Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth teaching and Saddam

[Superstar905]

People at work use this old testament teaching to justify the hanging of Saddam Hussein. What are peoples thoughts on this.

I don’t believe that the killing is justified, as two wrongs don’t make a right, but interested in others views on this.

Thanks.

 

[mrs_abbott]

But Jesus preached to turn the other cheek. It’s complex but I guess it boils down to how you view capital punishment. Are you for it or against it?

 

[Della]

If the execution of Saddam were a wrong, you’d be correct, Superstar905. However, the Church does not teach that executing criminals is intrinsically evil. It teaches that although other means of keeping criminals from harming others ought to be considered first, governments have the right to protect their citizens as they see fit to bring justice to those who were wronged as well as protection to their people. So, it’s not a moral issue of the same kind as abortion or euthanasia, but is an issue left to the proper authorities to decide.

 

[Superstar905]

But Jesus preached to turn the other cheek. It’s complex but I guess it boils down to how you view capital punishment. Are you for it or against it?

I’m against it. Hold the person prisoner the rest of his life. I don’t think anyone has the right to take anothers life. To me, thats murder.

 

[Della]

But Jesus preached to turn the other cheek. It’s complex but I guess it boils down to how you view capital punishment. Are you for it or against it?

The teaching about turning the other cheek has nothing to do with a government’s rights to seek justice for those wronged or how they feel they need to keep their citizens safe. Jesus was talking about dealing with personal insults and being persecuted for his sake, not about capital punishment or war.

 

[Superstar905]

If the execution of Saddam were a wrong, you’d be correct, Superstar905. However, the Church does not teach that executing criminals is intrinsically evil. It teaches that although other means of keeping criminals from harming others ought to be considered first, governments have the right to protect their citizens as they see fit to bring justice to those who were wronged as well as protection to their people. So, it’s not a moral issue of the same kind as abortion or euthanasia, but is an issue left to the proper authorities to decide.

Interesting, and I have heard this before. However why then did the Vatican state opposition to the execution?

 

[Della]

Interesting, and I have heard this before. However why then did the Vatican state opposition to the execution?

Well, “the Vatican” didn’t do that, but rather a high ranking cardinal did. The Church’s teaching on this is what I have stated, although you will find it better stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
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 more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[tabcom]

**No the killing was not justified.

My thoughts are that the so called ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ charge is always the victor handing out the punishment to the conquered. If Vietnam or Cambodia had defeated the USA and captured Henry Kissinger, he would have been brought up on charges of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ and probably hung.

Instead, he is an ‘elder statesman’ and gets to speak at President Ford’s wake.**

 

[Della]

**No the killing was not justified.

My thoughts are that the so called ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ charge is always the victor handing out the punishment to the conquered. If Vietnam or Cambodia had defeated the USA and captured Henry Kissinger, he would have been brought up on charges of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ and probably hung.

Instead, he is an ‘elder statesman’ and gets to speak at President Ford’s wake.**

You may be right, tabcom. But, I rather think that history will agree that the crimes Saddam committed were real and the punishment justified. I guess history will show if that was a wise move for Iraq or not.

I have no doubt that if Hitler or Stalin could have been brought to trial theirs would have been the same fate as Saddam’s and for the life of me I can’t see how that would have been wrong.

Crimes against humanity are real charges in these cases. It’s not the charge that we have to fear but the misuse of it.

 

[Superstar905]

Well, “the Vatican” didn’t do that, but rather a high ranking cardinal did. The Church’s teaching on this is what I have stated, although you will find it better stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
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 more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

So this would suggest then that the killing was not justified. There are non-lethal means to protect peoples safety, including keeping him locked up behind bars for the rest of his life. I also think the last line of the quote from the catechism says it all.

I don’t excuse the crimes Saddam had done, so I hope I’m not misunderstood, however to me, those who killed Saddam are no better the he.

 

[tabcom]

the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**
IMHO; the hanging falls outside the jursidiction of the Catholic Church. Sadaam was not a christian. The Iraqi courts (read US military) that passed the sentence were not Christian.

Therefore any debate with respects to a Catechism is moot.**

 

[mrs_abbott]

The teaching about turning the other cheek has nothing to do with a government’s rights to seek justice for those wronged or how they feel they need to keep their citizens safe. Jesus was talking about dealing with personal insults and being persecuted for his sake, not about capital punishment or war.

But it all boils down to whether the execution was viewed as justified or not. Some argue that only God has the power to take life, as He is the only one who gives it.

 

[mrs_abbott]

I’m against it. Hold the person prisoner the rest of his life. I don’t think anyone has the right to take anothers life. To me, thats murder.

I agree! I couldn’t be a judge. I’d have immense guilt because it’s not up to us to decide whether a man deserves to live or die. That’s up to God.

 

[Della]

So this would suggest then that the killing was not justified. There are non-lethal means to protect peoples safety, including keeping him locked up behind bars for the rest of his life. I also think the last line of the quote from the catechism says it all.

It may have been possible to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people without executing Saddam, but then, that was their call to make. They are the ones who lived under his tyranny and are still trying to clean up after him and what he did to their country. He was a rallying point for those who want to keep the country from being unified and going forward, both inside and outside of Iraq. Besides the fact that Saddam would still have had means of fomenting rebellion even from prison, which is another consideration they had to take into account. What Saddam got was justice, not revenge. If it had been mere revenge any court that finds a criminal guilty and eligible for the death penalty would be guilty of revenge, but that is not what the Church teaches nor the reality.

I don’t excuse the crimes Saddam had done, so I hope I’m not misunderstood, however to me, those who killed Saddam are no better the he.

You are entitled to your opinion on that, but I don’t agree. I saw a legitimate government bring a ruthless and unrepentant criminal to book for his horrid atrocities. He had only one life to give for the sake of justice, a justice that was too meager considering all the lives he wiped out, the tortures he allowed/ordered, and the indescribable sorrow he caused to so many.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See Hussein and Punishment as Vengeance [Scroll down to December 30]. RE evolving Catholic stance on punishment of criminals:

Whence this change? Psychology has been far more influential in the Catholic Church than Scripture in the assessing responsibility, and “compulsions” can remove responsibility from any act. In reviewing the personnel files of sexually abusive priests in Boston , I have noticed that psychological jargon becomes more and more prominent over the decades.

 

[Della]

But it all boils down to whether the execution was viewed as justified or not. Some argue that only God has the power to take life, as He is the only one who gives it.

Some may argue that and many other things that aren’t the case. If only God had the right to take life then the Church would not teach that governments have the right to execute certain criminals or send young people into war, either.

Jesus did not teach pacifism nor does the Church. I understand the sensibilities of many people regarding not taking any human life, but we have to see things in the light of what is true not just in the light of what we think shouldn’t be. Many a kind-hearted feeling has led to great horrors. It is how abortion came to be allowed by law and contraception, no fault divorce and gay marriage being considered next, for example. Truth is what we must live by not what we feel for our feelings can betray us, but the truth cannot.

 

[Nechasin]

I’m not sure or the morality of the execution, but this is something that I have been thinking about. I’m normally against the death penalty because in a normal society, imprisonment for life is feasible.

However, Iraq is not normal and Saddam is not a “normal” criminal. If Saddam remained alive and imprisoned for life, it would only be a matter of time before some terrorists took hostages and demanded the release of Saddam or the hostages will be killed.

I’m glad I don’t have to make a judgment on the execution because I would have problems either way.

 

[Superstar905]

It may have been possible to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people without executing Saddam, but then, that was their call to make. They are the ones who lived under his tyranny and are still trying to clean up after him and what he did to their country. He was a rallying point for those who want to keep the country from being unified and going forward, both inside and outside of Iraq. Besides the fact that Saddam would still have had means of fomenting rebellion even from prison, which is another consideration they had to take into account. What Saddam got was justice, not revenge. If it had been mere revenge any court that finds a criminal guilty and eligible for the death penalty would be guilty of revenge, but that is not what the Church teaches nor the reality.

You are entitled to your opinion on that, but I don’t agree. I saw a legitimate government bring a ruthless and unrepentant criminal to book for his horrid atrocities. He had only one life to give for the sake of justice, a justice that was too meager considering all the lives he wiped out, the tortures he allowed/ordered, and the indescribable sorrow he caused to so many.

Thats fair. I think that if we all agreed life would be boring, lol. My thing is that bringing someone to justice can be done in many ways, but murder should not be one of them. Make no mistake, this was murder.

 

[Curiouse]

Human life is sacred my friends, no matter how much filth it is covered with. Death by any intentional means is tragedy, whether the victim is a child or Adolf Hitler. We are humans, we have no divine right to take the lives of others. That is God’s domain, somewhere we’ve been barging into for too long. O.K. Saddam may have killed millions, and he deserved death, but it is not our place to condemn. All of you who say it was just, go over to youtube and watch the excecution. Watch Saddam hang on the rope. I dare you. He is God’s child, and we had no right to do it… This was murder my brothers, and when will the day come when humanity can rise above the need for vengence and forgive, just forgive? I do not see it, I don’t think anyone does. Because we are weak, weak creatures who must quench our thirst for vengence. However, we were shown mercy. Christ suffered and died for us. So we should show to others the great mercy we have been shown…

 

[Curiouse]

Did I say something wrong?