But that was not the point-CW Betts said the death penalty is not necessary now becuase we have better means of constraining prisioners. I pointed out that is not true.Are there many escapes from death row, or maximum security prisons? Most I hear of are from less secure facilities with prisoners who would never be considered for execution.
Yes, that is what I am questioning. Is it the case that we are unable to restrain such dangerous prisoners that we have to execute them.But that was not the point-CW Betts said the death penalty is not necessary now becuase we have better means of constraining prisioners. I pointed out that is not true.
When it comes to putting up straw men, you are an expert? Ever thought of going into the stupid argument business?Actually the Church condemened slavery in the mid 1400s. It NEVER took the position that slavery was moral. How is the contention that capital punishment is now immoral because of our culture any different than those who claim homosexual behavior should now be moral because of our culture?
As far as means of containing dangerous criminals not existing-I think before the days of the “human rghts for prisioners” it was far easier to lock someone up and throw away the key than it is today. Escapes form the Tower of London, for instance , were almost unknown.
If you had read my posts you would know that I oppose the death penalty in all cases. in fact I have protested at a fseveral dozen executions at the Texas Prison in Huntsville texas where the executions take place.When it comes to putting up straw men, you are an expert? Ever thought of going into the stupid argument business?
Homosexual behavior again relates to a Sacrament–marriage. The Church did not only condemn slavery. In fact, in the NT Scriptures Slaves are told to be subservient to their masters. you have yet to bring forth a single valid argument supporting the dehumanization of criminals. Because that is what you are doing. You are saying that we can kill them because we are better than they are. In essence, we are more human.
Well, no. Morality is constant, but circumstances change. The Church teaches that the death penalty is not immoral “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” CCC ¶ 2267. It’s entirely possible to argue that, in the past, there was no possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor; but now there is. This changed circumstance would mean the the death penalty changed from morally permissible (as being necessary to protect society) to morally impermissible (as no longer being necessary to protect society).If you had read my posts you would know that I oppose the death penalty in all cases. in fact I have protested at a fseveral dozen executions at the Texas Prison in Huntsville texas where the executions take place.
The discussion here, however, is the teachings of the Church and the arguments you put forth suposedly butressing your opinion that the church can and should change its teachings on the Death penaltly are the exact same ones we see made for the Church to change its teachings on abortion, Homosexuality, female ordination etc.
Morality doesnt change . Either executing criminals has always been immoral or it has always been moral.
This is an opinion about the condition of various penal systems about which Catholics can - and I do - disagree. Beyond that, however, my objection is more fundamental than merely a disagreement over whether prisons effectively protect society. I do disagree with section 2267 and I have explained not only why I disagree but also why I am justified in disagreeing. You still have not answered my question about 2266 (and 2260).The Cathechism also says that today circumstances requiring the death penalty are virtually non existent. I would ask you the same, do you not accept this?
The primary objective of punishment is not security; it is justice, and this is what the State is obliged to maintain.yes the State is not an individual but the State must represent the people.The State is obliged to maintain security but it is not obliged to impose the death penalty.
Explain this claim in light of 2260.Two deaths, one caused by the wrong doer and the death/execution of the wrongdoer does not restore equilebrium.
No punishment will restore the dead to life. By your logic no punishment should be imposed.The innocent killed is not restored to life by the death of his murderer.
Neither of those statments in correct-not only has the Church not said the death penalty is no longer moral, circumstantially or otherwise, it has specifically said that Catholics can, in good conscoience, support it.The “headline” would look like a change – “Catholic Church says death penalty no longer moral” – but the actual story would be “Catholic Church says that current circumstances make death penalty immoral.”
Based on this comment from Archbishop Chaput (2005) you probably shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen. This is the point estesbob has been trying to make.The Church discourages its use today. Yes the Church has not come outright to say it is wrong and a sin to support the death penalty but what more do we need? It is my hope and belief that the Church will come out more directly to oppose it,
Archbishop Chaput is my Bishop and i have had dealings with him on parish finance matters-he is first class-the best Bishop i have ever dealt with.Based on this comment from Archbishop Chaput (2005) you probably shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen. This is the point estesbob has been trying to make.
The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.
Ender
I realize that. I was saying that it’s possible to make such an argument against the death penalty (as you have done). But, IF the Church were to issue a definitive statement about the death penalty, the headline would read like the Church had changed its moral position, while the body of the story would make clear that the Church had said that changing circumstances made it no longer moral.Neither of those statments in correct-not only has the Church not said the death penalty is no longer moral, circumstantially or otherwise, it has specifically said that Catholics can, in good conscoience, support it.
I do not disagree as to what is said in the Cathechism. I have never disagreed on what is the stand of the Church today. The Church does not however say it is wrong to oppose the death penalty.This is an opinion about the condition of various penal systems about which Catholics can - and I do - disagree. Beyond that, however, my objection is more fundamental than merely a disagreement over whether prisons effectively protect society. I do disagree with section 2267 and I have explained not only why I disagree but also why I am justified in disagreeing. You still have not answered my question about 2266 (and 2260).
The primary objective of punishment is not security; it is justice, and this is what the State is obliged to maintain.
Explain this claim in light of 2260.
No punishment will restore the dead to life. By your logic no punishment should be imposed.
Ender
May I ask, with respect, your reasons for opposing the death penalty?I do not beleive the Church has any more power to forbid the death penalty than it does to allow the ordination of women. The Church has consistenly allowed for the Death Penalty for the entire 2000 years of its existence. Something that was “moral” for two thousand years simply can not become “immoral” today. What the Church has said is that although it is allowed it should be used as sparingly as possible and only in extrme circumstance BUT it does not state as to what this circumatnaces are and leaves application of the Death Penalty up to the prudential judgement of the State and leaves support of the death penatly up to the prudential judgment of the individual Catholic.
The problem is that the Catechism disagrees with itself; what is said in 2267 does not coincide with what is said in 2260 and 2266.I do not disagree as to what is said in the Cathechism. I have never disagreed on what is the stand of the Church today.
It isn’t so subjective that we should be unsure of what it is. Specifically, Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Aquinas ST I/II,87)What is justice can be very subjective.
The Church recognizes four valid objectives of punishment: retribution, protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Retribution - demanded by justice - is the primary objective; the others, including protection, are all secondary. In placing the limits it does on the use of capital punishment, 2267 refers solely to protection and ignores retribution and so the moral concept of justice is severed from the punishment. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to the punishment inflicted. Executions can be justified only if they are able to prevent future harm by the murderer. It is the likelihood of future crime that is punished, not the crime already committed, which you have to admit is fairly bizarre: a person may be executed to prevent the crime he could not be executed for committing.I do agree that it is not only maintenance of security, that there must be some elements of deterrance and also penalisation.
You define what the Church obliges as “an eye for an eye.” The Church defines punishment that is commensurate with the severity of the sin as justice.the “eye for an eye” principle is not going to restore balance.
2260 and 2266 only contradict 2267 if you read it in. 2260 is not an endorsement of the death penalty as it is a commentary on the intrinsic value of life. 2266 only mention proportionality, and actually does not mention the death penalty at all. There is no contradiction. You just refuse to admit your bloodthirsty nature.The problem is that the Catechism disagrees with itself; what is said in 2267 does not coincide with what is said in 2260 and 2266.
It isn’t so subjective that we should be unsure of what it is. Specifically, Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Aquinas ST I/II,87)
The Church recognizes four valid objectives of punishment: retribution, protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Retribution - demanded by justice - is the primary objective; the others, including protection, are all secondary. In placing the limits it does on the use of capital punishment, 2267 refers solely to protection and ignores retribution and so the moral concept of justice is severed from the punishment. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to the punishment inflicted. Executions can be justified only if they are able to prevent future harm by the murderer. It is the likelihood of future crime that is punished, not the crime already committed, which you have to admit is fairly bizarre: a person may be executed to prevent the crime he could not be executed for committing.
You define what the Church obliges as “an eye for an eye.” The Church defines punishment that is commensurate with the severity of the sin as justice.
Ender
I used to support it until I got heavily involved in the pro-life ministry. I couldnt reconcile opposing abortion and supporting the death penatly. It seems barbaric to me to take someone you have total control over, take them to a room and kill them. it also seems counterintuitive that we try and teach people that killing people is wrong by killing people.May I ask, with respect, your reasons for opposing the death penalty?
Yes, it is clear that the Church has not said that we must oppose although I believe the Church discourages its use today.I used to support it until I got heavily involved in the pro-life ministry. I couldnt reconcile opposing abortion and supporting the death penatly. It seems barbaric to me to take someone you have total control over, take them to a room and kill them. it also seems counterintuitive that we try and teach people that killing people is wrong by killing people.
My cocern when this topic comes up is that we dont mischaracterize Chrch teaching.
I really wonder how it is that someone can read Gen 9:6 and not understand what it says - whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed. What else could that possibly mean other than the penalty for murder is death? When we get to the point where words have no specific meaning, debate becomes useless.2260 and 2266 only contradict 2267 if you read it in. 2260 is not an endorsement of the death penalty as it is a commentary on the intrinsic value of life.
The annoying thing about such comments is not so much that they are insulting and uncharitable but that they are silly. Let’s assume for a minute that I am as bloodthirsty are you want to believe I am - does that invalidate any of my arguments? Truth is unaffected by the nature of the individual who speaks it; what is true doesn’t become false simply because a nasty person states it. I think at this point it’s safe to assume you’re out of arguments and you don’t know how else to respond.You just refuse to admit your bloodthirsty nature.
Yes the speaker does not mitigate truth. You have not spoken truth. You have attempted to twist the Catechism to say what you wish. And your view, you have made it abundantly clear, it that convicted criminals are no longer to be considered human. They have no right to life. That is your argument, and it is chilling. The Old Testament also gives the death penalty for adultery. Should we kill adulterers? And homosexuals? Do we kill them too? And idolaters? Given the breadth of the Ten Commandments, I don’t think so. Execution of rebellious sons? Its all in the Old Testament Law. The death penalty in this day and age, is unwarranted.I really wonder how it is that someone can read Gen 9:6 and not understand what it says - whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed. What else could that possibly mean other than the penalty for murder is death? When we get to the point where words have no specific meaning, debate becomes useless.
The annoying thing about such comments is not so much that they are insulting and uncharitable but that they are silly. Let’s assume for a minute that I am as bloodthirsty are you want to believe I am - does that invalidate any of my arguments? Truth is unaffected by the nature of the individual who speaks it; what is true doesn’t become false simply because a nasty person states it. I think at this point it’s safe to assume you’re out of arguments and you don’t know how else to respond.
Ender
In no instance have I given a personal opinion about how capital punishment should be viewed. What I have done is to quote what the Church says now and has said since the beginning, and ask those who hold opposing positions to explain them in light of Church teaching. If you don’t think I’m speaking the truth then specify which of my citations you think I made up.You have not spoken truth.
The Catechism says what it does; all I have done is to focus on the contradictions and inconsistencies 2267 creates. It is not twisting the Catechism to point out that sections 2260 and 2266 cannot simply be ignored in order to accept 2267.You have attempted to twist the Catechism to say what you wish.
They are certainly to be considered human but they have forfeited their right to life.And your view, you have made it abundantly clear, it that convicted criminals are no longer to be considered human. They have no right to life.
It is a bad caricature of my argument and it is silly.That is your argument, and it is chilling.
You are referring to the law of Moses, which can be - and has - changed. I am referring to God’s covenant with Noah, which cannot. As 2660 says: “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”The Old Testament also gives the death penalty for adultery. Should we kill adulterers?
If it was a just punishment in the past it is a just punishment now.The death penalty in this day and age, is unwarranted.
Even if you believe that circumstances can change the moral nature of an action (which I’ll address next) it doesn’t change the fact that if execution was a just punishment in the past it is a just punishment today, for, as you point out, morality is constant. The justness of a punishment is not dependent on whether it protects society (a secondary objective) but on whether it is proportionate to the severity of the crime (its primary obligation), therefore its justness cannot change over time - for the same crimes, penalties that were just in the past are just in the present.Morality is constant, but circumstances change. The Church teaches that the death penalty is not immoral “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” CCC ¶ 2267. It’s entirely possible to argue that, in the past, there was no possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor; but now there is. This changed circumstance would mean the the death penalty changed from morally permissible (as being necessary to protect society) to morally impermissible (as no longer being necessary to protect society).