C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Jesus made no statement regarding capital punishment.
In fact, he stated clearly that he came to bring the sword.
Justice is justice.
Would you kill a murderer to save an innocent life?
What would Jesus do?
- Status
In fact, he stated clearly that he came to bring the sword.
Justice is justice.
Would you kill a murderer to save an innocent life?
What would Jesus do?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I believe he stopped the woman being stoned for adultery… a capital offense. “Those without sin cast the first stone.” Also, in response to the OT of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, He said, “But I say to you…”
This phrase was mentioned in the US Catholic bishop’s statement on capital punishment in 1980. I found this at home in my library: Statement of Capital Punishment, Archbishop Joseph L. Bernardin, President National Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 26, 1977.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
So adultery is not worthy of capital punishment.
You didn’t answer these questions:
Would you kill a murderer to save an innocent life?
What would Jesus do?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I would not commit a premeditated murder to save an innocent life - nor would Jesus, I suspect. That is not the same as a police officer defending the public or a soldier in war time.
The US Catholic bishops cover this in their encyclical.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Do you think a Christian can become a police officer? It’s very interesting. With the power to kill, if necessary, having such powerful position in this worldly kingdom, which, according to Scripture, is not of our own. Now, the person who asked the question apparently has in mind the fact that we are not of this world, and that the police are of the world system; and so the question comes can a Christian be a police officer, and particularly adding the problem of having the power to kill, if necessary.
It is wrong to confuse human government with a world system. Human government was invented by whom? God. God is the one who began the process of government. Back in the Book of Genesis, God gave the right of capital punishment to government, and we just read a portion that, where God Himself states a life for a life. So the idea of government was given by God for the protection of good men and the punishment of evil men for the preservation of society.
The world system has to do with the evil corruption of Satan in the world; but human government is an institution of God. We would not say that marriage is the world’s system. We would say marriage is an institution of God, but it has been corrupted by the world, right? So has human government. Probably the biggest problem going on today in law enforcement is to try to find people who will be faithful to their duty.
Look at Romans 13, and Romans 13 gives us a good picture of the relationship that we are to have to government…You say, “Well, you know, the Scripture says here, ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. There’s no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive for themselves judgment.’” You may say, “Well, that’s a different government than today-ours is corrupt.” Yeah, you know whose government that was? Nero’s government.
It is wrong to confuse human government with a world system. Human government was invented by whom? God. God is the one who began the process of government. Back in the Book of Genesis, God gave the right of capital punishment to government, and we just read a portion that, where God Himself states a life for a life. So the idea of government was given by God for the protection of good men and the punishment of evil men for the preservation of society.
The world system has to do with the evil corruption of Satan in the world; but human government is an institution of God. We would not say that marriage is the world’s system. We would say marriage is an institution of God, but it has been corrupted by the world, right? So has human government. Probably the biggest problem going on today in law enforcement is to try to find people who will be faithful to their duty.
Look at Romans 13, and Romans 13 gives us a good picture of the relationship that we are to have to government…You say, “Well, you know, the Scripture says here, ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. There’s no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive for themselves judgment.’” You may say, “Well, that’s a different government than today-ours is corrupt.” Yeah, you know whose government that was? Nero’s government.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Of course a Christian can become a police officer. In fact, they do, just as Christians can and do become soldiers.
A soldier using deadly force in wartime, or a peace officer using deadly force in the course of duty, is not the same thing as an abortion or capital punishment. Abortion and capital punishment take place after deliberation and planning - premeditated.
Wartime and police use of force fall in much different categories ethically and morally.
L
Logos385
Guest
The Bible seems to be quite for abortion and the killing of people as necessary.
Abortion–> Hosea 9:11-16, Numbers 5:21-31 (Edited, formerly incorrect 10 verses), Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 15:16
Capital Punishment–> These verses outline just some of the things the OT say are deserved of capital punishment:
Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT, Exodus 22:17 NAB, Leviticus 20:13 NAB, Leviticus 20:27 NAB, Exodus 21:15 NAB, Leviticus 20:9 NLT, Leviticus 20:10 NLT, Leviticus 21:9 NAB, Exodus 22:19 NAB, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB…etc/
I understand you guys attempting to relate capital punishment and abortion to the doctrines involving love, but it also helps to look at the details of scripture, which I have outlined above. Once the Bible gets into specifics, it is very grizzly indeed : ).
Abortion–> Hosea 9:11-16, Numbers 5:21-31 (Edited, formerly incorrect 10 verses), Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 15:16
Capital Punishment–> These verses outline just some of the things the OT say are deserved of capital punishment:
Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT, Exodus 22:17 NAB, Leviticus 20:13 NAB, Leviticus 20:27 NAB, Exodus 21:15 NAB, Leviticus 20:9 NLT, Leviticus 20:10 NLT, Leviticus 21:9 NAB, Exodus 22:19 NAB, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB…etc/
I understand you guys attempting to relate capital punishment and abortion to the doctrines involving love, but it also helps to look at the details of scripture, which I have outlined above. Once the Bible gets into specifics, it is very grizzly indeed : ).
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I’m against both elective abortion and capital punishment.
Keep in mind that Jesus gave the qualifications for the executioners in John 8, and there is no record of either He or the Theotokos hurling any stones.
Keep in mind that Jesus gave the qualifications for the executioners in John 8, and there is no record of either He or the Theotokos hurling any stones.
C
cyberjacques
Guest
This argument about the other countries is rather disingenuous. These are the same countries guilty of horrific human rights violations. Apparently they don’t need a death penalty because anyone who breaks the rules simply vanishes. And capital punishment does deter crime, but only if it’s actually enforced.
The Catholic Church categorically forbids abortion because it is the killing of an innocent life. But they allow Catholics to make their own decision on whether they will support capital punishment because it is the taking of a guilty life. And while I can understand (if not agree) why some might be against the death penalty because they don’t believe that anyone should be killed, trying to say that abortion and executing a murderer are both murder themselves, or refusing to recognize the difference between an innocent life and a guilty one, I will never understand.
And before anyone tries to bring up “thou shalt not kill”, please let me remind everyone that the original Hebrew says “thou shalt not murder”. The difference in words was just as important to them as it is to everyone else, including God. And the fact that none of the modern English translations reflect this is a huge pet peeve of mine.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Agreed. Taking an absolute stance on abortion is one thing for we are talking about someone who is yet to be born in this world. Thus, we can’t really say if that person will be good or bad. Their innocence makes them all the same.
On the other hand we cannot force the Church to be absolute on capital punishment because it really is a case-to-case issue. Unlike the unborn, each criminal is different from the other. Each one of them has his/her own life story, beliefs, and circumstances. With that kind of variety, it is impossible to say that they should all be saved or executed.
I say we should keep it as an option. It’s true that there were innocent people who didn’t deserve the noose but there were also some people who were deemed too demented (if not, dangerous) to be kept alive.
N
notself
Guest
You miss read my post. The five countries plus the USA are responsible for over 70% of the capital punishment cases in the world.
93 countries have no capital punishment and have murder rates as a percent of population that is the same or lower than ours. The European Union has banned capital punishment. Capital punishment does not deter crime. Courts can be mistaken or corrupted even in the USA. With imperfect courts, innocent men and women are sentenced to death all of the time. Betweem 1976 and 1998 nearly 3% of the people executed in the USA were later found to be innocent of the crime.
To support capital punishment in an imperfect world is to support the murder of innocents.
As for quoting Leviticus, please give that up. Eating lobster was a capital crime.
You some how say abortion is murder. Murder is a legal term defined by the government. Our government says it is not murder. Our governmend says capital punishment is not murder. Since according to your logic, the government was set up by God, then either both governmentally protected killings are OK.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
A Christian must be against abortion. As for capitol punishment it has been sanctioned in scripture. I support the use of it as it does deter if one else that one person from ever committing another crime.
Now should everyone that has been convicted of a capitol offense receive the death penalty? No the reason is there should be eye witnesses and or a confession and evidence beyond depute if not the most that the person should receive is life imprisonment.
In my personal experience a childhood friend and her children were murdered in their home. the only suspect was the father and all the evidence points to him. the gun was not found and no one saw him do it. in this case the most he did and should get is life.
Now should everyone that has been convicted of a capitol offense receive the death penalty? No the reason is there should be eye witnesses and or a confession and evidence beyond depute if not the most that the person should receive is life imprisonment.
In my personal experience a childhood friend and her children were murdered in their home. the only suspect was the father and all the evidence points to him. the gun was not found and no one saw him do it. in this case the most he did and should get is life.
A
AaronK88
Guest
Some of you have some warped up views on capital punishment. An easy and quick look into the Catechism or a Catholic Apologetics book (both of which I have) tells me that capital punishment is only allowed in cases where it is necessary to kill the person because they pose a threat to other innocents.
This is hardly EVER the case in America, where we have life in prison to counter-act this.
None of you should support capital punishment. Life in prison is a far worse punishment than being put out of your misery anyway.
This is hardly EVER the case in America, where we have life in prison to counter-act this.
None of you should support capital punishment. Life in prison is a far worse punishment than being put out of your misery anyway.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Glad the Catechism was mentioned. I’m surprised not to see many quotes from documents in this discussion.
As far as self defense, police officers , soldiers are concerned-
**
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.[65] 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
**Capital Punishment
**
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]
**
As far as self defense, police officers , soldiers are concerned-
**
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”[65]
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.[65] 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
**Capital Punishment
**
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67] 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]
**
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Abortion is the taking of an INNOCENT life.
Capitol Punishment, while it may hardly be needed if the state can protect society from the criminal, is still a licit option for the state. It is NOT the taking of innocent life.
Capitol Punishment, while it may hardly be needed if the state can protect society from the criminal, is still a licit option for the state. It is NOT the taking of innocent life.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
It is rather hard to be Catholic and go against the Catechism, isn’t it?
I don’t know about all states, but I do know in Tennessee, on the death certificate of the executed, the cause of death is “homicide.”
That sounds like murder to me. State-approved, to be sure, but murder nonetheless.
It is very hard, given Christian ethics and the Catechism, to support capital punishment when life in prison is an option, as was pointed out earlier:
I don’t know about all states, but I do know in Tennessee, on the death certificate of the executed, the cause of death is “homicide.”
That sounds like murder to me. State-approved, to be sure, but murder nonetheless.
It is very hard, given Christian ethics and the Catechism, to support capital punishment when life in prison is an option, as was pointed out earlier:
L
Logos385
Guest
Just to put forth some indifferent commentary: deathreference.com/Sy-Vi/Thou-Shalt-Not-Kill.html
Scroll down to the, “Suicide, Capital Punishment and Abortion” section. It has some good commentary on this issue relating to the “Thou shalt not kill/murder” commandment.
Scroll down to the, “Suicide, Capital Punishment and Abortion” section. It has some good commentary on this issue relating to the “Thou shalt not kill/murder” commandment.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
You are wrong.
Hundreds of people have been murdered in prison by others who should have been executed.
We should stand for the protection of the innocent.
Capital punishment is just and I believe that a person who is facing execution is much more likely to turn to God for forgiveness than one facing life in prison.
Stephen168
New member
The perfection of the process does not determine whether capital punishment is moral or not.
If killing a killer can be equated to self-defense, then it is moral.
Murder is immoral while self defense and accidents are moral.
That is why the following statement is incorrect.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Not according to the Catechism and US Catholic Bishops, unless I am reading it wrong.
- Status