Americans Back Death Penalty by Gas or Electrocution If No Needle: Poll

[LongingSoul]

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.

To me this dramatically exposes the vastly different way radical Americanism conceives of human existence. This attitude in my opinion is more reflective of deism and the rejection of a sense of universal brotherhood that is represented by the phenomenon of organised faith both religious and secular (Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations) in general.

I believe the founding fathers were strongly influenced by the English deist movement of that time in conceiving of the constitution but as Catholics and Christians we are obliged to put the common good of all above our individual rights.

 

[Ender]

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.

This is simply incorrect. Abortion is intrinsically evil, capital punishment is not, and the church will never declare it to be so. We are morally forbidden to obtain an abortion under all circumstances; the opposition to capital punishment is based on a belief that it is unwise in current circumstances, not that it is immoral.

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.

This assertion is equally mistaken.As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm… that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications.* Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.** *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Aquinas after all says that Divine Law presupposes natural law.

Yes he did. He also said, in response to the objection that sinners should not be put to death: “On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law .”

Aquinas also said… “Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end…”

Yes, this goes to the question of whether the application of capital punishment in current society achieves that end. That is, this explains why prudential objections may properly be raised against capital punishment, but since that has never been doubted it’s not particularly relevant to the question of its morality.

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.

Do you not recognize that determining what contributes to the common good is a prudential judgment? If you think the death penalty diminishes the common good while I think it enhances it, while it is true that one of us must be mistaken it is equally true that neither of us has sinned in being wrong. This is because there is no moral obstacle to the use of capital punishment as there is with abortion.

"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. "

So? This is hardly an argument that the state should not to the limit of its capabilities apply punishments appropriate to the crimes committed. That we cannot be perfect is no argument that we should not do the best we can.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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 church raises no doctrinal objection to the private ownership of guns. It recognizes the right of states to qualify that right but there is no moral objection to the ownership of weapons as long as the state has no law against it.*for if there is no law commanding or prohibiting something for everybody, many actions which are evil in one man will not be evil in others. For example, if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself; yet, if the law forbids it, then it is evil for all, for the law should not consider what is good or evil for this one or that one, but what will profit or harm the State. *(St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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

A Satanist practices the motto, “If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!” Let no wrong go unredressed., from The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan.

As I’ve studied these things more, what has come to interest me is that the Christian system of morality and the Satanic one as outlined by LaVey are quite similar in many cases. In fact, in this instance they do not differ in content but only in application. Whereas the Satanist described by LaVey is quite egalitarian, applying these moral rules universally, the Christian would seem to have a more subjective morality: for group A, one set of moral rules but for group B, a different one.

Another observation: it is easy to locate the teachings of Jesus as they apply to the “normal” or “lower class” beings (forgive seventy times seven, follow the 10 commandments, etc.), I haven’t found much data about the moral rules for the “special” or “higher class” ones. Can you point me to them? Is there a list of them somewhere in the Bible, or is it possible that, like God Himself, they are not bound to any moral rules at all? In essence, they are “beyond good and evil”?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes he did. He also said, in response to the objection that sinners should not be put to death: “On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law .”

In that same breath he also explains…

“Wherefore, according to Augustine’s reckoning (De Civ. Dei xxi), “Tully writes that the laws recognize eight kinds of punishment”: namely, “death,” whereby man is deprived of life; "stripes," “retaliation,” or the loss of eye for eye, whereby man forfeits his bodily safety; “slavery,” and “imprisonment,” whereby he is deprived of freedom; “exile” whereby he is banished from his country; “fines,” whereby he is mulcted in his riches; “ignominy,” whereby he loses his good name.”

So why aren’t you jumping up and down about those who claim that stripes, eye for an eye and slavery should be abolished? If these penalties are literally fixed by divine law as you perceive, where is all the hoohah about them disappearing?

Aquinas also said… “Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end…”

Yes, this goes to the question of whether the application of capital punishment in current society achieves that end. That is, this explains why prudential objections may properly be raised against capital punishment, but since that has never been doubted it’s not particularly relevant to the question of its morality.

Why don’t you think that every state or government since the time of Christ is exercising prudential judgements regarding laws for the sake of the common good? In the middle ages it was deemed a prudent judgement to execute those disagreeing with the Church! What government since Christ ever existed as brainless pawns of God’s divine commands in the exercise of their civic duties?

Do you not recognize that determining what contributes to the common good is a prudential judgment? If you think the death penalty diminishes the common good while I think it enhances it, while it is true that one of us must be mistaken it is equally true that neither of us has sinned in being wrong. This is because there is no moral obstacle to the use of capital punishment as there is with abortion.

And if in fact it becomes obvious that the death penalty diminished the common good, it becomes equally obvious that it was a cruel and unnecessary application of that penalty. The past has taught us that and the Church has apologised for those cruel extremes she supported in the middle ages.

So? This is hardly an argument that the state should not to the limit of its capabilities apply punishments appropriate to the crimes committed. That we cannot be perfect is no argument that we should not do the best we can.

Which is what we are doing and that direction is soundly affirmed as godly by the Church.

 

[anthony022071]

To me this dramatically exposes the vastly different way radical Americanism conceives of human existence. This attitude in my opinion is more reflective of deism and the rejection of a sense of universal brotherhood that is represented by the phenomenon of organised faith both religious and secular (Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations) in general.

It isn’t about radical Americanism,it’s about respecting people’s individual rights and freedoms,which are essential for the common good. The common good is inseparable from the rights and freedoms which are common to all people according to natural law. The concept of the common good should not be separated from the reality that society consists of persons with God-given natural rights and freedoms. And these rights and freedoms descend to particulars. They are manifested in particular ways. So the right to own property and the right to defense of oneself and family includes the right possess guns.

I believe the founding fathers were strongly influenced by the English deist movement of that time in conceiving of the constitution but as Catholics and Christians we are obliged to put the common good of all above our individual rights.

The rights in the constitution are based upon natural law and the principles of freedom. The constitution does not hinder the people from co-operating for the common good,it only hinders the government from becoming tyrannical.

We may put the common good above our own rights if we want,but we don’t always have the right to intrude upon other people’s rights on the claim it is for the common good.

Getting back to the topic of the thread,

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.

 

[LongingSoul]

It isn’t about radical Americanism,it’s about respecting people’s individual rights and freedoms,which are essential for the common good. The common good is inseparable from the rights and freedoms which are common to all people according to natural law. The concept of the common good should not be separated from the reality that society consists of persons with God-given natural rights and freedoms. And these rights and freedoms descend to particulars. They are manifested in particular ways. So the right to own property and the right to defense of oneself and family includes the right possess guns.

These rights that ‘descend’ from God given natural rights and freedoms are whats called ‘auxilliary’ rights. They do not stand alone like the rights they are serving. In the example of my favourite analogy of the moment, food is necessary for life but it doesn’t follow that chocolate is food and therefore chocolate is necessary for life.

The rights in the constitution are based upon natural law and the principles of freedom. The constitution does not hinder the people from co-operating for the common good,it only hinders the government from becoming tyrannical.

We may put the common good above our own rights if we want,but we don’t always have the right to intrude upon other people’s rights on the claim it is for the common good.

No constitution has the authority or power to re-define the natural law. It can only refer to it in formulating it’s principles for a unified, healthy, free and inclusive society. If its end goal was to ultimately esteem each man individually as the highest authority in society… it is essentially voiding itself as having any real authority.

Getting back to the topic of the thread,

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.

Natural law *allows for *a penalty of death in the pursuit of justice like it *allows for *war in the pursuit of justice. It is a recourse and a remedy to treat disorders fatal to the common good. It is like the diet *allows for *chocolate and dessert as a recourse and a remedy for dietary concupiscience. It can never qualify as a dietary staple like carbs, proteins and fats that are essential for good health. It is just a recourse invoked to treat a weakness of humanity.

 

[Ender]

A Satanist practices the motto, “If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!” Let no wrong go unredressed., from The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan.

As I’ve studied these things more, what has come to interest me is that the Christian system of morality and the Satanic one as outlined by LaVey are quite similar in many cases. In fact, in this instance they do not differ in content but only in application.

You make light of what are in fact significant differences. Your comparison is akin to equating murder with killing in self defense, as in If A kills B we call it unjustified while if B kills A we call it justified. It glosses over that which makes the difference.

Whereas the Satanist described by LaVey is quite egalitarian, applying these moral rules universally, the Christian would seem to have a more subjective morality: for group A, one set of moral rules but for group B, a different one.

Again, you trivialize the distinction between “groups”. If you have a justification for why one man may punish another I should be interested in hearing it.

Another observation: it is easy to locate the teachings of Jesus as they apply to the “normal” or “lower class” beings (forgive seventy times seven, follow the 10 commandments, etc.), I haven’t found much data about the moral rules for the “special” or “higher class” ones. Can you point me to them?

How can I point you to rules for a “special” class when that classification is yours alone?

Is there a list of them somewhere in the Bible, or is it possible that, like God Himself, they are not bound to any moral rules at all? In essence, they are “beyond good and evil”?

This might go better if you made your points with a little less hyperbole.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So why aren’t you jumping up and down about those who claim that stripes, eye for an eye and slavery should be abolished? If these penalties are literally fixed by divine law as you perceive, where is all the hoohah about them disappearing?

The question asked in this section (ST II-II 108,3) is: "Whether vengeance should be wrought by punishments customary among men?" Since Aquinas was citing Augustine citing Cicero there is no reason to believe all the punishments listed were fixed by divine law. Except for capital punishment; we can be pretty sure about that one.

Why don’t you think that every state or government since the time of Christ is exercising prudential judgements regarding laws for the sake of the common good?

Well, leaving aside the governments of kings and tyrants which worked to further their own goals, yes, I assume most governments try to further the common good. That really isn’t the point.

And if in fact it becomes obvious that the death penalty diminished the common good, it becomes equally obvious that it was a cruel and unnecessary application of that penalty.

Even if it was obvious that it diminished the common good that would only make it foolish, not cruel.

The past has taught us that and the Church has apologised for those cruel extremes she supported in the middle ages.

She has never apologized for supporting capital punishment. She has, however, labeled it a heresy to hold that states do not have this right.

Ender

 

[Kelt]

Ender, you say ‘Even if it was obvious that it diminished the common good that would only make it foolish, not cruel.’

Not cruel? It makes me wonder about your concept of cruel.
This is all semantics. You are making your scriptures fit your politics. People have always done it. It’s why church officials didn’t want the bible translated into local languages - they could foresee the chaos it was bound to create! It’s why we have jihadists and the Westboro’ baptist gang.
You’re very judgmental…try charity instead.

 

[Kelt]

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 right to own a gun to kill someone or something ( because it’s property) is a God given right? I’ve heard it all now. Try putting 2 and 2 together…

How about this scenario: Poor starving person (they do exist you know) is caught by Rich landowner in the process of shooting a deer on Rich man’s estate. Is it Rich-man’s God given right to shoot said poor person stealing his God-given property? After all, Poor person has a gun, and might shoot when he’s surprised by the landowner with his gun? Does Rich landowner need to take the risk - should he shoot first and ask questions later? Or does he have the right to shoot the thief anyway?

 

[Ender]

Not cruel? It makes me wonder about your concept of cruel.

Wherefore Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that “those are called cruel who have reason for punishing, but lack moderation in punishing.” (Aquinas ST II-II 157 1 ad 3)
Capital punishment is not itself cruel but is cruelly used if it exceeds the proper measure of punishment for the crime. Since "Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity" (Aquinas), and since we know that capital punishment is proportionate to the sin of murder, its use for such a crime cannot be cruel unless there are particular circumstances that mitigate the killer’s responsibility. It’s use can be unwise, however, if there are other valid reasons why it should not be employed.

This is all semantics. You are making your scriptures fit your politics. People have always done it. It’s why church officials didn’t want the bible translated into local languages - they could foresee the chaos it was bound to create!

Actually I very seldom cite scripture. What I quote are church sources. What you are rejecting is not my personal opinion but what the church has taught.

It’s why we have jihadists and the Westboro’ baptist gang.
You’re very judgmental…try charity instead.

When you compare me with jihadists and the Westboro group it makes me wonder about your concept of charity.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The right to own a gun to kill someone or something ( because it’s property) is a God given right? I’ve heard it all now.

The right to protect oneself and one’s family is a natural right.* For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin* (Aquinas ST II-II 41,1)

Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. (Ibid 64,7,1)
Nor does the church raise any objection to having weapons for the purpose of self defense.if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself (Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The question asked in this section (ST II-II 108,3) is: “Whether vengeance should be wrought by punishments customary among men?” Since Aquinas was citing Augustine citing Cicero there is no reason to believe all the punishments listed were fixed by divine law. Except for capital punishment; we can be pretty sure about that one.

You are just so wrong. When Aquinas writes *“On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2).”… *he refers back to the section “Whether the judicial precepts were suitably framed as to the relations of one man with another?”.

home.newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm

In Article 2 replying to Objection 10, Aquinas is specifically addressing the eight punishments prescribed by the Old Law.

And if in fact it becomes obvious that the death penalty diminished the common good, it becomes equally obvious that it was a cruel and unnecessary application of that penalty.

Even if it was obvious that it diminished the common good that would only make it foolish, not cruel.

This is entirely some sort of psychological problem in your understanding. I suppose you think unjust wars are merely foolish also. It is people who commit atrocities and people who usurp the word of God to satisfy their own ends. The state is made up of people who are called to be accountable to the common good in devising their laws and penalties.

She has never apologized for supporting capital punishment.

Pope John Paul made a point of apologising on behalf of the Church for the sins of the past and this included the execution of apostates.

She has, however, labeled it a heresy to hold that states do not have this right.

We weren’t even talking about that. When you understand the difference between an auxilliary right and an inherent right, you’ll have a much better grasp of how capital punishment has always fitted into penal justice.

 

[Kelt]

Wherefore Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that “those are called cruel who have reason for punishing, but lack moderation in punishing.” (Aquinas ST II-II 157 1 ad 3)
Capital punishment is not itself cruel but is cruelly used if it exceeds the proper measure of punishment for the crime. Since "Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity" (Aquinas), and since we know that capital punishment is proportionate to the sin of murder, its use for such a crime cannot be cruel unless there are particular circumstances that mitigate the killer’s responsibility. It’s use can be unwise, however, if there are other valid reasons why it should not be employed.
Actually I very seldom cite scripture. What I quote are church sources. What you are rejecting is not my personal opinion but what the church has taught.
When you compare me with jihadists and the Westboro group it makes me wonder about your concept of charity.

Ender

It’s rather splitting hairs - you quote church sources then, and they in turn have interpreted scripture. If you think they were somehow divinely inspired then our argument is over because I do not!
If you cannot see the cruelty of condemning a man to death and carrying it out then I will just have to think that you have limited imagination.
My comparison to jihadists etc is because of this; you appear to have no desire to form your own opinion. You depend entirely on the teachings of people in the past who in turn have interpreted other teachings/ scriptures. Extremists also have to be unquestioning about tsomeone’s take on their religion so it can be a dangerous thing! It’s the acceptance of another person’s word that I compare…not you as an individual!

 

[Kelt]

The right to protect oneself and one’s family is a natural right.* For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin* (Aquinas ST II-II 41,1)

Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. (Ibid 64,7,1)
Nor does the church raise any objection to having weapons for the purpose of self defense.if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself (Bellarmine)
Ender

Yes I think we have a right to defend ourselves…but if we all pack a pistol we’re more likely to die by a pistol. I spent some time with a policeman in US surrounded by guns. He even had to have a hand on his gun when he stopped someone for speeding. I’m so glad that we don’t all have guns in the UK.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Kelt
Not cruel? It makes me wonder about your concept of cruel.

“and since we know that capital punishment is proportionate to the sin of murder”

We do not know that.

What we know is that God commands “thou shalt not kill”. We know that death as a penalty is permitted by natural and divine law in pursuit of human justice, but it is always subject to how the relationship between men and common good are served by it. Human penalties are deemed proportionate based on many other factors surrounding the crime… not just the crime itself. That is because human beings are not God. They cannot see sin and crime through Gods eyes. They cannot claim any arbitrary capacity in devising penalties. We are not God.

"A severe punishment is inflicted not only on account of the gravity of a fault, but also for other reasons. First, on account of the greatness of the sin, because a greater sin, other things being equal, deserves a greater punishment. Secondly, on account of a habitual sin, since men are not easily cured of habitual sin except by severe punishments. Thirdly, on account of a great desire for or a great pleasure in the sin: for men are not easily deterred from such sins unless they be severely punished. Fourthly, on account of the facility of committing a sin and of concealing it: for such like sins, when discovered, should be more severely punished in order to deter others from committing them.

**Again, with regard to the greatness of a sin, four degrees may be observed, even in respect of one single deed. **The first is when a sin is committed unwillingly; because then, if the sin be altogether involuntary, man is altogether excused from punishment; for it is written (Deuteronomy 22:25, seqq.) that a damsel who suffers violence in a field is not guilty of death, because “she cried, and there was no man to help her.” But if a man sinned in any way voluntarily, and yet through weakness, as for instance when a man sins from passion, the sin is diminished: and the punishment, according to true judgment, should be diminished also; unless perchance the common weal requires that the sin be severely punished in order to deter others from committing such sins, as stated above. The second degree is when a man sins through ignorance: and then he was held to be guilty to a certain extent, on account of his negligence in acquiring knowledge: yet he was not punished by the judges but expiated his sin by sacrifices. Hence it is written (Leviticus 4:2): “The soul that sinneth through ignorance,” etc. This is, however, to be taken as applying to ignorance of fact; and not to ignorance of the Divine precept, which all were bound to know. The third degree was when a man sinned from pride, i.e. through deliberate choice or malice: and then he was punished according to the greatness of the sin [Cf. Deuteronomy 25:2. The fourth degree was when a man sinned from stubbornness or obstinacy: and then he was to be utterly cut off as a rebel and a destroyer of the commandment of the Law [Cf. Numbers 15:30-31." [/COLOR] Summa Theologica(I II 105,2)

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender, if your reply amounts to “punishment is a duty and right of the State”, I won’t be continuing. We are talking penalties… not the necessity of punishment in human justice. The death penalty, if disproportionate based on the various factors and criterior by which human beings allocate penalties… is cruel and when it is retained despite recognising the obvious detriment to the common good… it would certainly become immoral just like slavery, retaliation and stripes are considered immoral.

 

[Ender]

It is people who commit atrocities and people who usurp the word of God to satisfy their own ends. The state is made up of people who are called to be accountable to the common good in devising their laws and penalties.

States make laws they believe will be good. If lawmakers do something contrary to that good are they necessarily cruel or perhaps just mistaken? We can look at any number of decisions that have had negative consequences. Does a bad outcome alone make those decisions cruel? Why would you assume that someone who reaches a conclusion contrary to yours is either cruel or “usurping the word of God” to satisfy his own ends?

Pope John Paul made a point of apologising on behalf of the Church for the sins of the past and this included the execution of apostates.

That would be an apology for a particular application of capital punishment, not for capital punishment itself. Since it is God himself who permits it perhaps we should wait for God to apologize before we object to its use.

Ender