Will Texas execute two innocent men? [CNA]

[mikekle]

Who was it that once said “it would be better for all truly guilty criminals to go free than a single person to be wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit”?

This makes sense to me, but it seems like it does not for lawmakers, I have seen numerous cases where the person is convicted and later found to be innocent, and its not like this is a rare thing, its happened quite a few times, so I have to wonder, why was our justice system not totally overhauled the very first time this happened?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

OK, then let me rephrase the two versions like a parent would.

*“You can go outside.”
“You can go outside when your homework is done.”

*There’s not a kid in the world who wouldn’t understand that these mean very different things. In the same way the statements on capital punishment say different things; they are not two formulations of the same concept.

*“You can use capital punishment.”
“You can use capital punishment when it is necessary for the protection of society.”

*The problem is, both editions claim to represent the traditional teaching of the church, yet since they are different they cannot both be right, and while it is not possible to prove a negative, I’ll bet that there is no example one can produce that supports the second edition version. There are innumerable examples supporting the version found in the first edition.
I agree. So, is there another option?

Ender

You repeatedly use qualifications that are simply not valid.

You are correct in what you said in your statement to me, which precisely was that you cannot understand.

You have succeeded, by the various things you write in your posts, to demonstrate that.

Indeed, this incapacity seems to be all to true concerning what is, in fact, simply and directly taught by the Holy Father, in Evangelium Vitae, in the Catechism and subsequently…and, with ever increasing theological reflection, more and more by the College of Bishops.

Evidently, this inability also renders you incapable of understanding and appreciating the various distinctions being articulated by the Vicar of Christ and by the Successors of the Apostles. That is very unfortunate for you.

I am very sorry for whatever debility renders you incapable of understanding.

I assure you of my prayers.

 

[Ender]

I am very sorry for whatever debility renders you incapable of understanding.

If the problem in understanding church teaching was mine it should be rather simple for you to demonstrate my error. Given that you haven’t even attempted to refute my arguments, it would seem the difficulty lies with your position rather than mine.

I assure you of my prayers.

I would prefer you just drop the insults.

Ender

 

[Tim_D]

You repeatedly use qualifications that are simply not valid.

Then how is it that the Catechism of Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism, the Douay Catechism, the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of St. Thomas can all say the same thing in regards to the death penalty being apt, moral and just but the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church can negate that the “traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty?” Certainly the conditions of the legitimacy of the death penalty being “practically non-existent” is a subjective opinion that overlooks one of the prime tenants of Justice, redressing the wrong that was committed.

Are we seriously going to say that it would have been better to spare the lives of the Nazis condemned at Nuremberg instead of serving Justice at the end of a rope? How much blood does one need to have on their hands before we acknowledge that certain acts require certain punishments? I may not be as knowledgable in the subject as others but from my reading and from pronouncements of the Church, those who cannot uphold the social contract just may have to make amends for their failings. Pope Francis is on record saying that life sentences are unacceptable. How do we punish murderers if traditional punishment presents “practically non-existent” circumstances to satisfy Justice?

 

[Tim_D]

I would prefer you just drop the insults.

Yeah, I gotta say that I agree here. When one begins to insult they have decided to end the conversation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yeah, I gotta say that I agree here. When one begins to insult they have decided to end the conversation.

Actually, it is not a matter of insult. It is a matter of simply quoting the use of “not understanding” in post #43 in juxtaposition to the particular use of the term “understanding” in posts # 31, 39, and 40.

I have applied the same methodology of interaction in my comments I would apply as an academic.

Having made posts in other threads, I also took the liberty of examining for an hour a series of threads on this subject spanning the last 12 months and analysing what was written as well as what others had responded.

In simple fact, it is futile to attempt “conversation” with someone who is demonstrably not engaged in conversation but demonstrates that which one can quickly assess in the very many comments posted that are there to be read.

Such proceeding suggests a methodology in how to reply.

Thus: I would recommend to those who are following the thread about the situation in Texas, and who are from the United States and therefore under the governance of the Bishops there, the following resources. They have been provided specifically to acquaint them with what their Bishops have declared and what the Church teaches.

They can find these resources on this website:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

One has only to search under the page’s banner:

The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position

Other helpful resources can be found at:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/

And I further recommend to those who may wish to read more of both the teaching of the Holy Father and the teachings of the Bishops of the United States, the publication A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, available in PDF form.
usccb.org/_cs_upload/7917_1.pdf

The Conference has excellent experts in this field also for consultation, as do the various Conferences of Catholic Bishops at the State level, all of whom are working diligently on this issue on behalf of the Church in the United States.

 

[Tim_D]

Actually, it is not a matter of insult. It is a matter of simply quoting the use of “not understanding” in post #43 in juxtaposition to the particular use of the term “understanding” in posts # 31, 39, and 40.

Please.

This: "I am very sorry for whatever debility renders you incapable of understanding" is enough to get any other poster here an infraction for an uncharitable post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Can there be any doubt that the Church teaches that enslaving humans is immoral? Yet it was not always so. In 1452, Pope Nikolas V issued a papal bull, Dum Diversas, that sanctioned perpetual slavery in certain cases. This was followed by another, Romanus Poniflex (1454) in which slavery was again sanctioned in certain cases. So how are we to reconcile this change with the concept of “deposit of faith”?

I think that in this thread, the concept of the Church never being wrong has been misinterpreted. In something like the Immaculate Conception, once declared, we can be assured it will always remain true. It is an eternal truth. In the case of slavery, we do not see the Church making a positive statement of eternal truth about slavery in these papal bulls. Rather it is a statement that failed to recognize a truth that we now recognize, thanks to the continuing enlightenment by the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, with the death penalty, we find older catechisms failing to acknowledge a truth while also refraining from positively asserting its opposite - that the death penalty must be invoked under certain cases - only that it can be invoked. This is very much like the Church’s gradual realization of the immorality of slavery. The Church never asserted that someone must be enslaved - only that at that time, it was still allowed.

So I don’t think we need take upon our shoulders the responsibility of reconciling every previous version of the catechism. In the reading from Sirach for this coming weekend we see:

What is too sublime for you, seek not,
into things beyond your strength search not.

 

[Ender]

Actually, it is not a matter of insult. It is a matter of simply quoting the use of “not understanding” in post #43 in juxtaposition to the particular use of the term “understanding” in posts # 31, 39, and 40.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time you challenged my use of “I don’t understand”, but this time you’ve just doubled down on the insult so I’ll try again, not so much because I think you have trouble comprehending what I’m saying but to see if I can phrase it in a way that you cannot distort.

What I don’t understand - what makes no sense to me - is how people can believe something lacking a reasonable basis. I don’t think that way myself and cannot understand how others do, and believing that capital punishment is immoral is one such idea.

In simple fact, it is futile to attempt “conversation” with someone who is demonstrably not engaged in conversation…

Well that’s OK. You can be sure that if you ever make a specific assertion about capital punishment I’ll be more than willing to engage your comment whether you choose to defend it or not, but I get the feeling that’s not a limb you’re comfortable climbing out on.

And I further recommend to those who may wish to read more of both the teaching of the Holy Father and the teachings of the Bishops of the United States, the publication A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, available in PDF form.
usccb.org/_cs_upload/7917_1.pdf

I find it more useful to actually extract passages, especially from long documents, so the readers can focus on specific points. This one for example from the document you cited:The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue…
“People of goodwill disagree”. I’m guessing this is because on prudential questions people of goodwill are allowed to disagree. “We offer neither judgment nor condemnation…” And this would be because they cannot challenge the validity of supporting a position the church has taught for 2000 years.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Can there be any doubt that the Church teaches that enslaving humans is immoral? Yet it was not always so. In 1452, Pope Nikolas V issued a papal bull, Dum Diversas, that sanctioned perpetual slavery in certain cases. This was followed by another, Romanus Poniflex (1454) in which slavery was again sanctioned in certain cases. So how are we to reconcile this change with the concept of “deposit of faith”?

I think you make too much of isolated examples where certain instances of slavery were allowed. No one suggests that everything every pope says or writes becomes doctrine simply because he has pronounced on it. Just as you can find a papal bull on witches doesn’t mean the church had a witch doctrine, despite the opinion of a particular pope. Slavery has nothing like the pedigree of capital punishment, which has been taught repeatedly and unchanged for her entire history.

Similarly, with the death penalty, we find older catechisms failing to acknowledge a truth while also refraining from positively asserting its opposite - that the death penalty must be invoked under certain cases - only that it can be invoked.

You seriously misstate the situation. It is not merely in some “older” catechisms where some “truth” about capital punishment is omitted: what you find is consistency between all of them (or at least the half dozen I’ve seen) over the last 800 years up through 1992. Beyond that you also find the supporting statements of popes saying very much the same thing extending back from the 1950’s arguably to Clement of Rome, and certainly to the 400’s.

This is very much like the Church’s gradual realization of the immorality of slavery. The Church never asserted that someone must be enslaved - only that at that time, it was still allowed.

I don’t think there is any comparison between the two issues as far as they were treated by the church. There are a few scattered papal documents permitting slavery in a specific time for a specific reason; these do not begin to have the authority of the doctrines on capital punishment, which are of a different kind altogether.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)

So I don’t think we need take upon our shoulders the responsibility of reconciling every previous version of the catechism.

What needs reconciling is not all the previous documents the church has produced since they all accord with one another. What needs explanation is only the latest version of the catechism which says something which appears to be novel in the history of the church.

Ender

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think you make too much of isolated examples where certain instances of slavery were allowed.

The examples I cited were of slavery being explicitly sanctioned. But there was also an implicit sanction when Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals. But the biggest implicit tolerance of slavery is the fact that was missing from the official teaching of the church until recently. Now normally we cannot conclude anyone from the absence of a teaching, especially if the matter at hand is already covered as a consequence of some more general principle. (For example, the Church says nothing about cheating at poker, because cheating in generally is already dealt with.) But in this case, that would be a hard argument to make. The issue of slavery had been discussed by various theologians as far back as St. Paul. But the judgement that it was absolutely wrong to enslave another human was not made, despite all that discussion, until recently. And then it was only after slavery had been mostly eliminated from the civilized world. If slavery was not explicitly condemned when it was much more common, why would the Church bother to condemn it now, if it were not for the fact that the wrongness of slavery was not completely understood until then.

I think the same thing could happen to the death penalty. It has not happened yet, as the catechism still does not condemn it. But I can see that it could happen. And if it does, I do not think it will occasion a crisis of faith as people struggle to reconcile changing doctrine. I think it will eventually be accepted, and the Church will go on.

What needs reconciling is not all the previous documents the church has produced since they all accord with one another. What needs explanation is only the latest version of the catechism which says something which appears to be novel in the history of the church.

Ender

I don’t think it is all that needed. Most of the clergy don’t think so, so why should I?

 

[anon67074017]

This is one reason why I oppose the death penalty. It is like cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Ender]

The issue of slavery had been discussed by various theologians as far back as St. Paul. But the judgement that it was absolutely wrong to enslave another human was not made, despite all that discussion, until recently.

There is a vast difference between saying something is right and not saying it is wrong.

I think the same thing could happen to the death penalty. It has not happened yet, as the catechism still does not condemn it. But I can see that it could happen. And if it does, I do not think it will occasion a crisis of faith as people struggle to reconcile changing doctrine. I think it will eventually be accepted, and the Church will go on.

If capital punishment was ever declared intrinsically evil the damage would be incalculable; not a one of the church’s doctrines would stand unchallenged. All of the talk about morality not changing over time, about the church being protected from serious error, about the church claiming she can accurately interpret the word of God would be washed away. This is not some minor practice like eating fish on Friday the church can simply reverse. The damage would be total.*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)

I don’t think it is all that needed. Most of the clergy don’t think so, so why should I?

It is convenient that you don’t believe an explanation is necessary inasmuch as I don’t think one is possible. Despite the claim it makes to be the traditional teaching of the church, I have not yet seen anything to support that assertion.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I agree. So, is there another option?

Ender

There are a lot more options than just doctrine or opinion. If I tell my son to pick up his room, it is not an opinion, nor a doctrine. If the Church says all the lectionaries need to change, it is not an opinion or a doctrine. Even a simply statement like, “It is raining,” is neither doctrine or opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Then how is it that the Catechism of Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism, the Douay Catechism, the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of St. Thomas can all say the same thing in regards to the death penalty being apt, moral and just but the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church can negate that the “traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty?” Certainly the conditions of the legitimacy of the death penalty being “practically non-existent” is a subjective opinion that overlooks one of the prime tenants of Justice, redressing the wrong that was committed.

Killing a criminal is not the only way to redress a wrong committed. The opinion in the Catechism, and from the last three popes may well be subjective, but it is also authoritative. It is also instructional. There is no contradiction with the previous catechisms. There is only new data that gives a better understanding. The world we live in does determine how we can justly punish people, and it always has. It is traditional. Even when the Baltimore Catechism was written, for example, there was no understanding that execution was reasonable for theft, or for heresy. There was no execution for idol worship, or witchcraft. Yet there was a time when these were considered moral alternatives. Application of the death penalty is a moral issue. It is not just opinion, and it does, it must, change with society.

 

[Tim_D]

Application of the death penalty is a moral issue. It is not just opinion, and it does, it must, change with society.

So, then, you maintain that there is no such thing as objective morality? If the Church has traditionally taught that the death penalty was moral, can she now suddenly decide that it is immoral? Does that mean that the Church is in error as recently as 1992 when the first edition of the Catechism allowed capital punishment to be moral? What, then, are we to make of the entire deposit of faith? Do we begin at the beginning and change whatever must be changed with society?

 

[pnewton]

So, then, you maintain that there is no such thing as objective morality? No. I said nothing like this.

If the Church has traditionally taught that the death penalty was moral, can she now suddenly decide that it is immoral?

 

[Tim_D]

But just to be clear, this is not a contradiction because the Church would still say that the death penalty was still moral, but cannot be morally applied many places today. That is why the rest of the questions are not relevant. There is no new doctrine, and not contradiction with past doctrines.

This makes zero sense.

How can an act be moral, yet its implication be immoral?

 

[pnewton]

This makes zero sense.

How can an act be moral, yet its implication be immoral?

Killing an entire city was moral. Once. When God ordered the destruction of Ai, obeying God was a moral act. When Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, it was not moral. Does this make God a moral relativist? Of course not. Recognizing that context can change the nature of an act is not moral relativism.