Support the Death Penalty?

[SoCalRC]

The point I’ve been making pretty much since this thread started is that the teaching in the catechism on the death penalty does not constitute a doctrinal statement but is a prudential judgment of JPII’s. It therefore is not a “Church teaching” and agreement with it is not required.

I hope you are miss speaking. We are talking about a Papal encyclical which is now cited i the Catechism of the Church. There is little doubt that Pope John Paul II was writing in his capacity of undisputed leader of the Church. So, by definition, it is a “Church Teaching”. To deny this is a grievous matter:

“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

Anathema used to carry a sentence of death. However, the Church concluded that was contrary to the teachings of Christ. Now it means a step beyond excommunication. Excommunication means being seperated from the society of the faithful. Anathema means being seperated from the Body of Christ.

One could argue that this particular Church teaching is ‘prudential’, or ‘contingent’. But this does not mean that it is ‘optional’. Note the following document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Not only does it indicate that some prudential teachings are not optional, it gives us some guidance on how to tell which ones that is:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

“[O]ne can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

Since we are talking about a Papal encyclical, second only to an Apostolic Constitution in gravity, appearance in the Catechism, and terms like “very rare” or “practically non-existant”, the “mind and will manifested” appears significant.

We can see this reiterated, and a response to those who claim that the Church has exceeded its authority with this teaching, in “Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian” (vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html)

"*n order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.*" (emphasis added)

Because we are an apostolic Church, with the Gift of Authority, we are called upon to obey.

 

[Amolibri]

Thank you, my friends, for the opportunity to share this, and reading it.

National Weekend for Faith in Action on the Death Penalty, October 19-21

The National Weekend of Faith in Action on the Death Penalty (NWFA) is an opportunity for faith communities, interfaith groups, human rights activists, and others to examine the death penalty from a faith- based or values-based perspective. In our survey of Pax Christi USA local groups from a few years back, the death penalty was the issue that the largest number of groups was working on

.
A prayer to Abolish the Death Penalty
By Helen Prejean, CSJ (for those who don’t know, Sr. Helen is the author of Dead Man Walking)

God of Compassion,
You let your rain fall on the just and the unjust.
Expand and deepen our hearts
so that we may love as You love,
even those among us
who have caused the greatest pain by taking life.
For there is in our land a great cry for vengeance
as we fill up death rows and kill the killers
in the name of justice, in the name of peace.
Jesus, our brother,
You suffered execuation at the hands of the state
But you did not let hatred overcome you.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

There is little doubt that Pope John Paul II was writing in his capacity of undisputed leader of the Church. So, by definition, it is a “Church Teaching”. To deny this is a grievous matter:

The* Code of Canon Law *provides that “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such” (CIC 749 § 3). This claim of yours, that prudential judgments are binding and protected by the papal gift, contradicts the limits placed on papal infallibility. You have been advised of this repeatedly, and yet your claims to that effect have grown stronger and stronger,

From CA’s “Papal Infallibility” Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

A pope is incapable of solemnly defining the capabilities of “current” prison technology. Supposing he could to that, he still would not have the authority to effectively demand that the States exclude particular types of threats where lives of innocents were at stake. Even if he could do both of those things with authority, he would also be incapable of solemnly defining that technology had been implemented in the manner your premise requires - but this is the first spot where he at least had the authority to make a prudential judgment that might be rash to disobey, provided that the premises of the judgment .

One could argue that this particular Church teaching is ‘prudential’, or ‘contingent’. But this does not mean that it is ‘optional’. Note the following document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Not only does it indicate that some prudential teachings are not optional, it gives us some guidance on how to tell which ones that is:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

The only reference to “prudential” in this document referred strictly to making doctrinal determinations. You are still striking out on finding sources obliging anyone to consent to a papal analysis of scientific capability or effectiveness of existing infrastructure outside of the realm of faith and morals.

Because we are an apostolic Church, with the Gift of Authority, we are called upon to obey.

The “Gift of Authority” is limited, and emphasized by the Church’s own infallible declaration in Vatican I, to matters of faith and morals. That gift cannot be presumed to be extended to matters of science or determining the internal capabilities of State institution.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The biggest obstacle to a discussion of the Death Penalty, as it is to the discussion of Just War, is the continued misstatement of Catholic Teaching by the opponents of these actions. As long as they continue to insist that these are intrinsically evil and absolutely forbidden by the Church there is nothing to discuss.

 

[SoCalRC]

The* Code of Canon Law *provides that “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such” (CIC 749 § 3). This claim of yours, that prudential judgments are binding and protected by the papal gift, contradicts the limits placed on papal infallibility. You have been advised of this repeatedly, and yet your claims to that effect have grown stronger and stronger,

As it should, once it was asserted that it isn’t even a Church Teaching, it was time to point to the Dogma of the Church. By definition, it is a teaching. Infallible? No. But to deny the Pope’s authority to teach is, as noted, anathema.

The only reference to “prudential” in this document referred strictly to making doctrinal determinations.

I knew you would latch onto that. Read the first citation again - are you, in fact, insisting that the Pope has only doctrinal authority?

You are still striking out on finding sources obliging anyone to consent to a papal analysis of scientific capability or effectiveness of existing infrastructure outside of the realm of faith and morals.

Let’s review reality. We are talking about a practice were the lives of unarmed and defenseless human beings are terminated. You profess that this is to protect innocent life on some theoretical level. We have to say theoretical because there is no evidence to suggest that our population, including prison guards and prisoners, is any safer than other industrialized nations, which have overwhelmingly rejected the death penalty.

On the flip side, we know, through scientific evidence, that even in its reformed, post 1979 state, the process itself claims some number of innocent lives.

Innocent life is the closest thing to an absolute we have in our faith. Both sides of the debate claim it is at mortal risk. The faithful are divided, but you believe that the Magesterium has no right to address the matter because it is an issue of secular science? Unlike, say, reproductive cellular research…

No wonder my final quote fell on deaf ears.

 

[SoCalRC]

The biggest obstacle to a discussion of the Death Penalty, as it is to the discussion of Just War, is the continued misstatement of Catholic Teaching by the opponents of these actions. As long as they continue to insist that these are intrinsically evil and absolutely forbidden by the Church there is nothing to discuss.

I’m sorry, but I have made no such claim. I have already noted that the teaching is not infallible and the a representative of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has already noted that rejection of the teaching, in of itself, is not a mortal matter.

However, what I do object to are several of the assertions made by death penalty proponents here. First, that the Pope’s position, from encyclical and Catechism, is not a “Church Teaching”.

Second, that any teaching that is not ‘infallible’ is automatically prudential and, hence, wholly ‘optional’…

I am Roman Catholic, I am compelled to obey. If rejecting the opinions of the Vicar of Christ becomes routine, clearly I would be rejecting the apostolic nature of the Church.

As a side note I find it interesting that you raised the issue of “Just War”. One of the most often repeated justifications for the death penalty is “self defense”. However, if we look at the origins of the Just War tradition we can see that Augustine rejected the concept of individual self defense. His interpretation of Scripture was that we are compelled to individual nonresistance to evil doers (an interpretation that I would argue is incorrect). Only on behalf of our neighbors, and under suitable authority directed by God, could we act…

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The faithful are divided, but you believe that the Magesterium has no right to address the matter because it is an issue of secular science? Unlike, say, reproductive cellular research…

Now its clear you are only reading the parts of the thread you think make for good emotional arguments or personal slights, as I went into detail on the comparisons of this to embryonic stem cell research back in post 340, a mere 15 posts ago. It is quite telling that you have once again resorted to implying I must hold a positions on related issues that recent previous statements of mine make clear I don’t, where someone working in good faith would have addressed what I had actually said…

 

[adrift]

Thank you, my friends, for the opportunity to share this, and reading it.

National Weekend for Faith in Action on the Death Penalty, October 19-21

The National Weekend of Faith in Action on the Death Penalty (NWFA) is an opportunity for faith communities, interfaith groups, human rights activists, and others to examine the death penalty from a faith- based or values-based perspective. In our survey of Pax Christi USA local groups from a few years back, the death penalty was the issue that the largest number of groups was working on

.
A prayer to Abolish the Death Penalty
By Helen Prejean, CSJ (for those who don’t know, Sr. Helen is the author of Dead Man Walking)

God of Compassion,
You let your rain fall on the just and the unjust.
Expand and deepen our hearts
so that we may love as You love,
even those among us
who have caused the greatest pain by taking life.
For there is in our land a great cry for vengeance
as we fill up death rows and kill the killers
in the name of justice, in the name of peace.
Jesus, our brother,
You suffered execuation at the hands of the state
But you did not let hatred overcome you.

She also signed an add in the NYT which partially said.

“Your government is moving to deny women here and all over the world the right to birth control and abortion.”

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Going back to some of the other points, just to wrap up

As it should, once it was asserted that it isn’t even a Church Teaching, it was time to point to the Dogma of the Church. By definition, it is a teaching. Infallible? No. But to deny the Pope’s authority to teach is, as noted, anathema.

Perhaps then you should use more care when using terminology and methods of capitalization in the manner reserved in theological discussions for aspects infallibly protected under the “Authority of the Church” when you do not mean to be asserting that. (e.g. “in his capacity of undisputed leader of the Church”, “Church Teaching”).

I knew you would latch onto that. Read the first citation again - are you, in fact, insisting that the Pope has only doctrinal authority?

As far as speaking “in his capacity as undisputed leader of the Church” so as to proclaim “Church Teaching” - yes, his authority is quite clearly limited to matters of faith and morals. The pope has no authority to oblige agreement on matters of what the capabilities of certain prison technologies are. To draw another parallel, he has no authority to oblige agreement if he declared that advancements in psychology have made civil institutionalization practically unnecessary in some modern countries, while he would have a say in declaring that unnecessary institutionalizations (or those for political / ethnic reasons) were immoral.

Let’s review reality. We are talking about a practice were the lives of unarmed and defenseless human beings are terminated. You profess that this is to protect innocent life on some theoretical level. We have to say theoretical because there is no evidence to suggest that our population, including prison guards and prisoners, is any safer than other industrialized nations, which have overwhelmingly rejected the death penalty.

Way too late to go into the who is more safe routine again considering the number of times its proponents have abandoned it without further defenses in other threads, and that is outside of the scope of this thread anyway. If you want to start a new thread restating the broad points covered by both sides recently, feel free, but I’ve participated here in that line of discussion recently enough where I consider it moot until the proponents of that position respond to what had already been presented in counter.

On the flip side, we know, through scientific evidence, that even in its reformed, post 1979 state, the process itself claims some number of innocent lives.

As has been the case with the exercise of capital punishment through all of history. The history of the attitude of the Church has been quite consistent in only requiring that the States use just means for determining when they consider it necessary, not perfection in making a determination of guilt. The phrase coming to mind here is “Hard cases make bad law”.

 

[SoCalRC]

The pope has no authority to oblige agreement on matters of what the capabilities of certain prison technologies are.

The Pope is expressing guidance on the application of moral principles. As the Church has noted, only with the passage of time will we sometimes know which teachings are necessary, and which are contingent:

"in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule."

That is why supposed to, in general, obey. It is a pretty basic concept, at least when one agrees with the Church. It only seems to get complicated when we believe our principles are correct and the Church’s are not.

And that is what we are talking about here. The way I see it, all this talk about the infintesimal changes in risk over the fate of a few hundred prisoners is just chaf. There is no evidence to support any risk benefits to society from the practice, and we fare worse in areas like prison violence and repeat violent offenses than multiple countries that forego the penalty.

If you believe that JPII, who was clearly of a pacifistic bent, was wrong and bad people clearly should be put to death, fine. Just say so. Why get caught up like we have here arguing that a Pope, speaking as a Pope, is not disseminating a Church Teaching? Or that Church doctrine requires nothing but adherence to infallible teachings… Even your favorite, that the Pope is not authorized to render an opinion on conflicting moral demands in a specific real world situation, just seems to errode Church authority on other issues of real concern in the 21st century.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The Pope is expressing guidance on the application of moral principles. As the Church has noted, only with the passage of time will we sometimes know which teachings are necessary, and which are contingent:

Despite your frequent personal smears suggesting I object to the pope’s conclusion on the morality of exercising the death penalty when the premises he states are met, I have consistently indicated agreement with the idea that unnecessary executions should be avoided. As far as the strictly moral principles, I agree, always have, so this isn’t a point of dispute between us.

Moving on from that and to be quite frank, JP II never claimed to have the authority to declare the prerequisite science and implementation accomplished essentially by papal fiat, that claim has been made solely by others who are simultaneously insisting on interpreting his statements without applying the rest of the teaching of the Church in the process, and that is what I have most strenuously disagreed with.

If you believe that JPII, who was clearly of a pacifistic bent, was wrong and bad people clearly should be put to death, fine. Just say so.

There is no logical equivocation between the dozen different ways I’ve stated that the Pope does not have the Authority to declare scientific fact by fiat with your suggestion of what my position is as stated above. I’ve objected to your false portrayals of my position repeatedly only for you to simply suggest I must believe something else I’d already made clear I didn’t, all without apology or justification on your part for the repeated personal slights, and in the process you have exhausted all attempts to assign charitable motives to your reasons for doing so. Can you demonstrate that you are capable of discussing this without misrepresenting my position as your primary mode of response?

 

[Ender]

There is little doubt that Pope John Paul II was writing in his capacity of undisputed leader of the Church. So, by definition, it is a “Church Teaching”. To deny this is a grievous matter:

Do you not understand that I am not presenting this as my personal opinion? I have been quoting our current pope and the USCCB. How grievous can my error be if I accept what the pope has said?

One could argue that this particular Church teaching is ‘prudential’, or ‘contingent’. But this does not mean that it is ‘optional’. Note the following document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Not only does it indicate that some prudential teachings are not optional, it gives us some guidance on how to tell which ones that is

You don’t understand what they are discussing: the distinction they make is between infallible and ordinary teaching, not between ordinary and prudential.

Since we are talking about a Papal encyclical, second only to an Apostolic Constitution in gravity, appearance in the Catechism, and terms like “very rare” or “practically non-existant”, the “mind and will manifested” appears significant.

And do you suppose that the pope and USCCB were not aware of all this? Argue with them, not with me.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have already noted that the teaching is not infallible and the a representative of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has already noted that rejection of the teaching, in of itself, is not a mortal matter.

More specifically, the “representative” you speak of above is now pope BXVI and what he said was not just that rejection is not a mortal matter, what he said was that rejection is not sinful. Now if we have no obligation to obey the teaching it can only be because it is merely prudential.

However, what I do object to are several of the assertions made by death penalty proponents here. First, that the Pope’s position, from encyclical and Catechism, is not a “Church Teaching”.

There are two possibilities here: you have already conceded that we have no obligation to accept this teaching so either it is not a Church teaching or we have no obligation to obey all Church teachings. Which is it?

Second, that any teaching that is not ‘infallible’ is automatically prudential and, hence, wholly ‘optional’…

Again, you don’t recognize the actual distinctions the Church makes: there are three categories, not just the two you cited. A teaching is either infallible, ordinary, or prudential. Most fall in the ordinary category and even though they are not infallible we still have an obligation to accept them.

I am Roman Catholic, I am compelled to obey. If rejecting the opinions of the Vicar of Christ becomes routine, clearly I would be rejecting the apostolic nature of the Church.

I too am a Roman Catholic and I understand what we are bound to accept and that does not include anyone’s opinion, even a pope’s.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

More specifically, the “representative” you speak of above is now pope BXVI and what he said was not just that rejection is not a mortal matter, what he said was that rejection is not sinful. Now if we have no obligation to obey the teaching it can only be because it is merely prudential.

Not quite. First of all, the letter was addressed to the Bishops, not to the laity. Second, the emphasis was that infallible teachings are not negotiable (read in full it seems more of a precursor to “Sacramentum Caritatis” than anything else). Third, notice that he did not say that both points of view are correct.

Remember, this is the same Pope that made an address on the “Dictatorship of Relativism”. If he felt that the Church’s current teaching was in error, he would presumably rectify it. Especially since he just took the step of reasserting the principle of Primacy.

If it is not clear, I am not judging you as a Catholic. I actually understand how someone could strongly feel that the death penalty is appropriate. Where I am objecting are to things like ‘such and such is not a teaching’, ‘prudential teachings are wholly optional’, and ‘the Pope (ie, the Magesterium) has no business in specific moral issues of the day…’

I really do believe that once we delve into those areas it weakens the Church’s position in other areas.

 

[freesoulhope]

outside of the realm of faith and morals.
.

You keep saying this, and it seems to be the root of your arguement.

The killing of anybody, is a matter of faith and morals, since there is a very small window, which is reliant on the socail condition of society, that merits such an act.

You seem to keep impliying that the Pope knows nothing about the technology implemented in puting somebody to death; but this is irrelivant. The point of the matter is that the death penalty is obviously unessesary in this day and age. It seems to me that the death penalty is more likely a way of saving money rather then giving a just-penalty for a crime; revenge, being another motivation, only adds to the morden barbarity of the death penalty.

What is “Just” and “humane” in allowing watching galleries to see somebody put to death like a defective animal, when such a person could be rehibilitatted or kept away from the community?

Jesus said revenge is mine.

Your right that somebody looses there right to live when they take life, but the death penalty is not allways, and is very rarely, a just recompense. What happened to the mercy of God? When we do not have mercy, we sin, therefore we do wrong. We all deserve Eternal death, but God gave his life through his Son Jesus Christ, so that we may live. I think your all missing the point that is being given in the Popes Statements.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You keep saying this, and it seems to be the root of your arguement.

The killing of anybody, is a matter of faith and morals, since there is a very small window, which is reliant on the socail condition of society, that merits such an act.

I HAVE NEVER EVER STATED THAT KILLING SOMEONE IS NOT A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS. Go re-read and get back to me when you quit equivocating the pope’s authority to speak on matters of faith and morals with an authority to declare that science has accomplished a certain ability by fiat over the objections of the people working in the field about what the current technological capability is…

You seem to keep impliying that the Pope knows nothing about the technology implemented in puting somebody to death; but this is irrelivant.

?!?This, in and of itself, shows you are not paying attention at all to what anyone in this thread has been saying, since the “technology implemented in puting somebody to death” hasn’t been raised aside from a couple of very early academic points on what was currently “on the books” as point of fact. It is the technology capability and practical availability of means to store certain types of criminals that has been the object of discussion for at least 200 posts now…

The point of the matter is that the death penalty is obviously unessesary in this day and age.

I note you have chosen to simply ignore the various real life cases that have been pointed out in this and other recent threads where simply keeping certain offenders locked up is not enough to protect the guards and/or society while still complying with various judicial mandates and the Church’s own teaching about the humane treatment of prisoners. An argument that includes arbitrarily writing off so many counterpoints doesn’t gain any more credibility through simple repetition, no matter how much you want to believe it…

What is “Just” and “humane” in allowing watching galleries to see somebody put to death like a defective animal, when such a person could be rehibilitatted or kept away from the community?

I don’t like the gallery viewings either, but that kind of flaw in the technical handling of an execution has nothing to do with whether the decision to utilize capital punishment was just… Again, I note you have chosen to simply ignore the cases previously raised where simply keeping a person away from the community is insufficient to protect society in current prisons. What do you do propose should be done with people like the Texas 7 once they have managed to escape from one of the maximum security prisons (and kill again) that we can infer JP II was talking about as being good enough to make capital punishment unnecessary?

Your right that somebody looses there right to live when they take life

You’d get taken a lot more seriously if you quit mixing and matching who you were replying to as if they were one person. I know that I’ve never said anything like that during this thread.

but the death penalty is not allways, and is very rarely, a just recompense.

I’ve been talking about cases where it is still necessary to protect society, not justifications for using it in a spirit of vengeance. If you see someone pushing vengance as their primary argument, feel free to take them on about that, but as far as I can tell we don’t have a disagreement on this particualr point, so I’d appreciate it if you’d quit suggesting we do as your

 

[SoCalRC]

I HAVE NEVER EVER STATED THAT KILLING SOMEONE IS NOT A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS. Go re-read and get back to me when you quit equivocating the pope’s authority to speak on matters of faith and morals with an authority to declare that science has accomplished a certain ability by fiat over the objections of the people working in the field about what the current technological capability is…

I’m sorry to say that I’ve been interpretting your comments the same way. And you’ve already expressed that you are feeling attacked.

I’m not sure why you want to put the emphasis on science. The preponderance of evidence would suggest that the death penalty does not act as a deterant, costs society more, and has no measureable impact on risk. This was essentialy noted in the Supreme Court decision reinstating it. Many proponents have given up on such arguments and focus, instead, on the sentence as a matter of principle.

Of course, you can find individuals working in specific fields with strong opinions, but closeness seldom brings objectivity.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’m sorry to say that I’ve been interpretting your comments the same way. And you’ve already expressed that you are feeling attacked.

I’d been very much starting to feel that more weight was being given to what others where saying I had said (or what they wanted to hear me to say) rather than what I have consistently been saying myself. Outside of yelling it, I’d run out of ways to stop the cycle.

I’m not sure why you want to put the emphasis on science.

~ Because the statements JP II made about the capability of modern prisons presumed a technological capacity had been reached and implemented that some easy to locate real-life events of a concurrent time frame illustrate as being factually flawed, and several other very plausible what-ifs have been presented that might actually cause a “modern” state more trouble than a less developed one. If I could believe the premises, I’d have no trouble with the conclusion, but I’m quite certain there is no moral obligation to assent in obedience to what will always be a prudential judgment when I am aware of factual flaws in the premise stated in order to justify the conclusion.

Of course, you can find individuals working in specific fields with strong opinions, but closeness seldom brings objectivity.

Objectivity can’t be found in ignorance either (be it accidental or intentional). It is significant that the only response from the hierarchy to the objections raised by those pointing out the flaws in the premise have been assurances that the opinion of JP II on this issue was prudential / non-binding. His frequent visits to a minimum security prison for psychiatric patients (visiting his would-be assassin) just does not compare to what goes on in a maximum security facility and might actually have lead to a false sense about the ability of current prisons to accomplish the sense of security he presumes can be found in all of them. Making the presumption that Italian prison populations behave similarly to ones here (since my conversations with counterparts in other states indicate they have the same issues we do with different populations), a psych unit feels like a boy scout summer camp compared to the maximum security facilities; the only similarities between them are that there are fences, the guards wear the same uniforms, and the inmates wear white. I’ve never smelled tear gas in s psych unit, or even a “regular” minimum security facility, but I catch a whiff about once every two weeks when going into the main portion of the facility my office is just outside of…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’d been very much starting to feel that more weight was being given to what others where saying I had said (or what they wanted to hear me to say) rather than what I have consistently been saying myself. Outside of yelling it, I’d run out of ways to stop the cycle.

~ Because the statements JP II made about the capability of modern prisons presumed a technological capacity had been reached and implemented that some easy to locate real-life events of a concurrent time frame illustrate as being factually flawed, and several other very plausible what-ifs have been presented that might actually cause a “modern” state more trouble than a less developed one. If I could believe the premises, I’d have no trouble with the conclusion, but I’m quite certain there is no moral obligation to assent in obedience to what will always be a prudential judgment when I am aware of factual flaws in the premise stated in order to justify the conclusion.

Objectivity can’t be found in ignorance either (be it accidental or intentional). It is significant that the only response from the hierarchy to the objections raised by those pointing out the flaws in the premise have been assurances that the opinion of JP II on this issue was prudential / non-binding. His frequent visits to a minimum security prison for psychiatric patients (visiting his would-be assassin) just does not compare to what goes on in a maximum security facility and might actually have lead to a false sense about the ability of current prisons to accomplish the sense of security he presumes can be found in all of them. Making the presumption that Italian prison populations behave similarly to ones here (since my conversations with counterparts in other states indicate they have the same issues we do with different populations), a psych unit feels like a boy scout summer camp compared to the maximum security facilities; the only similarities between them are that there are fences, the guards wear the same uniforms, and the inmates wear white. I’ve never smelled tear gas in s psych unit, or even a “regular” minimum security facility, but I catch a whiff about once every two weeks when going into the main portion of the facility my office is just outside of…

Of course you could simply post some statistics about the high rate of deaths among American prison guards. It is not that a guard may someday be killed. It is whether a guard is in imminent danger, always was. Otherwise you could type nasty comments about other posters

 

[Ender]

Where I am objecting are to things like ‘such and such is not a teaching’, ‘prudential teachings are wholly optional’, and 'the Pope (ie, the Magesterium) has no business in specific moral issues of the day…

Prudential teachings *are *wholly optional. The quote below is from a FirstThings article by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus that was specifically about prudential judgment.

“But the main question at hand is prudential judgment as it relates to episcopal competence and responsibility. … Although both wisdom and prudence are highly desirable in a bishop, neither is guaranteed by the “charism” of episcopal office. At the ordination of a bishop, we pray that he may be endowed with such graces, but it is no article of faith that such prayer is demonstrably answered.”

This next section goes directly to the point Ray Scheel has been making: the understanding and management of prisons is outside the competence of popes and bishops.

“And, of course, the sex abuse crisis that broke open in January 2002 took its toll on the bishops’ credibility and self-confidence in issuing pronunciamentos on subjects beyond their self-evident competence. Catholics and others adopted a large and understandable measure of skepticism about what bishops had to say. If they had so gravely bungled the tasks that are unquestionably theirs—to teach, sanctify, and govern—why should people pay attention to what they say about matters beyond their ostensible competence?”

There is no guarantee of correctness when the clergy speaks on matters other than faith and morals and except in specific instances not even then.

Ender