Abortion vs Captial Punishment

[mike182d]

Ok, after 3 pages, I think this thread needs some serious direction.

The Church obviously allows for the killing of human beings under specific circumstances - no Catholic should really be questioning this as its been a part of Catholic theology for 2000 years.

So, JoeyWarren, what is your argument for *this particular *form of killing being wrong over other forms allowed by the Church? It is not enough to ramble on about “its always wrong to kill someone” because that’s a not a position that God or the Roman Catholic Church has ever taken - unless you know more about it than they do.

What makes Capital Punishment, specifically, either wrong or worse than abortion?

I believe that was the initial topic of this thread…

 

[JoeyWarren]

mike182d:

You’re melting several different arguments into one. Let’s stick with one argument at a time.

The argument I was addressing was your claim that since God did not kill Cain for his crimes, we are forbidden to kill others for their murders. I pointed out that clearly within the OT God kills people for their crimes, rendering your initial argument as moot.

Pick an argument and stick with it. Don’t combine 10 different arguments into one.

Mike,your’e getting bent out of shape. Please go take a break.

God did things at different times based on the Times. Not everything in the Bible applies to now. For example no one believes 1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. They say it only applies to the Times of that era and not Now.

we are forbidden to kill others for their murders

I don’t remember explicitly claiming that. You may be taking the Protestant approach by taking what I said out of Context.

During Jesus ministry on earth, did he kill anyone.
Did Jesus condemn anyone to death.
Did he do any of the horrible things God did to his creations.
Jesus did resurrect a few individuals.

 

[DreadVandal]

JoeyWarren:

Mike,your’e getting bent out of shape. Please go take a break.

God did things at different times based on the Times. Not everything in the Bible applies to now. For example no one believes 1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. They say it only applies to the Times of that era and not Now.
.

I believe in 1 Corinthians 14:35 and yes, I don’t like women preaching in church and I’m not crazy about them being up on the altar as servers either. Nothing in the New Testament repudiates the biblical teaching that the death penalty is of divine establishment.

 

[mike182d]

JoeyWarren:

I don’t remember explicitly claiming that. You may be taking the Protestant approach by taking what I said out of Context.

Perhaps. If I’m not taking you out of context, tell me then under what circumstances does the Church allow one to take another’s life?

 

[Brendan]

mike182d:

Perhaps. If I’m not taking you out of context, tell me then under what circumstances does the Church allow one to take another’s life?

From the Council of Trent, Decree on the 5th Commandment

The Prohibitory Part of this Commandment

Exceptions: The Killing Of Animals
With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, “Thou shalt not kill,” we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.

Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment? is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Killing In A Just War
In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

Killing By Accident
Again, death caused, not by intent or design, but by accident, is not murder. He that killeth his neighbour ignorantly, says the book of Deuteronomy, and who is proved to have had no hatred against him yesterday and the day before, but to have gone with him to the wood to hew wood, and in cutting down the tree the axe slipt out of his hand, and the iron slipping from the handle struck his friend and killed him, shall live. Such accidental deaths, because inflicted without intent or design, involve no guilt whatever, and this is confirmed by the words of St. Augustine: God forbid that what we do for a good and lawful end shall be imputed to us, if, contrary to our intention, evil thereby befall any one.

There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful. The other case is when death is caused by negligence, carelessness or want of due precaution.

Killing In Self Defence
If a man kill another in self?defence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I have a few personal questions to those that have debate me here on the subject of Capital Punishment. I come with the questions because of the tone and fervor that I am debate to with.

1. Are some of you secondary victims of a murderer?
2. Do you know someone that was murdered.
3. Or are you opinions about murderers, the inherited opinions from your parents, aunts, or uncles.

I grew up a racist in this state I live in. I used to love to watch blacks get the **** beat out of them. I use to love hearing about executions. But when I came to the Holy Roman Catholic church I lost that racism and I lost my own bloodlust for a good ole execution. I don’t see the same love that I learned from the Catholic Church in some of the Catholics that post here, especially from those that are battling me over the wrongness of capital punishment.

This post is closed as far as I am concerned. I will not comment anymore on this subject.

Good day!

 

[pnewton]

Zerith:

How is life (name removed by moderator)risonment, and I mean their entire life, as is in America, not sufficient? That prevents them from murdering, no?

No, it doesn’t. I have addressed numerous times I have also seen it happen.

 

[mike182d]

Brendan:

From the Council of Trent, Decree on the 5th Commandment

Thank you very much, Brendan. That’s the answer I was looking for

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

JoeyWarren:

So who do you vote for then?

I can’t vote for either democrat or republican because of this problem. I would vote for a democrat if they were pro-life & against gay marriage/unions, but not a republican (no offense to republicans out there). I do like Joseph Schriner, an independent. He doesn’t agree with abortion or the death penalty… he’s against gay marriage and war. He’s considerate of the environment and wants health care for all. He would be an excellent president:tiphat:. And he’s a practicing Catholic !

 

[Phil_M]

DreadVandal:

Two things, the command to use the death penalty is given to governments as such, in other words, all governments. Secondly, teachings about forgieveness, turning the other cheek, and so forth do not apply to the state; they apply to the Church in her personal spiritual life. The state is to rule with God’s cold justice. The Church is to be the counterbalance by providing God’s mercy. But neither should interfere in the affairs of the other.

So government members are to not worry about forgiveness? When did Jesus become a selective moralist?

If governments are commanded to use the death penalty, then why did Christ condemn stoning the adultress to death? Capital punishment is hypocritical, and we know what Christ taught about hypocrisy

 

[DreadVandal]

Phil M:

So government members are to not worry about forgiveness? When did Jesus become a selective moralist?

If governments are commanded to use the death penalty, then why did Christ condemn stoning the adultress to death? Capital punishment is hypocritical, and we know what Christ taught about hypocrisy

Jesus really had no interest in the government of his day. Believe it or not, a good case can be made that Jesus had no social agenda as far as politics go. Jesus was announcing the eschatological Kingdom of God that was coming to liberate the true Israel. His followers expected that this would come in their lifetime. The Church’s relation to politics has much more to do with having to live in the world for 2000 years while Jesus hasn’t come back, then any special teachings of Jesus.

The story in the Gospel of John should be treated very carefully. On the one hand, scholars are almost unanimous in holding that this story of the woman caught in adultery is a later addition to the text and probably apocryphal. Secondly, the purpose of the story is to show the universality of sin and the need for mercy; and the hypocrisy of the pharisees. There is nothing in that story per se that constitutes a repudiation for the death penalty. Also, the death penalty for adultery is a part of the Mosaic law, not the natural law. The death penalty for murder was given to Noah. It stands outside the Mosaic law and is a part of the universal, natural law.

 

[fix]

JoeyWarren:

I have a few personal questions to those that have debate me here on the subject of Capital Punishment. I come with the questions because of the tone and fervor that I am debate to with.

1. Are some of you secondary victims of a murderer?
2. Do you know someone that was murdered.
3. Or are you opinions about murderers, the inherited opinions from your parents, aunts, or uncles.

I grew up a racist in this state I live in. I used to love to watch blacks get the **** beat out of them. I use to love hearing about executions. But when I came to the Holy Roman Catholic church I lost that racism and I lost my own bloodlust for a good ole execution. I don’t see the same love that I learned from the Catholic Church in some of the Catholics that post here, especially from those that are battling me over the wrongness of capital punishment.

This post is closed as far as I am concerned. I will not comment anymore on this subject.

Good day!

People are not simply giving their private uninformed opinion in this matter. They are presenting, and defending, Church teaching. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. It may be done under certain conditions and it is morally licit.

 

[Brendan]

Phil M:

So government members are to not worry about forgiveness? When did Jesus become a selective moralist?

If governments are commanded to use the death penalty, then why did Christ condemn stoning the adultress to death? Capital punishment is hypocritical, and we know what Christ taught about hypocrisy

Is Christ Himself being hypocritcal? after all, it was Christ Himself who first gave the Law that Adulterer were to be stoned.

Was Christ being a ‘selective moralist’ when He gave the Law, but then created certain exception to it?

Is the Church being hypocritical when it allows Captial Punishment under certain circumstances?

Of course governments are called to worry about forgiveness. That is way capitial punishment can only be used in particular, rare circumstances. When governmental agents use D.P. outside of those boundaries, they risk sin.

They do not risk sin if they act within those boundries however.

 

[mike182d]

DreadVandal:

Jesus really had no interest in the government of his day. Believe it or not, a good case can be made that Jesus had no social agenda as far as politics go. Jesus was announcing the eschatological Kingdom of God that was coming to liberate the true Israel. His followers expected that this would come in their lifetime. The Church’s relation to politics has much more to do with having to live in the world for 2000 years while Jesus hasn’t come back, then any special teachings of Jesus.

The story in the Gospel of John should be treated very carefully. On the one hand, scholars are almost unanimous in holding that this story of the woman caught in adultery is a later addition to the text and probably apocryphal. Secondly, the purpose of the story is to show the universality of sin and the need for mercy; and the hypocrisy of the pharisees. There is nothing in that story per se that constitutes a repudiation for the death penalty. Also, the death penalty for adultery is a part of the Mosaic law, not the natural law. The death penalty for murder was given to Noah. It stands outside the Mosaic law and is a part of the universal, natural law.

Get out of my head!!!

That’s almost exactly what I was going to say…lol.

 

[Orionthehunter]

levi86:

When an individual is sentenced by a court there are five factors that are taken into consideration when passing sentence, restoration, retribution, rehabilitation, protection and exemplary based punishments.

Now do we all accept that a life should not be taken unless absolutely necessary? A life should not be taken in vain right?

Restoration: This is clearly not applicable in a murder conviction, as a life can never be restored and as such is not taken into consideration in any murder sentence

Rehabilitation: If an individual is sentenced to death there is no possibility for rehabilitation.

Protection of the public: Life imprisonment without parole is equally as effective in protecting society as an execution.

Retribution: Retribution/revenge is NEVER permissible! This was one of Our Lords fundamental doctrines.

Exemplary: If anyone can provide me with ANY statistics showing that the death penalty provides an effective deterrent than I’m all ears.

Clearly the death penalty is not essential and should never be enforced; to knowingly take any life in vain is a grave sin.

While I’m opposed to the death penalty on grounds of mercy and charity, I need to express my disagreement on two of your points.

First, it isn’t right to link retribution and revenge as synonomous. Retribution is punishment for evil done. Revenge is returning harm for harm done. Under your linkage, any form of punishment (ie jail for theft) is revenge.

Secondly, I am confident that the Death Penalty does reduce violent crimes. There is ample evidence that people in the throes of committing another crime (armed theft, rape) choose not to kill their victim out of fear of the death penalty. There is ample evidence that conspiracy killings are thwarted or avoided because one of the parties fears the consequences of the death penalty.

These two concessions made still, in my opinion, doesn’t warrant the death penalty. I don’t believe that the end (less violent murders) justifies the means (state killing of human life).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brendan:

From the Council of Trent, Decree on the 5th Commandment

I think that was taken from the *Catechism of Trent, *also called the *Roman Catechism. *While published by order of Pope Pius V, and an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, I don’t believe it was from the Council of Trent, and so is distinguished from being an exercise of the solemn magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JoeyWarren:

I have a few personal questions to those that have debate me here on the subject of Capital Punishment. I come with the questions because of the tone and fervor that I am debate to with.

1. Are some of you secondary victims of a murderer?
2. Do you know someone that was murdered.
3. Or are you opinions about murderers, the inherited opinions from your parents, aunts, or uncles.

I grew up a racist in this state I live in. I used to love to watch blacks get the **** beat out of them. I use to love hearing about executions. But when I came to the Holy Roman Catholic church I lost that racism and I lost my own bloodlust for a good ole execution. I don’t see the same love that I learned from the Catholic Church in some of the Catholics that post here, especially from those that are battling me over the wrongness of capital punishment.

This post is closed as far as I am concerned. I will not comment anymore on this subject.

Good day!

I think those who disagree with you are trying to be truthful and faithful to Catholic doctrine. You seem to be appealing to emotion, while others are seeing this discussion for what it is, one pertaining to moral theology.

Theologically speaking, capital punishment can be licit. Yet, like slavery and war, it is ripe for abuse, and may be prudently opposed. Deliberate abortion, on the other hand, is never licit. Thus, we are trying to be loyal to what Pope John XXIII wrote: “***in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity. ***” (Ad Petri Cathedram, June 29, 1959, par. 72)

 

[Brendan]

itsjustdave1988:

I think that was taken from the *Catechism of Trent, *also called the *Roman Catechism. *While published by order of Pope Pius V, and an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, I don’t believe it was from the Council of Trent, and so is distinguished from being an exercise of the solemn magisterium.

The Cathechims of Trent was mandated of the Council by Pope Puis as part of the 17th Session and promuglated as part of the 24 session.

It is a Concilluar Document, decreed by both the Pontif and the Council and created under the aspices of the Council. It does not carry the same canonical weight as the Canons, but is no less a Concillular document.

 

[Phil_M]

Brendan:

Is Christ Himself being hypocritcal? after all, it was Christ Himself who first gave the Law that Adulterer were to be stoned.

Was Christ being a ‘selective moralist’ when He gave the Law, but then created certain exception to it?

Is the Church being hypocritical when it allows Captial Punishment under certain circumstances?

Of course governments are called to worry about forgiveness. That is way capitial punishment can only be used in particular, rare circumstances. When governmental agents use D.P. outside of those boundaries, they risk sin.

They do not risk sin if they act within those boundries however.

I didn’t mean it that way, I was responding to what someone else had said about only the Church needing to be concerned with forgiveness. That is selective moralism, since someone is saying that the government members should abide by some teachings, but not others. There’s nothing hypocritical about the Church or governments allowing it under certain extreme circumstances. It’s a problem when it’s used outside of these circumstances, something which does happen occasionally in the US. So I basically agree with you

 

[Ender]

levi86:

When an individual is sentenced by a court there are five factors that are taken into consideration when passing sentence, restoration, retribution, rehabilitation, protection and exemplary based punishments.

I don’t know where these five factors come from, nor do I necessarily agree with them, but they raise a good point.

What is the purpose of punishment? -

This is what JPII said in Evangelium Vitae: “The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime.”

So it’s appropriate to ask: what punishment is adequate for redressing the disorder caused by a crime such as murder? It is important to note that merely defending public order does not redress the disorder caused by the crime. This point is what I think is missing from the Catechism’s position on the death penalty.

Paul VI wrote: “The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.” It is not vengeance that requires the death penalty for certain offenses, it is justice.

Ender