A
adawgj
Guest
In my opinion the death penalty is archaic and backward for a western country.
- Status
M
Mousey
Guest
As to the remark on “tortured”, an ad hominem which only proves that there is not legitimate reply available.
E
Ender
Guest
Capital punishment has been recognized by the church as a just penalty for the crime of murder. If you judge the appropriateness of the punishment solely on whether or not it is needed for protection you might conclude it is no longer needed, but if you judge it on whether it should be used because it is the just punishment for the crime then you come to a very different conclusion. Given that it is justice (retribution) that is the primary objective of all punishment and not protection it seems that it can hardly be archaic or backward in any place or at any time.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I think you were citing version one of the catechism (the 1992 edition). I was referencing version two (the 1992 edition). At least disregard comments I’ve actually made. As in, the remark on “tortured” was not my comment but my citation of someone else who first addressed the term to me.
Ender
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I don’t think the Church has ever taught that the death penalty is a just punishment for murder. It should though.
CCC
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. Not “if and only if”. Ambiguous.
**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.
Saying “will limit” seems to say “this is what I am instructing you to do” practically. The last part is the part I have a problem with. If it is contrary to the criminals dignity to kill him, then no “social necessity” can justify using him as a means and putting him to death. This is a open contradiction in the modern “gospel of life” presentation.
But why does Evangelium Vitae quote the Catechism and the Catechism quote the encyclical? Which came first?
CCC
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. Not “if and only if”. Ambiguous.
**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.
Saying “will limit” seems to say “this is what I am instructing you to do” practically. The last part is the part I have a problem with. If it is contrary to the criminals dignity to kill him, then no “social necessity” can justify using him as a means and putting him to death. This is a open contradiction in the modern “gospel of life” presentation.
But why does Evangelium Vitae quote the Catechism and the Catechism quote the encyclical? Which came first?
M
Mousey
Guest
I have no idea what edition as I used the Vatican web site.
Yes I know that it was not your comment but of another one. It was he who was addressing.
What I was trying to point out was that 2266 makes reference to the scripture quoted
Lk 23:40-43.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The encyclical says:
The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is **“to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. **Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.
Is this not contradictory?
The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is **“to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. **Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.
Is this not contradictory?
L
Loly_Maria
Guest
I think that the Catholic Church allows the death penalty when it’s considered to be the best way to protect people.
Although, I think it’s very strange and uncomfortable that the Church allows other people to be killed, but won’t allow people to end their *own * lives if they choose to.
Although, I think it’s very strange and uncomfortable that the Church allows other people to be killed, but won’t allow people to end their *own * lives if they choose to.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I’m just really curious, the Vatican website’s footnotes for the encyclical by JPII has the Catechism as a footnote on the death penalty, but the Catechism quotes the encyclical
M
Mousey
Guest
How do you equate them being the same?
R
Rau
Guest
CP is “a” just punishment, not “the” just punishment. Justness is necessary but insufficient criteria to consider when determining punishment. “Redressing the disorder” of the crime, even of murder, does not “demand” CP. On this basis, and in light of the downsides attached to CP, one could judge that CP is indeed a very poor choice of punishment.
L
Loly_Maria
Guest
They’re not the same; one is killing another person who doesn’t want to die, the other is a person making their own choice to end their own life. But they both involve death, and the Church has a strange way of deciding who can and who can’t die.
R
Rau
Guest
The acts which are permitted and end the life of another are redeemed by virtue of their nature and necessity.
Euthanasia is not.
R
Rau
Guest
In certain circumstances, it may be. In war, it may be. In situations of personal attack, it may be.
But your point was about Euthanasia?
R
Rau
Guest
Nor are either of these the same as Euthanasia
.
M
Mousey
Guest
What is strange is believing that allowing a person to kill themselves is compassionate. The Church follows God’s laws so your quarrel is with Him. It is hardly compassionate not to give support and love when someone is wanting to end their life, instead of encouraging them to do harm to themselves out of a misguided attitude of “choice”. A choice btw that could be the choice of being in hell for the rest of eternity. That doesn’t sound compassionate in fact it is the opposite. The Church does not prefer the “vengeful” taking of life that is your warped interpretation. In fact, you will if you do a little investigation find that the Church is asking for the death penalty to be eliminated. You need to read the Catechism.
- Status