Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion

[Suudy]

As a society, we may choose death penalty as a remedy for possible greater harm done by those who we kill or those who might be deterred by it.

So it seems you think that society has the right to determine the prudential use of the death penalty? I’m confused. If society has the right to make that determination, you aren’t opposed to the death penalty itself, only the reasons we as a society have made the decision to use it. Which is exactly what everyone here has been saying.

I’m not seeing the

But as Christians, who are we to say “this person is innocent” or “this one is guilty?”

We do this all the time, from cheaters on exams, to traffic violations, to fraud cases, and to murder. And of course the criteria for conviction on each of these become more stringent the more serious the crime.

As a society, we must stone the adulteress.

As a Christian, we must allow her to live.

For my part, I’m more worried about those who condemn the person to death (e.g. a jury, a tyrant, etc) than I am about the person. The person, if in fact guilty of the crime, received just punishment. If innocent, their innocence will be acknowledged by God.

However, those who wrongly or unjustly condemn another to death has done the greater harm, and will reap a greater punishment for that sin. The greatest concern about the death penalty, should be about the threat to the eternal salvation of those who condemn another to death.

 

[Suudy]

In a culture where the death penalty is promoted as the god given ‘exception’ to the fifth commandment abortion philosophy gets a jemmy to allow its legitimacy.

And this goes back to the original point. Only those trying to conflate the pro-life movement with the anti-capital punishment movement see this as an exception.

Note that the 5th commandment is about murder. Our usual English rendering is “Thou shall not kill.” But go back to the Hebrew. There have been numerous points that it is more accurately translated as “Thou shall not murder” or similarly. There are numerous examples and Talmudic study confirms the English “kill” is too broad.

The death penalty is not an exception to the fifth commandment. Indeed, it is inline with traditional Jewish and Catholic teaching.

That is what the Church is trying to say. So while the dam might be solidly packed with anti abortion theology, philosophy etc… that one little hole allowing for the death penalty, represents a serious weakness that undermines the whole pro-life argument.

Emphasis mine. This is true only if one conflates killing with murder, which I don’t doubt those in the mainstream media and un-churched are likely to do.

 

[Ender]

Do you think it’s “bad” to expand the “pro-life” label to issues other than “anti-abortion” or not?

There are surely other pro-life issues than abortion…just not very many of them, and throwing that label around where it is not warranted is in fact a bad thing as it effaces the distinction between issues that really have only one morally valid position and those about which people may reasonably disagree.

A “pro-life” issue is not merely one that affects the quality of someone’s life; practically every issue does that. Nor is it merely about physical life itself. War involves the deaths of a great many people but it is not justifiably called a pro-life issue since one may take opposite sides with equal moral validity. The same is true of capital punishment. If these are pro-life issues the church could not be considered pro-life because she has always recognized that CP and wars may in fact be just.

This is the type of confusion that accompanies the struggle to co-opt the pro-life brand.

Ender

 

[SWolf]

It’s not a war that will be won by using a statistic like that. Our side… the anti abortion side… is relying on the fact of the sacredness of mans life, his innate dignity in the eyes of God and that no exceptions negate his inviolability outside of legitimate defense (as per natural law and common sense).

In a culture where the death penalty is promoted as the god given ‘exception’ to the fifth commandment abortion philosophy gets a jemmy to allow its legitimacy. That is what the Church is trying to say. So while the dam might be solidly packed with anti abortion theology, philosophy etc… that one little hole allowing for the death penalty, represents a serious weakness that undermines the whole pro-life argument.

I’ve heard arguments from radical pro-aborts that we’re not “truly” pro-life unless we believe in:

Unrestricted Immigration
Nationalized Health Care
Gun control
Welfare State
etc. etc.

These people are never satisfied, and will just use the “you’re not REALLY pro-life” as a bludgeon so they can smugly write us off as hypocrites while they vote a baby-killer into office.

Diluting the pro-life message will only help the pro-aborts, no one else, certainly not the babies.

Don’t water things down. Stay on message, stay on target, and be on the offensive.

 

[Path_Finder]

It’s not a war that will be won by using a statistic like that. Our side… the anti abortion side… is relying on the fact of the sacredness of mans life, his innate dignity in the eyes of God and that no exceptions negate his inviolability outside of legitimate defense (as per natural law and common sense).

In a culture where the death penalty is promoted as the god given ‘exception’ to the fifth commandment abortion philosophy gets a jemmy to allow its legitimacy. That is what the Church is trying to say. So while the dam might be solidly packed with anti abortion theology, philosophy etc… that one little hole allowing for the death penalty, represents a serious weakness that undermines the whole pro-life argument.

It won’t be lost with an argument like that either. It is somewhat a side issue, many pro-life laws have been enacted to try to stop or limit the number of abortions performed.

I would wager mainly reproductive rights advocate bring up the :“doctors killed” scenario. I also don’t find any confirmation that protesters “cheered” an abortion doctor being killed.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
That is what the Church is trying to say. So while the dam might be solidly packed with anti abortion theology, philosophy etc… that one little hole allowing for the death penalty, represents a serious weakness that undermines the whole pro-life argument.

And that’s the point. We as people of faith are infinitely blessed to know God and understand the nature of His love for us. The culture we live in today, doesn’t know God but their highest good amounts to what natural law informs them of. That is not a bad thing… its just not a life of fullness in God. The ever growing repulsion for the death penalty is being driven by these forces of the natural order revolting against injustice. It’s not unusual that in todays faithless society, people might feel that the death penalty is deeply evil, perhaps even feeling that it is intrinsically evil. That’s where the Church has stepped up to the plate saying that while the trend towards abolishing the death penalty in todays society is good and proper to natural and divine law… it is not intrinsically evil. It can have a legitimate place in serving the common good.

The reality emerging throughout the world today, is that the common good is being harmed by a death penalty and causing disrespect for human life on a wider scale. The Church is affirming that trend as good according to both natural and divine law.

The two extremes of error that are causing the grief in this natural transition are 1. those who see the death penalty as intrinsically evil and 2. those who see the death penalty as divinely commanded and a human ‘default’ practice. It’s neither of those things. It is something that owes its service to the common good alone … it’s use permitted by natural and divine law, only to that end.

At the end of the day, the Church has affirmed that this force to abolish the death penalty is good and in keeping with the will of God.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ve heard arguments from radical pro-aborts that we’re not “truly” pro-life unless we believe in:

Unrestricted Immigration
Nationalized Health Care
Gun control
Welfare State
etc. etc.

These people are never satisfied, and will just use the “you’re not REALLY pro-life” as a bludgeon so they can smugly write us off as hypocrites while they vote a baby-killer into office.

Diluting the pro-life message will only help the pro-aborts, no one else, certainly not the babies.

Don’t water things down. Stay on message, stay on target, and be on the offensive.

Except the Catholic Church are not ‘pro-aborts’ and they are calling opposition to the death penalty a pro-life issue. So lets not muddy the water by trying to equate the Churchs position with the pro-aborts position.

 

[SWolf]

Except the Catholic Church are not ‘pro-aborts’ and they are calling opposition to the death penalty a pro-life issue. So lets not muddy the water by trying to equate the Churchs position with the pro-aborts position.

As has been stated many times.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
The Death Penalty is a prudential judgement.

They aren’t even in the same universe as it pertains to Church Doctrine.

More importantly, if energy was spent fighting the death penalty, the pro-aborts will just find another excuse not to support our cause. The overall net gain for the cause would be negative. The significant energy wasted fighting the death penalty would be much more usefully applied to eliminating abortion.

Once the beam is out of the eye of society, we can work on the specks. The Death Penalty, is, as the most, a speck.

 

[LongingSoul]

It won’t be lost with an argument like that either. It is somewhat a side issue, many pro-life laws have been enacted to try to stop or limit the number of abortions performed.

How is all that impacting on the fight against abortion? What the Church wants to do is get into the cultural mindset by reinforcing a very natural fundamental principle that can be known by us all with or without knowledge of God ie. human life is inviolable.

I would wager mainly reproductive rights advocate bring up the :“doctors killed” scenario. I also don’t find any confirmation that protesters “cheered” an abortion doctor being killed.

Perhaps Mystical Seeker could give more insight into the Pat Buchanan years of Right to Life but here in Australia, the movement suddenly moved from a bipartisan position ie. above the left/right political divide… to being co-opted by a very distinct type of political character. I mean an ultra something type of character. If you weren’t on their side of politics, you weren’t really prolife no matter what you said.

 

[LongingSoul]

As has been stated many times.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
The Death Penalty is a prudential judgement.

They aren’t even in the same universe as it pertains to Church Doctrine.

More importantly, if energy was spent fighting the death penalty, the pro-aborts will just find another excuse not to support our cause. The overall net gain for the cause would be negative. The significant energy wasted fighting the death penalty would be much more usefully applied to eliminating abortion.

Once the beam is out of the eye of society, we can work on the specks. The Death Penalty, is, as the most, a speck.

It was not a speck for the rest of the civilised world who have abolished it over the last century as not in keeping with human dignity. The Church is not promoting abolition of the DP as a ‘speck’ to be worked on when abortion is banned. It is promoting it in order that the veins ie. the right to take a life… that feed the abortion mentality can be tied off thereby strangling that justification.

 

[Suudy]

The ever growing repulsion for the death penalty is being driven by these forces of the natural order revolting against injustice.

I disagree. Their revulsion is based on a flawed understanding of justice (and by extension injustice), and by their conflation of just killing (capital punishment, self defense, etc) and unjust killing (murder, manslaughter, etc).

The reality emerging throughout the world today, is that the common good is being harmed by a death penalty and causing disrespect for human life on a wider scale. The Church is affirming that trend as good according to both natural and divine law.

There may be a view that the death penalty is “causing disrespect for human life on a wider scale.” And it may be a view that is widespread. But I don’t think the solution to that problem is to merge it with the pro-life movement. Rather, there should be strenuous efforts to educate those who hold that view that capital punishment is a different thing altogether from individuals taking the lives of others.

At the end of the day, the Church has affirmed that this force to abolish the death penalty is good and in keeping with the will of God.

I’m not sure this is the case. The Church’s teaching is only one of prudential judgement, not one of doctrine. If what you mean by “abolish the death penalty” is to say that there is no legitimate use in the US today, then perhaps. But if you mean that the death penalty should never be used, I don’t think that is the case.

But regardless, I think a qualifier is in order, such as in the Catechism. I don’t think the Church has ever said or will ever say that the death penalty should be eliminated entirely. Rather, it has said and I think will continue say, that the death penalty should be reserved to exceptional circumstances where it is the only option, such as protecting others.

 

[Suudy]

How is all that impacting on the fight against abortion? What the Church wants to do is get into the cultural mindset by reinforcing a very natural fundamental principle that can be known by us all with or without knowledge of God ie. human life is inviolable.

Emphasis mine.

But that’s NOT Church teaching. If that were, then scenarios we’ve discussed, notably those with regard to self defense, defense of others, war, etc would be wrong. All human life is sacred, but not all human life is inviolable. There is likely an argument that all innocent human life is inviolable (I think there is). But Church teaching has consistently upheld the teaching that the state has the right to make use of the death penalty. Indeed, even Pius XII (as quote here by Avery Cardinal Dulles):
Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.
A condemned man has already forfeited his right to life. If all human life is inviolable, then what could Pius XII have meant?

 

[SWolf]

It was not a speck for the rest of the civilised world who have abolished it over the last century as not in keeping with human dignity. The Church is not promoting abolition of the DP as a ‘speck’ to be worked on when abortion is banned. It is promoting it in order that the veins ie. the right to take a life… that feed the abortion mentality can be tied off thereby strangling that justification.

For the United States:
Number of executions in 2014: 34
Number of abortions in 2014: About 1,000,000

The Death Penalty does not ‘feed’ the abortion mentality. There are several states that do not have the Death Penalty, yet abortions are prevalent and even funded.

For example:
Massachusetts has not had the death penalty since the eighties, yet is one of only 17 states that has public funding for abortion.

 

[LongingSoul]

For the United States:
Number of executions in 2014: 34
Number of abortions in 2014: About 1,000,000

The Death Penalty does not ‘feed’ the abortion mentality. There are several states that do not have the Death Penalty, yet abortions are prevalent and even funded.

For example:
Massachusetts has not had the death penalty since the eighties, yet is one of only 17 states that has public funding for abortion.

So are you saying that the Church is wrong to promote the abolition of the death penalty as a pro life issue?

 

[Suudy]

So are you saying that the Church is wrong to promote the abolition of the death penalty as a pro life issue?

Let’s clarify one thing. The term “pro-life” has a meaning defined by the user of the term, which may be very different than other’s use or the receiver of the term. So, to say the Church is trying “to promote the abolition of the death penalty as a pro life issue” is to try and define the term “pro life” for the Church. Nobody owns the term “pro life” and there’s no arbiter or court to restrict access.

Now, the discussion here is about what is meant by the term “pro life” and what it should encompass. I’m not sure the Church (as a body) is using the term “pro life” in any specific manner. Rather, individual members are using it differently. So I don’t think we can answer the question of whether the Church is wrong. We can only answer whether an particular individual is wrong in driving the opposition to capital punishment as a pro life issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not sure this is the case. The Church’s teaching is only one of prudential judgement, not one of doctrine. If what you mean by “abolish the death penalty” is to say that there is no legitimate use in the US today, then perhaps. But if you mean that the death penalty should never be used, I don’t think that is the case.

But regardless, I think a qualifier is in order, such as in the Catechism. I don’t think the Church has ever said or will ever say that the death penalty should be eliminated entirely. Rather, it has said and I think will continue say, that the death penalty should be reserved to exceptional circumstances where it is the only option, such as protecting others.

This is how EV expresses it…

**"Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.** The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. "

John Paul II "May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“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.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

There are surely other pro-life issues than abortion…

Thank you.

This is the type of confusion that accompanies the struggle to co-opt the pro-life brand.

That makes me smile just a little bit. The pro-life “brand” should be reserved to and focused on a single political element. Others need to go find another buzzword lest we learn that some of the principals being presented as “absolute” actually only apply in a limited context.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

A condemned man has already forfeited his right to life. If all human life is inviolable, then what could Pius XII have meant?

Boy, you got me on that one.

I’m happy to say I was not even born until the year after the man who wrote that, died.

 

[Path_Finder]

This is how EV expresses it…

**"Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.** The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. "

John Paul II "May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“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.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

This is quote-a-Pope, I agree with it, it is not binding.

Vatican documents outline the Church’s objections to abortion and so on. I believe they also address the death penalty issue.

 

[SWolf]

So are you saying that the Church is wrong to promote the abolition of the death penalty as a pro life issue?

“The Church” has no intention of diluting the pro-life message against abortion, or getting it co-opted to include the death penalty. It’s misleading as to the gravity of the two matters.

As has also been stated several times, there is no contradiction between being for the death penalty and being pro-life, as Ender has explained several times.