H
hamburglar
Guest
I thought that the Catholic Church was against the death penalty. But it seems that all of the presidential candidates that are Roman Catholic FAVOR the death penalty. I don’t get it.
- Status
B
bilop
Guest
There is no magisterial teaching on this issue. It is up to each Catholic to exercise there own prudent judgement on this issue. Same as Just War.
God Bless
God Bless
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Legitimate Defense
[2265](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’)
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
[2266](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
[2265](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.[2266](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67[2267](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church has never in its 2,000 years in existnece been against the death Penalty.
H
hamburglar
Guest
Doesn’t the Catechism say that the death penalty is not to be excluded, but should only be used in extremely rare cases where there is no other way of preventing further crime?
It seems that the death penalty is always used as revenge. That’s just not right.
E
estesbob
Guest
I oppose the Death Penalty in all cases. The church does not. They leave it up to the State to decide.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The state has the duty of maintaing peace and order and can resort to the death penalty to accomplish this end if necessary.
That being said, the position of most bishops and recent popes is that it is not necessary at this time.
I recently researched and wrote a cost-benefit analysis in a Law and Ecomonics seminar examining this issue (in the USA) from a purely utilitarian perspective–I went in with an open mind not really knowing what the answer would be. My conclusion was this: not only is the death penalty unnecessary given the current circumstances, but it actually has a negative impact (again, from a utilitarian perspective).
However, as has been pointed out, there can be valid disagreement as to whether the death penalty is or is not necessary at this time. The final authority to make this decision rests with the state, not the Church (although the Church can advise)–and of course the responsibility of using it also rests with the state and God will judge whether they abused their authority or not.
As an aside, the death penalty would actually be worthwhile (from a utilitarian perspective) if we had a system like the old west–a short trial and then straight to the gallows. Likewise, it would also be worthwhile if used for much lesser crimes than the current capital crimes. Of course, then there arise ethical and moral obstacles.
That being said, the position of most bishops and recent popes is that it is not necessary at this time.
I recently researched and wrote a cost-benefit analysis in a Law and Ecomonics seminar examining this issue (in the USA) from a purely utilitarian perspective–I went in with an open mind not really knowing what the answer would be. My conclusion was this: not only is the death penalty unnecessary given the current circumstances, but it actually has a negative impact (again, from a utilitarian perspective).
However, as has been pointed out, there can be valid disagreement as to whether the death penalty is or is not necessary at this time. The final authority to make this decision rests with the state, not the Church (although the Church can advise)–and of course the responsibility of using it also rests with the state and God will judge whether they abused their authority or not.
As an aside, the death penalty would actually be worthwhile (from a utilitarian perspective) if we had a system like the old west–a short trial and then straight to the gallows. Likewise, it would also be worthwhile if used for much lesser crimes than the current capital crimes. Of course, then there arise ethical and moral obstacles.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
presidential candidates who happen to be Catholic are not teaching Catholic doctrine, they are expressing personal opinion. Unless that candidate is a theologian at a Catholic University and has signed the mandatum.
N
Nancie_Lew
Guest
Pope John Paul was against the death penalty but that was only his personal opinion on the matter.
J
Joseph_Michael
Guest
The Holy Father calls recourse to the death penalty “unnecessary” and painfully reminds us that our “model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message.” (Pope John Paul II, World Day of the Sick, Washington, DC, February 2003)
Check the link for the whole statement:
Statements on the Death Penalty By John Paul II / USCCB
Joseph
Check the link for the whole statement:
Statements on the Death Penalty By John Paul II / USCCB
Joseph
G
goofyjim
Guest
Which is exactly why I distrust the whole lot of the presidential candidates on both sides of the political fence. I really wish we had some good candidates to vote for but I guess the lesser of two evils will have to do.
M
Melchior
Guest
The problem is murderers are a danger to those they are incarcerated with. Only ending capital punishment prevents murders from murdering again. Those in prisons need protection from the too.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those evils.
N
Nino
Guest
N
Nino
Guest
NOT death penalty…but capital punishment…its best for all concerned to execute a piece of human garbage then to allow it to live for some maybe 30 years in a prison…on a balanced diet,clean clothes and bedding…a roof over their heads ,gym privileges and who knows what else…at some $50,000 dollars a year upkeep what a disgrace…juice the bum and let God make final judgement on his or her soul!..in the mean time OJ and others with money play golf and laugh at the system of "Justice’we have…enjoy the day…Nino
B
Brendan
Guest
But the Holy Father was too much of a Theologian to speak against the Council of Trent
(on the 5th Commandment)
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Pope John Paul II made serious errors in fact and logic within his anti death penalty writings. In addition he overlooked the many biblical, theological and traditional Church teachings on the death penalty - such teachings overwhelm his inaccurate writings on the death penalty.
PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in by so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.
We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.
PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in by so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.
We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, but the Holy Father was also a theologian enough to know that he cannot teach against the Council of Trent on this matter either.
As Trent stated, the proper use of the Death Penalty in the legitimate avenging of crime and in the preservation of Human Life is an act of “paramount obedience” to the Gospel.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
The current Church’s stance is very strange.
Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of “paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment.”* (“Thou shalt not murder,” sometimes improperly translated as “kill” instead of “murder”).* And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further.* The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.
*
Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.
*
The relevant question is “What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from ‘paramount obedience’ to God’s eternal law to a civil standard reflecting ‘steady improvements’ . . . in the penal system?”.* Such teachings hadn’t changed.* The Pope’s position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings.
*
If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent “paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?
*
The Church’s position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD.* The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.
*
Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . .* Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty.* You can find example after example of Pope’s, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases.” Grabowski continues: “What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society – given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty.”* (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)
*
The Pope’s position is now based upon the state of the corrections system – a position neither biblical nor theological in nature.* Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons.* Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s.* Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before --* meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers* could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars – now and then --* were and are well aware of.*
- Status