Is The Catholic Church against the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…agh, whatever happened to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”.

Vengenance is mine saith the Lord…also could be applied I think.
 
notredame_999 said:
The supreme court of the united states also said a woman could have her baby killed in the first 2/3 of her pregnancy. That same court also said pornography is protected under the first ammendment. That court also has de-christianized america in the public square to the point of the soviet union.
Click to expand...
And this has nothing to do with the discussion of the death penalty, It is raised as a red herring, to side track the discussion.

You need to stop doing this.
 
I’m sorry but there is no commandment “thou shall not kill”

The commandment, properly translated, is “thou shall not murder”

Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Killing is anyone, anytime, for anyreason. the bible does not forbid this - e.g. self defense or defense of other innocent ones.

Just a clarification.

This has hopefully already been brought up in this post.👍
 
ByzCath said:
The system in the United States have had men proven innocent that were sitting on death row and I even believe there have been cases of proving the innocence of men after they have been executed.
Click to expand...
I know of no cases where this is true (proving the innocence of men after they were executed). Of course, it is true in theory- it could happen.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
What additional procedural safeguards do you suggest inserting into the appeal and writ process that aren’t already there?
Click to expand...
Hey, Dog! Sorry for the delayed response - I did not check the thread for awhile.

My suggestions go to both trial level and appeal/writ.

Starting with trial, death cases should be subject to a higher evidentiary standard, rather like the need to “corroborate” adultery in divorce cases - in other words, no death sentence without an eyewitness.

Automatic appointment of a defense expert investigator. No requesting required, kind of like a guardian ad litem in juvenile cases, except this person would not be a lawyer.

No victim impact evidence in death cases. It just impassions the jury.

Death based on the testimony of the jailhouse snitch (but not co-defendants) should be disallowed, there is simply to much possibility to suborn testimony there.

As to the appeal side, in death cases there should be no requirement to preserve error in order to appeal. It’s nonsensical to require a defendant to preserve bad lawyering on direct appeal in order to “preserve” the record for habeas writs. The requirment is based on the legal fiction that trial courts and state appeals courts are really going to fix those errors. It’s pragmatic, but in death cases, unjustified.

Just some thoughts. Enjoy!
 
The death penalty should not be outright banned, but it should fall to the prosecution to prove why execution is absolutely necessary.
 
Personally, I choose to go by what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the death penalty:

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
**2267 **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 are 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 non-existent.”
Click to expand...
 
Holly3278 said:
Personally, I choose to go by what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the death penalty:
Click to expand...
This ties in with what I was trying to explain in post 174. Just because you can, does not mean that you should.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
freerf said:
I’m sorry but there is no commandment “thou shall not kill”

The commandment, properly translated, is “thou shall not murder”

Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Killing is anyone, anytime, for anyreason. the bible does not forbid this - e.g. self defense or defense of other innocent ones.

Just a clarification.

This has hopefully already been brought up in this post.👍
Click to expand...
Please do not insult my Jewish anscestors by atributing to them Roman thinking. The Deutoronomic Jews did not make such fine distinctions. These were introduced by the Romans. That’s the problem that Jesus had with the crowd that wanted to kill the woman caught in adultery. They were taking a Deutoronomic law and applying it using Roman jurisprudence. The Jews admitted this themselves when they tell Pilate that their laws do not allow them to execute anyone. The corrupt Jewish leaders (not the entire Jewish people) consort to have the Romans do the dirty work. If the Roman leadership executed Jesus, the Jewish leadership would be free of him and free of culpability.

If the Deutoronomic law had allowed them to execute criminals, they would have gladly taken Pilate’s concesion to them, “Take him out and crucify him yourselves.”

On top of all of this, we have Jesus’ famous words, “Let him who has no sin throw the first stone.” Jesus is not banning the death penalty, but he is restricting it to be used only by the virtuous. This is what the Church is saying today.

The state has the right to execute, as long as the state is virtuous. Virtue requires that you look for the least violent solution to the problem and the least violent form of retribution. You reach the death penalty by a process of elimination. You’re not supposed to jump to that as your first choice. That’s not virtuous, because you’re choosing the most violent form of protection and retribution before you have attempted the less violent forms or becaues the less violent forms are an inconvenience.

Guess what! Life is full of incoveniences. But man must never be reduced to an inconvenience. When the life of one man is reduced to an inconvenience, the rest will surely follow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Please do not insult my Jewish anscestors by atributing to them Roman thinking. The Deutoronomic Jews did not make such fine distinctions. These were introduced by the Romans. That’s the problem that Jesus had with the crowd that wanted to kill the woman caught in adultery. They were taking a Deutoronomic law and applying it using Roman jurisprudence. The Jews admitted this themselves when they tell Pilate that their laws do not allow them to execute anyone. The corrupt Jewish leaders (not the entire Jewish people) consort to have the Romans do the dirty work. If the Roman leadership executed Jesus, the Jewish leadership would be free of him and free of culpability.

If the Deutoronomic law had allowed them to execute criminals, they would have gladly taken Pilate’s concesion to them, “Take him out and crucify him yourselves.”
Click to expand...
JR, with respect, why then are there so many Deuteronomic laws which prescribe the death penalty?

I have always been under the understanding that the 1st century Jews were not allowed by the Romans to execute people; it was only the Roman authority who could.
 
Spirithound said:
JR, with respect, why then are there so many Deuteronomic laws which prescribe the death penalty?

I have always been under the understanding that the 1st century Jews were not allowed by the Romans to execute people; it was only the Roman authority who could.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair question. The Deutoronomic laws had an interesting application to them. They did not differentiate between the words “kill” and “murder”. The Commandment was “Thou shalt not kill.” However, the ancient Jews (also known as the Abrahamic Jews) believed that the law only applied to the killing of the faithful. You could not kill the faithful. Anyone who was not a Jew or who excommunicated himself from the Jewish faith was not covered by the law.

Their problem with Jesus was that he was a faithful Jew. They were being given permission by the Roman governor to execute Jesus. Had it been a matter of just complying with Roman law, they would have had the authority to execute him. But there was more. They would have to put Jesus on trial and prove that he was no longer a faithful Jew. It would have been a trail of excommunication. The fact was that Jesus had not done anything that they could find in the Deutoronomic law to excommunicate him. Their charges against him were not sustainable in Jewish law. They would have had to let him go.

Their argument was that he claimed equality with God, which is a heresy. But you have to prove that the person has deliberately committed a heresy. The Jewish leaders knew that there were many devout and learned Jews who knew the prophecies. If these prophecies were cited in a trial for heresy, they would have lose their case. So they turned the argument around and said that Jesus was an enemy of Caesar. They were not interested in implementing the Deutoronomic laws with virtue, as I posted above. They were interested in getting Jesus out of the way. This was a handful of men who wanted to ingratiate themselves with the Roman leadership, because it kept them in power over their own people. It was a political setup. The Deutoronomic laws are not political. They are about virue and divine justice.

Man is the administrator of divine justice, but not the author of divine justice. He does not have the authority to rewrite the rules. The Deutoronomic laws were for specific violations that “cried out to heaven”.

Additionally, the laws that allowed the use of the death penalty were always linked to laws on charity and mercy. They could not be enforced without considering what was the most charitable and merciful course of action. This takes us back to the whole point of just because you can do it, does not mean that it’s right to do it. You must prove that this is the only recourse. Deutoronomy has to be taken as a whole, not isolated passages. The entire book is about God’s mercy and how God gives laws out of mercy, not vindication. Even in Deutoronomy, the theme is that mercy trumps justice. Once you have exhausted mercy, it is then just to take a life. No question brings this out to the fore better than “if there is but one just man, would you not destroy them?” God answers, “I will not.”

The ancient Jews had a very holistic understanding of the law. Unfortunately, not every ancient Jew was a faithful Jew. Those who were unfaithful manipulated the law by citing isolated passages, rather than looking at the entire revelation. This was the case with the woman caught in adultery.

The law said that both the man and the woman should be put to death. They were about to execute the woman. Jesus catches them. They quote the law to him, but out of context. He realizes that they are not acting virtuously. He challenges them. “Let him who has no sin throw the first stone.” He slaps them in the face with their own duplicity. It was not a virtuous exercise of the law. It was a selective exercise of the law. They had bypassed mercy. Jesus brings them back, full-circle, and models the way that the law should work. Mercy first, always.

This was one of the many qualities of Jesus that convinced me to become a Christian. He was the perfect Jew.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Spirithound said:
JR, with respect, why then are there so many Deuteronomic laws which prescribe the death penalty?

I have always been under the understanding that the 1st century Jews were not allowed by the Romans to execute people; it was only the Roman authority who could.
Click to expand...
You have to understand Deuteronomy in its context. Deuteronomy contains a body of law that is not eternal, but is full od concessions made by God for a continuously rebellious Israel. In other words, this was not God’s intent, but He allowed what was necessary for that place and time.
 
JReducation said:
Please do not insult my Jewish anscestors by atributing to them Roman thinking. The Deutoronomic Jews did not make such fine distinctions. These were introduced by the Romans. That’s the problem that Jesus had with the crowd that wanted to kill the woman caught in adultery. They were taking a Deutoronomic law and applying it using Roman jurisprudence. The Jews admitted this themselves when they tell Pilate that their laws do not allow them to execute anyone. The corrupt Jewish leaders (not the entire Jewish people) consort to have the Romans do the dirty work. If the Roman leadership executed Jesus, the Jewish leadership would be free of him and free of culpability.

If the Deutoronomic law had allowed them to execute criminals, they would have gladly taken Pilate’s concesion to them, “Take him out and crucify him yourselves.”

On top of all of this, we have Jesus’ famous words, “Let him who has no sin throw the first stone.” Jesus is not banning the death penalty, but he is restricting it to be used only by the virtuous. This is what the Church is saying today.

The state has the right to execute, as long as the state is virtuous. Virtue requires that you look for the least violent solution to the problem and the least violent form of retribution. You reach the death penalty by a process of elimination. You’re not supposed to jump to that as your first choice. That’s not virtuous, because you’re choosing the most violent form of protection and retribution before you have attempted the less violent forms or becaues the less violent forms are an inconvenience.

Guess what! Life is full of incoveniences. But man must never be reduced to an inconvenience. When the life of one man is reduced to an inconvenience, the rest will surely follow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure who I’m insulting here. . .I’m just restating what the orthodox jews commonly teach today. I doubt they’d agree with your premis regarding ancient jewry.

I agree it is good to look for the least violent solution. However, sometimes ending the life of a murderer, as allowed and often required in the OT, is the most compassionate thing we can do - for the murderer’s victims. It puts a finality to the crime that is comforting. There will be no more court appearances, tv interviews, appeals, etc.

Yes, I’m sure I’ll be accused of being an evil person, but nonetheless, I find it true. We must consider the good of the victims (present and future). Otherwise our actions may not truly be virtuous.
 
freerf said:
I’m sorry but there is no commandment “thou shall not kill”

The commandment, properly translated, is “thou shall not murder” …
Click to expand...
What is your source for this, please? I know the wording of this commandment has raised some contention on this thread. The “Jerusalem Bible” translates both Ex. 20:13 and Deut. 5:17 as you shall not kill. This version of the Bible is fully authorised by the Church and is the main version we use in England and Wales plus it is the version of the Bible used in the Lectionary for Mass used in England and Wales.

Are there separate Hebrew words for ‘kill’ and ‘murder’? Can this be a reason for the problem?
 
freerf said:
sometimes ending the life of a murderer, as allowed and often required in the OT, is the most compassionate thing we can do - for the murderer’s victims. It puts a finality to the crime that is comforting.
Click to expand...
“Finality” and “comforting” are no grounds for ending someone’s being. Especially when the one who stops being may not have committed the crime in any case.

The civil law is not there to comfort anybody. It is there to create a minimum level of physical security within its boundaries, and to assure that legal accusations are properly seen to.

There is nothing about a murder case that should be “comforting.” It is a sad reminder of the nasty side of human existence.
Yes, I’m sure I’ll be accused of being an evil person, but nonetheless, I find it true. We must consider the good of the victims (present and future). Otherwise our actions may not truly be virtuous.
Click to expand...
Physical good (continued being) must take priority over emotional closure for families. Quite simply, you have to BE before you can feel.

I, for one, will never call you “evil.” Just, please, be civil when you slam me for being insensitive to victim feelings, as I am sure you or someone else will do shortly.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
GEddie said:
Just, please, be civil when you slam me for being insensitive to victim feelings, as I am sure you or someone else will do shortly.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, I’v got your back. 😃
 
I was a Respect Life Conference a week ago. There were many bishops, religious, lay people, theologians, scientists and so forth from entire Southeast USA. The one thing that the bishops repeated over and over again was Pope John Paul’s and Pope Benedict’s assertion that killing is never a morally acceptable form of restitution or comfort for the victim.

It was rather interesting when it was put in the perspective of the martyrs. How many martyrs have we had in our history and the Church has never said that restitution should be sought. The Church and the families of the martyrs have accepted the tragedy, not as the will of God, because it is not God’s will that we kill someone, but has accepted it as something that is out of our control. It happened and there was nothing that anyone could do to save these men and women.

My own sister was killed in September. It happened. It’s over. Killing those who killed her is not an acceptable response. I will not condone it or seek to make it happen. It was not God’s will that she be killed. But it is God’s will that I forgive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
StTommyMore said:
The death penalty should not be outright banned, but it should fall to the prosecution to prove why execution is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
Under such a condition only victims of rich and powerful families of rich and powerful will get justice. Look at the current hurdles that prosecutors today have to jump just to get some one on death row let alone actually executed. Look at the tookie williams case, that bastard murdered multiple innocent victims, yet it took years to actually flip the switch. Should we deny justice because of new catholic teachings expressed in the catechism? If you think that the church does not condone the death of criminals please look at the book of acts for the story of the couple that sold a piece of land and did not give the full proceeds to the church as they promised to do. They fell down dead at the feet of the apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top