The following comes from a November 7 story on SFGate.com.
Proposition 34, an initiative to repeal California’s seldom-used but politically potent death penalty law, was defeated when a majority of voters said they favor capital punishment.
With 98 percent of the vote counted Wednesday morning, 52 percent of California voters said they weren’t ready to do away with the ultimate punishment.
The measure would have reduced the maximum sentence for capital murder to life in prison without the possibility of parole and would have applied retroactively to the more than 720 condemned inmates on the nation’s largest death row.
It was the first statewide vote on the issue since 1978, when a 71 percent majority approved expansion of a death penalty law that legislators had passed the previous year over Gov. Jerry Brown’s veto.
That campaign focused on whether murderers deserved to be executed. The Prop. 34 campaign, by contrast, stressed the financial costs of the state’s death penalty – $184 million a year, according to one study – and the structural paralysis of its system.
Since executions resumed in the state in 1992, only 13 inmates have been put to death. Executions have been on hold in California since 2006, when a federal judge ordered the state to improve staff training and procedures for lethal injections. The injunction has granted a reprieve to more than a dozen prisoners who have no further appeals.
Inmates spend typically 25 years on the state’s Death Row, nearly twice the national average. The leading causes of death among condemned prisoners are illness and suicide.
With public support for capital punishment declining nationally, apparently in response to falling crime rates and DNA exonerations of death row inmates, death penalty laws have been repealed in the last five years by a court in New York and by legislatures in New Jersey, Illinois, New Mexico and Connecticut.
No state has discarded the death penalty by initiative since Oregon voters did so in 1964, only to reverse themselves 14 years later.
California opinion polls have shown strong support for the death penalty for the most heinous murders. But when survey questions differ, so do the answers – for example, a slight majority considers life without parole to be appropriate for murder.
Prop. 34’s sponsors, longtime death penalty opponents including religious liberals and the American Civil Liberties Union, called the measure the Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement Act.
To read entire story, click here.
If there were absolutely no doubt that a person had committed an especially heinous crime, such as torturing and murdering a person, if I were on the jury, I would vote for the death penalty. However, in California, as cited in the above article, there is no death penalty. The condemned live for decades in better conditions than other convicts who are not sentenced to death, before they die of natural causes in their old age, all at greater cost to the taxpayers. If they were in the general population, such prisoners would be more likely to be killed by another prisoner. For that reason I voted to abolish the death penalty.
I voted with the Church on Death Penalty. While I am all for punishing people for their crimes; in a country like the United States where there is enough wealth to keep these people under a rock for the rest of their lives; there is no reason why we should be asking other people to kill on our behalf.
I ask you the question; would you take the job of official state executioner?
My motive is however very different from that of Sister Helen Prejean who seems bent on furthering not church teaching but liberal ideas.
Mbûkû Kanyau Mbithûka.
The Church does not teach against the Death Penalty, modernist bishops, priests, and religious do. Even the recent Popes have not taught against the Death Penalty. They have only stated that in their opinion it should be abolished if other means of protecting the innocent are available. Guess what those other means are now in the hands of political criminals called Demoncrats and Republicrats.
Our re-elected president would be definitely in favor of the Death Penalty for Pro-Life Leaders and the babies they seek to defend!
To actually dogmatically teach against the Death Penalty, the Church would have to condemn the postions taken by some of its greatest Saints and go against Tradition. You have been mislead!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
The church did not support this end of death penalty initiate but it was the ACLU and a few of the Bishops…that is all!
In cases of rape why not give the death penalty to the rapist.
The death penalty is given to the innocent baby human being in the womb of the rape victim.
Or better yet,don’t give the death penlty to the innocent baby human being in the womb.
I say that anyone who rapes or commits act of pedophilia should be automatically castrated, no ifs, ands or buts. If this country wanted to end these hideous crimes against women and children, they could do so in one generation if we were unequivocal and consistent in de-fanging the criminals. Thieves should have to make restitution to their victims in work camps like the old CCC’s rather than waste tax payer money on prisons. There should be only educational tv in prisons and only books that teach moral lessons. Prisoners should have to grow their own food and keep up the prison grounds as well as doing community service. Anyone committing sexual acts while in prison against other prisoners should also be castrated as this is also rape. We’re creating a whole subclass of monsters under the present prison system, and that is unfair to everyone. These men and women have souls and should be allowed to contribute to their upkeep to keep some self-respect as well as learning new trades etc. I think those programs where prisoners are allowed to train service dogs and grow organic crops are absolutely wonderful. Some of these people have never been told that anyone loved them. There should be a mandatory time limit on death row inmates…say, a year, then the prisoner is dealt with in a humane but not prolonged manner.
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. ”
Bishops must teach 100% in accord with the CCC, not 99%.
If the death penalty had been revoked completely “very rare” would not be allowed.
Bishops only hurt their own credibility (on all matters) when they take political positions outside the CCC.
The number of deaths from capital punishment in CA and across the USA is indeed very rare on an annual basis.
Capital punishment must never be used for revenge, but only to protect others (including prison employees and other prisoners) from the unjust aggressor. Juries and Judges who know each particular case intimately will make those decisions.
Bishops need to teach their Priests, Nuns, Bishops, and Diocese Laity to read the CCC. Education begins today, not a few months prior to an election.
Purchase copies of the CCC and Catholic Bibles for Christmas gifts, birthday gifts, weddings, etc.
This will educate Catholics to know their Faith, and they will then vote accordingly in the future.
Pope Benedict knows what he is doing.
Prayer and Education, Prayer and Education, Prayer and Education .
1) EDUCATION and EXAMPLE:
Bishops must enforce Canon 915 and/or formal excommunication as necessary.
Their SILENCE SCREAMS relativism, secularism, heresy, and schism – aiding and abetting SCANDAL which causes great confusion.
(1 Cor 5:11-13).
2) EDUCATION:
Bishops, Priests, Nuns, and Laity must all read and actively encourage others to read the ” CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
Start today, not tomorrow.
3) EDUCATION:
People will vote what they BELIEVE.
They will BELIEVE the teachings of the Church, not what they personally believe are only the personal beliefs of Bishops.
And the only way the Bishops can overcome this – is to teach according to the CCC, AND to actively encourage everyone to read the CCC in entirety.
(The CCC is available in many languages. There are no excuses.)
Prop 34 failing means a safer California through stiffer sentences for hte majority of violent offenders. How? 80% of cases are disposed via plea bargain. Having the threat of the death penalty means that a prosecutor can (and will) be able to bargain for a stiffer sentence (including life in prison). Without the death penalty in play all negotations will begin with “life in prison” and be negotiated downward from there…resulting in sentences of 15/20/25 years rather than life.
“Falling crime rates” can be equated with the rising rate of abortion? The Holy Catholic Church has issued no decision on the death penalty
(All you canon cravers can correct me, if I’m wrong-), but Pope John the Great was not in favor of the penalty. Can it be that these people are inadvertently following THE Christian code?
With you Woody and JPII
Wow, I AM in good company!
Woody,
NO, it only means that they are following their own beliefs and rejecting those of over two thousand years of Saints, and Popes who taught that the death penalty is necessary!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I was vacillating on this initiative, but there are some crimes that are so heinous they deserve the death penalty. Just because lawyers and others so disrupt the system and cause years of delay in the execution of the punishment does not mean that we should toss it out. When Californians stop aborting innocent unborn babies then I will vote to get rid of the death penalty. We don’t even know how many are aborted in CA, because the abortionists are not required to report the numbers.
While I voted to repeal, I had absolutely no confidence that the “system” would keep the worst of the worst in prison for the rest of their lives. We can all cite examples of killers sentenced to “life” who get out in xxx years and kill again.
CalWalkr,
We can also quote incidences of convicted murderers arranging the murders of those who might testify against them even while they were in prison. Also, what about the Prison Guards whose lives will be worth virtually nothing in the Death Penalty were repealed.
Why is it that many of you hold the opinions of recent Popes who, by the way have failed to heed the Blessed Mother’s COMMAND to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, over those of virtually all the Popes who preceeded them, and countless canonized Saints, one of Whom, St. Thomas More, was even a Prosecutor?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
This loss won’t stop the ACLU. And even if the death penalty had been abolished, the ACLU would then have started a battle against life in prison saying that it too was too harsh. Question: Will the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, under the imperial direction of Ned Dolejsi, again join forces with the ACLU? Will they hold hands and sing Kumbaya even while the ACLU joins forces with Obama to destroy Catholics’ freedom of religion and continue to murder millions of babies? The next election travesty will be starting soon. 2014 is closer than you think.
Lin,
Congratulations, you actually think things out!
Had our “bishops” put half the effort into the Propostion for Parental Consent that they have in trying to force their opionions on us, we would have Parental Consent Laws in Taxifornia!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
IMO this ‘Trojan Horse” initiative deserved to be defeated. Its true purpose was to create a taxpayer funded slush account for Kamala Harris, California AG, to distribute, as she would see fit, to influence tight state assembly and senate races to achieve a 2/3 majority legislature. Turns out that CCCB’s Ned Dolejsi and company did not need this. Fiat accompli. He was successful in undermining the Parental Notification Initiative by coupling it to this measure.
If the death penalty is repealed that means that it can not be used in rare cases to protect prison employees and other prisoners from unjust aggression.
And as someone said, it can not be used as a bargaining tool for further information.
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. ”
The actual death penalty is very very rare in the USA.
314,731,265 US population; across the entire USA in 2010 – ’46’ were executed; this equals (note the decimal point) – – – .0000146%
Of that number 36 were white, and 12 were black.
In 2010 – ‘zero’ were from CA.
These official numbers come from the US CENSUS BUREAU – The 2012 Statistical Abstract, The National Data Book
Pete, that quotation from the CCC in fact points to the Church’s teaching, voiced by Popes John Paul and Benedict, that the death penalty must end as it is NOT “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Catholics in California who voted against Proposition 34 have basically dissented against the teachings of the Magisterium.
WRONG!
You are wrong jon. Even your own statement that one has
“basically dissented’ demonstrates how unclear you are on the teachings of the Magisterium. The truth is the Church does not teach as a matter of Faith that Catholics must oppose the death penalty.
On the contrary, the words of Blessed John Paul against the further use of the death penalty IS VERY CLEAR. The teachings of Pope Benedict against the death penalty IS VERY CLEAR. And the CCC is VERY CLEAR that there is moral recourse to the death penalty IF it is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The death penalty in our time is not the only way gravey. It is a violation of human dignity.
jon, The Catholic position on issues such as the death penalty and war are difficult to understand. Benedict has not defined his declarations on the death penalty as magisterial which must be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. What is clear from your posts is that your heart may be in the right place but your understand is wanting.
Jon,
Apparently you believe that every statement by a Pope is infallible Church teaching. The fear of what you believe is actually what held up the Dogma of Infallibility. Many Church Fathers were rightfully concerned about what is obviously your misunderstanding of the Dogma.
You apparently also believe that for over two thousand years the Church was wrong on that issue. You must be a product of the Religious Education Congress (REC)!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Fisher and gravey: you are both fooling yourselves. The present Pope has most definitely officially taught that the death penalty for our time must end. He articulated this Magisterial teaching in writings, speeches, homilies. Just as some folks here are tough on politicians for supporting abortion by calling the Church to deny them communion, I hope for the salvation and good of your souls that you went to Confession prior to receiving Communion this Sunday if you had voted against the clear teachings of the Magisterium on the issue of the death penalty.
Mr Fisher jon is in complete error in the complete teachings on the death penalty, his passionate attempt to bring forth this division is truly distracting many from the real issues that affect our society!
Jon, when the Popes speak (unless otherwise indicated) it is for the entire world.
No Church teaching has stated that the death penalty must be abolished in ALL cases.
Please provide us a document we can find on the Vatican web site if you believe that the Death Penalty is ALWAYS wrong.
Next – Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) wrote to US Bishops about voting. You can find the paper without editing on the net.
Search: “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles”.
In that paper he clearly states: ” 3. 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. ”
Jon, one must stay with the CCC exactly as written, not going to one extreme or the other.
Now, I’ve provided a paper from Pope Benedict, and from the CCC. Please supply us the documentation for your statements.
PETE thank you for pointing out the obvious, we have tried many times in the past to jon, we even quoted early doctors of the church quotes, even the CCC, which has some of those quotes from earlier saints. The list goes on, it is disturbing when jon calls us dissenters, I attended CCC and bible lessions from a very holy and devout priest so I am not inventing anything, we are only conveying what we know to be the truth in what our Lord’s Catholic church teaches!
Pete, the Catechism says that there is recourse to the death penalty “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (2267).
John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae has judged that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent”, meaning that there are now bloodless means to render a criminal harmless short of imposing the death penalty (56).
Benedict as recently as last year at his General Audience said: “I greet the distinguished delegations from various countries taking part in the meeting promoted by the Community of Sant’Egidio on the theme: No Justice without Life. I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”
And there are many other quotes from Benedict and JP2 calling for an end to the death penalty.
The CDF Letter does not say that there is a right to dissent. In fact, Lumer Gentium 25 calls on Catholics to adhere to the Pontiff’s judgments on faith and morals. This includes in our time the Pope’s teachings on the death penalty.
Just as DNA can prove innocence, it can also prove guilt.
The many years on death row gives a guilty party plenty of time to get his Soul in order, to repent if he is so inclined.
DNA was made commercially available in 1987 – 25 years ago.
Money should never determine whether or not someone receives the death penalty. It should always be in accord with the CCC.
PETE that is just it but jon has his own self interpretation on that teaching and has even twisted it’s meaning from the CCC and ignores the earlier reasoning as to why it is permitted. I am completely disturbed by his agenda!
Bishop Fulton Sheen taught a great deal on false compassion! Lets re-teach it to many!
Thank you Abeca. I agree that TRUTH must never be twisted for one’s own beliefs.
Please seem my quote below: PETE November 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm.
The Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith – Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) answered the question to US Bishops very clearly in 2004.
It is objectionable when any Bishop, Bishop’s Conference, or Catholic twists the truth – either to the far left or far right.
We must all strive for accuracy.
PETE That is the beauty of our faith when one strives for accuracy but I think that some people just have an agenda and ignore the wholeness of the faith. Yes I read your quote below, good one! God bless you! : )
Please. The teaching in the Catechism on the death penalty is VERY CLEAR. It does not contradict the Pope’s call to end the death penalty for our time.
Be serious with yourselves and just admit that you have a problem with the present Pope’s Magisterial teaching on this important issue that touches on the Gospel of Life.
Just admit to yourselves and public here that you are dissenting on this issue and be done with it, instead of making excuses for dissenting and calling it “prudential judgment.”
Agenda? You bet I have an agenda. It is to evangelize in favor of a consistent ethic of life, to defend the teachings of the Pope, to reveal the dissent among the self-righteous, to defend the traditional teaching of the Church as articulated in the Catechism 2267. That’s my agenda.
I suspect your consistent ethic of life is based upon some type of humanism.
The Church supports killing in self defense and defense of others, just war and the death penalty
Right on Dudley!
The Church supports the right to self defense and the legitimate defense of others, the family and the state. The killing of an aggressor is not willed. The act of defense should not include intentional killing. If one unintentionally kills the aggressor, it is not imputed as sin, as long as it was necessary. If one uses more violence than necessary to defend against the agressor, it is unlawful. CCC 2263-2265
Dudley Sharp you are wrong. The Magisterium does not support the continuation of the death penalty in our time.
“Money should never determine whether or not someone receives the death penalty. It should always be in accord with the CCC.”
uh, PETE, this is america, and the catechism is not what runs our country.
however, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has made it clear that the death penalty is…oh, what’s the technical term?…bad.
in spite of this, many blood-thirsty catholic ignore that admonitiation and still want an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, like the governments of saudia arabia, china, and other enlightened countires that have held onto the death penalty liek us.
Why are Liberal Catholics (an oxymoron) so dead set against the death penalty but pro-abortion?
John Feeney,
Point well made!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
John excellent point and according to the CCC, they are entitled to their own sentiments but they can not call others dissenters if one does not agree with their views…..I stand by the church on it’s original stand on it, it is necessary to protect the innocent.
I don’t think capital punishment is a big issue. Only 13 executed in 20 years? That’s a slow day at any abortion clinic.
David the death penalty is not the big issue here, that is why criminals continue to victimize more the death penalty is not a huge practice but it is a huge practice on the unborn…..
The real big issue is the re-defining of marriage and abortion…the Bishops should of invested more precious time on those important issues this past election, not on the death penalty or immigration issues or even a big televised dinner with Obama etc.
David,
No, that is a day when they find they have to close because they are going bankrupt! Now that the Obamanation has been re-elected largely by the “Catholics”, Obama will probably offer to save those Clinics with OUR money!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Catholicism & death penalty support: A Brief Review
Dudley Sharp
The New Testament death penalty support is overwhelming.
There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.
The very recent changes (EV,1995 & CCC, final amendment 2003) in the Catholic position are based upon a wrongly considered prudential judgement which finds that “defense of society”, a utilitarian/secular concern, not a moral or theological one, very rarely, if ever, requires execution.
This change in teaching is based upon the Church’s switch to utilitarianism – defense of society – when the teachings have been and must be based upon justice, biblical and theological teachings and tradition – all of which conflict with the newest teachings based upon utility — as utility and justice may, often, have conflicts.
In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that execution offers greater defense of society than does a life sentence. Dead unjust aggressors are infinitely less likely to harm and murder, again than are living unjust aggressors.
Living unjust aggressors murder and harm in prison, after escape and after improper release. The cases are well known and are daily occurrences.
It is a mystery why the Church chose a utilitarian/secular prudential judgement over eternal teachings based upon justice and chose to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, but that is, precisely what She has done.
It is also a mystery why the Church didn’t review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society. There is no evidence that She did.
Thankfully, as the recent Church’s teaching is a prudential judgement, such means that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.
This argument is hilariously mistaken. Firstly, Pope John Paul II’s judgment is based on the reality that in our time there are other means to protect society without recourse to the death penalty. To send a criminal to death when there are other means to stop him is a violation of human dignity. THIS Dudley Sharp is the reason for the Magisterial teaching against the death penalty for our time.
Secondly, there is NO evidence that the death penalty a greater defense to society as you say. Your argument is demolished by the fact that crime and violence still exist even with the death penalty in California. You’re very wrong.
Thirdly, your assertion that the Church somehow “made a mistake” by making a “shift” is a figment of your imagination. No shift was made by the Church. The change is in the penal system which is now able to render capital criminals harmless through life in prison without the possibility of parole. Because of this shift in reality, the Church sees that maintaining capital punishment is cruel and unnecessary.
Fourthly your argument is demolished by the Catechism which articulates the traditional teaching of the Church on this issue: that only if the death penalty is the only means to protect society can society have recourse to it. THIS is the traditional teaching Dudley, and it is in the Catechism. Read it!
As you know, both EV and the CCC attempt a drastic restriction on the death penalty, which is based upon the secular concern of prison security and its ability to “defend society”.
First, this is a prudential judgement for which any good Catholic, with reflection and respect, is free to disagree with and to support an increase in executions, if they find such appropriate.
Secondly, the primary purpose of sanction in Catholic teachings is redress or just retribution – justice if you will.
Thirdly, defense is a secondary outcome of sanction, not the reason for it. One cannot all but destroy the primary purpose of sanction – justice, by imposing a secondary concern – prison security – to upend it.
Fourth, there is little doubt that justice and the other eternal teachings on this topic far outweigh any secular concerns based upon prison security, but it is also assured that executions represent a greater defense of society than does incarceration.
Therefore, the greater moral weight, clearly falls into justice and redress, as do the greater benefits of execution, which protect innocents to a greater degree than incarceration, thus adding to the greater moral weight in favor of executions.
Prudential teachings, while never infallible are, nonetheless, always concerned with morality.
Totally erroneous. Firstly contrary to your first point, no Catholic is free to dissent from the teachings of the Pope and the rest of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals. Rather, a submission of mind and will to the prudential judgment of the Holy Father is called for among all Catholics. Lumen Gentium (25) attests to this: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
Your second point contradicts your own position. Sending a capital criminal to death while there are other means to render him harmless and to redress the wrong he did is NOT JUSTICE, but a VIOLATION of human dignity!
Your third point is moot because the Holy Father’s judgment guarantees both justice and the safety of society.
And fourthly eternal teachings do outweigh any secular consideration, and the eternal teaching being proclaimed by the Pope by his call to abolish the death penalty is the inviolability and sacredness of ALL HUMAN LIFE! Additionally, your fourth point contains an unproven assertion: that executions provide more protection. Read the papers!
Therefore, on all four points your argument is found wanting. Listen to the Pope and the rest of the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Jon:
You are in error, on all points.
Reply to your first point:
2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004
Jon:
Reply to your second point:
2000 years of death penalty teachings are based upon upholding human dignity with the imposition of the death penalty, that the primary purpose of the death penalty is to redress the disorder – justice – in enforcing the death penalty.
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.”
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 (2012) 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 paragraphs/references 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, within Reference 2 and see also 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) 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. (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.
Dudley God bless you but jon won’t even consider the facts you lay before him. God have mercy on us all!
Mr. Sharp, faithful catholics do not consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be ill conceived imaginings. And I ask you to reflect on the action of Jesus when the adulterous woman was about to be stoned (rightfully, under God’s law.)
k:
Nor do I consider the CCC ill conceved imaginings. I, as others’, do, however, consider there to be some very obvious problems within the section on the death penalty.
Dudley I think that if people don’t learn the wholeness of the faith, then I can see why some would even misinterpret the CCC, because sometimes it is not in detail in some of it’s topics and if one is not well formed in the faith, I can see why there could be some flawed misconceptions.
I agree with PETE that the CCC needs to be taught with accuracy. I’m huge in learning the whole bible and study of biblical history and truths but it can not be done in accuracy without the CCC, the faith, teachings of the saints etc etc….we need the wholeness of the faith in order to know the whole truth but I do trust also in the Holy Ghost to bless us with the ability to discern and to reason just like St. Thomas Aquinas has taught on reasoning.
People, what you are hearing from Dudley Sharp and Abeca above is classic dissent, masquerading under the guise of, “Oh, the Catechism in certain parts has problems, and is not in detail.”
Folks, they have basically negated Pope John Paul II’s words which says “Catechesis will find in this [Catechism] genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present…each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time.”
Either you take the Catechism, or you don’t. Straight up! You are showing your true colors Dudley Sharp and Abeca by finding fault with the Catechism which JP2 has called a genuine and systematic presentation of the faith.
jon you are beginning to sound like a broken record…are you afraid that people will be able to reason without you and conclude on how wrong you are?
Using words like “classic dissent” on us is not at all fitting…you are insulting our intelligence sir and disregard our ability to reason as and during the times we our selves have studied the faith not only when I personally have grown my relationship with Jesus but I do fear the Lord with all my heart.
So I will not have you insult my love of Christ especially when I intentionally continue to seek with zeal to please Him…not man, not you.
Dear Jon and Dudley,
If, indeed, it was simply the abolition of the death penalty in California, then your argument would be pure.
IMO, the hidden in the fine print, purpose of the initiative was to raise $100 million for Kamala Harris to distribute at her sole discretion to influence political partisans supported by the advisors to the CCCB.
This explains the collusion with the infamously culture of death affiliate, the ACLU. Please bring forth an initiative without the partisan trappings.
Since the long term strategy of the initiative, namely, single party rule of California, was achieved through the gerrymandering of the “Citizen Redistricting Commission” and affirmed this election, 2/3 majorities in the assembly and senate have been achieved.
I doubt the ACLU will now be quite so enthusiastic, except to expand the client base for their constituency.
Catholics opposed to advancing the dominance of politicians and institutions publicly supporting the culture of death are strong moral ground.
Robert
Robert:
Thank you.
I have heard this before. It may be true or have a rational foundation, however speculative, I just haven’t seen proof of it.
Dudley
Dear Dudley Sharp,
I agree that my comment is speculative.
Combining the over the top and in some cases self contradictory restrictions promulgated by the CCCB advisors, which were published in many California dioceses, for signature gathering and coupling the signature gathering efforts with the Parental Right to Know Initiative, (PRK), scuttled the PRK.
The deadline for the predominantly ACLU funded paid signature gathering for the Death Penalty Iniative, (DPI),was months before the PRK deadline. PRK was predominately volunteer signature gathered. Many dioceses insisted on concurrent efforts for both initiatives, and strict adherence to the CCCB guidlines for volunteer signature gatherers, thereby leaving DPI unscathed and PRK doomed.
There is no proof of this. Just the factual timeline and events.
Your comments are spot on. There is plenty of room for any good Catholic to morally object to abolition of the death penalty. My only point was that the DPI had additional considerations that sullied the front cover issue.
Robert
Totally wrong! You are misreading the CDF Letter. It does not allow Catholics to dissent on any issue. It does not excuse dissent of any kind! The Dogmatic Constitution was way more precedence over the CDF Letter. You are very mistaken.
Moreover Dudley Sharp you disingenuously omitted in your quote of the Catechism (2260) the line: “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.” It is THAT teaching from the Old Testament that “remains necessary for all time,” NOT the death penalty.
Jon:
That teaching is about the death penalty.
WRONG. That blood is a sacred sign of life is the teaching that remains necessary for all time. That is the sentence that immediately precedes.
Jon:
It is a mistake to look at text atomistically, which is what you are doing.
The entire seciton is thus:
“2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
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.59
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
In addition, the biblical text, throughout the Old and New Testament is supportive of executions, under specitific circumstances.
For over 2000 years, the Chuch has reinforced that, though tradition and past CCC.
I believe it was 1995, before we had a teaching that tried to switch to defense of society, based upon prison security, a nearly infinitely variable conditon which is only based in human terms.
The tradition teachings of the Church, in traditon, CCC and Doctors of the Church have been in the context of the eternal, as they should be.
Mixed in there are teachings that confirm that the death penalty is a greater defender of innocent life.
Not suprising, as we all know that executed murderers are, infinitely, less likely to harm and murder, again, than are living murderers.
Very strange indeed that the newest Catechims, as well as PJPII, never seemed to have considered that reality.
Dudley Shape, your point is demolished by the fact that the section of the Catechism you are pointing out (2260) is NOT SPECIFIC to the death penalty. This section is about the sacredness of ALL human life. And this sacredness “remains necessary for all time.”
I must say you are misconstruing that section of the Catechism.
Dudley excellent comments!
What is very disturbing in Dudley Sharp’s argument is the excuse he gives to dissent, and his erroneous use of the CDF Letter to support dissent. Two Church documents which has way more precedence categorically states that what is called for is a submission of mind and will to the judgment of the Pontiff (Lumen Gentium and Donum Veritatis).
Additionally, the CDF Letter does not even say that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion. It forwards a theoretical possibility of one. You are misreading the CDF Letter to the detriment of your soul.
Additionally Dudley Sharp, when it comes to knowing what the real traditional teaching of the Church is with regards to the death penalty, any right thinking and faithful Catholic is advised to follow what the Catechism says (2267) and not a “personal interpretation” such as yours. Folks, rather you rely on official documents from the Magisterium such as the Catechism and not the interpretation of anyone here.
And the Catechism clearly teaches that only if the death penalty is the only means to protect society can there be moral recourse to it.
This is the exact quote from Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) 2004 to the American Bishops – “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles”.
QUOTE: 3. 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. ” UNQUOTE – Cardinal Ratzinger.
I personally object to people putting other word in the Pope;s mouth or deviations from the CCC – either to the far right or to the far left.
Truth demands accuracy.
Bishops must teach according to the CCC – 100%, not 99% on each teaching. For them to deviate – even if only somewhat – is bad.
Right on PETE…Truth demands accuracy and the whole of it too….God bless you for standing up and quoting what you just quoted, as you can see where jon has erred.
Indeed there are folks who would put words in the Pope’s mouth and who would distort the Catechism. An example is precisely their misinterpretation of the CDF Letter just quoted above. People here including JLS, Abeca, and Rick DeLano are reading in the CDF Letter a permission to dissent. That is NOWHERE in the CDF Letter.
Likewise, they selectively read CCC 2267, negating the words “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
By negating those words they are negating John Paul’s judgment articulated in Evangelium Vitae (paragraph 56) that in our time, because of the achievements in the penal system, there are other means to render a criminal harmless without recourse to the death penalty.
Those who need to be told to be accurate in presenting Church teachings on this issue, who need to be told not to put words in the Pope’s mouth, and who need to be told not to deviate from the Catechism are the pro-death crowd.
St. (and Doctor of the Church) Alphonsus De Liguori
“1. It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of theofficers of justice to execute the sentence ; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished.”
The Complete Ascetical Works of St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Centenary Edition, P. 462-463, Chapter 5, The Fifth Commandment, Section 3. What are the causes that permit killing of anyone?
Dudley Sharp, as valuable as St. Alphonsus’ words are, you really ought to listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Jon:
The Truth is that
1) the teachings supportive of execution are timeless/eternal and
2) you find that we should over rule them with those post 1994 teachings which are based upon temporal factors, are factually false, have a foundation in error prone human management and seek to replace the primary establishment of justice with the secondary issue of defense, even though the death penalty provides a greater defense of innocents.
The foundation of the death penalty, at least by the historical and traditonal teachings of the Church are based upon reverence for life.
Jon:
Please review:
ETERNAL TEACHINGS ARE THE BEDROCK OF ALL TEACHINGS, INCLUSIVE OF THE DEATH PENALTY
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.” (2)
” . . . 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 CONTRART, THEY HAVE ‘A GENERAL AND ABIDING VALIDITY’.(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)
———–
“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (2)
“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” (2)
2) “Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
Also Bishop Fulton Sheen understand the importance to keeping society safe too. I appreciate his lessons on false compassion, which could be found in his series on the YouTube.
Well folks according to jon…we are all dissenters here…so we must go to confession and if the priest there tells you, “you have committed no sin” make sure you let the priest know that according to jon we did. If the priest insists, then ask him to help you see it jon’s way because jon just keeps taunting you with his theology.
See how silly your arguments are here jon…you have not proven anything right and you are one who continues to bring division and confusion in the church because of your man made views as to how you choose to reason, the sin of indifference is what is dividing us. Christ have mercy!
I wanted to include with this thread of comments the story of Jaycee Dugard. This poor woman did not have to go through what she went through. Due to a faulty system she suffered 18 years of sexual abuse. Please watch her story on CBS interview story on the web. God bless you all.