Death penalty: For or against?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xenon777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there are times when it is right and just. Some people really do commit crimes so heinous that they deserve to die, and sometimes their guilt is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I’ll go so far as to say that if someone committed a heinous crime then giving them too lenient a punishment is to betray their victims.

I used to think Life Imprisonment was an acceptable substitute, but I no longer do because it’s a misnomer. “Life Imprisonment” sounds like it means the guilty will be in prison until he dies, but in practice it often means the guilty is in prison until everyone forgot the evil he did, at which point he’s paroled and can live the rest of his life like nothing happened. Some people are fine with a child-murderer or someone guilty of a similarly heinous crime getting to live a normal life “because he won’t do it again”, but I am not.
 
Last edited:
Many philosophers and genious writers were heretics.
You can not ignore the precious intellectual heritage of profound thinkers even if they were heretics.
Also I think, if for example somebody reads Victor Hugo in French or Baruch Spinoza in Dutch, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is heretic.
 
Last edited:
I would be totally against the death penalty if I could be sure that some people who commit particularly heinous crimes would not get out. Here is my poster boy. Lawrence Singleton who kidnapped and raped a young woman and then cut off her forearms with a hatchet. She lived and testified against him. He was sentenced to only 14 years, and served 8 of them. After his release he was twice convicted of theft and and then murdered a prostitute by stabbing her. He should never have been allowed out in the first place.
 
Oh yes, have you been inside a prison like in the U.S.? The sin is palpable. There is a reason why Child Molesters are separated from the rest of the general population, because they would outright kill them EXTRA JUDICIALLY. Prisoners often commit violence on those that keep them in prison, and attack rivals. The racial divide is also VERY real. Prison is one of the most sinful places on earth. Down in south America in some prisons, they have altars of FLESH to the Santa Muerte. It is a fact that prisons are a HOTBED for sin. Sin against the one triune God
 
This. People cannot seem to grasp this concept between state and individual. It is sad. I admit I am not the smartest, but even I know the difference between the state and individual.
 
I find little profound it writings by anti clerics. By nature they reject Truth and cross the line. Also, l find books promoting the french revolution ridiculous. I personally think Les Miserables is UTTER garbage. Glorifying the French Revolution, my butt. Much of the world’s problems can be traced to it. Like the rise of misguided intellectuals known as ideologues. Which can be found in socialists and actual fascists. Pitiful, really. Glorifying one of the roots of the modern worlds problems
 
Last edited:
Xenon777 said:
Oh yes, have you been inside a prison like in the U.S.?
Click to expand...
I’ve worked in the BOP, the federal prison system; high, medium and low facilities.
Ender said:
And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. (Catechism of St. Thomas)
Click to expand...
Who authoritatively defines God’s mandate on earth? So, we’re back to the Magisterium’s teaching.
 
The Magesterium has settled it LONG ago. We have had popes execute hundreds of people even, particularly during the papal states. Once the doctrine is settled. it is unable to be changed. Period. Say what you want. But the Magesterium is clear on this matter. The pope is ONLY infallible in ex cathedra IOW in espousing CHURCH doctrine and matter of faith. Unofficially and in private he can what he wants. So if the popes says CP is not good. That is HIS Opinion. Not Church doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
But it can be extrinsically evil. That is an act made evil by cruel and unnecessary application. That’s the position of the Church in view of the culture of death we live in today.
Click to expand...
I agree with this at least to this point: the predominate view of those in the church is that its use is harmful. That is, in their opinion.
We are going against Catholic doctrine if we continue to use Capital punishment if it is harmful to the common good.
Click to expand...
If you believe it to be harmful it would be immoral for you to support it. That I believe it is not harmful, however, justifies my support of it The debate here is over the proper application of the punishment in particular circumstances; it is not over the morality of the punishment itself. We may legitimately disagree, even with the bishops, about prudential judgments.
Emeraldlady said:
Teaching on the use of capital punishment has always made it conditional on the common good.
Click to expand...
The morality of pretty much everything depends on whether it is judged to be beneficial. That judgment is prudential, and the responsibility for making it lies with the State.
Emeraldlady said:
God forbade it’s use if it was harmful to the common good.
Click to expand...
If you believe it harmful you may not support it. If I believe it is beneficial then I may support it, and while one of us will be mistaken, neither of us will have behaved immorally. God does not command that I believe the judgments of others.
 
o_mlly said:
Who authoritatively defines God’s mandate on earth?
Click to expand...
For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; (St Bellarmine)

“Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad, as is pleasing to Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.” (Augustine)
So, we’re back to the Magisterium’s teaching.
Click to expand...
Don’t confuse a doctrinal teaching with a prudential one. The former obliges our assent, but the latter does not.
ioannes_pius said:
The language here does not seem to indicate a prudential judgement, but rather an authentic Magisterial teaching.
Click to expand...
Explain what “inadmissible” means. Is capital punishment now held to be intrinsically evil (evil in all circumstances), or is its use judged to be be harmful under current conditions?
 
Ender said:
For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; (St Bellarmine)
Click to expand...
Yes. And that holy law is defined by the Magisterium.
Ender said:
… Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.
Click to expand...
As is the unjust execution of an innocent.
Ender said:
Don’t confuse a doctrinal teaching with a prudential one. The former obliges our assent, but the latter does not.
Click to expand...
The state’s recourse to the death penalty has always been taught to be conditional. Don’t confuse the morality of an act to be only dependent on the species of that act in se.
 
Part of text seems to have been omitted for whatever reason. It is really supposed to say, You can block me but you can’t deny the Truth that is infallible
 
Ender said:
Explain what “inadmissible” means. Is capital punishment now held to be intrinsically evil (evil in all circumstances), or is its use judged to be be harmful under current conditions?
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter, which means that we’re dealing with a prudential judgement. But my difficulty is this: why would language like, “the Church teaches”, “development of Catholic doctrine”, “authentic development of doctrine” be used to indicate a prudential judgement?
 
or the unjust execution of an innocent
Click to expand...
OR the JUST execution of one who IS guilty. and has been proven so BEYOND a shadow of a doubt, like Gung Runbo. Or someone like Oscar Dirlewanger where the evidence of his crimes is SO…overwhelming to deny it is foolish. Or the Holocaust. Not everything the Pope, bishops or cardinals say is infallible
 
Because there is something more going than mistakes. There are sects in the Church that seek to twist the teachings of the Church. There are some that are more modernist ( by Modernist I mean they try to naturalize the supernatural.) There are some Catechism issued in the pass that have been outright heretical. Like a Catechism issued by the Netherlands Archbishop’s back in '66 which HEAVILY downplays the seriousness of violating the 6th an 9th commandments. Or look at the Charismatic “movement” which is outright nonsense, particularly in speaking “tongues” because 1) the gift of tongues involves speak ACTUAL languages, like Greek, or Korean, or Hebrew.
2) They are reserved ONLY for those who are under Holy orders IOW NOT for laity. Speaking in tongues is the least of what are known the Charismatic gifts, which include others such as the healing the sick, and the raising of the dead. So how is it that so many are “speaking tongues” when they are not in the position to receive such gifts and 2) Why so much speaking tongues and no raising the dead or healing the sick. It is one of 2 things, either they are faking it, OR it is diabolical.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top