Capital punishment is justified

  • Thread starter Thread starter cardinalsrule
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IWantGod said:
But to say that something is essentially valid, is not the same thing as saying that it is valid at all times, in every context, or circumstance. It’s essentially valid only in the sense that it is not intrinsically evil, in much the same way that killing in self-defense isn’t necessarily evil.
Click to expand...
What is true in all times is that the death penalty is a valid punishment. What may change from time to time and place to place is the decision of whether it is wise to apply it. The former is the doctrine, the latter involves the prudential application of the doctrine in a specific circumstance.
 
Evan said:
Here is anther scholarly article showing even the new CCC is a prudential statement.
Click to expand...
Regarding the question of whether this new statement is a prudential judgment, here are the comments of Edward Peters, a canon lawyer who writes on church matters. This is from his August 17 post.

The Church’s “extraordinary” magisterium, capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed solely-papally or papally-episcopally ; but her “ordinary” magisterium, also capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed only papally-episcopally . As Francis’ move on the Catechism hardly qualifies as papal-episcopal, and there being no such thing as an ‘purely papal, ordinary, magisterium’ (the term itself seems an oxymoron, implying that some significant points of Church teaching have been taught only by popes!), then Francis’ views on the death penalty might (I stress, might, given the infallibility concerns above) contribute to the Church’s ordinary magisterium but they do not, and cannot, control it.
 
thistle said:
That was PRIOR to Pope Francis’ comments on the death penalty now being inadmissible. You are bound by the latest development of that teaching. You cannot ignore it and say well I am sticking to the old one.
Click to expand...
One is bound first and foremost by one’s conscience. What has changed now is that disagreement is now dissent, but permissible.
 
Ender said:
What is true in all times is that the death penalty is a valid punishment.
Click to expand...
Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but that doesn’t mean that all times, situations, and circumstances allow for the moral use of it. At this moment It is not necessary to execute people and neither is it morally prudent to do so. Just because it’s a morally legitimate tool does not mean it’s always right to swing the axe.
 
pnewton said:
Nonetheless, times do change. That is why the new part of the catechism has inserted the word “Today.”
Click to expand...
If the word “today” is important it can only be because circumstances matter, but evaluating circumstances, and judging how best to respond to them is the essence of a prudential judgment. Which is the point I’ve been making about the current revision of 2267.
 
IWantGod said:
Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but that doesn’t mean that all times, situations, and circumstances allow for the moral use of it. At this moment It is not necessary to execute people and neither is it morally prudent to do so. Just because it’s a morally legitimate tool does not mean it’s always right to swing the axe.
Click to expand...
At this point it is judged to be unnecessary. Disagreeing with that judgment is not an immoral position, and the application of capital punishment does not become immoral because someone (even a pope) has expressed the opinion that it is unnecessary.

Unfortunately much too little consideration has been given to the reason capital punishment may or may not be deemed “necessary.” It is not now, nor has it ever been, determined by its need for the protection of society. All the discussion about the capabilities of modern penal systems really miss the point: protection is a secondary objective of punishment, and of itself can never determine what punishment is appropriate.
 
Ender said:
Disagreeing with that judgment is not an immoral position
Click to expand...
I think it can become immoral even if it’s not intrinsically evil, precisely because it is unnecessary. It just becomes killing for the sake of revenge. An eye for an eye is not always the right thing in every context.
 
Last edited:
ITT:. People who go on and on about the sanctity of life try to justify killing people.
 
IWantGod said:
It just becomes killing for the sake of revenge. An eye for an eye is not always the right thing in every context.
Click to expand...
vengeance was forbidden by Jesus in the context of commutative justice, not in the context of legal justice.
In other words it is not for everyone to take revenge, but it is up to the legal justice to do it.
God himself reserves the right to vengeance during the last judgment or in the particular judgment. Currently, secular judges are the representatives of God’s vengeful justice.
 
Mboo said:
vengeance was forbidden by Jesus in the context of commutative justice, not in the context of legal justice.
In other words it is not for everyone to take revenge, but it is up to the legal justice to do it.
God himself reserves the right to vengeance during the last judgment or in the particular judgment. Currently, secular judges are the representatives of God’s vengeful justice.
Click to expand...
Well, i’m not sure what you mean by revenge here. By revenge i mean wanting someone dead for the emotional pain caused. Perhaps you mean that someone has lost the right to live and on that basis the government has the right to take your life on this basis. But even if that is the case, and the government reserves the right to administer capital punishment, so long as such a person poses no threat to society it still doesn’t mean that it is always a good thing to swing the sword. Taking a human life is a serious matter, a very personal matter, not just a legal matter. None of us sinners have a right to exist, and if God simply dished out punishment because that were true, acting legalistically, none of us would exist.

Acting without compassion for a human life does not make us any better than cold hearted killers.
 
Last edited:
but god will send some to hell and hell is worse than non existence. to lose one’s natural life is not the greatest harm one can suffer.
 
My statement still stands true. Taking a life is not a trivial matter even if they deserve it. It is not always a good Christian message to the community. Compassion is more times than not the greater good and the greater message. Just like Jesus taught us. And that doesn’t just apply to individuals. That applies to governments too.
 
when we punish a bandit we do not do it coldly, but we do it angrily, to satisfy justice
 
Mboo said:
but god will send some to hell and hell is worse than non existence.
Click to expand...
Hell is a merciful act believe it or not. If God did not love humans, they would just cease to exist.
 
Last edited:
Compassion and mercy satisfies justice also, and it takes moral prudence to know when to be compassionate and merciful and when to punish. In a time when it is not necessary to kill, it speaks more to God’s love to be compassionate.
 
and what has changed now to make capital punishment inadmissible today ? and why do you think killing a murderer is not a merciful divine justice?
 
it is better to not exists than to go to hell. Jesus said it about the betrayal of Judah
 
Mboo said:
it is better to not exists than to go to hell. Jesus said it about the betrayal of Judah
Click to expand...
This is a comparison between the suffering of hell and not existing. To exist by God’s divine act is good. Any existence that is not good cannot logically exist. Even if you are in a state of hell, your existence is still good. It’s a merciful loving act that God doesn’t delete someone from existence. The fact that God is allowing someone to exist apart from him for all eternity is a merciful act.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top