Christianity and the Death Penalty

[Debora123]

Jesus willingly submitted himself to the Death Penalty.

If it was moral enough for God, then it is moral enough for me. God himself inflicted the “Death Penalty” on human beings over and over and over again. The flood, the Army of the Egyptians, and numerous other cases that are in the Bible.

If God can use it, and Jesus stated very clearly : "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, how can WE condemn it?

Uhhhh… because God is above us?

Just like only God can judge a person, only God has the right to take away a life.

 

[Debora123]

I’m actually on a number of different threads, but - yes - I do look for ones about capital punishment and if one exists where I haven’t posted on it you can be sure I haven’t yet found it.
Good question. What got me started were the number of comments deriding anyone who didn’t oppose the death penalty. I didn’t know anything about the subject but I know a bad argument when I see it so initially I just countered bad logic and bare faced insults. As the debates went on I needed to know more and more to keep up so I did more and more research … and the more I found the more I came to realize that, among all the Church has ever said on capital punishment (and related topics like, justice, mercy, retribution, restitution, expiation, forgiveness,…), the more I came to realize how unlike them all 2267 was. (Which of these things is not like the others…?)
It isn’t that I like it; it is that I believe I understand why it is necessary.

Ender

There are many many issues here that you can be passionate about and debate about. I still don’t understand why you would choose something as unchristian as the taking of a human life - above all else that should be defended.

And besides, you are defending your opinion by rejecting a section of the catechism.

 

[Ender]

There are many many issues here that you can be passionate about and debate about. I still don’t understand why you would choose something as unchristian as the taking of a human life - above all else that should be defended.

Given that the Church has always defended the right of the State to execute criminals (in appropriate situations) I don’t understand how you can say that such a thing is unChristian. As the history of the 20th century shows, opposition to capital punishment does not typically originate from Christian countries.

*Capital punishment comes to be regarded as barbarous in an irreligious society, that is shut within earthly horizons and which feels it has no right to deprive a man of the only good there is. *(Romano Amerio, peritas - Vatican II)

And besides, you are defending your opinion by rejecting a section of the catechism.

And do you accept or reject section 2260, which cites the command in Genesis that murderers are to be executed and ends with the observation that "This teaching remains necessary for all time"? Tell me how it is even possible to accept both 2267 and 2260.

Ender

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I totally reject the “seamless garment” movement and it’s equating of
killing a ferocious murderer with the murder of an innocent unborn baby via abortion.
The two are NOT morally equivalent.

Still, I don’t think “justice” really “requires” absolutely the death penalty even for murder.
Cain committed murder, God spared his earthly life.
King David committed murder, God spared his earthly life.
King Manasseh committed mass-murder, even killing
his own children. God not only spared his earthly life, he
also RESTORED Manasseh to the throne of Israel.
St. Paul, as Saul of Tarsus,
out of religious fanaticism, participated in the murders of many Christians.
God not only forgave him, he made him the 13th Apostle, the great Apostle
to the Gentiles.
Alessandro Serinelli raped and murder little Saint Maria Goretti.
He went to prison for years for that barbaric crime, but he wasn’t executed,
later repented, and became a powerful witness to the Gospel.
He spent the last decades of his life in monastic penance and prayer.
I think zeal for the death penalty for murderers is understandable,
but I wonder why people aren’t EQUALLY zealous that other committers
of death-penalty-warranting sins/offenses also be put to death?
After all, the Law of Moses, which was also the Law of the Land of Israel,
prescribed the death penalty for Fornication (if you support the death penalty,
have you ever fornicated? Are you willing and eager that the State should put YOU
to death for this? The Law prescribed the death penalty for deliberately working on
the Sabbath. Have you ever done that on purpose? Are you willing to submit to
being put to death for it?
The Law prescribed the death penalty for blasphemy. In the past, have
you ever committed any act of blasphemy? Are you willing to be put to death
for it?
There are many, many more death-penalty-warranting Laws in the bible.
Murder is particularly horrific, but it is by FAR not the only capital offense.
If the Laws of the Land of Israel in the OT were applied in society today,
many, many, many people who are now Catholics or other Christians, would
not be alive today.
I think relishing that a person should receive strict justice, RATHER than mercy,
is kind of sadistic. If we all got what we deserved, many of us would have been
six-feet-under a long time ago.
On the other hand, should someone who kills, enjoys it, and has no remorse about
it—should that person get three square meals a day and be able to get a college education at taxpayers expense? And be free to brutalize non-violent offenders
that he can get his violent hands on ?

 

[RWMorris]

I totally reject the “seamless garment” movement and it’s equating of
killing a ferocious murderer with the murder of an innocent unborn baby via abortion.
The two are NOT morally equivalent.

Still, I don’t think “justice” really “requires” absolutely the death penalty even for murder.
Cain committed murder, God spared his earthly life.
King David committed murder, God spared his earthly life.
King Manasseh committed mass-murder, even killing
his own children. God not only spared his earthly life, he
also RESTORED Manasseh to the throne of Israel.
St. Paul, as Saul of Tarsus,
out of religious fanaticism, participated in the murders of many Christians.
God not only forgave him, he made him the 13th Apostle, the great Apostle
to the Gentiles…

I think relishing that a person should receive strict justice, RATHER than mercy,
is kind of sadistic. If we all got what we deserved, many of us would have been
six-feet-under a long time ago.
On the other hand, should someone who kills, enjoys it, and has no remorse about
it—should that person get three square meals a day and be able to get a college education at taxpayers expense? And be free to brutalize non-violent offenders
that he can get his violent hands on ?

Amen, brother (sister)!

 

[Debora123]

Given that the Church has always defended the right of the State to execute criminals (in appropriate situations) I don’t understand how you can say that such a thing is unChristian. As the history of the 20th century shows, opposition to capital punishment does not typically originate from Christian countries.

*Capital punishment comes to be regarded as barbarous in an irreligious society, that is shut within earthly horizons and which feels it has no right to deprive a man of the only good there is. *(Romano Amerio, peritas - Vatican II)

And do you accept or reject section 2260, which cites the command in Genesis that murderers are to be executed and ends with the observation that "This teaching remains necessary for all time"? Tell me how it is even possible to accept both 2267 and 2260.

Ender

Not unchristian? JPII certainly thought so. The bishops of America certainly think so. I’ll take their side. You, on the other hand, keep passionately fighting to defend death, when there are many other issues that could use defense around here.

As far as the Genesis, that was a different time, and maybe back then killing was required in order to keep others safe. Section 2260 is extremely vague. Section 2267 actually tells you what the Church teaching is. No vagueness there, and it actually, explicitly talks about punishment and the Church’s position. You pick section 2260 among the 2 and hold on to it for dear life, and completely ignore the section that goes in depth in explaining how the Church feels about the death penalty.

2260- The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.[59]
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.[60] This teaching remains necessary for all time.

2267- The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect 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.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]

Whatever, you’ll believe what you WANT to believe, and you’ll ignore what you WANT to ignore, and that’s fine with me. At least you know you are going against Church teaching by completely ignoring the section of the CCC that EXPLICITLY explains the Church’s position on the death penalty.

 

[estesbob]

I totally reject the “seamless garment” movement and it’s equating of
killing a ferocious murderer with the murder of an innocent unborn baby via abortion.
The two are NOT morally equivalent.

?

So does the Church. The “seamless garment” argument" is almost always used to justify supporting pro-abortion politicians. . Although it is clear the church does not approve of the use of the death penalty it is equally clear that it allows for its usenone other than Benedict himself clearly stated that Catholics in good conscience can support it.

 

[estesbob]

Not unchristian? JPII certainly thought so. The bishops of America certainly think so. I’ll take their side. You, on the other hand, keep passionately fighting to defend death, when there are many other issues that could use defense around here.

.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor* or to have recourse to capital punishment**. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.*

Pope Benedict XVI

I personally oppose the death penalty in all circumstances… Our church is not

 

[Ender]

Not unchristian? JPII certainly thought so. The bishops of America certainly think so.

This is not correct. JPII and some of the bishops want a moratorium on the death penalty because they believe it causes more problems than it solves; they most assuredly don’t oppose it because it is unChristian. If it was opposed to Christian morality they would have banned it altogether. They don’t want it used not because it is immoral but because it is (in their opinion) unhelpful.

As far as the Genesis, that was a different time, and maybe back then killing was required in order to keep others safe.

It is the Church and not me who cites Gn 9:5-6 as the basis for her position on capital punishment, and I suspect she does so because that was God himself speaking. I’m guessing he hasn’t changed his mind since then.

Section 2260 is extremely vague.

Vague?? “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed”. That is about as explicit as something can be and 2260 helpfully explains that the use of blood in that phrase actually means life. In any event, the Church has had no problem interpreting that passage to mean the life of a murderer is forfeit for his crime.

Section 2267 actually tells you what the Church teaching is.

Not as much as you might think. The first statement is factually incorrect, the second one is an unsupportable allegation, and the third one is simply an opinion.

No vagueness there, and it actually, explicitly talks about punishment and the Church’s position.

Except that what is in 2267 is not in fact the Church’s position; it does not agree with the position the Church has taken since she first addressed the issue. It is not Church doctrine, it is JPII’s prudential opinion.

You pick section 2260 among the 2 and hold on to it for dear life, and completely ignore the section that goes in depth in explaining how the Church feels about the death penalty.

Section 2267 is not in agreement with 2260 or 2266 … or any of the five previous catechisms the Church has produced, or with the comments of a half dozen previous popes who have written on the issue, nor does it agree with the positions expressed by the Early Fathers or the leading Doctors of the Church. You have nothing but 2267 (and EV #56) - I have everything else the Church has said on the subject for the previous two millennia. It is not I who clings to a single reference.

 

[Corki]

Not enough choices in the poll. I vote “other”.

 

[Debora123]

This is not correct. JPII and some of the bishops want a moratorium on the death penalty because they believe it causes more problems than it solves; they most assuredly don’t oppose it because it is unChristian. If it was opposed to Christian morality they would have banned it altogether. They don’t want it used not because it is immoral but because it is (in their opinion) unhelpful. It is the Church and not me who cites Gn 9:5-6 as the basis for her position on capital punishment, and I suspect she does so because that was God himself speaking. I’m guessing he hasn’t changed his mind since then. Vague?? “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed”. That is about as explicit as something can be and 2260 helpfully explains that the use of blood in that phrase actually means life. In any event, the Church has had no problem interpreting that passage to mean the life of a murderer is forfeit for his crime. Not as much as you might think. The first statement is factually incorrect, the second one is an unsupportable allegation, and the third one is simply an opinion. Except that what is in 2267 is not in fact the Church’s position; it does not agree with the position the Church has taken since she first addressed the issue. It is not Church doctrine, it is JPII’s prudential opinion. Section 2267 is not in agreement with 2260 or 2266 … or any of the five previous catechisms the Church has produced, or with the comments of a half dozen previous popes who have written on the issue, nor does it agree with the positions expressed by the Early Fathers or the leading Doctors of the Church. You have nothing but 2267 (and EV #56) - I have everything else the Church has said on the subject for the previous two millennia. It is not I who clings to a single reference.

You are making as many loop holes as possible so that you can continue to passionately defend what the Church, the bishops, and the most recent popes have come to frown upon. You will believe what you want. My position stays the same. Why it bothers you so much that I and other Catholics are against the death penalty? I have no idea. But it’s pretty disturbing.

 

[Debora123]

Not enough choices in the poll.

You don’t say…

 

[Ender]

You are making as many loop holes as possible so that you can continue to passionately defend what the Church, the bishops, and the most recent popes have come to frown upon.

I do not consider the words of prior popes and catechisms to be loopholes. The Church had a continuous and consistent position on capital punishment until 1995. Section 2267 is inconsistent with the Church’s traditional teaching … and it is not doctrinal.

Why it bothers you so much that I and other Catholics are against the death penalty? I have no idea. But it’s pretty disturbing.

I don’t really care whether you support or oppose capital punishment. I do, however, care about the truth and what the Church teaches. All of the arguments that you find so disturbing are nothing more than what the Church herself has said; I haven’t made any personal observations. That you are unable to rebut my comments is not a problem of my making, it is 2267 which has created this untenable situation.

Ender

 

[Paxvobis]

I agree with what the Catechism says on the topic:

2267 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 to 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 definitely 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 nonexistent.”

In the United States, where we have prisons which mostly preclude people from escaping, the death penalty is no longer necessarily “the only possible way to effectively defend human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Granted, this is teaching of the Church is a fallible doctrine, not an infallible dogma.

 

[Corki]

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. However let us not muddy the issue by claiming that one must oppose the death penalty to be pro-life. . Too often we see people try to draw this moral equivalence and use it to rationalize supporting pro-abortion candidates.

I see the death penalty issue, certainly, as a pro-life issue. But it is one that doesn’t always have a black-white Catholic response. The Church presents a heirarchy of life issues. Abortion and other direct killing of innocents has the highest priority. There are a number of life issues about which Church leaders have issued strong opions but have an element of prudential judgement (war and the death penalty are two that seem to be most widely debated) and a final category that is mostly prudential judgement. For example, care for the poor or how to deal with immigration. For these issues, the debate is all about the “how”.

The Catholic Church hasn’t ruled out the concept of the death penalty. It’s simply said that in this day and age, with the vast resources we have at our disposal, it’s hard to consider a case where carrying out the death penalty could reasonably be seen as the last resort.

There is no practical need to kill the guilty. This doesn’t for a moment remove the “protect society” obligation of the state, which it continues to fail to uphold by releasing vicious criminals into society for a whole host of mumbliheaded reasons. But that failure doesn’t give reason for capital punishment in these times.

Were we, one day, to have chaos and true breakdown of societal structures and government, with gangs of criminals roving about, I could see the Church quite naturally reminding us that society has an obligation to defend its people, even using the means of last resort.

In the US, this is generally true.

I hope you mean that figuratively.

I voted the same way, though. There are very limited circumstances in which execution is warranted, such as drug dealers or terrorists who continue to issue orders from prison (it happens). Whether or not public safety is the primary consideration in how to deal with prisoners, it is definitely a consideration. And if the only way to guarantee that public safety is to execute a person, then it ought to be done.

To this I add prisoners who continue to rape and kill, even while incarcerated. It’s not just the safety of the general public but also the safety of other prisoners and prison workers that must be considered. CCC 2267 speaks to the protection of human lives.

This is not correct. JPII and some of the bishops want a moratorium on the death penalty because they believe it causes more problems than it solves; they most assuredly don’t oppose it because it is unChristian. If it was opposed to Christian morality they would have banned it altogether.

True. And also because what seems perfectly sane in the US or another industrialized country is not so clear cut when viewed for the universal Church.

For the record, I am against the use of the death penalty in the US. Not because it is against Church Teaching (it isn’t) or is inherently immoral (I don’t believe it is). It is a
sad truth that some people have been executed for crimes they did not commit. But there have been many, many more who have been executed for crimes that they most certainly have committed as well as the many, many, more who committed crimes and were not punished.

I am against the use of the death penalty in the US because it has come to be used as a means of public revenge. I don’t think revenge should be role of the state. I agree with Ender that justice should be the primary reason for state directed punishment. Punishment, even capital punishment does not mean lack of mercy. I just believe that the death penalty, as used in the US, is justice without mercy - revenge.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I am against the use of the death penalty in the US because it has come to be used as a means of public revenge. I don’t think revenge should be role of the state. I agree with Ender that justice should be the primary reason for state directed punishment. Punishment, even capital punishment does not mean lack of mercy. I just believe that the death penalty, as used in the US, is justice without mercy - revenge.

Revenge is defined by the Oxford dictionary this way.

the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revenge?region=us

As you can plainly see, revenge is simply inflicting harm on someone who has wronged you. It is a personal matter, justice is not involved.

What do you mean by mercy?

 

[adrift]

I agree with what the Catechism says on the topic:

In the United States, where we have prisons which mostly preclude people from escaping, the death penalty is no longer necessarily “the only possible way to effectively defend human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Granted, this is teaching of the Church is a fallible doctrine, not an infallible dogma.

Ted Bundy escaped prison twice. Our system of prisons does not guarantee that we are effectively defended against murders.
6,530 people escaped from state prisons. This is 1/2 of one percent of prsoners but that is still a lot that escape. A Texas jail break resulted in a death of a police officer. There is one other circumstance that no one ever talks about that is murder within the prison. What would stop a man in prison for life from killing? Murder in prison is often covered up. I know of one incident of a prisoner who was killed but his death was listed as natural. I guess it is natural to be beat over the head. I believe that the dp should be rarely used but should be available.

 

[Paxvobis]

Ted Bundy escaped prison twice. Our system of prisons does not guarantee that we are effectively defended against murders.

6,530 people escaped from state prisons. This is 1/2 of one percent of prsoners but that is still a lot that escape. A Texas jail break resulted in a death of a police officer. There is one other circumstance that no one ever talks about that is murder within the prison. What would stop a man in prison for life from killing? Murder in prison is often covered up. I know of one incident of a prisoner who was killed but his death was listed as natural. I guess it is natural to be beat over the head. I believe that the dp should be rarely used but should be available.

First of all, these examples are the exceptions, not the rule.

Second of all, we don’t know which people are going to escape and which are not. Should we execute them all?

Third and finally, the Church has stated that the conditions traditionally allowing the death penalty “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

 

[exnihilo]

As far as the Genesis, that was a different time, and maybe back then killing was required in order to keep others safe.

I’m always leery of any argument about times being different. That argument has done more to destroy morality than build it up.

Practically speaking the biggest killer of people is not people murdering or even people murdering combined with the government executing people for murder. The biggest killer is nation states killing people in police and military actions.

The murderer is afforded a trial and the opportunity to convince just one person that he is not guilty of the alleged crime. Whenever the police kill someone, and most certainly the military, they are doing so without the benefits of a trial. All of these claims rest on self defense. Self defense is not really being doubted as a legitimate reason. But practically speaking the greater injustice is not the few people executed for murder but the thousands of people killed overseas where a claim of self defense cant be made.

 

[adrift]

First of all, these examples are the exceptions, not the rule.

Second of all, we don’t know which people are going to escape and which are not. Should we execute them all?

Third and finally, the Church has stated that the conditions traditionally allowing the death penalty “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Again There is one other circumstance that no one ever talks about that is murder within the prison. What would stop a man in prison for life from killing?

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.

Did you miss

I believe that the dp should be rarely used but should be available