capital punishment

[santodomingo]

I think this article by F. John Hardon, SJ is interesting. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5805

He wrote it befor Humanae Vitae was published in 1994, but he writes of the eternal truths concerning the DP, not temporary and worldy judgements on the convenience of the practice.

The deterrent argument, the protection of society argument are of interest. However, to some extent they are red herrings. The crux of the matter is RETRIBUTION.

 

[Peter5]

I’m thinking about leaving this radical religious group because of how you guys have talked. Religion should have been in the hands of God not humans from the beginning. He put far too much trust to small thinking of pity details to tell. Perhaps I might find out one of these days God’s love till then the world is ruins

 

[JReducation]

John Paul II shows that there is no rupture between the past thinking of the Church on this matter and the present. What we have is a change in social situations and social resources. Therefore, what was one considered legitimate is no longer so, because the circumstances have changed. States how have the means to avoid killing a person.
**
Moreover, “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.45
56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 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.47
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48 **

I would not say that we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae in light of the fact that the Holy Father invokes the authority of Peter to ensure that the content of Evangelium Vitae bind all Catholics. Even if a person commits a crime, there is another kind of innocence that the Church takes into account. The person does not merit the death penalty, because there are other forms of punishment. In addition, we must remember that we cannot authorize governments to use the death penalty indiscriminately, as it has been used and continues to be used.
**
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
**

If we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae, then we can also keep abortion legal, since it is Evangelium Vitae that infallibly declares that it is always immoral. We should also allow euthanasia and assisted suicide, which Evangelium Vitae definitively condemn as immoral. We have to be very careful when we say, “we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae.” We can find ourselves unleashing the Culture of Death. With all due respect to Pat Buchanan, but he has no canonical authority in the Church. Popes do. They also have the authority to analyze and interpret past teachings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[santodomingo]

John Paul II shows that there is no rupture between the past thinking of the Church on this matter and the present. What we have is a change in social situations and social resources. Therefore, what was one considered legitimate is no longer so, because the circumstances have changed. States how have the means to avoid killing a person.The social situations do not alter the **moral **justification for the DP, namely retribution. Let me ask you point blank, Brother: do you believe that the DP has a retributive function?
**

Moreover, “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.45
56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 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.47
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48 **

This passage completely ignores retribution, as part of Divine Justice, as you have also done. As you can read in the Fr. Hardon article, Pope St. Pius X taught that CP was a moral imperative and resisted calls for its abolition. It was NOT simply because he thought CP was the best way of protecting society. Who is right: Pope JPII or Pope St.Pius X? There are many other Popes who fiercely defended CP.

I would not say that we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae in light of the fact that the Holy Father invokes the authority of Peter to ensure that the content of Evangelium Vitae bind all Catholics. Even if a person commits a crime, there is another kind of innocence that the Church takes into account. I don´t understand this. Please explain. The person does not merit the death penalty, because there are other forms of punishment. IMHO, this does not make sense. The fact that there are other forms of punishing a murderer does not mean that he does not merit the DP. In addition, we must remember that we cannot authorize governments to use the death penalty indiscriminately, as it has been used and continues to be used.
**
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
**

If we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae, then we can also keep abortion legal, since it is Evangelium Vitae that infallibly declares that it is always immoral. We should also allow euthanasia and assisted suicide, which Evangelium Vitae definitively condemn as immoral. I´m sorry, Brother, but here your reasoning is flawed. I don´t need Humanae Vitae to tell me that abortion is evil. The eternal teachings of the CC tell me so. Ever since the Didache, abortion has been condemned by the Church. Not so with CP. When HV speaks of the DP, its content is evidently at odds with prior doctrine. We have to be very careful when we say, “we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae.” We can find ourselves unleashing the Culture of Death. With all due respect to Pat Buchanan, but he has no canonical authority in the Church. Popes do. They also have the authority to analyze and interpret past teachings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SouthpawLink]

Here is my dilema…I am Catholic but a very strong believer in the death penalty. I have tried to agree with the standing of the Church on their position, but I just cannot do it. I truely believe some people commit such terrible crimes that they should forfiet their lives for what they did. Where does this belief of mine put me with the Catholic Church?

Don’t fret. That the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for capital offenses and that the state has authority from God to administer it, is a truth of the Catholic faith (see the Roman Catechism issued by Pope St. Pius V).

“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority” (Pope Innocent I, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405; PL 20, 495).

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1210: Denz. 425/Denz.-Schon. 795).

“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (Pope Pius XII, A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.).

 

[JReducation]

You folks are pitting popes against each other in order to defend your position. But you’re missing the picture that the modern popes are seeing.

1. The Church has never supported an unrestricted use of the death penalty.
2. There are nations in this world, today, that classify many things are crimes deserving the death penalty.
3. Catholics have been killed because of unrestrained laws that allowed the death penalty.
4. Faith of any kind is a crime in many societies.
5. The death penalty has been applied and is applied to those who resist unfair governments.
6. Finally, the current popes believe that it is right for the Church to move away from the old idea that the death penalty can be used as retribution, since such a position was never a dogma and many innocent people were executed as a result.

If you want to say that the state has the right to unrestricted and unguided use of the death penalty or that the Church and moral law should not regulate and dictate to the states how to and when the death penalty is justifiable, go ahead. But do not be upset when it is applied against people for their faith, their sexual orientation, their political views, their race or ethnic origin, or for offenses that are not a threat to humanity, which should have never been criminalized in the first place.

Remember, when you give the state such freedom, you must give it to every state, not just the USA. The moral law is not for one nation. It’s for the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[revert_jen]

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II demands the assent of faith on this point. The assent is not to whether a person will or will not kill. The assent is to the fact that even a person who commits a crime, has dignity that no one can deny or violate. Therefore, the taking of that person’s life is only justified when there is no other way to protect the innocent.

I don’t know if you’ve read my other posts on this thread. My whole point, repeated multiple times, is that sometimes there is no other way to protect the innocent, and that any Pope’s opinion on how often that is the case has to be prudential judgement because it is a) not a question of faith and morals, and b) not something they are actually in a position to know, not being experts on the running of prisons.

Most of what you have said is not really related to my point. Others have responded to my posts talking about the just use of capital punishment for retributive means; I have not said so myself. I’m not actually sure what you were getting at related to democracy–I mean, I understand what you have said, and agree that any political system is only good if it leads to good, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I’ve said.

I have read Evangelium Vitae. The same construction (no capital punishment unless there is no other way) was used there as in the CCC.

I am in no way advocating the unrestricted use of the death penalty. I am merely contending that the Church (including the CCC and EV) has never declared the death penalty intrinsically evil, and that statements like “it’s always possible to prevent someone from harming others” and “the death penalty is not applied fairly” may be true but cannot be part of the Magisterium, dealing with questions of fact and judgement, not faith and morals.

As for countries where it is a crime to be (any/a particular) religion, the problem there is the laws themselves, not the punishments inflicted. In any case, there is nothing I can do about those laws, and no Pope can (or has tried) to hold people responsible for the laws of countries where they have never been citizens. And if it should happen here, where (for example) it becomes punishable by death (as a hate crime) to speak the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I would rather die than spend life in prison, so there’s no use trying to scare me with it. (It sounds far-fetched, but according to family history, etc, I might easily live another 50 years or more. There are probably laws today that would seem pretty horrifying to the people of 1960–think partial-birth abortion.)

Whether the death penalty should be applied in any particular case is not something I am in a position to say. I am speaking only in general terms about conditions in this country, where the application of the death penalty is restricted to the most violent offenses, which is as the Chruch says it should be if prudence demands that it be used at all.

–Jen

 

[santodomingo]

I don’t recall the Church teaching that anyone has forfeited their right to live, ever.

Maybe you don´t recall it, but here it is:

“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (Pope Pius XII, A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.).

Thanks, SouthpawLink, for the quote. I knew I´d read it before, but couldn´t remember where.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Until the nations of the world arrive at a just way of using the death penalty, the Church has to say that it is immoral with exceptions that rarely arise.

You seem to be presupposing that the two millenia of popes and theologians before John Paul II were unaware of the possible flaws in justice systems employing capital punishment. Quite the contrary, most everyone who covers the topic also includes a section on what executioner’s moral obligations are in cases of dubious guilt.

With all due respect Br. JR, we are not bound to Evangelium Viate. The belief of John Paul II that the death penalty should only be used to protect the innocent, AND NOT OF RETRIBUTIVE MEANS, goes against the tradition of the church for nearly its entire history. Please watch the clip I had in a previous post where Pat Buchanan, a traditional Catholic, clearly gives a defense of the death penalty. THE DEATH PENALTY WAS ON THE VATICAN BOOKS UNTIL 1969.

Only half right. We are indeed bound to Evangelium Vitae with the assent of mind and will. It is part of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. That being said, teachings voiced through the Ordinary Magisterium are not infallible in isolation. When dealing with these sorts of teachings, if we come across something that seems to conflict with the previous ordinary magisteria (either of the popes or the Fathers and doctors), we are obligated to attempt to read them in harmony with each other. If this is impossible, i.e. if the problematic teaching is irreconcilably at odds with a univocal doctrinal history, then the problematic teaching is in error. Cdl. Dulles’ article more specifically on this point is, I believe, by subscription only on First Things, but I can tell you for certain that his conclusion on John Paul II’s ordinary magisterial teachings in the CCC and EV had to be read as the pope’s prudential judgment on which ends of punishment ought to justify the death penalty (that is, there are four ends found unanimously in the Tradition, and John Paul restricts this to the single end of defense); he came to this conclusion because he saw no other way of reconciling John Paul’s teaching with the previous Tradition. He believed we could either believe it was a prudential judgment, or that it was simply erroneous. And this comes, I say again, from a man who was raised to the cardinalate by John Paul II for his contributions to theology and who agreed with John Paul’s judgment that the death penalty ought to be restricted to cases of necesary defense.

Slow down here. You have to look at several points.

None of the people that you cited above are part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Pope John Paul II is.

Pope John Paul II invokes the Ordinary Magisterium in Humanae Vitae to explain the correct teaching on the death penalty and how Catholics are to view it. He does not put it out there for a debate. He is very clear that while the state can make use of it, there are few, if any moral justifications for using it. Therefore, he does not contradict what has always been said. He is very clear that today we have other means at our disposal to protect the innocent. Those means were not at our disposal at the time that Augustine and Aquinas were writing.

Scripture does not stand alone and no Catholic can ever use it in isolation from the teaching of the pope. That’s a Protestant error that we, as Catholics, want to avoid. You can’t just quote scripture and say that the pope is wrong, becaues scripture says so. The pope has the final authority in the interpretation and application of scripture. If a pope teaches on the death penalty something that is different from an isolated scripture passage, the pope’s teaching trumps the passage. The passage has to be taken in the context of the entire canon of scripture and the unity between scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. It cannot be taken in isolation. That has never been allowed by the Church.

cont’d

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You are creating a false dichotomy between either 1) an isolated scriptural passage or two and 2) a pope’s authoritative teaching. The reality is that those who question John Paul’s teaching on capital punishment, including theologians he himself highly esteemed, find themselves caught between a) John Paul II on one side and b) every magisterial statement ever pronounced on the subject. This means not just pope against scripture passage or pope against pope, but pope against all the popes, bishops, doctors, and theologians in Catholic history. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas are, also, part of the Church’s magisterium, one by being a bishop, father, and doctor, the other by being a theologian (yes, theologians form the lowest rung - but still a rung - of the magisterium) and doctor. It is, moreover, the very necessary unity between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium which you have cited that necessitates the interpretation of John Paul’s teaching as prudential judgment. There is no other way it can fit into the unified whole.

On a further note, your argument states that John Paul decided, essentially, to modify the Church’s teaching in response to the new means we have for punishing criminals. But that betrays a misunderstanding of the development of doctrine. Catholic teaching does not change when the world around it changes. Truth is not circumstantial, even when its application is. So if the Magisterium had always taught that capital punishment may only been inflicted when necessary to fulfill the end of protecting society, no one would have a problem with John Paul reiterating that teaching and then prudentially applying it to our present circumstances. But the problem is that the teaching has always included FOUR legitimate ends of punishment, and justified the use of capital punishment for each of those ends, not only one. You can’t develop doctrine by flatly contradicting it.

I don’t believe either Augustine or Aquinas would have openly combated the pope on this point. Rather, I think they would have done just what Cdl. Dulles did. They would have recognized the need to harmonize the pope’s teaching with the rest of the Church’s teaching, and come to the same conclusion of prudential application to specific circumstances.

Which pontiff is right?

Yes, that’s the point. Not you or me versus a pope, but popes versus a pope.

John Paul II shows that there is no rupture between the past thinking of the Church on this matter and the present. What we have is a change in social situations and social resources. Therefore, what was one considered legitimate is no longer so, because the circumstances have changed.

If we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae, then we can also keep abortion legal, since it is Evangelium Vitae that infallibly declares that it is always immoral. We should also allow euthanasia and assisted suicide, which Evangelium Vitae definitively condemn as immoral. We have to be very careful when we say, “we are not bound by Evangelium Vitae.” We can find ourselves unleashing the Culture of Death. With all due respect to Pat Buchanan, but he has no canonical authority in the Church. Popes do. They also have the authority to analyze and interpret past teachings.

Again, the Church’s teaching cannot be altered by circumstances. Only the application of that teaching.

Also, one can be bound by a document without every part of that document carrying equal weight. We are bound to interpret the teaching on capital punishment in harmony with the universal magisterium precisely because it was taught as part of the ordinary papal magisterium. It just happens that that interpretation to which we are bound leads us to conclude the teaching is a prudential judgment as to which ends ought to justify capital punishment in modern circumstances.

cont’d

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You folks are pitting popes against each other in order to defend your position. But you’re missing the picture that the modern popes are seeing.

1. The Church has never supported an unrestricted use of the death penalty.

2. There are nations in this world, today, that classify many things are crimes deserving the death penalty.

---

3. Catholics have been killed because of unrestrained laws that allowed the death penalty.

---

4. Faith of any kind is a crime in many societies.

---

5. The death penalty has been applied and is applied to those who resist unfair governments.

---

6. Finally, the current popes believe that it is right for the Church to move away from the old idea that the death penalty can be used as retribution, since such a position was never a dogma and many innocent people were executed as a result.

If you want to say that the state has the right to unrestricted and unguided use of the death penalty or that the Church and moral law should not regulate and dictate to the states how to and when the death penalty is justifiable, go ahead. But do not be upset when it is applied against people for their faith, their sexual orientation, their political views, their race or ethnic origin, or for offenses that are not a threat to humanity, which should have never been criminalized in the first place.

Remember, when you give the state such freedom, you must give it to every state, not just the USA. The moral law is not for one nation. It’s for the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Every state has the right to use capital punishment against disturbers of its citizens’ peace as a matter of natural law, and the Church has taught us what the justified ends of that execution are. You seem to be under the impression that someone other than God has given states the right to self-preservation; St. Paul tells us that God has given that authority (Rom 13), and the Tradition has taught us that this is not a matter of divine positive law but a natural, logical result of His creation of man as a naturally social creature. You furthermore seem to be under the impression that abuses remove the possibility of legitimate use; the traditional theological maxim, however, is abusus non tollit usum - abuse does not eliminate [good] use. The bolded portions of the quote all have at least a portion arguing that, since governments abuse capital punishment, the Church can/must change her teaching regarding it. The governments who badly use the death penalty are committing injustice, plain and simple. That has nothing to do with its proper, just, and commendable use. We could apply your reasoning to forms of government. The Church teaches that monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy (and mixtures thereof) are all good forms of government. But the majority of the world’s monarchies are tyrannies, the world’s aristocracies are in fact oligarchies, and many democracies perpetrate unjust wars and sanction or refuse to punish grave violations of natural law. From this we can conclude that it is now wise for the Church to change her teaching on government to teach that no form of government is good or legitimate. At least, if we use your reasoning from abuse, which is highly flawed.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is my dilema…I am Catholic but a very strong believer in the death penalty. I have tried to agree with the standing of the Church on their position, but I just cannot do it. I truely believe some people commit such terrible crimes that they should forfiet their lives for what they did. Where does this belief of mine put me with the Catholic Church?

I am against the death penalty; I always have been, for several reasons:

(1) Sometimes innocent people are put to death (like Jesus?);
(2) It does not protect the innocent any more than life in prison (assuming that life in prison means life in prison without parole or anything else);
(3) It cuts a life short and may take away a person’s chances for atonement, which in turn may be a straight path to hell;
(4) It is my understanding that it costs more to put a person to death than to keep him/her in prison for life (because of the massive cost of the appeals);
(5) It’s not our decision to make. God should decide when a person dies, not us;
(6) Human life is sacred from conception to natural death and should always be protected;
(7) This is the biggie to me: Only God knows everything that is in a person’s heart, his/her background, experiences, dreams, goals, desires, hates, loves, and absolutely everything else down to the size and placement of every hair on his/her body. We can’t know that. We can’t even know that about ourselves!! Only God knows. He should decide, not us.

The only time I will accept capital punishment is when the public cannot be protected in any other way.

This is part of my pro-life stance.

Once my brother-in-law asked me how I would feel about the death penalty if someone killed my child and was captured, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. I had to think for a minute because of course I would be so hurt and so angry. My answer is that my heart would want the perpetrator to be put to death in a terrible manner but I would have to go with my head: no death penalty and I would need to forgive the man who killed my child immediately. His soul is precious, too, and I have no idea of who he really is deep down inside as that is an area only God can visit.

 

[santodomingo]

I am against the death penalty; I always have been, for several reasons:

(1) Sometimes innocent people are put to death (like Jesus?)

As Andreas has pointed out, the abuse of a practice does not delegitimize the principle in itself. For example, I´m not against using bank cheques, although it is common for cheques to bounce, for people to falsify cheques, etc.

 

[santodomingo]

I am against the death penalty; I always have been, for several reasons:

(2) It does not protect the innocent any more than life in prison (assuming that life in prison means life in prison without parole or anything else);

As we have repeated ad nauseum, the DP is NOT only for the protection of the innocent.

 

[santodomingo]

I am against the death penalty; I always have been, for several reasons:

(3) It cuts a life short and may take away a person’s chances for atonement, which in turn may be a straight path to hell;

Read my quote of St. Thomas. He seems to think exaclty the opposite: the DP is a unique chance for a criminal to repent and find salvation at the last hour. Rather like the Good Thief on the Cross. Those who go to their execution unrepentant, as St. Thomas says, would never have repented anyway.

Why do you think catholic priests accompany the condemned on Death Row up to the last moment?

 

[santodomingo]

I am against the death penalty; I always have been, for several reasons:

(4) It is my understanding that it costs more to put a person to death than to keep him/her in prison for life (because of the massive cost of the appeals);

This is irrelevant.

It´s a bit like saying “Down syndrome babies cost more to the Health services and insurance companies. Therefore, we are allowed to kill them at birth or before birth.”

The material costs of the DP have nothing to do with the moral issue.

 

[santodomingo]

I am against the death penalty; I always have been, for several reasons:

(5) It’s not our decision to make. God should decide when a person dies, not us;

This is just plain stupid.

Was Moses wrong when he gave the isralites their Law? Moses, who spoke “face to face” with God? God has already spoken on the morality of the DP, and you want to correct Him because these days our sensibilities have changed. Maybe the problem is our modern sensibility, not God´s law…

If a person is proved guilty of first degree murder, and God´s law sanctions the execution of these criminals, what´s your problem? Judges who pronounce sentences, governors who sign the DP orders, are in no way responsable for the death of these criminals: the only people responsable are the criminals themselves.

I won´t go on answering all your objections. Please read the earlier posts on this subject.

 

[SouthpawLink]

1. Finally, the current popes believe that it is right for the Church to move away from the old idea that the death penalty can be used as retribution, since such a position was never a dogma and many innocent people were executed as a result.

If you want to say that the state has the right to unrestricted and unguided use of the death penalty or that the Church and moral law should not regulate and dictate to the states how to and when the death penalty is justifiable, go ahead.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

1. Do the pontiffs have the right to move away from the idea that one of the purposes of the death penalty is retribution? It is a matter of justice, not merely a means to protecting society from the criminal. Scripture clearly states that evildoers are worthy of death (Rom. 1:32). The death penalty is a means of satisfaction for the criminal (because sin often demands expitiation).

Can one pope’s opinion cancel out the Church’s long and well-developed theological reasoning concerning the death penalty?

And what’s more, Pope John Paul II went further than what you’ve said and called the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary” (Mass in St. Louis, 27 January 1999). He repudiated what God Himself commanded/sanctioned in Scripture (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:4).

nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/appeal.shtml

As far as the sacredness of human life is concerned, I’ve recently read about the difference between ontological dignity and operative dignity. Recently, there has been too much of an emphasis on ontological dignity, and a neglect regarding man’s operative dignity. Romano Amerio points this out in his work, Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century.

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030318.html

1. No one has argued that the state has the unrestricted and unguided right to use the death penalty; to do so would be absurd.

To the statement, “It is not our decision to make,”: please see Romans 13:4.

To the statement, “Only God knows everything that is in a person’s heart,”: Pope Pius XII said that the judge merely needs morally certainty as to the criminal’s guilt, a certainty that excludes all reasonable and serious doubt (Cf. Address of 5 December 1954: A.A.S., vol. 47, p. 64).

Lastly, I personally think it’s incorrect to say that a convicted murderer would not have the chance to repent. His impending meeting with God Himself may very well cause him to think about the kind of life he has led.

 

[LittleSoldier]

As Andreas has pointed out, the abuse of a practice does not delegitimize the principle in itself. For example, I´m not against using bank cheques, although it is common for cheques to bounce, for people to falsify cheques, etc.

Your first statement is true.

Standing by itself, my first reason would not be a complete explanation of why I am against the death penalty. However, you ignored the rest of my post (or at least did not respond to it). You have taken my first reason out of context by not combining it with the totality of my reasons.

When a bank check is misused, the problems can be corrected. However, when an innocent person is put to death nothing will bring him/her back to life again. I’m not talking about something as unimportant as bank checks. I am talking about peoples’ lives and souls and their possibility of entering heaven.

And I have listed several more reasons which should be taken into account in order to understand my views on the death penalty.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Maybe you don´t recall it, but here it is:

“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (Pope Pius XII, A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.).

Thanks, SouthpawLink, for the quote. I knew I´d read it before, but couldn´t remember where.

Would you please tell me what “A.A.S.” stands for and provide a link to the article or book or whatever it is? I don’t know if this is just a pope’s opinion or an actual teaching of the Church. Thank you.