capital punishment

[billcu1]

Would you please tell me where I can find this doctrine? It seems to me that the first part of your statement contradicts the second part.

I agree there is no change in doctrine. The doctrine that government has the right to kill is intact.

Absolutely true
Not understanding

Not what the catechism states. Perhaps you don’t mean It the way it reads? The Catechism makes it clear that killing in self defense is not forbidden.

I wouldn’t use words such as sacrifice. A person who is justifiably executed is NOT a sacrifice. That term should only be used for Jesus.
I would believe that as you state Divine Good may be served by the defense of society as the Catechism states emphasis mine

I personally agree with the letter the Pontiff sent to the international committee against the death penalty. And for the reasons he stated. I am assuming this is personal opinion and is in no way an ecclessiastic decision nor has any authority in the church.

Bill

 

[adrift]

I personally agree with the letter the Pontiff sent to the international committee against the death penalty. And for the reasons he stated. I am assuming this is personal opinion and is in no way an ecclessiastic decision nor has any authority in the church.

Bill

Bill,
your position is very reasonable and correct. The problem is that there are those who want to go beyond it.

 

[billcu1]

Bill,
your position is very reasonable and correct. The problem is that there are those who want to go beyond it.

People think there is some kind of justice in killing another. Most people don’t know what Justice is. As Francis said they are “fomenting revenge”.

Bill

 

[bjryman]

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.

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.

Of course in ancient Roman times, capital punishment was used as an effective deterent. Making it overt, terrible, painful, was thought to make others think twice about defing the Empire. The fact was and is today, that the total population could/can overwhelm the police and take over unless they have respect and a bit of fear of outcome.

Of course, the horrible reality of terroism is that martyrdom is seen to be proactive, were death is not feared but welcomed. In that case, almost no deterent works.

We in US have not yet faced fully that eventuality. Thus we have the luxury of treating vicious, evil, criminals with more compassion than they did to their victims.

 

[Ender]

You quote Pope StJPII from a teaching on the Sacrament of Penance and mans relationship with God in that context… not regarding human law and penal punishment.

Actually his General Audience was about indulgences and he was speaking of temporal punishment. Nor was he referring solely to those punishments we will receive in the next life as he used a specific example of a punishment to be endured in this one. Moreover the judge who sentences a criminal is in fact God’s minister so his comment is directly relevant to the application of human law. There are not two definitions of punishment, one referring to man’s relation with God and the other with his relation to society. There is only one definition and it encompasses both.

Next you quote(mine) Aquinas (although you attribute it to Augustine) again, talking about the nature of sacramental penance not penal punishment.

Well, I’ll give you the part about it being Aquinas rather than Augustine, but you misstate the rest of it. He is absolutely not talking about sacramental penance rather than “penal punishment” (as if there was a distinction between the two). Here is an earlier selection from that same section (Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk III, ch 151)Now the will must withdraw from sin by taking the course contrary to that which led it into sin. But it was led into sin by appetite and delight in inferior things. Therefore it must withdraw from sin by certain penal inflictions.
It is not reasonable to suggest the church has two different understandings of punishment. The church has one truth that is universally applicable.

The last quote is irrelevant. Pro death penalty US centric arguments don’t speak for the Church.

In other words since you have no response to his comments you will close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and ignore them.

In fact, what Aquinas does say in regards to the medicinal nature of human punishment is this…“Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others…

Other than using “medicine” and “punishment” in the same sentence this says nothing at all about the medicinal nature of punishment. This discusses how it is used, not what it is.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’ve been trying to understand what you mean by ‘in the absence of extenuating circumstances’.

I’m trying to avoid objections about specific instances where capital punishment is not appropriate by granting that exceptions occur. I don’t want to get the discussion sidetracked by having to deal with what those exceptions may be.

Ender

 

[billcu1]

Of course in ancient Roman times, capital punishment was used as an effective deterent. Making it overt, terrible, painful, was thought to make others think twice about defing the Empire. The fact was and is today, that the total population could/can overwhelm the police and take over unless they have respect and a bit of fear of outcome.

Of course, the horrible reality of terroism is that martyrdom is seen to be proactive, were death is not feared but welcomed. In that case, almost no deterent works.

We in US have not yet faced fully that eventuality. Thus we have the luxury of treating vicious, evil, criminals with more compassion than they did to their victims.

There have been many down through history that have faced the challenges of persons who don’t care about dying. In warfare you simply kill them all. The Generals know war they have studied it. They aren’t allowed by the commander in chief at times to do their job. They aks for so many troops and so much equipment. The President gives them half that. So they can’t do their job and then says miitary means doesn’t work. US politics. Terrorism has never been anything other than guerrilla warfare.

Bill

 

[Ender]

I’m wanting to understand about Enders perspective is by what measure can we come to the conclusion that death is the ‘default’ for murder, barring extenuating circumstances?

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Dulles)
I cite this not to raise the issue of intrinsic evil but to point out that the church herself has always referenced Genesis in explaining her position on capital punishment. Since the church has always cited this passage (and still does today, see CCC 2260), what reason is there for ignoring what it plainly says: that death is the default punishment for murder?

The Church is saying that the default is preservation of life because human life is inviolable and his relationship with God is such that he is infused with dignity by virtue of that Fatherly love. The Church is presenting a truth of doctrine that everyone deserves to live, even the worst criminal… barring extenuating circumstances of which there are few that can be properly justified these days.

No, this is simply your perspective on what the church teaches; nowhere does she actually teach this. Furthermore your position contradicts what the church teaches in that you claim “everyone deserves to live” while the church says that those who are a threat may be executed. These cannot both be true.

This isn’t a change of doctrine because the Church in the past has always regarded the act of killing a human being, as defiling a person regardless of whether it was murder or other.

If this was true then the church would be guilty of hypocrisy in believing an execution defiled a person yet supporting it anyway.

However, by Christs death for us, we are raised above that pagan awareness, to know of the immense esteem within which God holds man.

Actually, the church locates the source of man’s innate dignity in Gn 9:5-6.*The conviction of right reason and the certainty of faith that human life, from its conception to natural death belongs to God and not to the human being, gives the human being that sacred character and personal dignity which the one legal and correct moral attitude inspires: profound respect. For the Lord of life said: “For your life-blood I will surely require a reckoning… for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9: 5-6). *(BXVI)

Ender seems to me to be relying on a belief that the death of a murderer is essential for this very purpose. That divine good is somehow served directly by the sacrifice of the murderers life.

No matter how often I point this out it doesn’t seem to sink in: this is your interpretation, not mine.

That’s why I want to know from him, what Church justification he is using to defend CP, that trumps the natural moral law which exists within the heart of every person whether they have known faith in God or not.

Capital punishment does not contradict the natural law.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for* in the law of nature**, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.”* (St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Capital punishment does not contradict the natural law.

I am not sure about this. It seems like it is a matter of opinion. Take for example, the case of burning St. Joan of Arc at the stake. Burning a person alive like that seems to be a serious offense to human dignity and as well seems to go against the present teaching regarding the immorality of torture.

 

[billcu1]

I am not sure about this. It seems like it is a matter of opinion. Take for example, the case of burning St. Joan of Arc at the stake. Burning a person alive like that seems to be a serious offense to human dignity and as well seems to go against the present teaching regarding the immorality of torture.

Whether the murder is by criminal or legal order of the state. There is no help to victims by killing. It is fomenting revenge. What is just and what does justice mean? That needs to be understood.

Bill

 

[adrift]

Whether the murder is by criminal or legal order of the state.

The Church’s position is that execution by the state is not murder.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Here is the Catechism definition of Justice

1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven

You might also consider this as well

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

1. Traditionally the Church does not prohibit Capitol Punishment and still doesn’t
2. The Church does not believe it is necessary.
3. The Church does not consider Capitol Punishment murder
4. Capitol Punishment is not ipso fact contrary to justice.

 

[Tomdstone]

Capitol Punishment is not ipso fact contrary to justice.

Is it just to burn someone alive at the stake? Why would it not be condemned as painful torture?

 

[Rau]

1. The Church does not believe it is necessary.

Do you think that is an accurate characterization of the message of Evangelium Vitae and the statements in the Catechism, which include a direction not to use it except in very specific circumstances? “Authority will limit itself …” Etc.

You don’t think those documents assert that CP is an exceptionally poor choice in most circumstances?

 

[adrift]

Do you think that is an accurate characterization of the message of Evangelium Vitae and the statements in the Catechism, which include a direction not to use it except in very specific circumstances? “Authority will limit itself …” Etc.

You don’t think those documents assert that CP is an exceptionally poor choice in most circumstances?

I believe it is accurate. I don’t understand why you take issue with my interpretation. Not to use it except in very specific circumstances is the same to me as it not be necessary because other means will suffice.

 

[adrift]

Is it just to burn someone alive at the stake? Why would it not be condemned as painful torture?

Your question is incomplete. What is the “it” you are referring to. Your comment has no relation to what I posted. It is regrettable that burning at the stake was used but you have failed to provide is the understanding of the people at the time. People might agree that marrying a person of 12 is pedophilia. The mind set of the time did not. You are trying to go back to the morals of the time and apply your morals of today. Provide something of what the people of that time considered torture. Today people consider hanging torture. It is our perspective. It was not what people of hundred years ago.

I posted this before perhaps you missed it

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors

 

[Rau]

I believe it is accurate. I don’t understand why you take issue with my interpretation. Not to use it except in very specific circumstances is the same to me as it not be necessary because other means will suffice.

You could not more understate the position the Church has put if you tried! I find such understatement to be a tad disingenuous. If one’s wife dies in a car accident leaving young children, one might say it accurate to call that ‘an inconvenient event’. But I’d be astonished if anyone thought that was a reasonable characterisation of the event.

By the way, I believe Ender argues a reverse of that statement, viz: CP is generally the appropriate punishment (for murder) unless special circumstances weigh against it. I only mention this because I previously thought you and Ender were entirely on the same wavelength.

 

[Tomdstone]

Your question is incomplete. What is the “it” you are referring to.

The “it” refers to burning at the stake. Is burning at the stake a morally acceptable form of capital punishment?

 

[Tomdstone]

There is not ONE moral teaching of the Church that was changed.

Let’s take the example of burning someone alive at the stake. In the past it was taught that this was acceptable, but today I doubt that there is anyone who will say that it is an acceptable way to carry out the death penalty.

 

[adrift]

Let’s take the example of burning someone alive at the stake. In the past it was taught that this was acceptable, but today I doubt that there is anyone who will say that it is an acceptable way to carry out the death penalty.

I answered this. You post the same thing over and over ignoring the answers given.

 

[Tomdstone]

I answered this. You post the same thing over and over ignoring the answers given.

Your response was that the Church forbade clerics to shed blood. But this did not answer the question about burning someone at the stake. You claim:
adrift;:

There is not ONE moral teaching of the Church that was changed.

The Church allowed burning at the stake in the past. Today it does not, isn’t that true?. That is one teaching that has changed.
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with changing the teaching on this. People do the best they can under the circumstances and conditions. Generally, Christians of good will work toward better solutions as time progresses.