Mark Shea's a-movin' to Patheos!

So now Mr Shea, we have you rejecting a document given by the CDF presenting how we are to regard certain moral principles as faithful Catholics. You have now proclaimed that when the CDF speaks on proper application of moral matters, it really carries no weight. I wonder why the then Cardinal Ratzinger wasted his time in clarifying such an application if it is useless to the faithful? Remember, that was his job. Mr. Shea has accused me earlier of rejecting the Magisterium, but here we have a clear example of the CDF performing its mission to the Church, and it is Mr. Shea, not I, who is rejecting its voice. The CDF did not say we are to disregard any papal teaching, it has presented the proper application of this particular papal teaching as well as others. How you can fail to understand this is beyond me at this point. You are presenting a reductionist argument here, demonstrating that you do not have an adequate understanding of moral theology, or these particular texts.

If we read EV, which the Catechism quotes in part regarding the death penalty, we see a clear reference to JPII’s thoughts on the prudence of its use. JPII uses a secondary principle regarding punishment to justify not killing the criminal, which is to stop a future crime by the guilty party. He calls this legitimate defense. It is important to note that this is not the same as self defense, so do not confuse the two. The primary reason for punishment however is to redress wrongdoing, or the disorder of a past crime, which the Catechism (2226) also refers to before it gets to the part you are using for your reductionist argument. This means that if and when the state punishes someone it is done always first and foremost in light of the crime that was committed in the past, not what may or may not happen in the future. This is known as retributive justice. It is retrospective in nature. It looks to the past first. So the principle JPII uses rests largely on future crimes that the criminal may or may not commit.

This secondary principle that JPII cites can be used to help in determining a prudential use of the death penalty, but not for abolishing it completely, or binding a particular state to abolishing it unconditionally. The state must determine first and foremost if the punishment will redress the heinous crime committed by the criminal. I will let a real theologian speak. The great moral theologian Dr. Ralph McInerny once wrote,

“Some have said that retribution is no longer part of the church’s view of punishment. This is false. Some will speak as if there is an equivalence to be made between the life of a guilty and condemned murderer and an unborn child, and seek, on that basis, to link opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty. This too is nonsense, incubated in a society which, permitting some citizens to take the lives of other innocent citizens, sees a moratorium on the death penalty as a moral imperative…But keep in mind that protecting society is only the secondary purpose of punishment. If, however rarely, the state’s right to take the criminal’s life is legitimately exercised, only recourse to the primary purpose of punishment–redressing the wrong–can justify it. It will not do to say that locking Adolph Eichmann up will prevent him from continuing with the Final Solution and give him a chance to repent. By his crimes, Adolph Eichmann had forfeited own life. One life compared with six million seems risibly disproportionate, but it is the most that could be exacted from Eichmann, and it justly was.”

So if and when the state decides to use the death penalty for a punishment, it is for the crime that was committed in the past, not primarily for what someone may or may not do in the future. Would you punish your kids Mr. Shea for something they may do wrong in the future? Would you ground your child for a week to teach him or her a lesson for some wrong they may do next week? Or do you punish in light of a wrongdoing that they did in the past? This is the critical question. I also would like to point out that the state can always choose to show mercy towards the criminal, but using a determination based only on the likelihood that the criminal may or may not be able to commit another crime in the future is flawed, it can only be used as a secondary part of the equation. This is how I understand the application of this teaching after reading many moral theologians on the matter. It is not as simple as excommunicating anyone who does not share your reductionist interpretation of the one line you keep pushing all over the internet.

As I pointed out already, it does not matter how may times you take a reductionist reading of one line from EV. I already pointed out that it was JPII’s personal view on the application of the death penalty in light of the secondary principle outlined above. I take it since you did not answer my question, that you did not read Dr. Long’s or Father Dewane’s material on this subject or any of the other moral theologians that I have presented in my other rebuttals on my blog to your position, otherwise you might understand all of this. At this point your argument in favor of me or anyone not for the abolishion of the death penalty as being dissenters is a grace error. Hopefully you will realize this a correct your earlier statement.

I agree with mr Bellisario. You can’t treat a letter from the CDF as having no weight. And retributive justice is the basis on which the state of Connecticut will execute the cheshire home invasion murders.

I meant the latter statement.. I
(I also meant to write ‘murderers’).

Greta….you raise some very good issues and questions, so God bless you. Your search can be distilled, IMO, down to what “Infallibility” means and, hence, to how a faithful Catholic must orient his will and intellect. The link below may help answer your questions. I, at one time, had questions similar to yours and this link helped me form my conscience. I hope it helps you, too. Peace.

http://www.fisheaters.com/papolatry.html

I would also like to add two other accessible books on moral theology.
1. Right and Reason- Fr. Austin Fagothey (TAN books has it)
2. Introduction to Moral Theology- Fr. Romanus Cessario (Amazon)
These two books are great resources.
Have fun reading!

First, it needs to be emphasized that the death penalty and all punishment is primarily a matter of retributive justice. Protecting society is a secondary consideration. I believe that qualifies as Catholic doctrine.

Second, when the CCC states “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 …”, well, we can just stop right there.

A few minutes with a search engine reveals that 356 people were murdered *in prison*, by other prisoners, between 2001 and 2007. in the United States. More than 70,000 prisoners are sexually assaulted in prison every year. In New York state alone there were 675 assaults by prisoners against other prisoners, and 576 assaults by prisoners against staff, in 2010.

So much for the great success of modern prisons in defending human lives, protecting the safety of persons, etc. It just isn’t true that modern technology has rendered the death penalty obsolete by making prisons safe. As long as violent men are around other human beings, there will be violence.

Oh, let’s not forget the violent prisoners who are paroled and released, 70% of whom end up back in prison within 3 years, often because they have hurt or killed someone else.

Here in California there are 20,000 men in solitary confinement, with no windows, let out for one hour every day to go for a walk by themselves in a tiny courtyard with high walls. Some have been in solitary for 10 years. They are now on a massive hunger strike. It’s true that these men don’t hurt anybody, but the cost is immense, and in my opinion it borders on cruel and unusual punishment, or even torture.

Mark I did deal with Kreitzberg’s point. He is incorrect in giving JPII’s view on the prudence of using the death penalty such doctrinal weight, for the same reasons I presented above. I have now gone to great length to explain to you in detail what the proper teaching is. I also demonstrated the fact that you cannot accuse those not in favor of abolishing the death penalty as being dissenters. JPII did not define a doctrinal teaching concerning the death penalty, he referred to a secondary principle in regard to punishment to present his view regarding the prudence of using capital punishment. I presented to you the primary reason for punishment, which may still justify the state in using capital punishment.

Second, if you now agree with Cardinal Ratzinger, writing as the head of the CDF when he said, “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” and “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty…” then you must also agree that I am not dissenting from the Church when I propose that the secondary reason given by JPII is not always binding in regard to capital punishment.

Now, I would appreciate it if you deal with the many moral theologians such Dr. Long, Dr. McInerny, Dr. Fesser, Fr. Dewan, etc, whom I have presented to you, which you apparently refuse to read. For a guy who is hellbent on proclaiming this anathema, I would assume you would want to investigate their views, no? You are the one now speaking for the Church telling all of us what is binding on our consciences and what is not. This is serious since if you are wrong, and at this point there is really not much of a doubt about that, then you are going to be accountable for making such a false public proclamation. The burden of proof is again on you.

I have cited the then Cardinal Ratizinger writing as the head of the CDF telling a Cardinal whom inquired about this very moral dilemma in regards to Catholics and voting. I hope that you know that just because it was a private correspondence that it still carries the weight of his office as the head of the CDF. He signed the memorandum as head of the CDF. As you should know, most of the time the CDF responds by memorandums addressing specific questions of bishops or theologians regarding how statements and documents of the Church apply in practice. In this particular case it dealt with moral issues which would put a Catholic at odds with the Church. The prudential use of capital punishment was not one of the moral teachings which does. Which is going to be? At first you said the letter is worth nothing, and has no weight, and now you are saying that you agree with every word of it. Why first call into question this particular document and its authority, and then later act as if you now agree with it? I find this behavior quite odd.

Finally, we have another theologian, Cardinal Dulles, who although agrees with JPII’s view, also agrees that Catholics are not bound to this view. (Mentioned in comment #45 above.) Dulles addressed judge Scalia’s view, “As to the Pope’s assertion that the DP should today be rare, I would affirm, against Justice Scalia, that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgement…. Their prudential judgement, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgement, therefore, is not dissent from Catholic teaching.”

Dulles also points out that the Pope was only expressing a prudential view on the matter and was not making a doctrinal change in his statement in EV regarding this. He even speaks of the problem of using a one liner as a reductionist argument.

“If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).

I doubt whether the tradition is reversible at all, but even if it were, the reversal could hardly be accomplished by an incidental section in a long encyclical focused primarily on the defense of innocent human life. If the Pope were contradicting the tradition, one could legitimately question whether his statement outweighed the established teaching of so many past centuries.

I believe that the Pope, without contradicting the tradition, is exercising his prudential judgment…”

So do you agree with Dulles here or not? No he is not head of the CDF, but that doesn’t seem to matter to you anyway? Hopefully you are learning a hard lesson here. Think before you proclaim anthemas against your fellow Catholics.

Jeff:

Given that Benedict is in favor of abolishing the death penalty, it appears that he does not buy your theory that retributive justice is the main rationale for the death penalty. And though you want to put your words in my mouth, I nonetheless politely decline to be press-ganged into a Two Magisteria theory which splits the pre and post Vatican 2 Church apart and pits them against one another.

Matthew:

I appreciate your patience with me. It’s hard for unserious Catholics like me to grasp why I need to ignore the obvious and clear teaching of EV and the Catechism in favor of the theories of Some Guy with a Keyboard. It was kind of you to stoop down to my level. I will try to do better.

As usual Mark, I do not appreciate the sarcasm and arrogance that you repeatedly use when you know you have no tenable argument. Hence my assessment stands that you are in the wrong business. How you can continue to hold to a position that you have been shown to be incorrect is simply amazing. You had a chance to own up to your mistake here and now it is plain to all that you refuse to do so.

I have demonstrated that the teaching of EV on this particular matter is a prudential judgement by JPII. It is not doctrinal or dogmatic in nature. I have given you the primary reason for the act of punishment, which cannot change. Otherwise you turn the act of punishment into an act which primarily focuses on only stopping a future crime which may or may not happen, which makes no sense. I gave you the part of the Catechism as well as several moral theologians, which also make this point clear. I have given you the opinion of another moral theologian, Dulles as well as a memorandum by the head of the CDF who all both concluded that those who oppose your reductionist reading are not in dissent, yet you continue to read these one liners in isolation as a reductionist. I have repeatedly asked you to read the many moral theologians that I presented to you material and reasons supporting my position and you have not one time answered any of what I have given you on the subject. I have done this in a straight forward manner here, and now all I get in return is a sarcastic remark? At this point you don’t have much ground to stand on Mark. You have made an anathematizing proclamation that you simply can’t back up.

I must make this final point. When you write these types of articles condemning people with these types of proclamations you are responsible for the people who are going to read your material. That means that you are going to be held accountable to God for what you write. I am not being facetious here, I am serious. Written material stays around a long time even if it is on the internet, and people will read your material long after you are gone. If you make a rash judgment on something and you are wrong, that error goes on a long time. It circulates for years and years. Keep this in mind as you engage in your new blogging venture here, and I pray that I can do the same in the future. I would not want anyone to be mislead by what I have written, and if you can prove me wrong then I will be the first to come over here and tell everyone that I was.

I will end with a story that I heard just last night when listening to an online lecture which pertained to this.

There was an author who died and went to hell. He wakes up in a caldron of boiling water. He looks down and sees these demons dropping some fresh logs off to keep the fire burning under it nice and hot. He looks over in agony and sees this other guy sitting in his cauldron reclining back with the fire barely going. He asks the guy what he did to merit hell. The guy says he killed his nagging wife. The author sits in dismay watching the demons coming back over with yet another set of logs. He then asks the demon, why do you keep picking on me with all of these logs, my cauldron is burning hot. That guy over there killed his wife and his cauldron is barely warm. The demons laughed and said, “Yes he killed his wife, but she forgave him for his act, you on the other hand have written many books which are misleading people, and every time someone buys one and reads another, we get another set of logs to throw on the fire. Your books are now on the bestseller list, so you can expect more logs for a long time coming.”

Re: Mr. Shea ia a bad Hobbit.

“Hence my assessment stands that you are in the wrong business.”

He certainly is. I suggest he go into the marijuana plant growing business in his backyard like everyone else on the Left Coast.

“How you can continue to hold to a position that you have been shown to be incorrect is simply amazing.”

And you showed him that his position was incorrect so clearly!

“You had a chance to own up to your mistake here and now it is plain to all that you refuse to do so.”

And he is a moral coward to boot!

“I will end with a story that I heard just last night when listening to an online lecture which pertained to this.”

Gee. I thought you made that up just for Mr. Shea?

I say we get out the torches and pitchfork,s hunt Mr. Shea down, and water board him 183 times.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

“your sarcastic responses do not uphold your position very well”

My position is that of the Church. See the link to the article by Cardinal Dulles above.

“in fact clearly demonstrate that you have no real argument”

I do not have an argument because there is nothing to argue about. Again see the link above.

“Why bother with such responses, do you actually think anyone takes such remarks seriously?”

From my e-mail yes. Thanks to the internet a remarkable number of people read and think themselves into the Church.

“I don’t”

Then why the post?

“If you cannot add anything substantive, then why bother?”

Because folks reading and thinking their way into the Church can be put off by bores who take themselves far too seriously.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
cincdeb@yahoo.com

I think Mr. Bellisario has provided several well reasoned and at times brilliant entries which probably qualify him to be a Patheos blogger at this point.

For Mark Shea I have the question: is it sinful for the State of Connecticut to execute the Cheshire home invasion murderers? Are Catholics involved in that process, i.e., prosecutors, sinning when they argue for the death penalty?

“Crying for the execution”? Are you kidding. Mr. Comerford you are engaging in the same kind of overheated rhetoric and ad homimen nonsense to which Mr. Shea is no stranger. I asked a simple, serious question about it, and you say I am “crying” for the execution. Disgraceful

For your information, Hayes has already been sentenced to death. Komisarjevsky will without question be found guilty given his blood-curdling confession to the murders, and will receive the same sentence.

why don’t you try answering my question instead of running interference for shea.

“I asked a simple, serious question about it, and you say I am “crying” for the execution. Disgraceful”

It is indeed disgraceful to call for the execution of a man not yet found guilty of a crime. Indeed Mr. Komisarjevsky’s attorneys have moved for a change in venue because of what they describe as a “mob mentality”.

“For your information, Hayes has already been sentenced to death.”

As I indicated above.

“Komisarjevsky will without question be found guilty given his blood-curdling confession to the murders”

He has not entered a confession.

“and will receive the same sentence”

Again you make Mr. Shea’s point. He has, according to insiders, a 50/50 chance of escaping the death penalty.

“why don’t you try answering my question”

I have. See above.

“instead of running interference for shea.”

I am running interference, so to speak, for the Church. One of the reason the Church discourages executions is people like you who call for the death penalty for a man not yet found guilty of any crime.

Do I hear the faint echo of people shouting “crucify Him, crucify Him” floating down the centuries.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

In case you have trouble, here is the question again:

“For Mark Shea I have the question: is it sinful for the State of Connecticut to execute the Cheshire home invasion murderers? Are Catholics involved in that process, i.e., prosecutors, sinning when they argue for the death penalty?”

why don’t you try to answer the question I actually asked rather than erect straw men and histrionically tear them down.