Do you support the death penalty?

[Ender]

are you saying that you believe that the application of capital punishment could be excused even if circumstances justify not applying it?

No. Just as JPII recognized circumstances that justify its use I recognize circumstances that justify not using it. For him the default position would be not to apply capital punishment; for me the default position would be to use it. Both of us accept that circumstances can reverse the default position.

May I please ask which circumstances do not justify its use and why you feel that it is still excusable to use it even if those circumstances exist?

Well obviously I don’t excuse using capital punishment if it is not justified but I will not get into specifics now about what circumstances may justify a lesser punishment. That’s not a discussion we need to have now and it would just distract us from the greater question of whether justice alone would call for its use in any case at all.

Ender

 

[sulkow82]

I voted “other/ it depends.”
I believe that in very rare cases where to let someone live would mean they are a danger to others or themselves. This would mean even life in prison is not enough confinement to keep them from being a threat. Under these circumstances, then the death penalty is a valid but sad option.
I seriously believe that it is over-used.

 

[surritter]

JPII’s position was that capital punishment should not be used but could be applied if circumstances justified it. My position is that capital punishment should be used but could be excused if circumstances justified not applying it. I think most circumstances justify its use; JPII thought most circumstances did not. Don’t read more into my position than I put there.

Welcome back from your trip

Let’s study this claim from your post a bit more:
JPII’s position was a non-binding addition (that it shouldn’t be used today, or “prudential” if you prefer) to a definitive Church teaching (DP can be used if needed).

Your position is that capital punishment must be used (because of a definitive Church teaching) unless circumstances justify not using it (the “prudential” part).

Is that a fair summary? If so, can you see the difference? The two “definitive Church teachings” that are there conflict with each other. And it’s very easy to see which one conforms with the Catholic Church.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is a statement that the Vatican considers the death penalty an affront to human dignity. What I asked for was an explanation of why it is an affront. What makes it contrary to human dignity?

Ender

I believe the words written by the Holy See explain this. I don’t think I can do a better job.

 

[surritter]

Obviously we haven’t covered this topic sufficiently given that you still don’t recognize that redress and retribution are the same thing.

Correct; they aren’t the same thing. We all agree that the primary purpose of punishment is “redress.” But wny must redress equate 100% with retribution? And even if that were true, why must “retribution” equate 100% will killing the offender?

Yes, we are dealing with elements of each. But don’t take things to the extreme, then present it as Church teaching.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No. Just as JPII recognized circumstances that justify its use I recognize circumstances that justify not using it. For him the default position would be not to apply capital punishment; for me the default position would be to use it. Both of us accept that circumstances can reverse the default position.

Thank you. Your statement appeared to be ambiguous to me and I misunderstood it. I misunderstood your use of the word “excused.” I thought you meant that the use of capital punishment could be excused while at the same time circumstances could exist that would not justify its use. That didn’t make any sense to me. (Please understand that I have read comments on this forum that defy all logic and common sense; that’s why I wanted to be *sure *of your position.)

Well obviously I don’t excuse using capital punishment if it is not justified but I will not get into specifics now about what circumstances may justify a lesser punishment. That’s not a discussion we need to have now and it would just distract us from the greater question of whether justice alone would call for its use in any case at all.

Ender

The question I asked here was based on my mistaken understanding of your position and is moot, at least at this point. I agree that this is not the place to introduce this part of the subject of capital punishment.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I voted “other/ it depends.”
I believe that in very rare cases where to let someone live would mean they are a danger to others or themselves. This would mean even life in prison is not enough confinement to keep them from being a threat. Under these circumstances, then the death penalty is a valid but sad option.
I seriously believe that it is over-used.

Very good post; especially your point that the death penalty is a valid but sad option. It is indeed sad for everyone involved. I think that often is forgotten.

I agree that it is over-used.

 

[surritter]

As for your dismissal of those sources for being non-Magisterial, are you really suggesting that everything not written in a Magisterial document is irrelevant and is to be ignored? Do you ignore what your priest says? He is, after all, not part of the Magisterium. You should at least consider the possibility that your position, since it survives solely by dismissing every contrary opinion (including from the Church herself), is inherently weak.

Wait a minute…You are telling me that I should consider the possibility that my position is weak, yet your position, which you admit is quite different from that of the Catechism and the previous pontiff, is the correct one? Ouch.
But this serves as a perfect lead-in to my point:
We can obviously use non-Magisterial documents, if they indeed provide an adequate explanation of why a Magisterial document means what we purport it to mean. For instance, in post #566 you quoted from Christopher Kaczor. But it was a mere snippet that made it sound like he supports your position that the DP is required, simply due to the need for justice.

Yet here is a fuller quotation from Mr. Kaczor that actually explains why it is false to say that the DP is required:

St. Augustine, Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Newman, and the Catholic tradition as a whole has accepted capital punishment. Indeed, both the Old Testament (Gn 9:6) and the New Testament (Rom 13:4) seemingly endorse the death penalty. How then are we to understand John Paul’s teaching?

Some people are tempted to think it is a simple reversal or rejection of traditional Catholic teaching. To see why this is not the case, let’s consider both the traditional and contemporary Catholic teaching in greater detail.

First, it is important to remember that traditional Catholic teaching never claimed that the state must impose the death penalty. In this, the Catholic view differs from, for example, the view of Immanuel Kant. Kant held that it was a strict duty, a duty that must be discharged, to execute those guilty of capital crimes.

By contrast, St. Thomas held that the government has the responsibility to protect the common good by means of just punishments, but he does not specify that one particular crime (e.g. murder) must always and in every case be punished in one particular way (capital punishment).

(source: “This Rock” magazine, July 2010, vol. 21, no. 4, available at catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty)

If there is a diversity of allowable punishments, as given in that last sentence, then your notion of redress=retribution=capital punishment doesn’t quite square with things.
Now you see why I am sometimes suspect of non-Magisterial quotes.

 

[surritter]

I understand that you consider Dulles’ understanding of Church teaching on punishment irrelevant, nonetheless he identifies four objectives for punishment. Can you tell me which one you believe means “redress”? The Church has said there is a primary objective of punishment: so - what is it?

I don’t consider it irrelevant, but as shown in my last post, people sometimes skew a source’s words to present something that isn’t really there. We all agree that the primary objective of punishment is “redress.” But you are asking which of the four items given by Dulles is the primary one. He clearly doesn’t hold one up as primary, nor do I.
Allow me to give a quotation from his document that you referred to earlier. The emphasis is mine, but certainly tell me if I’m misrepresenting him:

The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt.

source=catholiceducation.org/art…on/re0461.html

I believe you have written several times that the Church teaches capital punishment to be a necessity, unless prudence deems it unwise. My reading of this would say that Cardinal Dulles doesn’t agree with that position.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Wait a minute…You are telling me that I should consider the possibility that my position is weak, yet your position, which you admit is quite different from that of the Catechism and the previous pontiff, is the correct one? Ouch.
But this serves as a perfect lead-in to my point:
We can obviously use non-Magisterial documents, if they indeed provide an adequate explanation of why a Magisterial document means what we purport it to mean. For instance, in post #566 you quoted from Christopher Kaczor. But it was a mere snippet that made it sound like he supports your position that the DP is required, simply due to the need for justice.

Yet here is a fuller quotation from Mr. Kaczor that actually explains why it is false to say that the DP is required:
(source: “This Rock” magazine, July 2010, vol. 21, no. 4, available at catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty)

If there is a diversity of allowable punishments, as given in that last sentence, then your notion of redress=retribution=capital punishment doesn’t quite square with things.
Now you see why I am sometimes suspect of non-Magisterial quotes.

Thank you. I checked post #566 but there was no link or proper reference regarding Mr. Kaczor’s alleged quote. I wonder if one will be provided.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I will be praying for you in your discernment for being in communion with the Catholic Church

And I will join with you in prayer and ask that you pray for me, also.

 

[dudleysharp]

*Au contraire! *They *do *stand and have stood for years - and we, as Catholics (actually I have no idea if you are Catholic) are required to follow what has been presented by the Magisterium - the teaching *authority *of the Church.

No, you are not.The teaching is a prudential judgement, with which any good Catholic may disagree.

I think this has been reviewed several times.

2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 “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.” catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, you are not.The teaching is a prudential judgement, with which any good Catholic may disagree.

I think this has been reviewed several times.

2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 “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.” catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004

Has section 2267 been removed from the CCC? No. Have the *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *been revoked? No. Has *Evangelium Vitae *been revoked by the Church? No. Therefore they stand.

Has section 2267 been present in the CCC for a number of years? Yes. Has *Evangelium Vitae *been distributed and kept for use in the Vatican for a number of years? Yes. Therefore they have stood for a number of years.

What am I not? Are you actually saying that I am not required to follow the teaching of the Church founded by God Himself? The teachings presented by the teaching authority of the Church founded by Jesus? The Church that Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against?

If I believed you for one second I would be forced to leave the Church. Fortunately I don’t believe you. We are required to follow the teachings of the Church. Perhaps you aren’t as perhaps you aren’t Catholic. I am. I know what I am supposed to do.

 

[surritter]

Thank you. I checked post #566 but there was no link or proper reference regarding Mr. Kaczor’s alleged quote. I wonder if one will be provided.

I don’t doubt that it’s a legit quote. But like always, context is key! BTW, I don’t think his quote was from the same article as mine.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t doubt that it’s a legit quote. But like always, context is key!

I’m sure it’s legit, too. I doubt that any poster in this thread would introduce a bogus quote. I just like to be able to read the original work, if possible.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip

Are you actually saying that I am not required to follow the teaching of the Church founded by God Himself? The teachings presented by the teaching authority of the Church founded by Jesus? The Church that Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against?

If I believed you for one second I would be forced to leave the Church. Fortunately I don’t believe you. We are required to follow the teachings of the Church. Perhaps you aren’t as perhaps you aren’t Catholic. I am. I know what I am supposed to do.

No need to believe me. You are disagreeing with Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, not me. Did you not read the passage?

Obviously not.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No need to believe me. You are disagreeing with Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, not me. Did you not read the passage?

Obviously not.

I read the entire article. Where does the passage or article state that I don’t have to follow Church teaching? Cardinal Ratzinger stated no such thing in the passage you quoted or the article as a whole and even if he had it would not have mattered. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, not any bishop on his own (with the exception of the Pope speaking *ex cathdra *on matters of faith and morals) and not the USCCB. Also, what was stated is true and I have no problems with it. I already knew everything that is presented in that passage and I agree with it. I’m not arguing with Cardinal Ratzinger at all; I agree with him.

 

[A_G]

In extreme cases, the Catholic Church allows for the support of the death penalty.

St. Thomas Aquinas was also a supporter of the death penalty. We are not to use the death penalty as a form of revenge on the sinner, however, it can be used to protect society. If there is no other way to protect society, the death penalty is allowed for extreme cases according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so it is ok for us to support it. Capital Punishment can be used to make people think twice before causing horrible crimes also.

 

[MontChevalier]

I am leaning against the Death Penalty myself, but in extreme cases, I would agree with the catechism that it should be employed.

-MontChevalier

 

[Ender]

Welcome back from your trip

Thank you. It went well.

Let’s study this claim from your post a bit more:
JPII’s position was a non-binding addition (that it shouldn’t be used today, or “prudential” if you prefer) to a definitive Church teaching (DP can be used if needed). Your position is that capital punishment must be used (because of a definitive Church teaching) unless circumstances justify not using it (the “prudential” part).

Why do you keep trying to rephrase my position? I have explained what I believe and I have never used the word “must”. My position was clearly laid out in post #632 but it’s short so I’ll repeat it:

For [JPII] the default position would be not to apply capital punishment; for me the default position would be to use it. Both of us accept that circumstances can reverse the default position.

Ender