For Supporters of Capital Punishment

[Holly3278]

This is disgusting. I am just downright sickened by the fact that some hard line Muslim clerics think that they should be allowed to execute someone simply because their religion was insulted. I am so glad we have freedom here in the United States. I wish they had freedom in Pakistan.

 

[Lonely_Warrior]

In my humble opinion, speaking in such a way that “capital punishment is bad” and connect this to Muslim is not right… The death penalty cannot be definitely good or bad itself. That’s all depend of government and officials who make decision.
If the country is crooked and mad hellhole as Iran, the persecutors will find a way to destroy a victim even without officially permitted death penalty. Any instrument in hands of insane maniac is a tool of death, but it does not mean that those items are bad. If the country is civilized, death penalty will only help to make life a little better (or prevent it from being worse, speaking more clear). The injustice, not penalty must be eliminated.
Some muslims think they are tzars and can do all what they want… This should not be tolerated.

 

[Lonely_Warrior]

In my humble opinion, speaking in such a way that “capital punishment is bad” and connect this to Muslim is not right… The death penalty cannot be definitely good or bad itself. That’s all depend of government and officials who make decision.
If the country is crooked and mad hellhole as Iran, the persecutors will find a way to destroy a victim even without officially permitted death penalty. Any instrument in hands of insane maniac is a tool of death, but it does not mean that those items are bad. If the country is civilized, death penalty will only help to make life a little better (or prevent it from being worse, speaking more clear). The injustice, not penalty must be eliminated.
Some muslims think they are tzars and can do all what they want… This should not be tolerated.

 

[Lonely_Warrior]

In my humble opinion, speaking in such a way that “capital punishment is bad” and connect this to Muslim is not right… The death penalty cannot be definitely good or bad itself. That’s all depend of government and officials who make decision.
If the country is crooked and mad hellhole as Pakistan, the persecutors will find a way to destroy a victim even without officially permitted death penalty. Any instrument in hands of insane maniac is a tool of death, but it does not mean that those items are bad. If the country is civilized, death penalty will only help to make life a little better (or prevent it from being worse, speaking more clear). The injustice, not penalty must be eliminated.
Some muslims think they are tzars and can do all what they want… This should not be tolerated.

 

[Ender]

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.”

Is it your interpretation then that what is “necessary for all time” is not the teaching of Scripture but simply the explanation of the meaning of the word “blood”? Does it really seem more likely to you that the Church would stress the eternal nature of the meaning of a term within a scripture passage rather than the eternal nature of the passage itself? Genesis 9:6 is one of the most frequently cited passages not just in the Old Testament but in the entire Bible, surely it is more likely that it is the entire passage - rather than the meaning of a single word - that the Church means to stress.

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.

But we know there is an eternal mandate for the death penalty; that’s not in question and requires no proof. The Church has always recognized the State’s moral right to apply the death penalty in certain situations and this has not changed even today:

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty (2267)

Nor is this position likely to ever change:

*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)

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

You make this statement without even attempting to defend it. Nor does your citation add anything since it does nothing more than quote the Catechism; there is no explanation, no interpretation there that addresses this debate.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

But we know there is an eternal mandate for the death penalty; that’s not in question and requires no proof. The Church has always recognized the State’s moral right to apply the death penalty in certain situations and this has not changed even today:

Yes, the State has the right to recourse to the death penalty. This is not an issue that has ever been denied. The morality of the death penalty depends on its use. Surely the death penalty can be used immorally or morally. However, this is not the same thing as a mandate.

 

[ddarko]

Yes, the State has the right to recourse to the death penalty. This is not an issue that has ever been denied. The morality of the death penalty depends on its use. Surely the death penalty can be used immorally or morally. However, this is not the same thing as a mandate.

People, PEOPLE, when you quote the catechism, quote it in full with respect to what it states about an issue. Not just the first line. A sate has no right to the death penalty. No one has the right to end life???

Here is the full quote from the Catechism. I’ve bolded the most important lines so that none may miss it

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’

So there you go. In summary

1. Capital Punishment MAY be allowable under CERTAIN circumstances
2. But those circumstances are practically NON-EXISTENT in todays world.

I for one agree with the Church teaching. We know enough Psychology today to try and rehabilitate these people who do crimes.

The shepherd goes out of his way to find his one lost sheep. He doesn’t then murder it but brings it back to the flock.

About the Asia Bibi case, many Catholics here who support the death penalty must be ok with it. If the governments have a right to exercise the death penalty, who are we to intervene?

So no, no one has the right to end another life. Under certain situations it may be allowed. But in the world we live in, it is practically “non-existent” to quote the words directly from the Catechism.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

People, PEOPLE, when you quote the catechism, quote it in full with respect to what it states about an issue. Not just the first line. A sate has no right to the death penalty. No one has the right to end life???

So no, no one has the right to end another life. Under certain situations it may be allowed. But in the world we live in, it is practically “non-existent” to quote the words directly from the Catechism.

Quoting the whole of the Catechism would be against the rules here. That is why I linked the section for the Catechism that I quoted. If you re-read the rules, you will see that is the proper way of doing it.

Section 2267 does not say or deny the right of the state to have recourse to the death penalty. That is your opinion. After all, as the Holy Father has said:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Pope Benedict XVI** **

brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pope_benedict_xvi.html

 

[ddarko]

Quoting the whole of the Catechism would be against the rules here. That is why I linked the section for the Catechism that I quoted. If you re-read the rules, you will see that is the proper way of doing it.

Section 2267 does not say or deny the right of the state to have recourse to the death penalty. That is your opinion. After all, as the Holy Father has said:

brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pope_benedict_xvi.html

hmmm, I don’t know but the way you quoted the Catechism initially was more supportive of what you might have intended to say rather than the church’s position as a result. That is why I pointed it out.

Firstly, there is no right to Capital Punishment. This might be just a wording thing so I am willing to just ignore this one.

Secondly, to quote me the Holy father again to refute what I showed from the Catechism is rather moot. The Holy Father’s private musings and quotes are not infallible by any way. But the teachings of the Church are infallible. So the Catechism certainly trumps a quote from the Holy father. But in any case, the quote you presented was the Holy Father comparing two evils. I would certainly say killing a person in his/her most defenceless state is certainly a greater evil. But nevertheless, if you notice, the Holy Father does not say that Capital Punishment is OK. So I do not see what you are trying to say here.

Finally, I am not here to argue interpretation here. But I think what the Catechism states is pretty bluntly contradictory to what you want to promote though.

It clearly states

Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

I don’t know about you but I would think anyone who would read it would admit that the Church is of the position that Capital Punishment is no longer a valid method a government can pursue. I really don’t see how you can get around this.

That is not my private interpretation. Please do present your interpretation of the words in the line I quoted from the Catechism.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

But in any case, the quote you presented was the Holy Father comparing two evils. I would certainly say killing a person in his/her most defenceless state is certainly a greater evil.

You will never find anything in Catholic theology that states Capital punishment is evil.

I don’t know about you but I would think anyone who would read it would admit that the Church is of the position that Capital Punishment is no longer a valid method a government can pursue. I really don’t see how you can get around this.

I do not try to get around what the Church is teaching, in case you haven’t been following this thread. I am of divided opinion on the subject. However, the argument that I find most compeling is in the phrase, “given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it.” This is the point that I think legitimate disagreement can occur, as the Holy Father has acknowledged. While his opinion is just his personal opinion, it does support the legitimacy of holding that opinion.

Why is this a given, and who gave it to us. I have never once seen a single shred of documentation or justification for this “given.” Yes, the Catholic teaching is that given this is true, then there is no recourse to the death penalty. Yet, what if we are not given this to be true? After all, the Church is only a teacher of faith an morals, not science, including the science of criminology. Even the Catechism is tenative on the subject: “rare” and “practically non-existent”. How rare? This is an answer not for theologians, but those in the field of criminology.

 

[ddarko]

You will never find anything in Catholic theology that states Capital punishment is evil. I do not try to get around what the Church is teaching, in case you haven’t been following this thread. I am of divided opinion on the subject. However, the argument that I find most compeling is in the phrase, “given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it.” This is the point that I think legitimate disagreement can occur, as the Holy Father has acknowledged. While his opinion is just his personal opinion, it does support the legitimacy of holding that opinion.

Why is this a given, and who gave it to us. I have never once seen a single shred of documentation or justification for this “given.” Yes, the Catholic teaching is that given this is true, then there is no recourse to the death penalty. Yet, what if we are not given this to be true? After all, the Church is only a teacher of faith an morals, not science, including the science of criminology. Even the Catechism is tenative on the subject: “rare” and “practically non-existent”. How rare? This is an answer not for theologians, but those in the field of criminology.

Ok I am first not sure which country you are from and I do not want to make wrong assumptions. If you are from a third world country (keep in mind that even some of the most poorest countries have abolished death penalty) that lacks the means to keep criminals secure, offer them rehabilitation and lack the proper psychological understanding, then by all means YES, you are probably ok with using the death penalty.

But if you are from a first world country, then certainly there is NO excuse. The Catechism speaks very clearly.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of** absolute necessity for suppression** of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

If this capability to ‘effectively repress crime’ does not refer to first world countries for sure, I have no idea who it can refer to. So if you are from a first world country, then by all means, your position is morally confused at best.

By rare, this means practically non-existent. So countries like the United States for an example are way out of line. I do not know of many other countries that haven’t already abolished the death penalty but the US is a prime example if you are looking for one.

And once again, you are incorrect. A Criminologist does not determine what to do with an offender. It is the duty of a psychologist and a spiritual counsellor. Criminologist deal with solving the crimes. Psychologist deal with the mind while the Spiritual counsellor deals with the spirit.

That being said, this is really not that confusing to see though. The Catechism clearly states that TODAY, there is no need for CP. So unless you are from a third world country (even most of these countries have abolished it) that can’t afford to give adequate security to the society and counselling to the offender, there really is no MORAL grounds for you to hold that Capital Punishment is the way to go.

Just as in the case of an abortion you are talking about a life. In the case of a criminal, you are also talking about his soul. If he dies unrepentant, he goes to hell and you are responsible for it. It is your duty to try and see if he can give up his errant ways and bring him back to Christ. Put love first, not death.

God Bless

 

[yosephdaviyd]

So there you go. In summary

1. Capital Punishment MAY be allowable under CERTAIN circumstances
2. But those circumstances are practically NON-EXISTENT in todays world.

I for one agree with the Church teaching. We know enough Psychology today to try and rehabilitate these people who do crimes.

The shepherd goes out of his way to find his one lost sheep. He doesn’t then murder it but brings it back to the flock.

About the Asia Bibi case, many Catholics here who support the death penalty must be ok with it. If the governments have a right to exercise the death penalty, who are we to intervene?

So no, no one has the right to end another life. Under certain situations it may be allowed. But in the world we live in, it is practically “non-existent” to quote the words directly from the Catechism.

God Bless

Well said Ddarko! WELL SAID!!! Thank God for you!

 

[pnewton]

But if you are from a first world country, then certainly there is NO excuse. The Catechism speaks very clearly.

I will have to side with the Holy Father and exercise my disagreement. FYI - I am from the United States and have spent a quarter of a century in the field of criminal justice. I know what of I speak when I say there are some murders that can not be safely incarcerated with out threat to life. I value life, all life. This also includes the lives of innocent victims.

 

[ddarko]

I will have to side with the Holy Father and exercise my disagreement. FYI - I am from the United States and have spent a quarter of a century in the field of criminal justice. I know what of I speak when I say there are some murders that can not be safely incarcerated with out threat to life. I value life, all life. This also includes the lives of innocent victims.

First, you are really not supposed to side with a church Bishop or the Holy Father. You are supposed to side with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which includes the Holy Father’s infallible decrees. If you lived in the time of certain corrupt popes, you siding with them would have been sinful nevertheless. This is not to say that our present Holy father is corrupt BUT just pointing out where your allegiances should be in general. It should not be with a quotation of the Pope which probably for all you know was taken out of context just like when you took the single line of the Catechism. You probably know how the media took the Pope’s recent Condom comments out of context. I am pretty sure one day it will be quoted by many as if it was infallible teaching.

Secondly, no offence, but unless you are a psychologist or a spiritual counsellor or an Engineer that designs these facilities, you are way out of your field when you make the call that safe incarceration is impossible. What are you trying to say? The United States can’t keep guys who are dangerous in prison? Why? They keep highly trained terrorists in prison without much problems. Do you have some sort of criminals unique to your area that the rest of the world including some third world countries that have abolished the death penalty do not have?

Now as I said before, Criminal Justice is not the field that deals with what you can do with an offender. For that you turn to Psychology and Religion. I can assure you that human kind has made a lot of progress in the field of psychology. We also have ways of building safer prisons and keeping them secure.

In short, I really don’t think we are getting anywhere here. You seem to be a strong proponent of the death penalty and as such seem to think its ok. But the Church teaching is clear. Today there is no need to kill a criminal. We can try and bring him/her back to God under a secure environment where the person cannot harm anyone. That is our Christian responsibility and thanks be to God, we have the means to do it.

It is always harder to accept a view contrary to that which you probably held for a long time and people around you are so used to holding. But I hope you will come to the true realization eventually my friend.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

First, you are really not supposed to side with a church Bishop or the Holy Father.

I do not “side with the Holy Father”. However, his statement is data, as is the statement of AB. Chaput. I am in concert with Church teaching whether you see that or not. Your opinion of my level of expertise is irrelevant. I have stated my reasons, albeit with greater brevity than you. I guess we will just have to disagree.

 

[ddarko]

I do not “side with the Holy Father”. However, his statement is data, as is the statement of AB. Chaput. I am in concert with Church teaching whether you see that or not. Your opinion of my level of expertise is irrelevant. I have stated my reasons, albeit with greater brevity than you. I guess we will just have to disagree.

Sure. You can agree to disagree. But you are once again giving me two figures who you would like to side with.

The duty of a Roman Catholic is not to side with a couple of Bishops, a Parish Priest, a nice preacher, or a Pope to justify opposition to actual Church teaching. This is not much different from Pro-Choice people siding with Pro-Choice clergy. As I am sure you see the WRONG that these people are doing, I am surprised you can’t see the problem with your own position.

Never the less, I guess there is nothing more to continue on. I can’t give you more than what the Catechism states pretty clearly.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

This is not much different from Pro-Choice people siding with Pro-Choice clergy.

No, the two are not even on the same playing field. Abortion is always a grave evil. It is objectively a mortal sin. The Catholic Church has never supported abortion in any form through all of history.

*As John Paul II pointed out in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, direct abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be justified under any circumstances (cf. EV 62). This means that it is not left to the prudential judgment of individuals whether to have or perform a direct abortion. *

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Sure. You can agree to disagree. But you are once again giving me two figures who you would like to side with.

The duty of a Roman Catholic is not to side with a couple of Bishops, a Parish Priest, a nice preacher, or a Pope to justify opposition to actual Church teaching. This is not much different from Pro-Choice people siding with Pro-Choice clergy. As I am sure you see the WRONG that these people are doing, I am surprised you can’t see the problem with your own position.

Never the less, I guess there is nothing more to continue on. I can’t give you more than what the Catechism states pretty clearly.

God Bless

Great analogy ddarko!

 

[pnewton]

Great analogy ddarko!

If this thread can start off by comparing the vigilante killing of a woman for her religious beliefs with the execution of those who murder, then I guess I should not be surprised that some Catholics are still equating abortion with the death penalty, despite that the Church teaches this to be false.

 

[Ender]

The duty of a Roman Catholic is not to side with a couple of Bishops, a Parish Priest, a nice preacher, or a Pope to justify opposition to actual Church teaching.

“Actual Church teaching” as interpreted by … who? You? By quoting the pope and various bishops, pnewton is telling you how the Church understands the issue. It is not a question of choosing between what the bishops believe and what the Church teaches but of choosing between your understanding of Church teaching and theirs, and on that basis you interpretation has little to recommend it.

Ender