Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[iluvburpees]

This is what the Church has always taught.
True, and the virtue is justice.
The protection of society is a secondary objective of punishment; whether or not society is better protected by executing dangerous criminals does not say whether such punishment is just, and it is justice that requires their execution, not protection.

Ender

You are absolutely right. No objection here. I simply made that point because it’s important, although justice is definitely the most important aspect of capital punishment.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Is it right or wrong? It is right when employed correctly.

Is it a sin? It is an act of virtue if employed correctly.

I actually did a research paper this past school year on capital punishment for 12th grade. Through my research, I concluded that the death penalty is without a doubt a good thing and should be employed, especially today. While I do not like to see bloodshed, it is better to rid society of the bad members in order to safeguard the good members.

That is chillingly scary. Since you are young and have not witnessed or experienced any of the results of such thinking, I would suggest that you read about Hitler and the Final Solution, and any number of other historical occurrences where one group determined who was “good” and who was “bad” and then tried to eliminate them. Your kind of thinking has in the past resulted in slavery, mass slaughter and genocide.

I will sincerely pray for you (and that you are never in a position of civil authority).

As you can tell from this (and if you read my much earlier posts on this thread), I think capital punishment is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus, not to mention one of the Ten Commandments (isn’t it a supreme irony that the Ten Commandments are posted in front of, or inside of, some courthouses where the sentence of death is handed down?)

 

[iluvburpees]

That is chillingly scary. Since you are young and have not witnessed or experienced any of the results of such thinking, I would suggest that you read about Hitler and the Final Solution, and any number of other historical occurrences where one group determined who was “good” and who was “bad” and then tried to eliminate them. Your kind of thinking has in the past resulted in slavery, mass slaughter and genocide.

I will sincerely pray for you (and that you are never in a position of civil authority).

As you can tell from this (and if you read my much earlier posts on this thread), I think capital punishment is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus, not to mention one of the Ten Commandments (isn’t it a supreme irony that the Ten Commandments are posted in front of, or inside of, some courthouses where the sentence of death is handed down?)

I very much appreciate the prayers. However, I’d prefer you pray for some other purpose. I fully support the proper use of the death penalty. Objectively, it is morally just and fully in accordance with the Church’s teachings. It is not opposed in any way to the teachings of Christ.

Why is it an irony for the Ten Commandments be posted there? Because of the fifth commandment? It is actually quite appropriate, because capital punishment is an act of obedience to the fifth commandment.

And the example of Hitler, well, I don’t know why you compare that with capital punishment. Proper use of the death penalty won’t result in what you listed. If someone is proved beyond reasonably doubt that he is guilty of murder (or some other very serious crime, such as treason), then he will be extracted from the body of society so that the good may be safeguarded.

I’ve done a huge amount of study and research on these questions of capital punishment. I’ve concluded that social justice demands that the death penalty be used.

If you would like me to expand on my reasons, let me know.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I very much appreciate the prayers. However, I’d prefer you pray for some other purpose. I fully support the proper use of the death penalty. Objectively, it is morally just and fully in accordance with the Church’s teachings. It is not opposed in any way to the teachings of Christ.

Here IS what the church teaches about the death penalty, from the Catechism:

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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.”

The last quoted words are from John Paul II; emphasis mine.

You say the death penalty is “not opposed in any way to the teachings of Christ”. I guess I must be reading a totally different New Testament than you. How about:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

or perhaps:

“Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned.”

“Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.”

“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.”

You said:

Why is it an irony for the Ten Commandments be posted there? Because of the fifth commandment? It is actually quite appropriate, because capital punishment is an act of obedience to the fifth commandment.

I am not quite seeing how executing someone is obedience to the commandment “Do not Kill.” Seems quite clear to me. There is obvious irony in having God’s Commandment to not kill in a place where people are sentenced to death. It is similar to the horiffic irony in the sign over the entrance to Auschwitz: “Work makes (one) free”. I would strongly suggest you read up on it.

You said:

And the example of Hitler, well, I don’t know why you compare that with capital punishment. Proper use of the death penalty won’t result in what you listed. If someone is proved beyond reasonably doubt that he is guilty of murder (or some other very serious crime, such as treason), then he will be extracted from the body of society so that the good may be safeguarded.

I wasn’t comparing Hitler to the death penalty. I was comparing Hitler (and others) to your statement: "it is better to rid society of the bad members in order to safeguard the good members."

You obviously have no concept of what deep feelings and memories those words dredge up in the hearts and souls of millions of people, do you?. Who is bad? What is bad? Who and what is good? Who defines those terms? Who makes those decisions? There are too many Hitlers out there who are more than willing to decide for us. It literally brings me to tears to think that you could so flippantly say something like that.

you said:

I’ve done a huge amount of study and research on these questions of capital punishment. I’ve concluded that social justice demands that the death penalty be used.

I would respectfully suggest that you “study” your heart, and truly think about what Jesus says to us regarding how we should treat, judge and care for others, who are ALL God’s children too. Read carefully and prayerfully what the Cathechism and the Church today says. Be a “student” of Jesus, not of the law. Or you may become like these men:

Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”

You can look up Jesus’ answer in John 9, if you don’t know it.

You said:

If you would like me to expand on my reasons, let me know.

I would prefer that you first do what I suggest before you say too much more.

If I seem harsh in my comments it is only because of YOUR words, which I will repeat, since we should never, ever forget that people exist who could and do have this attitude:

it is better to rid society of the bad members in order to safeguard the good members

I will continue to Pray.

 

[querying]

I am not quite seeing how executing someone is obedience to the commandment “Do not Kill.” Seems quite clear to me. There is obvious irony in having God’s Commandment to not kill in a place where people are sentenced to death. It is similar to the horiffic irony in the sign over the entrance to Auschwitz: “Work makes (one) free”. I would strongly suggest you read up on it.
.

You are looking at things through the lens of a protestant and sola scriptura. Believe it or not, but your points have been refuted repeatedly in this thread, and other threads time and time again.

Picking out bits and pieces of scripture to support your position does not add strength to your argument amongst those who cling to “big T” Tradition.

Catholicism has 2000 years of tradition which supports the right of the state to find recourse to the death penalty, and not just as a measure of protecting society, but for addressing wrongs committed.

As a protestant, who is a solo magisterium unto yourself, you are free to not follow the Church’s line.

 

[kristie_m]

from the USCCB:
“As Catholic bishops, we teach and preach the Gospel vision of a “culture of life.” We believe that we are created in God’s image, which compels us to teach a consistent ethic of life and obligates us to preach that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life nor promote human dignity.”

 

[chaunceygardner]

You are looking at things through the lens of a protestant and sola scriptura. Believe it or not, but your points have been refuted repeatedly in this thread, and other threads time and time again.

Picking out bits and pieces of scripture to support your position does not add strength to your argument amongst those who cling to “big T” Tradition.

Catholicism has 2000 years of tradition which supports the right of the state to find recourse to the death penalty, and not just as a measure of protecting society, but for addressing wrongs committed.

As a protestant, who is a solo magisterium unto yourself, you are free to not follow the Church’s line.

Refuted?? How can you say that following what Jesus and the Catholic Catechism says is not Catholic? What YOU are saying is that those who follow “Big T” tradition, as you call it, do not follow the teachings of the Church. So who is acting Protestant and Sola Scriptura now?

The 2000 years of tradition (history) that you refer to is not something I would recommend using to back an argument about the position of the Catholic Church regarding executing people.

I apologize for using what Jesus said to point out the reasons for my stance. After all, what would He know, and why should we listen to Him? Feel free to quote from any part of the New Testament (or the Catechism) where Jesus expressly directs us to kill others.

I guess I thought that following the teachings of Jesus and the Magisterium was what Catholics were SUPPOSED to do. But I apparently got it wrong.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And the example of Hitler, well, I don’t know why you compare that with capital punishment. Proper use of the death penalty won’t result in what you listed. If someone is proved beyond reasonably doubt that he is guilty of murder (or some other very serious crime, such as treason), then he will be extracted from the body of society so that the good may be safeguarded.

ut’o that is a problem, in the eyes of Nazi’s those jews were guilty of treason and were properly tried by the state, and they and you agree that is the proper authority

I’ve done a huge amount of study and research on these questions of capital punishment. I’ve concluded that social justice demands that the death penalty be used.

If you would like me to expand on my reasons, let me know.

Yes, I would like you to expand on it. I once supported capital punishment through logic but the facts have changed my mind. It appears capital punishment achieves practically nothing and introduces greater problems than the few benefits it provides.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Believe it or not, but your points have been refuted repeatedly in this thread, and other threads time and time again.
…
Catholicism has 2000 years of tradition which supports the right of the state to find recourse to the death penalty, and not just as a measure of protecting society, but for addressing wrongs committed.
…

I’ll ask you what I have asked the others at least a dozen times "Where does the church say that?". The church says crime should be punished but where does The Church say we must kill?

 

[iluvburpees]

Here IS what the church teaches about the death penalty, from the Catechism:

The last quoted words are from John Paul II; emphasis mine.

You say the death penalty is “not opposed in any way to the teachings of Christ”. I guess I must be reading a totally different New Testament than you. How about:

or perhaps:

You said:

I am not quite seeing how executing someone is obedience to the commandment “Do not Kill.” Seems quite clear to me. There is obvious irony in having God’s Commandment to not kill in a place where people are sentenced to death. It is similar to the horiffic irony in the sign over the entrance to Auschwitz: “Work makes (one) free”. I would strongly suggest you read up on it.

You said:

I wasn’t comparing Hitler to the death penalty. I was comparing Hitler (and others) to your statement: "it is better to rid society of the bad members in order to safeguard the good members."

You obviously have no concept of what deep feelings and memories those words dredge up in the hearts and souls of millions of people, do you?. Who is bad? What is bad? Who and what is good? Who defines those terms? Who makes those decisions? There are too many Hitlers out there who are more than willing to decide for us. It literally brings me to tears to think that you could so flippantly say something like that.

you said:

I would respectfully suggest that you “study” your heart, and truly think about what Jesus says to us regarding how we should treat, judge and care for others, who are ALL God’s children too. Read carefully and prayerfully what the Cathechism and the Church today says. Be a “student” of Jesus, not of the law. Or you may become like these men:

You can look up Jesus’ answer in John 9, if you don’t know it.

You said:

I would prefer that you first do what I suggest before you say too much more.

If I seem harsh in my comments it is only because of YOUR words, which I will repeat, since we should never, ever forget that people exist who could and do have this attitude:

I will continue to Pray.

Well, it looks like I have a lot to do. Let’s first begin by discussing whether or not capital punishment is just. To get you acquainted with the different types of justice, here is an excerpt from my paper:

** According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, justice means “the quality of being righteous; honesty” (993). And St. Thomas says that justice may be defined as “a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will (“Whether Justice is Fittingly Defined” 9). This is what most people think when they hear the term justice. The Church, however, has three distinct types of justice: commutative justice (as defined by St. Thomas), legal justice, and distributive justice, and each deals with a different relationship. Commutative justice is the relationship between individuals; legal justice is the relationship of the individual towards the community; and distributive justice is the relationship of the community towards the individual (Fagothey 234-235).
Now, the most commonly thought type of justice in the Church is commutative justice. It deals only with individuals, and its purpose is to ensure that the rights of individuals are kept equal. This is the basic understanding of justice; however, it is not the justice that deals with capital punishment, for two reasons: first, an individual has no right to punish an evildoer and restore equity unless he has the proper authority (“Kill a Man Who Has Sinned” 5); second, murdering a man disturbs the entire community, not just the victim. Therefore, it follows that capital punishment is dealt with, not by an offended individual, but by the state (Higgins 529). This point is supported by St. Thomas Aquinas, who said, “…it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare…Now the care of the common good [the common good being “the end for which society exists” (Fagothey 348)] is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death” (“Kill a Man Who Has Sinned” 5).
The justices that deal with capital punishment are legal justice and distributive justice. Legal justice, the relationship of a member of a community towards that community, “requires each man to contribute his proper share toward the common good” (Fagothey 235). An example of legal justice would be obedience to traffic laws, such as stopping at a red light. A man who does this is promoting the common good in two ways: first, he is safeguarding other drivers who might have collided with him had he not stopped at the light; second, by obeying the traffic law, he is setting a good example for others. The other type of justice, distributive justice, is the opposite of legal justice: it is the relationship of a community towards the members of that community. “It requires a fair and proper distribution of public benefits and burdens among the members of the community” (Fagothey 234). An example of distributive justice would be a program providing medical care for old people; this would give assistance to particularly needful people in society (the elderly) (Patrick 50).**

As you can see, distributive justice demands that the criminal be punished accordingly. As St. Thomas Aquinas explained, society is a body made up of many members. The state has authority over them and, in justice, can reward the good and punish the wicked. This authority is supported by St. Paul and Our Lord Himself in the Bible which you were anxious to quote from. First, here’s St. Paul:

 

[iluvburpees]

(continued)

Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase for themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil (Rom. 13:1-4).

It seems clear that St. Paul has respect for lawful authority.

And here is Christ to Pilate:

“Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above” (John 19:11).

Obviously, Christ is limiting the power Pilate had over Him. However, what’s important is that Christ is recognizing that Pilate has power/authority, which is given from above (i.e. God).

Now let’s move onto your quotations from Scripture. You quote Christ’s well-known and beautiful teachings of mercy from the New Testament. You claim that it relates to capital punishment in a way that supports your view. Well, the fact is, it doesn’t. Let’s evaluate.

Christ told us to turn the other cheek. What is he referring to, however? He is referring to personal attacks, insults, offenses, etc. An example would be if someone hits me, I should simply bear with it and not hit back (unless, of course, I had to in order to defend myself form serious injury).

These teachings have nothing to do with lawful authority. If it did, then your argument would be abolutely ludicrous. Why? Because you think that the state should be “merciful” and not execute certain criminals. However, why should you stop at capital punishment? If capital punishment should be abandoned “in mercy,” then why not just get rid of all punishment alltogether? After all, we have to be “merciful.”

The point I am making is that if these teachings of Christ had reference to capital punishment, then they should have reference to ALL punishments, not just this one.

And you consider capital punishment to be an act of “vengeance,” something “unmerciful.” Well, you’d have a hard tiime winning a debate with Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas with that erroneous mindset. Both of them explain that justice is not about the passions; therefore, since capital punishment is an act of justice, it is not an act of vengeance (this is explained in The Summa Theologica, the 2nd Part of the 2nd Part, Question 58, Art. 9 - newadvent.org/summa/3058.htm#article9).

Remember what St. Paul said:

But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil (Rom. 13:1-4).

Lawful authority is merely God’s instrument. They are the sword of God.

The last point I want to make is that the Traditional teaching of the Church has always been in favour of capital punishment. Here are a few examples:

“…it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare…Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death” (St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica)

“The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude” (Innocent III)

“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” (Innocent I)

Here’s the king of them all:

“The just use of this power [the power to execute certain criminals], far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of PARAMOUNT OBEDIENCE to this [the fifth] commandment which prohibits murder” (The Council of Trent)

Conclusion: The death penalty is a just means of safeguarding society.

Hopefully, this brief summary will give you some things to think about.

 

[chaunceygardner]

iluvburpees said:

Conclusion: The death penalty is a just means of safeguarding society.
Hopefully, this brief summary will give you some things to think about.

Yes, it does, but it does not change my earlier thought about your lack of understanding. And then there is that scary statement again, about “safeguarding society.” But more on that shortly.

A few lines below your quote from Romans is this from Paul:

Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Since you seem to have deep understanding of this, perhaps you can explain why, in the chapter you quoted, Paul was directing the members of the church in Rome to follow the dictates of the Pagan emperor? Did he want them to believe in their pantheon of gods? Did he want them to forsake Jesus and declare allegiance to the Empire? Or was he perhaps telling them that if they persisted in openly opposing the Emperor and defying the civil authority, they would be arrested, tortured, and executed?

Let’s expand this spotlight on Romans and look at what Paul said just before your quote, in Chapter 12 (emphasis mine):

Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them.
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

If I am reading this right (and I am SURE you will tell me if I am not), Paul in these two chapters is telling us to repay injustice with justice, evil with good. We should submit to lawful civil authority but he is also saying that moral law ranks above civil. He is telling us that we may suffer for our faith, but that God will reward us and that He will take care of the evildoers.

In your paper, did you ever discuss the ideas of mercy, forgiveness and redemption? Did you use any church documents from the last 40 years? The past 200 years? 400 years? How do you reconcile what you say with what the church obviously teaches today? Not what Aquinas said, but what the church today says? (Perhaps I am picking up, as slow as I am, that you don’t agree with the church’s position?)

How is killing someone “safeguarding society” more than incarcerating them?

You quote from my post but do not respond to my questions. Why not?

Final question: We know you have a brain; have you checked lately if you have a heart?

Actually, here is the final question:

**Assume I am in a position of authority. I have the power of life and death. I, along with others who share that power, determine that your beliefs, philosophy and theology are a danger to society. After all, you are in favor of putting other people to death. And you claim that God not only allows it, but commands it! So, to safeguard society from you ever acting on your beliefs, and to protect others from being taken in by your dangerous ideas, we decide that you should be summarily executed.

How would you feel about that? Based on YOUR reasoning, you should have no disagreement with that, what so ever.

Again, if you are not sure, read some history; there are many, many examples of just that occurring, several in my lifetime. One of them was called the Holocaust.**

 

[Texas_Roofer]

(continued)

. …

Here’s the king of them all:

“The just use of this power [the power to execute certain criminals], far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of PARAMOUNT OBEDIENCE to this [the fifth] commandment which prohibits murder” (The Council of Trent)

Conclusion: The death penalty is a just means of safeguarding society.

Hopefully, this brief summary will give you some things to think about.

This “traditional teaching” is found in the Roman Catechism produced following the Council of Trent (1545-63):

*“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 [the Fifth] 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”. *

This teaching also draws support from the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote that “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good” (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 64, Art. 2). This teaching in turn can be traced back to the Scriptures themselves. (www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/cappunish.pdf)

It seems many find different direct quotes from The Council of Trent ? I wonder how many times they wrote? But whom does it say to kill? And must we dismiss what it actually says? (as “the preservation and security of human life”)

 

[iluvburpees]

Actually, here is the final question:

Assume I am in a position of authority. I have the power of life and death. I, along with others who share that power, determine that your beliefs, philosophy and theology are a danger to society. After all, you are in favor of putting other people to death. And you claim that God not only allows it, but commands it! So, to safeguard society from you ever acting on your beliefs, and to protect others from being taken in by your dangerous ideas, we decide that you should be summarily executed.

How would you feel about that? Based on YOUR reasoning, you should have no disagreement with that, what so ever.

How would I feel about that? Well, let’s go to Scripture:

“Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Exodus 22:18)

So yes, if a heretic is publicly spreading errors, it would be good and beneficial to extract this heretic from the whole body, that the rest of the body may not be influenced. This, in fact, is even worse than murder, since it is the murder of the soul, and the soul is infinitely more important than the body; hence, it is an even stronger case for capital punishment.

And again, justice is not about the passions. Capital punishment has to do with justice. Vengeance is a passion. Therefore, capital punishment is not about vengeance.

You keep bringing up “mercy” and “compassion.” You accuse me of being unmerciful. However, it is the complete opposite… You would rather have the guilty murderers live rather than the innocent live. You are compassionate for the guilty, yet not for the innocent. YOU are unmerciful, not me.

And just so we clear things up, I do not have a hostility or hatred for murderers. In fact, it is an act of mercy towards them to support capital punishment. There have been numerous examples of people sentenced to death converting very soon before their death, even seconds before. This knowledge of certain death at a certain time is not present in life imprisonment, but it is with a death sentence, and it can cause the criminal to have remorse for what he did. And, in a truly Catholic society, there would no doubt be priests to try to influence them, bring them to sorrow for their crimes, and, if they desire, hear their confessions.

And you didn’t answer my question before. If capital punishment should be abandoned because we have to be “merciful,” why not get rid of all punishment? Remember, we have to be “merciful.”

I’m just curious to know whether you read everything I posted. You have not said a single thing about justice. Just you concept of “mercy.” I ask you to look at my arguments, definitions, and conclusions, and try to prove me wrong. If not, then I will not waste my time debating someone who will not argue rationally and only relies on personal feelings.

Again, if you are not sure, read some history; there are many, many examples of just that occurring, several in my lifetime. One of them was called the Holocaust.

Since the Holocaust never happened (the absurd “6 million” number), you’ll have to find another example. And don’t even try to argue over this. If you want to do that, start another thread.

 

[chaunceygardner]

How would I feel about that? Well, let’s go to Scripture:

“Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Exodus 22:18)

So yes, if a heretic is publicly spreading errors, it would be good and beneficial to extract this heretic from the whole body, that the rest of the body may not be influenced. This, in fact, is even worse than murder, since it is the murder of the soul, and the soul is infinitely more important than the body; hence, it is an even stronger case for capital punishment.

And again, justice is not about the passions. Capital punishment has to do with justice. Vengeance is a passion. Therefore, capital punishment is not about vengeance.

You keep bringing up “mercy” and “compassion.” You accuse me of being unmerciful. However, it is the complete opposite… You would rather have the guilty murderers live rather than the innocent live. You are compassionate for the guilty, yet not for the innocent. YOU are unmerciful, not me.

And just so we clear things up, I do not have a hostility or hatred for murderers. In fact, it is an act of mercy towards them to support capital punishment. There have been numerous examples of people sentenced to death converting very soon before their death, even seconds before. This knowledge of certain death at a certain time is not present in life imprisonment, but it is with a death sentence, and it can cause the criminal to have remorse for what he did. And, in a truly Catholic society, there would no doubt be priests to try to influence them, bring them to sorrow for their crimes, and, if they desire, hear their confessions.

And you didn’t answer my question before. If capital punishment should be abandoned because we have to be “merciful,” why not get rid of all punishment? Remember, we have to be “merciful.”

I’m just curious to know whether you read everything I posted. You have not said a single thing about justice. Just you concept of “mercy.” I ask you to look at my arguments, definitions, and conclusions, and try to prove me wrong. If not, then I will not waste my time debating someone who will not argue rationally and only relies on personal feelings.

Since the Holocaust never happened (the absurd “6 million” number), you’ll have to find another example. And don’t even try to argue over this. If you want to do that, start another thread.

Now you really are scaring me. Deny the murder of millions of people but let’s not talk about it. With people like you thinking like this, humanity is truly doomed. Heaven help the rest of us.

To respond to your point about “proving you wrong”, I quoted verbatim from the Catechism, included a statement from the Pope, and provided several Gospel verses from the mouth of Jesus, which you discounted. I asked YOU why you did not consider those, and to provide more recent confirmation than the Council of Trent for your position, and you remain silent. Rather, you quote from Exodus about “wizards”. I do not need to “prove” you wrong, since the Church already does it very convincingly, thank you.

I did mention justice, which can be served by imprisonment just as well as execution. You twist my points and turn them into absurdities so that you can feel you are correct. No one said mercy means not punishing at all, but that’s what you accuse me of saying.

You never answered my final question, although you did talk around it. You claim that showing compassion for one person means having less or no compassion for another, which is totally illogical. One has nothing to do with the other.

Then you DARE to accuse ME of not being rational. This from a very warped human being who denies historical reality, brushes off as fiction the torture and death of millions of people, says that “good people” should rid the earth of the “bad people”, claims to be presenting the authority of the Church while conveniently ignoring the actual statements and position of that Church, and then says that we can save people by executing them!

And as for not wanting to expand the discussion to the Holocaust, or any similar event in the long history of mankind, because it is off the subject, you are the one expanding capital punishment to include ridding the earth of “heretics”.

Ahhh, now I think I see where you are coming from. It is not just murderers you want to send to the gallows, it is also anyone who may be defined as a heretic, because they could be putting other souls in peril. I will then ask questions similar to what I asked earlier: Who is a heretic? Who decides what a heresy is? How far do we go to root out heresy?

Finally I will ask the question Jesus asked, one that resonates through the ages and is directed at the hearts of every human: "Which of you will cast the first stone?"

And after reading more of your posts and responses, I will honor your request and no longer pray for you. Rather, I will pray for all those who you would be willing to throw into the fire in the blink of an eye, and for all those in the past who have been thrown in the fire by people just like you.

 

[pnewton]

I am not quite seeing how executing someone is obedience to the commandment “Do not Kill.” Seems quite clear to me.

That is because the one verse you quote is out of context. The nation of Israel did not have the luxury of prooftexting to fit their opinions. They did not even number verses. If one reads the Bible, and not just a verse or two, they find that “kill” is a poor translation. Heck, we still have people that think the Bible was written in English.

The Mosaic Law that say one is not to commit murder (thou shalt not kill, in KJV) also listed execution as one of the penalties in come cases. Read the book, not just four words.

 

[chaunceygardner]

That is because the one verse you quote is out of context. The nation of Israel did not have the luxury of prooftexting to fit their opinions. They did not even number verses. If one reads the Bible, and not just a verse or two, they find that “kill” is a poor translation. Heck, we still have people that think the Bible was written in English.

The Mosaic Law that say one is not to commit murder (thou shalt not kill, in KJV) also listed execution as one of the penalties in come cases. Read the book, not just four words.

It is funny that some people get blasted for re-interpreting bible passages a certain way, but when those who claim “immutable doctrine” do it to fit their own pre-conceived ideas, it is okay. Seems like it is the same people who will quote posts out of context, too. Hmmm.

It really doesn’t matter what the OT says, although everywhere I find the Ten Commandments it reads “kill”. Period. In the rest of my posts I focus on the NT and what the Church clearly teaches today. I understand and admit that the OT refers to “eye for an eye” and executing enemies and other “bad” people. It even condones mass murder and genocide. It is all there. That doesn’t mean that is acceptable now.

See, there was this person, called Jesus, who brought the “good news”, and set higher standards of conduct and morality. He took those commandments, and the behavioral expectations that accompanied them, to a whole new level. And unless I am sorely mistaken, unless all the stuff the Church has told me over the years is totally wrong, it is Jesus’ standards that we are to follow now.

 

[pnewton]

It is funny that some people get blasted for re-interpreting bible passages a certain way, but when those who claim “immutable doctrine” do it to fit their own pre-conceived ideas, it is okay. Seems like it is the same people who will quote posts out of context, too. Hmmm.

You are right. that too leads one away from what the Church teaches.

Be careful about dismissing the OT so lightly. It is the same Jesus that speaks there, even though the circustances are different. Gentle Jesus called for the firstborn of every Egyptian to die, cities to be placed under the ban and will one day come again to judge and many to a place of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

For now, we need to listen to the Church. We do not live in the time of Israelites and the time of judgement has not yet come.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You are right. that too leads one away from what the Church teaches.

Be careful about dismissing the OT so lightly. It is the same Jesus that speaks there, even though the circustances are different. Gentle Jesus called for the firstborn of every Egyptian to die, cities to be placed under the ban and will one day come again to judge and many to a place of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

For now, we need to listen to the Church. We do not live in the time of Israelites and the time of judgement has not yet come.

I think this is where we part company. I have not yet reconciled the actions of the OT God with the actions and message of Jesus. I cannot understand how God could be so schizophrenic. And I believe we make a huge mistake in mixing OT and NT as much as we have. In doing so, I think we are obscuring what God is telling us and are coming up with many mixed messages that can be very confusing, not to mention contradictory. A case in point would be the current discussion on capital punishment.

To me, the OT is the bible of the Jewish faith. The Gospel is the bible of Christians. We have shed the old, and put on the new. We are a new person now, clothed in Christ (I think Paul said that). If that is true, and it is what I believe, then we need to live according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[pnewton]

I think this is where we part company. I have not yet reconciled the actions of the OT God with the actions and message of Jesus.

Fair enough. I just noticed that you are not Catholic. From what you said earlier about misquotes and because of the title of this thread, I though you were. However, bear in mind that all of Christianity believed Jesus to be divine (God) up until the last couple of centuries. Therefore the reconciliation of the Old Testament and the New is not an option. It is not difficult, though. TImes change and God has always tried to reach us where we are, not where we should be.