The Vatican and the death penalty

[frommi]

If this was a matter of truth and not judgement, then the Church would be a contradiction. Did you know that Vatican City used to have a death penalty?

They also used to have popes who passed on church estates to their sons…

But that’s not a reality anymore either.

 

[frommi]

You’re waiving around your interpretation of the death penalty and saying it’s intrinsically evil. Wonder were you got your training.

I got it somewhere that taught me slightly better usage of the word “were” than you were shown by whomever graduated you.

 

[estesbob]

He never said it was ‘ok’ to support the death penalty…that makes it sound like something that can be relativized…something that no truth exists in.

All I hear is that we should follow the lead of our bishops…and many of our bishops have come forward and made clear statements about the respect for life from conception to natural death…

The only reason people would say you can support the death penalty is out of a fear that we might actually start supporting the idea of a seamless garment…but that would be bad because then a lot of you would never find anyone to vote for…

The only reason people say you can support the Death Penatly is becuase that that has been the techings of the Church for the Last 2,000 years. It really is that simple.

 

[estesbob]

He never said it was ‘ok’ to support the death penalty…that makes it sound like something that can be relativized…something that no truth exists in.
.

Per Ratzinger:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty"

That is Crystal clear for those who dont let their politics interfere with their faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You know, I just noticed something. I have never heard an opponent of the death penalty say, “***I ***will accept the responsibility. Make me a prison guard, and I will work for the next twenty or thirty years among the most dangerous people on earth, knowing they are watching my every move, and are constantly plotting to kill me. I will not ask for the death penalty in reserve, so they will have nothing to lose if they do kill me. And if they escape, or are somehow paroled and kill again, let the guilt be on my head.”

I’ve never heard one of them say that.

 

[pnewton]

They also used to have popes who passed on church estates to their sons…
.

Not an issue of moral theology. No one even today thinks that the death penalty of the past was inappropriate for the time. The death penalty is not a “right/wrong” issue, except how it is applied in a given situation.

 

[estesbob]

You know, I just noticed something. I have never heard an opponent of the death penalty say, “***I ***will accept the responsibility. Make me a prison guard, and I will work for the next twenty or thirty years among the most dangerous people on earth, knowing they are watching my every move, and are constantly plotting to kill me. I will not ask for the death penalty in reserve, so they will have nothing to lose of they do kill me. And if they escape, or are somehow paroled and kill again, let the guilt be on my head.”

I’ve never heard one of them say that.

Sound to me like the old tired claim that those of us who oppose abortion should adopt children I oppose the death penalty but respect the opinion of those who do not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sound to me like the old tired claim that those of us who oppose abortion should adopt children I oppose the death penalty but respect the opinion of those who do not.

No, Bob, it isn’t.

For one thing, those of us who oppose abortion do not put other people’s lives at risk.

And we do adopt – our local Right-to-Life committee, in conjunction with local churches, “adopts” unwed mothers, assisting them through pregnancy, paying their bills, and so on, and continue that help after the baby is born.

 

[estesbob]

No, Bob, it isn’t.

For one thing, those of us who oppose abortion do not put other people’s lives at risk.

And we do adopt – our local Right-to-Life committee, in conjunction with local churches, “adopts” unwed mothers, assisting them through pregnancy, paying their bills, and so on, and continue that help after the baby is born.

The Death penalty is either right or it is wrong REGARDLESS of whether I offer to be a prison guard or not. You say its OK and I respect that opinion BUT am not claiming you should raise the family of an innocent man who might be executed.

I work in the Pro-life ministry and I protest at executions. No one has ever offered me a job as a guard but I did have a guy spit at me once…

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Death penalty is either right or it is wrong REGARDLESS of whether I offer to be a prison guard or not.

I disagree. If you assume it is a black and white issue, you may be right. But I don’t grant that assumption (nor does the Church.) The Church’s position is expressed as an if-than statement.

So to test if the “if” condition holds, I ask if the opponents of the death penalty are willing to take the risks they want someone else to assume. When they refuse, I can fairly take that as evidence they do not, in their hearts, belive the conditions have been met.

You say its OK and I respect that opinion BUT am not claiming you should raise the family of an innocent man who might be executed.

But we do raise the families of those who are executed, Bob – and most of the families of those in prison. Crime – either committed by oneself, or by a close member of the family – is highly correlated with poverty. And we do provide for the poor in this country.

I work in the Pro-life ministry and I protest at executions. No one has ever offered me a job as a guard but I did have a guy spit at me once…

You have to apply to the US Bureau of prisons. Shall I have them send you an application?

 

[Ender]

It’s not the death penalty or nothing. Justice can still be satisfied without putting the person to death.

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. One of the things that bothers me so much about 2267 is that it doesn’t even address the issue of justice; it is entirely focused on protection, but protection is only one of the four purposes of punishment and not the most important one at that.

As Cardinal Dulles said in his article: “In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions.” It is from scripture itself that the Church taught that death was appropriate for some crimes. Whether or not the society can be effectively protected from the criminal is totally irrelevant in determining what punishment is appropriate. Why should I assume that the death penalty, which the Church clearly judged appropriate for certain sins in the past, is no longer appropriate for similar sins now? The weakness of 2267 is its failure to address this aspect of punishment.

Ender

 

[frommi]

The Death penalty is either right or it is wrong REGARDLESS of whether I offer to be a prison guard or not. You say its OK and I respect that opinion BUT am not claiming you should raise the family of an innocent man who might be executed.

I work in the Pro-life ministry and I protest at executions. No one has ever offered me a job as a guard but I did have a guy spit at me once…

All I know is that you can’t be pro death penalty and pro life…it doesn’t work that way.

You’re either for life or you aren’t. period.

 

[bones_IV]

All I know is that you can’t be pro death penalty and pro life…it doesn’t work that way.

You’re either for life or you aren’t. period.

Huh?! That logic is a bit twisted my friend. A person who equates the death penalty with abortion is either short on brains or is schizophrenic.

 

[krokal]

Right…because one life is more valuable than the other.

 

[krokal]

I think there are still times today when the death penalty is not only justifiable but necessary although there are very few. There are several people whose executions prevented more deaths. Saddam Hussein was one of these. If he had lived, someone would have eventually tried to do something to get him set free that would result in more deaths. The same will be true if and when we capture Usama bin Laden. There was also a recent case in which the man who was executed - I forget his name - was the founder of one of Los Angeles’ street gangs. Even though he was in prison, he was still running the gang and ordering executions. Ideally they could have put him in isolation but then the ACLU or some other group trying to bring about the destruction of western civilization, would have found some judge on their side to get him out because isolation harshes his mellow. But, other than the extreme cases like that, I believe the Church is correct to say that we shouldn’t execute criminals. On the other hand, we have to get back to the idea that prison is a punishment, and that we aren’t reforming anyone. Able-bodied prisoners should be made to earn their own food, for example. Those of us who aren’t in prison don’t get a free ride, why should they?

1)And you know somebody would have broken Saddam out of prison how? The main reason for executing him was the hope that his death would quiet the insurgency. If anything, the insurgency has increased or at least maintained the same strength since his execution. The US seemed to hold him for 2 years without any notable incidents. You cannot execute someone based on what you think might happen.

On the other hand, we have to get back to the idea that prison is a punishment, and that we aren’t reforming anyone.

Isn’t that the problem? Shouldn’t reform and reconciliation be the main goals of prisons? What good does punishing someone do if they don’t feel remorse. What good does punishing someone do if the victim is still hurt?

If, by the way, you’re referring to “Tookie” Williams, the inmate that California executed a year ago, you are severely mistaken about his activities during prison.

 

[frommi]

Huh?! That logic is a bit twisted my friend. A person who equates the death penalty with abortion is either short on brains or is schizophrenic.

Both take a life…

You can be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty…but that falls far short of being pro-life

 

[garysibio]

I came to thread after it had been running a while and am taking some time to read through the older posts. Even though I oppose the death penalty in almost all cases, one thought keeps running through my mind: “Why aren’t those who are so vocal in their opposition to the death penalty under all circumstances as equally vocal about the necessity of denying the Eucharist to politicians who support legal abortion?”

I’m not referring to anyone here. I’m sure there are plenty of people here of whom the above is not the case. I’m talking specifically about our shepherds. I can’t help but feel that they have more concern for murderers than for the unborn.

 

[garysibio]

Several people have brought up the point that the fact that some people have been falsely convicted means that we shouldn’t use the death penalty at all. This is not as reasonable a proposition as it appears on the surface. First of all, there are cases in which there is no doubt as to the person’s guilt. In many cases there is a confession or insurmountable evidence.

That’s not the only reason to avoid that argument. Our technology is improving. While DNA evidence has freed many falsely convicted people, it also means that there is much more certainty of guilt today when the DNA points to someone as the offender. In addition, the field of forensics has expanded to include entomology, ornithology, meteorology and a host of other ‘ologies.’ After watching a “Law & Order” episode with a priest friend of mine suggested that forensic theology might be an interesting study. It would come into play when a crime was thought to be ritualistic. All of this adds up to more certainty of guilt when someone is convicted. The more we are certain of guilt, the less weight the false conviction argument carries.

Krokal wrote>> 1)And you know somebody would have broken Saddam out of prison how? The main reason for executing him was the hope that his death would quiet the insurgency. If anything, the insurgency has increased or at least maintained the same strength since his execution. The US seemed to hold him for 2 years without any notable incidents. You cannot execute someone based on what you think might happen. <<

I based my comment on a long history of Moslem terrorists doing just that starting with the attacks on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. It is much more reasonable to believe that someone would have hijacked a jet or threatened to set off a bomb in order to free Hussein than it is to believe that no one would.

Krokal wrote>> Isn’t that the problem? Shouldn’t reform and reconciliation be the main goals of prisons? What good does punishing someone do if they don’t feel remorse. What good does punishing someone do if the victim is still hurt? <<

And what makes you think that locking someone up is ever going to make a better person out of them? The recidivism rate shows that they are completely unable to accomplish that task. When someone does something wrong you punish them so that they learn not to do it again. In some cases what they do is so hideous that the punishment must include removing them from society for the remainder of their natural lives. Prison as punishment also acts as a deterrent. If older brother tells younger brother how horrible prison is, younger brother is a lot less likely to do anything that will put him there. If older brother says “Prison isn’t that bad,” then the younger brother is more easily tempted to follow in older brother’s footsteps.

Krokal wrote>> If, by the way, you’re referring to “Tookie” Williams, the inmate that California executed a year ago, you are severely mistaken about his activities during prison. <<

I don’t remember if that was his name or not. The case was in California a few months ago. Those opposing his execution kept pointing to his having written a children’s book about how bad gangs were.

Assuming we are talking about the same person, I don’t believe I am wrong about his control over his gang. Many gangs are led by people who are in prison. He also never expressed any regret over the deaths he caused.

 

[Adonis33]

Several people have brought up the point that the fact that some people have been falsely convicted means that we shouldn’t use the death penalty at all. This is not as reasonable a proposition as it appears on the surface. First of all, there are cases in which there is no doubt as to the person’s guilt. In many cases there is a confession or insurmountable evidence.

That’s not the only reason to avoid that argument. Our technology is improving. While DNA evidence has freed many falsely convicted people, it also means that there is much more certainty of guilt today when the DNA points to someone as the offender. In addition, the field of forensics has expanded to include entomology, ornithology, meteorology and a host of other ‘ologies.’ After watching a “Law & Order” episode with a priest friend of mine suggested that forensic theology might be an interesting study. It would come into play when a crime was thought to be ritualistic. All of this adds up to more certainty of guilt when someone is convicted. The more we are certain of guilt, the less weight the false conviction argument carries.

Krokal wrote>> 1)And you know somebody would have broken Saddam out of prison how? The main reason for executing him was the hope that his death would quiet the insurgency. If anything, the insurgency has increased or at least maintained the same strength since his execution. The US seemed to hold him for 2 years without any notable incidents. You cannot execute someone based on what you think might happen. <<

I based my comment on a long history of Moslem terrorists doing just that starting with the attacks on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. It is much more reasonable to believe that someone would have hijacked a jet or threatened to set off a bomb in order to free Hussein than it is to believe that no one would.

Krokal wrote>> Isn’t that the problem? Shouldn’t reform and reconciliation be the main goals of prisons? What good does punishing someone do if they don’t feel remorse. What good does punishing someone do if the victim is still hurt? <<

And what makes you think that locking someone up is ever going to make a better person out of them? The recidivism rate shows that they are completely unable to accomplish that task. When someone does something wrong you punish them so that they learn not to do it again. In some cases what they do is so hideous that the punishment must include removing them from society for the remainder of their natural lives. Prison as punishment also acts as a deterrent. If older brother tells younger brother how horrible prison is, younger brother is a lot less likely to do anything that will put him there. If older brother says “Prison isn’t that bad,” then the younger brother is more easily tempted to follow in older brother’s footsteps.

Krokal wrote>> If, by the way, you’re referring to “Tookie” Williams, the inmate that California executed a year ago, you are severely mistaken about his activities during prison. <<

I don’t remember if that was his name or not. The case was in California a few months ago. Those opposing his execution kept pointing to his having written a children’s book about how bad gangs were.

Assuming we are talking about the same person, I don’t believe I am wrong about his control over his gang. Many gangs are led by people who are in prison. He also never expressed any regret over the deaths he caused.

Excellent post. As I recall the “Tookie” execution - at the time, it was a shame for me to see that a vast amount of attention was devouted to the murderer about to have his sentence carried out - and not the actual victim of his crime.

 

[frommi]

I came to thread after it had been running a while and am taking some time to read through the older posts. Even though I oppose the death penalty in almost all cases, one thought keeps running through my mind: “Why aren’t those who are so vocal in their opposition to the death penalty under all circumstances as equally vocal about the necessity of denying the Eucharist to politicians who support legal abortion?”

I’m not referring to anyone here. I’m sure there are plenty of people here of whom the above is not the case. I’m talking specifically about our shepherds. I can’t help but feel that they have more concern for murderers than for the unborn.

You’re mixing two concepts…that’s part of the problem…