www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The "Culture Wars" and Byzantine Catholics

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Here is the website on the Church's campaign to end the Death Penalty in the United States.

The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty [usccb.org]

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Well, perhaps, maybe some in the West are "using the Church as a club to beat people over the head" because some will simply not get the message.

Being nice to dissenters - or people who openly contradict and cause scandal to the Western Catholic faithful - really has not worked. Cardinal Law was nice to Teddy Kennedy, no? My own bishop, Donald Wuerl, chose not to withhold Communion to those so-called Catholic politicans who support abortion, choosing the "education" route instead.

There have been just a few who have had the courage to speak out against the Culture of Death, which is what we believe Join Paul II of eternal memory has called our bishops to do.

Those Latin Catholic dioceses that have bishops who listend to the Holy Father are robust with attendance, vocations and charity to the poor.

Those that did not - well, they can speak for themselves.

Maybe people want tax cuts because we have to work the equivalent of 4 - 4.5 months a year just to pay taxes. Much of that is wasted. As for Catholics giving little, this is due in large part to the inactive Catholics who rarely or do not attend church and then give little. One could write a thesis about it.

Maybe, just maybe, charity to the poor begins with personal piety and orthodox Catholic living.

As for the death penalty - it doesn't surprise me that the USCCB is making noise about it. Same with immigration - they basically want an open border with Mexico.

Well, just an hour south of me off of Interstate 79 is a convicted murderer of a policeman who has been made into a celebrity by the International Left. I struggle myself with the death penalty, but what this man did makes me ill.

As for open borders with Mexico - forget it.
We, as Catholics, are responsible for our poor brothers and sisters in the Catholic faith the world over. I firmly believe we will be judged by it. Having said that, the United States is a soverign nation and has the right an obligation to defend and protect its borders. We should help the poor. Nations that suppress their people and keep them in crushing poverty because of corruption (Mexico), a failed political system (Cuba), or civil war (the communist FARC in Colombia) must be blamed and held accoutable for the poverty in their nations.

As with some on the left, those American Catholics who are conservative politically often find Church teachings on social justice and the death penalty uncomfortable to say the least. I think of William F. Buckley and "Mater et Magistra" for example.

The death penalty is not forbidden, but I sometimes wish it were.

I used to support the death penalty as a just punishment for some heinous crimes.

Now, I don't think that way. Over time, especially by listening to supporters of the death penalty, I have come to conclude otherwise. To me, the death penalty cultivates the passion of anger through the passion and perpetration of violent revenge. Many of the people who support the death penalty seem to be seething with anger and a desire for revenge when they speak of it. If that is what the death penalty produces in the hearts of so many who support it, it seems to me that the death penalty is itself an evil --an evil to the human heart-- that should be eliminated.

As for the U.S., it seems that most who are killed here by the death penalty are poor, ethnic minorities or mentally retarded; and they may or may not be guilty of the crimes for which they are accused. In other words, *guilt* does not seem to be a necessary requirement for capital punishment in America.

Yes, there are times when killing is morally justifiable: a just war, defense of self, defense of others.

Also, I *don't* think that the death penalty is the moral equivalent of abortion. Abortion is the murder of a baby. I don't know how to logically express it, but there *is* a hell of a difference between killing a man and killing a *baby.* Killing a man is bad; killing a *baby* is unspeakably evil.

And thus, I think Cardinal Bernadine's "seamless garment of life" teaching sounds pretty good to me: for this country (America) and, perhaps, for a wider world.

--John

Substitute "sex" for "capital punishment/the death penalty". The statements remain true and remain potentially very misleading: therefore any sex act, while imprudent is not inherently evil?

Same deal with capital punishment. The fact that it is not inherently evil does NOT make it inherently right. And it does not absolve us of responsibility not only for prudent use but for moral use. When executions are committed they are either licit or evil and the judgment of that morality belongs to God and His church - not to the state. It is beyond denial, give the strict statements of the catechism, that capital punishment as practices in various states of the US goes beyond what is licit into what is immoral.
As citizens we have a responsibility for that.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

I have just two quick points. First, I was replying to the Romans on their point of why we seem to be silent on the issues of the "Cultural Wars." As I pointed out we Easterners take a more holistic approach to cultural and Theological issues.

As to the issue of the Death Penalty I would use the issue of Slavery as an example of something that was legitimate according to early Catholic Theology, but as the Church evolved so too did the doctrine concerning Slavery. It is now a gravious sin to own any other human, even though the Bible does provide for Slavery. So too, the Death Penalty, the Theology dealing with it will evolve to not permit it in any case, as we can see by the writings that the Church has produced on the subject.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Hmmm...Pope Benedict XVI has weighed in on this subject too. Who must we follow now? Pope John Paul II was offering his personal opinion about the prudential decision of whether recourse to capital punishment is just.

On the other hand, Card. Ratzinger was making a doctrinal statement about the relative moral aspect of abortion versus capital punishment:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Vatican
Worthiness to receive Holy Communion General principles
By Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Hardcopy Issue Date: September
Online Publication Date: Sep 1, 2004, 16:50


Obviously, Pope Benedict XVI is backing away from the stance of his predecessor, and is decoupling the abortion issue from that of capital punishment, for exactly the reasons I posted earlier on this thread.

Sometimes being "pastoral" is used as an excuse to not preach the Truth when the issue is difficult.

When does the East get around to telling their people that, for instance, contraception is intrinsically evil, and if done with full knowledge and consent, mortally sinful?

Its one thing to bring Christ to people wherever they are at. Its another altogether to let them stay there, and never tell them that part of the foundational element of Christian belief is "Repent, and Believe...Go, and SIN NO MORE."

When do they get to hear that latter part in your holistic approach?
This is no different from arguing that "Theology" will one day permit contraception.

That which is intrinsically evil (contraception) cannot be made licit, by any development of doctrine.

Likewise, that which is NOT intrinsically evil, capital punishment, will never be declared intrinsically evil by any development of doctrine.

Could you please provide historical documentation of Catholic teaching that said slavery was morally licit?

I recommend you review this article, "Slavery and the Catholic Church" at http://users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html

Furthermore, the Catechism teaches that slavery is inherently evil:

2455 The moral law forbids acts which, for commercial or totalitarian purposes, lead to the enslavement of human beings, or to their being bought, sold or exchanged like merchandise.

It does NOT state that capital punishment is inherently, i.e., by its nature, evil:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

On the contrary, we are talking about the state, and its right, recognized by the Catechism, to have recourse to capital punishment.

There is simply no corollary between the state having recourse to capital punishment and the state having recourse to...sex.

The dangerous error to be avoided is the idea that "not inherently evil" means "inherently moral". There are no shortage of ways in which a state's application of capital punishment can be immoral. And the catechism makes it very clear that much of what goes on in the US application of the death penalty is immoral.

On this we certainly agree, and I don't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I support capital punishment. I oppose it.

However, it is only in the circumstances and applications of capital punishment, by the state, that it can become immoral. It is not intrinsically immoral, like abortion and contraception.

Using your analogy, adultery is intrinsically immoral, sex is not. Sex only becomes immoral in certain circumstances.

Likewise, murder is intrinsically immoral, but capital punishment is not. Capital punishment only becomes immoral in certain circumstances.

Exactly. Too often the last word from death penatly proponents is that it is not inherently immoral. But if in practice it is immoral we have an affirmative duty to rectify the practice.

As I stated in an earlier post, I have never supported capital punishment and would like to see the practice end. But I don't base my opposition to the death penalty on Church teaching. John Paul II often held opinions that differed from most of his predecessors, and that's what they were - opinions, not official teaching. Just because we all revered JPII doesn't allow his opinions to outweigh centuries of official teaching. And I also think that Cardial Bernadin was only trying to muddle the issue and de-emphasize the seriousness of abortion with his "seamless garment" theory. He wasn't exactly known as any champion of orthodoxy to begin with. So I try to base my opposition to capital punishment on other areas. Does the death penalty actually deter crime? I can't see that it does. What about cost? It costs the taxpayers less to imprison rather than execute someone. By the time a criminal goes through years of appeals, the costs are staggering. I think there are many good and practical reasons for opposing capital punishment that don't connect to Church teaching.