Question:
Thanks for the heads-up. Only a true idiot would believe the Church could countenance execution, regardless of the gobbledy-gook presented.
No bbbledy-gook. And you must no that the CHurch supported the death penalty from at least 300 AD through 1995 and does not reject capital punishment today. You should read Cardinal Dulles’ recent writings on the subject, as recommended at the bottom of my essay. sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/ http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/ Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Response:
snip I don’t consider Evangelium Vitae, which does *not* forbid forbid capital punishment, as ‘gobbledy-gook’. Capital punishment might only be justified in rare instances, according to the Pope’s own statements, but it is permitted nonetheless.
correct. Church tradition has always allowed the state the right of capital punishment, and continues to do so today. The Pope has merely said that it’s less necessary today than at previous times due to our social structure (and probably so unnecessary as to make it an improper punishment in his opinion).
Precisely. Social structure, as opposed to biblical instruction and theological teachings. If you can present evidence that the Church has officially forbidden capital punishment as a right of the state, then please present this evidence. History and tradition show otherwise.
correct. Thank you. sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/ http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/ Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Pope and the death penalty: a pro-death penalty essay by Dudley Sharp, Justice For All October, 1997 (with subsequent additons) This is an interesting and topical article. In recent years, the Bishops in the U.S., as well as the Pope, have tried to minimize the justification for use of the death penalty. They want to present a unified ProLife social/political set of ideas: no abortion, no euthenasia, no death penalty. The problem is that the Church has consistently taught that the death penalty can be moral, given certain circumstances. An ideal society would have no death penalty, because such circumstances would not exist. But our society is not ideal. In fact, we have seen more violent and more extreme crimes in this generation than in past times. So the death penalty persists.
There is a specific essay, which deals with execatly those topics, which I reference within my essay. It is "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8 You and others may find it interesting reading. sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/ http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/ Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Response:
Please try not to feed this troll. This posting from him/her is the third or fourth time in the past year or so that s/he has posted death penalty advocacy. Earlier last week s/he posted a pro death penalty piece in a Quaker newsgroup, of all places. Fortunately, the readers there made short work of the post. Mac, that is quite simply untrue. If anyone wishes to visit the Quaker site, they will see that the thread went on for quite a while and that I stuck to the issues although some troll like personal attacks were directed against me.
<laughing I think you’re in a reality warp. Your latest post to the Quaker ng was dated 3-20-02. There were 4 responses: 1. Guy Macon, who asked that no one "feed the troll" 2. Peter Vos, who discussed with the ng (not you) the correct translation of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" 3. Jeff, who characterized your post as "feeble bait" but offered a word or two on the subject 4. Guy Macon, who chided Jeff gently for answering your post. There were no further posts from you as no one discussed what you had posted in any depth or detail. No one was interested in your so-called "essay". For anyone here interested, the trolling post from Sharpjfa was in soc.religion.quaker in the thread entitled "Thou Shalt Not Kill". The *only* troll in the thread was you. And apparently this was not your first try at trolling the Quakers since you and your tactics were recognized immediately. Of course you’re a troll: what else would post on several occasions a polemic in support of the death penalty to a people who, as a matter of deep faith, are opposed to all violence, whether government sanctioned or not. You may answer this post, of course, but I am done with responding to a troll. Mac
Response:
Dear Mcc6050: I think you may learn some good reasoning through those who responded knowledgeably to my post. Furthermore, there were 20 or so posts in 3 or 4 different subject headings within the Quaker group, regarding the topic of the death penalty.
snip <laughing I think you’re in a reality warp. Your latest post to the Quaker ng was dated 3-20-02. There were 4 responses:
there may have been four to that one post, but there were others in that thread and in other threads. snip sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/ http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/ Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Response:
Thanks for the heads-up. Only a true idiot would believe the Church could countenance execution, regardless of the gobbledy-gook presented.
I don’t consider Evangelium Vitae, which does *not* forbid forbid capital punishment, as ‘gobbledy-gook’. Capital punishment might only be justified in rare instances, according to the Pope’s own statements, but it is permitted nonetheless. Church tradition has always allowed the state the right of capital punishment, and continues to do so today. The Pope has merely said that it’s less necessary today than at previous times due to our social structure (and probably so unnecessary as to make it an improper punishment in his opinion). If you can present evidence that the Church has officially forbidden capital punishment as a right of the state, then please present this evidence. History and tradition show otherwise.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Pope and the death penalty: a pro-death penalty essay <snip Please try not to feed this troll. This posting from him/her is the third or fourth time in the past year or so that s/he has posted death penalty advocacy. Earlier last week s/he posted a pro death penalty piece in a Quaker newsgroup, of all places. Fortunately, the readers there made short work of the post. Mac
Mac, that is quite simply untrue. If anyone wishes to visit the Quaker site, they will see that the thread went on for quite a while and that I stuck to the issues although some troll like personal attacks were directed against me. Please try not to act like a troll, yourself. If you have no interest in a meaningful and topic specific review of my essay, you are most free to simply ignore it and/or block reading my posts. sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/ http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/ Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Response:
Thanks for the heads-up. Only a true idiot would believe the Church could countenance execution, regardless of the gobbledy-gook presented.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Pope and the death penalty: a pro-death penalty essay <snip Please try not to feed this troll. This posting from him/her is the third or fourth time in the past year or so that s/he has posted death penalty advocacy. Earlier last week s/he posted a pro death penalty piece in a Quaker newsgroup, of all places. Fortunately, the readers there made short work of the post. Mac
Response:
The Pope and the death penalty: a pro-death penalty essay by Dudley Sharp, Justice For All October, 1997 (with subsequent additons)
This is an interesting and topical article. In recent years, the Bishops in the U.S., as well as the Pope, have tried to minimize the justification for use of the death penalty. They want to present a unified ProLife social/political set of ideas: no abortion, no euthenasia, no death penalty. The problem is that the Church has consistently taught that the death penalty can be moral, given certain circumstances. An ideal society would have no death penalty, because such circumstances would not exist. But our society is not ideal. In fact, we have seen more violent and more extreme crimes in this generation than in past times. So the death penalty persists. Ron Conte
Response:
The Pope and the death penalty: a pro-death penalty essay <snip
Please try not to feed this troll. This posting from him/her is the third or fourth time in the past year or so that s/he has posted death penalty advocacy. Earlier last week s/he posted a pro death penalty piece in a Quaker newsgroup, of all places. Fortunately, the readers there made short work of the post. Mac
Response:
The Pope and the death penalty: a pro-death penalty essay by Dudley Sharp, Justice For All October, 1997 (with subsequent additons) In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect the writings of Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent." The Pope is misinformed. Such cases are not at all rare. And executions are based on biblical instruction and justice. Defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction. Contrary to the Church’s belief, that these changes represent a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. Three issues may have escaped the Church’s consideration. First, In the Pope’s context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or otherwise prevent future harm. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again — in prison, after escape, after release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them. Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder again than are executed murderers. Both reason and the facts support an increase in executions based on a defending society foundation. Secondly, the Church’s position is not based upon biblical principles, but is now dependent upon social science. If such science concludes that executions do deter murders, then the Church must call for increased executions. If the Church decides that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and, therefore, chooses not to execute, and they are wrong, this will sacrifice innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again. If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again. Those options tell us that a defending society position must support executions. If unsure about deterrence, the Church must choose the option which protects innocent lives or that which sacrifices innocent lives. No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. And quite a few studies find that executions do deter. Is there any evidence that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the actions of some? Of course not. If the Pope’s defending society position has merit, then the Church must actively support the death penalty. Thirdly, we know that some criminals don’t murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. Executions save lives. Therefore, the Church’s defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Even though Romans 13:4 and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the required punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), require execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder. These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope’s position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Again, we see that the Pope’s position is social, not biblical. For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution. (read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8). Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment." ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from ‘paramount obedience’ to God’s eternal law to a civil standard reflecting ’steady improvements’ . . . in the penal system?". Such teachings hadn’t changed. The Church’s position is now social, not biblical or theological. The Church’s position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based on biblical and theological principles. Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope’s, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society — given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.) The Church’s position is now based on the state of the corrections system — a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before — something that all historians and biblical scholars are aware of. Since it’s inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it could have been revealed long before 1995. They hadn’t changed because the biblical writings are clear that there is a mandate for execution under specific circumstances. And there is nothing in the biblical record or in Catholic tradition that conflicts with that mandate. There is, finally, a most disturbing reality regarding the Church’s new standard. The Church’s defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Church’s new standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, under the Church’s new standard, the moral/biblical rational — that capital punishment is the just and required punishment for murder — is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder. If defending society is the new standard, the Church has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution. The Church’s new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Such connection had always been, until now, the Church’s historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under the Church’s defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer. Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should be fully supported by the Church. "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our 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 doing so 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?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis) In fact, the Church would never accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes. The Church concurs that executions represent just punishment for some crimes. And, certainly, the Church believes that the prevention of any … read more »
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.