J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Yes I would say that is a fair assessment.
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.
L
LokisMom
Guest
Exactly!Me too, but that doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything. The Republican Party is not my Magesterium !
L
LokisMom
Guest
Yeah, actually this is true. Especially the more fundamentalist Christians in particular.From what I glean, it is more the Protestant conservatives that are pro-DP rather than Catholic conservatives.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
The second qualification, in the same quote, as I highlighted, is this:SNIP Aquinas qualifies legitimate execution with " If a man is a danger to the community". Community safety and the common good is the ultimate goal of all civil punishment.
and so on and so on.
“Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted”
As the Church states, redress or justice is primary, as represented by that quote
Safety is secondary, as represented by your highlighted quote.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Reconsider. Likely 20 or so Popes, Saints, Catholic theologians or biblical scholars have been cited, so far, in support of the death penalty.Yeah, actually this is true. Especially the more fundamentalist Christians in particular.
Here is another - Please read:
Categorical Pardon: On the Argument for Abolishing Capital Punishment, J. Budziszewski, 16 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 43 (2002).
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=ndjlepp
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Sorry bud, you will never convince us that you know better than the Popes, Second Vatican Council, USCCB, and infallible MagesteriumReconsider. Likely 20 or so Popes, Saints, Catholic theologians or biblical scholars have been cited, so far, in support of the death penalty.
Here is another - Please read:
Categorical Pardon: On the Argument for Abolishing Capital Punishment, J. Budziszewski, 16 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 43 (2002).
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=ndjlepp
To think they have never read what you present…if only they would read Thomas Aquinas and the Saints and Popes and Theologians, they would conclude you are right and we should stop trying to abolish the death penalty!
It appears you do not believe in the authority of the church. You are this quite unconvincing.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The first and foremost duty of the state is to promote and safeguard the common good. Within that context punishment redresses the disorder caused. The punishments established by man are informed by the common good of the community they serve. They have to redress the disorder to the fraternity of man. If they don’t do that… if they serve only someones definition of Gods will in this matter… they are no longer just punishments but misconstrued interpretations. They are not serving justice. That is the reason why the death penalty is now cruel and unnecessary.The second qualification, in the same quote, as I highlighted, is this:
“Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted”
As the Church states, redress or justice is primary, as represented by that quote
Safety is secondary, as represented by your highlighted quote.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I already explained this to you. The Magisterium serves the people of the age. The words they speak and write reflect guidance on the Church position in relation to the issues being faced by the people and the world at the time. Human language does not have the type of spectrum that you are assuming as to address everybody in every circumstance at all time. If the Eskimos were describing the justification for killing polar bears for fur skins in a time before other products for clothing was invented, as an expression of what is good and humane… then in modern times described the moral wrong of killing polar bears for fur skins, as the proper humane position… they are NOT contradicting the primary principle they are addressing. They both support a primary principle by saying different things at different times. This is how the Church serves us and role of the papacy from age to age.Reconsider. Likely 20 or so Popes, Saints, Catholic theologians or biblical scholars have been cited, so far, in support of the death penalty.
Here is another - Please read:
Categorical Pardon: On the Argument for Abolishing Capital Punishment, J. Budziszewski, 16 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 43 (2002).
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=ndjlepp
D
dudleysharp
Guest
The common good, the fraternity of man, the community and defense of society are all better served by the death penalty than by it’s alleged alternative, a life sentence.The first and foremost duty of the state is to promote and safeguard the common good. Within that context punishment redresses the disorder caused. The punishments established by man are informed by the common good of the community they serve. They have to redress the disorder to the fraternity of man. If they don’t do that… if they serve only someones definition of Gods will in this matter… they are no longer just punishments but misconstrued interpretations. They are not serving justice. That is the reason why the death penalty is now cruel and unnecessary.
In three ways, the death penalty protects the common good, the fraternity of man, the community better than does a life sentence and is, therefore, a better defender of society.
As reviewed:
The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
L
LongingSoul
Guest
For the last century around the first world especially, there has been a growing distaste for the death penalty precisely because it is not reflective of the proper unity and civility that people recognise as beneficial to their common life. Statistics are just so minimally helpful in expressing the true vision shared by the collective heart. The crime figures which more often than not are overrepresented by certain sections of society that struggle to take an equal place as a rule…tell a story of more than just the act of the crime. Societies understand that if they fail to address this side of things… true justice is not served at all. The growing appreciation of mans equality and true dignity, makes these issues more clear and demanding. It is in this light, that it can clearly be seen that recourse to execution is not redressing the disorder and that there is a community demand to be sparing with death to promote the value of the life of human beings. That is justice being served and the disorder being redressed within the context of the common good.The common good, the fraternity of man, the community and defense of society are all better served by the death penalty than by it’s alleged alternative, a life sentence.
In three ways, the death penalty protects the common good, the fraternity of man, the community better than does a life sentence and is, therefore, a better defender of society.
As reviewed:
The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
E
Ender
Guest
How are innocent lives at risk when a murder is in prison for life??
- Most murderers are not put in prison for life.
- Murders occur within prisons, both guards and other prisoners. Should we not take into account the murder of prisoners?
- Prisoners, murderers included, communicate with cronies on the outside via, among other methods, cell phones. There were over 9,000 cell phones confiscated just within the California system in 2013. A number of murders and attacks have been instigated by prisoners already serving life sentences.
I am responding to the specific argument that the execution of one innocent person is unacceptable by pointing out that neither the choice to execute or to incarcerate offers a risk free option. Innocents are at risk whichever choice is made, and as dudleysharp has pointed out the statistics seem to be unequivocal on this point: innocents are more at risk when murderers are not executed than when they are.Also, you now are using the secondary (in your opinion) argument of protection as opposed to justice
By this reasoning it would equally be an injustice (less severe perhaps but an injustice nonetheless) when an innocent man is imprisoned. Should we stop sending anyone to prison because of this? In fact, the accidental punishment of an innocent man is not an injustice but a tragedy. It is no different than a physician making an incorrect diagnosis leading to a treatment that kills his patient. If the physician (or the legal system) has attempted to do what is right, failure in the attempt is a tragic error, not a culpable injustice.The justice argument is no good when the killed is innocent. That in fact is injustice.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Perhaps, but that qualification did not apply to this part of his statement:* Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.Aquinas qualifies legitimate execution with " If a man is a danger to the community".
*
Community safety is absolutely not the ultimate goal of punishment, at least according to the church. The primary objective is retribution, not protection.Community safety and the common good is the ultimate goal of all civil punishment.
Ender
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
So it sounds like an argument for prison reform not death of people. This argument of yours is the same one some people use for abortion. “If the child is unwanted and will likely grow up to be a criminal we should just abort the baby.” Some have even cited decreased crime stats 20yrs post ROW V WADE to support this.
- Most murderers are not put in prison for life.
- Murders occur within prisons, both guards and other prisoners. Should we not take into account the murder of prisoners?
- Prisoners, murderers included, communicate with cronies on the outside via, among other methods, cell phones. There were over 9,000 cell phones confiscated just within the California system in 2013. A number of murders and attacks have been instigated by prisoners already serving life sentences.
This is the first I heard that being dead, ceasing to exist, meeting judgement, taking all chance of changing eternal destiny, is the same as being alive and imprisoned.I am responding to the specific argument that the execution of one innocent person is unacceptable by pointing out that neither the choice to execute or to incarcerate offers a risk free option. Innocents are at risk whichever choice is made, and as dudleysharp has pointed out the statistics seem to be unequivocal on this point: innocents are more at risk when murderers are not executed than when they are.
Frankly sir, it’s absurd
By this reasoning it would equally be an injustice (less severe perhaps but an injustice nonetheless) when an innocent man is imprisoned. Should we stop sending anyone to prison because of this? In fact, the accidental punishment of an innocent man is not an injustice but a tragedy. It is no different than a physician making an incorrect diagnosis leading to a treatment that kills his patient. If the physician (or the legal system) has attempted to do what is right, failure in the attempt is a tragic error, not a culpable injustice.
The HUGE difference between the physician and the state executioner is need. There is no need to execute. The idea of first do no harm is in no way applicable to executions.Ender
Again, I stand with our popes and bishops on this issue.
E
Ender
Guest
No, I never made that argument. If you need me to be more precise I’ll phrase my argument this way: it is a statistical certainty that some percentage of incarcerated murderers will kill again. This is true both of murderers released from prison as well as those imprisoned for life.You make the erroneous argument that if we don’t execute a murderer, (s)he will invariably murder again.
Not executing does not equal releasing from prison.
Ender
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999
Twenty-five years ago, our Conference of bishops first called for an end to the death penalty. We renew this call to seize a new moment and new momentum. This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
When Cain killed Abel, God did not end Cain’s life. Instead, he sent Cain into exile, not only sparing his life but protecting it by putting a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight (Gn 4:15).
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
When the state, in our names and with our taxes, ends a human life despite having non-lethal alternatives, it suggests that society can overcome violence with violence. The use of the death penalty ought to be abandoned not only for what it does to those who are executed, but for what it does to all of society.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
Our faith and Catholic teaching offer a moral framework for choices about the use of the death penalty. A principled Catholic response to crime and punishment is rooted in our convictions about good and evil, sin and redemption, justice and mercy. It is also shaped by our commitment to the life and dignity of every human person, and the common good. The opening chapters of the Book of Genesis teach that every life is a precious gift from God (see Genesis 2:7, 21-23). This gift must be respected and protected.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
[Punishment] 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. John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, [Punishment] 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.
—John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect peoples 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.
—The Catechism of the Catholic Church
For the Catholic community, this issue – like all life issues – is more than public policy. It involves our faith and the central principle that human life is sacred. Church teaching on the life and dignity of every human person should guide all our decisions about life, including the use of the death penalty. We are called to reflect on what the Lords command, You shall not kill (Ex 20:13) means for us today.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II told us that we have an inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.18 This Catholic campaign brings us together for common action to end the use of the death penalty, to reject a culture of death, and to build a culture of life. It poses an old and fundamental choice: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:19)
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999
Twenty-five years ago, our Conference of bishops first called for an end to the death penalty. We renew this call to seize a new moment and new momentum. This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
When Cain killed Abel, God did not end Cain’s life. Instead, he sent Cain into exile, not only sparing his life but protecting it by putting a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight (Gn 4:15).
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
When the state, in our names and with our taxes, ends a human life despite having non-lethal alternatives, it suggests that society can overcome violence with violence. The use of the death penalty ought to be abandoned not only for what it does to those who are executed, but for what it does to all of society.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
Our faith and Catholic teaching offer a moral framework for choices about the use of the death penalty. A principled Catholic response to crime and punishment is rooted in our convictions about good and evil, sin and redemption, justice and mercy. It is also shaped by our commitment to the life and dignity of every human person, and the common good. The opening chapters of the Book of Genesis teach that every life is a precious gift from God (see Genesis 2:7, 21-23). This gift must be respected and protected.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
[Punishment] 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. John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, [Punishment] 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.
—John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect peoples 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.
—The Catechism of the Catholic Church
For the Catholic community, this issue – like all life issues – is more than public policy. It involves our faith and the central principle that human life is sacred. Church teaching on the life and dignity of every human person should guide all our decisions about life, including the use of the death penalty. We are called to reflect on what the Lords command, You shall not kill (Ex 20:13) means for us today.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II told us that we have an inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.18 This Catholic campaign brings us together for common action to end the use of the death penalty, to reject a culture of death, and to build a culture of life. It poses an old and fundamental choice: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:19)
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
E
Ender
Guest
The church has always recognized that there may be valid prudential opposition to the use of capital punishment. The past three popes have raised such prudential arguments, but their opposition to its use in modern societies is not the same as saying its use is immoral. They are merely saying it is unwise, thus there is no contradiction with what the church has always taught - and teaches today - about capital punishment.I’m not sure what this means. To clarify, are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis are all going against church teaching by believing that the death penalty is no longer necessary to keep society safe and thus being against it?
Ender
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
What is the statistics on a man kept in a solitary cell killing again? How many assigned to death row (solitary) kill again?No, I never made that argument. If you need me to be more precise I’ll phrase my argument this way: it is a statistical certainty that some percentage of incarcerated murderers will kill again. This is true both of murderers released from prison as well as those imprisoned for life.
Ender
Again an argument for reform of prisons perhaps, not the death penalty.
Enough with made up stats.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.The church has always recognized that there may be valid prudential opposition to the use of capital punishment. The past three popes have raised such prudential arguments, but their opposition to its use in modern societies is not the same as saying its use is immoral. They are merely saying it is unwise, thus there is no contradiction with what the church has always taught - and teaches today - about capital punishment.
Ender
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999
What is the morality status of “cruelty”
E
Ender
Guest
Is this another example of tongue-in-cheek exaggeration or is this the insult I thought your other comment was?Most practicing Catholics align with the conservative republicans who like to execute every one like the Wild West.
Yet another area where political affiliation skews ones Christian practice.
Ender
L
LokisMom
Guest
I meant for the here and now… in the 21st century, not in the past 2000 years in general.Reconsider. Likely 20 or so Popes, Saints, Catholic theologians or biblical scholars have been cited, so far, in support of the death penalty.
Here is another - Please read:
Categorical Pardon: On the Argument for Abolishing Capital Punishment, J. Budziszewski, 16 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 43 (2002).
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=ndjlepp
- Status
- Not open for further replies.