Will Texas execute two innocent men? [CNA]

[Ender]

You’re making a weird argument that because the Church taught something in the past it must be okay now which is not going to fly for most people.

Morality does not change with time and place. If something was true in the past it is equally true today.

The Church’s current teaching on the death penalty is very clear.

Clearly it’s not as clear as you think it is.

There may be circumstances where it is acceptable for the safety of others, but those circumstances are “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” and certainly don’t exist in America today.

The safety of others is not the primary objective of punishment; it is only a secondary objective. The primary objective is retribution - retributive justice - and it is the primary objective that must be satisfied, not merely a secondary one.

If you disagree with that it’s fine, but you can’t appeal to Church authority to support your position.

It is not “my” position; it is what the church has taught for 2000 years.

Ender

 

[PatrickC]

Morality does not change with time and place. If something was true in the past it is equally true today.
Clearly it’s not as clear as you think it is.
The safety of others is not the primary objective of punishment; it is only a secondary objective. The primary objective is retribution - retributive justice - and it is the primary objective that must be satisfied, not merely a secondary one.
It is not “my” position; it is what the church has taught for 2000 years.

Ender

“Morality” included stoning adulterers to death in the past. That was ‘moral’ and apparently ‘justice’. Would you like to bring that back?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Texas will execute just about anyone. It’s the rootin’ tootin’ wild west down there.

No it isn’t.

I am not in favor of the death penalty in practice and do not trust the system to be able to always accurately amount what really happened.

 

[Inisfallen]

“Morality” included stoning adulterers to death in the past. That was ‘moral’ and apparently ‘justice’. Would you like to bring that back?

I do believe that Jesus Himself had something to say about stoning adulterers. . .

 

[SuperLuigi]

“Morality” included stoning adulterers to death in the past. That was ‘moral’ and apparently ‘justice’. Would you like to bring that back?

I wouldn’t, but if it bothers one that much, one should take it up with certain Middle Eastern regimes. I know it’s not as or PC to do that as it is to single out Catholics, and the risk of being called an intolerant racist is higher, but standing for one’s true principles doesn’t come easy.

 

[Ender]

“Morality” included stoning adulterers to death in the past. That was ‘moral’ and apparently ‘justice’. Would you like to bring that back?

You need to distinguish between actual moral truth and those-things-someone-somewhere-has-held-to-be-moral. What the church teaches is that moral truths are eternal; they never change. That said, if you believe the church has reversed her position on capital punishment then you are left with this choice: either she is wrong in teaching that morality doesn’t change, or she was wrong to believe that capital punishment was moral. Which position are you taking?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Texas will execute just about anyone. It’s the rootin’ tootin’ wild west down there.

What an ignorant, prejudicial statement. It is not the wild west, Just about anybody will not be executed. This is an insult with no grounding in reality.

 

[pnewton]

Despite what is said in CCC 2267, the safety of society is not the primary objective of punishment.

That may be your opinion. Some Catholic, probably most, believe the Catechicm. It is a better teacher than anyone here.

 

[philipl]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...te_Pen_Credit_Ken_Piorkowsk_CNA_728.jpgAustin, Texas, Aug 10, 2016 / 05:23 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In Texas, two scheduled executions could kill innocent men, Catholic and other Christian leaders have warned.

“In both cases, there are strong indicators that the defendants may be innocent. A gross misuse of justice does not serve the victims, our society or those who have been sentenced to death,” the Texas Catholic bishops said Aug 3.

They urged Texans to write to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles regarding Jeff Wood and Robert Pruett. Wood is scheduled for execution Aug. 24.

“Jeff Wood has not ever killed another person. He was not even in the building when the murder for which he is sentenced took place,” the bishops said. “His mental health and the witness of a now-discredited psychiatrist seem to be the primary reasons for his capital punishment.”

In January 1996 Wood, then 22, waited in a car while Daniel Runeau robbed a Kerryville convenience store. Runeau shot and killed the clerk, Kriss Keeran, the Texas Tribune reports. Wood was charged with capital murder under a Texas law that says a person can be charged with a crime if he helps commit another crime or should have anticipated that other crime as a result.

The Texas Catholic Conference’s executive director Jennifer Carr Alimon, in an Aug. 3 letter to Gov. Abbot and the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles, said his original sentencing hearing was “prejudiced by the false and perjured testimony” of a discredited psychiatrist.

“The jury also did not hear evidence that might have caused it to spare Mr. Wood’s life,” Alimon’s letter said.

Wood’s mental illness should have made him incompetent to stand trial, but he had instructed his attorneys not to present evidence on his behalf or cross-examine witnesses,” Alimon added. “It is extremely rare for any person in the history of the modern death penalty to have been executed with as little culpability and participation in the taking of a life as Mr. Wood.”

A group of Evangelical leaders also called for a halt to the execution of Wood and asked for a new sentencing hearing.

Full article…

Neither of the two are innocent. They may not deserve the death penalty, but to claim there are strong indicator they are innocent is more than a stretch.

 

[Tim_D]

That may be your opinion. Some Catholic, probably most, believe the Catechicm. It is a better teacher than anyone here.

Then you toss out 2,000 years of continuous Church tradition that has always stated that capital punishment is not only moral but also necessary to the common good. The entry on capital punishment in the catechism is one of those areas where good intentions have muddled what the Church has always taught. As Ender stated, you must decide that morality is changeable or that the Church was wrong to teach what it taught for centuries.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you toss out 2,000 years of continuous Church tradition that has always stated that capital punishment is not only moral but also necessary to the common good.

That is surely an exaggeration. The Church has taught, and continues to teach, that capital punishment is not completely excluded as a moral choice for punishment. The Church has never taught that capital punishment is necessary for the common good.

 

[Ender]

That may be your opinion. Some Catholic, probably most, believe the Catechism. It is a better teacher than anyone here.

It is not about disagreeing with the catechism but of understanding it.*2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
*Now, is it your understanding that redressing the disorder caused by crimes of the past can be accomplished by preventing crimes in the future? Because if it’s not then we are agreed that “the safety of society is not the primary objective of punishment” (as I stated in the post you are responding to).

Ender

 

[Ender]

That is surely an exaggeration. The Church has taught, and continues to teach, that capital punishment is not completely excluded as a moral choice for punishment. The Church has never taught that capital punishment is necessary for the common good.

Perhaps, but she has taught that its use is *“an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder”. *It doesn’t seem a large stretch to assume that obedience to the commandments is necessary for the common good.

Ender

 

[PatrickC]

Perhaps, but she has taught that its use is *“an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder”. *It doesn’t seem a large stretch to assume that obedience to the commandments is necessary for the common good.

Ender

Which commandments? The famous ten? Or the 613 of the Torah? Further, should the punishments correspond to those prescribed by Jewish law? Those must be immutable moral teachings as well, as they were commanded by God, no? Or am I just picking and choosing? You could just go with the clear intent of the CCC- or continue to find ways to justify what seems to me to be bloodlust.

 

[Ender]

Which commandments? The famous ten? Or the 613 of the Torah?

Given that we’re talking about what the church teaches it would be safe to assume the commandment referred to was one of the ten - specifically, the fifth.

Further, should the punishments correspond to those prescribed by Jewish law?

It should correspond to what was prescribed by the church, which is why I cited the Catechism of Trent.

Those must be immutable moral teachings as well, as they were commanded by God, no?

Since morality does not change with time and place, yes, moral teachings are immutable. As for being commanded by God, that’s what determines morality in the first place.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Innocent I)
Given that moral law is immutable, why should we believe that what was morally justified for 2000 years has now become immoral?

You could just go with the clear intent of the CCC

If the meaning of the catechism was that clear we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and you and others would have an easier time supporting your position, but since your position includes the repudiation of 2000 years of church doctrine on the subject it is more than a bit difficult to justify.

… or continue to find ways to justify what seems to me to be bloodlust.

Your intemperate and uncharitable assumption about me does not change in any way the validity of my arguments. My position is either right or wrong, and nothing about my reasons for making the argument changes that.

Ender

 

[PatrickC]

Given that we’re talking about what the church teaches it would be safe to assume the commandment referred to was one of the ten - specifically, the fifth.
It should correspond to what was prescribed by the church, which is why I cited the Catechism of Trent.
Since morality does not change with time and place, yes, moral teachings are immutable. As for being commanded by God, that’s what determines morality in the first place.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Innocent I)
Given that moral law is immutable, why should we believe that what was morally justified for 2000 years has now become immoral?
If the meaning of the catechism was that clear we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and you and others would have an easier time supporting your position, but since your position includes the repudiation of 2000 years of church doctrine on the subject it is more than a bit difficult to justify.
Your intemperate and uncharitable assumption about me does not change in any way the validity of my arguments. My position is either right or wrong, and nothing about my reasons for making the argument changes that.

Ender

It seems to be an easy way out on these forums for someone to claim a post or opinion is ‘uncharitable’ and hope the poster is reprimanded for it. Maybe ‘bloodlust’ was too harsh a term, but I’m at a loss to explain what drives a person to go against the clear intent of the Catechism of their own church to justify capital punishment in situations where said Catechism clearly makes the case that such a punishment isn’t justifiable. You can go ahead and say it isn’t clear to you, but I find it both clear and deliberate. Do as you will.

 

[Ender]

I’m at a loss to explain what drives a person to go against the clear intent of the Catechism of their own church to justify capital punishment in situations where said Catechism clearly makes the case that such a punishment isn’t justifiable. You can go ahead and say it isn’t clear to you, but I find it both clear and deliberate.

Perhaps if you were more familiar what the church has previously taught on the subject you would recognize the problem.“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense… *
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)

Q. 484. Is it not lawful to kill in any cause?
A. Yes, in a just war, or when public justice requires it: “For the magistrate beareth not the sword without cause.” Rom. i. 4. (Douay Catechism)

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of Trent)

*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin (Catechism of St. Thomas)
*Are any of these statements unclear? Are we to simply ignore them? What are we to do when a doctrine that remained unchanged for 2000 years, has the nearly universal assent of the Fathers and Doctors, follows the unequivocal teaching of previous popes and catechisms, and is supported by Scripture itself now appears to be contradicted? Is it really all that clear? Does believing what the church herself taught strike you as bloodlust?

Ender

 

[PatrickC]

Perhaps if you were more familiar what the church has previously taught on the subject you would recognize the problem.“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense… *
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)

Q. 484. Is it not lawful to kill in any cause?
A. Yes, in a just war, or when public justice requires it: “For the magistrate beareth not the sword without cause.” Rom. i. 4. (Douay Catechism)

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of Trent)

*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin (Catechism of St. Thomas)
*Are any of these statements unclear? Are we to simply ignore them? What are we to do when a doctrine that remained unchanged for 2000 years, has the nearly universal assent of the Fathers and Doctors, follows the unequivocal teaching of previous popes and catechisms, and is supported by Scripture itself now appears to be contradicted? Is it really all that clear? Does believing what the church herself taught strike you as bloodlust?

Ender

What is lawful isn’t always what is optimal or preferable. Some would prefer to do away with such barbaric measures, lawful or not.

 

[pnewton]

Then you toss out 2,000 years of continuous Church tradition that has always stated that capital punishment is not only moral but also necessary to the common good. .

Your idea of what constitutes Church Tradition is not mine. I also know of multiple popes that do not agree with you. Realize that just like we do not get to set our own interpretations of Scripture above the Church, we should also not set our own narrow views of “Church Tradition” above the Church. The danger with personal interpretation of Scripture is the “personal interpretation” part, not the Scripture part.

Capital punishment* may* be moral. It is not an absolute moral good, as should be self-evident with even a little reflection.

 

[Ender]

What is lawful isn’t always what is optimal or preferable. Some would prefer to do away with such barbaric measures, lawful or not.

You misunderstand the meaning of the word “lawful”. When the church uses it it means morally legitimate, not merely that some country permits it. She would never say, for example, that abortion was lawful even though it is in fact legal in most countries.

Ender