Death Penalty

[LongingSoul]

There is no need to go back and forth about this, one of the 10 commandments CLEARLY says…thou shalt NOT Kill…whats left to debate about? I did not see any asterisks following this commandment either that puts ANYONE, person, a state, or a nation above the 10 commandments. Its that simple.

To be in line with the teachings of the Church, we can confidently trust in what the Catechism conveys to us via 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.”

This is covered by the principle of legitimate defense which acknowledges that a person or public authority, is obliged to defend himself or the lives of others by force and if that results in the aggressors death, it is not intentional murder but an unintentional or undesired effect of self defense.

 

[livingwordunity]

There is no need to go back and forth about this, one of the 10 commandments CLEARLY says…thou shalt NOT Kill…whats left to debate about? I did not see any asterisks following this commandment either that puts ANYONE, person, a state, or a nation above the 10 commandments. Its that simple.

It’s actually not that simple. “Thou shall not kill” is a translation of Hebrew to English. And it is interpreted by the Church as being against murder.

 

[Brendan]

There is no need to go back and forth about this, one of the 10 commandments CLEARLY says…thou shalt NOT Kill…whats left to debate about? I did not see any asterisks following this commandment either that puts ANYONE, person, a state, or a nation above the 10 commandments. Its that simple.

We have to understand that how the Church does.

Here is the Council of Trent 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.

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm

 

[Ender]

Further in response to that objection we are unequivocally cautioned… “Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners.”

Your point here is what? This exception is clear and uncontroversial: capital punishment should not be used in those cases where it would harm the innocent. As I’ve said before, this principle probably explains JPII’s objection to its use.

Divine law according to Aquinas, behoves us to seriously judge the legitimacy of the use of the death penalty before resorting to it.

No, it is not the legitimacy of the death penalty that is to be judged but its appropriateness in a particular situation. For example, in cases where the crime was horrific, there was not the slightest doubt about the guilt of the accused, and where he was utterly unrepentant, why would the death penalty not be appropriate?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Your point here is what? This exception is clear and uncontroversial: capital punishment should not be used in those cases where it would harm the innocent. As I’ve said before, this principle probably explains JPII’s objection to its use.

You are reading the primary principle as the ‘exception’ and the exception as the primary principle. Look at the words again.

“Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. ***But sometimes ***the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death ***may be ***inflicted on sinners.”

This has been your error all along. ‘Sometimes’ and ‘in such a case’ indicate this extreme measure of death is the exception to the main principle. It is not the ‘exception’ to withhold capital punishment. It is the exception to use it.

Divine law according to Aquinas, behoves us to seriously judge the legitimacy of the use of the death penalty before resorting to it.

No, it is not the legitimacy of the death penalty that is to be judged but its appropriateness in a particular situation. For example, in cases where the crime was horrific, there was not the slightest doubt about the guilt of the accused, and where he was utterly unrepentant, why would the death penalty not be appropriate?

Why would whether he is unrepentant or not determine the death penalty? That betrays the true error or your perspective. No human can know the true state of a mans soul and conscience to make that judgement. Only God can. The punishments of this life are medicinal and redress the disorder caused to the common good. Not the divine debt. Our justice is only symbolic of Gods justice in that it is in loving our neighbour that we love and honour God.

The extreme penalty of death has to serve justice through serving the common good. It is a highly conditional exception. If it truly was a main principle, we would associate it with the wonderful City of God, but no one believes their will be cause for a death penalty in that City. The main principle of our world is life. Lifeblood. The preservation of this precious sacred symbol is the main principle of the whole Christian culture. Death has never been and will never been a main principle of any Christain based culture.

Even the oft quoted Trent Catechism deals with execution of criminals as an ‘exception’ to the the main principle, ‘thou shalt not kill’, rather than as being justified by the principle of punishment.

You’ve got a cockeyed perspective on this that is making you esteem your sense of ‘rights’ over Catholic teaching I’m afraid, Ender.

 

[CarmelJerome]

When states were distinctly obliged to recognize the authority of God in laws and their enactments, the execution of anyone was usually prefaced by rigorous attempts to reconcile the putative killer with God, to get him to make his confession so that he would not go to judgment with such a dread sin on his soul. The belief in temporal justice was linked to the idea of mercy with the final judgment in view.

No such linkage has been made in the US for the past 50 years, and sadly, we have certain very public Catholic legal officials who don’t even regard the actual and state-admitted innocence of a death-row inmate as reason enough to prevent execution.

 

[hu324b]

I will concede that with DNA evidence it’s much different than 20yrs ago but I can never go to the dark side and agree with capital punishment. As long as there is a chance an inocent person might be exicuted I cannot be for it.Not all countries use DNA evidence yet.

 

[mikekle]

We have to understand that how the Church does.

Here is the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm

IDK, I understand your point, but I tend to think the 10 commandments were to apply to everyone, once we start making exceptions to some of them, for states/nations, people who hold authority, it starts to make them seem less than important.

IMO, the 10 commandments are either universal or they are not, cannot be both.

 

[Brendan]

IDK, I understand your point, but I tend to think the 10 commandments were to apply to everyone, once we start making exceptions to some of them, for states/nations, people who hold authority, it starts to make them seem less than important.

IMO, the 10 commandments are either universal or they are not, cannot be both.

So, are you saying that police should not have firearms, as that would be an institutional violation of the 5th Commandment.

Or that a Christian could not be a police officer, as that might involve taking a life in defense of others?

 

[LongingSoul]

So, are you saying that police should not have firearms, as that would be an institutional violation of the 5th Commandment.

Or that a Christian could not be a police officer, as that might involve taking a life in defense of others?

I think that the legitimate defense of life, our own or others, is something even the simplest minds understand and accept as awful but necessary at times… but what people find increasingly unpalatable is a state putting themselves in Gods shoes and reserving the right to kill despite the damage to the common good.

 

[Ender]

You are reading the primary principle as the ‘exception’ and the exception as the primary principle. Look at the words again.

This is backwards. *Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, *(ST II-II 64, 2 ad 1)
It seems rather clear that this is an explanation for why the wicked cannot be slain - which would be the exception to the normal punishment. This is also the perspective given by Augustine.Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord’s words, “Suffer both to grow until the harvest,” must be gathered from those which precede, “lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it.” For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) “these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man’s crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken.” (ST II-II 10, 8 ad 1)
They are explaining the situations in which the guilty may not be slain; that is, they are giving the exceptions to the principle.

Why would whether he is unrepentant or not determine the death penalty? That betrays the true error or your perspective.

His (Christ’s) words being, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner. (Justin Martyr)

No human can know the true state of a mans soul and conscience to make that judgement.

I’m pretty sure when he says he’s glad he did something, doesn’t regret it, and would do it again if he had a chance we can be fairly sure he hasn’t repented.

The punishments of this life are medicinal and redress the disorder caused to the common good.

True, but protecting us from future crimes does nothing to redress the disorder caused by past ones, so let’s at least acknowledge that the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice.

Even the oft quoted Trent Catechism deals with execution of criminals as an ‘exception’ to the the main principle, ‘thou shalt not kill’, rather than as being justified by the principle of punishment.

Actually it is both. It is surely an exception to the fifth commandment and it is clearly justified by the principle of punishment as it: * “is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.”*

You’ve got a cockeyed perspective on this that is making you esteem your sense of ‘rights’ over Catholic teaching

“My” perspective is neither more nor less than what the church herself has taught for 20 centuries.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
You are reading the primary principle as the ‘exception’ and the exception as the primary principle. Look at the words again.

And what you’ve trickily done and what you always do is cherry pick with motive.

I believe that it is most important to understand every quote within the context of the whole article otherwise we are no better than the fundamentalists everywhere who justify themselves by isolating quotes from whole texts.

So for the benefit of those who aren’t familiar with the Summa Theologica the quote regarding the uprooting of the cockle we *began *looking at came from St Thomas’s treatment of vengeance/retribution… where as Ender switches to a ‘cockle’ quote regarding this topic but taken from the Question treating of Murder and that article asks “Is it lawful to kill sinners”. That article is not treating of punishment… it is treating of the conditions under which it is lawful to kill sinners as opposed to being murder.

In the article specifically dealing with the subject of murder vs lawful killing… St Thomas begins “Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6). “

We are here to consider the health of the whole body (ie the common good) and whether the sinner ‘is infectious to the other members’. In that event, ‘it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away’. To stress the point, “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump””.

Remember this is not an article defining punishment. It is clearly giving the primary justification for resorting to killing a sinner who is infectious to the common good.

This is followed immediately by reference to Jesus parable of the weeds where a man has sowed his field with wheat seed only to have an enemy come and plant weeds amidst them. The servant asks ‘do you want us to go and pull the up?’ but the man says no, to leave that till the final harvest when the whole field is uprooted and the separation of wheat and weed will happen. In that context we read St Thomas “Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. “

St Augustine, one of the first great Christian teachers speaks to an audience in the process of embracing fundamental Christian principles into every aspect of life.

On the other hand, when we go to the book of the Summa which addresses vengeance or the retribution aspect of human punishment, specifically the article “Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men?”, we see the parable of the uprooting of the cockle from a whole different perspective.

St Thomas says here “Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil.” He says “All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.”

It is very, very clear that human vengeance must serve the practical good of the community that the state authority serves, either as a prevention, protection or deterrence measure. Just desserts are rightly satisfied by bloodless means of punishment as far as Christians can claim, but the death of a sinner must only serve the protection and safety of the public.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is also the perspective given by Augustine.Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord’s words, “Suffer both to grow until the harvest,” must be gathered from those which precede, “lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it.” For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) “these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man’s crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken.” (ST II-II 10, 8 ad 1)
They are explaining the situations in which the guilty may not be slain; that is, they are giving the exceptions to the principle.

Again some cherry picking from the Question regarding “whether unbelievers should be compelled to the faith”. If anything can be claimed as a prudential judgement, this statement is it, since here St Thomas is using the parable of the weeds to justify the killing of known heretics. Since heretics include those detracting from the teachings of the Pope, you yourself are well done for I should say. Luckily Christians don’t have that jihad type mentality since the primary principles of Christianity revolve around a culture of life that promote charity, forgiveness and mercy. Pope John Paul went as far to apologise for the Inquisitions and the Church’s failures during this time.

Why would whether he is unrepentant or not determine the death penalty? That betrays the true error or your perspective.

His (Christ’s) words being, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner. (Justin Martyr)
I’m pretty sure when he says he’s glad he did something, doesn’t regret it, and would do it again if he had a chance we can be fairly sure he hasn’t repented.

And I’m pretty sure that if someone says they have repented to avoid the noose, his words alone hold very little weight.

The punishments of this life are medicinal and redress the disorder caused to the common good.

True, but protecting us from future crimes does nothing to redress the disorder caused by past ones, so let’s at least acknowledge that the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice.

It doesn’t follow that redressing the disorder caused to the common good is satisfied by one getting his ‘just desserts’. For the order to be restored to the common good, involves a healing only God can give in many cases. It follows that the primary objective of punishment is restoring order by inviting the grace of God through His divine mercy, into the penal process. Which is what is happening around the Christian world with the abolishing of the death penalty.

You’ve got a cockeyed perspective on this that is making you esteem your sense of ‘rights’ over Catholic teaching

“My” perspective is neither more nor less than what the church herself has taught for 20 centuries.

It is less, in that you are rejecting the developments prompted by the Holy Spirit which have increased our understandings and awareness of the great dignity of the person.

You are failing to place the post conciliar Church within your 20 centuries of Catholicism with due faith, trust and respect and in doing so, you exist in a semi schismatic state. In the manner of sola scriptura you embrace sola pre-vatican2ism. That’s not the Catholic way.

Pope John Paul who has been most forthright and clear concerning the need to abolish the death penalty, is to be canonised this year 9 years after his death such is the certainty of his holiness and Catholic cred. Perhaps we will see him declared a Father or Doctor of the Church in due time. Please God that I am alive to be part of such a wonderful development! He has demonstrated by prayer and humility the great power of forgiveness and mercy and elevated St Faustina’s witness to divine mercy to a global place. How wonderful to actually see the Holy Spirit transform and draw the people of God into even clearer light!

 

[nmgauss]

Actually it is both. It is surely an exception to the fifth commandment and it is clearly justified by the principle of punishment as it: “is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.”

What does the fifth commandment specify? It is a commandment that lends itself to midrash (re-examination in light of subsequent events).

Does it mean just premeditated purposeful spiteful murder of another human? How about killing as an emotional action unconnected with premeditation? Does it include self-defense or military action? Does it include euthanasia? Does it include assisted suicide? Does it include justified state ordered retribution for murder, thus following the Hammurabi code of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? How about committing a person to being a ward of the state in a warm, clean bed with free food and clothing, and thus ceasing to be a productive being, and sponging off the taxpayers for the rest of that person’s life?

Even if a person is wrongly convicted, that can be labeled an accident due to imperfections in the justice system. Like any other accident, it cannot be totally prevented, and trying to prevent it is wishful thinking and potentially extremely expensive to taxpayers.

 

[Ender]

And what you’ve trickily done and what you always do is cherry pick with motive.

Insults are indications of weak arguments.

So for the benefit of those who aren’t familiar with the Summa Theologica the quote regarding the uprooting of the cockle we *began *looking at came from St Thomas’s treatment of vengeance/retribution… where as Ender switches to a ‘cockle’ quote regarding this topic but taken from the Question treating of Murder and that article asks “Is it lawful to kill sinners”. That article is not treating of punishment… it is treating of the conditions under which it is lawful to kill sinners as opposed to being murder.

It really is a bit of a stretch to suggest that Aquinas believed Christ’s words changed meaning depending on circumstances - that they meant one thing in the passage you cited and something entirely different in the passages to which I referred. The reasonable perspective is to accept that Aquinas is consistent and has one understanding. Which clearly is not the one you’ve given it.

Remember this is not an article defining punishment. It is clearly giving the primary justification for resorting to killing a sinner who is infectious to the common good.

What you have done is to select one section, give it your own interpretation, and insist that nothing else Aquinas said on the topic matters. What I have done is to cite numerous passages and try to tie them all together. If your explanation cannot withstand that sort of analysis then perhaps you ought to reconsider it.

On the other hand, when we go to the book of the Summa which addresses vengeance or the retribution aspect of human punishment, specifically the article “Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men?”, we see the parable of the uprooting of the cockle from a whole different perspective.

It may have different perspectives but it cannot have contradictory meanings, which is the problem you’re struggling with.

It is very, very clear that human vengeance must serve the practical good of the community that the state authority serves, either as a prevention, protection or deterrence measure.

Prevention, protection, and deterrence are three of the four objectives of punishment but it seems you omitted the fourth. Given that the one you left out - retribution - is the primary objective, I would say your assertion is inadequate. Is justice no longer considered a practical good of the community?

Just desserts are rightly satisfied by bloodless means of punishment as far as Christians can claim, but the death of a sinner must only serve the protection and safety of the public.

Once again you assert something that has no basis in church teaching.*“It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle the function of vindictive punishment.” *(Pius XII)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Again some cherry picking…

I have ignored this insult before but this is the last time. I advise you not to repeat it.

Since heretics include those detracting from the teachings of the Pope, you yourself are well done for I should say.

This insult is a little more creative but it is as inaccurate as the other. One of the chief* heretical tenets** of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments,** the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians**.* (St. Bellarmine)

And I’m pretty sure that if someone says they have repented to avoid the noose, his words alone hold very little weight.

True, which is why I did not use that example. I suggested the opposite case where a person insisted that he did not repent. In that case it is reasonable to accept that he means it.

It doesn’t follow that redressing the disorder caused to the common good is satisfied by one getting his ‘just desserts’.

Yes, actually it does. That is why the church demands that the state “inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266)

For the order to be restored to the common good, involves a healing only God can give in many cases. It follows that the primary objective of punishment is restoring order by inviting the grace of God through His divine mercy, into the penal process. Which is what is happening around the Christian world with the abolishing of the death penalty.

You make these grand assertions without a single, unambiguous citation to support them, which is unsurprising since there aren’t any sources to cite. Such as this, for example:The third justifying purpose for punishment is* retribution or the restoration of the order of justice** which has been violated by the action of the criminal. (USCCB)
It is retribution that restores the order of justice. Crimes are not merely sins against society and it is not merely the common good of society that has been disturbed and that needs to be restored.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice**, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice* (Aquinas ST I-II 87,6)

It is less, in that you are rejecting the developments prompted by the Holy Spirit which have increased our understandings and awareness of the great dignity of the person.

Once again you return to the argument that for 2000 years the church had an inadequate understanding of man’s inherent dignity. You have to wonder why the Holy Spirit waited so long to impart this understanding. Or, maybe it’s something else…

you exist in a semi schismatic state. In the manner of sola scriptura you embrace sola pre-vatican2ism. That’s not the Catholic way.

When did insults become the Catholic way?

Perhaps we will see him declared a Father or Doctor of the Church in due time.

I’ve cited a dozen Fathers and Doctors of the church. Did their writings cease being true after Vatican II?

Ender

 

[Ender]

What does the fifth commandment specify? It is a commandment that lends itself to midrash (re-examination in light of subsequent events).

Here is the midrash the church has given it.“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

When did insults become the Catholic way?

You’d be wise to take your own advice then and stop trying to undermine the Church by insinuating that the post conciliar Popes are condemning the pre Vatican teachings by their teaching on capital punishment. That’s gravely insulting to Catholics around the world who’ve found the death penalty cruel and unnecessary even before Pope John Paul II called it.

Capital punishment is a defensive measure as a general rule like just war and self defense permitted when the principle of lifes sacredness is threatened in a physical way by an unjust aggressor. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

**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, 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.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

If as a Catholic, you are having trouble reconciling the teachings of the Church with the wording and perspective of the past writings… think of it this way.

Skinning polar bears for coats is cruel and unnecessary as a general rule and should only be resorted to when there is no other means for residents of the northern circumpolar regions to keep warm.

It doesn’t mean one condemns those people who relied on bear skins in the past due to no bloodless alternatives. It makes us rejoice that now those societies needs are met in a bloodless way. It’s an occasion for rejoicing.

Capital punishment is not a commandment itself… it does and always has, *served *the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. It is a tool of justice. Not a principle of justice. If it does not serve the commandment by promoting a culture of life (mans dignity)… it becomes cruel and unnecessary.

This is what Pope John Paul meant by his condemnation of the death penalty. It is neither intrinsically evil (like abortion) or intrinsically holy (like a sacrament). It is a measure justified only by positively promoting the commandment it serves.

Were St Thomas, St Bellarmine, Pius XII and Augustine alive today, we can be assured that they would rejoice in the light of our times that means that we rarely need to resort to killing prisoners. They would be shocked to see their words being used to discredit the Churchs natural response to the horrific culture of death they had no concept of in their times.

If as American Catholics, there exists some doubt as to whether the safety of the community is served by ending the death penalty… by all means, the Church welcomes debate and discussion… that debate is for your country and the experts around the world in the field of penal security. I wouldn’t dream of entering into that debate not having any experience or expertise.

But when the community is safe from danger and we are blessed with the privilege of allowing a man to continue his journey into the light and truth of Gods love, why on earth would we be looking for ways to strip him of time and the opportunity to accept the grace God offers to all people through His son Jesus! That we can facilitate such a mercy filled solution is naturally uplifting and comforting for all of us as sinners of one kind or another is it not??!!

 

[Ender]

You’d be wise to take your own advice then and stop trying to undermine the Church by insinuating that the post conciliar Popes are condemning the pre Vatican teachings by their teaching on capital punishment.

I have neither claimed nor insinuated that post Vatican II popes are condemning pre VII teachings. What I have said is that your interpretations of what they are saying would necessarily include a rejection of what has been taught before.

That’s gravely insulting to Catholics around the world who’ve found the death penalty cruel and unnecessary even before Pope John Paul II called it.

You consider it insulting that I disagree with you? In the words of Inigo Montoya:* “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”*

Capital punishment is a defensive measure as a general rule like just war and self defense permitted when the principle of lifes sacredness is threatened in a physical way by an unjust aggressor. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No it isn’t; this is just your personal interpretation.It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority:* it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it**; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence ; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished. *(St. Alphonsus Liguori)
This is what I was referring to earlier. If your statement was true then it would necessarily include a repudiation of the teaching of St. Alphonsus, who is a Doctor of the Church. Since it is unlikely that the post-conciliar church is repudiating what went before it is reasonable to conclude that your interpretation is incorrect.

If as a Catholic, you are having trouble reconciling the teachings of the Church with the wording and perspective of the past writings…

I don’t have any trouble at all reconciling them; within my interpretation they all co-exist without conflict. Within yours, not so much.

If it does not serve the commandment by promoting a culture of life (mans dignity)… it becomes cruel and unnecessary.

There are indeed practical reasons to oppose its use; that principle is well established. Absent some specific objection in a particular case, however, the principle is equally well established that “Whoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.”

Were St Thomas, St Bellarmine, Pius XII and Augustine alive today, we can be assured that they would rejoice in the light of our times that means that we rarely need to resort to killing prisoners. They would be shocked to see their words being used to discredit the Churchs natural response to the horrific culture of death they had no concept of in their times.

Inasmuch as I can’t claim to know what those men would believe today I am left with only what I know they did believe in the past.

Ender