Excellent post.
"This particular heresy is still relatively small" --I'm not so sure. An old seminary professor of mine has a sort of sideline in documenting instances of Christians being scandalized by and therefore seeking to deny the Cross of Christ. He can document it among some pretty influential theologians and churchmen. This has a trickle-down effect into the catechesis of the faithful.
I once solicited a comment from the good Sr. about the Terry Schiavo case. Got nothing in return, but did track down a CNN interview in which she was asked about it: she went off into an almost hysterical partisan tirade, and did not address the question. Guess she didn't want to get into trouble with her new buds, she palling around with Susan Sarandon et al.
It's too bad to see her jump the shark.
What was it St. Paul said about the Cross—something about a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles?
>>a God without wrath who brings men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross
The sad thing is that non-Catholic Christians will blame the Catholic Church for this blasphemy, and perhaps they have a point, because someone should have shut her up or shown her the door when she first started spouting heresies.
Is she really denying the cross, though? I 'm not sure you can charge Sister Helen with heresy on this one, at least according to what's written here. It doesn't seem that she's saying that "Jesus' death wasn't part of the divine will". What she does seem to have a problem with is substitutionary atonement, and she has lots of decent company in this. The Orthodox don't teach substitutionary atonement, and many of the fathers of the Church didn't hold to it, did they? In fact, I don't think substitutionary atonement arose in the west until Aquinas and Anselm, did it?
I have to admit I have a hard time with substitutionary atonement myself. The idea that God would make His Son suffer and die, and that this is somehow *necessary* to our salvation, that this suffering and death was necessary for some sort of divine scales of justice, is difficult for me to reconcile with an all-loving, all-merciful God. It seems like it makes God more of a bean counting judge than a loving Father. That doesn't mean that Jesus' death was somehow contrary to the Divine Will, but the idea that our salvation couldn't be accomplished without it, I think is what is most difficult for me to grasp. God *needing* Jesus to suffer and die so that we could be saved. Well, it does kind of make God sound like an "ogre", as Sr. put it.
Anyway, don't be too hard on me - I'm no theologian, nor apologist, I'm just a laywoman trying to understand! 
But like I said, being honest, I have a hard time with this, and so can sympathize somewhat with Sr. and with the Orthodox on this one. If anyone has any good links or book suggestions on better understanding this, I'd be interested in hearing them.
I met Sr. Prejean about seven years ago, at a book signing, and quickly found out that she was not nearly as passionate about the pro-life movement as it related to abortion. Seemed very strange to me, and inconsistent.
CQ, I think the main thing is that the Son suffered quite willingly. We should perhaps not focus so much on God "making" Jesus suffer, but on a God who was willing to suffer to save us! This does sound like an all-loving, all-merciful God indeed!
And yet, when looked at the other way, it is, indeed hard to understand.
St. Thomas Aquinas does not hold the Passion of Christ to be necessary for the salvation of the human race if by "necessary" one means, "required in a simple and absolute way." God could have delivered mankind in some other way. But in His divine wisdom He chose to do so by the Passion. Thus, the Passion of Christ is necessary for the salvation of the human race if by "necessary" one means, "required supposing certain things hold true," the "certain things" being the divine plan as decided upon by the divine wisdom and chosen by the divine will. See Summa theologiae, III, q. 46, a. 2c.
my respect for Sr. Helen Prejean is still intact, perhaps because the theological point is over my head, or I don't expect her to be a theologian. But I did like the "Truth Cancer" article very much.
I would also note that I found Dead Man Walking to be a very pro-death penalty movie, since the killer refused to admit his crimes and seek forgiveness until he was faced with the inevitability of execution.
Um... Jesus is God the Son as well as man. The Son agrees absolutely with the Father, just as the Holy Spirit does.
So to complain about the Father sending the Son to die, is to complain about the Son sending Himself to die. (Not to mention that mean ol' Holy Spirit.)
Clearly, if people want to complain, they should be mad at Adam and Eve for starting the whole thing!
Heresies. Always so full of logic holes.
“when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a "projection of our violent society."”
I don’t understand this comment, though I acknowledge that context is absent. By “projection of our violent society”, does she mean here today 2008? If so what does that mean given the reality that the Gospel stories were written about 2000 years ago?
"The idea that God would make His Son suffer and die..."
Wrong verb. God did not *make* His Son suffer and die.
Lori and Brendon, thanks for the helpful replies and the reference to the Summa. I confess I find Aquinas to be way over my head sometimes, but I'll check out the link.
Pavel - as I said, I'm no theologian, not even an apologist. I'm sure I used many wrong verbs, nouns, and other parts of speech! That's why I asked.
Maureen: do you win over many "heretics" with your snark?
I don't see anything here that suggests Prejean is focused on particular theories of the atonement. While sparse on direct quotations, the story simply says that Prejean "questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story" and "the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity." This is not substitution-theory specific language. Obviously this is low-level evidence since it's the reporter's description, but nothing in the story seems to me to suggest substitution-theory as a specific topic of discussion. As far as one can judge from what's written here, Prejean seems concerned solely with the violence of the crucifixion as a putative element in God's plan.
"...nagturally..."
EG,
I hope that wasn't Freudian.
To give Sr. Helen the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that she is only objecting to the penal substitution theory of the Atonement - and not any and all "orthodox" theories of the Atonement. The penal substitution theory in particular has been criticized for positing a cruel and vindictive deity. I don't think Catholics are necessarily firmly wedded to that theory of the Atonement, though Anselm's theory is close, though not identical, to penal substitution. It is a confusing and obscure issue and one that is not likely to be grasped by the average journalist anyway.
Oh, and I don't understand her "projection of a violent society" point at all. It makes no sense whatsoever.
BTW,
Does anyone know what Sister Prejean said about abortion at the meeting?
I don't think this has anything to do with some requirement to believe in substitutionary atonement. I do think it is pretty clear that she is denying God had anything to do with Jesus' self-offering in sacrifice. I don't see how to avoid the implication that the death of Christ was not an atoning sacrifice but a mere accident. I think, if she could, she would remove the atonement from Christianity altogether and deny that God "put forward" Jesus as "an expiation of blood" and instead insist that we and we alone did.
She's trying to eliminate the Cross, I think, with the usual rhetoric about how this enshrine "violence" at the heart of the gospel. Sounds nice, but it ain't Christian.
"Pavel - as I said, I'm no theologian, not even an apologist. I'm sure I used many wrong verbs, nouns, and other parts of speech! That's why I asked."
The word isn't wrong linguistically. It conveys a false idea, that somehow Jesus was forced to the sacrifice of the cross. The crucifixion was the freely chosen sacrifice of God as true God and true man, in which He shared in the suffering of human beings and atoned for their sins so as to save them from death, and so that they might live with Him for eternity in peace and joy in heaven.
My old prof writes back: "Pretty shabby staurology, to be sure. But at least she comes right out and says it. The ones I worry about are saying the same thing, but are hiding it in their words."
For those interested, I took part in a long discussion 3 years ago on Amy's old blog of the whole "Reign of God" theology which seeks to remove the death of Christ from the center of the Church's self-understanding.
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/
op...the_haight.html
When was opposition to the death penalty ever an "aspect of the Christian faith?
It was strongly supported by every pople until the last 2 or 3.
Regard for human life is the aspect of the Faith I mean.
Why do you, an ex-Catholic, spend so much time telling Catholics how to order their internal affairs, Jeb? Why is it ex-Catholics so often feel the compulsion to hang around the Church they have putatively left?
I think the prayers of the eucharistic liturgy could be improved for accuracy.
"a death he freely accepted"
As if Jesus sighed and said oh well, whatever, can't do anything about it so I guess I'll just accept it. I accept the things I cannot change (Serenity Prayer) and it's outside my circle of influence (Stephen Covey).
No, it is a death he CHOSE.
We ALL have the option of freely accepting our death. In fact, traditional daily prayers include explicitly accepting whatever death God chooses to send.
But we cannot CHOOSE our death because we don't have an alternative--Christ did.
"Dead Man Walking" made me glad when the rapist-murderer was put to death. God is perfect justice as well as mercy. I didn't see the criminal EVER repent and express remorse. I chortled when the camera angle tried to make him look like Christ on the cross.
That movie was more about Sr Helen promoting how holy she was to keep on loving the unlovable. It had nothing to do with him. She can love unrepentant criminals straight to Hell all she wants. Doesn't ruffle my feathers.
Jeb Protestant:
You posted in part: "When was opposition to the death penalty ever an "aspect of the Christian faith? It was strongly supported by every pople until the last 2 or 3."
Actually not. Prior to the early Renaissance the Church and Western secular rulers were very reluctant to employ capital punishment. (See "Characters of the Inquisition" by Walsh.)In fact I am having a hard time finding a single Pope who "strongly supported" the death penalty.
Perhaps you can name one for me?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
The fact that there are different theories about how Christ did what He did on the Cross indicates to me that we don't really know. We speculate and the theologians develop theories. He chose the Cross and He said it was necessary. That's all we really know. But exactly how it "worked" we can only speculate.
I hope Pope Benedict gets his book written soon and deals with this question. Precisely what is it to which we must assent in faith as distinguished from theological speculation over the centuries?
Whatever Sister Helen actually said, she like many of us seems troubled by a lifetime of being fed speculation as absolute truth.
+J.M.J+
Hmm. Let's see.
Crucifixion was an ancient form of capital punishment. The death of Christ was none other than an execution. Our Savior was an (innocent) victim of the death penalty. So Christianity effectively believes that we were redeemed from sin by means of an execution. The Catholic Church in particular commemorates this instance of capital punishment with great solemnity every year during Holy Week, even to the point of venerating the Cross, an instrument of the death penalty.
Now, Sr. Prejean opposes the death penalty, strongly and publicly, and has dedicated her whole life to ending it. Could this perhaps explain her unease with the fact that her Church exalts a particular historical execution as the means of our salvation? That we believe that capital punishment somehow played a part in the Divine Plan to redeem us?
Not sure myself; it's just a suggestion....
In Jesu et Maria,
Pavel, thanks. I think I chose the wrong words and didn't say things as clearly as I might - I blame the toddlers around me!
You're right that God didn't "make" Christ do anything, and that His sacrifice was freely chosen. I guess what makes me uncomfortable is believing that God would "require" the awful suffering and death in return for freeing the rest of us. That God is an angry judge whose wrath and judgement could only be satiated by violent torture and death.
Was the incarnation not what brought God Himself down to us, so that He could share in our suffering and death, living as one of us? Why is a violent end necessary for atonement? Isn't death itself a suffering enough? Why is the violent end and execution necessary? I don't think that a merciful God - which ours certainly is - would require such a punishment, especially of an innocent - in exchange for our salvation.
Those are the points I have difficulty with. I hope that was a bit clearer.
Mark: While Sr. Prejean didn't specifically reference substitutionary atonement, or penal substitutionary atonement (thanks, btw, to Patrick Rothwell above, for that term: that's exactly the term I was trying to remember, and specifically object to), but what few quotes the article gave from her jumped out at me as being in objection to this view of the atonement.
Perhaps its most charitable to assume that Sr. Prejean's opposition to the death penalty arises out of her disagreement with the more "penal" views of the atonement, rather than guess that her objection to that sort of atonement is the result of her DP opposition becoming a truth cancer. I can absolutely see how one could come to view the death penalty in the way she does *because* of such an objection to that sort of atonement. After all, if God is not an overly-exacting and legalistic judge, counting sacrifice for offense and how much violence will do, then the crucifixion is a horrible act of man's agression towards other men, and a sign of what we must not do to one another, and therefore something that should be especially abhorrent to Christians. In what the article mentioned, I don't see a denial of the cross or a denial of a divine plan; I do see, and am sympathetic to, her having a problem with believing that God demands a violent execution in payment for our sins.
Thanks to most for a very interesting conversation so far!
To which order does Sr. Prejean belong?
I am not surprised at the sister's comments:
Sister Helen Prejean on God and the death penalty
It is not uncommon for persons of faith to create a god in their own image, to give to that god their values, instead of accepting those values which are inherent to the deity. For example, death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) states, in reference to the death penalty, that "I couldn’t worship a god who is less compassionate than I am."(Progressive, 1/96). She has, thereby, established her standard of compassion as the basis for God’s being deserving of her devotion. If God’s level of compassion does not rise to the level of her own, God couldn’t receive her worship. Director Tim Robbins (Death Man Walking) follows that same path: "(I) don’t believe in that kind of (g)od (that would support capital punishment and, therefore, would be the kind of god who tortures people into their redemption)." ("Opposing The Death Penalty", AMERICA, 11/9/96, p 12). Robbins, hereby, establishes his standard for his God’s deserving of his belief. God’s standards do not seem to be relevant. His sophomoric comparison of capital punishment and torture is typical of the ignorance in this debate and such comments reflect no biblical relevancy. Perhaps they should review Matthew 5:17-22 and 15:1-9. Be cautious, for as the ancient rabbis warned, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your creator." (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33)
To Richard W Comerford:
I think you will find a few popes in here supportive of the death penalty, as well as a few saints and Doctors of the Church.
(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,
Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider and expert theologian.
http://www.domid.blogspot.com/
20...punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007
(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at http://www.homicidesurvivors.com...th-
penalty.aspx
(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective", by Emmanuel Valenza (Br. Augustine) at
http://www.sspx.org/
against_the_..._punishment.htm
(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 200
http://www.st-joseph-foundation....ument=2003/21-
4
(5) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?", KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/newslett.../
kke_040302.asp
(6) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS" , KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
http://www.catholic.com/newslett.../
kke_051122.asp
(7) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
http://www.firstthings.com/
artic...id_article=2022
(
"A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-.
(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/H...NANT/
death2.htm
(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
---------------------
70% of Catholics supported the death penalty as of May, 2oo5, Gallup Poll, Moral Values and Beliefs. The May 2-5, 2005 poll also found that 74% of Americans favor the death penalty for murderers, while 23% oppose.
"...I do see, and am sympathetic to, her having a problem with believing that God demands a violent execution in payment for our sins."
God didn't crucify Himself. We crucified Him. The creatures to whom He gave free will can be cruel, brutal sons of bitches. He knows.
Most of us are either standing at the foot of the Cross, cheering, or running away from Golgotha as fast as our legs will carry us.
Sr. is existentially mistaken about God, I think, but she has a right to an opinion. "Where is God?" is an excellent question. Christ Himself asked it. If you find it easy to give an answer, you probably haven't been to the foot of the cross.
I probably helps to have several enthusiasms, so we do not confuse them with the faith itself.
Well pointed out, Mark.
I think one should take her comments in context:
"...When you start talking about the death penalty, the image of God comes forward. Many people still have an image that God demands an eye for an eye, it’s God who’s pleased with a sacrifice.
"There are those in the Christian community that say ... when we kill criminals for their crimes, God accepts their death as payment. What kind of father would demand the death of a son? Is it a God or an ogre? We project a God of vengeance. Jesus forgave his executioners and showed us the way of compassions. Jesus showed such a way of loving that no one can be called enemy, at least for long. He said, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice. Not a life for a life.” Jesus said, “Pray for those who persecute you.”
"Our faith goes hand in hand with our understanding of human rights. Every human being has the right to life and no human being should be tortured. All religions teach humans have sacred life."
I, personally, don't think she's denying "that Jesus' death was part of the divine will" or as the article claims that she "questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a "projection of our violent society."
http://
blog.christianitytoday.co...lic_activi.html
I think what she is denying and/or questioning is the common American Evangelical (and death penalty advocates) tendency to project a vengeaful God that demands an eye for an eye. It's much more likely that she opposes the evangelicals on the religious right who according to her like to "toss in quotes from the Bible to back up what they've already decided anyway. People want to not only practice vengeance but also have God agree with them."
Here she says:
the Pauline injunction "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay" (Rom. 12:19) can be interpreted as a command and a promise—the command to restrain individual impulses toward revenge in exchange for the assurance that God will be only too pleased to handle the grievance in spades.
Jesus Christ, whose way of life I try to follow, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence. I pray for the strength to be like him.
I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to "God's Avengers." Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God's authority and God's blessing. I do not believe in such a God.
"We project a God of vengeance."
If she's not denying the freely given sacrifice and atonement of Christ, that's different. There probably are quite a few death penalty proponents who really do like the idea of revenge killing, and some of them may use theology as a shield or mask.
oops. sorry i forgot to end the italics.
I think the issue is whether we believe Jesus was crucified because of God's vengeance or do we believe Christ willingly gave His life out of love. I don't know Sr. Helen, but my guess is that she believes Christ gave His life willingly out of love and not because the Father required His death out of vengeance. I think Sr. Helen opposes the projection of God as a God of vengeance.
+J.M.J+
No, it was not absolutely necessary that Jesus die on the Cross in order to save us. He chose to die in such a horrific manner for a number of reasons, one of which was to show the extent of His love for us. He loved us to the very end, to the bitter end.
When someone gives his life for a cause (faith, country, etc.), we say that he "made the ultimate sacrifice." He gave all that he could possibly give, even his own life. Had God not gone to the same extreme to save us, then martyrs or those who died in battle would be able to say, "Well, I gave up more than God ever gave, I gave my life!" Since God cannot be outdone in generosity, it rather makes sense that He, too, would want make the "ultimate sacrifice" to save us. He wanted to give His all.
Also, by becoming the Suffering Servant, Jesus identified Himself with all the innocent sufferers in the history of the human race. The Book of Job tackles the question "Why does God permit the innocent to suffer?" but the answer it gives is basically "You don't know the mind of God or see the bigger picture." That's the best answer the Old Testament could give, and it's certainly true.
In the New Testament, God Himself becomes a Man, now capable of suffering. If anyone could have completely avoided suffering, it is God. Yet He didn't. He instead chose not only to become human, but to take on our ability to suffer and die. Unjustly arrested, accused, tortured and sentenced to death, He numbered Himself among all the innocents who have suffered on this earth. In so doing, He transformed suffering and death into something redemptive. The Church has long taught that we can unite our sufferings with those of Christ on the Cross. In so doing, we may derive spiritual benefit from something that is quite unpleasant, often undeserved and, apart from the meaning given it by Christ, seemingly pointless and meaningless.
Skeptics ask, "Where is God when the innocent suffer?" God can reply, "I am on the Cross."
These are reasons why Christ died to save us which have nothing to do with the distorted image of God as an "abusive" father "beating up" on his son. As others here have pointed out, Jesus Himself willed to do this; it was not forced on Him. He willed to go to such an extreme, to make the ultimate Sacrifice, with all the torment and indignities beforehand, in order to show the extent of His love. Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.
Finally, the Church requires that we believe that Jesus died to save us. She does not require us to believe any one particular theory of how the Atonement took place. Many early Christians actually thought that Jesus paid a "debt" to Satan to "buy" us back from him, but this theory has certainly fallen into disfavor. You need not believe that God was pouring out "vengance" upon Christ on the Cross any more than you must believe that Jesus purchased us from the Devil. Both are theories. It is enough to believe that He died for us.
In Jesu et Maria,
There is nothing new age about keeping the commandment "thou shall not kill".
There are two different and oppositional aspects to the cross and of the sacrifice it represents. The good one (which the disciples understood): that which it was meant to symbolize -- the act of prayer whereby life giving redemption is a fruit thereof. The bad one (which everyone else including contemporary christians still believe): the spilling of blood through a violent act. Which of these does the death penalty represent?
You don't have to be a theologen to understand the answer, yet even today people continue to justify sin as holy, just as the Pharisees did. The cross is yet a stumbling block. Incredible, especially when the crucifixion of Christ should serve as an eternal reminder of the need to uphold the objective truths of the Faith -- through being lawfull, if nothing else.
I know what people will say: "but these are bad people we are killing". Yeah maybe, maybe not. How many of the people who killed Jesus were worthy of the death penalty? Have you walked a couple miles in their shoes? What have you done for your enemy? And so the judgment of men goes.
I think Sister has been swilling too much vodka with Susan Sarandon..
The old prof writes back:
"Shea is right. A major aim of the current siege of the cross is denying the role God plays in it. We are dealing here not only with bad theology and an assault on the faith, but with the inroads of the demonic." And he adds the following quotations:
There is a manifestation of the demonic in the attempt,
continually apparent in the history of the Church, to domesticate the man from Nazareth in ever new ways,
to eliminate that unnerving quality of Golgotha… and divert our attention from the fundamental scandal of our
message of salvation.
--Ernst Käsemann
Suffering and rejection are laid upon Jesus as a divine necessity, and every attempt to prevent it is the work of the devil, especially when it comes from his own disciples.
--Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Somebody said earlier that Christ was an 'innocent victim of the death penalty'.
I always thought he was guilty of being who they said he was, which is exactly why the death penalty is such a barbaric and anti-human thing.
Think about it: if you're willing to use the laws of your culture and political power to declare even God an enemy and have him killed, your sense of justice - that is, your fidelity idea of using the law to safeguard the community - is perfect.
But with your willingness to destroy one who doesn't resist you to protect that community, you've already killed the humanity and neighborhood-spirit that legitimates your actions. Your community has lost the ability to recognize it's own.
The Jews and the Romans obviously did exactly what they saw was in the best interest of their community in killing Jesus. It just so happened, of course, that harming the least of those, let alone the Son of God, is evil.
It's a shameful thing that a community of people would, observing the transgressions of one of their own (through the lens of their own slant laws and fragile sense of propriety) decide that he or she has forfeited their humanity and have them killed. It's an irony that Jewish religious leaders had Jesus put to death, believing as they must have that they were somehow following the spirit of the Law.
Perhaps, from one perspective, Jesus Christ was crucified because of an interpretive 'mistake'; we know as Christians, that at the heart of the interpretation that had him killed, spite and mercilessness and a lazy incorrigible evil (common to humanity) commingled. Jesus knew it, too: that, I think, is why he was willing to forgive the ones who did it, knowing that they couldn't look past their own self-righteousness to see what a terrible thing they were doing.
God's authority is greater than ours, and His judgment over his own people (all of us) is of a greater scope than we in life conceive of, let alone administer. We call his mercy perfect, acknowledging that we don't share in His perfect patience, temperance, and willingness to forgive. But it compasses us, thank God.
If we aim to emulate God, we should look at the cross, see a bad thing we did, be ashamed that we're the type of people who, with the law on our side and in good conscience do evil things, and try to learn from our mistake.
Jesus' death wasn't unique. Lots of people get killed by society, whose standards of justice remains fickle and unqualified. He died a pretty common death, all things considered: people decided he should, and killed him. Happens all the time, everywhere, in all cultures, and until we realize that's its evil, stop doing it, and start apologizing for it, it'll keep happening. We'll continue to crucify Jesus, every time we make it our business to declare sinful people like us as irredeemably wicked based on a prior act and kill them with our bullets and our chemicals.
Response to CQ post of 08/27 2:01 pm:
Suggest "Life of Christ" by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Might be just what you're looking for.
+J.M.J+
>>>I always thought he was guilty of being who they said he was, which is exactly why the death penalty is such a barbaric and anti-human thing.
The specific accusation for which Pilate crucified Him was Treason for allegedly proclaiming Himself the King of the Jews, thus setting Himself up against Caesar. Since He Himself said, "My Kingdom is not of this world," I'd say the charge was pretty trumped-up. He neither intended to be nor promoted Himself an earthly ruler who would challenge the civil authority of Rome. He even said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...". Nope, Jesus was certainly innocent of the charge of treason.
In Jesu et Maria,
This conversation has reminded me of the Apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris in which our late Pope JPII discusses the mystery of salvific suffering.
It is clear in Scripture and Sacred Tradition that the suffering and death of Jesus was essential to our salvation if not exactly how this worked.
My understanding of the teaching on the death penalty is as follows.
That there are offences for which the state can justly assign the death penalty, BUT if it is not necessary for the protection of others mercy should be shown and the death penalty not used.
I do think that there is legitimate area for discussion on whether the modern state truly can and does render the offender incapable of doing harm.
My personal opinion is that any potential problem lies not with those who have committed the most horrific crimes but rather those who's crimes were part and parcel of gathering power and leading others.
A solitary man can be kept powerless far more easily then one who has gathered others around him.
"When was opposition to the death penalty ever an 'aspect of the Christian faith?'" Jeb Protestant
TR: The foundations of Quakerism pretty much reject the death penalty.
Christianity has been divided into many denominations as long as there've been "Jeb Protestants." Therefore opposition to the death penalty is seen as part of Christian faith for some and not others. Before the Re-Formation the death penalty was pretty much universally accepted by Christians. So opposition has never been part of Christian faith as such.
The ideal among modern Catholic thinkers is that justice can be served without execution as can protectand that as long as there is life there is hope for repentance. I believe from there opposition to the death penalty flows. However to oppose the death penalty universally, and in all cases, is not an inevitable position for a Catholic nor is it one required by the faith. It is more like the result of being both idealistic and Catholic.
I'm Catholic, but not particularly idealistic. The idealistic Catholic sees something like "such cases are practically non-existent" and thinks they must be non-existent. I see the rare cases of people who got life, but later killed others, and think it's not the same. If the Church flat-out says "never ever" I'll have to yield in obedience, but I don't think they've done so and I don't know if they can.
Quaker for the death penalty
Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, wrote a landmark essay on the death penalty entitled “A Bible Study”. Here is a synopsis of his analysis: ” . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect.” (p. 111-113) Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (p. 116). Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.
"...the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God."
So the hangman becomes God's bailiff?
Joseph D'Hippolito:
No he did not. Did you actually read Evangelium Vitae?
From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995.
"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: 'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.'"
(46) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266
Are you a Protestant or just ignorant of the Catholic Faith?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Joseph D'Hippolito:
I read your article. It stinks. I do not know what you are whining about. Justice Scalia. The Popes, Cardinals and Bishops are not changing the Church's teaching on this matter.
Cardinal Dulles from the issue of "First Things" you cited:
"Like Justice Scalia, I doubt that the older tradition is reversible, but even if it were, I contend any ecclesiastical authority reversing it would have to propose the new doctrine with great emphasis and show why the older position is no longer tenable. In fact, however, the Pope says nothing against the traditional doctrine. In EV §56 he approvingly quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church as saying that the primary purpose of the punishment that society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (CCC §2266). In clarifying the meaning of “redress” the Catechism mentions the expiatory value of punishment."
Archbishop Chaput was taking the good Justice to task because the Justice had stepped out of the Supreme Court and into the Church's arena. The Archbishop commented:
"Justice Scalia notes that Church teaching against the death penalty is a recent development, and that Scripture and Catholic tradition have always supported the legitimacy of capital punishment. Of course, that’s true. But that doesn’t preclude the Church from deepening her understanding of when or if this punishment should be applied. When Justice Scalia calls for “new staffers at the Congregation of Prudence in the Vatican,” he not only diminishes his own credibility with unseemly sarcasm, he also reveals his own flawed understanding of who the Church really is and why she teaches with authority. In fact, in her teaching on this issue, the Church is being exactly who Christ founded her to be-a mother who observes, reflects, and then guides us in the light of revealed truth and lived experience."
There is no Protestant Revolution going on here. No one is denying that the State has the moral authority to execute under certain circumstances a guilty prisoner. They are just teaching that in this day and age executions should be rare.
Again I suggest you actually read all of the articles and documents involved in this matter. You are cherry picking comments. You are taking them out of context. And you appear to be picking a fight with Mr. Shea over nothing.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Joseph D'Hippolito:
BTW you got the quote from "First Things" wrong. It was Robert Bork quoting Archbishop Chaput. You also selectively dropped out key phrases and sentences from the citation. In so doing you gave it an entirely new meaning.
Judge Bork's complete quote of the Archbishop's relevant comment reads as follows:
Justice Scalia’s position has been subjected to a vigorous attack by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. Arguing that “if we say we’re Catholic, we need to act like it,” the Archbishop goes on to say that “when Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes Church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not all that different from Frances Kissling disputing what the Church teaches about abortion. Obviously, I don’t mean that abortion and the death penalty are identical issues. They’re not, and they don’t have equivalent moral gravity. But the impulse to pick and choose what we’re going to accept is exactly the same kind of ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ in both cases.”
Look I do not know what you are up to here. Maybe you are a fundamentalist Protestant who hates Catholics. I respectfully suggest that you study our Faith before you attack it. You may learn that Catholicism is a lot different than what you thought.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
A combox is a free-for-all, I guess. Which would explain why the above discussion so quickly veered from Mark's original point --that Sr. Helen has abandoned orthodox Christian faith, using her opposition to the death penalty as a vague rationale. I would only dispute his confidant assertion that "this particular heresy is still relatively small". Would that it were so.
Joseph D'Hippolito:
I went to the link you provided which read in part:
"Fr. Brian Harrison pointed to certain of John Paul's words and deeds in which they believe sound and trustworthy leadership and example have been lacking. Hitchcock focused on concern over the lack of ecclesiastical discipline in John Paul's pontificate, speaking of "an almost principled reluctance to exercise his disciplinary powers." Indeed, this is an aspect of the Holy Father's pontificate that a number of orthodox Catholic commentators — including Karl Keating, Rod Dreher, and the NOR — have seen as a genuine weakness. Fr. Harrison extends this negative assessment beyond matters of discipline, discussing certain liturgical issues, questions raised by various ecumenical activities, and points of private teaching as well. Although this might strike some as presumptuous and disloyal, Fr. Harrison points out that the Church's law provides for just this sort of expression."
This is horse manure.
If this is the guy your basing your attacks on JP II and B XVI you are way off base. Father H. has a long history of associating with groups who are obsessed with Jews. He has an agenda. Heis simply not reliable.
We have only one Vicar of Christ on this earth at a time. Neither you nor Father H are the Pope.
Popes John Paul's and Benedict's teaching are perfectly in conformity with both Tradition and the Gospel.
Objectively speaking there is a great danger of you and Father H not being in full communion with Rome. Without Peter there is no Church.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Why do you, an ex-Catholic, spend so much time telling Catholics how to order their internal affairs, Jeb? Why is it ex-Catholics so often feel the compulsion to hang around the Church they have putatively left?
Sung to the tune of "Sailing, Sailing":
Trolling, trolling
Over the Catholic boards!
Though "free" from Rome,
We froth and foam
At clueless Papist hordes!
Ohhhhhh....
Trolling, trolling,
Never let up a smidgen!
We'd rather bait
The Church we hate
Than practice our own religion.
"Don'tpinch it. It's copyright." -- Psmith in Leave It to Psmith
Perhaps it's futile to add to the 62 other posts here, which probably seethe and foam with righteous ire etc.
But if anyone actually reads this, could I recommend making a study of the writings of Rene Girard on the subject of religion and violence, which are conveniently summed up in a book by G. Schwager called "Must there be Scapegoats?".
Since one of the hottest topics (and biggest problems) at the moment is precisely whether God condones violence (and if so, when?) - as our current Pope has made clear in his Regensburg address, for instance - it seems meet that Catholics address this issue head on (and not hot-headedly).
Our religion sees the highest revelation of God's will - and God's very being - in an act of unjust violence against an innocent man. We also have the example of thousands of saints who gave their lives in similar ways for the truth and to save (in the deepest sense) other people. Let's think about that!
Joseph D'Hippolito:
You do not know hat you are talking about. You have been listening to too much Protestant propaganda. The Royal Inquisition of Spain was a remarkable, and compared to modern Western Judicial systems, fair and benign institution.
No Pope or Council has ever taught the Universal Church as a matter of faith and morals "that capital punishment is (at the very least) appropriate for murder". You and Palm are in fantasy land.
Palm's article (to which you provided the link) in the Seattle Catholic is full of similar inanities.
Despite your own and Palm's whining about JP II he was a great Pope and undoubtedly a Saint. You and Palm on the other hand are a couple of wet blankets.
If you are not in fact a Protestant then you are masquerading as a Catholic. Be a man. Stop complaining about imaginary ills and get on with the task of saving the world.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Frank:
Did you actually bother to read what JP II wrote in Evanglicum Vitae? He did not teach that the State does not have the right to execute under certain circumstances convicted criminals. He acknowledged that it has that right. Instead JP II taught that this right should be exercised rarely.
Not different from Trent from which you quoted: "in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty".
John Paul II in Evanglicum Vitae and Trent are in harmony with one another and Tradition.
John Paul and Trent are also in harmony with teh other sources you cited: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori Pope Pius XI.
They did not demand capital punishment for murderers. Instead they taught that the State had that right. This is a big difference. John Paul's enemies are demanding execution for murderers like some sort of Pagan Aztec Priests.
You are holding a position outside of Tradition.
God bless
Richard W Comerford.
Joseph D'Hippolito:
You are a fanatic. You posted in part above:
"God demands capital punishment for murderers. Period. Nothing in either the NT or the Church fathers contradicts this demand."
I do not know to what religion you belong to. The Catholic Faith does not so teach. No Pope no Council has ever taught that "God demands capital punishment for murderers." The "God demands capital punishment" sounds like something out of Pagan Roman Law.
If you are not a Protestant then are you a Pagan of some sort? Wicca maybe?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
The many death penalty problems of Pope John Paul II and how they are manifest within the Catechism.
Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07
SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.
Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within 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."
This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.
Many issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope'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. When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them. Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers - an obvious truism overlooked by the Pope. Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus harm more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions. History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions. If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more 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 - again, defending more innocent lives.
No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 16 recent ones, inclusive of their defenses, find that executions do deter. As all prospects for negative consequence deter some (there appears to be no exception), it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives. If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.
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 by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment.
Fourth, furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. Executions defend more innocent lives.
Fifth, actual innocents that are convicted for murders are better protected by due process in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty cases. No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the US death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed. That is. logically, conclusive. Again, offering more defense of innocents and, thereby, a greater defense of society. The Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered -- a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope's, and other's, conclusions. Contrary to the Church's belief, that the Pope's opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions. Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended -- unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims.
When the choice is between
1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or
2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered,
The Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare and defend more innocents, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below) Pope John Paul II's death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing and they can also, thereby, defend more innocents. Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all. A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important fact, thereby undermining his sole point in reducing executions.
Sixth, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction. Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper 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), provide 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. Pope John Paul II's prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.
Seventh, most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction.
1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression.
4. Deterrence
It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was incomplete and improper. At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed. The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead. 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-.
contd
contd
"In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000) 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 Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer. Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.
Eighth, 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 Pope's position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings. If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent "paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions? 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 upon 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.)
Ninth, the Pope's position is now based upon 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 -- meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then -- were and are well 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 would have been revealed long before 1995.
Tenth, there is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard. The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder. If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution. The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a 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 have been fully supported by the Pope.
"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)
Again, with regard to the Pope's prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent. Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before. In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope 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. Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents? Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.
So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions? It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.
The Pope's position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstruct the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops.
(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,
a faithful Catholic Vatican insider and scholar, a professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.
Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment.
domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-
punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment ", May 25, 2007
(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-
other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-
penalty.aspx (3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective" at
www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/
capital_punishment.htm
(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?
document=2003/21-4
(5) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?", KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
(6) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS" , KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp
(7) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
www(dot)firstthings.com/article.php3?
id_article=2022
( "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-.
(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld(DOT)compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/
death2.htm
(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
(11) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty", by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
www(DOT)tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&
task=view&id=957
copyright 1997-2008 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp:
RE: Who is Peter?
John Paul II is smarter than you.
Ever been in prison? Ever work in or around an American prison? The people in a US prison in the main are poor black or Hispanic. They are also the ones who in the main get executed. However most of the 50-million or so Americans murdered since Roe v Wade were murdered by rich white folks. Not very fair is it?
I used to work on a SRT that covered a prison. About once a year a group of liberal lawyers would look at a death penalty case, then examine the DNA and show that the convicted about to be executed criminal was innocent. There is justice in the American justice system but only for the rich, the powerful or the connected.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
The Church in 2,000 years has never taught that the death penalty is mandatory for murder and other crimes.
John Paul II stands perfectly within Tradition on this matter. You do not.
The problem here is that you and Joseph D'Hippolito and the other enemies of JP II have set yourselves up as little popes. Sadly for you, and fortunately for us, God appoints only one Vicar at a time on earth and you are not it.
We, the faithful, do not have to listen to your snobbish rantings. Thank the Saints we can ignore you.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
"Cite" is spelled with a "c". I think that's about the only point I can make here without getting flamed. Ciao!
Richard:
Contrary to your comments, obviously, you do listen and you fail to ignore.
It would be far better if you engaged in thoughtful discussion, based upon the topic as discussed.
But, feel free to do what you say you are doing (but aren't) - don't listen and do ignore.
It is my undertanding, of the nearly 8000 sentenced to death in the US, since 1973, 6 death row inmates have been excluded as the murderer, via DNA testing.
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
The evidence is overwhelming and uncontested that living murderers harm and murder, again.
Oh, Lord, I can't stand it...
It's Evangelium, not EvangeliCum... it's not a herb ("an" herb for you American English users).
If you've read this thing, did you get past the first word of the title?
:p
Sorry, I'm a pedant. But I think if you were all as careful about your thinking as I am about your typing, you might not have to fight so much and might have more real discussions rather than quite so much "percussion" :D
Frank:
No. The Pope did not speak out against capital punishment. He confirmed the Church's constant teaching that the State under certain grave situations has the right to execute convicted criminals. Instead he counseled that this right should, in modern times, wherein the Culture of Death flourishes, be rarely used by the State.
From my personal experience (and I am no expert) criminal gangs do flourish behind bars and continue to influence events beyond the confines of prison. However the vast majority of prisoners are not convicted of murder. Those that are imprisoned usually under much more stringent conditions and are much less able to influence events beyond the prison walls. The death penalty will not do away with gangs. (The IRS is the best weapon against gangs.)
Again, from my experience modern prisons are hell on earth. The older type of prison with the community/ penitential environment but without the cable TV and ice cream was much better for all concerned.
The Doctors of the Church are not infallible. Only the Pope is and only under certain conditions and only on matters of faith and morals.
However no Pope, no Council no Doctor ever taught that capital punishment was either mandatory or that it should not be rare. John Paul II is in perfect conformity on this issue with Tradition.
It is the Pope's job to stick his nose into matters of faith and morals. Human nature does not change but times do. The eternal truths have to be clearly taught to each generation in every land.
In ancient Rome and Greece there were no prisons for free men. The guilty were often tortured and either executed or exiled. This form of punishment became enshrined in Roman law. When the Western Empire rotted away Catholic Princes and Prelates, sometimes one step away from Barbarianism, did not follow Roman Law. Indeed Saints like St John Chrysostom argued against execution and torture even for heretics.
It was not until the early Renaissance when the Holy Roman Emperor (I think Frederick II) readopted Roman Law that execution and torture crept back into Catholic culture and assumed a prominent position. Even then the Church placed severe restrictions on execution and torture. And it never taught that execution was mandatory or that torture was moral.
John Paul II was by any standard a great and saintly man.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Michael Hopwood:
On Judgment Day spelling will not matter. Obedience to and love for the Vicar of Christ will matter.
Egghead.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Actually, the topic was not whether the death penalty was a good thing *in the main* - it was about Sr. Helen Prejean's statement that God is not a God of violence.
The Bible is somewhat ambivalent on this matter, and so it is a question of very careful and painstaking exegesis - something not much in evidence on this flamebox - sorry, combox.
The latest Catholic Biblical scholarship - and not unsurprisingly, the latest Catholic Pope - seem to indicate that God indeed is completely against violence as a method for solving problem in society, generally speaking.
In fact the Old Testament shows evidence of *development* in the understanding of God of its authors (the New Testament goes beyond this and actually graphically portrays such developments happening in "real time", as in the Book of Acts, strikingly, in many passages).
Development of doctrine is one of the great things about Catholicism (it helped to convert Newman, after all) and in fact may be one of its distinguishing characteristics. A living body grows and matures; only a mummy remains the same shape and size.
So... let's all do a bit more Bible study please - because I agree with Mark about the death penalty part, but I can't call Sr. Prejean a heretic for agreeing with the best Catholic scholars and the Pope (unless I've read Mark's post wrong, or Sr. P's comments, I am fallible!).
Richard,
OK... sure, one little letter isn't gonna matter. Not one jot or tittle, surely! Just say "shibboleth" for me please :p Sorry, you can't beat a librarian for petty arguments.
Seriously, of course you are right on that question of proportionality. The Vicar of Christ comes a bit higher than Webster's on my list of authorities.
But then, it's the gnats that show up the elephants, so to speak, often, in scholarship.
But Mark's post hit on an important point about the *theological* or at least, salvation historical justification for an important Church and social issue; there is no lack of serious thinking (e.g. Girard's, as I earlier said, and was ignored) on this matter, and it's a shame to pass it up in favour of political shenannighans.
Michael Hopwood:
The Church has always taught as a matter of faith and morals "that God indeed is completely against violence as a method for solving problem in society". There is nothing new in this. JP II stands squarely in Tradition.
The Holy Nun on the other hand stands squarely outside of Tradition. She teaches that the State has no moral right to execute condemned criminals. At the same time she refuses to condemn abortion. We should pray for this idiot.
You posted in part: "But then, it's the gnats that show up the elephants, so to speak, often, in scholarship."
I reply: I am not a scholar (Thank God). I am not educated (Thank God). I am a dummy (Thank God). Most of the evil that I have seen in my life has been caused by people with initials at the end of their names.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I had no idea she was a promoter of the a-word. Hmmm. That's sad.
Still the point stands that people seem to argue: "God is violent" (pointing to X example in the Bible) and therefore man's violence is (pretty much always) justified.
I don't think initials after (oops, they're not very initial if they're after!) your name makes you a scholar - studying in a school does.
And the Church does say we have to study; in fact the Church is a "school" (her word, not mine). So...
I am about 1/3 through "The Brothers Karamazov" at the moment, so it's a very timely question. Why does God allow suffering? How can man be so darned bad? And why do the innocent suffer? It's all in there.
Hmmm. I wish you worthy Americans well. Sorry for the stupid jokes and "wise"-cracks.
M
PS; I have a fine head of hair.
Michael Hopwood
Where does the Church bind us under the pain of sin to study and what are we supposed to study?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Joseph D'Hippolito:
Grow up.
The Church and only the Church is the final interpreter of Scripture. She has interpreted it for us on this and other matters. As for Social questions in 2004 she issued a Compendium. No where in it can you find that the Church teaches that a murderer must be put to death.
What religion did you say you were associated with?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Dudley Sharp:
You posted in part: "The evidence is overwhelming and uncontested that living murderers harm and murder, again."
You mean like white, highly educated abortionists?
Are you saying all 8,000 convicts had there cases reviewed and only 6 were exonerated by DNA?
I doubt it.
And just how many convicted, imprisoned murderers on death row have murdered again on death row and who did they murder?
Our justice system sucks unless you are rich, powerful or connected- unless you are in your mother's womb.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Frank:
He is not loved by the modern world. The modern world tried to murder him a while back. I doubt that there are a dozen, out around 250 Catholic Colleges in the USA where the Theology Departments do not hold him in open contempt. The Catholic Right is unable to disguise its hatred of him.
You ("you" in the universal sense) may like or dislike who you may and still remain in full Communion with the Church. However the moment you deliberately reject a point of clearly defined faith or morals you leave full communion and enter into very dangerous grounds.
Without Peter there is no Church. Without the Church thee is no salvation.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Well, it does kind of make God sound like an "ogre", as Sr. put it.
There is a mystery here we must all bow before. On the one hand, Jesus states in the New Testament that he freely lays down his life, no one can take it from him and that "greater love has no man than he give up his life for his friends."
After the Fall no mere human being was able to defeat death, the last enemy, but the divine God-Man alone was able to reverse the effects of the Fall and bring in the New Creation by His all-sufficient Sacrifice.
Only the sinless One could affect atonement for sin. I don't expect to fully understand this side of Eternity.
Commenting by HaloScan
