Death Penalty not against CC?

[Debora123]

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.

Yes yes yes, I understand that. My argument here is with the people who have posted on this thread stating that the Catechism is wrong, and that the death penalty CAN be used as punishment, even if not necessary to keep others safe.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think you’re seeing my point.

I understand what the Church cites to justify the death penalty, but why doesn’t she cite something from the story of Onan or Abraham to justify adultery then? I don’t see how anything from the OT can be cited as a reliable source to back up Church teaching.

Because the church is not a Sola Scriptura Faith. Church teaching is based on Scripture, tradition, and teachings of the magisterium. Adultery, for instance, has been held to be a sin for over 4000 years. It was held to be so under Judaism and held to be so during the entire existence of the Catholic Church. The church does not have to come up with a “reliable Scripture verse” to back up its teaching. In fact only six verses in all of Scripture that the church has given a definitive interpretation of.

It is not possible for the church to change its teaching that governments can use the death penalty. Truth is unchangeable. It cannot be true that the death penalty was acceptable in the 1500s but is not acceptable today. The church has counseled that in their opinion the use of the death penalty should be rare to nonexistent but they do not forbid its use. I believe the catechism of the Catholic Church gives a rather muddled explanation of this which is why it was necessary for the Pope to come out and emphatically state that Catholics could in good conscience support the death penalty.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not sure what “this” you refer to is.

I’m refering to the lines in the Catechism that state that the death penalty is only ok when absolutely necessary as a way to keep others safe. You said the Catechism is wrong about this, and that the death penalty can be used as punishment, not just as a necessary means to keep others safe.

 

[Debora123]

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.

People hold authority by right of their offices and the Church teaches that civil authority is received from God himself.

Right, but this has nothing to do with them being allowed to do something that is wrong. Pulling someone over for speeding and giving them a ticket is not wrong - it doesn’t go in direct contradiction to what Jesus said. Just bc a certain person has the government authority to do certain things, doesn’t mean those things he does are right. Look at Nazi Germany.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think you’re seeing my point.

Is your point that the Church is mistaken in basing any of her moral teaching on Old Testament sources?

I understand what the Church cites to justify the death penalty, but why doesn’t she cite something from the story of Onan or Abraham to justify adultery then? I don’t see how anything from the OT can be cited as a reliable source to back up Church teaching.

The interpretation of scripture is the exclusive right and responsibility of the magisterium and I guess we either accept that claim or reject it, but if we accept it then we have to accept what they teach, including her reliance on OT sources. If we’re not willing to accept that claim then we have no good reason to accept their teaching on anything and I don’t see a rationale for remaining a Catholic.

In her understanding of this topic, the Church has always referred to Gen 9:6 as its basis.

If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m refering to the lines in the Catechism that state that the death penalty is only ok when absolutely necessary as a way to keep others safe.

This claim seems pretty clearly to be inaccurate. I have never seen any statement citing a reference that supports it and others better informed than I have said the same thing.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin L. Flannery)

You said the Catechism is wrong about this, and that the death penalty can be used as punishment, not just as a necessary means to keep others safe.

Ask yourself this: if capital punishment is not given as punishment, what justifies its use? Protection? Are we justified in executing people whenever we believe them to be a threat regardless of whether they have done anything to us? Can threat alone justify someone’s execution? Clearly not. The death penalty can be applied only if someone has committed a crime for which such a degree of punishment is appropriate. We don’t get to execute people simply because they are threatening.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Right, but this has nothing to do with them being allowed to do something that is wrong.

It isn’t about having the authority to do something immoral, it is about how an official has authority that doesn’t apply to individuals; it is about distinguishing the rights of individuals from the rights of States. Individuals have no right to punish criminals; officials have not only the right but the duty to do so. This goes to the point that while an individual must turn the other cheek the magistrate must not; the individual is responsible for his own behavior while the magistrate is responsible for society as a whole.

Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. (Aquinas)

Ender

 

[Brendan]

God commanded many things in the Old Testament that are completely contrary to Church teaching.

God created the Moral Law, it is unchanging. The Church cannot, and does not, teach contrary to any moral teaching of the Old Testament.

Can you site an example?

 

[Brendan]

One thing I thought of; What about when Jesus was with the adulterous woman, and he saved her life by asking all the would be stoners/executioners “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Wouldn’t that be against the death penalty?

Nope,

Look at the passage more closely. It notes that the Pharisees were looking to trap Jesus.

So what was the nature of the trap?

In presenting the woman, they were leaving Christ two choices.

1. Agree that she should be stoned
2. Deny that she could be stoned.

In the first case, they would have a case to bring before the Roman authorities, that Jesus of Nazereth advocated the violation of Roman law. Roman law prohibited Jews from putting anyone to death.

In the second case, they could say that Christ advocated the violation of the Mosaic Law, in which case, they could use that with the people to show that Jesus was not the Messiah.

If what you say is true, that Christ could deny Mosic law in this matter, if He said that the woman should NOT be stoned, then He fell for the Pharisee’s trap. But that is NOT what happened.

He told them to go ahead and stone her!!! Under the Jewish Law, the Pharisees WERE sinless. They kept not only the law of Moses, but all the other man made laws, to the last iota. That was their entire philosphy.

So Christ evaded their trap. The Pharisees could not go to the Roman authorities, as they would not have considered the Pharisees to be ‘sinless’ and they would have been laughed out of court.

And they could not go to the people claiming that Christ broke the Mosic Law, because they would have recognized what Christ said, that the Pharisees could begin the stoning.

If they went to the Jewish people, no Pharisee could claim that Jesus violated the Law. After what Jesus said, any Pharisee would have felt fully justified to throw that stone. After all, they considered themselves sinless. They could not actually DO IT, since to execute someone, they needed Pilate’s permission first.

Now, of course the Pharisees knew they could not actually stone her (as did Christ), as that would have run afoul of Roman law, they recognized that Christ escaped their trap. Note that the eldest Pharisees, the ones most learned in the law, left first, they recognized that their trap did not work.

Christ neither advocated going against Roman Law, nor did He advocate a violation of the Mosic Law (which He could not, as Christ was the one who gave that Law to Moses in the first place )

 

[Brendan]

I’m refering to the lines in the Catechism that state that the death penalty is only ok when absolutely necessary as a way to keep others safe. You said the Catechism is wrong about this, and that the death penalty can be used as punishment, not just as a necessary means to keep others safe.

Where does the Catechism state that punishment is not also a goal?

Here is Pope Pius XII on the subject

Even in the case of the death penalty, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.

(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
, 14 September 1952,)

Note that the Pope states that the deprivation of the offender’s life serves as expiation of his guilt. And, it’s also noted, that it is not the State that deprives the offender of their right to life, the guilt person deprived themselves.

 

[CMatt25]

Haha, not good enough for me…

No need to get on the defensive, Ender, I just find it odd to site the old testament at all to teach anything, when the old testament is filled with horrible things that the Church would never allow - such as sleeping with your brother’s wife just to impregnate her, or killing baby animals as a sacrifice. That’s just to name a couple, but I think I got my point across.

Debora I can see your point. To take everything in the OT literally, there’s some horrific goings-ons in there.

 

[Ender]

Debora I can see your point. To take everything in the OT literally, there’s some horrific goings-ons in there.

Why do you keep bringing this up? At least recognize that the passages you object to are not ones I have selected but ones the Church has selected. I’m not giving you my interpretation of them; I’m simply citing the Church’s interpretation. If you object to the Church referencing OT passages then say so, but don’t infer that any of this is my doing.

Ender

 

[Debora123]

Unbelievable. I don’t feel like further debating about this, but all I can say is it makes no sense whatsoever and goes against everything I’ve ever known about the message of Jesus and Christianity.

I’ve never doubted the Catholic faith in my entire life until I joined CAF.

 

[kbwall]

Nope,

Look at the passage more closely. It notes that the Pharisees were looking to trap Jesus.

So what was the nature of the trap?

In presenting the woman, they were leaving Christ two choices.

1. Agree that she should be stoned
2. Deny that she could be stoned.

In the first case, they would have a case to bring before the Roman authorities, that Jesus of Nazereth advocated the violation of Roman law. Roman law prohibited Jews from putting anyone to death.

In the second case, they could say that Christ advocated the violation of the Mosaic Law, in which case, they could use that with the people to show that Jesus was not the Messiah.

If what you say is true, that Christ could deny Mosic law in this matter, if He said that the woman should NOT be stoned, then He fell for the Pharisee’s trap. But that is NOT what happened.

He told them to go ahead and stone her!!! Under the Jewish Law, the Pharisees WERE sinless. They kept not only the law of Moses, but all the other man made laws, to the last iota. That was their entire philosphy.

So Christ evaded their trap. The Pharisees could not go to the Roman authorities, as they would not have considered the Pharisees to be ‘sinless’ and they would have been laughed out of court.

And they could not go to the people claiming that Christ broke the Mosic Law, because they would have recognized what Christ said, that the Pharisees could begin the stoning.

If they went to the Jewish people, no Pharisee could claim that Jesus violated the Law. After what Jesus said, any Pharisee would have felt fully justified to throw that stone. After all, they considered themselves sinless. They could not actually DO IT, since to execute someone, they needed Pilate’s permission first.

Now, of course the Pharisees knew they could not actually stone her (as did Christ), as that would have run afoul of Roman law, they recognized that Christ escaped their trap. Note that the eldest Pharisees, the ones most learned in the law, left first, they recognized that their trap did not work.

Christ neither advocated going against Roman Law, nor did He advocate a violation of the Mosic Law (which He could not, as Christ was the one who gave that Law to Moses in the first place )

But Christ wasn’t shy about speaking out against old Mosaic laws. He shot down divorce and ‘eye for an eye’, and even added to some, like adultery (can’t lust anymore) and murder (can’t hold grudges).

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.

Whoa, I wouldn’t exactly go that far. There’s still a lot of good stuff in the Old Testament. jesus fulfilled it, but that doesn’t mean we are to completely disregard it.

 

[Brendan]

But Christ wasn’t shy about speaking out against old Mosaic laws. He shot down divorce and ‘eye for an eye’, and even added to some, like adultery (can’t lust anymore) and murder (can’t hold grudges).

I agree, but He only shot down misconceptions of the Mosaic Law. As you mentioned, It would have been very simple for Christ to say " No don’t stone adulters anymore", but He did not. If He did, that would be been in direct opposition to a Moral Law. Christ could not do that, since He Himself was the one who gave the law to Moses in the first place.

 

[Brendan]

Unbelievable. I don’t feel like further debating about this, but all I can say is it makes no sense whatsoever and goes against everything I’ve ever known about the message of Jesus and Christianity. .

Really, when exactly did Christ say that the Old Testament was no longer His Own Word, given by Christ Himself to Moses?

That was the exact same God, the exact same Christ.

If you were hearing a different message, it’s not the message of Christ.Paul himself said as much to Timothy, that all Scripture was inspired by God. That includes the Old Testament, especially so, since most of the New Testament was unfinished when St. Paul wrote this.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work.

[2 Tim. 3:16-17]

Note that we are doing exactly what St. Paul said, using the inspired Word of God to correct and reproof.

And, if you remember what I posted from the Council of Trent on the execution of criminals

Execution Of Criminals
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 is the legitimate avenger 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.

The quote that the Council used is from the Old Testament (Psalms 101:8), are you really trying to tell us that using such passages is wrong, when the Church Herself uses them?

Placing yourself as a higher authority on the use of Scripture than the Church is a bit arrogant, don’t you think?

.

 

[CMatt25]

Why do you keep bringing this up? At least recognize that the passages you object to are not ones I have selected but ones the Church has selected. I’m not giving you my interpretation of them; I’m simply citing the Church’s interpretation. If you object to the Church referencing OT passages then say so, but don’t infer that any of this is my doing.

Ender

Ender, in the post you are referring to I was merely agreeing with Debora about how the OT seemingly has some horrific things in it. There are things in the NT I don’t take literally either such as women keeping quiet in churches. Whether you selected quotes or not hadn’t even crossed my mind. Sorry if you thought I was somehow referring to you.

 

[BigE]

God created the Moral Law, it is unchanging. The Church cannot, and does not, teach contrary to any moral teaching of the Old Testament.

Can you site an example?

If taken literally, God commanded genocide in the OT. Duet 7:1,2

 

[Brendan]

If taken literally, God commanded genocide in the OT. Duet 7:1,2

Not necessarily, the Hitties, Amorites, Cannanites etc… were to be forced out. Those who stayed were to be "charam khaw-ram’ ". That is a Hebrew term to be set aside by ban, to remove from common usage, to sacrifice to God.

But yes, God very much wanted all those peoples out of Caanan, and rightly so. That was the area God set aside for the Messiah to come.

It was God’s land, after all, God certainly has the right to say who can, and cannot live on that land, don’t you agree?

 

[Ender]

There is a lengthy defense of 2267 at InsideCatholic today written by Mark Shea. I don’t find anything new there but anyone interested in this topic might want to look at it.

insidecatholic.com/feature/death-penalty-magisterium-vs-left-and-right.html

Ender