S
severus68
Guest
We have to take it as a whole. So the Church todat says that the circumstances requiring the death penalty are virtually non existent today. There is no inconsistency as I see it.
- Status
4
4elise
Guest
I find the post that I shared from EWTN to have addressed this - and that I agree with severus68
E
Ender
Guest
I wonder how you can make such a statement when the evidence flatly contradicts it. There is nothing whatever in the EWTN article that even mentions the other sections of the Catechism I discussed (not to mention the statements of previous popes, Councils, and Doctors of the Church), let alone that addressed the problems they create. They addressed them only in the sense that they are addressed by 2267: that is, they are ignored.
As to the EWTN article itself, it shows a misunderstanding of the significance of the circumstances in determining the morality of an act. The author appears not to realize that:
The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. … Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (CCC 1754)
I wish you would but you have adamantly refused to do so. If you looked at the whole of Church teaching instead of focusing exclusively on 2267 you would, if perhaps not persuaded, be forced to at least acknowledge the real difficulties that exist in addressing this issue.
The inconsistency exists between what is said in 2267 and what is said in 2266, 2260, and virtually the entire history of Church teaching on the subject.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
I respect that you believe there exists a contradiction between 2266:
and:
… shall his blood be shed ---- does this say - his blood shall be shed by the state? Is it our responsibility is to shed his blood? It is God’s reckoning ----- and given the remaining statement in the Catechism regarding this - I think it is to be left to God - once Society can be protected…
I do understand what you are saying.
I believe when read in the order it is written in the Catechism vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm - the clarity comes where it stresses that 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
TODAY - one who has taken the life of another, can have their ‘life taken’ without capital punishment - a life with no freedom - except that which may offer him *** 'the possibility of redeeming himself '***
The Catechism clarifies how living in the world today we can live our faith. Working to end capitol punishment when the possibility is there to render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, this is how the Church has always interpreted this command.
I really don’t think you can interpret Gen 9:6 as God’s command to … God. You should also note that God doesn’t say that the murderer should be executed because it is necessary to protect society but because man is made in the image of God. We are told not only what we are to do but we are also given the reason why we are to do it. And it is not for our protection.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
Well… I guess I can offer to you what makes sense to me, and to the author of that article from EWTN, given the text in the Catechism;
**
**
I understand your point - I respect you Ender, but I am very happy to have the Catechism clearly state that capitol punishment should not be used unless there were a need to protect society —
Blessings
E
Ender
Guest
What is also clearly stated in the Catechism in 2260 is the covenant between God and man with reference to Gen 9:6 - which obliges us to execute those guilty of murder - along with the statement that this teaching is true for all time, which really ought to include the time it takes to read past 2267. The totality of your position is that 2267 is in the Catechism and therefore you don’t need to consider anything else - even other parts of the Catechism, but you don’t get to pick and choose the sections you like to the exclusion of others; you have to deal with them all, which you clearly cannot do as there is nothing else to support your position while literally everything else supports mine.
Ender
S
severus68
Guest
You do not want to follow what is said in the Cathechism, that is your choice. You are now saying we are obliged by God to support the death penalty. That is clearly not true.
4
4elise
Guest
Today the Church interprets the command to mean that where it is possible to protect society by non lethal means this meets the greater good.
It appears to me that I am the one taking into account the totality of the Catechism, and some prefer to read it sans:
I do understand your position. I offer you my sincere respect. I believe however that it is actually your own words that apply to your position……
Blessings
E
Ender
Guest
Here is what is said (Gen 9:6)
- Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed …
- … Because man is made in the image of God.
- Whoever sheds man’s blood, shall be locked up
- … Because society is sufficiently protected.
It is true that, just as you have to deal with that which conflicts with your position (which is pretty much everything), I have to deal with what conflicts with mine - which is 2267 alone. I have addressed 2267 by arguing that it is not a doctrine of the Church but is the prudential opinion of JPII and I have supported that claim by quoting statements from Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and from the USCCB. My position seems a great deal firmer than yours, especially as mine is based on the statements of others within the Church and yours is based on personal (not to mention innovative) interpretation.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
Actually my position is based on what it says in the Catechism, taken as a document to be read in it’s entirety, one section leading into the next - not taken out of context or out of order.
Blessings
*
In a July 10, 2009 statement welcoming Mexico’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Pope Benedict congratulated the Mexican government for having formally repealed the nation’s death penalty laws in 2005.
“It cannot be overemphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness,” the pope said. He called upon governments to enact laws and public policies that “take into account the high value that a human being has at every moment of existence,” and added: “In this context, I joyfully welcome the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings." *
S
severus68
Guest
The OT had many other penalties imposed for other crimes/sins like stoning. Based on your arguement they should still be applied. Please do not say the same thing that it is not the law now. You did say that we and so states should impose the death penality for murder.
You can have your opinion on matters and you are given repect even by those with opposing views. I see you do not give the same respect.
It is clear you have taken a position (which you are entitled to) but please be clear it is a position based on your opinion.
B
Brendan
Guest
The use of Capital Punishment does not preclude the possibility of the person redeeming themselves.
Take the case of Timothy McVeigh. It is substantially likely that he went directly to Heaven.
First of all, he requested and recieved a Sacramental absolution, so his sins were forgiven.
He also accepted the temporal punishment due to his sins ( execution), that is an indulgence that removes the purgation of the sin. Also since the punishment was capital, that is actually a plenary indulgence.
That is is a part of Catholic teaching on punishment that the Catechism does not emphasis, but exists none the less. Punishment also expiates the temporal punishment due to sin.
Pope Pius XII noted this as recently as 1957
Note the part about the punishment being expiative in nature (and also it not being a violation of the person’s Right to Life)
So Capital Punishment does not precule redemption of the person, but can be the agent that brings it about.
D
distracted
Guest
the way he died was relatively painless, particularly compared to those who were his victims…
it is possible he went straight to Heaven but i say its unlikely.
if he was baptized right before death (no time to commit any sins afterwards) then i believe the Church teaches he would go directly to heaven…
i heard he was “Catholic”…
so that presumes he was already baptized…therefore he probably has a long stay in Purgatory ahead of him…
God knows but this is according to my best info abot what the Church teaches and also seems logical…
D
distracted
Guest
for all those who say that cap punishment is not a deterrent:
when Ronald Reagan was gov of CA, a man (resident of CA… where Reagan approved the death penalty) wrote to him and told him that a criminal had tried to hold up his store… the guy got some $$ and then acted like he was going to kill the store operator, who reminded him that if he did, he would get the gas chamber…
the guy let him go and ran off…
when Ronald Reagan was gov of CA, a man (resident of CA… where Reagan approved the death penalty) wrote to him and told him that a criminal had tried to hold up his store… the guy got some $$ and then acted like he was going to kill the store operator, who reminded him that if he did, he would get the gas chamber…
the guy let him go and ran off…
4
4elise
Guest
We should be praying for the souls of everyone, so naturally this would not preclude the opportunity for redemption for those convicted -
I value the teaching of the Church, as you do - however I see the possibility that the position of the Church, as reflected in the Catechism has developed beyond that of 1957 - given the other changes in our world. In an earlier post I listed all the relevant copy from the Catechism - but do so again here in the event someone hasn’t scrolled back through the posts:
D
dudleysharp
Guest
You are correct. The Catechism has major problems with Genesis, among others’.
The foundation of the death penalty is found in Genesis and is, based, specifically, upon “shedding blood”.
The Catechism got rid of the"bloodless means" language that was, originally, in the Catechism and which was, specifically, referenced by Pope John Paul II(PJPII) in Evangelium Vitae (EV) in the context of the non amended Catechism.
Context suggests “bloodless means” was removed in the amended Catechism because of its obvious and embarrassing conflict with the Genesis passage.
The Catechism was amended, specifically, to insert PJPII’s death penalty comments within EV, and that “bloodless means” was specifically removed from the original Catechism, even though PJPII referenced it in EV.
It appears that the amendment was used as a convenient (sneeky?) method to remove the improper “bloodless means”, even though an amendment, truly based upon PJPII’s EV, would have required that it remain.
The 2267 amendment replaced it with "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. "
“Non-lethal” is simply a conspicuous way to avoid using “bloodless means”, but it is the exact same meaning and therefore, irreconcilably, contradicts Genesis.
Catechisms should not have such tricks within them.
In addition, the “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.” are a humanist base, not a biblical one.
Biblically, theologically and traditionally, the death penalty, certainly, is in keeping with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person.”
Even humanistically, we can see how execution is more in keeping with the common good and more supportive of human dignity.
More on that, below.
In 2265 we have “Legitimate defense can be not only be a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”
To repeat: “the common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable” to cause harm."
With individual murderers such requirement is only met with the death penalty. Only dead murderers are incapable of causing harm - a rational truism.
In 2266: “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.”
The requirement is that the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm." Again,with individual murderers such requirement is only met with the death penalty.
2266 continues: “Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.”
Biblically, we know the death penalty is proportionate to murder.
2266 continues: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.”
Expiation, though a gift from God, must be seized by the guilty party. It is arguable, as per Aquinas and Augustine, that the death penalty is better apt to provide that correction and is, therefore, more in tune with the eternal aspects of the wrongdoers salvation.
From 2267: “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.”
That is, most certainly, not the traditional teaching of the Church. Such teachings include , among others, that when committing murder, the offending party has forfeit their right to live.
In addition, another mess awaits: there is a major conflict between 1) “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.” and 2) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."
(1) states that use of the death penalty is just “if it is the only ‘possible’ way of defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”
but
(2) “requires” the death penalty as it is the only method of rendering an unjust aggressor unable to cause harm.
(1) deals with “possibilities” (2) with “requirements”.
Requirments rule over possibilities.
This obvious conflict shouldn’t exist within the Catechism and shows how poorly considered this topic was.
To make more of a mess, 2267 continues: "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 rare, if not practically non-existent.’ (NT: John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)
More of the “possibilities” nonsense, connected to the “possibilities” addressed in (1), above.
It is such a badly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker. All jails, all prisons, all cities, all states, all countries have widely varying degrees of prison security. Even in the US murderers escape, murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder, again, because of mercy, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released to causes catastrophic losses to the innocent when they are harmed and murdered by these repeat offenders.
Absent from the discussion is the harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives.
Again, the only way to, humanly, make a criminal “incapable of doing harm” is to execute them. Rationally, there is no other way.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
There is this problem with 2267: “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 Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”.
The death penalty is God invoked. Yet, the Church is stating that this God invoked sanction takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.
All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? I suggest that such an interpretation, as in the Catechism, is contrary to God’s message and cannot stand.
The universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the same opportunity of redeeming ourselves “before we die”. The death penalty does not take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins.
In God’s perfection, we all suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Church would, wrongly, have us believe that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our redemption. In God’s perfection, such an interpretation is absurd or worse.
Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.
“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992
St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.
see Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
The Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”.
The death penalty is God invoked. Yet, the Church is stating that this God invoked sanction takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.
All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? I suggest that such an interpretation, as in the Catechism, is contrary to God’s message and cannot stand.
The universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the same opportunity of redeeming ourselves “before we die”. The death penalty does not take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins.
In God’s perfection, we all suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Church would, wrongly, have us believe that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our redemption. In God’s perfection, such an interpretation is absurd or worse.
Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.
“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992
St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.
see Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
4
4elise
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
The other penalties you refer to were part of the Law of Moses, much of which has indeed been changed. What I refer to is God’s covenant with Noah; God’s words, not Moses’.
I have been as clear as I possibly can be that what I am arguing are not my own opinions but the teachings of the Church. I haven’t presented any personal opinion; everything I have said is based on what the Church has said.
Take the reference to Gen 9:6. There are several paragraphs in the Catechism of Trent that are built around it specifically and it is included in the current catechism with the statement that “it is true for all time.” These are not my opinions you are contesting but Church teaching.
Ender
- Status