capital punishment

[Robert_Burns]

Don’t give me credit for it, I lifted that directly from the CCC

And charitably provided it for us

 

[Robert_Burns]

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.

If we are going to talk about what the CC teaches on the DP, why don´t we recall that during the best part of 2000 years she has consistently taught that capital punishment is perfectly justified, not simply as a means of protecting society, as has been put forward in this thread, but as a form of administering justice? I believe it was only since JPII took up the abolitionist cause that the CC has even considered that the DP might not be appropriate as a system. You cannot simply disgard centuries of Magisterium and practice because of 30-or-so years of campaigning.

I think it is thanks to the liberal, irreligious worldview that now dominates the West, that the abolitionist cause has gained such support. I am in favour of the DP, because on one hand I believe it is fair for society to take a murderer´s life, and on the other hand, I do not see the loss of life as the worst thing that can happen to a human being; it is infinitely worse to lose one´s soul than to lose one´s mortal life. The CC has traditionally taught that the execution of a guilty person satisfies Divine justice, and can thus save souls from condemnation.

Abortion being the greater evil - but taking a life unnecessarily is likewise evil. So if the argument is - Which is the greater evil - then Abortion. No man can morally take a life except to protect a life. The problem with the criminal justice system is that too often dangerous criminals are released to kill again and again. What this does is cause the average american to equate the very worst criminals with everyone who has been convicted wrongly or not of the crime of capital murder. Each case is different. Some murders are crimes of passion and although wrong , shouldnt be judged the same as a serial killer. In addition , dangerous unrepentant killers should be released for any reason and dangerous unrepentant killers should be allowed to endanger their fellow prisoners either. So ultimately - the principle of protecting innocent life must be at the root of the justice being served to be moral. Anything less is not.

Pax

 

[Robert_Burns]

Abortion being the greater evil - but taking a life unnecessarily is likewise evil. So if the argument is - Which is the greater evil - then Abortion. No man can morally take a life except to protect a life. The problem with the criminal justice system is that too often dangerous criminals are released to kill again and again. What this does is cause the average american to equate the very worst criminals with everyone who has been convicted wrongly or not of the crime of capital murder. Each case is different. Some murders are crimes of passion and although wrong , shouldnt be judged the same as a serial killer. In addition , dangerous unrepentant killers should be released for any reason and dangerous unrepentant killers should be allowed to endanger their fellow prisoners either. So ultimately - the principle of protecting innocent life must be at the root of the justice being served to be moral. Anything less is not.

Pax

Corrections : dangerous unrepentant killers shouldnt be released for any reason and dangerous unrepentant killers shouldnt be allowed to endanger their fellow prisoners either.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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?

Others have quoted the Church’s teachings. To put it bluntly however, the death penalty by itself is not unjust, particularly for premeditated murder. After all, if a person destroys another’s life and feels not the slightest remorse, then why should they keep their own?

In fact, the death penalty, applied correctly, has a sacramental aspect to it. Justice has been served.

But to quote someone else, “Better that ten guilty men rot in jail than that one innocent person be hanged.”

I could name one incident in recent Australian history where a woman was convicted of having killed her own baby daughter, and sentenced to life in prison. In fact a dingo or dingos did it. A few years ago dingos killed a young boy on Fraser Island as well.

There was no motive, no evidence, no glimmer of a hint or reason why she would have wanted to kill her daughter, yet the jury found her guilty. Her main fault was a cold, unemotional media appearance, so the public tended to be unsympathetic.

A movie was made about it called “Evil Angels” starring Meryl Streep. The case was the Azaria Chamberlain case. Her mother Lindy Chamberlain went to jail.

Fortunately there was an appeal and she was released some years later. Had the death penalty operated, she’d have been executed for something she didn’t even do.

As it was it destroyed her marriage, and there was no way she could recover the lost years.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The Magisterium is only infallible in matters of faith and morals. In cases of prudential judgement (like whether it is possible to prevent someone from committing murder, rape, or other violent assault while in modern-day facilities), the opinion should be listened to with respect, but not with the assent of faith. I completely grant that if it were true that it is possible to prevent violent crime in our penal system without beggaring everyone (e.g. one warden per two prisoners or something), then it certainly would be very rare indeed that capital punishment were necessary. I’m just not sure that I grant the premise.

Cdl. Dulles weighed in on precisely this issue of the CCC’s teaching. His conclusion was that the restriction of the death penalty to only those cases necessary to physically protect society had in and of itself to be a prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II because, if an attempt to teach with authority, it would flatly contradict the bimillenial tradition of the Church and thus be false. I’m not sure if this is the article in which he specifically engages that issue, but it at the very least sketches out the theological history of capital punishment and the four ends of punishment which, according to the Cardinal (no conservative, he, for that matter), are firmly entrenched elements of the Church’s doctrine.

 

[notredame_999]

Catholics who equate capital punishment with abortion and euthnasia are sadly mistaken. Up until very recently the church has always defended captial punishment. In fact it the enlightenment, it was the liberal socialist state who wanted to ban capital punishment, and it was Pope Pius X and other traditionalists who fought to retain it.
Pope John Paul II didnt like it, that was his personal opinion, but we have every right to disagree with him respectfully if it is not a matter of fatih and morals.

Here is a good debate between Pat Buchanan and Lawerence O’donnel on the issue. Pat was raised a traditional catholic, before Vatican II, and that is part of the issue here.

youtube.com/watch?v=qdykMM1W7I4

 

[Peter5]

There are tons of cases where prisoners are killed cause lack of sufficent evidense. I took a criminal justice law class and see the blurred lines in laws in the U.S.A. There simply isn’t enough evidense lots of times to convict someone of death. Most cases that I saw that were similar were very circumstantual evidense driven not physically driven by physical evidense. Eyewitnesses aren’t enough nor the creditability of the person in question.
I want to use you guys’s point of view on this matter and one that I’ve never understood in the christian world. Aren’t soldiers murderers? I mean they never truly repent but are given the green flag all of time. I mean whether sanctioned by the church or not, the fadct is that murdering takes place. Looking on the Iraq War or the Holy Crusades as mistakes and everything to give some cases exceptions is just wrong. The only way of defeating evil at times with those same acts as being morally opposite of christianity. Look at Afghanistan right now. Who do you think drove us there? Reagen did with the rise of counter propoganda (Iran-Contra Affair) and oh the support of what we call now days the taliban and al qaeda. hey, if your not a extreme right wing hate filled uncompassionant apparently you aren’t a christian though. If you don’t stand on the objective slide of no political party you are considered an atheist right? Too many oxymorons in christianity in organized religions.

 

[santodomingo]

There are tons of cases where prisoners are killed cause lack of sufficent evidense. I took a criminal justice law class and see the blurred lines in laws in the U.S.A. There simply isn’t enough evidense lots of times to convict someone of death. Most cases that I saw that were similar were very circumstantual evidense driven not physically driven by physical evidense. Eyewitnesses aren’t enough nor the creditability of the person in question.
I want to use you guys’s point of view on this matter and one that I’ve never understood in the christian world. Aren’t soldiers murderers? I mean they never truly repent but are given the green flag all of time. I mean whether sanctioned by the church or not, the fadct is that murdering takes place. Looking on the Iraq War or the Holy Crusades as mistakes and everything to give some cases exceptions is just wrong. The only way of defeating evil at times with those same acts as being morally opposite of christianity. Look at Afghanistan right now. Who do you think drove us there? Reagen did with the rise of counter propoganda (Iran-Contra Affair) and oh the support of what we call now days the taliban and al qaeda. hey, if your not a extreme right wing hate filled uncompassionant apparently you aren’t a christian though. If you don’t stand on the objective slide of no political party you are considered an atheist right? Too many oxymorons in christianity in organized religions.

Firstly, you are quite right to be concerned about a fair trial. I only believe that CP is just if there is the guarantee of a fair trial, and there is reasonable certainty that a person condemned to death is guilty. This has always been the catholic view.

Secondly, it is preposterous to call soldiers murderers. Please read up about the just war doctrine. Are you also willing to call a murderer a father who kills an intruder in his house, in order to protect his family? If the war is just, and a country is acting in legitimate self-defence, there is no place to speak of murder. St. Joan of Arc was a soldier, St. Ignatius of Loyola was a soldier, St. Louis of France was a soldier and crusader, many monks who gave their lives to defend christian pilgrims and recapture the Holy Land, were soldiers. Your view is TOTALLY at odds with catholic history , not to mention doctrine.

Even if the war is unjust, as I believe the Irak war was, the responsability of each individual soldier is much diminished, as he is simply obeying orders given by those in power. Those ultimately responsible are the nation´s leaders. No doubt they will answer to God for the wars they have provoked.

Thirdly, I fail to undersand your point about oxymorons and “extreme right wing hate”. Please explain. God bless you on your journey towards the One True Faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

This is what the Church has always taught and practised up until around 30 or 40 years ago. Nowadays the CC says that the DP is in many countries a “necessary evil”, as the only method of protecting innocent citizens from dangerous criminals, yet refuses to mention the moral benefit derived from the execution of murderers. There is a blatant contradiction in the two positions. It would be helpful if catholics were able to appreciate that the Church´s teaching on moral issues did not begin in 1963!

I don’t recall the Church teaching that anyone has forfeited their right to live, ever. Only God decides who lives and who dies. Jesus has always taught that we should not condemn. Modern technologies and techniques and knowledge has made the Death Penalty less of a necessity in previous scenarios. Like in the past, a tyrant king would still command and influence a large number of people as long as he lives. Today, you can easily topple government and replace the leaders with new ones. We can also deploy peacekeeping troops more effectively into nations to prevent further violence, whereas in the past a deposed king’s army may still continue a war or commit crimes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

What I am not sure about is whether or not “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The moral judgement, which of course I agree with, is that if it really is possible to prevent inmates from harming each other, and to prevent dangerous criminals from being released into society again, the death penalty is less “in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and [less] in conformity to the dignity of the human person,” and I wouldn’t support it at all (even in my head, or anonymously on a Catholic forum).

–Jen

I think its already spelled out clearly. The death penalty is not to be used in lesser instances than absolute necessity. The Church would want to give each and every person every chance they have for repentance, even at the last moment of one’s life.

Inmates will tend to hurt each other even with crimes that do not warrant the death penalty. There will always be hardened criminals or those violent by nature in the prison, regardless if their crime warrants the death penalty or not. Are you suggesting we kill them because of said behavior?

 

[JReducation]

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.

The only way to be really sure that a prisoner never murders or commits serious assault on another person again, is to have that person perpetually in solitary. I believe that is considered (rightly, IMO) to be cruel and unusual punishment.

The Magisterium is only infallible in matters of faith and morals. In cases of prudential judgement (like whether it is possible to prevent someone from committing murder, rape, or other violent assault while in modern-day facilities), the opinion should be listened to with respect, but not with the assent of faith. I completely grant that if it were true that it is possible to prevent violent crime in our penal system without beggaring everyone (e.g. one warden per two prisoners or something), then it certainly would be very rare indeed that capital punishment were necessary. I’m just not sure that I grant the premise.

That is just me personally. I do not engage in any activities to promote or protect the current capital punishment facilities. But in my own mind, I am not convinced.

–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.

Now, you mention the innocent who may be killed inside the prison. The Church places the moral burden on the state to minimize the possibility of such behavior.

One of the points that Pope John Paul made in Evangelium Vitae is that Catholics are often too eager to relieve their governments of moral responsibility for the dignity of human life, even that of a criminal.

He also makes another point that he says may never be denied by any Catholic, the laws that govern the death penalty are often very unjust and unjustly applied. The Church does not write for the USA alone. She preaches to the world. The death penalty is a universal question. We all know that it is often applied very unfairly. For example, in certain Muslim countries, you can be executed for converting to Christianity, for being gay, for adultery, for abortion and so forth. In Communist countries you can be executed for opposing the regime. In our USA you can be executed if you don’t have enough money for a defense and you can win your freedom if you have enough money to hire the right law firm or if you have a high profile case.

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.

The other point that the Church taught in Evangelium Vitae and to which she called for assent to the Ordinary Magisterium was to the issue of democracy. The Church made it very clear that in our modern world we have a cult to democracy and that such a cult is always morally wrong. Democracy is a means to a good, not a good in and of itself. Democracy has been the cause of much evil, such as abortion, the unjust application of the death penalty, the birth of laws that violate revealed truths and more. Therefore, the nations of the world have no moral right to vote in laws that violate human dignity and human life, because this is not the purpose of democracy. Pope John Paul stated that the Church (observe that he speaks for the Church), that the Church only acknowledges the right of the democratic vote for the execution of the common good as has been revealed by God. However, the Catholic Church retains full and exclusive authority to decide what is revealed by God and what is not.

On the other hand, Pope Benedict has also added to this discussion by saying that there is a rightful secularity. Secularism is never admissible. Secularity is a given, instilled in man by Divine design. This means that there are areas where the Church may allow the secular state to made decisions and enact laws without her intervention and the state need not use the democratic process. It can use either a democratic or an autocratic model, as long as that process creates secular structures for the common good and that respect the dignity of man and the sacredness of all life.

You may want to read Evangelium Vitae. It’s not a long document. It’s very well written and it’s not so complex that one needs a theological decoder ring to understand it.

Let’s put it this way, if I understand it, most people should be able to understand it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Peter5]

Is just wars of the Holy Crusades defense motivated? No, they werent nor was the Iraq War or most wars throughout time weren’t either like WWI and II weren’t that much either. They were mere excuses to have a land granb of third world natural resourced enriched nations by means of colonization, emperialism and cultural nationalism to gear up a nations ignorant to control the masses. This negates your point and excessive use of power where its unwarranted is also anti-christian as well. Faith and morals are interwoven with an assumption of mortal sin like the three conditions of mortal sin profess to uphold. They are “Grave matter, intent and concent” which clearly most soldiers follow through with two out of three and the third of concent with patriotism is a default unless its out of infinant ignorance which I don’t agree is so in lots of cases.
I think that defensive purposes and ethnic strive like ethnic cleansing or genocie with famines or dictatorships like communistic structuralistic indusiveness to farm people into starvation, PWO camps, concentration camps or the alike are also along with the other creeds of abortion, euthenasia, stem cell research and others are also as well as some are compelled in certain nations, yet we don’t invade China nor India do we? So, the terroristic endeavors which we enabled are coming back to haunt us out of the percieved cohesiveness of the brand of republicanism in the name of our God. This is the danger of a political stamp on your forhead is that you drag the reputation of christianity into the flames of war along with you. The brand is deminished as history unfolds not to say some wars needed to be fought for like WWI and WWII can attest to on their head cause Chamberism doesn’t work in all cases. Yet, Vietnam and others have no percieved logical sense on their heads and are in my humble estimation overlooked in christianity.
We look at CP as a deterant which its not a perminent deterant cause if it were the numbers of homicides beyond coorilation would lower through the years. No, Texas and Alabama still have violent offenders cause of the spiritual barren wasteland of middle to upper class apathy towards the poor. Fact as well is that minorities are usually prosecuted more harshely with no fair trial. In the traditional past as well cause the technology, methods and laws related in association with them were throughly flawed, inadaquate or biased towards a set of individuals. Moreover, intellectual and humanitarian diverse views other than our views should be taken into account like other ethnicities, religious beliefs and others. How could we expect them to respect the church, when we do the same things? We often times criticize the Middle East for adultry stonings in a case coming down the pike in Iran, yet we have the same ends just different means of getting to that end. Look into ethic deontological and utalatarian principles of the moral good of a given society could dictate good, yet neglects the outcome of getting to those ends violates christian doctrine on its face.
I emplore you to look at your ten commandments of though shall not kill/murder to see that a society in giving to Ceaser has violated christian doctrine. We are no more innocent of the murder as the murderer whomever if we allow this predated christian idea to infiltrate compassion amongst us. Jesus hung around murders, thieves and sinners not the saints of the ones on this forum profess to being on their day to day lives. Yet, I see a bunch of loathsome individuals whom want to horde their money, security and yet to an extremme to alolow potentially innocent peopl death for our own comforts? Believe me I’ve had a relative in prison and have seen this from another view of the glass to see that our prison system needs to be less punative caus they leave even more violent than we they came in the first place. However, if you guys don’t want to care that is your poragerative.

sincerely,
Peter

 

[santodomingo]

I don’t recall the Church teaching that anyone has forfeited their right to live, ever. Only God decides who lives and who dies. Jesus has always taught that we should not condemn. Modern technologies and techniques and knowledge has made the Death Penalty less of a necessity in previous scenarios. Like in the past, a tyrant king would still command and influence a large number of people as long as he lives. Today, you can easily topple government and replace the leaders with new ones. We can also deploy peacekeeping troops more effectively into nations to prevent further violence, whereas in the past a deposed king’s army may still continue a war or commit crimes.

• Genesis 9:6: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God.”
• From the Catholic Encyclopedia: The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.
• **St. Agustine **(Doctor of the Church), in The City of God: *The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.*

• **St. Thomas Aqunias **(Doctor of the Church), in his Summa Theologiae: Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
• St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa contra gentiles: The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”

The fact that Popes JPII and Benedict XVI are against the DP does not mean that their personal opinion is catholic doctrine. Neither have ever made dogmatic definitions on the matter, and if they were to, they would have to admit that the DP is legitimate, because that is the perrenial teaching of the CC.

 

[Peter5]

I don’t agree with your theological argument nor do modern people with compassionant cause you don’t know who is guilty or not by their minds aren’t open orbs to peer into. Only the person and God can communicate forgiveness no matter what like a person going to confessional might not confess all of their sins to a priest because only you and God can determine that. Also, you are falling into a fallacy of cultural modernism in a way to allow people in general by a societies estimation of life determine not God. How can someone be an instrument of life without giving proof of instruction by God? This is rather pathetic if you ask me cause even Pope’s with the aid of holy spirit have failed. No, moral code has ever been found completely without some questioning and I don’t believe an eye for an eye was right then nor now. Jesus Christ in the Gospels went out against the principle and even when Judas gave his kiss Jesus didn’t want them for an eye for an eye. Despite what you say or whatever the doctrine could eventually be overturned by making those wronged by soul escripura like what you are doing guilty of being copable of innocent potential souls into purgatory.
Hell what do I know christians just a precatholic right? Arrogant, pompous and prideful humans you all are to determine who lives or not. unless God comes down from Heaven saying without proof, we could say anything to justify anything right? Completely insaine that this even happens in the modern day. Why aren’t rich people guilty of death then? They commit manslaughter everyday with human right violations or whatever? Stupid religious picking of scriptures for your own political gains.

 

[santodomingo]

I don’t agree with your theological argument nor do modern people with compassionant cause you don’t know who is guilty or not by their minds aren’t open orbs to peer into. I don´t pretend to be able to read minds. It´s not necessary to read peoples´ minds in order to prove them guilty of murder. Some even confess willingly. There are such things as witnesses, scientific evidence, etc. Why mention mindreading?Only the person and God can communicate forgiveness no matter what like a person going to confessional might not confess all of their sins to a priest because only you and God can determine that. What has that got to do with the topic?Also, you are falling into a fallacy of cultural modernism in a way to allow people in general by a societies estimation of life determine not God. How can someone be an instrument of life without giving proof of instruction by God? This is rather pathetic if you ask me cause even Pope’s with the aid of holy spirit have failed. I don´t understan what you mean. Please explain.No, moral code has ever been found completely without some questioning and I don’t believe an eye for an eye was right then nor now. Jesus Christ in the Gospels went out against the principle and even when Judas gave his kiss Jesus didn’t want them for an eye for an eye. Despite what you say or whatever the doctrine could eventually be overturned by making those wronged by soul escripura like what you are doing guilty of being copable of innocent potential souls into purgatory. I understandthis even less.
Hell what do I know christians just a precatholic right? Arrogant, pompous and prideful humans you all are to determine who lives or not. Please don´t insult me. Appart from being uncharitable, it´s against the forum rules. It´s not me who decides who lives and who dies. It´s a court of law who decides who is INNOCENT and who is GUILTY. God´s law permits, and even requires us, to rid society of those guilty of the most grievious sins.unless God comes down from Heaven saying without proof, we could say anything to justify anything right? Completely insaine that this even happens in the modern day. Why aren’t rich people guilty of death then? They commit manslaughter everyday with human right violations or whatever? Stupid religious picking of scriptures for your own political gains.This is interesting. Please tell me, what my political gains are from “stupid picking of scriptures”?

 

[notredame_999]

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.

Now, you mention the innocent who may be killed inside the prison. The Church places the moral burden on the state to minimize the possibility of such behavior.

One of the points that Pope John Paul made in Evangelium Vitae is that Catholics are often too eager to relieve their governments of moral responsibility for the dignity of human life, even that of a criminal.

He also makes another point that he says may never be denied by any Catholic, the laws that govern the death penalty are often very unjust and unjustly applied. The Church does not write for the USA alone. She preaches to the world. The death penalty is a universal question. We all know that it is often applied very unfairly. For example, in certain Muslim countries, you can be executed for converting to Christianity, for being gay, for adultery, for abortion and so forth. In Communist countries you can be executed for opposing the regime. In our USA you can be executed if you don’t have enough money for a defense and you can win your freedom if you have enough money to hire the right law firm or if you have a high profile case.

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.

The other point that the Church taught in Evangelium Vitae and to which she called for assent to the Ordinary Magisterium was to the issue of democracy. The Church made it very clear that in our modern world we have a cult to democracy and that such a cult is always morally wrong. Democracy is a means to a good, not a good in and of itself. Democracy has been the cause of much evil, such as abortion, the unjust application of the death penalty, the birth of laws that violate revealed truths and more. Therefore, the nations of the world have no moral right to vote in laws that violate human dignity and human life, because this is not the purpose of democracy. Pope John Paul stated that the Church (observe that he speaks for the Church), that the Church only acknowledges the right of the democratic vote for the execution of the common good as has been revealed by God. However, the Catholic Church retains full and exclusive authority to decide what is revealed by God and what is not.

On the other hand, Pope Benedict has also added to this discussion by saying that there is a rightful secularity. Secularism is never admissible. Secularity is a given, instilled in man by Divine design. This means that there are areas where the Church may allow the secular state to made decisions and enact laws without her intervention and the state need not use the democratic process. It can use either a democratic or an autocratic model, as long as that process creates secular structures for the common good and that respect the dignity of man and the sacredness of all life.

You may want to read Evangelium Vitae. It’s not a long document. It’s very well written and it’s not so complex that one needs a theological decoder ring to understand it.

Let’s put it this way, if I understand it, most people should be able to understand it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

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.

Like I said earlier, this whole idea of abolishing capital punishment comes from the liberal enlightenment, and it was the church who has historically defended it. Because liberalism has swept through the church, the two have switched roles.

The Church has no business getting in the middle of a trial that reached a guilty verdict simply because the victim was poor and used a public defender.

 

[JReducation]

• Genesis 9:6: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God.”
• From the Catholic Encyclopedia: The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.
• **St. Agustine **(Doctor of the Church), in The City of God: *The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.*

• **St. Thomas Aqunias **(Doctor of the Church), in his Summa Theologiae: Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
• St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa contra gentiles: The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”

The fact that Popes JPII and Benedict XVI are against the DP does not mean that their personal opinion is catholic doctrine. Neither have ever made dogmatic definitions on the matter, and if they were to, they would have to admit that the DP is legitimate, because that is the perrenial teaching of the CC.

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. You can go to scripture and find where Jesus challenges the authority of the Jews who want to kill the woman caught in adultery and he challenges the Law of Moses regarding the matter, which was written into the Deutorocanonical books. You can find in Genesis God threatening anyone who tries to take Cain’s life. You can cite the scriptures where they authorize the killing of women and children in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament where Jesus says that these laws had been given to the Jews, because their anscestors were of hard hearts.

St. Augustine speaks about exceptions to the law. Pope John Paul II makes clear what those exceptions are for today. The only exception allowed for today is when it is impossible to stop a person who is a threat.

St. Thomas Aquinas would not find argument with the Pope. Aquinas uses the word “justly executed.” Pope John Paul has said that it is very rare for an execution to be justified. He has not denied just execution. He has simply pointed out that those just executions rarely exist.

Finally, do you believe that either Augustine or Aquinas would try to debate this point with a pope?

If we want to invoke the memory and teaching of holy men as Augustine and Acquinas, let us also duplicate their love for the Pontiff and their obedience in our own lives. It’s too easy to quote them, but not imitate their love and their humility before the authority of the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[notredame_999]

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. You can go to scripture and find where Jesus challenges the authority of the Jews who want to kill the woman caught in adultery and he challenges the Law of Moses regarding the matter, which was written into the Deutorocanonical books. You can find in Genesis God threatening anyone who tries to take Cain’s life. You can cite the scriptures where they authorize the killing of women and children in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament where Jesus says that these laws had been given to the Jews, because their anscestors were of hard hearts.

St. Augustine speaks about exceptions to the law. Pope John Paul II makes clear what those exceptions are for today. The only exception allowed for today is when it is impossible to stop a person who is a threat.

St. Thomas Aquinas would not find argument with the Pope. Aquinas uses the word “justly executed.” Pope John Paul has said that it is very rare for an execution to be justified. He has not denied just execution. He has simply pointed out that those just executions rarely exist.

Finally, do you believe that either Augustine or Aquinas would try to debate this point with a pope?

If we want to invoke the memory and teaching of holy men as Augustine and Acquinas, let us also duplicate their love for the Pontiff and their obedience in our own lives. It’s too easy to quote them, but not imitate their love and their humility before the authority of the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother I have a question for you and I am completely serious. If you know for sure, 100%, that a legally sane 30 year old man broke into someone’s home in the middle of the night, kidnapped a 4 year old girl, raped her repeatedly, then slit her throat, then cut her body a part limb by limb, and finally dumped her body in a forest, would you contend that the state has a valid reason to execute this individual? Even if they have the ability to hold in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

I hate to be so graphic, but this is the world we live in.

 

[JReducation]

Brother I have a question for you and I am completely serious. If you know for sure, 100%, that a legally sane 30 year old man broke into someone’s home in the middle of the night, kidnapped a 4 year old girl, raped her repeatedly, then slit her throat, then cut her body a part limb by limb, and finally dumped her body in a forest, would you contend that the state has a valid reason to execute this individual? Even if they have the ability to hold in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

I hate to be so graphic, but this is the world we live in.

The bolded part of your post answers the question. If they have the ability to do keep this person from ever commiting such a heinous crime again, they have the moral obligation to make use of that resource.

The goal in moral law is to do the highest good, not to execute the person. Execution of a person who commits a crime is rarely the highest good. This is why the saints and now the popes keep using such words such as “exception and just”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[santodomingo]

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. You can go to scripture and find where Jesus challenges the authority of the Jews who want to kill the woman caught in adultery and he challenges the Law of Moses regarding the matter, which was written into the Deutorocanonical books. You can find in Genesis God threatening anyone who tries to take Cain’s life. You can cite the scriptures where they authorize the killing of women and children in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament where Jesus says that these laws had been given to the Jews, because their anscestors were of hard hearts.

St. Augustine speaks about exceptions to the law. Pope John Paul II makes clear what those exceptions are for today. The only exception allowed for today is when it is impossible to stop a person who is a threat.

St. Thomas Aquinas would not find argument with the Pope. Aquinas uses the word “justly executed.” Pope John Paul has said that it is very rare for an execution to be justified. He has not denied just execution. He has simply pointed out that those just executions rarely exist.

Finally, do you believe that either Augustine or Aquinas would try to debate this point with a pope?

If we want to invoke the memory and teaching of holy men as Augustine and Acquinas, let us also duplicate their love for the Pontiff and their obedience in our own lives. It’s too easy to quote them, but not imitate their love and their humility before the authority of the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Brother in Christ,
I appreciate all you say.Believe me, I am not protestant, nor am I reaching conclusions based on my “personal interpretation” of Scripture. I am simply asserting what the CC has always taught. Surely you are able to understand that there is a contradiction between JPII´s teaching on the DP and everything that came before him. The fact is that JPII REFUSES to admit that the DP has a retributive function, that is wholly justified by Holy Scripture, and by the teaching of countless Popes.

You urge me to imitate St. Augustine and St. Thomas in their obedience towards the Roman Pontif, but I ask you: which pontif is right?