Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

What if there were a specific monastic order whose task was to keep custody of murderers so that they would be deprived of the sort of society which would feed their certainty of feeling justified or entitled to take life?

Better yet:

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

One quote of many:

“The medicinal reason for inflicting punishment, goes beyond preventing the criminal from repeating his crime and protecting society, to encouraging the guilty to repent and die in a state of grace. The vindictive reasoning also has this interest in mind: for by expiating the disorder caused by the crime, the moral debt of the guilty is lessened. In the early years of the nineteenth century, St. Vincent Pallotti frequently assisted the condemned to the scaffold, as St. Catherine had done in Siena. He was edified by the many holy deaths he saw, while helping the Archfraternity of San Giovanni, under the patronage of his friend the English Cardinal Acton. Headquartered in the Church of San Giovanni Decollato (St. John the Beheaded), their rule was to urge the condemned to a good confession, followed by an exhortation and Holy Communion followed by the grant of a plenary indulgence. The whole population of Rome was instructed to fast and pray for the intention of the criminal’s soul.” “Hanging Concentrates the Mind”, by Rev. George W. Rutler, Crisis Magazine, 2/13/13,

 

[dudleysharp]

Capital punishment was commanded for some offenses in the Old Testament, like adultery. I know we don’t believe that now, because Jesus overturned it, but Jesus also said that if someone does wrong to us, we are toturn the other cheek. SNIP

Turning he other cheek is a, sometime, personal requirement, not that of government.

 

[dudleysharp]

Solitary confinement, while tortuous and draconian in limited circumstances is justified; the death penalty is never justified regardless.

That is contrary to Church teaching today, as it was 2000 years ago.

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP . . . you are saying that the State is obliged to impose the death penalty for some crimes because it is the only sentence that serves justice. That isn’t the position the Church takes.

Her position is:

Any good Catholic may disagree with the Church’s newest teaching on the death penalty
(1) and remain a Catholic in good standing (1) and can find that (a) the primary and eternal purpose of sanction is justice and/or redress, as confirmed in this latest CCC, and that (b) justice should not be and cannot be subjugated by a secondary purpose of sanction, the important concern of “defense of society” and that (c) the death penalty offers a greater degree of protection for society and individuals (2) , that being the protection of the potential innocents harmed, now spared, and potential repeat unjust aggressors, also, now spared, by preventing them from harming even more innocents and , thereby, putting their eternal lives more at risk (3&4).

Saint Pope John Paul II (SPJPII) made a prudential judgement, within Evangelium Vitae (EV), and such judgement was factually and rationally in error and then those errors were placed within the CCC.

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (5)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment — vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(5)

SPJPII states hat we can use the death penalty only “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

Not only is this a rational error, it conflicts with 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

As taught in this very same CCC, redress, justice and just retribution are primary and eternal. Public defense is secular and utilitarian and, therefore, must always be secondary to the primary, eternal truth of justice.

Yet, both the CCC and SPJPII are stating that we must replace eternal truths with secular utilitarianism. Obviously an error.

1. From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,

(paragraph 3) “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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.”

from Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles, part of memorandum sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, made public July 2004. ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

1. The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
2. The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
3. Catechism & State Protection
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html
4. “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame)

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP But you are saying that the State is obliged to impose the death penalty for some crimes because it is the only sentence that serves justice. That isn’t the position the Church takes.

Maybe:

Executions represent “paramount obedience” to Commadments and murder “dispossesses the murderer of the right to live”.

Yes? Should we reject “paramount obedience” to commandments?

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP
This is refuted by church doctrines. She has consistently taught throughout her entire history that there are three exceptions to the prohibition against killing, not two: in self defense, in a just war, and as punishment. Ender

It is four, the additional approved killing of defending others from unjust aggressors, which is very different than self defense.

 

[dudleysharp]

The Episcopal Churches teachings on the death penalty is that it opposes it; I believe it took that position in the late 50’s-early 60’s.

Don’t you see that as odd.

Biblically and theologically, what changed with regard to the death penalty, from the time of Jesus through 1950?

These changing positions appear to reflect social secular liberalism and little else.

Are there more respected biblical scholars and theologians from 1) Jesus through 1950 or 2) after 1950?

 

[dudleysharp]

That time frame seems reasonable. Before the second half of the 20th century virtually all Christian denominations endorsed the position that capital punishment was a morally acceptable practice and that a state had a natural right to employ it. Opposition to the death penalty had been growing, albeit not initially among Christians.*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)

[/INDENT]Ender

Ender:

As an almost universal rule, the majority of the population of any given country, support the death penalty for some crimes, even in Europe.

It is the governments which make the decisions to have or have not the death penalty.

South and Central American countries, universally Catholic, do not have the death penalty (except Guatamala) , have incredibly high violent crime rates, and the majority do support the death penalty.

I understand Dulles point and he may have been correct, but there are additional reasons, as well, mainly, secular liberalism, which explain the anti death penalty position by those governments, in many countries, which does not exclude Dulles reasoning, but may support it.

 

[Brendan]

I would imagine that someone deemed to warrant permanent solitary confinement would be considered to have some kind of mental illness and should be treated in a psychiatric prison facility that would cope with that. So definitely not the death penalty…

How about those who control violent gangs from within prison. That would include gangs within the prison itself, or gangs in their home cities.

‘Hits’ and other retribitions have been ordered by those who are behind bars.

 

[dudleysharp]

How about those who control violent gangs from within prison. That would include gangs within the prison itself, or gangs in their home cities.

‘Hits’ and other retribitions have been ordered by those who are behind bars.

As are well know, as is the recent explosion of tens of thousands of cell phones, illegally, held by criminals within our prisons, as well as violent crimes committed in prison, after escape and after we fail to incarcerated known violent offenders (1)

Which goes to the blatant, factual error, here:

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by
rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56.]

Truly, incredible, that such an error could have been non fact checked by SPJPII and then, non fact checked, again, and put into the CCC.

Another error – Criminal do not redeem themselves.

1. Catechism and State Protection
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 

[LongingSoul]

How about those who control violent gangs from within prison. That would include gangs within the prison itself, or gangs in their home cities.

‘Hits’ and other retribitions have been ordered by those who are behind bars.

But how do you propose that the death penalty would cure that? Would it be based not on the crime the person committed to end up in prison but on another court within the prison that ordered the death penalty for all gang leaders? It’s conceivable that many of these prisoners were in for crimes that didn’t warrant the dp in the first place.

That’s what makes me wonder why people say that recidivism would be cured by the dp. That would surely require killing all violent offenders and prisoners across the board in anticipation of further crime.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t imply things; I come out and say them. It’s not my fault that you read things into my words I haven’t put there.
A state has no obligation either to always impose or to never impose capital punishment.

Ender

So what criterior would determine whether it is an option in sentencing or not an option in sentencing? It can’t just depend on personal preferences of politicians or on a perceived religious commandment. What reasons would the State depend on to include it or abolish it?

 

[exnihilo]

One argument I hear against the death penalty is that with modern society and its prisons you can safely remove a violent person from society. But there is a huge amount of violence in prison. Prisoners assault, both physically and sexually, each other all the time. There are plenty of killings in prison. Locking up dangerous criminals may keep the general society safer, but it endangers other prisoners and guards. There is a sort of perverseness in sentencing people to a modern prison. With more frequent use of the death penalty there would be less extremely dangerous prisoners to risk others in the prison.

** Also in America, the death penalty is carried out in a racist, and unjust way.

There are no doubt some elements of racism in the death penalty cases as well as in any aspect of society. But the biggest divide in the criminal justice system, as in life, is money. OJ got off. Suge Knight routinely gets shot and may have murdered several people. The system has been increasingly weighted in favor of the state. If you have money you are more likely to overcome that bias.

 

[Ender]

So what criterion would determine whether it is an option in sentencing or not an option in sentencing?

The first objective is to determine what penalty is commensurate with the severity of the crime. That is what makes a punishment just. A second consideration would be whether the punishment should be mitigated because of particular circumstances. The first would be addressed by legal statutes, the second would be the responsibility of the judge.

What I have been arguing is the first part: that capital punishment is the just penalty for the crime of murder. I believe JPII, BXVI, and FI were concerned with the second consideration, the particular circumstances that (in their opinion) make it inadvisable.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

But how do you propose that the death penalty would cure that? Would it be based not on the crime the person committed to end up in prison but on another court within the prison that ordered the death penalty for all gang leaders? It’s conceivable that many of these prisoners were in for crimes that didn’t warrant the dp in the first place.

That’s what makes me wonder why people say that recidivism would be cured by the dp. That would surely require killing all violent offenders and prisoners across the board in anticipation of further crime.

It must be determined on a case by case basis. The purpose of the death penalty, in addition to punishment, is that of self defense to society.

Again, the CCC 2267

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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

The case that I brought up is specifically mentioned in the CCC, that of non-lethal means being insufficient to protect society

And, interestingly enough, the ability of the State to safeguard against such actions is radically decreasing, with unmonitored contact increasing due to things like coded letters and even, as mentioned, smuggled cell phones.

A State would be fully in line with all Church teaching to execute a criminal who, in prison, directed violence either towards fellow inmates, guards, or to society outside the prison.

By definition, non-lethal means would have been shown to be ineffective for such a person

 

[Ender]

The purpose of the death penalty, in addition to punishment, is that of self defense to society.

All punishment, including the death penalty, has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection. 2267 is misleading on this point in addressing protection only, as if the other three were of less significance. This is particularly misleading in light of 2266 which identified retribution as the primary purpose.

A State would be fully in line with all Church teaching to execute a criminal who, in prison, directed violence either towards fellow inmates, guards, or to society outside the prison.

By definition, non-lethal means would have been shown to be ineffective for such a person

If protection was the primary measure of appropriate punishment it would make execution available for crimes where justice would prohibit it. Either justice is primary or protection is, and if we prefer protection we have diminished justice.

Ender

 

[Xeyed818]

Justice is the OT; Mercy is the NT. To me, the death penalty robs a person of a possible opportunity for Salvation. And, if Saved in prison, robs the living of the benefit of their prayers fortified by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

James 5:16 - Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

To me, solitary confinement is inhumane on every level. In some respects, we talk about the ‘sanctity of life’ for the unborn but fail to endorse it for the ‘already here’. Seems that with the level of technology we have had for many years, a safe environment for correctional officers could be developed that would also allow human interaction, learning (spiritual and otherwise) outdoor exercise, etc. for the person who became overwhelmed by the ‘deceitful heart’ - which is in each of us.

Only God can Forgive, but we can seek to know ourselves as Paul taught so that we may understand our brothers/sisters, leading to compassion and encouraging repentance in the heart.

It was denial of the hate/anger/deceitfulness within me that caused me to think myself so different from ‘bad others’. I was just afforded a better ‘mask’ by social conditions, until other conditions came along and stripped it off.

The downward spiral the world is in may make it unlikely we will have a True Spiritual Revival - but I feed Hope. May the Holy Spirit revive us All…to Life Everlasting with our Savior.

 

[dudleysharp]

Justice is the OT; Mercy is the NT. To me, the death penalty robs a person of a possible opportunity for Salvation. And, if Saved in prison, robs the living of the benefit of their prayers fortified by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

:

This thought duplicates the CCC 2267 error"

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him (the unjust aggressor) the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267).

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace.

Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a poorly written section.

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”.

The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

Do all of those early and earthly deaths remove the possibilities of our redemption? Of course not.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come (8), the perfect example of expiation and restoration, via the criminal’s accepted sanction of death.

Thus, the Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be - a teaching the Church has always accepted, until now.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory.”(10)

"In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (10)

A protestant Christian layman states the obvious:

"One offensive aspect of this objection is the puny view of God that underlies it. God may be able to turn a murderer into a Christian if we give Him 30 years to do it – but not 30 days? Only by disobeying God can we populate His Kingdom for Him? It begins to sound a little like, “Let us do evil that good may come.” (11)

“If we spare those that God has commanded us to exterminate, we can’t pretend we did it for His glory! The question once again is shown to be: What did God say? with the follow-up, Will we obey? What God said is clear: Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6) He didn’t say that to the Jews (there were no Jews yet); He said it to Noah and his family – to the entire population of the earth.” (11)

 

[dudleysharp]

FOOTNOTES

1. “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
2. Jesus and the death penalty: “They may become Christians”, Dan Popp, June 23, 2013

 

[Ender]

Justice is the OT; Mercy is the NT.

This idea for me shows some of the harm caused by 2267 and the common misinterpretation of what it means. In this thinking justice itself has become objectionable, yet nothing could be farther from the truth, nor is there any conflict between justice and mercy. Both are virtues and both can and must coexist without one trumping the other.*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)

To me, the death penalty robs a person of a possible opportunity for Salvation.

This is not a position the church has ever taken. Aquinas addressed this issue in his Summa Contra Gentiles.*The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *
Ender