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

[LongingSoul]

This is incorrect, protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. 2266 identifies the primary objective:*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
Whatever else may be true, it is clear that the prevention of future crimes does absolutely nothing to redress the disorder caused by crimes already committed. You may be uncomfortable with this but the fact remains that retribution - retributive justice - is primary.*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution ***or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment (USCCB)
Retribution is “the third” purpose here because the USCCB merely listed them; they did not rank them. Interestingly they only listed three purposes…they did not even mention protection. None of your other arguments hold up as they are all based on the misconception that protection is primary.
…is by understanding what the church actually teaches about punishment, and that begins with understanding the primary objective of all punishment.*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” *(Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Professor of Law, Ave Maria Law School)
Ender

For a start, nobody is arguing that punishment should be abolished and nobody is arguing that punishment is not required to redress the ‘disorder caused by crime’ (which we naturally understand to relate to the common good). So quit with your strawman arguments.

Secondly, it is very, very, clearly articulated by Cardinal Dulles that …

**Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.
**

So what are human beings to measure justice by? Answer - The needs of the community. The disorder caused to the common good. This is human justice for which the state is responsible. Aquinas words regarding use of the death penalty…

**Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.**When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

and

**Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. **But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners.

Our Lord ‘forbids’ its use when it is detrimental to the common good. Forbids no less. Not ‘suggests’ or ‘advises’… forbids.

Common sense dictates that if the Lord forbids using death as a punishment if the common good will be harmed… that as a community we have the capacity to objectively know when it is harming the common good. That is what has been happening around the world for the last century. The Vatican herself abolished it from law in 1969 and we are at the point where the vast majority of the world has moved to remove it from law. People on mass are sensing that it is doing more harm than good in the community and heeding both the natural and divine call which forbids its use under those circumstances… are taking the only acceptable steps. No human being whether consciously or unconsciously, wants to fall fowl of the Lord who forbids its use when it isn’t serving human justice.

 

[Ender]

Pro -life entails everything and always has.

The difficulty with this approach is that while it may be true about the question of whether a problem should be addressed it tells us nothing whatever about *how *the problem should be solved. Political disagreements arise over the selection of what particular act will best resolve the problem.

This is why there could never be a Catholic political party: there is no Catholic position on most issues. If the church has no doctrine addressing it then the issue is prudential, and Catholics can in good faith be on either side. If there is no Catholic side there is no pro-life side, and it is not a pro-life issue.

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

“My” position is the one I believe the church has always taught.The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.

A person deserves to die who commits deliberate murder. If he did not deserve this punishment then the church has supported an undeserved punishment for nearly two millennia. Nor is it the conviction that makes a criminal deserve punishment; it is the crime.

It is the conviction that gets them on death row, not the crime. That is why I asked the question. You are using God (actually hiding behind a partial teaching of the Church) as the reason the state should decide when a person needs to die. I am asking whether you think a person on death row is “more” deserving of death than someone who wasn’t sentenced to death – or even convicted – but has done the same crime. From what I gather, you are agreeing with me though using words of disagreement.

A person who commits a specific crime deserves a specific punishment for that crime. If he didn’t there would be no justification for punishing him.

Exactly. And how do you feel about the cases where new DNA evidence or other evidence shows they are wrongly convicted? Do you think it’s OK to kill someone on death row if they didn’t actually commit a crime, just because the state said they did? “Ooops sorry but oh well it’s for the good of society.”

You are giving the power of death to the government, in the name of Church teachings. That means that who gets punished has nothing to do with God or sinfulness, but what the state convicts them of.

And you selectively ignore any quote from the Pope if it doesn’t agree with your version of “Church Teachings.”

And like another poster said a long time ago, that the Church gives the government power of death penalty under CERTAIN CONDITIONS. If the conditions are not met, then that right dissolves.

But since you are trying to “punish” them rather than “protect society” as your strongest argument in favor, and then using the Church to back you up when it doesn’t. That tells me that you are on the wrong side of the spirit of Church teachings, in addition to the letter.

There are a lot of dirty jobs I wouldn’t want to do but that has nothing to do with whether they ought not be done.

How is “flipping a switch” a “dirty” job? You can wear a tuxedo and not get a mark on you. Oh, it’s “dirty” because we’re doing something that is “not good.” Ah, that makes sense. You want it done, but you don’t want to have to watch or actually be personally involved. Keep those things far away and as sterile as possible.

*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. *

Oh, I get it. You don’t want to be a hangman because it is an unpopular job and you don’t want people to “not like” you. That makes more sense; keep a distance from it and shout across the room, “kill that evildoer.”

MS

 

[Brendan]

I am only claiming that a) “pro-life” does extend beyond “anti-abortion politics,” and b) that one cannot use “all human life is sacred” as a battle cry, without applying to ALL human life and not just selected ones…

The pro-life position hindges on the Right to Life.

But the Church does recognize that a person, through their actions can forfeit that Right to Life.

Pope Pius XII noted this, specifically in an address to medical professionals to ENCOURAGE the recognition of the right to life

Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life

That is why, the Church has noted that, in very rare circumstances, the use of capital punishiment is necessary for us to be pro-life

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. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.

Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The pro-life position hindges on the Right to Life.

But the Church does recognize that a person, through their actions can forfeit that Right to Life.

Pope Pius XII noted this, specifically in an address to medical professionals to ENCOURAGE the recognition of the right to life

That is why, the Church has noted that, in very rare circumstances, the use of capital punishiment is necessary for us to be pro-life

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

k

 

[LongingSoul]

The pro-life position hindges on the Right to Life.

But the Church does recognize that a person, through their actions can forfeit that Right to Life.

Pope Pius XII noted this, specifically in an address to medical professionals to ENCOURAGE the recognition of the right to life

That is why, the Church has noted that, in very rare circumstances, the use of capital punishiment is necessary for us to be pro-life

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Pope St JPII on the other hand discourages us from taking that extra mile in interpreting God and natures permission to take life in some circumstances. He encourages us to respect the dignity of life even in the worst of criminals and only apply that permission if our safety can not be ensured.

When our Popes are speaking on doctrines, their words aren’t the same as scripture which will remain unchanged for always. They are relevant expressions of the doctrines to the particular flock they are responsible for. Some might say ‘hang on. Those two popes are contradicting each other so much so that one must be right and one must be wrong!’. However, what those two popes demonstrate is the marvellous nature of the living Church at work through the Magisterium.

 

[Corki]

Granted I have read only parts of this thread but why do I feel that we are back to the eighties and “The Seamless Garment” once again?

Pro -life entails everything and always has.

Of course the seamless garment theory is one that has been largely disavowed by the hierarchy, at least as it applies to social justice issues. The seamless garment was a concept that applied to Church unity until Cardinal Bernardin decided to come up with a new use of the term. Saint John Paul II was especially vocal in denouncing the idea that all life issues are equal and advocated that we view them as a hierarchy rather than a seamless garment or a homogenous concept.

 

[Ender]

So what are human beings to measure justice by? Answer - The needs of the community.

This sounds like something Spock would say: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Justice is absolutely not judged by the needs of the community; it is determined by the acts of individuals, not the needs of collectives.We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.
It is true that neither punishments nor rewards are just if they lead to harm, but that caveat is a long way from what you’ve suggested.

Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it.(Aquinas)
Our Lord ‘forbids’ its use when it is detrimental to the common good. Forbids no less. Not ‘suggests’ or ‘advises’… forbids.

Yes he does. So what’s your point? There is no disagreement that a punishment should not be used if it leads to further harm. The entire disagreement is over whether capital punishment is in fact harmful, and the thing is, that’s a judgment.

Common sense dictates that if the Lord forbids using death as a punishment if the common good will be harmed… that as a community we have the capacity to objectively know when it is harming the common good.

First, there is no such thing as objective knowledge about subjective matters. Second, there is no possible way to know the real impact of using capital punishment. It might be harmful, it might be helpful; you make your choice and live with the consequences, pretty much like every other judgement we are called on to make.

No human being whether consciously or unconsciously, wants to fall fowl of the Lord who forbids its use when it isn’t serving human justice.

As opposed to those who choose to fall foul of the Lord who called for its use as an act of justice?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I am asking whether you think a person on death row is “more” deserving of death than someone who wasn’t sentenced to death – or even convicted – but has done the same crime.

Crime X deserves penalty Y. If two people commit the same crime they should receive the same punishment. If a person commits murder and is sentenced to death while another person commits a similar murder yet is only sentenced to 10 years in prison, which of the two has received the unjust punishment? Actually, it is the one who received the lesser sentence.

And how do you feel about the cases where new DNA evidence or other evidence shows they are wrongly convicted?

If you want to raise practical objections to using capital punishment, that is a valid approach, but these objections have nothing to do with whether or not its use is moral.

Do you think it’s OK to kill someone on death row if they didn’t actually commit a crime, just because the state said they did?

Seriously?

You are giving the power of death to the government, in the name of Church teachings.

“I’m” not doing anything other than explaining what the church teaches. If you have an objection with that don’t address it to me, come out and say you think the church is wrong.But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples.

And you selectively ignore any quote from the Pope if it doesn’t agree with your version of “Church Teachings.”

This is false. I don’t need to pick and choose among popes to find comments I like; I can address what all of them have said. Unlike you.

But since you are trying to “punish” them rather than “protect society” as your strongest argument in favor, and then using the Church to back you up when it doesn’t.

It is surely easier to simply announce that I am wrong than to try to rebut what I have said, but it’s not very convincing. On this point you have no traction at all: the primary objective of punishment is retribution. Protection is - according to the church - only a secondary objective.

Oh, I get it. You don’t want to be a hangman because it is an unpopular job and you don’t want people to “not like” you. That makes more sense; keep a distance from it and shout across the room, “kill that evildoer.”

Take a deep breath and come back to this when you’re calmer.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
So what are human beings to measure justice by? Answer - The needs of the community.

And to continue with your Aquinas quote…

"A human action, as stated above (Article 3), acquires merit or demerit, through being ordained to someone else, either by reason of himself, or by reason of the community: and in each way, our actions, good and evil, acquire merit or demerit, in the sight of God. On the part of God Himself, inasmuch as He is man’s last end; and it is our duty to refer all our actions to the last end, as stated above (Question 19, Article 10). Consequently, whoever does an evil deed, not referable to God, does not give God the honor due to Him as our last end. On the part of the whole community of the universe, because in every community, he who governs the community, cares, first of all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award retribution for such things as are done well or ill in the community."

Insofar as the common good is served, so is Gods will. As Aquinas frequently reminds us ‘divine law presupposes natural law’.

Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it.(Aquinas)
Our Lord ‘forbids’ its use when it is detrimental to the common good. Forbids no less. Not ‘suggests’ or ‘advises’… forbids.

Yes he does. So what’s your point? There is no disagreement that a punishment should not be used if it leads to further harm. The entire disagreement is over whether capital punishment is in fact harmful, and the thing is, that’s a judgment.

When the majority of the world is rejecting the use of capital punishment as having a negative effect to the common good and the Catholic Church is affirming that this movement in the world is godly… we can be pretty sure that both nature and God are telling us something important.

Common sense dictates that if the Lord forbids using death as a punishment if the common good will be harmed… that as a community we have the capacity to objectively know when it is harming the common good.

First, there is no such thing as objective knowledge about subjective matters. Second, there is no possible way to know the real impact of using capital punishment. It might be harmful, it might be helpful; you make your choice and live with the consequences, pretty much like every other judgement we are called on to make.

So are you saying that it is meaningless for “Our Lord to forbid it” since it’s use is just a personal interpretation of Law with no possible way of defining the morality of that use? That isn’t what the Church is saying at all.

No human being whether consciously or unconsciously, wants to fall fowl of the Lord who forbids its use when it isn’t serving human justice.

As opposed to those who choose to fall foul of the Lord who called for its use as an act of justice?

God permits its use as an act of justice when it serves the common good. The Church has never understood capital punishment as a positive divine command. It only serves justice when it serves the common good.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Take a deep breath and come back to this when you’re calmer.

When “I’m calmer”

OK. Now that I’m “calmer” I see there is no point in discussing this with you because you have your mind made up and you are going to use selective facts to keep saying the same thing. You can say that whether we willfully and intentionally end the lives of people who are not a threat at the time the are killed is not a “life” issue if you want, and you can go back to the popes you prefer and ignore the one we have now, and it’s perfectly OK with me. :tiphat:

If you had given it as your opinion rather than trying to concoct an explanation for why the Church says that Francis and I are both wrong, that would have been fine. But you hide your desire for the death penalty behind the Church, and they aren’t covering you any more. You may desire it and frankly I’ve already said I’m not completely against it; but it is absolutely clear to any impartial reader of the material presented on this thread that your reasoning does not align with the Church’s and therefore your conclusions are your own. Sorry but times change, and the Lord has given us a Church led by the Holy Spirit, that adapts Truth to current times and conditions as they do.

MS

 

[Ender]

And to continue with your Aquinas quote…

Insofar as the common good is served, so is Gods will.

I don’t think repetition of the same point makes it any more persuasive. How many times must I acknowledge that a punishment should not be applied if it causes more problems than it solves? That is what Aquinas was saying and I agree with it. This is the exception to the rule: if capital punishment harms society it should not be used.

The determination of whether capital punishment is in fact harmful is obviously a judgment that depends on the specifics of each case. Now, if capital punishment is not harmful, what is the objection to using it?

As Aquinas frequently reminds us ‘divine law presupposes natural law’.

Good thing we know what the divine law is regarding capital punishment.“These punishments are fixed by divine law.”

When the majority of the world is rejecting the use of capital punishment as having a negative effect to the common good…

You have no idea why capital punishment is being rejected. There is certainly no reason to accept your opinion over this one:*Capital punishment comes to be regarded as barbarous in an irreligious society, that is shut within earthly horizons and which feels it has no right to deprive a man of the only good there is. *

So are you saying that it is meaningless for “Our Lord to forbid it” since it’s use is just a personal interpretation of Law with no possible way of defining the morality of that use?

What is being forbidden is doing something harmful. Capital punishment is not per se harmful and the church has never forbidden its use. If I believe its use will be harmful I am obliged to oppose it, but if I do not believe that then there is no such obligation. Our Lord absolutely did not forbid the use of capital punishment. Quite the opposite in fact:*Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace.
*Ender

 

[Ender]

Sorry but times change, and the Lord has given us a Church led by the Holy Spirit, that adapts Truth to current times and conditions as they do.

Time changes but truth does not. What was moral in the past is moral today; what the church said in the past is as valid today as it was then.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
*Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think repetition of the same point makes it any more persuasive. How many times must I acknowledge that a punishment should not be applied if it causes more problems than it solves? That is what Aquinas was saying and I agree with it. This is the exception to the rule: if capital punishment harms society it should not be used.

That’s rubbish. Exception to the rule? Countries who have abolished it from law did not in fact do that against your made up religious principle. They’ve done it as an act of recognition of the basic dignity of man. It’s an expression of our growth in civil and human awareness. The exception to the rule is to actually employ capital punishment as an extreme measure. To embrace it as a loved institution is some sort of sickness especially when the chance to abolish it is so robustly opposed as per your attitude.

The determination of whether capital punishment is in fact harmful is obviously a judgment that depends on the specifics of each case. Now, if capital punishment is not harmful, what is the objection to using it?

You stand alone in that belief. Neither the Church nor the majority of the world think so.

Good thing we know what the divine law is regarding capital punishment.“These are fixed by divine law.”

If that meant that they were positively commanded, we would still be flogging and sending into exile and slavery as punishments as per the list it referred to. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You have no idea why capital punishment is being rejected. There is certainly no reason to accept your opinion over this one:*Capital punishment comes to be regarded as barbarous in an irreligious society, that is shut within earthly horizons and which feels it has no right to deprive a man of the only good there is. *

Everybody has the basic idea of why capital punishment is on the nose and the Church affirms that as a good movement in society.

What is being forbidden is doing something harmful. Capital punishment is not per se harmful and the church has never forbidden its use. If I believe its use will be harmful I am obliged to oppose it, but if I do not believe that then there is no such obligation. Our Lord absolutely did not forbid the use of capital punishment. Quite the opposite in fact:*Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace.
*Ender

That’s not a quote from the Lord. What’s with abandoning citing sources or at least true authors?

 

[LongingSoul]

Time changes but truth does not. What was moral in the past is moral today; what the church said in the past is as valid today as it was then.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
*Ender

If Pope St JPII’s position today is nothing more than the personal opinion of a man, why isn’t Pope Innocents position in the year 405AD not just the personal opinion of a man? Or perhaps as Pope each was charged with conveying Gods will to their own flock. There’s a novel thought.

 

[Corki]

If Pope St JPII’s position today is nothing more than the personal opinion of a man, why isn’t Pope Innocents position in the year 405AD not just the personal opinion of a man? Or perhaps as Pope each was charged with conveying Gods will to their own flock. There’s a novel thought.

It is wrong to set the teachings, infallible and non-infallible, of different Popes against each other. It is also wrong to put the most recent teaching in a higher place than an older one (or vise versa). All of the teachings of the Church need to be understood as a whole. There is no teaching of the Church that capital punishment is **always **wrong. There IS a teaching of the Church that justice must always be tempered with mercy. We need to consider mercy for the criminal and for his/her victims as well as the families. We can’t ignore justice in pursuit of mercy.

 

[cena]

There is another issue involved, and that is studies have found that state that implement the death penalty either see no reduction in that state’s murder rate, or actually an increase.

The message the death penalty sends is “if you don’t like someone, then kill them.”

The death penalty is used as apunishment for serious crimes like first degree murder. Murder is so serious of a crime that the offender pays the ultimate price killing an innocent person or people. It can also stop murderers from killing people.

 

[LongingSoul]

It is wrong to set the teachings, infallible and non-infallible, of different Popes against each other. It is also wrong to put the most recent teaching in a higher place than an older one (or vise versa). All of the teachings of the Church need to be understood as a whole. There is no teaching of the Church that capital punishment is **always **wrong. There IS a teaching of the Church that justice must always be tempered with mercy. We need to consider mercy for the criminal and for his/her victims as well as the families. We can’t ignore justice in pursuit of mercy.

Are you addressing that to me? That’s been my argument all along. Ender uses the words of another Pope to contradict the current Pope as a matter of course.

It is clear to blind freddy that the Church is urgently and forcefully advising the abolition of the death penalty today. Why not just understand that in the context of the whole of Church teaching instead of trying to find fault with it?

 

[cena]

Maybe you’d be better off if you update your catechism to the one that is currently in effect. It’s funny that you have chosen to ignore what other posters have already posted on this issue from the CURRENT catechism, in favor of something that makes your point.

I suggest that the clarifications provided in the CURRENT Catechism, as opposed to the one it replaced because people like you were drawing incorrect inferences from it, trumps your ego’s apparent position, that in essence once a criminal has been duly convicted the Church has not much more to say about it.

I suggest you get with it and start using the CCC the rest of the Church is using. Yes, it is possible for a death row inmate to escape prison these days, but in the last 130 years since they wrote this passage you are dragging out we have improved our technology at least in the US (I don’t know about other countries) to confine dangerous criminals, and to track them in the event they do escape.

Oh, and since you seem to have missed it the last two times it was posted, here I will again copy the relevant passage from the CCC that is CURRENTLY in effect in the Catholic Church:

2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

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 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 nonexistent."

It doesn’t say it is always morally wrong. In the catechism many actions are always condemned.

Prisoners can kill other prisoners, guards, etc.

" The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. "
newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm

Death penalty emphasizes the gravity of the crime

 

[cena]

Time changes but truth does not. What was moral in the past is moral today; what the church said in the past is as valid today as it was then.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
*Ender

I agree, even JP2 said it was permissible in some circumstances so it is not a morally evil object