For Supporters of Capital Punishment

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko,
On the contrary, I think there is a valid reason to still have the death penalty, because it serves to “re-establish and restore the order of justice which has been disrupted” and because it also serves to atone for the crime committed by the criminal (cf. Pope Pius XII).

According to the Roman Catechism, the death penalty is “an act of paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.” If administered properly, then there’s little anyone can say against it.

I do not think that capital punishment has anything to do with the “culture of death.” It’s unfairly lumped in with true evils, such as abortion and euthanasia (both of which are evil in themselves).

Again, retribution is the primary aspect of capital punishment, not the safeguarding of society.

St. Paul, a very loving Christian, said: “For [the magistrate] is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:4).

God bless you as well!

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
On the contrary, I think there is a valid reason to still have the death penalty, because it serves to “re-establish and restore the order of justice which has been disrupted” and because it also serves to atone for the crime committed by the criminal (cf. Pope Pius XII).

According to the Roman Catechism, the death penalty is “an act of paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.” If administered properly, then there’s little anyone can say against it.

I do not think that capital punishment has anything to do with the “culture of death.” It’s unfairly lumped in with true evils, such as abortion and euthanasia (both of which are evil in themselves).

Again, retribution is the primary aspect of capital punishment, not the safeguarding of society.

St. Paul, a very loving Christian, said: “For [the magistrate] is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:4).

God bless you as well!

So once again, are you saying the position as stated in the Evangelium Vitae is moot?

What about the Vatican’s attempts at abolishing the death penalty through the UN in other counties?

I honestly don’t think you can ATONE for sins by giving someone the death penalty. Was this in an infallible writing? If so, now you do indeed have a problem in your hands. Pope JP II does not even consider that as a valid reason to uphold the death penalty. In his encyclical, the only reason to uphold it is if you cannot guarantee safety to the public from the criminal. That is certainly not the case in the US.

Therefore the death penalty is no longer a valid course of action.

And quiet honestly, if you do look at the neutrally, there is no reason today for the death penalty. It is not an act of love at all in today’s day. In st.Paul’s time it made sense because the criminal probably couldn’t even be kept secure. St. Paul speaks against using the sword in cases of continuous violators of the law in order to stop that violation. This is valid out of love for the other people whom they would harm. Back then there was no other option.

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

The reasons for the death penalty retain their validity, regardless of what anyone says. Whether or not it should be used is another question… I think the Vatican should once again promote the “traditional teaching of the Church.”

I think Evangelium Vitae is incorrect in saying there’s only one reason for which to necessitate the death penalty, yes.

I meant that the criminal himself can atone for his sins - with the enabling grace of God, of course - by accepting his punishment.

If the death penalty is not an act of love, does it then follow that all forms of coercive punishment lack love? In truth, fraternal correction (which belongs to charity/love) includes coercive punishment, and so the death penalty – which is a type of coercive punishment – cannot be opposed to love.

Pope Pius XII specifically rejected your particular interpretation of St. Paul in his address to jurists on 5 February 1955 (see my link to the PDF document).

God bless!

 

[ddarko]

The reasons for the death penalty retain their validity, regardless of what anyone says. Whether or not it should be used is another question… I think the Vatican should once again promote the “traditional teaching of the Church.”

I think Evangelium Vitae is incorrect in saying there’s only one reason for which to necessitate the death penalty, yes.

I meant that the criminal himself can atone for his sins - with the enabling grace of God, of course - by accepting his punishment.

If the death penalty is not an act of love, does it then follow that all forms of coercive punishment lack love? In truth, fraternal correction (which belongs to charity/love) includes coercive punishment, and so the death penalty – which is a type of coercive punishment – cannot be opposed to love.

Pope Pius XII specifically rejected your particular interpretation of St. Paul in his address to jurists (see my link to the PDF document).

God bless!

I don’t think so. You speak of atonement here in a very un-catholic manner as well. It sounds more like penal substitution.

In short, Christ has already atoned for all sins. Whats required is to get the Criminal to repent. I do not see how you could make a successful case the putting someone to death offers more chance of repentance than putting them through an isolated rehab program where they can meditate on their errors.

It is therefore opposed to love.

I am not sure why he would reject that view. If Pope Pius did indeed reject that view, then we have problems beyond just capital punishment.

I believe that Pope Pius rejected the view that the truth changes. As you can see this is not what I mean in St. Paul’s interpretation. The truth is still the same. We must safe guard others from the violator if there is no other way but putting him to death. BUT, the situation has changed. We can keep the person secure. That obviously does change the scenario it-self. If the Vatican wants to say that those things do not change, there are big issues.

So no, I don’t think the church teaching is non-Traditional. It is just in keeping with our time. The underlying principles are still traditional. Thanks be to God, we have developed enough to have a secure penal system.

Now the stance you are taking is similar to saying Capital Punishment is intrinsically Good. In such event, then we should by all means go back to Traditional ways as you put it. But that is not the case either. So therefore, there is no obligation to execute someone. The obligation is to protect others and try and correct the person i.e. safeguard the human dignity of all involved. That is still maintained if we abolish death penalty TODAY.

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has as one of its effects the expiation of sins, as does the penance given to us by priests in the sacrament of Penance, so what I said has nothing to do with “penal substitution” (but rather, satisfaction, which is well-attested to in Catholic theology, especially in the decrees of the Council of Trent).

I would think that the prospect of immanent death would more quickly bring a person to repentance than his having 40-50 years to think things over.

Pope Pius XII spoke on this issue a number of times… I highly doubt he was incompetent about the matter (I’m not implying, however, that anyone else is). Once more, the retribution aspect of punishment is the primary aspect.

If the Vatican won’t recognize – or instead chooses to ignore – the principles behind punishment (especially retribution) then… I may be bound in conscience to disagree (and then-Cardinal Ratzinger said it’s okay for me to uphold the Church’s traditional teaching, so it’s not as though I’m being disobedient).

God bless!

 

[pnewton]

I am simply saying that Capital punishment in this day and age is intrinsically immoral BECAUSE now we have the means of correcting these persons. That is what the Catechism states.

No. The Catechism does not say"because". You will not find that word in 2267. Furthermore “rare if no practically non-existent” does leave open the possibility of how rare is prudent and how practical is non-existence of such cases. It is unfair of you to lambast others for going against this section of the Catechism. You go against the CCC just as much, just in the other direction, by denying the possibility that the Holy Father and Cardinal Dulles spoke of, namely, legitimate disagreement.

I know, as much as I know anything of human nature, that this idea that we can now render every person who commits capital offenses incapable of harm is a myth. It fails the reality test. There have been those in the most maximum of prisons that have killed others. Technology can be bested and human beings can err, both professionally and morally. Socially, we are not willing to take the steps of denying criminals all privileges and rights that grant them access to commit more crimes. We still avoid punishment that is cruel and unusual.

 

[pnewton]

This reminds me of people who try to deny the Humanae Vitae because its ‘suppossedly’ not infallible on its teaching on Contraception, or the dissident Catholics who like to think that Abortion is OK.

Enough with that strawman already. It is insulting for this continuing comparison of those who disagree with you on this with supporters of abortion. Why don’t you parctice a little of the golden rule here. If you do not want to be compared to those people, then do not do it to others.

My advice, pick up the Catechism. Read it properly in its full context. You don’t need theological expertise to understand it. It’s written in plain English as it applies to OUR time.

So once again, as a Roman Catholic, you, me and everyone who adheres to the church stands by it’s teaching. Not a single Bishop or a Pope’s quote.

Just out of curiosity, where in the Catechism does it state that the weight given to the teachings there out weight the teachings of the Holy Father?

I have no problem with it myself, as I see it as a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction. But if you do,and you adhere to the Catechism as prime, perhaps you can provide us this answer.

 

[markomalley]

Answer this: what is the primary objective of all punishment and what obligation does that objective impose?

Ender

To my knowledge, there are five objectives. I don’t know which one should be classed as the “most important” out of the five:

1. 
   *]To defend society. To protect the society from the criminal’s future actions
   *]To deter a person from performing the criminal act: Now some who are not influenced by motive of virtue are prevented from committing sin, through fear of losing those things which they love more than those they obtain by sinning (S. Th. 2-2-108-3)
   *]To support justice by restoring what is lost to the victim: To restore is seemingly the same as to reinstate a person in the possession or dominion of his thing, so that in restitution we consider the equality of justice attending the payment of one thing for another, and this belongs to commutative justice (S. TH. 2-2-62-1)
   *]To effect retribution on the criminal: by means of punishment the equality of justice is restored, in so far as he who by sinning has exceeded in following his own will suffers something that is contrary to this will (S. Th. 2-2-108-4)
   *]To rehabilitate the criminal (the medicinal effect): *punishment may be considered as a medicine, not only healing the past sin, but also preserving from future sin, or conducing to some good *(S. Th. 2-2-108-4)
   
   (note: most Catholic ethics will group “restitution” in with “retribution” – in my little autodidact mind, I would think that “restitution” primarily refers to the restoration of temporal goods to the victim, while “retribution” refers to restoration of the spiritual goods to society)
   
   As far as an obligation, you would want the good done by the death penalty to outweigh any evils that it would do.
   
   As far as the effectiveness of capital punishment to support the above purposes:
   
   Rehabilitation is out the door. By executing a prisoner, you have given up on the idea of rehabilitation. Likewise, restitution is out the door: you won’t restore the life that was taken (or, if capital punishment was imposed for treason, rape, pedophilia, or other crimes, you won’t restore anything to the status quo ante by executing the criminal). Deterrence: the way that the death penalty is handled in this country, not very blasted effective. With the 10, 20, 30 year lag in carrying out executions (those that actually happen), how could it be considered as a deterrent? Defending society: yes, society will be defended from the criminal performing any other criminal acts. But is it the only way in which society can be defended. Finally, you have retribution. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay.” The ultimate retribution will come from God. Capital punishment can, according to Cardinal Dulles, only be considered a foreshadowing of that ultimate retribution.
   
   So basically, you have one purpose of punishment being effectively carried out through the death penalty: retribution. (as well as one that is accomplished but perhaps more violently than is absolutely necessary)
   
   A lot of the justification for the death penalty comes in providing some satisfaction to the victim’s family. They want “closure.” While I feel for them (I have known people whose family members were brutally murdered), I still have to go back to this little bit from the Summa that I quoted in an earlier post (S. Th. 2-2-108-1):
   
   Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.”
   
   If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.

 

[ddarko]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has as one of its effects the expiation of sins, as does the penance given to us by priests in the sacrament of Penance, so what I said has nothing to do with “penal substitution” (but rather, satisfaction, which is well-attested to in Catholic theology, especially in the decrees of the Council of Trent).

I would think that the prospect of immanent death would more quickly bring a person to repentance than his having 40-50 years to think things over.

Pope Pius XII spoke on this issue a number of times… I highly doubt he was incompetent about the matter (I’m not implying, however, that anyone else is). Once more, the retribution aspect of punishment is the primary aspect.

If the Vatican won’t recognize – or instead chooses to ignore – the principles behind punishment (especially retribution) then… I may be bound in conscience to disagree (and then-Cardinal Ratzinger said it’s okay for me to uphold the Church’s traditional teaching, so it’s not as though I’m being disobedient).

God bless!

Oh, then you would know that satisfaction does not entail a punishment equivalent in death. Christ’s atonement for sins was not his death. It was the blood he shed. So no, I do not think your initial theology was correct. I am not arguing satisfaction here. I am simply pointing out that your initial point of death as a penance was inaccurate.

Sure, retribution might be an aspect. But certainly the law is no longer that you kill the person. You must certainly punish him. But not with death.

Like I really do not see how its difficult. Jesus said love your enemy. Right now, in TODAY’S world, there is a possibility to love your enemy while not compromising your love for others and the same time punishing the person. That is what the good popes have said.

About Pope Pius, I am not disagreeing with him. I am simply saying that the situation today is no longer that which Pius spoke of. Also, the aspect Pope Pius spoke of as unchanging is NOT an obligation to practice capital punishment.

You seem to have missed the point I made at the end. Your view starts off with the assumption that Capital Punishment is an intrinsically GOOD thing. That is incorrect. Therefore there is NO obligation to keep it. We only care about the idea behind it. Capital punishment was just a **method **of practicing that idea (the person in the above posts elaborates the idea behind it very well). But times have changed and that idea can be practiced in different ways without the death of the person. Now it is our obligation to do so because that better respects the dignity of human life and the human person. That is what John Paul II asserts. So as you can see, there is no contradiction and neither is incompetent. It is just a confusion that Capital Punishment is the unchanging aspect when it is actually the idea behind it that remains unchanged.

Do you see my point?

You are

 

[ddarko]

No. The Catechism does not say"because". You will not find that word in 2267. Furthermore “rare if no practically non-existent” does leave open the possibility of how rare is prudent and how practical is non-existence of such cases. It is unfair of you to lambast others for going against this section of the Catechism. You go against the CCC just as much, just in the other direction, by denying the possibility that the Holy Father and Cardinal Dulles spoke of, namely, legitimate disagreement.

I know, as much as I know anything of human nature, that this idea that we can now render every person who commits capital offenses incapable of harm is a myth. It fails the reality test. There have been those in the most maximum of prisons that have killed others. Technology can be bested and human beings can err, both professionally and morally. Socially, we are not willing to take the steps of denying criminals all privileges and rights that grant them access to commit more crimes. We still avoid punishment that is cruel and unusual.

I am really not in the mood for a discussion with you considering how you reacted in your previous replies to me. Now don’t think of this as me starting a conversation.

So according to your view, because “Technology can be bested and human beings can err, both professionally and morally” we should just save the trouble and kill these people ?

You speak with so much love in your heart

God Bless

 

[Ender]

To my knowledge, there are five objectives. I don’t know which one should be classed as the “most important” out of the five

Restitution as far as possible is an obligation of the criminal but the Church doesn’t list it as an objective of punishment; she does list the other four you mentioned. More significantly, she also specifies which is primary: retribution (“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” CCC 2266).

As far as an obligation, you would want the good done by the death penalty to outweigh any evils that it would do.

Yes, that’s true, but beyond that the obligation justice imposes is that the punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime; that is, it can be neither too severe nor too lenient (“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” CCC 2266) In sum, justice places the requirement on the State that all crimes be punished with a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime and that, as this is the primary objective of all punishment, this requirement must be fulfilled regardless of whether it is required to satisfy any of the other three secondary objectives. The only general exception to this that I see is the one you mention, that the punishment not lead to other harm. I believe what motivated JPII was a belief that the death penalty in most cultures led to just such harm by fostering (in his mind) a culture of death. This opposition to the use of capital punishment is entirely practical and is not a moral objection to the death penalty per se.

So basically, you have one purpose of punishment being effectively carried out through the death penalty: retribution.

The salvation of a man’s soul is more important than his reintroduction to society and it is not at all clear that the death penalty isn’t effective in causing men to reassess their lives, but in any event, even if retribution alone is served by capital punishment that would be not only sufficient but still obligatory if no lesser punishment was commensurate with the severity of the crime.

A lot of the justification for the death penalty comes in providing some satisfaction to the victim’s family. They want “closure.” While I feel for them (I have known people whose family members were brutally murdered), I still have to go back to this little bit from the Summa that I quoted in an earlier post (S. Th. 2-2-108-1)

I don’t dispute the quote from Aquinas but I will point out that the justice of a punishment is not affected by the feelings of the victim’s family since it is the State, not the individual, which properly avenges crime (as Aquinas points out in the very next paragraph).

For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Aquinas also points to another aspect of punishment that gets completely lost in modern thinking: expiation.

Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more. (ST I/II 25, 6 ad 2)

Not surprisingly, Pius XII addressed this as well in his Address to Italian Catholic Jurists (1954):

A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sure, retribution might be an aspect. But certainly the law is no longer that you kill the person. You must certainly punish him. But not with death.

Retribution is not *an *aspect of punishment, it is *the *aspect of punishment that justifies it. It is the primary objective of all punishment.

Jesus said love your enemy. Right now, in TODAY’S world, there is a possibility to love your enemy while not compromising your love for others and the same time punishing the person. That is what the good popes have said.

The “good” popes? As opposed to the 263 previous popes who must have been bad for either not opposing capital punishment or for steadfastly supporting it? But you misunderstand the relation between love and punishment as there is no conflict between loving those who have sinned and punishing them, nor does our forgiveness of them mitigate or lessen the punishment their sin has earned them. Justice must still be served.

God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (JPII, 1999)

About Pope Pius, I am not disagreeing with him. I am simply saying that the situation today is no longer that which Pius spoke of.

Circumstances may change but morality does not change with the times; if capital punishment was moral before then it is moral today and if it was moral before it can only be because it satisfied the primary objective of punishment: retribution. That is, it was commensurate with the severity of the crime of murder, and that relation cannot change with the times as nature of the crime cannot change because the nature of man cannot change.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Retribution is not *an *aspect of punishment, it is *the *aspect of punishment that justifies it. It is the primary objective of all punishment.

The “good” popes? As opposed to the 263 previous popes who must have been bad for either not opposing capital punishment or for steadfastly supporting it? But you misunderstand the relation between love and punishment as there is no conflict between loving those who have sinned and punishing them, nor does our forgiveness of them mitigate or lessen the punishment their sin has earned them. Justice must still be served.

God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (JPII, 1999)

Circumstances may change but morality does not change with the times; if capital punishment was moral before then it is moral today and if it was moral before it can only be because it satisfied the primary objective of punishment: retribution. That is, it was commensurate with the severity of the crime of murder, and that relation cannot change with the times as nature of the crime cannot change because the nature of man cannot change.

Ender

Once again, you are talking from the stance that Capital punishment is intrinsically moral. That is incorrect. So morality HAS NOT CHANGED. There was NO obligation for Capital Punishment to begin with. This is what you do not seem to comprehend.

So the 263 popes did not oppose or support Capital Punishment as something moral. It was supported as a method of carrying out something that was MORAL. Once you get this two separated, I think things will be much more clearer to you and all contradictions will disappear.

Anyways, this is not to start a discussion with you. I am replying only as a courtesy and will not do so anymore to you. So please don’t expect a reply from me. My discussion will be with SouthpawLink as I think he at least trying to consider all teaching as a whole. I am not unable to tolerate your stance of picking and choosing from quotes you LIKE to make your case while IGNORING Encyclicals. That is Un-Catholic.

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko,
With the enabling grace of God, the penance that we do – be it prayers, fasting or justly being condemned to death – expiates the temporal punishment due to sins.

“God requires a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin to teach us the great evil of sin and to prevent us from falling again. The chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin are: Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving; all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and the patient suffering of the ills of life” (Baltimore Catechism No. 3, qq. 804-805).

As executing a murderer is “proportionate to the gravity of [his] offense,” (CCC, 2266) there is nothing wrong with justly administered capital punishment.

Yes, we can love others and still justly punish them for the wrongs they have committed. Forgiveness does not negate the need for restitution. See paragraphs 1459-1460 in the Catechism.

What do you mean when you say that the situation today is longer that of which Pope Pius XII discussed? What has changed? I think that Ender made an excellent point in quoting both St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XII, viz. through capital punishment, the criminal expiates his crime and is prevented from sinning any longer (which all criminals sentenced to life in prison invariably do).

Capital punishment, if administered justly, is morally good (or at least neutral, but never evil). Why? God Himself put men to death because of their crimes (cf. Num. 16:30; 1 Sam. 6:19), and He being all-good, cannot do that which is evil.

Going back to Pope Pius XII, saying that it is no longer necessary to make use of the death penalty apparently shows a forgetfulness that God Himself is sinned against when man murders another man. Capital punishment satisfies the justice owed to God, and I would imagine it is much better than letting a murderer live so that he may continue to sin against God while waiting to die in prison.

Again, capital punishment satisfies the justice owed to God, restores the social order, helps man to expiate his own sins (if he accepts his sentence by God’s grace), and prevents him from sinning further against God.

Captial punishment does not violate the dignity of a justly convicted criminal; every man does have some dignity, although it can be increased or diminished by his moral actions (cf. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum). Pius XII said that the criminal “deprived himself of the right to life by his crime” (14 September 1952).

Romano Amerio said, “There is in fact no unconditional right to any of the goods of earthly life; the only truly inviolable right is the right to seek one’s ultimate goal, that is truth, virtue and eternal happiness, and the means necessary to acquire these. This right remains untouched even by the death penalty.”

Six years before his death, Pope John Paul II said, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. … [T]he death penalty is both cruel and unnecessary” (St. Louis, MO, 27 January 1999).

A convicted criminal retains some dignity (he remains a rational creature possible of attaining eternal beatitude by his repentance and faith), but as he is guilty of a crime deserving of death, he should not be confused as an innocent man who indeed has the inviolable right to life. I see no reason why Pope John Paul II would say that the death penalty is now “cruel” when God – Who is eternal – Himself carried out the death penalty several times in the Old Testament.

So the 263 popes did not oppose or support Capital Punishment as something moral. It was supported as a method of carrying out something that was MORAL.

Let me see if I have this right: The popes did not support capital punishment as something moral, but instead they supported the use of capital punishment as something moral…

In order for an action to be moral, the object, intention and circumstances must all be good. If the popes supported the use of capital punishment (object - what is done) to carry out justice (intent - the purpose) of justly-convicted criminals (circumstances), then it necessarily follows that capital punishment itself is good, otherwise the popes would be supporting and encouraging something evil.

Finally, I would once again like to point out: “If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment… he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, n. 3; July 2004).

In order words, it is neither wrong nor sinful for me to support the death penalty, which is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

 

[Ender]

I am not unable to tolerate your stance of picking and choosing from quotes you LIKE to make your case while IGNORING Encyclicals. That is Un-Catholic.

I am not ignoring either the current catechism nor Evangelium Vitae - but neither can I ignore everything else the Church has written on the subject. The difficulty is not resolved by picking and choosing among apparently conflicting documents but of reconciling all of them, and the only way I can see to reconcile the difficulties that 2267 has created with regard to previous teaching is to understand it as the prudential opinion of JPII that, in current societies, the application of the death penalty does more harm than good and, at least for now, should not be used. As a practical and not a moral objection it would not be in conflict with traditional Church teaching.

The traditional position of the Church on capital punishment was recognized and accepted by Popes Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius X, Leo XIII, Innocent III, and Innocent I. These at least are the ones I can find who commented on the subject; there may surely be others. Their position is also explicitly supported by the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of Pius X, the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of St. Thomas. Beyond that, if more was necessary, it is supported by most of the Early Fathers as well as Augustine and Aquinas. Against all of that (as well as sections 2260 and 2266 in the current catechism) you have … 2267. The charge of picking and choosing what to believe and what to ignore is not one that seems all that applicable. At least not applied to me.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Captial punishment does not violate the dignity of a justly convicted criminal; every man does have some dignity, although it can be increased or diminished by his moral actions (cf. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum).

The claim that capital punishment violates a criminal’s dignity actually loses sight of the fact that it is only because the individual retains his worth as a human being that the loss of his life is capable of expiating his sin. After all, if his life was worthless, how could that possibly pay off his debt? It is only because life is intrinsically valuable that its loss in every circumstance has meaning. We do not consider that sentencing someone to prison demeans the value of freedom and by the same logic we should not consider that sentencing someone to death demeans the value of life.

I see no reason why Pope John Paul II would say that the death penalty is now “cruel” when God – Who is eternal – Himself carried out the death penalty several times in the Old Testament.

Inasmuch as the Church still cites Gen 9:6 (CCC 2260) which explicitly states that the penalty for murder is death it is difficult to fathom the current opposition to following the mandate God has given.

Ender

 

[SouthpawLink]

The claim that capital punishment violates a criminal’s dignity actually loses sight of the fact that it is only because the individual retains his worth as a human being that the loss of his life is capable of expiating his sin. After all, if his life was worthless, how could that possibly pay off his debt? It is only because life is intrinsically valuable that its loss in every circumstance has meaning. We do not consider that sentencing someone to prison demeans the value of freedom and by the same logic we should not consider that sentencing someone to death demeans the value of life.

Inasmuch as the Church still cites Gen 9:6 (CCC 2260) which explicitly states that the penalty for murder is death it is difficult to fathom the current opposition to following the mandate God has given.

Ender

Those are both very good points; I’m in agreement with you.

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
With the enabling grace of God, the penance that we do – be it prayers, fasting or justly being condemned to death – expiates the temporal punishment due to sins.

“God requires a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin to teach us the great evil of sin and to prevent us from falling again. The chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin are: Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving; all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and the patient suffering of the ills of life” (Baltimore Catechism No. 3, qq. 804-805).

Sure. Whose disagreeing with that? This is just Catholic teaching that no one denies.

Capital punishment however doesn’t qualify as penance. What are you eve suggesting? That we should all commit suicide as a sign of penance for our sins ? Or better yet, ask the next person to end our lives.

As executing a murderer is “proportionate to the gravity of [his] offense,” (CCC, 2266) there is nothing wrong with justly administered capital punishment.

Aah, once again, you made the leap from penance to proportionate punishment. Penance can’t be done if the person is not repentant. I thought you knew that.

Yes, we can love others and still justly punish them for the wrongs they have committed. Forgiveness does not negate the need for restitution. See paragraphs 1459-1460 in the Catechism.

Once again, I do not disagree. No one is saying that the Criminals should not be punished. You are really assigning a false position to me now.

What do you mean when you say that the situation today is longer that of which Pope Pius XII discussed? What has changed? I think that Ender made an excellent point in quoting both St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XII, viz. through capital punishment, the criminal expiates his crime and is prevented from sinning any longer (which all criminals sentenced to life in prison invariably do).

Do you and Ender even read the stuff that you type to me?

You just said “through capital punishment, the criminal expiates his crime and is prevented from sinning any longer”. What has changed now is that WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT ENDING THE PERSONS LIFE. This is almost elementary stuff that you and Ender are making a theological mess out of.

We can stop them from sinning AND give them a punishment.

Capital punishment, if administered justly, is morally good (or at least neutral, but never evil). Why? God Himself put men to death because of their crimes (cf. Num. 16:30; 1 Sam. 6:19), and He being all-good, cannot do that which is evil.

So? You are again on the track of trying to equate Capital Punishment to be intrinsically GOOD. That is false!!! What part don’t you get about that? So NO. There is no obligation for Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment is just a method which may be used.

Going back to Pope Pius XII, saying that it is no longer necessary to make use of the death penalty apparently shows a forgetfulness that God Himself is sinned against when man murders another man. Capital punishment satisfies the justice owed to God, and I would imagine it is much better than letting a murderer live so that he may continue to sin against God while waiting to die in prison.

OH Riiight! You see this is your biggest flaw. You think the only way to prevent the other from sinning is to END that persons life. All this time, I have been telling you and your dear buddy Ender that THERE ARE OTHER MEANS TODAY to do that.

IF you two live under a rock and are unaware of the progress made in penal system and technology, that is certainly another entire matter.

Again, capital punishment satisfies the justice owed to God, restores the social order, helps man to expiate his own sins (if he accepts his sentence by God’s grace), and prevents him from sinning further against God.

Nice. You can copy and paste.

What you fail to realize is that we have better means of satisfying JUSTICE for God WHILE bringing back his strayed Sheep back. Once again, you are now picking and choosing religious elements them selves to favor your position and ignoring the others. You and I HAVE an obligation to BRING BACK those who have sinned. Not Punish them to give justice to God. Under your view, all of us, since we are sinners will be too busy punishing each other than getting anything done.

In short, this is the problem as I’ve been saying OVER AND OVER again.

1. You assume that Capital Punishment is intrinsically good.

THAT IS FALSE!!! You keep giving me these scriptural passages, these ideas of God’s justice been carried out by the “loving Christians” like you and Ender but you FAIL TO REALIZE that it does not make Capital Punishment good.

Get it?

And please try to keep the posts short next time. Repeating yourself is pointless.

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko:

Capital punishment however doesn’t qualify as penance. What are you even suggesting?

Exactly what the Catechism says: “When [punishment, including capital punishment] is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation” (n. 2266). In other words, capital punishment can be penance for the criminal who is repentant and “willingly accept” his punishment (Ven. Pius XII said this as well - see the quote below).

I have not jumped from penance to proportionate punishment, but rather I’ve merely answered your previous post in order.

Penance can’t be done if the person is not repentant.

Where or when have I disagreed with this truth? Of course a person must be repentant in order for him to do penance.

What has changed now is that WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT ENDING THE PERSONS LIFE.

“Up to a certain point, it may be true that imprisonment and isolation, when properly applied, constitute the penalty most likely to effect a return of the wrongdoer to right order and life in the community. But it does not follow from this that imprisonment is the only just and effective punishment. Our remarks on international penal law on October 3, 1953, referring to the theory of retribution apply here” (Pope Pius XII, Address of 5 December 1954: A.A.S. vol. XLVII, p. 67).

Can you agree with the Pontiff’s statement?

Moreover, so long as a person lives, he is never entirely free of sin, even venial sin (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, can. 23). Life in prison doesn’t guarantee that the criminal will no longer sin (neither mortally nor venially), as it has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread by people who’ve actually worked with the department of corrections.

I assert the good (or at least the neutrality) of capital punishment while you seem to assert that it is somehow evil. I disagree with you. Pope John Paul II appeared to say that capital punishment is evil in itself (at St. Louis: “cruel and unnecessary”), which contradicts Catholic doctrine (the teaching of Scripture, Doctors and Pontiffs).

You appear to assert that the death penalty cannot rehabilitate criminals, i.e. bring them to repentance. I’ve already made it clear that I disagree with you on this point. Once again, the teaching of Ven. Pius XII:

“While man is on earth, such [capital] punishment both can and should help towards his eternal salvation, provided he himself raises no obstacle to its salutary efficacy” (Ibid.).

God bless!

 

[ddarko]

Exactly what the Catechism says: “When [punishment, including capital punishment] is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation” (n. 2266). In other words, capital punishment be penance for the criminal who is repentant and “willingly accept” his punishment.

Sorry but no. You are once again not reading things completely. The key word I would point out to you of the Catechism is** “WILLINGLY”**. That should make things clear as to why I say people should be given time to repent.

Where or when have I disagreed with this truth? Of course a person must be repentant in order for him to do penance.

Every time you assumed that giving Capital Punishment automatically qualifies as penance, you fell in to this.

In other words, I am saying you cannot argue for capital punishment on the merit of penance since penance it-self is in the hands of the criminal now. It’s his free choice to repent. Not yours.

“Up to a certain point, it may be true that imprisonment and isolation, when properly applied, constitute the penalty most likely to effect a return of the wrongdoer to right order and life in the community. But it does not follow from this that imprisonment is the only just and effective punishment. Our remarks on international penal law on October 3, 1953, referring to the theory of retribution apply here” (Pope Pius XII, Address of 5 December 1954: A.A.S. vol. XLVII, p. 67).

Can you agree with the Pontiff’s statement?

Of course. He is talking about it possibly not being just and effective. In those times, that could have certainly been true. But if you do indeed study the Psychological progress we’ve made and the advancements in our penal system, this is no longer the case. This is why the Pope’s after him, without a risk of contradicting Pope Pius, continue to try and abolish the death penalty in countries.

Now my question to you, do you, or do you NOT agree that the current popes are trying to abolish death penalty in countries?

Moreover, so long as a person lives, he is never entirely free of sin, even venial sin (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, can. 23). Life in prison doesn’t guarantee that the criminal will no longer sin (neither mortally nor venially), as it has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread by people who’ve actually worked with the department of corrections.

Ok this is almost heretical talk. I don’t you really knew what you were saying when you said this. Just to highlight one major problem, if you are saying that a person should be in a sinless state, that is not really what being a Christian is about. All men have sinned. Does this mean that they should be punished with death? The true and JUST punishment for disobeying God is death. Now does this mean that for the sake of justice, we should go around giving the death penalty to the people we see as sinning? NO.

The idea of forgiveness is for those who sin. The sacrament of penance which CAN forgive even MURDER is for sinners. Not for perfect Christians.

I assert the good (or at least the neutrality) of capital punishment while you seem to assert that it is somehow evil. I disagree with you. Pope John Paul II appeared to say that capital punishment is evil in itself (at St. Louis: “cruel and unnecessary”), which contradicts Catholic doctrine (the teaching of Scripture, Doctors and Pontiffs).

Nope. I do not assert it is Evil. I am against saying it is EVIL or Good.

I am simply saying that to practice the death penalty in todays world is certainly immoral. It means that the person is either ignorant of the progress man has made (in which case excusable) OR they just do not understand the value of human life. That is my position.

Now the more I talk with you, I get the vibe that you have both of the above. My goal is to try and make you see the value of human life.

Statements such as “We must give the death penalty to give Justice to God for the sins that the person has committed” is almost a trip back to the Old Testament. That is not how we Christians go about things. We are not a people of the law. We are people of love. Thus, we act out of love and not out of the law.

You appear to assert that the death penalty cannot rehabilitate criminals, i.e. bring them to repentance. I’ve already made it clear that I disagree with you on this point. Once again, the teaching of Ven. Pius XII:

“While man is on earth, such [capital] punishment both can and should help towards his eternal salvation, provided he himself raises no obstacle to its salutary efficacy” (Ibid.).

Out of everything that I can see you disagreeing, this is certainly the one that blew my mind. You want to tell me that the death penalty has rehabilitating qualities ?

But I see where you went wrong. You once again ignored the most important part of Pope Pius’s words

“While man is on earth, such [capital] punishment both can and should help towards his eternal salvation, provided he himself raises no obstacle to its salutary efficacy”

So no, there is no rehabilitative quality in the death penalty unless the person has already accepted, repented and told you, “let me have it”.

God Bless