The Death Penalty and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

[dts]

Please vote in the poll.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently filed a brief joining numerous other religious organizations in opposing the juvenile death penalty in a U.S. Supreme Court case. That brief argues that evolving standards of decency require elimination of the death penalty. A jurisprudence that relies on evolving standards of decency brought us cases like Roe v. Wade. In this kind of legal thinking the judges get to make their decision based on things other than the text of the Constitution.

By arguing for ‘evolving standards of decency,’ the bishops are undermining American law, the pro-life cause, and other well established Catholic principles such as subsidarity.

The Catholic Church does not condemn the death penalty in principle, although the pope has expressed prudential opposition. The Bishops should not advocate for a blanket prohibition on the death penalty or attempt to bind Catholic consciences when the basis for doing so is purely prudential and not a matter of principal.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633 (U.S. March 1, 2005) (juvenile death penalty violates evolving standards of decency)
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051115/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf

The USCCB Brief in Roper:
abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/religious.pdf

USCCB PR (bishops applaud Roper decision and use of ‘evolving standards of decency’):
usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-047.shtml

See these discussions of the death penalty:

God’s Justice and Ours
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States discusses the role of religious beliefs in judicial decisions. This article is adapted from remarks given at a conference sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Commentary on “God’s Justice and Ours”
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/exchange.html
Commentators include Cardinal Avery Dulles, Judge Bork, Professor Steve Long, with a response by Justice Scalia.

Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice
J. Budziszewski
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/budziszewski.htm

Catholicism and Capital Punishment
Avery Cardinal Dulles
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

 

[Ghosty]

The thing is that, under the circumstances present in the U.S., a blanket condemnation of the U.S. Death Penalty does fall within orthodoxy. We have the means to contain criminals without the need to execute them. In cases where containment is possible, it is always preferable to death. I can’t think of any instances in the U.S. where containment is simply not an option, therefore I can’t think of any situations in which the death penalty should be permittable. Perhaps evolving standards of decency could be nailed down a bit tighter, but I think that given the context of the U.S. containment potential, it is fitting.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

The recent Supreme Court decision was the right one, however, the logic used by Judge Kennedy was horrendous. Relying on International opinion and European jurisprudence to determine American constitutional law runs against the very essence of what our Founding Fathers intended. Good result, bad reasoning, as a result I have to say it was a bad decision. Furthermore, I would say it is up to the voters of the several states to determine what usages of the Death Penalty are no longer necessary. I would personally contend that only the worst of the worst should be executed (Osama Bin Laden if captured and convicted).

 

[Benedictus]

Yeah, I agreed with the recent decision, but I thought the reasoning behind the majority’s opinion was terrible. The Court’s job is to interpret the laws and Constitution of our country, not to judge “evolving standards of decency.” If standards are really “evolving”, then let the people decide.

I am really not a fan of the death penalty. I think it is overused and misused in the U.S. A large number death row inmates received poor legal representation.

Nevertheless, every time I hear the USCCB talk about the death penalty, my ears start burning. They have an uncanny ability to distort the Church’s teaching on the matter.

 

[dts]

Ghosty:

The thing is that, under the circumstances present in the U.S., a blanket condemnation of the U.S. Death Penalty does fall within orthodoxy. We have the means to contain criminals without the need to execute them. In cases where containment is possible, it is always preferable to death. I can’t think of any instances in the U.S. where containment is simply not an option, therefore I can’t think of any situations in which the death penalty should be permittable. Perhaps evolving standards of decency could be nailed down a bit tighter, but I think that given the context of the U.S. containment potential, it is fitting.

Abolition of the death penalty falls within orthodoxy. True, unless it is being taught that this view is binding on the conscience and done so in a fashion that is inherently lawless (e.g. ‘evolving standards’). Conversely, retention of the death penalty also falls within orthodoxy.

It is a matter calling for exercise of prudence in many areas that are not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the church.

Despite the vague language in the Catechism, containment is a secondary concern at best. It does not get to the primary purpose of punishment (retribution) and whether or when it is appropriate to exercise mercy.

Granting that mercy is appropriate in some instances, that certainly does not mean that it is justified in all instances. It is a question of wisdom taking into the circumstances of each case and/or the laws and needs of each state.

I say these things not as a dissenter from church tradition, but as someone who stands squarely within it for the last 2000 years until the mid-20th century.

Advocating ‘evolving standards of decency’ within the context of constitutional interpretation is nothing short of lawlessness and it is intrinsically evil. It undermines the very foundations of our laws and harms the pro-life cause with regard to other issues. Surely the Bishops would not appreciate advocacy of doctrines that undermine church law. So why, should they be justified in doing the same with regard to our nation’s laws?

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

The bishops are behind the times. The death penalty was abolished here in Wisconsin 150 years ago. But I guess a lot of these bishops come from the backward states.

 

[Mycroft]

dts:

Abolition of the death penalty falls within orthodoxy. True, unless it is being taught that this view is binding on the conscience and done so in a fashion that is inherently lawless (e.g. ‘evolving standards’). Conversely, retention of the death penalty also falls within orthodoxy.

It is a matter calling for exercise of prudence in many areas that are not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the church.

Despite the vague language in the Catechism, containment is a secondary concern at best. It does not get to the primary purpose of punishment (retribution) and whether or when it is appropriate to exercise mercy.

Granting that mercy is appropriate in some instances, that certainly does not mean that it is justified in all instances. It is a question of wisdom taking into the circumstances of each case and/or the laws and needs of each state.

I say these things not as a dissenter from church tradition, but as someone who stands squarely within it for the last 2000 years until the mid-20th century.

Advocating ‘evolving standards of decency’ within the context of constitutional interpretation is nothing short of lawlessness and it is intrinsically evil. It undermines the very foundations of our laws and harms the pro-life cause with regard to other issues. Surely the Bishops would not appreciate advocacy of doctrines that undermine church law. So why, should they be justified in doing the same with regard to our nation’s laws?

if you want to just disregard evolving standards of decency then do you think it would be ok if blacks could still be slaves and women didnt have the same rights as men?
It also should not be up to us to decide the retribution. god will punsih everyone as he sees fit. i dont get how anyone can think its ok to kill someone else.

 

[dts]

Mycroft:

if you want to just disregard evolving standards of decency then do you think it would be ok if blacks could still be slaves and women didnt have the same rights as men?

Evolving standards have no place in constitutional law. By definition, they undermine the notion of law.

As to your question regarding slaves and women in a larger moral context. The principles for equality have been in place since the time of the Apostles and expressed throughout Christian history (arguably they were in place in Genesis – both man and woman were created in the image of God).

We have seen a fuller realization of some of these principles in the United States in that slavery has been abolished and women have more freedom. Principles are fixed. Application is not.

Note for those who do not adhere to fixed principles, we now see an evolution within the feminist movement that wants to abolish all gender based distinctions and promote same sex marriage. Another instance of the danger of evolving standards.

Mycroft:

It also should not be up to us to decide the retribution. god will punsih everyone as he sees fit. i dont get how anyone can think its ok to kill someone else.

You are correct. It should not be up to us as individuals. God has placed the authority with the state and the church has always acknowledged such authority as a matter of principle. Church teachings are clear that the state has authority in some instances to impose the death penalty.

However, I don’t want this thread to evolve into a discussion of the death penalty per se. Its appropriateness varies with context.

I am more concerned with the manner in which the USCCB is presenting the issue.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Ghosty:

The thing is that, under the circumstances present in the U.S., a blanket condemnation of the U.S. Death Penalty does fall within orthodoxy. .

Only within the opinion of some Bishops (including the Pope–but it is still just his opinion).

It contradicts the traditional Christian understanding, Church teaching, and common sense.

Those who truly value life understand that the death penalty for convicted murderers is appropriate and Christian.

 

[Mycroft]

yeah and the government never abuses that power…cough abortion cough

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Mycroft:

if you want to just disregard evolving standards of decency then do you think it would be ok if blacks could still be slaves and women didnt have the same rights as men?
It also should not be up to us to decide the retribution. god will punsih everyone as he sees fit. i dont get how anyone can think its ok to kill someone else.

Freeing slaves (black or white) is not an evolved idea. It is a Christian one. Punishing murderers with death is also a Christian idea, or would you prefer that Christianity evolve into socialism or some such secular philosophy.

You suggest that humans should not seek retribution. How is any legal system on the planet going to function? If someone robs a bank, should he inform the police/courts that they cannot seek retribution on him because God doesn’t ever want us to? A world without any punishment…imagine that…John Lenin would be proud of you.

What, pray tell, is your Biblical/Catholic basis for asserting that people cannot lawfully punish other people for criminal transgressions?

 

[Mycroft]

yeah good point, we should really bring back the eye for an eye right, forget all about that one jesus guy. no point in stopping useless killing either. lets just give all prisoners retribution and kill em all.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Mycroft:

yeah and the government never abuses that power…cough abortion cough

Sooooo…there should be no court system in America because…human nature is corrupt and therefore human politics is corrupt…soooooo…God will just have to be the sole punisher of anyone…alrighty then.

 

[Mycroft]

k i guess im just an idiot but last i checked there was a huge difference in punishing someone by putting them in jail and in killing them. i was pointing out abortion to show that the government doesnt always make good decisions so we cant just say, oh god gave the state its power, everything it does is ok.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Mycroft:

yeah good point, we should really bring back the eye for an eye right, forget all about that one jesus guy. no point in stopping useless killing either. lets just give all prisoners retribution and kill em all.

Could you be more specific? When did Jesus say there should be no earthly punishments or consequences? The thief next to Him addmitted he was being killed justly. Peter and Paul also addmitted the justice of the death penalty.

??? What is your source?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Mycroft:

k i guess im just an idiot but last i checked there was a huge difference in punishing someone by putting them in jail and in killing them. i was pointing out abortion to show that the government doesnt always make good decisions so we cant just say, oh god gave the state its power, everything it does is ok.

Uhhhhhh…who would suggest that everything the government does is ok? That is a totally species argument. We are specifically talking about the ability of our government to lawfully execute convicted murderers. Where does your opposition to this come from specifically?

 

[Mycroft]

im just referring to how jesus preached so much about peace and turning the other cheek. i just think their shouldnt be a death penalty in the US since we can easily put people in jail forever. its useless killing. im sure ther eason the catholic church says its alright in the catechism is because a lot of places dont have the ability to keep prisoners locked up indefinitely. in the US this isnt a problem.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Mycroft:

im just referring to how jesus preached so much about peace and turning the other cheek. i just think their shouldnt be a death penalty in the US since we can easily put people in jail forever. its useless killing. im sure ther eason the catholic church says its alright in the catechism is because a lot of places dont have the ability to keep prisoners locked up indefinitely. in the US this isnt a problem.

I don’t know of a country on Earth that does not have dungeons deep enough or dark enough where they could throw people **forever. **

Do people think that the Catholic Church allows some countries to execute criminals simply because they don’t have jail space? Church morality is not dictated by utilitarian considerations such as these.

 

[Mycroft]

fine i give up. we have the right to kill whoever we want and god approves. sorry for disagreeing with you. ill go kill myself now.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Mycroft:

fine i give up. we have the right to kill whoever we want and god approves. sorry for disagreeing with you. ill go kill myself now.

You should be very proud of your public school education.

Yes I said we should kill whoever we want…is there no end to you cleverness?