The Vatican and the death penalty

[Brendan]

I enjoy how you say “even Cardinal Bernadin”…which might as well be code for “even a Cardinal I think was too liberal”…I don’t think it’s fair for you to quote people that you otherwise would try to discount…

Now we’ve gotten to a point where in theory we are asking someone to seek God’s mercy so they can perform the death penalty? What kind of perverted sacrament are we invoking here?

I was just pointing out that what Christ said, and what you said were two theologically different things. “Sinless’ does not require 'Immaculate”

The church’s teaching on the death penalty sets up sort of a 'litmus test" for where it could be applied within the bounds of ‘sound faith and morals’. It is becoming more and more evident that you cannot pass that test today.

What test exactly can I not pass?

Again…if members of the church are willing to decry the death of Sadaam Huissein, how can we even argue that the circumstances to justify the death penalty exist in other places?

The requirement for the just use of the DP is that “it is the only practical way to efficiently defend the lives of human beings from the unjust aggressor” (CCC)

It does not depend entirely on the heinousness of the crime, but rather if there are other practical means to protect society.

I fully agree that Sadam should not have been executed. (name removed by moderator)risionment in a modern prison would have been a practical solution to protect society. There is a great probablilty that he would have posed no danger to his fellow inmates, or to prison guards, or a likely canidate for escape and more violence.

That is not necessarily true for all violent criminals; for the vast majority, incarceration is the practical means. But I cannot claim that is true for ALL such criminals, and neither does the Church.

 

[Brendan]

What exactly are you trying to set me up for here?

When the gift of infallibility from the holy spirit is invoked…then it’s hard to see where the church could be in ‘error’…it can’t be…it’s knowledge revealed to us by the holy spirit.

I agree, the Holy Spirit does work through the charism of infallibility.

Do you acknowledge both the Ordinary Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium as organs of infallible Truth?

(for a refresher on the difference, I would recommend Lumen Gentium #25)

 

[pnewton]

The Gospel injunction is ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’…

This is not a “gospel injunction.” While the church is not a finished product, it has never held beliefs that directly contradicted “gospel injunctions”. Since you are trying to use biblical texts apart from Church tradition, then let me ask what I would ask of any one using the Bible this way. Where does Jesus say that this is an injunction that applied to anyone apart from his immediate audience? This was, after all, a not a teaching discourse, but a narrative of an event. You accused me of limiting it to adultery. Where did Jesus expand his statement beyond adultery? Or stones? Or this specific incident?

 

[pnewton]

The church’s teaching on the death penalty sets up sort of a 'litmus test" for where it could be applied within the bounds of ‘sound faith and morals’. It is becoming more and more evident that you cannot pass that test today.

I am going to ask you to support this. It is enough to follow all that the Church has taught. For you to propose that this issue is a litmus test that those who disagree with you fail, that is just another version of name-calling. If it is a litmus test, show where the Church has made it so. If not, then misrepresenting Church teaching is dangerous ground to base any opinion on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am going to ask you to support this. It is enough to follow all that the Church has taught. For you to propose that this issue is a litmus test that those who disagree with you fail, that is just another version of name-calling. If it is a litmus test, show where the Church has made it so. If not, then misrepresenting Church teaching is dangerous ground to base any opinion on.

I suggest that if there is a litmus test in Catholicism it consists of not saying the Church teaches something it doesn’t teach.

 

[system]

Where does Jesus say that this is an injunction that applied to anyone apart from his immediate audience? This was, after all, a not a teaching discourse, but a narrative of an event.

The words and deeds of the Son of God were examples for all generations.

Why do you minimalize them as words and deeds for the dozen or so people that stood around him at the time?

 

[frommi]

I am going to ask you to support this. It is enough to follow all that the Church has taught. For you to propose that this issue is a litmus test that those who disagree with you fail, that is just another version of name-calling. If it is a litmus test, show where the Church has made it so. If not, then misrepresenting Church teaching is dangerous ground to base any opinion on.

I’m not misrepresenting church teaching (at least I don’t think so). As Brendan points out (and yes Brendan, I’m citing someone I most often disagree with), the death penalty has to be the only practical solution to protecting society from the criminal.

That’s the litmus test…the practicality of the punishment.

Now…what has happened in this thread is sort of a merging of two concepts…

The first is church teaching, which says what I already mentioned.

The second is my assertion that you can’t claim to be ‘pro-life’ when that only means you are ‘pro-life’ in the area of abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia. That might be more correctly termed “partial pro life” or “pro-innocent life”…but it falls short of “pro life”.

The second assertion derives itself from polticial terminology and divisions. People have assumed that I’m saying that the church is not “pro-life”…well on the most strict reading of the term…if it were to not act out against the death penalty it would not be ‘pro life’…but as we have continued to see…the church does speak out on behalf of criminals…thus making it clear that the church may be the best example of an organism that is ‘pro life’.

No one is saying that simply being ‘pro-innocent life’ is bad…it’s laudable and good…it’s simply far short of being ‘pro life’.

The two concepts shouldn’t merge…one is about faith…the other is about politics.

 

[Richardols]

Ahh…but that’s a situation where there is indeed an ‘immediate’ threat…thus self-defense makes sense and applies.

Self-defense does not apply to a criminal who is already in handcuffs and imprisoned who is being executed 25 years after the fact.

I agree. When it takes more than a decade to execute a prisoner, it indicates that the authorities all along had the means to protect guards, other inmates, and society from the condemned man - which indicates to me that there is no need to put the man to death as it was shown that adequate security is available. And, when two or more decades is involved, that is, to me at least, proof positive that society can be effective protected from that criminal through incarceration.

The Church’s acceptance of the death penalty under very narrow circumstances notwithstanding, there is no reason why all states ought not to abolish the utter barbarism that is the death penalty.

 

[frommi]

This is not a “gospel injunction.” While the church is not a finished product, it has never held beliefs that directly contradicted “gospel injunctions”. Since you are trying to use biblical texts apart from Church tradition, then let me ask what I would ask of any one using the Bible this way. Where does Jesus say that this is an injunction that applied to anyone apart from his immediate audience? This was, after all, a not a teaching discourse, but a narrative of an event. You accused me of limiting it to adultery. Where did Jesus expand his statement beyond adultery? Or stones? Or this specific incident?

We believe that when we hear the word of God at mass, we are not hearing simply a ‘story from long ago’, but that the word is being spoken to us directly by God through the Holy Spirit.

thus your literal, fundamentalist approach to this reading would be invalid from a Catholic point of view.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not misrepresenting church teaching (at least I don’t think so).

When you say:

Originally Posted by frommi
The church’s teaching on the death penalty sets up sort of a 'litmus test" for where it could be applied within the bounds of ‘sound faith and morals’. It is becoming more and more evident that you cannot pass that test today.

You are indeed misrepresenting Church teaching.

As Brendan points out (and yes Brendan, I’m citing someone I most often disagree with), the death penalty has to be the only practical solution to protecting society from the criminal.

That’s the litmus test…the practicality of the punishment.

And as the Church teaches, the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals – but not on practical matters of penology.

 

[frommi]

When you say:

You are indeed misrepresenting Church teaching.

And as the Church teaches, the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals – but not on practical matters of penology.

Feel free to invoke your own private conscience clause on this matter…it simply means that your orthodoxy is not as ‘papally certified’ as you would claim it to be.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree. When it takes more than a decade to execute a prisoner, it indicates that the authorities all along had the means to protect guards, other inmates, and society from the condemned man .

Or else it means they failed in their duty.

Certainly murders committed in prison are a failure of the system to protect. Equally certain, murders committed by escaped, paroled or released killers are a failure of the system.

I will agree with you that justice is not swift in capital cases – but I would say that is a flaw in the system, not a strength. We must look at the rate of violent crime in American and acknowledge that it is our fault – we have falied to act (or to demand our representatives) act effectively.

 

[frommi]

I will agree with you that justice is not swift in capital cases – but I would say that is a flaw in the system, not a strength. We must look at the rate of violent crime in American and acknowledge that it is our fault – we have falied to act (or to demand our representatives) act effectively.

Yeah…we wouldn’t want to take our time and make sure the convicted isn’t…you know…innocent or something pesky like that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Feel free to invoke your own private conscience clause on this matter…it simply means that your orthodoxy is not as ‘papally certified’ as you would claim it to be.

You are not a bishop. It is not yours to question the orthodoxy of other Catholics – and especially not when you make up things like this “litmus test” of yours.

 

[frommi]

You are not a bishop. It is not yours to question the orthodoxy of other Catholics – and especially not when you make up things like this “litmus test” of yours.

You’re fixating on this litmus test concept and I have no idea why…

The church makes a clear statement about when the death penalty would be allowable…that makes it a ‘litmus test’. Again, simple logic.

And I would just point out that you and others in this forum quite often point out the unorthodox nature of many people…including bishops…so unless I missed your ordination…put your rocks down.

 

[pnewton]

The words and deeds of the Son of God were examples for all generations.

Why do you minimalize them as words and deeds for the dozen or so people that stood around him at the time?

I am not minimalizing them. I am refusing the erroneous maximizing of scripture to include situations they were never meant to include. Understanding context is a basic exegesis. One can not simply take a saying like, "Let he without sin cast the first stone’ and plug it in to any context that meets the need of today. This method of supporting one’s arguement by a scripture apart from context is called proof-texting. It is what allows protestants to have 20,000 different opinions.

One simply can not use the Bible to support that the death penalty is always wrong without rejecting 2000 years of consistent Catholic moral theology. Even the Church leaders of today who say that the death penalty is no longer necessary do not say that it is contrary to Biblical teaching in all cases or that the death penalty has always been morally evil.

 

[frommi]

One simply can not use the Bible to support that the death penalty is always wrong without rejecting 2000 years of consistent Catholic moral theology. Even the Church leaders of today who say that the death penalty is no longer necessary do not say that it is contrary to Biblical teaching in all cases or that the death penalty has always been morally evil.

Let’s rerack and try this from Cardinal Levada:

“The essence of being a Christian … is not a moral code but rather a person, namely Jesus Christ,” and communion with him “involves a new way of living – a choice to live according to the Gospel.”

Living according to the Gospel would seem to me that one should not be ready to condemn or ready to destroy lives.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s rerack and try this from Cardinal Levada:

“The essence of being a Christian … is not a moral code but rather a person, namely Jesus Christ,” and communion with him “involves a new way of living – a choice to live according to the Gospel.”

Living according to the Gospel would seem to me that one should not be ready to condemn or ready to destroy lives.

I think the good Cardinal summed it up nicely. I can not imagine Christians would object to this.

Hey. Let’s make it a litmus test.

(just kidding!!!)

 

[fix]

I suggest that if there is a litmus test in Catholicism it consists of not saying the Church teaches something it doesn’t teach.

How about saying we ought not claim the Church binds one’s conscience in a particular matter when She does not. This entire discussion assumes the Church has said one is prohibited from supporting the death penalty in every single instance today. If She says that I would cheerfully obey and assent. Where can I read that is the teaching?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re fixating on this litmus test concept and I have no idea why…

Because it is a false claim.

The church makes a clear statement about when the death penalty would be allowable…that makes it a ‘litmus test’. Again, simple logic.

No, it isn’t simple logic. It is a false statement to claim there is a 'litmus test."

And I would just point out that you and others in this forum quite often point out the unorthodox nature of many people…including bishops…so unless I missed your ordination…put your rocks down.

And I would point out that you have adopted an uncharitable and offensive mode of debate – which is not winning any points.