Are you for banning capital punishment in Muslim countries, too? Or are you only for banning it in western countries? I think every Muslim country has capital punishment, and they actually carry out the death sentences far more often than do western countries.The comment made by the Vatican on the event of OBLs death really demonstrates why there are serious problems with the death penalty mentality in the US. The crazy rejoicing in the streets was quiet uncomfortable to watch on tv.
Oh absolutely. I think that it is most grossly used by some foreign authorities who cite the same authority as the West. I believe that definitively banning capital punishment across the Christian West will go a long way to exposing the erroneous justifications in foreign countries.Are you for banning capital punishment in Muslim countries, too? Or are you only for banning it in western countries? I think every Muslim country has capital punishment, and they actually carry out the death sentences far more often than do western countries.
The same thing was said about the execution of Saddam Hussein, and Christians should not celebrate the just execution of anyone. But be that as it may, that some people would rejoice over said execution is NOT a justification for the abolition of the death penalty. That’s a ridiculous argument. I’m certain that some rejoice when a criminal is sentenced to life in prison. The mere fact that certain individuals may rejoice over that fact does not thereby indicate that we now need to abolish life sentences.The comment made by the Vatican on the event of OBLs death really demonstrates why there are serious problems with the death penalty mentality in the US. The crazy rejoicing in the streets was quiet uncomfortable to watch on tv.
Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.
In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.
What you are saying doesn’t sound all that out of line with Church teaching except the pope is now saying that there are no extreme situations in which a society should have recourse to the death penalty. The problem is that the pope has no special insight or moral authority regarding the condition of a certain society’s penal system, much less that of the whole world’s. He is simply not infallible in this arena. And no criteria is given as to how one knows when a particular society’s penal system has sufficiently improved whereby the death penalty is no longer allowed. So now, the Church’s shift in position on the death penalty is based on the state of the corrections system – a position neither biblical nor theological in nature.You’re saying that this new position reflects a ‘flawed’ understanding of morality but what it actually does show the wider scope of the teaching on capital punishment. What was implicit in the teaching before is now explicit and that is that the sentence of death in penal justice is permitted if that is the only way of serving the common good which is essentially to promote the dignity of the human being. The Church has never regarded the act as a positive command essential for justice anywhere anytime. It is a defense that can be legitimately invoked as a general rule under certain extreme circumstances but when alternative less gruesome measures are available it is wrong to invoke it on a principle alone. It can be explicitly seen as ‘conditional’ now in the light of human advancements, but was always implicit to the teaching.
My reading is that your concerns are basically practical.The same thing was said about the execution of Saddam Hussein, and Christians should not celebrate the just execution of anyone. But be that as it may, that some people would rejoice over said execution is NOT a justification for the abolition of the death penalty. That’s a ridiculous argument. I’m certain that some rejoice when a criminal is sentenced to life in prison. The mere fact that certain individuals may rejoice over that fact does not thereby indicate that we now need to abolish life sentences.
Actually, I’m not sure legitimate recourse to the death penalty by the State should have much to do with the advancement of the penal system at all. The Church is the one claiming this – and doing so claiming that something has sufficiently improved such that the death penalty is no longer warranted, but without explicitly laying out what exactly has changed to be able to make this call. So, in summary, the two main reasons that invariably are put forward as reasons to not impose the death penalty areMy reading is that your concerns are basically practical.
Let me see if I understand you.
You feel safe and believe your penal system protects you as it is,or it is still not the appropriate moment for you to abolish death penalty. Cause if you did so now,it would be difficult to restore it by the time you might need to recourse to CP again.
So I may be be wrong but the " timing" is your basic concern.
Is is so,Iraeneus?
The scope of the teaching is unchanged, it is neither more nor less explicit than before. What is implied now is that the common good is nothing more than physical protection, a concept that would have been unimaginable in less enlightened times. Throughout all of these discussions there has been virtually not a word about the need for justice, or even that justice is itself not just part of the common good but is indispensable to it. The church never supported capital punishment from a belief that it was useful. She always accepted it as a legitimate aspect of justice.You’re saying that this new position reflects a ‘flawed’ understanding of morality but what it actually does show the wider scope of the teaching on capital punishment. What was implicit in the teaching before is now explicit and that is that the sentence of death in penal justice is permitted if that is the only way of serving the common good which is essentially to promote the dignity of the human being.
You make this stuff up as you go along. You have no idea whether the church has ever taken this position or not. Clearly St. Bellarmine disagreed with you. It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.The Church has never regarded the act as a positive command essential for justice anywhere anytime.
It can never be invoked in the name of defense unless it is first permitted in the name of justice. It is justice that not only permits but necessitates it, not defense. The belief that security determines the proper degree of punishment is a gross misunderstanding of what the church actually teaches about punishment. It is justice that society legitimately demands, not protection.It is a defense that can be legitimately invoked as a general rule under certain extreme circumstances but when alternative less gruesome measures are available it is wrong to invoke it on a principle alone.
Ok. Now I understand you better ,I guess.Actually, I’m not sure legitimate recourse to the death penalty by the State should have much to do with the advancement of the penal system at all. The Church is the one claiming this – and doing so claiming that something has sufficiently improved such that the death penalty is no longer warranted, but without explicitly laying out what exactly has changed to be able to make this call. So, in summary, the two main reasons that invariably are put forward as reasons to not impose the death penalty are
However, as stated earlier in this thread, the worth and dignity of the human person is precisely why the death penalty has been recognized as legitimate by the Church and was consistent with Church teaching; i.e., the worth and dignity of the life of the victim requires the punishment of the murderer with his life, not because murderer’s life is worthless, but because, just as the victim’s, it is valuable and sacred also. The steady improvements in the penal system is a matter of prudential judgment; no criteria are given in order for a society to know whether sufficient improvement has been achieved. And even if it could be demonstrated, the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the injustice caused by the aggressor. But for some reason, this never enters the discussion in regards to capital punishment.
- the worth and dignity of the human person and
- as the result of steady improvements in the penal system of the state.
This is good reasoning, but my question is how is this any different than, say, just 75 or even 50 years ago? And no one has claimed here that we (as individuals) have the right to “play God” and take another person’s right. Its not our place as individuals. The argument is that rightful public authority has the right and duty to impose the death penalty - Scripture says so, as well as the Church, at least it did up until about 50 years ago. So again, EXACTLY what has changed? That is my question.
Huh? When did this become true?
Regarding “state sanctioned” vs personal killing-regardless which way the “death penalty” (so to speak) is carried out it’s still playing God.This is good reasoning, but my question is how is this any different than, say, just 75 or even 50 years ago? And no one has claimed here that we (as individuals) have the right to “play God” and take another person’s right. Its not our place as individuals. The argument is that rightful public authority has the right and duty to impose the death penalty - Scripture says so, as well as the Church, at least it did up until about 50 years ago. So again, EXACTLY what has changed? That is my question.
Huh? When did this become true?
*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)Regarding “state sanctioned” vs personal killing-regardless which way the “death penalty” (so to speak) is carried out it’s still playing God.
There is one thing and one thing only that permits a person’s execution: it is the just punishment for his crime. Punishments are applied as a matter of retributive justice, and for a punishment to be just its severity *must *be comparable with the severity of the crime.Neither individual nor “state” is justified in taking a persons life when there is another way.
The catechism itself cites as an example of a punishment that leads to repentance that of St. Dismas, who was crucified with Christ.1.It denies the guilty person those extra years to potentially repent/be changed by God.
A valid issue but this is a practical concern, not a moral objection.2.I wouldn’t want to be a person who took part in executing an individual deemed guilty who actually turned out to be innocent.
Really? You believe a society is more capable of determining what a person will do in the future than discerning what he has already done in the past? More to the point, imposing punishments, including death, is the right and obligation of the State.When the death penalty is used to protect people from imminent further murder etc by that individual and there is no other way to protect the people (an unlikely or non existant situation in developed countries today) then applying the death penalty is not playing God.
It was God himself who specified that capital punishment was the proper reaction to murder. *Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Pope St. Innocent I)But supporting the death penalty for a different reason such as to appease the victims/publics anger,fear,hate or other emotions or believing it’s right for justices sake,in a way does put the person on the same level as the criminal.
What did God mean when he spoke this to Noah:For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (CCC 2260)A person who feels they are justified in taking a life-even a “baddies” life is misguided.
Life sentences have existed as far back as Roman times. This capability is not new.Regarding 50 + years ago:
What has changed is that we can now hold prisoners for life sentences and protect the public that way.
And generally speaking, I guess, people/society are always changing “with the times” and evolving in their opinions and outlooks.
That’s your desperately held belief, however most of us know and follow the Churchs position that the preservation of life is the command of God and the use of death in sentencing is a permitted… redress… in the course of healing the societal order. Justice serves the common good… not the other way around. The severity of the crime is determined by the state who is responsible for the common welfare.There is one thing and one thing only that permits a person’s execution: it is the just punishment for his crime. Punishments are applied as a matter of retributive justice, and for a punishment to be just its severity *must *be comparable with the severity of the crime.
That repentance is a possible outcome of execution does not principally justify execution. Amputation of a limb can lead to health, but when there are options available for healing the disease without the loss of the limb, it goes against human principles to retain the use of amputation. It amounts to mutilation instead of healing since the optimum purpose of medicine is bodily wholeness.The catechism itself cites as an example of a punishment that leads to repentance that of St. Dismas, who was crucified with Christ.
That is a local document to try and pander to the local objectors. That doesn’t reflect the Churchs approach.
- The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
All punishment is justified inasmuch as it “redress(es) the disorder caused by the offense.” This is true of all punishment, including the death penalty. Nor is the mere “preservation of life” a command of any kind, of God or of the church. Life may not be gratuitously taken, but the church has always acknowledged three cases where killing may legitimately be done, which she would hardly have done if God had actually commanded that all life be preserved.That’s your desperately held belief, however most of us know and follow the Churchs position that the preservation of life is the command of God and the use of death in sentencing is a permitted… redress… in the course of healing the societal order.
The determination of what is or is not beneficial is a prudential judgment, not a doctrine. This in fact is all that the comments of Francis, JPII, and BXVI are: prudential objections to the use of capital punishment. There is no doctrinal objection.Justice serves the common good… not the other way around.
No, this is not at all true. The severity of the crime - surely at least of murder - is fixed and cannot change between one time and another or one society and another.The severity of the crime is determined by the state who is responsible for the common welfare.
Nothing justifies any punishment other than justice. We do not demand of any punishment that it bring the criminal to repent, that it deter others, or that it provide security for society. We demand only that it be just.That repentance is a possible outcome of execution does not principally justify execution.
It never occurred to me that one of the foremost Catholic theologians of the 20th century would pander to local objectors, which seems an odd approach for him to have taken given that he agreed with JPII’s position. Why exactly would you suspect him of pandering to those who disagreed with him?That is a local document to try and pander to the local objectors. That doesn’t reflect the Churchs approach.
Hi Ender,*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
There is one thing and one thing only that permits a person’s execution: it is the just punishment for his crime. Punishments are applied as a matter of retributive justice, and for a punishment to be just its severity *must *be comparable with the severity of the crime.
The catechism itself cites as an example of a punishment that leads to repentance that of St. Dismas, who was crucified with Christ.
A valid issue but this is a practical concern, not a moral objection.
Really? You believe a society is more capable of determining what a person will do in the future than discerning what he has already done in the past? More to the point, imposing punishments, including death, is the right and obligation of the State.
It was God himself who specified that capital punishment was the proper reaction to murder. *Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Pope St. Innocent I)
What did God mean when he spoke this to Noah:For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (CCC 2260)
Life sentences have existed as far back as Roman times. This capability is not new.
- The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
It is a tenet of the church that morality does not change with time and place. What was moral before is moral today.With all due respect to St Thomas,St Thomas was speaking to people of his time, the 1200’s. Saint Pope John 2 and Pope Francis,guided by the Holy Spirit,are speaking to people of our times now,a lot later.
*It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation). *(Stephen A. Long, Univ of St. Thomas)Im far from a historian,but there were also early Church fathers who were opposed to the death penalty.
Not at all. Do we believe that fining criminals puts us on the same level as thieves, or that imprisoning them puts us on the same level as kidnappers? Sin demands a punishment based on the severity of the sin. It is a matter of justice.To support the death penalty (I mean purely when there is another option) in a way puts the supporter on the same level as the criminals in mentality.
It would be a terrible thing to execute an innocent person, but it would be a tragedy, not a sin.On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas)To me it is a moral issue and objection and not just a practical concern.
There is no risk-free choice. We know the possibility exists that an innocent person may be executed, but we also know that murderers who are not executed occasionally kill again. Either way the innocent are at risk.Even one innocent persons life being wrongfully taken would be enough reason for me not to support the death penalty there was another way to keep the public sake.
I don’t interpret the bible either; I rely on what the church has to say, and regarding that passage she understands it to mean exactly what it says.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” (St. Bellarmine - Doctor of the Church)I’m not a bible scholar so I don’t know what God meant to Noah and I’d be foolish to even try to interpret that.
Protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. The belief that protection is primary is one of the great misconceptions caused by the wording of 2267. The primary objective, as we were just told in 2266, is retribution, retributive justice. This is why I support the death penalty: it is the just punishment for (at least) the sin of murder.Im curious,what anyway makes you want to keep the death penalty in your country if there is another way of protecting the public?
That might be your objective, but it is not what the church teaches. Sin demands punishment in retribution for the sin, and not merely to protect society.*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas)This wasn’t addressed to me but I disagree. If someone robbed my house for example, my primary motivation for wanting them to be in jail would be so they couldn’t rob anothers.
Even rehabilitating someone does not necessarily excuse him from the punishment he owes for his crime.*At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. *(JPII)If I thought they could be “rehabilitated” effectively by another means except jail (such as doing good things for the community) then I would prefer that for them rather than jail so there would be more jail beds left for violent persons.
For something horrid like raping someone,my primary motive for wanting the offender put behind bars is to protect other women.Thats my first focus-community safety- before any other thoughts such as justice etc.
How can an offender regain the exercise of his or her freedom if they are dead?The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. (JPII)