Sunday, November 30, 2008

CALL THE POPE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

I want to post something which I feel strongly about. On the first try, what I post may not be as clear as I want. If so, then I will return.

Again I have run afoul of a couple of catholic bloggers, and I think I know what the problem is. There are two basic approaches to finding the truth . First is mine and others way which says I think A is almost certainly true. But there is a possibility, as remote as it might be, that I could be wrong.

And then B,I will call it for purposes of this post, the catholic way. That is, I have been told by my church not what is 99.9999999 sure, but what is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and I accept that. You may argue with me, but there is ZERO chance you are right.

In the last century the church officially procclaimed the doctrine of Infallibility. Faced with science and its doctrine that anything may be subject to revision, even though on many matters that chance is infinitesimally small, the church adopted the principle of Absolute Certainty. The poor dumb people needed this so they would not be seduced by wicked scientist like Darwin. That is, the church, when it so desires can make statements of fact that have NO possibility of being wrong

My first point is that this doctrine "trickles down" to many catholics, and they become very intolerant of those who question their 'infallibility", based, they would argue, on what the church has stated cannot be error. Although not a blogger, Bishop Chaput of Denver is a good illustration. In his recent book "Render unto Caesar" he simply states what is absolutely true and urges catholics to enter the political area with the confidence that, as they have been taught, there is no possibility they could be wrong. Oh, yes, he would say, give arguments if it might help, but start from the absolute truth and then search for the rationales. I think the Key sentence in his book is seen when he brings up the subject of "personhood" as it applies to abortion. Most thoughtful people think this is a key discussion. Chaput simply reduces it to 'I will not discuss it as those who disagree with the church MUST be wrong. '

Now good conservative catholics follow his approach and think they are being totally logical. This is the TRUTH period. Of course, that is fine, but such an approach does throw a chill over rational debate. That is, we start with there is no chance I am wrong they say, and yes, I will deign to make an argument or two, but the discussion really has no meaning because my church, and by extension, I, as a follower, CANNOT be wrong.

Newman finally supported Infallibility on the grounds it would seldom be used. He thought to proclaim the doctrine was counter-productive. But the church is wise. It has used the doctrine only twice, frankly on matters that do not have great significance in our daily christian lives. But the 'rulers' of the church are not satisfied with such meager power since the proclamation of infallibility.. So we have the magisterium, which in all conservative catholic thinking is really 'infallibility' with not such a brute word.

And this 'magesterium' goes almost all the way. It can say with TOTAL, ABSOLUTE, certainty that one cell MUST is a human person, on exactly the same level as you and I . On a practical level this 'magisterium' is even more useful. It can tell you with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who to vote for for president, or even maybe county sheriff. Of course, they don't give the name of who you should vote for, but you would have to be an ABSOLUTE, TOTAL MORON to miss the point.

In summary then, I am not arguing that the church should not speak out and that what it says should not be given weight. But I, for one, cannot accept that the church speaks with ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF ERROR on virtually any subject it desires from what to think and practice about sex in the most minute detail, to whom the president of the U.S. should appoint to any office, or to tell Obama (as John Allen wrote) that his first order of business is to call the pope and get his views.

26 comments:

  1. Something to chew on. I originally wrote this across several message posts in a discussion with our Evangelical friends. But it is still some of the background for your topic.

    Sola Scriptura and the Authority of the Church

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Jack! This cell body of mine is still pondering on whether it's true that there is no sex and/or beer in heaven. What does your Infallibility think about that?

    Between you and me Jack it doesn't really matter whether our Catholic church leaders do reach ABSOLUTE TRUTH on any days cause they must start all over each and every other days. We must all be kept in honest check until The Judgement Day cause The Blessed Trinity is The One who is truly Infallible so let US try not to lose too much sleep over "IT".

    Do I get an Amen Jack?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jack,

    So is there a possibility that you could be wrong about everything you wrote in that blog post about absolute certainty? ;)

    Anna

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anna,

    Most certainly.I am 98.4456345 sure I am right. Not the same as ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

    You're aware that this (your question) was a paradox known by the ancient Greeks, and apparently solved by B. Russell.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why would you expect people to hedge everything they say with disclaimers of absolute certainty, if in fact they believe what they say? What does it matter if I am 99% sure or 100% sure?

    God bless,
    Anna

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anna,

    A heck of a lot of difference between I think I am right and I know I am right---I can't be wrong.

    The latter---I am right, I cannot be wrong---is kind of chilling to further discussion and I might say further hopes of learning. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Church already has an ancient law against abortion: it's the 5th commandment: Thou shalt not kill. Are you saying the commandments are prone to error? What is it that makes a human a person? It is the soul. Some say that we can't for sure tell when the soul is infused but according to Aristotle, Aquinas, and common sense, conception is the answer. So once the basics are down, that at conception, it is a person, obviously to take away its life would be murder. Our own secular laws already cover that and yet the people are blind to the fact. It's easy when you've already escaped abortion and don't have to confront the casualties everyday. Try looking at as many photos of aborted babies that are aborted everyday. It's a dire situation and should bring each and every one of us to tears that we aren't being successful in helping them. It is our duty to vote in a way that is going to protect human life and in this way it should be obvious where the vote should go.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andrea, you are way off key. The Church does not even use the ensoulment argument!! Certainly not Aristotle or Aquinas.

    I suggest you look at one cell, and tell me that is a person just like my kids. No one almost, as I have shown, really believes the one cell argument.

    I cover this in great detail on my blog.

    BTW, since about half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneouly aborted, does that make God the greatest murderer of all time?

    This is usually where most of my commenters go off if a huff. If so, good wishes. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, I never said anything about the Church using the ensoulment argument. But it's obvious they do. They proclaim abortion to be wrong due to the fact that you are killing a human person (consisting of a body and soul). The details of Aristotle and Aquinas are very metaphysical and I wouldn't expect them to promote that deep of theory to the common people. But when all is said and done, it's pure, God-given common sense.
    Since you seem to proclaim yourself worthy to decide when life begins, if it doesn't begin at conception then when? And if you're unsure, shouldn't you take the precautions just in case the "one cell" is a human person? What else is that one cell going to turn into? Not a monkey. It should be evident that it grows as a human person.
    Of course, God does not murder. Spontaneous abortions occur due to natural biological malfunctions. Because people die in earthquakes, it doesn't mean God killed them. Please, don't throw low blows to my intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Andrea,

    You just can't get it. Sperm is alive. Human eggs are alive. Together they transmit life. Are they persons? Life is not the same as a person. My hair is alive, but it is not a person.

    You are talking about potentiality and actuality. Which, of course, means the potential is not the actual. Do you see? Jack

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok...another low blow. Sperm and eggs themselves do not contain a soul. They are separate entities. When they join, they become something new with an infused soul. The egg has passive potentiality, the zygote has active potentiality. Yes I do see. I am well researched in ensoulment and as I am a biology major, well informed in that area as well. I am confident I can refute whatever you put forward. If you would like to read my 6 page report on human ensoulment, let me know. It may be an unfair advantage of mine to have this background so if you would like to research it yourself, feel free. All the better actually.

    ReplyDelete
  12. oh, and the hair on your head is dead...the hair follicle cells are alive though if that is what you meant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Andrea,

    Are you primarily a scientist or a theologian?

    Has science proved the existence of a soul? And when it occupies the body? The church's doesn't say when ensoulment occurs.Are you adding to Church teachings? Was your paper on ensoulment, a science paper?

    Gee, what's this about active and passive potentiality? Can something be potential and actual at the same time?

    Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? Do you see a difference? Scientifically or theologically?
    Substitute cancer for hair in my earlier response. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm neither scientist nor theologian. I just happen to know a bit about both. Science, as it cannot prove God, cannot prove a soul. A metaphysical component is necessary as well as a spiritual one. The Church definitely says a human person begins at conception, and thus, ensoulment is at conception. And my paper focused on the metaphysical and biological components of ensoulment. The egg and sperm have passive potentiality because something needs to act upon them for growth. The zygote has active potentiality because it will grow under the right conditions and with nutrition into a human. It's just as a toddler may grow into a teenager if nurtured by his parents in a safe environment. Just as the zygote, the toddler certainly couldn't do this on his own. Just because the toddler needs others for growth, does that take away his status as a person?
    Acorns and oak trees...well, lets just say we're not plants, nor have we evolved from plants so I don't see the relevance. You can't really talk about an acorn theologically. Many things are alive, but it is the presence of a INTELLECTIVE SOUL that matters. Animals do not have it. Plants do not have it. Humans do, and this is what makes all the difference. It's a shame that two Catholics are even debating this topic as it is a fundamental belief we are both supposed to share. If you're just responding to argue, please don't. If you really have thought, prayed, and looked into the matter, well that's a different case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andrea,

    Are you sure you understand science? Your statement that humans are not connected to more primitive forms is totally rejected by science.

    What philosopher today propounds the doctrine of the "intellective soul" much less any scientist?

    How can there be intellect without brain or mind, neither of which a single cell has?

    We say a person is dead if they have no brain waves.Does your single cell have brain waves? Is it a person? Is there a difference between "life" and a "person?" All laws, science, philosophy, and theology seem to say so.

    Digging up words from ancient philosophers that are no longer in general use proves nothing.

    What do you mean by "a metaphysical element is necessary as well as a spiritual one?" Who says? What proof do you offer?

    Andrea, in all sincerity, I admire your desire to learn, but simply making statements with no evidence or proof is meaningless.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  16. If you're not open to the information, there is no amount of explaining I can do to make you understand. I'm no teacher. I've introduced you to the idea, so if you feel intrigued, you can look it up. It took me a lot of research, reading and rereading to grasp the material and I can in no way explain and answer all your questions in a blog. It's easy enough to find in libraries or even on the internet. Generalizing your statements to "all philosophers" and "all scientists" doesn't really prove your side. I've been in science classes for four years now. I understand evolution. I have plenty of textbooks on it. I personally think it's quite flawed and that God has been cut off from it. I think the Global warming scare is bunk. I'm a sceptic. People are quite gullible and media seems to be the number one educator in this country. Unfortunate, yes. In any case, if a person is Catholic, abortion is murder. Life begins at conception. If people don't like it, well, that's not the Church's problem. People have free wills and can choose to accept it and remain Catholic or leave the Church. There's no changing someone's heart and mind that's not open to truth.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Andrea,

    You're definitely no teacher. You doubt evolution, a doctrine accepted by 99.99999 percent of those trained in science. You give no reasons. Which you should if you are going to expouse ideas rejected by almost all scientists.

    I'm open to new information, but you offer none. Just your personal opinions with no backing. I suggest you be open to science and not rely upon old prejudices of the last century and today's uneducated.

    No one, not even catholics say "Life begins at conception" Are sperm dead?

    Listen I'm trying to introduce you to human reason. To this point you seem to have no interest. You just write nonsense and pretend you are authoritative.

    I suggest you pray about being a better thinker. The Church encourages this.

    P.S. What's the logic of 'if you are catholic abortion is murder.' Almost no catholics believe that. Are 90 percent of catholics, not catholics, and you are? Jack

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oye vey. Here's your "proof". From the Vatican itself. Don't keep fooling yourself on the matter. And majority opinion doesn't mean it's truth. The majority in Germany thought Jews weren't people.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

    "SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

    DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION



    1. The problem of procured abortion and of its possible legal liberalization has become more or less everywhere the subject of impassioned discussions. These debates would be less grave were it not a question of human life, a primordial value, which must be protected and promoted. Everyone understands this, although many look for reasons, even against all evidence, to promote the use of abortion. One cannot but be astonished to see a simultaneous increase of unqualified protests against the death penalty and every form of war and the vindication of the liberalization of abortion, either in its entirety or in ever broader indications. The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic. Because the Son of God became man, there is no man who is not His brother in humanity and who is not called to become a Christian in order to receive salvation from Him.

    2. In many countries the public authorities which resist the liberalization of abortion laws are the object of powerful pressures aimed at leading them to this goal. This, it is said, would violate no one's conscience, for each individual would be left free to follow his own opinion, while being prevented from imposing it on others. Ethical pluralism is claimed to be a normal consequence of ideological pluralism. There is, however, a great difference between the one and the other, for action affects the interests of others more quickly than does mere opinion. Moreover, one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life.

    3. Numerous Christian lay people, especially doctors, but also parents' associations, statesmen, or leading figures in posts of responsibility have vigorously reacted against this propaganda campaign. Above all, many episcopal conferences and many bishops acting in their own name have judged it opportune to recall very strongly the traditional doctrine of the Church.[1] With a striking convergence these documents admirably emphasize an attitude of respect for life which is at the same time human and Christian. Nevertheless, it has happened that several of these documents here or there have encountered reservation or even opposition.

    4. Charged with the promotion and the defense of faith and morals in the universal Church,[2] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposes to recall this teaching in its essential aspects to all the faithful. Thus in showing the unity of the Church, it will confirm by the authority proper to the Holy See what the bishops have opportunely undertaken. It hopes that all the faithful, including those who might have been unsettled by the controversies and new opinions, will understand that it is not a question of opposing one opinion to another, but of transmitting to the faithful a constant teaching of the supreme Magisterium, which teaches moral norms in the light of faith.[3] It is therefore clear that this declaration necessarily entails a grave obligation for Christian consciences.[4] May God deign to enlighten also all men who strive with their whole heart to "act in truth" (Jn. 3:21).

    5. "Death was not God's doing, he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living" (Wis. 1:13). Certainly God has created beings who have only one lifetime and physical death cannot be absent from the world of those with a bodily existence. But what is immediately willed is life, and in the visible universe everything has been made for man, who is the image of God and the world's crowning glory (cf. Gen. 1:26-28). On the human level, "it was the devil's envy that brought death into the world" (Wis. 2:24). Introduced by sin, death remains bound up with it: death is the sign and fruit of sin. But there is no final triumph for death. Confirming faith in the Resurrection, the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: "God is God, not of the dead, but of the living" (Mt. 22:32). And death like sin will be definitively defeated by resurrection in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-27). Thus we understand that human life, even on this earth, is precious. Infused by the Creator,[5] life is again taken back by Him (cf. Gen. 2:7; Wis. 15:11). It remains under His protection: man's blood cries out to Him (cf. Gen. 4:10) and He will demand an account of it, "for in the image of God man was made" (Gen. 9:5-6). The commandment of God is formal: "You shall not kill" (Ex. 20:13). Life is at the same time a gift and a responsibility. It is received as a "talent" (cf. Mt. 25:14-30); it must be put to proper use. In order that life may bring forth fruit, many tasks are offered to man in this world and he must not shirk them. More important still, the Christian knows that eternal life depends on what, with the grace of God, he does with his life on earth.

    6. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: "You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born."[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother's womb, "where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence." Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: "To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one."[8]

    7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]

    8. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of himself; or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God, man's soul is spiritual and therefore immortal. Hence man is open to God, he finds his fulfillment only in Him. But man lives in the community of his equals; he is nourished by interpersonal communication with men in the indispensable social setting. In the face of society and other men, each human person possesses himself, he possesses life and different goods, he has these as a right. It is this that strict justice demands from all in his regard.

    9. Nevertheless, temporal life lived in this world is not identified with the person. The person possesses as his own a level of life that is more profound and that cannot end. Bodily life is a fundamental good, here below it is the condition for all other goods. But there are higher values for which it could be legitimate or even necessary to be willing to expose oneself to the risk of losing bodily life. In a society of persons the common good is for each individual an end which he must serve and to which he must subordinate his particular interest. But it is not his last end and, from this point of view, it is society which is at the service of the person, because the person will not fulfill his destiny except in God. The person can be definitively subordinated only to God. Man can never be treated simply as a means to be disposed of in order to obtain a higher end.

    10. In regard to the mutual rights and duties of the person and of society, it belongs to moral teaching to enlighten consciences; it belongs to the law to specify and organize external behavior. There is precisely a certain number of rights which society is not in a position to grant since these rights precede society; but society has the function to preserve and to enforce them. These are the greater part of those which are today called "human rights" and which our age boasts of having formulated.

    11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental - the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.

    12. Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened; it is not lost by one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.

    13. To this perpetual evidence - perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19] - modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time- a rather lengthy time- to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. "The one who will be a man is already one."[20]

    14. Divine law and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent man. However, if the reasons given to justify an abortion were always manifestly evil and valueless the problem would not be so dramatic. The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute- even if it is still in the embryonic stage- to choose in the child's name, life or death. The child itself, when grown up, will never have the right to choose suicide; no more may his parents choose death for the child while it is not of an age to decide for itself. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.[21]

    15. The movement for the emancipation of women, insofar as it seeks essentially to free them from all unjust discrimination, is on perfectly sound ground.[22] In the different forms of cultural background there is a great deal to be done in this regard. But one cannot change nature. Nor can one exempt women, any more than men, from what nature demands of them. Furthermore, all publicly recognized freedom is always limited by the certain rights of others.

    16. The same must be said of the claim to sexual freedom. If by this expression one is to understand the mastery progressively acquired by reason and by authentic love over instinctive impulse, without diminishing pleasure but keeping it in its proper place - and in this sphere this is the only authentic freedom - then there is nothing to object to. But this kind of freedom will always be careful not to violate justice. It; on the contrary, one is to understand that men and women are "free" to seek sexual pleasure to the point of satiety, without taking into account any law or the essential orientation of sexual life to its fruits of fertility,[23] then this idea has nothing Christian in it. It is even unworthy of man. In any case it does not confer any right to dispose of human life - even if embryonic- or to suppress it on the pretext that it is burdensome.

    17. Scientific progress is opening to technology - and will open still more - the possibility of delicate interventions, the consequences of which can be very serious, for good as well as for evil. These are achievements of the human spirit which in themselves are admirable. But technology can never be independent of the criterion of morality, since technology exists for man and must respect his finality. Just as there is no right to use nuclear energy for every possible purpose, so there is no right to manipulate human life in every possible direction. Technology must be at the service of man, so as better to ensure the functioning of his normal abilities, to prevent or to cure his illnesses, and to contribute to his better human development. It is true that the evolution of technology makes early abortion more and more easy, but the moral evaluation is in no way modified because of this.

    18. We know what seriousness the problem of birth control can assume for some families and for some countries. That is why the last Council and subsequently the encyclical "Humanae vitae" of July 25, 1968, spoke of "responsible parenthood."[24] What we wish to say again with emphasis, as was pointed out in the conciliar constitution "Gaudium et spes," in the encyclical "Populorum progressio" and in other papal documents, is that never, under any pretext, may abortion be resorted to, either by a family or by the political authority, as a legitimate means of regulating births.[25] The damage to moral values is always a greater evil for the common good than any disadvantage in the economic or demographic order.

    19. The moral discussion is being accompanied more or less everywhere by serious juridical debates. There is no country where legislation does not forbid and punish murder. Furthermore, many countries had specifically applied this condemnation and these penalties to the particular case of procured abortion. In these days a vast body of opinion petitions the liberalization of this latter prohibition. There already exists a fairly general tendency which seeks to limit, as far as possible, all restrictive legislation, especially when it seems to touch upon private life. The argument of pluralism is also used. Although many citizens, in particular the Catholic faithful, condemn abortion, many others hold that it is licit, at least as a lesser evil. Why force them to follow an opinion which is not theirs, especially in a country where they are in the majority? In addition it is apparent that, where they still exist, the laws condemning abortion appear difficult to apply. The crime has become too common for it to be punished every time, and the public authorities often find that it is wiser to close their eyes to it. But the preservation of a law which is not applied is always to the detriment of authority and of all the other laws. It must be added that clandestine abortion puts women, who resign themselves to it and have recourse to it, in the most serious dangers for future pregnancies and also in many cases for their lives. Even if the legislator continues to regard abortion as an evil, may he not propose to restrict its damage?

    20. These arguments and others in addition that are heard from varying quarters are not conclusive. It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one. One must, however, be attentive to what a change in legislation can represent. Many will take as authorization what is perhaps only the abstention from punishment. Even more, in the present case, this very renunciation seems at the very least to admit that the legislator no longer considers abortion a crime against human life, since murder is still always severely punished. It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.

    21. The role of law is not to record what is done, hut to help in promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person's rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men's hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.

    22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.

    23. On the contrary, it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption - a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.

    24. Following one's conscience in obedience to the law of God is not always the easy way. One must not fail to recognize the weight of the sacrifices and the burdens which it can impose. Heroism is sometimes called for in order to remain faithful to the requirements of the divine law. Therefore, we must emphasize that the path of true progress of the human person passes through this constant fidelity to a conscience maintained in uprightness and truth; and we must exhort all those who are able to do so to lighten the burdens still crushing so many men and women, families and children, who are placed in situations to which, in human terms, there is no solution.

    25. A Christian's outlook cannot be limited to the horizon of life in this world. He knows that during the present life another one is being prepared, one of such importance that it is in its light that judgments must be made.[26] From this viewpoint there is no absolute misfortune here below, not even the terrible sorrow of bringing up a handicapped child. This is the contradiction proclaimed by the Lord: "Happy those who mourn: they shall be comforted" (Mt. 5:5). To measure happiness by the absence of sorrow and misery in this world is to turn one's back on the Gospel.

    26. But this does not mean that one can remain indifferent to these sorrows and miseries. Every man and woman with feeling, and certainly every Christian, must be ready to do what he can to remedy them. This is the law of charity, of which the first preoccupation must always be the establishment of justice. One can never approve of abortion; but it is above all necessary to combat its causes. This includes political action, which will be in particular the task of the law. But it is necessary at the same time to influence morality and to do everything possible to help families, mothers and children. Considerable progress in the service of life has been accomplished by medicine. One can hope that such progress will continue, in accordance with the vocation of doctors, which is not to suppress life but to care for it and favor it as much as possible. It is equally desirable that, in suitable institutions, or, in their absence, in the outpouring of Christian generosity and charity every form of assistance should be developed.

    27. There will be no effective action on the level of morality unless at the same time an effort is made on the level of ideas. A point of view - or even more, perhaps a way of thinking - which considers fertility as an evil cannot be allowed to spread without contradiction. It is true that not all forms of culture are equally in favor of large families. Such families come up against much greater difficulties in an industrial and urban civilization. Thus in recent times the Church has insisted on the idea of responsible parenthood, the exercise of true human and Christian prudence.

    Such prudence would not be authentic if it did not include generosity. It must preserve awareness of the grandeur of the task of cooperating with the Creator in the transmission of life, which gives new members to society and new children to the Church. Christ's Church has the fundamental solicitude of protecting and favoring life. She certainly thinks before all else of the life which Christ came to bring: "I have come so that they may have life and have it to the full" (Jn. 10:10). But life at all its levels comes from God, and bodily life is for man the indispensable beginning. In this life on earth sin has introduced, multiplied and made harder to bear suffering and death. But in taking their burden upon Himself, Jesus Christ has transformed them: for whoever believes in Him, suffering and death itself become instruments of resurrection. Hence Saint Paul can say: "I think that what we suffer in this life can never be compared to the glory, as yet unrevealed, which is waiting for us" (Rom. 8:18). And, if we make this comparison we shall add with him: "Yes, the troubles which are soon over, though they weigh little, train us for the carrying of a weight of eternal glory which is out of all proportion to them" (2 Cor. 4:17).

    The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.

    Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on November 18, the Commemoration of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul, in the year 1974.

    Franciscus Card. SEPER
    Prefect

    Hieronymus HAMER
    Titular Archbishop of Lorium
    Secretary

    ENDNOTES

    1. A certain number of bishops' documents are to be found in Gr. Caprile, "Non Uccidere, Il Magistero della Chiesa sull'aborto." Part II, pp. 47-300, Rome, 1973.

    2. "Regimini Ecclesiae Universae," III, 1, 29. Cf. ibid., 31 (AAS 59 [1967], p. 897). On the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith depend all the questions which are related to faith and morals or which are bound up with the faith.

    3. "Lumen gentium," 12 (AAS 57 [1965], pp. 16-17). The present Declaration does not envisage all the questions which can arise in connection with abortion: it is for theologians to examine and discuss them. Only certain basic principles are here recalled which must be for the theologians themselves a guide and a rule, and confirm certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine for all Christians.

    4. "Lumen Gentium," 25 (AAS 57 [1965], pp. 29-31).

    5. The authors of Scripture do not make any philosophical observations on when life begins, but they speak of the period of life which precedes birth as being the object of God's attention: He creates and forms the human being, like that which is moulded by His hand (cf. Ps. 118:73). It would seem that this theme finds expression for the first time in Jer. 1:5. It appears later in many other texts. Cf. Is. 49:1-5; 46:3; Jb. 10:8-12; Ps. 22:10; 71:6; 139:13. In the Gospels we read in Luke 1:44: "For the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt for joy."

    6. "Didache Apostolorum," edition Funk, "Patres Apostolici," V, 2. "The Epistle of Barnabas," IX, 5 uses the same expressions (cf. Funk, l.c., 91-93).

    7. Athenagoras, "A plea on behalf of Christians," 35 (cf. PG. 6, 970: S.C. 3, pp. 166-167). One may also consult the "Epistle to Diogentus" (V, 6 Funk, o.c., I 399: S.C. 33), where it says of Christians: "They procreate children, but they do not reject the foetus."

    8. Tertullian, "Apologeticum" (IX. 8 PL. 1, 371-372: Corp. Christ. 1, p. 103, 1, 31-36).

    9. Canon 21 (Mansi, 14, p. 909). Cf. Council of Elvira, canon 63 (Mansi, 2, p. 16) and the Council of Ancyra, canon 21 (ibid., 519). See also the decree of Gregory III regarding the penance to be imposed upon those who are culpable of this crime (Mansi 13, 292, c. 17).

    10. Gratian, "Concordantia Discordantium Canonum," c. 20, C. 2, q.[2]. During the Middle Ages appeal was often made to the authority of St. Augustine who wrote as follows in regard to this matter in "De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis," c. 15: "Sometimes this sexually indulgent cruelty or this cruel sexual indulgence goes so far as to procure potions which produce sterility. If the desired result is not achieved, the mother terminates the life and expels the foetus which was in her womb in such a way that the child dies before having lived, or, if the baby was living already in its mother's womb, it is killed before being born." (PL 44, 423-424: CSEL 33, 619. Cf. the "Decree of Gratian" q. 2, C. 32, c. 7.)

    11. "Commentary on the Sentences," book IV, dist. 31, exposition of the text.

    12. Constitution "Effraenatum" in 1588 ("Bullarium Romanum," V, 1, pp. 25-27; "Fontes Iuris Canonici," I, no. 165, pp. 308-311).

    13. Dz-Sch. 1184. Cf. also the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of Pius IX (Acta Pii IX, V, 55-72; AAS 5 [1869], pp. 305-331; "Fontes Iuris Canonici," III, no. 552, pp. 24-31).

    14. Encyclical "Casti Connubii," AAS 22 (1930), pp. 562-565; Dz- Sch. 3719-21.

    15. The statements of Pius XII are express, precise and numerous; they would require a whole study on their own. We quote only this one from the Discourse to the Saint Luke Union of Italian Doctors of November 12, 1944, because it formulates the principle in all its universality: "As long as a man is not guilty, his life is untouchable, and therefore any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether such destruction is intended as an end in itself or only as a means to an end, whether it is a question of life in the embryonic stage or in a stage of full development or already in its final stages" (Discourses and Radio-messages, VI, 183ff.).

    16. Encyclical "Mater et magistra," AAS 53 (1961), p. 447.

    17. "Gaudium et spes," 51. Cf. 27 (AAS 58 [1966], p. 1072; cf. 1047).

    18. The speech, "Salutiamo con paterna effusione," December 9, 1972, AAS 64 (1972), p. 737. Among the witnesses of this unchangeable doctrine one will recall the declaration of the Holy Office, condemning direct abortion (Denzinger 1890, AAS 17 [1884], p. 556; 22 [1888-1890], 748; Dz-Sch 3258).

    19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

    20. Tertullian, cited in footnote 8.

    21. Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, wrote on October 19, 1973, to Cardinal Dopfner, regarding the protection of human life: "(Die Kirche) kann jedoch sur Behebung solcher Notsituationen weder empfangnisverhutende Mittel noch erst recht nicht die Abtreibung als sittlich erlaubt erkennen" ("L'Osservatore Romano," German edition, October 26, 1973, p. 3).

    22. Encyclical "Pacem in terris." AAS 55 (1963), p. 267. Constitution "Gaudium et spes," 29. Speech of Paul VI, "Salutiamo," AAS 64 (1972), 779.

    23. "Gaudium et spes," 48: "Indole autem sua naturali, ipsum institutum matrimonii amorque coniugalis ad procreationem et educationem prolis ordinantur, iisque veluti suo fastigio coronantur." Also paragraph 50: "Matrimonium et amor coniugalis indole sua ad prolem procreandam et educandam ordinantur."

    24. "Gaudium et spes," 50-51. Paul VI, Encyclical "Humanae vitae," 10 (AAS 60, [1968], p. 487).

    25. "Gaudium et spes," 87. Paul VI, Encyclical "Populorum progressio," 31: Address to the United Nations, AAS 57 (1965), p. 883. John XXIII, "Mater et magistra," AAS 53 (1961), pp. 445-448). Responsible parenthood supposes the use of only morally licit methods of birth regulation. Cf. "Humanae vitae,"[14] (ibid., p. 490).

    26. Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, wrote to the World Congress of Catholic Doctors held in Barcelona, May 26, 1974: "Por lo que a la vida humana se refiere, esta non es ciertamente univoca, mas bien se podria decir que es un haz de vidas. No se puede reducir, sin mutilarlas gravemente, las zonas de su ser, que, en su estrecha dependencia e interaccion estan ordenadas las unas a las otras: zona corporal, zona afectiva, zona mental, y ese transfondo del alma donde la vida divina, recibida por la gracia, puede desplegarse mediante los dones del Espiritu Santo" ("L'Osservatore Romano," May 29, 1974)."

    ReplyDelete
  19. And the conception part...no Catholics, eh? Oye vey again. How about the Pope?

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20030522_movimento-vita_en.html

    "ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
    TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ITALIAN PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT

    Thursday, 22 May 2003



    Dear Brothers and Sisters,

    1. I am grateful to you for coming and greet you with affection. I greet the members of the Executive Council of the [Italian] Pro-Life Movement and especially the President, Hon. Mr Carlo Casini. I thank him for his words on behalf of those present. I greet each one of you and through you, the volunteers and all the members of your Sodality which has opened numerous centres to assist life and homes for care in every region of Italy.

    For 25 years - that is, since 22 May 1978 when abortion was legalized in Italy - your association has never ceased to work to protect human life, one of the key values of the civilization of love.

    2. It is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to meet you. In these years, in fact, I have had various contacts with your Movement. I recall in particular the visit I made to Florence in 1986 to the first pro-life centre to be set up in Italy. Moreover, on various occasions I have expressed my appreciation of your activities and encouraged you to do your utmost to make the right to life known to all. I renew these sentiments now, at the time when the mandate of your Executive Council is ending and in view of the forthcoming meeting scheduled for the beginning of June at which policies will be outlined for your future actions.

    Please God you may continue, closely united with one another, to be a force of renewal and hope in our society. May the Lord help you to work ceaselessly to enable all, believers and non-believers alike, to understand that protection of human life from conception is an essential condition for building a future worthy of the human being.

    3. On receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace, venerable Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whom you consider the spiritual president of the pro-life movements in the world, had the courage to say to the leaders of political communities: "If we let a mother kill the fruit of her womb, what is left to us? It is the principle of abortion that endangers peace in the world".

    It is true! There can be no true peace without respect for life, especially if it is innocent and defenceless as is that of the unborn child. Elementary coherence requires those who seek peace to safeguard life. No pro-peace activity can be effective unless attacks on life at all its stages, from conception until natural death, are as energetically opposed. Thus, your movement is not only a Pro-Life Movement but also an authentic peace Movement, precisely because of your constant effort to protect life.

    4. Recurrent threats put unborn life at peril. The praiseworthy desire to have a child sometimes exceeds acceptable limits. Embryos produced in excessive numbers, selected and frozen, are submitted to destructive experimentation and destined to die in line with a premeditated decision.

    Conscious of the need for a law to defend the rights of children who have been conceived, you are committed as a Movement to getting the Italian Parliament to pass a law which respects as fully as possible the rights of unborn children, regardless of whether they have been conceived using artificial methods that are in themselves morally unacceptable. I take this opportunity to express the hope that the legislative process under way will quickly reach a conclusion and that it will go by the principle that whenever a decision is to be made between the desires of adults and the rights of children, it will be made in the interests of children.

    5. Never be discouraged and never tire, dear brothers and sisters, of proclaiming and witnessing to the Gospel of life; may you be beside the families and mothers in difficulty. I renew, especially to you women, my invitation to defend the alliance between women and life, and to "promote a "new feminism' which rejects the temptation of imitating models of "male domination' in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation" (Evangelium Vitae, n. 99).

    God will never let you lack the help you need to conclude your many activities satisfactorily, if you turn to him with intense and constant prayer. I also assure you of my spiritual closeness and, as I invoke the motherly protection of Mary, I impart to you, to your families and to your movement a special Blessing."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey, just because the Vatican says it, doesn't make it true. When they approved torture and said the earth was flat did that make torture okay and the world flat.

    It's a wordy statement with selective quotes. Just one example. The church has opposed abortion, but only in the last century or so has considered it murder. I oppose abortion, but don't say it's murder.
    Maybe I missed it, but does the document say when the soul is 'implanted.' If it does why does the church not use that argument today.

    You've got to understand papal talk. No mention of Aquinas--the church proclaimed "supreme philosopher" who opposed abortion but did not think it was that bad before ensoulment. Why did church leaders including popes have such light penalties for abortion if it was murder?

    What does the church say about child molestation? Do they practice what they preach. And what about homosexuality, when the best experst say around half of priests are gay.

    The point is, putting out a lot of words, with no proof,applies to the Vatican as well as to anyone else.

    In a debate do you think the judges would adjudge you the winner based solely on quotes from the Vatican? Come on, Andrea. There's a world outside of silly Vatican documents, unsupported by anything but some old guys opinion. I notice they don't deal much with any distinction between life and personhood. And, of course, they are ridiculous when they say life begins at conception. Sperm and eggs are life; and to show how foolish they are life began millions of years ago.Watch the cynical play of words between "life", "persons" and"man" etc.

    Would you think I had proved my point if I quoted thousands of words from Planned Parenthood? Give me some philosophical or scientific arguments not church opinions.

    BTW, if the church really believes all of what they say why are women who solicit abortions nut subject to penalties in their arguments. Oh ya, the under pressure argument. The real answer:People would see the church's foolishness on this issue and the church would lose what little respect they have on this issue as it is, which is practically zero. Of course the majority is not always right, but history shows the church makes great errors as do all. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  21. All right, Jack. You'd rather take it from the scientific (man driven) side. Read this paper, "When Does Human Life Begin?" by SCIENTIST Maureen Condic of the Westchester Institute:

    http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113

    Oh...but she's a woman. Maybe you won't take what she says seriously. Oh, but she's biased Oh, that's only one example. I'm sure there will be something negative on your part to say.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am quite familiar with the Westchester Institute. It has no standing among the scientific community. I know of no paper accepted by a scientific journal by one of its 'fellows.' Certainly you notice that it has several priest, with little or no training as scientist. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok. I got it. You have to be devoid of any Godly connection for your information to be worth any value. If you're a religious scientist, you must be no scientist at, for how could you let your faith get in the way of scientific progress. You're unintelligent for using any God related argument in a man driven society. You're unreasonable for questioning science and its "hardcore" and "proven" evidence. How utterly ignorant of me. Silly me. I don't need 2000 years of theological study and Catholic growth. I don't really need God. Evolution doesn't need God. Good enough for me. I'm quite enlightened.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ah, Andrea, you are on the right track. Now you understand that science and even philosophy are not advanced by theological "arguments." Congratulations.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  25. Archbishop Chaput's major death penalty errors
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

    Archbishop Chaput relies on the claims of anti death penalty folks when discussing the secular issues. This is a disservice to his flock, as well as to the truth.

    In addition, the fact that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty is just the beginning of Pope John Paul II's death penalty errors within "Evangelium Vitae", which also suffers from biblical, theological and traditional death penalty errors that were the basis for the Catechism amendments.

    One good example is Archbishop Chaput's essay

    http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=120&s=2&a=2774

    All of the facts he uses are either false or unproven anti death penalty claims.

    He must do better. He can start, here.

    The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

    NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics, or others, is available upon request

    In this brief format, the reality of the death penalty in the United States, is presented, with the hope that the media, public policy makers and others will make an effort to present a balanced view on this sanction.


    Innocence Issues

    Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 130 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).

    The number is a fraud.

    Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.

    Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%. The totality of reviews points to an 80% error/fraud rate in these claims, or about 26 cases - a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the nearly 8000 sentenced to death since 1973.

    The actual innocents were all freed.

    It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900. Nonsense. Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

    No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries. However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions in the world.

    Under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.


    Deterrence Issues

    16 recent US studies, inclusive of their defenses, find a deterrent effect of the death penalty.

    All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty have refused to say that it does not deter some. The studies finding for deterrence state such. Confusion arises when people think that a simple comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the tale of deterrence. It cannot.

    Both high and low murder rates are found within death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, be it Singapore, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US states of Michigan and Delaware. Many factors are involved in such evaluations. Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none. No one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the behavior of some. Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction, having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and above any lesser punishments.


    Racial issues

    White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.

    It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.

    Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.

    Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.


    Class issues

    No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups? Not to my knowledge.


    Arbitrary and capricious

    About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible. I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available. Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the US.


    Christianity and the death penalty

    The two most authoritative New Testament scholars, Saints Augustine and Aquinas, provide substantial biblical and theological support for the death penalty. Even the most well known anti death penalty personality in the US, Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, states that "It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical 'proof text' in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus' admonition 'Let him without sin cast the first stone,' when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) -- the Mosaic Law prescribed death -- should be read in its proper context. This passage is an 'entrapment' story, which sought to show Jesus' wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment." A thorough review of Pope John Paul II's position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.


    Cost Issues

    All studies finding the death penalty to be more expensive than life without parole exclude important factors, such as (1) geriatric care costs, recently found to be $69,0000/yr/inmate, (2) the death penalty cost benefit of providing for plea bargains to a maximum life sentence, a huge cost savings to the state, (3) the death penalty cost benefit of both enhanced deterrence and enhanced incapacitation, at $5 million per innocent life spared, and, furthermore, (4) many of the alleged cost comparison studies are highly deceptive.


    Polling data

    76% of Americans find that we should impose the death penalty more or that we impose it about right (Gallup, May 2006 - 51% that we should impose it more, 25% that we impose it about right)

    71% find capital punishment morally acceptable - that was the highest percentage answer for all questions (Gallup, April 2006, moral values poll). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)

    81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh, with only 16% opposed. "(T)his view appears to be the consensus of all major groups in society, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, "liberals" and "conservatives." (Gallup 5/2/01).

    81% of Connecticut citizens supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross (Jan 2005).

    While 81% gave specific case support for Timothy McVeigh's execution, Gallup also showed a 65% support AT THE SAME TIME when asked a general "do you support capital punishment for murderers?" question. (Gallup, 6/10/01).

    22% of those supporting McVeigh's execution are, generally, against the death penalty (Gallup 5/02/01). That means that about half of those who say they oppose the death penalty, with the general question, actually support the death penalty under specific circumstances, just as it is imposed, judicially.

    Further supporting the higher rates for specific cases, is this, from the French daily Le Monde December 2006 (1): Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:USA: 82%; Great Britain: 69%; France: 58%; Germany: 53%; Spain: 51%; Italy: 46%

    Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe, with 50% of those who say they, generally, oppose the death penalty actually supporting it under specific circumstances, resulting in 80% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006.

    --------------------------------

    Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.

    copyright 1998-2009 Dudley Sharp
    Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
    e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
    Houston, Texas

    Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

    A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

    Pro death penalty sites

    homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

    www.dpinfo.com
    www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
    www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
    www.coastda.com/archives.html see Death Penalty
    www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
    www.prodeathpenalty.com
    http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
    www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

    ReplyDelete