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

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The Catechism discourages use of the death penalty, allowing only if there is no nonlethal means to protect the public.

Given that there are so many murders in prison, the death penalty is the best way to protect the innocent.

It is nearly impossible to keep a man who is intent on murder from succeeding.

 

[Brendan]

Can a person dispossess himself of his right to life? That seems a bit suspect to me.Rather like disposessing yourself of human nature. We know people who try to do that by acting like animals, but we hold them culpable as human beings because human nature, and it’s obligations, cannot be shed. This also means that despite their behavior, we are obliged to treat them as humans and not as animals.

I am not sure that the right to life, and the obligation to live, are any different.

Well they are, the Pope said so and he would know more that either I or you.

We can also see that it is so from logic.

Your argument only holds weight if the right to life was tied to human nature itself. But we can clearly see that it is not, as God, in certain circumstances, ordered the execution of people, thus they no longer had a right to life. But they still remained human, so their nature was not removed either.

So clearly they are both distince and seperable.

 

[CWBetts]

Given that there are so many murders in prison, the death penalty is the best way to protect the innocent.

It is nearly impossible to keep a man who is intent on murder from succeeding.

Didn’t you say the death penalty was a deterrent? You are contradicting yourself now. You actually disturb me with your air of self-righteousness. Who will you decree is sub-human next?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Didn’t you say the death penalty was a deterrent? You are contradicting yourself now. You actually disturb me with your air of self-righteousness. Who will you decree is sub-human next?

It is a deterrent. It is also a just way of protecting the innocent.

The two are complimentary.

You are the one who condones the murder of the innocent, and thus you devalue human life.

I value innocent life over that of murderers.

You make no distinction.

My opinion has nothing to do with self-righteousness.

 

[CWBetts]

It is a deterrent. It is also a just way of protecting the innocent.

The two are complimentary.

You are the one who condones the murder of the innocent, and thus you devalue human life.

I value innocent life over that of murderers.

You make no distinction.

My opinion has nothing to do with self-righteousness.

You are contradicting yourself! You have said “nothing can stop someone intent on murder” and you have said that “it is a deterrent,” which is it, can someone intent on murder be deterred, or not? Furthermore we are all guilty under the law. Any who is guilty on one point is guilty on all. I am pretty sure I read that somewhere. Therefore, you are no less guilty than the murderer. None of us “deserve” to live, anymore than any of us “deserve” heaven. Not one of us is sinless enough to pronounce a death sentence on any other.

 

[estesbob]

Because the the Catechism takes precedence over a non-infallible statement by any Pope.

The Cathecism says theDeath Penalty can be used… The Pope says that Caholics are free to support the Death penalty. I dont see anyconflict.

But lets cut to the chase. If we have two canidates for office and one supports the death penalty and opposes abortion and the other supprts abortion but opposes the death penalty do you beleive this allows a Catholic to vote for the canidate who supports abortion?

The reason I ask is this is the most common rationlization one gets from Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians.

 

[cymonk]

I value innocent life over that of murderers.

All life is precious. Even if you wanted to place value on one verses another, one could argue that a murder has a greater need to live than one of the faithful. The faithful is already (hopefully) headed to heaven, where as (generally speaking) the murder needs time for an opportunity to repent.

 

[cymonk]

The Cathecism says theDeath Penalty can be used… The Pope says that Caholics are free to support the Death penalty. I dont see anyconflict…

I believe you are incorrectly over simplifying what the Catechism says.

But lets cut to the chase. If we have two canidates for office and one supports the death penalty and opposes abortion and the other supprts abortion but opposes the death penalty do you beleive this allows a Catholic to vote for the canidate who supports abortion?

I would point out that if those people are truelly in defense of life… that there are a TON more babies killed every year through abortion than we ever put to put to death in the entire history of our country combined. These two do not come any where close to the same amount of lives saved.

 

[estesbob]

I believe you are incorrectly over simplifying what the Catechism says.
{/quote]

I am looking at 2,000 years of consistent teachings of the Church-the Church has always allowed for the deah penalty

I would point out that if those people are truelly in defense of life… that there are a TON more babies killed every year through abortion than we ever put to put to death in the entire history of our country combined. These two do not come any where close to the same amount of lives saved.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You are contradicting yourself! You have said “nothing can stop someone intent on murder” and you have said that “it is a deterrent,” which is it, can someone intent on murder be deterred, or not? Furthermore we are all guilty under the law. Any who is guilty on one point is guilty on all. I am pretty sure I read that somewhere. Therefore, you are no less guilty than the murderer. None of us “deserve” to live, anymore than any of us “deserve” heaven. Not one of us is sinless enough to pronounce a death sentence on any other.

The death penalty is a deterrent to those who have no committed murder. It helps them decide against this path.

Allowing murder is a worse sin than killing the murderer before he kills an innocent victim.

By your reasoning, it was an immoral act to kill Germans in order stop the Holocaust.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

All life is precious. Even if you wanted to place value on one verses another, one could argue that a murder has a greater need to live than one of the faithful. The faithful is already (hopefully) headed to heaven, where as (generally speaking) the murder needs time for an opportunity to repent.

I would argue that a murderer is much more likely to repent and find God on death row than during life in prison.

 

[cymonk]

A murderer will still have to face his fear of death… even if it is in their old age. This way, they just get an extra 50 years to find a reason to repent. Besides, I have to think that there are deeper levels of repentance than doing it out of fear of what is on the other side.

PAX

 

[Bluegoat]

Well they are, the Pope said so and he would know more that either I or you.

We can also see that it is so from logic.

Your argument only holds weight if the right to life was tied to human nature itself. But we can clearly see that it is not, as God, in certain circumstances, ordered the execution of people, thus they no longer had a right to life. But they still remained human, so their nature was not removed either.

So clearly they are both distinct and separable.

I would take the views of most Popes pretty seriously (there are a few who are suspect…) I would not assume that a Pope could not be quite mistaken on a matter such as this.

I don’t think your logic holds either - it is almost always a mistake to apply the same logic to God and men, as many of the great theologians and Saints point out. There is an excellent disciussion in the Proslogion about this. Although God’s reason and nature encompasses ours, it also surpasses it and exists beyond it.

The right to life in relation to God is a different question than what obligations we have to it - after all, we all die. That is true of all our rights, really. If God wanted to take our human nature from us, that would be ok too. Our lives are God’s from beginning to end, and God can demand from us whatever he wants. He also demanded infants and whole populations of women, which would mean also unborn babies, be slain. That does not mean we can take that kind of authority on ourselves. The Church would condemn any such action, even in war.

So I don’t think they are separable by humans (except in the rare circumstances that we are directly told to by God. I imagine one would want to clear that with some kind of religious authority too - most modern instances of that kind of thing turn out badly.)

 

[Bluegoat]

Given that there are so many murders in prison, the death penalty is the best way to protect the innocent.

It is nearly impossible to keep a man who is intent on murder from succeeding.

The vast majority of murders in prison are not committed by those who are on death row - by the people deemed worthy of the death penalty. Even if those numbers increased by 100 or 200%, that would not be a huge amount of people. Would you suggest then that to prevent prison crime that all convicted of violent crimes be executed? Or since being in a maximum, or even medium security prison seems to put many people in a position of possibly committing murder, perhaps all people that would be sentenced to such institutions should be executed. Then they could just close all such places.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Cathecism says theDeath Penalty can be used… The Pope says that Caholics are free to support the Death penalty. I dont see anyconflict.

But lets cut to the chase. If we have two canidates for office and one supports the death penalty and opposes abortion and the other supprts abortion but opposes the death penalty do you beleive this allows a Catholic to vote for the canidate who supports abortion?

The reason I ask is this is the most common rationlization one gets from Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians.

Barring more specific information, I think I would be suspect of both of them, and find both inadequate.

As for which to actually vote for. It might depend on what might actually be accomplished. On one hand, there are a lot more abortions than death row cases. But on the other, I think concrete political action on abortion is difficult for even committed politicians for reasons often outside their control. But most of the time nothing is likely to be accomplished on either issue.

In the end, I suppose I would consider which of them most seemed to understand what life really meant, hoping that would lead to some sort of progress, or at least openness, on the other issue. And if I couldn’t discern that, which person seemed most honest. If I wasn’t convinced of the candidates honesty, he could be lying about his stance on any issue.

But having to vote for inadequate candidates is a perennial problem.

 

[simona_gabriela]

What I believe - but it’s only my opinion - is that you’re free to vote for death punishement. But I ask myself what I really want, do I want others to die because they did awfull crimes ? Who should judge what is the crime that can receive this death punishment and what is the limit ? I keep thinking at the woman saved by Christ in John 8,7 when everyone wanted to kill her because they thought the sin was impardonable. What is impardonable by us is pardonable by God. And Jesus started writing on the ground. It would be easier if we knew what he wrote. Though, he lets us freely choose what we want to do. But we are totally free only in his truth. And we can ask this in prayer, we can ask for help in seeing his truth.
As for the safety of others, I agree for a safe enprisonement - even for life. We are to find solutions to this, but only with his grace

 

[estesbob]

In the end, I suppose I would consider which of them most seemed to understand what life really meant, hoping that would lead to some sort of progress, or at least openness, on the other issue. And if I couldn’t discern that, which person seemed most honest. If I wasn’t convinced of the candidates honesty, he could be lying about his stance on any issue.

But having to vote for inadequate candidates is a perennial problem.

If , in the scenario I outlined, you voted for the Pro-abortion canidate you would be rejecting the techiangs of the Church…, They have made it crystal clear that there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two. That is why, even though I oppose the death penalty in all cases, I get concerned when I run across threads like this. Way to many Catholics try and rationalize their votes for pro-abortion canidates because a false claim Church forbids the deah penatly and there *is *a moral equivalence between captial punishment and the death penalty

 

[Bluegoat]

If , in the scenario I outlined, you voted for the Pro-abortion canidate you would be rejecting the techiangs of the Church…, They have made it crystal clear that there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two. That is why, even though I oppose the death penalty in all cases, I get concerned when I run across threads like this. Way to many Catholics try and rationalize their votes for pro-abortion canidates because a false claim Church forbids the deah penatly and there *is *a moral equivalence between captial punishment and the death penalty

But because the candidate says he opposes abortion, does he really? What is meant by that? That he doesn’t think people should have one? That he intends to take political action to end abortion? That he plans on saying he doesn’t support abortion so he can get votes? It can be difficult to know for sure, and I am more suspicious if the person’s understanding of Christian morality, or even natural morality, seems somehow skewed.

And to me, the two, plus other issues, are connected. I think a real understanding and implementation of life causes in other contexts would help the abortion cause. So a candidate that might move on those things could create better conditions for movement on abortion, which doesn’t seem great in the US now.

However, in the end, I don’t really need to worry about the death penalty, because we don’t have it, and Canadian political parties work hard to say little or nothing about abortion.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What I believe - but it’s only my opinion - is that you’re free to vote for death punishement. But I ask myself what I really want, do I want others to die because they did awfull crimes ?

An equally valid question is:

Am I willing to put the lives of additional innocent people at risk by my opposition to the death penalty?

 

[simona_gabriela]

Another valid question : Am I willing to decide who dies and who doesn’t ? Am I willing to play with God’s will ? The security of other innocents is a good reason, but is this your personal responsibility ? Wouldn’t it be wiser to raise the security level… this is not impossible, but it’s very hard.
God takes care of each and every one of us, amen