For Supporters of Capital Punishment

[yosephdaviyd]

And they go crazy. Almost 100% of the time. Within months.

That is why that is not a suitable problem. Particularly if you are concerned with mercy. IMHO, such an existence, particularly for a lifetime, would be worse than death.

If you are interested in mercy and redemption, you may be interested in reading this journal article on the subject:

Thanks for the article. It used a lot of words only to say that we are all social creatures - no one was created for themselves and no one lives on an island. That being said, at least in prisons in this country inmates in solitary confinement always have someone come to their cell to talk to them - Psyche’s (at least twice a week), Chaplain (once a week). If they have friends and family on their visiting list, they are allowed to visit through a screen or video. They can receive and send mail to ministries, friends, family. They can get books, magazines, books on tape, music - have radio’s and television.

So what I am saying is that the picture you have in your head is not reality. Yes, some prisoners do decide to withdraw into themselves, but that even happens in general population. Heck that happens outside of prison. You see, it is the individual’s choice or his/her reaction to their new condition that creates reality - it is not the condition, in and of itself, that creates the new reality.

But moreover, I would like to redress a sad point here. That you would rather kill a man, rather than allowing him to live according to his condition. This is the same attitude that some physicians take in regards to children who are projected to be born with ‘deformities’ or ‘handicaps’ - they recommend to the pregnant mother that she should abort (murder) her child rather than to allow it to live according to his/her condition.

Regardless of the condition that a man finds himself in God can reach him. No matter how dark the night God brings light. Irregardless of how far we fall God’s hand can reach us all.

Give all life a chance brother!

 

[yosephdaviyd]

Frankly I don’t see this discussion going anywhere. There seems to be two sides on this issue in this forum.

1. Those who are for the Death Penalty because it’s a form of a needed punishment.
2. Those who oppose it because it shows a lack of love and forgiveness.

It sounds like the first scenario comes right out of the OT where as the second scenario comes out of the NT…interesting. It’s just what I see at the moment.

That is basically it friend. No need to spend a whole lot of time here. It pains me physically hear the coldness in the hearts of some of the people here.

Being able to give empathy and seeing the Face of Christ on everyone is a gift - a move of the Holy Spirit on the heart - usually coming from bring broken yourself. All we can do here is plant seeds of mercy and allow God to water them.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

That is basically it friend. No need to spend a whole lot of time here. It pains me physically hear the coldness in the hearts of some of the people here.

Being able to give empathy and seeing the Face of Christ on everyone is a gift - a move of the Holy Spirit on the heart - usually coming from bring broken yourself. All we can do here is plant seeds of mercy and allow God to water them.

I hear you. The crass, callowness about the victims of these murderers is just sickening. I join you in this prayer, that the defenders of killers be brought to see the light.

 

[markomalley]

But moreover, I would like to redress a sad point here.** That you would rather kill a man, rather than allowing him to live according to his condition. ** This is the same attitude that some physicians take in regards to children who are projected to be born with ‘deformities’ or ‘handicaps’ - they recommend to the pregnant mother that she should abort (murder) her child rather than to allow it to live according to his/her condition.

You are fairly new around here and I don’t know if you have extensive past history posting on Internet message forums, so let me give you a little hint about etiquette on these types of boards:

The bolded text above represents a condition known as “mind reading.” Generally, on Internet message forums, reading the mind of another poster is, at best, considered highly bad form…

The normal response on a non-Christian message board would be to flame the offender.

To put it in a more “Catholic” sense, this would be a species of “rash judgment.”
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. (St Ignatius of Loyola)
​

Or, as the Code of Canon Law states,Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
The proper and far more charitable way to conduct oneself would be to provide some quotes from this thread that lead you to think that I actually would rather kill a man, rather than allowing him to live according to his condition. And then to ask me if I would rather kill a man than allow him to live according to his condition.

Or at a minimum, to make a statement that based upon the posts you’ve read on this thread, it appears that (you) would rather kill a man than allow him to live according to his own condition. Or to simply ask if (you) would rather kill a man than allow him to live according to his own condition?

See, in none of the above cases are you assuming anything. And you provide me an opportunity to explain *my own *motives.

But you didn’t do that.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

The bolded text above represents a condition known as “mind reading.” Generally, on Internet message forums, reading the mind of another poster is, at best, considered highly bad form…

Mark

If you rather not have people take your words and interpret their meaning then do not speak. Do not say anything to anyone. Do not write anything. In fact, never leave your house so that people will not interpret your body language and make assumptions. But then again, never leaving your house would cause people to read your mind and judge your motives. LOL

Moreover, it did not take much interpretation or making assumptions and NO reading between the lines to understand your point of view here. You and the rest of the pro-capital-punishment crew has been loud, clear, and sad. But sorry if your feelings were hurt. Not my intent.

Also, I am not new here - look at the date of my membership and my number of post. I just read more than write - listen more than talk. More beneficial to speak when one has something truly edifying to say - something that builds up the Body of Christ.

 

[markomalley]

Mark

If you rather not have people take your words and interpret their meaning then do not speak. Do not say anything to anyone. Do not write anything. In fact, never leave your house so that people will not interpret your body language and make assumptions. But then again, never leaving your house would cause people to read your mind and judge your motives. LOL

Moreover, it did not take much interpretation or making assumptions and NO reading between the lines to understand your point of view here. You and the rest of the pro-capital-punishment crew has been loud, clear, and sad. But sorry if your feelings were hurt. Not my intent.

Also, I am not new here - look at the date of my membership and my number of post. I just read more than write - listen more than talk. More beneficial to speak when one has something truly edifying to say - something that builds up the Body of Christ.

Three months?

OK, my apologies. (I’ve been here for almost 5 years and consider myself a n00b)

As it stands, though, I do not want to disrupt your preconceived notions, so I’ll just sign off and leave you to your suppositions.

Have a blessed life.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Frankly I don’t see this discussion going anywhere. There seems to be two sides on this issue in this forum.

1. Those who are for the Death Penalty because it’s a form of a needed punishment.
2. Those who oppose it because it shows a lack of love and forgiveness.

It sounds like the first scenario comes right out of the OT where as the second scenario comes out of the NT…interesting. It’s just what I see at the moment.

There is nothing in the NT which opposes capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

Frankly I don’t see this discussion going anywhere. There seems to be two sides on this issue in this forum.

1. Those who are for the Death Penalty because it’s a form of a needed punishment.
2. Those who oppose it because it shows a lack of love and forgiveness.

It sounds like the first scenario comes right out of the OT where as the second scenario comes out of the NT…interesting. It’s just what I see at the moment.

This is a misunderstanding of both the Old and the New Testaments. The idea that Jesus changed everything and therefore the Old Testament has no relevance to us is not an opinion shared by the Church. We don’t have two gods, the good New Testament Jesus and the mean, angry god of the Old Testament; they are one and the same. There is no “Old Testament” vs “New Testament” perspective.

It may be personally comforting to oppose capital punishment “because it shows a lack of love and forgiveness” but it will not be so easy to actually defend that position based on what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[phoooiee]

This is a misunderstanding of both the Old and the New Testaments. The idea that Jesus changed everything and therefore the Old Testament has no relevance to us is not an opinion shared by the Church. We don’t have two gods, the good New Testament Jesus and the mean, angry god of the Old Testament; they are one and the same. There is no “Old Testament” vs “New Testament” perspective.

It may be personally comforting to oppose capital punishment “because it shows a lack of love and forgiveness” but it will not be so easy to actually defend that position based on what the Church teaches.

Ender

Here is what the Catechism says, and therefore 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 more in conformity with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)"

Very clear. The only way that the death penalty is acceptable is when the society has absolutely no other means to protect people’s safety.

 

[Ender]

Here is what the Catechism says, and therefore what the Church teaches.

We’re all well aware of what 2267 says, but there is nothing in it that goes to the point I just made so I’ll assume you’re making a new point and will address that. First, there are very good reasons for believing that, while 2267 may be what the Church “teaches” in a generic sense, it is in fact prudential opinion and not doctrine.

The first statement it makes is actually incorrect: the traditional teaching of the Church never limited the use of capital punishment solely to cases where it was needed to protect society.

The second statement about capital punishment not being in “conformity with the dignity of the human person” actually seems to reverse the meaning of the statement that man is made in the image of God (and just quoted in full in 2260). We know that human life is sacred but that knowledge is given to us as the *reason *the life of a murderer is forfeit. In its new incarnation it has come to mean that the life of the murderer is protected because his life is sacred; the life of the victim is no longer considered.

The third statement is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems. There is simply no possibility of understanding this as anything other than an opinion and surely not something we are obliged to accept.

Very clear. The only way that the death penalty is acceptable is when the society has absolutely no other means to protect people’s safety.

Even if one limits his position on capital punishment to the current catechism, there is nothing clear about 2267. The primary objective of punishment is retribution, a point just made in 2266, but this objective is simply ignored by 2267 (as are the other two objectives). But how can we ignore the primary objective and base the level of punishment on the needs of a secondary objective? And what are we to make of 2260? It quotes Gen 9:6 - which unequivocally states that the life of the murderer is forfeit - and then adds that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”?

The only way to make 2267 clear is to quite literally ignore everything the Church has ever written about capital punishment, including what is written in the current catechism itself.

Ender

 

[phoooiee]

We’re all well aware of what 2267 says, but there is nothing in it that goes to the point I just made so I’ll assume you’re making a new point and will address that. First, there are very good reasons for believing that, while 2267 may be what the Church “teaches” in a generic sense, it is in fact prudential opinion and not doctrine.

The first statement it makes is actually incorrect: the traditional teaching of the Church never limited the use of capital punishment solely to cases where it was needed to protect society.

The second statement about capital punishment not being in “conformity with the dignity of the human person” actually seems to reverse the meaning of the statement that man is made in the image of God (and just quoted in full in 2260). We know that human life is sacred but that knowledge is given to us as the *reason *the life of a murderer is forfeit. In its new incarnation it has come to mean that the life of the murderer is protected because his life is sacred; the life of the victim is no longer considered.

The third statement is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems. There is simply no possibility of understanding this as anything other than an opinion and surely not something we are obliged to accept.

Even if one limits his position on capital punishment to the current catechism, there is nothing clear about 2267. The primary objective of punishment is retribution, a point just made in 2266, but this objective is simply ignored by 2267 (as are the other two objectives). But how can we ignore the primary objective and base the level of punishment on the needs of a secondary objective? And what are we to make of 2260? It quotes Gen 9:6 - which unequivocally states that the life of the murderer is forfeit - and then adds that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”?

The only way to make 2267 clear is to quite literally ignore everything the Church has ever written about capital punishment, including what is written in the current catechism itself.

Ender

Well, if you’re going to go against the Catechism, then that’s up to you. But there is no point in future discussion. It’s still against the Catechism.

 

[Ender]

Well, if you’re going to go against the Catechism, then that’s up to you. But there is no point in future discussion. It’s still against the Catechism.

If I accept 2260 then I “go against” 2267. If I accept 2266 then I “go against” 2267. If you accept 2267 then you “go against” 2260 and 2266. How is it that you claim I am going against the Catechism and you are not? More significantly, the Catechism does not represent the entire teaching of the Church; think of it as the Reader’s Digest condensed version. If you actually read what the Church has written on this subject for the past 2000 years you would recognize that it is 2267 that is out of step with Church teaching, not me.

Ender

 

[yosephdaviyd]

Here is what the Catechism says, and therefore 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 more in conformity with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)"

Very clear. The only way that the death penalty is acceptable is when the society has absolutely no other means to protect people’s safety.

Thank you PH - excellent understanding of what the Church actually teaches and allow!!!

 

[Rascalking]

Well, if you’re going to go against the Catechism, then that’s up to you. But there is no point in future discussion. It’s still against the Catechism.

Um, shouldn’t you be allowed to discuss what you want to?

 

[pnewton]

If I accept 2260 then I “go against” 2267. If I accept 2266 then I “go against” 2267. If you accept 2267 then you “go against” 2260 and 2266. How is it that you claim I am going against the Catechism and you are not?

I can answer this, as I have in the past. Whether there is a contradiction or not is an opinion, one that you hold. The fact that I, and the Catholic Church, does not hold the same opinion at least opens the possibility that no contradiction exists, something you constantly deny. The Catechism quotes Genesis 9:5. It is not up to the Catholic to interpret this verse for himself, out of the historical context of the covenant with Noah.

More significantly, the Catechism does not represent the entire teaching of the Church; think of it as the Reader’s Digest condensed version. If you actually read what the Church has written on this subject for the past 2000 years you would recognize that it is 2267 that is out of step with Church teaching, not me.

I have read extensively on the subject and do not agree that 2267 is out of step with Church teaching, so maybe another would agree with you, or maybe not. Let me add that section 2267** is** Church teaching, as inconvenient as that might be.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The Catechism quotes Genesis 9:5. It is not up to the Catholic to interpret this verse for himself, out of the historical context of the covenant with Noah.

God gives us permission to eat meat in the same covenant. God also promises that He will never flood the earth again in the same covenant. So I guess you are a vegetarian who lives in fear of a worldwide flood; because according to you, the covenant with Noah is no longer valid.

“Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you,” (Genesis 9:9) We are all descendants of Noah, so I guess the covenant is still valid.

“And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between you, me, and every living creature with you, for all future generations””

The covenant with Noah is still in force today.

 

[pnewton]

“Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you,” (Genesis 9:9) We are all descendants of Noah, so I guess the covenant is still valid.

Yes, you guess. Others may guess otherwise. Not all covenants are eternal. (see Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Many Religions — One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World, ) In this scripture passage only one promise is stated as eternal, and that is the one made with nature (As the bow appears in the clouds, I will see it and recall the everlasting covenant that I have established between God and all living beings–all mortal creatures that are on earth.") The other instructions given to Noah are by no means eternal. Man is no longer mandated to see that everyone who sheds blood is executed. That was even modified in the Mosaic covenant.

 

[Ender]

Yes, you guess. Others may guess otherwise. Not all covenants are eternal.

It would appear, however, that this one is inasmuch as section 2260, after quoting Gen 9:6, declared it to be so: “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” That doesn’t really seem to allow more than one interpretation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Whether there is a contradiction or not is an opinion, one that you hold. The fact that I, and the Catholic Church, does not hold the same opinion at least opens the possibility that no contradiction exists, something you constantly deny.

If you think there is no contradiction then support your position with some kind of argument explaining how to understand 2260, 2266, and 2267.

The Catechism quotes Genesis 9:5. It is not up to the Catholic to interpret this verse for himself, out of the historical context of the covenant with Noah.

Fine, let’s examine how the Church has interpreted this verse. It is the basis for the entire section on capital punishment in the Catechism of Trent:

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. (Ref Gen 9:5)

Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself ! (Ref Gen 9:6)

This understanding is the reason that catechism recognized that:

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.

I have read extensively on the subject and do not agree that 2267 is out of step with Church teaching, so maybe another would agree with you, or maybe not.

Prove it. Cite any document in Church history supporting what is written in 2267.

Let me add that section 2267** is** Church teaching, as inconvenient as that might be.

Do you really believe that the third sentence in 2267, which is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems, is not an opinion? You can’t seriously believe that this is Church doctrine. How would you defend this claim: by researching the writings of Augustine and Aquinas or by poring over national crime statistics? It isn’t even a moral question so how could it possibly be a moral doctrine?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

It would appear, however, that this one is inasmuch as section 2260, after quoting Gen 9:6, declared it to be so: “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” That doesn’t really seem to allow more than one interpretation.

Ender

Here is the passage:

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

Yes, the sacredness of life is a teaching that remains for all time.

Note that I have quoted the sentence that comes between the scripture from Genesis and the pronoun this. The antecedent is the previous sentence, not the Scripture. Furthermore, the intercedeing sentence gives the principle from Genesis. It is not that every murder must die for all time, but rather that “blood a sacred sign of life.”

It should not be open to more than one interpretation, and isn’t, unless one is trying really hard to prove an eternal mandate for the death penalty. Even a casual reading of the Catechism shows this is not what is being taught. Here is the whole passage.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml