Is it licit to support the death penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter soccerdad57
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the 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.”.
I think that +Angelini should have read a bit more of the writings of Pope Pius XII, the answer to his statement would have been obvious

Pope Pius XII
'Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. It then falls to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life
Does the good Cardinal not recognize that there is a difference in the death of the perosn who has, by their own accord, relinquished the right to life, and an innocent person who had not,by any accord, relinquished said right to life?

FYI, Pope Pius XII gave this statement in an address to physicians outlining the Church’s teaching on the differences in Capital Punishment ( a right of the State) and the duty of physicians to safeguard life.
 
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.
The point is that this statement is an opinion. Ask yourself how you would argue that this assertion is true. Would you cite something from Aquinas or the Early Fathers or would you pore over data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics?
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.”
And at the time he made that statement the Catechism said:

2266 “The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”

Either Cardinal Angelini was wrong or the Catechism was since the Catechism at that time clearly supported a State’s right to employ capital punishment with no reservation beyond it being a just punishment for the crime committed.
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.
Then where is the argument to prove your point? I agree that he should know better than I but just because you expect something to be true doesn’t mean it is true. There is no logical argument that supports his assertion.

Ender
 
Speaking of which,

“We can never condone the deliberate taking of human life created in love by God and redeemed in Jesus Christ”
  1. The Archbishop is wrong
  2. The Catechism is wrong
  3. The quote is out of context.
My money is on number 3.
My money is on number 1.

Ender
 
@ soccerdad

If you cannot debate without taking this tone then I suggest we both make our own cases for and against the death penalty without directly addressing each other.😦
No Church leader strung this quotes together.
So by quoting them I have invalidated their words!:confused:

How does that work?
 
So by quoting them I have invalidated their words!:confused:
I did not say that. You have no obligation to respond to my question earlier, but please do not put words in my mouth, or make assumptions from what I said.
 
Surprise! This is called development. Check the slavery case and the ‘burning of heritic’ case. Some bishops were ready to argue with the pope on slavery citing some revelation they argued slavery was right it was so for sometime until many changed, if there was no development i would be a slave (i’m black). Now there can be scripture talking about the death penalty and some church document supporting it what we have is a new outlook. It is a gospel outlook the outlook that no matter your sin God still loves you immensely and wants u to repent, it say ‘i take no delight in the death of a sinner but that he may turm from his ways and live’. It is this love that motivates the church to think about rehabilitation not punishment. ‘Leave the death penalty with God’ is ok to me but i will support a on the spot death for bin laden (i have good reasons not vengance), this are case where i may disagree 'cos i dont think there will be any country to keep him.
Are you surprised?
Ubenedictus
 
Surprise! This is called development. Check the slavery case and the ‘burning of heritic’ case. Some bishops were ready to argue with the pope on slavery citing some revelation they argued slavery was right it was so for sometime until many changed, if there was no development i would be a slave (i’m black). Now there can be scripture talking about the death penalty and some church document supporting it what we have is a new outlook. It is a gospel outlook the outlook that no matter your sin God still loves you immensely and wants u to repent, it say ‘i take no delight in the death of a sinner but that he may turm from his ways and live’. It is this love that motivates the church to think about rehabilitation not punishment. ‘Leave the death penalty with God’ is ok to me but i will support a on the spot death for bin laden (i have good reasons not vengance), this are case where i may disagree 'cos i dont think there will be any country to keep him.
Are you surprised?
Ubenedictus
 
Surprise! This is called development.
Ubenedictus
Development can never be a contradiction, but only something more. The Catholic Church never promoted slavery. It accepted its existence but as far back as St. Aquinas spoke against it.
 
  • "
  1. 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
  2. "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
  3. *“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
  4. [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
  5. "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.
It is only conclusive of inaccuracy and nothing else.

I respond, as I numered your quotes, above.

Numbers 1 and 2 conflict with the reality within prison systems, as, repeatedly, reviewed and not contradicted and with the fact that executed unjust aggressors do not harm and murder, again, but that living ones do - a rational trusim

Numbers 2-7 ate either humanistice, secular or conflict with 2000 years of Church teachings, supportive of the death penalty by theology, biblical studies, Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and Catholic scholars, as repeatedly reviewed and not contradicted.
 
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.
snip

Ender
Ender:

How does it become “preferred” when
  1. 2000 years of Church teachings are in conflict with a “defense of society” foundation. Why aren’t the prior 2000 years of teachings “preferred” and/or Why aren’t those 2000 years of teachings “preferred” over a secular prudential judgment?
  2. That “defense of society” is, at best of tertiary importance, even within the recent CCC . Why aren’t the primary or secondary reasons, individually and/or collectively, “preferred”? and
  3. The facts support that the death penalty must be a greater defender of both society and innocent individuals than is incarceration? Why is a lesser defense of society, which allows more innocents to be victimized, more "preferred’? This is, of course, in the context of death penalty eligible crimes, in proprotionality and within Church teachings.
 
How does it become “preferred” when …
I meant that it was clearly preferred … by the Vatican. I never meant to imply that it was in fact a preferable option. We have a normal right to our preferences but of course what we prefer is irrelevant to others. The preferences even of popes imposes no obligation on us to agree. I was pointing at the nature of the citation: by using the term “prefer” it was obvious that we were being presented with an opinion rather than a statement of doctrine.

Ender
 
I meant that it was clearly preferred … by the Vatican. I never meant to imply that it was in fact a preferable option. We have a normal right to our preferences but of course what we prefer is irrelevant to others. The preferences even of popes imposes no obligation on us to agree. I was pointing at the nature of the citation: by using the term “prefer” it was obvious that we were being presented with an opinion rather than a statement of doctrine.

Ender
Ender:

I knew what your context was. It was I who was not clear.

I wanted you to answer my inquiry, based upon how your thought how the Church would, could and did find that preference.
 
I wanted you to answer my inquiry, based upon how your thought how the Church would, could and did find that preference.
Ah. I mentioned in another thread on this topic that I thought JPII’s position was based on his perception that capital punishment merely reinforced the Culture of Death that was prevalent throughout most of Western civilization and he wanted to counter that inclination. You responded with this observation:

If the secular world is losing their respect for human life, why would the Church change their eternal teachings on this sanction, as opposed to re emphasising and re stating all of the well known traditional Church teachings that show Her death penalty support is based upon respect for human life?

I have no reply to this. The same question occurred to me.

Ender
 
The churche’s current teaching on the death penalty is part of the authentic magisterium. Ender - I find it so silly you won’t accept this. Can someone, preferebly a forum elder back me up on this.

If you are in a room with a bunch of crazy people, all of a sudden the reasonable appear to be the unreasonable
 
The churche’s current teaching on the death penalty is part of the authentic magisterium.
The key part of that is “teaching” and even that is only applies to areas of faith and morals.

FYI - The titles here represent nothing except the number of posts made.
 
You may support the death penalty in good conscience and without sin.

Cardinal Ratzinger:

“if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Thank you. There are so many people around that misrepresent The Church’s teaching on this. God Bless.
 
The key part of that is “teaching” and even that is only applies to areas of faith and morals.

FYI - The titles here represent nothing except the number of posts made.
The churches teaching on the death penalty is definitely of the authentic magisterium. The church has the authority and the duty to comment in a non-infallible way on the use of the death penalty. The use of the death penalty is undisputedly an area of faith and morals.
 
The use of the death penalty is undisputedly an area of faith and morals.
Key word here is “area”, not doctrine. There is not doctrine that the death penalty should not be used today. Rather, this is a conclusion based on the state of today’s society and our ability to safely incarcerate criminals. Concerning this point, there can be no doctrine. Concerning this point, we do not have faith and morals. It is a matter of sociology and penology. We can disagree with the Church in areas of science, even the social sciences.
 
I agree, and in concert with the Church today I don’t think that Capital punishment is the answer.

California, since 1970’s has spent $4,000,000,000 in Capital Punishment. 17 people have been executed. That’s $235,000,000 per execution.

Perhaps that money would have been better spent on education? Or crime prevention, such as more policemen? Or fighting poverty?
I am not sure if we are looking at the same California cost study, but I fact checked this one. Did you fcat check the one you presented:

A Rebuttal to “Cut This: The Death Penalty”(1)
Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California
By Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Clark’s/The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice’s (CCFAJ) cost review is wildly inaccurate and I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than with their lifer cost evaluations. None of Clark/CCFAJ’s numbers can be relied upon.

Clark says: “In total, California’s death penalty system costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.”

For 700 inmates, that is:

death penalty costs: $137 million per year or $196,000//inmate/yr.

life imprisonment costs: $11 million/year or $15,700/inmate/yr.

It is complete utter nonsense.

Some reality:

The last full California audit (Sept 2009) found the average costs, 2007-2008, per adult inmate was $49,000/inmate/yr. (2) In 1997, it was $25,000/inmate/yr. (3).

This $49,000/inmate/yr is the average for all inmates, not the level IV security of death row inmate like criminals that will cost more, if not much more. Clark is stating that these enhanced security prisoners will cost $34,000/inmate/yr LESS than the average cost for all Ca inmates. Clark’s lack of credibility is of an astounding level. Clark’s analysis is laughable.

But, Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.

Without the death penalty, Clark/CCFAJ’s select group of former death row murderers would likely be in level IV security and, as lifers, would die as geriatric prisoners or from earlier illness, likely costing on average $80,000-$100,000/inmate/yr., or more, with a rare few costing a $1 million or more per year with illness and/or geriatric stages. Geriatric problems often begins at age 50 for inmates.

NOTE: The California Medical Facility for corrections averages $83,000/inmate/yr. (4). Add to that the additional costs of Level IV security cells.

But, for Clark/CCFAJ, former death row inmates, now lifers, cost $15,700/inmate/yr.

But, it gets even worse for Clark/CCFAJ.

Clark will admit, if prodded (5) that “the figure of $137 million estimates the entire cost of the death penalty system, not simply housing, but also inclusive of all post-conviction costs, including legal appeals.”

In other words, Clark is admitting escalating the death penalty costs over the alleged cost comparisons of incarceration between lifers and death row. Not at all surprising Clark excludes such from the lifer costs.

The Clark/CCFAJ’s cost comparisons/evaluations are a very bad joke. Instead of making an honest apples to apples cost comparison, Clark brings us an apples to Rolls Royce cost comparison, as if it is apples to apples.

Because so many of these cost comparisons are so pathetically unreliable, California considered that an objective assessment by RAND should be considered (6). The basis for a proper evaluation was presented, but Ca rejected doing the study.

CONCLUSION - Save even more money?

There is no need for California to have a death row. Current death row prisoners can be placed in Level IV security cells, or lower levels depending upon evaluations, just as Missouri and Kansas do.

California can make their death sentenced inmates cheaper than their lifers, if they properly manage their citizens money, as Virginia does. California must only have the will to be responsible stewards of their citizens resources - something that seems to elude California lawmakers, just as basic, accurate evaluations evade Clark/CCFAJ.

Today, there is no reason for Ca death row to cost more than level IV security and a proper evaluation would likely show death row cheaper or no more expensive than Level IV.

There would be no cost savings in getting rid of death row, with the exception that, if Calif had a responsible death penalty protocol, there would be many more executed murderers, thus reducing incarceration costs on death row, saving money on incarcerations costs over other level IV prisoners.

(1) An article by James Clark, field organizer, ACLU of Southern California.
[huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html)

(2) pg 77, fiscal year 2007-2008, bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf

(3) www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/97125.pdf

(4) page 80, fiscal year 2007-2008, bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf

(5) huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html

(6) "Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California: Insights for Future Data Collection in California, RAND Corp., 2/2008
rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf
 
SNIP

One thing is sure, the claim that modern societies have the means to “effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it” cannot possibly be anything other than an opinion. Given that this section unquestionably contains opinion it cannot be argued that everything in the catechism is doctrine merely because it is found there.

Ender
Ender writes: it “cannot possibly be anything other than an opinion.”

Of course it is an opinion.

But, properly, provably and emphatically, it is “an opinion which is contradicted by the facts”.

Could it be more clear that:

Everyone knows that worldwide and without any known exception:
  1. criminal justice systems in all jurisdcitions make errors which result in unjust aggressors harming and murdering, again;
  2. executed unjust aggressors never harm and murder, again;
  3. 1 and 2 make it a rational truism that when allowing death penalty eligible (1) unjust aggressors to live, that we are sacrificing more innocents to murder.
When, in Church history, has She ever made that choice or asked the state to make that choice? I am hopeful, if not confident, that the answer is never.

In the US, as just one example, it appears that some 28,0000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those murderers who had murdered, before - recidivist murderers, just since 1973.

(1) By death penalty eligible, I am speaking in terms of proportionality and within traditional Church teachings, although I do not believe that the Church requires the states use the Church’s standards for death penalty eligible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top