For Catholics who support the death penalty

[Love_God_Too]

Forgiveness doesn’t negate the reponsibility the State has to protect its citizens – from the children down the street, to the adults living in society, to the guards managing the prisons, and even the inmates being targeted by those who continue to commit crimes from within the walls of prison. Obviously those who circumvent the system and manage to dictate criminal orders from prison (or who continue to rape and murder) are still a threat to society, and it’s the responsibility of the State to ensure citizens’ protection and welfare. That doesn’t mean they aren’t forgiven. That means they are prevented from doing so again and creating more victims of crime.

Pilate held the responsibility of the state… Where the crowds shouted Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

 

[Brendan]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

OK, I’ll ask again, where exactly do any of my quotes ( from the Catechism, from Trent, from Pope Pius, ect… conflict with anything you have posted)

If anything, your concept of changing moral law stands against what Pope John Paul II taught.

Sorry, we stand with the Church and what She teaches. The one Faith, the one Moral Law, that has been articulated by the Saints, the Doctors of the Church, the Councils, and all the Popes.

 

[Corki]

Why are are you spending so much time defending what you NOW claim to be against?

You got me. I did change my position on capital punishment - about 15 years ago! I have been very consistent on this thread. I have never defended capital punishment. I have defended Church teaching aginst twisted logic.

I do not support a wider application. I support no application period.

Then why do you use arguments such as the cost or the lack of DNA evidence? Those have **nothing whatsoever **to do with the morality of the death penalty. They are simply procedural issues. If those are your reasons to oppose the death penalty, your position loses ground when the procedural issues are fixed.

**I make a distinction between innocent life killed by an individual and non-innocent human life that is executed by the proper authority (the state). **Evidently some people have difficulty figuring out the difference between a violent criminal and a baby still in the womb.

As does the Church.

If you believe after reading those documents, after reading the letter of John Paul, that the Church supports Capital Punishment there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

No one has said that. However, if you can read the Catechism (and the other documents that have been presented to you) and still believe that capital punishment is condemned in the same way that abotion is, then you have some work to do.

With respect, therein lies the true problem. Criminal justice reform - with effort from all of us - would serve to prevent these atrocities. I still think that we do not have the right to take human life just because our judicial system hasn’t, in every circumstance, demonstrated itself to be capable of containing dangerous criminals adequately.

Again, it has been documented many times that innocent human beings have been murdered by the state. Are they not, by their very humanity, just as deserving of life as the unborn? Where is our outrage?!?

Agreed we need an overhaul of the criminal justice system. People like to bash Texas for it’s application of the death penalty. But it isn’t that we have trigger happy juries or that the govenor is cold-hearted. Until very recently, there was not such thing as life without parole, leaving juries few choices. And the govenor can’t commute a sentance of capital punishment, only delay it. Simply abolishing the death penalty wouldn’t work. The whole system has to change.

Lemonandlime

I’ve always wondered how someone can claim to be pro-life yet support the death penalty.

Apparently, pro-life ideology only includes innocent, cute babies. And not people accused of crimes.

Did you read the link Brendan posted with the essay by Cardinal Dulles? He lays out the Church teaching very clearly.

1. The Church teaches that innocent life and the life of those most vulnerable** demands our particular protection. ** So, yes this includes innocent cute babies. But it also includes the elderly, the disabled, and the persecuted.
2. The right to life isn’t absolute any more than any other right is. When someone is convicted of a capital crime (not just accused as your post claims) he/she forfeits some rights. Those include the right to liberty, the right of self-determination and, in some extreme cases, the right to life. This shouldn’t even be a matter for debate. The debate should center, as Pope John Paul II centered it, on whether society has reached a point where the death penalty is not needed. It’s not a matter of the convict’s rights; it’s a matter of the most Christian application of justice that does not endanger other, more innocent lives.

 

[JimG]

With respect, therein lies the true problem. Criminal justice reform - with effort from all of us - would serve to prevent these atrocities. I still think that we do not have the right to take human life just because our judicial system hasn’t, in every circumstance, demonstrated itself to be capable of containing dangerous criminals adequately.

Again, it has been documented many times that innocent human beings have been murdered by the state. Are they not, by their very humanity, just as deserving of life as the unborn? Where is our outrage?!?

Oops, JimG, I wasn’t specifically targeting you!

The Church’s opposition to the death penalty is predicated on the presumption that society has the means to protect itself from violent criminals without taking their life. And through the criminal justice system, many societies do in fact have that capability, at least in theory–but not in practice, because a life sentence seldom means a life sentence in practice.

It is an injustice to take the life of an innocent person. Another reason I oppose the death penalty is that it is very expensive, involves a great many appeals,and those who are sentence to death seldom are executed until ten or twenty years after sentencing. That being the case, life without parole is a better sentence. But it is an extremely difficult sentence to actually impose.

It’s true that most pro-life people spend more time opposing abortion, but that’s because there are a million abortions a year in the U.S. and nowhere near that many executions.

If you talk to the families of murder victims, especially of cases where multiple serial killings in cold blood occurred, you will notice that it is very difficult for them to come to terms with the idea that the murderer of their child might be released on parole to kill again.

The “BTK” killer in Wichita KS killed over a period of decades, and was finally caught. There was no doubt as to his guilt. He was not sentenced to death, but to life in prison. I would not want to see him released.

 

[Love_God_Too]

With all do respect, once again, Jesus was executed in an unjust act of capital punishment. Isn’t that enough for you theologically speaking? You simply cannot be prolife and pro death penalty. NOT plausible.

 

[Love_God_Too]

If anything, your concept of changing moral law stands against what Pope John Paul II taught…

Sorry my moral law has never changed. I am prolife period… I exercise no tortured logic to justify executing people. Nor to support torture either… Like many on the right do…

 

[Brendan]

With all do respect, once again, Jesus was executed in an unjust act of capital punishment. Isn’t that enough for you theologically speaking?

Nope, because God commanded the Death Penalty at certain time. We see that in Gen 9:6

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

And, as Pope John Paul II noted in Vertias Splendor, what is morally true then is morally true now.

We must follow the teachings of our bishops, in that the current system has flaws that could allow an innocent to be exectuted. That violates the command of God. But the execution of a person guilty of capital crimes does not.

Yes, Jesus’ death was an unjust one, for He was an innocent man. We have all agreed that the death of an innocent man is against Church teaching. But also look at St. Dismas (the good thief). By his own admission, his death WAS an act of Justice.

The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal

Luke 23:39-40

 

[Brendan]

Sorry my moral law has never changed. I am prolife period… I exercise no tortured logic to justify executing people. Nor to support torture either… Like many on the right do…

So do you agree that the moral law is unchanging. That what was moral truth in 1952 is moral truth today?

Or do you stand against Pope John Paul II and hold that morality changes with time or place? For the is the heart of moral relativism, which +JP II justly condemned.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Yes, Jesus’ death was an unjust one, for He was an innocent man. We have all agreed that the death of an innocent man is against Church teaching. But also look at St. Dismas (the good thief). By his own admission, his death WAS an act of Justice.

Luke 23:39-40

God bless you… You better hope God is as republican thinking as you are… Oh by the way how many innocent people are OK to die in your book in this just death penalty world you live in. 1 out 10 executions, 1 out of 100? Just curious considering the overwhelming evidence that we cannot prevent that from happening, Whose innocent life is OK to sacrifice. I know you think Jesus should have died who else fits the bill today?

 

[Love_God_Too]

So do you agree that the moral law is unchanging. That what was moral truth in 1952 is moral truth today?

Or do you stand against Pope John Paul II and hold that morality changes with time or place? For the is the heart of moral relativism, which +JP II justly condemned.

My turn to question…Did you support George Bush’s torture policy? remember to not tell the truth is sin too.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Or do you stand against Pope John Paul II and hold that morality changes with time or place? For the is the heart of moral relativism, which +JP II justly condemned.

The only one standing against the teachings of Pope John Paul and The Conference of Catholic Bishops is YOU my friend in Christ. YOU.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Nope, because God commanded the Death Penalty at certain time. We see that in Gen 9:6

The Old Testament also commanded us to not eat shell fish, or wear clothing of mixed fibers… No poly blends or shrimp in your history is there?

 

[Brendan]

The Old Testament also commanded us to not eat shell fish, or wear clothing of mixed fibers… No poly blends or shrimp in your history is there?

Yes, the Old Testament introduced two laws. The first was the Moral Law, which is unchanging.

At Mt Sinai, in response to the Jews disobedience, God introducted the Ceremonial Law, the law of clean\unclean.

Abramham, and even the Jews in slavery, could eat shellfish, pork, etc. It was only in response to the Jews disobedience with the Golden Calf that God inforced the Ceremonial Law.

The Ceremonial Law was abolished, the Moral Law was never (and can never be abolished)

 

[Brendan]

The only one standing against the teachings of Pope John Paul and The Conference of Catholic Bishops is YOU my friend in Christ. YOU.

Do you think that +JP II and the US Bishop teach against anything that Saints and Doctors of the Church have taught in the past?

Once again, I will ask you to show me exactly where I have taught against anything the Pope (any Pope) or the US Bishops have stated, please show me

 

[Brendan]

My turn to question…Did you support George Bush’s torture policy? remember to not tell the truth is sin too.

Nope, torture is an intrinsic evil, it can never be justified under any circumstances ( unlike Capital Punishment)

 

[Brendan]

God bless you… You better hope God is as republican thinking as you are… Oh by the way how many innocent people are OK to die in your book in this just death penalty world you live in. 1 out 10 executions, 1 out of 100? Just curious considering the overwhelming evidence that we cannot prevent that from happening, Whose innocent life is OK to sacrifice.

No innocent victims, Zero, zip , nada, goose egg. (of course)

That is why I stand with the Bishops in supporting an end to Capital Punishment as it stands today. Where we differ is that you think the Church objects to it under all circumstances.
It does not.

I know you think Jesus should have died who else fits the bill today?

Jesus should have died? No, it was an unjust act, it would have been better that humanity never fell into sin. But since it did, I am very grateful that Christ died for me and my sins.

As for who else ‘fits the bill’, Again, I will reiterate 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 are 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 non-existent.”

If a person’s guilt has been fully determined and there are no other alternate effective means of safeguarding society, then it would be just use of the Capital Punishment. As the Church states, those circumstances are rare, in practically non existant.

Now, can you say the same, or do you stand against Church teaching?

 

[Armyvet007]

CAF is the only place I know where after the Pope calls for capital punishment to be abolished people still support it.

How very perplexing.

The Holy Father called for it to be abolished in the developed world due to the conditions underwhich it may be moral no longer exist there. Capital punishment can be moral.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Now, can you say the same, or do you stand against Church teaching?

If church teaching does indeed think it’s OK to kill people, which I don’t believe it does, I guess I am against that teaching. Just like I would have disagreed with the church about the Inquisitions and Crusades.

 

[Ender]

In fact the Roman Catholic Church has officially called for and end to the death penalty. Soon to be Saint John Paul spoke of this many times.

That this is a common misconception doesn’t make it any less a misconception, although the way this is phrased is a bit misleading. It is not, to be specific, a doctrine of the Church that capital punishment is immoral, therefore there can be no call from the Church that it be abolished. What we have had is personal opposition to its use expressed by the Magisterium, but that is their prudential opinion and does not carry with it the obligation to assent.
*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
This is now and always has been Church doctrine on the subject and it is unchangeable.
**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

 

[Love_God_Too]

Nope, torture is an intrinsic evil, it can never be justified under any circumstances ( unlike Capital Punishment)

I’m glad to hear it. The interesting thing is I didn’t hear when he was doing it from MOST of those who espouse your narrow view of our church.