Do you support the death penalty?

[dudleysharp]

When I wrote:

2267 "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 - MEANING THE DEATH PENALTY ‘TODAY . . . ARE VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

I thought it was clear that I had added - MEANING THE DEATH PENALTY -

It wasn’t clear. My apologies.

The discussion was in the context of the death penalty, but it wasn’t mentioned in the quoted text, so I added the reference to be clear.

BTW, the other errors within this text are from “without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The CCC is stating that the death penalty"definitively" deprives the criminal of the possibility of redeeming himself.

This is, obviously, untrue and cannot stand within the CCC.

The CCC is stating that there is a death which doesn’t allow for redemption, a complete contradiction of Church teachings. All of us die early and earthly deaths.

The teaching has always been and has not changed that all men have the opportunity to seek redemption through God, prior to their deaths, whatever that death may be.

The CCC is trying to change the teaching but it cannot be changed.

I think there is some small irony that the CCC recognizes that through Jesus’ execution our redemption is secured, should we accept that gift, and then, we have this within 2267!

The other error is the wording: “redeeming himself”. Obviously man does not redeem “himself”. We are redeemed through the Grace of God.

Just another of the many problems calling for a complete re write of this section.

 

[zielonooka]

By the way, suppose you know your death date - does that put your life at ease? Has any of you tried? I am going to find out. Here is a link to the site where I am thinking of taking this kind of test - yourdeathdate.info I am not sure though if it`s worth taking that test there.

 

[jack_jack88]

My dealings with the site yourdeathdate.info had ended in a nasty exchange with the sites management. Just about half a year ago my girlfriend took a death-prediction test and found out that she had only about a month and a half left to live. When she had only a day left before the predicted date, she started showing clear signs of agitation and got into a car accident exactly on the predicted date. She survived accident, but the that was a real close call. We are now taking legal action again this site on our lawyers advice.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No one has said that it was. There are, however, well known, authoritative Catholic teachings, from the Magisterial tradition, that find the death penalty to be mandatory, as presented.

That is one of the many dilemmas that face this discussion and one of the reasons I think this section must be re written.

With all due respect, this teaching has been presented by the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium. It also has a *Nihil Obstat *and Imprimatur, meaning that it does not go against the teaching of the Church.

Thoughts?

 

[LittleSoldier]

LS:

You may be looking at a previous version of CCC 2267 and not the current, “final” one. I believe there were 2 or 3 changes before the final one was adopted. At one point I think I found 4-5 differnt versions being reviewed online.

The version I listed, is the most recent from the Vatican site, here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

I posted it exactly as presented.

If you have a more updated version, please let me know.

Thank you.

I’m sorry but I can’t find a publication date using your link. The version that I have been using was published in 1997.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

-----continuation of above post-----

Someone presented a post which mentioned Cain. Blessed John Paul II also discussed Cain in Evangelium Vitae and I think what he said is very important in regards to this thread:

snip

.

As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide".

*Evangelium Vitae *8, all underlining and bolding added by this poster for emphasis]
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

It is important.

I think it important that this not be taken out of context.

Please review the following, which deals with precisely those issues, the Cain and the Ambrose references.:

To Kill Another: Homicide and Natural Law, Graham James McAleer, Chapter “The State Privilege to Kill”, pgs 41-42, Transaction Publishers, 2010,
tinyurl.com/787u7cp

The bottom line is that vigilanty justice or justice imposed by individuals is prohibited and that justice must be imposed by the public authority. I think it clear in EV9, para 3, that PJPII agrees.

Ambrose: “God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”

We know that God, the Church and St. Ambrose never presented murder and execution as moral equivalents. Of course, no reasonable person would and we know that Ambrose would not do so.

Death penalty opponents though, often, claim that the murder of innocents is the moral equivalent of the execution of the guilty murderer, which many death penalty opponents also refer to as murder.

The Church has never made such a blatant moral error and I think She never could.

 

[dudleysharp]

I’m sorry but I can’t find a publication date using your link. The version that I have been using was published in 1997.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

the copyright date is 2003, as listed on the first page.

I had been reviewing various versions, not at the Vatican site, which hadn’t been updated, until about 4 years ago. Ugh.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I agree, this is very important.

PJPII used a very common and standard death penalty abolitionist biblical reference, Cain, as if it were some authoritative anti death penalty message. It wasn’t.

As is customary for the death penalty abolitionists, PJPII stopped there.

I don’t think that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a death penalty abolitionist. In *Evangelium Vitae *56 he stated the following:

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

“It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

*Evangelium Vitae, *56, underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

Blessed Pope John Paul II did not say that the death penalty cannot or **must not **used. He said it should be used only in cases of absolute necessity.

There was no refernce to the flood, an ocurrence after Cain, which obviously involved God justly killing all of mankind, with the exception of one small family.

I’m sorry but I don’t see your point. What do the passages about Noah have to do with the death penalty? Nobody was murdered.

How do we view that in the context of:

“God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”?

I think it can only be viewed in the context of an anti death penalty Pope, using standard, non inclusive biblical text, to make a very poor point, in contraditions of the clear teachings to the contrary.

What do you mean by “standard, non inclusive biblical text?” What is the “very poor point” that was made by Blessed Pope John Paul II?

I think that is what has been so confusing and upsetting to so many, because it is so obvious what was going on and LS used it, not recognizing why it truly is important to this discussion.

It is because of the problems which PJPII introduced into this discussion and from which we now have the mess within the CCC.

Again, with all due respect, I used it, recognizing why “it truly is important to this discussion.” Blessed Pope John Paul II did not introduce any “problems” into this discussion. I am the one who introduced this part of Evangelium Vitae.

The CCC is not a mess. It is the teaching of the Magisterium and I, as a faithful Catholic, will follow that teaching.

The fact that God put a mark on Cain to protect him from people who would want to kill him is biblical. This passage is just as relevant as any other passage in the bible, including the part about Noah. God did not allow Cain to be killed by man even though Cain murdered his brother. If the death penalty is mandatory in all cases why would God not allow him to be killed? Cain murdered his brother. I hope we can all agree on that. So why wasn’t his life forfeit? Why didn’t God allow him to be killed by man? Why did God put a mark on him?

It happened. Cain killed his brother yet he was not subjected to what some claim must be mandatory - the death penalty - and he was protected by God himself:

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.” When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord asked Cain, Where is your brother Abel? He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” God then said: What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground! Now you are banned from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a constant wanderer on the earth.

Cain said to the Lord: “My punishment is too great to bear. Look, you have now banished me from the ground. I must avoid you and be a constant wanderer on the earth. Anyone may kill me at sight.” Not so! the Lord said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times. So the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight. Cain then left the Lord’s presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

[Genesis 4:8-16, New American Bible]

 

[LittleSoldier]

the copyright date is 2003, as listed on the first page.

I had been reviewing various versions, not at the Vatican site, which hadn’t been updated, until about 4 years ago. Ugh.

Thank you. The correct link would then be:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[LittleSoldier]

LS:

You may be looking at a previous version of CCC 2267 and not the current, “final” one. I believe there were 2 or 3 changes before the final one was adopted. At one point I think I found 4-5 differnt versions being reviewed online.

The version I listed, is the most recent from the Vatican site, here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

I posted it exactly as presented.

If you have a more updated version, please let me know.

Thank you.

Thank you. The correct link would then be:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[chibi_1991]

… died (((((
I always look here yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is important.

I agree.

I think it important that this not be taken out of context.

I agree.

Please review the following, which deals with precisely those issues, the Cain and the Ambrose references.:

To Kill Another: Homicide and Natural Law, Graham James McAleer, Chapter “The State Privilege to Kill”, pgs 41-42, Transaction Publishers, 2010,
tinyurl.com/787u7cp

The bottom line is that vigilanty justice or justice imposed by individuals is prohibited and that justice must be imposed by the public authority. I think it clear in EV9, para 3, that PJPII agrees.

Ambrose: “God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”

Thank you for the citation and link. Unfortunately I would have to find a hard or Kindle copy of the entire book in order to place those pages in context. The part provided on-line is not complete. I read them but I want to be thorough. So I think this will have to wait until I can find a copy of the actual book.

We know that God, the Church and St. Ambrose never presented murder and execution as moral equivalents. Of course, no reasonable person would and we know that Ambrose would not do so.

It appears to me that you have presented a fallacy in logic here; it’s an ad hominem at the very least. I’m referring to the second sentence in which you state that no “reasonable” person would. Are you discussing the people making the argument or the argument itself?

Death penalty opponents though, often, claim that the murder of innocents is the moral equivalent of the execution of the guilty murderer, which many death penalty opponents also refer to as murder.

I am not claiming this nor have I seen anyone else in this thread making this claim. Therefore I question its relevance.

The Church has never made such a blatant moral error and I think She never could.

Again, I question the relevence of this statement.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LS:

You may be looking at a previous version of CCC 2267 and not the current, “final” one. I believe there were 2 or 3 changes before the final one was adopted. At one point I think I found 4-5 differnt versions being reviewed online.

The version I listed, is the most recent from the Vatican site, here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

I posted it exactly as presented.

If you have a more updated version, please let me know.

Thank you.

All I could find was the following:

United States Catholic Catechism for Adults by US Conference of Catholic Bishops (published on Jul 31, 2006) and I don’t think this is a revision *per se *but a re-wording to be used by adults.

I also found a Kindle edition published in 2011 but it’s probably the same as the one you have been using and put in wireless Kindle form (or for all I know it’s the one that was published in 1995. Also, knowing all the mistakes I have found in Kindle editions I would not put any trust in this one).

I think the one you are using is the latest. My hard copy was published in 1995 although I bought it a few years ago. I should have been more careful.

I didn’t know there were so many versions. I’ve been using the same link for quite awhile (it was recommended to me) but it just presents the reading without specifying which catechism it comes from. I do think it’s a good idea if we all use the same catechism so I’m going to switch to the one you are using and I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

BTW, there’s also the Catechism for Idiots - just in case anyone is interested.

 

[dudleysharp]

I don’t think that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a death penalty abolitionist. In *Evangelium Vitae *56 he stated the following:

snip

Blessed Pope John Paul II did not say that the death penalty cannot or **must not **used. He said it should be used only in cases of absolute necessity.

We disagree, both his quoted statements that you posted as well as the death penalty only being used in cases of absolute necessity" which are practically non existent support my position, as do many of his public statments.

Of course he couldn’t come out and say the death penalty is wrong, end it. That would fly in the face of 100 years of teachings. He did the most he could.

 

[LittleSoldier]

We disagree, both his quoted statements that you posted as well as the death penalty only being used in cases of absolute necessity" which are practically non existent support my position, as do many of his public statments.

Of course he couldn’t come out and say the death penalty is wrong, end it. That would fly in the face of 100 years of teachings. He did the most he could.

I am continually troubled and saddened by your comments about Blessed Pope John Paul II. When reading some of the comments that have been posted about him I feel that he is being attacked, that an accusation of disingenuity is being levelled against him, that he didn’t write or say what he really meant but only that with which he felt he could get away with.

This actually goes beyond an accusation of disingenuity. It implies that Blessed Pope John Paul II was deceitful and consciously so. That is a serious charge to level against the Vicar of Christ.

How does saying the death penalty should be used only in cases of absolute necessity support your position? (I believe your position is that all people convicted of murder should be executed? Please, if I am wrong about this let me know.) Blessed Pope John Paul II did not say that the death penalty cannot be used. He did not say that the use of the death penalty in all cases is wrong. He said what was quoted and he should be taken at his word. It doesn’t appear that that is what is happening.

I think that he should be given the benefit of the doubt, if there is any.

 

[LittleSoldier]

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

“he must be put to death” What do you think it means?

“You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty;” What do you think it means?

 

[surritter]

Please re-read:

2267 "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 - MEANING THE DEATH PENALTY ‘TODAY . . . ARE VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

PJPII is stating this as a fact issue. Good bye to the death penalty based upon a highly flawed secular conclusion.

To be honest, I have no concern here as to whether the DP is a wise punishment in today’s society. I’m focused on the “objective” discussion about the DP, not the “subjective,” which can change over the centuries. Recall that my beef on this thread is with the posts that claim that the DP is mandatory throughout all ages, based on a faulty theology of retribution.

However, isn’t it interesting how a quotation can be emphasized in a way that tries to draw a definitive conclusion that isn’t really meant by the quote! I notice that you stressed JPII’s counsel that the DP has no practical application in today’s society. But you didn’t use all caps for the conditional clause that states this is predicated on a society that has the means (and uses them).

So I’ll give the same quote from 2267, along with emphasis of my choosing:
“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.’”

Guess what … if the state doesn’t have those means, or chooses not to use them, then the DP’s cases of absolute necessity are NOT rare, nor non-existent.

Recall that I have no objection to capital punishment, if it’s necessary. I think that’s contrary to your position, and Ender’s, which claims that capital punishment is required, unless it creates a bigger problem. Two very different ideas!
[/quote]

 

[o_mlly]

…

Guess what … if the state doesn’t have those means, or chooses not to use them, then the DP’s cases of absolute necessity are NOT rare, nor non-existent.

Does not the choice to ***not ***use means that are available have a moral dimension in itself?

 

[surritter]

Of course it has a moral dimension. But how does that fact – that there is a choice – support the notion that capital punishment is inherently required in the case of murder?
It doesn’t.

 

[dudleysharp]

Of course he couldn’t come out and say the death penalty is wrong, end it. That would fly in the face of 100 years of teachings. He did the most he could.

That would be “2000” years of teachings, not 100. Ugh.