Does the Church teach that the Death Penalty

[Ender]

"As a surgeon is allowed to amputate a limb to protect the welfare of the whole body, so, too, public magistrates, to whom the welfare of the community is entrusted, have the authority to inflict the death penalty on dangerous criminals whose crimes would be gravely detrimental to the good of society if left unpunished or if subject to a lesser penalty. Holy Scripture justifies capital punishment when it says: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God man was made.’ Gen. 9,6.

This is similar to what 2267 says but I would draw your attention to this phrase: “have the authority to inflict the death penalty on dangerous criminals.” Actually, the state has the authority to inflict the death penalty only on someone who has committed a crime for which death is the just punishment. We don’t get to execute someone simply because he is dangerous.

This passage is better than 2267 in this regard, however, in that it states some “crimes would be gravely detrimental to the good of society if left unpunished or if subject to a lesser penalty.” This seems to me to recognize the obligation of justice and that the overall good of society includes satisfying that obligation … and that capital punishment can be a valid form of retributive justice.
If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

C’mon Ender, just seems funny to me that the first time a murder happens in human history God goes out of His way to make sure that no one harms Cain. Does this story answer the debate: no, Does it offer insight: yes

I don’t support my positions with personal interpretations of scripture and I don’t accept anyone elses personal interpretation as valid either. Show me where the Church applies Cain’s situation to her position on capital punishment and I’ll accept it, but if the Church doesn’t use that story - and I have never seen a Church document that does - then I don’t consider it applicable. She has, however, repeatedly referenced Gn 9:6, which is why I keep referring to that passage.

Ender

 

[Birdpreacher]

It is wrong to paint a moral equivalence between support of abortion and supporting the death penalty And whether you want to admit it or not it is the kind of rationale that lead 52% of Catholics to support the most pro-abortion president in history of the country

Regards to Obama being the most pro-abortion president ever, that is debatable, just ask the Vatican Newspaper

The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano explained today to Paulo Rodari, a Vatican analyst for the daily “Il Riformista,” that President Barack Obama’s speech to graduates of Notre Dame was very respectful and that he “is not a pro-abortion president.”

'catholicnewsagency.com/news/editor_of_vatican_newspaper_says_obama_is_not_proabortion/

 

[Birdpreacher]

I don’t support my positions with personal interpretations of scripture and I don’t accept anyone elses personal interpretation as valid either. Show me where the Church applies Cain’s situation to her position on capital punishment and I’ll accept it, but if the Church doesn’t use that story - and I have never seen a Church document that does - then I don’t consider it applicable. She has, however, repeatedly referenced Gn 9:6, which is why I keep referring to that passage.

Ender

So what pretend that God didn’t just allow Cain to live after he killed Abel? I am all for Church sanctioned interpretation of scripture, but to read the story of Cain and Abel and not come to the conclusion that God is telling people not to kill Cain, seems rather silly. It s an act of ittellectual dishonesty to read that story and not see that it states that God spared Cain and told others not to kill him. I am just reciting the facts of the passage (As to why that happened it would be unfair for me to say that it was because God, from day one was anti-DP, and I am not trying to do that)

Is anything I said contrary to the story in the Bible? Did I recite the facts of the story in a manner inconsistent with how they are presented as the Coucil of Trent Recognized them?

 

[vz71]

And how exactly does my analogy show any twisting at all? Both “pro-life=no death penalty” and “I like Coca-Cola=I like cocaine” are…

I have never tried to make the argument “pro-life = no death penalty”
That in itself is and example of the twisting I spoke of.

 

[Hastrman]

I have never tried to make the argument “pro-life = no death penalty”
That in itself is and example of the twisting I spoke of.

But it is a common argument, one I have shown to be fallacious. It is in fact mentioned specifically in the OP.

Other than when you accused me of “twisting” and “adding my own meanings to words then running away with the distortion”, I have never once—in my life—responded specifically to any argument you have ever made.

Did you think I cared what you thought?

 

[vz71]

But it is a common argument, one I have shown to be fallacious. It is in fact mentioned specifically in the OP.

Other than when you accused me of “twisting” and “adding my own meanings to words then running away with the distortion”, I have never once—in my life—responded specifically to any argument you have ever made.

Did you think I cared what you thought?

Perhaps the best way for you to demonstrate a lack of caring what I think is to simply not respond.
Of course, given the responses I have gained from you, it would be difficult to sell the argument that you do not care.

Still, if it is your intent to offend or wound, I will try to be, just let me know which I should feel.

 

[Hastrman]

Perhaps the best way for you to demonstrate a lack of caring what I think is to simply not respond.
Of course, given the responses I have gained from you, it would be difficult to sell the argument that you do not care.

Still, if it is your intent to offend or wound, I will try to be, just let me know which I should feel.

I only responded to that post because you were lying about me. Otherwise, if a post I responded to was yours, I was responding to an idea contained within it.

Again, did you think I noticed your name on it? Did you think I regard you as some nemesis, as some worthy opponent whose brilliant arguments I must refute at all costs?

Get over yourself.

That’s what “I have not specifically responded to you” meant.

If you have anything further to say about me I will report you for personal attacks.

 

[estesbob]

Regards to Obama being the most pro-abortion president ever, that is debatable, just ask the Vatican Newspaper

'catholicnewsagency.com/news/editor_of_vatican_newspaper_says_obama_is_not_proabortion/

If you had bothered to read your link you would have seen the Vatican Newspapaewr printed two articles -one “pro” and one “con” concering Obama. Both made it clear they were “opinion pieces” and you chose only to link to the “pro” article. Even Obama admits his support for unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. Again the only people denyng this are those claiming to be pro-life but desperatley trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion canidates

 

[Birdpreacher]

If you had bothered to read your link you would have seen the Vatican Newspapaewr printed two articles -one “pro” and one “con” concering Obama. Both made it clear they were “opinion pieces” and you chose only to link to the “pro” article. Even Obama admits his support for unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. Again the only people denyng this are those claiming to be pro-life but desperatley trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion canidates

de·bat·a·bleAdjective/diˈbātəbəl/

1. Open to discussion or argument.

Go figure they wrote 2 pieces, I guess that makes the assertion that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever…

 

[Corki]

de·bat·a·bleAdjective/diˈbātəbəl/

1. Open to discussion or argument.

Go figure they wrote 2 pieces, I guess that makes the assertion that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever…

I think the contention is that you quoted the statement as if it was the position of the Vatican newspaper. It was published by the paper but was not endorsed any more than the contrary position was.

No one is questioning your use of the word “debatable”.

 

[vz71]

If you have anything further to say about me I will report you for personal attacks.

I believe there is difficulty in discerning a contention with the logic and contention with the individual.
If I am utilizing ad hominem rather then engaging the logic contained in the argument, then I should be reported. But I do not believe this is the case.
I am addressing what the CCC says as well as the history of the church on this particular issue to guide my opinioin on the matter.

The church has always maintained that the state has the authority to execute people under specific circumstances.
Given that now the church wishes to editorialize these circumstances, it seems the church is leaning towards the idea that all life is precious and has a dignity that should be held. Therefore we should work towards a solution that does not require usage of the death penalty.
But until such a system is in place, we must act properly to protect the innocent from an unjust aggresor.

 

[Hastrman]

I believe there is difficulty in discerning a contention with the logic and contention with the individual.
If I am utilizing ad hominem rather then engaging the logic contained in the argument, then I should be reported. But I do not believe this is the case.

One of the forum rules—did you know?—is “assume good faith”. This you did not do. You accused me of making up definitions and twisting arguments.

It is inconceivable to me that you cannot understand why someone would object to that.

 

[vz71]

One of the forum rules—did you know?—is “assume good faith”. This you did not do. You accused me of making up definitions and twisting arguments.

It is inconceivable to me that you cannot understand why someone would object to that.

If the argument can stand scrutiny, let it.
If it cannot, abandon it.

I have made my position clear.
There are other arguments I have seen that appear persuasive, but I like mine.
It stands scrutiny.

If someone believes my contentions concerning the death penalty are in error, I am open to the debate.

 

[Ender]

Given that now the church wishes to editorialize these circumstances, it seems the church is leaning towards the idea that all life is precious and has a dignity that should be held. Therefore we should work towards a solution that does not require usage of the death penalty.

I think this is the kind of thinking 2267 logically forces on us, but I don’t think it is at all logical based on the nature of the Church herself. Are you really comfortable with the idea that the Church, after nearly 2000 years, is just now coming to appreciate* “the idea that all life is precious?”* I think we are becoming way too comfortable with the idea that the modern Church has gone beyond the ancient Church. The Church’s teachings are timeless and while natural development is to be expected - and appreciated - there are some things that don’t fall into the category of development … and gaining a new appreciation for life would be one of those things.

Ender

 

[Hastrman]

If the argument can stand scrutiny, let it.
if it cannot, abandon it.

I have made my position clear.
There are other arguments I have seen that appear persuasive, but I like mine.
It stands scrutiny.

If someone believe my contentions concerning the death penalty are in error, I am open to the debate.

I AM NOT DEBATING YOUR CONTENTIONS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY I AM DEBATING YOUR MANIFEST MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT MY POSTS.

That you wish to take words, add your own meaning, and then run away with the distortion is not my problem.

Pro-life indicates an opposition to murder.
Enemy combatants are not part of this, we have a duty to defend ourselves and the innocent from unjust aggressors and an enemy combatant is exactly that.

As to your example of Coke, I believe it just indicates to everyone reading this just how far you are twisting.

Excuse me, I know I read old books on logic, but how exactly is that an argument about the death penalty?

I see you calling me a liar without a shred of evidence—and demonstrating that you can’t follow a fairly basic analogy—but I don’t see an argument about the death penalty.

Point it out to me.

 

[vz71]

I think this is the kind of thinking 2267 logically forces on us, but I don’t think it is at all logical based on the nature of the Church herself. Are you really comfortable with the idea that the Church, after nearly 2000 years, is just now coming to appreciate* “the idea that all life is precious?”* I think we are becoming way too comfortable with the idea that the modern Church has gone beyond the ancient Church. The Church’s teachings are timeless and while natural development is to be expected - and appreciated - there are some things that don’t fall into the category of development … and gaining a new appreciation for life would be one of those things.

Ender

I like to think of it as a development of what is already in place rather then anything new. The church generally does not speak on something until it is necessary.
At no point in history has it been within our technical capability to remove someone forever from society without killing them.
However, now it is. Perhaps the development is a result of this.

Because of this, the church must now re-iterate that all life is precious.

In times past, there is not much choice what to do with people that are too dangerous.
But if there is a choice available, then we risk taking a life for granted.
And it is here that I believe the church is speaking to us.
We must be reminded that all life is precious, that it all has a dignity that must be respected.

 

[vz71]

Excuse me, I know I read old books on logic, but how exactly is that an argument about the death penalty?

They are not.
But then, the argument they were addressing wasn’t either.
The argument those words addressed had to do with enemy combatants…not the death penalty.

I was addressing what the church teaches us concerning our duty to self defense as well as defense of the innocent against an unjust aggressor.

 

[Hastrman]

They are not.
But then, the argument they were addressing wasn’t either.
The argument those words addressed had to do with enemy combatants…not the death penalty.

I was addressing what the church teaches us concerning our duty to self defense as well as defense of the innocent against an unjust aggressor.

Really?

It was a response to this.

The theory that being “pro-life” means you must oppose executing murderers and killing enemy combatants, because those are also life (even though the term actually only applies to abortion), is logically identical to the statement “If you say you like Coke, you must approve of the recreational use of blow, 'cause that’s also ‘coke.’” The mere fact that the brand-name has other meanings doesn’t mean anything.

That seems to involve all attempts to extend “pro-life” to war and the death penalty, and in fact specifically mentions the death penalty.

Want to keep this up? Maybe eventually you’ll say something that isn’t manifest nonsense.

 

[vz71]

It was a response to this.
Hastrman;8427111:

The theory that being “pro-life” means you must oppose executing murderers and killing enemy combatants, because those are also life (even though the term actually only applies to abortion), is logically identical to the statement “If you say you like Coke, you must approve of the recreational use of blow, 'cause that’s also ‘coke.’” The mere fact that the brand-name has other meanings doesn’t mean anything.

That seems to involve all attempts to extend “pro-life” to war and the death penalty, and in fact specifically mentions the death penalty.

Well, if you wish to paint the lawful execution of someone as the same thing as fighting an enemy comatant, you are going to run into problems.

Is it really your contention that they are the same?
My apologies if I was mistaken in your meaning.
I believed you distinguished between enemy comatants and lawfully convicted criminals. So I answered it seperately.

I did not for an instant believe you equated the killing of an enemy combatant with the lawful execution of a convicted criminal. So I answered as I did believing you were not addressing the death penalty.

However this now leads to another possible point of contention…