Death Penalty and the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we weren’t Catholics the NT would be enough. But we have a Church that teaches.
True. And this is what the Church teaches:

“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which are the legitimate avengers of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” – Roman Catechism

And here is what Pope Pius XII said:

“When it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.”

And here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about those who support the death penalty:

“If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.%between%

None of these constitute condemnations of the death penalty, and allows Catholics in good conscience to support it, even if at odds with the opinion of Blessed John Paul II.

The Church’s Magisterium does not condemn the death penalty as immoral. The Church allows people to be against it or in support of it, and she clearly says that there is no sin in either position.
 
If we weren’t Catholics the NT would be enough. But we have a Church that teaches.
Even beyond that, we have Church leaders that apply doctrine to current issues. In these instatnces, we are free to disagree with them, especially where the disagreement occurs at the level of the current issue itself, and not the doctrine being applied. That is why Catholics may disagree with each other applying the death penatly and never contradict Church doctrine.
 
Ezekiel (33:11): “As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live.”

Jesus’ life and teachings (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29) focus on mercy, reconciliation and redemption. (It may also be instructive to recall that Jesus’ death was itself an application of the death penalty.) The basic thrust of the Gospels supports opposition to the death penalty

“The new Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds:If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (#2267).
 
True. And this is what the Church teaches:

“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which are the legitimate avengers of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” – Roman Catechism

And here is what Pope Pius XII said:

“When it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.”

And here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about those who support the death penalty:

“If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.%between%

None of these constitute condemnations of the death penalty, and allows Catholics in good conscience to support it, even if at odds with the opinion of Blessed John Paul II.

The Church’s Magisterium does not condemn the death penalty as immoral. The Church allows people to be against it or in support of it, and she clearly says that there is no sin in either position.
How come you can’t find more modern teachings of the Church to support your position? Why can’t you find quotes from Pope Benedict rather than Cardinal Ratzinger?

You might find this interesting reading. “Did the Church Change its Teaching on the Death Penalty.”

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

It supports your argument that the Church’s moral teaching does not change

It concludes:
This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty. The contemporary Catholic teaching on the death penalty is not a simple rejection of traditional Catholic teaching on the topic, but it does substantially deepen the Church’s perennial dedication to the dignity of the human person and the common good of society.
 
Even beyond that, we have Church leaders that apply doctrine to current issues. In these instatnces, we are free to disagree with them, especially where the disagreement occurs at the level of the current issue itself, and not the doctrine being applied. That is why Catholics may disagree with each other applying the death penatly and never contradict Church doctrine.
OK tell me this.

In a country where the death penalty has been abolished, and the state has a competent prison system that can keep the public safe is it OK for a Catholic to actively champion the death penalty?
 
OK tell me this.

In a country where the death penalty has been abolished, and the state has a competent prison system that can keep the public safe is it OK for a Catholic to actively champion the death penalty?
I think it is okay anyway. Like I said, it is an area the Church allows some disagreement.
 
Why would you want to bring back the death penalty in a situation where the Vatican has stated it s not defensible?
 
Are you telling me that the penal systems of the western world can’t incarcerate the vast majority of men so that the public is safe?
I’ve worked in prisons. I know the answer.
I know it, too. Unjust aggressors harm and murder in prison, constantly, a both recent Popes and the Church should well know, but seem to have minimised.

We know, as a fact that the death penalty offers a much greater defense of society and therefore defense of innocents, but the two recent Popes have to chosen to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent lives sacrificed - an incredible and unjustified about face…

Let’s review:

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. The authors of the Catechism appear to have no grasp of reality? (4)
  1. a) “Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004
“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

In 10/2003 , " . . . John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’ "

b) “Hell in the heart of paradise”
“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”
4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP , http://tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-i...radise-3174543

c) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/…t_hood_muslims

UPDATE: “New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot”, foxnews.com/politics/2011…key-player-11/

UPDATE: al-Awlaki killed in a CIA drone strike - nor more a living threat.

contd
 
contd

d) " . . . Today’s prison inmates are willing to pay up to $10,000 for a smartphone that can allow them to run a drug ring, stalk their prey—and maybe even escape."

" . . . Parchman Mississippi State Penitentiary . . . shocked everyone when it blocked more than 216,000 texts and 600 phone calls in a (SINGLE MONTH) from within the prison walls."

In the first 9 months of 2011, California seized 11,400 cellphones from criminals behind bars.

"Smartphones Are the New Prison Contraband, Daily Beast, 10/16/11
thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/16/smartphones-in-prison-new-contraband-allows-inmates-to-make-money.htm

e) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqae…0924-g4no.html

f) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/securi…k_in_yemen.htm

g) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/…OLEwwD9CACTHG0

h) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11…ongoing-17934/

i) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
policeone.com/corrections…inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

j) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if She looked. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in contradiction of the curious ignorance within EV and 2267.
 
Why would you want to bring back the death penalty in a situation where the Vatican has stated it s not defensible?
What do you mean “bring back”.

Read the above. No need to go back in a circle to where we started. I do not agree it is a “situation” presented in the Catechism today.
 
OK tell me this.In a country where the death penalty has been abolished, and the state has a competent prison system that can keep the public safe is it OK for a Catholic to actively champion the death penalty?
Of course.

In a matter of prudential judgment, any Catholic can find that the death penalty is a product of justice and also that it is also a better defense of society and therefore, should be expanded, and those Ctaholics would remain in good standing with the Church.
 
OK tell me this.

In a country where the death penalty has been abolished, and the state has a competent prison system that can keep the public safe is it OK for a Catholic to actively champion the death penalty?
Yes he may, and remain in good standing with the Church. That’s exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger said.
 
Yes he may, and remain in good standing with the Church. That’s exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger said.
Depends on his intent and reasons for doing so. You are right in saying pursuing the death penalty though is in and of itself not intrinsically evil. If a person believed that by implementing the death penalty justly it would better promote justice in society and be in societies best interest, then yes they could morally support and promote it. If they did so out of want for vengeance that would make it wrong though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top