U.S. bishops say ‘enough’ on federal executions

[Motherwit]

Just hours before the sixth federal execution took place this year, and two days before the next one was scheduled, two U.S. bishops’ committee chairmen called on the government to end this practice.

“We say to President Trump and Attorney General Barr: Enough. Stop these executions,” said Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, in a statement issued late Sept. 22.

“In the last 60 years, before the Trump administration restarted federal executions, there were only four federal executions. Since July, there have been five, which is already more federal executions than were carried out in any year in the last century,” the bishops said.

They said the Catholic Church “must give concrete help to victims of violence” and “encourage the rehabilitation and restoration of those who commit violence.” They noted that “accountability and legitimate punishment are a part of this process” and emphasized that “responsibility for harm is necessary if healing is to occur and can be instrumental in protecting society.”

“Executions are completely unnecessary and unacceptable, as Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all articulated,” they added

U.S. bishops say ‘enough’ on federal executions | Crux

 

[christofirst]

I’m glad the US bishops took action and made this statement, rather than endlessly arguing amongst themselves over the exact meaning of the word inadmissible.

 

[Ender]

I’m glad the US bishops took action and made this statement, rather than endlessly arguing amongst themselves over the exact meaning of the word inadmissible.

Well, I’d like to think the bishops were taking a position on something they could actually explain instead of going forward on a topic they admitted is ambiguous.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, I’d like to think the bishops were taking a position on something they could actually explain instead of going forward on a topic they admitted is ambiguous.

From the article:

They said the Catholic Church “must give concrete help to victims of violence” and “encourage the rehabilitation and restoration of those who commit violence.” They noted that “accountability and legitimate punishment are a part of this process” and emphasized that “responsibility for harm is necessary if healing is to occur and can be instrumental in protecting society.”

“Executions are completely unnecessary and unacceptable, as Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all articulated,” they added.

I’m not noticing any ambiguity. Are you?

 

[Ender]

“Executions are completely unnecessary and unacceptable, as Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all articulated,” they added.

I’m not noticing any ambiguity. Are you?

Well, Francis (who forbade any exception) repudiated JPII (who recognized the possibility of exception) so yes, there does seem to be some ambiguity there. Do we get to choose which pope to believe?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Well, Francis (who forbade any exception) repudiated JPII (who recognized the possibility of exception) so yes, there does seem to be some ambiguity there. Do we get to choose which pope to believe?

There is room here for your own personal dissent.

 

[Ender]

There is room here for your own personal dissent.

If you’d like to make an argument I’ll respond to it. One line zingers don’t convey much.

 

[OneSheep]

Do we get to choose which pope to believe?

Because revelation unfolds as history progresses, It is recognized in the Church that the most modern catechesis is the most accurate at any point in history. So if you asked the question when Pope Saint JP II was alive, I would have said to go with that.

The Church has never reverted to a previously less merciful position, or one that reversed a teaching that strengthened the position of human dignity. As history progresses and revelation unfolds, we see the DP is now contrary to Christian teachings on human dignity.

As in the other thread, if you have a source that says anti-DP teachings are false, please bring it forth. Otherwise, let’s drop it.

 

[Motherwit]

OneSheep:

“Executions are completely unnecessary and unacceptable, as Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all articulated,” they added.

I’m not noticing any ambiguity. Are you?

Well, Francis (who forbade any exception) repudiated JPII (who recognized the possibility of exception) so yes, there does seem to be some ambiguity there. Do we get to choose which pope to believe?

The Popes were of one mind. There’s no need to choose who to believe.

Pope John Paul II “May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.”

Pope John Paul II “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”

No ambiguities there.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

In short, yes, you get to choose which pope to believe.

 

[Ender]

The Popes were of one mind. There’s no need to choose who to believe.

JPII - CCC 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Francis - CCC 2267 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.

These statements are different, and they cannot both be correct. If we consider Francis’ update valid because it is the newest, we cannot simply ignore that it repudiates JPII’s position. That’s the problem: I have to choose between them, which I guess is a ship that has already sailed given that we’ve already been told to choose between JPII and all the popes prior to him.

But - they were not of one mind, otherwise there would have been no update to the catechism needed.

In short, yes, you get to choose which pope to believe.

I’m uncomfortable with that approach. I’ve taken the position that if there is a way to understand their statements in such a way that they do not doctrinally contradict one another that’s probably the better answer.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’ve taken the position that if there is a way to understand their statements in such a way that they do not doctrinally contradict one another that’s probably the better answer.

Until you understand…which pope do you believe?

 

[Ender]

Until you understand…which pope do you believe?

I don’t believe that is a choice I have to make. What I believe is what the church has always taught as doctrine, which is that States have a legitimate moral right to apply capital punishment. I don’t believe that this has changed. I understand the comments of JPII and Francis to be prudential judgments, not doctrinal revisions. In that light I don’t face the unresolvable issue of whether a doctrine agreed to by all the Doctors, virtually all the Fathers, and reinforced by ecumenical councils could simply be abrogated by fiat by a pope.

Theirs were opinions, judgments, and as such do not command assent.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

The Popes were of one mind. There’s no need to choose who to believe.

JPII - CCC 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Francis - CCC 2267 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.

These statements are different, and they cannot both be correct. If we consider Francis’ update valid because it is the newest, we cannot simply ignore that it repudiates JPII’s position. That’s the problem: I have to choose between them, which I guess is a ship that has already sailed given that we’ve already been told to choose between JPII and all the popes prior to him.

But - they were not of one mind, otherwise there would have been no update to the catechism needed.

Pope John Pauls revision had more that gave the overall context.

"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”"

The Church has been edging towards a stronger position in the face of resistance that seems to refuse any counsel.

 

[Ender]

Pope John Pauls revision had more that gave the overall context.

The context is this: JPII accepted that the death penalty was legitimate in certain circumstances (however rare). Francis does not. Those positions are mutually exclusive. The one contradicts the other.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Pope John Pauls revision had more that gave the overall context.

The context is this: JPII accepted that the death penalty was legitimate in certain circumstances (however rare). Francis does not. Those positions are mutually exclusive. The one contradicts the other.

You know that Pope John Paul was calling constantly for the death penalty to be abolished. The Church gives people time to catch up and accept which has happened with teaching on the dp. The only thing preventing abolition today are ideologues who will always refuse to accept Church teaching. That has to be made clear.

 

[EssentialBeing]

Just because an individual exercises evil by extinguishing life, does not mean we have to lower ourselves to the criminal level by deciding to pass a death sentence on any living soul.

Just because it is law doesn’t mean it is moral & even-though evil individuals may choose to take life, we should not follow their example by killing them. Only god can choose, not human laws, the death penalty is not justice it is only retribution.

 

[Ender]

You know that Pope John Paul was calling constantly for the death penalty to be abolished. The Church gives people time to catch up and accept which has happened with teaching on the dp.

This evades the issue; it does not respond to it. You claimed the popes “were of one mind”, and that is not accurate. Yes, they both wanted capital punishment abolished, but they had very different interpretations of the doctrine. Their doctrinal positions were contradictory. Either that or their prudential judgments differ, but either way they were not of one mind on a very important point.

The only thing preventing abolition today are ideologues who will always refuse to accept Church teaching. That has to be made clear.

Then clarify things: which of the two competing statements should we accept? Francis’ because it is the latest change? And if it is Francis’ change then we should probably understand it, so explain what “inadmissible” means, because the US bishops were unable to do so.

 

[Motherwit]

Then clarify things: which of the two competing statements should we accept? Francis’ because it is the latest change? And if it is Francis’ change then we should probably understand it, so explain what “inadmissible” means, because the US bishops were unable to do so.

We accepted Pope John Pauls before 2018 and Francis’ after 2018 understanding them as a development just as has happened through 2000 years of the living Church.

Inadmissible means that today considering our increased awareness and understanding about human dignity it’s not admissible to use death as a sentence even though in the past it could be used. It isn’t complicated unless you want to make it complicated for some reason.

 

[Ender]

…the death penalty is not justice it is only retribution.

The problem with condemning the death penalty is the difficulty of condemning it in the present without condemning the church for supporting it in the past. If it is only retribution now, wouldn’t it have equally been only retribution then? And if it is unjust now wouldn’t it have been unjust for all those centuries when the church not only supported it but applied it herself?