Virginia bishops urge Catholics to shift focus of death penalty debate

[Leonhard]

2267

The Catholic Church doesn’t have much of an official stance on this, except that this what you’re quoting is the popular opinion currently among the bishops. I sympathise with it, but its not dogmatically binding on the conscience of individual Catholics.

Believing that the death penalty is good, just and should be continued incurs no moral guilt on any person.

The Cathechism of St. John Paul II, which you’re quoting, is very good on many questions, however one if its smaller pecadillos (if not its enormous length), is that it doesn’t make an effort to distinguish opinion, and dogma. It teaches mostly the latter, which is why it can safely used in must situations, but sometimes it teaches opinion. Which this passage is.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), did said the following in 2004. That we’re allowed to disagree, even with the Pope (and by extension the bishops as a collective) on this question.

I don’t see how we’d incur sin by disagreeing, as long we’d honestly seek to implement the death penalty justly.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.HTM

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

I’m not even sure Catholics are allowed to believe that the death penalty is wholly wrong and unjust, because its clearly part of the God’s righteous law. One can talk about whether there is something better, more merciful, to do in its stead, but can Catholics really talk about “the evil” of the death penalty if its properly implemented?

 

[Micosil]

I sympathise with it, but its not dogmatically binding on the conscience of individual Catholics.

It may perhaps not be dogmatically binding on the faithful; however, this is where the question of certainties comes into play.

The question, then, if this issue can be found within such certainties, is to what kind of theological certainty it belongs. We can rule out the first two (de fide, fides ecclesiastica), and probably third one as well (sententia fidei proxima).

 

[Leonhard]

It may perhaps not be dogmatically binding on the faithful; however, this is where the question of certainties comes into play.

The question, then, if this issue can be found within such certainties, is to what kind of theological certainty it belongs. We can rule out the first two (de fide, fides ecclesiastica), and probably third one as well (sententia fidei proxima).

I think if I would have to guess then that it would be

Sententia Communis: Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research.

 

[Ender]

Since my post was a FYI to share information, and NOT to debate, I will not be responding further to any of your posts, Ender.

I asserted that “*The claim of 152 people on death row being exonerated is demonstrably untrue.” *You challenged me to support that claim, which I did. It seems a bit late to suggest you weren’t interested in debating the point.

Ender

 

[Ender]

This site lists names and information of the now 153 exonerees. Surely that is a demonstration of fact, Ender?

What it demonstrates is deceit. What they have done is to list pretty much anyone who has had a death sentence vacated for any reason and count the removal as “exoneration.” This list includes those individuals removed for procedural reasons that had no relation whatever to the question of guilt or innocence.

Here is one example of what is alleged about the inaccuracies of that list. I haven’t researched this claim but I’m betting it is accurate.Former death row inmate Timothy Hennis, listed as “exonerated” on the “innocence list” maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center, was found guilty of three counts of premeditated murder by a military jury today.

In Hennis’s case, his first conviction was reversed on appeal, and on retrial in 1989 the jury decided that the evidence available at that time was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a wide difference between doubt of guilt and proof of innocence.

In most cases, an acquittal prevents a second trial. However, because Hennis was in the military at the time and the first trial had been held in North Carolina state court, the double jeopardy rule did not preclude a military trial. In 2006, more advanced DNA technology tied Hennis to the rape and murder of Kathryn Eastburn and the murder of her two daughters, 5-year-old Kara and 3-year-old Erin.
*“there is a wide difference between doubt of guilt and proof of innocence.” *This is the point the DPIC list glosses over.

Ender

 

[adrift]

What it demonstrates is deceit. What they have done is to list pretty much anyone who has had a death sentence vacated for any reason and count the removal as “exoneration.” This list includes those individuals removed for procedural reasons that had no relation whatever to the question of guilt or innocence.

Ender

Note: James Bo Cochran (AL) and Timothy Hennis (NC) were originally on this list but are excluded following further research and developments.

 

[Sirach2]

I asserted that “*The claim of 152 people on death row being exonerated is demonstrably untrue.” *You challenged me to support that claim, which I did. It seems a bit late to suggest you weren’t interested in debating the point.

Back up and read again what I wrote.

“That *MAY *be true, but I was quoting from the annals of the Innocent Project, with data after 2008, which is later than your link in 2002.
So how does your alleged factual evidence disprove mine?”
And why did you feel it was necessary to contradict me, as well as impugn the integrity of the bishops?"

I don’t see that your information disproves my comment in any way whatsoever, and you have not responded to that question, which was mostly rhetorical.

Ok you supported your claim. However, I am not interested in debating your claim whatsoever, nor the merits of the death penalty, which is your pet topic. I simply shared my POV about a different scenario. End of discussion.

 

[LongingSoul]

What it demonstrates is deceit. What they have done is to list pretty much anyone who has had a death sentence vacated for any reason and count the removal as “exoneration.” This list includes those individuals removed for procedural reasons that had no relation whatever to the question of guilt or innocence.

Here is one example of what is alleged about the inaccuracies of that list. I haven’t researched this claim but I’m betting it is accurate.Former death row inmate Timothy Hennis, listed as “exonerated” on the “innocence list” maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center, was found guilty of three counts of premeditated murder by a military jury today.

In Hennis’s case, his first conviction was reversed on appeal, and on retrial in 1989 the jury decided that the evidence available at that time was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a wide difference between doubt of guilt and proof of innocence.

In most cases, an acquittal prevents a second trial. However, because Hennis was in the military at the time and the first trial had been held in North Carolina state court, the double jeopardy rule did not preclude a military trial. In 2006, more advanced DNA technology tied Hennis to the rape and murder of Kathryn Eastburn and the murder of her two daughters, 5-year-old Kara and 3-year-old Erin.
*“there is a wide difference between doubt of guilt and proof of innocence.” *This is the point the DPIC list glosses over.

Ender

What is deceitful is to quote a supposed authority word for word without giving proper attribution. A quick google search of course shows that the source is a pro death penalty ‘guilty until proven innocent’, US centric party not worthy of Catholic debate here.

The point made by the Virginia Bishops is that due process has resulted in the evacuation of the sentence of death in 153 instances. That is 153 times where the death of a prisoner would have undermined the due processes of law. As well as the reality that with the speedy advances we are making in techniques that put into question the qualification for a death sentence… the Bishops add “We must also be aware of the racial inequity inherent in the system, and that the death penalty has been administered to individuals with severe intellectual disabilities.”

That is, it is much more evident today that cultural disadvantages and imbalances discriminate against certain racial groups at every step of the process. It’s simply not acceptable to say anymore that there are more black people on death row because black people are inherently more criminal than whites.

In the light of this greater knowledge of the nature of the accused and convicted, the death penalty is no longer just and ethical. In good conscience we much abandon it.

 

[Ender]

Back up and read again what I wrote.

OK, let’s do that. This is post #4

The claim of 152 people on death row being exonerated is demonstrably untrue, and those who fabricated it know it, but those who repeat it in all probability do not. I think this is a case of carelessness on the part of the bishops rather than outright deceit.
Ender

Sirach2:

And you know

this is true … HOW???

Look at some recent FACTS, please. __________________

That this was the comment I was responding to was made obvious by LongingSoul who cited this exact exchange in her comment (post #14)…to which you gave a thumbs up in post #15!

I don’t see that your information disproves my comment in any way whatsoever, …

Well, I provided a specific name on that list of presumed innocents who was known to be guilty, which should at least raise the concern that my charge is not entirely without merit.

…and you have not responded to that question, which was mostly rhetorical.

If the question was rhetorical then why do you care whether I have responded or not? Do you want more names, other charges against the accuracy of that list or not?

Ok you supported your claim. However, I am not interested in debating your claim whatsoever, nor the merits of the death penalty, which is your pet topic. I simply shared my POV about a different scenario. End of discussion.

Wait…if I supported my claim then doesn’t that mean I responded to the question? Yes, you shared your POV… and I shared mine.

And why did you feel it was necessary to contradict me, as well as impugn the integrity of the bishops?"

I felt it necessary to contradict you because I believe you were wrong. As for impugning the integrity of the bishops, if you reread my original comment you will see that I explicitly said I thought they were guilty of carelessness, not deceit. That is, I did not impugn their integrity.

Ender

 

[adrift]

OK, let’s do that. This is post #4

Well, I provided a specific name on that list of presumed innocents who was known to be guilty, which should at least raise the concern that my charge is not entirely without merit.

As I posted the list has been amended

Note: James Bo Cochran (AL) and Timothy Hennis (NC) were originally on this list but are excluded following further research and developments.

 

[Sirach2]

Ender:

Well, I provided a specific name on that list of presumed innocents who was known to be guilty, which should at least raise the concern that my charge is not entirely without merit.

And I acknowledged your claim. However, it does not in any way disprove the numbers I provided from Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project. Two different reports, but only yours is valid?

Ender, do you understand “End of discussion?”

 

[Ender]

What is deceitful is to quote a supposed authority word for word without giving proper attribution. A quick google search of course shows that the source is a pro death penalty ‘guilty until proven innocent’, US centric party not worthy of Catholic debate here.

Oh piffle. I said I had not researched the charge but it was there for anyone who wanted to dig into it further, and that I believed it was true. You are so eager to dismiss contrary information any excuse will do. Adrift confirmed that the charge was at least partially accurate by informing us that Timothy Hinnis had indeed once been on that list. Or should we dismiss his assertion as well since he didn’t provide attribution for it either? For all I know it could have been in the same article I cited. I accept it at face value because it is in fact so easy to check.

The point made by the Virginia Bishops is that due process has resulted in the evacuation of the sentence of death in 153 instances.

This claim is absolutely false as you should know since you are the one who posted the original story. Here is what was actually said (in post #1):*The Virginia bishops’ statement noted that since 1973, 152 death row inmates nationwide, including one in Virginia, have been exonerated.
*The evacuation of a sentence is not the same as being exonerated of the charges. This is precisely the slight of hand the DPIC engages in and why I charged them with deceitful practice.

the Bishops add “We must also be aware of the racial inequity inherent in the system, and that the death penalty has been administered to individuals with severe intellectual disabilities.”

I am aware that racial inequities are claimed, but, like the claim of 153 exonerations, I doubt its veracity. I think it is pretty obvious that simply claiming something is true is not at all the same as demonstrating that it is in fact true.

In the light of this greater knowledge of the nature of the accused and convicted, the death penalty is no longer just and ethical. In good conscience we much abandon it.

This is like the argument over global warming: if the evidence is as overwhelmingly supportive of your position as you claim, why do its supporters find it necessary to employ questionable claims and outright deceit in order to defend it?

Ender

 

[adrift]

Oh piffle. I said I had not researched the charge but it was there for anyone who wanted to dig into it further, and that I believed it was true. You are so eager to dismiss contrary information any excuse will do. Adrift confirmed that the charge was at least partially accurate by informing us that Timothy Hinnis had indeed once been on that list. Or should we dismiss his assertion as well since he didn’t provide attribution for it either? For all I know it could have been in the same article I cited. I accept it at face value because it is in fact so easy to check.

Ender

LongingSoul posted the link. Silly me I thought everyone read links

So here is the Link again

This source also states

Last exoneration May 4, 2015 (#153)

For Inclusion on DPIC’s Innocence List:

Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-

a. Been acquitted of all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row, or

b. Had all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row dismissed by the prosecution, or

c. Been granted a complete pardon based on evidence of innocence.

 

[LongingSoul]

Oh piffle. I said I had not researched the charge but it was there for anyone who wanted to dig into it further, and that I believed it was true. You are so eager to dismiss contrary information any excuse will do. Adrift confirmed that the charge was at least partially accurate by informing us that Timothy Hinnis had indeed once been on that list. Or should we dismiss his assertion as well since he didn’t provide attribution for it either? For all I know it could have been in the same article I cited. I accept it at face value because it is in fact so easy to check.

You don’t research. You cherry pick and hope no one will catch you out. When the Virginia Bishops quoted the figure, it didn’t include the case you picked on to denounce the list. Why not attribute your ‘facts’ with an author or at least link to a cite? You’ve done it before and you’ll do it again. I don’t mind as it discredits your erroneous arguments from the get go.

This claim is absolutely false as you should know since you are the one who posted the original story. Here is what was actually said (in post #1):The Virginia bishops’ statement noted that since 1973, 152 death row inmates nationwide, including one in Virginia, have been exonerated.
The evacuation of a sentence is not the same as being exonerated of the charges. This is precisely the slight of hand the DPIC engages in and why I charged them with deceitful practice.

The least begins with a description of what the following cases were…

For Inclusion on DPIC’s Innocence List:

Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-

a. Been acquitted of all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row, or

b. Had all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row dismissed by the prosecution, or

c. Been granted a complete pardon based on evidence of innocence.

I am aware that racial inequities are claimed, but, like the claim of 153 exonerations, I doubt its veracity. I think it is pretty obvious that simply claiming something is true is not at all the same as demonstrating that it is in fact true.

Cite your authority to ‘doubt its veracity’ as an argument. What’s your area of expertise that would make that claim credible in this debate?

This is like the argument over global warming: if the evidence is as overwhelmingly supportive of your position as you claim, why do its supporters find it necessary to employ questionable claims and outright deceit in order to defend it?

Given you doubt the moral authority and credibility of the Church I don’t suppose this evidence will matter to you but it will to others.

“On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class”.

“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. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence””.

From Evangelium Vitae.

 

[adrift]

The problem that I see with all of these threads that consider the death penalty is the attempt to make it a moral wrong. I like this quote from the old Catholic Encylopedia

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. The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations

The bishops have a duty to guide the faithful but it should also be made clear that the traditional teaching is not abrogated. Which the bishops do not do, as the above quote states. The only question is “if” it should be used. This is what the bishops are addressing and the discussion. Good Catholics can and do disagree with that if.

 

[Ender]

You don’t research. You cherry pick and hope no one will catch you out. When the Virginia Bishops quoted the figure, it didn’t include the case you picked on to denounce the list. Why not attribute your ‘facts’ with an author or at least link to a cite? You’ve done it before and you’ll do it again. I don’t mind as it discredits your erroneous arguments from the get go.

I should perhaps be used to your unpleasantness by now, but if anything you’re getting worse. I take it as a sign of frustration, but that doesn’t excuse it. OK, we’ll try this again. Deal with this (written by Ward Campbell, supervising deputy attorney general of California in 2002): in addition to an analysis of the background of the DPIC list, which discredits its approach, it also lists the 102 people on that list (at that time) and evaluates the validity of their inclusion. You can look at numbers 5, 10, and 12 just to get you started. One thing is obvious, the DPIC assertion that 153 people (as of 2015) on death row have been exonerated is - as I said - demonstrably false.*In fact, it is arguable that at least 68 of the 102 defendants on the List should not be on the List at all–leaving only 34 released defendants with claims of actual innocence–less than ½ of 1% of the 6,930 defendants sentenced to death between 1973 and 2000. *(Ward Campbell)

Given you doubt the moral authority and credibility of the Church I don’t suppose this evidence will matter to you but it will to others.

Evidence matters a great deal more to me than truth matters to you. Perhaps you just can’t help yourself but at some point the obvious dishonesty of your assertions should cause even you to tone it down. The moral authority of the church is not at issue. The credibility of the church is not at issue. I have never challenged either. The opinions of individual bishops do not represent church teaching. Do you really not understand this?

From Evangelium Vitae.

Yes, another random and completely irrelevant citation. Can you remember what is being discussed here?

Ender

 

[graciew]

The problem that I see with all of these threads that consider the death penalty is the attempt to make it a moral wrong. I like this quote from the old Catholic Encylopedia

The bishops have a duty to guide the faithful but it should also be made clear that the traditional teaching is not abrogated. Which the bishops do not do, as the above quote states. The only question is “if” it should be used. This is what the bishops are addressing and the discussion. Good Catholics can and do disagree with that if.

In any case ,what I appreciate is that every now and then we stop and ask ourselves ,
Where are we going ?
The speed of life sometimes may not allow us that question.
And today we can improve and adjust things towards that goal.
I think…
So if our popes have.been saying " pay attention here…" it sounds helathy to do so.
I have learnt much through these threads. Hope we can put the positive into action.

 

[LongingSoul]

The problem that I see with all of these threads that consider the death penalty is the attempt to make it a moral wrong. I like this quote from the old Catholic Encylopedia

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. The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations

I come from the perspective of a system that hasn’t used the death penalty for nearly a century. As with other nationals of countries that abolished it long ago, it’s really an antiquated dinosaur of an issue that most don’t even think about except when we are moved to plead for clemency for our own nationals in strife in other countries.

Most of us certainly understand that a death sentence had practical purposes in the administration of civil justice in the distant and not so distant past, but can also embrace abolition now, as an offense to our ‘civilisation’. I put that in brackets to draw attention to the word which means the process of becoming more civilised being the natural way of things over time through each new generation. Most subconsciously accept that we are becoming more and more ‘civilised’ with each generation. The fact that abortion is a hidden cancer that flies under the radar of human rights progress, only makes the need to promote the inviolability of all human life a more urgent tenet of culture.

One of my favourite atheists turned theist was Dr Anthony Flew, a British philosopher scientist. He said that once the science of DNA was developed, by the evidence it revealed he could no longer doubt a first Creator of all things. It’s just the way of time and progress. Truth becomes more and more obvious and by a process of seeking out the best for the ‘whole group’ or common good, there comes a point where the evidence destroys the doubt.

This is what has evolved regarding capital punishment. It has served the good of the community in the past and the fact of the death of human beings was an unfortunate gruesome consequence was absorbed by the benefits to the common good. Today, that gruesome bad, in the light of our evolved respect for human dignity, is not worth it especially since we have better and more certain ways of protecting the community.

The Church’s role in the community is as the moral compass. She speaks about Gods will for man in civil life. How ridiculous to call the Churchs contribution ‘opinion’ as Ender does. (Watch this. He is going to fly up in arms and say "I never said it was ‘opinion’. That’s your dumb dumb dumbiness coz you don’t understand anything the way I do as expert of everything.)

When the Popes and the Catechism with all the clarity that a normal person needs, say that as a civil community, the death penalty is no longer necessary and is cruel and unjust… she gives us moral guidance. The civil debate then becomes one of balancing the practical need with the moral duty to the community and the common good.

 

[pianistclare]

If we took the “religious” viewpoint out of the equation, one would have to admit it’s a pretty barbaric practice.
In any other context, the world would be up in arms.
Christ was victim of capital punishment. Totally innocent.
And here we are advancing it as a good thing 2000 years later.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Church doesn’t have much of an official stance on this, except that this what you’re quoting is the popular opinion currently among the bishops. I sympathise with it, but its not dogmatically binding on the conscience of individual Catholics.

Believing that the death penalty is good, just and should be continued incurs no moral guilt on any person.

This statement is true.

I note though that such an argument never is accompanied by any bishop that supports any opposing view. I am skeptical of those that will oppose a bishop’s opinion, but offer no Church leader in support, or worse yet, just castigate the bishop for even having an opinion.