Trump administration to execute three inmates

[Sarcelle]

As someone who is pursuing a career in the criminal justice field, I just want to say to those who oppose the death penalty…if you were exposed to the true brutality and depravity that some of these violent offenders are capable of, you might change your mind. It is evil that you cannot possibly understand until you’ve dealt with it first hand.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Conversely, a criminal has made a series of choices that led him to his cell and to the moment of lethal injection. Hardly the same issue.

Jesus was subjected to true brutality and depravity but he never called for anyone’s death while he was dying at the cross.

Christians are supposed to emulate Christ. We shouldn’t repay death with more death.

That is vengeance not justice.

 

[Sarcelle]

And many like to inflict pain. They enjoy it and there’s no rehabilitating someone who is stimulated by watching another human being suffer. These are the people who deserve to be put down. Otherwise, they will keep causing more pain and loss in society. To further put it into perspective, it’s like saying “Ted Bundy shouldn’t have been executed. He needs our love.”

These are probably psychopaths. They have no conscience and probably are already born that way.

This is a conundrum since these people are incapable of reforming.

 

[godisgood77]

Was capital punishment an atrocity when it was applied by the Papal States? Was it an atrocity when God commanded its use by the Israelites? How is it an atrocity now but not in the 2000 years when the church unambiguously acknowledged it as legitimate? Was church doctrine mistaken?

Not really a good question in light of the Church’s development on the subject. Please reference the CDF’s letter to better understand Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Was she teaching error?

No, the Church was teaching according to to its best knowledge and understanding. As has always been the case in the Church’s living tradition, teaching is developed according as a fuller understanding of the truth is reached.

Question for you… Were there alternatives to death available in the case of the man who was killed this week?

 

[Ender]

Not really a good question in light of the Church’s development on the subject.

The repudiation of a doctrine cannot be considered a legitimate development. What was moral yesterday cannot become immoral today. Passing all of this off under the catch-all of “development” does not address the issue; it is an evasion. This is precisely why I asked the question: to highlight the problem caused by calling something an atrocity today that was a heresy to disbelieve before. The church’s doctrines do not, and cannot, swing to such extremes.

No, the Church was teaching according to to its best knowledge and understanding. As has always been the case in the Church’s living tradition, teaching is developed according as a fuller understanding of the truth is reached.

If the teaching today is the opposite of what was taught before then one of those teachings must be in error. You may explain the “error” of the earlier teaching by ascribing it to limited “knowledge and understanding”, but it doesn’t change the fact that - if it is contrary to what is taught today - it was in error.

If the doctrines are different, if one contradicts the other, then one of them has to be wrong. Why is that so difficult to acknowledge?

Were there alternatives to death available in the case of the man who was killed this week?

Is there an alternative to justice? Was his punishment unjust? I would answer no to both questions.

 

[godisgood77]

Is there an alternative to justice? Was his punishment unjust? I would answer no to both questions.

Sounds like you reject the Church’s authority to teach…and bind and loose.

“Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.” St. Pope John Paul II.

The teaching of Evangelium vitæ was then included in the editio typica of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In it, the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,” even if in reality “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (n. 2267).

So based on the Church’s direction above, yes, I would consider the punishment unjust concerning the execution of the man this week

Truly a sad day when we choose death over rehabilitation… unconditional pro-lifers weep

Were there alternatives to death available in the case of the man who was killed this week?

Looks like an evasion on your part. why not answer the question?

 

[billsherman]

Truly a sad day when we choose death over rehabilitation… unconditional pro-lifers weep

The death penalty MUST be opposed by all who call themselves pro-life.

Pro-life MUST mean pro-life. It is cheapened beyond recognition when it is reduced to allow for “some” death. Killing is never, ever, a good thing.

Those who cry out for blood stand in opposition to everything it means to be pro-life and Catholic.

 

[billsherman]

Have you ever visited a prison?

Yes. Maximum security. I’ve even visited with one woman who was on death row for 16(!) years. It turned out she was innocent the whole time.

They enjoy it and there’s no rehabilitating someone who is stimulated by watching another human being suffer.

I’m fairly sure that is the definition of a sociopath. People with sociopathic tendencies have to be dealt with in extremely controlled circumstances (which prisons a rarely equipped to supply).

Your post points out a number of problems with our prison system. Those problems need to be fixed - including reducing the number of people incarcerated in the first place - but the answer is NEVER to kill.

If we accept killing as the answer to problems we betray the core belief of being pro-life. Life is sacred, and must be protected and defended from conception to natural death.

 

[Ender]

Sounds like you reject the Church’s authority to teach…and bind and loose.

Respond to my arguments; don’t fling insults at me personally. As to the authority to bind and loose:

CCC 553 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.

Understand that to “pronounce doctrinal judgements” does not include the right to “authoritatively” express the individual’s opinion on the subject; it refers to the authority to express what God has already determined. Besides, as Cardinal Ladaria wrote in explaining Pope Francis’ change:

8. All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.

Well then, given that “prior teachings of the Magisterium” recognized the right of States to apply capital punishment, and the new teaching does not contradict them, why does that right not still exist?

So based on the Church’s direction above, yes, I would consider the punishment unjust concerning the execution of the man this week

According to the catechism the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime (absent extenuating circumstances). Given that death is of commensurate severity it is therefore a just punishment. What makes it unjust?

In it, the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor… (JPII)

If you present this as “because JPII said so” then no objection could be adequate. If it is presented as an argument, however, there are problems with it. That the death penalty was not presented as a proportionate penalty doesn’t change the fact that it is proportionate. That is given simply by the fact that the church acknowledged it as legitimate. If it wasn’t proportionate then it would have been unjust, and no one has dared make that claim.

Further, the caveat that its use should be limited to those cases where it is necessary for defense, which the catechism (apparently without support) claimed was part of the traditional teaching of the church, has been abrogated by Francis’ change, which (implicitly) doesn’t even allow that exception. You’ve presented an argument the church no longer accepts (according to the common interpretation of the change of 2018).

Looks like an evasion on your part. why not answer the question?

I did. Justice is an obligation. The punishment was just, therefore there was no alternative to the execution.

 

[Ender]

Pro-life MUST mean pro-life. It is cheapened beyond recognition when it is reduced to allow for “some” death. Killing is never, ever, a good thing.

And yet the church has unambiguously said there are times when killing is legitimate. Does this mean the church is not pro-life? Your assertion would rule out not only capital punishment but (just) war and self defense.

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?

A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechsim)

 

[billsherman]

And yet the church has unambiguously said there are times when killing is legitimate. Does this mean the church is not pro-life? Your assertion would rule out not only capital punishment but (just) war and self defense.

You, intentionally I assume, are claiming I wrote something I didn’t. Please don’t do that.

I wrote: “Killing is never, ever, a good thing.” That is unambiguously true. The Church agrees with that. Killing is, at best, neutral. It can never, ever, be good.

To answer your question (and all future questions): You have been corrected on your erroneous interpretation of Church teaching by more than one clergy member on this site. The only advice I can give you is to seek the counsel of your priest and bishop for further instruction. Your open rejection of Church teaching is problematic.

 

[Ender]

You, intentionally I assume, are claiming I wrote something I didn’t. Please don’t do that.

I wrote: “Killing is never, ever, a good thing.” That is unambiguously true. The Church agrees with that. Killing is, at best, neutral. It can never, ever, be good.

This is playing with the meaning of the word “good”, which in fact has two meanings here.

Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. (Aquinas ST I 19, 6,1 - The Will of God)

You have been corrected on your erroneous interpretation of Church teaching by more than one clergy member on this site.

Others have offered counter arguments to which I have responded. That some of those have been clergy really adds nothing to their arguments, which are good or bad independent of who expresses them.

Your open rejection of Church teaching is problematic.

I accept church teaching. What I reject is your understanding of what is taught. My dispute is not with the church; it is with you.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes. Maximum security. I’ve even visited with one woman who was on death row for 16(!) years. It turned out she was innocent the whole time.

Here’s the kicker.

What if the one who was executed was innocent?

There are so many ways that justice can be miscarried in the courts.

I’d rather have several guilty people live than one innocent person executed.

 

[Feanor2]

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)

We have a current Catechism.

 

[Ender]

We have a current Catechism.

I have said before that one of my objectives in discussions of this topic is to counter what I consider to be harmful arguments, and I would put this one in that category. Yes, we have a current catechism. Does that mean whatever was said in prior catechisms is meaningless, that it can all be disregarded? No, not at all. We are told:

…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. (Dei Verbum #10)

The Catechism of Trent was the catechism of the church for 400 years, and is not something to be cast aside like a worn out shoe. It is a significant part of that “sacred tradition” that is an essential aspect of church teaching.

 

[Trader]

After many years of seeing these threads on the issue of capital punishment, I predict it will go on for weeks and at the end of that time, not one opinion will be changed. No occult mechanisms were used to make this prediction.

In order to make any progress, please attack the argument rather than the author of the post. The usual tone of these threads sounds like a Protestant battle of proof texts which ignore what the other person said. Catholic teaching is often, “both and” rather than “either or.”

 

[godisgood77]

Well then, given that “ prior teachings of the Magisterium ” recognized the right of States to apply capital punishment, and the new teaching does not contradict them, why does that right not still exist?

The development of doctrine, as Ladaria wrote, centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”

The argument is not whether or not killing the killer is just or unjust. The change is related to the better understanding of human dignity. You could say the death penalty remains just, but Is now inadmissible where is used to be admissible due to a fuller understanding of human dignity. As Ladaria makes clear this is a coherent development of doctrine which I agree with. It sounds like you do not Mr Ender which, of course, you are free to do.

Aside from the doctrinal arguments… I remain saddened when a supposed pro-life President pushed so hard to reinstall the death penalty when there are clear alternatives.

It is a sad day when we opt for death or rehabilitation.

I’ll keep posting when the next incarcerated human is ‘put down’ to use a phrase someone else used In this thread to describe killing an inmate

 

[Trader]

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?

Daniel Lewis Lee committed his crime in 1997. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama chose not to commute this sentence which was imposed under the 1994 law that was signed by President Clinton before the Republicans gained control of the House of Representative. The penalty prescribed by that law is being carried out 23 years after the crime. To call this an agressive act does not correspond to reality.

 

[godisgood77]

To call this an agressive act does not correspond to reality.

I did not call it an aggressive act.

I’m drawing attention to the trump administration’s aggressive push over the past 18 months to reintroduce the death penalty after a 17 year hiatus. Which, of course, disturbs me as a Catholic

 

[Ender]

The development of doctrine, as Ladaria wrote, centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”

This is a better argument, although a great part of that seems due to its vagueness. The word “dignity” is used but left undefined, and it isn’t at all clear what it means, or what about it is “clear” now that was obscure before.

The dictionary definition is “the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect” and presumably man possesses an innate dignity because he is made in God’s image, something that is not lost by his actions. That said, would anyone claim that Daniel Lewis Lee deserved the same honor and respect after his murders as before? That seems unlikely in the extreme.

So, is there only one form of dignity, or several? We may be born with the dignity of being the children of God, but do we not damage or enhance our dignity by our own choices and actions? “Free will is part of man’s dignity” (Aquinas), and along with this goes the obligation to hold a man fully accountable for his actions. To do less is in fact to deny that dignity.

What, then, is the argument that imposing a just punishment for his sin diminishes a person’s dignity when in fact just the opposite is true? Is there only one form of dignity, and is it completely unaffected by our actions? Is sin not an act against our own dignity? Yes, we remain children of God no matter what we do, and that sense of dignity is not lost, but is there no difference between the penitent sinner and one who is unrepentant? If sin causes us to fall away from God’s love does it not also diminish our dignity as children of God?

Aquinas addressed this question directly, and it deserves a better (implied) response than: “We don’t believe that any more. We know more about dignity than he did.”

Whether, by Penance, man is restored to his former dignity? (ST TP 89, 3)

By sin, man loses a twofold dignity, one in respect of God, the other in respect of the Church. In respect of God he again loses a twofold dignity. one is his principal dignity, whereby he was counted among the children of God, and this he recovers by Penance, which is signified (Lk. 15) in the prodigal son, for when he repented, his father commanded that the first garment should be restored to him, together with a ring and shoes. The other is his secondary dignity, viz. innocence…

 

[Ender]

The argument is not whether or not killing the killer is just or unjust.

Any argument that makes justice irrelevant is a harmful one. We can’t argue this way.

The change is related to the better understanding of human dignity.

What do we understand now that was hidden before? This is repeatedly asserted, but never explained. Beyond the claim “We know more” nothing is ever said about what it is we now know that the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and councils missed over the preceding 2018 years.

You could say the death penalty remains just, but Is now inadmissible where is used to be admissible due to a fuller understanding of human dignity.

How can something be just but inadmissible? If it is inadmissible it must be unjust, because if it is just it must be admissible. I’m looking for a coherent argument against the death penalty, but this isn’t it, and I think the difficulty of coming up with something suggests the problem is fundamental, like trying to square a circle. If man’s dignity is unaffected by his actions how does anyone end up in hell?

As Ladaria makes clear this is a coherent development of doctrine which I agree with. It sounds like you do not Mr Ender which, of course, you are free to do.

None of us is free to ignore doctrine. We are, however, free to disagree with judgments.