Nice article as usual, though I think you MAY be oversimplifying what those prolifers who support the death penalty think. I imagine that not all are quiet as dismissive as the one you quoted. Still though, I have to agree with you.

My own inclination is to support the death penalty. I’ve thought about it quiet a lot, and in my mind, I can’t quiet convince myself that the argument presented by “some guy with a keyboard” that you quoted above is wrong.

Except of course, that I can’t bring myself to say things like “Bishop Finn’s mistake is forgivable since the CCC makes the same mistake,” and I can easily convince myself that the Popes and Bishops are better at answering this sort of question than I am. The result is that I tend to avoid the issue altogether, because when someone asks me about it I tend to come out with a really weak and unconvincing “oppose.” Kind of a wimpy way out, I know, but fortunately there are other things those of us who have a hard time opposing the death penalty can focus on.

Mark, you do realize the intrinsic irony of your piece, do you not?  You decry the author of the Catholic Key as a blogospheric popinjay, and yet you yourself are the same thing (unless because you’ve written a couple of books and write for NCRegister you are not a “blogospheric” popinjay). You claim that the author of the piece in question glanced at teaching and declared it nonsense, yet you have done the same thing by cherry picking the sources you like. Your title is of DYI bishops…indicating that many people will adopt the mantle of arbiter of the Faith for themselves, and yet you do the same thing by telling everyone that, contrary to the entire scope of Catholic moral teaching throughout the ages, the death penalty is evil and that you can’t be pro-life unless you are against it.

I do not claim to be an arbiter of Truth.  I only know what I know. 

What I know is:

The Magesterium has universally and consistently condemned contraception and abortion as intrinsically evil and thus intrinsically immoral.  There is never a situation where contraception or willful abortion are licit. Evidence of this lies in both of the encyclicals you mention.  In Humanae vitae, Paul VI declares that you cannot separate the procreative from the unitive function of sex (which contraception, masturbation, and homosexual sex do) and still be moral.  In Evangelium vitae, John Paul II declares, with the authority as successor of Peter, that all acts of willful abortion are intrinsically immoral.  Those are pretty absolute: there is no gray area there!

Nowhere does any pronouncement of faith and morals declare that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral.  The Church recognizes the state’s right to carry out executions for the protection of society (just like war can be used to protect society).  In saying that, the Church recognizes that the death penalty, and the decision to go to war, are, sometimes, legitimate and just; likewise, sometimes the decision to execute a criminal or go to war are illegitimate and unjust.  There is no absolute with the death penalty.

What the Holy Father did in re-writing the Catechism, or in issuing Evangelium vitae, is simply guide us to limit the use of capital punishment to prevent its misuse.  Abortion is always evil…the death penalty can be evil.  Contraception is never acceptable…the death penalty is sometimes acceptable.

The Holy Father taught us not that the death penalty was unacceptable, but that it is, in most cases, unnecessary.  This is true: all men of good faith can accept that as true.  The argument over the death penalty should not be over its morality (after all, the Church has always upheld the potential morality of the death penalty), but over its application.  Is it prudent to use the death penalty?  That is the question.  The issues of cost, effectiveness, methods, etc are all valid questions.  Thus, one can hold that, from a strictly prudential point of view that the death penalty is unnecessary.  One can also say that, in some cases, the death penalty is necessary.

Any man of good will can see clearly that because there is no moral absolute with the death penalty, that there is legitimate room for disagreement.  All you need to do is look at the views of Cardinal Avery Dulles, who examined the death penalty in a 2002 First Things piece.  From his cogent analysis of the Church’s stance on capital punishment throughout the ages, it is easy to see that one can disagree with the Holy Father, and still be within the Communion of the Church.  Or, is the late Cardinal a DYI bishop, too?

Jacob,

You can’t convince yourself they are wrong because they are not…truly just punishments must fit the crime.  However a truly just punishment is not always the right thing to do.  You have to consider the implications of the punishment and weigh them.  Will acting in the truly just way actually rectify the problem.  Maybe, maybe not.  The problem is, the guy’s arguments are spot on…but it has been a constant in political theory since at least Aquinas that the state must protect the people (if that is not the case, the Just War Theory is a bunch of malarky).

The problem I have is the disengenuous way in which Mark treats the blog author’s use of Aquinas.  According to Mark, we are supposed to make sense of the Church’s teaching, not dismiss it out right when it doesn’t suit our view.  He himself fails that test when he pits the author’s use of Aquinas against His Excellency Finn’s. Perhaps, just perhaps, the two uses go together.  Not for Mark, however.  They can’t because His Excellency is supporting Mark’s position, while the blog guy isn’t.

This is reason number 297 why I don’t purposely read Mark Shea.  Unfortunately for me, I stumbled on the piece and didn’t read the by-line.  Oh well.

to MrTeacherSir:
Just one thing: you say “The Holy Father taught us not that the death penalty was unacceptable, but that it is, in most cases, unnecessary.” Surely when it is unnecessary it is unacceptable? I really don’t like to argue about the merits of the death penalty one way or another, but it should be pretty easy to see where the Church leaders stand, and it seems irresponsible to try to soften their positions. You’re arguing against some pretty high ups, and if you must do so at least admit that you’re arguing against them.

As to the use of Acquinas to argue against the Bishops: I see this as legitimate, so long as the positions of the Bishops are given the respect they deserve while they are the positions of the bishops. That is, it would make sense to me for a theologian to debate any of the non-dogmatic issues with the bishops, but I think that theologian should support and obey, or at least not undermine, the bishops he’s arguing against unless and until the bishops change their mind. Perhaps there is more room for application of the death penalty then is currently implied. But unless the Church admits this, I cannot recommend behaving as if there were outside of internal-Church debate. And I don’t consider myself qualified to spearhead such debate.

To really oversimplify…Two Wrongs do not make a Right! Just because the death penalty is or may be wrong in the USA today but right in some third world country where they can’t afford prisons…will never make abortion…contraception, Right!

“The Cafeteria being as wide open on the right as on the left in America . . .”
Yeah, not so sure that THIS is true. I think if you were being fair, you could much more easily come up with a longer list of liberal (ecclesiological / political) issues in opposition to Church teaching than you could issues from the (ecclesiological / political) right.

But, nonetheless a good and true post.

It does, however, make me think that the bishops weaken their own moral authority when they speak, seemingly with the same level of authority, on various and sundry issues, and especially legislative proposals. Historically speaking (The Challenge of Peace / Economic Justice for All) they have gotten too much into policy specifics instead of sticking to preaching the basic moral underpinnings of public policy. This has blurred the line between dogmatic moral teaching, that must always and everywhere be held as true, and legitimate prudential judgment on particular political positions.

I thought that what you said has a lot of merit.  I’m hardly a knee jerk ‘whatever the bishops say is what I believe’ Catholic.  I think we are not supposed to be.  I believe that we are called to use our intellect.  I also believe that we are called to listen to the church’s magisterium and where it differs from our own conclusions, begin to learn to conform our will.  I’ve seen myself shift positions on a number of things.  (Much to my surprise.)  There is an integrity in the church’s teaching on life issues and trying to cherry pick doesn’t work if one wants to maintain that integrity.

Mrteachersir:

I’d be more convinced that you’d read carefully if you didn’t keep arraigning me for arguing with the blog “author”.  The author of the blog was Jack Smith, who gave the whole space of his blog over to Bp. Finn.  It was some guy in a combox who cavalierly decided to do the “It’s not infallible, so I can ignore it” trick that death penalty supporters so frequently invoke (like their close brothers, the Humanae Vitae dismissers).

“Surely when it is unnecessary it is unacceptable?”

If this is what JPII meant then I wish he has said so. I think that mrteachersir has made excellent and correct points. I believe that JPII and the CCC wording is ambiguous if indeed the teaching is that the death penalty is always wrong. That is not what the documents say but the Church is clear, as mrteachersir states, that abortion and artificial contraception are always wrong and not just wrong but intrinsically evil. No such language is used regarding the death penalty. Mr. Shea is inferring that that is the meaning and while it may be a good inference it is not as clear as he thinks it is. And it is insulting and offensive to berate pro life Catholics who disagree with him. I think his choice of words is not charitable as he calls their motives and character into question rather than sticking to the issue and arguments.

I do think that when discussing these issues all due respect should be given to the bishops. The quote Mr. Shea provided fron the Catholic Key was disrespectful and unworthy of a Catholic. We do need to conform our will to the Truth of Church teaching, however, if the teaching is not clear, as this on is not, then we are free to discuss and perhaps disagree.

I completely agree with what I believe was Mr. Shea’s main point which is that mercy demands something other than the death penalty. Cost, retribution/revenge, legal justice, just do not compare with the requirement to be merciful. And yes, it is distateful to think of being merciful to some perpetrators but then again, it might not mean much if were easy. I have gone back and forth on this a bit over the years and this article has probably helped me to cement my understanding of this issue. Would Jesus throw the switch (or whatever) on a guilty man/woman? Or would he give them more time and opportunity to repent and witness to His mercy?

God bless

I understand that the disparaging quote from the Key was from the combox and not Jack Smith. Those comments would be very unlike him. Thanks.

I think it, as always, has to be a question of prioritization of limited time and resources, so we need to ask ourselves if by focusing on the ~50 or so executions in the US each year are we take ANY of our focus away from the 1.5 MILLION (in case anyone is curious, that’s a 1:30,000 ratio in terms of human lives) unborn killed in this country each year. Beams first, motes later.

Victor:

Does it have to be either/or?

Thanks Mark for your intelligent insight into this matter.

Mark Shea’s article on this site actually brings a welcome flavor to this discussion, barring some of the points already mentioned by other posters. He sees the ecclesiological issues at hand well and deals with inconsistencies in teaching which occur. As for those who have discussed absolutes, I tend to think the quote “No More War” (repeated in various documents and speeches by popes.) is pretty absolute as well, though to be fair nothing really formal has come out on the topic. I do wonder though, in some respects because of our own individual and cultural upbringing if everyone in some regard falls into cafeteria syndrome. Or is this a sign that maybe there needs to be legitimate discussion on more issues?

Mark, Explain how we can make jails a safe place. All reports seem to indicate that they are not. In dealing with groups where threats, intimidation, bribes and huge financial rewards motivate, who protects workers in the penal system. Who protects guards and police from very powerful and wealthy criminal organizations.  Please get into the real world. Support for capital punishment does not mean support for vengeance or cruelty or a lack of vigilance in protecting the innocent. Contract murder is real.

Great points Afitz211.  It seems to me that we can have the fullness of the Truth but not comprehend it.  Therefore, what seems to be cafeteria may actually be the symptom of our limited understanding while living on this planet.  Some are more open to a more comprehensive understanding than others and this may reflect being more open to the grace of God’s Love.

Daniel:

Your rejoinder consists of a common strategy used by those reluctant to grant the Church the right to guide them.  It’s called “making nonsense rather than sense out of Church teaching”.  It begins my saying, “Church teaching is hopelessly out of touch with reality, so just give up now.”

To your questions, I would reply, “Why are you asking some non-specialist in a combox how best to make prisons safer?”  How should I know?  But why does that invalidate the point that, unless it’s necessary, the state shouldn’t put people to death?  In turn, I would ask, “If Victor is right (and I have no idea if he is) that we only execute 50 people a year, how does that particularly improve prison safety?”  Obviously, it seems to me the answer is “Find some way to make prisons safer”.  We have a huge number of people on death row.  I recall a priest pointing out (this was ten years ago) that if we starting executing people round the clock it would take three years to kill them all.  I’m dubious that this is a “realistic” approach, just as I’m dubious that your question was realistic.  Realists apply to actual experts for information about how to fix technical problems.  Your question was designed to say, “Shut up about what the Church teaches.”

I have no problem with abolishing the death penalty.  That being said, I have a very real problem with equating the death penalty with abortion.  The criminal convicted and sentenced to death, is not declared a non-person by the state or the federal government.  The preborn child, has been declared nationally a non-person by the Supreme Court of the United States.  I once met a priest who objected to protesting abortion, not because he disagreed that abortion was wrong, but because, those who protested abortion were not in equal agreement over the death penalty and therefore did not present a “consistent” life ethic.  This, my friends, is what frightens and disheartens me.

While it is true that Mother Church has never said that all capital punishment is evil, when the pope says we need to reconsider something, we need to reconsider it.  It’s not a big leap in current teaching about respect for all life that maybe, just maybe, the death penalty should be reserved for extraordinary cases (if at all).

Mark: It’s almost always an either/or, given resource scarcity and competing benefits. When you only get to give 52 Sunday homilies a year, for example, you tend to spend very few of them on the evils of speeding.

Or, to put it another way: if a Parish priest were to give Sunday homilies on just two topics, abortion and the death penalty, and dedicated his Sunday homilies to those two evils proportionate to the number of lives lost to each (1:30,000), he would give one Sunday homily on the death penalty every 577 years. Every other Sunday homily for the remaining 576 years, 11 months, and three weeks would be about abortion.

I understand why you want to keep things in balance when it comes to cafeteria-izing (?) by liberal and orthodox Catholics, and I like to think of myself as consistently pro-life (against abortion, contraception, death penalty in nearly every instance, very wary of most wars, anti-eugenic). But I think what you might be missing is that many young, orthodox Catholics are very consistent even if some bishops are having issues! For the sake of symmetry it is nice to say “orthodox Catholics cherry pick from Evang. V. as much as liberals cherry pick from Hum. V.” but at least from my limited experience (and in my humble opinion) this is simply not true.

And it is worth mentioning that for us lay people it is much easier to simply say “I’m totally against the death penalty” than it is “honey, I’m ditching my diaphragm”!

Before the 2004 US elections, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the US bishops to remind them that there can be occasions when waras of self-defense and catpital punishment are neccessary, and so there may be disagreement, even among Catholics, concerning war and the death penalty, “but not however in regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Anyone who disagrees with that is more Catholic than the pope—and to his left.

And the place I disagree with the Pope is…?

Also, rather than your paraphrase of Ratzinger, it would really be helpful if you could actually quote him, then quote a word I have written that disagrees with him.

Victor:

We think different.  I was not, at all, contemplating how priests should ration their Sunday preaching.  I was thinking about how lay people should approach the Church’s guidance in formulating their thinking.  I can’t for the life of me see why we can’t say “Abortion is evil” and “the death penalty should only be imposed when absolutely necessary.”  That only took me five seconds.  I still have plenty of time left in the year for other things.

Oh, I definitely agree with that: “Abortion is evil” and “the death penalty should only be imposed when absolutely necessary.” Saying that is easy-peasy-mac’n'cheesy and I really hope many Catholics don’t disagree with that. But in terms of to whom do we send our checks…

The teaching of the Church is clear enough for anyone: the state should not use the death penalty unless it is not possible to protect society by any other means. I get it. Even those who appeal to the Bible forget that God gave capital punishment to a righteous nation that promptly squandered its righteousness.
What I don’t get, Mr. Shea, is your relish at starting a brawl with a provocative headline and put-up-your-dukes rhetoric. Your post is reminiscent of the old B-movie device of a guy busting through the doors of a saloon bellowing, “I can lick any man in the house.”

Schenk,

Watch it fella - that’s my Bishop you’re typing darkly about! - what are you trying to say here? That you’re more Catholic than a good and holy Bishop?
Bishop Finn is the best (in my opinion) that we’ve got in the U.S. and that’s that.
Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to shut up and read these:
(I find: “We are at War” and “Extreme makeover: the diocese edition” particularly inspiring.)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop_finn_exhorts_catholics_to_stand_up_fearlessly_against_tyranny_of_choice/

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/05/archbishop-naumann-bishop-finn-join.html

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/04/we-are-at-war-bishop-finns-gospel-of.html

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/051206/051206a.php

PS.
Gov: “Killing is bad, it;s a no, no, - and to show you that you shouldn’t do it we’re going to do it to you!”
My, what a good example.
The death penalty is not necessary in America, we have sufficient prison security, and don’t say there’s no room either, we just need to let all those plant smokers out and that’ll cut it down by half.

PPS. Lay off Mr. Shea, Daugherty, - he’s a genius.

Joan Heatherington
J.M.J

What is a DYI bishop??????? I am not savvy about this acronym or whatever it is and nowhere in the article could I find an explanation for the expression. Please enlighten me Mark! Also found the article confusing as to who was saying what, when and whose opinion was being expressed where…a more ample use of quotation marks and perhaps explanation of what was being said by whom might have made for easier reading. I think I agree with you Mark but maybe I am agreeing with either the Bishop or the CCC or John Paul II!  I know pretty much their take so not so hard to fiqure out what exactly they said or what the CCC says. Overall I think most pro-lifers such as myself see abortion and ARTFICIAL contraception in the clear terms the Church teaches. What you are implying others quoted here as saying was not so clearly written. As for the death penalty and what the Church teaches is often muddied by the liberal thinkers or Cafeteria Catholics’ loud voices. It is a different category of evil…really not an evil in itself…but the Church is right in insisting that it be the rare instance of retribution not the “eye for an eye” kind of mentality of the OT. Makes sense to me! But again what is an
DYI bishop, please Mark? Thanks!

Two problems with the Death Penalty as currently administered by the various justice systems in the USA:
1.  It disproportionately is applied to minorities.  This may be partly because when someone of means is accused of such a crime, s/he can afford excellent legal representation, and avoid conviction of the more serious crime;
2.  As dna sampling in recent years has confirmed, a fair number of people have been erroneously convicted of crimes, partly a/c police misconduct; and sometimes a/c prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutor hid or failed to disclose evidence of an exculpatory nature.  These erroneous convictions also sometimes happen in “death penalty cases”.
Also, as a practical matter, some legal jurisdictions such as California provide nearly endless appeals to death penalty convictions.  Appeals cost money.  It is actually less expensive in California to sentence someone to prison with “life without parole” than to sentence him/her to death, if the convicted person is willing to use all the appeals available.
Considering the case of a terrorist who commits a mass murder, and whose theology convinces him/her to “seek martyrdom” by being executed by representatives of “the great satan”.  Would it not be a better punishment (from the view of exacting a revenge!) to sentence this person to life imprisonment, without communication to the outside, but with a copy of his/her own version of scripture?  Having fifty or sixty years to consider the evil done, and not having any written or spoken reinforcement of the convicted person’s original views could well lead to regret, possibly even real repentance.
TeaPot562

Mark,

I agree with you whole heartedly. (I’m sure that makes your day) If we can’t hold dear the sanctity of life from conception to *natural death* then we are not truly pro-life, but only so when it’s convenient. If we remove the possibility of redemption from those people who, for whatever reasons, have committed unspeakable crimes are we really any better than them?  Is it truly ‘rendering unto God what is God’s’ to act in His stead in such matters?

Mark,  I do agree with what the church teaches. the church has never condemned all instances of capital punishment.
Chapter XXVI, in the book, Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio, provides a 10 page commentary on The Death Penalty.

Todd says:  “If we remove the possibility of redemption from those people who, for whatever reasons, have committed unspeakable crimes are we really any better than them?” Amerio addresses this issue. It is impossible for us to remove the possibility of redemption from anyone. Todds use of the term redemption is misleading. Surely an executed criminal can enjoy redemption to eternal life in Jesus. The condemned’s relationship with the Lord is separate from the act of execution.  Now Mark, don’t accuse me of wanting to execute criminals so they go to heaven.

I think a DIY (or “Do-It-Yourself”) Bishop is meant to be any Catholic who decides for themselves what the Church’s moral teaching on any given issue should be. I’m not sure if it’s a step up or a step down from either a Cafeteria Catholic, Catholic-In-Name-Only (CINO), or Vox Nova blogger, though.

Daniel:

I note that you are not actually addressing a word I wrote.  You answer none of the questions I asked and instead attempt to rebut something I never said.  I nowhere say that the Church condemns all instances of capital punishment.  Nor does John Paul.  What she does is urge that capital punishment be inflicted as rarely as possible.

Victor:

I’m glad we agree.  As guys like Daniel illustrates (and as long and tedious experience confirms) there are, in fact, quite a number of self-identified Faithful Conservative Catholics who do disagree with the proposition that the death penalty should be inflicted as rarely as possible.  That’s why I know Bp. Finn’s letter would bring out the DIY bishops.

Adele:

DIY = Do It Yourself.

Mark…so DYI= Do It YOurself? Okay..but what are do-it-yourself bishops?
Those who promulgate teachings that are contrary to Church teaching? Okay
but the only Bishop specifically mentioned here ( other that JPII) is Bishop Finn…surely not a DYI according to your definition. Your headline is This Will Bring Out A Lot of DYI Bishops….so your concern seems to be with the hierarchy and their thinking correctly or not regarding the death penalty? I did not find the article to be so much about that…but rather the Cafeteria Catholics who like to determine what they think as the measuring stick in these matters..What say you?

Mr. Shea

I try to read your articles but I find it very difficult to do so when you use phrases like “euro-weenie” to discribe people with wich you take issue and “dumb meme” or “intellectually vapid” to describe the positions they take.

Your arguments often make a lot of sense but dude… really… How many oblique insults can you throw at people? It is exactly this type of vaugely insulting language which makes me NOT read your articles.

Lest I presume to lecture you, I’ll make mention of 1 Peter 3:16 and Matthew 12:36-37 and let my comments stand.

-Tim-

I do not understand the eagerness and earnestness with which some Catholics will defend support of the death penalty, as if we lose something precious in not being able to end another human being’s life before “natural death”. Why would anyone who knows Jesus and the price he paid to show the extent of God’s love and mercy want to defend killing someone God loves as much as he loves the unborn infant? This issue, along with the alignment of many anti-abortion people with conservatives who lean libertarian, has hurt what could be a vibrant, holy pro-life movement. I pray that anti-abortion folks will become pro-life and embrace the value and dignity of each human person, a value that is the foundation of the Church’s condemnation of abortion. That vision of the human person is what should guide all every Catholic’s approach to politics, as well as our approach to each other. It is a beautiful and powerful reality that Pope Benedict lays out in Deus Caritas Est. God bless us all with this vision.

Charlie Woodbury
Had God dealt with me as I long deserved I’d be in hell right now, VERY probably. But instead of the 2x4 wack
I also deserved, He kept showing me HIS wounds, and how beautiful they are, and the love for me they prove.
Had He took my life as I for so long deserved, I wouldn’t have learned what I needed to know.
Count me as across the board, excluding none, pro-life.

Dee and Charlie,  Thank you for your intelligence and loving hearts.

Adele:

My concern—as the quotation from the combox at the Catholic Key should make clear—is with laity who treat the teaching of actual bishops with dismissiveness and contempt.

Tim:  Sorry I wasn’t clear.  I don’t regard bishops who think the death penalty should be minimized as euro-weenies.  However, many death penalty enthusiasts do tend to treat them with just this sort of dismissiveness.

Great conversation! thanks to all who contributed to it. It is great when one can look at a such an important topic from so many different angles. Thank you Mr. Shea for once again choosing interesting material to comment on.

The Church has constantly been arriving at a greater understanding of what it means to follow Christ. Our doctrine develops andthe truths that we have received from God have certainly been applied in various ways throughout history. The insight provided us by our Holy Father was certainly a challenge proposed to certain nations including the USA. Personally though it made me reflect on the value of human life and the ways in which we can foster a greater recognition of that dignity.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr reminded us that “Justice is indivisible… injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. I would be hesitant to pit the abortion issue against the capital punishment issue or diminish one or the other. They both seemed to be linked to the core issue of a lack of understading of the greatness of the dignity of each individual human life. We are often divisive when we consider moral issues, but I often wonder how everything really works together and how one issue affects another. It is true that abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be justified and that shopping at Wal-Mart is not… but does the enslavement of millions of our Chinese brothers and sisters for the sake of savings of a few dollars at the cash register perpetuating a culture of death, giving life to the abortion/contraception mentality in the west?

Just a thought.

Mark, for the record, I accept the Church’s guidance on this as on all issues. However, I would like this post a lot better if you would give that “knee-jerk” blogger the thoughtful reponse he deserves, not just snark and sarcasm. Being guided by the Church does not mean arrogantly dismissing any and all arguments to the contrary. And what are you, exactly, if not some guy with a keyboard?
 
Also, someone please explain to me why the death penalty constitutes “definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”. This depends on the assumption that a murderer is more likely to die repentant after forty years in prison than by execution after maybe one. This is not intuitively obvious to me, and I’ve never seen anyone present any evidence for it.
 
Again, I’m not a cafeteria Catholic. I’d just like to see some reasoning applied to this subject, instead of just waving around Evangelium Vitae and a dociler-than-thou attitude. Thoughts, anyone?

Patrigin,  Great insight!  Abortion is the end result of everything that is anti-life.

A question:  Could support of the death penalty endanger our redemption?

Mark…thanks for clarifying your intent. However after going to the actual article and the comments I wonder why you chose that particular
comment from which to “jump-start” your article? I thought there was
much more to ponder in Dudley’s comments and extensive quotes…in fact, he has me re-thinking my position again (I am pro-life definitely in regard to abortion…and am sort of on the fence about death penalty and feel closest to what JPI expressed how it should be rare)Dudley makes a most interesting point in regard to the “expiatory value of death” itself-the fullest expiation that can be made and as St Augustine and others point out the death penalty can be seen as enhancing redemption of the sinner when looked at this way. What do you think?

I don’t care what anyone else thinks, I’m against it, not even for my worst enemy. 

Not even for Bin Laden (if he ever gets caught). 

Not even if the alleged criminal is as guilty as sin.

Oh amen, Mark!  Docility to the Magesterium indeed is needed, submission to the teaching of the Church, and thus to Christ.  I had particular trouble with the teaching on the death penalty—as a medical examiner, I investigated many brutal murders including those of a particularly notorious serial killer.  It was very, very hard for me to learn that if I wanted to be Catholic, I had to learn to ask for mercy for a man who assaulted a little girl and left her dead in a tin shed in the woods….but that is what I must do.  Prayer and acts of the will….not so easy…..

God bless you, Barbara!  What a beautiful witness to Christ you are!

I second Mark’s statement Barbara.

Barbara…Those are noble sentiments…but remember, everyone, the real
position of the Church does not reguire you to say NO! in all cases to the death
penalty…it does reguire we forgive..as in the Our Father..but the
teaching of the Church says in rare instances the Death Penalty may
be applied…as I personally would think in the case of a serial killer who will in time have a chance for parole (in many and most instances
for example Charles Manson et al) The death penalty and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive terms…one must always find foregiveness in their heart but that does not automatically mean the death penalty is off the books. Again, see what St. Augustine says about the expiatory value of death…death is the fullest expiation that can be made.

Adele:

Actually, the real position of the Church is that your default position be “NO!” unless you can come up with a *really* good reason for “Yes.”  Moreoever, the real position of the Church is that, in the first world, such reasons are almost non-existent.

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.”

So the actual attitude of docility to the Church’s guidance is precisely what Barbara has articulated.

St. Augustine has his opinion and what makes his opinion more valid than Barbara’s living example of how to live the faith?  She does not have noble sentiments, she is living the faith which is more than sentiment.

Wow, this kind of article seems to bring out ALL types!  For those of you who SUPPORT the death penalty, make note of Charlie Woodbury’s comment (above).

It comes down to a realization of how undeserving, unworthy, and utterly retched ALL of us are.  It is true, some of us make grave mistakes in our dealings with our fellow men and women.  But how many times has God forgiven us?  How deeply do we continue to wound him with our broken humanity?  What gives us the right to decide that someone else’s brokenness deserves immediate death?  Quite simply, as long as we can reasonably safeguard the welfare of society, there is no just and reasonable argument in SUPPORT of the death penalty.

Ronald:

Does it really have to be a contest between Augustine and Barbara?  Pitting fathers against children is a bad way to proceed when looking at the development of the Church’s teaching.  As the medievals put it, “If we see further than our fathers, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants.”  Augustine is a giant.  He was a profoundly faithful Catholic—like Barbara is trying to be.  Thank God for them both.

Adele,

There is a such thing as “life imprisonment WITHOUT the possibility of parole.”  Also, I’m not certain as to the details of Manson’s sentence, but he is currently still incarcerated and has never been paroled for the infamous murders.

Also, when anyone talks about expiation, they’re probably referring to “voluntary” expiation.  Expiation can not be expiation if it is FORCED upon someone (as the death penalty is forced upon its victims).  Atonement, reparation, and expiation can only be made by a person freely choosing to accept God’s will.  These things do not magically come about if someone else decides that “we are going to kill John Doe so that he may achieve expiation for his terrible crimes.”

It has been so uplifting to read the heartfelt struggles of others who recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in the development of Magisterial wisdom, especially in the Church’s teachings about the innate dignity of the human person. Anything that denies or obscures this vision is a wound in the Body of Christ and makes defending life - at any stage - more difficult. Jesus never suggested a doctrine of self-defense (indeed, just the opposite) and if early Christians had adopted one, the New Testament would be a lot leaner. Praise God for His mercy and His Church.

No, expiation cannot be forced, but perhaps Adele is making an argument that facing death is more likely to bring about repentance from an otherwise complacent convict? Sounds risky, though. While I don’t agree with the death penalty except in rare cases she brings up a good point about serial killers—sometimes the most cunning prisoners (i.e. Ted Bundy) cannot be held in our prison system without escaping, making them possible candidates for just execution in the eyes of the Church. I also wonder if execution is the only way to deal with prisoners who kill other inmates and guards….

Mark, it is not a contest but a comparison with Augustine as a man of faith and Barbara a woman of faith.  It is a much more subtle and complex perspective when comparing a woman’s response to a man’s response to a violent act.

Sarah M,

The idea that “facing death is more likely to bring about repentance from an otherwise complacent convict” is very interesting, but I would agree that it is VERY risky.

I don’t claim to know much about our prison systems.  I am not a prison guard by training, but rather an engineer.  As an individual who likes to solve problems, I would be willing to bet there are methods of safeguarding guards and prisoners from even the most violent and cunning criminals.  As for the system currently in place, it seems that solitary confinement could be a temporary solution.  (This removes access to other inmates as well as access to many of the facilities and resources found within a prison’s walls.)

I don’t know… I’m just spit-ballin’ here.

Ronald:

There is no such thing as “a woman’s response” or “a man’s response” to violent acts.  There are women who are death penalty zealots (think “Madame Defarge” from A Tale of Two Cities.  There are men who respond to violence with forgiveness (think St. Stephen or the guy who lost his daughter in the OKC bombing and forgave Timothy McVeigh).  Don’t promote feminist stereotyping.  There are personal, not class, responses to violence.

Mark,  The research shows significant differences in the general population between men and women in their response to violence.  There is first a basic neurobiological response that differs between the two genders.  If you want to communicate by email feel free because it would take too long to explain how interpersonal neurobiology affects both genders in their response to violence.
I am on the mend from cancer treatment right now and I don’t have the energy to give you my resources.  I have 30 years of education and experience in counseling and psychotherapy.

Evangelium Vitae was an error filled prudential judgement that was wrongly amended into the Catechism.

“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

In addition, the death penalty offers greater defense of society and, thereofe, greater protection of innocents, as opposed to the nearly complete exclusion of the death penalty implied by EV and the amended Catechism, which provides that there will be more living murderers, at the cost of more innocents murdered.

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

Mercy, Redemption & the Death Penalty

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

Somebody forgot to tell those convicted murderers who escaped from that prison in Arizona that they wouldn’t murder anymore.  Or told the convicted murderer who murdered pederast priest John Geoghan.

Posted by Daniel J LaBelle on Monday, Aug 30, 2010 11:51 AM (EST):Mark, Explain how we can make jails a safe place.

This is an important point:

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal” 2267

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.

 
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.

The above is why the Church does not say in its wisdom that the death penalty shall never be applied…only that it should be used sparingly and judiciously. To read some of the bleeding heart blogs here one would think that in a real life murder the perpetrator is the “victim” and the the real victim is forgotten. There is a LOT of mis-placed compassion being spouted here in the name of the Magisterium, etc. No where do I read here about the difference between innoncent life being destroyed(abortion) and approving the death penalty where it is called for…to equate the consequences of abortion with the death penalty is not equal justice in the remotest sense. No one is suggesting a return to the OT thinking of an eye for an eye…but serious crime should result in serious consequences, and yes, sometimes requiring the death penalty. Even God permits Hell to exist..for those for whom no other punishment exists!
Perhaps some of the “bleeding hearts” here are among those who would deny the existence of Hell…as in a loving God could not permit such a thing as Hell..eternal death!

If life is a gift from God, would or should it not then be considered sacred, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural end? If life is sacred then when does it become NOT sacred, is there anything that I DO that makes my life UN-SACRED? Yes, my actions may be un-sacred but the gift of life is still sacred. And I believe that if we make an exception to take life because of the actions of persons what makes us any different from those that want to take life at any other point along the spectrum?

Gary I believe that because LIFE IS SACRED there need to be consequences for those who break the 3rd commandment ... One has a right to life which has been given by God and there is a huge difference between the taking of innocent life as in abortion and taking the life (via the death penalty)of one who has not respected this commandment by God. This is so ingrained in us that even in the case of legal execution it gives one great sorrow and a certain amount of grief when it is carried out. That it should be used ( the death penalty)rarely and judiciously is the position of the Catholic Church…not that it should be NEVER be administered as some people with mis-placed compassion suggested here.
No one is arguing that life is not sacred…all life..and government heretofore( before Roe v Wade)had a responsibility to all citizens to protect life. In some cases (serial killers for example) that might necessitate the death penalty so that the public does not have to live in fear and danger from this individual.  Nor should the public be expected to house, feed and give sustenance for the rest of this person’s natural life ....at taxpayers expense as long as one innocent person is without life sustaining food, housing, etc on this planet.

adele,

the 3rd commandment being ‘Thou shalt have no other God’s before me’?

Sorry…I was of course referring to the 5th commandment “Thou shall
not kill”...not the 3rd regarding the Sabbath…sorry and wish to correct before you waste your ink telling me of my error..and how it reflects
somehow on my misguided thinking re the subject at hand….but of course if you can forgive a man murder surely it is in your provenance to forgive a typo…yes???????

What is the overriding theme of the article? One that can be easily missed because of something we don’t fully understand - Mercy. It is something holy, which is what makes it such a challenge. Integrating God’s Mercy into our perspective of the world around us. What can help crack our unwavering attitudes? Exchange some of our pride for humility? Start thinking like God - let Him teach. His example of Mercy, given through His Son on the Cross, and later to St. Faustina. We need to learn how to do this - no matter how determined we are that we’re right in our views. Jesus tells us to be merciful, in our thoughts and deeds which are an example to others. Learning and sincerely saying the Divine Chaplet regularly is a huge way to begin to gain this insight. Thanks Mark.

Can we wrongly replace God’s mercy with man’s?

God: ‘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.

adele re your Tuesday, Aug 31, 2010 8:50 AM (EST)reply

If based upon a defense of society foundation, then the answer is we would be using the death penalty more, as it is a greater defender of society and the innocent than lesser sanctions.

That is the primary problem with EV and its later amendement into the Catechism, they reverse the reality of the issue.

Adele,

whose business is it to “enforce” the 5th commandment?

We are called to love, not judge.  Ours is to safeguard life, not end it.

Adele,

Are monetary concerns ever a reason to implement a person’s death?

Really?

Furthermore, it is a widely-established fact that it is actually more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to house/feed/care for the average criminal for the rest of his life.  The appeals process alone surrounding death row inmates is extraordinarily expensive.

So, not only are we killing people, but we’re actually spending MORE tax dollars to do so.

Adele,

Are monetary concerns ever a reason to implement a person’s death?

Really?

Furthermore, it is a widely-established fact that it is actually more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to house/feed/care for the average criminal for the rest of his life.  The appeals process alone surrounding death row inmates is extraordinarily expensive.

So not only are we killing people, but we’re actually spending MORE tax dollars to do so.

“Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx

I cannot argue with you re the enormity of the expenses involved in the execution of our legal system..but then that is not the topic of this article. I only introduced it as another argument often given for the defense of the death penalty as opposed to the costs of housing inmates for life. Another matter (but one worthy of debate..another time)
My only point here being the amount of mis-placed compassion in many of the responses here to the article re the Church’s position on the use of the death penalty. We all agree that life is sacred and that the right to life comes from the Creator. However the existence of government also is accepted as a God given right according to the Church. That government is responsible for the protection and safety of society is accepted. How does the government carry out this responsibility? In the case of the crime (not seen as a sin in the government’s eyes)of murder it may be necessary in order to assure the safety of its people for the government to carry out an execution order. The Church’s position is that of course all life is sacred…however where this blog seems to fall apart is over the right of the government to in ANY case take a life…and all I am simply saying is that if you are saying this on the basis of Church teaching then you do not understand the Church’s position re the death penalty.The Church does not forbid it…but insists because of the sacredness of life this punishment by government must be used only on the rare occasion no other measure would ensure the safety of its citizenry
and that it must be carried out humanely as possible. Many here seem to equate the taking of an innocent life ( the real victim) with the taking away the right to life of one who savagely did so to an innocnet. That is what is called mis-placed compassion…and a denial of what the Church is really teaching. Anyway, if you read the title of the article which is supposed to be a synopsis of what follows (This Will Bring Out alot of DYI Bishops) I fail to see any such thing in all of this! And THAT was my original point…where in any of this does that follow? This is just the familiar rehash of the merits of the death penalty vs the teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject. Nothing new here…just the same old conservative thinking vs the liberals we find dividing us on many topics and very few understanding CLEARLY the Church’s stated position.

I think it important the latest Catechism states:

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.”

Dudley, that is a perfect reference.
Adele, there is no misplaced compassion.  Now, there can be a lack of compassion which causes the suffering that exists in our world.

Dudley:

You are being quite dishonest in your treatment of the Church’s teaching.  Cherry-picking quotes from one part of the Catechism in order to attack the parts you don’t like is classic Cafeteria Catholicism.  Moreover, characterizing the Church’s teaching

“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 meaning “La la la!  Let’s let murderers run wild!” is a gross caricature.

Sorry, but your posts are precisely the sort of DIY bishoping that so frequently emerges when the Church teaches something unamenable to ideologues.

Mark…this seems to be what is happening here on “both sides”( bloggers choosing only those quotes from the Cathechism, Bible,etc that support their OPINION) The Church has CLEARLY stated its position to wit: Life
is sacred. One must be faithful in obeying the FIFTH commandment in protecting the sanctity of life whether an individual acting alone or the government in protecting its citizenry. Are there any instances where the Church DOES tolerate the taking of life…as in the case adminstration of the Death Penalty by government? While clearly the Church would hope and does maintain that all means availabe to protect the public must be exercised MUST be applied there will be the RARE instance when the govt
may have no other option in this imperfect world..and that in that instance we must do so humanely..and it follows that as followers of Christ we do all that is possible to aide the criminal to repent and offer their life in expiation for those taken. No where in this discussion do I understand your referencing in the title to the Bishopric and what any or all might misconstrue in re to Catholic teaching for which they are reponsible…another matter.  As for Cafeteria Catholicism there seems to be plenty on both sides of the issue being expressed here.As for mis-placed compassion ..it most certainly exists! And many of these blogs here attest to it!

Mark ...in your article you do as much “cherry picking” to support your liberal view of the application of Church teaching re the death penalty
as does Dudley. And frankly I think Dudley presents a far, far stronger case for the truth of that teaching than do you. Sorry, but that is clear to any who read both ....and I still am waiting for an adequate explanation for your title ....perhaps there is none. I would not have read this article had you titled it correctly…it was the title that drew me into this re-hash of liberal vs. conservative thinking in the Church…and truely Dudley has bested you on this topic both in his rational presentation as well as his voluminous quotes!

Mark ...in your article you do as much “cherry picking” to support your liberal view of the application of Church teaching re the death penalty

No.  I don’t.  What I do is present the Church’s teaching.  Period.  The Church teaches that the death penalty, while not intrinsically immoral and sometimes justifiably used by the state, should nonetheless be applied only in the case of absolute necessity. Like it or not, that’s what she says.  It is not “liberal” but simply “Catholic” to point this out.  What Dudley says is, “Evangelium Vitae was an error filled prudential judgement that was wrongly amended into the Catechism.”

It is typical of this weird era of Cafeteria Catholicism in which we live that a self-styled Faithful Conservative Catholic[TM] will, just as much as a Progressive Dissenter, manage to pretzlize their logic into saying that somebody who repeats what the Church clearly says is a “liberal” while somebody who openly declares both an encyclical and the catechism to teach error is anointed a “real Catholic”.  As I say, such teaching brings out DIY bishops on the right just as the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception brings them out on the left.

Mark…Okay..I see what you mean when you use the phrase DIY bishops..not at all clear to me at first, and I apologize for being slow on the uptake.
I think however you go “beyond” what the church teaches re death penalty by over-ephasizing the point about going to every option open before applying the death penalty..and under-emphasizing that the Chruch DOES
not totally exclude the possible use of the death penalty…e.g we should make it our default position when discussing. This is the method of those who are called liberal thinkers..to take hold of what they like best about a position(teaching) and de-emphasizing what they dislike most to the point of exclusion. Basically we agree about what the church teaches in the matter…and the fact that as Catholics we obey those teachings.
I think the confusion comes into the discussion when we re-interpret what is being taught into what we oursleves “tweak” it to confirm more to opinion rather than the straight up truth! To be honest I have not read
Evangelium Vitae in its entirety, the document you and Dudley seem to be
in disageement about. It would seem that Dudley’s point would be that the
conflict in truth about what the Church teaches lies in this document and that you take exception to his opinion about that particular document. Will go and read before commenting.

Adele is right that Mark very much picks and chooses, as well as wrongly interprets.

The biggest problems begin with EV, whereby PJPII entire foundation is built upon the the defense of society by an error prone and widly varying criminal justice systems throughout the world and using that wordly system as the foundation to all but end the death penalty, which has nearly 2000 years of Catholic biblical, theological, traditonal and rational support.

Then those teachings in EV were used to amend the Catechism.

PJPII’s foundation, defense of society, if based upon reality and history, would actually call for more executions, based upon that very same defense of society. What PJPII and now the Catechism have accomplished, is the sparing of murderers lives at the cost of sacrificing more innocents - clearly not a defense of society. Just the opposite in fact.

Mark avoids that the opening of this section is

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.”

then:

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.

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

2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

Biblically, theologically, traditionally and rationally, the death penalty is “commensurate with the gravity of the crime” of murder. There are numerous passages within the New and Old Testaments where the imposition of the death penalty, in the Words of God, Jesus, or in the context of the Holy Spirit, are mandatory, proportional and/or commensurate. In addition, the works of biblical scholars and theologians through 2010 provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings in conflict with that support.

I think however you go “beyond” what the church teaches re death penalty by over-ephasizing the point about going to every option open before applying the death penalty..and under-emphasizing that the Chruch DOES
not totally exclude the possible use of the death penalty…e.g we should make it our default position when discussing. This is the method of those who are called liberal thinkers..

You are, once again, wrong.  Like it or not, when the *Church* (not me) says, “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” she is, in fact, saying that the default position is Don’t Execute unless you can show good reason.  When she follows that up by saying, “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” she is giving her judgment that it’s going to be very hard (in the First World at least) to give a good reason to execute somebody rather than give them some other penalty.  Once again, that’s not “liberal”.  That’s just reading the Catechism for it’s obvious meaning.  It’s your friend Dudley who is declaring the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae in error.  You might want to think about why you keep giving him a pass while accusing people who simply repeat the obvious teaching of the Catechism of being liberals.

Dudley, when you quoted 2260 above I thought you saw the correct interpretation of that but I was wrong.  2260 teaches the natural human response to violence, it does not teach God’s response to violence.  If you want God’s response to violence go to what He states on the Cross—“Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Start their for a solution.

Dudley:

I avoid nothing.  I do not deny that the state has the right to inflict the death penalty under certain circumstances.  However, the fact remains that the developed teaching of the Church (which you declare to be erroneous) is that the State should only do so when absolutely necessary.  It is you who are picking and choosing (and declaring the Magisterium to be in error based on your authority as chief bottle washer of Catholic Enthused for the Death Penalty).

As Pope Bendict said, good Catholic may disagree with the Church on the matter of the death penalty.

Based upon EV and its improper amendment into the Catechism, it is quite easy to have a disagreement with the Church, based upon its error filled prudential judgement, which is based upon factual and rational errors, which also happen to conflcit with 2000 years of theology and tradition.

Of the multiple problems with the Catechism and the death penalty, I found this one to be astounding.

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him (the criminal) the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself.

The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths?

Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand. I suggest it copnflicts with everything the Churh has taught on that specific issue.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not,  find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”.

The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (1)

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.

“. . . 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.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

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.

1) 7) Luke 23:39-43 “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.” (NAB).

It is not about the method of earthly death, but the message of eternal salvation.

Care to document *precisely* what Benedict said?  I’m highly skeptical he said, “Catholics can feel free to declare a magisterial document erroneous and blow it off while scoffing at the Magisterium as ‘having no grasp of reality’.”  Documentation, please?

No Mark, our differences are much more stark than that, I believe.

I am saying that both EV and its amendments into the Catechism are, obvioulsy flawed. conflict with previous Magesterium teachings, as well as with the facts and reason, and that it is so obvious that the Church will have to revise these teachings.

Please read the first three sections, herein:

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

Adele:

Note once again that DIY bishop Dudley is flatly declaring that the Magisterium is wrong to develop the tradition as it has and he is right.  I’m eagerly awaiting your latest bulletin informing me that I am a liberal for agreeing with the actual teaching of the Magisterium.

Dudley,

I note that you ignore my request for the actual words of Benedict and simply re-assert, like Luther, “Tell them I, Dr. Dudley Sharp, will have it so!”

Duly noted. You are a reactionary dissenter who feels himself competent to declare a teaching document of the Church and the Catechism to both be in error for disagreeing with your pet enthusiasm.  It will be interesting to see if Adele can get over her tribal pieties, realize that not all dissent is liberal dissent, and that not all things which sound “liberal” to her conservative ear are at odds with the Church’s teaching.

Ronald King writes on Wednesday, Sep 1, 2010 12:51 PM (EST):

Dudley, when you quoted 2260 above I thought you saw the correct interpretation of that but I was wrong.  2260 teaches the natural human response to violence, it does not teach God’s response to violence.  If you want God’s response to violence go to what He states on the Cross—“Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Ronald:

I am not dure where you got your interpretation.

to repeat:

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.”

The passage clearly does not mean what you say it does.

Shall is a command, not an observation of man’s nature.

Man’s nature is, quite specifically, described as “God made man in his own image.” Man is made in God’s image. The teachings are clear, that the foundation of blood is based upon a man wrongly killing a man, which is the same as an attack on God, as man is made in his image, thereore the aggressor is to be killed.

I have never seen your interpretation accepted by the Church.

Not only does the Mosaic code also use the same word “shall” when imposing the death penalty for many sins/crimes, Jesus even repeats it in the New Testament Matthew 15:4

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

You may consider “must certainly” and shall different, but they are both commands in this context.

Look at the context of this text, which is a reference to a statement of God, made 4-5 times in the OT. What is the reason Jesus used it, in context?

and this:

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 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 others

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. 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


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.

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.

Mark:

I am sure I have a quote from when he becamee Pope. I will keep looking.

But, here is this, never refuted by Pope Benedict.

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.” http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004

Mark:

I did not ignore your request. I just didn’t answer it within the time frame you expected.

“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

Dudley,  Read Gen 9:4-6 and tell me what your interpretation is.  Requiring a reckoning does not mean God gives a command to take another’s life.  It means we are responsible for taking another’s life and we shall be held accountable.

And you really think that statement by Benedict means “Catholics can feel free to declare a magisterial document erroneous and blow it off while scoffing at the Magisterium as ‘having no grasp of reality’.”

I’m perfectly aware that disagreement about exactly when to apply the death penalty is not in the same moral category as advocating abortion.  It does not follow from this that Benedict is advocating the contempt for magisterial teaching that you repeatedly evince, Dudley.  “Prudential” does not mean “ignorable”, “dismissible with a wave of the hand” or “erroneous”.

Mark…Okay! I would not introduce the terms Liberal Catholic or Conservative Catholic (or tradional vs progressive) as I really and intensely dislike such labels..we all should! If we are Catholic we
should be stnding together on matters of faith and morals.. However with the confusion surrounding Vatican II ( What did they really mean?)and the redefinition of an informed conscience (by some )we Catholics by and large are buying into variations of “the Truth” and superimposing our opinions and feelings on various subjects often with grave error. The reasons for this are complex and numerous not the least is the fact we have been lax in the area of catechesis for many decades. To counter some of this a NEW Cathechism of Catholic Doctrine was written recently to try to put the teachings of the Church clearly and plainly enough for all to understand in one volume…the teachings within not being new but rather all spelled out for us in one book. Its enormous size is not due to new teachings as there really are none but rather to the huge number of references to other documents e.g. the Bible, Papal Encyclicals, etc.
Since Vatican II there has tended to be a polarization of thinking within the Church between those who are more traditional(conservative)and those
seen to be more progressive. Without going into the various characteristics of each camp…we all know basically what they are…there
tends to be (my opinion) a tendency for your writing to reflect a bias
towards the liberal rather than the conservative. I think in this article it is clear from the emphasis you give to that part of the Church teaching re the death penalty that says almost NEVER to the detriment of what the Church is teaching…it isn’t reflective of all of the matter.just what YOU want to emphasize ” The Church is not for the death penalty” as opposed to what it really says..” under most circumstances the death penalty is not always necessary but should be considered in a most rare instance and with great care” The former is the usual liberal response and the latter the conservative. We as Catholics should take it for what it is and not try to create divisions w/i the Body of Christ by “cherry picking” for purposes of our own agenda our “favorite” parts.As for the on-going argument between you and Dudley over EV I will
not comment specifically ...only to say Dudley has well documented his case ...the case for those instances where we may morally apply the death penalty. Whether he has a case for seeing error in this encyclical I know not…If we start to pick apart the Catechism I think we are treading where angels would fear to tread…and we as Catholics must not go.

Mark….going back to your original premise ( now that I understand what you meant by DIY bishops)you may be right.) I say *may* because you are pre-supposing that this is what will happen in Catholic circles (along with circuitous thinking?)when as Jack Smith reminds us that the USCCB will be announcing October as Respect Life month.  The article given in the Cathlic Key written by Bishop Robert W. Finn says it all re the death penalty and Catholic teaching…no equivocation there..no conservative nor progressive options…just the simple truth of Catholic teaching w/o
reflective agenda on anyone’s part. Truth…served up w/o doubt..Catholic Truth…plain and simple. Given this and what you have written I quess we will all just have to wait and see if what you predict about the “DYI bishops” will happen. Given the blogs here….I think you will probably be proven correct in your assumption. It has already happened ..right here ...in your article ...and the blogs that follow.  God bless one and all…and respect Truth…your life depends upon it…your eternal life!

Adele:

You begin well—“Mark…Okay! I would not introduce the terms Liberal Catholic or Conservative Catholic (or tradional vs progressive) as I really and intensely dislike such labels..we all should!”—but then revert to “there tends to be (my opinion) a tendency for your writing to reflect a bias towards the liberal rather than the conservative.”

Again. You are simply wrong.  I nowhere say “the Church is not for the death penalty.”  All I have done is state what the Church in fact teaches: that the death penalty, while not intrinsically immoral, should only be applied when absolutely necessary.  Like it or not, that’s what the Church says.  You keep trying to declare this “liberal” when it’s actually factual account of what the Church teaches.  Meanwhile, your friend Dudley keeps insisting the Church’s teaching is “erroneous” and you have not a word to say in reproof.  Why do you suppose that is?

I quess we will all just have to wait and see if what you predict about the “DYI bishops” will happen.

What’s to wait for.  Your pal Dudley has already declared, multiple times, that the Church is in error and he is right.  And you have had not one word to say against it while continually defending him and attacking me as liberal for repeating the complete teaching of the Church on the death penalty against his cherry-picked version.

Mark…I have repeately stated it is a matter of emphasis in what you
write…and in what you have not written. You EMPHASIZE the part of
Church teaching heavily about not being always in favor of the death penalty while merely mentioning that there might be an ocassion or instance permissible…saying that our default position should be always in favor of giving a break to the perpetrator(murderer)is one such emphasis. I really think your objection is with beig told your writing has a tendency to be liberal is your real beef with me. In reality we
both know what the Church says and are not in disagreement…just the emphasis you place on the part rather than the whole. As for your beef
with Dudley…not going there! I do maintain however that Dudley has presented a factual, historical and correct record of where the Church has gone in the past with this topic…which does have an influence on what the Bishops present re the death penalty. I am not defending Dudley so much as I am defending what he presents. And I do not think he has to agree with every word a Pope utters or writes…outside of matters that are infallibly presented we are not always required absolute blind obedience. This is not the same as picking and choosing what we like or agree with ...it is a matter of historical record as I see it or try to see it from Dudley’s view on what has been said. As for the EV argument I cannot comment as I still have not read it in its entirety. As I said I do not propose to take on the words of the Catechism…to refute them I have no desire…and consider that an area where even angels would fear to tread. Dudley’s on his own there…and Mark I am sorry if you perceive a disagreement with what you say as an attack…I am only expressing my opinion when I say there is often liberal bias in your writing…a thing I notice others who have blogged here have also remarked upon.

One final thought on this whole matter of the death penalty and its application according to the Catholic Church. I am not disagreeing with the Church’s teaching…I am however disagreeing with so much emphasis being place by liberals here who seem to be so very concerned with the taking of not-so-innocent life by execution. When the numbers of those executed for taking innocent life begin to mirror the millions of lives taken annually on this planet by abortion perhaps you will have some legitimacy to your argument. For those so vociferous against ANY application of the death penalty often remain (if not silent) quite complacent regarding legalized abortion. While this is not the exact thing happening here it often is the place where those opposing the death penalty split from respect for life. Not always…and I am not accusing Mark of being in this camp…I know you are not from all you’ve said. However you tread dangerously close to that position in your where you have placed your emphasis. Most liberals want certain qualifiers when discussing abortion that are not apparent when discussing the death penalty..such as a woman’s right to “choose”!

Adele,  are you saying someone is liberal being against both the death penalty and abortion?  By the way, what is your definition of liberal and conservative?

Ron…While the life issues are not the only thing that distinquishes the Liberal from the Conservative, a pro-choice stance is found far more often on the Liberal Agenda and one finds more often liberals against the death penalty than conservatives. In regards to the Catholic Church while the Church is without question pro-life in regards to abortion it is within its teaching to permit the death penalty in rare and certain circumstances as stated here. My definition? What difference does my definition make…each group has defined itself quite well…by making its position known on such topics as under discussion here. As I said earlier I think if one is Catholic in the truest sense we are talking about a person who is obedient to the Church’s teachings about Jesus the Christ with loyalty to the Pope as Head of the Roman Catholic Church and faithful to the Magesterium. It is difficult for me to follow the reasoning of someone who is pro-life(against abortin) and at the same time taking an the extreme position of being totally against the death penalty…as some have expressed here. My only explanation for such is
a sense of mis-place compassion. To be totally against the death penalty is in one way an attempt to be “holier than the church”...which is of
course impossible!

I have repeately stated it is a matter of emphasis in what you
write…and in what you have not written. You EMPHASIZE the part of
Church teaching heavily about not being always in favor of the death penalty while merely mentioning that there might be an ocassion or instance permissible…saying that our default position should be always in favor of giving a break to the perpetrator(murderer)is one such emphasis.

That could be because that’s what the article by Bp Finn, the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae all do.  It also could have something to do with the fact that when this normative teaching is articulated DIY bishops like Dudley appear and declare the Church to be in error while you applaud them for doing it.  When people deny the normative teaching of the Church, it is necessary to emphasize that part which is being denied.  It also has to do with the fact that you insist on attributing to me opinions that I do not hold.  I said nothing about “giving a break” to anybody.  I simply point out that the Church says that unless you can show good reason, then other penalties besides death should be inflicted.  You insist on labeling that “liberal” while turning a blind eye to those who declare the Church to be in error.  I place no emphasis on part over the whole.  I state the whole teaching.  Dudley declares the part he dislikes to be in error.  You defend him. 

I am not accusing Mark of being in this camp…I know you are not from all you’ve said. However you tread dangerously close to that position in your where you have placed your emphasis.

Rubbish.  I state the Church’s full teaching about the death penalty.  Full stop.  Dudley declares the Church to be in error and you support him in that.  Then you pull out a non sequitur about how I’m somehow coming close saying the DP and abortion are morally equivalent.  Bunk.

As I said earlier I think if one is Catholic in the truest sense we are talking about a person who is obedient to the Church’s teachings about Jesus the Christ with loyalty to the Pope as Head of the Roman Catholic Church and faithful to the Magesterium. It is difficult for me to follow the reasoning of someone who is pro-life(against abortin) and at the same time taking an the extreme position of being totally against the death penalty…as some have expressed here.

This makes no sense.  The Church does not *compel* us to say that the death penalty should be inflicted sometimes.  It merely says that faithful Catholics can hold this position if they like.  It is perfectly acceptable to think (as, in fact, the Catechism says), that reasons to inflict the death penalty are “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent”.  The notion that there is some weird contradiction between being prolife about abortion and holding that there is no good reason to inflict the death penalty is nonsense.  It is, in fact, perfectly consistent and is, basically, what the Catechism teaches.  What is inexplicable is how you go on labeling people who take this position as “liberal” or “extreme” instead of just “Catholic” and why you go on defending those who denounce the Church’s teaching as “erroneous” without raising the slightest doubt about their extremist dissent and contempt for the Magisterium on this point.

I’d get the log out of my eye, if I were you, before continually informing others of their sinister liberal tendencies, Adele.

Mark, I will see my opthomologist in the morning! but I have not accused anyone of “sinister liberal” tendencies. My response was to a question
asked. I also remind you that I abhor labels like this as much as you do and stated that as Catholics we should be on the same page…no liberal this or conservative that. I also remind you that YOU started the issue with this article labeling some of our brethren Cafeteria Catholics.
and diy bishops. Perhaps you would like to come to the optomologist with me to take care of that speck in your own eye?!

I have not accused anyone of “sinister liberal” tendencies.

Of course you have.  Repeatedly.  A couple of weeks ago you were declaring me so liberal that you thought I should not be allowed to write for the Register.  Last week you were credulously believing the ludicrous assertion that I was a liberal ex-priest.  And just above you declare (on the basis of nothing) that I tread “dangerously close” to liberalism because I repeat the complete teaching of the Church on the death penalty instead of declaring, like Dudley, that the Church is in error.  Your ideology is leading you to repeatedly leap to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions and assertion about me.  You should pause, reflect, and ask yourself why that is.

I think that Mark states the Church’s position, and that’s all. And backs it up with a strong reminder of God’s Mercy being a huge factor to give consideration to. Other’s have described me as being much too conservative. I have always been pro-life and a supporter of Church teaching. And, yes, for many years a strong supporter of the death penalty. However, it isn’t as straight forward as it used to be for me.

I recall when the Pope John Paul II was in St, Louis in 1999, I was present at the Mass in what was then the TWA dome. And, I recall seeing on the news later when the pope asked the governor for mercy for the prisoner. He seemed somewhat desparate, yet determined - it definitely had his focus.

What struck me as strange is what possible significance could this prisoner on death row have to Pope John Paul II? Who was also a man from another country? Didn’t the pope know the pain this man caused? What about that?

I recall the governor was more left leaning at that time, as he supported abortion and other controversial social issues. And, yet he did honor the popes wishes at a later date. As I recall, the governor died a year or two later in a tragic plane crash.

What does this all mean? No idea, but I sense God’s work is in there somewhere. And, who am I to say the pope was wrong in asking the governor for mercy? It must be me who was in error with my thinking, at least in that case. Maybe that is the message that God was delivering. That the DP is justified in some cases but should not apply to all. That this mercy thing is a little more complicated than we may think. After all, His Son was a victim. Maybe He knows that some criminals will turn to Our Lord in later years and He wants to give them more time to repent - after all, He loves them equal to us, and wants to save all of us.

I certainly understand the thinking of a life for a life since for many years I felt that same way as well. But, I now think there is much more to these situations, and that each situation is different. And, that even though our anger and thirst for justice grows with these horrible crimes, God does not give up on even murderers if there is the slightest chance that they will later repent.

adele & Mark:

adele writes: “As I said I do not propose to take on the words of the Catechism…to refute them I have no desire……and consider that an area where even angels would fear to tread. Dudley’s on his own there…”

The pope has stated that we not need agree with Church teachings on the death penalty. I strongly disagree with those teachings, which is permitted. Such teachings are not infallible and stem from a highly flawed prudential judgement that was, then, wrongly amended into the Catechism.

I noted one, simply astounding bit of flawed teaching within the Catechism, here:

Posted by Dudley Sharp on Wednesday, Sep 1, 2010 1:19 PM (EST):Of the multiple problems with the Catechism and the death penalty, I found this one to be astounding.

adele and Mark, I would think angels would tread heavily here. In is an error so bizarre and of such proportions it should leave every Catholic wondering “What is going on here?”

adele is right, Mark. You simply do what Rev. Finn does, which is interpret everthing one way, when there are at least two.

Look at the first two things placed by Finn:

Most Rev. Robert W. Finn

“The greater the misery of a soul, the greater its right to My mercy. . . . On the cross, the fountain of My mercy was opened wide by the lance for all souls—no one have I excluded!” (Diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska: Divine Mercy in My Soul, p.1182)

NO ‘SOULS’ HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. IT IS LIKELY THAT MURDERERS HAVE GREAT MISERY OF SOULS. ARE THEY EXCLUDED FROM MERCY BY EXECUTION? OF COURSE NOT, THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED, AS WE ALL ARE, SHOULD WE ACCEPT THE GIFT.

“Help us O God of our salvation; . . . according to thy great power, preserve those doomed to die!” (Psalm 79:9, 11)

WE ARE ALL DOOMED TO DIE, WE HAVE THE PROMISE OF PRESERVATION IN ETERNITY, NOT ON EARTH. SAINT DISMAS, THE GOOD THIEF ON THE CROSS, WAS EXECUTED AND PROMISED ETERNAL SALVATION.

Then Finn quotes:

“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 definitively 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 nonexistent.’”

See the “possibilities"in the first sentence. Did you notice? The possibilities, not the realities. The reality is that unjust aggressors are given numerous opportunities to harm innocents, again and such occurs every day. The reality is that we give guilty unjust aggressors mutliple opportunities to harm innocents, again and they frequently do so.

Then there is the idiocy about removing the opportunity of redemption, again.

What the Church is advancing is this: We should do everything we can, in virtually all circumstances, to allow unjust aggressors to live, no matter how many innocents must suffer. That is the reality as opposed to the possibilities of this newest, very flawed teaching.

Mark’s sarcasm comes into play, with his

“JPII was fine, but he was also one of those pointy-headed intellectuals, so his views on the death penalty can be brushed off as a mistake and I don’t have to think about it at all.”

The opposite is true. We need to realy think about what PJPII said in EV.

He is saying that 2000 years of biblical and theological teachings on the death penalty are to be subordinate to a human based defense of society that PJPII says makes the death penalty all be extinct, based upon the security of wildly varying and flawed prion systems.

Please think about it, deeply.

This is a FYI to all those who are convinced that the state has developed some “wonder system” that has all but done away with the possibilities of crime and therefore does not need to apply the death penalty to protect the innocent from further perpetration: In New York State alone the
AVERAGE mudererer serves 7 yrs of a lifetime sentence before being released back into the public sector. Oh yes there is a list for special perps who have committed sex crimes against children…but that system is imperfect also as several well publicized cases of repeated child sex offenders attest. No one is suggesting that every murderer should “swing”
but to imply that if someone differs with the Church on this matter they are somehow “less Catholic” is ridiculous. Were those who believed that the world was not flat because the Church erroneously believed it was, somehow less Catholic? I think not! The Pharisees and the Scribes were the Magisterium of their day…and we know that Jesus had a little problem with their thinking and clinging to traditions..so much that they failed to recogized their Savior in their midst. We can and are allowed to think for ourselves on all matters outside the realm of infallibility…much of what is scandalizing the Church today was the result of blind obedience to the “powers” that be…and the inability of the hierarchy to admit that in these instances they were “wrong”! Forgiveness is what we are required to give…in the same measure we are expecting forgiveness.
But there are still consequences for our acts. When the murderer was rapiing and assaulting that little girl whose body was later found mutilated in a tin shack…what mercy was shown by the murderer? to her or any other of his victims? What consideration was given for their chance to work out in time their salvation? The Truth is our salvation has been worked out and paid for at great price by Jesus our Saviour and we either accept that or we don’t. We either forgive others or we don’t. But render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. The work of the Church is to attend those on death row and aide them in working out their salvation before the hang-man’s noose
swings! I am not in the habit of disagreeing with the Church…it is usually in my book a poor thing to spend one’s time on…it is a far better thing for my soul to concentrate on the works of mercy..one of which is forgiveness…and mercy to my fellow man. However you will note in the story of the Samaritan Jesus did not waste his time nor was his point that those who passed the victim by should be spared wrath or given special treatment re their faults…his concentration was on the real victim and the man who attended to him. The real victim in today’s world would be those who passed the real victim by ...because they were perhaps afraid of being sued or even robbed themselves we should sympathize with their negligence. If you admirers of CK Chesterton want to know what he said
about capital punishment you might be a bit shocked! to learn he too would not be perfectly lined up with the Church on this matterin today’s world. Would that make him a bad Catholic…one not fully aligned with the hierarchy and therefore a Cafeteria Catholic, a diy bishop? Hmmmmm…much to ponder here…and not so easily dismissed as some would have you think here!

GK Chesterton on capital punishment:

“For my part, I would have no executions except by the mob, by the people acting quite exceptionally. I would make capital punishment impossible except by act of attainder. Then there would be some chance of a few of our oppressors being hanged. (ILN, 2/13/09)
Of course, this was said quite “tongue in cheek” but it would appear that the dear man had no qualms about how to get rid of the worst amongst us to protect the society from the ravages of their deeds. And not that part about the act of attainder…in British civil law at the time acts such as treason ( which was considered at the time as deadly as murder) were
punishable by hanging and there would be no recourse as the perp was considered stripped of his civil rights as a consequence of his actions. Because the law had “teeth” there were few that would consider betraying his country..it would cost him his life!if caught!!

My question to Adele and Dudley is, are you willing to be the executioner in these “exceptional cases”?

Gee, I don’t know, Ronald, will you quit your job and guard prisoners for life, as all other people must, who wish to end the death penalty and replace it with a life sentence?

To answer your question. Absurdly, if it were required that all people who supported any legal sanction must impose that sanction, personally, when imposed, no one would have any time to do anything else, would they?

I have no desire to be an executioner, any more than I do to be a prison guard or a plumber or a pharmacist.

Would I be willing to participate in a number of tasks that I would not normally participate in? Yes. But make it worth my while.

Is the imposition of justice worth my while? Within limitations, yes.

I understand what you are rationalizing Dudley.

Our “concern” should be for ALL souls…not just those on death row where they are awaiting the consequences of their actions…Divine Mercy is just that…mercy, unlike any other, given by the Divine to those most in need…and it is judgmental to assume who is most in need. I think we are becoming too narrow in our view of what the Church is saying about respecting life…by focusing our attention solely on the matter of DP and the perpetrator…the murderer…without sufficient consideration for the real victim(s)...those whose God given life has been taken…and focusing too much on the law(s)rather than the spirit behind why the law is there in the first place.  It is to protect the innoncent. Forgiveness and mercy are huge topics…things that are way beyond the significance of any single law…part of the whole mystery of life, this one and the one to come. God is always in charge
even in the face of our man-made laws…and it is He after all who has the final say…all of us are in need of His mercy, good Catholics, bad Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, diy bishops, non-Catholics, etc. etc. etc. and because we are all sinners…whatever our faith may happen to be.The law that supercedes all others is the law to love…however we may interpret that seems to depend on how open we are to the Lord of love and life.

As to the question would I be willing to be the executioner? No, I would unequivocally not! But I will defend the right for anyone to differ with the Church’s standing re the DP…I agree with the teaching as it is expressed in the Catechism inspite of what some here think I believe. I would also defend those rare instances where it must be applied…and not judge the person who must carry out the execution…who by the way does not act alone…there is a whole jury, judge, etc besides the executioner.
In this instance all involved believe (thought their hearts be heavy) they are carrying out the obligation that the state has to protect its citizenry…as distasteful to some as it seems, to do otherwise in the rare instance would be an example of mis-placed compassion…it would require the courage of conviction…not the cowardice of complacency.

“...cowardice of complacency.”  Adele, you judge very quickly and harshly.

No one is suggesting that every murderer should “swing”
but to imply that if someone differs with the Church on this matter they are somehow “less Catholic” is ridiculous.

I have implied no such thing.  I have stated the simple fact that the Church says that the death penalty should only be used as a last resort.  If our law enforcement policy or technology is insufficient to keep a murderer from murdering again, the obvious solution is to change the policy or technology.  If that’s not possible (a dubious assertion in a country able to put a man on the moon), then the DP may be legitimately applied.  However, your strange urgency about treating the DP as something to preserved at all costs does not really suggest that you are terribly committed to the idea of treating it as a last resort, does it?

If you admirers of CK Chesterton want to know what he said
about capital punishment you might be a bit shocked! to learn he too would not be perfectly lined up with the Church on this matterin today’s world. Would that make him a bad Catholic?

No. It would make him a Catholic living before the developments of Evangelium Vitae, just as Thomas’ rejection of the Immaculate Conception makes him a Catholic living before the promulgation of the dogma in 1854.  I think Chesterton would be just as horrified as Thomas at being used as a stick to beat the Magisterium.

But I will defend the right for anyone to differ with the Church’s standing re the DP

This much is obvious.  And you don’t mean “disagree about prudential judgements of when to apply it” but “Declare the Church to be in error to want to limit it as much as possible.”  It’s pretty clear what you are defending here, Adele.  And yet you still have the temerity to declare that those who basically hold to the Church’s teaching are “liberals”.

Not all dissent is Progressive Dissent, is it, adele?

I do not understand Mark’s animus against the political/religious right.  Though he does correctly criticize both left and right, I have been keeping track of the use of pejoratives.  by a a long shot, the most venom is against the right. 

This is something that seems strong in Catholic tradition, however.  Most Catholics WANT to be Democrats and heap on scorn for *anything* perceived as Republican—in this case the death penalty.  This despite the voting records of both Democrats and Republicans.

I’m not saying that Mark should put equal time on criticism of left and right, but instead he should look at his use of pejoratives as demonstrating weak arguments and give him the opportunity for revision and to strengthen them.

My animus is against dissent from clear and obvious Church teaching.  I’m not seeing a lot of advocacy for abortion here, Scott.  If there were, I’d be arguing against it strenuously.  But in *these* comboxes, what you are likely to find is people who wish to subjugate the teaching of the Church to a reactionary rather than progressive species of dissent.  Mystery solved.

I am not dissenting from Church teaching ...quite the opposite. I have made that quite clear in all I have written. To keep insisting that I am defending Didley’s position in re to EV…is distortion. I am defending his right to state the case…he is as far as I can ascertain ( and again I made it clear I cannot respond to his claims re EV as not having read in entirety)entitled to that…I have not judged him right or wrong. If THAT makes me a diy bishop or Cafeteria Catholic in your mind
I will not be losing any sleep. No Catholic I know wants to be a Democrat
as that would be akin to wishing to belong to the party of death…I think some of the issues people are having here is because they are mixing their politics and their faith in a very un-tenable way. But then that is the way the whole article has been set up…I rest my case ...repeating once more that I accept the Bishop’s teaching on the death penalty..I just stated that one should be careful about using it to emphasize their
own political bias. And my own opinion that while it is heartening to
think we can eliminate it altogether.in reality UNTIL we can guarantee that the worst felons will not walk free EVER it is a necessary “evil”..in our arsenal. We are not to the place yet where that
guarantee can be given! What part of the phrase rare and unusual do you not understand Mark…it is part/parcel of the teaching..and I have repeated as it was written…even to the point it should become totally
un-necessary…that is the “sticky wicket” where the door is still being left open for the rare usuage ...but we are not there yet. The verbiage used in the teaching allows as much. End of this circuitous discussion for me!

I am defending his right to state the case…he is as far as I can ascertain ( and again I made it clear I cannot respond to his claims re EV as not having read in entirety)entitled to that…I have not judged him right or wrong.

Right.  Dudley repeatedly declares both Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism to be erroneous and the Magisterium to be out of touch with reality and you back him up.  I criticize apostate Catholic Mormon Glenn Beck for being demonstrably and documentably wrong about matters of historical fact and you label me a liberal while declaring I should not be allowed to publish in a Catholic magazine.

Yes, I totally believe you are not driven by ideology and simply want a free and open discussion of prudential matters.

Mark:

As you know, any Catholic is free to disagree with the Chuch on the issue of the death penalty.

My disagreements find EV and its amendments into the Catechism to be astounding in their errors, some few of which I have detailed and which you have not countered.

You are free to agree with everything stated in EV and in the newest Catechism, from 2258-2267, regardless of the degree of error, therein.

However, I think it improper not to disclose errors in Church teaching when they are prudential judgements, not infallible and when the Church tells us that we may disagree with her on that specific topic.

Mark writes:

Adele:

Actually, the real position of the Church is that your default position be “NO!” (to the death penalty) unless you can come up with a *really* good reason for “Yes.” 

Precisely. Mark.

EV and the revised Catechism reversed the reality regarding the defense of society, the state of the worldwide criminal justice system and what it means that “preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

UNABLE.

That is an important part of coming up with that really good reason to say yes to the death penalty, just as you prescribed.

Mark…What? You are keeping a dossier on my comments? I haven’t the time for such and I have no such record to refute the past…however one of
your comments really reguires a response…“Last week you were credulously
believing the ludicrous assertion that I was a liberal ex-priest”. That is totally unfair and untrue…you were writing a tongue-in-cheek article about a blogger who thought you had a tv show, etc. and all the bloggers were following your lead (including myself)in the jest. You know that to be true and once again, you choose for your own reasons, to misrepresent intentionally what I said. Not fair!
As for Chesterton and St. Thomas, what you offer is complete revisionist history..a favorite “trick” of all liberals. Truth as it is taught in the church is eternal…what Thomas believed et al was the same thing we have always believed about the Immaculate Conception…it didn’t just happen to become Dogma overnight. It had always been believed and taught…as with all Dogma…making it a dogma was a matter of formulizing what was always true and believed by the Church. This is what the Church teaches about Dogma…look it up…the Dogma comes about in a time in history when the truth is being challenged ..and thus the Church defines the Truth so that all may know where the Church stands who might be in doubt.
You and I can only make conjecture about how Chesterton might feel today
given the current circumstances..but we can ascertain from what he did say that he would allow for the same exemption the church holds forth today. I suppose any true believer would/could be called an ideologue..
so thank you for the compliment ..though I know you did not mean it to be such…it’s good company to be in!! I still think you would fit in better with your liberal views at the “Reporter” not the “Register” where we are more likely to find the teachings of the Church un-revised and edited by personal opinion.  Just how I see it Mark, on offense intended!

Adele:

My mistake.  I took you for having believed the assertion of my silly correspondent.

As to my main point: No.  No dossier.  Just a functional memory.  When you bawl that a critic of Glenn Beck is unfit for write as a Catholic while staunchly defending somebody who declares the Church to be in error on a matter of faith and morals, I’m afraid it’s not very convincing to me that you aren’t motivated by a preference for ideological over dispassionate consideration of the Church’s teaching.  Especially when you go from saying (yesterday) “I have not accused anyone of “sinister liberal” tendencies” to saying (today), “I still think you would fit in better with your liberal views at the “Reporter” not the “Register” where we are more likely to find the teachings of the Church un-revised and edited by personal opinion.”

Soooo…. quoting the whole teaching of the Church on the death penalty is liberal and revisionist, but declaring the Church and the Catechism to be erroneous (based purely on Dudley’ personal opinion) is not.

Interesting how ideology can blind.

Glad to see you’re not labelin

There you go again Mark. To call one’s views liberal is not “labelin” anymore that to call someone Presbyterian. It is also a far cry from calling someone a sinister liberal..which by the way, I also did not.
I am being again mis-represented when you repeatedly accuse me of
defending Dudley on his views of EV and the Catechism when I am merely defending his right to speak out..afterall isn’t that what you do…speak out? I don’t have an opinion on whether he is correct or not as again I have not read the EV in its entirety. In short Mark you are seeing only what you want to believe. I think re Glenn Beck you crossed the line from being a commentator on the Catholic Church scene to being a political observer and inferring since Glenn Beck left the Church and is now a member of the Morman Church that he is no longer “qualified” to be believed about anything he might say. I don’t “follow” Glenn Beck to
learn about the CC…and I certainly do not “bawl” as you so sweetly
said. You know let’s just drop the personal vendetta and get back to discussing IDEAS! This must be a bore to the rest of your readers! It’s
enough to send them all over to the “Reporter”...but then maybe that’s your intention! Good luck! with your “poll”!

adele:

We’re done here.

Let he who is without sin be the one to condemn anyone to death.  Everyone else should keep thier peace.

Kathleen:

Please review:

John 8 and the death penalty: The Woman Caught in Adultery
Compiled by Dudley Sharp

1) Anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean, often inaccurate, get this right: “It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) – the Mosaic Law prescribed death – should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to how Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.

2) What about the woman caught in adultery? From “Why I Support Capital Punishment”, by Andrew Tallman, sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review   See Part 11
http://andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-i-support-capital-punishment-part_07.html

“the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, two thousand years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as.”

3) Sanctity of Life & the Death Penalty: Flip sides of the same “Divine” coin
Author: Richard Eric Gunby, Quodlibet Journal: Volume 5 Number 2-3, July 2003
ISSN: 1526-6575 John 8:2-11 (NRSV)

“Therefore their motives (to entrap Jesus) were nothing but evil. They were not seeking to follow God’s Law-Word in godly fashion; rather, they were attempting to employ surreptitiously what Moses said, towards their own evil ends of trying to trip Jesus up. What a foul thing.”

“This cannot be read as an example of Jesus doing away with the law. Far from it! This is an example of Jesus, again, going by the clear unencumbered dictates of the law and not allowing it to be used towards evil ends in His presence. It is Jesus together with the Law triumphant over His enemies and their tradition. This is clearly an upholding of the law.”

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/gunby-sanctity.shtml
as of 4/24/10

4) John 8: The Woman Caught in Adultery – Dealing with Capital Offenses Lawfully
http://reocities.com/CapitolHill/lobby/3562/adultry.html

5) Excellent review of the challenges to the authenticity of John 8
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/spurious.htm
as of 8/6/10

Start here:  • John 7:53 - 8.11: The “woman taken in adultery” story:  Metzger’s statement.  Just before page 105 and through page 201

more

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm

Mark writes:

“. . . quoting the whole teaching of the Church on the death penalty is liberal and revisionist, but declaring the Church and the Catechism to be erroneous (based purely on Dudley’ personal opinion) is not.”

I used quite a few established Magesterial teachings on the death penalty, as well as many scholars that the Church also currently, as well as historically, uses within the newest Catechism, as well as fact, reason and opinion to defend my positions. all of which are particulalry valid in that we may have adifference of opinion with the Church on this topic.

You have yet to address my various criticisms, in detail. It is only in the details that the discussion matters.

Yes.  You used a lot of documents—in an effort to show that the Pope was wrong to develop the Church’s teaching as he has.  It’s exactly like appealing to St. Thomas to show that the Pius IX can’t declare Mary Immaculately conceived.

Guess what?  He can and did anyway.  You just don’t like it.  It’s an argument based purely on your choice to anoint yourself a DIY bishop.

As to Jesus and the woman taken in adultery:

Fact 1: Adultery was a capital crime in Jesus’ day.
Fact 2: She was guilty—taken in the very act.

Fact 3: Jesus opted to have mercy on her, despite her guilt.

In short, the Tradition, right at the start, recognizes that just because you *can* kill a capital offender, you don’t *have* to.

The fact that they were trying to trap him is not germane.  The fact that Jesus had mercy on a capital offender is.

You are defending a maximilist approach to the DP: Kill as many people as humanly possible within the law.  The Church is saying “Spare as many people as possible within the law.”

I prefer to listen to pro-mercy rather than pro-death teachers.  Especially since the pro-mercy ones are, you know, actually authorized by Jesus to articulate and develop the tradition while you are just Some Guy with a Keyboard.

Oh Mark you are missing the point.  Jesus Christ himself was tried, convicted and condemned to death by the legitimate legal authority at the time. His death really closed death penalty debate. Let he who has ears hear, let he who has eyes see!  How can you be against abortion and not be against the death penalty?

Mark, what is a DIY bishop?  I am not going to read this whole long bolg.

Yes, Mark, I am like you - a guy with a keyboard.

The similarities end there. I address the issue with facts and defend with the same.

The Pope did make numerous errors, which I addressed and you failed to rebut. Same with the Catechism.

You avoid the main issue in John 8, which is that of Jesus’ enemies attempting to entrap him, by attempting to get Jesus to deny the teachings of His Father and by getting Jesus to break Roman law. Jesus turned it back around on them and they retreated, after a sound biblical and rational beating from Jesus.

No one has ever stated or implied in these exchanges that capital offenders must always be executed.

You have a habit of making a point, as if it somehow has relevance to the discussion, when the point has never even been raised. You have been rebuked on that dishonest debate tactic more than once on this board.

Don’t any of you self-righteous death penalty opponents ever read the Bible?  As he was hanging on the cross Jesus promised Paradise to the felon who confessed the justice of the death penalty (cf. Luke 23: 39-43.)

Don, the theif said “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  Then Jesus said “Amen, I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”  Now when the theif stated earlier that they had been condemned justly he was thinking in the ways of the world.  When he made the above statement he wasn’t thinking in the ways of the world.
Which way do you want to think?

Um, no.  Jesus promies paradise to the one who placed his faith in Him.  However, it is interesting to know that you think crucifixion is a just form of capital punishment and that you think believing this is grounds for salvation.  The mystery is why you are keeping this insight in a combox and not informing the bishops of the Church that we need to get back to crucifying people as a legitimate form of Justice *and* as the key to redemption.  Get back to me on how that goes.

All the arguing means nothing.  Personal opinions mean nothing.
The following quote from Father John Corapi says it all.

” The Catechism presents the unchangeable Truth in a way that is up-to-date and relevant to precisely this age in history, remembering that the essential contents of what is presented transcends all times and all cultures, hence being limited to none and helpful to all; it being understood that the Catechism will be adapted to the languages and cultures of today through local catechisms.  What is presented by the CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH is nothing less than Jesus Christ. He alone is both the Teacher and the Object of catechesis.
This being the case, the words of the author of the Letter to the Hebrews prove helpful, “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever, therefore do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching” (Heb. 13:8-9). 

In a world that often fails to discern the difference between what can change and what cannot, it is good to know that what we believe and are called to live in its essence has not and cannot change.
The Truth is a Rock, and we built our house upon that Rock who is essentially Jesus Christ, the chief Cornerstone upon which the Church is built the Truth himself.
The CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH articulates what Catholics believe and are called to live and celebrate.
With our house built solidly on this Rock of Truth we can say, let the rains of confusion come, let the storms of time and culture lash against our house, we shall not be swept away, for we have built our house upon solid Rock, not upon the shifting sands of mere personal opinions nor ideas that come and go with the passing of ages.” - Fr. John Corapi.  (An excerpt from his “Ever Ancient, Ever New”.

Anne:

You and Corapi need to take this into account. Sadly, Shea did not.

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.” http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004

“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.

There have been many beautiful examples of the convicted only calling for a priest when they walked up the stairs of the gallows and receiving forgiveness.  Opportunities like that are rare when someone is sentenced to life imprisonment with the concomitant years of sodomy only to be killed without warning by a fellow inmate in the middle of the night.

Many people turn to God after crippling auto accidents, so let’s not worry too much about auto design or fixing faulty brakes.  Many who have lived sinful lives find themselves facing serious illness.  Let’s let them die for their abuse of their bodies, because it could lead to a beautiful repentance.

“Let’s kill people to encourage more beautiful repentances” is just about the sickest piety I can think of.  What’s *wrong* with you?

Given the ratio of death penalties to murders, I’d say it is already pretty rare if not practically non existent.  My defense of capital punishment is more academic than practical.  Personally, I’d like to see it go away because it’s such a useful distraction.  People who are truly anti-life will use it to prove some inconsistency on the part of the poorly catechized and the hierarchy spend too much time publicly wringing their hands over this while ignoring bigger problems that are growing on their watches.

And its application has been racist in our own day but not in the way you might suspect.  It has been proven that if you are white, and particularly not poor, you have a better chance of being caught if you murder.  If caught, you have a higher chance of getting convicted (in spite of having access to more expensive legal expertise).  And, if convicted, you have a higher chance of being sentenced to death.  The disparity we see on initial observation is accounted for, entirely, by the vastly larger numbers of murders committed by poor people of color versus the general population.  The sad thing is that poor people of color kill each other with impunity and too few people care.

In abandoning the death penalty though we will see more innocents punished because those sent away for life are forgotten about whereas those on death row, no matter how guilty, have lawyers and activists scrambling to get them off.

Mark, I think Amadan meant that it in a truly merciful manner, not the cynical one which you were expressing and, which, based upon your comments, you appear to have misunderstood.

Amadan was expressing a view in expiation, repentance and eternal forgiveness.

Something for which there is much thoughtful support.

Mark’s response: “Let’s kill people to encourage more beautiful repentances” is just about the sickest piety I can think of.  What’s *wrong* with you?

I think such a killing did occur once, did it not?

I also think that both Saints Augustine and Aquinas spoke of the same thing that Amadan was truly referencing, did they not?

Mark, I think we can all appreciate the cynical nature of your response, just as we can also understand the thoughtful intent of Amadan’s comments, in the context of expiation and repentance.

Mark:

Amadan’s quote is nearly the same thing said by the Croatian Cardinal Seper who headed the CDF prior to Cardinal Ratzinger.  It was during the height of the death penalty debate and he was speaking about the beautiful image he had seen in many, many American films that dealt with capital punishment in a way very different from how it is portrayed in post-Christian Europe.  Though fictional, these images conveyed a profound truth and showed how those who favored CP were often the most compassionate.

As Christ said from the Cross, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”  Inflicting the death penalty still means you do not know what you are doing no matter how much you intellectualize or rationalize your belief.

Ronald King:

It is my belief that Christ was referring to the fact that many didn’t realize they were executed theperfect, sinless Son of God.

Tell me which of the following you believe do not understand what executing a guilty criminal means.

God: ‘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.

Okay,by now we see that the Church’s position is:
(1) always NO except:
(2) in those rare instances when it IS warranted…which is ALMOST never.
My question to anyone who feels qualified to answer:
Specifically what are those rare instances? And who gets to
decide them? Do we call the Pope up each time to get permission? How practical is this really when attempting to satisfy the State’s responsibility to protect the citizenry ...when life imprisonment does not quarantee…given the numerous times “lifers” have been turned out by activist judges, etc…and murders given 25 yrs to life ( the most common sentence for a life taken) are out in seven years or less. It would seem like eliminating the life sentence should only be done if and when a life sentence meant a life sentence…no exceptions! We are not there yet so it seems in spite of John Paul II’s intentions to eliminate the need for the DP the necessity in some cases remains. Thus the “wiggle room” left to make a debate like this one possible…and not totally non-negotiable. I would think a Catholic who makes this claim could still remain one in good standing…at least not be made mincemeat in the Shea’s meat grinder.

Shamrock:

All of this has already been covered, but to repeat some:

First, as detailed above, any good Catholic is free to have a difference of opinion with the Church on the death penalty.

Secondly, PJPII used the worldly guide of defense of society based upon the state of the worldwide prion system to negate 2000 years of bibblical, theological, traditonal, rational and historical Church teachings on the death penalty.

Thirdly, PJPII was very much in error, factually, when stating that such circumstances, to impose the death penalty, were rare. In reality, a defense of society foundation calls for more implementation of the death penalty, not less.

Please review:

“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

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.

 
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.

Mia:

1) The times that the Pope speaks ex cathedra is very rare. This is not one of those times.

2) As reviewed, above, the Church allows diversity of opinion on the death penalty. A diversity includes disagremment.

3) It is pretty easy to find the Pope’s errors, particulalry when his foundation is an earthly defense of society based upon a wordly prison system, whereby innocents are constantly put at risk. The Pope’s finding is that we should nearly always spare murderers -  which provides that more innocent will be sacrificed.

Read the first 3 of these:

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

Mia and Dudley…thanks for your imput…but neither of you have given me an answer to my question: Under what circumstances would the Magisterium, Pope, allow for that rare instance of execution that he provides for in EV? I agree it is to be rare…but who decides when that would be? Would it involve the Magisterium deciding? Mia I don’t see what Sharia law has to do with this discussion…we assume we are speaking from the Christian point of view in which instance Sharia law is prohibited…Dudley’s educational status has nothing to do with whether he follows Church dogma and the DP has not the status of Church dogma…belief in the Dogma of the Church is the mark of all Catholics…but not the topic here. Let’stay on topic…things are difficult enough without throwing unrelated issues into the mix!Such as where either of you received your degrees ...not the issue and no one really cares about that…some of the holiest have no degrees ...some were even illiterate! Stay on topic please.

Since PJPII’s evaluation is based upon prison systems and prison systems are constantly putting more innocents at risk by subjecting all of us to brutal criminals, we should conclude, based upon an accurate review, that the implementation of the death penalty should be much more common and universal.

However, PJPII’s evaluation and that of CCC concluded that implementation of the death penalty should be practically non existant because they wrongly found that we had nearly perfect incarceration procedures for violent offenders.

It would benefit the Church and innocent victims if

1) the Church would reevaluate this entire subject, based upon the reality of criminal justice systems and violent offenders,

and

2) more importantly,basing their decisions upon the weight of 2000 years of biblical, theoological , traditonal, historical and rational teachings on the topic, as opposed to “defense of socisty” and prison security.

and

3) The Church would prefer that the decisions would be made by secular and religious bodies, taking into consideration the teachings of the Church.

Mia…I give up….do the words of Jesus resonate AT ALL with you? Such as Love thy enemies? Since you see me, Dudley and afew more here apparently as your enemies might you not stop hyperventilating at least long enough to curb your anxieties ...I will try to help at least to set your mind at ease about my religious beliefs…I am a cradle Catholic in good standing with my pastor who is a very conservative and holy priest..not in dissent, etc. Why would you try to cast me (or Dudley for that matter) as probable muslims…as if that would make us less in need for you to treat us respectfully. I love the memory that I have of JPII and believe along with you that he rests with the saints…and I have
read many, not all, of his writings…especially love any and all his
writings on our Blessed Mother. I would defend his reputation to the death ..yes, but that does not mean one cannot disagree on Church matters that WE ARE NOT REQUIRED AS CATHOLICS to automatically accept. Dudley is a “little out there” with his theory as plausible as it may appear to him.
I think this is the wrong place for him to challenge the catechism…he
really needs to talk one on one with his pastor…perhaps he has..dunno.But our Lord himself asked us to love those who oppose us…it
profits us nothing to love those who love us. This particular blog and others also written by Mark Shea tend to be incendiary…to stir things up and when the expected responses occur he insults with sarcasm and allienates all who would disagree with him ...about matters that he is not always “expert” on or has little to offer in defense of his position except mockery and derision..hardly the stuff of love and mercy. It is so noticeable here…where he is pleading the elimination of the death penalty based upon love of all life and mercy to one and all..something he demonstrates is difficult to give to those who disagree with him. All that smacks of is false pride and arrogance. When asked to show a little more compassion in this regard to all who blog here he just chalks it up to his being Irish! Well, I am Irish too and lack of control has never been something to admire or boast about..even with the Irish! Therefore I am going to stop not only reading him ...but not renew my subscriptions to the National Catholic Register until they stop featuring this writer who I feel does more to allienate than evangelize. Now I have said my
piece…please try to take what I have said in light of my innate but imperfect desire to do good. Pax vobiscum Mia!

“The striking development in Evangelium Vitae was on capital punishment. The Church’s tradition, based on the Bible, had defended capital punishment not only in terms of societal self-defense but as just retribution for an evil done and as a deterrent against future crime. The Catechism of the Catholic Church had reviewed this classic reasoning while seeming to narrow the scope of the death penalty’s justification to societal self-defense: if nonleathal means were available to protect society from an aggressor, they ought to be used. Now, John Paul narrowed the criterion of social self-defense in cases of “absolute necessity”, even further, suggesting that “today…as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”  The Catechism was subsequently revised in its definitive Latin edition to cohere with the encyclical’s teaching, which seemed to reflect Karol Wojtyla’s experience of, and loathing for, the state’s power of execution. It was an issue on which the Pope had strong personal feelings, but it had not matured to the point where the consensus that had been cited in Evangelium Vitae’s teaching on abortion and euthanasia could be invoked. The encyclical’s silence about the traditional arguments from retributive justice and deterrence seemed likely to fuel further debate on the issue.”
Weigel, G. (1999). Witness to hope: The biography of Pope John Paul II. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. (p. 758)

Mia ...you disappoint…not exactly the reaction I would hope from a woman who claims to be a Catholic…where is your Christian charity..you are sorry to hear I am not a Muslim? And why would you be wishing I was not a follower of Christ? Again, very strange tidings from one who claims to be so devoted to John Paul II, who traveled in pain all the way to Turkey prisons to forgive his would-be assassin.In spite of what appear to you as my short-comings he would advise you, like Jesus, to love your enemies and pray and fast for them….how about it Mia? Sounds more like
your “devotion” is to the Man…than to the Lord! I pray you know Christ more fully….and approach your fellow man, especially our Muslim brothers and sisters with more charity….and less vitriole. Pax,Mia!

Dudley…checked out your quote of George Weigel’s in his biograhpy
of JPII. It checks out to the page and referencegiven..but I think in “lifting” it out of its context you imply Weigel is having the same kind of doubts you express. I find this not to be so..in fact the title of this section on EV is entitled New Things to Say….that the writing of this encyclical came after four years of research in which the Pope wrote to every bishop IN THE WORLD asking for rheir suggestions. He also got counsel from bishops “with long public experience” in life issues.
After 16 years of pontificating on the inviolability of life it was thought that nothing really new could be said. In fact Ev “broke new
ground in historical analysis, doctrine, moral teaching,and the practical application of moral norms to the comlexities of democratic politics.”

Dudley…While your George Wiegel quote checks out ...by lifting it out of context you make it appear Weigel too expresses similar doubts about the case you present against EV. If you read this quote in its entirely you will find that is just not so. Weigel details the four years of research that occured prior to the writing of this encyclical wherein he states the Pope wrote EVERY SINGLE BISHOP IN THE WORLD for their input and suggestions for the document. This refutes your statement that this was the sole work and doing of the Pope. Not true. He considered more than four years of consultative work. It was the conclusion of all this work that democracies risked self-destruction if moral wrongs were legally defended as rights. Putting George Weigel on your list of references does not work as ultimately he defends EV by footnoting
Lumen Gentium 25 in which the Second Vatican Council confirmed the infallibity of the “ordinary, universal Magisterium” of the world’s bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Sorry but you are definitely out of bounds here.

Shamrock:

The quote stands, because PJPII made the obvious errors identified, above.

“The encyclical’s silence about the traditional arguments from retributive justice and deterrence seemed likely to fuel further debate on the issue.”

It has, particulary in the context of using a defense of society foundation, relying on worlwide prison systems, and having that standard dominate over 2000 years of Catholic teaching which relies on biblical, theological and traditional foundations.

Yes, PJPII used worldly evaluations and reversed the reality of them, again, as reviewed, above.

<<<Posted by Dudley Sharp on Wednesday, Sep 1, 2010 9:47 AM (EST):I think it important the latest Catechism states:

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.”

“I think it is canon law 751 which lays down the criteria for being Catholic.  Do you fit this criteria???  Secondly are you and adult?
You post things the way protestant would. Or an annoying child would.
I egarly await your response to my questions.

Dudley…continue to read and you will find Weigel extolling the reception of EV by nearly all…except afew including Hans Kung ( a
subject for another day)All I am saying here is that you and George
Wiegel are not on the same page re this matter. That quote
you cite indicates that the Pope fully expected there to be further
discussion on the matter given its enormity. Overall as stated Weigel ends this discussion on a very favorable note re EV…and no where does he suggest that the Catechism is in error currently. That’s all! Have you ever discussed this with your pastor or perhaps your Bishop? I think you have exhausted your argument here. Pax!

Cannot someone disagree with a modicum of charity….or must you all folow your guru, THE MAN in his nastiness. I think the lack of charity here speaks volumes concerning the so-called Catholic readership of Mark Shea’s diatribes! What is happening at the Catholic Register…it is sounding more like the REPORTER everyday. For shame!

Dudley you have not answered my questions!!!

When the Bishops put out a letter, they should just quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” for ease of reading and understanding !
The CCC is what we, Catholics, are all REQUIRED to adhere to - and that includes Priests, Bishops and Cardinals.
There are no errors in the CCC.
Cardinal John O’Connor said: “the Catholic Church is not a salad bar, you can not pick and choose what you want to believe.
Here is an exact quote - - - - -
“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.”

Sorry Dudley.  We all must adhere to everything in the CCC.  It is the authentic reference text and a sure norm for teaching on Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church.  The Imprimi Potest was by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  Pope John Paul II had to correct the US English version because some persons messed with the translation into English changing meanings which were wrong.  Mother Angelica of EWTN was involved in getting things corrected, and this is mentioned in her autobiography.  The first printing of the correct CCC was March 2000 in the USA.
The following quote is from the USCCB site under “FAQs”.
- - - - “17. Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?
By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined.
Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church.
It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center.
A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings.
- - - - 19. Does this mean that the Catechism can be disregarded?
No. The Catechism is part of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it.
Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a “sure norm for teaching the faith” and “a sure and authentic reference text.”
He asked “the Church’s pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life.”

Thank you Edward:

I use the Catechism copyrighted Nov 2003, which I have noted as amended as late as 2005.

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

I am aware that there was an amendment to the section and read both the errored one, as well as the current version.

It should be noted that it was much more than a translation error which was fixed and that is was conceded that an error was allowed into the CCC.

I find that error still exists and that it will also be amended at some time.

All have conceded that error can and does come into the CCC.

Edward, you quote: 2267 “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.”

I only repeat the last sentence because it is so disturbing in its rational, biblical and theological inaccuracy.

Rationally, only executions can possibly render an offender “incapable of doing harm.” Both historically, in examination of prison systems, as well as rationally, this is established truth. All one have to do is look at the media reports, every day.

Much more distubing, is this: “without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.”

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not,  find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (7)

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.

“. . . 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.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

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.

7) Luke 23:39-43 “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.” (NAB).

Edward quotes: 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.”

This passage could hardly be more misleading.

The traditional teachings of the Church neither exclude recourse to the death penalty nor so restrict it as to make it, virtually, useless, as 2267 imagines. Much more often, biblical instruction and tradition insist on the death penalty being imposed, describes those many sins/crimes for which it shall be imposed and, otherwise, reviews the legitimacy of the death penalty. 

The works of biblical scholars and theologians through today (2010) provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings in conflict with that support. This is reinforced with both the word and deeds of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit in the New Testament (see Reference 2, paragraphs 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and reference 5, below).

The extraordinary limitations on the death penalty, imposed by the imaginings of 2267, conflict with reason, reality and established Church teachings.

There is an obvious conflict between:

(a) the ill conceived 2267 “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” and

(b) 2267 rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM” and 2265 the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM”, which is in concert with 2260 “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man SHALL his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”, all of which contradict (a). My CAPS for emphasis.

The contention that the new limitation in (a) above is a product of evolving doctrine is in error. It is, instead, a doctrinal disaster which conflicts with well known teachings, as well as having contradictiond eithin 2267, itself. . (review all of Reference 2, starting with 1-4, therein and see also 5, below).

Such obvious conflicts shouldn’t exist within the Catechism and show how poorly considered and constructed this subject was.

References:

2) Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

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

Edward, you and I are using differnt versions of the Catechism.

I am using:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.  “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“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.]

As I linked, copyrighted Nov 2003

Your version is different, dated 2000, as you stated.

Can you clarify?

Dudley,  Your interpretation of God’s Word is much different than mine and your interpretation appears to be influenced by the problem-solving style of the world based on violence to control violence.  That is all more of the same which has produced the sociapaths that inhabit our culture of death which we participate in everyday.
Peace to you Dudley.
I am in agreement with you though about disagreeing with the catechism.  There are 5 dogmatic truths which we must believe in order to be Catholic and the rest is up for discussion.

Edward:

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.

Ronald:

You reverse the reality, here.

It is PJPII and the CCC which are using worldly and historically changing standards - the current state of the prison system -  which are not only factually in error, but, more importanlty, also conflict with eternal teachings of the Church, as reviewed with Edward, above and more so in previous posts in this series.

Please be specific and address those issues.

Execution is an act of the culture of death.  It is a problem-solving style of the world.  How is God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven if execution is retained.

Ronald:

The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when innocent life is taken aware by murder, 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

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 contradiction.

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

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

Ronald:

We have a pretty solid differnce of opinion.

I do not think the following are part of a culture of death. But, you appear to.

God: ‘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.

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

It would seem Dudley you have proven “your case”. Especially impressive is the quote from the late Pope Pius XII! as well as the numerous other
quotations affirming you original point!

From yesterdays Daily Gospel: Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 6:27-38.

“But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you.”

Nowhere does Jesus suggest that we are to do violence to protect even the innocent. By the way, Aquinas also support the death penalty for heretics - sharia anyone?

Commentary of the day :

Saint Isaac the Syrian (7th Century), monk near Mosul
Ascetical discourses, 1st series, no. 81 (DDB 1981, p. 395)

“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful”

    Make no attempt to draw distinctions between the worthy and the unworthy. In your eyes let all be equal, to love and serve. In this way you can lead all to what is good. Didn’t our Lord sit at table with publicans and prostitutes without rejecting those who were unworthy? Even so should you grant the same blessings and honors to unbelievers and murderers in that they, too, are your brothers since they share in the one, human nature. Here, my son, is the commandment I give you: that mercy should always weigh down your scales until you come to feel within yourself the mercy that God feels towards the world.

      How can we tell when our heart has attained purity? When we regard all others as good without anyone seeming to us to be impure and defiled. Then, in truth, are we pure of heart (Mt 5,8)...

What is this purity? In brief, it is to have a heart of mercy towards the whole world. And what is mercifulness of heart? It is the fire that enflames it for all creation, men, birds, beasts, demons, for all created things. Whenever he thinks about them or considers them, a man feels his eyes fill with tears out of a deep, an intense pity constricting his heart and making him unable to bear, hear or see the least harm or affliction endured by any creature. That is why prayer accompanied by tears reaches out at all times just as much over beings without speech as over enemies of the truth or those who harm him, to keep them and purify them. An immense and limitless compassion is born in the heart after the image of God.

“The ruler does not carry the sword in vain; he is God’s servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4)
And on the cross Jesus promised Paradise to the felon who confessed the justice of the death penalty, not the one who prayed “Save yourself, and us!” (see Luke 23:39-43)
Why don’t any of you self-righteous death penalty opponents ever read the Bible?

Don - I am sorry if my quoting of the Gospel and early Church father came off as self-righteous. I think of mercy as just the opposite. You ask why death penalty opponents don’t ever read the Bible. Obviously, we do and often have reference to it. The more interesting question is why death penalty so seldom quote Jesus to support their position. His words to the repentant felon in no way suggest that the other felon was to be excluded from paradise. I hope it is not self-righteous to suggest that when we have the mind of Christ (1Cor 2:16) and see others through His eyes, no one will appear to us only as a “heinous murderer”. All the legalistic arguments become personal when we try to look at everyone through the Lord’s eyes. He promised that we could do this if we put our own fears aside -  for He did not leave us a Spirit of fear (Rom 8:15).

Don, why do you call someone self-righteous for opposing the death penalty?  Everything that Dudley quoted above to support the death penalty can be interpreted as God describing what naturally occurs in a sinful and hateful heart of a human being.
Dee Pierson thank you for your insightful comments.

I call people who insist that the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church oppose the death penalty, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI say otherwise, “self-righteous” because “holier-than-thou” takes longer to type.

...And if “the mind of Christ” opposes the death penalty how do you explain away Luke 23:38-43?  Or Romans 13:4?

Don, in Luke the theif is speaking and Paul is writing in Romans 13 and talking about the “wrath” of God.  Look at everything Jesus states in the beatitudes.  I will attempt to follow His words rather than another’s.

Don, are you being mean or angry calling someone self-righteous?

Don:

And if “the mind of Christ” opposes slavery how do you explain away Colossians 3:22 (Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything) and 1 Peter 2:18 (Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters).  Since we’re no longer to think as Catholics and pay attention to the Magisterium, but merely to proof text favorite Bible verses like Fundamentalist Protestants, then I assume you also wish us to return to first century standards when it comes to slavery as well, right?  And again, if you really believe Luke 23:38-43 to be the clincher on the death penalty, then doesn’t it follow that you’d like to reinstitute crucifixion as “just punishment” for capital offenses?  If not, why not?  Is it merely because you are holier-than-thou?  Or could there be a more nuanced way to read Scripture?

As for slavery, St. Paul didn’t advocate a slave revolt, but he did advocate treating slves as brothers. (cf. Philemon 20)
And there’s that quote from Leviticus that’s on the Liberrty Bell.