Abortion vs. Death Penalty

[frozencell]

knight...

Let me clarify my point. I should have said society in general. Yes, I know that convicts pose a threat to their fellow inmates, but you have to think that those others are there for a reason, too. And the gaurds? Very unfortunate, but I believe that prison gaurds are well-informed of the risks before accepting such a position.

[frozencell]

Caralou...

Of course you are forgiven. I never held it against you in the first place, just stating my case.

[catholicinsd]

Abortion, the Death Penalty, and War are all evil and go againist the Gospel of Life by Pope John Paul the Great. Any Catholic who actively supports them, especially the first two, risks Excommunication, (or at least they should.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Dec 31 2005, 10:48 PM']Abortion, the Death Penalty, and War are all evil and go againist the Gospel of Life by Pope John Paul the Great. Any Catholic who actively supports them, especially the first two, risks Excommunication, (or at least they should.)
[right][snapback]842186[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is not entirely accurate. While one can be excommunicated for actively procurring an abortion, support of the death penalty and just war is not an excommunicable offense.

However, in the scope of today's morality, the death penalty should only be used if it is the ONLY possible means of protecting the human person against the unjust agressor, then it is allowable. However, the application of this in today's society is rare if practically non-existent.

[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]

As for just war, the Church teaches:

[quote name='CCC #2308']All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2309']The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.


The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2310']Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.[/quote]

Clear teaching on the last two, and not excommunicatable.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Dec 31 2005, 07:48 PM']Abortion, the Death Penalty, and War are all evil and go againist the Gospel of Life by Pope John Paul the Great. Any Catholic who actively supports them, especially the first two, risks Excommunication, (or at least they should.)
[right][snapback]842186[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

catholicinsd, you haven't been on here that long. I suggest you do a search and find out more about where we stand on the issue.

and look [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/"]HERE[/url] as well.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/images/bosdirectory_logo.gif[/img]

It'll be helpful.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Dec 31 2005, 11:13 PM']catholicinsd, you haven't been on here that long. I suggest you do a search and find out more about where we stand on the issue.

and look [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/"]HERE[/url]  as well.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/images/bosdirectory_logo.gif[/img]

It'll be helpful. 
[right][snapback]842244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not saying they do currently run the risk, I'm saying they should.

[Cam42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 1 2006, 12:31 AM']I'm not saying they do currently run the risk, I'm saying they should.
[right][snapback]842256[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And that view is not consistent with any Catholic teaching, ever. Part of our call to be Catholic is to assent our will to the current and traditional teachings of the Church. The view you posit is not in keeping with that charism.

That is what we are getting at.

[catholicinsd]

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.

[frozencell]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 1 2006, 01:11 AM']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. As my priest so eloquently put it to me before. War is not an option; it's what's left over after all options are exhausted.

And as stated before, the Church supports the death penalty when you can't competently incarcerate someone effectively enough to keep others safe. In this country that is not very feasible. In others it might not be as feasible. So, for America, the death penalty (as far as the Church is concerned) is not supported or an option.

[catholicinsd]

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]

[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.