Your Response to Those Who State You Cannot Be 100% Pro-Life & For the Death Penalty?

[USMC]

Darrel:

You quote the old covenant as if Christ never said let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. Do you think it is weak for people to be against the death penalty? It is very tough for me to follow the teaching of the Church on this matter. On some human levels I would like to see every one of these people dead. It is wrong to do so, it is stronger in this issue to have mercy and let them live out the rest of their lives.

-D

The death penalty is in accordance with Church teaching. John Paul II may have personally been against the death penalty, but that is not the teaching of the Church. The Church has always been in favor of the death penalty. The personaly opinin of one Pope (out of 265), when it is contrary to over 1900 years of Catholic teaching, does not change the teaching of the Church. If the death penalty was wrong, the Church was in error for over 1900 years.

God does not change. It is true that there is more of God’s mercy shown during the days of the New Covenant, but that does not mean God’s justice has been nullified, or that the truth has changed. If the death penalty was evil, or in anyway wrong, then God Himself would not have promoted it as a good thing. That is obvious.

God does not change. If He was for the death penalty during the days of the Old Covenant (and for over 1900 years of the New), then it could not have suddenly become a bad thing.

Do you base your rejection of the death penalty on John Paul II’s personal opinion on the matter (which is contrary to over 1900 years of Church teaching and practice), and reject what all of the other Popes before him taught. If so, why? John Paul II is no longer Pope. He is now a previous Pope just as like all of his predecessors. For all we know, our new Pope may hold to the Catholic teaching regarding the death penalty. If so, will you now change your mind on the matter?

 

[pnewton]

wabrams:

Let me see, the prison population has increased but the number of persons executed has just slightly decreased.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

Homicide rates in prison (state and local) are 3.5 per 100,000.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm

3.15 allegations per 100,000 of sexual violence.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrca04.htm

Thank you for the fine data. It does raise the possibility that exexutions are, in fact rare. We have had between 50-75 a year this decade. Homicides, in prison, based on a population of about 2 million have occurred at a similar rate and suicides at a rate about 10 times that.

I am not saying that we should execute people to protect them from dying, just that the arguement can be made that the death penalty is only used in rare cases.

 

[Darrel]

USMC:

He is now a previous Pope just as like all of his predecessors. For all we know, our new Pope may hold to the Catholic teaching regarding the death penalty. If so, will you now change your mind on the matter?

Yes I will, do we know how Benedict feels about it? If he does not support it will you change your mind? That makes two Popes.

-D

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

For all we know, our new Pope may hold to the Catholic teaching regarding the death penalty. If so, will you now change your mind on the matter?

Have you ever heard of begging the question, that is, stating as if it is fact the matter discussed? Pope John Paul II did teach the Catholic teaching on the subject by the very nature of his office. It is those who disagreed with him that do not hold to “the Catholic teaching.” Until such a time that a new pope clarifies the teaching or re-examines its application in the world today (which is what JPII did), it remains the teaching of the church that the death penalty should be rare if not practically non-existent.

Here is a link (go to the show for October 10th) on Archbishop Chaput’s radio show on the subject.

catholic.com/radio/calive.asp

PS (for Darrel) - He didn’t say that the Holy Father was against the death penalty, only that it should be rare, and that those rare cases can no be used as justification to execute others.

 

[Seamus]

Just to set the record straight, Tommy Silverstein, a reputed member of the Aryan Brotherhood, is no longer being held in a specially-designed cell in the basement of USP Leavenworth. According to the inmate locator feature on the Bureau of Prisons’ web site (bop.gov), Silverstein is being held in the ADMAX (Supermax) prison in Florence, Colorado. Silverstein, 53, has a scheduled release date of November 2, 2095.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Seamus:

Just to set the record straight, Tommy Silverstein, a reputed member of the Aryan Brotherhood, is no longer being held in a specially-designed cell in the basement of USP Leavenworth. According to the inmate locator feature on the Bureau of Prison’s web site (bop.gov)/), Silverstein is being held in the ADMAX (Supermax) prison in Florence, Colorado. Silverstein, 53, has a scheduled release date of November 2, 2095.

Colorado’s nice – you can go skiing, elk hunting, and rock climbing. So what’s keeping those who adamantly oppose the death penalty from volunteering to be Tommy’s keeper?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As I have followed this discussion, and researched the issue, I have learned many things. It seems to me that the “Catholic position,” as such, is as yet unclarified by the Church. I would agree that Pope John Paul II is the current authority on the subject (pending Benedict’s voice), but the historical considerations mentioned by USMC make some sense. I looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia online and found:

The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

This is almost a direct refutation of Catholic teaching as it reads in the Catechism.

Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’

What gives?

I think the Church needs to (through prayer and discernment) develop a position, and then reconcile its historical tradition to that position. Either the historical practice of the death penalty was wrong, or it wasn’t. What saith the Church?

 

[Brad]

Michael Welter:

Well, I’ve Gearge Bush being referred to as a pro-life president. In fact, before the last election, National Right to Life endorsed him as a “great pro-life president”. And he is not pro-life, he is anti-abortion. I would hope that ALL catholics vote pro-life.

Me too. What party do you suggest?

 

[Brad]

“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’” - The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Church knows more than I do, and She judges the civil authorities capable of dealing with these problems.

And, if you take your logic to its logical extreme, we ought to put to death all those who we think *will likely * commit a murder, even if they haven’t yet. There might be something I wasn’t following in what you said, but that’s the conclusion I would draw.

I want to preface by saying I am against the death penalty but I am for judicial systems that are just.

I know the catechism reference that you cited but neither you nor the catechism have answered the questions that I posed. These questions are not rhetorical logic as you suggest. They are reality. These things happen. How is it prevented? How many times should someone be able to kill, espcially when it involves torture and murder of young children?

 

[Brad]

The Catechism reference also makes note of “absolute necessity”. It is true that cases of “absolute necessity” are very rare. But is it the death penalty that is the problem in modern countries or is it the weak justice system? What is the cause of the necessity when it should be very rare?

 

[puzzleannie]

I happen to be against the death penalty, because even if it can be justified in theory in application, given the state of our criminal justice system, there is a likelihood of innocent people being condemned, especially here in Texas.

My answer to pro-aborts, or so-called pro-choice Catholics who try to derail the anti-abortion debate with non sequiters about the death penalty is that at least those on death row were granted due process of law, while abortion condemns the innocent without a trial and without even acknowledging their right to exist.

 

[USMC]

pnewton:

Have you ever heard of begging the question, that is, stating as if it is fact the matter discussed?
catholic.com/radio/calive.asp

PS (for Darrel) - He didn’t say that the Holy Father was against the death penalty, only that it should be rare, and that those rare cases can no be used as justification to execute others.

I’ll give a few quotes to show that the death penalty has always been allowed by the Church. If you are not satisfied with these quotes, I’m sure I can find many more.

Catechism of Trent: “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 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. The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord”. [that quote was so good, I had to underline all of it].

Pope Innocent III: [regarding the Waldensian heretics] “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Denzinger 425).

Pope Pius XII (1952): “Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.)

The next quote is taken from St. Thomas’ Summa. St. Thomas is recognized as one of the greatest theologians of the Church. At the council of Trent, the Summa of St. Thomas was placed on the altar next to the Bible, and the dogmatic decrees of the past Popes. Pope Leo XIII recommended two books for all Seminarians: one was the Catechism of Trent (quoted above), and the other was the Summa of St. Thomas.

The following is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

““In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican”, writes Leo XIII (Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”), “one might almost say that Thomas took part in and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results.” But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have. Before this section is closed mention should be made of two books widely known and highly esteemed, which were inspired by and drawn from the writings of St. Thomas. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed by disciples of the Angelic Doctor, is in reality a compendium of his theology, in convenient form for the use of parish priests…”

Such is the authority the Church gives to the writings of St. Thomas.

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

This is what St. Thomas said in the Summa about the death penalty. In the Summa, he begins each section by stating objections to the particular teaching, then he gives his answer, and finally he responds to each of the initial objections.

St. Thomas on the death penalty:

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.

Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.

Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and “we wish our friends to live and to exist,” according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.

On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:18): “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live”; and (Ps. 100:8): “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land.”

I answer that, As stated above . . ., it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. 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). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,” and Prov. 11:29: “The fool shall serve the wise.” Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

Catechism of Trent: "Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities,…- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence

I would never question whether it is lawful to execute criminals, especially from a historical perspective. But even when the ability to safeguard society through incarceration was non-existent, the goal remained the same as it is today, " the preservation and security of human life." The question before us now is does this goal still require the death penalty.

St. Thomas did not list as an objection that the same goal could be accomplished through incarceration simply because this was an unimaginable concept in his day. It is this very ability that has caused the church to examine how best to apply principles of moral theology to the problem of the death penalty.

I can appreciate that the church did, and still does allow for a lawful death penalty. But is this penalty still needed today?

I believe it is, but only in extreme cases. It is my understanding that this is an acceptable position according to the last word from the Vatican on the subject.

 

[USMC]

pnewton:

I would never question whether it is lawful to execute criminals, especially from a historical perspective. But even when the ability to safeguard society through incarceration was non-existent, the goal remained the same as it is today, " the preservation and security of human life." The question before us now is does this goal still require the death penalty.

St. Thomas did not list as an objection that the same goal could be accomplished through incarceration simply because this was an unimaginable concept in his day. It is this very ability that has caused the church to examine how best to apply principles of moral theology to the problem of the death penalty.

I can appreciate that the church did, and still does allow for a lawful death penalty. But is this penalty still needed today?

I believe it is, but only in extreme cases. It is my understanding that this is an acceptable position according to the last word from the Vatican on the subject.

I really don’t have an argument against your view. My argument is with those who claim that the death penalty is wrong, or evil, in itself. To believe that is to claim that the church promoted evil for 1900 years.

I personally would be in favor of a much wider use of the death penalty. But if you are in favor of a more limited use, that is fine with me.

One response I do have you to claim that, since we now have such a good prison system the use of capital punishment is no longer necessary, is this: We may have a good prison system in America, or other developed countries, but what about 3rd world countries? The Church exists in all areas of the world and what is true in American is not true in other countries. So the argument would need to be revised to say that in developed countries with good prison systems the death penalty should be very limited, but in very poor 3rd world countries, it should be kept in practice.

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

We may have a good prison system in America, or other developed countries, but what about 3rd world countries?

You are correct. We can not apply our capabilities in America and Europe to those with more limited means. Even in America we have a handful of dangerous criminals which can not be safely confined in prison for life (my opinion).

 

[vern_humphrey]

pnewton:

You are correct. We can not apply our capabilities in America and Europe to those with more limited means. Even in America we have a handful of dangerous criminals which can not be safely confined in prison for life (my opinion).

There is an old Abbot and Costello comedy routine where Abbot urges Costello to do something dangerous.

Costello: “But I might be killed!”

Abbot: “I’m willing to take that risk.”

It strikes me that a lot of people who oppose the death penalty at all costs have cast themselves in the role of Abbot, and the potential victims in the role of Costello.

 

[Brad]

puzzleannie:

I happen to be against the death penalty, because even if it can be justified in theory in application, given the state of our criminal justice system, there is a likelihood of innocent people being condemned, especially here in Texas.

My answer to pro-aborts, or so-called pro-choice Catholics who try to derail the anti-abortion debate with non sequiters about the death penalty is that at least those on death row were granted due process of law, while abortion condemns the innocent without a trial and without even acknowledging their right to exist.

Oh if only they could have a trial before they were executed. It would shed some much needed light.

 

[st_ignatius110]

I will also say that I am against the death penalty. One of the factors that contributes to this is that it has been proven there have been many sentenced and put to death who were innocent of the crime.

 

[vern_humphrey]

st_ignatius110:

I will also say that I am against the death penalty. One of the factors that contributes to this is that it has been proven there have been many sentenced and put to death who were innocent of the crime.

Actually, “many” is an overstatement. Even celebrated cases, like the Rosenbergs, whose innocence was protested for generations were finally shown to be truly guilty.

However, we do need a better justice system. Look at it like this – death penalty cases are the best justice we have. By that, I mean that persons facing the death penalty have safeguards – both during and after trial – that “ordinary” criminals do not have. So if we sentence one innocent man to death, how many innocent men go to prison for lesser crimes?

It is no fix to say, “Well, we just won’t execute anybody.” That still leaves innocent men in prison – and not just those who would have been executed, but those convicted of drug dealing, car stealing, check kiting, and so on. All of those innocent people suffer horribly.

I would feel a lot better if those who oppose the death penalty at all costs were pursuing justice reform with the same passion they reserve for a tiny minority of convicts.

And I would also feel better if they felt the same passion for the victims and their families, to include the potential victims of the men they want to get off death row.