Capital punishment...again

[adgloriam]

Lk 23: 40-43 - references the salvation of the good thief.

The good thief was rehabilitated by Our Lord Jesus. Not by being executed.

Have some shame before you start distorting the Crucifixion.

 

[adgloriam]

@Emeraldlady

I like the example of Portugal:

1852 - First modern country to abolish death sentence.

1884 - First country to abolish life imprisonment.

1845 -Last execution of a man.

1772 -Last execution of a woman

250 years without execution of a woman.
150 years without execution of a civilian man.

There’s been 500 years of Bishops, Cardinals, Priests and Popes speaking against the death sentence and against life imprisonment. [What Cardinal Dulls said holds no weight.]

Anything @Ender poses certainly holds no weight or importance whatsoever at all anywhere.

 

[Ender]

The good thief was rehabilitated by Our Lord Jesus. Not by being executed.

Have some shame before you start distorting the Crucifixion.

Then your beef is with the catechism, not me. That’s where the reference is made. It was given as an example of a punishment that “contribute(d) to the correction of the offender”.

 

[Ender]

Well said.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Well said.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)

The above posts are so far removed from being relevant to a discussion about the merits of the death penalty that I cannot help but think of this post:

Perhaps… perhaps …there is a lack of understanding for those who are not theologians in the formulation. I find that very hard to believe, personally…to the point of it being impossible. But let us say that it is so.

The following, from the same post, was helpful to me, and I think it merits repeating:

“The Church teaches” is not a random choice of words. It is formulated as such because it is authoritative. It is not the equivalent of “The Pope postulates…” Rather, “The Church teaches” commands submission and assent of will and of intellect to the Magisterium in the teaching of the Church that it has articulated

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is actually a good argument for the abolition of the death penalty.

 

[prayerrider]

It’s hard to get worked up about defending unborn, helpless blobs of human flesh in the womb, when there are still sadistic and remorseless murderers being unfairly put to death for their monstrous, inhuman crimes in America!

 

[Canvas]

do you want a culture that values life, that treats it as a sacred gift that it is? Or one that thinks it is disposable?

We have no right to kill ourselves, even if mortally ill and in great pain. What right do we have to kill another? What wrongs are righted by taking another life? Is any abortion prevented? Is any school shooting stopped? Or do we just continue doing the same old thing while bemoaning a culture of death while supporting all kinds of things that devalue life because they aren’t abortion?

 

[prayerrider]

So, if Catholics crusade against the death penalty, is that going to convince the general population and all those politicians to suddenly stop supporting abortion? Convince me how that will work, and I’ll gladly join the crusade.
Until then, state capital punishment of cold blooded killers doesn’t register in my top ten social justice causes. (Abortion being 1-5, at least.)

 

[Canvas]

It would make a powerful statement to stand up for every human life.

 

[prayerrider]

Not convinced yet.

 

[Canvas]

I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you.

 

[prayerrider]

Sounds good. I’ve already wasted too much time on this issue here (nothing personal) when I could be posting another anti-abortion message for all my FB friends. I’m sure I’ve lost a few over my rather strident posts but that’s okay. Nice talking with you!

 

[Canvas]

Well, keep fighting for life anyway you know how. I think that is something we can both agree on.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Prudence is not mere opinion but the “mother of all virtues”.

Then again, maybe not.

The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin. … The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Pope Leo XIII, Exuente iam anno)

And there is no justice without prudence, hence our esteem of ‘jurisprudence’, a term that harks back to a time when justice and prudence didn’t have to be co-defined to be understood.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Well said.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)

The thread is ‘capital punishment’. Piggy backing your argument for capital punishment on the general principle of punishment is misleading, duplicitous, distortion. All these accusations made as to your argument are absolutely correct.

 

[Ender]

There’s been 500 years of Bishops, Cardinals, Priests and Popes speaking against the death sentence and against life imprisonment. [What Cardinal Dulls said holds no weight.]

Church opposition to capital punishment is actually quite a recent development. It’s closer to 50 years than 500.

Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)

Anything @Ender poses certainly holds no weight or importance whatsoever at all anywhere.

Perhaps, but the opinions of the Fathers, Doctors et al I cite don’t become false simply because I quote them.

 

[Ender]

The thread is ‘capital punishment’. Piggy backing your argument for capital punishment on the general principle of punishment is misleading, duplicitous, distortion.

Capital punishment is a specific form of punishment, and all that applies to punishment in general also applies to capital punishment in particular. The comments of @(name removed by moderator) apply to all punishment, including capital punishment.

The particularly significant point being that it is a “proper punishment” that safeguards man’s dignity. This is because that alone treats him as a moral agent capable of making moral choices and fully responsible for the ones he freely makes. The church clearly recognizes this, which is why she says the State has an obligation to apply penalties of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime.

This seems to me to be the strongest argument in favor of the death penalty: there are some crimes so heinous that anything less is insufficient, and therefore improper. We used to think that first degree murder was such a crime, but we clearly no longer think it is all that serious any more. Even those states that allow the death penalty often reserve it for crimes with “special circumstances”. Apparently murder just isn’t that big a deal nowadays.

 

[adgloriam]

Church opposition to capital punishment is actually quite a recent development. It’s closer to 50 years than 500.

Saint Ambrose (340-397) recommended that members of the clergy shouldn’t encourage nor execute capital punishment.

As always, you quote out of context only to bend and distort facts.

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

There’s been 500 years of Bishops, Cardinals, Priests and Popes speaking against the death sentence and against life imprisonment. [What Cardinal Dulls said holds no weight.]

Church opposition to capital punishment is actually (…) closer to 50 years than 500.

You don’t know anything about history @Ender.

Sermon of the Good Thief, preached by Pe. António Vieira at the church of Mercy in Lisboa, year of 1655.

“ Não guardou Adão o preceito, roubou o fruto e ficou sujeito, à pena de morte. Mas que fez Deus neste caso? Lançou-o logo do Paraíso, e cedeu-lhe a vida por muitos anos. Pois se Deus o lançou do Paraíso pelo furto que tinha cometido, porque não executou também nele a pena de morte, a que ficou sujeito? …quando as pessoas são de tanta importância, e tão necessárias ao bem público, justo é que ainda que mereçam a morte, se lhes permita e conceda a vida .”

Padre António Vieira (Lisboa, 6 de fevereiro de 1608 — Salvador, 18 de julho de 1697)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)