2
2shelbys
Guest
One problem is that the advances in prisons are completely offeset by the negligence of judges and juries. You do not have to escape if you are set free regardless of whether or not you are a threat.
Is there any situation in which it is morally correct to use the death penalty?
- Status
2
2shelbys
Guest
Not true. You can not presume to know what was in the minds of those who condemned the convict to death and a murderer does not have to commit a murder in prison before he/she is a threat to society. I just do not see the logic in that argument.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
~ In prior threads here, many of us who work in prisons today don’t see the supposed advances in place to the extent necesary to eliminate use of the death penalty, nor do we see them truly possible to carry out without staggering fiscal costs. This is especially true when coupled with much clearer (and longer-standing) Church instruction on the ethical treatment of inmates, which prohibit many of the security measures that would be necessary to protect society from perpetual criminal masterminds, terrorist leaders, etc. I often wonder if JPII’s assessment of modern prison security was unduly colored by his visits to the (very tame) psych wing of the Italian prison where he often visited with his would-be assassin.
I think there is agreement that the death penalty is often over (or unnecessarily) applied.
B
Brendan
Guest
He could not, as he would teach error. The Council of Trent had infallibly taught that Captial Punishment is moral under certain, limited, circumstances.
For a Pope to teach otherwise would be for the Pope to teach error. And the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from teaching error.
Ergo, Pope John Paul could not change the position of the Church on this matter.
A Pope, such as John Paul, could give further clarification as to the particular circumstances where the death penaltiy would not be an immoral act,(which he did in the current Catechism) but he, or any other Pope cannot remove it out right.
FYI, the Vatican State itself still has Capital Punishment on the books, for the very same reason above. But no modern Pope has had to need to use it.
B
Brendan
Guest
This is not defending the death penalty here, just pointing out a flaw in your logic; namely that repentance can also be driven by the use of the death penalty.
It is almost certain the Timothy McVeigh went straight to Heaven. He confessed his sins and recieved Sacramental Absolution just prior to his death.
He also recieved Last Rites, which includes the Apostolic Blessing, a plenary Indulgence. A plenary Indulgence removes all temporal punishment due to sin, in other words, Purgatory.
W
wcknight
Guest
I would seriously doubt IF Timothy McVeigh went straight to Heaven. After causing so much suffering in Oklahoma, I would think at least a stay in Purgatory would be in order.
No one can judge the state of his soul except God and God can not be fooled or tricked in to allowing anyone into Heaven on some technicality. How sincere was McVeigh in his confession, how valid was his last rites ?
IF McVeigh totally escaped any consequences of his action whatsoever, I would be greatly surprised. BUT I am not his judge, God is, and God while being all merciful, is also just and fair.
After killing over 200 men, women, and children, he gets off scot free ??? I don’t think so.
No one can judge the state of his soul except God and God can not be fooled or tricked in to allowing anyone into Heaven on some technicality. How sincere was McVeigh in his confession, how valid was his last rites ?
IF McVeigh totally escaped any consequences of his action whatsoever, I would be greatly surprised. BUT I am not his judge, God is, and God while being all merciful, is also just and fair.
After killing over 200 men, women, and children, he gets off scot free ??? I don’t think so.
W
wcknight
Guest
I suppose St.Tim McVeigh should be named the patron saint of mad bombers …
B
Brendan
Guest
Since when is Absolution and the Apostolic Blessing a ‘technicality’?
The attending priest though the contrintion was sufficent to absolve him, and it was McVeigh himself who sought the Sacrament prior to his death.
As for the validity of the Last Rites, the priest performing them was a valid Catholic priest and McVeigh was a Baptisted Catholic who was just Sacramentally Absolved. What more is required for Validity?
Does this passage from Matthew 20 mean anything?
Does both God and the Church rejoice when a lost sheep is found, even if it is at the last minute? Or especially at the last minute.
Is there any one here who has NOT commited acts that merit Enternal Punishment, no mortal sins what so ever?
Does not Absolution and Indulgences work for all who ask for them?
And who are we to emulate, the brother of the Prodigal Son, who complained when the Father killed the fatted calf, or the behavior of the Father himself, who rejoiced at the return of the lost son, the son who had squandered his inheritance in an immoral life?
W
wcknight
Guest
I don’t deny McVeigh’s right to forgiveness or his good fortune to escape eternal damnation, I just doubt he goes “straight to Heaven”.
IF he does, then great good for him. I pray all of us will be so fortunate. Yes we are all sinners, but no here that I know of has blown up a building full of men, women, and children.
I’m not complaining that he may have gotten away totally with his crimes. I just doubt that he did. If you want to declare him a saint you’re welcome to it. I haven’t heard of anyone canonizing him just yet, have you ?
IF he does, then great good for him. I pray all of us will be so fortunate. Yes we are all sinners, but no here that I know of has blown up a building full of men, women, and children.
I’m not complaining that he may have gotten away totally with his crimes. I just doubt that he did. If you want to declare him a saint you’re welcome to it. I haven’t heard of anyone canonizing him just yet, have you ?
B
Brendan
Guest
Well no one is claiming Canonization. Canonization has a two fold purpose. The first a teaching by the Church Militant that this persons life has “heroic virtue”. Certainly McVeigh’s life is very doubtful in the capacity
(though probably not that different from St. Dismus)The second purpose of Canonization is an infallible declaration by the Church that this person is actually in heaven. There is a level of doubt for most others, including McVeigh.
A lot depends, as you mention, on the level of contrition exhibited by the penitent, but the level of contrition necessary for a Sacramental Absolution is actually pretty low, far higher for an Act of Perfect Contrition.
McVeigh had the opportunity to benefit from two separate Plenary Indulgences.
The first is the Apostolic Blessing as part of Last Rites.
The second comes from the willing acceptance of a just punishment. In the case of the willing acceptance of the death penalty for capital crimes; the Indulgence in Plenary.
All reports show that McVeigh willingly accepted his execution, even to the extent of foregoing appeals and requests for stays.
Both of those Indulgences draw directly from the infinite treasury of Merit given by Christ to His Church. Since the treasury is infinite, the effects of those merits can also be infinite.
Consider for a moment a hypothetical situation. Say Pol Pot accepted Baptism on his deathbed. Baptism removes all sin and all temporal effects of sin (purgation). A person who dies right after Baptism, by definition, goes directly to Heaven. So a mass murder of millions of Cambodians could have gone straight to heaven if he had accepted Baptism on his deathbed. That is de fide Catholic doctrine.
If the infinite treasury of merit could work with a man such as Pol Pot, why not McVeigh?
I’m not saying he is, without doubt, in Heaven right now, but it is likely.
I also have little doubt that McVeigh was very fortunate to avoid Eternal Damnation, but then again so are we all. ALLof us greatly deserve Eternal Damnation, and escape it only through God’s Grace and Mercy.
That’s why I find cases like McVeigh so immensely reassuring. It is such a clear demonstration of the power of the Sacraments God entrusted to His Church.
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
He won’t be solitary, the guards are more than happy to keep him company.
That’s the Catholic spirit.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Got one:
In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen’s involvement in a Fresno, Calif., store burglary.
After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.
According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, “In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead – or scared into silence.” As a result, three more innocent people were murdered – Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.
This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.
For 23 years, opponents of the death penalty have played with the legal system – not to mention played with the lives of the murdered individuals’ loved ones – to keep Allen alive.
Had Clarence Allen been executed for the 1974 murder of Mary Sue Kitts, three innocent people under the age of 30 would not have been killed. But because moral clarity among anti-death penalty activists is as rare as their self-righteousness is ubiquitous, finding an abolitionist who will acknowledge moral responsibility for innocents murdered by convicted murderers is an exercise in futility.
From this article:
townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2005/11/29/177026.html
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Thanks. I’ve said it before, I support the death penalty, it is just over-used in the U.S.
The monetary cost of keeping someone in jail is not an issue to me, raise my taxes. (I’m in NY, I’m use to it)
I also believe that punishment should fit the crime, and a painless death doesn’t fit the most horrific crimes. What is considered torture is debateable because it depends on a person’s viewpoint and experiences.
2
2shelbys
Guest
I can not disagree with anything you say there except that I do not think it is over-used but it is sometimes mis-used. I am sure some killers see death as an easy way out. Given the choice I doubt that I would prefer to spend decades in the prison enviroment.
2
2shelbys
Guest
I apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this idea:
A guy I used to work with thought that child molestors should spend their entire first year in prison with their wrists hand-cuffed to their ankles. Ouch, talk about a deterrent.
W
wcknight
Guest
God will not be mocked, contrary to the movie Dogma which satirized the indulgence idea. Part of the condition for a plenary indulgence is that one is totally detached from sin even venial sin. I think it is questionable how detached they are from their crimes.Well no one is claiming Canonization. Canonization has a two fold purpose. The first a teaching by the Church Militant that this persons life has “heroic virtue”. Certainly McVeigh’s life is very doubtful in the capacity
The second purpose of Canonization is an infallible declaration by the Church that this person is actually in heaven. There is a level of doubt for most others, including McVeigh.
A lot depends, as you mention, on the level of contrition exhibited by the penitent, but the level of contrition necessary for a Sacramental Absolution is actually pretty low, far higher for an Act of Perfect Contrition.
McVeigh had the opportunity to benefit from two separate Plenary Indulgences.
The first is the Apostolic Blessing as part of Last Rites.
The second comes from the willing acceptance of a just punishment. In the case of the willing acceptance of the death penalty for capital crimes; the Indulgence in Plenary.
All reports show that McVeigh willingly accepted his execution, even to the extent of foregoing appeals and requests for stays.
Both of those Indulgences draw directly from the infinite treasury of Merit given by Christ to His Church. Since the treasury is infinite, the effects of those merits can also be infinite.
Consider for a moment a hypothetical situation. Say Pol Pot accepted Baptism on his deathbed. Baptism removes all sin and all temporal effects of sin (purgation). A person who dies right after Baptism, by definition, goes directly to Heaven. So a mass murder of millions of Cambodians could have gone straight to heaven if he had accepted Baptism on his deathbed. That is de fide Catholic doctrine.
If the infinite treasury of merit could work with a man such as Pol Pot, why not McVeigh?
I’m not saying he is, without doubt, in Heaven right now, but it is likely.
I also have little doubt that McVeigh was very fortunate to avoid Eternal Damnation, but then again so are we all. ALLof us greatly deserve Eternal Damnation, and escape it only through God’s Grace and Mercy.
That’s why I find cases like McVeigh so immensely reassuring. It is such a clear demonstration of the power of the Sacraments God entrusted to His Church.
I question whether someone who hates so much as to kill hundreds or millions of folks can suddenly do a 180 and become a saintly character.
A baptism of a Pol Pot would be quite a mockery. I would say it is possible but highly unlikely that someone who lives a life of almost complete evil, suddenly sees the light. Even IF they did, that would be great as every soul saved is a triumph against evil.
BUT we are accountable for our actions. How accountable ? I have no idea. Going straight to Heaven would be a huge stretch. But you could be right.
- Status