We’ve been bishops in 3 death penalty states. It’s time to stop federal executions for good

[Hodos]

"…the pericope adulterae–by being included in the Vulgate–does not contain errors of faith or morals when properly understood.

I would agree, that if you accept the pericope adulterae as canonical (which is a questionable presumption) that it doesn’t necessarily contradict the other teachings of scripture. I would say that the application you attempted to make is actually a misread of the passage, assuming that somehow Jesus is inferring that the state no longer has the ability to impose penalty on a person convicted of a crime. That wasn’t the point of the passage at all. And again, that is granting you the assumption that the passage is authentic for argument sake.

 

[PetraG]

I would agree, that if you accept the pericope adulterae as canonical (which is a questionable presumption) that it doesn’t necessarily contradict the other teachings of scripture. I would say that the application you attempted to make is actually a misread of the passage, assuming that somehow Jesus is inferring that the state no longer has the ability to impose penalty on a person convicted of a crime. That wasn’t the point of the passage at all. And again, that is granting you the assumption that the passage is authentic for argument sake.

We’re not talking about the difference between giving people the death penalty and setting them free. We’re talking about the difference between the death penalty and a life sentence. I included that passage because it involved people saying, in essence, “the Holy Scriptures specify this sentence–what do you say?” It is entirely according to the plain sense of the New Testament to temper the penalites doled out for a crime with mercy. I think Gary Haugen’s case richly demonstrates the reason for doing it.

4 Prominent Catholics on Divine Mercy in Their Lives| National Catholic Register

Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon, discussing his work in prison ministry and his giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to Oregon convicted murderer and death row inmate Gary Haugen.

When I was a parochial vicar in Marquette, Michigan, one of my responsibilities was prison ministry. When I first began and was still “wet behind the ears,” I was very nervous about it. I was afraid of it, in fact, and didn’t know what to expect.

But I immediately fell in love with prison ministry. Many prisoners have a great openness to Christ and want to hear the Good News, despite the bad things that brought them to prison in the first place. They’re hungry for it.

Of all the places where I have ministered, I have seen the greatest impact among those in prison. I’ve seen incredible transformations and profound conversions, with some inmates becoming saintly men.

Prisoners are so often forgotten men, cast aside, thrown away and not worth our concern. But God’s mercy needs to reach all people, including the men and women in prison …

Confirming Gary Haugen was one of the most powerful experiences I’ve had as a priest. When I first met Gary beforehand, I was stunned. He dropped to his knees, prostrated himself on the floor and said, “I am not worthy.” Here is a man, notorious for his crimes, humbling himself before me, who he sees as a representative of God and the Church. I reassured them that he’s very worthy of God’s love.

I’ve visited Gary twice since then. I keep a photo of him on my desk in his cage [for safety reasons, prison officials had Haugen stand in a cage throughout his confirmation] to remind me to pray for him, for all those in prison and anyone else in special need of God’s mercy and love.

Divine mercy and the evidence against (a) the justice of who gets the death penalty and (b) the idea that it saves lives are the principles that supercede the principle that in other circumstances a state might be forced to employ it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

That’s quite a misuse of the parable of the wheat and tares which speaks of why judgment day is not come upon us yet, given that Paul and Peter both provide justifications for the states use of the sword to punish law breakers. Clearly the apostles didn’t make the same innovation of that passage as you just made.

Again, God himself instituted the death penalty.

I was quoting Thomas Aquinas treating of the death penalty. He used the parable to illustrate that we are commanded to forbear from the death penalty when it causes more harm than good.

Or are you actually accusing Aquinas himself of misusing the parable? I can’t tell on this forum because so many people actually do believe they know more than the doctors and the magisterium??

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

 

[Hodos]

Or are you actually accusing Aquinas himself of misusing the parable? I can’t tell on this forum because so many people actually do believe they know more than the doctors and the magisterium??

I was quoting Thomas Aquinas treating of the death penalty. He used the parable to illustrate that we are commanded to forbear from the death penalty when it causes more harm than good.

I would say you haven’t demonstrated that the death penalty does more harm than good, that any interpretation of scripture that places the Son at odds with the Father is not a correct interpretation of scripture, and that it is arguable whether the pericope adulterae was written by John in the first place.

 

[otjm]

My comment was somewhat directed to the post which said that keeping those who are the greatest security risk isolated and in lockup 23 hours out of each day starts to look like “cruel and unusual punishment” - I think the term torture was used. and given the number of people on death row who have waived further appeals, and comments made that it can “drive you insane” echo that.

Don’t misunderstand me - I am opposed to capital punishment.

 

[PetraG]

My comment was somewhat directed to the post which said that keeping those who are the greatest security risk isolated and in lockup 23 hours out of each day starts to look like “cruel and unusual punishment” - I think the term torture was used. and given the number of people on death row who have waived further appeals, and comments made that it can “drive you insane” echo that.

Don’t misunderstand me - I am opposed to capital punishment.

Yes, this is the great difficulty with life imprisonment. There really are people who pose a mortal threat to others, if they are given even a slight opportunity to attack somebody. The prisons have a serious duty to protect people who come into contact with someone who has demonstrated a grave lack of respect for human life. How do we keep others safe from them without putting them is such isolation that relatively few humans could go through it and stay sane? It is a serious question concerning what you do with someone who is both a member of an inherently social species but who also has a serious anti-social tendencies. Still, “euthanasia” of people in this situation is hardly a moral alternative.

 

[godisgood77]

Here, here to the original post and author of the article . Thanks for posting!

Pro life for the the whole life!

PS - the death penalty is inadmissible for Catholics

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Well, I agree with you, but I’ve been dismayed by many of the responses to this post. I posted it thinking that this was a positive story about our bishops standing up for the culture of life and the dignity of the human person, but what we’ve got instead is a thread of 150 messages debating whether the Catholic Church actually teaches what it appears to teach.

 

[Ender]

If society is moved to abolish the death penalty as doing more harm than good, there is no Catholic argument to resist that.

Judgment as to what is or is not harmful is independent of Catholic doctrine. There is no Catholic argument in that regard, and most people can be convinced not to do something that is harmful

Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings. (USCCB)

The USCCB is a lot like Wikipedia. They both present a lot of facts and a lot of opinions masquerading as facts, and if you can’t distinguish one from the other it’s best not to cite either source. The comment above is an opinion, and an uncharitable one at that.

Restorative justice focuses first on the victim and the community harmed by the crime, rather than on the dominant state-against-the-perpetrator model.

This is vague, but does not contradict 2266 about the primary objective of punishment. Nor is it in any way a change from traditional teaching.

When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. (Aquinas ST I-II 21, 3)

This shift in focus…

If there is a shift in focus it applies to the state, not the church.

Punishment must have a purpose. It must be coupled with treatment and, when possible, restitution.

Punishment has a number of purposes, of which treatment (rehabilitation) is one. The most important, however, is neither that nor restitution. It is expiation.

 

[Ender]

No, I am saying that the pericopae adulterae didn’t appear in the Greek texts originally, and were likely added to the Latin texts sometime in the 300s after the original circulation of the gospel of John. From a textual critical standpoint, the pericopae adulterae of is doubtful authenticity.

The better argument against this example being treated as an argument against capital punishment is that it is not one used by the Father’s or Doctor’s of the church. If the church herself does not consider this case an argument against capital punishment there is good reason to reject it when others try to use it.

Given that the woman was not punished at all it would seem that this example either applies to all punishment or none. Why should the claim not be made that all punishment is unjust given that she was not given a lesser punishment but was excused from punishment entirely?

 

[Hodos]

The better argument against this example being treated as an argument against capital punishment is that it is not one used by the Father’s or Doctor’s of the church. If the church herself does not consider this case an argument against capital punishment there is good reason to reject it when others try to use it.

I would agree that this provides some evidence that using this passage to oppose capital punishment would be an innovation from Church teaching in light of the full breadth of scripture.

Given that the woman was not punished at all it would seem that this example either applies to all punishment or none. Why should the claim not be made that all punishment is unjust given that she was not given a lesser punishment but was excused from punishment entirely?

I guess that is one possible read if you ignore the rest of scripture, which some are no doubt willing to do. The more plausible explanation is that Jesus recognized it was a sham trial in the first place since the woman alone was being stoned, and that all of the persons participating in her stoning were in violation of the Mosaic law they were trying to hold her to, and that Christ’s rebuke pointed out this discrepancy.

 

[Ender]

I guess that is one possible read if you ignore the rest of scripture, which some are no doubt willing to do.

Ignoring the rest of scripture would be necessary to argue either point: that this shows capital punishment is wrong, or that it shows all punishment to be wrong. It is a personal interpretation of an incident otherwise irrelevant to either position.

The more plausible explanation is that Jesus recognized it was a sham trial in the first place since the woman alone was being stoned, and that all of the persons participating in her stoning were in violation of the Mosaic law they were trying to hold her to, and that Christ’s rebuke pointed out this discrepancy.

Then He said to her who had gone astray, Go, and sin no more. He reformed the criminal, He did not absolve the sin. Faults are condemned by a severer sentence, whenever a man hates his own sin, and begins the condemnation of it in himself. When the criminal is put to death, it is the person rather than the transgression which is punished, but when the transgression is forsaken, the absolution of the person becomes the punishment of the sin. What is the meaning then of, Go, and sin no more? It is this; Since Christ hath redeemed thee, suffer thyself to be corrected by Grace; punishment would not reform but only afflict thee. (St Anselm)

It is pretty clear that Anselm didn’t consider this incident as conflicting with the application of capital punishment.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

If society is moved to abolish the death penalty as doing more harm than good, there is no Catholic argument to resist that.

Judgment as to what is or is not harmful is independent of Catholic doctrine. There is no Catholic argument in that regard, and most people can be convinced not to do something that is harmful

The reason that the Magisterium has had to specifically address this issue now is that there are a certain Catholic faction attempting to hinder the natural path to abolition by using a false interpretation of Catholic doctrine.

The USCCB is a lot like Wikipedia. They both present a lot of facts and a lot of opinions masquerading as facts,

Perfectly describing your arguments regarding Catholic doctrine.

 

[Ender]

The reason that the Magisterium has had to specifically address this issue now is that there are a certain Catholic faction attempting to hinder the natural path to abolition by using a false interpretation of Catholic doctrine.

If the argument for the “natural path to abolition” includes the repudiation of 2000 years of church doctrine as well as the assumption that Scripture actually got this point wrong, then yes, I will continue to point this out.

As for my “false interpretation”, that is easy to assert, but to this point you’ve made no headway in actually demonstrating any errors.

 

[Emeraldlady]

If the argument for the “natural path to abolition” includes the repudiation of 2000 years of church doctrine as well as the assumption that Scripture actually got this point wrong, then yes, I will continue to point this out.

A well worn strawman argument.

As for my “false interpretation”, that is easy to assert, but to this point you’ve made no headway in actually demonstrating any errors.

In responding to the objection that the death penalty is a sin based on the parable of the cockle and wheat, Aquinas states…

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).

He references Augustine no less in the 4th century. When the death penalty does more harm than good the Lord commands it be withheld. This has been recognised in the whole history of the Church. Your interpretation is a repudiation of the Churchs implicit historical position.

 

[Ender]

A well worn strawman argument.

2000 years of church doctrine and the words of Scripture provide an insurmountable argument, not a straw man one.

When the death penalty does more harm than good the Lord commands it be withheld. This has been recognised in the whole history of the Church. Your interpretation is a repudiation of the Churchs implicit historical position.

Since I have never once disagreed with this it’s a bit over the top to assert that I’ve repudiated anything. As for the church’s “implicit” historical position, I would say it has been quite explicit. Yes, I understand the teaching: if it’s harmful, don’t do it. It’s not all that complicated.

The issue we have is not about what the teaching is, but about determining “when the death penalty does more harm than good.” That’s where we disagree. Interestingly it seems that facts have overtaken this argument, because the standard interpretation of Francis’ change to the catechism is that capital punishment cannot be used even where it might be beneficial. Your argument has been rendered moot; you need to find another one.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The issue we have is not about what the teaching is, but about determining “ when the death penalty does more harm than good .” That’s where we disagree. Interestingly it seems that facts have overtaken this argument, because the standard interpretation of Francis’ change to the catechism is that capital punishment cannot be used even where it might be beneficial. Your argument has been rendered moot; you need to find another one.

There is pretty much unanimous agreement around the civilised world that the death penalty is unnecessary and cruel and those words were reiterated by Pope St John Paul II 20 years ago. The Church is affirming the rightness of abolitionism being promoted by our societies and to assure us that this Catholic ‘faction’ claiming ‘never abolition’ are not in communion with the 2000 year old Church.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’m really having trouble with the idea that the bishops have some meaning for “redressing the disorder” other than retribution.

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution; defending public order; deterring future wrongdoing; and promoting reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts. (USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

I suppose you wouldn’t consider this ^ to be uncharitable because it does contain the phrase “just retribution”. Nevertheless, it’s clear that “redressing the disorder” means something more than simply “retribution”.

Our prisons must be transformed from warehouses of human failure and seedbeds of violence to places of responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration. (USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

This ^ is saying much of the same thing as the CDF letter to the Bishops which was about the revision of CCC 2267:

This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal.

 

[EndTimes]

In 2019 - 22 incarcerated prisoners were executed… …

Over 1.5 Billion babes in the womb have been Murdered …

Would that all Bishops became very loudly Anti-ABORTION…

_

 

[Ender]

There is pretty much unanimous agreement around the civilised world that the death penalty is unnecessary and cruel and those words were reiterated by Pope St John Paul II 20 years ago.

Well if it’s cruel then why did you just cite Aquinas suggesting that it was OK to use it if only it wasn’t harmful to the society in general? Your assertion here completely vitiates the argument you made in the previous post.

The Church is affirming the rightness of abolitionism being promoted by our societies and to assure us that this Catholic ‘faction’ claiming ‘never abolition’ are not in communion with the 2000 year old Church.

The question actually has never been whether capital punishment should or should not be eliminated for prudential reasons, it has always been whether there is a moral reason to oppose it, a reason that justifies contradicting the universal teaching of the church and the judgment of the Fathers.