Christianity and the Death Penalty

[Jaypeeto4]

How do I know that Aquinas was not infallible?
Simple. He was not even a pope.
Anecdotes about Christ supposedly appearing to certain people,
are not proof of anything. Even if He did appear to him, it would have been
a private revelation, the contents of which, NOBODY is bound to accept.
Why? Simple, we can never know for sure if it even happened unless
we personally saw and heard the apparition.

I have always thought Aquinas a brilliant theologian.
That doesn’t change the fact that threatening someone with
a soon-to-be-experienced Death, is not likely to spur a hardened violent killer
to repentance. Do you really think Charles Manson is going to study the Scriptures
if California decides to reinstate his death sentence? He might, but I doubt it.
King David repented of his adultery and Murder, after Nathan told him a hypothetical
story. That, not fear of being killed, prompted his repentance.
And again, if strict justice requires the Death Penalty for murder,
are we going to charge GOD with violating Justice by letting David live and not only live,
but continue to rule as King over the Nation?
Are we going to charge GOD with violating Justice by restoring mass-murderer King Manasseh to the Throne of Israel? He not only didn’t have Manasseh killed, but actually RESTORED his kingship.
Whether the death penalty comes from the Noahic laws is really irrelevant here.
What I was pointing out, and correctly, was that in the eyes of God,
murder is NOT the ONLY capital offense, not by a long shot.
So is Justice being violated when all the women who have had those 50 million
abortions (murders) in America since 1973, are not convicted and sentenced to death?
I don’t know, but there is no punishment in Law anymore for this heinous crime, neither for the one receiving the abortion, nor for the ones performing the abortions. They will not be charged with anything. They are regarded, unrepentant though they are, as model citizens. What about fornicators? Millions upon millions upon millions of Americans fornicate. IT is a capital offense. And it is not a “private” crime, either. It affects society very badly. Millions of fatherless kids grow up to be violent delinquents, and that’s just one effect.
My point is simply this: Justice does not require imposition of the Death Penalty.
It sure as heck may be justified sometimes, but it is not strictly necessary.

 

[Ender]

Even Blessed Pope John Paul II does not say that the death penalty is inherently immoral. He says its application in the modern world is unnecessary. That is not inconstent with what Aquinas and Cardinal Dulles wrote.

This is the key to understanding 2267 in light of everything else the Church has written on capital punishment: JPII opposed the use of capital punishment in current society, not because it is immoral but because it is imprudent. Aquinas et al were commenting on the morality of capital punishment; JPII was not. This is why the apparent inconsistency in their comments is only apparent and not real.

The Church has never insisted that capital punishment be used in every case of murder because other circumstances can make its use inappropriate. This is one meaning of the parable of the wheat and the weeds where Christ said not to uproot the weeds because some of the wheat might be uprooted as well (Mat 13:28-29). What JPII was doing was applying that reasoning to the use of capital punishment in modern societies; he believed it would have an unhealthy influence on the public.

Ender

 

[starshiptrooper]

How do I know that Aquinas was not infallible?
Simple. He was not even a pope.

However, paragraph #2267 of the CCC is not infallible either. The first sentence is an outright error, the second statement is debatable, and the final statement is a matter of opinion and not connected to faith or morals.

I have always thought Aquinas a brilliant theologian.
That doesn’t change the fact that threatening someone with
a soon-to-be-experienced Death, is not likely to spur a hardened violent killer
to repentance. Do you really think Charles Manson is going to study the Scriptures
if California decides to reinstate his death sentence? He might, but I doubt it.
King David repented of his adultery and Murder, after Nathan told him a hypothetical
story. That, not fear of being killed, prompted his repentance.

Simply giving a murderer more time won’t accomplish the same miracle.

And again, if strict justice requires the Death Penalty for murder,
]are we going to charge GOD with violating Justice by letting David live and not only live,
but continue to rule as King over the Nation?
Are we going to charge GOD with violating Justice by restoring mass-murderer King Manasseh to the Throne of Israel? He not only didn’t have Manasseh killed, but actually RESTORED his kingship.

Are you telling me that God can’t make exceptions to HIS OWN rules?

Whether the death penalty comes from the Noahic laws is really irrelevant hereWhat I was pointing out, and correctly, was that in the eyes of God,
murder is NOT the ONLY capital offense, not by a long shot…

It is very relevant, the death penalty for murder comes from the Covenant with Noah which is still in force. The Mosaic Law which mandates the death penalty for other crimes is no longer in force.

 

[Debora123]

And how, exactly do they differ?

Does God change so much over the years that He is so different?

How do they differ??

Are you serious??

JPII believed very strongly that the Death Penalty should be ABOLISHED all over the world. He believed it to be cruel, unnecessary, and destructive do the dignity of human life. (usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml)

Aquinas, did not.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I am FOR the death penalty all the way. I come from a country where it has been abolished.

The sad thing about those who oppose the death penalty is that they themselves - on aggregate - have never felt the trauma of having a loved one killed brutally. So they feel the need to lecture all of us on morality and start quoting CCC verses that only demonstrates that they are far removed from reality.

If I had the power, I’d introduce the death penalty. I do not believe in giving criminals belly-rubs. If you do, fine. There’s always Kingston; Jamaica; Brixton, London; several parts of Los Angeles and a few other locations where you can happily build your place of residence .

 

[Edward_H]

How do they differ??

Are you serious??

JPII believed very strongly that the DP should be abolished all over the world. he believed it to be cruel, unnecessary, and destructive do the dignity of human life.

Aquinas, did not.

The Church hasn’t changed its view. You need to separate the concept of civil protection and the means for accomplishing it. The Catholic Church or JPII hasn’t ruled out the possibility of the death penalty as one means of protecting society. It simply has pointed out that in our day and age - with as many resources as we have today - it’s a hard case to make that the means of the death penalty can be justified as a last resort, unlike it might have been during St Thomas Aquinas’s day.

 

[Debora123]

The Church hasn’t changed its view. You need to separate the concept of civil protection and the means for accomplishing it. The Catholic Church or JPII hasn’t ruled out the possibility of the death penalty as one means of protecting society.

Really Edward??

I HAVE separated it.

I said I agree with JPII’s views that the Death Penalty should be abolished because in this day and age, it is no longer necessary to keep others safe.

I didn’t say it was Church Doctrine.

 

[Debora123]

It simply has pointed out that in our day and age - with as many resources as we have today - it’s a hard case to make that the means of the death penalty can be justified as a last resort, unlike it might have been during St Thomas Aquinas’s day.

This may have been true… or it may not have been true. Point being, it is no longer the case.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

It is very relevant, the death penalty for murder comes from the Covenant with Noah which is still in force. The Mosaic Law which mandates the death penalty for other crimes is no longer in force

Those things were not Capital Crimes merely because the “Mosaic Law” deemed them such. There is no statement anywhere in the Scriptures nor in Church Tradition that
claims that Capital Crimes are no longer Capital Crimes simply because the Law of Moses is no longer in force. And the Mosaic Law wasn’t RELIGIOUS law only,
it encompassed the civil law of Israelite society.

The Church historically has condoned the State’s use of the Death Penalty for a wide variety of offenses, not merely for murder. “Heretics” were burned at the stake, and often burned alive, with nary a protest from the Church. So were witches, adulterers, sodomites (Pope Pius V, St. Pius V prescribed burning as a punishment in Rome for sodomy), fornicators, blasphemers, persons convicted of forgery, etc etc etc, for many centuries after the Law of Moses was no longer in force.

One person posting claimed that opponents of the death penalty do not live in reality because we have never had a close family member brutally killed. That’s a crock.
I have had family members mugged, and in the heat of passion, I’m sure I would have killed the person who did it, had I gotten my hands on him. Thank God I didn’t.

Another asked if God cannot make exception to His own Rules.
Of COURSE he can. And He often does, it seems. But we aren’t talking about
that, we are talking about whether STRICT JUSTICE REQUIRES that the Death Penalty ALWAYS be used. And if it is STRICT JUSTICE, required by no less than God 100% of the time, then NO, even God would not set aside such an inflexible rule.
David murdered ONE innocent man. King Manasseh murdered THOUSANDS, including his OWN children. And God restored HIM to the THRONE. Can you IMAGINE the scandal and outcry that there would be if a BISHOP were a mass murderer, excommunicated for a couple of years, and then RESTORED to his Office???
But if it could be done for Manasseh, it could legitimately be done for even a Bishop.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

One person posting claimed that opponents of the death penalty do not live in reality because we have never had a close family member brutally killed. That’s a crock.
I have had family members mugged, and in the heat of passion, I’m sure I would have killed the person who did it, had I gotten my hands on him. Thank God I didn’t.

A mugging is not equal to murder. At least someone who mugs has a significant probability of repenting. Someone who murders has an incredible statistical unlikelihood of repenting. It’s for that reason that those who oppose the death penalty always have to resort to giving extreme examples of murderers who managed to repent. Let’s face reality - murderers who repent are an exception, rather than the rule. It’s very uncommon, so can people please stop using anomalies as an example.

The Bible says that murder is a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance. And that’s what I’m inclined to follow. But I do not need to resort to the Bible or verbose Catechism paragraphs. When you see the tears and distress imposed on a family due to the actions of a vicious murderer over the course of several years, you’ll understand why rational people view the death penalty as a feasible solution in certain instances.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Let’s face reality - murderers who repent are an exception, rather than the rule.

I won’t deny that, actually.
But statistically speaking, that is really
true of MOST sinners who PRACTICE any serious sin.
PRACTICING serious sin hardens the heart, making
repentance less and less likely with the commission of each subsequent
serious sin.

Remember, repentance isn’t something that we, alone, can even “choose”
to do ON OUR OWN.
Scripture says that repentance is “granted” by God, by His (miraculous) grace
working on the offender’s heart.
When people practice sin, in some cases God simply does NOT GRANT
the grace of repentance. As scripture teaches about this, I will have Mercy upon whom
I will have mercy, and I will harden whom I will harden.
and THAT is really scary.

 

[Debora123]

The sad thing about those who oppose the death penalty is that they themselves - on aggregate - have never felt the trauma of having a loved one killed brutally. So they feel the need to lecture all of us on morality and start quoting CCC verses that only demonstrates that they are far removed from reality.

I won’t debate this issue with you because it seem pretty personal and I don’t want to come off as judging you.

I just wanted to say that it must have been very difficult to lose someone like that, and I am very sorry that happened to you.

My prayers are with you. God bless.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

and in the midst of all this controversy about the Death Penalty
and how often it should or must be used,
let us remember that we are ALL under a sentence of death.
It’s just a matter of time, that’s all. We could get hit by a bus tomorrow morning.

Keep one thing in mind:
If a murderer is unrepentant, and remains in that state until
he passes away,
he will not escape justice for such unrepented violent malice.
After all, Catholics believe in a place called Hell,
which is far, far worse than being put to death by
electric chair or lethal injection.

 

[Corki]

This is the key to understanding 2267 in light of everything else the Church has written on capital punishment: JPII opposed the use of capital punishment in current society, not because it is immoral but because it is imprudent. Aquinas et al were commenting on the morality of capital punishment; JPII was not. **This is why the apparent inconsistency in their comments is only apparent and not real. **

The Church has never insisted that capital punishment be used in every case of murder because other circumstances can make its use inappropriate. This is one meaning of the parable of the wheat and the weeds where Christ said not to uproot the weeds because some of the wheat might be uprooted as well (Mat 13:28-29). What JPII was doing was applying that reasoning to the use of capital punishment in modern societies; he believed it would have an unhealthy influence on the public.

Ender

Well, said. It is disturbing to see the discussion turn into some kind of “dueling theologian” debate. The writings of JPII, Aquinas and Dulles have much more in common than they differ.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I won’t debate this issue with you because it seem pretty personal and I don’t want to come off as judging you.

I just wanted to say that it must have been very difficult to lose someone like that, and I am very sorry that happened to you.

My prayers are with you. God bless.

Oh no, you aren’t judging me at all. We can discuss this freely. I’m not angry at all. It hasn’t happened to me “personally” (in terms of family), and God willing, long may it stay that way .

But I have had a person who was likely to become my friend murdered. I also had a schoolmate murdered. I had a classmate close to death, but thankfully he survived. You see the distress on those impacted, and it’s very heartbreaking, even more so when the criminal is not caught and manages to go scott-free. I read stories day in and day out of the worst kinds of murders you can ever imagine, some even happening to little children! It turns your stomach inwards. Many people are beginning to wake up to the fact that a legal system needs to encompass a death penalty, especially in a situation where gang violence is being promoted and glorified.

As a society, no man is an island. A death-penalty sends a clear signal to would-be criminals that a life of crime has it’s consequences - and by consequences, I don’t mean a prison cell staged with the latest games consoles. I mean the ultimate consequence - death. And that is what is needed in a culture that has become bankrupt and is fast approaching a deep abyss.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Keep one thing in mind:
If a murderer is unrepentant, and remains in that state until
he passes away,
he will not escape justice for such unrepented violent malice.
After all, Catholics believe in a place called Hell,
which is far, far worse than being put to death by
electric chair or lethal injection.

Yes, but a legal system is also an institution established by God. There is temporal punishment, and then there is eternal punishment. You can’t necessarily divorce the two and think that God owns one and humans own the other. In reality, God owns all. Indeed, “If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there” (Psalm 139:8). Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, a death penalty can also sometimes be an act of God?

 

[Edward_H]

Really Edward??

I HAVE separated it.

I said I agree with JPII’s views that the Death Penalty should be abolished because in this day and age, it is no longer necessary to keep others safe.

I didn’t say it was Church Doctrine.

Not quite. There’s a difference between saying Capital Punishment should be abolished vs.

"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 non-existent.”

Just War doctrine (Thank you St. Thomas Aquinas) gives us the key principle & test for War and for Capital Punishment: Last resort.

You’re making it sound like at root St Thomas and Blessed John Paul were at variance on this, and they were not.

 

[Debora123]

Not quite. There’s a difference between saying Capital Punishment should be abolished vs.

Just War doctrine (Thank you St. Thomas Aquinas) gives us the key principle & test for War and for Capital Punishment: Last resort.

You’re making it sound like at root St Thomas and Blessed John Paul were at variance on this, and they were not.

No Edward, he DID specifically say the death penalty should be abolished world wide. He also said the death penalty was cruel and contrary to the dignity of human life.

“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” -JPII

I don’t know if they were at variance or not, because I don’t know what things were like in the days of Aquinas - if they had prisons back then or if the only option was to kill.

 

[Debora123]

Well, said. It is disturbing to see the discussion turn into some kind of “dueling theologian” debate. ** The writings of JPII, Aquinas and Dulles have much more in common than they differ.**

Well then in that case I don’t see why people here are posting the Aquinas quote to defend their beliefs that the death penalty should still be used in this country.

I don’t look to Aquinas’ quotes on the DP because they no longer apply. We are not living in a society where the only way to keep others safe is by executing a man who is already imprisoned. Instead, look to JPII’s because it is applicable to our time and gives the opinion that the DP is no longer necessary, and performing it is cruel and inhumane.

I don’t see why that is such a problem or so “disturbing” for you.

 

[Ender]

I said I agree with JPII’s views that the Death Penalty should be abolished because in this day and age, it is no longer necessary to keep others safe.

I didn’t say it was Church Doctrine.

Since it is not safety but justice that is the primary objective of punishment, I find that I disagree with JPII … and agree with Church doctrine.

I don’t look to Aquinas’ quotes on the DP because they no longer apply. We are not living in a society where the only way to keep others safe is by executing a man who is already imprisoned. Instead, look to JPII’s because it is applicable to our time and gives the opinion that the DP is no longer necessary, and performing it is cruel and inhumane.

Aquinas comments do apply because they agree with Church doctrine. It is the idea that capital punishment is unnecessary because it isn’t needed for protection that is not doctrine. Regarding JPII’s comment that it is cruel and inhumane, I have to doubt he said that inasmuch as he recognized the appropriateness off capital punishment in some (very limited) circumstances, whereas if it was really cruel it would be cruel in all cases and inapplicable in all cases … which was clearly not his position.

Ender