Is the death penalty pro life?

First, the “pro life” term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.

Secondly, in the context of the facts, yes, of course you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradicition.

All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.

Whether is be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can’t.

In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit.

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
 
“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

We have great care for innocents

In at least three ways, innocents are more protected with the death penalty, than with lesser sanctions. Another pro life consideration.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception—death-penalty-opponents—draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when it is wrongly taken away, the highest form of sanction is provided.

As in:

Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, “Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics” By John Murray, 1991 (first published 1957) by Wm. B. Eerdmans http://tiny.cc/4SFBY

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

“Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

Other issues:

“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution—very-distinct-moral-differences—new-mexico.aspx

“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

“Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

Is the death penalty pro life?

First, the “pro life” term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.

Secondly, in the context of the facts, yes, of course you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradicition.

All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.

Whether is be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can’t.

In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit.

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
 
“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
www(DOT)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

We have great care for innocents

In at least three ways, innocents are more protected with the death penalty, than with lesser sanctions. Another pro life consideration.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception—death-penalty-opponents—draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
www(DOT)tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when it is wrongly taken away, the highest form of sanction is provided.

As in:

Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, “Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics” By John Murray, 1991 (first published 1957) by Wm. B. Eerdmans http(COLON)//tiny.cc/4SFBY

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

“Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

Other issues:

“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution—very-distinct-moral-differences—new-mexico.aspx

“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
http(COLON)//homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

“Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma”
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

Oh, I see my problem - I was using God given common sense, not the ravings of some old white guys who think because they say something is so, it becomes so.

How about one entitled, “No Contradiction Between Opposition to Abortion and Support for the Death Penalty”? This would be provovative, counter-intuitive, and just as true!

Did I say ‘provovative’? Don’t bother lookiong it up.

This is what the Church teaches - verbatim in quotes from the CCC.
If everyone owned and read their CCC this conversation would not be necessary.  (Along with many other coversations).  This should end any confusion.

“2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

” 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.”

What Mr. Shea is trying to get through to certain “thickies” of you is not an opinion out of his own brilliant head - it is the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (which was reiterated by my own Bishop Robert Finn -who i am very proud of and who is loyal to the aforesaid Church). if you don’t like it go join up with the baptists.

Joan.
J.M.J

Anne, I have the 2nd edition of the CCC, copyright 1994, which has a slightly different wording than your 2267.  That aside, using your quote of 2267, here is what has caused this discussion to continue, as it should be continued, I think, until resolved.  “Today, IN FACT (emphasis added), 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.’”

I am asking where are the “FACTS;” i.e., the evidence, that enabled the Church to say: “…the state has” in fact the ability “for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm?”  Mark says we should just accept it on its face because the Church said it is so.  I say if such a belief did NOT cause any harm to innocent people, then, no big deal.  But this “belief” HAS caused harm to innocent people.  People have been, and are being murdered and harmed, in other ways, in and out of prison by heinous convicted criminals in solitary confinement for life.  See my comment above to Mark.

The other problem with the Church’s teaching is that the bishops and clergy have adopted the position that capital punishment SHOULD be ended because it is not necessary, implying, or stating outright that that is the “prolife” position to take.  That position is supported mostly by Catholics and is used to defend their continued support for the proabortion party, along with the other so-called “social justice” issues, that have nothing to do with abortion.  Those issues piggy-back on the term “prolife,” thanks to Cardinal Bernardin and the USCCB, and have lead to confusion among many of the “faithful” in properly forming their consciences.  The problem with this is that the pro-abortion party continues to receive its biggest, single voting block from church-going Catholics. As a result, the babies continue to be murdered and heinous convicted murderers continue to live, protected behind iron bars, continuing to do “harm” to people living inside and outside of prisons. 

As an aside, I also question the insertion in CCC that capital punishment takes away a convicted capital offender’s “possibility of redeeming himself.”  If anything, it may hasten it.

stilbelieve:

As detailed above, the facts do not, remotely support the claims from either EV or CCC.

What the Church’s new position does is to spare more murderers lives at the cost of more innocents dead.

In fact, good Catholics are free to have a differnece of opinion than the Church on the death penalty, as also detailed above.

And, of course, the Church made its more egregious errors on that very redemption issue, also detailed, above.

And Joan, Mark Shea is such a stand up guy he is removing all my posts on his “Catholic and Enjoying” it blog. The reason is that he, EV and the Church make a lot of errors on this topic.

Actually, my detailed comments are located at

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/this-will-bring-out-a-lot-of-diy-bishops/

From the newest Catechism:

9:  “The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching.

Then these:

1)  Pope (and Saint) Pius V, Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

“The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” 

NOTE: This Catechism is stating that executions reflect paramount obedience to a God given commandment. 

Yet, PJPII and the newest Catechism ask us to all but do away with executions, based upon a worldly defense of society, consisting of an error prone prison system that already causes huge numbers of innocent deaths because they don’t properly restrain unjust aggressors.

2) Pope Pius XII 9/14/52

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.”

3) Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)
“Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

NOTE: “It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ “

PJPII’s amendment to the Catechism, via EV, is, strictly based upon an historical evaluation of the worldly prison system. In addition, it should be noted that such evaluation was also in error.

4) “Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty” (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52),

“It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).”

NOTE:  NOT SUBJECT TO CULTURAL VARIATION.

stilbelieve asks:

“What proof has the Church presented that enables them to make this claim?”

They have none. The evidence supports that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Both EV and CCC, in using the worldly state of the prison system, could not have more misunderstood reality or used a worse foundation for changing 2000 years of biblical, theological and traditonal teachings. I guess it could have been worse.

Mark P. Shea writes:

“It seems to me the wiser question is, “What proof do critics of Evangelium Vitae have that there is no way to alter sentencing policies or prison technology in order to avoid the death penalty.”

Mark, that is very helpful and I hope you will give this some consideration.

You reverse the burden of proof, here. I think you do so only because the Church’s position is unsupportable by the facts and that it wrongly used a worldly foundation in prison systems to change 2000 years of Catholic biblical, thelogical and traditional teachings.

First, it is important to start with the fact that good Catholics are free to disagree with the Church on the issue of the death penalty.

The Catholic Church allows a diversity of opinion on the death penalty.

My diversity of opinion allows that both EV and the Catechism are dead wrong on the topic.

1) 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:  June, 2004   “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.“Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004
www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125

2) “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” H.H. Benedict XVI. “The Pope speaks to Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C.” by John McCormack, 04/17/2008
http://foro.univision.com/t5/Noticias-y-Política-en-Estados/POPE-BENEDICT-ON-WAR-DEATH-PENALTY-ABORTION-AND-EUTHANASIA/m-p/248830

My diversity of opinion finds that:

1. PJPII was factually in error within EV,

2. PJPII relied upon the security of prison systems to establish a defense of society foundation to all but end the death penalty when

3. PJPII avoided the reality that:

a. such security is so flawed that unjust aggressors are allowed to harm and murder innocents daily, throughout the world

b. that executed murderers never harm and murder, again, but living murderers do harm and murder, again

c. that a defense of society foundation, when properly evaluated, calls for more executions, not less

4. PJPII improperly found that considerations of a secular based prison system outweighed nearly 2000 years of Catholic teachings supportive of the death penalty, with biblical, theological, traditonal, rational and historical considerations.

5. EV was the error filled prudential judgement that was wrongly allowed as an amendment into the Catechism, where these errors and problems were expanded, as previoulsy reviewed in a limited manner.

even though Mark P. Shea reverses the burden of proof here, lets look at it anyway.

Mark writes:

“It seems to me the wiser question is, “What proof do critics of Evangelium Vitae have that there is no way to alter sentencing policies or prison technology in order to avoid the death penalty.”

The unquestioned truth is that it is a worldy system and that there will always be wildly varying degrees of security, error and corruption in the prison system. It is the unchallanged state of man.

But, all things being equal, the death penalty will provide a better
defense of society than a life sentence, because the death penalty will always be a better method of preventing an unjust aggressor from harming, again.

The Church’s current worldly based position offers less defense of society and therefore puts more innocents at risk.

stilbelieve writes:

“Captial punishment, according to Church teaching, is wrong in only certain countries determined by their development.  Is that a “moral principle” that makes sense?”

Of course, it makes no sense at all.

Then there is this:

stilbelieve observes:

Maybe it is just me, but I think that there is something wrong with the Church taking the position of prolonging the life of heinous murderers so they can possibly seek redemption living in prison, without addressing the issue of the salvation of those murdered, first.

and Mark Shea responds:  Yes.  It’s just you.

This is a more typical Mark Shea jerk response. Sadly.

Obviously, it is a huge issue dealing with eternity and peoples souls.

Clearly, the burden of proof, here, is on the Church. She is saying that the state of the prion system is so good that defense of society no longer needs the death penalty.

First, the Church has not proven its case, nor do I think she can. The evidence is against her.

Secondly, I contend that innocent are more at risk without the death penalty.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Well done Mark! Your tolerance with this nonsense is, for lack of a better word, saintly. ;)

Dudley Sharp, do you know who was responsible for influencing JPll’s decision to change the teaching of the Church on capital punishment?  Did JPll do any investigation on his new concept on capital punishment before he made his pronouncement?  Did it ever get discussed by those reviewing the drafts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?  I’m wondering if Bernardin or any of his liberal allies had a hand in it in any way. 

It certainly makes no sense to me that JPll would have done anything to jeopardize the case for prolife against abortion, but he did.  I can’t help but think this smells of Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” that stopped the prolife movement dead in its tracks, just to keep it from “falling completely into the hands of right wing conservatives” as explained by Eugene Kennedy, the life long friend of Bernardin and author of the book “Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts – and the battling for the soul of American Catholicism.”

Sarah, Joan Heatherington - searching for the truth is “nonsense?”  Raising pertinent questions about a change in tens of hundreds of years of Church teaching is “thick headedness?” 

Thus the evidence of the “confusion among many of the ‘faithful’ in properly forming their consciences.”

(1) My conscience is formed by reception of the Sacraments and faithfulness to the Magisterium. No confusion here.

(2) The truth of this subject is found in CCC 2267, and if you don’t think that’s the case, I’d say the problem lies more with you than with the collective wisdom of the Magisterium. As for me, I throw my lot in with the official teaching of the Church. Period.

(3) One last thing. To imply that there was some “conspiracy theory” that makes Pope John Paul the Great (who I’ve no doubt forgot more about philosophy and theology in his life than anyone in this combox has ever known) out to be some kind of fool “duped” into nuancing the teaching on capital punishment is an insult to his memory and seems the height of lack of charity.

Posted by ToddC writes:
on Saturday, Sep 4, 2010 9:25 AM (EST)

:” . . embrace the sanctity of of life from conception to natural death.  In all cases against abortion and in almost all cases against the death penalty.I see Saddam Hussein’s execution as necessary. To let him live would have left open the possibility for escape and a return to his nefarious ways.”

Precisely, many unjust aggressors are not secured and harm and murder innocents, again, thus revealing that both EV and the CCC wrongly addressed this issue.

Why would PJPII and the CCC wrongly evaluate this obvious issue? I don’t know, but they did.

Obviously, more living unjust aggressors equals more risk of injury and death to more innocents.

Your logic with Saddam Hussein works will all unjust agressors.

“The truth of this subject is found in CCC 2267.”  Which 2267?  My CCC 2267 (CR1994) starts out, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means….”

Sarah - Do you think capital punishment should be ended?  If so, why?

Do you think capital punishment is anything like abortion?

Which 2267?

CCC2267 in the most recent edition.  It may come as a shock to you, but the Catechism gets updated when magisterial teaching develops.  Your edition was published in 1994.  Evangelium Vitae was published (without your permission, but there it is) in 1995 and the Catechism was edited to reflect that.  It was rude of the Holy Father and the Catechism editors not to check with you and get your permission.

Do you think capital punishment is anything like abortion?

Do you think you could read my article and actually get its point?  Your weird insistence that opposition to the death penalty must somehow diminish opposition to abortion is a fine specimen of the ongoing irrationality of argumentation for death penalty maximalism.
This, and the strange conspiracy-mongering about Bernardin’s supposed sinister influence on JPII is breath-taking silliness that rivals anything in Fundamentalist Protestantism.

Dudley:

Your zealous defense of sentencing children to life in prison adds dimension to your zealous defense of death penalty maximalism.  None of that wussy JPII mercy stuff.  If he’d been a real Pope he would have demanded to behead Mehmet Ali Agca himself.  Not out of vengeace, mind you, but for the sake of justice.  Instead, he led millions astray with that morally superior showboating stunt of forgiveness.

Mark, I was asking questions of Sarah’s position on CP.  I know yours.

As for which CCC 2267 is newest, I am much more comfortable with mine than the newest version.  Mine started out with, “IF” verses the newest version that says, “IN FACT.”

Thanks Mark. You took the words out of my mouth.

My position on CP is the Church’s position on CP. Period. I thought my previous comment made that clear. I apologize if it was in any way ambiguous.

Mark, I was asking questions of Sarah’s position on CP.  I know yours.

Translation: You aren’t interested in information, merely in winning an argument.

As for which CCC 2267 is newest, I am much more comfortable with mine than the newest version.  Mine started out with, “IF” verses the newest version that says, “IN FACT.”

And, of course, as we all know, Catholic teaching exists in order to make Stillbelieve feel comfortable.

Mark writes:

Which 2267?  CCC2267 in the most recent edition. 

Mark, this question was asked for clarification, I believe. I have seen two different versions of 2267 mentioned recently in NCR.

I have seen 3-4 different versions of 2267.

The latest English translation of the CCC is copyright dated 2003.

I think the most updated is this one:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

Mark, like your previous few sentences from this post, you are equally unwise and uncharitable with this:

“This, and the strange conspiracy-mongering about Bernardin’s supposed sinister influence on JPII is breath-taking silliness that rivals anything in Fundamentalist Protestantism.”

It takes no conspiracy mongering to recognize that many in the Church are fans of Bernadine’s seamless garment teachings and that such teachings may have had, wrongly, influenced PJPII, as well as others with whom PJPII consulted.

It is no stretch to see such influence in both the EV and CCC on the death penalty topic.

There is quite an obvious influence, by I had never considered it before.

There are a tremendous number of hits on this linking

“seamless garment” “death penalty” “Pope John Paul II”

Mark it is you who is showboating.

I thought it was wonderful that PJPII showed such warmth and forgiveness to his aggressor, attempted assassin.

Such forgiveness is specifically called for in Christendom. However, the state imposition of justice and the management of the criminal justice system is a different thing, all together. The government has an obligation to defend society and both EV and CCC decided to let more murderers live, not recognizing the obvious, living murderers harm and murder, again, executed ones don’t.

I review some of those issues, here:

2267 “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.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. Do the authors of the Catechism have no grasp of reality? (4) Apparently not.

The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution. “Unable to inflict harm” (2265) has the same meaning as “impossible to do harm”.

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.

It is as if the Church didn’t consider that executed murderers cannot harm, again, but that livings murderers can and do.

Why has the Church chosen to depend upon widely varying and error prone incarceration systems, when the reality is that so many innocents are caused further suffering by known unjust aggressors, because of the failings in those systems?

It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such sufferring. (3&4)

And why has the Church done this when it commands “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” ? 2265

Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.

The only way to, humanly, make a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is to execute them. Rationally, factually, there is no other way.

What the Church has done is to reverse its longstanding emphasis on protecting innocents. This Catechism, to the contrary, has decided to give much more deference to guilty murderers than it has for protecting the innocent or defending society.

There are at least four Church recognized foundations for criminal sanction; 1) defense of society against the criminal; 2) rehabilitation of the criminal; 3) retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression and 4) deterrence.

There is a 5th, biblical instruction, theology, tradition and reason which must guide the 4 others.  They aren’t mentioned, because they are a constant.

All of those foundations are better met with the death penalty than by lesser sanctions.

The complaint that this Catechism has removed just retribution (and therefore, balance, redress, correction, etc.) from punishment is based upon the reality that 2267 has allowed an improper and inaccurate evaluation of secular penal standards to dominate over just retribution.
While the first sections of this chapter (through 2266) detail the importance of retribution, as reviewed, above, the later section (2267) provides little time for justice, which must dominate the utilitarian aspect of protection. The Church miscalculates in 2267 and fails to realize the rational reality that innocents are more protected when murderers are executed, even though the Church enforces that reality within 2265.

“While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and primarily serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice—an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” ” . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths.” (5)

“Yet the presence of two purposes—retributive and medicinal justice—ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (6)

Justice is the soul of sanction. All other results - protection, safety and deterrence - although beneficial and desired, are a result of sanction, not the reasons for it. Rehabilitation/redress/correction/redemption/expiation have a foundation in just retribution, but depend upon the free will choice of the criminal who we hope will, by grace, avail themselves of those choices.

“The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566)
“The just use of this power (execution), 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.”

We have another obvious conflict between two standards:(a) “PARAMOUNT OBEDIENCE” to God (Trent, 1566) vs man’s accomplishments within the error prone criminal justice system (2267, Catechism, amended 2005).

3) Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
 
4) a) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website,  Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims

b) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
http://www.theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

c) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

d) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
http://blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11/30/authorities-sex-offender-pulls-gun-on-texas-guards-during-prison-transfer-search-ongoing-17934/

e) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_tdQrE5B6tvgSYXBtfmfMOLEwwD9CACTHG0

f)  Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005 http://www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/120563-Officials-embarrassed-by-Texas-death-row-inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

g) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day seemingly forever, if it cared to look.

5) “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty”, p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999): 511-552

6) ibid, p 522

I thought it was wonderful that PJPII showed such warmth and forgiveness to his aggressor, attempted assassin.

I’m glad we can agree on that much.  Nonetheless, it seems to me that, by your logic, JPII was derelict in his duty as a head of state not to demand the execution of a man guilty of attempted murder.  What about the danger he posed to society?  He is, after all, out of prison now.  It’s all well and good that JPII the private citizen forgave the man who shot him.  But as the ruler of Vatican City, why doesn’t he get your condemnation for failing to have him beheaded?

There are a tremendous number of hits on this linking “seamless garment” “death penalty” “Pope John Paul II”

Of course there are.  What there is not is any evidence that JPII was a death penalty proponent until he fell under the Svengali-like spell of Cdl. Bernardin.  Stillbelieve is telling herself tales to comfort herself that Sinister Powers are responsible for JPII and the Church teaching what they teach, because she is trying to figure out a way to console herself that she is not acting like a Protestant and demanding the Church bow to her demands.  She’s also trying to figure out same way to make the discussion fit into her tidy narrative starring herself as Faithful Conservative Catholic and all her opponents as Evil Promoters of Abortion when, in fact, everybody here opposes abortion as much as she does. some of us just don’t enthuse over the death penalty as she does.  She’s not used to being the Dissenter. She’s used to telling other people they are dissenters. So she’s saying silly things because she doesn’t know how to keep her feet on this unfamiliar ground.

“And, of course, as we all know, Catholic teaching exists in order to make Stillbelieve feel comfortable.”

Mark, it is interesting that when your position on an issue is challenged and you don’t, won’t, or can’t answer the challenge with information that contributes positively to the discussion, you respond by defecting the discussion from the challenge to the challenger, and assign negative accusations to the challenger’s reason for the challenge. 

I join in on some of these NCR articles seeking the truth for the positions the Church and bishops have taken on the issue of prolife, primarily, the original prolife issue – abortion.  I do so because there is only one reason why so-called “social justices” issues, which include opposition to capital punishment, were piggy-backed on the prolife movement.  I knew that the day that it happened, but I could never prove it until years later when I picked up the biography, “Cardinal Bernardin,” and surprisingly discovered it there on pages 243 and 244.  I was right…it was for political reasons, not spiritual – just like all leftist issues are for political reasons, not the moral reasons they assign to them. 

The bottom line for this change in the definition of “prolife” was to save the pro-abortion party from extinction because too many Catholics’ life-long self-identities were tide to that political organization.  Catholics were and still are the largest, single voting block for the pro-abortion party thanks to Cardinal Bernardin and the USCCB.  It was more important to Chicago’s Cardinal Bernardin to save the self-identities of Chicago Catholics than it was to save the unborn.  It was more important to Chicago’s Catholics to remain Democrats than it was to act in accordance to what they profess to believe in Sunday Mass after the Gospel and Homily, and pray for in the Lord’s Prayer.

hmmmm stillbelieve, I wish what you said was true.  I know that Catholics are supposed to be pro-life, but many are not. In NJ over 60 % of the voters are Catholic, it’s very rare we elect a pro-life politician.
Not all clergy and Bishops do their part either.
The church is made up of man and the devil has infiltrated it, especially on the bishops level to some extent.
Laity have to take the bull by the horns and run with it.  We have many battles in our church.
Money plays a big part and many priests seem to me to be too left wing. Not to Catholic bash, because I am a Catholic and we are the one true religion, but I think a lot of our pro-life voting is coming from the bible belt and the evangelicals.
I believe that with the large amount of women and men that have been involved in abortion, the priest is afraid to offend them from the pulpit. One in every three people you know have been involved in abortion on some level.
Our priests and bishops would benefit greatly from learning how to preach against abortion with compassion and forgiveness.

I do so because there is only one reason why so-called “social justices” issues, which include opposition to capital punishment, were piggy-backed on the prolife movement.  I knew that the day that it happened, but I could never prove it until years later when I picked up the biography, “Cardinal Bernardin,” and surprisingly discovered it there on pages 243 and 244.  I was right…it was for political reasons, not spiritual – just like all leftist issues are for political reasons, not the moral reasons they assign to them.

stillbelieve, Cdl. Bernardin wrote neither Evangelium Vitae, nor the Catechism.  If you are seriously suggesting that John Paul taught as he did in order to help out the Democratic party, then you are simply too delusional for me to continue having any serious conversation with you.

“If you are seriously suggesting that John Paul taught as he did in order to help out the Democratic party, then you are simply too delusional for me to continue having any serious conversation with you.”

No, Mark, I am saying Cardinal Bernardin did.  He did it with his “consistent ethic of life” – social justice issues addition to the prolife message.  He sold the “social justice” approach to prolife to JPII, i.e., he sent his plan for expanding prolife to Rome for approval.  He got the OK six months later with “some minor changes.”  Read the book. 

Bernardin then sold the U.S. bishops on it.  They bought it lock, stock and barrel within a year.  And from that point on, the Democrat Party had the OK to be as pro-abortion as they wanted.  Check the history of the Dems attacking Reagan’s potential prolife nominations to the US Supreme Court.  They became hard core pro-aborts after Bernardin’s “seamless garment” was announced and promoted by even the New Your Times, Cardinal George’s newspaper of record.

So you’re saying, in all seriousness, that John Paul was a puppet of Bernardin and, but for him, would have approved of the death penalty.

Yes, that’s pretty delusional. I’m done here.

stilbelieve writes:

“Mark, it is interesting that when your position on an issue is challenged and you don’t, won’t, or can’t answer the challenge with information that contributes positively to the discussion, you respond by defecting the discussion from the challenge to the challenger, and assign negative accusations to the challenger’s reason for the challenge.”

That is his MO on this thread, as well as with the article thread for “This will bring out a lot of DIY bishops”.

On his own site, “Catholic and Enjoying it”, he has a related article called “Prolifers for Maximum Death”

There he can do whatever he wishes, which means removing posts he disagrees with, which is what he does with mine and others.

He still takes personal, low blow shots against dissenters.

Too bad.

When reason and facts fail Mark, he attacks or deletes.

This is a fairly typical response by Mark to one who disagrees with him.

Mark P. Shea writes:

quoting Dudley “I thought it was wonderful that PJPII showed such warmth and forgiveness to his aggressor, attempted assassin.”

Mark’s response “Nonetheless, it seems to me that, by your logic, JPII was derelict in his duty as a head of state not to demand the execution of a man guilty of attempted murder.  What about the danger he posed to society?  He is, after all, out of prison now.  It’s all well and good that JPII the private citizen forgave the man who shot him.  But as the ruler of Vatican City, why doesn’t he get your condemnation for failing to have him beheaded?”

Dudley responds: That has never been my logic, you just made it up out of thin air. Don’t make up peoples arguments for them in such a dishonest fashion, or at all, for that manner. You do it way too frequently.

I believe a life sentence was the maximum available for this crime and he received it.

My arguement, uncontested, so far, is that the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents and therefore a greater defense of society and that PJPII EV and CCC are, therefore, in error in their assessments and conclusions.

In fact, what they have done is to attempt to ban virtually all executions at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

I have detailed that argument and you have never rebutted it.

To the specific issue of PJPII and his attempted assasin. As I already detailed, Christendom calls upon individuals to forgive those who harm them. Why Mark thinks that Christians should be condemned for this I am not sure (Just playing the Mark/jerk card here).

Ali A?ca was an assasin by trade. He was convicted of one murder and escaped prison. There is no way to confirm how many crimes he committed with the Grey Wolves, who were responsible for at least 600 assasinations.

Agca was given a life sentence for the assasination attempt and was released from prison in January 2010. He served combined times at differnt prisons for the murder and assasination attempt.

He is now trying to profit from his infamy.

How much that will profit his sould is anyones guess.

Some think he is crazy, others that he is pretending.

“So you’re saying, in all seriousness, that John Paul was a puppet of Bernardin and, but for him, would have approved of the death penalty.”

No, Mark, I am not saying JPII was Bernardin’s “puppet.” 

These years were Reagan’s first term as President.  Catholics were the “Reagan Democrats” that swept him into office in a landslide that was not predicted in the polling. In fact, (there’s that phrase again) polling up to the day of the election said “it was too close to call.”  The landslide was so evident that Carter conceded the election at dinner time on the West Coast, hours before the polls closed.  Reagan’s election also gave the Republicans the majority in the US Senate for the first time in decades. 

This may have been the impetus for Benardin to work on what is described in his friend’s biography called, “Cardinal Bernardin,” the concerns he had about the prolife movement since the late 70s.  Those “concerns” may have originated from “good” Catholics expressing their concerns to him, directly, or to the clergy in the Archdiocese of Chicago, about the Church’s teaching on abortion, and the conflict they were having with their personal identification as Democrats.  Or, it may have been expressed to him by the Democrat political leaders of Chicago and the effect that may have on his flock if Republicans were to continue to ascend into a position of leadership there.  And, then again, it may just have been his own personal political preference to level the playing field between socially liberal Catholics, who he identified with, and conservatives, whether Catholic or some other Christians, who seem to be in the forefront of the prolife movement since the Republican Party added a Right-to-Life plank in their party platform in 1976 or 1978.  Bernardin’s closes allies among the bishops were all liberals.  Again, read the book.

Benardin was known for his ability to negotiate amiably for what he wanted accomplished.  He seemed to be the “father of collegiality” among the bishops.  We will never know for sure why JPII decided to go along with Bernardin’s proposal unless the Vatican releases the correspondence Bernardin sent to the pope for his review and approval.  The approval came back six months later in the early 80s, before Reagan’s first term ended. 
                                                                                                       

Yes, that’s pretty delusional. I’m done here.

Opps - that last line was not suppose to be there…the one where Mark says, “Yes, that’s pretty delusional. I’m done here.”

I was going to reply to that in a following comment which is this one, in which I would have said to Mark, ” What, again?”  But, alas, the moment has past…so, I won’t.

I believe a life sentence was the maximum available for this crime and he received it.

But why?  As you yourself made clear, Agca’s only saving grace was that he failed to kill JPII.  He was a professional.  So why not death penalty maximalism for him too? After all, it’s the thought that counts. Your arguement is predicated on the idea that we need to kill as many dangerous criminals as possible. Kill them all!  And jail forever any kids who commit grave crimes like rape. Is it really coherent to say that merely because he missed, he shouldn’t be killed?  This sounds like letting him off on a technicality.  And your own note details that Agca is an ongoing risk.  John Paul’s doctrine suggests that he should remain in jail.  Your doctrine has insisted that such men with such records should be killed.  You can quibble all you like that it was only attempted murder.  But if we are to accept the logic of death penalty maximalism, I can’t for the life of me see why an attempted murderer, especially one with a record like Acga’s, should get a break.  And I can’t see why a head of state like JPII should not be demanding—for the sake of your precious abstract Justice—that he be killed.  I don’t get it.

Mark, your extreme exaggerations and feigned concerns are not productive for the purpose of seeking truth nor convincing.

Mark Shea makes things up, again and again. I don’t know if he is delusional or a liar.

Shea writes: As you yourself made clear, Agca’s only saving grace was that he failed to kill JPII. 

Sharp responds: I never stated not implied such - a bit far from clear. Saving Graces are between Agca and God. I only stated we had no idea how many crimes or murders he may have committed or if his current plan to make money from his infamy would help his soul. None of us knows, not of his final redemption.

Shea: He was a professional.  So why not death penalty maximalism for him too? After all, it’s the thought that counts. Your arguement is predicated on the idea that we need to kill as many dangerous criminals as possible. Kill them all! 

Sharp replies: That has never been my argument. You gut make it up. Very dishonest of you. From srictly a common sense and historical background, any reasonable person would say that Agca is a continuing risk. Time will tell.

Shea: I don’t get it.

Sharp: Only because you make no effort to. Your effort is to dishonestly portray the arguments of those you disagree with. Yours is not a search for truth, but one of ridicule and dishonesty. Sad, indeed.

Posted by Mark P. Shea on Friday, Sep 3, 2010 1:19 PM (EST):I don’t think I have ever heard this so called contrdiction postulated.

Actually, you have since I cited somebody who was taking this position in the article.

What I hear postulated is this:  People who are anti-abortion are hypocrites to be at the same time PRO-death penalty.

You may have heard this, but not from me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just noticed your comment Mark.  It may be too late to respond but I will do so anyway.  I was referring to prior to your writings.  When I said this is the first time I have had this postulated refers to before you bringing it up in your writings.  I was really puzzled by it as it was such a unique idea.  I guess I have lived a sheltered life!!!! 

I appreciate the comments from various bloggers.

I am a prolife nurse.  I am repulsed by the thought of killing anyone, but I am sympathetic with protecting the innocent and have seen too many times bad people being released because of our horrible “justice” system who have gone on to harm or kill, so would rather err on the side of putting truly evil people to death to protect future harm to the innocent.  Plus, I remember reading a book (true story) while in high school about a man who went to death row after murdering someone.  He was a cold blooded killer but, finally, when confronted with his own pending execution, he became truly sorry, repented of his terrible crime and then went willingly to his death hoping this would help the family deal with the loss of their loved one.  It made me see the death penalty as a part of the healing process for murderers as well as victims’ families!!!! I often wondered if he would have repented had he not been confronted with a scheduled time for his own death!!! The title of the book was “God on Death Row” as I recall.

PEEDIDLR:

You may find these of interest.

Mercy, Redemption & the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

1) Saint Augustine: ” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

2) Saint Thomas Aquinas: . . . 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 anymore.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6, 2

3)  “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).

4)  Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods.”

“This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’  “

“The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)

Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)

5)  The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005) states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” 2266

This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

6)  Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

Mercy, salvation and redemption will not be measured by the method of our earthly death , but by our state of grace in the context of the eternal.

7)  C. S. Lewis:  “According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. “

“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”

“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”

“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

” . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. “

“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”

“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”

“This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. “

” . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. ”  The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

8)  C. S. Lewis:  “Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.  They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. ”  “The Complete C.S. Lewis”, Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

9)  Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution),  that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior,  that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

10)  “Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices…A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims.”  Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. “McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment”. 21 May 2001

11)  Never Forget Mercy for the Innocent

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

————————————————-

1) synopsis of “A Bible Study”, from Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College.

2) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,
www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

Thank you Dudley Sharp for the wonderful references which give eloquent confirmation to the simple conclusion I came to as a high school students four decades ago!  I appreciate the time you took to put that together.  I am book marking this info.  It is excellent.  God bless you.

I, too, want to thank Dudley for the excellent work in researching the Church writings to bring religious sense to this common-sensical position that being prolife is NOT being against capital punishment.  In fact, being in support of abolishing capital punishment in America results in capital offenders continuing to cause harm to people, including murders. 

Read about it in the following articles in the Orange County Register (CA)newspaper.  Google the following headlines in that newspaper: Murder from the inside out (April, 29, 2001); Jack Henry Abbot, killer and author (February 11, 2002); 2 Guards Injured in Attacks by Centinela Inmates (February 24, 2001). 

The first article is especially telling.  If you can get the photos that were published with the article, that would be even more enlightening in showing the “genius of evil.”  What do you people who “feel” it is “prolife” to abolish capital punishment think, now, of ‘our” ability to control evil and prevent it from exercising its will?

P.S. If anyone would like copies of those articles you can email me and I’ll send you them (if it permited to post my email address).  jrorr1960@sbcglobal.net

Reason why you see no contradiction is because most of you so Called Christians, Muslims etc are Hypocrites. Death is death. You made yourselves gods, little g.  Many of us, who fought in Wars, Iraq etc. know that death is something you should never consciously ever bring on anyone. WE also know that killing does not beget the end of killing. Yes we must have Order, yet is this Order of Killing, solving the underlying to why the Need for Killing exists? Abortion and Death Row Execution is for both sides ,Liberals and Conservatives ,to feel good about themselves. Moreover to make themselves feel They are in control, which in reality it is GOD and His allowance to circumstance that governs Us All.

Real American - there is a difference between killing and murder.  God said, Thou shall not murder.  Abortion is murder.  A child in the womb is innocent life.  A convicted murderer is a convicted life who has forfieted his/her right to life.  Only 2% if convicted murders are sentence to death.  I repeat - there is a big difference between killing and murder.

And here I thought he said “Thou shalt not kill”.  Twist and turn any which way you can to support your beliefs and prejudices.

Sandra Currie - the Commandment was given to the Jews.  The Jewish rabies say the word is “murder” not “kill.”  Why the Catholic Church says “kill” will have to be taken up with them, not me.  I believe the Jews are right on this one.  You don’t see the difference between the murder of an innocent human, unborn child and that of a convicted murder of say multiple innocent human lives?

I’m just amused by the semantic wanking.

Ignorance of the meaning of a word in Hebrew or Greek on your part does not constitute a crisis of faith on a Christian’s part.  If you are too lazy to find out what a word means then you really don’t have anything to contribute to the discussion but illiterate heckling.

And I speak, by the way, as somebody who thinks we should do away with the death penalty.  The difference is, some of us can discuss the matter with an awareness of what the Christian tradition has to say while you are, as you so colorfully put it, merely wanking because you have no idea what you are talking about.  All you can do is stand there sticking out your tongue and saying, “Nyah, nyah, Christianity’s dumb!”  Duly noted.  Run along little girl.  Don’t you have a school wall to vandalize or something?

No - you run along little boy. Do you have any notion of how ridiculous your arguments are?

Um, my argument is not unlike yours: we don’t need the death penalty.  When you can learn to read and not just hurl spitwads and shout “Christians suck!” like the bigoted adolescent you are you might be able to participate in an adult discussion.  If you are going to cite the Ten Commandments as a basis for your jeers, you should really know what it means.  Otherwise you embarrass everybody, not least of which those who are attempting an adult argument against the death penalty.  If you are too stupid and lazy to even try to understand your own words, then why not shut up and go play with your little friends somewhere and let grownups talk?

Mark Shea - Your diatribes are not worthy of response.

NCR used to be a voice of those concerned with social justice - now it’s just a sounding board for the likes of you!  What a shame.

Sandra Currie - would you please explain what you mean by “social justice?”

Hi stilbelieve
I mean the fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of society.  I believe that was one of the things that Jesus, and other great teachers have taught.

Sandra Currie, thank you for answering.  You said, “the fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of society.”  You then said, “I believe that was one of the things that Jesus…taught.”

Could you please give me some of the chapters and verse in the Gospels where Jesus taught us to do that?

I respectfully suggest that you do your own homework. 

You would think that the only thing he taught was for his followers to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage if you went by the comments on the NCR website.

Sandra Currie - I respectfully point out that you brought up “social justice” a few posts back saying, “NCR used to be a voice of those concerned with social justice - now it’s just a sounding board for the likes of you!  What a shame.”  While your barb was directed to Mark, I was curious about what you meant by “social justice.”  It’s a word that many in the Church seem to think they know.  So, when you told me what you thought “social justice” was and that it was taught by Jesus, I thought you might know where in the Gospels Jesus taught it to his disciples and followers.  It’s your “word” and your “belief” that it comes from Jesus.  I thought you might actually know a few quotes from Him, something as definite as, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”  I can show my Protestant friends where Christ said that defending the Church’s teaching on the Holey Eucharist.  I thought you might be able to defend the Church’s position on “social justice” using Jesus’ own words since you are saying the teaching comes from Jesus.  If you can’t, then you can’t.  No big deal…unless you are promoting it as taught by Jesus and therefore everyone should believe in it as you described it to be.  If you can’t back up your beliefs with facts then so be it, no big deal that is unless you are criticizing others for not believing as you in something you can’t “prove.” 

All this comes back to is people forming their conscience, not on facts and truth, but on what makes them feel good and superior to others.

I don’t agree with you people at all.  NCR follows a set of moral beliefs called the 10 Commandments. There are times when questions come up that simply must be taken to the church for the answer, the church has the final say.
Sadly enough when someone brings a perspective to view that opens a door to bash the fact that the church is always against abortion, some of u people jump all over the writer, the church and Christianity itself.
Give me a break, I did not hear Mark say he was for anything implicitly.
But i do know that the true Church, Christianity and any other “true” Christian is against abortion. 
Stop finding excuses to excuse Abortion! Stop looking for the hypocrisy!
Deal with the issue at hand instead of making the argument fit your need.
~Do not mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon!

stillbelieve,
First of all, if you can find any copies of NCR from the 70’s in the archives, check them out and compare them to today’s.
Secondly, because the church has become more caught up in doctrine, and less in good works, the parables of the Good Samaritan and the admonition that what you do to the least of my brethren etc etc etc is lost in the shuffle.  And then there’s what he had to say about Pharisees.  The Vatican comes to mind, as do all the Bishops who harboured child molesters, at the “least of my brethren’s” expense.

I’m not interested in a battle of the quotes, though.  If you do not perceive the works of Jesus being about social justice there is nothing I can say or quote to convince you otherwise. 

And thirdly, I’m sure that no man has had to carry an unwanted pregnacy, so being against abortion gives them a belief they can feel good about and a sense of moral superiority.
And being against gay rights also is easy if your not gay, and makes you feel good and a sense of moral superiority. 
 
Point that finger where it belongs - at yourselves!

excuse me, but my son is gay and i have had two coerced abortions!! i walk the walk, i can talk the talk!!
“oh by the grace of God go I!”

Sandra,

I’m really tired to feminists saying that men can’t have an opinion on abortion because they can’t ever carry a child they don’t want to give birth to.  That is pure sexism.  I used to use those tired lines myself when I was a somewhat-radical feminist, but then I really thought it through and realized my own hypocracy. That strategy is just a way to eliminate detractors.  (I noticed that we never tried to shut the men up who were on our side of the issue, though.)  I would feel insulted if someone tried that against me.  I would have been angry if someone 150 years ago said that I couldn’t have an opinion on slavery because I wasn’t black, nor was I a slave-owner. Or if during Jack-the-Ripper’s day in London someone that I couldn’t have an opinion on the murder of prostitutes because I wasn’t a prostitute, nor was I a man who had out-of-control anger or lust.  Same strategy, different group of people whose opinions should be discarded.  Well, all men were once embryos, then fetuses, then newborns—and they are definitely all human beings—so they should have as much right as any other human former-fetues to have an opinion about so grave an injustice as the legal murder of human babies.  After all, some women are so quick to think that abortion is just about women’s bodies, without a thought to the fact that every abortion ends in the death of a separate human being, with its own unique DNA, fingerprints, organs, and entire body—that just happens to live inside the women temporarily.  We know that these women aren’t really all about WOMEN’S RIGHTS or else they would approve of informed consent laws that seek to give a woman INFORMATION about potential emotional & physical risks of the “procedure” she is about to have done, and they would not fight to keep partial-birth abortion legal—because if an unwanted baby is already in the process of being born, why not let it be born alive and then give it to someone else to raise instead of killing it during the birthing process?  It wouldn’t be any harder on the woman’s body, after all. 

Those who care deeply about social justice issues (such as I do, and you claim to do also) need to realize that the gravest social injustice that exists today is the legal murder of babies in the womb, more each day in the U.S. than died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Sandra - Jesus’ directives were to us as individuals.  Social justice as you defined them are ways for individuals to act in their lives, correct?
Each of us cares for each other and treats them in a kind way.  That is what you are talking about, right?

Amy - you leave me speechless.  I’m afraid I can’t even try to follow your logic.

stillbelieve - I’ll give you that - if you’ll get the US Council of Bishops to get out of politics.

d.dunn
I have a gay sister and I’ve never had an abortion - your point would be?

I’d love to hear how you were “forced” to have an abortion.

I was coerced not forced. I was asked to have a mans child, and i became pregnant.  I was young and stupid.  When I told him i was pregnant he picked me up from work and took me to an apt that he had made at a planned parenthood.  I didn’t even know what one was. I was very young, maybe 18 or 19.
He and the counselor told me i had no choice but to abort.  I refused and fought with all I had for 7 weeks. I was in a crises and scared to death. I went to family members for help but I received nothing.
I kept insisting that i would not abort.  He threatened me with anything he could.
I was scared to death to tell my parents and i was now 13 weeks pregnant.
I caved in, a decision that “I MADE, UNDER DURESS” I was coerced.
I agreed, and at that moment my heart died. I said to myself I will do this for him, but I will die with that baby.
I walked through the door on my own BUT there was a GUN to my HEAD, it’s just that no one but me could see it.
I take full responsibility for killing my child, but believe me I was coerced.
I am forgiven by the Lord and I have forgiven myself, but not one day goes by that my heart does not long and break for that baby that I was not strong enough to save.
The second one was a lie by the medical industry.
“excuse me, but my son is gay and i have had two coerced abortions!! i walk the walk, i can talk the talk!!~
If this is the what u r referring to, u can see I used the word COERCED….up to 85 % of men and women having abortions are. 
Any other questions?

“I’ll give you that - if you’ll get the US Council of Bishops to get out of politics.”

Sandra, I’ll take it!  That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do.

to Mark Shea:

I hope that you will take some time to reflect on your instruction of what it is “to participate in an adult discussion.” by reviewing your own comments within that post of Friday, Sep 24, 2010 5:33 PM (EST)

As an apparently popular Catholic voice, you are not participating in a mature or thoughtful manner.

Consider:

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

What does “most certainly” mean?

CCC 2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

What does “shall” mean?

CCC 2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

CCC 2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states,” The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

What does “shall not suffer to live” mean?

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

What does “shall” mean?

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

What does “paramount obedience” mean?

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

What does “when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” mean?

———————————

long term incarceration of prisoners was reported on in Genesis, as well as in history back to 2000 BC in Egypt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bwv…0egypt&f=false

Dudley Sharp
Strong words and opinions from highly regarded Catholic authorities.  That is why it is so appalling to see the Church officials protect and shield child sexual abusers from the law, or even from consequences inside the Church.  Either they don’t see it as the heinous crime that it is, or are just selective in their interpretation of justice, and the good of society.

d.dunn.
I don’t believe that someone from Planned Parenthood told you that you had to have an abortion.  And if one member of that organization violated their own policies, they should be reported and removed from their position.  And your statistic - 87% of abortions are coerced?
Again, I don’t understand why those who are opposed to abortion have to make up lies to defend their position.  There are lots of valid arguments for that position, so I don’t see how all the lies and distortions are helping make the case. And I’m not just referring to the things that you have said, d.dunn.  What you claim may and should be provable, n’est ce pas?

Sandra, I agree with you they should have been reported, a long with the coercion that is truly abuse.
I will not argue the %, I said up to 85 and I can back that up with the research.
What saddens me is when I hear and see pain from people that have had abortions and can’t seem to admit that it did indeed hurt them.

When a women or young girl is in a crises pregnancy and does not want to abort, they should not be felt to believe that it is their only choice.
The pain of having to admit that you have ended a life sometimes is too much to bare.

It took me a long time to come to grips with how by abortions did truly occur. I took all the blame on my own shoulders for years.  Finally I found a wonderful organization with research to back up the coercion aspect of abortion.

I looked at my situation from a new perspective, the true perspective. I know I killed my babies, believe me I KNOW that.  BUT, now I know why.
I was pressured, lied to, coerced and denied help, so I caved. 
By the grace of God and wonderful people in my life I have found Christ’s healing and forgiveness, but it took years.
Not one day goes by that I do not mourn my children.
I have forgiven my boyfriend, and the people who refused me help, but it is a work in progress. 
Even if there was no pressure or lies, even if someone just felt it was the best decision at the time, they may still come to regret the abortion.  These people deserve help, forgiveness and healing.  We all make mistakes and God forgives us. “Oh by the grace of God go I”
I did not have the courage to go to my parents. We need to be compassionate to others because we don’t know who may be suffering from a decision that they regret.
The Lord says, “A sound is heard in Ramah, 1 a sound of crying in bitter grief. It is the sound of Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are gone.” Jeremiah 31:15

d.dunn
I’m sorry that you have suffered so much pain from your decision - or as you describe it, other people’s decisions about your body and your unborn child’s life.

I am totally opposed to other people coercing women to make decision about their bodies.  We are the ones ultimately responsible for them, and therefore most have ultimate decision making power.

Your experience is so much different from mine.  I served on the Board of Directors of a reproductive rights clinic for several years and was actively engaged in the policies and practices of that clinic.  It was a stressful time, as I was personally harassed, spit upon, stalked, etc by so call pro lifers.

In the clinic, those who sought help with their pregancy decision were provided with full and complete information about all the services available to them.  No one was cocerced into anything, and several who came thinking they wanted an abortion changed their minds and decided to continue the pregancy.  Those who chose abortion were provided a safe medical procedure in a non-judgmental environment. 

I have never met anyone who has had an abortion who regretted it. 

I lived with a US senator’s daughter who get pregnant out of wedlock and thought this would jeopardize her families reputation so decided to abort.  She was going to use a coat hanger, until another room mate, a nurse, got wind of this and at least provided her with a safer alternative.  Because it was still not done as a medical procedure, she ended up hemmoraging and going to the hospital, but fortunately did not ruin her chances of becoming pregnant later in life.  Do I approve of her reason for having an abortion - no.  Do I defend her right - yes.

I believe it when I hear women say they regretted their abortion for the rest of their lives. Is it perhaps from guilt that they have violated the religious teachings of their church?

I would also like to hear about the medical doctor who lied to you.  Why was this not reported?  It’s one thing to make accusations, but yet another to take responsibility and do something to right a wrong if one occurs.

Again, my sincere sympathy for the grief you have suffered at the hands of others who coerced you to do something against your better judgement.  And you can forgive the boy friend who talked you into having a child then insisted you abort it, but it will be a while before I do!

Sandra, You are such a special soul.  You have walked the walk too. I totally understand. I say I forgive, because I have to for me.  It is a work in progress for me. I wonder all the time how could he have done this to me, what a monster!!! And who does it hurt? Me. The abortion was over 30 yrs ago but it feels like yesterday.
I do know that when i stand before God, at least I have repented for that sin and am very involved in the movement to help others.  My interest is more in after abortion healing.
I feel sorry for him if he feels no remorse, he will Sandra, he will answer just as we all will.

I really do drive my children out of their mind with my over protectiveness.  I have been so abused by this man, even though a mere 19, my scar is still there.  He does not regret the abortion, only the way he pushed me into aborting.  Hey he will answer for that not me.  If I don’t forgive the pain will be worse.
The other one was because I had an iud in and the dr told me the baby would def be deformed.  To be honest with you Sandra, I really didn’t care, after the first one, my heart was shattered.  I was thrown off my path, my world was rocked big time.
Thank you for your sympathy…I will pray for you for sure!! If you want the website for coercion just let me know and i will figure a way to get it to u. I am not sure if they would permit me to print it here.
~d

I THINK THIS QUOTE IS VERY APROPOS
“When the times comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment,the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a
...terrible moment of loneliness.
You have no advocates, you are there alone
standing before God…and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine.
But, I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone.
I think there’ll be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world….and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement.
They will say to God, “Spare him, because he loved us.”
....and God will look at you and say NOT, “Did you succeed?” BUT “Did you try?”
~Congressman Henry Hyde

Where did Fulton Sheen come up with that terrible loneliness stuff?  Scare tactics are great at controlling people’s behavior so that they live from fear rather than love.

Isn’t “a fear of God” throughout the Bible?  Isn’t that the beginning of understanding?

Sandra, I did not post the quote to scare anyone. I posted it because it gives me comfort that the babies that have been aborted are with our Lord. They know perfect love and peace and that i need to believe they have forgiven us.  I did not do it for the purpose of fear, although I guess we will all fear the Lord when we stand before Him and have to account for our lives. I mean no harm or bitterness towards you believe me.  There is no bigger sinner on this blog than me. I pray God will show me mercy when the time comes that I have to answer to Him for my sins especially abortion.
To fear the Lord is to love and respect Him, to do His will.  Fear is not always a bad thing, sometimes it keeps us on the right path.
Only God knows our hearts.  We were all born innocent, and life changed us.

D.dunn, I appreciate your sentiment that there are no bigger sinners on this blog than you, but really, only God can judge that.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find us ALL—especially me—bigger sinners than you.  We need to respond to the graces God has given us, and I truly believe that things that are not sins for some, ARE sins for others because God has called them to—and given them sufficient grace to—do better. 
      While I’ve never had a surgical abortion, I was on the pill for several years, and so it’s likely that at least a couple times I had break-through ovulation that resulted in an egg being fertilized.  Birth control pills work not only by suppressing ovulation but also by thinning the uterine lining so that a fertilized egg—a new little human being—cannot implant successfully and therefore is “washed away” without the woman ever having been pregnant, since pregnancy is now defined to begin at implantation and not at conception (fertilization).  Nevertheless, by my direct actions—no one coerced me—I likely had at least some, and perhaps many, “microabortions” (which were still human beings at the earlies stages that were killed).  Do I repent of that?  Yes, with all my heart.  Has God forgiven me?  I believe He has.  But I also believe that I must be at LEAST as much a sinner as scared young girls (such as you were) who are coerced into having surgical abortions, whether they are coerced by others or just by their own fear and circumstances. 
        Besides, there but for the grace of God go I, when it comes to abortion (or anything else).  When I was a 19-year-old virgin and college freshman, I was raped.  Miraculously, I didn’t get pregnant from it, even though it was just before ovulation and was “prime time” for a pregnancy to result.  (As a pre-med student and an ardent feminist, I was fascinated by the beauty of a woman’s natural cycle, and was well aware of my own; so I knew that I would likely get pregnant from that rape, and I had every intention of having an abortion if I did get pregnant.  But God spared me that trauma.  I’m sure that my intention was every bit as sinful as your actually abortions were—perhaps more so—but, because God showed me extraordinary grace, I was spared.
        I spent years volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers, helping young girls (and even many who were in their 20s & 30s) receive the counseling, parenting skills, and material goods they need for themselves and their children.  I can tell you from what many of these girls have told me that many, many of them have stood up to tremendous pressure to abort by their boyfriends, parents, and friends, many of whom threatened to leave them or kick them out if they didn’t have an abortion.  If they had had the abortion, I’m sure it would have been considered a coerced abortion.  I can’t put a number on it, but your statistic seems pretty believeable to me.
        God loves you, d.dunn! (And you too, Sandra!) We all need to truly accept the forgiveness He offers & go on to do His will as best we can.  We are all sinners in need of His mercy.

Amy,
So true so true.  I am sorry for your bad experience, I understand!
Please know that u r truly blessed to be able to articulate so well and with such power and meaning.
I know I am forgiven and we are ALL sinners.  My life is to be involved in the pro life movement.  It is where my passion and heart and soul are.
I understand about the birth control pill as well.  Yes we are all sinners and one in every three people we know have been involved in abortion in some way, that is why we need to chose our words very carefully, always trying to use compassion.  We never know when someone is just holding on by a thread.  Someone who is suffering with the guilt and grief of an abortion, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

My statistics are fact based, but there are many forms of coercion, from withholding full disclosure to lies by the medical industry. A lie is coercion.
Withholding help or pressure is coercion.  Instilling fear in someone, or threatening someone is coercion.  There are many subtle and not so subtle forms of coercion.
Yes we all need God’s mercy!

Is it morally consistent to be pro-life and pro-death penalty while simultaneously opposing any law that would make abortion a capital offense?

I shut my ears to any death penalty advocates who use Christian arguments to support the death penalty while simultaneously opposing the death penalty for women who have abortions.

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and I also oppose life imprisonment (either with or without the possibility of parole) in all circumstances.

That is the consistent Catholic position to take.

A Catholic can’t say that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral as abortion is.  But he can say that there’s no good reason to use it.  The Church does not function by the rule “That which is not forbidden is compulsory.”

I find it incredible how you folks play with words and the gospel according to any church. The gospel by and of Christ makes it clear about the law..The word penalty is the key…a murderer should be by biblical law, executed, if the law of the land allows it. An unborn child deserved cno penalty…the murderer does…nuff said. You Catholics, with all due respect, sure play with the words of Jesus and His disciples to the point of confusion. My God is not a God of confusion. He is Jesus. Just look at the debate over a simple thing…MURDER. Good day.James

Kevin:

You make up, out of whole cloth, that “Jesus would certainly not support the death penalty for any crimes in the 21st century.”

You have no Church teachings to support such a claim. You simply made it up. Hardly a credibility enhancer.

Is it just the 21st century that Jesus decided not to support capital punishment? Or was is 100AD, 1563AD or 1902AD?

The Church has shown about 2000 years of death penalty support, through biblical, theological, traditional and rational teachings.

It is, toady, morally licit to support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing, even though many in the current Church leadership do no support it.

Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

The Word of God: Numbers 35:16-21. Note the words “shall” and “surely”. What do you think they mean?
‘But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he might die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘The blood avenger himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him. ‘If he pushed him of hatred, or threw something at him lying in wait and as a result he died, or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity, and as a result he died, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
Here is the full context http://nasb.scripturetext.com/numbers/35.htm

———————————————————————
Some lesser New Testament scholars

Saint Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: “if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die.” Acts 25:11.

St. Augustine: “The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.” The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states,” The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that ” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that ” . . . 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 anymore.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

“St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: “As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty.” As Prof. Michael Pakaluk writes: “If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves.” ” That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty.” The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

Christians who speak out against capital punishment in deserving cases ” . . . tend to subordinate the justice of God to the love of God. . . . Peter, by cutting off Malchu’s ear,. . . was most likely trying to kill the soldier (John 18:10)”, prompting ” . . . Christ’s statement that those who kill by the sword are subject to die by the sword (Matthew 26:51-52).” This ” implicitly recognizes the government’s right to exercise the death penalty.” Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, “A Matter of Life and Death”, p 52 Christianity Today, 8/4/95.

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution—very-distinct-moral-differences—new-mexico.aspx

“Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean—the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

“Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception—death-penalty-opponents—draft.aspx

“Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

“Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

I, being an abortive woman, feel that no one on here has the right to argue abortion vehemently unless they have had one or been involved in some way!!
Especially men.  You know what MEN!! That baby is half yours. It is not the woman’s body and the male gender needs to stand up and become men again.
Feminists and women who think it is ok to kill their child, or ok for someone else, are wrong and out of control.
Seems some women just want to be a man! They want a penis!  And i have no respect for any man who sits back and allows it.
Men, u need to reclaim your manhood. Stand up for what is right and take back the control.  It is not ok for fathers to sit back and allow any women to say it is her body.  It’s easier though I must say.
Sorry to ramble, but I see through all the big words, philosophical bs on here.  Grow up men and stop being afraid of women!
This is not about capitol punishment, pedophilia, horrible past Popes, this is a smoke screen.  You men should be out there at abortion clinics, at talking to legislators, helping at crises pregnancy centers, etc…not sitting here debating senseless crap while babies are being killed 400 a minute. Walk the walk, then talk the talk.

Kevin:

It is a message board. I can’t drown out your incorrect opinions, but I can counter them with well known, specific Church teachings, as opposed to your non Church supported opinions.

Odd you would say I don’t have proof that Jesus would support the death penalty. The Church has supplied about 2000 years of such proof and Jesus, Himself, stated such support within the New Testament.

You having such knoweldge to the contrary, with no sources, is interesting fantasy and nothing more.

It is consistent of you to argue Jesus’ specific support for the death penalty, as detailed in scripture, “is a very weak argument.”, as you consider your clairvoynace on the topic to be a more valid source.

I will defer to scripture and Church teachings.

Kevin:

It is not a matter of a nice try.

New Testament scholarship, biblical and theological, as well as historical and traditional teachings have Jesus supporting the death penalty. You have nothing but your own personal opinion that Jesus has renounced the death penalty at 12:01am in the year 2000. Odd.

These may be of interest:

1, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“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.” (2)

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” (2)

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)

2.  Lloyd Bailey

It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover “the mind of Jesus Christ” on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of “the hell of fire”. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a “hard liner” who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not “to abolish the law and the prophets . . .  but to fulfill them.”, offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? “HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH”(Matthew 15:1-9).

All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false.  Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, “Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.”  (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.).

Synopsis of Professor Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says, Abingdon Press, 1987.

“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and
unnecessary.” -Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II’s humanism vs:

1) Saint Augustine: ” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

2) Saint Thomas Aquinas: . . . 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 anymore.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6, 2

3)  “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).

4)  Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods.”

“This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’  “

“The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)

Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)


5)  The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005) states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” 2266

This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

6)  Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

Mercy, salvation and redemption will not be measured by the method of our earthly death , but by our state of grace in the context of the eternal.

7)  C. S. Lewis:  “According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. “

“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”

“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”

“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

” . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. “

“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”

“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”

“This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. “

” . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. ”  The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

8)  C. S. Lewis:  “Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.  They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. ”  “The Complete C.S. Lewis”, Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

9)  Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution),  that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior,  that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

10)  “Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices…A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims.”  Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. “McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment”. 21 May 2001

11)  Never Forget Mercy for the Innocent
“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

————————————————-

1) synopsis of “A Bible Study”, from Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College.

2) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,
www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

Kudos to you Mr Sharp for your defense of the death penalty. The Shea’s, the PJPII’s and the O’Mahoney’s of this world can chatter on in their ivory towers about the death penalty is no longer needed, we who live in the real world know it’s needed more than ever. Where I live, in the black section of town, one murder a week was occuring in a three month period last year. If the dp was constitantly applied, the murder rate would have gone down overnight. Many of the people who have committed these murders were already convicted of other violent crimes, so what the late pope, Shea, and O’Mahoney say about just keeping them in prison doesn’t make sense. A person with a violent temperment is going to be violent wheather he’s in jail or out on the streets. It makes no sense at all to be lenient with violent criminals. I say let the dp be used every time a murderer is convicted of this offence. If they want rehabilitation, let them seek it before they commit murder or repent of their sin before they meet their Maker.

Stephen:

Thank you.

One of the more curious parts of the relgious debate, is that some don’t seem to understand the religious foundation that sanction, redress, justice, retribution, and the like are routed in mercy, as detailed with the quotes above and some more here:

2)  Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful.—CS Lewis

6)  William Law:

“To say, therefore, as some have said, if God is all love toward fallen man, how can he threaten or chastise sinners is no better than saying, if God is all goodness in Himself and toward man, how can He do that in and to man which is for his good? As absurd is to say, if the able physician is all love, goodness and good will toward his patients, how can he blister, purge, or scarify them, how can he order one to be trepanned and another to have a limb cut off?

Nay, so absurd is this reasoning that if it could be proved that God had no chastisement for sinners, the very want of their chastisement would be the greatest of all proofs that God was not all love and goodness toward man.”

“And, therefore, the pure, mere love of God is that alone from which sinners are justly to expect that no sin will pass unpunished, but that His love will visit them with every calamity and distress that can help to break and purify the bestial heart of man and awaken in him true repentance and conversion to God. It is love alone in the holy Deity that will allow no peace to the wicked, nor ever cease its judgments till ever sinner is forced to confess that it is good for him that he has been in trouble, and thankfully own that not the wrath but the love of God has plucked out that right eye, cut off that right band, which he ought to have done but would not do for himself and his own salvation.” 
A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, www.answers.com/topic/william-law

7)  George MacDonald: God will give absolute justice, which is the only good thing. He will spare nothing to bring his children back to himself, their sole well-being, whether he achieve it here—or there.

14)  Reconciliation has to be built with full recognition and accountability for the wrong. –Martha Kilpatrick

15)  G. K. Chesterton : Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy.”

16)  William Shakespeare: Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy.

I think you are interpreting the emboldened passage uncharitably, perhaps deliberately so. Allow me to amplify it slightly:
“It is difficult for me to follow the reasoning of someone who is pro-life(against abortion) and at the same time taking an the extreme position of being totally against the death penalty [i.e. the death penalty is an intrinsically immoral act].”
I do not think that equating “totally against the death penalty” with “intrinsically immoral” is improper. In fact, I know many Catholics who argue that it is intrinsically immoral, that is, it is never permissible regardless of circumstance. This is in contradiction to Church teaching and the CCC. As you know the Papal States executed criminals into the 20th century. To say that something is intrinsically immoral is to say that it is wrong to do for all time and in all places, like deliberate direct abortion.