Trump administration to execute three inmates

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a good article in the Wall Street Journal today about Trump’s push to reinstate the death penalty including his strong support for capital punishment… The article also focuses on the other inmates scheduled to be murdered in the coming weeks.

I found this passage to be particularly poignant… Mr. Lee’s comments bring to bare his humanity for me. Mr. Barr’s comments strike me as dishonest at best. The majority of Americans oppose the death penalty, including 35 states that have banned it and the federal gov’t has executed anyone in 17 years… so it is far more appropriate to say that President Trump and AG Barr made the choice to murder these people. This is based on their aggressive pursuit of the death penalty.

At 7:46 a.m., Mr. Lee was seen strapped to a gurney wearing a brown shirt with an IV in his left arm, according to media accounts. A spiritual adviser was present. Asked if he wanted to make a final statement, he said, “I didn’t do it. I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, but I’m not a murderer.”

“You’re killing an innocent man,” he said.

Mr. Barr, in a statement, said, “Today, Lee finally faced the justice he deserved. The American people have made the considered choice to permit capital punishment for the most egregious federal crimes, and justice was done today in implementing the sentence for Lee’s horrific offenses.”
 
godisgood77 said:
A sad day in America when we opt for murder over rehabilitation. No one deserves to be murdered… from the unborn child to the death row inmate.
Click to expand...
Don’t invent your own descriptions. That inmate was executed, not murdered.

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. ) (Catechism of Trent)
Victoria33 said:
Yes, we might as well get it out of the way that the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil per the Church as euthanasia and abortion are.
Click to expand...
Clearly.

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral (Archbishop Gomez - the day after Pope Francis’ change to the catechism)
godisgood77 said:
To be clear though, the death penalty is inadmissible for Catholics.
Click to expand...
To be clear, even the US bishops don’t know what “inadmissible” means in this context. That question was asked at their conference in Baltimore last year, and the answer given was that it was an “eloquent ambiguity.” Some things are just too depressing to make up.

…when pressed on the specific point of what “inadmissible” means as used in the proposed text, the responding bishop said: “To my mind, the pope maintains and our version imitates a certain, if you want, eloquent ambiguity on that point.” Eloquent ambiguity. No bishop asked for further explanation and a silence fell on the room…
 
So Ender…

Do you support this aggressive reintroduction and use of the Death Penalty in the US by the Trump administration? After a 17 year hiatus? As a Catholic?
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
Do you support this aggressive reintroduction and use of the Death Penalty in the US by the Trump administration? After a 17 year hiatus? As a Catholic?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for Ender, but as has been pointed out already in this thread A LOT of American Catholics believe that being pro-life means just being against abortion some of the time.

Look at the love for Mr. Trump as a “pro-life” president on this very board. Trump SUPPORTS abortion in cases of rape and incest. He also supports the death penalty. He also supports denying crime victims the right to apply for asylum in the US. He supports a militarized police force. Etc.

Calling him pro-life is offensive to people who actually are pro-life.
 
godisgood77 said:
Do you support this aggressive reintroduction and use of the Death Penalty in the US by the Trump administration? After a 17 year hiatus? As a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral. The decision as to whether to apply it is a prudential judgment that belongs to the State. I have seen any number of assertions that it is harmful, but have not read any convincing argument to support those claims.

So, yes, I support the use of capital punishment as I believe it is a necessary component of justice as punishment for very serious crimes.
 
Ender said:
So, yes, I support the use of capital punishment as I believe it is a necessary component of justice as punishment for very serious crimes.
Click to expand...
You are certainly entitled to that opinion… However, I find it very sad that a Catholic would hold that view given the magisterium of Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis on the topic. You and
I have gone round and round on the subject, and if the words of that saint and those popes doesn’t sway you, then I’m sure I can’t .
 
Last edited:
Not speaking for Ender, but when given pretty much binary choices for president, we get one that supports unrestricted abortion rights and opposes the death penalty, and one that supports the death penalty, but favors restrictions on abortions. So what do the numbers show us:

2019 executions: 22
2016 abortions (most current year with numbers): 623,000

So one can estimate that Trump favors policies that will result in the execution of 22+ prisoners. One can also estimate that Biden favors policies that will result in the execution of 623,000 babies.

Again, our choice is binary…which candidate’s policies, if implemented and not opposed at every turn, saves the most lives?
I’m against the death penalty, and I’m against abortion. The math on this problem is pretty straight forward

[Edit: According to a 2019 USAToday article, abortions due to rape represent 1% of the total, and incest accounts for 0.5%. So understanding that Trump supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, that means his policies result in the execution of 22 + 9,345 = 9367 lives. The math is still pretty straight forward]
 
Last edited:
KMC said:
Again, our choice is binary
Click to expand...
This is the great false belief that is strangling the pro-life movement. Pro-life is not a spectrum. It is binary. You are pro-life, or you aren’t.

In the case of the US election. Neither candidate is pro-life (neither is even anti-abortion).

The pro-life response is to reject the dichotomy presented to us and change the system to one that actually recognizes the value of all human life.

Since so many pro-life voters have accepted false ideas such as “the lesser of two evils,” or (like the utilitarianism presented above) “it’s ok to support some killing, as long as the other guy would kill more.” It is that kind of thinking that has kept the pro-life movement from achieving so few goals.

It is that kind of thinking that makes it perfectly acceptable for American Catholics to say I support Trump because he is kind of anti-abortion, even though he is pro-death penalty, anti-asylum for victims of violent crime, pro-militarization of police, threatens to kill peaceful protestors, etc.

It’s a bad way to think, and it is certainly NOT a pro-life or Catholic way to think.
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
This is the great false belief that is strangling the pro-life movement. Pro-life is not a spectrum. It is binary. You are pro-life, or you aren’t.
Click to expand...
I am 100% pro-life. Voting IS binary.
billsherman said:
The pro-life response is to reject the dichotomy presented to us and change the system to one that actually recognizes the value of all human life.

Since pro-life voters have accepted false ideas such as “the lesser of two evils,” or (like the utilitarianism presented above) “it’s ok to support some killing, as long as the other guy would kill more.” It is that kind of thinking that has kept the pro-life movement from achieving so few goals.

It is that kind of thinking that makes it perfectly acceptable for American Catholics to say I support Trump because he is kind of anti-abortion, even though he is pro-death penalty, anti-asylum for victims of violent crime, pro-militarization of police, threatens to kill peaceful protestors, etc.

It’s a bad way to think, and it is certainly NOT a pro-life or Catholic way to think.
Click to expand...
“Choosing the lesser of two evils” is indeed an accepted Catholic moral principle. In fact, it is a principle by which my bishop in 2006 wrote this:
  1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:
a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
Click to expand...
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.
Click to expand...
To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.
Click to expand...
It is clear that Bishops Farrell and Vann are utilizing that principle you find to be “not…Catholic” and a bad way to think.
 
KMC said:
It is clear that Bishops Farrell and Vann are utilizing that principle you find to be “not…Catholic” and a bad way to think.
Click to expand...
They make it rather clear that NEITHER candidate can be supported, because they both support “abortion rights.”
 
From “Beginning Apologetics 5: How to Answer Tough Moral Questions” by Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham:
True Principle #7: Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils
If we are faced with two or more unavoidable evils, we must choose the lesser one…for the principle to apply, we cannot intend either outcome. We are simply choosing between two unavoidable. Because our will is not in either action, there is no moral evil, even though the result is physical evil.
Click to expand...
 
billsherman said:
40.png
KMC:
It is clear that Bishops Farrell and Vann are utilizing that principle you find to be “not…Catholic” and a bad way to think.
Click to expand...
They make it rather clear that NEITHER candidate can be supported, because they both support “abortion rights.”
Click to expand...
That is not clear, because there is NO other candidate with a chance to win.

Edit: you also missed this part of their letter:
a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
KMC said:
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.**
Click to expand...
Even in 2006 this is a blatant lie. 2006 GMI 1,242,200 CDC 846,181 *

1.2 million does not equate to Millions.

It is like a plate of cookies, 1 cookie is poison. Do you still take the whole plate when offered?
 
This is exactly why Jesus avoided politics. The political arena forces you to compromise with the world. It forces you to accept evil in one area to reduce evil somewhere else.

Why not try to fix that fundamental system instead of accepting it and compromising away life?

If all live really do matter, why do American Catholics spend so much time compromising away the lives of those conceived in rape? Or care so little about those our bombs fall on?

Compromise works perfectly fine in the halls of government, but it has no place for those who are pro-life.
 
KMC said:
That is not clear, because there is NO other candidate with a chance to win.
Click to expand...
But there could be. There isn’t because we complacently accept the system we have. We created it. We can change it. It is OUR fault there is no better candidate. We should stop hiding behind systems WE created.
 
We should try to change the system. I’m open to it. In fact, I’m a catechist at our parish who speaks out on all topics under the pro-life umbrella. But…we have very poorly catechized Catholics. If Catholics actually voted in line with their faith, we would not be having this exchange.

In the meantime, I don’t have the luxury of voting for a person who will not get elected, while turning my back on the reality that a very pro-abortion candidate (Biden) could be president.

Its easy to talk in platitudes and the way things ought to be, and even vote for a squeaky clean candidate perfectly prolife in every category…who will never get elected. Yup…doesn’t make me feel good to vote for a bad candidate…but, to me, I have to make an effort to prevent the worst candidate from becoming president.
 
KMC said:
Its easy to talk in platitudes and the way things ought to be
Click to expand...
Not as easy as you might think. Even dumb old me has been called “deranged” and “ridiculous” on this Catholic forum for insisting that pro-life needs to mean that all human life must be protected from conception to natural death.

It’s the people who are most successful at trying to radically alter the social order who are killed by that order. Look at Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, etc. The list goes on, and on, and I don’t belong on it, but should all try to be on that list. It’s where Jesus insisted on being.

It’s easier to just go with the flow: follow a political party (the Golden Calves of our day!) and be content thinking there was nothing you could do about the evil our support for the political order enables.
 
Last edited:
If one has ever supported abortion extremists, I hope they consider that point as well.

The Magisterium makes it clear, this is a false equivalence between the death penalty and abortion, who are all innocent.

And Democrats, some at least, are now pushing infanticide. Infanticide has occurred because laws are so lax.

“God Bless Planned Parenthood” said Obama, terrible.

Obama Said "God Bless Planned Parenthood," But Christianity Today Wants Trump Impeached Instead - LifeNews.com

Christianity Today—which relies on the name of its founder Billy Graham but increasingly not his wisdom or character—has called for the removal of President Donald Trump because of his “immoral behavior.” The Editor in Chief, Mark Galli, was not ambiguous in this proclamation: “Trump Should Be...
www.lifenews.com

There is no moral equivalence. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top