The following comes from a September Angelus article written by Archbishop Jose Gomez:
On the ballot this Nov. 8 in California is Proposition 62.
This proposition would repeal the death penalty in our state and would make life in prison without parole the maximum punishment that could be imposed for crimes of murder.
My brother bishops and I in the California Catholic Conference are supporting this effort.
It is time for us to end the death penalty — not only in California but throughout the United States and throughout the world.
On his final visit to our country in 1999, St. John Paul called the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary.” And it is true.
The Church has always opposed abortion and euthanasia because it involves the direct and voluntary killing of innocent human beings. Obviously, the death penalty is different. Those guilty of violent crime are not innocent.
Rather than condemn criminals to death, as Christians, we should pray for their conversion and encourage their rehabilitation and ultimate restoration to society.
For some criminals, this will never be possible. Their hearts are too damaged, too cruel and hardened. But we know that conversion and repentance is God’s work, not ours.
The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion to show mercy instead of executing the condemned. Such a gesture would be powerful testimony to the sanctity of human life and to the possibility that every person can find redemption and rehabilitation.
In this, we are following some of the great doctors of the ancient Church, such as St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In their times, they also urged government authorities to show mercy in capital cases.
And, of course, we have the witness of Jesus Christ, who pardoned the woman caught in adultery — a crime at the time that carried a mandatory death sentence.
I urge all of you to continue to pray and reflect on this complicated issue. We have established a website with resources to help in your reflection — killingisntjustice.org.
Gomez commits fallacious sleight-of-hand. He invokes the authority of Ambrose and Augustine for mercy, but neither advocated abolishing the DP.
He contradicts himself: he states, “Governments will always have the justification to use the DP if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order.” Yet if the DP is abolished by law, governments will not have the DP available to them to use.
Finally, he invokes Jesus. But nowhere in the Gospels is there a hint of Jesus urging the Romans to abolish the DP.
The bishops have made an imprudent judgment. They are wrong. Their weak arguments testify to that.
No contradiction at all. The Church is calling for the death penalty’s abolition because in our time it is not “necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order.” When the death penalty becomes necessary to ensure social order, then the state will have the justification to use it. No contradiction at all.
Gomez is very correct to mention Our Lord. He in effect absolved the woman from having to suffer the punishment due to her: the death penalty.
The Magisterium has made the merciful, loving, and most prudent judgment in calling for an end to the death penalty. Sawyer’s arguments as usual have fallen flat. Therefore vote yes on 62, no on 66!
The death penalty is for the retribution of the crime itself. You can’t have mercy without justice. The stare carries out justice as a representative of God. It then belongs to God to have mercy on his soul after his just death for murder. The death penalty is a powerful testimony to the sanctity of human life. Innocent human life is sacred. The taking of innocent human life is evil. The punishment is death and justice is satisfied for a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. “Whosoever shall shed man’ s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.” -Genesis 9:6
No on 62.
This logic is no inverted. The sanctity of human life is not upheld by the unnecessary killing of a criminal. NO! Our Lord had a lot to say about your eye-for-an-eye kind of justice. In fact he condemned your logic. It’s in the Gospels. Look it up.
As for you can’t have mercy without justice. Look at your logic Ashbury Fox: you’re leaving all of the mercy to God, when God Himself calls on us to have mercy upon others.
Asbury, you are correct: the DP serves the interest of justice, the primary aspect of which is retribution. Since no perfect restitution can be made for murder (you can’t bring the victim back to life), the most proximate imperfect restitution that can be made is forfeiture of the murderer’s life.
You are also correct that executing someone who has committed murder upholds the sanctity of life because it expresses how heinous it is to take the life of an innocent person. State executions do not contradict the sanctity of human life; they uphold it and discourage others from similarly murdering.
Totally WRONG! State executions DO violate the sanctity of life especially in our time when there are other ways to defend society from a capital criminal. To execute a criminal when there are other ways to achieve the defense of society and justice, is BLOODLUST and vengeance, both of which VIOLATE human dignity.
By rejecting the teaching of the Holy Father and the bishops (the Magisterium) on the death penalty, you people are essentially rejecting the words and teachings of Christ Himself. It is the words of Our Lord that is heard in the teachings of the Magisterium: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church that was approved by Pope John Paul II does not allow retribution. It is not justice. There are other kinds of justice, but retribution is not one of them. The death penalty is OK when a prisoner can not be locked up securely.
Anonymous, you’re plainly wrong in your assertion. The CCC states that retribution is the primary aim of justice:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must…
In the light of CCC 2266, JPII’s prudential judgment that the DP should not be exercised in modern times is clearly erroneous. There is an internal conflict between CCC 2266 about the duty of states to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense and CCC 2267 about not inflicting proportionate punishment in cases that warrant execution. It was probably an error to include a prudential judgment by a pope in the CCC in 2267. Nobody’s perfect.
Ah, yes, the CCC.
https://www.scribd.com/document/292816365/Father-John-a-Hardons-1990-Commentaries-on-the-Doctrinal-and-Moral-Disorders-in-the-Church#fullscreen&from_embed
https://www.scribd.com/document/293624565/Father-John-a-Hardon-Part-II#fullscreen&from_embed
Well said.
Jon,
There is a clear difference between the individual and the state. A lot of those passages are meant for the individual. The state has a different responsibility than the individual. The state is a divine institution and representative of God that gets its civil authority from God and is responsible for securing the common good of all. The state has been given the power to kill in law as punishment in the name of God. The individual does not have this right. The individual can only kill in self defense. The individual does not have the right and authority to kill for punishment. Eye for an eye is not meant for the individual. The state however, must carry out God’s justice.
” For he is God’ s minister to thee, for good. But if…
Totally WRONG you are AFox. The state may have been given the “power” to execute in the past. But this form of punishment is NO LONGER VALID and MORAL in our time. This is because other means are now available to achieve justice and the security of society without recourse to the state’s killing a prisoner. The circumstances have changed. What is so difficult for you to comprehend in that?? Justice IS NOT carried out by the state if it chooses to kill when other means are available to achieve the same ends. It’s cruel and unnecessary as judged by St. John Paul II.
As for your defense of eye-for-an-eye: I would like to see you say that to Our Savior on the Day of Judgment: “But Lord, your condemnation of eye-for-an-eye…
surely was only for each of us as individuals, not meant for us as a society, right??” You should shudder to think how He may respond to you. Be fearful that He may very well say to you—“Why didn’t you listen to My Vicar and My bishops for I spoke through them.”
“For he is God’ s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’ s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.”-Romans 13:4
Why Ashbury Fox, during the time of St. Paul, the use of the death penalty was very valid and legitimate. But not in our time: it is cruel and unnecessary in our time, as judged by all the popes since St. John Paul II. Vote Yes on 62, No on 66!
Jon,
The primary end of punishment is justice. The punishment for a crime must be proportional to the crime. The proportional penalty for murder is death. A man who murders innocent life must be killed. That innocent life is never coming back. Only the murderer’s death satisfies justice and is proportinial. That has always been the case in history. There is absolutely nothing different about our time that would change this…
Jon,
John Paul II erred in his reasoning about the death penalty. It is not cruel and unusual punishment. That is a philosophical error. John Paul II was contradicting the Magisterium of the Church and the previous hundreds of Popes who thought otherwise. It is merely his own personal opinion and he is wrong. The post Vatican II Popes have gotten a lot of things wrong. I will stand with the Magisterium of the Church and will take the views of the death penalty of 260+ Popes over the views of the last 3 Popes.
Jon,
You are also insinuating that St. Paul was time bound when he wrote what he did in Roman’s 13:4. That is was only for his time. St. Paul wrote what he did under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is the eternal word of God. That teaching of St. Paul is true and eternal for all time.
Yes, AFox, the legitimacy of the use of the death penalty is contingent upon the existence of other means to protect society and to render justice. This is straight from Catechism 2267 which teaches what the traditional teaching of the Church is on the matter. You’re wrong.
JP2 didn’t go against the Magisterium. During his pontificate he WAS the Magisterium, along with the other living bishops at the time. You need to brush up on Catholicism 101.
Genesis 4:15
Jon,
The Magisterium is the teachings of the Popes and bishops on faith and morals held everywhere and by all throughout the centuries. The Magisterium includes all the Popes. JP2’s opinion on the death penalty was in opposition to the Tradition of the Church. He cannot contradict previous Popes. I will take the teachings of the 263 Popes over what JP2 thought.
AFox, you misdefine the Magisterium. Do check the Catechism. The Magisterium is the pope and the bishops, their teaching office. When they teach the faithful, they are not proffering some personal opinion, but their solemn teaching as guardians of the faith and teachers of the Gospel.
The fact that we have the death penalty in the State of California is a powerful tool which prevents many murders from taking place as there is fear of being caught and receiving the death penalty. This tool would be even more powerful if the death penalty was carried out in a more swift manner – as it is, those now on death row have a better chance of dying from natural causes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church permits the death penalty 2266. I just received my overseas voting materials and I am voting no on 62 and yes on 66! I am also voting for Donald Trump.
A powerful tool? California has had the death penalty now since the state’s establishment and has it stopped murders?? NO! Your logic therefore is INVALID!
You should also read 2267 of the Catechism to get the full teaching of the Church. Vote yes on 62, No on 66!
Anonymous, the facts do not bear out your idea that the death penalty deters murder. Year after year, states with the death penalty have MORE murders than states that do not have the death penalty. The death penalty is about vengeance, not about deterrence.
https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
The Bishop ought to visit San Quentin and let the inmates tell him how they intend to reform when/if they get out of jail.
JP, Or we can just get rid of those pesky prisons totally and all the unholy death row incarcerated can go live with Jon, his fellow sympathizers and/or the Bishops in the Bishop’s mansions with gates and security. Then they can all write books about how ‘that was a stupid big mistake’ if they live long enough. Some people can ONLY learn WHEN it happens to them. So, let’s arrange for their education. Maybe, a sign up list for the next released prisoner?
“Sanctity of life” means all life doesn’t it?
P, It means, innocent life first & foremost, as you well know. It is a very long shot that any death row soul is innocent. In fact, if they ever got out for whatever reason, they would put terror in the lives of their families (who can’t deal with them) & their poor victims or their remaining families. That’s truthful in 97 -99 % of the cases. So NO, their lives are not so sanctified, by their own will and horrific choices. Maybe you (& bishops) could have them come live with your family or in your neighborhood before you rush to their defense? Let them wreck-o-vate close to your homes. It is hard to believe that supporters of this issue, have NEVER been touched, in their circle of life, with the evil of these horrific crimes?…
If this abolition movement succeeds, the agitators will work on changing laws so that life imprisonment is abolished.
They will argue that life imprisonment is a virtual death sentence, that it is cruel and unnecessary to lock criminals up for their whole lives, that God’s mercy “in our times” requires readmitting people into society and letting them enjoy freedom and life despite their crime, that they should not be treated as lepers.
Same thing happened with civil unions versus SSM: once civil unions were established, the agitators pressed on to their real objective. The real objective here is not abolishing the DP: it is abolishing justice.
Ahh, the slippery slope argument. Actually SSM advocates were quite open about civil unions being a poor compromise and a stepping stone until full marriage rights could be won. I don’t see defenders of the abolition movement to be opposed to just imprisonment, at least not the majority.
It would be like not abolishing slavery because 19th century abolitionists will want to abolish work. Abolishing separate restrooms for black people might lead to abolishing bathrooms entirely. etc etc.
Perhaps not the majority, but included in that minority is Pope Francis, who has twice recently said that life prison sentences must be abolished because they are nothing but another form of the death penalty. If, as Jon has asserted for many, many years, every papal exhortation is to be regarded as magisterial, then it follows that neither the death penalty NOR life prison sentences are morally allowable.
If you can locate that quote, I’d love to see it, Larry. Thanks.
WRONG! Abolishing the death penalty is totally about justice: justice for the convicted, justice for the victims and their families, and justice in society. It is patently UNJUST to kill a human being to achieve peace and justice when there are other means available to achieve the same end. Totally wrong.
Sawyer, what you predict, Gomez achieves–in the very article:
Gomez speaks: “This proposition would repeal the death penalty in our state and would make life in prison without parole the maximum punishment that could be imposed for crimes of murder.”
Gomez doublespeaks: “rather than condemn criminals to death . . . we should . . . encourage their rehabilitation and Ultimate Restoration to Society.”
Charles Manson, call your office.
I would dearly love to see the bishops work as diligently in opposition to abortion as they do in opposition to the death penalty. Fighting the death penalty is not a stance to be despised. The modern state is clearly a vast criminal enterprise, thus one could reasonably say that he does not wish to have criminals killing people (I think I owe the late Joe Sobran for that one). So I will back the bishops on the death penalty as soon as I perceive the same fire in their bellies when they fight for the child in the womb.
I’m not following that logic at all, Tom Barbarie, or maybe I don’t understand your thoughts. Are you saying that you are opposed to the death penalty in our modern state, but won’t vote to abolish it until bishops do more to fight abortion with more gusto?
If I’m understanding your POV, can you explain some more how that makes sense? It seems like person saying, well I like carrots, but I’m going to eat peas until my wife eats cabbage at least once a week. Do you see my confusion?
Tom B, Well spoken. Amen to that logic. The bishops have their hands in the government till. Their motives are suspect. Sad but true.
Folks, we should really feel sorry for those who support death and killing. I mean, it can’t be life-giving, it can’t be encouraging to the human soul to have to support a position that promotes and encourages the termination of the life of another human being. They have been misled to support a death-dealing position, and they can’t seem to extricate themselves from it. They’re so convinced of their own error that it literally results in DEATH!
People, choose God. Choose Life! Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life! Vote Yes on 62, No on 66! Down with death! Death, you shall die!
Moreover folks, one can’t figure why any freedom-loving American would continue to give to the state such powers over the life and death of its citizens (even of those who have done heinous crimes). I mean, given the inclination of the state to make monumental errors (such as this sad economy we’re in) and given its inclination to corruption and tyranny if unstopped, why any right-thinking, red-blooded, flag-loving, and free American would continue to invest life-and-death powers to the state, is beyond me.
When will there be a move to abolish the death penalty of the unborn? The bishops’ silence on abortion is deafening. How many milions more will be slaughtered in the womb without anyone speaking on their behalf? If we Catholics are to uphold the sanctity of life, it must begin with the most vulnerable, who are the unborn. They receive no trial, no appeals, no hope of a stay of execution. Their sentence is carried out immediately. And their “crime”? Merely existing is why they are killed. That is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. The fact that is it legal in nearly all nations is an indictment of how far the world has fallen away from God.
It seems like the same people who condemn capital punishment are also soft on abortion.
JF, That is correct because they are soft-headed = wrong headed. They are either Politically Correct or Perpetually Confused = PC either way! They do not accept God’s commands so they mock God. Either thru their own spiritually blindness or acceptance of PC leaders. God only knows why. Pity & pray for them either way. Blessed are those that not only follow God’s law but understand it almost instinctively: in their mind, heart, body & soul so that confusion does not touch them. God has blessed those that are NOT confused on the most important life issue of our time = Unholy Abortion of the Truly Innocent. Praise be to God.
The people who condemn capital punishment ARE EVEN MORE COMMITTED to upholding the dignity of all human life, we are more consistent in this regard, and are equally abhorred by abortion. So, your statement is false JFeely. As for Pew, well, there’s almost no hope for him/her.
J, Thanks for the ‘honorable mention’ that ends with your ‘judgement’. So be it. Let God judge my testimony & exhortations for He, & only He knows best. May God’s peace rest on people of good will.
This person has a sociopathic need to get personally offensive/vindictive, “From The Pew”, so it is good you don’t take it personally (“As for Pew, well, there’s almost no hope for him/her.”)
Something very wrong there, and prayer and self-confrontation needed. Don’t hold your breath. We commend the matter to prayer.
Angelo, Thanks for the tip. Looking at some of the many comments, I can see your point. I will not be holding my breath but I do sincerely, in prayer, wish everyone God’s peace, especially those that may need it the most.
Right, so when Pew and the rest say things like we are “soft-headed = wrong headed….Perpetually Confused…they mock God” which are all false, people like me are supposed to just “take it.” However, when we say something like “there’s no hope for them,” they hem and haw as if our words were out-of-bounds compared to theirs. Wow. Talk about hypocrisy. Folks pay no attention to them.
Seems like you don’t know what you are talking about. Life is life. People who believe that life is sacred are likely to oppose the death penalty.
jon, & YFC, Your PC rhetoric = so illogical & lame. You 2 may as well just ‘clam up’ until you can say you will demand a death row prisoner live out their sentence at your house under your watch. Go big & start a new movement risking your & your family lives VS prison guards, victims, other prisoners, DR family members. We (the many) are tired of the 2 of you & your non-relastic PC issues. Yeah…we ALL know here, you aren’t about to try having a criminal live with you! That is non-pc talk for you are very hopeless! Realistically, you don’t know what you are talking about.. Go VISIT a prison. Stay over night with a DR type. Then speak.
Ahem. Pew, I have visited a prison, not that I am trumpeting my good works, but you did mention it above.
YFC, LIFE is life? Innocent life first & foremost, as you well know. It is a very long shot that any death row soul is innocent. In fact, if they ever got out for whatever reason, they would put terror in the lives of their families (who can’t deal with them) & their poor victims or their remaining families. That’s truthful in 97 -99 % of the cases. So NO, their lives are not so sanctified, by their own will and horrific choices. . It is hard to believe that supporters of this issue, have NEVER been touched personally, or within their circle of life, with the evil of these horrific crimes. Must live in a gated, secure, fancy place with no worries unlike most of the rest of us..
Somebody please tell the bishops that hardened criminals pose a threat to innocent life, even in prison; executions are sometimes necessary:
Four correctional officers at a North Carolina prison were hospitalized Thursday after they were stabbed by several inmates.
The four staff members at the Lanesboro Correctional Institute in Polkton, N.C. were attacked with a broom handle.
Authorities told WCNC-TV that the injuries are “very bad,” as one victim had severe stomach wounds, while another was stabbed in the back, and a third was stabbed in the throat.
The answer to this concern is to continue our efforts to buttress and strengthen the penal system so that it is perfectly secure and stable. It is incorrect, unjust, and illogical to start killing prisoners only so that the prisons can become “safer.” WRONG logic.
S, Yes, hardened criminals, multiple offenders, those on death row create a inner hell for prison systems & are a drag on the country, state & society. Maybe some of the pro-prisioner folks on this site, like Jon, can work at the prison or volunteer? Perhaps he needs to witness this first hand to truly educate himself on prison reality vs things that may be nice to do but not practical. Better yet, maybe next time someone is released, he can be their mentor, support and even live together? Ditto with the bishops. That’s logic
with a lesson. Let them try that!
Not supporting the bishops on this!
From 1976, when the death penalty was re-instated, until April 25, 2013, there have been 1329 executions in the entire United States. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm
So, in 37 years the total executions of criminals is a little over one-fourth of the daily execution of innocent unborn babies. It might be useful for the bishops and the other bleeding hearts to absorb these figures. When did they speak out on Gosnell? Where is their support for the truly brave people, like Lila Rose and David Daleiden, who are speaking out against the real atrocities of abortion? Their silence is deafening. I am really losing my patience with such “leaders of the flock”. Executions are…
SurveyUSA: Prop. 62 Headed for Defeat.
September 17, 2016
Proposition 62, which would end the death penalty in CA and replace it with life in prison, trails by 16 points today and is headed for defeat.
The overall result is 36% yes, 52% no, 12% undecided.
Prop. 62 is losing with both genders, all education, income, and urbanity levels, all religion groups, and all four designated regions of the state. Yes, even the [in]famously lefty Bay Area.
A statistic for which people will be judged on the Last Day: for their disobedience to Our Lord’s ministers through whom He speaks to us today. If there is disobedience and dissent among those who comment here—who call themselves Catholic—should we be surprised that society as a whole would turn their back on what is just and right and moral? My point Sawyer is that your stats do not necessarily surprise us.
….disobedience to the truth is what we will be judged upon, not obedience for obedience sake to that which is demonstrably a break from that which has been handed down.
If there is disobedience and dissent among cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious – which there is – why be surprised that solid Catholics seek to follow Christ despite the abuse of authority. That is what Christ did in His time on earth.
So, indeed, we will be judged. But with “right” judgement, not that of those who seek to misuse the powers given to them to starve and often kill the flock.
Ballot initiative polls are notoriously bad, so I wouldn’t bet on the outcome either way.
This is the number one sanctity of life issue, INNOCENT humans being aborted. Find it @ http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kansas-bishops-unite-to-urge-catholic-voters-to-be-guided-by-church-teachin
The bishops of Kansas got together to follow God’s commands. The other lesser life issues are tiny compared to this so much so they are only a distraction to confuse the faithful. Remember the bishops have their hands in the till. Their motives are suspect to a degree. Follow?
Why isn’t Archbishop Gomez as determined to end heresy and liturgical abuses at the L.A. Religious Education Congress in Anaheim?
Arthur Fitzmaurice, the notorious LGBTQWERTY activist, is scheduled to give two workshops once again. Other dissenters are also scheduled to return.
Why the silence and inaction on the RECongress, Archbishop? Why? Your primary responsibility is the liturgy and catechesis in your archdiocese. Why do you waste your time and effort attempting to advance an erroneous prudential judgment but do nothing to improve the RECongress?
Erroneous? Not so. A Catholic can rely upon the good judgment of their spiritual leaders to be prudent and well-thought out on matters of faith and morals. This attempt to cast doubt upon the Holy Spirit’s work in guiding the Magsterium is flat-out wrong, it is heretical, and unCatholic. Vote yes on 62, No on 66!
“…A Catholic can rely upon the good judgment of their spiritual leaders to be prudent and well-thought out on matters of faith and morals.”
Yes, that is why Our Lord exhorts us to judge a tree by its fruits and to be aware of blind guides. Because we can always rely upon the good judgement of spiritual leaders to be prudent and well thought out on matters of faith and morals.
Good grief.
We can absolutely rely upon the Holy Spirit. And we can always rely upon fallen human nature, and Jon, to lead where they will in opposition to the Holy Spirit. To equate prudential judgement with heresy is to promote spiritual lobotomy. Unwise and anti-Catholic.
AMalley, just the fact that you disobey the words of the popes and the bishops discounts the validity of your words, for the Magisterium is the valid and only authoritative interpreter of Tradition and Scripture, not your beloved SSPX.
Because he fancies himself part Reconquistador, and part Community Organizer a la Cesar Chavez (or maybe The Cisco Kid).
Fighting heresy and liturgical abuse? That’s no fun.
Folks, just peruse the posts above. Notice that the pro-death crowd has not offered any substantial refutation against the Magisterium’s teaching against the death penalty. They have only repeated their sad refrain that the Magisterium has erred. Their position is NOT supported by the Catechism, mostly notably the Catechism’s teaching on what the traditional Catholic teaching actually is on this matter. Their position is NOT supported by Lumen Gentium, which calls for a religious submission of mind and will to the judgments of the Holy Father. Theirs is not supported by the CDF document “Worthiness To Receive”. Their position lacks any support from the Magisterium. Therefore, tradition, Magisterium, and even Scripture no…
longer supports the pro-death penalty position.