Catholics are free to vote/support on pro-death penalty issues, right?

[CWBetts]

Thanks Ender!

I agree about JPII. I think he was influenced by the atheist regimes which he saw slaughter millions using “capital punishment.” And I think we do well to carefully weigh whether the death penalty really accomplishes those conditions which would justify it, which is the point JPII was making. But so many today (even Bishops) are making statements which elevate capital punishment to a “life issue,” implying that we have the same kind of duty to oppose it as we do to oppose abortion.

I think this kind of confusion is dangerous. We must distinguish those situations (such as abortion or euthanasia) where taking a life is intrinsically evil from those (such as just war and capital punishment) where it is not. This doesn’t (as some posters have accused) give us free rein to use capital punishment at will, but it does mean that we may support it as a policy, when it is used to deter, to protect the public, and to exact justice.

Personally, I don’t support the death penalty here in the U.S., but I do support the right to have that view, and I recognize that the Church gives us freedom in that area.

It IS a life issue. It deals with the life of one who was created in the image and likeness of God. Who has the right to destroy a creation other than its creator? Who gets to make the decision on what crimes are worthy of death? If you use the Scriptures, that would include adulterers and pagans. Are those worthy of death? By not elevating this to the status of a life issue, you have no footing is condemning those who kill abortionists. We are not of the world. We need to provide the world an example by opposing the death penalty, as well as leading the charge in other life issues.

 

[RosaMystica]

It IS a life issue. It deals with the life of one who was created in the image and likeness of God. Who has the right to destroy a creation other than its creator? Who gets to make the decision on what crimes are worthy of death? If you use the Scriptures, that would include adulterers and pagans. Are those worthy of death? By not elevating this to the status of a life issue, you have no footing is condemning those who kill abortionists. We are not of the world. We need to provide the world an example by opposing the death penalty, as well as leading the charge in other life issues.

I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. When I used the term “life issue,” I meant issues involving the taking of innocent life, as in the case of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.

Using your reasoning, almost any moral claim could be considered a “life issue,” since things like poverty, nutrition and environment can all contribute to a person’s ability to live. Even traffic laws could be called “life issues,” since violating them causes deaths every day.

Capital punishment is meant to be used when it isn’t a question of who is worthy of death, but of whether taking the life of a guilty person will protect the lives of innocent persons. If you read my post, you would have seen that I advised caution in advocating the death penalty in a country like ours, where we have other effective measures to protect the innocent. Like I said, I don’t support capital punishment here either, but the Church has not placed this issue on the same moral level as the taking of innocent life, and it is dishonest to present it that way.

As to condemning the killing of abortionists, I most certainly have grounds to do that. Killing abortionists has nothing to do with capital punishment - it is murder, which is explicitly condemned by the Bible and the Church. But condemning the killer? As you said, that’s God’s job, so I don’t have footing for that.

In asking “who has the right to destroy a creation other than its creator?” are you saying that there is never a situation in which it is permissible to take a human life? What about self-defense? What about defending your child? Your country?

I agree that we need to be an example to the world in our support of life. But the issue of capital punishment is used by many to justify supporting pro-abortion politicians, and I’m getting sick of it.

 

[CWBetts]

I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. When I used the term “life issue,” I meant issues involving the taking of innocent life, as in the case of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.

Using your reasoning, almost any moral claim could be considered a “life issue,” since things like poverty, nutrition and environment can all contribute to a person’s ability to live. Even traffic laws could be called “life issues,” since violating them causes deaths every day.

Capital punishment is meant to be used when it isn’t a question of who is worthy of death, but of whether taking the life of a guilty person will protect the lives of innocent persons. If you read my post, you would have seen that I advised caution in advocating the death penalty in a country like ours, where we have other effective measures to protect the innocent. Like I said, I don’t support capital punishment here either, but the Church has not placed this issue on the same moral level as the taking of innocent life, and it is dishonest to present it that way.

As to condemning the killing of abortionists, I most certainly have grounds to do that. Killing abortionists has nothing to do with capital punishment - it is murder, which is explicitly condemned by the Bible and the Church. But condemning the killer? As you said, that’s God’s job, so I don’t have footing for that.

In asking “who has the right to destroy a creation other than its creator?” are you saying that there is never a situation in which it is permissible to take a human life? What about self-defense? What about defending your child? Your country?

I agree that we need to be an example to the world in our support of life. But the issue of capital punishment is used by many to justify supporting pro-abortion politicians, and I’m getting sick of it.

There is no such thing as innocent life. Even the unborn have the stain of original sin. All there are, are degrees of guilt. The death penalty robs the convict of any future chances of repentance. Shouldn’t we desire that all come to repentance. I find the death penalty repugnant, as it confers onto the state the authority of God.

In cases of self defense, we should take pains to try not to kill the attacker. There are ways to disable without resorting to killing. As for defending my country, that depends. My loyalty to my God is more important than some lines on a map.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty robs the convict of any future chances of repentance.

No, it doesn’t. What it does is to tell those sentenced to death exactly how long they have to repent. Given how long it usually takes for someone to be executed I would say that they have ample time to repent of their sins. They certainly have more time than those untimely killed by accidents, murder, war, and disease. If we are comfortable that God will deal justly with them then I think we can expect God to deal appropriately with those who, even when knowing the hour of their death, refused to repent of their sins.

I find the death penalty repugnant, as it confers onto the state the authority of God.

That’s true, but then it was God who gave that authority to the State in the first place (Rom 13:3-4):

*3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; *

• 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. *

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

No, it doesn’t. What it does is to tell those sentenced to death exactly how long they have to repent. Given how long it usually takes for someone to be executed I would say that they have ample time to repent of their sins. They certainly have more time than those untimely killed by accidents, murder, war, and disease. If we are comfortable that God will deal justly with them then I think we can expect God to deal appropriately with those who, even when knowing the hour of their death, refused to repent of their sins.
That’s true, but then it was God who gave that authority to the State in the first place (Rom 13:3-4):

3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

• 4*for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Ender

Remember, as Catholics we don’t proof text to justify our positions! How is it not disallowing someone to repent? You can’t repent after you are dead. I think you want to plat God with people’s lives. Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. This means every one has an inherent value, not to be thrown away. You don’t want justice. You want vengeance. The passage you quote has nothing to do with the death penalty specifically, but of our duty to obey the law. It just so happened that Rome did have the death penalty. You are failing to take in the full context of the passage.

 

[Ender]

Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. This means every one has an inherent value, not to be thrown away.

This is a particularly bad example for you to quote for that is precisely the reason God gives when he commands that a murderer be executed. (Hopefully you don’t feel that quoting the Catechism is proof texting.)

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:5-6)
*
*The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. *(CCC 2260)

You don’t want justice. You want vengeance.

Don’t confuse insult for argument. Resorting to the former is a good indication that you’re out of the latter.

The passage you quote has nothing to do with the death penalty specifically, but of our duty to obey the law.

Well, since it was in response to your comment about the authority of the state it seemed appropriate to point out exactly where that authority came from.

It just so happened that Rome did have the death penalty. You are failing to take in the full context of the passage.

It just so happens that Vatican City had the death penalty until 1969 and as for the full context of the passage, here is how it was interpreted by Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.) when the question of capital punishment was raised in his time. Again, this is not my opinion; I am merely repeating what the Church taught.

In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.

Ender

 

[Godfollower]

All right, if you want to know what the Church teaches, let’s look at the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 2267.

So, according to Catholic teaching, yes: Catholics may support the death penalty, if they are morally certain (A) that “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor;” (B) that non-lethal means are not “sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor;” and (C) that the state lacks possibilities 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.”

 

[CWBetts]

This is a particularly bad example for you to quote for that is precisely the reason God gives when he commands that a murderer be executed. (Hopefully you don’t feel that quoting the Catechism is proof texting.)

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:5-6)
*
*The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. *(CCC 2260)
Don’t confuse insult for argument. Resorting to the former is a good indication that you’re out of the latter.
Well, since it was in response to your comment about the authority of the state it seemed appropriate to point out exactly where that authority came from.
It just so happens that Vatican City had the death penalty until 1969 and as for the full context of the passage, here is how it was interpreted by Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.) when the question of capital punishment was raised in his time. Again, this is not my opinion; I am merely repeating what the Church taught.

In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.

Ender

You are using the deplorable tactic of hiding behind the Church. We are to forgive, and repay evil with good. Vengeance belongs to God. You must also remember that physical death is much less severe than spiritual death, and while the latter can be avoided, the former cannot. We must take great pains to ensure that people die a natural death. This means, in western democracies, life imprisonment without parole. The public is protected, and the guilty party is not denied his opportunity to repent. Furthermore, it provides ample time for the convict to reflect on his crimes. Justice must be tempered with mercy.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Having a death penalty doesn’t deter crime.

This is not true. There are cases on record where an individual decided not to kill a crime victim because they didn’t want to face execution.

Also, it’s my understanding, it takes up more tax dollars than life imprisonment does.

This is another red herring. It is only true due to the activities of anti death penalty activists.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You are using the deplorable tactic of hiding behind the Church. We are to forgive, and repay evil with good. Vengeance belongs to God. You must also remember that physical death is much less severe than spiritual death, and while the latter can be avoided, the former cannot. We must take great pains to ensure that people die a natural death. This means, in western democracies, life imprisonment without parole. The public is protected, and the guilty party is not denied his opportunity to repent. Furthermore, it provides ample time for the convict to reflect on his crimes. Justice must be tempered with mercy.

I agree that spiritual death is worse.

Here’s a question for you to consider:

Is a person who is awaiting the death penalty more or less likely to pursue reconciliation with God than a person facing life prison?

I believe the answer is more likely.

Life in prison for violent killers puts the lives of fellow prisoners and prison employees at risk.

Those who oppose the death penalty share blame for the murders of hundreds in the prisons at the hands of men who should have been executed.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Maybe I wasn’t exactly clear. I’m against the death penalty. The problems in the prisons can be, to some point at least, dealt with. Yes, there is the crimes commited on other inmates. But what do you expect from them? There may be efforts at rehabilitation, but that doesn’t seem to work in most cases. Or maybe the approach is wrong. I don’t know, all I know is I don’t think murdering someone is the answer to crime.

Execution is not murder.

Would you kill a murderer to save the life of an innocent person, or would you let the innocent person be murdered?

 

[CWBetts]

Execution is not murder.

Would you kill a murderer to save the life of an innocent person, or would you let the innocent person be murdered?

Do not confuse vengeance of the state with self-defense. And even in self defense we should strive to incapacitate, rather than kill.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Do not confuse vengeance of the state with self-defense. And even in self defense we should strive to incapacitate, rather than kill.

This is an evasion to the question.

In a hypothetical situation where you had the choice to kill an attacker or to allow the attacker to kill an innocent person, which would you choose?

We can discuss other potential factors if you like, but it important for this question to be answered first, IMO.

 

[CWBetts]

This is an evasion to the question.

In a hypothetical situation where you had the choice to kill an attacker or to allow the attacker to kill an innocent person, which would you choose?

We can discuss other potential factors if you like, but it important for this question to be answered first, IMO.

Self defense reduces culpability, but does not change the gravity of the sin. And this had NOTHING to do with the state sanctioned-murder some call “justice”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Self defense reduces culpability, but does not change the gravity of the sin. And this had NOTHING to do with the state sanctioned-murder some call “justice”

Yes it does.

Since the death penalty has been reinstated in America, over 1000 people have been murdered by men previously convicted of murder.

These 1000 plus deaths would have been prevented had we applied a prompt death sentence.

You share blame for these innocent deaths due to your complicity with death penalty opponents.

 

[ChadS]

Yes it does.

Since the death penalty has been reinstated in America, over 1000 people have been murdered by men previously convicted of murder.

These 1000 plus deaths would have been prevented had we applied a prompt death sentence.

You share blame for these innocent deaths due to your complicity with death penalty opponents.

Are you saying 1000 men that were previously on death row were released back into the population and committed murder?

If these are examples of men convicted of murder but given sentences less than the death penalty and eventually released then you can have the death penalty applied to death penalty convictions the same day and not one of those people still would’ve been saved.

It strikes me as incredibly disingenous to try and blame death penalty opponents for the murder of somebody else. It contributes nothing to the conversation by trying to impugn the motives of others by blaming the reprehensible actions of somebody else on another. “See, If YOU had supported the death penalty then this person would still be alive.”

ChadS

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Are you saying 1000 men that were previously on death row were released back into the population and committed murder?

No. Most of the murders took place in prison. However, there are hundreds of cases where previously convicted murderers have been released only to kill again.

If these are examples of men convicted of murder but given sentences less than the death penalty and eventually released then you can have the death penalty applied to death penalty convictions the same day and not one of those people still would’ve been saved.

Many states don’t have the death penalty. Executed killers never kill again.

It strikes me as incredibly disingenous to try and blame death penalty opponents for the murder of somebody else. It contributes nothing to the conversation by trying to impugn the motives of others by blaming the reprehensible actions of somebody else on another. “See, If YOU had supported the death penalty then this person would still be alive.”

I’m not blaming them, I am merely stating the truth that their position has contributed to the murders of innocent people.

If a fact bothers you, then perhaps it exposes a flaw in your position.

Think about it.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes it does.

Since the death penalty has been reinstated in America, over 1000 people have been murdered by men previously convicted of murder.

These 1000 plus deaths would have been prevented had we applied a prompt death sentence.

You share blame for these innocent deaths due to your complicity with death penalty opponents.

Source your statistic. ANd what of the innocent men who have been convicted? DOn’t those innocent victims count?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Source your statistic. ANd what of the innocent men who have been convicted? DOn’t those innocent victims count?

I don’t know of any innocent men who have been executed, but even if one or two had it is far less than the number of innocent men killed by murderers.

I can’t find the article I cited, but here’s data from 1984:

“Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives.” (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153) Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders.

 

[Christy_Beth]

This is not true. There are cases on record where an individual decided not to kill a crime victim because they didn’t want to face execution.

This is another red herring. It is only true due to the activities of anti death penalty activists.

Cite your sources please. And read your last sentence a little more closely. “Anti death” penalty activists. Anti death. That would be the same as Pro life. And I think that’s the issue we’ve been dancing around.