Is The Catholic Church against the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira was the work of God, not an instance of capital punishment at the hands of civil authorities. This is surely the most absurd use of Holy Scripture to attempt to justify capital punishment I’ve ever encountered.
 
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.
The Catechism is clear. Only under the most dire of circumstances are people to be executed. Yes, it is a “prudential judgment,” but this does not mean we are free to ignore it. It simply means there are times when it is acceptable to execute, meaning if the only way to protect society from the criminal. The cases where it is necessary are very few and far between. To eagerly desire execution is not justice, but vengeance.
 
The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira was the work of God, not an instance of capital punishment at the hands of civil authorities. This is surely the most absurd use of Holy Scripture to attempt to justify capital punishment I’ve ever encountered.
The power given to civil authorities is granted to them by God. Remember what Jesus said to pilot. Now if you can’t stomach putting a bullet into the head of a rapist or murderer that is understandable, many can’t. Much like many can’t stomach putting a bullet into a rabid dog because of sentimental reasons. We are called to work for justice some times its not an easy thing to do. Just step back and we’ll take out the trash.
I
 
What’s the difference between Justice and Revenge?

seriously.
Justice is the virtue of paying one what one is due. Revenge is giving in to the passion that requires that you must be allowed recompense for a wrong or perceived wrong. Revenge is driven by emotion. Justice is determined by divine law.
 
It simply means there are times when it is acceptable to execute, meaning if the only way to protect society from the criminal. The cases where it is necessary are very few and far between.
Would you say that the instances where capital punishment is acceptable would tend to occur in a particular society, or does it have more to do with the criminal?
 
The power given to civil authorities is granted to them by God. Remember what Jesus said to pilot. Now if you can’t stomach putting a bullet into the head of a rapist or murderer that is understandable, many can’t. Much like many can’t stomach putting a bullet into a rabid dog because of sentimental reasons. We are called to work for justice some times its not an easy thing to do. Just step back and we’ll take out the trash.
I
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that all done by civil authorities amounts to a rightful use of that authority, as I’m sure you would admit. Again, your use of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira to justify capital punishment is absurd. There are far more persuasive passages to use, for example, Romans 13:4. For the record, I’m personally opposed to the use of capital punishment, but I take seriously an argument in favor of capital punishment that uses Romans 13:4. I find one based on the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira to be ridiculous.

BTW, who are you to call that which has been created by God “trash?” Who are you to decide who is beyond redemption?
 
Would you say that the instances where capital punishment is acceptable would tend to occur in a particular society, or does it have more to do with the criminal?
It has more to do with the society, but there are instances that it is the nature of the criminal that plays a role. Since this seems like no answer at all, I will provide examples.

1> A man commits multiple murders in a third-world nation. The chances of incarcerating him as to protect the public is unlikely, so the state, in interest of public safety, is forced to execute the criminal.

2> In the United States, the head of a criminal organization is incarcerated for capital crimes, but he is able to direct his organization from prison. In this case, the criminal should be executed because his incarceration does nothing to protect the public.

3> A terrorist is convicted and being held in an American prison. This particular terrorist is of great value to his network as a leader and strategist. To execute him would make him a martyr, but as long as he remains alive, terrorist threats increase to force his release. In this case, execution should also be carried out in the interest of public safety.

Notice in all of these examples, the nature of the crime was not the deciding factor, but public safety was the primary concern.
 
Justice is the virtue of paying one what one is due. Revenge is giving in to the passion that requires that you must be allowed recompense for a wrong or perceived wrong. Revenge is driven by emotion. Justice is determined by divine law.
Isn’t Justice simply Revenge served cold?
 
It has more to do with the society, but there are instances that it is the nature of the criminal that plays a role. Since this seems like no answer at all, I will provide examples.

1>
Thank you, those examples make good sense. What would you say for someone who commits murder while incarcerated in the US?

Do you think there is a way to codify these examples in the US? Perhaps ordering a murder?
 
Thank you, those examples make good sense. What would you say for someone who commits murder while incarcerated in the US?

Do you think there is a way to codify these examples in the US? Perhaps ordering a murder?
I do not have an answer right now. I will have to put some thought into this.
 
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 🙂
thats your opnion but a lot of catholics disagree with you. In fact I am wathcing america’s most wanted right now on child sex trafficing in asia. A lot of these pedophiles in my opinion should be executed. Its also my opinion and the opinion of others, that in some cases child rape is worse than murder. In fact I think some catholic priests who were serial molesters should be executed. Its ridiculous were even having this discussion. I doubt Pope Pius XII had the same opinion in regard to capital punishment. Maybe the liberals are right when they say this church is out of touch.
 
It has more to do with the society, but there are instances that it is the nature of the criminal that plays a role. Since this seems like no answer at all, I will provide examples.

1> A man commits multiple murders in a third-world nation. The chances of incarcerating him as to protect the public is unlikely, so the state, in interest of public safety, is forced to execute the criminal.

2> In the United States, the head of a criminal organization is incarcerated for capital crimes, but he is able to direct his organization from prison. In this case, the criminal should be executed because his incarceration does nothing to protect the public.

3> A terrorist is convicted and being held in an American prison. This particular terrorist is of great value to his network as a leader and strategist. To execute him would make him a martyr, but as long as he remains alive, terrorist threats increase to force his release. In this case, execution should also be carried out in the interest of public safety.

Notice in all of these examples, the nature of the crime was not the deciding factor, but public safety was the primary concern.
While I understand and accept your 3 examples, it still seems to me that #2 should be evitable without death. Perhaps by relocation to a “Supermax” thousands of miles from his network.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
It would be good if people would use the correct term when defining killing or murder. A man sneaks into a house, strangles a child - that is murder. The father awakens, finds his child being strangled and shoots the perpetrator in the heart, ending his life - that is killing.

Perhaps we “should not” find comfort when an evil person is put to death for his crimes. Perhaps so. I do, however. It’s innate. You have to understand, when a man goes around murdering the children of friends, raping and murdering wives of husbands, stealing the joy of thousands of people, raping children, when that life is over and there is a true finality to his crimes. . .well, I take comfort in that.

An excellent Jewish perspective from Dennis Prager on the subject, titled “the immorality of pacifist thinking” is linked below:

countmazz.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/dennis-prager-pacifism/
 
How do you reconcile these statements in a secular society, where church has been seperated from state?
I think at least part of the answer is in the fact that the power that the government holds is not simply the power to do whatever they wish. There must be parameters they work under, and if that, why not Catholic parameters? 😉
 
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?
I have several books by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager, both thoughtful Jews who provide clear reasoning.

I also did a quick internet search for some jewish references and found quite a few by searching “judaism thou shalt not kill murder”.

Also, a quick, common sense approach is to recognize that God does not contradict Himself. In the words of Rabbi Telushkin, " the only biblical law repeated in each of the Torah’s five books is that ordaining capital punishment for premeditated murderers (see for example Genesis 9:6, “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”). So, how can God give us a commandment not to kill and then require us to kill? He didn’t and wouldn’t. He commanded us not to murder. Also, the Catholic Church acknowledges this indirectly in the catechism when allowing that at times, under certain conditions it is ok. Now obviously, if the commandment was merely “shall not kill”, the CC would be teaching something contrary to the bible.

Otherwise, it would be a sin to kill a man in order to protect ones children. Thank God, it is not. If necessary, and absolutely necessary, we can kill to protect the innocent from a murderer.

Thou shalt not murder.
 
thats your opnion but a lot of catholics disagree with you. In fact I am wathcing america’s most wanted right now on child sex trafficing in asia. A lot of these pedophiles in my opinion should be executed. Its also my opinion and the opinion of others, that in some cases child rape is worse than murder. In fact I think some catholic priests who were serial molesters should be executed. Its ridiculous were even having this discussion. I doubt Pope Pius XII had the same opinion in regard to capital punishment. Maybe the liberals are right when they say this church is out of touch.
You have to realize though that these individuals can repent for their crimes. Lets look at the life of St. Maria Goretti, a neighbor tried to rape her and then stabbed her to death. He was sent to prison and while in prison Maria came to him in a dream and gave him flowers. Immediately after this he repented and lived a reformed life, he even attended her canonization at St. Peter’s. I think that in some cases the criminal’s background plays a large role in how they grow up. Depending on if their poor or not, live in a bad area, had no father or parents growing up, abused as a child…etc all these factor into how an individual grows up within a society. We shouldn’t judge these people. I hope you come to realize this at some point in your life. God Bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top