Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[kristie_m]

Without a doubt. But she does allow for it and does allow for Catholics to support it.

The trouble is, that’s as far as many pro-death penatly folks will go. They see that the church allows for it, but don’t understand that last bit…that it should not be used except when there is no other means of keeping the offender away from society. When you consider that it takes up to 30 years to execute a prisoner, we definitely have the means to confine them for their natural life, making capitol punishment unneccesary.

 

[pnewton]

…because I think it is considered revenge.

It’s natural for us to want revenge. Much harder to offer mercy, and a chance at redemption.

I am not sure it is revenge unless the only reason I am doing it is for personal motivation.

No, it is not revenge, or at least from a Catholic perspective one can not seek the death penalty for revenge. If one reads the Catechism on page one of this thread, and goes to check the context, it is clear that the death penalty is only permitted for the protection of society. In this way it is pro-(innocent) life, favoring the life of the innocent over the life of one who has killed and has demonstrated a clear willingness and ability to kill again.

Most of the debate I have been involved in is whether the ability to kil again can be denied such a person. I think not. Others (including our late pontif, John Paul the Great, believe that we can deny such a person opportunity to threaten the innocent.

 

[kristie_m]

No, it is not revenge, or at least from a Catholic perspective one can not seek the death penalty for revenge. If one reads the Catechism on page one of this thread, and goes to check the context, it is clear that the death penalty is only permitted for the protection of society. In this way it is pro-(innocent) life, favoring the life of the innocent over the life of one who has killed and has demonstrated a clear willingness and ability to kill again.

Most of the debate I have been involved in is whether the ability to kil again can be denied such a person. I think not. Others (including our late pontif, John Paul the Great, believe that we can deny such a person opportunity to threaten the innocent.

This much is true. However, the way the death penalty is currently set up, at least in the USA, one cannot pretend that it is a matter of protecting society. Most death row inmates die of natural causes, because it can take up to 30 years for all of the appeals to go through. You can’t incarcerate someone for that long, then execute them and expect people to see it as protecting society…what was the state doing for those 30 years?

 

[Brendan]

I dont think a catholic on a Jury in a death penalty case can sentence a person to death.
because I think it is considered revenge.
Revenge is mine says the Lord therefore no one but Our Lord is allowed to take it.

When a person is executed that is murder.

Antrim

Actually, the Church disagrees with you on that.

Here is the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.** The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience **to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment� is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

The Church holds that is should be rarely used, but when it is used on someone who did commit the crime, it is not murder, but an act of justice.

Justice should be tempered by mercy, and thus why it should be rarely used. But it is still an act of Justice

 

[Brendan]

Also, here is Pope Pius XII on why Capitol Punishment is not murder and is consistent with a “Right to Life” ethic.

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather, public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life

Pope Pius also touches on one other aspect of capital punishment, the expiation of guilt. This has always been a part of Catholic teaching on the subject ( that the acceptance of the just punishment remediates in part or in whole, the spiritual guilt of the crime).

Note that Pope Pius does not discuss capital punishment as simply a means to protect society, but addresses it solely in expiation terms.

 

[pnewton]

This much is true. However, the way the death penalty is currently set up, at least in the USA, one cannot pretend that it is a matter of protecting society. Most death row inmates die of natural causes, because it can take up to 30 years for all of the appeals to go through. You can’t incarcerate someone for that long, then execute them and expect people to see it as protecting society…what was the state doing for those 30 years?

Maybe way out west it takes that long. No doubt the appeals process is too long. BTW - my informed and educated opinion is not “pretending”. It is demeaning and insulting to make such statements.

 

[Brendan]

I dont think a catholic on a Jury in a death penalty case can sentence a person to death.

FYI, here is Cardinal Dulles on that particular subject

It is sometimes asked whether a judge or executioner can impose or carry out the death penalty with love. It seems to me quite obvious that such officeholders can carry out their duty without hatred for the criminal, but rather with love, respect, and compassion. In enforcing the law, they may take comfort in believing that death is not the final evil; they may pray and hope that the convict will attain eternal life with God.

FYI, it is a distinct possibility that Timothy McVeigh went straight to Heaven. Just before his execution, he sought and recieved a Sacramental Confession and Absolution. He also recieved the Apostolic Blessing ( a Plenary Indulgence). He also willing accepted his punishment, which, in capital instances, is also Plenary.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I have long felt that there was a big contradiction between favoring the death penalty while opposing abortion. And the same would apply to those who favor abortion but oppose the death penalty. How can one be in favor of killing in some instances but oppose it in others? It does not seem consistent with Christian beliefs.

My view is to follow the commands of Jesus, by not judging others, and doing to them what I would want done to me. That would mean keeping the commandment of “do not kill”. We hear from some who say “only God can take a life” but who are willing to send someone to their death. It bothered me for a time that the Catholic church and most other Christian faiths seemed inconsistent in this regard. Then I came across a Catholic group who opposed both the death penalty and abortion. I thought, “finally, people who get it!”

 

[Brendan]

I
My view is to follow the commands of Jesus, by not judging others, and doing to them what I would want done to me. That would mean keeping the commandment of “do not kill”. We hear from some who say “only God can take a life” but who are willing to send someone to their death. It bothered me for a time that the Catholic church and most other Christian faiths seemed inconsistent in this regard. Then I came across a Catholic group who opposed both the death penalty and abortion. I thought, “finally, people who get it!”

Chauncery

Do you feel that Christ was being consistent when He gave this command to Noah?

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

Gen 9:6

Or in Ecc 3:3 when God said that there were times to both kill and to heal?

Is the Christ you follow confused?

 

[estesbob]

I have long felt that there was a big contradiction between favoring the death penalty while opposing abortion. And the same would apply to those who favor abortion but oppose the death penalty. How can one be in favor of killing in some instances but oppose it in others? It does not seem consistent with Christian beliefs.

There is no equivalence whatsoever. Abortion is an intrinsic evil-that it is is evil in any and all circumstances. Capital punishment is not. although you may have come to beleive, as i have, that captial pun ishment is never necessary the church says catholics in good conscience are free to disagree with us.

My view is to follow the commands of Jesus, by not judging others, and doing to them what I would want done to me. That would mean keeping the commandment of “do not kill”. We hear from some who say “only God can take a life” but who are willing to send someone to their death. It bothered me for a time that the Catholic church and most other Christian faiths seemed inconsistent in this regard. Then I came across a Catholic group who opposed both the death penalty and abortion. I thought, “finally, people who get it!”

I am glad you found a Catholic group that fits your views on both abortion and capital punishment. i have shied away from such groups because the ones I run across use the alleged moral equivalence to ratonalize supporitng pro-abortion canidates.

 

[kristie_m]

Maybe way out west it takes that long. No doubt the appeals process is too long. BTW - my informed and educated opinion is not “pretending”. It is demeaning and insulting to make such statements.

my apologies for the way that particular comment came across. It was not intended as such, nor directed specifically at you, but rather the universal “one”.

 

[Timothysis]

My view is to follow the commands of Jesus, by not judging others, and doing to them what I would want done to me. That would mean keeping the commandment of “do not kill”. We hear from some who say “only God can take a life” but who are willing to send someone to their death.

I take that you would not sit on a jury and send a convicted criminal to jail because were are to "follow the commands of Jesus, by not judging others, and doing to them what I would want done to me?"

 

[chaunceygardner]

I take that you would not sit on a jury and send a convicted criminal to jail because were are to "follow the commands of Jesus, by not judging others, and doing to them what I would want done to me?"

I would sit on such a jury, as I have no problem with punishing a criminal act as part of a jury. If I were to commit a crime, I would expect to be punished, so the Golden Rule still applies. Plus, the jury does not usually determine the punishment; rather it finds the defendant guilty or innocent of the crime. I have sat on a jury for a civil case, and in that arena, you are part of a group deciding on the truth of the matter.

But I could not sit on a jury involved in a capital case. My conscience and beliefs would not allow me to condemn another person to death.

 

[chaunceygardner]

There is no equivalence whatsoever. Abortion is an intrinsic evil-that it is is evil in any and all circumstances. Capital punishment is not. although you may have come to beleive, as i have, that captial pun ishment is never necessary the church says catholics in good conscience are free to disagree with us.

Other Catholics can certainly believe and act as they wish, since as you say capital punishment is not condemned by the church. But we know that there are Catholics who feel that the death penalty is wrong. We agree to disagree.

I am glad you found a Catholic group that fits your views on both abortion and capital punishment. i have shied away from such groups because the ones I run across use the alleged moral equivalence to ratonalize supporitng pro-abortion canidates.

I have not joined any particular group, Catholic or otherwise, that is against both abortion and capital punishment. I was just happy to find others who felt the inherent dichotomy in holding one of the other positions.

Your comments and understanding are appreciated.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

Gen 9:6

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

What about John 8:5-8 though? Am I misinterpreting something? (A very real possibility)

 

[chaunceygardner]

Chauncery

Do you feel that Christ was being consistent when He gave this command to Noah?
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. - Gen 9:6

Or in Ecc 3:3 when God said that there were times to both kill and to heal?

Is the Christ you follow confused?

You could have endless arguments over NT vs. OT scripture. Which takes precedence? The old covenant or the new covenant?

I don’t think Jesus was confused at all; in fact, I think He was very clear on this.

You can choose to go with the old rule if you wish but as for me, I will go with the new.

Peace

 

[chaunceygardner]

I know I have added several posts on this, but felt obligated to respond to those commenting on my posts. Thanks for your understanding.

What about John 8:5-8 though? Am I misinterpreting something? (A very real possibility)

No, I don’t think you are misinterpreting or misunderstanding anything. You hit on the answer. Let’s look at this part of John 8 a little more closely.

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle.
They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.
Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.
But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.

Who among us is totally unblemished that they can condemn another?
Jesus is telling us: No one but God.

Let’s read on:

And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.
Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”.

A few words bear repeating: “Neither do I condemn you.”

 Neither does Jesus condemn her.  

      Neither does GOD condemn her.

Wow! Think about what Jesus is saying here. It is almost mind boggling. God is saying to us (as He said at other times) that we should not judge or condemn another (unless you want the same kind of judgment applied to you). We say it everytime that we recite the Lord’s Prayer. And then He goes beyond that and says He will forgive her as well.

So God, through the words of Jesus, is giving us an entirely new and higher commandment. Or at least an expanded meaning to an earlier, older commandment.

If I accept that commandment, how can I condemn someone if Jesus doesn’t?. I would never place myself above Him.

And that would include sending someone to their execution.

 

[pnewton]

Neither does Jesus condemn her.

Neither does GOD condemn her.

Wow! Think about what Jesus is saying here. It is almost mind boggling. God is saying to us (as He said at other times) that we should not judge or condemn another (unless you want the same kind of judgment applied to you).

The problem with this logic, which I see as flawed is that it proves too much. You have also proved that no one should be punished at all, including prison or fines. If the legal authorities in society can not judge, condemn or punish, then what is left is anarchy. In such a system, those that murder will much more likely be put to death, as now the family and loved ones of a victim are free to exact their own punishment, as such a revenge killing is owed the an equal chance of not being condemned or judged.

I notice that many flip to the woman in adultery to address this topic, even though that is a specific case and ignore the general principle given in 1 Peter 2:13-15

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good. For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people.

Yes, judgement belongs to God. However, it is God Himselfe that establishes “human institutions” and delegates to them the right to execute judgement.

 

[Brendan]

What about John 8:5-8 though? Am I misinterpreting something? (A very real possibility)

Yes, Gen 9 was given to Noah. It is not part of the Law given to Moses, but rather a statement of Natural Law.

Certain law were given to the Israelites after they rebelled at the Exodus. These are not Moral Law ( which is unchanging), but ceremonial Law.

The Moral Law, what consititues an offense against God, is unchanging, in fact it cannot change, as God Himself is unchanging.

The ceremonial law, did not exist prior to the Exodus and can (and was changed).

That is why the 10 Commandments still apply to us, even though they too were are part of the Law given to Moses.

 

[Brendan]

Let’s look at this part of John 8 a little more closely.

Yes lets.

Note that in John 8, it says that the Pharisess were setting a trap for Christ. Now what exactly was that trap.

They believed they were putting Christ in an impossible position. He could either claim that the woman could be stoned, in which case they could bring him to the Romans for violating Roman Law ( only Roman justice could put someone to death), or denying the Law of Moses, in which case they could tell the people that he is not the Messiah, as the Messiah could not violate the Moral Law.

So what did Christ do. He simply told the Pharisees that they COULD stone her. The Pharisees viewed sin as not complying with the Law of Moses (both Moral and Ceremonial). They were, in the Law, sinless.

But Christ said they could stone her in a way that they could not bring to the Roman courts. They simply would have been laughed right out of the courtroom by Pilate.

That is why it was the oldest of them who went away first. They noted that Christ excaped their trap. Their younger and less wise members took a bit to figure it out.

All of them knew that the woman could not be stoned at all, at least without Roman permission. And they knew they could not go the people either.