Test the validity of your prolife position on capital punishment

[jim_orr]

All who are not afraid to face the truth concerning the belief they hold, and advocate, about the “prolife” issue of Capital Punishment have the rare opportunity to challenge that belief as to its correctness in light of Church teaching. Click on the news story below and read. Afterwards, please post your comments on what you learned from the article that you didn’t realize before and how that has affected your view of the “prolifeness” of the continuation of Capital Punishment. Also, does the article raise a question in your mind as to the US bishops’ teaching on the issue?

article

 

[BrianDay]

Hi jim,

You know that we agree from our experience on the Kresta boards. I am not sure you are going to get any takers in apologetics as most think of this topic in terms of politics.

Just for the record - it is perfectly consistent in being pro-life by being against abortion and for the death penalty.

 

[fulloftruth]

I did not understand how the article was related to pro-life / death penalty. The way the church teaches it, that a government must always protect innocent life, and that if that gov’t deems it necessary to protect innocent life by taking the life of a guilty man, than that gov’t may do so. Since God is the final judge the only thing that the death penalty does is send the person put to death to the ultimate judge and to his final resting place. Since everyone has an immortal soul the state is saying “your crime is so haneous, we are not fit to judge you, or punish you, God is. Nothing we can do can even the scales so we will send you to meet him.” If they are innocent, then they will recieve a martyrs reward in heaven. On that day they will be in paradise, assuming they die in a state of grace. If they are guilty and un-repentant, then they will recieve eternal death, rightly so. In this country, anyone on death row has ample opportunity to die in a state of grace, that is, without mortal sin on thier soul. It takes years to carry out a death sentence. Either way, innocent or guilty, the persons judgement is just sped up.

 

[elgom]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Holy Father has said that the death penalty is permissible by any government in order to defend it’s citizens. If it is determined that even strict jail with these people continues to put others in mortal danger then our govenment has the option to protect others with the death penalty.

I am a prolife person, and I am against the death penalty because we can usually protect others with the prison system, but I am understanding that it is still allowed and a Catholic can be prolife and still be for the death penalty in extreme circumstances.

 

[Treasures]

During the Jubilee Year I started praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet and found the whole Mercy message and devotion with the message of “trust in Jesus” to be such a wonderful comfort. It was at this time that I truly internalized that it is not a good thing to ask for mercy …unless you are willing to extend it.Capital punishment is something a government can order. Supporting the death penalty in not the same as supporting abortion which is always considered a “grave matter” However, mercy requires us to extend mercy. What could anyone ever do that Jesus would not forgive, and if He would forgive how could I do less. That person is someone Jesus loves too. Ask any mother if her son was on death row how she would feel. I am sure the request for mercy would be there.

I am very active prolife on many many fronts. When I discuss the death penalty I usually say consider if you were the one pulling the switch or injectiong the needle…if you were the one with the final say of life or death …could you do it? Then I say you are the one who says it if you support the death penalty.

This is something personal too. My sister’s husband was shot and killed. It tragically changed her life and also my niece’s and nephew’s lives. We did not personally advocate for the death penalty although the judge did sentence it.Life imprisonment would have been sufficient justice since it would have kept him away from ever harming others. I do not know if he has been executed or if he is still imprisoned at this point. If my opinion had any sway I would answer life imprisonment with no chance for parole is fine. We should not limit the time frame God would use for a conversion and then the time the person has to do good. Even in prison a person can do God’s work and be an example to the other’s .
Your article did not change my viewpoint. Was it meant to do that? The guards should have reallized that there would be an effort for messages to be exchanged …eventually they did and I am sure were able to use the info they gleaned to capture others who would do harm. Think of the joy in heaven if any of these hardened criminals converted …there is great joy in heaven over saving a lost sinner. I wonder if ther is a personal reason you seem to want to hold up the death penalty. Perhaps someone involved in a prison ministry could be a good resource for you to explore this. I would suggest praying the Divine Mercy devotion for yourself, souls in purgatory, and also those in prison. I suggest the Divine Mercy often since it is such a help to me. (www.marian.org)
May the Lord God bless and keep you and give you peace.

 

[jim_orr]

Treasures:

Your article did not change my viewpoint. Was it meant to do that? The guards should have reallized that there would be an effort for messages to be exchanged …eventually they did and I am sure were able to use the info they gleaned to capture others who would do harm.

The qualifier in the CCC teaching on Capital Punishment is: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means…" The assumption is that modern prisons are able to do that. This report contradicts that assumption.

As for your comment on the “messaging” methods prisoners devised to communicate their criminal instructions to their contacts outside the prison, rather than you realizing from that the ingenuity that evil minds possess to do what they want, you place the responsibility on the penal system for not realizing that the prisoners would try to circumvent their security. What made you think that the penal system didn’t have in place methods to prevent that from happening? You just made the assumption that they didn’t rather than assume that there were procedures in place that the criminal minds devised ways around. The obvious point that you overlooked with your comments is that there is no full proof way to thwart ALL criminal minds from doing what they want. The solitary confined prisoners get one hour a day out of their cell alone. Their cell has a glass wall that allows them to be observed every moment they are in it. Everything entering their cell is x-rayed. Plus they eat in their cell.

You ignored the comments by the warden that these inmates have nothing but time on their hands to devise ways to defeat the system. In addition the warden said that there is little more that can be done to them because they are already serving life sentences. You ignore the startling observation by a prison supervisor that because the security is so tight around these prisoners that they have no one fear of reprisal because no enemy can get to them. In essence our guarding them protects them more from harm than it protects us. You also ignored the part of the report that tells how the prisoners get around security, legally, by sending their orders and messages in correspondence directed to their lawyers which gives them a constitutional right of privacy, so the prison cannot open that correspondence going out or coming in.

I welcome your comments but it seems that your belief system against capital punishment is not based on the teaching of the Catechism, but is a creation of your own concept of what you think “prolife” means. My question to you is: If capital punishment falls under the “prolife” heading, and the Church’s fundamental prolife teaching is adamant that innocent life should be protected from harm from the aggressor at all times, then why are you willing to continue to endanger the safety of innocent life and disregard the common good with the an artificial belief that life imprisonment can protect society from harm?

The main issue, in my opinion, is that the current teaching of the Church on Capital Punishment is based on an assumption by the bishops and Pope John Paul II that modern prisons can protect society from further aggression from convicted capital offenders.

That assumption is false and a simple reading of this report on Pelican Bay should make that obvious.

The question to persons holding a contrary view is: Is it “prolife” to allow the murder and injury of more innocent human life to continue at the hands of imprisoned capital offenders?

 

[jim_orr]

fulloftruth:
I did not understand how the article was related to pro-life / death penalty. The way the church teaches it, that a government must always protect innocent life, and that if that gov’t deems it necessary to protect innocent life by taking the life of a guilty man, than that gov’t may do so. I agree with you on what the historical teaching of the Church is on Capital Punishment. But Pope John Paul II has placed a modifier or a qualifier in that historical teaching and, also, seems to assume that that the modifier or qualifier is being met in developed countries such as the US.

The bishops are assuming the same thing and are teaching that capital punishment is no longer necessary to protect society from guilty aggressors. However, this report proves their assumptions wrong. Innocent people are being murdered, harm is being done, and the public is not being protected from such evil. Yet, the bishops and many Catholics seem to be unaware of this. Therefore, the Church’s teaching, as it is being transmitted in our country today, is, in fact, not “prolife” and is endangering society and the common good. It seems to me that it is critical error in the teaching on Capital Punishment that should be corrected.

 

[jim_orr]

elgom:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Holy Father has said that the death penalty is permissible by any government in order to defend it’s citizens.

You are correct, the Holy Father still upholds the historical teaching of the Church. However, he as placed a qualifier in the teaching and he and the US bishops are teaching under an assumption that the qualifier is being met. An objective reading of this article proves the assumption they are operating under is wrong. Therefore, it is more than misleading, it is wrong to be promoting a teaching under the “prolife” banner that, in fact, is not protecting innocent life, but endangering it further.

 

[jim_orr]

BrianDay:

I am not sure you are going to get any takers in apologetics as most think of this topic in terms of politics.

Hi Brian,

That fact that there is a political component to this issue is that much more the reason that the apologetics of it are completely and honestly developed so that ones belief can be substantiated by the truth of the teaching.

 

[Vincent]

Well then, this may be one of the “very rare” examples described in Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267), in which “the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity”.

Interestingly, if Church’s stance on the death penalty (as outlined in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are teachings of the prudential order, then as the CDF explains, a position contrary to it can be qualified as “rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest’.”

 

[jim_orr]

Vincent:

Well then, this may be one of the “very rare” examples described in Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267), in which “the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity”.

Interestingly, if Church’s stance on the death penalty (as outlined in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are teachings of the prudential order, then as the CDF explains, a position contrary to it can be qualified as “rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest’.”

A cursory reading of CDF seems to apply soley to those who are assuming an office to be exercised in the name of the Church, which may explain why all the bishops seem to be of one mind on this.

Does the article raise a question in your mind as to how the Church leadership could have come up with such a pronouncement without first doing the research?

 

[mjdonnelly]

I think the church will always fall back to the pro-life stance regarding death penalty (as being not really necessary), regardless of the evidence that is put forth. If the guards had better control, more closely inspected the inmates, etc. That would be the response I would expect.

Just like the Pope was at odds with the invasion of Iraq. Of course he was, it was war. His viewpoint was to give them more time, the restrictions that Iraq broke weren’t all that important, let’s continue to suffice Iraq. (similar to the sufficing of Nazi Germany)

As a catholic, we are suppose to oppose killing. That is the current stance but with a little loophole for when it is really necessary.

 

[pnewton]

One of the problems with any issue involving prudential judgement is that one must be knowledgable in the area of judgement. It is easy to say that we* should* be able to house inmates safely, we should be able to eliminate violence behind bars, we should be able to prevent all escapes. To go beyond theory and into reality and speak of what we *can *do, one needs to have expertise in the area.

I do not see that we will be able to eliminate escapes, criminal activity and violence behind bars in the foreseable future. I am in my 18th year working in corrections and am currently a watch commander at my facility.

Does any one else in this field have a dissenting view?

 

[Vincent]

jim orr:

Does the article raise a question in your mind as to how the Church leadership could have come up with such a pronouncement without first doing the research?

Giving the bishops the benefit of the doubt. . . .

Perhaps they did the research but didn’t come across such examples. Blame it on flawed data gathering.

Or perhaps they did the research and did in fact come across such examples. But they judged that such examples don’t reflect the vast majority of life imprisonment cases. Therefore, in formulating the policy against capital punishment, the bishops decided to err on what they thought reflects the vast majority.

There may be other reasons, but in any case, prudential judgments, are always going to be open to some degree of error. Leaders have to make decisions based on the best information they have. Yet, it could later turn out that either their information was flawed or their decision was wrong. At the risk of opening a can of worms, the Bush administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq come to mind. And if this article is accurate then the bishops’ general opposition against capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment might turn out similarly.

Given the degree of error that always accompanies prudential judgments, what should the our response be? Disobedience? Withholding of assent?

It seems to me that the Catholic should err on the side of obedience unless their prudential judgment is unequivocally immoral. And if their information and judgment is flawed, then we can ask our bishops, without opposing them polemically, to consider additional reasons why they should rethink their policies, keeping in mind that what is prudential in the current situation may not be prudential in a later situation.

 

[jim_orr]

Vincent:

Given the degree of error that always accompanies prudential judgments, what should our response be? Disobedience? Withholding of assent?

It seems to me that the Catholic should err on the side of obedience unless their prudential judgment is unequivocally immoral. And if their information and judgment is flawed, then we can ask our bishops, without opposing them polemically, to consider additional reasons why they should rethink their policies, keeping in mind that what is prudential in the current situation may not be prudential in a later situation.I have highlighted the part of your reply that has me concerned. The bishops attached the issue of capital punishment to the “prolife” label some years after the word was coined to combat the “pro-choice” label that the pro-aborts started using to describe themselves in the political battles following Roe v. Wade.

Until then, “prolife” stood for the opposition to taking any innocent life regardless of the situation. There is no pregnancy situation recognized by the Church that would allow mercy to justify the intentional aborting of an innocent human life, regardless of life of the mother, gross deformity, poverty, etc.

There is no health or medical condition concerning the elderly, or whoever, that the Church would allow mercy to justify the intentional killing by euthanasia of an innocent human being, regardless of their situation.

Therefore, if convicted murders already in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons serving life sentences are continuing to murder more victims and create mayhem in the lives of innocent people outside the prisons, besides murder, armed robberies, drug trafficking, and attempted assassinations on DAs, how can the Church’s position be “prolife” if by abolishing capital punishment it creates an even larger population of more hardened criminals on the grounds of “mercy?” How can they disregard the continued murdering and public disorder it will create in contradiction to the qualifying condition that they put into their own teaching?

 

[jim_orr]

pnewton:

To go beyond theory and into reality and speak of what we *can *

do, one needs to have expertise in the area.What you say makes a lot of sense. Do you think that the facts reported in the Pelican Bay article are an aberration or accurately depict the reality of criminal behavior in maximum-security prisons?

PNEWTON:

I do not see that we will be able to eliminate escapes, criminal activity and violence behind bars in the foreseeable future. I am in my 18th year working in corrections and am currently a watch commander at my facility.

Have you ever communicated with your bishop about the Church’s new, modified teaching on Capital Punishment in light of your profession?

 

[pnewton]

The article on Pelican Bay indicates that even the leading edge of technology in a maximum security setting can not prevent criminal activity. Most definetly gang members in Texas and else where operate from within the jails and prisons.

Even if it were physically possible to eliminate all avenues of criminal behavior inmates have, legally it would be impossible. To deny all incarcerated of mail, phone and visitation privileges would be deemed as unconstitutionally cruel.

Furthermore, the ingenuity of those who have nothing but time on their hands has been repeatedly demonstrated. The human element (the officers charged with their security)is also vulnerable to corruption.

Since no human instituition is ever perfect, it should be up to the judgement of lawmakers to determine when the security of a prison system is sufficient that capital punishment is no longer needed to maintain the safety of the peolple entrusted to them (This is my very subjective and *fallable *opinion)

PS - I have never even met my bishop.

 

[jim_orr]

pnewton:

I have never even met my bishop.

You have valuable information and insight. I urge you to write a letter to your bishop just to advise him of your first hand experience in the field on which the Church has taken the liberty to inject your profession into a teaching of a significant matter concerning our faith, public safety and the common good of society.

I would recommend sending a copy of the article on Pelican Bay as a reference for the reason you are writing him and offer to make yourself available to him for further discussion on the subject. Your objective is merely to make sure that the teaching has a solid foundation in truth. I would recommend copying your state conference of bishops as well as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Rome. If the Church leaders are going to insist on the teaching as they have, at least they will continue with it having been informed. You would not be challenging them, but merely making sure that they are aware of situations on which they teach. It will then be in their hands to do with it as they deem necessary.

 

[jim_orr]

BrianDay:

You know that we agree from our experience on the Kresta boards. I am not sure you are going to get any takers in apologetics as most think of this topic in terms of politics.

Just for the record - it is perfectly consistent in being pro-life by being against abortion and for the death penalty. It is curious that those who would defend their belief opposing capital punishment on the political forum are less willing to confront the validity of their belief on the apologetics forum. It is either a mindset that says don’t confuse me with the facts, or the political nature of the issue is more important to them than its spiritual dimension.

 

[fix]

In general, I am against the death penalty. I wish there were more discussion and explaination about Church teachings. The death penalty is a good example of how Catholics and others often get Church teaching wrong or muddled.

As far as I am aware the Pope can’t bind our consciences in matters like the death penalty or war. They are not intrinsically evil, like abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, etc.

We should give due respect to the Pope’s prudential judgments, but in the end, we may decide for ourselves in these matters. Some have tried to inflict the “seemless garment” approach popularized by Bernardin. That makes all the issues equal and fuzzies up the discussion.