Death penalty question

[Rau]

I agree. I was pointing out that both involve ending lives, but the Church prefers the vengeful one which takes away people’s autonomy, and not the compassionate one which allows people to make their own choices.

That is you interpretation of the Church’s position and motivation, based on (among other things) a premise you hold, which is that your life is yours to discard if you lose the will to live.

A person’s “autonomy” may be forfeited under certain circumstances - I listed several of them earlier. You would be aware how narrow the Church views those circumstances to be. And in the case of CP, the prevailing attitude (of the Church) is overwhelming in opposition to its use.

 

[Loly_Maria]

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.

Nobody says that people shouldn’t get love and support when considering ending their lives, it’s just that the freedom to choose to die is important to a lot of people, and I respect that. Also, I don’t see why it’s illegal to end your own life - it seems like a very basic right to me.

The death penalty could also be sending people to Hell - people who could have gone to Heaven if they had had the rest of their lives.

I have read the Catechism. My understanding is that the Catholic Church still supports the death penalty under certain circumstances.

That is you interpretation of the Church’s position and motivation, based on (among other things) a premise you hold, which is that your life is yours to discard if you lose the will to live.

A person’s “autonomy” may be forfeited under certain circumstances - I listed several of them earlier. You would be aware how narrow the Church views those circumstances to be. And in the case of CP, the prevailing attitude (of the Church) is overwhelming in opposition to its use.

My life is mine to discard.

IMO, autonomy is always top priority. I’m glad that the Church is starting to oppose the Death Penalty.

 

[Rau]

…My life is mine to discard.

I know you believe that. But in this, you come from a different starting point than does Catholic theology. No point debating opposing views that rest on contradictory premises - the premise has to be resolved first.

IMO, autonomy is always top priority. I’m glad that the Church is starting to oppose the Death Penalty.

Often, others forfeit their autonomy by threatening that of others. Others sacrifice their autonomy for the sake of others.

The Church has actively opposed the death penalty in practical terms for quite some time. Note that CP is not intrinsically evil (in Catholic theology) but rather the circumstances where it is justified are very limited.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Often, others forfeit their autonomy by threatening that of others. Others sacrifice their autonomy for the sake of others.

The Church has actively opposed the death penalty in practical terms for quite some time. Note that CP is not intrinsically evil (in Catholic theology) but rather the circumstances where it is justified are very limited.

Nobody forfeits their autonomy, other people just defend theirs. The Death Penalty isn’t defending autonomy, it’s just people who want power over other people (people who don’t fall under ‘white with money’).

I don’t think people can sacrifice autonomy.

 

[Rau]

Nobody forfeits their autonomy, other people just defend theirs. The Death Penalty isn’t defending autonomy, it’s just people who want power over other people (people who don’t fall under ‘white with money’).

I don’t think people can sacrifice autonomy.

The fact that persons have a right to defend their autonomy, and that this is known by the aggressor, has clear implications. In your model, you either deny the rights of the one who is threatened with death, ot you ignore it.

 

[Rau]

Nobody forfeits their autonomy, other people just defend theirs. The Death Penalty isn’t defending autonomy, it’s just people who want power over other people (people who don’t fall under ‘white with money’).

I don’t think people can sacrifice autonomy.

The “Death Penalty” as described in your last sentence is not CP
as the Church understands the term. It is State sanctioned murder.

 

[adawgj]

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

Well seeing how Mexico, UK, EU, and many other western countries have abolished the death penalty certainly shows that the death penalty pretty is archaic. Thankfully my state rarely uses the death penalty.

 

[thinkandmull]

JPII’s encyclical said that punishment is for retribution, but balances by saying the mercy to the criminal by not killing him is more in keep with his dignity. But then you can never kill him. How can you say to him “its expedient that we forget mercy to your dignity and kill you”. See the irony?

 

[LongingSoul]

JPII’s encyclical said that punishment is for retribution, but balances by saying the mercy to the criminal by not killing him is more in keep with his dignity. But then you can never kill him. How can you say to him “its expedient that we forget mercy to your dignity and kill you”. See the irony?

Evangelium Vitae gives extreme clarity to the issue. It helps us understand both the scope of punishment and how the common good is best served by both justice and mercy. It really is a defining teaching of our time…

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

 

[Ender]

I don’t think the Church has ever taught that the death penalty is a just punishment for murder. It should though.

The church has always taught this. If she did not consider it a just punishment she would have not identified capital punishment as one of the legitimate examples where life may be taken.

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.

Exactly. If executing a person is contrary to man’s dignity then there should be no case where this is legitimate, but since legitimate cases exist we can be sure that it is not in fact contrary to human dignity.

But why does Evangelium Vitae quote the Catechism and the Catechism quote the encyclical? Which came first?

This is another problem: despite 2267 asserting that the traditional teaching of the church is that capital punishment is permissible only when necessary for the protection of society, there is apparently nothing in the history of the church that actually says this.

Ender

 

[Rau]

…Exactly. If executing a person is contrary to man’s dignity then there should be no case where this is legitimate, but since legitimate cases exist we can be sure that it is not in fact contrary to human dignity.

A kick up the backside is contrary to man’s dignity. Corporal punishment is. Many things are. This weighs against such act, but it (alone) does not make such act immoral or unjustifiable.

 

[thinkandmull]

The church has always taught this. If she did not consider it a just punishment she would have not identified capital punishment as one of the legitimate examples where life may be taken.
Exactly. If executing a person is contrary to man’s dignity then there should be no case where this is legitimate, but since legitimate cases exist we can be sure that it is not in fact contrary to human dignity.
This is another problem: despite 2267 asserting that the traditional teaching of the church is that capital punishment is permissible only when necessary for the protection of society, there is apparently nothing in the history of the church that actually says this.

Ender

Always taught this? In what document in the 2nd, 3rd century? Leo X said Luther was wrong in saying that heretics could never to burned to death. I don’t know where else the Church taught on this before Vatican II, and Leo X’s decree whether clearly infallible.

 

[thinkandmull]

Evangelium Vitae gives extreme clarity to the issue. It helps us understand both the scope of punishment and how the common good is best served by both justice and mercy. It really is a defining teaching of our time…

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

As I’ve been saying, that’s contrary to the Gospel of Life. How can you kill someone for expediency?

 

[thinkandmull]

A kick up the backside is contrary to man’s dignity. Corporal punishment is. Many things are. This weighs against such act, but it (alone) does not make such act immoral or unjustifiable.

Spanking is not against dignity. Harsher adult punishments aren’t either because a person lost some of their dignity by the sin

 

[LongingSoul]

As I’ve been saying, that’s contrary to the Gospel of Life. How can you kill someone for expediency?

The death penalty existed in civil justice prior to Catholic teaching. It has always served a practical purpose in protecting communities. The Church affirmed that it was not intrinsically evil when it was necessary for that purpose. The Church now affirms that it can be dispensed with unconditionally now that justice can be served without going to the length of killing the offender.

The people of the world rightly rejoice in our capacity to punish and redress without having to kill the offender. Preserving human life has to be the default in human justice.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

In my opinion the death penalty is archaic and backward for a western country.

I have long concurred with your opinion, particularly when the ‘murderer’ is safely/securely incarcerated.

 

[Ender]

Always taught this? In what document in the 2nd, 3rd century? Leo X said Luther was wrong in saying that heretics could never to burned to death. I don’t know where else the Church taught on this before Vatican II, and Leo X’s decree whether clearly infallible.

• Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin- offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. *(Pope St. Clement, 96-98)

*In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? *(St. Clement of Alexandria c. 200)

What then do such men deserve, but to be called Arians, and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed,’ and ‘He that speaketh against father or mother, let him die the death:’(St. Athenasias, 369)

*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *(Pope St. Innocent I, 405)
These are but a fraction of the writings the church has made on this subject. The idea that she did not address this issue until recently is completely erroneous; she has addressed it since the beginning of her existence. The acknowledgement that states have the right to employ capital punishment was the virtually unanimous position of the Doctors and Fathers of the church, and to deny the existence of that right was considered a heresy. It was spelled out in every catechism prior to the second edition (1997) of the new catechism and confirmed by every pope who spoke on the subject prior to JPII.

Ender

 

[Ender]

As I’ve been saying, that’s contrary to the Gospel of Life. How can you kill someone for expediency?

It is admittedly difficult to reconcile the fact that 2267 allows the execution of someone to prevent a crime but would not allow him to be executed for actually committing it.

Ender

 

[Ignatius]

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.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.

 

[thinkandmull]

• Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin- offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death.* (Pope St. Clement, 96-98)

In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? (St. Clement of Alexandria c. 200)

What then do such men deserve, but to be called Arians, and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed,’ and 'He that speaketh against father or mother, let him die the death:’(St. Athenasias, 369)

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I, 405)
These are but a fraction of the writings the church has made on this subject. The idea that she did not address this issue until recently is completely erroneous; she has addressed it since the beginning of her existence. The acknowledgement that states have the right to employ capital punishment was the virtually unanimous position of the Doctors and Fathers of the church, and to deny the existence of that right was considered a heresy. It was spelled out in every catechism prior to the second edition (1997) of the new catechism and confirmed by every pope who spoke on the subject prior to JPII.

Ender

Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin- offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. (Pope St. Clement, 96-98)

I think he is just describing Jewish practices.

In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? (St. Clement of Alexandria c. 200)

He’s not a Pope.

What then do such men deserve, but to be called Arians, and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed,’ and ‘He that speaketh against father or mother, let him die the death:’(St. Athenasias, 369)

All that says is that is that God could command the death penalty, not that it was still in force against the Arians, or from natural law. And neither is he a Pope

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I, 405)

I would have to see the context to know what in the world he is referring to.

It was spelled out in every catechism prior to the second edition (1997) of the new catechism

The only other catechism from the magisterium that I know of is the Roman Catechism, Does it speak on this?