Why the Register Opposes the Death Penalty

[WilliamOK]

ncregister.com/blog/jdemelo/why-the-register-opposes-the-death-penalty

This comment sums up my feelings as well:

Would you be willing to publish descriptions of the crimes committed that got those folks on death row?
I think if people read that, they would be able to make a more considered decision.
Lastly I would like to point out that the death penalty is already very rare. A very small percentage of convicted murderers are executed. Probably about the same number who murder again while they are actually in prison.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thanks WilliamOK for posting this.

God bless.

Cathoholic

When I see a fine publication like the National Catholic Register join forces with the National Catholic Reporter on an issue, I would expect something out of the ordinary. This was out of the ordinary.

I was also somewhat surprised by OSV publicly taking this stance. America magazine, not so surprising taking this position.

Incidentally. Here was my response to the National Catholic Register (with formatting added).

Posted by Cathoholic on Thursday, Mar 12, 2015 3:30 AM (EDT):

I disagree with the position that the Register took here on the capital punishment issue. It seems to go beyond what the late Pope John Paul II, who was in harmony with the CCC, said.

From the CCC

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Pope John Paul II never transgressed this principle. The National Catholic Reporter together with the National Catholic Register (here) seems to be leaning toward violating this principle.

. . . while we recognize that the Church has allowed for the legitimate use of the death penalty for society’s self-defense, we find that it’s harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary today in contemporary America. . . . .

Please explain how society’s self-defense is not a “circumstantially necessary” issue regarding some violent inmates, to the widows and families of the slain prison guards across the country.

In my opinion, this editorial was not a well thought out piece and does not adequately reflect the fullness of the Catholic position on this issue. . . .

. . . . One other brief point.

Quoting the phrase: “Capital punishment must end.” is fine.

But the real issue is HOW should Capital Punishment end?

The Register along with the National Catholic Reporter, seems to want to violate the self-protection principle in this circumstance.

This would not be acceptable.

I do not claim to know what to do here, but I know what NOT to do.

We do NOT violate the principle of societal self-defense and call that “Catholic teaching”.​

 

[Memaw]

Thanks WilliamOK for posting this.

God bless.

Cathoholic

When I see a fine publication like the National Catholic Register join forces with the National Catholic Reporter on an issue, I would expect something out of the ordinary. This was out of the ordinary.

I was also somewhat surprised by OSV publicly taking this stance. America magazine, not so surprising taking this position.

Incidentally. Here was my response to the National Catholic Register (with formatting added).

Posted by Cathoholic on Thursday, Mar 12, 2015 3:30 AM (EDT):

I disagree with the position that the Register took here on the capital punishment issue. It seems to go beyond what the late Pope John Paul II, who was in harmony with the CCC, said.

From the CCC

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Pope John Paul II never transgressed this principle. The National Catholic Reporter together with the National Catholic Register (here) seems to be leaning toward violating this principle.

Please explain how society’s self-defense is not a “circumstantially necessary” issue regarding some violent inmates, to the widows and families of the slain prison guards across the country.

In my opinion, this editorial was not a well thought out piece and does not adequately reflect the fullness of the Catholic position on this issue. . . .

. . . . One other brief point.

Quoting the phrase: “Capital punishment must end.” is fine.

But the real issue is HOW should Capital Punishment end?

The Register along with the National Catholic Reporter, seems to want to violate the self-protection principle in this circumstance.

This would not be acceptable.

I do not claim to know what to do here, but I know what NOT to do.

We do NOT violate the principle of societal self-defense and call that “Catholic teaching”.​

Thank you and God Bless, Memaw

 

[Cathoholic]

A Seminarian (who is now an excellent Catholic Priest) once told me that in seminary, the Seminarians referred to the National Catholic Reporter as the “National Catholic Distorter” or “The Distorter” for short.

He said the young men in the seminary there did not give the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) or, "the Reporter”, credence as a “Catholic” news source.

He also told me they referred to the National Catholic Register (NCR) as “the reliable NCR”.

I read several issues and found the level of dissent in “the Reporter” to be too high for it to be called a “Catholic” publication in my opinion. My view was that the Catholic Seminarians were insightful in rejecting "the Reporter” as a trustworthy Catholic source.

National Catholic Register (unwittingly?) lends credibility to the National Catholic Reporter

Which leads to another problem with the Register’s Editorial . . .

Another problem that this co-editorial creates for the National Catholic Register; is that it helps give the National Catholic Reporter “Catholic credibility” by uniting itself with ANY joint statement with the National Catholic Reporter.

The National Catholic Register can always issue statements in their own platform—the National Catholic Register—without such alliances united to “the Reporter” openly asserted.

This joint statement in essence, lends the fine Catholic reputation of the National Catholic Register to the National Catholic Reporter. I think it was an unfortunate editorial decision on the part of the staff at the National Catholic Register to do so.

The National Catholic Register (appropriately) would not come out with a joint-statement with the Ku-Klux-Klan on any issue for among these reasons. The National Catholic Register would not want to lend their good name to such an organization with a united statement.

From Wikipedia (with emphasis mine) . . .

In 1968, NCR’s ordinary, Bishop Charles Herman Helmsing issued a statement condemning NCR “for their policy of crusading against the Church’s teachings,” its “poisonous character” and “disregard and denial of the most sacred values of our Catholic faith.”[8] Helmsing warned that NCR’s writers were likely guilty of heresy and subject to the automatic excommunication that incurs. Because the publication "does not reflect the teaching of the Church, but on the contrary, has openly and deliberately opposed this teaching," he asked the editors to “drop the term ‘Catholic’ from their masthead” because “they deceive their Catholic readers and do a great disservice to ecumenism by … watering down Catholic teachings.”[8][9]

NCR did not comply with his request . . . .

This Episcopal admonition that was issued by the ordinary of the National Catholic Reporter, has never been retracted by any subsequent Bishop of “the Reporter” to the best of my knowledge.

 

[sunburst2014]

There just seems no credible reason why an advanced society like the United States would need to retain the use of capital punishment. For prisoners convicted of violent crimes, there are imprisonment arrangements that minimise their contacts with prison staff and other inmates. When I think of the death penalty, I think of China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran and unfortunately our own country: isn’t it time that we move beyond this outdated practice?

 

[WilliamOK]

There just seems no credible reason why an advanced society like the United States would need to retain the use of capital punishment. For prisoners convicted of violent crimes, there are imprisonment arrangements that minimise their contacts with prison staff and other inmates. When I think of the death penalty, I think of China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran and unfortunately our own country: isn’t it time that we move beyond this outdated practice?

Well, at least we can be comforted by the fact that executions are rare compared to the number of murders. Even in Texas - the “worst” death penalty state - less than 1% of murderers get the death penalty. And if you take into account all the other states, like California which has even more murders every year, but which do not have the death penalty, the percentage is really even smaller. So it is already quite rare. But sometimes unfortunately it is deemed necessary. We do not have an unlimited amount of resources to devote to separating dangerous criminals in prison, or even ascertaining which ones are “most likely to kill again”. Then there is also the unfortunate occurrence of murderers who order the murder of their enemies from behind prison bars, but do not commit the murders themselves. So it can get complicated.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One solution to this problem would be to sentence all murderers to an isolated island so they will have no one to murder but each other. They will either kill each other off (their decision, not ours) or, in desperation, they will devise a law against murder, and anyone who violates that law will probably be executed. In any case, the likelihood is that in time they will learn to create anew the kind of civilization they once despised.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

What I fear most of all is the advent of a legal system that abolishes the death penalty altogether. This might encourage all would-be murderers to murder with impunity, knowing that the worst that could ever happen to them is to be fed and sheltered, with free medical care and academic credits (and even some entertainment thrown in) for the rest of their lives.

 

[OraLabora]

One solution to this problem would be to sentence all murderers to an isolated island so they will have no one to murder but each other. They will either kill each other off (their decision, not ours) or, in desperation, they will devise a law against murder, and anyone who violates that law will probably be executed. In any case, the likelihood is that in time they will learn to create anew the kind of civilization they once despised.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

What I fear most of all is the advent of a legal system that abolishes the death penalty altogether. This might encourage all would-be murderers to murder with impunity, knowing that the worst that could ever happen to them is to be fed and sheltered, with free medical care and academic credits (and even some entertainment thrown in) for the rest of their lives.

Or we can take the Matthew 25:36 view:

35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

and recognize that even the worst criminal has the mark of Christ on his soul, has inherent dignity because of it, and deserves a chance at redemption. And act accordingly, that is provide humane incarceration and punishment while at the same time protecting society. Make spiritual tools available in prison to help prisoners: Mass, reconciliation, possibility to speak with a priest. Deal appropriately with prisoners who are there because of grave mental health issues by making treatments available, but again while protecting society. Give prisoners structure and a sense of purpose, through meaningful work.

In short, do what a Catholic would do, not what a barbarian would do. Note how Christ doesn’t say, in Matthew 25:36, “only visit nice prisoners” or "only visit prisoners guilty of misdemeanours, just “I was in prison and you visited me”, full stop.

Your last comment boggles the mind. The US has a much higher homicide rate than Canada, yet Canada has not legally had the death penalty since 1976 and hasn’t executed a prisoner since 1962.

statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your last comment boggles the mind. The US has a much higher homicide rate than Canada, yet Canada has not legally had the death penalty since 1976 and hasn’t executed a prisoner since 1962.

statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

The usual fallacy of apples and oranges. It boggles my mind that you don’t see it.

I am in the prison ministry so I see much truth in the rest of your post.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks WilliamOK for posting this.

God bless.

Cathoholic

When I see a fine publication like the National Catholic Register join forces with the National Catholic Reporter on an issue, I would expect something out of the ordinary. This was out of the ordinary.

I was also somewhat surprised by OSV publicly taking this stance. America magazine, not so surprising taking this position.

Incidentally. Here was my response to the National Catholic Register (with formatting added).

Posted by Cathoholic on Thursday, Mar 12, 2015 3:30 AM (EDT):

I disagree with the position that the Register took here on the capital punishment issue. It seems to go beyond what the late Pope John Paul II, who was in harmony with the CCC, said.

From the CCC

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Pope John Paul II never transgressed this principle. The National Catholic Reporter together with the National Catholic Register (here) seems to be leaning toward violating this principle.

Please explain how society’s self-defense is not a “circumstantially necessary” issue regarding some violent inmates, to the widows and families of the slain prison guards across the country.

In my opinion, this editorial was not a well thought out piece and does not adequately reflect the fullness of the Catholic position on this issue. . . .

. . . . One other brief point.

Quoting the phrase: “Capital punishment must end.” is fine.

But the real issue is HOW should Capital Punishment end?

The Register along with the National Catholic Reporter, seems to want to violate the self-protection principle in this circumstance.

This would not be acceptable.

I do not claim to know what to do here, but I know what NOT to do.

We do NOT violate the principle of societal self-defense and call that “Catholic teaching”.​

Perhaps you’d like to hear from a fallen police officers wife…

insightprisonproject.org/board-of-directors.html

I just heard Dionne Wilson speak out against the death penalty at the religious Ed congress. To say her story is compelling is an understatement.

kalw.org/post/crime-victims-find-healing-through-restorative-justice

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, at least we can be comforted by the fact that executions are rare compared to the number of murders. Even in Texas - the “worst” death penalty state - less than 1% of murderers get the death penalty. And if you take into account all the other states, like California which has even more murders every year, but which do not have the death penalty, the percentage is really even smaller. So it is already quite rare. But sometimes unfortunately it is deemed necessary. We do not have an unlimited amount of resources to devote to separating dangerous criminals in prison, or even ascertaining which ones are “most likely to kill again”. Then there is also the unfortunate occurrence of murderers who order the murder of their enemies from behind prison bars, but do not commit the murders themselves. So it can get complicated.

The answer to “murderers who order murders from prison” is not to kill them…it is to change the prisons.

As it is death row is isolated and extremely difficult for them to have any contact. It took Dionne Wilson 7 months to find a way to give her husbands killer a letter.

we are more than capable of housing these people securely…California hasn’t executed someone in many years despite having several hundred on death row.

 

[Cathoholic]

Forgiving the aggressor.

Jon S. You implied the need for forgiveness in post 10.

Perhaps you’d like to hear from a fallen police officers wife…

insightprisonproject.org/board-of-directors.html

I just heard Dionne Wilson speak out against the death penalty at the religious Ed congress. To say her story is compelling is an understatement.

kalw.org/post/crime-victims-find-healing-through-restorative-justice

**I affirm we are called to forgive the aggressor (by the grace of God). ** I have no issue with that point. I concur.

But I think that is a separate issue from what I am referring to here on this thread Jon.

I’m sure you know this, but there may be readers here that don’t so I will say it:

Corporal punishment (i.e. jail) is not inconsistent with “forgiveness.”

Appropriate punishment does not negate forgiveness today, any more than when God forgave Moses of his sins, but punished Moses with him not being able to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. Moses died before being allowed to enter into the Promised land on account of that.

(Of course this was not to “protect” the people from Moses and this example isn’t meant to illustrate that. It is just meant to show you can still have punishment licitly meted out even after forgiveness.)

What I was referring to on this thread, is the notion that transgresses Catholic teaching about being able to defend yourself.

And how sometimes it is our DUTY to defend ourselves or others (as per CCC 2265 here).

And incarceration does not exclude killers from CONTINUING to kill, maim, or do “harm”.

So if society has a good reason to suspect this man or woman is a hardened killer, capital punishment might be the only way to defend yourself (as a society).

**
And it is NOT consistent with Catholic teaching to take away this right of self-defense**.

So if someone wants to do away with capital punishment, they have to come up with a humane way to reasonably insure the safety of society. This includes not only insuring the safety of the prison guards, but even making sure of the safety of fellow inmates.

So far that solution has not been put forth in an adequate way.

People will say: “Well just put the hardened killer in jail for life.”

But that has NOT solved the problem of preventing them from killing again has it?

The hardened killer, kills prison guards and kills other inmates. And sometimes escapes and kills adversaries outside of prison or even innocent societal members that the killer doesn’t even know.

And all I am saying is, if you want to do away with capital punishment fine. But I would say two things associated with this.

One–We cannot say or intimate it is illicit for a society to defend itself and others (comparing it to killing innocent babies in the womb etc.). If someone tries to put that forth, they are going against the teachings of the Church.

Two–We need a system to protect society from hardened killers. And what we have here is not doing it (“incarceration” as we know it today has been inadequate).

If you have an idea I’d be open to hearing it.

But just continuing to put hardened killers in jail with lifetime sentences has not worked adequately in my opinion.

And allowing these hardened killers to be in a situation where there is relatively high probability of yet again killing, maiming, or sexually abusing (like the prisoners in prisons currently are) is not acceptable for the DUTY of protecting oneself or defending society.

CCC 2265a Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. . . .

 

[Jon_S_1]

Do you know how many death row inmates have killed a guard or fellow prisoner, or escaped and killed a member of the public in the last 50 years or so?

Could you provide a number since you allege this is a problem?

 

[Cathoholic]

Its not a numbers situation Jon S.

It is a principle that would be violated.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Its not a numbers situation Jon S.

It is a principle that would be violated.

What principle?

You said our prisons are unable to protect society unless we kill people. I say that’s factually untrue. Can you defend your premise?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Its not a numbers situation Jon S.

It is a principle that would be violated.

I don’t see why it is necessary to defend the position of the Register from scratch. It should be enough to point out that it is not much different than CCC 2167.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jon S. You said (emphasis mine):

You said our prisons are unable to protect society unless we kill people. I say that’s factually untrue. Can you defend your premise?

Where did I say that Jon S? Why defend a premise I didn’t put forward?

I thought I said (here):

And all I am saying is, if you want to do away with capital punishment fine. But I would say . . . . We need a system to protect society from hardened killers. And what we have here is not doing it (“incarceration” as we know it today has been inadequate).

Then I said:

If you have an idea I’d be open to hearing it.

Referring to people who have forgiven murderers is fine as you have done Jon S. But it is not the same as fulfilling the grave duty of protection for society (and not just protection for society from being murdered either).

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty Jon S.

Society can potentially come up with an alternative. That’s fine (I’d like to see it). But I think you are missing my point about “principle”.

The Church would have no authority to say: “Now the Church DOES doctrinally exclude recourse to the death penalty” when they have already said: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.”

The Church (guided by the Holy Spirit), cannot contradict Herself.

So this principle needs to be carefully stated to the readers of the Register. In my opinion, the article was ambivalent about preservation of this principle applied to this issue.

---

LeafByNiggle.

You said:

I don’t see why it is necessary to defend the position of the Register from scratch.

Please go back and re-read what I said. I did not “defend the Register”. I actually took issue with the Register (at least in HOW it was presented this and the wisdom of a co-editorial with the “Reporter”).

LeafByNiggle. You cited CCC 2167 (I think you meant CCC 2267).

CCC 2167 God calls each one by name (cf. Isa 43:1).

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The teaching of CCC 2267 is what I don’t want to see readers of this doctrinal statement doctrinally transgress. The Church won’t transgress it (but readers who may not know better, could erroneously conclude the Church was wrong here).

Citing CCC 2267 in the statement would have been adequate to satisfy me. It seemed to me that the statement was ambiguous enough for people to (incorrectly) implicitly conclude that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil. Simply quoting CCC 2267 would have cleared such confusion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@LeafByNiggle.

Please go back and re-read what I said. I did not “defend the Register”. I actually took issue with the Register.

Quite right. ** I **was defending the Register. But at the same time I was lamenting the need to do so from scratch.

LeafByNiggle. You cited CCC 2167 (I think you meant CCC 2267).

Quite right again. Sorry for the sloppiness on my part.

 

[Ender]

Do you know how many death row inmates have killed a guard or fellow prisoner, or escaped and killed a member of the public in the last 50 years or so?

Could you provide a number since you allege this is a problem?

How big does the number have to be in order for you to consider it a problem? It is interesting to note that although it is alleged the public is protected simply by putting people in prison, no one has felt confident enough in that allegation to say what that actually means in terms of numbers. How many prison murders are allowed each year before it can be said that the public is not in fact protected? How many would you allow? One? Ten? A hundred?

Ender

 

[Jon_S_1]

How big does the number have to be in order for you to consider it a problem? It is interesting to note that although it is alleged the public is protected simply by putting people in prison, no one has felt confident enough in that allegation to say what that actually means in terms of numbers. How many prison murders are allowed each year before it can be said that the public is not in fact protected? How many would you allow? One? Ten? A hundred?

Ender

Again, I am not talking about prison in general. We are obviously capable of safely housing prisoners as is seen in our supermax and death row prisoners.

Please, provide a number of death row inmates (of which there are a couple thousand in the US) who murder guards, other prisoners. Or members of the public.

I am postulating that it is zero annually.

If you have another number please share it.

So I say if we are capable of safely housing these prisoners where not one additionsl person is killed, then the risk of accidently killing someone innocently or unjustly (which we do quite frequently, or nearly do), then there should be no such penalty as it only serves 1 purpose…revenge.