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

[Suudy]

What is it with the citation-free quotes. Are you just making stuff up and pretending like it’s a quote from someone who has authority?

See Ender’s earlier post (#243) for an explanation. But really, to accuse him of “making stuff up”? Really?

If you want to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you will consider it a pro-life issue. If you don’t, go ahead and keep repeating the parts you want, and keep leaving out the parts you don’t.

This is one of the most over the top things I’ve read here on CAF in a long time. Are you really suggesting that someone who doesn’t consider capital punishment a pro-life issue (however that is defined) is at best schismatic and at worst heretical? Really?

The entire point is that the use of capital punishment is a prudential issue that only the State can determine (see LongingSoul’s own quote of Aquinas: “Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”).

Finally, the Church has not and does not label capital punishment a “pro-life” issue precisely because it doesn’t use that term. And the context that began this discussion was about the “pro-life movement,” which is independent of the Church.

I really think you need to retract that statement. It seems to me you essentially labeled Ender a schismatic or a heretic. And that’s a big no-no here.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

See Ender’s earlier post (#243) for an explanation. But really, to accuse him of “making stuff up”? Really?

This is one of the most over the top things I’ve read here on CAF in a long time. Are you really suggesting that someone who doesn’t consider capital punishment a pro-life issue (however that is defined) is at best schismatic and at worst heretical? Really?

The entire point is that the use of capital punishment is a prudential issue that only the State can determine (see LongingSoul’s own quote of Aquinas: “Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”).

Finally, the Church has not and does not label capital punishment a “pro-life” issue precisely because it doesn’t use that term. And the context that began this discussion was about the “pro-life movement,” which is independent of the Church.

I really think you need to retract that statement. It seems to me you essentially labeled Ender a schismatic or a heretic. And that’s a big no-no here.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Yes or no: Does Pope Francis consider the death penalty, a “pro-life” issue?

If the answer is yes, then in order to be in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on that issue, then you would consider it a “pro-life” issue as well.

If the answer is no, then in order to be in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on that issue, then you would not consider it a “pro-life” issue.

Pope Francis is the Bishop of Rome at this time. Do we agree on that much?

 

[Suudy]

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Yes or no: Does Pope Francis consider the death penalty, a “pro-life” issue?

If the answer is yes, then in order to be in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on that issue, then you would consider it a “pro-life” issue as well.

If the answer is no, then in order to be in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on that issue, then you would not consider it a “pro-life” issue.

Pope Francis is the Bishop of Rome at this time. Do we agree on that much?

The bishopric is a position, not a person. And usually when one says “communion with the Bishop of Rome” it implies communion with the position, not the person. For example, the entire ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox going back to the great schism, or the dialog with the Anglicans. The terminology used is “communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

So, let’s not play fast and loose with terminology. The obvious meaning of your statement was about communion with the Church, not with Pope Francis himself.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The bishopric is a position, not a person. And usually when one says “communion with the Bishop of Rome” it implies communion with the position, not the person. For example, the entire ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox going back to the great schism, or the dialog with the Anglicans. The terminology used is “communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

So, let’s not play fast and loose with terminology. The obvious meaning of your statement was about communion with the Church, not with Pope Francis himself.

So I see the term “communion” meant something in particular; I wondered whether maybe that was the problem which was why I used “agreement” in my last post. Kind of like “respect the office but don’t like who’s in it” which is used by people who disagree with the POTUS, for example, but ostensibly still follow the Constitution.

But my question still stands:

Yes or no? Does Pope Francis consider “death penalty” a “pro-life” issue? If the answer is “yes” or “no” then you are in personal agreement or disagreement, respectively, with the current sitting Bishop of Rome. Maybe that asks my question without making the stronger assertion I was not implying.

I don’t deny that Church teachings does allow for use of the death penalty, but it gives specific conditions under which it should be met. And if those conditions are not met, that allowance can no longer be assumed – and in fact should not be.

To those who say that the death penalty should be given because we are angry at a person or that they “deserve to die” rather than to “keep society safe,” I will never budge on that one. Because that’s just repaying evil for evil, and is essentially simple blood-thirsty revenge.

My lament is that especially in high-profile cases, we as a society seem to demand that the government shows us that “somebody has paid dearly” for their crimes. If it’s about “making them pay” then they should recognize that vengeance is the Lord’s. Entire political careers are based on successful prosecution of capital cases, in there is huge incentive for corruption. Sure there is corruption in the entire system,

My greater lament is that Catholics, and especially “pro-life” Catholics, seem to consider the death penalty not only necessary, but desirable for reasons other than protection of innocent people.

I guess I’ve been too “serious” about all this? How about a little “levity” to lighten things up a bit?

Stoning - Monty Python’s Life of Brian

This one appeals to my idea of the “mob mentality” we get in high-profile cases of crime that get blasted all over the media 24/7 for days/weeks in a row:

Witch Village - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

MS

 

[Ender]

So you are agreeing that the state has a duty to abolish the death penalty where it becomes obvious that it is harming the common good?

We all, the state included, have an obligation not to do things that are obviously harmful.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

I don’t deny that Church teachings does allow for use of the death penalty, but it gives specific conditions under which it should be met. And if those conditions are not met, that allowance can no longer be assumed – and in fact should not be.

And nobody here, Ender included, has been saying otherwise. We all agree.

The point is that the evaluations of those conditions is one of prudential judgement. It is for the State to decide whether capital punishment serves the common good.

To those who say that the death penalty should be given because we are angry at a person or that they “deserve to die” rather than to “keep society safe,” I will never budge on that one. Because that’s just repaying evil for evil, and is essentially simple blood-thirsty revenge.

Who here has said anything about being “angry at the person”? As for “deserve to die,” the point is that certain crimes have certain prescribed punishments. And for some of those, it is death. It is not about vengeance (at least not in the modern use of the term). It is about justice and retribution, which are not the same thing as vengeance.

My greater lament is that Catholics, and especially “pro-life” Catholics, seem to consider the death penalty not only necessary, but desirable for reasons other than protection of innocent people.

I don’t think people find it necessary except insofar as it serves the common good. Indeed, Ender’s posts have been clear (including his post just prior to this one) that when harmful, capital punishment should NOT be used. And the protection of others is a goal of capital punishment–nobody has denied that. But it’s not the only goal. Justice is another goal. Retribution is another goal. And indeed, it can serve as expiation for one’s sins. And as I’ve quoted from the Church (and Ender has done the same), “protection of innocent people” is NOT the only reason.

 

[Suudy]

A couple of other thoughts.

Yes or no? Does Pope Francis consider “death penalty” a “pro-life” issue? If the answer is “yes” or “no” then you are in personal agreement or disagreement, respectively, with the current sitting Bishop of Rome. Maybe that asks my question without making the stronger assertion I was not implying.

Whether I agree or disagree with Pope Francis’ personal views is irrelevant. Or even his public statements insofar as they are his personal opinion. Consider the interview recently with Cardinal Burke wherein he was asked about Pope Francis endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried:
Question: If perchance the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?
Cardinal Burke: I shall resist, I can do nothing else. There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.
Does Cardinal Burke’s position trouble you in the same way that other Catholic support the State’s right to use capital punishment?

My greater lament is that Catholics, and especially “pro-life” Catholics, seem to consider the death penalty not only necessary, but desirable for reasons other than protection of innocent people.

I also realized I wanted to talk about pro-life Catholics, like myself, who do not consider capital punishment a pro-life issue. I consider the pro-life label to be exclusively focused on the protection of the innocent. And I define innocent as people who have not been convicted of a capital offense. (Now, of course, the “pro-life” label is not some official term regulated by any authority, including the Church. But this is how I view pro-life issues.)

Also, I don’t really consider human trafficking a pro-life issue, except insofar as the lives of innocent people are taken. I consider it more akin to a quality of life issue, rather than a right to life issue. Now certainly there are traffickers that view human life as disposable, and in that regard it is a pro-life issue. Like chattel slavery, it is pro-life insofar as the lives of innocent people are considered expendable. I admit, I don’t know the numbers of those who die each year from human trafficking. And I suspect most of those numbers are from neglect or unintentional killing (such as excessive abuse). But I’m fairly certain its numbers pale in comparison to the number of innocent children intentionally killed each year by abortionists.

 

[LongingSoul]

We all, the state included, have an obligation not to do things that are obviously harmful.

Ender

Exactly! It is morally imperative.

 

[Suudy]

Exactly! It is morally imperative.

Note the key word: “obviously.” The point is that whether or not capital punishment is harmful to the common good is not so obvious.

 

[Ender]

As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare.(Aquinas)
The example of the decayed limb amputated to prevent harm to the whole body can be seen in a different light today then in the middle ages.

The question is often asked: what crimes deserve the death penalty? For some crimes that penalty is set, for others it is not defined by natural law but is appropriate based on the circumstances. The comment you cited seems to address not those cases where it is defined but those where it is appropriate.*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. *(Aquinas ST I 19,6,1 - The Will of God)
It is not murder alone that justifies capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What is it with the citation-free quotes. Are you just making stuff up and pretending like it’s a quote from someone who has authority?

I don’t make any of this up, but since you object to my citing any church document more than 50 years old I thought I would just give the quote without revealing the source. That way you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the idea expressed based on its content and not on who might have said it.

I don’t really care if there is a death penalty or not. I started out by pointing out that it was inconsistent NOT to call the death penalty, a “pro-life” issue.

One would assume that the church would be on the pro-life side of every issue, but since the church acknowledges that capital punishment is a right of states she clearly allows individuals to be on either side of the issue. If the church allows this then either it cannot properly be called a pro-life issue, or the church herself is not always pro-life.

If you want to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you will consider it a pro-life issue. If you don’t, go ahead and keep repeating the parts you want, and keep leaving out the parts you don’t.

Which Bishop of Rome would that be? One of the last three or one of the first 260+?

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

A couple of other thoughts.

Whether I agree or disagree with Pope Francis’ personal views is irrelevant. Or even his public statements insofar as they are his personal opinion. Consider the interview recently with Cardinal Burke wherein he was asked about Pope Francis endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried:

Whether you are “with” Pope Francis is irrelevant? Have you noticed the title of the thread?

Title of the thread:
" Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion"

Question: If perchance the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?
Cardinal Burke: I shall resist, I can do nothing else. There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.
Does Cardinal Burke’s position trouble you in the same way that other Catholic support the State’s right to use capital punishment?

I don’t care about Burke’s position on whether he is a dissenter against the pope. I never even heard of him before now, and whoever he is, I care not a whit more about him now than I did ten minutes ago.

The pope has a few of the really high and mighty “good old boys” with pretty good tenure, in prison or at least defrocked, if I remember right. So it sounds like you are “taking sides” with those who think Francis is too liberal. Am I right on that? Simple yes/no will suffice. Or just ignore me because frankly I don’t care whether I’m right.

You may be totally right on everything.

MS

 

[Ender]

To those who say that the death penalty should be given because we are angry at a person or that they “deserve to die” rather than to “keep society safe,” I will never budge on that one.

Start with this: “I don’t deny that Church teachings does allow for use of the death penalty”. How can the church allow the death penalty for someone who doesn’t deserve it, but if the person deserves that punishment aren’t we saying he deserves to die? What could possibly justify executing someone who doesn’t deserve to die? What is unjustifiable is executing someone who doesn’t deserve to die just to keep society safe. You really have these objectives backwards.

Because that’s just repaying evil for evil, and is essentially simple blood-thirsty revenge.

“Evil is the privation of good.” Understood this way all punishment is an evil, imprisonment no less than execution, and while the desire for vengeance can be wrongly held it can be justly felt as well.*It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; *

If it’s about “making them pay” then they should recognize that vengeance is the Lord’s."

But if God himself does it it can hardly be deemed evil.*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment.
*

My greater lament is that Catholics, and especially “pro-life” Catholics, seem to consider the death penalty not only necessary, but desirable for reasons other than protection of innocent people.

How does the prevention of future crimes address the disorder caused by crimes already committed? Justice is not about protection for the future but about redress for the past. My greater lament is that people have no real understanding of the primary purpose of punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Note the key word: “obviously.” The point is that whether or not capital punishment is harmful to the common good is not so obvious.

Exactly, and if there is disagreement about this, neither side can claim to be the morally correct position. One will be mistaken, but neither will be immoral.*And therefore if a man’s will wills a thing to be, according as it appears to be good, his will is good: and the will of another man, who wills that thing not to be, according as it appears evil, is also good. *
Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

One of the last three or one of the first 260+?

Ender

The one who is officially in office Right Now. Today, in my time zone, is February 10, 2005. The Bishop of Rome at that time period is Pope Francis. Pope Francis and his opinion, and whether it will persuade Catholics to increase their view of the pro-life label, is the subject of this thread.

So if you are on topic, your question would be entirely superfluous.

As it is, if you are showing how past popes have spoken more “pro death-penalty” than this one, then you are supporting the point that Pope Francis is at least stating a wider version of “pro-life” than your at painting from your pieces of quotes from those who are no longer in power.

So the question are, whether Americans are buying it. I’m an American and I agree with the CURRENT Bishop of Rome – not the dead or retired of my preference on any given issue. Apparently you are of the opposite mentality, so it would seem you disagree with him.

Why is this so complicated? Just admit you don’t like what the Pope is saying or implying if that’s what you think, or argue that he is not advancing “pro-life” beyond abortion. Those are the two ways I see to reconcile your statements.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Exactly, and if there is disagreement about this, neither side can claim to be the morally correct position. One will be mistaken, but neither will be immoral.*And therefore if a man’s will wills a thing to be, according as it appears to be good, his will is good: and the will of another man, who wills that thing not to be, according as it appears evil, is also good. *
Ender

Hey…

Here’s a post I can just agree with you on. I agree with this.

MS

 

[kozlosap]

Whether you are “with” Pope Francis is irrelevant? Have you noticed the title of the thread?

Title of the thread:
" Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion"

I don’t care about Burke’s position on whether he is a dissenter against the pope. I never even heard of him before now, and whoever he is, I care not a whit more about him now than I did ten minutes ago.

The pope has a few of the really high and mighty “good old boys” with pretty good tenure, in prison or at least defrocked, if I remember right. So it sounds like you are “taking sides” with those who think Francis is too liberal. Am I right on that? Simple yes/no will suffice. Or just ignore me because frankly I don’t care whether I’m right.

You may be totally right on everything.

MS

I DO know about Cardinal Burke, but wish I didn’t! His obvious very expert political speak about The Holy Father makes my blood boil.

 

[Ender]

Just admit you don’t like what the Pope is saying or implying if that’s what you think…

I am unconvinced that the death penalty contributes to the culture of death, or that it sends the wrong message to society, nor have I seen an argument that attempts to justify this claim. The position is simply asserted; it is never defended beyond the use of ad hominem insults.

…or argue that he is not advancing “pro-life” beyond abortion.

As I’ve said, if the church allows either of two competing positions then neither of them can be considered pro-life.
.
.
.

Here’s a post I can just agree with you on. I agree with this.

Good, maybe we can find other things as well.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

I am curious. What is the practical effect of a Catholic who supports the death penalty and does not consider it to be a pro-life issue. Why does it matter? The Church has clearly stated it is licit to hold such a view. Should we drum the out of the pro-life ministry? Are they going to burn in hell even though the Church told them it was OK?

 

[Suudy]

Whether you are “with” Pope Francis is irrelevant? Have you noticed the title of the thread?

It’s not irrelevant with regard to the OP, but it is with regard to whether or not the Church is pro-life. But I see your point.

I don’t care about Burke’s position on whether he is a dissenter against the pope. I never even heard of him before now, and whoever he is, I care not a whit more about him now than I did ten minutes ago.

Was it ok to be a dissenter against the Borgias popes, such as Alexander VI?

And I’m surprised you haven’t heard of Cardinal Burke. He’s no lightweight.

The pope has a few of the really high and mighty “good old boys” with pretty good tenure, in prison or at least defrocked, if I remember right. So it sounds like you are “taking sides” with those who think Francis is too liberal. Am I right on that? Simple yes/no will suffice.

I’m not taking sides because of anything to do with being “too liberal.” I’m like Burke, “if any authority, even the highest authority, were to deny that truth or act contrary to it, I would be obliged to resist, in fidelity to my responsibility before God.” If I take any sides, it is the side of the Church.

So, simply, the answer to your question is “No.”

Or just ignore me because frankly I don’t care whether I’m right.

Was this a typo? I hope you do care if you are right. If you didn’t then you’d be ignoring your conscience.

You may be totally right on everything.

Or you may be totally right on everything (I’m not convinced that you are). But that is the point of these discussions. Not to win people over to my side, but to find the truth.