Abortion vs. Death Penalty

[Cam42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 1 2006, 02:46 AM']Well, I'll follow Rome's teaching, although I can't think of any country that the exception would aply to. This story is why I'm so opposed to Capital Punishment. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Tuong_Van"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Tuong_Van[/url]
[right][snapback]842338[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are not understanding what we are saying......go back and re-read our posts. Once you do that, do a search on capital punishment and the death penalty with my handle in the name portion of the search.

I have been catechizing for months on capital punishment. It is a difficult topic, but one that is vitally important to the culture of life.

You are accepting what we are saying grudgingly.....that is not the case, you are agreeing with our position.....well, at least mine.

[catholicinsd]

Capital Punishment is murder, that's true no matter what anybody, short of God Himself, may say. That's all I'm trying to say.

Murder- the taking of one's life by other

[qfnol31]

Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent person's life.

More often than not (in fact almost all the time I hope!) the person on death row is not innocent.

That's how a war can be waged.

If you go back to the Old Testament, God Himself issued the death penalty as punishment.

[DingoBot]

Here are some related resources from Catholic sites.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Dossier/9-10-98/article2.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Do...8/article2.html[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-06/horst.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Ho...0-06/horst.html[/url]
[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/sep/00090803.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/sep/00090803.html[/url]
[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111802.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111802.html[/url]

[qfnol31]

Oooh, I like this one.

The death penalty and Church teaching
By Carl H. Horst

n It too often is urged by some bishops, priests and other commentators that the death penalty is contrary to the teaching of the Church.1 Unfortunately, such remarks mislead the faithful. As will be briefly demonstrated, the Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, but rather that “legitimate public authority” may inflict the death penalty subject to certain limitations.

The Church’s teaching is set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.2 The Catechism provides that “legitimate public authority” may inflict the death penalty for the protection of society and only if necessary.3 The teaching is rooted in both biblical scholarship and tradition.

Apart from the Old Testament, several passages of the New Testament concede the right of civil authority to impose the death penalty.4 Consequently, for nearly 1,000 years the Church has taught that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. St. Thomas Aquinas instructed that it is “lawful to kill a malefactor, insofar as it is ordered to the welfare of the entire community.” In 1210, Pope Innocent III expressly declared that civil authority “can pass sentence requiring the shedding of blood without mortal sin as long as it proceed to exact the penalty not from hatred, but after judicial process; not rashly, but according to the law.” Subsequently, the Church’s teaching was set forth in the 1566 Roman Catechism issued following the Council of Trent.5 More recently, in 1952, Pope Pius XII declared that “it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.”6

Most recently questions have arisen concerning the import of Pope John Paul II’s recent pronouncements concerning the death penalty. In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II did not change the Church’s teaching, but rather emphasized that, whereas there are four purposes of punishment, only the second, protection of society, ought to be the consideration in judging whether capital punishment is justified and that the death penalty may be used only if it is necessary in order to achieve that purpose. In this regard, Catholics may differ in their prudential judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ such a penalty, in certain cases, for self protection.

In his address “Ecclesia in America,” given recently while visiting Mexico City, John Paul II again expressed his concern regarding abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. Similarly, while in St. Louis, John Paul II expressed his concern over an impending execution. However, in his Mexico City address, as in other documents, the subject of the death penalty is dealt with separately. A proper understanding of the distinction between abortion and euthanasia and the death penalty is necessary to a complete understanding of the Holy Father’s comments. Whereas, euthanasia and abortion have been condemned as intrinsically evil, the death penalty has not.7 Contrary to the “seamless garment” argument, there is a real distinction which sets the death penalty apart from euthanasia and abortion. Those who advance such an argument, in which they seek to link opposition to abortion and euthanasia with opposition to the death penalty, can point to nothing in Scripture or Tradition to support their position.

Although individual members of the hierarchy, including the Holy Father, have spoken out against the death penalty, such statements do not indicate that the death penalty is contrary to the teaching of the Church, but rather such statements present a deep personal opposition to the death penalty and/or a plea for mercy. In doing so, their statements are deserving of thoughtful consideration, but they do not bind the consciences of Catholics to their judgment.8

[b]Thus, a Catholic may properly support or oppose the death penalty. He may not maintain, however, that infliction of the death penalty contravenes the Fifth Commandment, [i]nor that it is intrinsically evil.[/i] No bishop, priest, or layman may add his prudential judgments to the list of Church teachings and enjoin them as obligatory.[/b]

The question remains: is capital punishment necessary? That is a prudential judgment for each society to make. There are many contingent factors. The principles set forth in the Catechism are binding upon all; however, the application of those principles leaves room for differences of opinion.

In deciding whether the death penalty is “necessary” one needs to consider the extent of the danger of violent criminal activity which currently exists in the community, as well as the circumstances which limit imposition of the death penalty. Today, at the end of the 20th century, American society, unlike any other society in the world, offers an extraordinary degree of personal freedom. Unfortunately, that freedom is accompanied by an extraordinary amount of violence resulting in homicides including domestic violence, workplace violence, drive-by shootings, burglaries and robberies.

Nevertheless, in over 80% of these cases the death penalty is not permissible. In California, only those cases involving multiple murders, or where the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery or burglary, as well as more limited special circumstances, may the death penalty be sought. Additionally, typically in California even in those cases which involve special circumstances, the death penalty will not be sought by prosecutors unless there is other evidence that the defendant was previously convicted of violent crimes, or has previously engaged in violent activity. 9

Today, given the unprecedented personal liberty offered in American society, the extraordinary level of violence resulting in homicides and the very narrow circumstances which may result in the death penalty, there is a sound basis for concluding that, at least in California, “bloodless means are [not] sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons.”10

By intrinsically evil, he means exactly what you argue, catholicinsd. It is a short read an really straightforward.

The emphasis is my own.

[qfnol31]

Oooh, cool. It starts off with these words:

[quote]Contrary to the “seamless garment” argument,
there is a real distinction which sets
the death penalty apart from abortion and euthanasia.[/quote]

[qfnol31]

Lastly, the footnotes are kinda fun:

[quote]  1. E.g., McNeirney, “The truth about the Church’s view on Capital punishment,” Our Sunday Visitor, September 27, 1992, p. 23.
  2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶¶ 2265-2267 (1995).
  3. Ibid., at ¶¶ 2266, 2267.
  4. E.g., John 19:10, 11; Acts 25:11; Rom. 13:4.
  5. The Roman Catechism approached the question from the positive point of view holding that the death penalty may be imposed, when justified, under certain conditions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church approaches the question from the negative point of view holding that the death penalty may not be imposed, except when necessary.
  6. Papal Address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System, September 14, 1952. Other similar statements of Pius XII include those found in the Papal Discourse of October 3, 1953 (A.A.S. 45, p. 742), which recognized that “expiation of the crime committed [is] . . . the most important function of punishment”, and the Discourse of December 5, 1954 (A.A.S. 46, p. 67), which held that use of “vindictive penalties is in no way opposed to the function of punishment, . . .”
  7. Compare Cardinal Ratzinger’s discussion of the Church’s teaching concerning euthanasia in the Doctrinal Commentary On the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, June 29, 1998, which accompanied the Apostolic Letter Ad tuendam fidem. The omission of any reference to the death penalty certainly is not accidental.
  8. In this regard, it also should be recognized that the 1980 “Statement On Capital Punishment” issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, which expresses opposition to the death penalty, does not reflect the Church’s teaching on the matter but rather the personal opposition of those bishops who joined in the Statement. As John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, observed in 1996, although one may be opposed to the death penalty, it is demonstrably false to suggest that the Church’s teaching forbids it.
  9. In California, the law prescribes a two-step narrowing process which limits use of the death penalty (Cal. Pen. Code, §§ 190.2, 190.3.). The crime involved, typically murder, must also involve “special circumstances” and the death penalty may not be imposed on a particular defendant unless aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances. (Ibid; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370 [California death penalty sentencing instructions do not violate Eighth Amendment]; California v. Ramos (1983) 463 U.S. 992 [California death penalty law does not violate federal Constitution].) 10 Catechism, supra, ¶ 2267.
[/quote]

[jmjtina]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Dec 31 2005, 11:11 PM']So the Phamily is only  "pro-life" when the life we're trying to save is a sinless fetus or handicapped person? I'm only a sophmore in High School, but to me that doesn't seem to be what Jesus would do.
[right][snapback]842310[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

no where do we say that. If we did, please provide quotes.

You are putting abortion with the death penalty and casting them with the same wieght. They are not.

Also, one life is not more deserving than the others. There is a set criteria for the justification of the death penalty, in case you missed that. If you would do a simple search on this site, you'll see that alot of phatmassers don't agree with the way the death penalty is used in today's soeity, but to do away with it totally is incorrect as well.

What you seem to be lacking is the understanding of the difference between the two, whether your a sophomore or a 51 year old man.

[DingoBot]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Jan 2 2006, 12:34 AM']no where do we say that. If we did, please provide quotes.

You are putting abortion with the death penalty and casting them with the same wieght. They are not.

Also, one life is not more deserving than the others. There is a set criteria for the justification of the death penalty, in case you missed that. If you would do a simple search on this site, you'll see that alot of phatmassers don't agree with the way the death penalty is used in today's soeity, but to do away with it totally is incorrect as well.

What you seem to be lacking is the understanding of the difference between the two, whether your a sophomore or a 51 year old man.
[right][snapback]843050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Are you sure?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Jan 2 2006, 01:34 AM']no where do we say that. If we did, please provide quotes.

You are putting abortion with the death penalty and casting them with the same wieght. They are not.

Also, one life is not more deserving than the others. There is a set criteria for the justification of the death penalty, in case you missed that. If you would do a simple search on this site, you'll see that alot of phatmassers don't agree with the way the death penalty is used in today's soeity, but to do away with it totally is incorrect as well.

What you seem to be lacking is the understanding of the difference between the two, whether your a sophomore or a 51 year old man.
[right][snapback]843050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This here is whart cmotherofpirl "the mother of phatmass" posted.

Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, the death penalty is an execution conducted of a presumably guilty person by the state. The first is never acceptable, the second is.

[Cam42]

catholicinsd,

The Catholic Church does not say that the death penalty is murder. If it does, I would like for you to post it. What it does say, is this:

[quote name='CCC #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."[/quote]

The Church teaches that in today's society the application of the death penalty should be very rare, if not practically non-existent. This is in light of the sufficient means to non-lethally defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. When it is the ONLY possbile means for effectively defending human lives, it is a just punishment.

On the other hand, abortion is always morally evil. The Church teaches this:

[quote name='CCC #2271']Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2272']Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2273']Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."[/quote]

So, we can see that abortion is morally evil. This is an unchangeable truth. IF one formally procures an abortion, then that person incurs excommunication latae sentitiae, and is bound as such by Canon Law. However, this is a forgivable offense, and should be treated as such.

If you can provide documentation to show that the Church teaches that the death penalty is on the same moral level as abortion, please provide it. If you cannot, please be advised that your view is incorrect and you should study the matter further and assent your will accordingly.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 2 2006, 10:37 AM']This here is whart cmotherofpirl  "the mother of phatmass" posted. 

Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, the death penalty is an execution conducted of a presumably guilty person by the state. The first is never acceptable, the second is.
[right][snapback]843350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

that in NO WAY is saying one life is more important than the other.

the death penalty IS acceptable. Abortion NEVER is.

Your views are not in line with Church teaching if you presume to think that believing the death penalty warrants excommunication.

[jmjtina]

[quote][u][b]CCC #2267[/b][/u]
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."[/quote]

[Cam42]

Good points jmjtina.

[jmjtina]

i just hope our friend is reading them......