Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

Are you suggesting that life in prison for murder would not be a Just sentence?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: for some crimes the only just punishment, the only punishment whose severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime, is execution. Given also that this is what we are commanded to do by God himself, in a Scripture passage (Gen 9:6) about which the Church says “This teaching remains necessary for all time”, then yes, I believe this is what we are required to do.

I agree, it is very dangerous to follow the path of Christ. We have Jesus Himself that was put to death, as well as many martyrs that did follow His path. I’m not a pacifist. I do believe in self defense, but I draw the line at killing.

It is easy to understand people’s aversion to retributive punishment and especially to capital punishment, but I think your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of sin, punishment, and justice.

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.(Aquinas, ST I/II 87, 3 ad 3)

Sin makes a man deserving of punishment; this is an obligation that justice demands. Furthermore, justice requires that the severity of the punishment vary with the severity of the crime and the Church has always taught that execution is a just punishment, that is, execution is a punishment of commensurate severity with murder. I think what has happened is that we have lost our sense of the enormity of the crime, the value of the life that has been taken is diminished in consideration with the life of the murderer himself.

*Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *(Catechism of Trent)

We have lost our understanding of the enormity of the sin, which could hardly be otherwise given that we no longer wish to punish murder with the severity it deserves.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: for some crimes the only just punishment, the only punishment whose severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime, is execution. Given also that this is what we are commanded to do by God himself, in a Scripture passage (Gen 9:6) about which the Church says “This teaching remains necessary for all time”, then yes, I believe this is what we are required to do.
It is easy to understand people’s aversion to retributive punishment and especially to capital punishment, but I think your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of sin, punishment, and justice.

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.(Aquinas, ST I/II 87, 3 ad 3)

Sin makes a man deserving of punishment; this is an obligation that justice demands. Furthermore, justice requires that the severity of the punishment vary with the severity of the crime and the Church has always taught that execution is a just punishment, that is, execution is a punishment of commensurate severity with murder. I think what has happened is that we have lost our sense of the enormity of the crime, the value of the life that has been taken is diminished in consideration with the life of the murderer himself.

Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. (Catechism of Trent)

We have lost our understanding of the enormity of the sin, which could hardly be otherwise given that we no longer wish to punish murder with the severity it deserves.
Ender

I am in no way trying to lessen the enormity of the sin. I fully agree that the most accurate punishment for murder is death. And this punishment is Just and Good. The Old Testament gives us many examples of what accurate Justice is, and this is what God requires, and this is Good. However, in the New Testament Jesus states that the Mercy and Forgiveness that we show others, is the Mercy and Forgiveness that we will be shown. So if I wish to live by the Old Testament, which is Good, then when I sin, I should be put to death, because this would be True Justice. Since I require Mercy and Forgiveness, my choice is to show Mercy and Forgiveness.

If you do not require Mercy, then by all means, live by the teachings of the Old Testament which is Good for all time.

 

[Lycorth]

I agree, it is very dangerous to follow the path of Christ. We have Jesus Himself that was put to death, as well as many martyrs that did follow His path. I’m not a pacifist. I do believe in self defense, but I draw the line at killing.

You may draw the line at killing, but the Church does not. Do not confuse your personal opinions with Church teaching.

Again I agree, choosing the narrow path will always be more costly than taking the wide and less expensive path.

A little self-righteous, don’t you think?

There’s nothing inherently noble about keeping millions of violent and dangerous criminals alive for indefinite periods of time on the taxpayer’s dime. The poor have a hard enough time making ends meet in this rotten economy and you want to take more money from them, all so thugs can have pornography and exercise equipment?

Don’t delude yourself - that’s what your tax dollars go to - illicit and needless diversions for criminals. It does not go towards any form of rehabilitation whatsoever, especially when it would be considered “unconstitutional” to have those same tax dollars go towards Catholic prison outreach. The poor, and innocents in general, should not have to be forced to pay the bill for their oppressor’s illegitimate expenses, especially when prisons are nothing more than gated criminal communities wherein gangs can form and socialize and engage in hardening criminal behavior. Then, they are turned loose onto society, rarely if ever rehabilitated, to re-offend and prey on more innocent lives.

That’s not the “narrow way”, that is humanistic self-delusion and sophistry. Yes, give criminals a chance to repent and convert, even if it means they are not executed after the first capital offense. But if they continue to offend, the chances are gone and the war on society that person has declared must be ended.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Lycorth said:

"There’s nothing inherently noble about keeping millions of violent and dangerous criminals alive for indefinite periods of time on the taxpayer’s dime. The poor have a hard enough time making ends meet in this rotten economy and you want to take more money from them, all so thugs can have pornography and exercise equipment?

“Don’t delude yourself - that’s what your tax dollars go to - illicit and needless diversions for criminals. It does not go towards any form of rehabilitation whatsoever, especially when it would be considered “unconstitutional” to have those same tax dollars go towards Catholic prison outreach. The poor, and innocents in general, should not have to be forced to pay the bill for their oppressor’s illegitimate expenses, especially when prisons are nothing more than gated criminal communities wherein gangs can form and socialize and engage in hardening criminal behavior. Then, they are turned loose onto society, rarely if ever rehabilitated, to re-offend and prey on more innocent lives.”

I reply–as a former criminal (thief and robber) who spent 12 years in maximum security federal and state prisons, released over 30 years ago, and now workiing in the apostolate I founded, the Lampstand Foundation, whose mission is to reform criminals through Catholic social teaching and conversion–you are right on the money.

 

[wheels10]

You may draw the line at killing, but the Church does not. Do not confuse your personal opinions with Church teaching.

Why are clerics forbidden to shed human blood?

newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

A little self-righteous, don’t you think?

There’s nothing inherently noble about keeping millions of violent and dangerous criminals alive for indefinite periods of time on the taxpayer’s dime. The poor have a hard enough time making ends meet in this rotten economy and you want to take more money from them, all so thugs can have pornography and exercise equipment?

Don’t delude yourself - that’s what your tax dollars go to - illicit and needless diversions for criminals. It does not go towards any form of rehabilitation whatsoever, especially when it would be considered “unconstitutional” to have those same tax dollars go towards Catholic prison outreach. The poor, and innocents in general, should not have to be forced to pay the bill for their oppressor’s illegitimate expenses, especially when prisons are nothing more than gated criminal communities wherein gangs can form and socialize and engage in hardening criminal behavior. Then, they are turned loose onto society, rarely if ever rehabilitated, to re-offend and prey on more innocent lives.

That’s not the “narrow way”, that is humanistic self-delusion and sophistry. Yes, give criminals a chance to repent and convert, even if it means they are not executed after the first capital offense. But if they continue to offend, the chances are gone and the war on society that person has declared must be ended.

I agree that there is much room for improvement in prisons. There are too many luxuries provided. And the criminals should be provided with some sort of incentive to be productive so that they can pay for their own living expenses and also possibly in some very small way pay back their debt to society. And as far as multiple capital offenses? After the first capital offense, they stay in prison for LIFE.

 

[Lycorth]

I reply–as a former criminal (thief and robber) who spent 12 years in maximum security federal and state prisons, released over 30 years ago, and now workiing in the apostolate I founded, the Lampstand Foundation, whose mission is to reform criminals through Catholic social teaching and conversion–you are right on the money.

Thank you, David; it’s nice to have some insight from someone who actually has served in the trenches.

A friend of ours who teaches sociology and criminology on the university level and worked as a police officer for a number of years also backs me up on this. The prison system needs serious reform, as rehabilitation may be the words used to justify it, but rehabilitation is not what happens, except in rare cases.

Why are clerics forbidden to shed human blood?

What does that have to do with capital punishment?

Clerics have a specific role to fulfill, so they can’t be diverted by worldly things. One might as well argue that clerical celibacy, another clerical discipline, means that marriage is wrong.

That was very non-sequitor.

I agree that there is much room for improvement in prisons. There are too many luxuries provided. And the criminals should be provided with some sort of incentive to be productive so that they can pay for their own living expenses and also possibly in some very small way pay back their debt to society. And as far as multiple capital offenses? After the first capital offense, they stay in prison for LIFE.

Why should the poor and innocent of society be forced to pay for the room and board of the enemies of society when they have to pay for their own room and board?

It’s interesting to note that indefinite prison sentences are a historical novelty; they never existed during Christ’s time nor during the Age of Faith of Europe, when the Catholic faith permeated every aspect of European life. No one thought up this idea until so-called “Enlightenment”-era humanists began assuming that human dignity required the enemies of society to be fed and housed at taxpayer expense.

Thus was born the awful institution known as the prison system, which has only ever served as a gated criminal community organization wherein maybe some few turn over a new leaf but most just bide their time until they can get back out - or brutalize fellow inmates and harden their criminal personas. It is the prison system that needs to go, not the death penalty.

 

[wheels10]

What does that have to do with capital punishment?

Clerics have a specific role to fulfill, so they can’t be diverted by worldly things. One might as well argue that clerical celibacy, another clerical discipline, means that marriage is wrong.

That was very non-sequitor.

Somehow I don’t believe the reason clerics are not allowed to shed human blood is due to diversion towards worldly things. Nice try though. If I were to guess, I would say it would be something more along the lines that the lives of clerics need to resemble more closely the Life of Jesus. Jesus never killed anyone, and therefore clerics should also not desire to kill anyone.

Why should the poor and innocent of society be forced to pay for the room and board of the enemies of society when they have to pay for their own room and board?

It’s interesting to note that indefinite prison sentences are a historical novelty; they never existed during Christ’s time nor during the Age of Faith of Europe, when the Catholic faith permeated every aspect of European life. No one thought up this idea until so-called “Enlightenment”-era humanists began assuming that human dignity required the enemies of society to be fed and housed at taxpayer expense.

Thus was born the awful institution known as the prison system, which has only ever served as a gated criminal community organization wherein maybe some few turn over a new leaf but most just bide their time until they can get back out - or brutalize fellow inmates and harden their criminal personas. It is the prison system that needs to go, not the death penalty.

Again, I agree, there is much room for improvement in the prison system. If there were only some way to model prisons after purgatory. That would be the perfect prison.

 

[Lycorth]

Somehow I don’t believe the reason clerics are not allowed to shed human blood is due to diversion towards worldly things. Nice try though. If I were to guess, I would say it would be something more along the lines that the lives of clerics need to resemble more closely the Life of Jesus. Jesus never killed anyone, and therefore clerics should also not desire to kill anyone.

Nice try? Do you think this is a game?

I agree about the life of Jesus; that’s why they don’t marry and that’s why they don’t fight. However, that doesn’t render those things invalid for non-clerics nor does it render the death penalty invalid.

Very non-sequitor.

Again, I agree, there is much room for improvement in the prison system. If there were only some way to model prisons after purgatory. That would be the perfect prison.

It would be impossible, as the souls in purgatory will not sin anymore, because after purgatory is Heaven - temporal life is no more and they are beyond the ability of the devil to tempt into sin. To be able to reprogram human beings temporally so that they avoid sin due to said reprogramming would require mind-control technology, an infinitely worse slippery slope than the death penalty has ever led to.

No, the past shows us the way to the future. Executing dangerous threats who demonstrate that they will not repent and will go on endangering others and making non-violent/non-threatening criminals physically labor to repay their debt to society makes much more sense than the current approach to criminal justice. Prisons are awful places where criminals most often become far worse than when they went in; gangs flourish in prisons and some operate solely behind bars - so much for rehabilitation. Those who are released bring that with them and society is slowly dragged down into barbarism. It’s hard to see right now because the heat is being turned up slowly, like turning up the temperature slowly on a pot of live lobsters or crabs. Soon, they’re boiling and they don’t seem to realize it - and that’s where Western civilization is headed, and part of the problem is the prison system and the accompanying secular humanism that misguides Western society.

 

[wheels10]

Nice try? Do you think this is a game?

I agree about the life of Jesus; that’s why they don’t marry and that’s why they don’t fight. However, that doesn’t render those things invalid for non-clerics nor does it render the death penalty invalid.

Very non-sequitor.

No this is not a game. So the examples that Jesus us gave us during His Life are only for the clerics?

It would be impossible, as the souls in purgatory will not sin anymore, because after purgatory is Heaven - temporal life is no more and they are beyond the ability of the devil to tempt into sin. To be able to reprogram human beings temporally so that they avoid sin due to said reprogramming would require mind-control technology, an infinitely worse slippery slope than the death penalty has ever led to.

No, the past shows us the way to the future. Executing dangerous threats who demonstrate that they will not repent and will go on endangering others and making non-violent/non-threatening criminals physically labor to repay their debt to society makes much more sense than the current approach to criminal justice. Prisons are awful places where criminals most often become far worse than when they went in; gangs flourish in prisons and some operate solely behind bars - so much for rehabilitation. Those who are released bring that with them and society is slowly dragged down into barbarism. It’s hard to see right now because the heat is being turned up slowly, like turning up the temperature slowly on a pot of live lobsters or crabs. Soon, they’re boiling and they don’t seem to realize it - and that’s where Western civilization is headed, and part of the problem is the prison system and the accompanying secular humanism that misguides Western society.

As a said earlier, I agree that the prison system needs change. But not only the prison system but also the justice system outside of prison could use some change as well. The justice system should protect all Human Life.

I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement on capital punishment. My understanding is that the best examples for God’s will in this world are the Lives of Jesus and Mary. Neither killed any one, therefore my choice is also not to kill.

God Bless.

 

[dudleysharp]

My understanding is that the best examples for God’s will in this world are the Lives of Jesus and Mary. Neither killed any one, therefore my choice is also not to kill.

I think I am interpreting biblical instruction properly, but I may need some correction, here. Please advise.

If you believe in the Trinity, God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, there is the “I am” The Trinity both distinct and inseparable for all time.

By direct action or through His followers, we have example after example of God killing millions.

God is the Trinity.

Then there is this; “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 NAB

It would seem that because of our sins, any sins, we bring about our own death. We all sin, our state is sin, so, by God’s law, we all die. It is God’s law, it is the Truth.

However, satan is the source of evil and man’s free will chooses evil and sin.

God is the Truth. We die in our sin because of that Truth. We choose the evil and the sin, but we die not just because of our evil and sin, but because God made such earthly death the just outcome of that sin. There appears little doubt that God looks on some of us with more favor than others, based upon our heart and worship, yet we all still die because of sin.

As a general rule, civil governments get their powers through God, whether those governments know it or not. The death penalty imposed by civil governments is but one of the many ways that we all die because of our sin and is no more nor less the wages of sin than any other manner of death, be it old age, cancer, car wreck or our own murder, etc.

Criminals are subject to earthly law, just as all men are subject to God’s law. Even in man’s imperfection, is the example. Because man chooses criminal activities, he is subject to man’s sanction because of his - the criminals - free will choice. The criminal’s sanction, be it a fine, probation, incarceration or death, is the result on his choice and the law which judges it.

Am I understanding this properly?

 

[wheels10]

I think I am interpreting biblical instruction properly, but I may need some correction, here. Please advise.

If you believe in the Trinity, God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, there is the “I am” The Trinity both distinct and inseparable for all time.

By direct action or through His followers, we have example after example of God killing millions.

God is the Trinity.

This is how I understand it. God has every right to kill. He is the one that created us and therefore He is the only one that has the right to destroy us.

Then there is this; “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 NAB

It would seem that because of our sins, any sins, we bring about our own death. We all sin, our state is sin, so, by God’s law, we all die. It is God’s law, it is the Truth.

However, satan is the source of evil and man’s free will chooses evil and sin.

God is the Truth. We die in our sin because of that Truth. We choose the evil and the sin, but we die not just because of our evil and sin, but because God made such earthly death the just outcome of that sin. There appears little doubt that God looks on some of us with more favor than others, based upon our heart and worship, yet we all still die because of sin.

As a general rule, civil governments get their powers through God, whether those governments know it or not. The death penalty imposed by civil governments is but one of the many ways that we all die because of our sin and is no more nor less the wages of sin than any other manner of death, be it old age, cancer, car wreck or our own murder, etc.

Criminals are subject to earthly law, just as all men are subject to God’s law. Even in man’s imperfection, is the example. Because man chooses criminal activities, he is subject to man’s sanction because of his - the criminals - free will choice. The criminal’s sanction, be it a fine, probation, incarceration or death, is the result on his choice and the law which judges it.

Am I understanding this properly?

I agree that criminals are subject to earthly law. The only thing that I would add is the ones that impose judgement and sentence on the criminals do so with Mercy. From what I understand, if they show Mercy, then Mercy will be shown to them.

God Bless.

 

[Lycorth]

No this is not a game. So the examples that Jesus us gave us during His Life are only for the clerics?

Some examples are, yes.

Otherwise, why not walk around in robes and sandals and tell people that we are the Sons of God? Where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn at Church teaching, which I’ve cited here, on post #174 of this thread. According to Church teaching, which is of God Himself, the death penalty is not sinful in and of itself and has a just and proper place in society.

As a said earlier, I agree that the prison system needs change. But not only the prison system but also the justice system outside of prison could use some change as well. The justice system should protect all Human Life.

I agree. Furthermore, the justice system all too often protects the guilty at the expense of the innocent. That needs serious reform.

I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement on capital punishment. My understanding is that the best examples for God’s will in this world are the Lives of Jesus and Mary. Neither killed any one, therefore my choice is also not to kill.

God Bless.

That’s your choice, and it is perfectly fine for you as an *individual *to do so. I may, and do, disagree, but based solely on personal preference, it is not illicit for you to have that stance.

However, it is not mandated for all Catholics to avoid all killing all of the time. As a whole, it is inadvisable. We will never see eye to eye unless you admit that your personal choice to avoid all manner of killing is your personal choice alone and not a matter of infallible Church teaching.

 

[wheels10]

Some examples are, yes.

Otherwise, why not walk around in robes and sandals and tell people that we are the Sons of God? Where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn at Church teaching, which I’ve cited here, on post #174 of this thread. According to Church teaching, which is of God Himself, the death penalty is not sinful in and of itself and has a just and proper place in society.

It appears that the Catechism of the Catholic Church advises against capital punishment in most if not all cases:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
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.” **

And Pope Benedict appears to provide his approval to governments that abolish capital punishment:

cacp.org/vaticandocuments.html
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."

And Pope John Paul II was opposed to capital punishment:
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html
The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

And the words of Jesus also appear to ask us to show Mercy:

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Matthew 5:38 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighborh and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemiesi and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

There appear to be more words against capital punishment than for capital punishment in the Catholic Church. The way I understand it is if you wish to live by only the words of the Old Testament then you will be judged only by the words of the Old Testament. And as I said earlier, the words of the Old Testament are Good. They help us understand what is Good and evil. They help us appreciate the unfathomable gift that Jesus provides us with His Mercy. I for one am awe struck by the Mercy that Jesus shows us, and as a result, I cannot help myself but want to show this Mercy to my neighbour. I understand your hate of evil. I also hate it and would like to have it destroyed. But Jesus seems to be asking us to destroy evil not by hate, but rather by Love, Mercy and Forgiveness. After all, isn’t that the message of Jesus on the cross?

God Bless.

 

[Lycorth]

It appears that the Catechism of the Catholic Church advises against capital punishment in most if not all cases:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
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.” **

Please re-read my post above. The bolded excerpt is a non-binding theological opinion of the late pontiff, not binding teaching. The future Pope Benedict clarified that.

And Pope Benedict appears to provide his approval to governments that abolish capital punishment:

cacp.org/vaticandocuments.html
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."

And Pope John Paul II was opposed to capital punishment:
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html
The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

Yes, because Catholics, as per the then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s clarification, were free to differ on capital punishment.

And the words of Jesus also appear to ask us to show Mercy:

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Matthew 5:38 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighborh and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemiesi and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

There appear to be more words against capital punishment than for capital punishment in the Catholic Church. The way I understand it is if you wish to live by only the words of the Old Testament then you will be judged only by the words of the Old Testament. And as I said earlier, the words of the Old Testament are Good. They help us understand what is Good and evil. They help us appreciate the unfathomable gift that Jesus provides us with His Mercy. I for one am awe struck by the Mercy that Jesus shows us, and as a result, I cannot help myself but want to show this Mercy to my neighbour. I understand your hate of evil. I also hate it and would like to have it destroyed. But Jesus seems to be asking us to destroy evil not by hate, but rather by Love, Mercy and Forgiveness. After all, isn’t that the message of Jesus on the cross?

God Bless.

That is your opinion, and not binding Church teaching - I have already shown you what actually is binding Church teaching on the matter. Scripture is not yours to interpret according to your own opinion.

There is nothing merciful about refusing to protect society from dangerous criminals. Mercy is a virtue as is justice - the two are not in some sort of competition with each other. That’s the reasoning behind lex talionis - that punishment for a crime should equal the severity of the crime committed - not being too harsh or being too lenient.

Why do you refuse to admit that your opinion is not binding Church teaching?

 

[wheels10]

There is nothing merciful about refusing to protect society from dangerous criminals. Mercy is a virtue as is justice - the two are not in some sort of competition with each other. That’s the reasoning behind lex talionis - that punishment for a crime should equal the severity of the crime committed - not being too harsh or being too lenient.

Why do you refuse to admit that your opinion is not binding Church teaching?

I’m not saying that we should not protect society from dangerous criminals. That is the purpose of prisons.

Why do the current and previous Popes oppose capital punishment?

Is the following statement binding?:
newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church.

 

[Lycorth]

I’m not saying that we should not protect society from dangerous criminals. That is the purpose of prisons.

Which we can argue the effectiveness of, apart from false claims that the death penalty is opposed by the Church.

Why do the current and previous Popes oppose capital punishment?

If any popes oppose it, it is as a sole matter of personal opinion, not of binding doctrine.

I’ve already cited to you where the future Pope Benedict XVI has officially stated that Catholics are free to have differing opinions on capital punishment. Why do you refuse to accept this?

Is the following statement binding?:
newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church.

It is only binding on clerics, and as a matter of clerical discipline, not binding as a teaching on faith and morals that all Catholics must assent to.

I’m not arguing that the Church should execute offenders, so aside from that, I do not see what your objection is.

 

[wheels10]

Which we can argue the effectiveness of, apart from false claims that the death penalty is opposed by the Church.

If any popes oppose it, it is as a sole matter of personal opinion, not of binding doctrine.

I’ve already cited to you where the future Pope Benedict XVI has officially stated that Catholics are free to have differing opinions on capital punishment. Why do you refuse to accept this?

It is only binding on clerics, and as a matter of clerical discipline, not binding as a teaching on faith and morals that all Catholics must assent to.

I’m not arguing that the Church should execute offenders, so aside from that, I do not see what your objection is.

Prior to the introduction of Jesus, I would fully agree with capital punishment, since these were the instructions provided by God at that time. After the introduction of Jesus to the world, things changed. I’m not saying that God changed, or that that His words were no longer valid, but rather Jesus provided us with a better way to fight evil. Do you agree that the world changed after the introduction of Jesus?

I have provided evidence showing that the Life and Words of Jesus who is God provided us with a better way to fight evil. That is why I oppose capital punishment.

Can you provide evidence from the Life and Words of Jesus that support capital punishment? Or do you believe that the words of the Old Testament still provide the best approach to fighting evil?

 

[Lycorth]

Prior to the introduction of Jesus, I would fully agree with capital punishment, since these were the instructions provided by God at that time. After the introduction of Jesus to the world, things changed. I’m not saying that God changed, or that that His words were no longer valid, but rather Jesus provided us with a better way to fight evil. Do you agree that the world changed after the introduction of Jesus?

Yes, Jesus changed things, but not truth - God cannot contradict Himself. That’s why the death penalty is not forbidden, just that it must be used properly, not wantonly.

I have provided evidence showing that the Life and Words of Jesus who is God provided us with a better way to fight evil. That is why I oppose capital punishment.

No, you have only provided personal opinions. Those are not evidence, merely personal opinions.

I on the other hand have provided actual citations of actual Church teaching on the matter, which is what forms my opinion on capital punishment. All Church teaching is of God, therefore there is a place for capital punishment, according to God Himself.

We may differ on our opinions but not on what the Church teaches.

Can you provide evidence from the Life and Words of Jesus that support capital punishment? Or do you believe that the words of the Old Testament still provide the best approach to fighting evil?

I have already provided evidence, straight from Jesus - since Jesus speaks through the Church, and the Church has officially approved the proper use and place of capital punishment, the Lord has already spoken on the matter.

Christ Himself does not address capital punishment in Scripture because that was not His goal on earth. He was not ministering to a state authority, so He therefore did not speak of things that are state business, such as capital punishment. He was ministering to individuals so He spoke primarily of things that impacted their lives. Executing criminals is not the business of everyday folks.

I ask again, and I will appreciate an answer in your next post - why do you refuse to accept what the Church teaches regarding the death penalty? You can find it cited on post #174 of this thread, if you need to re-read Church teaching again.

Or do you believe that if you disagree with Church teaching, you are free to interpret Scripture on your own and speak for God?

 

[wheels10]

I ask again, and I will appreciate an answer in your next post - why do you refuse to accept what the Church teaches regarding the death penalty? You can find it cited on post #174 of this thread, if you need to re-read Church teaching again.

Or do you believe that if you disagree with Church teaching, you are free to interpret Scripture on your own and speak for God?

I agree that the following is the Church teaching on capital punishment:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s2c2a5.htm
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.”

All I can say is good luck determining whether the conditions have been met prior to proceeding with the execution. And you may want to look into whether there will be any negative consequences as a result of the execution

My personal opinion based on Church teaching and the words of Jesus in the New Testament is that capital punishment should never be used.

God Bless.

 

[Lycorth]

I agree that the following is the Church teaching on capital punishment:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s2c2a5.htm
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.”

Yes, that is part of Church teaching on the matter. Do you deny that the other catechetical excerpts I have posted are also Church teaching?

Also, what about the then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation of John Paul II’s opinion of the death penalty and that Catholics are free to have differing opinions on the matter, unlike abortion or euthanasia, where there can be no difference of opinion?

All I can say is good luck determining whether the conditions have been met prior to proceeding with the execution. And you may want to look into whether there will be any negative consequences as a result of the execution

Well, I’m not a prosecutor or a judge, so it’s not for me to decide. Unless I’m perhaps on a jury, in which case I’d certainly weigh all available facts before making any sort of decision.

However, decisions can be made wherein guilt or innocence are proven - it’s hardly impossible all of the time, or even most of the time. It simply requires dedication on the part of the justice system.

My personal opinion based on Church teaching and the words of Jesus in the New Testament is that capital punishment should never be used.

God Bless.

You’re certainly free to hold that opinion - just don’t try to say that it is Church teaching that the death penalty must never be used, because that much is not so at all.