Death Penalty and Justice

[Ender]

Opposition to the death penalty is supported in the Catechism. Your bloodthirsty agenda is not.

I have no bloodthirsty agenda; I simply repeat what the Church taught unambiguously until 1995. As I said before, your insults don’t apply to me, they apply to the Church since it is the Church’s comments I cite.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And St Thomas More put people to death and is a saint. As opposed to shaking the dust from our sandals as Jesus taught.

So we know people in authority in the church tolerate civilian concepts that are directly contrary to what Jesus taught.

You have a rather low opinion of the Church but your comment misses the point. The issue here is not what some people in the Church did but what the Church herself taught. The Church is not responsible for what her members do but she is surely responsible for what she teaches and she has taught for 2000 years that the death penalty is a just punishment for some crimes.

There is ample evidence in the present, that some of the more numerous teachings of Jesus are ignored because of the tradition of acknowledging the precedence that some state actions take over what Jesus taught.

If you believe that you better understand what Jesus taught than does the Church then I have to say I am surprised you consider yourself a Catholic. It would not occur to me to dismiss the Church’s interpretation of scripture in favor of my own.

All church “tradition " is not in concert with what Jesus taught, hence the concept of " a lack of impeccability”.

You really seem to believe the Catholic Church has gotten an awful lot of stuff wrong. I’m not interested in debating personal interpretations of Scripture. I accept what the Church teaches, yours appears to be a do-it-yourself approach. We have no possibility of coming to agreement if you dismiss the Church’s position.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

I have no bloodthirsty agenda; I simply repeat what the Church taught unambiguously until 1995. As I said before, your insults don’t apply to me, they apply to the Church since it is the Church’s comments I cite.

Ender

Anyone who fights to maintain the death penalty most certainly does have an agenda that is inconsistent with the idea of forgiveness.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Anyone who fights to maintain the death penalty most certainly does have an agenda that is inconsistent with the idea of forgiveness.

The above quote indicates that justice is a lesser virtue than mercy. This is wrong. There is a corresponding virtue to Mercy (forgiveness) and that is a cardinal virtue, justice. Without justice, there is no need for mercy. But mercy is not the greatest of virtues, as clarified by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa:

Hence, as regards man, who has God above him, charity which unites him to God, is greater than mercy, whereby he supplies the defects of his neighbor. But of all the virtues which relate to our neighbor, mercy is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient.

newadvent.org/summa/3030.htm#article4

The latter part above says we show the greatest virtue to our neighbor by mercy, but in the case of murder, the justice shown to God in taking the life of another dictates that the common good of all is of primary importance. On the issue of justice in the case of murder, St Thomas says:

I answer that, … For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

Mercy shown to the guilty by an injured party is not the same as mercy shown to the guilty by those who must take the good of all into account. Justice would be distorted in that case. The elevation of forgiveness above justice is contrary to the Divine law in which we participate by the natural law. They both exist in God:

Mercy and truth are necessarily found in all God’s works, if mercy be taken to mean the removal of any kind of defect. Not every defect, however, can properly be called a misery; but only defect in a rational nature whose lot is to be happy; for misery is opposed to happiness. For this necessity there is a reason, because since a debt paid according to the divine justice is one due either to God, or to some creature, neither the one nor the other can be lacking in any work of God: because God can do nothing that is not in accord with His wisdom and goodness; and it is in this sense, as we have said, that anything is due to God. Likewise, whatever is done by Him in created things, is done according to proper order and proportion wherein consists the idea of justice. Thus justice must exist in all God’s works.

newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm#article4

So justice is not contrary to mercy (forgiveness). As far as the death penalty as a human law is concerned, St Thomas says that human law can be changed:

On the part of man, whose acts are regulated by law, the law can be rightly changed on account of the changed condition of man, to whom different things are expedient according to the difference of his condition. …

newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article1

Pope John Paul II said the conditions of incarceration have improved so as to reduce the necessity for the death penalty to practically nil. This is not a dictate of law though, but of conscience. It is not against the dictates of the Divine Law as revealed to put the guilty to death, as stated by St Thomas:

When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts…yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

Human mercy elevated above the justice shown to God (as in the killing of those created in His likeness) is wrong. It is also wrong to use the death penalty as revenge, as well as to kill those who could adequately be kept incarcerated for the safety of society. One must examine themselves carefully as to their motivation for supporting the death penalty as the God who searches and knows our hearts will judge us on Judgment Day. Support for evil is also condemned as sinful.

 

[CWBetts]

The above quote indicates that justice is a lesser virtue than mercy. This is wrong. There is a corresponding virtue to Mercy (forgiveness) and that is a cardinal virtue, justice. Without justice, there is no need for mercy. But mercy is not the greatest of virtues, as clarified by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/3030.htm#article4

The latter part above says we show the greatest virtue to our neighbor by mercy, but in the case of murder, the justice shown to God in taking the life of another dictates that the common good of all is of primary importance. On the issue of justice in the case of murder, St Thomas says: newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

Mercy shown to the guilty by an injured party is not the same as mercy shown to the guilty by those who must take the good of all into account. Justice would be distorted in that case. The elevation of forgiveness above justice is contrary to the Divine law in which we participate by the natural law. They both exist in God:

newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm#article4

So justice is not contrary to mercy (forgiveness). As far as the death penalty as a human law is concerned, St Thomas says that human law can be changed: newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article1

Pope John Paul II said the conditions of incarceration have improved so as to reduce the necessity for the death penalty to practically nil. This is not a dictate of law though, but of conscience. It is not against the dictates of the Divine Law as revealed to put the guilty to death, as stated by St Thomas: newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

Human mercy elevated above the justice shown to God (as in the killing of those created in His likeness) is wrong. It is also wrong to use the death penalty as revenge, as well as to kill those who could adequately be kept incarcerated for the safety of society. One must examine themselves carefully as to their motivation for supporting the death penalty as the God who searches and knows our hearts will judge us on Judgment Day. Support for evil is also condemned as sinful.

Is application of the death penalty truly justice? The virtue of justice is to connected with the idea of giving what is owed. I do not feel that the death penalty is in keeping with true justice. No matter how badly a man has sinned, he is still a human person, made in the image and likeness of God, and who is still capable to be moved by the Holy Spirit to repentance. Does not execution rob the guilty of possible opportunity to repent? At the same time, I am not saying that execution is NEVER to be carried out. Sometimes, in the interest of keeping the innocent from harm, execution is needed, but only as a last resort, and not as a matter of course. Just as the cases of “just war” are extremely rare, also the cases of justified use of the death penalty are also extremely rare.

 

[Brendan]

Is application of the death penalty truly justice? The virtue of justice is to connected with the idea of giving what is owed. I do not feel that the death penalty is in keeping with true justice. No matter how badly a man has sinned, he is still a human person, made in the image and likeness of God, and who is still capable to be moved by the Holy Spirit to repentance. Does not execution rob the guilty of possible opportunity to repent? .

No, it does not rob anyone of the opportunity to repent. In fact, Avery Cardinal Dulles noted that it often promotes reconcilliation with God

The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God.

Another great example would be Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was baptized Catholic, but (clearly) wasn’t raised Catholic. But while on death row, he requested, and received, Sacramental Absolution.

In addition, just prior to his execution, he requested and received Last Rites, including absolution, viaticum, and the Apostolic Blessing ( a plenary indulgence).

Also, the willful acceptance of temporal punishment remits the purgation due for the crime. Again, here is Cardinal Dulles

By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life.

That aspect of expiation, which has always been a part of Catholic teaching, is sometimes forgotten in these discussions.

So, depending on the level of detachment from sin that McVeigh had in his final moments, it is very likely that he went straight to Heaven.

And that is the Justice and Mercy that the Church seeks, spiritual and eternal, not material and temporal.

 

[CWBetts]

No, it does not rob anyone of the opportunity to repent. In fact, Avery Cardinal Dulles noted that it often promotes reconcilliation with God

Another great example would be Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was baptized Catholic, but (clearly) wasn’t raised Catholic. But while on death row, he requested, and received, Sacramental Absolution.

In addition, just prior to his execution, he requested and received Last Rites, including absolution, viaticum, and the Apostolic Blessing ( a plenary indulgence).

Also, the willful acceptance of temporal punishment remits the purgation due for the crime. Again, here is Cardinal Dulles

That aspect of expiation, which has always been a part of Catholic teaching, is sometimes forgotten in these discussions.

So, depending on the level of detachment from sin that McVeigh had in his final moments, it is very likely that he went straight to Heaven.

And that is the Justice and Mercy that the Church seeks, spiritual and eternal, not material and temporal.

I would say that more would move to repentance through prison evangelization efforts than through the promise of imminent death. Even the McVeigh example is one of reversion, not conversion. I stand by my analysis.

 

[portarica]

You have a rather low opinion of the Church but your comment misses the point. The issue here is not what some people in the Church did but what the Church herself taught. The Church is not responsible for what her members do but she is surely responsible for what she teaches and she has taught for 2000 years that the death penalty is a just punishment for some crimes.

If you believe that you better understand what Jesus taught than does the Church then I have to say I am surprised you consider yourself a Catholic. It would not occur to me to dismiss the Church’s interpretation of scripture in favor of my own.

You really seem to believe the Catholic Church has gotten an awful lot of stuff wrong. I’m not interested in debating personal interpretations of Scripture. I accept what the Church teaches, yours appears to be a do-it-yourself approach. We have no possibility of coming to agreement if you dismiss the Church’s position.

Ender

My comments are the result of believing that the church can become better and better. We no longer have popes telling us cats are evil, we don’t support governments that support slavery , we acknowledge that there is more to marriage than the chattel state it once was in earlier times. We know there is an Asia and that the earth is round and is in an heliocentric solar system.

And the amazing thing is that the teachings of Jesus in the Bible still have a wisdom that is universal and so uniquely timeless. They apply to mankind as well today,as they did 2000 years ago. They also apply without conditions, it doesn’t matter if one is talking to Romans or Corinthians, there is no need to shape Jesus teachings to a particular audience.

To deny change in the church or to deny the ability to change, ignores reality. The church even has a concept that allows a change to happen without actually changing. It allows for the further development of understanding. So it explains how an eye for an eye is not changed by turn the other cheek, but that turn the other cheek represents a further development in our understanding of God’s teachings.

So I believe that it is reasonable to think that the direct reference by Jesus at an event involving the capital punishment of another, will be found in the future ,to be a reference by Jesus to an event involving the capital punishment of another.

Peace

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Is application of the death penalty truly justice?

Yes, it could be. Human justice and Divine Justice is the difference. One would not say that God could not justly kill one of His creatures. This is the justification for the death penalty in the natural law, by which we participate in the Divine Law of God. As I said previously, revenge is not a just motive nor is purely human justice, an eye for an eye. The elevation of human justice to the Divine level is accomplished in the cooperation with God through the Holy Spirit and must be done to make our law truly just.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit come with Sanctifying Grace, among which are Wisdom, Prudence, Understanding, Counsel, and Piety (reverence), and Fear of the Lord. These are infused virtues, far exceeding the natural virtues and in thus we participate in the Life of God as His adoptive children. We must not block this grace offered to us, which we block by sin. With these gifts we correctly, with God through the Holy Spirit, come to a correct determination as to whether the death penalty applies. Our will is moved by God even without these infused gifts, and if blocked by sin, such as desire for revenge or hate in our free-will, we are still moved by God to justice in our will. This is the justice, based in God and not just an abstract concept, that I speak. Eliminating this possibility of Divine Justice is to possibly thwart the will of God. It is evident the world is trying to get by with purely human virtues devoid of God, but we must not make it worse by getting rid of the correct meaning of true justice, that which is due God and that He makes known to us in Divine Revelation. The Bible speaks of justified killing and justified war. We must get the concept correct to avoid error because our acts come from these concepts.

IThe virtue of justice is to connected with the idea of giving what is owed. I do not feel that the death penalty is in keeping with true justice. No matter how badly a man has sinned, he is still a human person, made in the image and likeness of God, and who is still capable to be moved by the Holy Spirit to repentance.

The Nature of God is both Justice as well as Mercy. We must not negate this principle of Justice to the heretical elevation of Mercy. This is what those who deny the existence of Hell do and fall into presumption.

IDoes not execution rob the guilty of possible opportunity to repent? At the same time, I am not saying that execution is NEVER to be carried out. Sometimes, in the interest of keeping the innocent from harm, execution is needed, but only as a last resort, and not as a matter of course. Just as the cases of “just war” are extremely rare, also the cases of justified use of the death penalty are also extremely rare.

We seem to agree, by that death should be rare in the criminal justice system. The problem with the concept of Divine Justice being opposed to Divine Mercy and of our participation in these as well as the correct use of the term “justice” is where we were, and perhaps still are, finding dispute.

As for just war, Fr. James V Schall writes on C S Lewis:

We are left with the need to see force and power as actual servants of justice. C. S. Lewis wrote in his essay “Why I Am Not a Pacifist:”

It is arguable that a criminal can always be satisfactorily dealt with without the death penalty. It is certain that a whole nation cannot be prevented from taking what it wants except by war. It is almost equally certain that the absorption of certain societies by certain other societies is a great evil. The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, of even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil . . . . The question is whether war is the greatest evil in the world, so that any state of affairs, which might result from submission, is certainly preferable. And I do not see any really cogent argument for this view.

hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3432296.html

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

My comments are the result of believing that the church can become better and better. We no longer have popes telling us cats are evil, we don’t support governments that support slavery , we acknowledge that there is more to marriage than the chattel state it once was in earlier times. We know there is an Asia and that the earth is round and is in an heliocentric solar system.

And the amazing thing is that the teachings of Jesus in the Bible still have a wisdom that is universal and so uniquely timeless. They apply to mankind as well today,as they did 2000 years ago. They also apply without conditions, it doesn’t matter if one is talking to Romans or Corinthians, there is no need to shape Jesus teachings to a particular audience.

To deny change in the church or to deny the ability to change, ignores reality. The church even has a concept that allows a change to happen without actually changing. It allows for the further development of understanding. So it explains how an eye for an eye is not changed by turn the other cheek, but that turn the other cheek represents a further development in our understanding of God’s teachings.

So I believe that it is reasonable to think that the direct reference by Jesus at an event involving the capital punishment of another, will be found in the future ,to be a reference by Jesus to an event involving the capital punishment of another.

Peace

People in the Church change, for the better with the Holy Spirit, in relation to their level of cooperation with the doctrines which do not change but that are only elucidated more fully. To say the Church gets better is to misunderstand what the Church is and to forget that the Holy Spirit guides Her Magisterial Teaching Authority. To confuse the sinners in the Church with the Divine Power given Her is a mistake. Saints are the proof that the Church is Divine in nature and that She is what She says She is.

Cats and support for slave nations are not part of doctrine and would only be ancillary to what was taught by the Holy Spirit, if in fact one could come up with the supporting documents to support the claim of evil cats and support for slavery, as well as they being the defining issue of said documents. Church support for nations that support slavery is much different that Church support for slavery, by the way. The Church condemns abortion, as you know, but ceases to condemn the U.S. for its use. The difference is huge but lost on some.

 

[Brendan]

I would say that more would move to repentance through prison evangelization efforts than through the promise of imminent death. Even the McVeigh example is one of reversion, not conversion. I stand by my analysis.

But it still invalidates your premise, as you held that the death penatly prevented one from being move to “repentance” (your word).

But that was clearly not the case with McVeigh, now was it?

 

[CWBetts]

But it still invalidates your premise, as you held that the death penatly prevented one from being move to “repentance” (your word).

But that was clearly not the case with McVeigh, now was it?

I hold that we cannot assume that any executed before they repent are not beyond the movement of the Holy Spirit. My premise is not invalidated. You cannot show that some executed would have NEVER come to repentance.

 

[Brendan]

I hold that we cannot assume that any executed before they repent are not beyond the movement of the Holy Spirit. My premise is not invalidated. You cannot show that some executed would have NEVER come to repentance.

Were they beyond the movement of the Holy Spirit PRIOR to their execution?

Here is your quote

Does not execution rob the guilty of possible opportunity to repent?

Such a statement could only be held to be true if you deny that it was possible for the person to repent PRIOR to his execution.

The case of Timothy McVeigh clearly shows that such a possibilty exists.

 

[lynx]

Is the use of the death penalty in line with the concept of justice?

Short answer, no. The justice system relies in several things for a punishment:

1. Prevention
2. Deterrent
3. Containment

When you kill someone, certainly it prevents them from killing again. It also contains them for eternity making sure that they cannot kill again. However, it is not a good deterrent, as many people still kill.

Assuming instead of killing people you lock them away for life, they have a lifetime to teach others how pitiful life can be in prison. Also, in case you convicted the wrong man, the state can make amends. Other than revenge I see no benefit to the death penalty.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Is the use of the death penalty in line with the concept of justice?

Yes, very much so.

Genesis 9:6
"Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God."

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Assuming instead of killing people you lock them away for life, they have a lifetime to teach others how pitiful life can be in prison. .

So, they can hurt other prisoners and rape other prisoners and rape female and male guards and kill and injure guards?

 

[lynx]

So, they can hurt other prisoners and rape other prisoners and rape female and male guards and kill and injure guards?

If a prisoner is deemed to be such a threat there are MANY precautions guards can take. Also, I feel that life in prison is better deterrent than death. Same thing with the false imprisonment. Just because individuals are dangerous and break the law doesn’t mean you kill them. WWJD? Probably not kill the guy.

 

[Ender]

Is application of the death penalty truly justice? The virtue of justice is to connected with the idea of giving what is owed. I do not feel that the death penalty is in keeping with true justice.

As you said, justice consists in rewarding or punishing a person as his actions deserve. As far as sins are concerned this means that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and as far as capital punishment goes, the Church has always taught that executions were - and are - just sentences for certain crimes. Given that the punishment is just and that justice is the primary objective of all punishment, I think the case for capital punishment is fairly strong.

No matter how badly a man has sinned, he is still a human person, made in the image and likeness of God, and who is still capable to be moved by the Holy Spirit to repentance.

It is because man is made in God’s likeness that the punishment for murder has been set (by God himself) to be so severe. Repentance is surely a valid objective of punishment but it is a secondary one so a punishment that does not bring about repentance but is just is appropriate but one that brings about repentance but is unjust is not.

ender

 

[CWBetts]

As you said, justice consists in rewarding or punishing a person as his actions deserve. As far as sins are concerned this means that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and as far as capital punishment goes, the Church has always taught that executions were - and are - just sentences for certain crimes. Given that the punishment is just and that justice is the primary objective of all punishment, I think the case for capital punishment is fairly strong.
It is because man is made in God’s likeness that the punishment for murder has been set (by God himself) to be so severe. Repentance is surely a valid objective of punishment but it is a secondary one so a punishment that does not bring about repentance but is just is appropriate but one that brings about repentance but is unjust is not.

ender

We will have to agree to disagree. As imperfect sinners, we have no right to exact the judgment of God upon other sinners.

 

[portarica]

People in the Church change, for the better with the Holy Spirit, in relation to their level of cooperation with the doctrines which do not change but that are only elucidated more fully. To say the Church gets better is to misunderstand what the Church is and to forget that the Holy Spirit guides Her Magisterial Teaching Authority. To confuse the sinners in the Church with the Divine Power given Her is a mistake. Saints are the proof that the Church is Divine in nature and that She is what She says She is.

Cats and support for slave nations are not part of doctrine and would only be ancillary to what was taught by the Holy Spirit, if in fact one could come up with the supporting documents to support the claim of evil cats and support for slavery, as well as they being the defining issue of said documents. Church support for nations that support slavery is much different that Church support for slavery, by the way. The Church condemns abortion, as you know, but ceases to condemn the U.S. for its use. The difference is huge but lost on some.

The rules here call for civil argument, so I couch my words for instance the church supporting slave nations in past was used instead of the church continuing to use missionaries who had slaves or enslaves people or who preached to people who were enslaving people or who blessed the voyages of slave traders or who used slaves in their households .

I made the assumption , perhaps mistakenly , that the most frequent posters probably have a wide ranging knowledge of church history and conduct. If that isn’t the case, my apologies. So I assumed that knowledge, for instance of the enslaving of the inhabitants of the new world by the Spanish who traveled with missionaries or the indentured servitude of the Irish Catholics or the trade in African slaves in the catholic colonies of the Portuguese or the writings of St. Paul would be common .

As to it being doctrine or not, that doesn’t matter, the church is better because it doesn’t support slavery any longer.

If you invoke the power of the ministry of discernment take note that the cat thing was in papal bulls and before infallibility was codified in the 1800’s those papal bulls had the force of church law and as they were made by bishops/popes the were done so using the ministry of discernment, which is the instrument through which the HS communicates more directly with bishops and is the basis for the knowledge the majersterium obtains from the HS.

Speaking of servitude, one of the Gregories condemned the Jews to lives of servitude as unworthy in the same general time frame as the Pope Innocent cat nonsense.

Peace