Washington bishops say 'no moral justification' for upcoming execution (CNA)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was disappointed in the bishops arguments but not surprised by them.
  • “there remains no moral justification for imposing a sentence of death.”*
Whatever moral justification existed in the past exists now since morality does not change over time. The argument that the protection society is the only thing that justifies executions was never used in the past and the old arguments still hold: the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and the primary objective of punishment is retributive.

“Violence begets violence both in our hearts and in our actions,”

This is an assault on language. When we have our pets euthanized by lethal injection we do so because it is the most gentle, humane way to put them down. Anyone who has had this done knows that there is no violence involved.

“By continuing the tradition of responding to killing with state-sanctioned killing, we rob ourselves of moral consistency and perpetuate that which we seek to sanction.”

This is another verbal obfuscation that incorrectly and unjustly equates all killing, both murder - which the Church defines as an intrinsic evil - and the just execution of the guilty - about which the Church once said: The just use of this power {execution}, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of the Council of Trent).

I understand why bishops oppose the death penalty but their own pitiful arguments underscore the weakness of their position.

Ender
 
Good for the bishops. This is entirely consistent with the church’s pro-life stance.
 
I agree with the bishops. There is no moral justification for just about any execution. We should continuously work for the abolishment of the death penalty.
 
The findings of fact in this case was that Mr. Stenson killed for the money.

Someone like that is quite dangerous and poses a real risk to society- it seems likely the same temptation might come upon him in the future.

Under those circumstances, to protect potential possible future victimes, it seems like a justifiable case for capital punishment.

Of course I haven’t studied the case in detail, and the governor should review the facts herself.
 
JulianN said:
Good for the bishops. This is entirely consistent with the church’s pro-life stance.
Click to expand...
If and only if you overlook the fact that the Republican Party tends to support the death penalty and the Democratic Party does not. It tends to be the other way around on abortion. If you order Catholics to vote Republican because of abortion, you are also voting for the death penalty.:coffeeread:
 
Catholic_Press said:
Seattle, Nov 26, 2008 / 03:12 am (CNA).- The Catholic bishops of Washington state are asking Gov. Chris Gregoire to commute the death sentence of Darold Ray Stenson, saying there is “no moral justification” for his upcoming lethal injection.
Click to expand...
Let’s see, Stenson killed two people in cold blood.

We’ve read what the bishops of Washington state have to say about it. Now let’s see what God has to say about it.
Gen 9:6–"Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

Methinks the bishops of Washington state need to reacquaint themselves with the teachings of God, directly from the source.
Click to expand...
DaveBj
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ender said:
I was disappointed in the bishops arguments but not surprised by them.
  • “there remains no moral justification for imposing a sentence of death.”*
Whatever moral justification existed in the past exists now since morality does not change over time. The argument that the protection society is the only thing that justifies executions was never used in the past and the old arguments still hold: the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and the primary objective of punishment is retributive.

“Violence begets violence both in our hearts and in our actions,”

This is an assault on language. When we have our pets euthanized by lethal injection we do so because it is the most gentle, humane way to put them down. Anyone who has had this done knows that there is no violence involved.

“By continuing the tradition of responding to killing with state-sanctioned killing, we rob ourselves of moral consistency and perpetuate that which we seek to sanction.”

This is another verbal obfuscation that incorrectly and unjustly equates all killing, both murder - which the Church defines as an intrinsic evil - and the just execution of the guilty - about which the Church once said: The just use of this power {execution}, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of the Council of Trent).

I understand why bishops oppose the death penalty but their own pitiful arguments underscore the weakness of their position.

Ender
Click to expand...
They forget the reason why the state reserves the right of execution to itself, to prevent acts of revenge by the relatives or friends of the wronged person.
 
RobbyS said:
They forget the reason why the state reserves the right of execution to itself, to prevent acts of revenge by the relatives or friends of the wronged person.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They also forget that state officials are God’s ministers to execute His wrath on evil-doers. Apparently they have razored the whole 13th chapter of Romans out of their Bibles.

DaveBj
 
The state has the right to go through the execution, but does it serve the state to do so?

Would it not serve the state to hold this man until his nature death? and how about the children, what message is it sending to them? My dad killed my mom, because she was doing something immoral, and the Sate killed my dad for doing something immoral, so the best why to solve injustice, is to kill even if that would be morally wrong.:confused: makes sense to me…:rolleyes:

Can the state safely keep this man away from the rest society without putting him to death? If the answer is yes, then according to Church teaching that would be the appropriate sentence and the right thing to do.

Now if this man was a serial killer who would do everything in his power to kill again. 🤷

I see no moral justification of putting this man to death, just a legal one.
 
When you review the crimes of people that the system say should be executed you see some horrible crimes. It seems that when some ones crimes rise to the level of execution, execution may be letting them off easy. It seems like hard labor or other real punishment may be more appropriate. for many of these criminals.
 
royal_archer said:
execution may be letting them off easy. It seems like hard labor or other real punishment may be more appropriate. for many of these criminals.
Click to expand...
Even if hard labor were a tougher punishment that capital punishment, that isn’t the only consideration in sentencing.

Some criminals present a real danger to others. No escape proof prisons have ever been built, but even if they were, safety considerations have to be made for the other prisoners and staff.
 
Kielbasi said:
Even if hard labor were a tougher punishment that capital punishment, that isn’t the only consideration in sentencing.

Some criminals present a real danger to others. No escape proof prisons have ever been built, but even if they were, safety considerations have to be made for the other prisoners and staff.
Click to expand...
If someone is an extreme threat and they were in the process of excaping would it be proper / moral to use fatal force to stop them?
 
DaveBj said:
Let’s see, Stenson killed two people in cold blood.

We’ve read what the bishops of Washington state have to say about it. Now let’s see what God has to say about it.
Gen 9:6–"Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

Methinks the bishops of Washington state need to reacquaint themselves with the teachings of God, directly from the source.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
So in order to show society that killing is wrong we kill a man.? God does not need our help punishing sinners. Lock him up, throw away the key but leave vengeance to God.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
So in order to show society that killing is wrong we kill a man.? God does not need our help punishing sinners. Lock him up, throw away the key but leave vengeance to God.
Click to expand...
You’ve got it backwards. Because killing is wrong, God has authorized society to use capital punishment to permanently remove the killer from society.

DaveBj
 
DaveBj said:
You’ve got it backwards. Because killing is wrong, God has authorized society to use capital punishment to permanently remove the killer from society.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
When someon robs a house we dont rob their house. When someone commits rape we dont rape them. Doing either of those would send the wriong message. yet we kill those who kill? Dont you trust God to punish in his own good time?
 
estesbob said:
When someon robs a house we dont rob their house. When someone commits rape we dont rape them. Doing either of those would send the wriong message. yet we kill those who kill? Dont you trust God to punish in his own good time?
Click to expand...
Go back and read posts #7 and 9, and read the Bible passage mentioned. Capital punishment, the empowerment of government officials to kill people who are guilty of killing innocent people, was God’s idea, not mine, and He has never taken it back.

DaveBj
 
JulianN said:
Good for the bishops. This is entirely consistent with the church’s pro-life stance.
Click to expand...
Alright, so, I’m fine with the Church’s teachings on this, right? So no capital punishment, except in those really weird extream cases.

But what about corporal punishment? Regular scourgings, the rack, other nasty things which turn my stomache, just as much as this man’s crimes do.

On EWTN, they told the tale of two criminals being led to the gallows, unrepentant they were. They mocked a priest who called for their repentance, but a certain saint, hearing their words, prayed that they might be converted. Immediately, the weight of their evil fell upon them and the desperately sought to speak with the priest.

They, after having been absolved, they, smiling, went to the gallows, accepting it as just punishment for their crimes, but knowing that they would be in heaven soon.

I can’t see why anyone should fear death, or why we should view it as especially cruel. Destroying innocence, now that is just as grevious a sin as murder, yet those that do it get off scot free. Why? Because its just “TV.” Better yet, “He’s going to see it eventually, better he be aquainted with it now”.
 
estesbob said:
When someon robs a house we dont rob their house. When someone commits rape we dont rape them. Doing either of those would send the wriong message. yet we kill those who kill? Dont you trust God to punish in his own good time?
Click to expand...
The punishment of crimes is a requirement of a just state. The state has not just the right to punish crime but a positive obligation to do so and the severity of the punishment must be proportional to the severity of the crime and the Church has from the very beginning recognized the right of the state to execute criminals for severe crimes. The question of punishment goes to the issue of justice and the primary objective of punishment is the restoration of the disorder caused by the sin, that is, retribution.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top