Death penalty: For or against?

[Ender]

Yes. And that holy law is defined by the Magisterium.

Actually it is defined by God.

As is the unjust execution of an innocent.

An unjust punishment of any kind is to be opposed, which includes those which are too lenient as well as those which are too severe.

The state’s recourse to the death penalty has always been taught to be conditional.

There you go: it has always been conditional on the determination by the State that its use is appropriate. This has not changed.

 

[Ender]

I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter, which means that we’re dealing with a prudential judgement.

I think you are unquestionably right. Given that God himself commanded it it cannot ever be considered intrinsically evil, therefore the decision of when it is appropriate to use is a judgment, an opinion.

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?

I don’t think it profitable to speculate on why some things are done. We can only deal with the implications of what has been done, and in that regard, I think a lot less has been done than most imagine.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually it is defined by God.

God speaks to us through the His Church.

An unjust punishment of any kind is to be opposed, which includes those which are too lenient as well as those which are too severe.

A too lenient or severe prison term can be remediated. Capital punishment cannot.

There you go: it has always been conditional on the determination by the State that its use is appropriate. This has not changed.

No. The state does not now and never has had the power to determine the morality of inflicting the death penalty. That has not changed. Think Stalinist Russia and Mao China. However, other things have changed, e.g., prison technology, identification technology, etc. The Magisterium has developed the doctrine accordingly.

 

[puer.dei]

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

No, I left out that part because it was totally irrelevant to my point. Which obviously flew straight over your head.

 

[puer.dei]

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

And you continue to completely ignore the danger of the execution of an innocent. That’s disturbing.

 

[Miiiils]

Except that Jesus literally tells us that there is one sin that won’t be forgiven…

 

[StudentMI]

Where there is life that sin can be forgiven, too.

 

[Xenon777]

So twisting my words. Got it.

 

[Xenon777]

If it is unjust than OF COURSE it should NOT be done. What am I, a fool? But it is also UNJUST to give a sentence that is TOO lenient. The judgement of whether to execute or not is up to the STATE on condition. If the person commits a heinous crime, and there is evidence which ends all doubt. Then the state is justified in deciding whether CP is applicable. If the person killed a whole school of children, and the evidence is SO OVERWHELMING that it CANNOT be denied (see oskar) than the government is JUSTIFIED in deciding to do CP.

 

[Xenon777]

Yes it has. Look at the papal states. Countless Highway men lost their heads on orders from the holy pontiff. The state MORE than has the right to use CP. Also the Church has settled it long ago.

 

[Xenon777]

This. The unforgivable sin is MORE THAN real. And too many Catholic act as if it is not real. Sad, really.

 

[Xenon777]

Also doctrine does not change. It is set in stone. Just as the Church has held firm on contraceptives in doctrine. So has it on CP. Doctrine does not evolve. It builds on existing precedents. It does NOT override previous doctrine. If for example the doctrine says that only men can be ordained priests, doctrine CANNOT overturn the previous teaching. Same with CP. If the previous teaching states CP is NOT evil, NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT TEACHING. IT is in line with the immutability of Christ. Once God decides something E.G. establish New Covenant. HE WILL NOT RENEGE on that. If God says that thou shall not blasphemy., He is SET on that teaching. Exact thing with doctrine. If the doctrine says one thing, it CANNOT back track. It is immutable.

 

[Xenon777]

If you look at previous covenants, they ALL increase and NEVER decrease. First God gave Man fruit to eat, than meat and flesh, than the law, than the Law Made Flesh. It is increasing. NOT decreasing

 

[Xenon777]

If you look at the OT, the foreshadowing of Christ INCREASES. First it is vague on Christ, ( passover lamb, blood on the door frame etc) Then increases as time goes on, to where His coming is prophesied in Psalms and Isiah. The law increases. But never disappears. It is like a foundation where each layer of bricks added adds to the previous layer. What you are describing is outright incorrect. CP doctrine, for example CANNOT be changed… only REFINED, E.g. Stating what would count as acceptable conditions for CP and how it should be done for example, But it CANNOT change its base traits.

 

[Athanasiy]

Some of Victor Hugo’s characters by the way, convince the humanity that the problems of human crimes can be solved by love, compassion, understanding, social changes, good examples to follow, and giving the people a chance to change.

 

[Xenon777]

Many of His writing are condemned by the Church, so no, I will not consider him a good read. There is a reason His works were among the banned, because it promoted lies.

 

[Ender]

The state does not now and never has had the power to determine the morality of inflicting the death penalty.

Nor have I ever suggested such a thing. The morality of the punishment in general has been determined; that’s not in question. The appropriateness of applying that penalty in each particular instance must also be determined, and that is the right and responsibility of the State.

However, other things have changed, e.g., prison technology, identification technology, etc. The Magisterium has developed the doctrine accordingly.

That you stress changes in technology points inevitably to this being a prudential judgment. Doctrines do not change with technology inasmuch as morality is fixed, therefore this “changed” position cannot be essentially different than it was before. The doctrine permits capital punishment; the Magistrium recommends against it.

And you continue to completely ignore the danger of the execution of an innocent.

It is surely reasonable to bring up practical objections to the use of capital punishment, but those objections are very different than raising moral objections. These are very different concerns. I think the former are reasonable, but the latter are not.

 

[Athanasiy]

Scum and sadists is a terrible phenomenon, and of course its even worst
when somehow they come to power and rule the empires, and force millions of people abide in terror.

Also, sometimes people are not afraid of justice.
For example if these scoundrels live in a countries where prisons like three stars hotels or resort places, of course its difficult to call it right justice.
Yea, but- beheading, electric chair, or hanging the criminals-this is far from being human for the 21century justice

 

[Xenon777]

Being Human for the 21st centrury.

We are no more advanced in humanity than before. This, “but it is the 21 st century is rubbish” CP applies am uch to 21st century as it did in Christ’s time. We are still the same ilksone lot, except we got cable an internet. Humanity does not change. No matter if it is the 33rd century of the 1st. It will be this way until the Second Coming. Nothing will change. People look to the U.N. as the Authority on the world, but it has done very little to help in the pat many years. Look at Rwanda, at the Balkan wars. They U.N. did NOTHING as people were being ETHNICALLY cleansed “We are in the 21st century” is rubbish. We will still be killing, raping, stealing, torturing, hating, until the Last Day. Nothing has changed, except it is now hidden under the guise of ‘modernity’ or discarded as no biggie…like abortion or degeneracy. We are no more civilized than when were 2000 years ago. We simply hide it better is all.

 

[Xenon777]

You REALLY think we have learned our lesson, after MILLENNIA of fighting, raping, decadence, etc? The History of mankind is ONE, BIG, SAD story of mankind looking for things OTHER than God…to make them happy. The world is fallen. Has been since the fall. The world is as pagan as it was in Jesus time, except we have electricity, weed, and Netflix.
To think otherwise is outright FOOLISH.