Death Penalty

[Nino]

I have found during my long life that most people are fine,just fine…out of the roughly 50 million abortions…the killing of a developing baby…there had to be some great doctors,scientists,educators etc…who would have discovered the cure of cancer or aids ,poverty etc etc…as a dad of seven and gran of eleven I and my wife are proud that ,even tho we are not wealthy by any means…I taught in a catholic high school for 30 years and with my masters degree and talent ,earned on the average some $20,000.00 less each year then I would have earned in a public school…but so what ,our kids now grown are teachers,lawyers etc…all helping to make this world a bit better…to not give a person a chance at life…re: abortion …is like segregation and slavery …in our declaration of independence the three reasons for leaving merry ole englund ! was that all have the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness…amen and amen

 

[Brendan]

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?

How about Cardinal Dulles

The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope.

pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php

 

[Brendan]

The fifth commandment tells us “Don’t kill.”

Interestingly enough, the Council of Trent addressed this in it’s teachings on the Commandments., From the statements on the 5th Commandment

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.

Here we are considering the sanctity and the holiness of life. No one has the right to take away life.

Actually, no one is taking away the criminal’s right to life. They deprived themselves of that right with their crime.

Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.

ope Pius XII - 1957

. 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.

St. Paul didn’t seem to mind it when he wrote what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write

Romans 13:3-4

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RachelsAlumni

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?

are you referring to this paragraph?

In the high Middle Ages and early modern times the Holy See authorized the Inquisition to turn over heretics to the secular arm for execution. In the Papal States the death penalty was imposed for a variety of offenses.

Not exactly something to hold in high regard let alone support the claim that the death penalty is a mandated teaching of the church. There are a few things that are an embarrassment to the church: torture chambers, the inquisition, and a few of the Crusades i.e. the Albigensian Crusade.:

Throughout the crucial period when this novel theology was coming to the fore, the only direct teaching bearing on the topic was a statement inserted in 1210 into a profession of faith drawn up for a group of Waldensians who wanted to return to Catholic communion. It was a minimal assertion, simply affirming that the death penalty was not wrong in itself and that it could at times be used “without mortal sin.” This minimal assurance, however, became virtually the sole object of most subsequent commentators, taken as a kind of blanket approval to use the death penalty habitually without any thought of restraint. Just as in the case of war-making, no further questions were asked. The automatic assumption seemed to take hold that those with proper authority could liberally use the death penalty in all manner of cases for all kinds of offenses with few moral questions asked or objections raised in the next four centuries.

This approved use of bloodshed was taking place even as Pope Innocent III was launching the Albigensian Crusade (1208). Initially intended as a forty-day punitive expedition, it quickly spiraled out of control and became a series of bloodbaths over the next twenty years, including events like the massacre of 7,000 people and the destruction of the cathedral at Béziers. Scaffolds and nooses became more and more an unquestioned part of the Christian social order, used to do away with offenders of any and all sorts, even the poor peasant caught poaching in the royal forests.

… uncritical acceptance [of the death penalty] can be seen in what is perhaps the most infamous episode in Catholic history. A terrible problem of brigandage was afflicting the Roman countryside when the elderly Pope Gregory XIII died in 1585. At the conclave to elect his successor, one candidate indicated that he had a plan that would “fix” the problem. When elected as Sixtus V, he managed in his first five months as pope to have over 7,000 Roman bandits beheaded, and had many of their heads placed on the lampposts of the Ponte Sant’Angelo. When some expressed dismay over the ‘Vicar of Christ’ engaging in such slaughter, he said he was prepared to kill 20,000, if that is what it took to restore order, and he thereupon had a victory medal struck with his own image on it and the motto “Securitas Perfecta.”

 

[wjp984]

I really don’t care. I can be for it or against it depending on what I feel is the best way to argue at any given moment or depending on how bored I am of one side of the argument. I generally will argue the opposite of whatever the majority is saying.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Actually, , no one is taking away the criminal’s right to life. They deprived themselves of that right with their crime.

Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.

note that this quote from an allocution to medical experts, said that capital punishment “was reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life *in expiation of *their crimes.”

Expiation of crimes is a far different matter than revenge. I’m pretty sure that it’s generally agreed that execution for revenge is unjust.

St. Paul didn’t seem to mind it

St. Paul wasn’t talking about revenge killing.

The citation from Paul’s letter does not legitimate revenge killing, rather it upholds the authority of civil government’s power of coercion in general.

In regard to this passage and specifically to the “sword borne by public authority, “ Pope Pius XII taught that Paul was referring to “the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality,” and not to the content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action.” {Capital Punishment and the Just Society
Fr. James Williams, L.C.}

 

[goofyjim]

Interestingly enough, the Council of Trent addressed this in it’s teachings on the Commandments., From the statements on the 5th Commandment

Actually, no one is taking away the criminal’s right to life. They deprived themselves of that right with their crime.

ope Pius XII - 1957

St. Paul didn’t seem to mind it when he wrote what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write

Romans 13:3-4

So are you suggesting that those who are opposed to the death penalty are going against Church teaching and being bad Catholics?

 

[Ender]

also care to cite an authoritative source that the death penalty is ***mandated by ***the Church?

What I said was that the Church mandated its acceptance as an appropriate punishment. This is precisely what Innocent III required the Waldensiens to accept in writing before being received back into the Church in 1210. They had condemned the death penalty and he made them recant their objection.

*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *Innocent III (1210)

There is also this:

*“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). 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.” *Innocent I (405)

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

Cite an earlier one. Neither EV nor the catechism refers to any previous source.

It is not incorrect to say the Church condemned Saddam Hussein’s execution.

You need to distinguish between a Church teaching and a comment from an individual. There is no Church doctrine officially condemning Hussein’s execution. What there is, however, is this comment in a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

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.

Their individual condemnation does not mean it is therefore Church doctrine. “The Church” means doctrine, not individual opinions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

note that this quote from an allocution to medical experts, said that capital punishment “was reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life *in expiation of *their crimes.”

Expiation of crimes is a far different matter than revenge. I’m pretty sure that it’s generally agreed that execution for revenge is unjust.

Revenge is denied the individual; punishment is the exclusive right of the duly appointed public authority and the primary objective of all punishment is the restoration of the disorder caused by the crime and this is required for the expiation of the sin.

What has been lost in EV and the catechism regarding the death penalty is precisely the concepts of expiation and justice. There is nothing about the role of capital punishment in meeting the primary goal of punishment, only about it satisfying the secondary goal of protection.

Ender

 

[goofyjim]

What I said was that the Church mandated its acceptance as an appropriate punishment. This is precisely what Innocent III required the Waldensiens to accept in writing before being received back into the Church in 1210. They had condemned the death penalty and he made them recant their objection.

*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *Innocent III (1210)

There is also this:

"It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). 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." Innocent I (405)

Cite an earlier one. Neither EV nor the catechism refers to any previous source.
You need to distinguish between a Church teaching and a comment from an individual. There is no Church doctrine officially condemning Hussein’s execution. What there is, however, is this comment in a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Their individual condemnation does not mean it is therefore Church doctrine. “The Church” means doctrine, not individual opinions.

Ender

But does this mean the will of the people doesn’t matter? If democratic majority want to do away with the death penalty does the Church step in and say we must accept as a means of punishment? I certainly hope not. This would be the same as saying we are not allowed to oppose it because opposition goes against Church teaching.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

What I said was that the Church mandated its acceptance as an appropriate punishment. This is precisely what Innocent III required the Waldensiens to accept in writing before being received back into the Church in 1210. They had condemned the death penalty and he made them recant their objection.

What does mandate mean to you?

Mandate
*–noun *
6.Roman Catholic Church. an order issued by the pope, esp. one commanding the preferment of a certain person to a benefice.
7. Roman and Civil Law. a contract by which one engages gratuitously to perform services for another.
8. (in modern civil law) any contract by which a person undertakes to perform services for another.
9. Roman Law. an order or decree by the emperor, esp. to governors of provinces.
–verb (used with object)
10. to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law.
11. to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process.

I certainly don’t take a few scattered letters here & there (taken out of context) to consitute a mandate for all time and neither should you.

“Concerning the secular power we declare that without mortal sin *it is possible *to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” Innocent III, DS 795/425 (1210)

Did you notice that this is about whether it is a mortal sin for the State to execute through punishment and that there are still conditions being placed? “as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly”.

The quote does not qualify as a “mandate”. It merely affirms that *it is possible *within certain conditions for the death penalty to be used by the State “without mortal sin” and the quote can’t liberally be taken as blanket approval.

One could still certainly argue whether capital punishment is used cautiously, advisedly and without hatred or revenge, which was the whole point of my earlier discussion.

Also as a side note:

This approved use of bloodshed [the above quote by Innocent III] was taking place even as Pope Innocent III was launching the Albigensian Crusade (1208). Initially intended as a forty-day punitive expedition, it quickly spiraled out of control and became a series of bloodbaths over the next twenty years, including events like the massacre of 7,000 people and the destruction of the cathedral at Béziers. Scaffolds and nooses became more and more an unquestioned part of the Christian social order, used to do away with offenders of any and all sorts, even the poor peasant caught poaching in the royal forests.

The following referenced quote is from *a letter *by Innocent I in response to a query from the bishop of Toulouse. The letter cannot be considered to constitute either a mandate or an unreformable teaching.

“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). 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.” Innocent I (405)

"In regard to this passage [Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rm 13:1-4)] and specifically to the “sword borne by public authority, “ Pope Pius XII taught that Paul was referring to “the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality,” and not to the content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action.” [Pius XII, Address to the Italian Association of Catholic jurists (5 February 1955), AAS 47 (1955) 81, Catholic Mind 53 (June 1955),381.]"catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0036.html#text17

Bottom line is that there is no official teaching mandating the death penalty and no infallible, doctrinal positions adopted that could be seen as committing the Church to the death penalty irrevocably.

You need to distinguish between a Church teaching and a comment from an individual. There is no Church doctrine officially condemning Hussein’s execution…Their individual condemnation does not mean it is therefore Church doctrine.

Back at ya! I did not claim that the condemnation of Saddam’s execution is “Church teaching” or doctrine. I do claim that it is a matter of fact that officials in the Church who have the authority to do so have condemned Saddam’s execution. It is not merely “a comment from an individual”. I agree that individuals without authority, such as you or I, have no authority to condemn and would be merely a comment from an individual. This, however, is a condemnation from authorities in the Church.

“The Church” means doctrine, not individual opinions.

Then your definition of Church is very narrow and probably not interpreted in the way it was originally used. IMO the Church doesn’t just mean infallible doctrine. “The Church” is most commonly referred to in a much broader manner than “Church Doctrine”. In the context in which it was used in this discussion it most likely means the thinking of the Church, not just an individual Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop here and there, but the current thinking of the Church officials regarding moral issues of our day. Here also is the definition of “The Church”:

1. 
   *]The disciples of a single locality are often referred to in the New Testament as a Church (Revelation 2:18; Romans 16:4; Acts 9:31),

1. 
   

   *]St. Paul even applies the term to disciples belonging to a single household (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1-2).

   *]it may designate specially those who exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia Docens (Matthew 18:17), or again

   *]the governed as distinguished from their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens (Acts 20:28).

   *]In all these cases the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part.

   *]The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18).

   As thus understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians: “A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth” (Coetus hominum ejusdem christianæ fidei professione, et eorumdem sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum et præcipue unius Christi in Terris vicarii Romani Pontificis. – Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9).