Massachusetts bishops speak out against death penalty for alleged Boston Marathon bomber

[sallybutler]

Personally, I’m for not giving him the death penalty on the basis of I don’t want anyone to claim that he died a martyr for the cause.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I honestly don’t know which I think is right here - execution or life in prison. I don’t feel 100% that the death penalty will accomplish anything. But I still think that if the state did decide for the death penalty I would respect the decision as lawful and just.

I just wish the Bishops would pound the pavement for ALL social issues like this. Think Indiana. It’s much more satisfying to be politically correct in your social justice, isn’t it?

Right, still while the Church takes the high moral road we still have to admit I would think that restriction of the death penalty and for example abortion should be considered. Both are completely abused far to the other end of the high moral road. Basically to the point of immoral in relation to moral. Surely we can all acknowledge the excess in light of the greater good in relation to true justice for all. In my mind you can’t talk to me about justice and slaughter these unborn yearly. Surely its time for real justice and forward progress.

 

[Ender]

My question was not “will God”, but was, “will you”. Only God, not you, knows the heart of this man. You are not qualified to judge him for God.

The judge and jury are not called to judge his heart. They are required to judge his actions, and they are qualified to do that because of the evidence presented to them at trial.*Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. *(Aquinas)

However, you are called to forgive.

The individual is required to forgive but the State is obligated to punish.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties … *(CCC 2266)Ender

 

[TMC]

Please elaborate.

A prooftext quote is not a good argument for anything. In fact, its not an argument at all.

 

[Ender]

Taking the life of someone who has done wrong, simply put, in many cases can take away an opportunity for repentance and conversion.

This assumes the State can foil God’s plans.*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. *(Romano Amerio)
Beyond that, the Catechism itself references a case of capital punishment as an example of a penalty that “contribute(s) to the correction of the offender.” (See CCC 2266, endnote 67).

We are, therefore, playing God.

• And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment.* (Catechism of St. Thomas)
  Ender

 

[SWolf]

A prooftext quote is not a good argument for anything. In fact, its not an argument at all.

1. Man has an inherent dignity
2. Those who unlawfully strip man of his dignity commits a crime against God himself.
3. Those who egregiously strip a man of his dignity by unjustly killing him need punishment.
4. God, in the Bible, sets the death penalty as a valid punishment to testify to #1.

Better?

 

[Ender]

A prooftext quote is not a good argument for anything. In fact, its not an argument at all.

Those are the passages the church herself used to form her doctrines on capital punishment.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[J_Peterson]

The judge and jury are not called to judge his heart. They are required to judge his actions, and they are qualified to do that because of the evidence presented to them at trial.*Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. *(Aquinas)
The individual is required to forgive but the State is obligated to punish.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties … (CCC 2266)Ender

Can you kill someone you love? That’s the Christian test for everything.

 

[TMC]

1. Man has an inherent dignity
2. Those who unlawfully strip man of his dignity commits a crime against God himself.
3. Those who egregiously strip a man of his dignity by unjustly killing him need punishment.
4. God, in the Bible, sets the death penalty as a valid punishment to testify to #1.

Better?

Better, but still not right. 1, 2 and 3 are correct. 4 is not. Which is (one of the reasons) why the Church does not teach 4.

 

[TMC]

Those are the passages the church herself used to form her doctrines on capital punishment.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Prooftexting a single line from a 2,500 year old manuscript is not a valid argument for anything. Would you argue that we should also hold to the teaching of Genesis 9:4?

Why do you say “if”? We don’t need to make this hypothetical. The Pope is actually teaching that seeking revenge (“retribution”) on killers by killing them is wrong. That is not “overthrowing” anything.

 

[J_Peterson]

Better, but still not right. 1, 2 and 3 are correct. 4 is not. Which is (one of the reasons) why the Church does not teach 4.

1 and 2 actually contradict each other. Something that is inherent cannot, by definition, be taken away. Our dignity is a part of our human nature and cannot be taken away by anyone by any means.

 

[LongingSoul]

Those are the passages the church herself used to form her doctrines on capital punishment.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

That quote doesn’t state that the death penalty is intrinsically an exercise of retributive justice. It says that it could be and exercise of retributive justice. As with any human act, the justness depends on the circumstances and intentions with which it is applied. Card. Dulles says one side of the coin, while the Pope is saying the other side of the coin… ie That if one were to deny that the death penalty could be an unjust exercise of hate and revenge, he is denying Church teaching.

 

[TMC]

1 and 2 actually contradict each other. Something that is inherent cannot, by definition, be taken away. Our dignity is a part of our human nature and cannot be taken away by anyone by any means.

You are correct. 2 and 3 should say “ignore” or “violate” or something similar, not “strip.” Each person has inherent dignity that cannot be removed.

 

[SWolf]

1 and 2 actually contradict each other. Something that is inherent cannot, by definition, be taken away. Our dignity is a part of our human nature and cannot be taken away by anyone by any means.

Fair enough, use “violate” instead.

 

[Graubo3]

All due respect to the bishops, but he has been “neutralized” only for the moment. They cannot guarantee what he might do in the future.

In any case, it’s not up to them. It’s up to the jury and the judge, whom God had given the authority to pass and carry out judgment.

Very well stated:thumbsup:.

 

[SWolf]

Prooftexting a single line from a 2,500 year old manuscript is not a valid argument for anything. Would you argue that we should also hold to the teaching of Genesis 9:4?.

It’s much, much older than 2500 years old.

Jesus declared all meat clean. The apostles did away with the dietary restrictions.

 

[pepipop]

All Souls are Gods, we are his creation. If a person commits murder and is executed for that murder he has no chance to ever become a servant of Gods. I found out late in life the Great Love of our Savior Jesus Christ. I am thankful God has given me a long life to get to know his unlimited Love.

Executing a terrorist is ending any chance he may have in returning to God. Most of all it cancels the Will of God. " Your Will Father not mine".

Precisely.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s much, much older than 2500 years old.

Jesus declared all meat clean. The apostles did away with the dietary restrictions.

Well it begs the bigger question as to who has authority to define and interpret scripture. Its no surprise the Protestants didn’t consult the Catholics but were aware of the Church teaching and St Bellarmine. Which leads to the smaller question more narrow of the use of just war and definition of just applied to killing in Gods name. I can’t see where the same doesn’t apply in theory to the DP. The real question as the Bishop proposes is to what need we even have such antiquated thinking. Mine is to what need do we have the antiquated thinking of war and of killing at all, and then have to rationalize this as Plato justice to begin with?

 

[TMC]

It’s much, much older than 2500 years old.

Jesus declared all meat clean. The apostles did away with the dietary restrictions.

So we agree that our understanding grows and deepens over time. And as a result some teachings change. As this one is changing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So we agree that our understanding grows and deepens over time.

Absolutely or just in relation to killing would be a no longer needed conversation, nor a reason to explain mans behavior in relation to just war would be needed. Let alone rationalizing why we should cut a head off or beat someone to death or lethally inject someone in the name of justice.