B
billcu1
Guest
Does the CCC say anything about capital punishment? I’m not finding anything in mine.
Bill
Bill
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (2306)
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”68
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”68
T
Tomdstone
Guest
In the case of burning people at the stake, for example St. Joan of Arc, was this the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor?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. (2306)
L
lmelahn
Guest
No. Apart from the injustice of St. Joan’s accusations, burning at the stake is never justifiable under any circumstances. If the state must use the death penalty, it is obligated to minimize the pain as much as that is reasonably possible.In the case of burning people at the stake, for example St. Joan of Arc, was this the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor?
The death penalty is always inflicted reluctantly, and it will necessarily cause suffering in the one that receives it. However, means of execution that are particularly painful and cruel or are meant to inspire terror by their cruelty—such as burning a person alive—are to be excluded absolutely.
It is most unfortunate that burning at the stake was ever employed: sometimes a society has cultural norms that are contrary to morality, which makes it difficult for people to understand that certain behaviors are wrong. That was the case in Medieval Europe, when such practices were, unfortunately, common.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Was burning at the stake ever approved by the Church?burning at the stake is never justifiable under any circumstances…
D
DakiniArtist
Guest
No. The Church was complicit in the burnings, at times, but she never approved this.Was burning at the stake ever approved by the Church?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why then were people who opposed burning at the stake excommunicated?No. The Church was complicit in the burnings, at times, but she never approved this.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The proposition 33 was condemned:
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Then how do you explain the condemnation of proposition 33 in exsurge Domine?No. The Church was complicit in the burnings, at times, but she never approved this.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Then how do you explain the condemnation of proposition 33 in exsurge Domine?No. The Church was complicit in the burnings, at times, but she never approved this.
This belief was condemned by the pope as shown above?… burning at the stake is never justifiable under any circumstances…
R
Rau
Guest
A lengthier (and current) treatment of capital punishment will be found on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=950878
Capital Punishment is not intrinsically evil, but its application (like all acts) needs to be moral. The Intention needs to be good. And the act needs to have consequences which are on balance good. The debate is principally about what circumstances fulfil, or do no fulfil, this last requirement.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=950878
Capital Punishment is not intrinsically evil, but its application (like all acts) needs to be moral. The Intention needs to be good. And the act needs to have consequences which are on balance good. The debate is principally about what circumstances fulfil, or do no fulfil, this last requirement.
B
billcu1
Guest
Capital punishment to me seems to not be for the public good as much as for vengence. It’s not so much that it’s the only way to take care of things a misinformed public expects certain things to result in the death penalty because of the crime. Not the ability to control the offender. In the US things are leaning IMO to a police state. Prosecutors are vindictive and hateful. So much anymore is a crime and there is less and less opportunity to redeem oneself. The Police are not questioned and their word goes. The courts find exclusively for them. And there has been some violence in the US lately because of police. Actions are based on emotion and not reasoning. And political opportunism.A lengthier (and current) treatment of capital punishment will be found on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=950878
Capital Punishment is not intrinsically evil, but its application (like all acts) needs to be moral. The Intention needs to be good. And the act needs to have consequences which are on balance good. The debate is principally about what circumstances fulfil, or do no fulfill, this last requirement.
Code:
In a recent court opinion I read Justice Sotomayer mentions "objective" police. I know quite a few police officers and I have never met an "objective" police officer. They are terrified of dogs and will shoot and ask questions later. Their judgment is not questioned. One came to my apt one time a neighbor called them. I got my mom's dog and was going to bring him in the house. The officer said "Yeah that's right. I've been known to shoot dogs."
G
GEddie
Guest
Ending a healthy human life is always painful, and always intended to terrorize would-be criminals.
If anything, the modern American drive to sanitize state execution has only made matters worse.
IMNAAHO.
ICXC NIKA
If anything, the modern American drive to sanitize state execution has only made matters worse.
IMNAAHO.
ICXC NIKA
I
Ignatius
Guest
They weren’t, I don’t believe that there is any evidence that anyone was ever excommunicated for opposition to burning at the stake.Why then were people who opposed burning at the stake excommunicated?
B
billcu1
Guest
If someone is really a criminal I don’t think they care about execution or not. I think there are some non sequitors in here. Unfortunately people don’t think or “reason” for the most part. There have been some terrible problems with executions here in the US several people have been executed and gasped and convulsed and took quite a while to die. I can see the prosecutors giggling about it.Ending a healthy human life is always painful, and always intended to terrorize would-be criminals.
If anything, the modern American drive to sanitize state execution has only made matters worse.
IMNAAHO.
ICXC NIKA
Bill
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So if John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty is prudential for our time, wouldn’t all the social and moral teachings of the Church be in jeopardy? Anyone can claim “well that was just prudential, just for that age and situation”
R
Rau
Guest
Not sure which post you are responding to… However, I should think there are not so many cases in which there is a lack of clarity of the doctrinal vs. prudential nature of what is being said.So if John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty is prudential for our time, wouldn’t all the social and moral teachings of the Church be in jeopardy? Anyone can claim “well that was just prudential, just for that age and situation”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
On the other thread on dp on this thread people were squaring off on whether John Paul II meant to teach that it is doctrine that the death penalty can only be used for self-defense, or whether he was speaking just for the modern situation. That is, John Paul II was speaking prudentially not only when he specifically said he was, but even when he did not. Before the thread closed I did get a chance to finish my discussion with Ender,
But how then do we know other Church moral teachings are not prudential-situational?
But how then do we know other Church moral teachings are not prudential-situational?
R
Rau
Guest
Can you think of another teaching where that doubt might arise?On the other thread on dp on this thread people were squaring off on whether John Paul II meant to teach that it is doctrine that the death penalty can only be used for self-defense, or whether he was speaking just for the modern situation. That is, John Paul II was speaking prudentially not only when he specifically said he was, but even when he did not. Before the thread closed I did get a chance to finish my discussion with Ender,
But how then do we know other Church moral teachings are not prudential-situational?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.