A
- Status
N
Neildown
Guest
The death penalty is not exclusively ‘forbidden’ by the Roman Catholic Church. If a criminal is justly accused and proven to have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty then it is not in contention with the Church’s teaching.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Neither is war, but surely the Church does not encourage war and oftentimes actively discourages it.
C
Corki
Guest
I don’t know about the national set-up but here in Houston, where Cardinal DiNardo is based, the diocisan efforts to end the death penalty fall under a different chancery office - not the Respect Life office. The Office of Justice and Peace has issued many statements challenging the death penalty and Cardinal DiNardo, in his capacity as Archbishop of the diocese, has been very active in that area as well.
J
Jedi_Ferveo
Guest
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
As far as I am aware the Catholic Bishops in the US are against the death penalty,and that has been their policy for nearly forty years.Let’s not forget that our Lord was executed by the state. I have always found it a little strange that Catholics in the US claim to be pro-life while at the same time most favour state killing/murder/revenge call it what you will. The cocktail of drugs used to kill Troy Davis are banned for use on animals in Europe !
Douay Rheims
For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.Matthew 7:2
N
Nate13
Guest
In all truth that verse doesn’t help you much. I think most people would say they were willingly to face the death penalty if they were a serial killer. Plus we are only meting out judgement as it relates to a person’s life here on Earth. We do not judge a person’s soul.
M
manualman
Guest
The issues that are selected for emphasis by the bishops in their public efforts are made on the basis of BOTH the inherent morality of the issue and the proportionate impact of the issue. This is made clear in many versions of the USCCB “Faithful Citizenship” document over the years.
In America, with our resources, I tend to agree that the imposition of the death penalty is morally indefensible. But the death penalty results in the killing of (guessing here) 20-30 concivted criminals per year, each of which had the benefit of MILLIONS of dollars worth of trials first to attempt to be sure of their guilt first.
The stark reality is that this proportionate impact is miniscule compared to the 2,700 innocent babies murdered in the womb EVERY DAY in America and the apalling situation that the law enforcement policies of this country have been hijacked into SUPPORTING this injustice instead of fighting it. Not to mention the quickly ramping up industry of creating new life in petri dishes in order to effectively grow them for spare body parts. Who knows what the numbers potential there is?
The emphasis the bishops place on abortion, embryonic experimentation and euthanasia is (finally) consistant with the guidance they have been giving the voters.
Another example if you still don’t get it is as follows: A murderous riot breaks out where rioters commit a large number of killings. Police riot teams rush to the site and concentrate their efforts FIRST on those rioters with guns. This does not imply a lack of concern for rioters killing with baseball bats. Rather it is a prioritization of resources to do the most good most quickly.
For far too many years, catholics have squandered their public influence because we failed to assess the proportionate impact of the moral issues of the day. We pretended they were all of equal importance and proceeded to cancel each other out in the voting booth. That really needs to end.
In America, with our resources, I tend to agree that the imposition of the death penalty is morally indefensible. But the death penalty results in the killing of (guessing here) 20-30 concivted criminals per year, each of which had the benefit of MILLIONS of dollars worth of trials first to attempt to be sure of their guilt first.
The stark reality is that this proportionate impact is miniscule compared to the 2,700 innocent babies murdered in the womb EVERY DAY in America and the apalling situation that the law enforcement policies of this country have been hijacked into SUPPORTING this injustice instead of fighting it. Not to mention the quickly ramping up industry of creating new life in petri dishes in order to effectively grow them for spare body parts. Who knows what the numbers potential there is?
The emphasis the bishops place on abortion, embryonic experimentation and euthanasia is (finally) consistant with the guidance they have been giving the voters.
Another example if you still don’t get it is as follows: A murderous riot breaks out where rioters commit a large number of killings. Police riot teams rush to the site and concentrate their efforts FIRST on those rioters with guns. This does not imply a lack of concern for rioters killing with baseball bats. Rather it is a prioritization of resources to do the most good most quickly.
For far too many years, catholics have squandered their public influence because we failed to assess the proportionate impact of the moral issues of the day. We pretended they were all of equal importance and proceeded to cancel each other out in the voting booth. That really needs to end.
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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.’"
(46) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266
Below: Pope John Paul II’s Statements on the Death Penalty
“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
“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. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
(46) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266
Below: Pope John Paul II’s Statements on the Death Penalty
“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
“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. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
N
Neildown
Guest
Exactly, but when the boot fits it is a valid approach.
N
Neildown
Guest
I can understand why anyone would be against the death penalty, but the fact that American Catholic bishops are against the death penalty is not of any particular relevance to the fact that the death penalty IS allowed by the Church, and is probably the best alternative under very specific circumstances. The fact that our Lord was executed does not abolish punishment by the state - the fact that the Church does not forbid its use under specific circumstances is evidence enough of that.
There is a difference between pro-life and justice - they are two entirely different classes. You can still be pro-life and just at the same time while allowing the death penalty to exist. Everyone has the means to avoid the death penalty, plain and simple, and if you do a horrible crime and know the consequences you are deserving of that punishment.
Does that then mean I shouldn’t kill a man if he is trying to murder my family? That I will meet the same demise for upholding justice? That’s what the penalty is - an upholding and exercise of justice, as long as the recipient is proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be responsible for a horrendous act worthy of that punishment. There were even licit executions in the Bible too if I’m not mistaken.
C
crayons
Guest
I am replying to the bolded. This is not true! It’s especially terrible/funny-in-a-sad-way that you said this in reply to a post that mentioned Troy Davis! Perhaps, in an ideal world, everyone has the means to avoid the death penalty (though, I guess, in an ideal world we could say that there would be no need for the death penalty to even exist). However, in our current society (I am mainly focusing on the U.S., but this sort of thing is apparent in other societies as well), the interconnections of class/socioeconomic level, race, etc. play out so that our justice system does not carry out justice as it always should. But merely not-committing-crimes doesn’t guarantee everyone safety from punishment or the death penalty.
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
Did Mary demand the blood of her son’s executioners? Or did Christ demand a price for the blood of John or that his own death be avenged? Did Simon the Zealot lead a revolt on the temple when they stoned his friend Stephen?
When Peter was “lead were he did not want to go” do you think his heart was full of Agape or revenge?
To argue that the words of Christ condone or turn a blind eye to violent death at the hands of men is a folly. Whether that death be at the hands of the law as in his own death and that of Stephen.
The word of the Lord is Love “Agape”. God sent Christ, Love, Agape into the world not to judge it…but to save it.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. ~Mahatma Gandhi
When Peter was “lead were he did not want to go” do you think his heart was full of Agape or revenge?
To argue that the words of Christ condone or turn a blind eye to violent death at the hands of men is a folly. Whether that death be at the hands of the law as in his own death and that of Stephen.
The word of the Lord is Love “Agape”. God sent Christ, Love, Agape into the world not to judge it…but to save it.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. ~Mahatma Gandhi
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The Church has consistently taught that abortion is the murder of an innocent person and it is not permitted under any circumstance. Life begins at conception and must be respected and nurtured from that moment onward. It is not permitted to kill the preborn child even in the case of saving the mother’s life. You cannot kill an innocent person in order to save another innocent person. This is written within our very nature and is one of the major principles of the natural law. Murder is not simply a “legal term” murder is the unjust taking of an innocent human life and there is no occasion when one can deliberately take an innocent human life justly. The Scriptural prohibition is found in the 5th Commandment; “Thou shalt not kill.”
The Church throughout her history has firmly held to the natural law principle that the state has the right to execute criminals who are a threat both to the innocent and to the harmony of society. One of the principal duties of the state is to protect the rights of its citizens from the unjust taking of those rights. The state itself is supposed to be subordinate to this same principle so that its citizens can feel secure that their individual, God given, rights are protected in every circumstance. When the rights of the innocent person are violated by those who transgress the law the state has the right to use whatever means are necessary and appropriate to secure the rights of its individual citizens and its society as a whole. Without the protection of the state, exercised according to the natural law, the innocent suffer and unjust aggressors prosper, order and harmony break down and freedom for law-abiding citizens is lost. In the Old Testament God speaks of this necessary order continuously. Capital punishment was even required by God to maintain the natural order and harmony of Israelite society. Jesus never once refuted this natural law precept which, as the Second Person of the Trinity, He created in the first place.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6)
We are against the murder of INNOCENT human life in every circumstance, from the preborn human existing from the moment of conception to the aged, handicapped, disabled and terminally ill and every INNOCENT person in between. We maintain the God-given right of every innocent human being to life, liberty, justice and the right to defend oneself, family, neighbor and country against any unjust aggressor who would attempt to violate our God-given rights. Therefore, we are anti-abortion, anti-infanticide and anti-euthanasia. On the other hand, we are pro-innocent human life, pro-second amendment, and pro-capital punishment.
It is necessary to make an extremely important distinction. For Roman Catholics there are some human beings who have, by their own choice, forfeited their right to liberty and some their right to life itself. These individuals have brought upon themselves this terrible consequence by posing a threat to the natural harmony and order of a free society in general and to another or other individuals in particular. By their actions they either require incarceration or their actions are so heinous that the only appropriate response is to rid society and its innocent citizens from this threat and to create an atmosphere conducive to the innocent prospering and living in peace and security. Execution is also a just form of punishment meted out by the state especially for those criminals who have committed crimes which have deliberately taken innocent human life or crimes which by their very nature are so heinous that the person who commits them deserves the ultimate punishment the natural and civil law allow.
St. Thomas Aquinas gives an explanation of the need and legitimate use of capital punishment as follows:
roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm
The Church throughout her history has firmly held to the natural law principle that the state has the right to execute criminals who are a threat both to the innocent and to the harmony of society. One of the principal duties of the state is to protect the rights of its citizens from the unjust taking of those rights. The state itself is supposed to be subordinate to this same principle so that its citizens can feel secure that their individual, God given, rights are protected in every circumstance. When the rights of the innocent person are violated by those who transgress the law the state has the right to use whatever means are necessary and appropriate to secure the rights of its individual citizens and its society as a whole. Without the protection of the state, exercised according to the natural law, the innocent suffer and unjust aggressors prosper, order and harmony break down and freedom for law-abiding citizens is lost. In the Old Testament God speaks of this necessary order continuously. Capital punishment was even required by God to maintain the natural order and harmony of Israelite society. Jesus never once refuted this natural law precept which, as the Second Person of the Trinity, He created in the first place.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6)
We are against the murder of INNOCENT human life in every circumstance, from the preborn human existing from the moment of conception to the aged, handicapped, disabled and terminally ill and every INNOCENT person in between. We maintain the God-given right of every innocent human being to life, liberty, justice and the right to defend oneself, family, neighbor and country against any unjust aggressor who would attempt to violate our God-given rights. Therefore, we are anti-abortion, anti-infanticide and anti-euthanasia. On the other hand, we are pro-innocent human life, pro-second amendment, and pro-capital punishment.
It is necessary to make an extremely important distinction. For Roman Catholics there are some human beings who have, by their own choice, forfeited their right to liberty and some their right to life itself. These individuals have brought upon themselves this terrible consequence by posing a threat to the natural harmony and order of a free society in general and to another or other individuals in particular. By their actions they either require incarceration or their actions are so heinous that the only appropriate response is to rid society and its innocent citizens from this threat and to create an atmosphere conducive to the innocent prospering and living in peace and security. Execution is also a just form of punishment meted out by the state especially for those criminals who have committed crimes which have deliberately taken innocent human life or crimes which by their very nature are so heinous that the person who commits them deserves the ultimate punishment the natural and civil law allow.
St. Thomas Aquinas gives an explanation of the need and legitimate use of capital punishment as follows:
Code:
"Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore
every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe
that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member,
through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be
both praiseworthy an advantageous to have it cut out of the body. Now
every individual person is compared to the whole community, on
account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be
executed in order to safeguard the common good,...
Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank
having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals,
can lawfully put evil doers to death." (Q.64 Art. 2 -3 Pt.II-II)
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
@ Abyssinian
“And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them.”
“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?”
“This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.”
“But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.”
“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.”
“When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”
“She said, No man, Lord.”
“And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:2-11 KJV)
If Christ himself refused to condemn unto death then what right has Aquinas or any other man?
You are of course free to side with Aquinas. But I will put my faith in the good Lords word and in the thoughts and superior reasoning of the beautiful man that was Pope John Paul II.
“And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them.”
“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?”
“This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.”
“But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.”
“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.”
“When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”
“She said, No man, Lord.”
“And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:2-11 KJV)
If Christ himself refused to condemn unto death then what right has Aquinas or any other man?
You are of course free to side with Aquinas. But I will put my faith in the good Lords word and in the thoughts and superior reasoning of the beautiful man that was Pope John Paul II.
C
Corki
Guest
That’a a flawed argument if you want to consider the death penalty as a Respect Life issue. If you based your objections on the fact that there are sometimes mistakes made, then you would have to concede that the death penalty is perfectly fine as long as guilt is certain. That becomes a matter of whether the judicial system is working and not a life issue at all.
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
P.S. What do you think Christ wrote on the ground? I think it is highly likely that he was writing the sins of the men gathered around for all to see.( being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone,)!!
O
Orogeny
Guest
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
Hi Tim,
are you implying that the execution of Christ justifies the execution of others? Another sad reflection on modern Christendom is that not a single prayer was offered up for Troy Davis on this or any other site I have visited!
Richard.
are you implying that the execution of Christ justifies the execution of others? Another sad reflection on modern Christendom is that not a single prayer was offered up for Troy Davis on this or any other site I have visited!
Richard.
C
Corki
Guest
I think a lot of Scripture scholars would agree with you but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
- Status