Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[severus68]

Why do you feel the need to bring this irrelevant point up time and time again? Have we had sinful Popes? Yes, but their personal piety has no effect whatsoever on their capacity to address the faithful with infallible pronouncements. We’ve covered this already.

The Church has defined that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. There are hardliner positions and milder positions when addressing this doctrine. However, even when the milder positions are professed (ones that believe you don’t need to profess the true faith) the constant fact is that if a non-Catholic is saved it is through him uniting himself mystically to the Church … not through false religions which have no salvific nature to them. Was this clear (I’m genuinely asking)?

Does he need to? Pro-homosexual marriage, pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, refusing to acknowledge the Christian roots of the country, initially appointed a Communist as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican … The man is truly a vile and disgusting individual that will destroy my beloved country piece by piece, infant by infant.

Catholics need to have their consciences formed to the truth so that they make decisions in accord with Catholic teachings and Catholic common-sense, independent of Papal hand-holding … and not depend on infallible, papal edicts for everything including how to tie their own shoes.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

Its not irrelevant, you brought this up. Please refer to your last but one post to JaneGrey to which I responded. I don’t accept your contention that blatantly not adhering to Christ’s teachings still makes for infallible edicts. If a pope was only interested in politicking and self gratification I would think what he said could not have been infallible as infallibility comes from God.

No I really do not understand what you are saying. I have read the position of the Church on this and it was explained by my parish priest. Even if we do not believe in these religions, why can’t we be more Christ like and charitable to those professing such religions.

Obama has to follow the US Constitution. He is not single handedly responsible for the seperation of Church and State. I have no issue with same sex partners having civil rights. I believe that the Church has no issue with that. How is Obama killing infants? Has the Pope refused to accept his appointee’s credentials? Maybe he thought he was the best man for the job. If Obama is so vile, why did the Pope see him?

I do think you would have to make up your mind on this. Do we follow the teachings of the Church or should think for ourselves.

 

[JaneGrey]

According to Vatican statistics (Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples)

It is nothing more than a commonly utilized program within the Church … nothing binding, dogmatic or sacred. Unfortunately, the RCIA programs I have seen seem to leave converts more confused than ever. Many revolve around solely social justice drivel, environmental issues, etc. I am certainly not saying this occurs across the board mind you. I am simply saying that whatever is discussed in them in not exactly a fool-proof litmus test for Catholic orthodoxy.

… just to give you another example. I’m not sure if this program has gone across the pond or not, but here in the U.S. there is a very widespread, banal youth program known as Life Teen … however their founder was excommunicated a year ago and yet the program continues completely unhindered in their activities.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

there are currently 85,000 Missionary Priests with 58,000 permanently assigned Priests in Missionary territories. Mormons claim a total of only 56,000 Missionaries and for Protestants … well … which of the 35,000 sects should I pull statistics from?

The first thing that comes to mind is that the above numbers are perhaps due to there being far more Catholics around than Mormons and JWs (maybe even combined but im not sure about this). The Catholic Church as a far older and more establised institution than the ‘‘sects’’ means also they have access to greater resources and this might contribute to their greater number of missionaries.

Their voting for immorality is a manifestation of an already existing departure from Catholic teaching … not its cause.

That’s right, my mistake. I had not registered that sentence of yours properly. Still since things dont work in the UK the way they do in America what with your greater voter rights and the whole democracy thing (not that we dont have democracy of course but things have been different) I dont think voting has anything to do with it, it was not more than a hundred years before thiat people were denied the vote due to social class etc. If anyone is to blame over the past centuries it is greedy monarchs and popes and their politics.

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

Its not irrelevant, you brought this up. Please refer to your last but one post to JaneGrey to which I responded. I don’t accept your contention that blatantly not adhering to Christ’s teachings still makes for infallible edicts. If a pope was only interested in politicking and self gratification I would think what he said could not have been infallible as infallibility comes from God.

It is entirely irrelevant when you are discussing Papal Infallibility. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility states that any Pope (regardless of his own personal piety) when speaking on doctrinal matters pertaining to faith and morals (i.e. defining doctrine) cannot make an error. We have had immoral Popes but never has a Pope ever defined a dogma that contradicts a doctrine of the Church. This is the protection that our Lord has granted to His Church. It is a protection that supersedes the limits of human frailty and sinfulness.
serverus68:

No I really do not understand what you are saying.

Perhaps I am simply not conveying what I am wanting to say. However, here is an excellent article (from a singularly excellent website) that attempts to explain this doctrine. I’d encourage you to read the entire article, but if you do not wish to, scroll down to the portion named “No Salvation Outside of the Church”.
serverus68:

Even if we do not believe in these religions, why can’t we be more Christ like and charitable to those professing such religions.

Christ-like you say? What did Christ say in regard to this matter?

---

Matthew 18:17
“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican”

Luke 10:16
“He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me”

Mark 16:16
“He that believeth not will be condemned”

John 3:18
“He that believeth not is already judged”

Luke 11:23
“He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth”***
serverus68:

Obama has to follow the US Constitution.

What do any of the immoral practices that this man advocates (in direct contradiction of the Church’s teachings) have to do with the Constitution? Are you telling me that being pro-abortion is “following the Constitution”? What on earth are you talking about, serverus?!

… and for the sake of discussion … lets imagine that abortion and every other evil practice currently being upheld (and venerated) in our society is explicitly supported by the U.S. Constitution. How would this excuse someone in the eyes of God from supporting those immoral practices? Because the Constitution says so? Is it a “sacred” or “divinely-inspired” document now?
serverus68:

How is Obama killing infants?

He himself may not be doing the murdering, but he voted for infanticide to have protection of law. This is, as I’m sure you now, as equally sinful as if he himself were doing the murdering.

He voted against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act". This was a bill that was going to give human rights protections (i.e. the right to live) to fully-born infants who survived an abortion procedure. This would prevent “doctors” from slaughtering a living infant who was fully delivered after surviving an abortion procedure … and guess what? ***Obama voted against it. ***
serverus68:

If Obama is so vile, why did the Pope see him?

Remember what you posted about Popes putting politics above the salvation of souls? … Yeah …
serverus68:

Do we follow the teachings of the Church or should think for ourselves.

Do we follow the teachings of our Lord and King Jesus Christ who has instituted the Holy Catholic Church, promised infallibility to all of its teachings and promised the gates of hell shall never prevail against it

… or our sinful, fragile selves?

Your decision.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

If anyone is to blame over the past centuries it is greedy monarchs and popes and their politics.

Oh, is that right? Let’s just alleviate personal responsibility then!

Can you name someone specific who did something specific that contributed in some way to the dismantling of morality and adherence to the teachings of the Church in our current society?

… or are you just throwing out random polemics?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[estesbob]

Why do you say that the ‘seamless garment’ is a bogus analogy?
I find it to be supportive of the view in support of ALL life, protecting the unborn, care for the most vulnerable, protecting people facing end of life and the death penalty. So - I see this as a wonderful way to share the teaching of the Church in a way that is consistent and clear.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil-capital punishment is not. Abortion is condemend by the Church in ALL cases-the Church has ALWAYS allowed for the death penaltyThe seamless gament analogy is too often used to justify empowering the aiders and abettors of abortion.

 

[JaneGrey]

Can you name someone specific who did something specific that contributed in some way to the dismantling of morality and adherence to the teachings of the Church in our current society?

… or are you just throwing out random polemics?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

Oh, is that right? Let’s just alleviate personal responsibility then!

Perhaps you are someone who does not get the concept of balance. You can put words in my mouth all you want, but I never said anything about people not having personal responsibilty, did I? Jump to conclusions why dont you.

Yes if politics and the leaders of one’s nations are a factor then personal responsibility is lessened. People might fear to speak up out of fear of persecution (this still happens today) or influenced by powerful people.

I was responding to you talking about the decline of Catholicism in Western Europe. I cannot name someone who did something specific when I was not talking about the decline of morality. I made it clear earlier that though it may be so to you, the decline of Catholism and the decline of morality are separate to me. I think there are many Buddhist countries which are highly moral, even by Christian standards.

Current society? There are many types of societies currently in existence.One has to take all into consideration to have a fair assesment and this is not the place to do it.
If you are really interested in arguing about this subject id suggest you begin a new thread about it.

 

[Ender]

I was responding to you talking about the decline of Catholicism in Western Europe.

It is interesting to note that as countries became less Christian they became more opposed to the death penalty … and it is the death penalty, not the state of other nations, that is the topic of the thread.

Ender

 

[severus68]

It is interesting to note that as countries became less Christian they became more opposed to the death penalty … and it is the death penalty, not the state of other nations, that is the topic of the thread.

Ender

I disagree. I certainly do not think that becoming less Christian or becoming non Christian that makes a country oppose the death penalty. I believe rather that a better understanding of Christian values and of morality and ethics ( for non Christians) has led to countries abolishing the death sentence. A further point is that the death penalty is not the deterrence that it is made out to me.

 

[4elise]

Abortion is an intrinsic evil-capital punishment is not. Abortion is condemend by the Church in ALL cases-the Church has ALWAYS allowed for the death penaltyThe seamless gament analogy is too often used to justify empowering the aiders and abettors of abortion.

so maybe we have a different understanding of the use of the seamless garment analogy -

if it were used as an excuse to aid those who chose abortion, there is certainly a big hole in garment right? ----

it is recognizing that unborn children, born children, and all people are created in God’s image that is my understanding of this analogy - the unborn, end of life, and capital punishment I see (given that we can protect society without capital punishment)

Has anyone on the threads brought up yet the idea that we may be robbing an individual of the possibility of conversion if we execute them? Someone who is in prison for the remainder of their natural life may in that time have an opportunity for their spiritual redemption.

 

[4elise]

It is interesting to note that as countries became less Christian they became more opposed to the death penalty … and it is the death penalty, not the state of other nations, that is the topic of the thread.

Ender

Sorry Ender - not following this supposition
What countries became less Christian as they became more opposed to the death penalty?

Following that thought would you say that the US became more Christian as we re-instated the death penalty in 1977?

deathpenaltyinfo.org/history-death-penalty

 

[severus68]

so maybe we have a different understanding of the use of the seamless garment analogy -

if it were used as an excuse to aid those who chose abortion, there is certainly a big hole in garment right? ----

it is recognizing that unborn children, born children, and all people are created in God’s image that is my understanding of this analogy - the unborn, end of life, and capital punishment I see (given that we can protect society without capital punishment)

Has anyone on the threads brought up yet the idea that we may be robbing an individual of the possibility of conversion if we execute them? Someone who is in prison for the remainder of their natural life may in that time have an opportunity for their spiritual redemption.

Excellant point. Some have posted to the effect that his iminent death is more likely to get a criminal to repent. I have heard of death row prisoners finding God and repenting. What more if a person is given the duration of his natural life to find God. A person given the death penalty may well believe he has been cast away by all, including God. If we show the love that Christ taught us even to a condemned man and give him mercy, wouldn’t it be more likely that he would find and understand God’s love. I am rambling here but I believe that we should fight against whatever instinct that leads us to do violent acts. The execution of any person is the ultimate act of violence as it is a deliberate act done by a State which otherwise considers acts of violence wrong.

 

[Ender]

I disagree. I certainly do not think that becoming less Christian or becoming non Christian that makes a country oppose the death penalty. I believe rather that a better understanding of Christian values and of morality and ethics ( for non Christians) has led to countries abolishing the death sentence.

Color me incredulous if I find it hard to believe that as countries became less Christian they somehow reached a better understanding of Christian values.

A further point is that the death penalty is not the deterrence that it is made out to me.

The death penalty would be valid even if it had zero deterrence value because deterrence, while a valid objective, is secondary to justice. The belief that the prospect of execution has no deterrence value at all is difficult to maintain as well. The fear of punishment deters. Why would a fear of harsh punishment such as death not deter as well?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Has anyone on the threads brought up yet the idea that we may be robbing an individual of the possibility of conversion if we execute them? Someone who is in prison for the remainder of their natural life may in that time have an opportunity for their spiritual redemption.

Well, not surprisingly, Aquinas addressed the subject …

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk III, 147)

Sorry Ender - not following this supposition
What countries became less Christian as they became more opposed to the death penalty?

That would be pretty much all of Western Europe.

Ender

 

[Portrait]

Excellant point. Some have posted to the effect that his iminent death is more likely to get a criminal to repent. I have heard of death row prisoners finding God and repenting. What more if a person is given the duration of his natural life to find God. A person given the death penalty may well believe he has been cast away by all, including God. If we show the love that Christ taught us even to a condemned man and give him mercy, wouldn’t it be more likely that he would find and understand God’s love. I am rambling here but I believe that we should fight against whatever instinct that leads us to do violent acts. The execution of any person is the ultimate act of violence as it is a deliberate act done by a State which otherwise considers acts of violence wrong.

Dear Severus68,

Your emotive statement that " the execution of any person is the ultimate act of violence as it is a deliberate act done by the State which otherwise considers acts of violence wrong", surely runs counter to both Sacred Scripture and Church teaching.

One of the most important pronouncements in Sripture regarding capital punishment is found in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image”. It is the reference to the image of God that gives a rationale for the death penalty. You speak of an act of violence by the state, yet Scripture speaks of an act of violence perpetrated by one man against another man and says that this, in effect, is an outrage against God. Clearly any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty. It is for this very reason that capital punishment was sanctioned by God at the very beginning.

Romans 13: 1-7 is pivitol in any debate on capital punishment. In verse 4 St. Paul states that the civil magistrate “…does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer”. Now the term “sword” (machaira) which St. Paul employs here is not the weapon the emperor carried as the symbol of the authority of his office, but rather the one worn in the provinces by the superior magistrates, who had the authority to inflict capital punishment.

In Acts 25: 11 St. Paul, imprisoned for the Gospel and standing before Festus, stated that “…if I have committed anything for which I deserve to die (emphasis mine), I do not seek to escape death”. Is it not plainly evident that St. Paul was saying that if he had in fact committed a capital crime he did not seek to escape the supreme penalty. What is surely noteworthy is that the Apostle clearly presupposed that some crimes are in fact worthy of death - a presupposition that is at variance with modern abolitionist thinking. Thus in St. Paul’s mind, not only were some crimes intrinsically worthy of death (Acts 25: 11), but the “powers that be” actually had the divinely sanctioned authority to exercise capital punishment in such cases (Rom. 13: 4).

It is true, of course, that many Christians have found it hard to square such mandates for the violent restraint of evil with our Lord’s teachings on love and non-violence. However, we should bear in mind that Sacred Scripture clearly affirms that God is concerned both for the preservation of the world from evil and the sinner’s salvation. Does not the Bible affirm both the “law (that) brings wrath” (Rom. 4: 15) and the “faith working through love” (Gal. 5: 6) - both “Christ’s strange work” and his “proper work”. God ordains the punishment in* time* of those whom He may in fact pardon in eternity.

Finally, any punishment inflicted by the state is not an act of violence or revenge, but an act, the sole purpose of which is, the supression of evil. Indeed more benevolence is demonstrated in punishing violence, and thus repressing it, than in allowing it to prevail. Consonant with this is the teaching of our church which states that "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactotrs by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty…" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2266) (emphasis added).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[WinterWH]

A further point is that the death penalty is not the deterrence that it is made out to me.

Deterrence works when the death penalty is carried out in a consistent and timely way.

For example, nobody crosses gangs such as MS13 because they impose the death penalty in a very consistent way.

So the lack-of-deterrence argument doesn’t really have a strict logic to it.

 

[4elise]

Well, not surprisingly, Aquinas addressed the subject …

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life *is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk III, 147)

That would be pretty much all of Western Europe.

Ender

So… following this, then if the danger to the community is removed by assuring that the individual is removed from society for their natural life, it is my understanding that the Church does not find justification in capital punishment.

 

[4elise]

Finally, any punishment inflicted by the state is not an act of violence or revenge, but an act, the sole purpose of which is, the supression of evil. Indeed more benevolence is demonstrated in punishing violence, and thus repressing it, than in allowing it to prevail. Consonant with this is the teaching of our church which states that "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactotrs by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty…" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2266) (emphasis added).

Warmest good wishes
Portrait

When it is possible to render the aggressor unable to inflict harm with life imprisonment do you believe that the Church finds this a favorable choice?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

When it is possible to render the aggressor unable to inflict harm with life imprisonment do you believe that the Church finds this a favorable choice?

There is no such thing as an individual sentenced to life rendered unable to inflict harm on another human being.

No where.

Life sentences do not stop killers from killing.

Another make believe life in another pollyanna world.

Eddie Mac

 

[Ender]

So… following this, then if the danger to the community is removed by assuring that the individual is removed from society for their natural life, it is my understanding that the Church does not find justification in capital punishment.

One point at a time. Your original comment went to the question of whether it was appropriate to execute someone even though that would possibly prevent him from repenting of his crime. My response was the quote from Aquinas which you didn’t contest so I will assume that that point has been answered and you are now on to a new one.

Your understanding accords with what is found in CCC 2267 and goes to the question of protection but it is not what the Church has taught about justice, and since justice is the primary objective of punishment while protection is a secondary objective the question of justice takes precedence.

As I have said before, the Church must believe that capital punishment is a just penalty or she would never have allowed it before and would not allow it under any circumstances today. If you have a response to the Church’s reference to Gen 9:6 I would like to hear it but I have not seen anything indicating that she has repudiated what she believed and taught at the very least until 1997.

Ender

 

[4elise]

One point at a time. Your original comment went to the question of whether it was appropriate to execute someone even though that would possibly prevent him from repenting of his crime. My response was the quote from Aquinas which you didn’t contest so I will assume that that point has been answered and you are now on to a new one.

Your understanding accords with what is found in CCC 2267 and goes to the question of protection but it is not what the Church has taught about justice, and since justice is the primary objective of punishment while protection is a secondary objective the question of justice takes precedence.

As I have said before, the Church must believe that capital punishment is a just penalty or she would never have allowed it before and would not allow it under any circumstances today. If you have a response to the Church’s reference to Gen 9:6 I would like to hear it but I have not seen anything indicating that she has repudiated what she believed and taught at the very least until 1997.

Ender

Sorry if I seem to be drifting to you, but to me it is connected.
I can appreciate that at times in history and at places in the world today it may be impossible to provide a punishment that also protects society. I do not believe that is the case in the United States. It is possible to provide life imprisonment without the possibility of release - which meets both objectives, it is just, and protects society.

The Florida Bishops said it better…

cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=15833
Bishops seek to stop Florida execution
“Even those who have done great harm are human beings with dignity,created in the image and likeness of God,” the bishops wrote, The Florida Catholic reports.

“Life in prison withoutpossibility of parole satisfies the need for punishment and allows theinmates the opportunity to reflect on their offenses and feel sorrowfor the pain they have caused others,” the state’s nine bishops said tothe governor in a statement released by the Florida CatholicConference.

“Executions do not make society safer nor act as adeterrent, but add to the violence we experience daily in society,numbing us to the truth that every human being has worth. You have theability to stop the intentional killing of the people on death row bycommuting death sentences to life in prison without possibility ofparole.”