Take care, friend. This post indirectly implies that both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI (who both had profound influence on the wording of the catechism) are “poisoned by humanism.” I suggest that you refrain from ascribing nefarious motives to everyone who doesn’t fully agree with you.
Recognition of the remaining human dignity of the criminal was called for by Christ himself. Dont forget for a moment that the first man saved from condemnation by Christ was Barabas, a murderer. Interesting, no? It is a false dilemma to imply that one can only have human sympathy for either the criminal or his victim. BOTH were created in God’s image and can be saved only by Grace.
Dear manualman,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.
Quite true, dear friend, not every person who argues in favour of the abolition of the death penalty does so because they have been influenced by the ideology of secular humanism, but the fact is that many sadly do. Our contemporary Western world has become deeply suspicious of the whole concept of punishment for wrong doing and the judicial and penal systems tend to want to deal with criminals purely in terms of deterring or reforming them, not in terms of retribution. Alas, we are now living in a post-Christian era, when the authority and influence of the holy religion of Christ has drastically declined. Secular humanism has undeniably engendered a very ‘touchy-feely’ culture and we have come to pride ourselves on being a caring, tolerant, understanding and humanitarian society in which the harsh and allegedly outmoded concept of retributive justice has no place.
Whilst the current Church Catechism strongly discourages the death penalty it does not overtly condemn it either. This, dear friend, it clearly would not do, since the constant teaching of the Church has always held capital punishment to be morally licit and therefore permissible. Moreover, Holy Mother Church has never, unlike modern Western society, shied away from the concept of just retribution or penalties being commensurate with the crime - “The
primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offence” (
Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2266, added emphasis mine), which necessarily implies retributive justice. Earlier (see para, 2260) it actually references Genesis 9: 5-6 and then explicitly states that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”. In other words, the teaching of the Genesis passage, which unequivocally speaks the language of just retribution, continues to be perpetually valid and not subject to cultural variation. Blood is “a sacred sign of life” and thus should never be shed by “man’s murderous violence”. Moreover, as Genesis 9: 6 clearly states, man is created in God’s own image and so when violence in the form of murder is done to a man it is in effect an outrage against Almighty God that demands retributive justice, so as to “redress the disorder caused by the offence” (CCC, para. 2266). We have lost sight of the gravity of the offence of murder in the sight of God.
With regards to Barabas, dear friend, he was released from execution not by Christ but by Pontius Pilate - “And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will” (S. Lk. 23: 24, 25). Our Lord would have hardly intervened with this albeit gravely unjust and cowardly decision, for He knew that His purpose in coming into the world was to suffer death upon the Cross “for us men and our salvation”. The ancient prophecies must be fulfilled and Jesus must be delivered up - “The God of Abraham, and Issac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; who ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life…” (Acts 3: 13-15a). Moreover, by releasing Barabas from the execution that he so rightly deserved, the Gospel narrative evinces the stark contrast of the God-ordained religion prevailing against innocence in favour of brutal guilt. A hardened villain guilty of the worst crimes against human society was released, rather than Jesus - One Who had in numberless instances prolonged life, alleviated the sufferings of humanity, restored the dead to life and, above all, planted in innumerable souls the hope of life eternal. No, it is, dear friend, inappropriate to appeal to the case Barabas’s release to support not administering the death penalty for the heinous crime of murder.
Finally, you are correct in stating that both victim and criminal are created equally in the image of God, but that is the whole rationale for the death penalty and why God Himself mandated it at the first - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed*: for in the image of God made he man*” (Gen. 9: 6, added emphasis mine). Of course we can have sympathy for a murderer, but that does not mean that to redress the disorder occasioned by his offence he should be spared the death penalty, for then there would be no just retribution commensurate with the crime.
God bless and this will be my final posting in this thread but I do pray that those viewing it will note carefully the weighty arguments in favour of capital punishment. The Catholic Church in its constant teaching has always held that the death penalty is morally licit and that the state, as “minister of God” (Rom. 13: 4) has the authority and duty to inflict it upon those guilty of murder. If God Himself instituted the death penalty for murder how can it be a barbaric and unworthy punishment that has no place within in civilised society?
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
Chap 5, 2) How doth the Scripture teach that willful murder is revenged?