F
fix
Guest
Why cannot an individual be acting on behalf of the state? The judge may sentence someone to prison, yet I cannot. Civil authorities have authority we each do not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TimOliv
Guest
So if you kill him then he becomes a martyr for his cause and people kill in memory of him. If we captured him, we would lock him up in Guantanamo and the only people he would be speaking to would be CIA Interrogators and an E-1 Marine Guard.If Osama Bin Laden was captured and convicted it might be permissable to execute him in the eyes of the Catholic Church for the simple reason that his being alive inspires others to kill which is different from an ordinary murderer.
That has to be weighed against the effect that if he were executed and people tried to claim that he was a martyr–if that would inspire more killings than keeping him in jail then the right thing would be to give him life in prison.
I’m no expert and can’t speak for the Catholic church but I believe that people such as Osama Bin Laden and Adolph Hitler WOULD BE those reare practically non existant cases where capital punishment–because it would save other innocent’s lives–would be just and would be allowed by the Catholic Church.
In most all other cases life in prison is the better way.
So I disagree that the Vatican would just give it a green light. I can think of no example where human life could not be preserved through imprisonment and we would HAVE to kill a person.
M
mosher
Guest
There is a misinterpretation of the 5th commandment here. Murder is not the same as intentional killing. In an act of self-defense one can intend to kill the aggressor and it is morally licit. In a war a soldier and intend to kill an adversary and that is also morally licit.
In the work of capital punishment the guidelines given in the Catechism are good. I would argue that it could be taken a step further and the lesson of St. Thomas that Capital Punishment can be imposed for purely punitive means is also morally licit. However, if we just go by the Catechism the added quote of John Paul II is not very helpful on the issue because it assumes that our current prison system will protect society from a harmful person. This is not correct. Even while in solitary there are criminals who are able to order “hits” on people such as mob bosses and drug lords as has been documented by the Justice Department.
In the work of capital punishment the guidelines given in the Catechism are good. I would argue that it could be taken a step further and the lesson of St. Thomas that Capital Punishment can be imposed for purely punitive means is also morally licit. However, if we just go by the Catechism the added quote of John Paul II is not very helpful on the issue because it assumes that our current prison system will protect society from a harmful person. This is not correct. Even while in solitary there are criminals who are able to order “hits” on people such as mob bosses and drug lords as has been documented by the Justice Department.
T
TimOliv
Guest
If a prisoner in solitary is ordering “hits” this doesn’t strike me as a need to kill the person, what is far more glaring is the need to eliminate corruption. If a prisoner is in solitary that means either corrupt guards or he’s able to sneak out something through his lawyer. I think killing people is just a bandaid rather than attempting to repair the gaping wound that is our prison system.There is a misinterpretation of the 5th commandment here. Murder is not the same as intentional killing. In an act of self-defense one can intend to kill the aggressor and it is morally licit. In a war a soldier and intend to kill an adversary and that is also morally licit.
In the work of capital punishment the guidelines given in the Catechism are good. I would argue that it could be taken a step further and the lesson of St. Thomas that Capital Punishment can be imposed for purely punitive means is also morally licit. However, if we just go by the Catechism the added quote of John Paul II is not very helpful on the issue because it assumes that our current prison system will protect society from a harmful person. This is not correct. Even while in solitary there are criminals who are able to order “hits” on people such as mob bosses and drug lords as has been documented by the Justice Department.
Perhaps if we diverted funds away from free college programs for prisoners and into securing our prisons, we’d be able to adequately secure our more dangerous inmates.
F
fix
Guest
Can you explain more or offer citations? I ask because I was under the assumption even in self defense one does not want to kill, only stop the other person and if he dies that is an unintended consequence?There is a misinterpretation of the 5th commandment here. Murder is not the same as intentional killing. In an act of self-defense one can intend to kill the aggressor and it is morally licit. In a war a soldier and intend to kill an adversary and that is also morally licit.
M
mosher
Guest
True, however, until the system is fixed recourse to Capital Punishment is licit even under the most strict view. Because, under the rigorist view Capital Punishment can only be used if there is no other way to protect society from that person. However, if there was a way then there would be no need for Capital Punishment. So, until that type of system is achieved Capital Punishment is a valid way to protect society.If a prisoner in solitary is ordering “hits” this doesn’t strike me as a need to kill the person, what is far more glaring is the need to eliminate corruption. If a prisoner is in solitary that means either corrupt guards or he’s able to sneak out something through his lawyer. I think killing people is just a bandaid rather than attempting to repair the gaping wound that is our prison system.
Perhaps if we diverted funds away from free college programs for prisoners and into securing our prisons, we’d be able to adequately secure our more dangerous inmates.
The Conditions of a Blameless Self-Defense - (taken from “Right & Reason” by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J., Tan, p 288ff.)Can you explain more or offer citations? I ask because I was under the assumption even in self defense one does not want to kill, only stop the other person and if he dies that is an unintended consequence?
Fr. Fagothey said:1. The motive must be self-defense alone
2. Force must be used only at the time of the attack.
3. Force may be used only when there is no other way of repelling the attack.
4. No more injury may be inflicted than is necessary to avert actual danger.
Your question deals with these points.
The first point just means that the motive for defense must be pure and not for revenge.
The second point is obvious.
The third point is obvious.
The fourth point is directly related to you question. In short it means that if you don’t have to kill the person then don’t.
Self-defense is not controlled by the principle of double effect which only deals with unintended consequences. However, in this issue there is no need to not intend to kill that material or formal agressor. If that is the necssary level of force then it is licit. St. Thomas also discusses this in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q 64, a 7).
For this reason the 5th commandment is not properly translated “thou shalt not kill” but rather according to the hebrew it is better translated “Thou shalt not murder.”
E
estesbob
Guest
If the Vatican wanted to give a green light they would have issued a blanket condmenation of the Death Penalty. They did not do so-in fact they COULD not do so if the current Magestium wanted to-to do so would overturn 2,000 years of catholic teachings and tradition.So if you kill him then he becomes a martyr for his cause and people kill in memory of him. If we captured him, we would lock him up in Guantanamo and the only people he would be speaking to would be CIA Interrogators and an E-1 Marine Guard.
So I disagree that the Vatican would just give it a green light. I can think of no example where human life could not be preserved through imprisonment and we would HAVE to kill a person.
BTW-just for the record i am adamantly opposed to the death penalty. i have written untold letters to governors asking for amnesty and i have attended many executions at Huntsville , Texas standing in silent prayer while the execution took place. BUT it really upsets me when people miststate the church’s teaching in this area. When we distort Church teachings to support our own cause it makes our discussion of real Church teachings suspect.
D
DaughterSorrow
Guest
If put in solitary confinement, I would doubt such a person could do physical harm. The RCC states as in the just war doctrine that if every least means is exhausted, only then can you condone war. I see this as the same thing.Absolutely not true. They can (and frequently do) harm other prisoners who have done nothing worthy of death, as well as innocent civilians both within the prison (guards, other civilian workers) and outside the prison (after an escape).
When someone has committed a crime worthy of death, the only way to make absolutely sure that he/she will never do something similar again is to execute him/her.
As a Catholic, I appreciate the CCC’s teaching on capital punishment; however, I do not see the Vatican offering to take our death row prisoners and house them somewhere where they can never harm anyone again. “Money where mouth is” is a favorite saying of mine.
DaveBj
Peace
DS
T
TimOliv
Guest
I am confused by your first statement. IF the Vatican wanted to give a green light for an execution they would issue a blanket condemnation of the death penalty?If the Vatican wanted to give a green light they would have issued a blanket condmenation of the Death Penalty. They did not do so-in fact they COULD not do so if the current Magestium wanted to-to do so would overturn 2,000 years of catholic teachings and tradition.
BTW-just for the record i am adamantly opposed to the death penalty. i have written untold letters to governors asking for amnesty and i have attended many executions at Huntsville , Texas standing in silent prayer while the execution took place. BUT it really upsets me when people miststate the church’s teaching in this area. When we distort Church teachings to support our own cause it makes our discussion of real Church teachings suspect.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well im confused too! So let me rephrase it. If the Church wanted to condemn the death penalty in ALL cases thay would have done so. What they have done, affirming 2,000 years of teachings, is leave it up to Governments to detemine its applicability. I have seen too many well meaning people try and parse the Churchs teachings into a blanket condemnation of the Death penatly-it aint so.I am confused by your first statement. IF the Vatican wanted to give a green light for an execution they would issue a blanket condemnation of the death penalty?
T
TimOliv
Guest
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.Well im confused too! So let me rephrase it. If the Church wanted to condemn the death penalty in ALL cases thay would have done so. What they have done, affirming 2,000 years of teachings, is leave it up to Governments to detemine its applicability. I have seen too many well meaning people try and parse the Churchs teachings into a blanket condemnation of the Death penatly-it aint so.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Sorry tiger, but according to the CCC the US just isn’t living up to their end then…
First of all, I direct your attention to the second paragraph. Let’s say you have a guy who kills kids. So he kills some kids, gets caught and goes to jail. Well, he isn’t going to be killing kids in jail. But let’s assume he’s just crazy enough to now try to divert his murderous rage towards anyone. Well, he can be locked in a box for the rest of his life and have his meals passed through a hole. There is a non-lethal means.
The last sentence, while not a blanket, is most definitely enough to keep a person warm at night. It leaves room for exceptions, but notes that they are few and far between.
B
brianwithani
Guest
Didn’t Jesus stop the execution of the woman who had committed adultery? Wasn’t it the law of society to stone a woman to death who committed adultery?
Wasn’t Jesus wrongly convicted and executed? Jesus is the ultimate example of how wrongly a system that employs the death penalty can go. Now I am fully aware that to fulfill scripture, Jesus had to be rejected and killed but that is beside the point. He was innocent and never deserved to die.
I cannot comprehend how persons advocate for a culture of life and condemn this “culture of death” but wholeheartedly support the death penalty, the Iraq war and the current administration’s policies pertaining to such. Somebody please explain it to me.
Wasn’t Jesus wrongly convicted and executed? Jesus is the ultimate example of how wrongly a system that employs the death penalty can go. Now I am fully aware that to fulfill scripture, Jesus had to be rejected and killed but that is beside the point. He was innocent and never deserved to die.
I cannot comprehend how persons advocate for a culture of life and condemn this “culture of death” but wholeheartedly support the death penalty, the Iraq war and the current administration’s policies pertaining to such. Somebody please explain it to me.
D
DaughterSorrow
Guest
I hear you! There isn’t a reason. Well, the only thing I can think of, in due respect to those who think CP is OK, is that the politics of some folks may be trumping their religion. It’s the same with some liberal Catholics trying to convulute themselves into thinking pro-choice is OK.Didn’t Jesus stop the execution of the woman who had committed adultery? Wasn’t it the law of society to stone a woman to death who committed adultery?
Wasn’t Jesus wrongly convicted and executed? Jesus is the ultimate example of how wrongly a system that employs the death penalty can go. Now I am fully aware that to fulfill scripture, Jesus had to be rejected and killed but that is beside the point. He was innocent and never deserved to die.
I cannot comprehend how persons advocate for a culture of life and condemn this “culture of death” but wholeheartedly support the death penalty, the Iraq war and the current administration’s policies pertaining to such. Somebody please explain it to me.
Catholic is Catholic. It’s not liberal. It’s not conservative.
In Peace,
DS
E
estesbob
Guest
You are incorrect. The Church is firm in its teachings that Abortion is wrong under any circumstances. The same is not true for capttal punishment. A Catholic can in good conscience support the Death Penalty. Cardianl Ratzinger made this clear in a letter he wrote before he became Pope.I hear you! There isn’t a reason. Well, the only thing I can think of, in due respect to those who think CP is OK, is that the politics of some folks may be trumping their religion. It’s the same with some liberal Catholics trying to convulute themselves into thinking pro-choice is OK.
Catholic is Catholic. It’s not liberal. It’s not conservative.
In Peace,
DS
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. "
E
estesbob
Guest
In your opinion. And BTW In my opinion also But our opinions are not binding on other catholics To say the Church condemns Captital Punishment is Wrong and to say the Church condemns Captial Punishment as practiced in the US is wrong also.2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Sorry tiger, but according to the CCC the US just isn’t living up to their end then…
First of all, I direct your attention to the second paragraph. Let’s say you have a guy who kills kids. So he kills some kids, gets caught and goes to jail. Well, he isn’t going to be killing kids in jail. But let’s assume he’s just crazy enough to now try to divert his murderous rage towards anyone. Well, he can be locked in a box for the rest of his life and have his meals passed through a hole. There is a non-lethal means.
The last sentence, while not a blanket, is most definitely enough to keep a person warm at night. It leaves room for exceptions, but notes that they are few and far between.
C
Contarini
Guest
Wrong unless necessary.What are the Church’s teachings on the use of Capital Punishment?
Edwin
T
TimOliv
Guest
No, you are incorrect, the church DOES condemn Capital Punishment save limited circumstances. The way you are pitching it, the church would have to allow capital punishment and only condemn it in limited circumstances.In your opinion. And BTW In my opinion also But our opinions are not binding on other catholics To say the Church condemns Captital Punishment is Wrong and to say the Church condemns Captial Punishment as practiced in the US is wrong also.
Its a condemnation, with limited exceptions. Outside of those limited exceptions, it is condemned. It says right in the CCC that the circumstances by which CP would be the only way to go are very limited if not practically nonexistant.
E
estesbob
Guest
So we are in agreement that the Church does not condmen capital punishment in all circumstances. And to say so is incorrect? Anything beyond that is just you and I stateing our opinion isnt it? And likwise , since the Church has not(see the Ratzinger quote) clearly defined under what circumstances it is accpetable and when it is unaceptable Catholics are free to reach their own opinion on the acceptability of Captial punishment. Correct?No, you are incorrect, the church DOES condemn Capital Punishment save limited circumstances. The way you are pitching it, the church would have to allow capital punishment and only condemn it in limited circumstances.
Its a condemnation, with limited exceptions. Outside of those limited exceptions, it is condemned. It says right in the CCC that the circumstances by which CP would be the only way to go are very limited if not practically nonexistant.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
I think we apply prison sentences to too many crimes. Personally, I’m in favor of re-introducing flogging and beating with canes (preferably publicly) as a punishment for some crimes. I am also generally in favor of capital punishment; as far as I know the Church has always supported it and it was not until John Paul II that she suddenly changed her mind. I prefer to stick with what the Church has always officially taught rather than John Paul II’s personal opinion. I think it is clear from Scripture–both Old and New Testaments–that God gives governments the right and duty to “wield the sword.”I am in favor of CP, but I will admit that I am totally motivated by revenge.
Locally, a man was sentenced to 20-40 years in prison. He threw hot grease into another man’s face, causing severe burns.
Even prison sentences are revenge.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Necessary for what? This is what I don’t understand…if we didn’t feel that capital punishment was necessary in the first place, we wouldn’t be practicing it.Wrong unless necessary.
Edwin
- Status
- Not open for further replies.