Is it licit to support the death penalty

[pnewton]

Sources please.

BTW how often do you disagree with the Pope and the CCC?

As you already know, the Catechism specifically says:

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.

As to the current state of any given society and their preparedness to deal with crime, that is a matter of opinion, it is **not **a matter of doctrine.

Of course one can disagree with the pope on matters of science, even social sciences.

 

[pnewton]

The Church says No.

No, the Church says it depends on the circumstances.

Having worked IN prison full-time for years there were times when I felt like taking certain inmates out and putting a .22 through their heads. And I was the Chaplain!!! We have to put away those feelings and follow the teachings of the Church, our Pope, and our Bishops.

Having worked with Chaplains, they do not always see everything and the ones I have known do not actually have training in corrections. Inmates always put on a different face for the chaplains than they do the guards or the prisoners.

 

[Joe_Hill]

I posted the words

Let on your conscience be it

 

[pnewton]

I posted the words

Let on your conscience be it

Isn’t that the way of all things? Besides, I do no know that this is an issue of conscience, unless one is taking the issue so far as to promote the death penalty in some form or fashion. I would be more concerned about actions one may take, if one was in a situation to push for the death penalty for an individual. Then truly it might be a matter of conscience.

 

[Ender]

Besides, I do no know that this is an issue of conscience …

Sure it is, but the point is that, in this case, we are justified in following our conscience inasmuch as neither position (for or against capital punishment) contradicts Church teaching.

…unless one is taking the issue so far as to promote the death penalty in some form or fashion.

If I support the use of the death penalty, which I think we both agree is a valid position, there is no “unless” to be concerned about. If using capital punishment does not violate Church doctrine then we are free to champion its use.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If I support the use of the death penalty, which I think we both agree is a valid position, there is no “unless” to be concerned about. If using capital punishment does not violate Church doctrine then we are free to champion its use.

Ender

I worded my statement poorly. I meant to say that I do not think Catholics should push for the death penalty in some forms, those clearly contradictory to the teaching of the Church. For example, for vengence.

I do not know if it was my loved one, if I would push for the death penalty, even if was for some purpose other than the protection of society. I might. I admit to my imperfection in such emotional mattters. On the other hand, it is because of this very imperfection that God appoints the state the power of the sword. It is what protects us from vigilantism.

I wonder, if we had no death penalty, would those oppose to it, also allow leniency, like probation, for when the family of a victim murdered the murderer? Or do only some criminals deserve leniency?

 

[Joe_Hill]

I wonder, if we had no death penalty, would those oppose to it, also allow leniency, like probation, for when the family of a victim murdered the murderer? Or do only some criminals deserve leniency?

I am British and so we have no death penalty.

So I can answer that non-hypothetically.

The answer is no.

And such a “slippery slope” argument is absurd. “Well if you don’r waana shoot em in the head, you might just wanna let 'em go free”.

Really?

Is that your honest concern?

 

[Joe_Hill]

• “that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender’s possibility to redeem himself.”* Pope John Paul II. 2002

“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will acclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. 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.” Pope John Paul II Jan 27, 1999

• “We should reach the point in which the death penalty is abolished throughout the entire world, because it is a sign of incivility, as one crime cannot be punished with another crime.” *president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Cardinal Martino

*“The death penalty does not fit into the concept of justice,because the defense of life - which goes from conception to natural death - is preferred in every way by the Holy See.” *president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Cardinal Martino, March 28, 2008

[Death Penalty is] “a sign of desperation,” [abolition of which is]“an integral part of the defense of human life at every stage of its development… The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.” Vatican declaration to the first World Congress on the Death Penalty
“Our voice must be heard not only in the fight against abortion, but in the fight against euthanasia and capital punishment as well. We can never condone the deliberate taking of human life created in love by God and redeemed in Jesus Christ.” *Archbishop Martino, serving as the Holy See’s ambassador to the United Nations, June 20, 2001

• “Among the individuals and groups against legalized abortion in the United States, there are some who support the continuation of capital punishment. This is an inconsistency and an unacceptable contradiction.”* Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini 1992

That is about as conclusive as it gets.

 

[pnewton]

• “that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment*, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender’s possibility to redeem himself.” Pope John Paul II. 2002

"The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will acclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. 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." Pope John Paul II Jan 27, 1999

".

Let me try it your way.

that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender’s possibility to redeem himself." Pope John Paul II. 2002

“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will acclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. 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.” Pope John Paul II Jan 27, 1999

Now, as these items are not a matter of doctrine, show me** anywhere**,** ever**, even once, in the whole of the internet, where one shred of documentation has been offered in support of this assumption. It is a postulation without evidence and as such might be a faulty syllogism.

FYI - The death penalty does not deny the criminal a chance to reform any more than a life sentence does.

We can not deny the evidence. In weighing the Church’s teaching, we must also account for the fact that the Catholic Church supported a death penalty for 1950 years, that God Almighty mandated a death penalty in his divine law. Everything the Holy Father has said must fall within the context of divine revelation. That is why I refuse to believe that Catholicism is some joke that can do a 180 degree reversal. If so, it is worthless. Rather, I see that the whole of the Church’s position is based on the death penalty in society* today*. As such, we are surely free to believe differently that the theologians who do not deal with criminals as to the state of the world and our ability to handle them. We can believe that we have not yet arrived to this high of a state of civilization or technology. We can believe that the Earth is no longer the center of the universe.

 

[pnewton]

I am British and so we have no death penalty.

So I can answer that non-hypothetically.

The answer is no.

And such a “slippery slope” argument is absurd. “Well if you don’r waana shoot em in the head, you might just wanna let 'em go free”.

Is that your honest concern?

I offered no slippery slope and did not suggest we let murderers go free. Where do you get that? I suggested that if we do not as a society codify justice, we might show leniency to those who take the law in their own hands to obtain it.

 

[Joe_Hill]

That is why I refuse to believe that Catholicism is some joke that can do a 180 degree reversal.

Is that how you would describe the efforts of the Holy Father who is calling, right now, for an end to capital punishment?

I offered no slippery slope and did not suggest we let murderers go free. Where do you get that?

Well, here.

I wonder, if we had no death penalty, would those oppose to it, also allow leniency, like probation, for when the family of a victim murdered the murderer?

You ask whether or not opponents of Capital Punishment would show leniency to the extent of granting a muderer probation. That is a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I suggested that if we do not as a society codify justice, we might show leniency to those who take the law in their own hands to obtain it.

How is a justice systems sans death penalty not codified? I can assure you that the British justice system, while imperfect, IS codified.

Are you suggesting that Canada’s justice system is not codified?
Would you say that the justice system of the Vatican City (yup no death penalty) is not codified?

 

[Ender]

• …* Pope John Paul II… Vatican declaration to the first World Congress on the Death Penalty … Archbishop Martino … Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini …

That is about as conclusive as it gets.

Yes, I suppose, but you’re arguing a point that isn’t in dispute. No one claimed that the Vatican wasn’t opposed to capital punishment; the question is whether their opposition is doctrinal or prudential. Even your citations, however, lend support to the argument that the opposition is prudential. How else could you describe the comment by Cardinal Martino in 2008 that *“The defense of life … is preferred in every way by the Holy See.” *Exactly: it is preferred. What it is not is obligatory.

Regarding the comment by Cardinal Martino that “one crime cannot be punished with another crime”, this is just foolishness. The Church has never held that the application of capital punishment is a crime, nor does she hold that position today. The cardinal erred in making such a charge.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Is that how you would describe the efforts of the Holy Father who is calling, right now, for an end to capital punishment?

This is why I understand the statement as application, not doctrine. Rather it is those who insist that faithful Catholics must take this as doctrine that give us the quandry of inconsistent Catholicism.

You ask whether or not opponents of Capital Punishment would show leniency to the extent of granting a muderer probation. That is a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I know the definition. I was asking for where you saw this. I think when someone misses a point this much there are two possibilities. One, I was not clear, even after clarifying. Two, you are reading to respond, not understand. I did not say that the death penalty will lead to lenient sentences for family members that take the law into their own hand. I am saying that the second is an alternative to the first. We already have this in gangs where the law fails to pursue justice for slain gang members sufficiently. His surviving gang members take up where law enforcement failed.

I know if I was on a jury, I consider probation for a distraught parent or spouse that killed the murderer of their loved one.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, I suppose, but you’re arguing a point that isn’t in dispute. No one claimed that the Vatican wasn’t opposed to capital punishment; the question is whether their opposition is doctrinal or prudential. Even your citations, however, lend support to the argument that the opposition is prudential. How else could you describe the comment by Cardinal Martino in 2008 that *“The defense of life … is preferred in every way by the Holy See.” *Exactly: it is preferred. What it is not is obligatory.

Regarding the comment by Cardinal Martino that “one crime cannot be punished with another crime”, this is just foolishness. The Church has never held that the application of capital punishment is a crime, nor does she hold that position today. The cardinal erred in making such a charge.

Ender

Speaking of which,

“We can never condone the deliberate taking of human life created in love by God and redeemed in Jesus Christ”

Really? Surely this must be out of context. The Church in its Catechism does in fact condone the deliberate taking of human life in a just war and in the case of self-defense. In fact, the deliberate taking of human life might even be a grave obligation.
Never?

This is why this quote-a-thon bypasses dialogue. In this case, either:

1. The Archbishop is wrong
2. The Catechism is wrong
3. The quote is out of context.

My money is on number 3.

 

[Joe_Hill]

Yes, I suppose, but you’re arguing a point that isn’t in dispute. No one claimed that the Vatican wasn’t opposed to capital punishment; the question is whether their opposition is doctrinal or prudential. Even your citations, however, lend support to the argument that the opposition is prudential. How else could you describe the comment by Cardinal Martino in 2008 that *“The defense of life … is preferred in every way by the Holy See.” *Exactly: it is preferred. What it is not is obligatory.

Regarding the comment by Cardinal Martino that “one crime cannot be punished with another crime”, this is just foolishness. The Church has never held that the application of capital punishment is a crime, nor does she hold that position today. The cardinal erred in making such a charge.

Ender

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, says that in modern society it would be** “practically impossible”** to fulfill the Catechism’s criteria for a death sentence.

In a 1992 newspaper interview, the Vatican’s Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini stated: “Among the individuals and groups against legalized abortion in the United States, there are some who support the continuation of capital punishment. This is an inconsistency and an unacceptable contradiction.”

Regarding the comment by Cardinal Martino that “one crime cannot be punished with another crime”, this is just foolishness. The Church has never held that the application of capital punishment is a crime, nor does she hold that position today. The cardinal erred in making such a charge.

Ender

For your information the cardinal that you claimed demonstrated “foolishness” and also calimed “erred” was speaking as president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

I expect he knows better than you.

 

[Joe_Hill]

Speaking of which,

“We can never condone the deliberate taking of human life created in love by God and redeemed in Jesus Christ”

Really? Surely this must be out of context. The Church in its Catechism does in fact condone the deliberate taking of human life in a just war and in the case of self-defense. In fact, the deliberate taking of human life might even be a grave obligation.
Never?

This is why this quote-a-thon bypasses dialogue. In this case, either:

1. The Archbishop is wrong
2. The Catechism is wrong
3. The quote is out of context.

My money is on number 3.

Yes Really

I would ask you not to bypass this strongest of arguments as “out of context” or dismiss direct testimony as a “quote-a-thon”. Such do not show the proper respect for our church leaders

If you can provide evidence of a misquote, please do so.

 

[soccerdad57]

On your conscience be it.

May the Lord lead you to obedience and humility.

Cut the pious boloney - when someone rapes and kills your wife,sets your tied up children on fire and slays your family in front of you while beating you into submission with a baseball bat you can intellectualize what obedience and humility to our Lord means all you want - but until then it is holier than thou baloney that completely lacks credibility - wow, I am amazed at your arrogance.

 

[pnewton]

I would ask you not to bypass this strongest of arguments as “out of context” or dismiss direct testimony as a “quote-a-thon”. Such do not show the proper respect for our church leaders.

No Church leader strung this quotes together.

If there is another option, then by all means tell me how you reconcile the destruction of Ai, the Mosaic Law, the teaching of Thomas Aquinas on Capital Punishment. 1950 years of Church support for the death penalty, including at the Vatican, with the quotes above.

I believe I am giving a very charitable interpretation to these statements. However, if we allow that the difference is “how things are today”, then we must allow that this is not a matter of doctrine and thus something we can disagree with, which by the way is what Pope Benedict said.

In the future, please do not falsely accuse me of showing disrespect to any Church leader. Such things are not allowed here. If I ever do this, please just report it, as it is a rule violation. However, I have never done that which you accuse me of.

While we are at it, you did not respond to this:

“We can never condone the deliberate taking of human life created in love by God and redeemed in Jesus Christ”

Really? Surely this must be out of context. The Church in its Catechism does in fact condone the deliberate taking of human life in a just war and in the case of self-defense. In fact, the deliberate taking of human life might even be a grave obligation.
Never?

So again, how do you reconcile the statement with the teaching of the Catholic Church on self-defense?

Here, let me give you the quote:

Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

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.

I made it big for you.

 

[usnlt76]

Cut the pious boloney - when someone rapes and kills your wife,sets your tied up children on fire and slays your family in front of you while beating you into submission with a baseball bat you can intellectualize what obedience and humility to our Lord means all you want - but until then it is holier than thou baloney that completely lacks credibility - wow, I am amazed at your arrogance.

Are you arguing that only those who have had murdered family members are qualified to have an opinion on this issue?

 

[pnewton]

Another way to give a Church official the benefit of the doubt is to not believe the quote just because it is on the internet. I just did a search on the last two and couldn’t find original source documentation. They seem to be repeated over and over on the same type of websites, and even at that not too many times. Obviously papal encyclicals are easy to find, but then there we have the whole context.

I have learned to be suspicious of sites set up to promote a certain idea, even when it is a good idea. They tend to replicate quotes like this without regard to authenticity or precision.