Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[pnewton]

The USCCB wrote on the subject of capital punishment in 2005 and stated that, regarding people who disagreed with the Church, they offered neither “judgment nor condemnation”, a position that would be ridiculous if applied to any doctrine of the Church. Finally, we’ve already seen what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about capital punishment - that there can be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” even among Catholics. Again, that could not possibly be true of anything the Church considered doctrine.

For an individual, perhaps, but a state has a positive obligation to punish the guilty - which is an obligation of justice.

Yes, legitimate diverence of opinion is totally permissible . Also, while the state has an obligation to punish the guilty, this obligation does not mandate that it put people to death. Incarceration also is part of the legitimate diveristiy of opinion. While a Catholic can accurately believe in the use of capital punishment (I do), he loses accuracy when he says either that the Church mandates it or that it is for justice primarily. That is not what the catechism says. Cardinal Dulles does not deny this when allowing for diversity of opinion.

 

[iluvburpees]

Yes, legitimate diverence of opinion is totally permissible . Also, while the state has an obligation to punish the guilty, this obligation does not mandate that it put people to death. Incarceration also is part of the legitimate diveristiy of opinion.

That’s why we’re debating, to see whether or not it is necessary.

While a Catholic can accurately believe in the use of capital punishment (I do), he loses accuracy when he says either that the Church mandates it or that it is for justice primarily. That is not what the catechism says. Cardinal Dulles does not deny this when allowing for diversity of opinion.

True enough. I’m not going to deny that the Church at present is almost entirely against the death penalty. However, like you said, there can be diversity of opinion on this issue. And regardless of whether JPII is largely against capital punishment, I fully believe that every murder should be punished with death. If we really want it to be deterrent, there cannot be exceptions.

 

[akoso]

First off, I am very much against the death penalty. I completely disagree with the notion that God gave humans the right to decide who is worthy of living and who isn’t. Killing someone out of self defence is void of this decision making… it is a reaction. But I have no idea how humans sitting at a table have a right to decide if a human being has the right to live or not. I fully understand the obligation to protect society and thus remove them from situations where they can cause harm, but prison for life more than solves this problem.

1. I never suggested you would leave murderers on the street. The death penalty is a greater protector of innocent lives than lesser sanctions. I was clear in my point.

Is it a greater protector of innocent lives? Statistics disagree with this. And so does logic, if you consider the mental state of most people sentenced to the death penalty. I think that imprisonment is a big enough deterrent for the vast majority of people. And for those that it isn’t, I don’t think the death penalty will sway them to not kill.

1. Many things deter. All criminal sanctions deter. The evidence is that the death penalty is not only an enhanced deterrent, but that it als saves additonal innocent lives in additonal ways, as well.

What additional ways does the death penalty save innocent lives?

 

[akoso]

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.

I couldn’t agree more. If criminals were constantly escaping prison and murdering multiple times, then I would understand the argument more. But as it stands, it makes absolutely no sense to take the decision of when a person should stop living into our own hands. That is the exact reason that euthanasia and suicide are forbidden.

If we can’t choose when to end our own lives, then how can it possibly make sense to choose when to end the lives of others?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

. excerpt post # 114 …
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.

He doesn’t deny that the Holocaust happened, but he does deny the “6 million” number. Like I said, I have hardly any knowledge on the subject. In a case like this, I look to the opinion of those I respect. I respect my father, grandfather (especially since he fought in the war), and Bishop Williamson, so I agree with them on this issue.

We have to be careful here, as this is cautious ground, WHO IS HE? One poster said it did not matter if the real number was 6 million 5, or 4 million. Let’s not imply he denied the Holocaust. The party who denied the Holocaust was a different person ( see posts 112 & 114)

 

[akoso]

He doesn’t deny that the Holocaust happened, but he does deny the “6 million” number. Like I said, I have hardly any knowledge on the subject. In a case like this, I look to the opinion of those I respect. I respect my father, grandfather (especially since he fought in the war), and Bishop Williamson, so I agree with them on this issue.

I strongly suggest you look to the opinion of the Jews whose families died, the historians that have dedicated their careers to the event, and the country of Germany that has admitted to it. They all support the 6 million figure and I would be so bold as to suggest that they would be more knowledgeable on the subject than your father, grandfather, and Bishop Wililamson.

In fact, if you include the Poles, Russians, Romani, handicapped, mentally ill, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc… the number is somewhere between 11 and 17 million.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… I fully believe that every murder should be punished with death. If we really want it to be deterrent, there cannot be exceptions.

So have you considered God’s actions, when he intervened to save Cain? Or refused your prescription for David? Or the adulterous in John 8 condemn to death by action.

It would seem to me one of you does not know the correct answer

 

[iluvburpees]

First off, I am very much against the death penalty. I completely disagree with the notion that God gave humans the right to decide who is worthy of living and who isn’t. Killing someone out of self defence is void of this decision making… it is a reaction. But I have no idea how humans sitting at a table have a right to decide if a human being has the right to live or not. I fully understand the obligation to protect society and thus remove them from situations where they can cause harm, but prison for life more than solves this problem.

If God never gave humans the right to employ the death penalty, how could the church permit its use over centuries? How could the Council of Trent allow it? How could St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, and St. Augustine, defend its use, if it were wrong?

Is it a greater protector of innocent lives? Statistics disagree with this. And so does logic, if you consider the mental state of most people sentenced to the death penalty. I think that imprisonment is a big enough deterrent for the vast majority of people. And for those that it isn’t, I don’t think the death penalty will sway them to not kill.

Well, seeing as how the death penalty is hardly used anymore, and seeing as how crime is terrible now, I don’t think you’re correct here.

Please provide me with these statistics.

What additional ways does the death penalty save innocent lives?

Because if the punishment is effective as a deterrent, there will be fewer murders in the future. Read my previous comments on deterrence.

 

[iluvburpees]

We have to be careful here, as this is cautious ground, WHO IS HE? One poster said it did not matter if the real number was 6 million 5, or 4 million. Let’s not imply he denied the Holocaust. The party who denied the Holocaust was a different person ( see posts 112 & 114)

When I said the Holocaust never happened, I was stating my opinion. I wasn’t stating it as fact (though it seemed so).

 

[iluvburpees]

So have you considered God’s actions, when he intervened to save Cain? Or refused your prescription for David? Or the adulterous in John 8 condemn to death by action.

It would seem to me one of you does not know the correct answer

Those were a few extraordinary cases. God had His reasons for letting those few to live.

“Some have said that Jesus set aside capital punishment in John 8 when He did not call for the woman caught in adultery to be stoned. But remember the context. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Roman law and the Mosaic law. If He said that they should stone her, He would break the Roman law. If He refused to allow them to stone her, He would break the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus’ answer avoided the conflict: He said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone. Since He did teach that a stone be thrown (John 8:7), this is not an abolition of the death penalty.” leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/cap-pun.html

Now, have you considered all the passages of the bible where God allows capital punishment?

drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=put+to+death&b=drb

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Well, seeing as how the death penalty is hardly used anymore, and seeing as how crime is terrible now, I don’t think you’re correct here.

Please provide me with these statistics.

Because if the punishment is effective as a deterrent, there will be fewer murders in the future. Read my previous comments on deterrence.

Since 1973, 129 death-row prisoners have been released because they were innocent.-aclu.org/capital/facts/10602res20070409.html
you may also what to read amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/page.do?id=1101088

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Those were a few extraordinary cases. God had His reasons for letting those few to live…

your entire thread is based on man not god doing the killing, it seems rather odd to hide from man’s action now. **So who is to be incharge of capital punishment god or man? **

“Some have said that Jesus **set aside capital punishment **in John 8 when He did not call for the woman caught in adultery to be stoned. But remember the context. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Roman law and the Mosaic law. If He said that they should stone her, He would break the Roman law. If He refused to allow them to stone her, He would break the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus’ answer avoided the conflict: He said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone. Since He did teach that a stone be thrown (John 8:7), this is not an abolition of the death penalty.” leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/cap-pun.html

Now, have you considered all the passages of the bible where God allows capital punishment?

drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=put+to+death&b=drb

And off in to left field you go, those who read the catechism see no relevance to this personal commentary, since the death penalty has never been abolished in the Catholic Church. Of course you respect the fact that Jesus refused to follow Mosaic Law?

 

[akoso]

If God never gave humans the right to employ the death penalty, how could the church permit its use over centuries? How could the Council of Trent allow it? How could St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, and St. Augustine, defend its use, if it were wrong?

St. Thomas Aquinas also condemned all sexual positions other than the missionary position. Do we take this to be a teaching of the Catholic Church?

Well, seeing as how the death penalty is hardly used anymore, and seeing as how crime is terrible now, I don’t think you’re correct here.

Where? Look outside the U.S. to countries where the death penalty doesn’t exist. Where is there a correlation between lowering the death penalty and increased crime rates?

Because if the punishment is effective as a deterrent, there will be fewer murders in the future. Read my previous comments on deterrence.

I have read your previous comments on deterrence. First, I don’t think deterrence is a reason to kill someone. Second, if you think deterrence is such a motivating force, then why not bring back dismemberment, flaying, boiling to death, etc? If you think the capital punishment is a deterrent, these would have to be the rare way to make something perfect even better.

You said “Well, let’s remember that a man’s life is his greatest temporal possession. If he were certain that he would lose it if he were to commit a certain heinous crime, he would be far less likely to commit the crime.” I would argue that a man’s family is even more dear to him than his own life. Why not threaten to have them be involved in the punishment, so as to act as a further deterrent?

You see, whether it is a deterrent or not is irrelevant. If the deterrent is unjust, then it shouldn’t be used. How effective of a deterrent it is becomes a moot point.

 

[akoso]

When I said the Holocaust never happened, I was stating my opinion. I wasn’t stating it as fact (though it seemed so).

Well, it did happen. That’s a fact. And your opinion is wrong.

It may be my opinion that Obama isn’t president… but he is… so my opinion is wrong.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

St. Thomas Aquinas also condemned all sexual positions other than the missionary position. Do we take this to be a teaching of the Catholic Church?

Where? Look outside the U.S. to countries where the death penalty doesn’t exist. Where is there a correlation between lowering the death penalty and increased crime rates?

I have read your previous comments on deterrence. First, I don’t think deterrence is a reason to kill someone. Second, if you think deterrence is such a motivating force, then why not bring back dismemberment, flaying, boiling to death, etc? If you think the capital punishment is a deterrent, these would have to be the rare way to make something perfect even better.

You said “Well, let’s remember that a man’s life is his greatest temporal possession. If he were certain that he would lose it if he were to commit a certain heinous crime, he would be far less likely to commit the crime.” I would argue that a man’s family is even more dear to him than his own life. Why not threaten to have them be involved in the punishment, so as to act as a further deterrent?

You see, whether it is a deterrent or not is irrelevant. If the deterrent is unjust, then it shouldn’t be used. How effective of a deterrent it is becomes a moot point.

How about states, do these match? http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/i/homiciderates2007.gif

amnestyusa.org/abolish/i/homiciderates2007.gif

 

[Bengoshi]

Thank you for the links to your 2 articles, I have read them. I am against the death penalty for various reasons:-

1. It is too many if even one in a million is put to death for a crime he did not commit;
2. The death penalty is not a deterrant to the most evil or the most mad of men;
3. We as Christians are supposed to be better than them, we are bringing ourselves down to their level with the death penalty. Christt taught love and forgiveness;
4. We can be protected from those who can’t be rehabiltated by their incarceration, for their life if necessary;
5. I am pro all life.

I do not believe the Catholic Church will say I am wrong in my thinking.

Keeping the evil heinous criminals alive in our prisons will mean more expenditures for the Government. In effect we would be spending taxpayers’ money to feed and keep these evil people alive! Eliminating them altogether would be the best and cheapest solution. Plu8s, there wouldn’t be any possibility of escape at because they’re dead.

 

[Ender]

This discussion is one of the reasons that PJPII “defense of society” discussion, with regard to limiting the death penalty, is so in error, morally, biblically and theologically.

One thing to note is that the justness of capital punishment is not challenged even by 2267 or there could never be a situation, regardless of the ineffectiveness of a country’s penal system, that would permit it. If the execution of criminals was never just it would never be permitted; the fact is that it is assumed to be just because the conditions that restrict it have to do with a secondary aspect of punishment, which only makes sense if it is assumed that the primary objective (justice) has been met.

Secondly, the death penalty is a product, biblically, of God’s instruction…

I think this is the unanswerable problem for those opposed to the death penalty: Genesis 9:6 requires it. Not only was this recognized at Trent but is also recognized in the current Catechism with the additional comment that this teaching is true for all time.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

. Of course you respect the fact that Jesus refused to follow Mosaic Law?

Actually, He did refuse to follow the Mosaic Law. He specifically told the Pharisees that they COULD stone her.

They were, as Pharisees, sinless under the old law.

That was how he got out of the trap ( note that the Pharisees WERE placing a trap for Him, and the trap was an attempt to force Him to either deny the Mosaic Law or agree to follow Roman law.)

Christ got out of the trap by AGREEING with Mosaic law, but in a way that would have not stood up in a Roman court.

That is why the oldest and wisest of the Pharisees left first, they saw that their trap failed. They could not accuse Christ of violating a matter of Moral Law articulated in the Mosaic Law, nor could they bring Him up on charges in a Roman court.

If your point is that Christ DID, in fact, publically denouce the Mosica law at that point, your claim is that the Pharisees trap suceeeded. Is that what you are really trying to say?

 

[Ender]

Also, while the state has an obligation to punish the guilty, this obligation does not mandate that it put people to death.

It is not clear that this is so. There are of course times when, for some purely practical reason, it would be better not to execute someone. I think this is what JPII had in mind when he restricted capital punishment; he was saying that at the current time executing people does more harm than good. I don’t agree with his opinion. The state’s obligation is not simply to punish the guilty but to do so with a punishment commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime and it is not clear what justification is sufficient for us to ignore the clear instructions given in Gen 9:6.

While a Catholic can accurately believe in the use of capital punishment (I do), he loses accuracy when he says either that the Church mandates it or that it is for justice primarily. That is not what the catechism says.

The primary objective of all punishment is retribution, that is a requirement of justice as defined by the Catechism. Capital punishment, like any other punishment, must be a just punishment in order to be employed. All punishment is subject to the obligation that it be, first and foremost, just.

Ender

 

[akoso]

Keeping the evil heinous criminals alive in our prisons will mean more expenditures for the Government. In effect we would be spending taxpayers’ money to feed and keep these evil people alive! Eliminating them altogether would be the best and cheapest solution. Plu8s, there wouldn’t be any possibility of escape at because they’re dead.

It’s also cheaper to execute those that have stolen… so why not do that? Because capital punishment should never be an argument of saving money. That is a completely irrelevant argument. Choosing to decide whether another human being has his/her God given right to live or not has nothing to do with cost.