C
- Status
D
DaveBj
Guest
Sigh. Here we go again.
“Thou shalt not kill” (which is actually a prohibition against taking innocent life) is Ex. 20:13. Get your Bible out, and read the next two chapters (the 21st and 22nd)–just those two chapters–and notice how many times the death penalty is mentioned in just those two chapters.
Heck yeah, a Catholic can support the death penalty. It was never repealed in the New Testament.
DaveBj
“Thou shalt not kill” (which is actually a prohibition against taking innocent life) is Ex. 20:13. Get your Bible out, and read the next two chapters (the 21st and 22nd)–just those two chapters–and notice how many times the death penalty is mentioned in just those two chapters.
Heck yeah, a Catholic can support the death penalty. It was never repealed in the New Testament.
DaveBj
C
Caby
Guest
Seems that the Holy See sees things differently.
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html
S
StCsDavid
Guest
I believe your argument fails to take into account the context and the time in which that was written. Consider that once a person is in custody, the threat that person poses to the community at large is virtually non-existent. To then turn around and systematically kill that person seems to be taking a defenseless life. Sure the person may be guilty of the gravest of sins, but that person is no longer a physical threat to the community. Charity requires that we afford that person every opportunity to repent, even if that means we confine that person to a prison cell for the rest of his life here on Earth. No matter how long he spends in jail…he’s going to spend a lot longer in eternity.
P
pnewton
Guest
Caby said:
Of course you can be a Catholic and support the death penalty. Many do.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Absolutely untrue. That person is still a threat to kill or harm the people around him in prison (happens all the time), as well as a threat to guards and innocent civilians in hostage situations. And unless you’re living in cloud-cuckoo-land, you can’t tell me you’ve never heard of situations where lifers escaped from prison and killed before they were caught again. If they had been executed the first time, those subsequent deaths would not have happened.
Theoretically, there is a way to confine people in such a way that it is impossible for them to ever have contact with any other person, but it would not be legal under our constitution.
DaveBj
S
StCsDavid
Guest
Oh I’ve heard of what you describe, but is that not a failure in prison design? There are thousands of death row inmates who are confined to their cells and have no physical contact with other inmates and very limited contact even with prison guards. Our super max prisons (I know one of them is in Colorado) in this country have never had a prison break or a guard killed by an inmate. It can be done. It’s being done, today, not in theory, but in practice.
M
Mt19_26
Guest
That doesn’t make it right. Many Catholics support contraception. That are Catholics but are going against the Church’s teaching. Maybe a better question is can you be a good Catholic that is faithful to the teachings of the Church and support the death penalty?
P
pnewton
Guest
Mt19:26:
In the meantime, I know of no authoritative statement that forbids Catholics to support the death penalty. I know the Catechism doesn’t forbid this position. So I guess you can be a good Catholic and support it.
You’re right. That would have been a better question.
In the meantime, I know of no authoritative statement that forbids Catholics to support the death penalty. I know the Catechism doesn’t forbid this position. So I guess you can be a good Catholic and support it.
A
Affirmed
Guest
Can you be a Catholic and support the death penalty? Sure. Can you be a GOOD Catholic and support the death penalty? No way!!! You see a lot of people who talk about being “pro-life” until they’re blue in the face, but when it comes to a living human being who has killed another living human being, they think state sactioned murder is okay. I don’t get it. Killing is wrong. Period.
D
DaMaMaXiMuS
Guest
Greetings and peace unto you all,
Good question. Thought about it for a while and here’s my thoughts.
Under the Old covenant its clear the death penalty was an intergral part of the covenant. We can also read that when God gave out judgements of death he would say this was so that the people, those living, would fear as well.
In the New Testament time period, we know that the Jews who didn’t except the New Covenant were keeping the Old and were executing judgements of death. Consider Saul before he became Paul.
But whether did those accepted the New Covnant, either Jews or Gentiles, observed judgements involving penalties of death I’m not aware of. Just thinking of the top of my head I can think of scriptures like these.
Mat. 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat. 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
John 7:7When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Then if I think about 2 Corinthians 12:21, Lest again, when I come, God humble me among you: and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness, that they have committed.
It seems that people were being taught to repent of mortal sins, even if they had committed them after coming into the faith. Furthermore, when Christ told the Pharisees, “he that is without sin let him cast the first stone.”, I apply that same principle today, and no one will pass that test. Whether its the judge in the court, the jury, the DA, and much less any government.
I think the argument put forward in an earlier post was a good point, how can we say we are pro-life in regards to abortions, euthanasia, and be for the death penalty, that’s hard to rationalize as not being a contradiciton.
But what I would like to know is hasn’t the Catholic Church throughout its history condemed people to death for things like heresy? I’m not sure if that is true or not which why I’m asking. If indeed this is so, has the Church held these judgements of death to be right or has it acknowledged them as being wrong?
God Bless you all,
Nelson
Good question. Thought about it for a while and here’s my thoughts.
Under the Old covenant its clear the death penalty was an intergral part of the covenant. We can also read that when God gave out judgements of death he would say this was so that the people, those living, would fear as well.
In the New Testament time period, we know that the Jews who didn’t except the New Covenant were keeping the Old and were executing judgements of death. Consider Saul before he became Paul.
But whether did those accepted the New Covnant, either Jews or Gentiles, observed judgements involving penalties of death I’m not aware of. Just thinking of the top of my head I can think of scriptures like these.
Mat. 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat. 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
John 7:7When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Then if I think about 2 Corinthians 12:21, Lest again, when I come, God humble me among you: and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness, that they have committed.
It seems that people were being taught to repent of mortal sins, even if they had committed them after coming into the faith. Furthermore, when Christ told the Pharisees, “he that is without sin let him cast the first stone.”, I apply that same principle today, and no one will pass that test. Whether its the judge in the court, the jury, the DA, and much less any government.
I think the argument put forward in an earlier post was a good point, how can we say we are pro-life in regards to abortions, euthanasia, and be for the death penalty, that’s hard to rationalize as not being a contradiciton.
But what I would like to know is hasn’t the Catholic Church throughout its history condemed people to death for things like heresy? I’m not sure if that is true or not which why I’m asking. If indeed this is so, has the Church held these judgements of death to be right or has it acknowledged them as being wrong?
God Bless you all,
Nelson
S
StCsDavid
Guest
I believe the executions in the name of the faith are well documented, but I’m not sure that those who carried out those executions were acting on papal authority. They very well may have been…I honestly don’t know. Nevertheless, JP II did apologize for such abuses of power.
F
frdave20
Guest
read First Things magazine – the july/august issue, i believe…
F
Forest-Pine
Guest
Death Penalty
I don’t believe in taking another’s life, which means I am philisophically against the death penalty. I know there is always an extreme example that someone can come up with, “But what about in cases of…” but those examples make up such an overwhelming small percentage of actual deaths legally taken at the hands of another that they are practically irrelevant when put into perspective. The true motive behind these deaths is personal desire, which makes it murder in my eyes. I know the pain a family must feel is overwhelming when a loved one’s life is taken, but it will not bring the dead back to life to kill another person. And, it is letting the murderer off pretty easy to just end his life, when he should be spending all the rest of his days trying to pay back his debt to society and remembering why it is that he is there. The death penalty has not held up to ANY studies which independently test if it is a deterrent to crime. Numerous modern studies (using DNA evidence that was not available in the recent past) have exonerated well over 100 people on death row alone…not to mention those in the rest of the prison system, and, unfortunately, those already dead. One death row inmate is found innocent for every seven executed. There is a great disparity in who is on death row because juries are highly more likely to find that a black person is a continuing danger to society whereas a white person is not (meaning that one is killed, the other given a prison term, for the same heinous crime.) Ninety-eight percent of defendants sentenced to death have been people who could not afford their own attorneys. Meaning the system is not set up fairly, when the rich get off and the poor get killed. Overall, if you are poor or black, you’ll get the death penalty, even if you are 1 in 7 who didn’t do it. If you are rich or white, you’ll get off, even if you did do it. As Carol Moseley-Braun said,“The death penalty is too fraught with uncertainty and error, and is too often a revenge response. Civil society should not allow itself to be brutalized by resort to revenge and blood lust as an acceptable product of our system of criminal justice. As Dr. King once said, 'an eye for an eye will simply leave us all blind.”’ The US should join the rest of the industrialized world in ending the death penalty, both for philisophical and practical reasons. It does not deter crime. It is not applied fairly. We know we have killed hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent people. The thought of how many innocent lives we have taken in the name of justice is enough to make me recoil in horror at the blood on our hands. Knowing what we know now about the inherent flaws in the system, I cannot justify it’s continued existence. To continue its use, knowing that we are killing the innocent only to exact revenge, *and *having no effect on crime, is in my estimation murder. And that means we are all eligible for the electric chair.
Prison Reform
It is a proven fact that there are two things which can greatly increase the likelihood that a criminal will not be a repeat offender. Giving him a vocation and a support system give him the skills to make an honest living, and the emotional strength to do it. It costs a lot less to give a prisoner an education than it does to continue to house, feed, clothe, and care him for the rest of his life. And by giving him an education and/or a job skill, we are effectively giving him a job, which means he will be giving back to society through useful work and taxes. Why would we want a thief to sit in jail for the rest of his life, knowing it will cause him to know nothing other than stealing, meaning he will always be in jail, when we can give him a way of being a successful member of society? It would serve no purpose. Giving him an education would serve him and us. It seems overwhelmingly obvious what we should be doing. I am for an entire overhaul of our prison system’s purpose and practices.
I don’t believe in taking another’s life, which means I am philisophically against the death penalty. I know there is always an extreme example that someone can come up with, “But what about in cases of…” but those examples make up such an overwhelming small percentage of actual deaths legally taken at the hands of another that they are practically irrelevant when put into perspective. The true motive behind these deaths is personal desire, which makes it murder in my eyes. I know the pain a family must feel is overwhelming when a loved one’s life is taken, but it will not bring the dead back to life to kill another person. And, it is letting the murderer off pretty easy to just end his life, when he should be spending all the rest of his days trying to pay back his debt to society and remembering why it is that he is there. The death penalty has not held up to ANY studies which independently test if it is a deterrent to crime. Numerous modern studies (using DNA evidence that was not available in the recent past) have exonerated well over 100 people on death row alone…not to mention those in the rest of the prison system, and, unfortunately, those already dead. One death row inmate is found innocent for every seven executed. There is a great disparity in who is on death row because juries are highly more likely to find that a black person is a continuing danger to society whereas a white person is not (meaning that one is killed, the other given a prison term, for the same heinous crime.) Ninety-eight percent of defendants sentenced to death have been people who could not afford their own attorneys. Meaning the system is not set up fairly, when the rich get off and the poor get killed. Overall, if you are poor or black, you’ll get the death penalty, even if you are 1 in 7 who didn’t do it. If you are rich or white, you’ll get off, even if you did do it. As Carol Moseley-Braun said,“The death penalty is too fraught with uncertainty and error, and is too often a revenge response. Civil society should not allow itself to be brutalized by resort to revenge and blood lust as an acceptable product of our system of criminal justice. As Dr. King once said, 'an eye for an eye will simply leave us all blind.”’ The US should join the rest of the industrialized world in ending the death penalty, both for philisophical and practical reasons. It does not deter crime. It is not applied fairly. We know we have killed hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent people. The thought of how many innocent lives we have taken in the name of justice is enough to make me recoil in horror at the blood on our hands. Knowing what we know now about the inherent flaws in the system, I cannot justify it’s continued existence. To continue its use, knowing that we are killing the innocent only to exact revenge, *and *having no effect on crime, is in my estimation murder. And that means we are all eligible for the electric chair.
Prison Reform
It is a proven fact that there are two things which can greatly increase the likelihood that a criminal will not be a repeat offender. Giving him a vocation and a support system give him the skills to make an honest living, and the emotional strength to do it. It costs a lot less to give a prisoner an education than it does to continue to house, feed, clothe, and care him for the rest of his life. And by giving him an education and/or a job skill, we are effectively giving him a job, which means he will be giving back to society through useful work and taxes. Why would we want a thief to sit in jail for the rest of his life, knowing it will cause him to know nothing other than stealing, meaning he will always be in jail, when we can give him a way of being a successful member of society? It would serve no purpose. Giving him an education would serve him and us. It seems overwhelmingly obvious what we should be doing. I am for an entire overhaul of our prison system’s purpose and practices.
D
dts
Guest
Several good links below. One observation to consider is that in the USSCB legal brief arguing against the death penalty (Roper case) they adopt legal rationales that actually undermine the pro-life cause (ie. abortion, eugenics etc. . . ).
Another interesting observation. Evangelicals are among the most pro-life segment of the population. Yet, they are also among the most pro-death penalty. The argument that you can’t be pro-death penalty while being pro-life is simply fallacious. It is also contrary to church history until the 20th century.
The Catholic Church lacks authority to rule that the death penalty is unlawful as a matter of principal. Scripture/Tradition cannot contradict Scripture/Tradition. However, the church should be clearly outlining prudential principles to guide proper application of the penalty in modern society. Unfortunately, this distinction is not being made in many of the Catholic anti-death penalty publications. Additionally, the prudential role is being taught as if it is an absolute. By definition, prudence reserves a role to public authorities in determining when or whether to apply the death penalty.
Sadly, much of the stuff coming out of the USCCB in legal filings and otherwise is just leftist propaganda.
Karl Keating of Catholic Answers on the Catechism (summarizes the Christifidelis paper linked below)
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
Christifidelis - The Purposes of Punishment
st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
Christ’s Atonement and Civil Justice
alliancealert.org/criminal/christ_atonement_tuomala.pdf
Other Worthy resources:
Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice (highly recommended)
J. Budziszewski
firstthings.com/ftissues…udziszewski.htm
Catholicism and Capital Punishment (highly recommended)
Avery Cardinal Dulles
firstthings.com/ftissues…les/dulles.html
God’s Justice and Ours (highly recommended)
firstthings.com/ftissues…les/scalia.html
Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States discusses the role of religious beliefs in judicial decisions. This article is adapted from remarks given at a conference sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Commentary on “God’s Justice and Ours” (highly recommended)
firstthings.com/ftissues…0/exchange.html
Commentators include Cardinal Avery Dulles, Judge Bork, Professor Steve Long, with a response by Justice Scalia.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633 (U.S. March 1, 2005) (juvenile death penalty violates evolving standards of decency)
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/…4pdf/03-633.pdf
The USCCB Brief in Roper:
abanet.org/crimjust/juvj…s/religious.pdf
USCCB PR (bishops applaud Roper decision and use of ‘evolving standards of decency’):
usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-047.shtml
Another interesting observation. Evangelicals are among the most pro-life segment of the population. Yet, they are also among the most pro-death penalty. The argument that you can’t be pro-death penalty while being pro-life is simply fallacious. It is also contrary to church history until the 20th century.
The Catholic Church lacks authority to rule that the death penalty is unlawful as a matter of principal. Scripture/Tradition cannot contradict Scripture/Tradition. However, the church should be clearly outlining prudential principles to guide proper application of the penalty in modern society. Unfortunately, this distinction is not being made in many of the Catholic anti-death penalty publications. Additionally, the prudential role is being taught as if it is an absolute. By definition, prudence reserves a role to public authorities in determining when or whether to apply the death penalty.
Sadly, much of the stuff coming out of the USCCB in legal filings and otherwise is just leftist propaganda.
Karl Keating of Catholic Answers on the Catechism (summarizes the Christifidelis paper linked below)
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
Christifidelis - The Purposes of Punishment
st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
Christ’s Atonement and Civil Justice
alliancealert.org/criminal/christ_atonement_tuomala.pdf
Other Worthy resources:
Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice (highly recommended)
J. Budziszewski
firstthings.com/ftissues…udziszewski.htm
Catholicism and Capital Punishment (highly recommended)
Avery Cardinal Dulles
firstthings.com/ftissues…les/dulles.html
God’s Justice and Ours (highly recommended)
firstthings.com/ftissues…les/scalia.html
Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States discusses the role of religious beliefs in judicial decisions. This article is adapted from remarks given at a conference sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Commentary on “God’s Justice and Ours” (highly recommended)
firstthings.com/ftissues…0/exchange.html
Commentators include Cardinal Avery Dulles, Judge Bork, Professor Steve Long, with a response by Justice Scalia.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633 (U.S. March 1, 2005) (juvenile death penalty violates evolving standards of decency)
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/…4pdf/03-633.pdf
The USCCB Brief in Roper:
abanet.org/crimjust/juvj…s/religious.pdf
USCCB PR (bishops applaud Roper decision and use of ‘evolving standards of decency’):
usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-047.shtml
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know how appropriate it is to judge how “good” some one’s opinions are in a vacuum of evidence. So let me ask if anyone knows of doctrine that says a good catholic can not support the death penalty under any circumstances.
C
cynic
Guest
if killing were wrong then defending your own country would be wrong, all those who fought WW2 were killing…it’s not that simple. For convicted murderers the choice is either kill them, or give them 3 hot meals and a comfy bed for the rest of their lives. Neither choice is very palatable.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I just thought that I should mention that the Catechism gives the death penalty qualified support: “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
Personally, I am in complete agreement with this view. Killing is never good, but it is sometimes necessary.
As for the “wasting money on comfy jails” argument, I would submit that any society which chooses to allow its citizens such freedom that they can commit serious crimes is subsequently responsible (in part) for the crimes committed and must, therefore, pay for the incarceration, rehabilitation and/or management of the criminal.
The price of freedom is eternal maintenance.
Personally, I am in complete agreement with this view. Killing is never good, but it is sometimes necessary.
As for the “wasting money on comfy jails” argument, I would submit that any society which chooses to allow its citizens such freedom that they can commit serious crimes is subsequently responsible (in part) for the crimes committed and must, therefore, pay for the incarceration, rehabilitation and/or management of the criminal.
The price of freedom is eternal maintenance.
N
NFPfamily
Guest
Mt19:26:
However, I think that we should not desire the death of another, rather, hope that the person experiences a conversion of heart and addresses the sins committed while still on this earth. This is extremely difficult to do, especially when crimes involve heinous acts, but it is our challenge to pray for these people that they experience a conversion before death.
Contraception is intrinsically evil in itself; while capital punishment is not.
However, I think that we should not desire the death of another, rather, hope that the person experiences a conversion of heart and addresses the sins committed while still on this earth. This is extremely difficult to do, especially when crimes involve heinous acts, but it is our challenge to pray for these people that they experience a conversion before death.
F
Fortiterinre
Guest
Let me begin by saying that I have a master’s degree in public policy, and for all kinds of secular reasons I am completely opposed to the death penalty.
However, as a Catholic, it is irritating to see the death penalty compared to artificial contraception. The death penalty is a prudential judgment on the part of the state–do we need a death penalty because we cannot handle our worst prisoners? Artificial contraception is not a prudential judgment but an intrinsic evil. We can believe that the state should have no death penalty and commit instead to containing all of the worst criminals. However, nothing in the moral law can require the state to do this.
Equivocating church teachings on moral absolutes and prudential judgments has the effect of weakening the credibility of church teaching overall. There are all kinds of reasons to be implacably opposed to capital punishment, but there is nothing in the teaching of the Church that requires this. To say that one is not a “good” Catholic because one holds a minority opinion on a matter open to judgment argues against the whole concept of what a “good” Catholic is.
However, as a Catholic, it is irritating to see the death penalty compared to artificial contraception. The death penalty is a prudential judgment on the part of the state–do we need a death penalty because we cannot handle our worst prisoners? Artificial contraception is not a prudential judgment but an intrinsic evil. We can believe that the state should have no death penalty and commit instead to containing all of the worst criminals. However, nothing in the moral law can require the state to do this.
Equivocating church teachings on moral absolutes and prudential judgments has the effect of weakening the credibility of church teaching overall. There are all kinds of reasons to be implacably opposed to capital punishment, but there is nothing in the teaching of the Church that requires this. To say that one is not a “good” Catholic because one holds a minority opinion on a matter open to judgment argues against the whole concept of what a “good” Catholic is.
- Status