Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortion? Bishops Preach Politics Rather than Gospel Truth

Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortions? US Bishops Preach Politics Rather than the Gospel Truth

"We face a serious pastoral challenge, Some Catholic politicians defy church teaching in their policy advocacy and legislative votes, first and most fundamentally on the defense of unborn life, but also on the use of the death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority for the poor, and welcome for immigrants...."

The task force is charged with creating guidelines to aid our bishops in making distinctions between "respect for the office and approval of the officeholder ... to distinguish between fundamental moral principles and prudential judgments on the application of those principles, between essential substance and tactics," according to Bishop Ricard.

This rhetoric creates a false moral equivalence between support for the death penalty (which has been seen as morally licit in well defined circumstances for the entire history of Christianity) and support for abortion (which has always been taught to be inherently evil, with no exceptions.) This misrepresentation of fundamental Catholic beliefs has grown increasingly common to the frustration of faithful Catholics who identify the political agendas behind the confusion.

Another example of this intentionally misleading approach is by Michael L. Shields, writing in the August 1, 2003, National Catholic Reporter article, "Double standard in public life hurts Catholic credibility," states:

"In March 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical Evangelium Vitae stating that the death penalty is nly appropriate "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 improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are rare, if not practically nonexistent." … In spite of this declaration by the church, so-called "true" Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was able to reconcile his views on the permissibility of the death penalty with church teachings. Scalia argued that since the pope’s teaching on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae did not come ex cathedra (i.e., with formal infallibility) he is not obligated as a Catholic to accept it, only to give it "serious consideration." Using Scalia’s logic, it is just as easy for a pro-choice Catholic to justify his belief in the right of a woman to choose because Humanae Vitae also did not come ex cathedra. However, the pro-choice Catholic would be considered more reprehensible than Scalia simply because well-entrenched conservative … consider abortion to be the greater of the two evils and thus they turn a blind eye to Scalia’s inconsistent views."

Tim Francis-Wright, writing for the self-declared Marxist/Leftist web magazine "Bear Left," states in his May 6, 2003 column, "Acta Santorum,"

"Santorum has criticized Catholic politicians who espouse liberal views on social issues, while praising President Bush as "the first Catholic president of the United States." Bush is a Methodist, unlike former President John Kennedy … He is, however, an unwavering conservative, and that is good enough for Santorum.

"Santorum is free, as he should be, to use his religious beliefs to guide his political beliefs. His problem is that the complete tenets of Roman Catholicism are awfully hard to reconcile without some cognitive dissonance. If Santorum took a hard line against abortion and euthanasia and homosexual acts, but also against the death penalty and nuclear weapons and wars of retribution, as do "seamless garment" Catholics, then his views on sexuality and homosexuality would reflect the odd amalgam of radical and puritanical within the teachings of his church.

"But Santorum is hardly a critic of the death penalty or of any war. Like many Catholics-and many non-Catholics-he has chosen from his religion's dogma what he wants to hear and ignored the rest. He may not want to admit that he, too, is a cafeteria Catholic, but his public pronouncements belie him. Ultimately, Rick Santorum is no better a Catholic than myriad Catholics who attend only Christmas and Easter services."

For left wing hypocrites to twist the truth for their own ends is one thing, but for a Catholic bishop to compare defying the Church's stance on abortion, which is intrinsically evil, to a prudential judgement on the death penalty, which the Church still admits the State has a right to impose (though it should be rare) simply provides the desired fodder for the enemies of political conservatism and the Christian morality.

Abortion is by its very nature, i.e., intrinsically, evil. No circumstances, no application of "situational ethics," can change its intrinsically evil nature.

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility that a state could justifiably use capital punishment in cases "of extreme gravity," but adds: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means..." [#2266, 2267]

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote that punishment should not include the death penalty "if it is not a case of absolute necessity, in which the defense of society would not otherwise be possible." The Pope continued, "such cases are now very rare, if not practically non-existent." However, the Holy Father added that the principles put forth in the Catechism remain valid.

So a case can be made that from the perspective of charity, and within the framework of justice in modern society, that Capital Punishment should be so rare as to be non-existent. This is the thinking of the current Pope, the Catechism now reflects that thinking, and many pro-life activists are indeed personally opposed to Capital Punishment.

But recourse to the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. A Catholic who supports the death penalty commits no sin. To compare the two is disingenuous at best, and a direct attack upon conservative pro-life Catholic politicians and activists at worst. It would seem that certain factions within the USCCB are upset that lay Catholic activists and faithful Catholic politicians have forced them into addressing an issue they would much rather continue to ignore.

(Furthermore, Catholics in the pro-life movement tend to share a 95% crossover identity with "orthodox" or conservative Catholics. Certain bishops may see these orthodox lay Catholics as a real threat to their overall liberal agenda. This Jesuit bishop’s comment may also have been intended as a shot across the bow, i.e "push us on this too hard and we might excommunicate your political heroes --like Santorum and Scalia-- also.")

Pope John Paul II coined the terms "Culture of Life" and "Culture of Death." The four components that are traditionally named as the four pillars of the Culture of Death are 1)the contraceptive mentality (from which springs legalized abortion and the current destruction of marriage and the family), 2)abortion, 3)homosexuality and 4)euthanasia.

Christian moral theology has condemned these four pillars of the Culture of Death, constantly and definitively, since the times of the apostles themselves. For instanc e, all of Christianity unanimously taught contraception to be inherently evil (i.e., no circumstances can make it acceptable) until 1930, when the Anglicans caved to pressure from the Margaret Sangers of the early 1900’s and permitted contraception, but only in carefully defined circumstances. The ensuing decades saw all mainstream Protestant sects fall into grave error on these issues until the present time, when only Roman Catholicism remains steadfast in its adherence to the continual teaching of Christianity against contraception.

Likewise, Christianity has always condemned abortion, homosexuality, and Euthanasia as inherently evil, with some denominations falling recently to the pressures of the modern world to change.

Unlike these four pillars of the Culture of Death, Capital Punishment has continuously been regarded as morally licit, for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, with some modern changes in thinking.

"If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since 'a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump' (I Cor. 5:6)"

"The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.... Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.... [However], the execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever it cannot be done with out danger to the good. Of course, this often happens when the wicked are not clearly distinguished from the good by their sins, or when the danger of the evil involving many good men in this ruin is feared" (Book III, ch. 146).

Clearly, the continual teaching of Christianity has been that Capital Punishment is not only necessary but also just and licit. The recent changes in Church teaching regarding Capital Punishment are finely nuanced and situational.

The constant teachings regarding contraception, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia simply cannot and will never be changed.

Is Opposition to Capital Punishment an essential Part of the Culture of Life? Is it a seamless garment, whereby if one opposes the 40 million abortions of innocent babies over the last several decades, one most equally oppose the death by capital punishment of several hundred murderers during that same time?

More importantly, does not the current practice of equating opposition to Capital Punishment with opposition to abortion itself cheapen and trivialize the grave crime of abortion?

In a world that is post-Christian, where even practicing Christians fail to have the reasoning and critical thinking to separate that which is inherently evil from that which is only made evil by current circumstances, the danger lies in more Christians failing to comprehend the crucial distinction between that which by its very nature is inherently evil (abortion) and that which is morally licit in general (death penalty) but currently should be rare due to circumstances.

Keeping Capital Punishment alongside these other issues leads many to conclude that like Capital Punishment, these other Culture of Death issues also can be made situationally acceptable due to our changing societal circumstances. Persisting to lump these disparate issues together threatens to destroy any efforts to teach the inherently evil and unchangeable nature of true Culture of Death issues.

Situational ethics have won the day in too many battles in the Culture Wars already. We cannot afford to lose the overall war between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death because some cannot or purposely will not "distinguish between fundamental moral principles and prudential judgments on the application of those principles, between essential substance and tactics."

Lumping opposition to capital punishment alongside the true Culture of Death issues of contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia is scandelous and wrong. It also demonstrates an example of how the demise of Catholicism in America is due, at least in part, to Bishops more concerned with preaching politics than the Gospel truth.

Every Catholic on this thread except you, unrelated, with no prior plan, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, understands and agrees with the author of this thread.

Oh, yeah, all the LIBERALS here at Free Republic are just falling over themselves to get on the execution bandwagon! Get real! The thread is really a response to a piece written to explain away a Church teaching that political conservatives generally find distasteful. Not surprisingly, most of the responses found the original piece refreshing--because it is so different from what the Church actually does teach. To see what that is, try the Priests for Life website.

As for all the liberal, moderate and conservative supporters of execution here, the words of Archbishop Chaput are very clearly directed at you:

Second, if we say we're Catholic, we need to act like it. When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes Church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not so very different from Frances Kissling (of "Catholics for a Free Choice" fame) disputing what the Church teaches about abortion. I don't mean that abortion and the death penalty are equivalent issues. They're not. They clearly do not have equal moral gravity. But the impulse to pick and choose what we accept in Church teaching is exactly the same kind of "cafeteria Catholicism" in both cases.

BTW, I retired from teaching in order to care for our adopted daughter, who is just five. But I regularly make presentations to Catholic church groups, and I'm scheduled to do one in a few weeks on Cafeteria Catholics, Left and Right. I'll be sure to cite the arguments I heard here as examples.

NWU, thank you for responding cogently and fairly. I am certainly not saying that there was any proclamation of infallibility about JPII's death penalty comments.

I merely disagree that the Pope's authority or that of the bishops acting in mass is limited by the past--Vatican II revised YEARS of church teaching and it didn't matter that Latin was spoken in Mass and Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays for years, and it was all gone. GONE. You may or may not be happy about that, but for the Roman Catholic church, it was DONE. No lay protest could have changed it. Only the Pope or bishops acting in concert could change it back, and if they disagreed, there'd be schism.

If the Pope or Magisterium wanted to declare ANYTHING was now church policy (yes, Meg, even if it was something that could be debatably in contradiction of Jesus' words), certainly, there would be schism or a substantial decline in church membership if it was too radical, but I have no doubt that he or they could do so, and not one of you have said a darn thing to show otherwise. You all seem to think precedent binds one who rules absolutely. It certainly plays a role in people's acceptance of those rules, but if he wants it, he can have it.

I'm sorry, not one of you has had a comment on what I posted, other than to call names or just deny it can happen. Whether you disagree or not, you should be able to point to where church doctrine STATES the Pope or bishops are so bound. I'm not saying I want it to be the truth, I'm not saying it's a bad thing it is the truth, I'm not saying the Catholic Church is awful or great because it's the truth. It just IS the truth.

And I'm not discussing my religion, all the 'you don't know jack about the RC church' and 'you're no RC' baiting notwithstanding. I'm not here to bash Catholics or pat Catholics on the backs. I actually have a pretty good record on here smacking down anti-Catholic comments simply because it's wrong to unfairly bash any religion.

I'm sad some of you automatically assume that anything that is said about the Catholic faith must be against it. I'm stating what is the truth--if you don't like it, show me false. Don't childishly call me a "Papolator," whatever that is. Show me I'm wrong about what Catholicism is and means by telling me exactly where the Church says other than what I've said here.

I know what I've said here is exactly what the Church says, and if you don't believe in the Pope's ultimate authority, you are no Catholic. You think you get to decide on what the church is and means instead of its leader, the vicar of Christ, and you should join some other church now which better fits your viewpoint.

"We are talking about inidivuals who are in incarerated, and a society which has been protected from these same criminals by prison walls. How does the killing of an already incarcerated-for-life individual further protect society from this very same person?"

Are you talking about punishment, or considering incarceration to be sufficient punishment?

In the economy of salvation, there is a "due" punishment for sin. When my child deliberately breaks a serious law of my household, he knows that the punishment for that infraction is a spanking. I can defer that spanking, but that deferral does not negate its "due-ness," just as the consequences of sin are the punishments of Purgatory or Hell. Even being forgiven does not abrogate the "dueness" of that punishment, which means that even the "good" people will pass through Purgatory on their way to Heaven. Incarceration is not punishment. It is a removal from society, granted, but it is in no way a punishment. The death penalty is just that, a PENALTY for a terrible crime. It is the punishment that is due for serious, murderous crimes.

Time and again, the Bible speaks of the prescribed death of those who deliberately defy the Laws of God. The state has been given the right (by God and the will of the people) to punish crimes as well as to protect against threats. An incarcerated individual is not being punished unless he is being PUNISHED. Parents don't pretend to spank their children any more than the state can pretend to punish unregenerate murderers. (asbestos underwear in place)

Old Madprof98, the logician who is a bit daft, will be happy to explain to you that 'some things are proven only by the absence of their contrary.'

When you say that the Pope can declare, infallibly, that (e.g.,) the Assumption did NOT occur, and claim that the Pope has such power, you are running up against the rule above.

No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true. And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite.

"No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true."

>I don't think we're debating that. If he were declaring it infallibly it would then be true according to Catholic doctrine.

>No, what we're debating is whether he has the power to do so. I say he does, and point to Catholic doctrine as I've cited. You say he doesn't, and point to your rectum, where you pulled that idea from.

"And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite."

>Oh, PLEASE, hold your breath. It's so cute when you stomp your foot and act like a child. Especially when you claim that 'some things are only proven by the absence of their contrary.' Those statements of opinion are then THEORIES, not facts. They are unproven, so not facts, though they're not necessarily WRONG. For instance, if I tell you a big purple bunny invisible to all but me shadows me around, you can't provide any contrary proof. That doesn't mean I have a big purple bunny after me.

Worse, you attempt to shift the burden of proof after I showed you that the Church says the Pope is infallible when proclaiming articles of faith, and his proclamations are then the word of the Church. You can't claim 'logic' is behind you. Just saying 'no, you're wrong!' is not even an argument. That you don't even understand that your argument is and has been 'no, you're wrong, prove me wrong!' and dismissing of any and all evidence thereof, shows you wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on that handy opinion-filled rectum of yours.

I could tell you there is no God and dismiss any evidence there, but that would be an argument about FAITH. I don't care if you're Catholic or Jewish or whatever, faith is irrelevant to this. This, is an argument about FACT. About what is or isn't Catholic DOCTRINE. Not your belief about it. The facts are as I've shown, as stated by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, NOT ME. You have petulantly claimed other than the facts, and can't show any reason other than your opinion it is so. I haven't just SAID anything, the Church said it, and for you to dismiss it as if I'm just tossing out my opinion of the weather, is evidence of how truly clueless you are about the Roman Catholic Church.

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.