For Catholics who support the death penalty

[Love_God_Too]

From the Catechism:

The last paragraph/part is why the USCCB and the last two popes have called for an end to the death penalty. Keep in mind though that there are situations where it could be acceptable, although not today in our society.

Amen

 

[KateKimmer]

From the Catechism:

The last paragraph/part is why the USCCB and the last two popes have called for an end to the death penalty. Keep in mind though that there are situations where it could be acceptable, although not today in our society.

Really? not today in** our **society? You should watch the news or go online sometime. You might be surprised!

 

[Corki]

Why don’t you go to work to end it in the state the executes more people than the rest of the country combined, TEXAS, your state. .

If you think I am not already, you are grossly mistaken.

As pointed previously and supported by the Innocence Project, Texas is perhaps, the least accountable state, as it relates to the death penalty.

I have some problems with the way the Innocence Project works, but I will take your word for it on the accountability.

Oh wait, your are against the death penalty, except for all the time you have spent defending it.

I have never defended it, at least not in over a decade and certainly not on CAF or anywhere that you would have encounted it.

Faith in Party or Faith in God ? That is truly the question…

I thought we were talking about abortion vs death penalty. That’s the question for this thread. If you want to talk about party politics, you should probably start another thread.

How does one justify the support and protection of inexperencial cellular life while having such disregard for a life lived is beyond me.

Who has expressed disregard for life lived? Even those who support the death penalty don’t do so because they disregard life. Catholics are allowed to disagree when it comes to how justice is applied.

And if you are referring to an unborn child as “inexperencial cellular life” that’s just beyond disgusting. Straight out of PP’s playbook.

 

[adrift]

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. It is evident that your political views outweigh you faithful ones, respectfully in my opinion.

“The US Bishops campaign against capital punishment”, their chosen words not mine, the evidence is in the title.

It is unfortunate that you appeal to Pope John Paul II with your interpretation and not what is the truth of what is taught. Even if he were made a saint, it would not make his opinion any more valid.
People are not defending the death penalty but defending the Church from your false accusations.

Try pointing out in the Catechism where your position is upheld.
This was alread posted but you failed to read it.

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

If after reading the Catechism, you hold that the death penalty is against Church teachings and is an intrinsic evil than you don’t know how to read. I wish you would quit your ad hominem attack.

 

[Corki]

Try pointing out in the Catechism where your position is upheld.
This was alread posted but you failed to read it.

If after reading the Catechism, you hold that the death penalty is against Church teachings and is an intrinsic evil than you don’t know how to read. I wish you would quit your ad hominem attack.

Which is saying a lot. The CCC has the strongest wording to date in any official document about the death penalty. And even then, it does not call it an intrinsic evil or even that it is always wrong.

 

[Brendan]

LOL So you are against Harry Potter but not the death penalty regardless of What soon to be Saint John Paul said… Pssssst Harry Potter is just a movie.

It still shows Harry using tortue, that’s bad, don’t you agree ���

 

[Brendan]

Some how I just don’t see you as supportive of that as with the abortion issue. Due to politics of course, since you already agreed it should not be taking place in America, IE: the developed world. If you were these republican states that still exercise this barbarism will abolish it.

I am supportive of both issues in exactly that way the Church has presented them through all it’s history.

That abortion is an intrisic evil that can never be justified.

And that secular governments have a right to execute criminals in certain, rare circumstances.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Which is saying a lot. The CCC has the strongest wording to date in any official document about the death penalty. And even then, it does not call it an intrinsic evil or even that it is always wrong.

I believe that is more for a political than moral reason. The death penalty does not suit a Church that advocates for life, or says that only God has the right to end one.

 

[Brendan]

LOL So you are against Harry Potter but not the death penalty regardless of What soon to be Saint John Paul said… Pssssst Harry Potter is just a movie.

Imagine that, a Catholic objecting to anti-Catholic things like a good guy using torture as a means for revenge being shown in children’s movies. How terrible of me

I didn’t know that you approved of cinematic torture.

 

[MidnightSun12]

1. As Catholics, we should put our efforts, first and foremost, in fighting those evils that the Church herself has identified as absolutes. Abortion is one of those, euthenasia is one of those, slavery is one of those, etc. Capital punishment is not one of those. Yes, the last two Popes have spoken out strongly against the death penalty but not as an intrinsic evil but as something that is **no longer **necessary in our modern society.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Imagine that, a Catholic objecting to anti-Catholic things like a good guy using torture as a means for revenge being shown in children’s movies. How terrible of me

I didn’t know that you approved of cinematic torture.

The Harry Potter films aren’t that bad.

It’s anti-Catholic? I guess I missed the part when they started killing Priests. Oh wait, that’s historical films/dramas. Are we not allowed to watch The Tudors now, either?

 

[Brendan]

The Harry Potter films aren’t that bad.

It’s anti-Catholic? I guess I missed the part when they started killing Priests. Oh wait, that’s historical films/dramas. Are we not allowed to watch The Tudors now, either?

First, I never said that the films were bad ( actually I haven’t bothered with the movies at all, but I have read all the books).

This is in reference to LoveGod’s challege that I prove that I have been consistently anti-torture in my postings on CAF.

So I showed her that I even objected to the torture presented in the Harry Potter novels.

And yes, I do consider torture to be an anti-Catholic act, in that it stands vilolently opposed to the Churches teaching on the matter. I don’t really think that anyone can claim that torture is a pro-Catholic thing, right

As far as watching ‘The Tudors’, do you consider that to be children’s material?

But we digress. If either you or LoveGod are interested in discussing the matter further, I would suggest that we open up another thread.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Really? not today in** our **society? You should watch the news or go online sometime. You might be surprised!

I do. And I’m not surprised by most of the things I see.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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?

See Acts 5 and Ananias and Sapphira. The death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil like torture. (Keep in mind I don’t support capital punishment.)

 

[Tony2255]

As it was explained in a recent RCIA class. The death penalty is only condoned in situation where a society or community has no means of detention. Which would leave the community in extreme danger. I do not believe this pertains to the U.S. and most nations.

Thou shalt not kill. No exceptions, ever.

I served in the Marines and some will say, “well that’s different.” I don’t believe it is. I made that choice to join and I will be held responsible for my actions. Self defense or not you are still accountable. Our faith in the Lord should be the only defense we need. We must pray for mercy for our actions.

No matter how heinous the crime or how justified the reason, God is the only one to decide if and when someone dies.

 

[Ender]

The church opposed George Bush’s Wars too. I direct you to John Paul’s address to the diplomatic corp on that.

This is also incorrect but it kind of makes the point. It should come as little surprise to anyone that the Church has no doctrine on the war with Iraq so it is a rather gross exaggeration to claim that the Church opposed that war. It may be true that JPII was unhappy Bush made that decision and did not personally feel it was warranted but that in no way means “the Church” opposed the war.

That the Church had no position on the war should be clear from the fact that there was never anything said to dissuade Catholics from participating in it. Had “the Church” found it to be an immoral war then she would have had the obligation to keep Catholics from being a part of it. That this never happened is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that “the Church” took no position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Note: You never answered the question you evaded it. How many innocents is an acceptable percentage in your desire to maintain your right to State murder?

Let’s start with this: the State has no right to murder anyone. On the other hand the accidental execution of an innocent person does not qualify as murder so the question itself is meaningless.

As far as what you’re trying to ask, there is no solution that guarantees safety for everyone; all we have is a choice between risking more innocent lives or fewer. There is no option that risks none but the one that risks fewer is the one where capital punishment is used.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No matter how heinous the crime or how justified the reason, God is the only one to decide if and when someone dies.

You need to understand that this is not what the Church teaches. She has always recognized that the State has the moral right to apply capital punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. This has been part of Church teaching for her entire existence.
Swiss Guy:

The death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil like torture.

It isn’t intrinsically evil now nor will it ever be declared such.The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput)
Ender

 

[Corki]

As it was explained in a recent RCIA class. The death penalty is only condoned in situation where a society or community has no means of detention. Which would leave the community in extreme danger. I do not believe this pertains to the U.S. and most nations.

Thou shalt not kill. No exceptions, ever.

I served in the Marines and some will say, “well that’s different.” I don’t believe it is. I made that choice to join and I will be held responsible for my actions. Self defense or not you are still accountable. Our faith in the Lord should be the only defense we need. We must pray for mercy for our actions.

No matter how heinous the crime or how justified the reason, God is the only one to decide if and when someone dies.

I think you misunderstood someone in your RCIA class. As has been posted several times already in this thread, the actual Church teaching (from the Catechism) is:

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

The standard isn’t that the death penalty is only allowed if there are no means of detetention.

As for the rest of your post, you are obviously very concerned with protecting human life - that’s good. But killing in self-defense or taking life in military service are not sins against the fifth commandment.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[Brendan]

As it was explained in a recent RCIA class. The death penalty is only condoned in situation where a society or community has no means of detention. Which would leave the community in extreme danger. I do not believe this pertains to the U.S. and most nations.

Here is the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch ( yet again). You can read for yourself what the Church teaches.

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.”

Your RCIA class wasn’t quite as clear as the Church teaching itself. There is no requirement, per se, on not have sufficent detention facilities, though that is a big part of it.

Rather, the Church states that Capital Punishment can be used if

1. The guilt of the person has been fully established.
2. There are no other effective means to safeguard human lives (which, BTW, would include prison guards and even other prisoners, would it not?).
3. If there ARE non-violent, effective means, the State should limit itself to the use of those.

Thou shalt not kill. No exceptions, ever.

The Church disagrees on that point. Specifically, there is Council of Trent specifically on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment� is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David:* In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord*.

I served in the Marines and some will say, “well that’s different.” I don’t believe it is. I made that choice to join and I will be held responsible for my actions. Self defense or not you are still accountable. Our faith in the Lord should be the only defense we need. We must pray for mercy for our actions.

Fortunately for the Marines ( and an Army tanker like myself) Trent also addressed that.

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

You can see this for yourself. God commanded the Israelites to go to War, He commanded the Death Penalty at times. Do you really think that God would contradict Himself? Look how much Christ decrided the hypocrites, who said one thing, yet did another. If God commanded against His own Law, then He too is one of the hypocrites.

Is that really what you learned in RCIA class?

Rather, what did you learn about the role of the Eccumencial Councils regarding matters of Faith and Morals.

Take what you learned and apply it to Trent.