Virginia bishops urge Catholics to shift focus of death penalty debate

[pnewton]

No you didn’t say this out right but then what did you mean

All I meant is that the Church needs to teach us, we need to teach ourselves, and we need to teach the world that life, all life is of inestimable value. The question of how best protection should not be the focus of the debate. That will always remain a matter of opinion, both sides using the data they choose to support the differing opinions.

I will concede, though the Church will not, that we cannot keep people safe through incarceration alone 100%. I do not think this is relevant because we have never been able to, and never will, death penalty or not. The question is not what is the best means of protection, when we are talking about such close data, but what is the best way of our personal sanctification and societal transformation.

 

[pianistclare]

All I meant is that the Church needs to teach us, we need to teach ourselves, and we need to teach the world that life, all life is of inestimable value. The question of how best protection should not be the focus of the debate. That will always remain a matter of opinion, both sides using the data they choose to support the differing opinions.

I will concede, though the Church will not, that we cannot keep people safe through incarceration alone 100%. I do not think this is relevant because we have never been able to, and never will, death penalty or not. The question is not what is the best means of protection, when we are talking about such close data, but what is the best way of our personal sanctification and societal transformation.

Well stated.

 

[Ender]

I will concede, though the Church will not, that we cannot keep people safe through incarceration alone 100%. I do not think this is relevant because we have never been able to, and never will, death penalty or not. The question is not what is the best means of protection, when we are talking about such close data, but what is the best way of our personal sanctification and societal transformation.

Given that the focus of 2267 is entirely centered around the protection of society, I should think that question was of the utmost importance.*If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor *and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means…
But what if bloodless means are not sufficient? What then? Doesn’t this imply that capital punishment ought to be used? Is that not simply the other side of the coin - don’t use if it’s not necessary, do use it if it is?

The danger to a position based on usefulness is that the argument against the death penalty can turn into an argument for it with advances in social science. It is often asserted that capital punishment has no deterrent value…but what if that assertion is wrong? What if it turns out to have a significant deterrent effect, what then? If we can prevent the murder of a number of the innocent by executing a number of the guilty why would we not do that? Isn’t this precisely what 2267 says?The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If it is the only practicable way to defend lives, we are to use it.

Ender

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I recently read an interesting book, Capital Punishment and Catholic Social Teaching, by David Lukenhill, a former armed robber and ex-prisoner who converted to Catholicism and founded a Catholic Lay organisation that tries to rehabilitate prisoners.

Surprisingly, he favors capital punishment (and zero tolerance policing) and says calls for abolition are premature. In addition to citing the tradition sources in favour of Capital Punishment (St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, The Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII, etc) he also mentions some contemporary problems, such as Mexican drug cartel members running their syndicates from prison using smuggled cellphones, even threatening the lives of elected officials from prison and ordering “hits” from prison. Inmates who are already serving life sentences for murder killing guards and other inmates is also a recurring problem.

It’s worth a thought.

 

[pnewton]

Surprisingly, he favors capital punishment (and zero tolerance policing) and says calls for abolition are premature. In addition to citing the tradition sources in favour of Capital Punishment (St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, The Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII, etc)

There are many people here that are Catholic that also favor Capital punishment. The reasons that are given are the best argument for it, in my own opinion, and why I believed in it for so long, though I was always on the fence. Likewise, my reasoning for leaving that position is the reason I agree the focus needs to shift. These case cited are very few. Abortion is a massive issue, yet both are stem from a culture which has lost a value for life.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

There are many people here that are Catholic that also favor Capital punishment. The reasons that are given are the best argument for it, in my own opinion, and why I believed in it for so long, though I was always on the fence. Likewise, my reasoning for leaving that position is the reason I agree the focus needs to shift. These case cited are very few. Abortion is a massive issue, yet both are stem from a culture which has lost a value for life.

Yes it is a very emotional issue for a lot of people. I agree in principle that the state should not execute people if non-lethal means are equal, or better, at protecting society and correcting the imbalance created by the crime. I’m just not 100% convinced that non-lethal means are sufficient, at least for extreme cases like terrorism.

I like to think I agree with the view of St Thomas Aquinas, i.e capital punishment is the same as amputating a diseased limb to protect the body. The contemporary church argues that if the limb can be treated and cured, then amputation is unnecessary. I agree with that view as well. Still, if the choice is between saving a diseased limb and saving the body as a whole, I would favour the body over the limb.

 

[Ender]

I agree in principle that the state should not execute people if non-lethal means are equal, or better, at protecting society…

So then would you agree that capital punishment ought to be used even more widely than it is today if it was shown to have a significant deterrent effect in preventing future murders?

Ender

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

So then would you agree that capital punishment ought to be used even more widely than it is today if it was shown to have a significant deterrent effect in preventing future murders?

Ender

In theory, I would. The problem is would it be possible to prove it?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m just not 100% convinced that non-lethal means are sufficient, at least for extreme cases like terrorism.

I would consider the execution of bin Laden as legitimate and warranted. St Augustine talked about capital punishment as a general law and as a special commission for a short time and bin Ladens execution fits with the second. The Vatican did not denounce this act… but only made comment about the inappropriate cheering and celebration that ensued. It was completely obvious that a character like bin Laden could never have been safely tried and incarcerated without extreme danger to the American public.

As a general law, capital punishment has to serve the common good first and foremost like all general laws and if it is deemed to be doing more harm than good, there are no special exemptions. It is not an inalienable right of government.

 

[Ender]

In theory, I would. The problem is would it be possible to prove it?

Given that determining something like the deterrent effect of capital punishment is a soft science, it would never be possible to prove it exists, but then it shouldn’t be necessary to. We are talking about the lives of innocent people so it seems we should err on the side of caution and use capital punishment unless there are very strong indicators that it has no deterrent effect. Punishments deter. Why would we not expect the most severe of all punishments to deter the most, and why should it not be the obligation of those who oppose the use of capital punishment to provide strong evidence that it has no deterrent effect?

Ender

 

[boar2roar]

yet both are stem from a culture which has lost a value for life.

Capital Punishment is not a new practice that has gone the way of the dodo in much of the world. The western liberal architects of the culture of death have lead the war against the death penalty .

 

[pnewton]

Capital Punishment is not a new practice that has gone the way of the dodo in much of the world. The western liberal architects of the culture of death have lead the war against the death penalty .

I speak from Catholic teaching, not architects of any sort, St. John Paul in particular.

 

[LongingSoul]

Capital Punishment is not a new practice that has gone the way of the dodo in much of the world. The western liberal architects of the culture of death have lead the war against the death penalty .

I don’t know where you get your statistics from but capital punishment has been gradually been abolished throughout the western world from a century or more ago. The US is one of the last western cultures to retain it.

Abolition was not lead by ‘western liberal architects of the culture of death’… as St JPII said it is a “visible manifestation of a heightened moral awareness.” (Compendium of Social Teaching) In Queensland, the century old abolition recognised that death sentences were over represented by minorities and the disenfranchised and were not representative of true human justice. Abolition was supported by the Australian Catholic Church without a single word or objection from the Vatican.

The Christian Churches have historically supported the states right to use the death penalty and supported the states natural movement to abolish it. What is a unique bird in this current climate is the ultra conservative Christian movement to*** object to abolition*** when the culture is naturally moving towards it. When the Magisterium speaks so strongly in defense of the states right and duty to abolish the death penalty… we know there is a unique type of conflict happening.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know where you get your statistics from but capital punishment has been gradually been abolished throughout the western world from a century or more ago.

Opposition from within the church, however, is rather more recent than that.*Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. *(Archbishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)

When the Magisterium speaks so strongly in defense of the states right and duty to abolish the death penalty… we know there is a unique type of conflict happening.

There has never been, and is not now, a duty to abolish capital punishment. In fact, according to the criteria set forth in the catechism, it would seem the duty could be just the opposite. The church quite clearly accepts the use of capital punishment in order to protect lives. That would mean the church would support its use if it was shown to have a meaningful deterrent effect. That is, the decision to apply it is based on what social science can tell us about its usefulness; the objection is not moral.

Ender

 

[pianistclare]

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

According to this document, it’s always been the position of the Church.

 

[Ender]

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

According to this document, it’s always been the position of the Church.

It wasn’t even the position of the church in 1992 when the first edition of the catechism was released. Here’s a little more of the citation from Abp. Gregory:*Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. *
Ender

 

[pianistclare]

It wasn’t even the position of the church in 1992 when the first edition of the catechism was released. Here’s a little more of the citation from Abp. Gregory:Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful.
Ender

Hmmm. I’ll have to ask him about that next time I’m at the Chancery.
Interesting.

 

[graciew]

It wasn’t even the position of the church in 1992 when the first edition of the catechism was released. Here’s a little more of the citation from Abp. Gregory:Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful.
Ender

Ender , he said " bound to invite controversy "and was descriptive. Nothing shows this archbishop is either for or against what those two ( now 3 ) Popes were saying.
Hierarchy is respected in the Church.

 

[Ender]

Ender , he said " bound to invite controversy "and was descriptive. Nothing shows this archbishop is either for or against what those two ( now 3 ) Popes were saying.
Hierarchy is respected in the Church.

The point being discussed was whether the church’s opposition to the use of capital punishment was new, that’s all. I cited Abp Gregory because he addressed that specific issue, saying both that opposition had only developed within the last 40 years and that the church’s traditional teaching was nearly two millennia old. Whether he personally supports or opposes this position is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[graciew]

The point being discussed was whether the church’s opposition to the use of capital punishment was new, that’s all. I cited Abp Gregory because he addressed that specific issue, saying both that opposition had only developed within the last 40 years and that the church’s traditional teaching was nearly two millennia old. Whether he personally supports or opposes this position is irrelevant.

Ender

You are right ,I missed the point ,I see.
John Paul and Benedict were huge. One could spend months citing what they said and did . Benedict " s depths are still a mystery to me.Think of Deus Caritas est …it is humbling.
One can say their eyes were fixed in the Lord.
This is what I do not understand ,beyond your decision , Ender ,how what these two lovable and amazing Popes said would not be leading us in the right direction .
Pope Francis respected and obeyed them , and now he is saying the same.