Is The Catholic Church against the death penalty?

[John21652]

Don’t patronize me. I fully understand your intent to try to prove that opposition to the death penalty is somehow wrong.

You insult, then ask not to be patronised!!
Wow.

And you now so very obviously did not see coming the point of what I might have been getting at. In fact you have missed it by the proverbial country mile. Your mistake, which you have demonstrated here, is that you presume to know my view on the death penalty.
Such presumptuousness…

If you’d read my posts properly, you would have seen where I was heading with this and avoided displaying your petulant character to the world.

 

[StTommyMore]

You insult, then ask not to be patronised!!
Wow.

And you now so very obviously did not see coming the point of what I might have been getting at. In fact you have missed it by the proverbial country mile. Your mistake, which you have demonstrated here, is that you presume to know my view on the death penalty.
Such presumptuousness…

If you’d read my posts properly, you would have seen where I was heading with this and avoided displaying your petulant character to the world.

Never did I insult. I generally have very little patience for those you use The Socratic method, as it is not actual debate, and I find it to be uncharitable.

 

[John21652]

Never did I insult. I generally have very little patience for those you use The Socratic method, as it is not actual debate, and I find it to be uncharitable.

Your inept attempts at the Socratic method are laughable.

So, in your view, that’s not an insult? Or two.
Wow.

You should realise that you are not the only person who reads these threads, so it is quite possible that my questions were open to others to answer and not aimed solely at you. Correct?
So if you find someone’s method annoying, can’t you find it in you to just grin and bear it?
Or do you think that everyone must to ‘rise’ to some lofty intellectual level which you think you are on?

Your tendency towards petulantcy - you need to work on it some. Read this, starting at 1822. It might help.

 

[freerf]

This matter has really intrigued me. So, I have spent some time today doing a little research. All the sources I have checked all say the words of the fifth commandment of the decalogue uses the word ‘kill’ not ‘murder’. I will name the sources but if you ask I will cite their full references:

1. • Bible - Revised Standard Version (authorised for use by Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England Wales; they also allow lectionaries to be based on it; and it is used in the Divine Office authorised for use in England and Wales and quite a few other countries);
   • The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism);
   • The Catechism of the Catholic Church;
   • Evangelium Vitæ - an Encyclical of Pope Blessed John Paul II; and,
   • The Faith of the Catholic Church - a summary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church published by the Catholic Truth Society Incorporated (has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) and written by one of our Bishops.
   To address your comments about God contradicting himself I am in complete agreement with you, I don’t think He would. The most extensive explanation I have read today I found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I choose to give the explanation from this because I have a hard copy and prefer, if possible, to read long documents in hard copy rather than on screen and I don’t have a hard copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
   
   The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that you shall not kill. It says this is the overriding precept: no one human being shall kill another one. However, it says the following are exempted from this precept:
   • Capital punishment - where legally authorised by a state
   • A soldier killing an enemy soldier - in a just war
   • Defence - defending oneself or another person from an aggressor - here the intent must be to defend/protect; killing the aggressor cannot be the intent
   • Accident - where the death of a person occurs as the result of an accident (but puts exemptions on this)
   The Catechism of the Council of Trent says the following are wrong:
   • Murder
   • Abortion
   • Suicide
   • Accident - the exceptions to this are two: (1) where the accident occurred while committing a criminal act even though the intention was not to kill; (2) where the person was acting in a negligent manner even if the death of someone was not the intent.
   The only thing it doesn’t mention and I suspect that may be it wasn’t an issue considered at the time it was written is euthanasia.
   
   The Catechism of the Council of Trent also goes on to say that even having thoughts in one’s mind of hatred against another human is a sin under this commandment.

1. 
   I agree it is a facinating topic. I am not saying the CC is wrong to use the word “kill” because they are not. Murder is a form of killing. using “kill” is just a less precise wording. Most of my sources are not Catholic but Jewish, so I’m not really familiar with the Catholic teaching on this. I look into it though because i am curious.
   
   Note though that your above examples seem to agree with using the term murder rather than kill. Abortion is killing an innocent person (and therefore murder) and suicide is also often the self-killing of an innocent (and therefore murder). I suppose one could contrive an instance where a suicidal person is not innocent).

 

[StTommyMore]

So, in your view, that’s not an insult? Or two.
Wow.

You should realise that you are not the only person who reads these threads, so it is quite possible that my questions were open to others to answer and not aimed solely at you. Correct?
So if you find someone’s method annoying, can’t you find it in you to just grin and bear it?
Or do you think that everyone must to ‘rise’ to some lofty intellectual level which you think you are on?

Your tendency towards petulantcy - you need to work on it some. Read this, starting at 1822. It might help.

A little presumptuous to tell someone else that you have never met where they need to improve spiritually? Perhaps you need to work on getting the beam out of your own eye.

 

[John21652]

A little presumptuous to tell someone else that you have never met where they need to improve spiritually? Perhaps you need to work on getting the beam out of your own eye.

Presumptuous? No need for me to presume anything. Nor to meet you. You pointed out yourself exactly where your spirituality needs improving.
Here, I’ll show you -

Never did I insult. I generally have very little patience for those you use The Socratic method, as it is not actual debate, and I find it to be uncharitable.

See, I underlined what you wrote for everyone to see.

You insult, cry foul because you feel patronised, then attempt to put the uncharitable label on the person whom you have insulted and then deign to state that you don’t need spiritual improvement even though you yourself pointed out that you do!
Mate, you got it arse about…

 

[Willy_Jose]

“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, 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.”

from Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

 

[freerf]

Brothers! Can’t we agree that we all need to remove the beam from our own eyes?

 

[JReducation]

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.

Then there are lot of Catholics not in communion with their bishops and their pope. They may have a little problem at the communion line.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StTommyMore]

Presumptuous? No need for me to presume anything. Nor to meet you. You pointed out yourself exactly where your spirituality needs improving.
Here, I’ll show you -

See, I underlined what you wrote for everyone to see.

You insult, cry foul because you feel patronised, then attempt to put the uncharitable label on the person whom you have insulted and then deign to state that you don’t need spiritual improvement even though you yourself pointed out that you do!
Mate, you got it arse about…

The point is I know where I need improvement, and do not need you to tell me. Worry about your own spiritual improvement, maybe one day I can be as holy as you.

 

[John21652]

Then there are lot of Catholics not in communion with their bishops and their pope. They may have a little problem at the communion line.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well said. Indeed the Church has had to endure trials and tribulations down through the ages. It will get through this one and still stand strong. However, it needs its members to shape up and show support, not condemnation. Bad eggs do not make for bad eveything else. Wayward individuals do not damage the integrity of the Church’s doctrinal base simply because they failed to observe it. I recently read an article written by an atheist who did some research and found out that the true figures for this problem had been greatly inflated by the media and certain people who delight in feeding unfounded facts to the media. If I can manage to find the article, I will post it. I think it was in a British newspaper, but can’t be sure. The point is that there are a good many people out there who will attempt to drive a wedge into the strucutre and integrity of the Church at any opportunity. We just have to close the gaps and that means shouldering up.

Anyway, having said that, if someone harmed my children, I’d rip their heads off and eat them.

 

[John21652]

The point is I know where I need improvement, and do not need you to tell me. Worry about your own spiritual improvement, maybe one day I can be as holy as you.

Well brother, when that day comes you can join my order!

For free.

 

[John21652]

Brothers! Can’t we agree that we all need to remove the beam from our own eyes?

Yep. Pass the chainsaw and I’ll help him out first.

 

[Spirithound]

Yep. Pass…

bad taste?

 

[notredame_999]

forgiveness does not necessarily mean limiting punishment…for example Jesus forgave the thief on the cross while still allowing that thief to die on the cross for punishment of his crimes/sin. I could still forgive someone while still hoping for their execution. Not because his execution is in the best interests of me, but in the interests of divine justice. A lot of people mentioned the killer of st. maria goretti being spared the death penalty…this was because he was 17. Yes St. Maria Goretti forgave him, but lets say the state did execute him- her forgivess would still have been valid.

 

[John21652]

bad taste?

Certainly not meant as.

 

[GEddie]

forgiveness does not necessarily mean limiting punishment…for example Jesus forgave the thief on the cross while still allowing that thief to die on the cross for punishment of his crimes/sin.** I could still forgive someone while still hoping for their execution.** Not because his execution is in the best interests of me, but in the interests of divine justice. A lot of people mentioned the killer of st. maria goretti being spared the death penalty…this was because he was 17. Yes St. Maria Goretti forgave him, but lets say the state did execute him- her forgivess would still have been valid.

Yes, it would, but there was no connection between his civil punishment and this forgiveness.

I would say that no, one cannot forgive someone and still hope for their death. “Divine justice” is not something human beings need to concern ourselves with. That will be worked out in Purgatory.

ICXC NIKA

 

[John21652]

I am sorry if I misunderstood your point and also apologize if I read into what you were trying to say.

Byzcath, no apology needed/required at all. The trouble with blogs is you have allow for the fact that people don’t necessarily read what you write with the same emotions with which you write!

Agreed. God allowed them to come into power through the exercise of free will. This is very different than saying that God put them in power.

Ok, I’ll cut this short, just in case! Earlier I asked what the difference was between revenge and justice. One of our learned posters pointed out that difference. I then asked, can a government that has secularised, that is, divided itself from the church, or any church for that matter, continue to claim moral legitimacy? After all, the secularisation process entails the introduction of more and more positivist law. The extreme in secular governments are those under the control of people like Hitler, Stalin, et al. We saw that it took a world war and the Nuremburg trials to re-establish moral legitimacy in Germany in the wake of Hitler. Now, for the sake of argument, lets say the death penalty in the US was established and accepted when the government of the country was perhaps of a less secular nature. Now, the question posed by this thread is “Should the U.S execute more people”. Which means, in effect, the readiness, the willingness to execute people will increase, either through the introduction of more laws which subject more criminals to the death penalty , or alternatively, simply by speeding up the process and perhaps removing some of the safeguards which are in place today. Therefore, my question is, can a government which has become increasingly secular, increase the scope of the death penalty laws and still claim moral legitimacy in the process. To put it another way, if a secular government decides to kill more people, isn’t it behaving in a manner similar to the extreme examples of morally illegitimate governments such as those of Hitler, Stalin, et al. Or, to put it yet another way, if Hitler, Stalin et al decide to kill more people, they do so through positivist law with little, or no moral legitimacy. The decision is said to be ‘arbutrary’, or dependant upon the whim of the ruler. If a secular government does the same thing, is not the descision also arbitrary and in force through the power of positive law and the whim of the government? Then, we must ask, is it Justice, or is it Revenge?

 

[neophyte]

pro-life and pro-capital punishment is a contradiction. What happens in an abortion? murder of an innocent child What happens in the death penalty? murder of a criminal…

Wrong. If using the death penalty constituted murder then God would not have commanded it’s use in the Mosaic Law, nor would the Church acknowledge that the state has the legitimate power to exercise it.

Your position is oversimplistic.

 

[koshakoji]

Wrong. If using the death penalty constituted murder then God would not have commanded it’s use in the Mosaic Law, nor would the Church acknowledge that the state has the legitimate power to exercise it.

Your position is oversimplistic.

“Give to Ceasar what is Cesar’s?” Seems to me the Church is just following Jesus’ teachings in acknowledging secular authority. He Himself took a pro-life stance by preventing the adulteress from being stoned to death.

I cannot believe that there are so many Catholics here who call themselves “pro-life” yet believe that the death penalty is perfectly OK.
Did you know that incarcerated murderers are the least likely among all inmates to be violent towards other inmates or corrections officers? Did you know that convicted murderers who are paroled have by far the lowest rates of recidivism of all felons? Did you know that the American Veterinary Medical Association has banned the use of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride (two of the drugs used in human executions) for use in animal euthanasia because those drugs would cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animals? Have you ever even read the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution? Do you have any idea what the phrase “evolving standards of decency” means in connection with said Amendment?

I suggest some of you do some research and think instead of making up your mind on this issue purely based on emotions.