Question about the death penalty

[TOME]

Bj,
Is not the exercise of the DP by the State done for the “Common Good”? Does exercise of the DP involved the taking or preservation of human life? Please define what you mean by a Moral Act. I believe I did a while back when I wrote we judge an act to be good if it leads to the perfection of the human person (and by extention we can add the State).

 

[bjmiller100753]

You’re angry, but why?.

If you want to use it more frequently, with perhaps pay for view executions to pay down massive national debut (which has nearly doubled in the last seven years), again, so be it.

If anyone is angry, I think everyone can see who it is by the absolutely ridiculous inference you make above.

And nothing that you said in the rest of your post is any different than what I said the first time which was not said angrily, but as an observation. "It is clear that you are against the DP. It is clear that you believe that everyone should be against the DP. And it is equally clear that you will not listen to any point of view about the DP that is not in agreement with yours. Of course you try to say this is not your opinion, you are merely echoing the opinion of the Church. Again, another Catch 22. “I’m right because I believe my opinion of what the Church is teaching is correct. You’re wrong because you don’t believe my opinion of what the Church is teaching.”

Even those who agree with you in that the DP should never be used have admitted, albeit very reluctantly, that the Church does allow the use of the DP although such circumstances should be rare if almost non-existent. Are they too guilty of “challenging the Apostolic nature of the Church and potentially putting other lay Catholics in moral peril.” Clearly we ALL have a lot to learn from you but need to be imbued with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that you have obviously been granted and the rest of us have not. (The preceding wink and a smile was to make sure you did not mistakenly suspect me of anger again. I’m actually a very happy fellow!)

 

[TOME]

Bj,
Is not the exercise of the DP by the State done for the “Common Good”? Does exercise of the DP involved the taking or preservation of human life? Please define what you mean by a Moral Act. I believe I did a while back when I wrote we judge an act to be good if it leads to the perfection of the human person (and by extention we can add the State).

I think your question illumens the basis of our disagreement. A real difference lies in our definition of Morality or a moral act. This has been an objective of mine, namely, that we all begin to clarify
our “Starting Points”.

But again please define a “Moral Act” or morality in general?

 

[bjmiller100753]

I think your question illumens the basis of our disagreement. A real difference lies in our definition of Morality or a moral act. This has been an objective of mine, namely, that we all begin to clarify our “Starting Points”.

But again please define a “Moral Act” or morality in general?

I will do as you ask although I will probably not be able to get to this until tomorrow. I have to admit to being confused at your request since I have already stated I don’t believe the exercise of the DP is either moral or immoral. IMO, it does not have to be one or the other; it can be neither. So from my perspective, my definition of morality in general is moot to this discussion. It may be central for you and I respect that but for me, at least in regards to my belief about the DP, it is a moot point.

 

[SoCalRC]

Clearly we ALL have a lot to learn from you but need to be imbued with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that you have obviously been granted and the rest of us have not.

In case you missed it, pnewton just posted that what I have asserted about the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church is correct. Should I expect you to start writing similiar responses to him now? Or are your agruments strictly ones of convenience?

His assertion is apparently that the death penalty does not apply because it is not an issue of faith or morals. The implication would then be that the Pope, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation of the Clergy, and a large number of Bishops have all exceeded/abused their authority.

Do you agree with him? That is, do you believe that the Magesterium is not bestowed the Gift of Authority or guided by the Holy Spirit?

I’m glad you used an emoticon. How would I know you were joking otherwise? Twice you have asserted that you can look into my heart and mind and see my real intentions (as opposed to my stated ones). What a convenient gift for you. How do you reconcile it with next Sunday’s reading?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t argue that we have to agree. I simply argue that we should stop pretending that the Church’s position on the matter is not clear. Rationalizing a position contrary to the Pope using better-interpretation-of-doctrine-than-the-Pope theology might feel good, but, in of itself, it is a grievous sin, since it challenges the Apostolic nature of the Church and potentially puts other lay Catholics in moral peril.

The reason we even have a Catechism is so we don’t have to go down an infinite hall of mirrors of your interpretation of the pope’s interpretation of the Church’s teaching. No one is pretending anything, nor or we “grieviously sinning”. No one is challenging the apostolc nature of the Church you are still arguing in circles.

 

[bjmiller100753]

How do you reconcile it with next Sunday’s reading?

Without having had a chance to read it yet, I’m going to have to guess that I’m going straight to hell.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Why has there been a consistant failure to discuss this question from the Moral and Scriptural Principles which are at the basis of the Church’s teaching as presented in Evangelium Vitae? If the exercise of the DP can a moral act, what are the moral principles each of us apply in our conscious decision as Catholics and Americans which form the basis of our judgements?

I am not seeing a failure to include what is taught in EV along with the rest, but rather that we’ve really never been that far from an uneasy consensus on the points EV addressed most directly. Rather, it has been beaten to death several times over, and I know I’ve been wondering for a long time as to why there is such a single minded intent to limit the discussion to the parts that have been popular in the last ~25 years when there is over 2500 years of Church teaching to draw from. When the Church has consistently taught that exercising the death penalty to avenge crime or to repress outrage are legitimate reasons for the state to utilize it, that cannot be disregarded in order to presume that those reasons have been revoked simply though their relative lack of mention in a train of thought in a later teaching document, especially one that focused on placing a finer point on a separate reason it could legitimately be exercised.

 

[pnewton]

His assertion is apparently that the death penalty does not apply because it is not an issue of faith or morals. The implication would then be that the Pope, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation of the Clergy, and a large number of Bishops have all exceeded/abused their authority.

The first part is correct, the second is not. Just like when the Holy Father made remarks about a specific war, it does not change Church doctrine, nor is anything binding on the faithful other than the moral teaching. That is the difference between a pope and a king.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have cited the comments of Avery Cardinal Dulles where he explicitly states that this section is prudential and the statements of the USCCB where their comments only make sense if this is true.

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
these statements are interpreted out of context, a read of each document is rather clear

I provided an extensive quote from Dulles’ letter including the two sentences where he wrote that this was a prudential judgment. Stating that I have taken his comments out of context is insufficient: how about explaining what you think he meant when he wrote

** “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.”**

What is rather clear to me is that he meant exactly what he wrote - the Pope exercised his prudential judgment.

Ender

For the love of Pete! Ender, what was his next sentence?
why, why. why must you chop, chop, and chop out important content? Just actually quote the man in context and address the problem you have with doing that.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m not sure I can recall anyone in this thread saying exercising the DP can be a “moral” act. I’ve heard a number of people say that in limited instances, under very stringent conditions, the DP can be applied without it being an immoral act. I don’t believe it has to be one or the other. For myself, I would call the exercise of the DP an amoral act. Neither good nor bad, just necessary in those rare instances that fall within strict guidelines.

Actually the Church has called upon civil authorities to use the death penalty calling it a “duty”, and that was also discussed in this thread. But again it was to protect the innocent - a theme throughout all Church teachings on the subject. However some refuse to believe this as they use an isolated comment to rebuke the actual Church teaching. They do this to claim the Church backs their position.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

To those of you among the DP (near-)abolitionists who keep resorting to making ridiculous flat-out false accusations about what your opponents have said in lieu of answering direct questions or responding to the obvious points actually made: Thank you. By doing so you seem to have managed to alienate every single neutral poster who has popped up in these threads and stuck around, despite your well choreographed efforts to disrupt any actual discussion of the possibility of reasonable applications of capital punishment in Catholic teaching as a whole, even in today’s world.

 

[pnewton]

I had a new thought that I think sheds light on the traditional stand on the death penalty. Throughour most of Church history, the need for the state to execute people in the name of justice is in teaching of the time. Now I have wondered why the sudden change. I believe I have my answer, and of course, nothing has changed but emphasis and I have been a little slow on the uptake.

In the first milleneium and through the 19th century, life was so cheap that executions was used broadly. Even in the US, we had a saying about hanging horse thieves. Obviously, since the penitentary system as we know it today did not exist, there needed to be an emphasis on justice to keep the overuse of the death penalty in check. Only grave crimes called for such a grave punishment. Minor crimes needed to be met, justly, with lesser punishment.

Today, the reverse is true. Only the most serious crimes qualify for the death penalty. Therefore, the need to show mercy and not execute someone, even for a grave crime if another alternative exists that safeguards society. The fact that justice is served is a given today. We do not execute thieves.

Together, we have two criteria that must be met. Justice must be balanced (use DP only for a serious crime) and safety (use only as a last resort).

In a situation where justice is met, but not safety, then execution does not help safeguard anyone. A case for this would be the Houston woman who murdered her children. Even looking beyond her mental state, she could be safely housed in prison for life.

Where the need for safety arises, yet justice is not met, then society would be doing evil so that good may come. I could give you names of several that I have known that it is predictable that they are a danger to society, yet who have not yet taken a life. They can’t be killed on the whim of my opinion, of course, until they do kill (and are convicted). The best we can do is put them in prison for as long as possible, and if they commit murder inside prison, go from there.

The point is that both elements must ber present and for me it helps me understand the Church’s shift over the last couple of decades.

 

[SoCalRC]

The first part is correct, the second is not. Just like when the Holy Father made remarks about a specific war, it does not change Church doctrine, nor is anything binding on the faithful other than the moral teaching. That is the difference between a pope and a king.

Actually, I’m glad you brought up Just War. The Catechism notes that the final moral judgement on the criteria in 2309 are up to proper authority, with a reference to the defintion. It could be argued, as more than 1100 historians did in 2002, that the criteria was not met, since Congress did not make a declaration of war, but the Church still defers.

In the case of refusing medical treatment, again, the CCC points out that the final determination should be made by the patient or the patient’s designee.

In the case of the death penalty, the Church did not designate civil authority. In fact, Cardinal Dulles notes that such a dispensation was removed and papal authority substituted.

Again, if you could explain where, say, child labor practices fit into your nifty distinction between morals and not morals, I could perhaps follow your reasoning. If Catholicism is boiled down to the assumption of Mary and abortion, it becomes utterly incoherent (or so says the Church in the 2002 Doctrinal Note regarding the Participation of Catholics in Public Life).

So far, the only distinction between morals and faith and ‘practical concerns’ appears to be ‘what Ray and I say…’ Hardly a testable standard.

 

[SoCalRC]

Today, the reverse is true. Only the most serious crimes qualify for the death penalty. Therefore, the need to show mercy and not execute someone, even for a grave crime if another alternative exists that safeguards society. The fact that justice is served is a given today. We do not execute thieves.

First, put it in a broader historical context. For the first millenia, the Church battled against infanticide. Killing or discarding unwanted newborns was far more prevelant among the gentiles of the ancient world than abortion. The Church still struggles with small pockets of this today (in South American there are still pockets that ritualistically bury deformed new borns alive).

By the 12th century or so, a stigma had at least started to take root. But still, abandonment remained a problem for several centures more. The Church battled this by offering mechanisms for anonymous abandonment (sort of a ‘lazy susan’ device at Church supported orphanages.

Similarly, it took us 1800 years to finally acknowledge the problem of slavery. 1900 years to make our ban on abortion absolute. 2000 years to question the death penalty.

From about 1869 forward, the Church has been pushing for a unified understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person. Multiple Popes laid groundwork, then it was reviewed and validated by the Second Vatican Council. This paved the groundwork for works like Evangelium Vitae. The teaching that we treasure each life as a unique creation of God, at “any stage” and in “any state” makes our absolute ban on abortion and euthanasia understandable.

But, if the belief is truly held, then the death penalty must only be used in the face of extraordinary societal risks. There is no evidence that the presence (or absense) of the penalty has a meaningful impact on societal risk. On the other hand, we do know that the penalty is neither even handed, or infallibly applied. So, you have cases of innocent (at least of their accused crimes) and defenseless people being put to death. This is wholly contrary to the point of the teaching.

The biggest flaw I see in this discussion is the seeming assumption that the death penalty can be considered in isolation. It isn’t isolated. We are either each a unique creation of God, infinitately loved, or not. Spiritual judgement is either God’s providence, or it is not. And we either value life at all stages and in any state, or not.

Do some horrible people deserve to die? Almost certainly. Whoever approved the use of white phosphor as a weapon in urban combat would make my list. But we aren’t going to kill all the ‘bad’ people, unless we want to be Nazi Germany or Stalin’s ‘utopia’. So we are going to have dangerous people incarcerated. With that in mind, or the data available comparing us to other nations, state to state, or even different periods, it is hard to see that the death penalty is desired for anything other than simple ‘vengence’. And an ‘eye for an eye’ is one of the few items from the Jewish Bible that Christ directly challenges in the New Testament.

Again, I understand people will disagree. My intensity is that I happen to think that our current pope is also correct about the perils of moral relativism. In the US we frequently show disdain for our ordinary, and only marginal deference for the Pope.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So far, the only distinction between morals and faith and ‘practical concerns’ appears to be ‘what Ray and I say…’ Hardly a testable standard.

You do realize that pnewton was just reaching out again right? And that instead of trying to engage civiliy you yet again stepped immediately into speaking from your parallel dimension where you apparently think that ignoring sources and examples makes it true to say that the people who have repeatedly provided them have not. And where are your references that are not either to yourself or exclusive to the pontificate of JP II in exclusion of Leviticus through the 1950s, anyway? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any, do you? Tsk, tsk…

 

[pnewton]

You do realize that pnewton was just reaching out again right?

You notice I didn’t respond. I know there are plenty others that understant the “dia” part of dialogue, that might have thoughts beyond the old “I’m right; you’re wrong.” line. I was specifically addressing those like myself that have always wondered at the Church’s change in teaching.

 

[pnewton]

I think what puts me off is the attitude that anyone who disagrees is disobeying the pope and the church, which of course is ridiculous. Once I realized that I was dealing with someone who considered his position the only one allowed by the Church, I realized that there was no further point in continuintg. However, I found a couple of good links:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6304&highlight=death+penalty

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10808

Yeah, I think I’ll reject the judgementalism when it is offered thus.

 

[SoCalRC]

You do realize that pnewton was just reaching out again right? And that instead of trying to engage civiliy you yet again stepped immediately into speaking from your parallel dimension where you apparently think that ignoring sources and examples makes it true to say that the people who have repeatedly provided them have not. And where are your references that are not either to yourself or exclusive to the pontificate of JP II in exclusion of Leviticus through the 1950s, anyway? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any, do you? Tsk, tsk…

I asked for him, yet again, to explain how the distinction is drawn. When and how does a subject fall out of the Pope’s authority?

Once again, instead of answering, I get declarations about my lack of reality and supposed Pharisee like behavior.

What sources? What examples? In regards to the effectiveness or societal benefits, annecdotes or even specific incidents do not a case make. Where is the evidence that we are any safer than the vast majority of other industrialized nations?

If we are not safer, anywhere but in your mind, how can the Church’s conditions for the death penalty be met?

As far as theological sources, I see quote fragments and articles from the laity. On the other hand, we’ve seen that the Church expects you to leave yourself open to acceptance even while you disagree…

 

[SoCalRC]

Yeah, I think I’ll reject the judgementalism when it is offered thus.

Who needs, say, the Dogmatic Constitution when you have like minded individuals telling you what you want to hear?

One thing I find troubling about such articles is, like the Cardinal Dulless quote we saw earlier, there seems to be a constant insistance to take a small fragment, stretch it, and ignore the original context.

Case in point, “Jimmy”'s use of a quote from a letter from the Cardinal Ratzinger to the Bishops. By omitting the two paragraphs that proceed and the paragraph that follows, we are left with the impression not only that the death penalty is not on par with two teachings deemed infallible, but that disagreeing is no big deal. But, in the context of the actual letter, the Cardinal was using four teachings that his audience (the Bishops) take very seriously, ie, even among our most important teachings, not all are equal.

The letter only indicates that disagreement, in of itself, does not render a specific group of individuals (see the letter) unworthy for communion. More specifically, it indicates that it does not merit the label of ‘grievous public sin’, the basis for a priest or bishop to refuse Communion to someone. The whole point of the letter seems to have been to address disagreement among the bishops regarding the legitimacy of Cardinal Burke’s interpretation of the Catechism regarding secular voting and grievous public sin.

But, someone, the statement that disagreement on the death penalty does not render a Church member unfit for communion, or require that a priest withhold communion, has been reversed. Not being subject to a very narrow, seldom applied punishment is construed as being a Church teaching permitting disagreement.

Even if one insists that such a out-of-context stretch is valid, two things are worth remembering. First, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church specifically states that we are not to disagree. Second, at the time, Ratzinger was a Cardinal, not the Pope. Having written Evangelium Vitae and approved the Catechism, there is little doubt where John Paul II, the then undisputed leader of the Magesterium, stood.