There are three parts to this post, and I apologize in advance for the length and having to split it between two posts. I have not posted on this thread for a few days, and this will be my last post on this topic.
First, the original query was answered a long time ago. The Church’s CURRENT teaching is definitely opposed to any excessive use of the death penalty. You can argue whether the Church’s position should be different, but the original question is clearly answered by the Catechism and in the fact that the Vatican itself removed the death penalty 40 years ago. I thank *Texas Roofer *for his contributions to that discussion in my absence.
Second are responses to some posts by our friend
“iluvburpees", left unanswered earlier. I feel I owe him answers to some of the points he raised and the questions he asked of me.
Finally, I will respond more directly and more personally to one of his comments, which I cannot allow to pass without serious comment. That will be on the following post. Just a “heads up” – it won’t be nice.
Our friend
“burpee” advocates the use of the death penalty as meeting the four purposes of punishment in the case of capital crimes (examples he gave were murder and treason). Although you may not want to believe this, it is generally accepted that the four ends of punishment (defense against the criminal, rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution) can be served just as well, and perhaps better, through incarceration. This is backed by the current teaching of the Catholic Church, the stance of other Christian faiths, and the laws of most of the developed world.
Capital punishment, when administered correctly, is truly the most effective means of preventing future crimes. (Post #125)
Wrong. In terms of deterrence and defense, there is no indication that the death penalty “defends” against crime nor deters criminals. The statistics for the 50 states, which I took time to review, do not show any positive correlation between the death penalty and crime reduction. In fact, the average violent crime rate is LOWER in the states without the death penalty. Two states, Texas and Virginia, accounted for about 46% of all the executions in the U.S. in 2006, far, far above their respective murder rates, which are close to the average.
As to rehabilitation, it is difficult to see how execution will provide any opportunity for someone to be rehabilitated. Retribution may be the strongest argument for the death penalty, but the idea of an “eye for an eye” is from the world of the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law, not from the enlightened Christianity which supercedes them.
I’ve concluded that social justice demands that the death penalty be used. (#103)
Here is where
“burpee” really strikes out. Study after study of the crime and sentencing statistics show that in the U.S. (or at least many parts of it) there is little justice in how sentences and punishments are applied. It is skewed by the race and socio-economic status of the victim and of the perpetrator; it is skewed by where they live (state, jurisdiction, etc.). We have a long history of NOT applying the death penalty in a fair and just manner. So true justice would then require, if we can’t dispense this extreme and final punishment in a non-discriminatory manner, that we should forgo using it.
Conclusion: The death penalty is a just means of safeguarding society. (#111)
One can readily discern that you had made your conclusion before you did your “study”, and the “evidence” was selected to support your thesis. From time to time you refer to the “straw man” argument, but fail to see it in what you yourself write. For example:
Literally, give me a passage where Christ tells us not to use capital punishment. I don’t recall any……Again, give me one quote from Christ that shows He did not approve of capital punishment. (#134)
Of course I can’t provide a quote from Jesus about capital punishment, because He never directly talked about it, one way or the other. Just like Jesus didn’t talk about a thousand other moral, ethical, or religious rules. He left it to us to understand and apply His teachings, starting with the first two commandments. He did not give us a list of rules for every aspect of our behavior. **In fact he thoroughly condemned those who did. **
He did not leave us a Church with a myriad set of intricate rules designed to trip us up, or to separate the “good from the bad”. He gave us a Church of Love, expecting us to use our Faith in His Word and His guidance to do the will of God. Your apparent wish is to re-impose the tyranny of the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law. That is not a Church of faith, hope and love; it is the antithesis of that and not what Jesus was all about.
The difference between us is that my arguments are based on cold reason and facts. (#127)
I would say “very cold”. No compassion, no empathy, no forgiveness, no mercy; just hard, cold reason. You rely so heavily on the “numbered” pronouncements of Aquinas and the Councils, etc., and obviously want everything set in stone for you so there is no question about which thought or behavior is acceptable. What will you do as you go through life, cart along a suitcase full of the ***Summa Theologica ***and all the other books on the laws, doctrine and theology that you hide behind to avoid reality.
There is no way we can truly expect to have a rule of law for every possible situation. **We must sometimes make decisions, often ethical and moral ones, for which there may be no clear precedent. We strive, whether individually or as body of the faithful, to discern the best choice. ** That, my Pharisaical young man, is the way life is. Get used to it.
(This is concluded on a following post)
