L
LongingSoul
Guest
The reason that we determine punishment away from emotional reactions… is because we are forbidden from basing laws on revenge. They have to serve the common good of all to serve justice.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Americans Back Death Penalty by Gas or Electrocution If No Needle: Poll
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
The text, itself, tells us that this is an entrapment story and that Jesus was able to turn it back on those dishonerable men trying to entrap Jesus.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Just as the death penalty is sought.The reason that we determine punishment away from emotional reactions… is because we are forbidden from basing laws on revenge. They have to serve the common good of all to serve justice.
CATEGORICAL PARDON: ON THE (CATHOLIC) ARGUMENT FOR ABOLISHING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, J. BUDZISZEWSKI
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=ndjlepp
The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
“Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
L
LongingSoul
Guest
This is a problem that you have to resolve within yourself. You are the one seeing conclusions where they don’t exist. In the past doctors used chemicals and surgeries to cure conditions that if we were to use them now they would be described as cruel and unnecessary. Nobody in his right mind projects that into the past to indict those doctors acting in the best interest of peoples health at the time.If you wish to argue that it is bad policy to use capital punishment then that is a reasonable position, but when you go beyond that to condemn the act itself as cruel then you are no longer distinguishing when it may be right to use it but condemning it in all circumstances, which is a good bit further than the church has gone.
We are told one may never do evil that good may come of it, yet if you are right that capital punishment is cruel, how is it that the church allows it even theoretically? How can she acknowledge the right of states to commit evil, or are you suggesting that cruelty is not evil? Be content with asserting that capital punishment should not be used because it is a mistake to do so. You cannot assert that it is evil without contradicting church doctrine.
Ender
Doctors were not cruel for giving people arsenic to treat some conditions for example. That would be cruel now but what arrogant mentality actually thinks the thought, “it’s cruel considering the advances and knowledge we have now so it must have been cruel back then!!” No one. Chemotherapy as cancer treatment is horrid but no one describes it as cruel. In a hundred years when we’ve moved on and chemotherapy is superseded… do you think people would look back on our medical community as ‘cruel’? Of course not… unless they are a special kind of narcissist. People know the score. People know what’s what. The death penalty is unnecessary and the wholeness of the body of humanity is much better served by modern methods of justice. This is a cause for rejoicing. Not for hanging on to vengeance.
“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Longing Soutl, do you not realize how striange was the Saints thinking?“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
The foundation of 2000 years of Catholic teachings is that the death penalty is based upon the dignity of life., which cannot be called cruel and cannot be said to deny the criminal the chance to reform.
We all have the opportunity to reform, before we die, not matter the method of our death,
Saint PJPII is telling us that God stops everyones possibilty of reform because of our early and earthly death, when God saya that we all have the opposrunity to reform prior to our deaths.
Was Saint PJPII unaware that we will all die early and earthly deaths because of our sinse and that we will all do so with the opportunity to be saved, prior to that death, WHATEVER THE METHOD OF DEATH MAY BE?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
What? That’s like doctors saying we don’t have to save a man from his life threatening injuries because he has this opportunity to think about death and repent. It is a natural human instinct to want to preserve and prolong life by good health or good medicine or safety measures etc. If shortening of a life doesn’t rob you of something, why are we so upset by abortion? Can’t we just say all those lucky babies get to go to heaven?Longing Soutl, do you not realize how striange was the Saints thinking?
The foundation of 2000 years of Catholic teachings is that the death penalty is based upon the dignity of life., which cannot be called cruel and cannot be said to deny the criminal the chance to reform.
We all have the opportunity to reform, before we die, not matter the method of our death,
Saint PJPII is telling us that God stops everyones possibilty of reform because of our early and earthly death, when God saya that we all have the opposrunity to reform prior to our deaths.
Was Saint PJPII unaware that we will all die early and earthly deaths because of our sinse and that we will all do so with the opportunity to be saved, prior to that death, WHATEVER THE METHOD OF DEATH MAY BE?
Life is our wonderful opportunity to not just get to know God, but also to work in the world for His Kingdom to come. Work with and for others. You could as legitimately say that a repentant murderer has more grace than most to transform the lives of others for years to come. How does God feel then if we say by killing him is doing his soul a favour? How can we possibly know such a thing?
E
Ender
Guest
This is a valid argument (although not necessarily a correct one). “The death penalty is cruel” is not valid.The death penalty is unnecessary…
It isn’t immediately clear how executing someone constitutes vengeance but locking him up and throwing away the key does not. Beyond that, however, is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of vengeance. If you want to argue that people support the death penalty out of hate and a desire to inflict the maximum possible suffering on someone, at least recognize that this is not an indictment of the punishment but (uncharitably) of the people who call for it.This is a cause for rejoicing. Not for hanging on to vengeance.
Mostly, though, rejecting capital punishment as vengeful simply shows a misunderstanding of the nature of vengeance, which is actually nothing more than "the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned." (Aquinas) What is banned is not vengeance but private vengeance. Vengeance, properly understood, is the business of the state and is not only a right but an obligation.*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
Ender
K
Kelt
Guest
I think some of you just can’t see the wood for the trees…this is all SEMANTICS. It happens in all religions; people debate this interpretation and that…and the main message goes out the window. Ender, you keep staggering me! You said that if the church didn’t take a position you would view it as a practical and political issue, not a moral one. But this kind of non-thinking is exactly what religious fundamentalism (of any colour) thrives on isn’t it?!This is a valid argument (although not necessarily a correct one). “The death penalty is cruel” is not valid.
It isn’t immediately clear how executing someone constitutes vengeance but locking him up and throwing away the key does not. Beyond that, however, is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of vengeance. If you want to argue that people support the death penalty out of hate and a desire to inflict the maximum possible suffering on someone, at least recognize that this is not an indictment of the punishment but (uncharitably) of the people who call for it.
Mostly, though, rejecting capital punishment as vengeful simply shows a misunderstanding of the nature of vengeance, which is actually nothing more than "the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned." (Aquinas) What is banned is not vengeance but private vengeance. Vengeance, properly understood, is the business of the state and is not only a right but an obligation.*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
Ender
If you agree with assisted suicide and abortion I would understand your wish to see felons executed.
Would you extend the crimes for capital penalty?
You accuse someone of being uncharitable…sorry, Ender, I’m not trying to be disrespectful but these postings on this subject make me think you’d not recognise real charity if it crept up and bit you on the bum!! Have you looked into the lives of the folks on death row? They need help not killing. If you think God loves everyone, so should we, and that’s the hard bit. Think of the parable of the prodigal son…
Interesting random thought: how would you feel if, when you got to heaven, everyone - good and bad - were there?
K
Kelt
Guest
What do you mean by ‘our early and earthly death?’Longing Soutl, do you not realize how striange was the Saints thinking?
The foundation of 2000 years of Catholic teachings is that the death penalty is based upon the dignity of life., which cannot be called cruel and cannot be said to deny the criminal the chance to reform.
We all have the opportunity to reform, before we die, not matter the method of our death,
Saint PJPII is telling us that God stops everyones possibilty of reform because of our early and earthly death, when God saya that we all have the opposrunity to reform prior to our deaths.
Was Saint PJPII unaware that we will all die early and earthly deaths because of our sinse and that we will all do so with the opportunity to be saved, prior to that death, WHATEVER THE METHOD OF DEATH MAY BE?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I addressed that in post 84 and you didn’t respond. I can’t be bothered saying it again.This is a valid argument (although not necessarily a correct one). “The death penalty is cruel” is not valid.
It isn’t immediately clear how executing someone constitutes vengeance but locking him up and throwing away the key does not.
“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” - CCCBeyond that, however, is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of vengeance.
If a punishment is disproportionate and doesn’t redress the disorder… all that is left justifying it is human vengeance. A crime can only be judged within the context of human existence. We are not talking about sin here. We are talking about crime. If I sprinkle my lawn, I’m committing a crime. If someone that doesn’t live in a drought area sprinkles their lawn, they are perfectly legal. If a woman kills her abusive husband while he is asleep out of fear of what he will do next time to her… its of a whole different nature to the husband killing her in an abusive rage.
Times and conditions matter too. In an isolated community far away from state jurisdictions like some of our far flung Aboriginal communities… those tribes were permitted to use tribal law (which included a death penalty called boning) for crimes destructive to the common good of that little community. These same crimes were relatively minor in populated towns and cities that didn’t depend so much on tribal unity and trust.
The culture also matters. In a culture that tolerates death (abortion, euthanasia, suicide) using death as a remedy for crime only compounds the disorder, not redress it positively.
There is no standard punishment for a crime. In the human experience, the disorder caused by crime will always depend on all other factors affecting it.
When the force of humanity is calling for the abolition of the death penalty because it does not serve justice…and the Church affirms that this is a movement of the Holy Spirit in the world, why would someone, individuals without any vested interest, need to further qualify that?
That doesn’t even make sense. The ‘punishment’ is not a person. How can you ‘indict’ punishment. Punishment is like an umbrella term. Its a maleable concept. It’s a remedy that serves a purpose.If you want to argue that people support the death penalty out of hate and a desire to inflict the maximum possible suffering on someone, at least recognize that this is not an indictment of the punishment but (uncharitably) of the people who call for it.
Exactly the penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the crime and are meant to redress the disorder in society that results. All those factors interplay with each other and that’s how the penalties are arrived at. That’s how they serve the common good of all. To say that they don’t have to serve the common good… that they must feel like they fit to you… is an exercise in private vengeance.Mostly, though, rejecting capital punishment as vengeful simply shows a misunderstanding of the nature of vengeance, which is actually nothing more than "the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned." (Aquinas) What is banned is not vengeance but private vengeance. Vengeance, properly understood, is the business of the state and is not only a right but an obligation.*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
The analogy wasn’t relevant. The practice of medicine changes with advances in science, but at all times doctors were doing the best they knew. Advances in science have no impact on the nature of crimes or of the appropriate punishment. Murder is neither more nor less heinous now than 1000 years ago, and the appropriate punishment for that crime cannot change with the times either.I addressed that in post 84 and you didn’t respond. I can’t be bothered saying it again.
The church has never judged capital punishment disproportionate to the crime of murder.If a punishment is disproportionate and doesn’t redress the disorder… all that is left justifying it is human vengeance.
I’m pretty sure murder is a sin as well as a crime, and no context of human existence makes it more or less severe.A crime can only be judged within the context of human existence. We are not talking about sin here. We are talking about crime.
Yes, we’ve already established that there may be legitimate prudential reasons for opposing capital punishment in particular situations.Times and conditions matter too.
You think of “disorder” way too narrowly. It is a lot more than a temporary disruption of life in society.In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . . thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God. (Aquinas ST I-II, 87,1)There is no standard punishment for a crime. In the human experience, the disorder caused by crime will always depend on all other factors affecting it.
The church has affirmed no such thing. The validity of prudential judgments is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.When the force of humanity is calling for the abolition of the death penalty because it does not serve justice…and the Church affirms that this is a movement of the Holy Spirit in the world…
The concept is not nearly so malleable to the church, and is pretty well summed up this way: “*The act of sin makes man deserving of punishment…” *and *“Punishment is proportionate to sin.” *(Aquinas)Punishment is like an umbrella term. Its a maleable concept. It’s a remedy that serves a purpose.
Yes, and the gravity of murder is fixed for all time.Exactly the penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the crime…
No. As I pointed out earlier, you misunderstand “disorder”.… are meant to redress the disorder in society that results.
Ender
P
PeopleB4Things
Guest
Our pope and our local bishops need to press home very hard with American Catholics that our church does not condone capital punishment just like it does not condone abortion. While many Catholics may ignore the Church by approving of capital punishment or abortion, they do so knowing full well that their approvals break with their church. We are all cafeteria Catholics in one way or another, but abortion and capital punishment definitely highlight the cracks in our individual commitments to our faith.
P
PeopleB4Things
Guest
It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words,** when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society**. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. —Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56, emphasis in the original.
So the death penalty is out unless we encounter a prisoner whom we are unable to keep in a cell. Like the prisoners who can morph into a gas and escape thru the air ducts only to rematerialize outside the gates.
So the death penalty is out unless we encounter a prisoner whom we are unable to keep in a cell. Like the prisoners who can morph into a gas and escape thru the air ducts only to rematerialize outside the gates.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
In every age human beings are called upon to use as you would describe, their prudential judgement to form human laws. That is because the appropriatness of the punishment in every age depends on all the other relevant factors to serve the common good of all people. We no longer live under old Testament conditions where the common good was not comprehended in the way Christ revealed to us and human law as we conceive of it, is bound inextricably to the common good. For it to truly serve the common good, it must factor in the times in which it exists. There is little danger of murder losing its criminal status since even people not exposed to the Judeo Christian perspective have known its seriousness by dint of natural law. Aquinas after all says that Divine Law presupposes natural law.The analogy wasn’t relevant. The practice of medicine changes with advances in science, but at all times doctors were doing the best they knew. Advances in science have no impact on the nature of crimes or of the appropriate punishment. Murder is neither more nor less heinous now than 1000 years ago, and the appropriate punishment for that crime cannot change with the times either.
It does so. PeopleB4things has posted the relevant teaching in th previous post.The church has never judged capital punishment disproportionate to the crime of murder.
You think of “disorder” way too narrowly. It is a lot more than a temporary disruption of life in society.In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . . thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God. (Aquinas ST I-II, 87,1)There is no standard punishment for a crime. In the human experience, the disorder caused by crime will always depend on all other factors affecting it.
Aquinas also said…
“Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that “law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens.” Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6).”
Man has no power to effect divine retribution other than by conforming his laws to the common good. Cardinal Dulles has stressed that point, a point you have never ever answered to in any dialogue I can remember.
"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. "
The church has affirmed no such thing. The validity of prudential judgments is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.When the force of humanity is calling for the abolition of the death penalty because it does not serve justice…and the Church affirms that this is a movement of the Holy Spirit in the world…
"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. " = EV
The concept is not nearly so malleable to the church, and is pretty well summed up this way: “*The act of sin makes man deserving of punishment…” *and *“Punishment is proportionate to sin.” *(Aquinas)Punishment is like an umbrella term. Its a maleable concept. It’s a remedy that serves a purpose.
Aquinas is talking about the court of Divine justice before the omnicient and omnipotent God of all. We are talking here of human justice, its ends and its limits.
And as I counter demonstrated by Aquinas words regarding the end of human law, it is you that misunderstood.No. As I pointed out earlier, you misunderstand “disorder”.
K
Kelt
Guest
Please tell me what you mean by ‘early and earthly deaths’. I don’t understand.Longing Soutl, do you not realize how striange was the Saints thinking?
The foundation of 2000 years of Catholic teachings is that the death penalty is based upon the dignity of life., which cannot be called cruel and cannot be said to deny the criminal the chance to reform.
We all have the opportunity to reform, before we die, not matter the method of our death,
Saint PJPII is telling us that God stops everyones possibilty of reform because of our early and earthly death, when God saya that we all have the opposrunity to reform prior to our deaths.
Was Saint PJPII unaware that we will all die early and earthly deaths because of our sinse and that we will all do so with the opportunity to be saved, prior to that death, WHATEVER THE METHOD OF DEATH MAY BE?
A
anthony022071
Guest
The right to bear arms is not just a man-made right,it is a consequence of God-given natural law,which gives us the right to own property and to defend ourselves and our families. Guns are property,just like anything else people own.Seriously, this has always been a problem in you, not with anyone else. In the current threads on gun control there is this problem some are having with distinguishing inalienable rights from auxilliary rights. The right to bear arms as taken from the English Bill of Rights is described as an auxilliary right. That is, it serves a greater good and is conditional upon the quality of its service. That is what the right of the states to use capital punishment is. An auxilliary right. They have a right to use it if it serves the common good and they have a right to abolish it if it is detrimental to the common good.
A
anthony022071
Guest
The death penalty for murder and violent rape does not seem to be against natural law or justice,so the magisterium cannot declare it to be unjust. But it should be avoided so that no one will have their conscience stained with the unnecessary killing of someone who is in confined in prison. Many of the people who are against the death penalty seem to be against it from a disregard of natural justice and the need for punishment and what Fulton Sheen called false compassion,rather than from authentic Christian morality. They don’t see the need or purpose of punishment or harsh discipline in general.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The right to own property and the right to security of person (’ the right to defend ourselves’ is in fact an situation based extrapolation of the universal right to security of person)… are inalienable rights. The right to bear arms in service of those inalienable rights is qualified by how they affect the common good.The right to bear arms is not just a man-made right,it is a consequence of God-given natural law,which gives us the right to own property and to defend ourselves and our families. Guns are property,just like anything else people own.
The example I used before was in relation to the universal right to fair pay for fair work. The right to strike or the right to march are auxilliary rights that are in service to the that univeral right and must conform to the common good. If doctors think they deserve more pay for their work, they have a right to strike, but if their actions will result in mass disfunction of healthcare, their strike action is deemed illegal and is highly immoral to boot.
We have a right to own property. We have a right to cut down trees on our property if we want. However if we want to do it at midnight with a Holden V8 chainsaw… we can be arrested for using our right to do whatever we want on our property since it has to be exercised in accordance with the rights of others in mind also. The common good.
What we have is a right to ‘security of person’. This right is equally applicable to all. If the right to bear arms impacts negatively on the large percentage of the population that are forbidden to own arms… that right can in fact be void by its failure to conform to the universal right of everyone to security of person.
The State has a right to punish crime. The end of its laws is the common good of those it serves. The punishments it creates have to serve the common good within the limits of human law. The death penalty has served the common good at times and at other times it has not served the common good and is an illegitimate punishment. That is what stands today.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I must add that the Church has allowed for Catholics to disagree with the assessment that the death penalty is not serving the common good and can in good conscience, retain it on that basis.
A
anthony022071
Guest
The right to bear arms,in regard to natural law,does not depend on the service of inalienable rights,it is based upon the fact that guns are legitimate items of property. It is not always possible to make a fair judgement as to how the ownership of something affects the common good. Gun ownership by decent people certainly discourages criminals,and it also makes it more possible that unintentional or unjustified killings and woundings by decent people will happen. So gun ownership can affect the common good both for the better and for the worse. But even when the worse happens,it may not be fair to deprive the people of their rights. In a society where people are supposed to have individual freedom,the deprivation of rights by the government which claims it is protecting society is insulting and sometimes tyrannical. The common good includes individual rights and freedoms,not just the general safety and well-being of society.The right to own property and the right to security of person (’ the right to defend ourselves’ is in fact an situation based extrapolation of the universal right to security of person)… are inalienable rights. The right to bear arms in service of those inalienable rights is qualified by how they affect the common good.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.