Here is an excerpt for the CCC speaking to the legimacy of the death penalty.The bible obviously contradicts herself on this issue many times. But Jesus’ teachings and the examples he set while he was here on Earth gives me every reason to believe the death penalty is a horrible thing.
Also, Brandan’s argument here doesn’t make any sense to me. The state is, after all, made up of people. People who should follow the law of Christ like the rest of us.
This doesn’t diminish any “horribleness” but it is not a prohibition.2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
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."68
I got that but it doesn’t make any sense why.This doesn’t diminish any “horribleness” but it is not a prohibition.
People on this thread here are saying that the CCC is in error on this issue and that the death penalty can be used as a punishment, not limited to ONLY when it’s a complete necessity to save over lives.Here is an excerpt for the CCC speaking to the legimacy of the death penalty.
I know, right? The Old Testament is crazy. I don’t know why some people still take quotes from that to make any sort of point.For those saying that God commanded the death penalty, would you have those the death penalty for everything that God commanded be carried out today? In the Old Testament, working on the sabbath and homosexual activity are both punishable by death.
People say a lot of things. When they say things contrary to Church teaching I am on safe ground taking the Church’s word over theirs every time.People on this thread here are saying that the CCC is in error on this issue and that the death penalty can be used as a punishment, not limited to ONLY when it’s a complete necessity to save over lives.
We are no longer bound by all of Mosaic law; we are still bound, however, by all of God’s covenants. What you cite are examples of Mosaic law that are no longer applicable; what I cited was part of God’s covenant with Noah. It was God himself, not Moses, who commanded that murderers be executed.For those saying that God commanded the death penalty, would you have those the death penalty for everything that God commanded be carried out today? In the Old Testament, working on the sabbath and homosexual activity are both punishable by death.
I cite the Old Testament because the Church does. That’s not a good enough reason for you?The Old Testament is crazy. I don’t know why some people still take quotes from that to make any sort of point.
Eye for eye death is not needed for punishment though. To believe that is opposite to what Jesus said in Matt 5 about revenge and turning the other cheek. Life imprisonment without parole for example is punishment. And at least that way if new evidence comes forward and the person found guilty was actually innocent, it’s not too late. Because we will not have played God and already put them to death. Only one such mistake is one too many. 2 wrongs do not make a right. I’ve been known to hear people bring up the cost of imprisonment as a means of justifying their support for the death penalty. But sometimes as a society we just have to provide the money to do what is right.I disagree with this. As I’ve been pointing out, protection is not the primary objective of punishment and therefore the question of whether prison does or does not provide protection doesn’t address whether the primary objective of punishment has been met. If capital punishment is required to satisfy the primary objective of punishment then it is necessary to employ it whether or not it is needed to meet the requirements of a secondary objective (like protection.)
Ender
What is needed for any punishment to be appropriate is for it to be of a severity comparable to the severity of the crime; neither too harsh nor too lenient.Eye for eye death is not needed for punishment though.
No, the statement in Matthew applies to individuals, who are prohibited from redressing crimes against themselves and not to governments, who are required to redress crimes. In fact if this citation applied to governments then they would be forbidden to punish criminals the same way as are individuals. The fact is that governments and individuals have different rights and responsibilities.To believe that is opposite to what Jesus said in Matt 5 about revenge and turning the other cheek.
Yes, it is surely punishment and one can argue that it is a punishment of sufficient severity to meet the obligation of justice and, if that could be shown to be true, then there could hardly be an argument in favor of the death penalty. Let’s first admit, however, that the question of a just level of severity - which is required of all punishment - has nothing whatever to do with protection … which puts 2267 in a rather odd light.Life imprisonment without parole for example is punishment.
Haha, not good enough for me…I cite the Old Testament because the Church does. That’s not a good enough reason for you?
Ender
God commanded many things in the Old Testament that are completely contrary to Church teaching.We are no longer bound by all of Mosaic law; we are still bound, however, by all of God’s covenants. What you cite are examples of Mosaic law that are no longer applicable; what I cited was part of God’s covenant with Noah. It was God himself, not Moses, who commanded that murderers be executed.
Ender
Agreed.Eye for eye death is not needed for punishment though. To believe that is opposite to what Jesus said in Matt 5 about revenge and turning the other cheek. Life imprisonment without parole for example is punishment. And at least that way if new evidence comes forward and the person found guilty was actually innocent, it’s not too late. Because we will not have played God and already put them to death. Only one such mistake is one too many. 2 wrongs do not make a right.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. The government is made up of people… or individuals, whatever you wanna call them. One judge is an individual, right? It is a judge that gives the sentencing - one individual person. This whole government/individual thing makes no sense.No, the statement in Matthew applies to individuals, who are prohibited from redressing crimes against themselves and not to governments, who are required to redress crimes. In fact if this citation applied to governments then they would be forbidden to punish criminals the same way as are individuals. The fact is that governments and individuals have different rights and responsibilities.
Ender
If the CCC is wrong about this, as you claim, what else is it wrong about? The Church loses a lot of credibility with me here.Yes, it is surely punishment and one can argue that it is a punishment of sufficient severity to meet the obligation of justice and, if that could be shown to be true, then there could hardly be an argument in favor of the death penalty. Let’s first admit, however, that the question of a just level of severity - which is required of all punishment - has nothing whatever to do with protection … which puts 2267 in a rather odd light.
Ender
The Church has always acknowledged the right of States to use the death penalty and she has always cited Gen 9:6 as the basis of that teaching.God commanded many things in the Old Testament that are completely contrary to Church teaching.
The death penalty is not a punishment per the CC. It is a last resort to protect humanity when there are not other non-letal means to do so.If the CCC is wrong about this, as you claim, what else is it wrong about? The Church loses a lot of credibility with me here.
I’m not sure what “this” you refer to is. I stated that the Church requires the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime and there is nothing wrong with that claim; it is what she has always taught. The error I pointed to was in the first sentence in 2267 where it is claimed that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed capital punishment when it was the only way to provide protection. That claim is incorrect; the Church never taught that.If the CCC is wrong about this, as you claim, what else is it wrong about? The Church loses a lot of credibility with me here.
But we recognize the differences all the time between a person speaking as a private individual and one speaking with the authority of his position. Police can pull us over and make us show identification, a sergeant can order a private to clean the latrine, and a judge can sentence us to prison while those of us without that authority have no ability to do any of those things.This makes no sense to me whatsoever. The government is made up of people… or individuals, whatever you wanna call them. One judge is an individual, right? It is a judge that gives the sentencing - one individual person. This whole government/individual thing makes no sense.
This is an example of how confused this teaching has become when it can be argued that capital punishment is not punishment.The death penalty is not a punishment per the CC. It is a last resort to protect humanity when there are not other non-letal means to do so.
I don’t think you’re seeing my point.The Church has always acknowledged the right of States to use the death penalty and she has always cited Gen 9:6 as the basis of that teaching.
Whatever may be true about the rest of the Old Testament, one of the most frequently cited phrases is in fact an OT passage: “God made man in his own image.” Hardly an encyclical goes by where that passage is not cited; should we discard that belief because it is from the Old Testament?
Ender