Death Penalty

[Isambard]

I believe he was talking about when an innocent person was wrongly convicted and then sentenced to death in the quotation you responded to.

That I was. He just agreed with me lol.

The family of the original victems, the prosecution, and administrators would all be guilty of murder

 

[ComputerGeek25]

So, I am for it. Am I a bad catholic? What am I supposed to believe?

Kendy,

You are not a bad catholic because you may support the death penalty.

The catechism allows Catholics to be for or against it. The Catechism states that governments an obligation to protect their citizens. Whether or not the “death penalty” constitutes “protection” is at the heart of the debate.

Current popes have spoken out and said the death penalty should be rarely used or not used at all, especially in the West. This is due to our well established law enforcement, legal and prision systems.

Even in our country today, the death penalty is hardly used, and when it is, the state has to jump through several hoops to present evidence and have it verified (i.e. appeals).

Part of the problem is that many people in the West think the death penalty is equal to that of abortion, when it is not.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I support abortion because I really do not see any important reason to bring a person into a world of want, suffering, and humiliation.

ribozyme my old pal, We all have our crosses to bear. For some, it means they cannot buy the 2 Hummers and 5000 square foot home.

 

[vz71]

You are not a bad catholic because you may support the death penalty.

The catechism allows Catholics to be for or against it. The Catechism states that governments an obligation to protect their citizens. Whether or not the “death penalty” constitutes “protection” is at the heart of the debate.

Current popes have spoken out and said the death penalty should be rarely used or not used at all, especially in the West. This is due to our well established law enforcement, legal and prision systems.

Part of the problem is that many people in the West think the death penalty is equal to that of abortion, when it is not.

 

[Brendan]

That I was. He just agreed with me lol.

The family of the original victems, the prosecution, and administrators would all be guilty of murder

No, because murder alos differs from other types of homice in that it is intentional.

For example, let’s say that you are an Allied solider in WW-II, you are on a patrol. Out of a building pops a man wearing a German helmet, a long, dark grey overcoat, and carrying a rifle.

You shoot, but afterwards, you find out that the person was actually a Jewish civilian who had disguised themselves as a german to sneek through the lines to safety.

You have just killed an innocent civilian, and thus are nominally guilty of a war crime.

Except that you are not, by any law (civil or moral) guilty of any crime. You acted within the lawful boundries of both civil law and moral law, in a way that was both resonable and prudent.

A prosecutor would be in great error to charge you, and a priest would find no fault with your action in the confessional.

Likewise, in the case of an erronously executed person. If reasonable and prudent law was used, and examined for error on multiple levels, there is no culpability.

 

[Ender]

Care to cite a source? And Im sure the family of the falsely accused will take comfort in your rationalization after their family member has their name is dragged through the mud, and then executed with their tax dollars.

Is Aquinas quoting Augustine good enough?

*“On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty.” *(ST II/II 64,8)

Ender

 

[Ender]

The catholic church supported and used the dealth penalty for centuries.

This is true, in fact the Vatican had the death penalty on its books until 1969. The Church not only supported it but mandated its acceptance as an appropriate punishment.

it doesn’t seem to me that anyone question its legitimate application until Pope John Paul.

True again. JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae in 1995 are the first example of a pope arguing against the death penalty itself.

Yet, the church condemned the execution of Saddam Hussein. If you can’t execute him, who can you execute?

If ever there was a situation that appeared to meet the criteria laid out in the catechism to justify an execution it was Saddam Hussein. That a Vatican spokesman could condemn his execution essentially means that, whatever may be said in theory, in practice no situation is ever likely to be said to meet the criteria.

Be careful about saying that “the Church” condemned his execution though; that’s not correct. Individual Church officials may have condemned this particular execution - and may condemn executions in general as JPII did - but there is no obligation on the individual Catholic to agree.

Ender

 

[Isambard]

Is Aquinas quoting Augustine good enough?

"On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty." (ST II/II 64,8)

Ender

Again, how would this be conforting for the family? O right, it isnt.

 

[Ender]

Again, how would this be conforting for the family? O right, it isnt.

It wouldn’t be comforting to the family … but that wasn’t what you challenged or what I responded to. This was your original comment:

*“The family of the original victems, the prosecution, and administrators would all be guilty of murder”

*As others had said, this statement is incorrect. I simply provided a reference - as you requested.

Ender

 

[Isambard]

It wouldn’t be comforting to the family … but that wasn’t what you challenged or what I responded to. This was your original comment:

*“The family of the original victems, the prosecution, and administrators would all be guilty of murder”

*As others had said, this statement is incorrect. I simply provided a reference - as you requested.

Ender

I asked for a reference for the claim that the number of innocent men found not guilty, yet have received a conviction is close to zero

 

[Kendy]

This is true, in fact the Vatican had the death penalty on its books until 1969. The Church not only supported it but mandated its acceptance as an appropriate punishment.
True again. JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae in 1995 are the first example of a pope arguing against the death penalty itself.
If ever there was a situation that appeared to meet the criteria laid out in the catechism to justify an execution it was Saddam Hussein. That a Vatican spokesman could condemn his execution essentially means that, whatever may be said in theory, in practice no situation is ever likely to be said to meet the criteria.

Be careful about saying that “the Church” condemned his execution though; that’s not correct. Individual Church officials may have condemned this particular execution - and may condemn executions in general as JPII did - but there is no obligation on the individual Catholic to agree.

Ender

It may not be binding, but when the Vatican secretary of state, who is a cardinal makes a statement. His opinion matters.

 

[vz71]

It may not be binding, but when the Vatican secretary of state, who is a cardinal makes a statement. His opinion matters.

He may have had a good point.
As one captured in war, he would be in US custody, and likely would never see freedom again.
His influence on Iraq had been removed, and the people of Iraq could no longer be hurt by the man.

I really do not see how the society could be harmed by the man after the war and his susequent capture.

And after all of that, the way the execution was carried out looked more like an act of revenge, not justice.

 

[Kendy]

He may have had a good point.
As one captured in war, he would be in US custody, and likely would never see freedom again.
His influence on Iraq had been removed, and the people of Iraq could no longer be hurt by the man.

I really do not see how the society could be harmed by the man after the war and his susequent capture.

And after all of that, the way the execution was carried out looked more like an act of revenge, not justice.

What would an act of justice look like?

 

[maggiemay2u]

Care to cite a source? And Im sure the family of the falsely accused will take comfort in your rationalization after their family member has their name is dragged through the mud, and then executed with their tax dollars.

“Woops, my bad!”, O yeah, totally comforting

What if there is absolutely no doubt as to the person’s guilt? DNA, confession, eyewitness…

 

[RachelsAlumni]

… ***in fact ***the Vatican had the death penalty ***on its books ***until 1969. The Church not only supported it but mandated its acceptance as an appropriate punishment.

What do you mean by “the Vatican had the death penalty on it’s books? If it is a fact can you provide the source?

“The Church mandated acceptance of the death penalty”? also care to cite an authoritative source that the death penalty is ***mandated by ***the Church?

Personally, I think it would be more accurate to say *“the overall tenor of the scattered papal pronouncements or allusions to capital punishment tended toward acceptance of a practice firmly ensconced in society and in civil law,” *as Fr. James Williams, L.C. says in his article entitled “Capital Punishment and the Just Society” which I’ll be quoting from.

Theologian “*Anselm Gunthor wrote in 1979 that, regarding capital punishment, “the statements of the ecclesial Magisterium are occasional assertions and do not represent a fully definitive position; we must not undervalue them, nor should we consider them to be unchangeable and perennially valid Magisterial statements.” * Chiamata e risposta: Una nuova teologia morale, Vol. III, Edizioni Paoline, Alta, 1979, pp. 557-558 ]

JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae in 1995 are the first example of a pope arguing against the death penalty itself.

It is the most recent and authoritative source, and certainly not the first:

In the first centuries of Christianity the Mosaic precept against killing was interpreted literally and without exceptions. Capital punishment was considered irreconcilable with the faith, and such occupations as judge and soldier were excluded from licit professions for Christians, in order to avoid having to pronounce or execute the death sentence. Among those who taught in this vein were Lactantius, [Divinarum Institutionum, V, 20, PL 6, 707- 708] Tertullian, [De Idolatria, 17, PL 1, 763-764] St. Cyprian, [Epist. ad Donatum, 4, PL 4, 208] and St. Ambrose. [De Officiis, 3, 4, PL 16, 161; Epist. 25 ad Studium, PL 16,1083-1086] In tongue-in-cheek fashion, St. Cyprian writes: “A homicide committed for private interests is a crime; committed in the name of the State it is a virtue.” [Epist. ad Donatum, 4, PL 4, 208]

… in the 4th century St. Ambrose was questioned by a civil magistrate as to his opinion on capital punishment, the imperial prefect-turned-archbishop of Milan replied by making reference to Jesus’ conduct with the adulterous women (Jn 8) as the example to follow. Jesus doesn’t address the question of the woman’s guilt or the appropriateness of the Mosaic prescription of stoning, but instead invites her zealous accusers to examine their own innocence before meting out the prescribed penalty.

“Evangelium Vitae (EV) is the first papal encyclical to deal with capital punishment, and thus the weightiest Magisterial statement on the subject to date.”

…That a Vatican spokesman could condemn his [Saddam Hussein] execution essentially means that, whatever may be said in theory, in practice no situation is ever likely to be said to meet the criteria.

That’s probably what is meant in CCC 2266 says:

“the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Be careful about saying that “the Church” condemned his execution though; that’s not correct. Individual Church officials may have condemned this particular execution - and may condemn executions in general as JPII did - but there is no obligation on the individual Catholic to agree.

It is not incorrect to say the Church condemned Saddam Hussein’s execution. It is also not correct to say that an individual Catholic is under no obligation to agree that the highest officials in the Church, including the Holy Father, condemned the execution of Saddam Hussein. You may not be under any obligation to *also condemn *the execution or executions in general, but you are obliged to acknowledge that the Church has. It is a widely publicized fact that his [Saddams] execution was widely condemned, and these officials in the Church have the authority to condemn, unlike you or I.

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, condemned the Dec. 26 rejection of the appeal of the death sentence by Iraq’s highest court and the announcement that Saddam must be hanged on any of the next 30 days following that decision.
Expressing the hope that the capital punishment would not be carried out, the cardinal said that a government cannot compensate “one crime with another crime.”

On Dec. 30, the Vatican restated its opposition to the death penalty.

“The execution of a capital sentence is always tragic news, a cause of sadness, even when the person is guilty of terrible crimes,” said Holy See Press Office Director Father Federico Lombardi in a midday declaration hours after the death of the former Iraqi leader.

“The position of the Catholic Church against the death penalty has often been reiterated,” he said. “The killing of the guilty is not the way to rebuild justice and reconcile society, rather there is a risk of nourishing the spirit of revenge and inciting fresh violence.”

Citing appeals made by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for clemency for people condemned to die, the paper said the Vatican supported international campaigns to proclaim a universal moratorium on the use of capital punishment and the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

It also noted concerns raised in many parts of the world over “recent executions,” obviously referring to the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other former officials of Iraq.

”Consciences have been awakened by the need for a greater recognition of the inalienable dignity of human beings and by the universality and integrity of human rights, beginning with the right to life,” it said.

The paper said every decision to use the death penalty carries “numerous risks,” including “the danger of punishing innocent persons” and the possibility of “promoting violent forms of revenge rather than a true sense of social justice.”

A capital execution, it said, is “a clear offense against the inviolability of human life” and can contribute to “a culture of violence and death.”

”For Christians,” the Vatican said, “it also shows contempt for the Gospel teaching on forgiveness.”

While an execution “temporarily may alleviate an appetite for revenge,” it said, taking the life of the criminal makes it impossible to fulfill the obligation of justice, which calls for penalties that punish and may help rehabilitate an offender.

In either case I think it’s wise when considering what the Vatican has to say about executions to neither “undervalue them, nor should we consider them to be unchangeable and perennially valid Magisterial statements”

 

[vincentardaniel]

The fifth commandment tells us “Don’t kill.” Here we are considering the sanctity and the holiness of life. No one has the right to take away life. Are you the one who created him/her? this murder actually does not refer only to physical killing but also the more painful one z"emotional/spiritual murder." this execution refers to what they call “Capital punishment.” Speaking of capital punishment, we mean this is taking of one’s life as a punishment for a crime committed. Killing is a mortal sin. My second point is that no one has the right to judge even though he has sinned many times. Who are we to judge? Third, Christian is a follower of Christ. And a Christian respects everything God has given to a person. Death Penalty can be thought of as a revenge. The bibile says that you must not take revenge on your neighbour. With these ideas, I am not in favor of Death Penalty.

 

[vz71]

What would an act of justice look like?

Good question.
And perhaps a good. point.

Is it possible to meter out the death penalty without falling into a vengeance act instead of a justice act?

I suppose he could have been taken off quietly to a private execution with only the witnesses essential to insure it was done properly. But then they wouldn’t have had the parade and spectacle that they had.

 

[vz71]

Speaking of capital punishment, we mean this is taking of one’s life as a punishment for a crime committed. Killing is a mortal sin. My second point is that no one has the right to judge even though he has sinned many times. Who are we to judge? Third, Christian is a follower of Christ. And a Christian respects everything God has given to a person. Death Penalty can be thought of as a revenge. The bibile says that you must not take revenge on your neighbour. With these ideas, I am not in favor of Death Penalty.

The church has still left it to the state to decide whether or not to execute criminals.

 

[goofyjim]

The church has still left it to the state to decide whether or not to execute criminals.

And the citizens direct the state, so if the majority becomes against the death penalty then it gets overturned.

 

[vz71]

And the citizens direct the state, so if the majority becomes against the death penalty then it gets overturned.

But just to clarify, they simply overturn their own government using the death penalty.
The church still considers it a viable option in some circumstances.