Do you support the death penalty?

[dudleysharp]

The eternal teaching is that execution is the just command for murder. Numbers 31 duplicates this command by stating there is no mitigation for a murderer, they must be executed. For every other capital crime, mitigation and reduction in sentence is possible.

It’s Numbers 35:31

 

[dudleysharp]

Academically and faithfully, Hardon was a remarkable man.

about Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

therealpresence.org/archives/archives.htm
saintphilomena.com/newpage4.htm
credo.stormloader.com/Saints/hardon.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

Thank you. This is the problem I have with Ender’s comments. I agree that the Church teaches that the death penalty can be used. I don’t think there is anyone in this thread who has disagreed with that. But there is a big difference between “may be used in some cases” and “should be used in all cases.”

 

[dudleysharp]

Only the Lord, our God can take a life. The death penalty is murder. Abortion is murder. Murder is murder - you can not call it anything else but what it does - end a life.

This is, plainly, not true.

All killing is killing, a physical act with no morality attached.

When you attach Church teachings, reason and morality, you have a Church that, under certain circumstanced approves killing in self defense, defense of others, a just war and executions of wrongdoers.

That is very clear, even today, in Church teachings.

By Church teachings, abortion is always an intrinsic evil

 

[Dolores49]

Are your parish Justice & Peace groups confusing you on this issue?? Our archbishop has declared that it’s a goal of the archdiocese to abolish the death penalty. Abolishionist and community organizer Helen Prejean was on a one week speaking tour here last week. She gives around 140 speeches a year around the U.S. Don’t doubt her influence! fidelityandaction.wordpress.com/sr-helen-prejean-dossier/

It’s one thing to personally oppose the DP; it’s quite another to say the Church is against it. That is simply untrue.

Yes I support the death penalty. Google “murderers released from prison murder again.” It protects society. It’s not meant to be a deterrent, it never was. It’s a just punishment.

When I look at the number of executions of individuals tried by jury of their peers, with the aid of an attorney, with delays/appeals, and found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt since 1976 — 1,273 deaths; and then compare that to the number innocent unborn babies aborted since 1973 – 53,652,817 — I conclude that capitol punishment is meted out “rarely” as proscribed in the Catechism #2276.

Good resource: Patrick Madrid on Catholic Answers Live: Death Penalty explained. It’s worth a download. The show touches on all the confusion and concludes that Catholics can in good conscience support the death penalty.

Sources: number of executions www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976 ;
number of abortions meter at www.all.org .

 

[dudleysharp]

Yes I support the death penalty. Google “murderers released from prison murder again.” It protects society. It’s not meant to be a deterrent, it never was. It’s a just punishment.

I think all law makers and most folks believe that the prospects of legal sanctions deter some from committing crime, just as they believe the absense of laws would result in chaos.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There is no exception - certainly not the most severe of criminal sanctions, execution.

Justice is the primary purpose of sanction, but saving innocent lives is also an important secondary effect from sanction.

There have been 27 US studies, since 2000, finding for death penalty deterrence.

Regarding Sister Prejean

Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

 

[Ender]

The article makes an assertion about the Fathers, that they “unanimously” supported capital punishment. … Of course this is ludicrous, because I have read the Fathers Writings and can vouch - as can any historian - that they unequivocally opposed capital punishment.

I’d like to revisit this exchange between Vouthon and myself. I had quoted Cardinal Dulles saying that “*the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment”, *a claim Vouthon rejected with the opposite claim that they *“unequivocally opposed capital punishment.” *We engaged in a brief exchange of contrary citations and that’s where things ended.

Since then I found this comment by Fr. John Hardon:

*From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist.
*

• Two names especially stand out that wrote belligerently against all war, and therefore espoused universal pacifism. Tertullian, 160-220, and Lactantius, 240-320 also fought strenuously against capital punishment of condemned criminals.*
• At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil.

Lactantius was one of the citations Vouthon provided and I think it is clear that Fr. Hardon believed, as did Cardinal Dulles, that the early Fathers accepted the right of States to employ capital punishment.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, I am pointing out the fact that 2267 contains error and opinion, both claims which are fairly easy to defend.

Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear. When a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *are placed at the beginning of a document it means that document DOES NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH CHURCH TEACHING. That is why those two little terms are so important. Yet, you have taken it upon yourself to state that the current CCC CONTAINS SOMETHING THAT GOES AGAINST CHURCH TEACHING. What gives you the authority to do so? Have you contacted Rome to let the Pope and the rest of the Magisterium know that you have decided that an official Church document, complete with a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *contains ERROR? Do you realize what that would mean, if it were indeed true?

It would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against God’s Church or that Jesus was lying when He founded His Church or that Jesus just wasn’t very good at founding a Church or that He was joking around with Peter when He founded His Church.

As I said before, one cannot prove a negative so I cannot prove that there are no Church documents that support the position expressed in 2267. I can say, however, that I have found nothing in any of the (five) catechisms preceding the current one, nor from any previous pope, nor any council, nor - significantly - has anyone else provide such a reference. The closest thing I have found was in the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1)… 2)…
3) By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.

Now, before you make too much out of this, it should be recognized that “the preservation of law and order and the good of the community” would also include an acknowledgement of the obligation of justice. Given that when Vatican City was created in 1929 (less than 40 years after the Baltimore Catechism was promulgated) it included the death penalty in its laws, I think it is clear how they understood that phrase. In any event, the Baltimore Catechism was written by the Third Council of Baltimore for Catholics in North America, it was not a universal catechism.

Ender

Please answer the following question:

Is the death penalty the only just punishment for murder?

 

[Ender]

Just to follow up - as I know this has been a burning question for everyone here - I also just discovered this comment from Steven A. Long of the University of St. Thomas (MN):

It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church(1) that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).

(1) The two exceptions are Tertullian, who died outside the Church, and Lactantius.

thomist.org/jourl/1999/994aLong.htm

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Just to follow up - as I know this has been a burning question for everyone here - I also just discovered this comment from Steven A. Long of the University of St. Thomas (MN):

It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church(1) that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).

(1) The two exceptions are Tertullian, who died outside the Church, and Lactantius.

thomist.org/jourl/1999/994aLong.htm

Ender

People are NOT saying that the use of the death penalty is not morally licit. What people are saying (and what it appears you either cannot understand or refuse to understand) is that TODAY it is NOT NECESSARY IN MOST INSTANCES TO EXECUTE A MURDERER AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE INNOCENT CAN BE PROTECTED WITHOUT IT.

Why do you mention that Tertullian died outside the Church? Are you implying that because of that allegation whatever he had said that doesn’t back your position is untrustworthy, moot, WRONG? And how do you (or anyone else here) know that Tertullian died outside the Church? Does the Church teach that she knows what happened at the point of Tertullian’s death? Does the Church teach that she knows what happened to Tertullian - that he is now residing in hell, Purgatory, or heaven? It’s my understanding that the Church teaches that she does not know what happens at the point of death and that, with the exception of canonized saints, she does not know who is is in heaven, hell, and Purgatory.

So why even mention it?

 

[Ender]

Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear. When a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *are placed at the beginning of a document it means that document DOES NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH CHURCH TEACHING. That is why those two little terms are so important. Yet, you have taken it upon yourself to state that the current CCC CONTAINS SOMETHING THAT GOES AGAINST CHURCH TEACHING.

2267 contains prudential opinion. This is not “against” Church teaching, it is an application of that teaching to a particular circumstance, but, inasmuch as it is prudential and not doctrinal, we are not obligated to assent to it.

*Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)

What gives you the authority to do so? Have you contacted Rome to let the Pope and the rest of the Magisterium know that you have decided that an official Church document, complete with a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *contains ERROR?

I have simply echoed the observation of a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University and I suspect his opinion is known to others.

Do you realize what that would mean, if it were indeed true?

Yes, it would mean nothing at all. It is incorrect on a matter of fact, not a matter of doctrine. The Church used to believe the sun circled the Earth. It was incorrect on that matter of fact as well and the condition of the gates of Hell was unaffected by that error.

Please answer the following question: Is the death penalty the only just punishment for murder?

No … but the answer depends on an understanding of what constitutes a just punishment.

*The larger justice owed to society requires even further medicinal elements beyond the manifestation of the transcendent order of justice–we do not wish to punish in a particular case, if doing so would induce worse moral disturbances in society at large.

**If imposing a penalty will bring about more disorder than it seeks to check, and so foreseeably fail to manifest the transcendent order of justice, its imposition is unjust **because it is counter to the very teleology of just penalty. But the teleology of just penalty is a teleology of penalty. *(Steven A. Long, University of St. Thomas)

What he’s saying here is that the particular retribution owed the individual because of his crime must be tempered by the “larger justice” owed to society. Because of differing circumstances, therefore, there is no particular punishment that is just for every instance of the same crime.

Ender
*

 

[Ender]

People are NOT saying that the use of the death penalty is not morally licit. What people are saying (and what it appears you either cannot understand or refuse to understand) is that TODAY it is NOT NECESSARY IN MOST INSTANCES TO EXECUTE A MURDERER AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE INNOCENT CAN BE PROTECTED WITHOUT IT.

It would help you to understand what I’m saying if you would read my comments in context. What I was addressing was solely the claim Vouthon made that the early Fathers were unanimous in their condemnation of capital punishment. That is, he claimed they were saying it was not morally licit. The citations I provided (from three different sources) all directly contradict his claim and say the exact opposite: that the early Fathers were virtually unanimous in their recognition of the validity of its use.

Why do you mention that Tertullian died outside the Church? Are you implying that because of that allegation whatever he had said that doesn’t back your position is untrustworthy, moot, WRONG? And how do you (or anyone else here) know that Tertullian died outside the Church?

Again, context is everything. “I” did not mention that Tertullian died outside the Church, that was the end note provided by the author. Everything was in italics showing it was a citation and not my comment. Did you think I entered the end note into his document and then provided my own commentary on it? Did you really think I would know that Tertullian and Lactantius were the only two Fathers who opposed the death penalty? If I had known that I would surely have said so before this. I am, however, pretty inclined to believe it now inasmuch as both Fr. Hardon and Professor Long said exactly the same thing (in the two citations I just provided).

So why even mention it?

I have the feeling you would challenge me if I said no more than “It’s a nice day.” I think if you ascribed higher motives to my comments they would be less likely to set you off.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

It would help you to understand what I’m saying if you would read my comments in context. What I was addressing was solely the claim Vouthon made that the early Fathers were unanimous in their condemnation of capital punishment. That is, he claimed they were saying it was not morally licit. The citations I provided (from three different sources) all directly contradict his claim and say the exact opposite: that the early Fathers were virtually unanimous in their recognition of the validity of its use.

Dude, I know that. So? I was not disagreeing with you. I was asking why you can’t seem to understand the basics of what almost everyone who is posting in this thread is saying. Please try to look at it this way: there is a post. You respond to the post with a quote. I respond to your post and ADD something that is relevant when taking your quote into consideration. What I am saying is that we don’t disagree with what you quoted. Well, maybe a few people do, but not most of us. I am asking why it appears that you can’t understand that we agree that the Church teaches that the death penalty is morally licit but that it is not the same as saying the Church teaches that the death penalty should be used in every instance.

Again, context is everything. “I” did not mention that Tertullian died outside the Church, that was the end note provided by the author. Everything was in italics showing it was a citation and not my comment. Did you think I entered the end note into his document and then provided my own commentary on it? Did you really think I would know that Tertullian and Lactantius were the only two Fathers who opposed the death penalty? If I had known that I would surely have said so before this. I am, however, pretty inclined to believe it now inasmuch as both Fr. Hardon and Professor Long said exactly the same thing (in the two citations I just provided).
I have the feeling you would challenge me if I said no more than “It’s a nice day.” I think if you ascribed higher motives to my comments they would be less likely to set you off.

Ender

I’m not surprised. You’ve accused me of saying Clement was anti-Christian even though even a scarce glance at my response should have been enough to let even a poor reader know that I was addressing merely a quote and when I complained, my post was ignored. I’ve seen you add your opinions as to what the Church is teaching so many times that the two are becoming perhaps irreconcilably enmeshed in my mind. You seem to represent yourself as an expert in Church teaching and I have no idea why you would think you are such.

In other words, I now have absolutely no idea what is yours and what is the Church’s and what belongs to the people you quote.

There is never any reason to quote everything an author stated. In fact, we’re really supposed to keep our posts short and to the point. Yet you include a little, perhaps insignificant opinion in the last line of the quote. Why? Why did you quote that? Do you normally post parts of quotes that are irrelevant and even perhaps confusing? When I see a quote I try to read the entire quote and I assume that what is being quoted is being quoted for a good reason. Isn’t that why you post quotes? That’s why I post quotes and why I don’t post extraneous material, even if I could post it as part of the same quote.

I think you put that part of the quote in on purpose and for the reasons I stated. As for “it’s a nice day” - yes it is a nice day as I happen to love rain and the aroma of burning firewood. I subscribe motives to people as I see fit. Perhaps it might help if you understood that when you quote something, people are going to read the whole quote and come to their conclusions (probably) based on the whole quote.

 

[Ender]

There is never any reason to quote everything an author stated. In fact, we’re really supposed to keep our posts short and to the point. Yet you include a little, perhaps insignificant opinion in the last line of the quote. Why? Why did you quote that?

The author was clarifying what he meant by the phrase “nearly unanimous”. That is, it meant all of the early Fathers with the exception of only Tertullian and Lactantius. That was significant because it matched exactly with what Fr. Hardon had said in my previous post and it seemed reasonable to make that point.

Ender

 

[dstoudi]

really oddhttp://yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html I can’t explain this

 

[kamilm]

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

 

[mgadecka]

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

 

[passer_by]

Dude, I know that. So? I was not disagreeing with you. I was asking why you can’t seem to understand the basics of what almost everyone who is posting in this thread is saying. Please try to look at it this way: there is a post. You respond to the post with a quote. I respond to your post and ADD something that is relevant when taking your quote into consideration. What I am saying is that we don’t disagree with what you quoted. Well, maybe a few people do, but not most of us. I am asking why it appears that you can’t understand that we agree that the Church teaches that the death penalty is morally licit but that it is not the same as saying the Church teaches that the death penalty should be used in every instance.

I’m not surprised. You’ve accused me of saying Clement was anti-Christian even though even a scarce glance at my response should have been enough to let even a poor reader know that I was addressing merely a quote and when I complained, my post was ignored. I’ve seen you add your opinions as to what the Church is teaching so many times that the two are becoming perhaps irreconcilably enmeshed in my mind. You seem to represent yourself as an expert in Church teaching and I have no idea why you would think you are such.

In other words, I now have absolutely no idea what is yours and what is the Church’s and what belongs to the people you quote.

There is never any reason to quote everything an author stated. In fact, we’re really supposed to keep our posts short and to the point. Yet you include a little, perhaps insignificant opinion in the last line of the quote. Why? Why did you quote that? Do you normally post parts of quotes that are irrelevant and even perhaps confusing? When I see a quote I try to read the entire quote and I assume that what is being quoted is being quoted for a good reason. Isn’t that why you post quotes? That’s why I post quotes and why I don’t post extraneous material, even if I could post it as part of the same quote.

I think you put that part of the quote in on purpose and for the reasons I stated. As for “it’s a nice day” - yes it is a nice day as I happen to love rain and the aroma of burning firewood. I subscribe motives to people as I see fit. Perhaps it might help if you understood that when you quote something, people are going to read the whole quote and come to their conclusions (probably) based on the whole quote.

I think it safe to say that some people have made up their mind. I feel that Ender has made a decision that death penalty must be defended and probably has done so in the past. So it is more of a defense on his part rather than a discussion with the possibility of changing.

 

[Leegal]

A couple of thoughts. It has always seemed contradictory to me to be pro-life, to be against abortion, but to be in favor of the death penalty as some of my friends are.

We are all made in the image of God, however He has also given us free will. So, while we are all God’s children, our free will determines the choices we make. God allows us to make these bad choices.

Murder of another is a terrible sin, but secular law is no deterrent. No one sits down and actually thinks of the possibilty of a death penalty before going ahead and comitting murder. Most people, in fact, are killed by someone they know. And most are heat of the moment decisions – so deterrence never comes up.

I know that the Church has had a long history of being anti-death penalty - as I am. I also realize that Popel John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae" that there are cases of absolute necessity which may warrant the death penalty. I find this puzzling, knowing that the Church has long been an opponent of the death penalty. Pope Benedict XVI recently attempted to intercede on behalf of a condemned man who was executed here in the U.S.

Though we are led to believe that most Americans still support a death penalty, the question is not whether you support a death penalty but rather, **“would you support a death penalty if there was an enforceable life without parole (LWOP) penalty?” **When presented with options, most Americans do not favor a death penalty.

I had posted earlier about how the Supermax system is used for the worst of the offenders. Assuming that that the states and federal government would enforce a true LWOP, I would save a life rather than take it. I don’t believe that it’s God’s intention that there be state sponsored killing.

If one believes that all life is sacred, I don’t see how anyone can favor the death penalty. I see no difference between the unborn child and the murderer in terms of “life” – only their deeds or actions differ. The murderer’s life is of no less value – it’s his/her deeds that distinguish him - but it is still a life. Only God should determine the time of our death – not goverment.

I would repeat the question – would you support a death penalty if a true LWOP were in place that included incarceration in a Supermax facility?

(we already have and use the Supermax facilities; it’s the parole system that is the failure).

 

[estesbob]

A couple of thoughts. It has always seemed contradictory to me to be pro-life, to be against abortion, but to be in favor of the death penalty as some of my friends are.

?

There is never a contradiction when one adheres to the teachings of the Church.

As far as answering your question I don’t support the death penalty in any circumstances regardless of whether or not life without parole is available. I acknowledged however, that Catholics in good conscience can disagree with my view and can support the death penalty and still be in total compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.