S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
It’s also worthwhile to note that we all deserve death.
/
All we can do is thank God for his grace.
- Status
/All we can do is thank God for his grace.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Or, to put it another way - none of us deserve life, except through our life in Christ.It’s also worthwhile to note that we all deserve death.
All we can do is thank God for his grace.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I wasn’t pointing out that a small proportion of any particular minority doesn’t fetishize crime and violence. I’m making the claim that there are groups (mostly representing minorities of their respective racial or ethnic groups) within our various racial and ethnic populations, including the majority white population, that glorify crime and violence. Furthermore, I was making the point that your statement about a “very very large minority population that fetishizes crime and violence” sounds very general, to the point of stereotyping an entire minority group. From the point of view of many readers, this could easily have been taken as referring to Black Americans in general. Indeed, I have often heard very similar things said about the Black American population, in general, and this is a generality I reject. I do not know whether you were intending to make such a claim-I make no assumption one way or the other. However, I have no doubt that what you wrote could easily be interpreted, or perhaps misinterpreted in that way.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Traditional teaching of the Church has a different understanding of the Death Penalty, and while there are some similarities such as protection of innocents, we also can see it was a great deal about justice and punishment.This is pretty much my opinion as well. And from what I understand, how the Church sees the death penalty as well (as the CCC says in Augusta1990’s post before me). In today’s American society, one must wonder how often execution is the only way to protect members of society . . .
It is for this reason that Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that Catholics are not bound to hold to the view on Capital Punishment as presented in the CCC. There is the quote from him that is frequently thrown around in these discussions, but he also addressed it in either Salt of the Earth or Light of the World, I cant remember which one off the top of my head.
Personally, I happen to agree with the way it is presented in the CCC, but we are not bound to accept it in lieu of the traditional teachings.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Consider the lives of the prison staff as well.
E
Ender
Guest
True. The Church was, however, (like everybody else) wrong about the facts of the matter.
Ender
A
ahollars
Guest
The following quotes are just a few of the uncounted statements taken from Popes, Councils, and Church Doctors over the centuries who have affirmed the morality of capital punishment in saving the innocent as well as the sinner.
Innocent I
The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405. In response to a query from the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I based his position on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He wrote:
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 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495)
Innocent III
The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.
(Innocent III, DS 795/425)
Pius XII
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 of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)
Catechism of the Council of Trent
The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.
In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).
(Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)
St. Augustine
The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.
The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.
(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)
St. Thomas Aquinas
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)
“When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.”
(Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 25, A. 6, Obj. 2)
The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.
They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
(Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)
Innocent I
The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405. In response to a query from the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I based his position on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He wrote:
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 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495)
Innocent III
The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.
(Innocent III, DS 795/425)
Pius XII
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 of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)
Catechism of the Council of Trent
The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.
In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).
(Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)
St. Augustine
The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.
The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.
(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)
St. Thomas Aquinas
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)
“When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.”
(Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 25, A. 6, Obj. 2)
The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.
They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
(Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)
E
Ender
Guest
If what 2267 says is right then the Church has been wrong for 1995 years. Pick your poison.
This is the traditional teaching of the church:“the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” (CCC 2266 - 1992 edition)
That tradition includes nothing about the use of capital punishment being dependent on its necessity for protecting the public. That caveat appeared in 1995.
Ender
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Catechism of the Council of Trent seems to acknowledge at some level the relationship between Capital Punishment and protection of society.
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
I agree that it is presented differently now, but the relationship between the use of the Death Penalty and protection of society seems to have been broached before.
E
estesbob
Guest
So if the Church was wrong about Capital Punishment how do we know they were right about the resurrection? I think most of time when Catholics claim the Church forbids Capital Punishment they really haven’t thought that claim through to its logical conclusion.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Perhaps some truths are eternal, while other teachings develop over time.
We now believe that women are the equal of men, and that all people all around the world are equally human.
We now believe that women are the equal of men, and that all people all around the world are equally human.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church has always taught that.
T
triumphguy
Guest
I’m not going to, but I can find documents, writings blaming womanhood for the fall, and attributing to women the kind of blame and shame we see with Islam currently. Ditto, questions about the personhood of people from Africa.
And I’m not going to 'cos I’m more interested in the story of the day, and I don’t feel like dwelling in our past.
E
Ender
Guest
There is definitely a connected: protection is one of the (secondary) objectives of all punishment.
If 2267 is understood to be a prudential warning against the use of capital punishment in current societies rather than a change in doctrine then a lot of the objections to that section are resolved. Otherwise we are left with explaining how the church could have been so wrong on so important a matter for so long.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
This is an issue I have struggle with myself. I have tried to understand the mind of the Church and here is what I have come to understand. The death penalty is tied to abortion in a continuity of life. Even if there are situations where the death penalty might be allowable, there is still a price we pay as society everytime we condemn one to death. We ingrain in our culture a little bit more that life is cheap. There was a time when this cost was an acceptable trade off for the purpose of preserving innocent life. Now, with the most innocent dying en masse before drawing their first breath, I can not believe that it is a price we can afford.
I will oppose the death penaly only as one component, and the least of importance, to change our culture of death into one of life. I think allowing children to engage in violence in the media is of far greater impact, as is failure to show the elderly their proper dignity.
I will oppose the death penaly only as one component, and the least of importance, to change our culture of death into one of life. I think allowing children to engage in violence in the media is of far greater impact, as is failure to show the elderly their proper dignity.
E
estesbob
Guest
There is a difference between blaming women for the fall and saying women are not eqaul to men.
You also do a great disservice to all the missionaries who risked their lives to bring the Gospel to the african people.
But this is the way such discussion usually goes. When people try and twist church teaching to agree with their personal opinions it invariably leads to them a laundry list of the “sins” of the Church in the past and how the Church needs to change to be “relevant” in todays age. You see those promoting female ordination and homosexual marriage make the same claims about the Church “changing” over time and how this is an area they need to “change” The only difference is you seem to claim the church already has changed its teaching on Capital punishment when in fact it has not.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Or both 2267 and Tradition are right and I don’t pick any poison.
I thought we went over this. Oh well.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
We punish by taking away things that people value such as liberty or property. By punishing a criminal with death, are not we likewise implying that life has value?
The problem isn’t violence in the media, the problem is the irresponsible parents who let their 10 year old kids see movies and play video games meant for a more mature audience.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not kids that run the country. It is not children that sit on the Supreme Court and determine the life of the unborn is of no value. No. Our culture of violence is an adult problem. That we consider death and violence “mature” entertainment speaks volumes. We have not become more civilized since the days of the Colliseum.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I still don’t understand why you think that the death penalty is part of this culture. Abortion became more and more socially acceptable as fewer criminals were executed. This should not come as the suprise. Abortion is an attempt to escape responsibility for your actions and the death penalty is the an attempt to enforce personal responsiblity.
Do you seriously have a problem with a movie like High Noon? Arguably this is one of the best stories to illustrate the conflict between your civic duty, personal feelings, and other people’s opinions. I love this movie because it tells a story with a moral. It is not violence for the sake of violence, but violence to uphold justice, and that is something that is justified in both our stories and the real world.
- Status