Trump's brutal, anti-life policies - Capital Punishment Version

[godisgood77]

President Trump is re-introducing resuming federal executions… after years and years of hiatus.

Catholics, rise up to defend life!!

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-deathpenalty/trump-administration-asks-top-court-to-allow-it-to-resume-federal-executions-idUSKBN1Y628Q

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m already against capital punishment for years now.
I can’t very well lobby the Justices to agree with me; they will decide based on their interpretation of the law as presented to them in the court papers.
How many more threads on Brutal Trump This and Brutal Trump That do we need? Capital punishment, including at the fed level, was around long before him and will probably be around long after him. We get that you don’t like Trump and apparently object to him and Repubs being seen as pro-life, which is fine, it’s your opinion, but Brutal Trump verbiage is not lending credibility to your cause.

 

[C.Ray]

it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person

I disagree. Capital punishment is a practical means of dealing with extremely violent and unrehabilitable (is that a word?) criminals.

 

[C.Ray]

Also consider the great cost to the public of permanently housing a murderer in prison. It’s expensive.

Wouldn’t you prefer those funds go to unwed mothers and their children? Where are our priorities exactly?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I oppose the death penalty solely because JPII did, but logically, I do not agree with the premise as follows:

. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens

That conclusion is manifestly incorrect, as murders, rapes and deadly assaults are carried out in prisons and are directed by criminal organizations from prison to members on the outside.
I understand that churchmen, including the current Pope, have conscientious objections to the death penalty, but basing it on effectiveness of current deterrence is not only incorrect, but suggests to the faithful that they don’t know what they’re talking about in other ways either.

And that is especially true when the historic teachings of the Church have not forbade it and it is a significant political issue.

 

[godisgood77]

How many more threads on Brutal Trump This and Brutal Trump That do we need? Capital punishment, including at the fed level, was around long before him and will probably be around long after him.

I apologize for the how crash my topic thread is. I have received a warning from the mods and will be more measured in my language.

My point with this thread is that capital punishment has been on a long hiatus in the US dating back more than a decade and a half. The administration is proactively re-introducing it… aggressively even. Given Catholic teaching on capital punishment, I am interested in rallying Catholics - some of which are uninformed on the topic - to consider this serious life issue. That is my intent… I get worked up… and my delivery, admittedly reflects that at times. I do stand behind the substance though

 

[Ender]

President Trump is re-introducing resuming federal executions… after years and years of hiatus.

Catholics, rise up to defend life!!

Capital punishment again? O goody. I just love arguments that start out by excoriating someone for behaving like the church did for 2000 years, and for agreeing with the Fathers and Doctors. I mean, if Trump is brutal and anti-life for supporting capital punishment, doesn’t that tar the church (at least up until 2018) with the same brush?

 

[CatholicSooner]

I think this has been hashed out enough in other threads

 

[godisgood77]

for agreeing with the Fathers and Doctors. I mean, if Trump is brutal and anti-life for supporting capital punishment, doesn’t that tar the church (at least up until 2018) with the same brush?

No, it doesn’t… Pretend for second that the Church’s teaching was not deepened to make the death penalty inadmissible… and then explain to me how a Catholic can justify the reintroduction of the death penalty in the US based on JPII and Benedicts’s teachings.

Don’t you agree that it is near impossible to justify CP based on Catholic moral teaching in the US today?

Or should be okay with reintroducing it aggressively?

 

[CatholicSooner]

Ender:

for agreeing with the Fathers and Doctors. I mean, if Trump is brutal and anti-life for supporting capital punishment, doesn’t that tar the church (at least up until 2018) with the same brush?

No, it doesn’t… Pretend for second that the Church’s teaching was not deepened to make the death penalty inadmissible… and then explain to me how a Catholic can justify the reintroduction of the death penalty in the US based on JPII and Benedicts’s teachings.

Don’t you agree that it is near impossible to justify CP based on Catholic moral teaching in the US today?

Or should be okay with reintroducing it aggressively?

I do not like capital punishment however I do not like the change that Pope Francis made where it is never OK. I think the way JP2 changed it was perfect. It still left room for situations and areas where it is needed.

But to be fair, I don’t put much stock in what PF or the US bishops say now days. I prefer the continuation of the first 2k years since christ

 

[godisgood77]

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

I think that referring to a Catechism from over 400 years ago is the wrong way to argue this. Reason being that the Church has always grown in understanding and deepened its teaching over time. By referring to the Trent Catechism, you are referencing an incomplete source.

 

[Ender]

Pretend for second that the Church’s teaching was not deepened to make the death penalty inadmissible…

“Inadmissible” as it was used in Francis’ change to CCC 2267 is ambiguous. At the US bishops’ annual conference last fall the question was asked “What does it mean?” The answer given was that it was an “eloquent ambiguity.” I might disagree about how eloquent it is, but there is little doubt about it being “equivocal, unclear, enigmatic…”

…explain to me how a Catholic can justify the reintroduction of the death penalty in the US based on JPII and Benedicts’s teachings.

JPII objected to the “unnecessary” use of capital punishment. So do I. That, however, is not a blanket objection to its use.

I am speaking of a tragic spiral of death which includes murder, suicide, abortion, euthanasia, as well as practices of mutilation, physical and psychological torture, forms of unjust coercion, arbitrary imprisonment, unnecessary recourse to the death penalty, deportations, slavery, prostitution, trafficking in women and children. (JPII, Message - World Day of Peace, 2001)

Don’t you agree that it is near impossible to justify CP based on Catholic moral teaching in the US today?

No, not at all. I recognize that most of the hierarchy including the last three popes were opposed to its use, but I think their objections were practical, and while there may be valid prudential objections to it I do not believe there is a moral objection to it.

Or should be okay with reintroducing it aggressively?

If it is a good idea to reintroduce it then yes, introducing it aggressively is a good thing.

 

[Ender]

I think that referring to a Catechism from over 400 years ago is the wrong way to argue this. Reason being that the Church has always grown in understanding and deepened its teaching over time. By referring to the Trent Catechism, you are referencing an incomplete source.

Whenever this topic is argued one of the points I return to is the problem of harmful arguments. That is, there are a number of positions expressed that, if accepted, would be harmful to the church herself. This is just such an argument.

If we accept what the church teaches that morality does not change with time or place, and that the doctrines of the church are true, then how can it be that what she taught in the past can be dismissed simply because it’s old?

The Council of Trent was one of the most significant events in the history of the church. The catechism that was promulgated there was the official pronouncement of doctrine not merely 400 years ago but right up until the new catechism in 1992, and if we may dismiss what it said why should we consider ourselves bound by the new catechism? If the old one has no inherent claim to truth then neither does this one.

The problem with virtually every argument against capital punishment is that they start out by excising the sacred tradition underlying 2000 years of teaching on the subject. That’s a really bad way to start.

 

[CatholicSooner]

spiritualsamurai:

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

I think that referring to a Catechism from over 400 years ago is the wrong way to argue this. Reason being that the Church has always grown in understanding and deepened its teaching over time. By referring to the Trent Catechism, you are referencing an incomplete source.

This is not a Catholic way to look at past teachings. Not at all.

 

[CatholicSooner]

godisgood77:

I think that referring to a Catechism from over 400 years ago is the wrong way to argue this. Reason being that the Church has always grown in understanding and deepened its teaching over time. By referring to the Trent Catechism, you are referencing an incomplete source.

Whenever this topic is argued one of the points I return to is the problem of harmful arguments. That is, there are a number of positions expressed that, if accepted, would be harmful to the church herself. This is just such an argument.

If we accept what the church teaches that morality does not change with time or place, and that the doctrines of the church are true, then how can it be that what she taught in the past can be dismissed simply because it’s old?

The Council of Trent was one of the most significant events in the history of the church. The catechism that was promulgated there was the official pronouncement of doctrine not merely 400 years ago but right up until the new catechism in 1992, and if we may dismiss what it said why should we consider ourselves bound by the new catechism? If the old one has no inherent claim to truth then neither does this one.

The problem with virtually every argument against capital punishment is that they start out by excising the sacred tradition underlying 2000 years of teaching on the subject. That’s a really bad way to start.

Spot on sir

 

[godisgood77]

Let’s shift gears Ender … you did not really answer the question I posed earlier. Let’s move there.

Do you think the death penalty should be introduced in the US under the conditions that this administration is acting under? Saint JPII said the conditions under which the death penalty would acceptable are practically non-existent… what say you?

 

[Ender]

Do you think the death penalty should be introduced in the US under the conditions that this administration is acting under? Saint JPII said the conditions under which the death penalty would acceptable are practically non-existent… what say you?

I think my position will be clearer if I restate your comment: “JPII said the conditions under which the death penalty would be beneficial are practically non-existent.”

I do not believe he was making a statement about the morality of capital punishment, but only about its functional utility. Indeed, inasmuch as he explicitly recognized the validity of capital punishment in some (however limited) circumstances I don’t see how he could have considered its use immoral. And neither do I.

 

[godisgood77]

I think my position will be clearer if I restate your comment: “ JPII said the conditions under which the death penalty would be beneficial are practically non-existent .”

I’m sorry, but it’s still not clear to me. May be you can just answer the question directly?

btw… with your restate of my paraphase of JPII comments you changed the meaning completely… for absence of doubt… here are the actual worlds of the Saint Pope

Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ - John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56

 

[TheMikado]

I’m a conservative. I oppose capital punishment. Most of the left does, too.

As a “new, not quite Catholic”, I am opposed to abortion and I do believe with all of my heart that it is the murder of an innocent child. The left embraces this murder, up to and including after actual birth.

The left opposes death to actual evil people and advocates for the death of innocent children.

I’m glad I’m not them.

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry, but it’s not clearer to me. May be you can just answer the question directly?

The determination of whether the conditions favor the reintroduction of capital punishment is left to each government’s discretion. There is no doctrine that determines whether its use will be good or bad. Inasmuch as I agree with Trent’s assertion that “Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder”, and that we have lost all appreciation for how heinous that crime is, yes, I think expanding the use of the death penalty, where the punishment surely fits the crime, might remind people of just how awful murder is.

Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. Consider the deviant who tortures small children to death for his pleasure or the ideologue who meditates the demise of innocent thousands for the sake of greater terror. Genesis says murderers deserve death because life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J Budziszewski)

with your restate of my paraphase of JPII comments you changed the meaning completely

Since I believe his comments represent a prudential judgment and not a moral judgment I think my change actually clarified his comment.