Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortion? Bishops Preach Politics Rather than Gospel Truth
CCI NEWS SERVICE ^ | 12/16/2003 | Dr. Brian Kopp

Posted on 12/18/2003 10:38:18 AM PST by ckca

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

12/16/2003 8:49:00 PM
By Dr. Brian Kopp - CCI NEWS SERVICE

Bishop John H. Ricard: Abortion, death penalty... What's the difference?
 
Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas: "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)"
During the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ fall general meeting, the bishops created a task force to examine the Church's relationship with Catholic politicians who openly defy Church teachings on various moral issues. Bishop John H. Ricard, SSJ, of Pensacola-Tallahassee is chairman of the new task force. During the meeting, he stated:

"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 EVIL

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.

JUSTICE IS NOT EVIL

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.

St. Thomas Aquinas sums up the thought of Christian tradition on the subject,

"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?

NO!

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: badandy; catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-154 next last
To: madprof98
Dear madprof98,

In my world, the pope shows us what it is to be Catholic.

But the pope has not taught that the death penalty is, per se, wrong. If that is your understanding of Catholic teaching, you need a little remedial work.


sitetest
81 posted on 12/19/2003 5:22:07 AM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: vigilo
"Who are the innocent? Aren't we all born with original sin? What good is a "trial" when you're condemned from inception to be guilty?"

Just because we are born with an itch for sin doesn't mean we have acted on that itch. How can an unborn child commit a sin?

83 posted on 12/19/2003 6:15:55 AM PST by redhead (Les Franšais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: Jumper
Also, the death penalty is condoned by God, the author of morality. That being the case, the death penalty can not be immoral.
86 posted on 12/19/2003 6:50:15 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ckca; Polycarp
Never nice piece of work. I'm pinging this for later reading/distribution.

Thanks!
87 posted on 12/19/2003 7:08:15 AM PST by FormerLib (We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Not exactly, though the overall sentiment you state is correct. The Pope is the leader of the Roman Church, however, he is unable to overturn centuries of Church doctrine, he can just more clearly focus doctrine. If the Pope were to say Abortion is ok, the Church would not. I think that is a needed distinction to make.
88 posted on 12/19/2003 7:15:34 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
For Infallibility to be used, it must be proclaimed, this Pope, has not proclaimed his teachings on the death penalty Ex Cathedra, or infallible. That is a distinction that has to be made. Yes, the Pope can ultimately bind or loose things as given to him by Christ through Peter in Matthew, but he has to proclaim that that is what he is doing, otherwise it is his opinion and not infallible. He has not proclaimed the Death Penalty in a manner in accordance with Catechism 891.
89 posted on 12/19/2003 7:18:36 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
And I will admit, my own feelings on the death penalty are quite conflicted. But I also firmly believe that the theological justification for the current Church stance on the death penalty is highly suspect. The current opposistion to the Death Penalty (though not condemnation) lies with the need for the State to defend itself. I Think that is a dangerous primary reason to either have or not have the death penalty. It is also a big departure for the past on the Death penalty, with focused on the retributive side of the Death Penalty. To build support or opposistion completely on Defense of the State is dangerous, because one could argue that other things are necessary to protect the state even if they are morally evil. Just a thought.
90 posted on 12/19/2003 7:32:21 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
"Also, the death penalty is condoned by God, the author of morality."

How do you come to that conclusion?

What is wrong with lifetime incarceration? If we as Christians truly believe in God's Omnimpotence, then how can we not allow Him to be the final arbiter of a man's earthly existence.

If a man sits on death Row and is set to be executed on June 15th and so it follows, how do we know it was not God's arbitrary will to reach down and touch this man's heart and save his eternal soul on June 16th!!! We, as mere humans took that out of God's hands.

And lest anyone take me to task for this conclusion, I ask that you recall the story of Saul's conversion.
91 posted on 12/19/2003 7:33:17 AM PST by Prolifeconservative (If there is another terrorist attack, the womb is a very unsafe place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers...... A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment.... A devout Christian would sanction neither.... But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the Liberal view.........

PJ O'Rourke
92 posted on 12/19/2003 7:37:09 AM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Well, first of all, abortion is performed on an innocent, unborn child, whereas the death penalty is applied against an adult with free will who has committed a heinous crime.

The Bible says man kind is born into sin. Aborted infants are not yet born into sin, therefore without sin, or sin free.
The criminals are not only born into sin, but chose through their own free will to commit the worst of sin.

93 posted on 12/19/2003 8:08:32 AM PST by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
Does anyone know if the Bible actually dilineates between a "murder" and a "killing." In other words, what differentiates the two and makes one always wrong (murder) and one wrong except in certain circumstances(killing)?

The Bible addresses in much detail the differences between cold-blooded murder, manslaughter, revenge killing, capital punishment, killing in self-defense, killing as part of your duties (e.g. soldiers killing in combat), etc.

Murder is punishable by death. Manslaughter is not. Revenge killing is wrong. Capital punishment is not. Killing in self-defense is justified. Soldiers killing combatants is justifiable, too (it's an expanded form of self-defense, because soldiers are defending themselves, their platoons, their country. It is not OK for soldiers to abuse their positions for their own selfish gain, though. The Bible forbids them to rape, pillage, and deliberately kill innocents).

I wish I could supply you with verses, but can't off the top of my head. If you do research it, you will find ample verses in the Bible that support what I've said.

The Bible does not specifically use the word abortion that I'm aware of, but does address the unborn. A child in the womb is regarded as a miracle, a wonder, and as a person that God already knows and loves.

I don't see how anyone who reads the Bible can honestly believe that God would condone killing unborn children. Everything that God says about how we should treat one another (do unto others as you would have done unto you, love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.) tells me that God would view abortion as a terrible, terrible sin.

94 posted on 12/19/2003 8:25:32 AM PST by schmelvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Momus
"Who are the innocent? Aren't we all born with original sin? What good is a "trial" when you're condemned from inception to be guilty?"

Depends on what you mean by 'born with original sin'. A child is born with the tendency to sin, but I doubt it has already sinned. We aren't 'guilty' just for being born, but for the sins we have committed.

Of course, I realize there are those who think a baby who dies cannot go to heaven if it wasn't baptised. I don't see support for that view in scripture, and it sure negates the view of a loving, compassionate, merciful and just God.

95 posted on 12/19/2003 8:29:27 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
"That, in the Catholic church, is up to the Pope. Regardless of what Aquinas, Luther, or Jesus said."

Regardless of what Jesus said???

Oh, my.

96 posted on 12/19/2003 8:31:43 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

To: Prolifeconservative
"If we as Christians truly believe in God's Omnimpotence, then how can we not allow Him to be the final arbiter of a man's earthly existence."

He is. And He instituted the death penalty. Life for life.

Of course, we as individuals aren't to carry that out. We are to turn the other cheek. But government has a different role than the individual

98 posted on 12/19/2003 8:33:57 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Check out the 10 Commandments!
99 posted on 12/19/2003 8:42:16 AM PST by Prolifeconservative (If there is another terrorist attack, the womb is a very unsafe place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Of course, we as individuals aren't to carry that out. We are to turn the other cheek. But government has a different role than the individual

How odd it was for Christ to have ordered individual Christians to turn the other cheek but then to allow those very same Christians to do the exact opposite when they act as agents of the state. I understand this odd distinction comes from Thomas Aquinas, but he was wrong on other life-issues as well.

100 posted on 12/19/2003 8:43:11 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson