Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[4elise]

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

Sorry Eddie - I thought life imprisonment without the possibility of parole renders one unable to inflict additional harm to society.
I know that there are those who must be removed from society - so not really a pollyanna on this topic - I just agree with what the Florida Bishops said

“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.”

 

[Portrait]

Dear 4elise,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes some way in answering your queation:

“If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (para. 2267).

However, the murder of a fellow human being is an outrage against God and an attack on the divine majesty (Gen. 9:6), requiring the perpetrator of such a heinous act to forfeit his own life to satisfy the demands of justice. Now by allowing a murderer to live, albeit in prison, for the rest of his days would not only be opposed to God’s law (which is an immutable law) but neither would it comply with the interests of justice, which demands
a life for a life and so “protects the dignity of the human person”. For this reason alone Christians should be more vociferous and pro-active than they are in pressing for the re-instatement of the death penalty in those countries which have dispensed with it. No it will not be a popular cause but it will be a right and God honouring one, nevertheless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[severus68]

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. 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

I am just making the point that your assertion that there is a relationship between those turning away from Christianity and those opposing the death penaltty, is not in my opinion, correct. Yes we do understand your stand on capital punishment for justice. Justice is implemented by very fallible human beings and to me this is more an Old Testament position. Please let us have the statistics as you are so sure of its deterrent value. ,

 

[severus68]

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

Thank you for presenting this position in such a non confrantational manner.

Firstly, on the contrary,it is not an emotional matter for me in the way you mean. I have seen and know of such evil acts that my emotional first instinct is to put my hands round the necks of such people and squeeze the life out of them.

I do not not dispute your references in the Bible. However today the Churc does not push for the death penalty. In fact it discourages it.

If we decide to execute someone we are making a deliberate decision and carrying out a deliberate act to take away someone’s life. It is more cold hearted than someone who kills in an act of passion. I really believe that those who torture and do other unspeakable things must be insane to be so devoid of any compassion, any good emotions. Either way, shouldn’t we be better thanthem?

And warm wishes to you too.

 

[4elise]

Dear 4elise,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes some way in answering your queation:

“If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (para. 2267).

However, the murder of a fellow human being is an outrage against God and an attack on the divine majesty (Gen. 9:6), requiring the perpetrator of such a heinous act to forfeit his own life to satisfy the demands of justice. Now by allowing a murderer to live, albeit in prison, for the rest of his days would not only be opposed to God’s law (which is an immutable law) but neither would it comply with the interests of justice, which demands
a life for a life and so “protects the dignity of the human person”. For this reason alone Christians should be more vociferous and pro-active than they are in pressing for the re-instatement of the death penalty in those countries which have dispensed with it. No it will not be a popular cause but it will be a right and God honouring one, nevertheless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Portrait - would your position allow that unless there had been immutable eye witness which could have no possible motive to misrepresent the facts, that the imperfect nature of law and prosecution would limit the application of capital punishment to such cases exclusively?

I do understand your point - but disagree with the conclusion that justice can only be meted out by capital punishment - one can ‘take their life’ as the remainder of their of their life is in prison with the loss of personal freedom of movement.

 

[Ender]

It is possible to provide life imprisonment without the possibility of release - which meets both objectives, it is just, and protects society.

Asserting that a life sentence meets the obligation of justice isn’t as compelling as citing something the Church has said that supports the claim. A punishment is just only if it is of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime and the state has a positive obligation to impose such a punishment.
Florida bishops:

“Even those who have done great harm are human beings with dignity,created in the image and likeness of God,”

Yes they are, but this says nothing about the point under discussion. Given that the Church has always taught the dignity of man and at the same time has always taught that executions can be justly imposed it would certainly seem that the truth of the bishop’s statement is immaterial to question of capital punishment.

“Life in prison without possibility of parole satisfies the need for punishment and allows the inmates the opportunity to reflect on their offenses and feel sorrow for the pain they have caused others,”

It is not just that offenders need to be punished it is that they need an appropriate punishment; a point the bishops do not address. As to whether execution will short circuit their opportunity to repent, this objection has already been disposed of.

“Executions do not make society safer nor act as a deterrent, but add to the violence we experience daily in society,numbing us to the truth that every human being has worth.”

Both of these claims are open to serious disagreement but as they are simply prudential opinions they are no more significant than my counter claim that executions both make society safer and act as a deterrent. As to the question of whether executions numb people to the worth of a human life, it would seem more likely that the reverse is true.

*Genesis says murderers deserve death *because *life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? *(J. Budziszewski)

How indeed. All in all, the Florida bishops really add nothing to the debate.

Ender

 

[4elise]

As to whether execution will short circuit their opportunity to repent, this objection has already been disposed of.

Apparently to your satisfaction… not to mine, nor apparently to the Catholic Bishops in Florida.

Both of these claims are open to serious disagreement but as they are simply prudential opinions they are no more significant than my counter claim that executions both make society safer and act as a deterrent. As to the question of whether executions numb people to the worth of a human life, it would seem more likely that the reverse is true.

*Genesis says murderers deserve death *because **life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J. Budziszewski)

How indeed. All in all, the Florida bishops really add nothing to the debate.

Ender

Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, `Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

It is for the same reason - that man is made in the image of God - I can ask 'How is our reverence for life excised if we can - *with no need to protect society *- end a life before it’s natural end. Do we presume to take that from God?

And from the Vatican: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE
TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS
ON THE DEATH PENALTY

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are “cruel and unnecessary”. This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that “it is time to abolish the death penalty”.

It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.

Strasbourg, 21 June 2001.

cacp.org/vaticandocuments.html

 

[Ender]

Apparently to your satisfaction… not to mine, nor apparently to the Catholic Bishops in Florida.

All I can do is cite the innumerable statements of pasts Popes, councils, and Doctors; I cannot make you accept them over the comments of the bishops of Florida.

Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, `Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

The rights of the individual differ greatly from the obligations of the state. The state is required to punish the guilty while the individual is forbidden to.

*‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ *(Augustine, City of God)

This restriction - and Rom 12:19 - do not apply to the state.

*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.”* (Pius XII, 1952)

It is for the same reason - that man is made in the image of God - I can ask 'How is our reverence for life excised if we can - *with no need to protect society *- end a life before it’s natural end. Do we presume to take that from God?

That is exactly the case and that is precisely the reason (Gen 9:6) why God commands it.

Ender

 

[severus68]

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.

How do you equate gangs to States?

 

[severus68]

Apparently to your satisfaction… not to mine, nor apparently to the Catholic Bishops in Florida.

Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, `Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

It is for the same reason - that man is made in the image of God - I can ask 'How is our reverence for life excised if we can - *with no need to protect society *- end a life before it’s natural end. Do we presume to take that from God?

And from the Vatican: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

cacp.org/vaticandocuments.html

Thank you for posting the Declaration of the Holy See. If we do not listen to the Pope and the bishops, who do we look to for guidance.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Contributors to the current debate on capital punishment,

If you have not done so already, can I strongly recommend that you read and inwardly digest Karl Keating’s E Letter for 2nd. March 2004 as it throws a great deal of light on our present discussion on capital punishment. As a staunch proponent of capital punishment, I found Mr. Keating’s comments very prudent an thought provoking.

        [EMAIL="www.catholic.com/newsletters/kkke_040302.asp"]www.catholic.com/newsletters/kkke_040302.asp[/EMAIL]

Perhaps we can discuss the content of this letter, I should be very interested to hear your comments.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Sorry Eddie - I thought life imprisonment without the possibility of parole renders one unable to inflict additional harm to society.
I know that there are those who must be removed from society - so not really a pollyanna on this topic - I just agree with what the Florida Bishops said

“Society” also includes other prisoners and prison guards, 4elise!

“Society” just does not include you as you sleep in your warm bed in a gated alarmed community.

The same goes for the Florida bishops.

The sentence must take “society” as a whole! Everyone!

Eddie Mac

 

[4elise]

“Society” also includes other prisoners and prison guards, 4elise!

“Society” just does not include you as you sleep in your warm bed in a gated alarmed community.

The same goes for the Florida bishops.

The sentence must take “society” as a whole! Everyone!

Eddie Mac

Obviously every effort should be taken to protect other prisoners and of course the guards, that goes without saying.

 

[4elise]

Dear Contributors to the current debate on capital punishment,

If you have not done so already, can I strongly recommend that you read and inwardly digest Karl Keating’s E Letter for 2nd. March 2004 as it throws a great deal of light on our present discussion on capital punishment. As a staunch proponent of capital punishment, I found Mr. Keating’s comments very prudent an thought provoking.

        [EMAIL="www.catholic.com/newsletters/kkke_040302.asp"]www.catholic.com/newsletters/kkke_040302.asp[/EMAIL]

Perhaps we can discuss the content of this letter, I should be very interested to hear your comments.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

I’ll stick with the letter that is on the Vatican web site that
vatican.va/roman_curia/se…enalty_en.html

DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE
TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS
ON THE DEATH PENALTY

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/00rljud.shtml

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, remains a definitive source of recent authoritative Catholic teaching on capital punishment. It states that the “defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm”(CCC 2266). The Catechism is clear about what this implies: "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" (CCC 2267).

Thus, the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however, the Catechism adds an important caveat: **“If…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” **(CCC 2267).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Sorry Eddie - I thought life imprisonment without the possibility of parole renders one unable to inflict additional harm to society.
I know that there are those who must be removed from society - so not really a pollyanna on this topic - I just agree with what the Florida Bishops said

While there should be some help given to transition those released from prison back into society, I always found it unfathomable when strictures are placed on the released to monitor and prevent them from committing their old crimes. If there was question about whether or not this person would reoffend, why were they released in the first place.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Dear 4elise,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes some way in answering your queation:

“If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (para. 2267).

However, the murder of a fellow human being is an outrage against God and an attack on the divine majesty (Gen. 9:6), requiring the perpetrator of such a heinous act to forfeit his own life to satisfy the demands of justice. Now by allowing a murderer to live, albeit in prison, for the rest of his days would not only be opposed to God’s law (which is an immutable law) but neither would it comply with the interests of justice, which demands
a life for a life and so “protects the dignity of the human person”. For this reason alone Christians should be more vociferous and pro-active than they are in pressing for the re-instatement of the death penalty in those countries which have dispensed with it. No it will not be a popular cause but it will be a right and God honouring one, nevertheless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Colorado is in the process of releasing 15% of their prisoners due to budget woes. This isn’t the first time this scenario has occured, but it appears it may drastically grow as state budget deficits increase. If the State cannot afford to house a murderer for the majority if not all of their life, would it not then be necessary to consider the death penalty as a way to protect society?

 

[4elise]

Colorado is in the process of releasing 15% of their prisoners due to budget woes. This isn’t the first time this scenario has occured, but it appears it may drastically grow as state budget deficits increase. If the State cannot afford to house a murderer for the majority if not all of their life, would it not then be necessary to consider the death penalty as a way to protect society?

Are those being released guilty of capital crimes?

 

[4elise]

Thank you for posting the Declaration of the Holy See. If we do not listen to the Pope and the bishops, who do we look to for guidance.

As Catholics - I agree, it is the Pope and bishops that we should be looking to for guidance!

 

[Ender]

If you have not done so already, can I strongly recommend that you read and inwardly digest Karl Keating’s E Letter for 2nd. March 2004

For those who don’t want to real Keating’s letter, I’ll provide an extract from it:To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.
Note Keating’s claim that the section of the Catechism on the death penalty (2267) is prudential. The article he referred to was written by R. Michael Dunnigan who is a canon lawyer and had this to say:Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the a**ctual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching.
Just so. The current teaching is a mess and will have to be revisited and the confusion resolved.

Ender

 

[4elise]

While there should be some help given to transition those released from prison back into society, I always found it unfathomable when strictures are placed on the released to monitor and prevent them from committing their old crimes. If there was question about whether or not this person would reoffend, why were they released in the first place.

The discussion wasn’t about if the individual should be released - rather if they should be executed or put in prison for the remainder of their natural life. The Vatican - and in this case the Bishops in Florida argue for the later.