Again, alas, we will never agree. I do not believe, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that the DP is “judicial murder”, it (can be) justice. As a Catholic I believe that all teachings of the Catholic Church are consistent with Christ.Yet you advocate their judicial murder…that is not consistent with Christ.
No, this is not what the Catechism says at all; in fact the section on the death penalty (2267) says nothing whatever about justice … which is one of its major faults. What it does, however, is indirectly admit that the death penalty is just for certain crimes as it allows it, even if only theoretically. If the death penalty was always unjust then it would be unequivocally banned but since it is not banned it cannot be unjust.Very eloquent and to the point, especially -“If the death penalty is the only punishment that meets this standard then not only is it just to use it but it would be unjust not to.”
And that is where the church has placed its most recent emphasis, right on your “if”, because the way the popes have taught recently is that the circumstances for the “if” are for practical purposes nonexistent in these times.
The Church has never associated that incident with its position on the death penalty. It may appeal to you but it has no place whatever in what the Church has taught. The two passages which the Church references are Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-5 and both of them very much support the use of capital punishment.Sort of like the concept of , let he who is without sin cast the first stone, after all that allows for capital punishment, one just needs to find somebody that hasn’t sinned to start it off.
My comments are very specific and deal only with the comments that are made. I do not deny what the Church teaches. My position has always been that there is a great deal more to what the Church teaches than is found in Catechism section 2267 and that there are severe problems with what it contains.So you deny what the church actually teaches about capital punishment by saying that because the church allows capital punishment is some circumstances that are not reasonable at the present time, they are in favor of capital punishment.
“Popes” have not clarified anything. JPII wrote an opinion that is not in accord with the historical position of the Church. BXVI has not commented on the subject … but Cardinal Ratzinger said this:You ignore what the popes have taught lately when they clarified the church’s position about capital punishment, but turn around and say that my argument means the church is not true , go figure.
Encyclicals require us to give our assent of the will. This means that we should hold the same opinion as JPII.My comments are very specific and deal only with the comments that are made. I do not deny what the Church teaches. My position has always been that there is a great deal more to what the Church teaches than is found in Catechism section 2267 and that there are severe problems with what it contains.
“Popes” have not clarified anything. JPII wrote an opinion that is not in accord with the historical position of the Church. BXVI has not commented on the subject … but Cardinal Ratzinger said this:
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
I have a different opinion than JPII.
Ender
The CCC suggests exactly that:Cite something the Church has written …
Legal justice is but one of the three forms of justice. No doubt the Angelic Doctor was one of the greatest thinkers of his time but his writings are not infallible. Do you have a Magisterial reference? If not, you may certainly hold with Aquinas but ought to indicate the same as a matter of opinion rather than Church teaching.“If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person.” (Aquinas ST II/II 58,12)
The title of Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclicla makes it clear: “God is Charity.” God’s passionate love for his people—for humanity—is at the same time a forgiving love. It is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice. Here Christians can see a dim prefigurement of the mystery of the Cross: so great is God’s love for man that by becoming man he follows him even into death, and so reconciles justice and love.I have no idea what you mean here. When you call a virtue an identity what do you mean (and where is it taught)? … God and charity are identities.]
The full quote of Pius XII (not an encyclical to the entire Church but an address to Italian Catholic jurists) follows. His Holiness’ point was not that personal penance serves to restore justice but rather homicide is an offense to God and the penalty as expiation is a more meaningful outcome than sanctions imposed by man.Punishment satisfies the need for justice whether or not the sinner willingly accepts it. It may not satisfy for penance but it does for justice. …
Really? I think you mean rather what you think the Church teaches, i.e. citing Aquinas as Magisterial above. However, scholars abound on examining Job and the book’s insights into Divine Justice:I don’t offer my own interpretation of scripture; my comments are based on what the Church teaches. Ender
I trust none of these so-called experts claim to be Catholics for to say these men cannot be rehabilitated is to say the Holy Spirit cannot sanctify. We ought not attempt to limit an omnipotent God who wills that all men be saved.… As a person who has worked in the criminal justice system for many years closely with prosecutors of crimes against children, I have seen up close the “barbarity” of these offenders who, as more and more experts are in agreement on, CANNOT be rehabilitated. …
If that were true then what could Cardinal Ratzinger possibly have meant when he said that a diversity of opinion over the application of the death penalty was acceptable? Either you or he is mistaken.Encyclicals require us to give our assent of the will. This means that we should hold the same opinion as JPII.
He meant it was not an article of faith. It was not a license to disregard John Paul II.If that were true then what could Cardinal Ratzinger possibly have meant when he said that a diversity of opinion over the application of the death penalty was acceptable? Either you or he is mistaken.
Ender
I don’t think that is reality. Is it okay when a guard is murdered by a prisoner? What precautions can a non-violent prisoner take to not be stabbed or raped by violent prisoners?If a prisoner is deemed to be such a threat there are MANY precautions guards can take.
To disagree is not to disregard.He meant it was not an article of faith. It was not a license to disregard John Paul II.
STRAW MAN ALERTI don’t think that is reality. Is it okay when a guard is murdered by a prisoner? What precautions can a non-violent prisoner take to not be stabbed or raped by violent prisoners?
I think child molesters, rapists, and murders should be executed.
Wrong! Go live in a state prison and see how safe you are.STRAW MAN ALERT
Violent and non-violent offenders are not kept together. Even in the same facility, they are kept in different cell blocks. Your guard excuse won’t wash without data. Try using fact, not emotion, to prove your case.
Still no data? I am sure the DOJ would have all that you needed to prove me wrong. THis is a challenge: Back up your statements with facts, not pontificating.Wrong! Go live in a state prison and see how safe you are.
Your citation didn’t address the issue I raised regarding the ability to properly apply charity and the inability to properly apply justice.The CCC suggests exactly that:
Sure, how about this:Legal justice is but one of the three forms of justice. No doubt the Angelic Doctor was one of the greatest thinkers of his time but his writings are not infallible. Do you have a Magisterial reference?
Nor do I dispute anything he said … it’s just that none of it is relevant to our discussion.The title of Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclicla makes it clear: “God is Charity.”
I did not suggest that personal penance was sufficient to satisfy justice. Retribution is required - as you yourself show in what you quote: *“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault.” *This has been my point all along. Another part of what you quoted is also relevant: *“God Himself pointed out to Noah, it is the fact that “man was made to the image of God” that makes an assault on him tantamount to an assault on God.” *This alludes to the second part of Genesis 9:6 … the first part of which is “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” This is a teaching the Church still accepts.His Holiness’ point was not that personal penance serves to restore justice but rather homicide is an offense to God and the penalty as expiation is a more meaningful outcome than sanctions imposed by man.
Expiation is not the primary objective of punishment; retribution is, and a punishment of commensurate severity with the crime is required whether or not it serves as expiation.However, expiation still requires a willing participant as the CCC teaches:
Inasmuch as Leo XIII echoes Aquinas I think it is more reasonable to assume that Aquinas was right and that your dismissal of his opinion was in error.Really? I think you mean rather what you think the Church teaches, i.e. citing Aquinas as Magisterial above.
Fine, quote some Church document that is pertinent to the debate. Unless you can do that then the interpretation of any number of scholars is irrelevant.However, scholars abound on examining Job and the book’s insights into Divine Justice:
The Church is paying a terrible price for accepting the advice of those who said such men could - and were - rehabilitated. In theory perhaps some can be, but in practice it appears that few are.I trust none of these so-called experts claim to be Catholics for to say these men cannot be rehabilitated is to say the Holy Spirit cannot sanctify. We ought not attempt to limit an omnipotent God who wills that all men be saved.
A single instance is not data. I need more. Otherwise we could argue it is dreadfully dangerous to fly on an airplane, due to the fact that you are likely to crash into a skyscraper, due to the events on September 11, 2001. You need to establish a pattern of violence and death towards prison guards. In fact, your instance works against you, ans indicated by the bolded text.On Oct. 22, 1983: Four guards are stabbed, two fatally, by AB members at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Ill. It** is the first time in federal prison history that two guards are killed on the same day.**
How about this article? It claims that US federal prison statistics show that nearly one prisoner in twenty is sexually assaulted. Annually.Still no data? I am sure the DOJ would have all that you needed to prove me wrong. THis is a challenge: Back up your statements with facts, not pontificating.
But is the answer simply killing the prisoners? The article said the vast majority could have been prevented, and places some culpability on inaction of the staff.How about this article? It claims that US federal prison statistics show that nearly one prisoner in twenty is sexually assaulted. Annually.
hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape
Ender
Even if arguing from a religious perspective, think to yourself, what would Jesus do? I have my doubts the answer is kill the inmates. Any religion should be first and foremost about forgiveness IMO.But is the answer simply killing the prisoners? The article said the vast majority could have been prevented, and places some culpability on inaction of the staff.