizing backpedaling when you realize you’ve yet again taken the accusations of disobedience to a level you cannot substantiate and get called on it.

Do not worry he has spoken to others this way, and yes it will get worse. You will be accused of calling him names, or lying to him soon. It seems to be a pattern

 

[pnewton]

No, I know only that you proposed “as taught by…” the Church.

Where is the teaching distinguishing ‘technical’ form ‘moral’? That is another invetion.

usccb.org/catechism/general/q&a.htm

No. It is in the Catechism.

I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching** Catholic doctrine**.”

It is a sure norm on matters of faith. I have no idea where you get the phrase “official interpretation of the teaching” but there is no such animal. The Catechism is the official teaching and it allows for rare application of the death penalty, as did Evangelium Vitae years later. This has never been changed.

 

[SoCalRC]

Presuming that a teaching that specifically limited itself to moral issues must now extend to scientific/technical is the invention. We have repeatedly asked for someone, anyone, to provide a citation to a Church teaching making that extension. All we get is that we are in disobedience if we do not simply cede a claim that you consistently refuse to back up, with just a bit of patronizing backpedaling when you realize you’ve yet again taken the accusations of disobedience to a level you cannot substantiate and get called on it.

What do you expect? The ‘disobedience stuff’ is what makes your position wholly un-Catholic. You are asserting that the Church has no authority to make moral assessments of real word situations. At some point you claim a mythical line between morals and “scientfic/technical” is crossed.

Where is the teaching that establishes the existance of such a line? Does the fact that neurons do not form until the 26th week of pregnancy mean that from conception to 26 weeks abortion is an issue outside the Church’s jurisdiction? A subject for science, not faith?

If you are, in fact, a practicing Catholic, then you refute your own argument every Sunday when you recite the Nicene Creed. “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…” The Catechism devotes a large section to explaining what that means.

If you sincerely believe that the Catholic faith has no jurisdiction in certain aspects of your life - that is, reserved for science, not the Vicar of Christ, then you really should consider reading said section.

Why on earth anyone who is a proponent of the death penalty would want to even bring up the spectre of science and technology is a myster to me. The Church is currently tolerant of dissent on the issue, with our current Pope declaring, when Prefect, that, in-of-itself, disagreement does not render you unfit for Holy Communion. But secular science is a little harsher. The preponderance of research available strongly suggests that the death penalty is expensive and counter productive.

Again, disagreeing with the Church is one thing. But constraining the authority of the Vicar of Christ over the proper application of Doctrine for all the faithful? What part of the Dogmatic Constitution don’t you understand?

 

[pnewton]

Again, disagreeing with the Church is one thing. But constraining the authority of the Vicar of Christ over the proper application of Doctrine for all the faithful? What part of the Dogmatic Constitution don’t you understand?

You have your own opinion. I will stick with the catechism and allow for a rare application, if the criteria are met as outlined there.

 

[TOME]

Ray_Scheel, Ender and Pnewton,
Here is why I disagree with your position and the reasoning you have provided for your position.

First, implied in your arguments is a fundamental error concerning morality, namely, the “Good” is not something ontological thus objective rather the “Good” is something that can only be known if it can somehow be measured.

I refer to your constant claim about the papal teaching is faulty because they lack the technological expertise to make moral statements in this matter. So it is technology that becomes the moral yardstick.

Second, your position reflects the current understanding that morality based on “Legal Posivitism” that is if it is legal it is moral.
In another post, I alluded to how this goes against the tradition teachings of the Church. The Church has always teach the law is based on moral principle not the other way around because the law (any law) must be based on principle that are objective.

You might argue that you have been quoting Church Doctrine so objective moral principles are implied and reflected in these doctrines and therefore are self evident in their application. If this is you position I would disagree with you because of how you have restricted the application of these basic moral principles and the Church Doctrines applying these principles. If you have not stated your position as explicitly as, "The Doctrines of the Church give us the Right, then we have the duty to exercise this right ( we being those who have the technological knowledge). Again this reduces the moral principles to subjective principles based on what the law, i.e.Church doctrine, allows according to the teachings of technical experts (experts of a singular limited field field, in this case those involved in the field of ‘Corrections’ ", you have come close to it.

Have any of you considered that your perspective is actually to limited to your immediate experience and because your position is based on your limited experience (that is just to what you have to face everyday - Please Here I am NOT trying to degrade the signifiance of this experience) and given your limitations and given the broader experience and studies and duties as the pastors of the Universal Church, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken with greater authority and expertise? And in Evangelium Vitae this greater understanding of what actually will produce the “Common Good” is reflected in what the Pope presented? In effect I contend that it is the popes who are the real experts on this matter and we are the ones with limited knowledge because we are too caught up in the immediate of our own limited life experience.

You may consider what I am about to write as a personal attack but it is not it is a serious challenge for you and all of us to reflect on our postition. Does what we hold reflect the application of Moral Principles based on the dignity and sacredness of each human person especially seen in light of the Paschal Sacrifice or does our position reflect a political agenda or a solution to a moral challenge that is rooted in the utilitarian principle that the best way to eliminate an inconvience it to get rid of it even if it means the destruction of a human life?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

refer to your constant claim about the papal teaching is faulty because they lack the technological expertise to make moral statements in this matter. So it is technology that becomes the moral yardstick.

On this, I’ll restate example I first made in post 230:

Do you think that the pope’s moral authority would apply if he were to declare that existing adult-only (not umbilical, amniotic, or placental) stem cell techniques were sufficient to cure all diseases to which stem cell techniques might apply?

Note that I’m not touching the moral issue here surrounding embryonic lines, I’m simply saying that just one of the morally allowable means had already hit a certain technical point of capability.

Next, with that claim as a basis, would something to the effect of “Therefore, development of additional lines from amniotic lines should be done very rarely” (that is, referring to yet another allowable method) have moral weight by virtue that a pope said it? Or is the very obviously prudential judgment that conclusion is tied to suggest that the conclusion is probably so very poorly conceived as to be nearly impossible to apply to the current situation in practice?

Second, your position reflects the current understanding that morality based on “Legal Posivitism” that is if it is legal it is moral.
In another post, I alluded to how this goes against the tradition teachings of the Church. The Church has always teach the law is based on moral principle not the other way around because the law (any law) must be based on principle that are objective.

The Church teaching about natural law seems rather clear that the exercise of the death penalty (under parameters that are outside of its scope to substantially modify beyond increasing precision) is the sole prerogative of the state. One of the continuing themes in this thread has been a complete lack of the Church actually making a formal change to either the basic legality or inherent morality of a state making individual determinations to assess capital punishment; there has been a shift at more abstract levels. Keep in mind that I agree that there need to be some changes made to ensure equitable sentencing.

You may consider what I am about to write as a personal attack but it is not it is a serious challenge for you and all of us to reflect on our postition. Does what we hold reflect the application of Moral Principles based on the dignity and sacredness of each human person especially seen in light of the Paschal Sacrifice or does our position reflect a political agenda or a solution to a moral challenge that is rooted in the utilitarian principle that the best way to eliminate an inconvience it to get rid of it even if it means the destruction of a human life?

Actually, I’ve figured out that you mean well, at least, I’m not seeing regularly you say people said things they clearly have not. Perhaps still not quite getting the gist of what’s been stated so far as far as the back-story, but that I can attribute for the most part to some of the the intentional issue-clouding that comes up too often.

Catechism of the Council of Trent states in the Fifth Commandment section:The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.The longstanding position of the Church appears to be that the judicious exercise of capital punishment by civil authority was in fact an act of obedience to the commandment to preserve and secure human life by repressing outrage and violence.

 

[SoCalRC]

You have your own opinion. I will stick with the catechism and allow for a rare application, if the criteria are met as outlined there.

You mean, you’ll stick with one entry from the Catachism, minus the last paragraph… The Pope’s authority, and the proper roles for the laity and the college are laid out in the Catechism as well.

And, in case you are confused - it is not just my opinion. I’ve already pointed you to the Church’s, spelled out by the proper local Church authority with the express blessing of Rome. If it were just my opinion, you’d have a point. But, in Catholicism, not all opinions about proper application of Church doctrine are equal.

 

[pnewton]

You mean, you’ll stick with one entry from the Catachism, minus the last paragraph… The Pope’s authority, and the proper roles for the laity and the college are laid out in the Catechism as well.

And, in case you are confused - it is not just my opinion.

I am not confused and I know others share your opinion. It still doesn’t make it Church teaching. You have laid nothing our except a vague claim. I know the role of the Pope. I have read Evangelium Vitae now twice. Some reference to a papal homily is irrelevant. Also I know the role of local Church authorities, which does not expand to defining faith in morals, by the way. If so, those bishops which disagree with the USCCB would be able to promote the death penalty in their diocese. After all, the USCCB has no canonical authority and the local bishop does.

To use your words, this is not just my opinion, either. Either you can accept that a good Catholic may disagree with you on this, or you can’t. If the first, then we must disagree and you are welcome to point out where I may have erred over this thread. If the latter, then I know all I need.

 

[TMC]

I agree that the Church allows for moral application of the death penalty under certain circumstances, and that there is at least some room for opinions and disagreement on when those circumstances are met. But the Church teaches what it teaches. Ther are three consistent contrary arguments here that make no sense to me. Condensed into a basic form, here is my understanding of the three arguments and why I think they in error.

1. The Church has said it has no authority in this area, this is up to the State. This is the Pontius Pilate argument, and its a meaningless argument for two reasons. First, the Church has been telling the State what it should do since around 400. At times it has had the power to to tell the State what to do, at other times just to suggest what it should do. The Church has never simply washed its hands of this issue and said that the State can kill whoever it wants. Second, even if the Church used to wash its hands of this, it doesn’t anymore. Why does the Church need a special pronouncement to give itself permission to speak on this issue?
2. The Church doesn’t have the scientific or technical expertise to make this determination. This is really an odd argument. If scientific or technical expertise is a requirement, a lot of stuff is going out the window beginning with HV. The Church has never felt it needed to know the science to find the moral. Even if it did, why isn’t the Church equally capable of educating itself in this area as in other areas.
3. The catechism is not a sure teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and need not be believed to be in full communion with the Church’s teaching. This has been refuted ad nauseum. The bottom line is that if individual Catholics are lead by their conscience to dissent from a sure teaching, that is a serious decision, and one they may feel compelled to make, but they are dissenting. Otherwise there is no Faith; any Catholic can decide on his own which parts of the catechism are not really teachings.

These are the three arguments I see, none make sense to me. If you disagree with the Church on this doctrine, you disagree. Why is that so hard to admit?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

1. The Church doesn’t have the scientific or technical expertise to make this determination. This is really an odd argument. If scientific or technical expertise is a requirement, a lot of stuff is going out the window beginning with HV.

Ahh, the old slippery slope appeal. Never mind that it is not even the first time in this particular thread that someone has used this particular one…

The Church has never felt it needed to know the science to find the moral. Even if it did, why isn’t the Church equally capable of educating itself in this area as in other areas.

Since you’ve hit on the topic while keeping blinders on to something I put up last night on this particular point, I’ll make it a direct question: Do you think that the pope’s moral authority would apply if he were to declare that existing adult-only (not umbilical, amniotic, or placental) stem cell techniques were sufficient to cure all diseases to which stem cell techniques might apply?

 

[SoCalRC]

I am not confused and I know others share your opinion. It still doesn’t make it Church teaching. You have laid nothing our except a vague claim. I know the role of the Pope. I have read Evangelium Vitae now twice. Some reference to a papal homily is irrelevant. Also I know the role of local Church authorities, which does not expand to defining faith in morals, by the way. If so, those bishops which disagree with the USCCB would be able to promote the death penalty in their diocese. After all, the USCCB has no canonical authority and the local bishop does.

I think you are, again, confused. The USCCB may have prepared the CATECHISM FOR ADULTS, but Rome approved it. It is, according to Rome, a proper reflection of Church teaching for the Faithful in the US. The two signatures on the declaration at the beginning “make it Church teaching”.

In other words, I don’t say the Homily is relevant and the USCCB does not say the Homily is relevant - the Romand Catholic Church says that the Homily is relevant. Further, there has been no change in teaching with a change in the papacy, for example:

clevelandcatholiccharities.org/prolife/Articles/initiatives.pdf

As far canonical authority, no one disputes a Bishop’s Holy Obligations to his flock. However, again returning to the Catechism, Bishops are not ‘Vicars of the Pope’, their authority exists solely by virtue of the Pope, the one Vicar of Christ.

That said, who are some of these Bishops? I’d be interested in at least hearing what they have to say. Usually, self-described ‘conservative Catholics’, like J. Bottum quote each other. It was Bottum, by the way, not me, who framed the debate as a question that will ultimately come down to “how much we need to listen to the pope.”