Posted on 11/16/2005 10:09:15 AM PST by Coleus
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new statement of opposition to capital punishment, asserting that it contributes to a culture of death and violence in the United States.
It was the bishops' first comprehensive statement on the death penalty in 25 years, and coincided with the debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a proposal to reinstate capital punishment in the Bay State. Massachusetts is one of 12 states in which the death penalty is prohibited.
The bishops, who are holding their annual meeting in Washington, said their longtime opposition to capital punishment is being renewed and strengthened by new teachings and new support for abolition of the death penalty growing out of the Gospel of Life encyclical issued by the late Pope John Paul II.
Citing John Paul's teachings, the bishops declared that ''the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the taking of human life through abortion or euthanasia," but ''in contemporary society, where the state has other, nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty."
Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who has strongly opposed the restoration of capital punishment in Massachusetts since Governor Mitt Romney proposed reinstating it last year, said in an interview that a ''sea change" is occurring among Catholics, who in the past have shown strong support for the death penalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Yeah, when you have convicted murderers escaping from prison, somehow the death penalty looks more attractive.
But it does not follow that death penalty is the only answer to escaping prisoners. The same energy that today goes to fight for death penalty, and then to making sure the convicts are actually executed could be better applied to securing prisons, bringing about just sentences, and toughening the parole system.
My main point in opposing the bishops on this, though they do clarify the morality of the death penalty, is the fact they are contradicting traditional Catholic teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas believed the death penalty, for grave crimes, was just.
No, executing them is better.
I think they'd do better to concentrate more on ending abortion.
I wish they would denounce the way mass is said in most churches on Sunday. *sigh* I guess one can still have dreams!
To deny the death penalty for the most heinous acts is to insist on life for evil.
It is just if applied justly across the board. E.g. X murders Y. X is executed. That is just. Now, X1 murders Y1, X2 murders Y2, ... X1000 murders Y1000. X7 and X707 are executed, the other 998 get twenty out in ten and a cable TV in the cell. Now it is not just.
Second point. Aquinas had a government that looked to the Church for moral teaching. We have a government that looks to the election results for moral teaching, and explicitly disavows any loyalty to the Church. Aquinas's government could be trusted with more power than a democratic government should be. The modern state is too powerful and too hostile to man, to be allowed to kill.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops need to read and obey the Holy Word of G-d!
Genesis 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
The commandment requiring the death penalty is not allegorical.
b'shem Y'shua
Shouldn't there be a 'Cart Before The Horse' alert on this story? The nonlethal means of protection aren't quite what they could be. IMHO.
I noticed that in their interviews, they didn't interview anyone who was not a victim because their potential murderer was executed. Kind of hard to measure prevention.
Best argument against it? All those screwed up Illinois cases.
I'll be looking forward to another statement on this issue in another quarter century. Thanks, USCCB.
The fact that you both are debating the use of the death penalty proves that the bishops should not be expending energy on this issue. The matter is an issue of prudential judgment and not a moral absolute. I am glad that Bp. DiMarzio clarified that the idea of denying Communion to Catholics who support the death penalty would never be raised, and rightly so. The bishops have many other problems to deal with that concern moral absolutes/non-negotiable issues (eg. abortion, "gay marriage", Communion to self-excommunicated Catholics, etc.)
So. Does twenty and out in ten seem an adequate nonlethal means of protecting the innocent to anyone?
Our pastoral authorities are way too trusting in the efficacy of the nonlethal means of protection as currently practiced by the secular authorities, IMO.
Agree that it is secondary, but disagree that they should fudge it because it is secondary. Modern state is not morally qualified to kill.
Your point is one I never considered. Thanks!
No, twenty out of ten is not adequate. Life without parole is adequate and ensuring uniformity of punishment is easier if the death penalty is not an option.
Some years ago, we abolished parole in Virginia. Funny thing ... we don't have paroled convicted rapists, robbers, and murderers committing rape, robbery, and murder in Virginia.
Well, it has its uses in giving an inmate a reason to behave, but it should not have the effect of halving sentences. And, of course, life should always be life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.