Catholic Bishops Plan Drive Against Death Penalty

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 21 2005, 04:02 PM'] Hang on a second...it's okay to kill a human if we've convicted zir of a crime, but not if zie's a fetus who will kill zir host?  I'm sorry, but what?  Why is the death penalty okay, but abortion is murder?  A human is a human no matter how small, right?  So a human is a human no matter how large.  But, suddenly, it's okay to kill them?  When does this start?  When they reach 18?  Except, no, if they've asked for death we can't help them out.  Only if they've been convicted of a crime.

That's internal consistency for you. 

*boggles* [/quote]
we have some common ground here. Catholics we should have a [i]consistent[/i] ethic of life. that means abortion is wrong, euthanasia is wrong, and the death penalty should be used as self-defense, say when a psychopath just kills without remorse and has given no indication that he will stop. As far as restoring justice goes I think we should simply make it a matter of safety and leave justice out of it. Too easy to insert our own interpretation of justice. Much easier to agree that something is dangerous.
Killing juveniles is especially heinous.
The problem is that humans have their own sense of justice, and it's based on feelings. It feels fair to kill somebody just cause they committed a crime, and it feels fair to kill your child because you don't want him or her, and it feels fair to end the suffering of a sick person because you tell yourself you wouldn't want to live that way. Doesn't make it so. There's a fierce satisfaction in revenge. When we dress revenge up as justice it's not a good thing.

Edited March 21, 2005 by toledo_jesus

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:40 PM'] That may be part of your problem.  The theological manuals used before Vatican II do express the teaching of the Magisterium on issues, and your lack of familiarity with Catholic moral theology may explain why you seek to reduce capital punishment to the protection of society from further harm, while totally ignoring the reestablishment of justice, which also plays a part in any punishment inflicted by the civil authorities. [/quote]

1) I have not reduced Capital Punishment to a protection of human life. What I have done is raised the question on whether or not the Holy Father has done so, and expressed a desire for a clarification from the Holy See.

2) Theology manuals express a lot of things. Just because something is popular theology doesn't make it Magisterial teaching. Limbo is an excellent example of this. You can point to many theology manuals teaching its existence, yet they have no relevance to Catholics, because it is not a Magisterial teaching. If your assertion is truly Magisterial, you should be able to show it as such, and not just cite theology manuals.

3) I agree retribution is a vital element to punishment. Where I disagree is that the civil authorites are morally obligated to use lethal retribution. The Church has never taught this.

Edited March 21, 2005 by Eremite

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:47 PM']1) I have not reduced Capital Punishment to a protection of human life. What I have done is raised the question on whether or not the Holy Father has done so, and expressed a desire for a clarification from the Holy See.[/quote]
It is not possible for the Pope to alter the Tradition of the Church, so no clarification of the Pope's prudential comments in [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u] is necessary.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:47 PM']2) Theology manuals express a lot of things. Just because something is popular theology doesn't make it Magisterial teaching. Limbo is an excellent example of this. You can point to many theology manuals teaching its existence, yet they have no relevance to Catholics, because it is not a Magisterial teaching. If your assertion is truly Magisterial, you should be able to show it as such, and not just cite theology manuals.[/quote]
The old manuals were all approved by the Church and were used in her official institutions of higher learning. They are not merely the opinions of theologians, but in some sense they reflect the faith of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium on particular doctrinal and moral issues.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:47 PM']3) I agree retribution is a vital element to punishment. Where I disagree is that the civil authorites are morally obligated to use lethal retribution. The Church has never taught this.[/quote]
As St. Thomas wrote in the Summa, "It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws [b][i]command[/i][/b] such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more." Capital punishment is about more than simply protecting society from further harm. It also about the restoration of justice, and in the case of capital offenses, the death of the criminal may be required, depending upon the circumstances, in order to restore the common good. As an example: If Hitler had been captured at the end of World War II, the only proper punishment that could have been inflicted upon him would have been his death. The gravity of his crimes against humanity were so great, that only his execution would have restored the moral order which he had attacked and harmed by the murder of countless millions of innocent people.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]It is not possible for the Pope to alter the Tradition of the Church, so no clarification of the Pope's prudential comments in Evangelium Vitae is necessary.[/quote]

This, of course, is dependent upon your private understanding of the tradition of the Church, which may or may not be right.

[quote]They are not merely the opinions of theologians, but in some sense they reflect the faith of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium on particular doctrinal and moral issues.[/quote]

They may reflect the faith of the Church, but they are not Magisterial. Furthermore, just because a theological opinion is expressed doesn't make it doctrine. As the Holy See notes in its document on the vocation of the theologian, theology and magisterium have different, but closely united, roles.

[quote]"It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways.[/quote]

First of all, St. Thomas is not a Magisterial authority.

HOWEVER, even St. Thomas doesn't say what you do. Note why the civil authorites are "commanded" to inflict capital punishment: "because there is a greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways." St. Thomas doesn't enjoin the same command if the criminal will not "likely harm others". He may admit the RIGHT, but not the command.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 02:16 PM'] This, of course, is dependent upon your private understanding of the tradition of the Church, which may or may not be right. [/quote]
Yes, it is my understanding based upon the various Magisterial documents that I've read throughout my life, and upon the theological texts that I've read, and in addition, it is based upon what I've learned while working on my MA in Theology.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 02:16 PM'] First of all, St. Thomas is not a Magisterial authority.

HOWEVER, even St. Thomas doesn't say what you do. Note why the civil authorites are "commanded" to inflict capital punishment: "because there is a greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways." St. Thomas doesn't enjoin the same command if the criminal will not "likely harm others". He may admit the RIGHT, but not the command. [/quote]
Nor did I say that he was the Magisterium, but he has been approved by the Magisterium as a Doctor of the Church. Moreover, his Summa, at least throughout most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was the main source for teaching Catholic doctrine in the Church's seminaries and universities, and I say this as a Byzantine Catholic.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]it is my understanding based upon the various Magisterial documents that I've read throughout my life, and upon the theological texts that I've read, and in addition, it is based upon what I've learned while working on my MA in Theology.[/quote]

With all due respect to your academic achievements (and I'm not trying to mock them in any way), but I've seen men with more credentials than you say some pretty erroneous things (see Haight [comma] Roger).

[quote]Nor did I say that he was the Magisterium, but he has been approved by the Magisterium as a Doctor of the Church. Moreover, his Summa, at least throughout most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was the main source for teaching Catholic doctrine in the Church's seminaries and universities[/quote]

That doesn't make his opinions doctrine, and neither does it make him say what you think he says in the passage cited.

[quote] I say this as a Byzantine Catholic.[/quote]

I won't hold that against you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 02:38 PM']With all due respect to your academic achievements (and I'm not trying to mock them in any way), but I've seen men with more credentials than you say some pretty erroneous things (see Haight [comma] Roger).

That doesn't make his opinions doctrine, and neither does it make him say what you think he says in the passage cited.[/quote]
His views have been taught in Catholic institutions of higher learning, have yours?



As St. Thomas said, "Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit." [[u]Summa Theologica[/u], Pima Pars, Q. 65, Art. 2]

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]As St. Thomas said, "Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit." [Summa Theologica, Pima Pars, Q. 65, Art. 2][/quote]

I have no problem with this. The only problem I have is when you say civil rulers MUST exercise lethal retribution. There is no obstacle to a civil ruler determining that life imprisonment is an adequate method of retribution for grave crimes. Like the Lord did with Cain, he banishes him from regular society, but does not kill him. If the Lord did not cheat justice by declining to kill Cain, neither does the civil ruler.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 02:51 PM'] I have no problem with this. The only problem I have is when you say civil rulers MUST exercise lethal retribution. There is no obstacle to a civil ruler determining that life imprisonment is an adequate method of retribution for grave crimes. Like the Lord did with Cain, he banishes him from regular society, but does not kill him. If the Lord did not cheat justice by declining to kill Cain, neither does the civil ruler. [/quote]
That's why you need to read the other portions of the Summa where St. Thomas speaks about the nature of irreparable harm, i.e., a harm inflicted by one man upon another which cannot be rectified, and how the response to these kinds of capital offenses by civil authorities must be of like kind.

I can tell you in all honesty that if a man murdered my mother, I would do all that was in my power in order to have the State seek the death penalty.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 02:51 PM'] I have no problem with this. The only problem I have is when you say civil rulers MUST exercise lethal retribution. There is no obstacle to a civil ruler determining that life imprisonment is an adequate method of retribution for grave crimes. Like the Lord did with Cain, he banishes him from regular society, but does not kill him. If the Lord did not cheat justice by declining to kill Cain, neither does the civil ruler. [/quote]
I do like the example of Cain, because it is so over used in this type of discussion. In my Jewish Studies classes at SF State it was always emphasized that the Lord, both before and after the giving of the Mosaic Law, permitted the execution of a criminal, and more than this, He commanded it.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image." [Gen. 9:6]

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]That's why you need to read the other portions of the Summa where St. Thomas speaks about the nature of irreparable harm, i.e., a harm inflicted by one man upon another which cannot be rectified, and how the response to these kinds of capital offenses by civil authorities must be of like kind.[/quote]

The Lord thought otherwise in three cases: Cain, King David, and St. Paul. All three were murderers (Paul especially). Did St. Paul, who introduced disorder into society multiple times, perpetuate that disorder by his continued existence in this world? (And not just existence, but freedom; he wasn't even imprisoned).

[quote]I can tell you in all honesty that if a man murdered my mother, I would do all that was in my power in order to have the State seek the death penalty.[/quote]

And I can tell you in all honesty that I would not.

An interesting argument that is frequently given for the continued use of the death penalty is that it sends the criminal onto judgement. But what if he repents and goes immediately to Heaven? Not only is your mother going to remain dead, but her murderer will join her in the beatific vision. With life imprisonment, the civil authorities assure he will face justice until the day of his natural death.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I do like the example of Cain, because it is so over used in this type of discussion. In my Jewish Studies classes at SF State it was always emphasized that the Lord, both before and after the giving of the Mosaic Law, permitted the execution of a criminal, and more than this, He commanded it.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image." [Gen. 9:6] [/quote]

Indeed. He also allowed slavery. With the advent of the New Covenant, however, where he restores all things in Christ, the Lord chooses to act more in conformity with his original intent for humanity.

[Aloysius]

if he repents before execution, thank GOD! that is one of the many amazing benefits of the death penalty. I would argue that it is more common for people to repent on their deathbed and accept the execution (as the good theif did) than to repent in prison and persever until death. the Church's Holy Tradition has always held in great esteem the action of a person about to be executed who repents and accepts death as a just punishment. think good theif to bad theif "you and I DESERVE this punishment, He doesn't"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:11 PM'] Indeed. He also allowed slavery. With the advent of the New Covenant, however, where he restores all things in Christ, the Lord chooses to act more in conformity with his original intent for humanity. [/quote]
Your example is a non sequitor, because in the case of capital punishment it is justice itself that requires the death of the criminal, while in the case of slavery justice itself holds that the servant must be treated with respect, and as the Jewish Rabbis always taught, no man could be permanently enslaved, in spite of the teaching contained in Leviticus 25. The Rabbis held that Leviticus 25 had to be understood in coordination with the Oral Torah.