CCC 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 said , the underlying moral principle ultimately being the protection of innocent life and not vengeance.
Don’t give me credit for it, I lifted that directly from the CCC
hmm, well if you are looking at capital punishment as punishment, then I think life in prison with no chance of parole would be more punishing. Of course reforming the prison systems would be necessary for prison to be truly punitive. No TV, internet, obtaining a college degree for free, etc. IOW, give prisoners access to a very limited library, take care of their basic needs, but no Club Med (including White Collar crimes).
Who are we to judge another living life? I think this is morally equivvalent to those that we fight over abortion right? I mean look at it unobjectively cause ultimately the quote "Judge not lest you be judged" or "Though shall murder" especially this dated belief in an eye for an eye, which predates christianity in the Middle East is herendous. We don't want to be like the people in Babylon do we? This isn't a dictatorship of draconian scribes and pharacies to banish the sinners to the wastelands of barbariac hordes like the vikings. Perhaps the vikings never truly assimulated afterall just morphed from their swedish roots to sap our strength with disguises of angels in the forms of minions of Satan? Money isn't everything either.
I'll point out even the possability of killing one too many innocent accusers is too much to bare. Leave it up to the hands of God and I follow the catholic church quite strictly cause this is where your individual interpretation like a protestant can sway you adrift away from the conservative catholics. Compassion and understanding are needed for sure. I also agree that luxuries shouldn't be entitlements in prison rather something you earn in prison. Some horrible prisoners don't deserve much in the way of rewards for hurting other people. We need more rehabilitation not prisonment for these offenders on how to do this is up in the air. Most were victims of small offenses like small possessions of drugs that lead into a lifestyle of thrift and sin. We also need to visit people incarserated right? You can't visit a dead man like the sick in hospitals cause they might not have anyone at all. On this count, you are outnumbered surely.Read my first post on this thread
The problem I have with what the Catechism says (now there’s a phrase I’ve never used before!!) is that I am not sure I agree that “the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm” are actually as good as all that. I agree with the theory, but in practice, there is one class of citizens that is always in danger from an imprisoned murderer or rapist–the other prisoners.
Just playing Devil’s advocate here (I’m not really sure that I disagree with you, actually)–Is there evidence that there is a causal relationship there? As everyone knows who has spent any time with statistics, correlation is not causation. Do we have some way of telling whether the capital punishment causes the murders, the murders cause the capital punishment, or the capital punishment and murders are both caused by some third thing (e.g. a particular local societal outlook that is a bit less civilized (looking at it one way) or more down-to-earth (looking at it another way)?
The decision whether one lives or dies is a moral decision.
The purpose of death penalty is to protect innocent lives. Euthanasia doesn’t protect anyone or anything.
It never ceases to amaze me how people (including many devout catholics) fail to see the gaping difference between the DP and abortion. I´m sick of hearing these comparisons. The moral difference between the DP and abortion is this: the former entails the death of the GUILTY, whereas the latter is the taking of INNOCENT human life. That´s really all you have to remember to appreciate the morality of both.
The decision whether the state kills a serious, violent criminal is a moral decision. About the morality of the decision, the CCC says, “…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.” That is a moral judgement being made by the Church. If the only way to protect people is the death penalty, it may be used. If not, then the CCC is not 100% clear about whether it is permissible to use the death penalty (it does not, as It could, actually say “you shall not do this”), but is 100% clear that it is better not to. The prudential (non-faith and morals) bit is whether this is the only way to protect people or not.
Yes, this is what the **modern **CCC says. However, this is NOT the **traditional **teaching of the CC. Traditionally the Church has taught that the DP is right because it retributes justice. A person who commits murder has no “right” to live anymore, just as, for example, a thief has no “right” to freedom. Therefore it is licit, even desireable for the state to take his/her life as punishment, just as it is good for the state to take away the freedom of a common criminal as punishment.