Philly Abortion Doctor Gosnell May Face Death

[Ender]

Would you please provide those references? [That the Church recognizes the right of States to employ capital punishment] … Yes, I am requesting every single one.

OK, you asked for them. I have links to many of these documents if you want that too.

2266 “The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992)
*
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.”* (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; 2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; 3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. (Baltimore Catechism, 1891)

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal* and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.* (Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566)

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. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this* responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.* (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System, 1952)

Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause [that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. (Leo XIII, Pastoralis Oficii, 1891)

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Innocent III, 1210)

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Innocent I, Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 405)

*Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. (Exod. xx, 13): For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, pharmakous) to live (Exod. xxii, 18). *(Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Ch 147)

Only evil people do violence against evil people. But this is quite different from those who must act because of their position in society. A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Augustine, Sermon 302, 16)

*But it is the highest and most perfect good, when one is able to lead back any one from the practice of evil to virtue and well-doing, which is the very function of the law. So that, when one fails into any incurable evil, – when taken possession of, for example, by wrong or covetousness, – it will be for his good if he is put to death. *(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, c. 200)

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If that same person were murdering people in Long Island, his execution would not be just, either. Capital punishment is never just.

You have it wrong. The Church says that capital punishment may be appropriate in certain limited sitiations. So, you are wrong in saying “never.”

In those limited situations, such as the recent case of a lifer murdering a guard in California or in other cases where a lifer murdered other prisoners, an additional life sentence won’t ordinarily work. The death penalty may be used then because there may be no reasonable way to protect the guards and other prisoners from the killer.

I believe that murder, the most severe crime, may be dealt with with whatever the most serious punishment is available to that jurisdiction. If that most serious punishment is 25 to life, then that’s what the man may be sentenced to; if life without parole, then that may be the best fit. Even if the death penalty is available, it needn’t be applied depending on mitigating or extenuating circumstances. There’s simply no such thing as one given crime, one given punishment.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I hear you. I think it is left up to man and his laws to determine the most serious punishment available, and to determine if it is germane to the given situation. I don’t think there’s any divine expectation of “one given crime, one given punishment.” If that were true, monkeys could be doing the job of judges, attorneys, and jurists.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

If justice demands a life for a life, why doesn’t it demand a cruel death for a cruel death? It uses the same reasoning.

Seems like a lie to demand a life for a life, then balk at demanding a cruel death for a cruel death, does it? Does the “stench of lies” bother you, LS?

Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz makes a final statement to Cpt. Willard: “We teach young people to drop fire on civilians, but we won’t let them write (*&% on their airplanes, because it would be OBSCENE!”

 

[catharina]

What is true today that was not true before, is that we now have the means to contain violent criminals, and prevent them from harming others, without resorting to killing them - in most cases.

Thank you and yes, truth is always truth.
Man’s capacity to impose truth can (does, should) change over time.
For example, as you’ve said - and Popes before you - we are now
able to halt murderers 'til their natural death if we choose to do so.
That’s one purpose of super-max prisons: confine until natural death.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK, you asked for them. I have links to many of these documents if you want that too.

2266 “The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992)
*
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.”* (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; 2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; 3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. (Baltimore Catechism, 1891)

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal* and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.* (Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566)

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. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this* responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.* (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System, 1952)

*Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause *[that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. (Leo XIII, Pastoralis Oficii, 1891)

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Innocent III, 1210)

*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, *what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Innocent I, Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 405)

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. (Exod. xx, 13): For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, pharmakous) to live (Exod. xxii, 18). (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Ch 147)

Only evil people do violence against evil people. But this is quite different from those who must act because of their position in society. A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Augustine, Sermon 302, 16)

But it is the highest and most perfect good, when one is able to lead back any one from the practice of evil to virtue and well-doing, which is the very function of the law. So that, when one fails into any incurable evil, – when taken possession of, for example, by wrong or covetousness, – it will be for his good if he is put to death. (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, c. 200)

Ender

Thank you. It will take me some time to get through this all. I appreciate your posting these; I’m sure it will help me understand both your position and the Church’s position.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Seems like a lie to demand a life for a life, then balk at demanding a cruel death for a cruel death, does it? Does the “stench of lies” bother you, LS?

Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz makes a final statement to Cpt. Willard: “We teach young people to drop fire on civilians, but we won’t let them write (*&% on their airplanes, because it would be OBSCENE!”

I don’t know if I would term it a lie. I think in both cases there is hypocrisy, which I suppose can be a sort of lying. I never saw that movie but I can understand why that quote is one of your favorite movie quotes. I like it, too. One sentence can speak volumes.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I hear you. I think it is left up to man and his laws to determine the most serious punishment available, and to determine if it is germane to the given situation. I don’t think there’s any divine expectation of “one given crime, one given punishment.” If that were true, monkeys could be doing the job of judges, attorneys, and jurists.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Edit to above post:

I apologize for not using the quote function properly.

 

[LittleSoldier]

You have it wrong. The Church says that capital punishment may be appropriate in certain limited sitiations. So, you are wrong in saying “never.”

The Church says “traditional teaching…does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.” As far as I know the Church doesn’t say it is “just.” But I haven’t had time to read most of the readings I have been given so I’m not absolutely sure about that. In my opinion (which can be changed) capital punishment is never just. Public safety trumps justice in the case of a murderer who absolutely cannot be kept away from the public. Protecting the public does not mean that killing a murderer is just.

Here is Church teaching:

"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 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 nonexistent.”

[Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267]

I don’t see the word “just” even being used.

In those limited situations, such as the recent case of a lifer murdering a guard in California or in other cases where a lifer murdered other prisoners, an additional life sentence won’t ordinarily work. The death penalty may be used then because there may be no reasonable way to protect the guards and other prisoners from the killer.

Not necessarily. You didn’t provide any links and I apologize but I don’t have the time to try to find whatever news stories you are referring to. It’s quite possible that procedures were inadequate, shortcuts were taken, and prison officials were sloppy in their work. I don’t know. It does not mean that the death penalty can now be used.

I believe that murder, the most severe crime, may be dealt with with whatever the most serious punishment is available to that jurisdiction. If that most serious punishment is 25 to life, then that’s what the man may be sentenced to; if life without parole, then that may be the best fit. Even if the death penalty is available, it needn’t be applied depending on mitigating or extenuating circumstances. There’s simply no such thing as one given crime, one given punishment.

The death penalty should never be applied IMO, unless that is absolutely the only way to protect the public. And I don’t believe that a murderer cannot be put away in prison and properly guarded in order to keep the public safe. It’s not our right to kill people! Every murderer is still a human being and a child of God. Every murderer should be treated with the dignity he/she deserves simply because he/she is a human being; notice the Church teaching I quoted uses the phrase “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

 

[Ender]

The Church says “traditional teaching…does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.” As far as I know the Church doesn’t say it is “just.”

Either a punishment is just or it is unjust but if capital punishment is unjust then how could the Church ever support it?

Public safety trumps justice in the case of a murderer who absolutely cannot be kept away from the public.

This is an argument that the ends justify the means … and nothing trumps justice.

The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Leo XIII, Exeunte iam anno, 1888)

Here is Church teaching:

"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…
**
It does not mean that the death penalty can now be used.

Yes, it does.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

Every murderer should be treated with the dignity he/she deserves simply because he/she is a human being; notice the Church teaching I quoted uses the phrase “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

The affront to a person’s dignity comes from not holding him accountable for his crimes, which includes levying the full weight of the punishment his crimes deserve.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentio, 1984)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Universal Law is Truth and is eternal and unchanging and cannot be decided by consensus. It simply is. If we are blessed we can discover it.

Yes, this is what I meant, therefore if capital punishment was just under natural law 2000 years ago it is just today.

*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, Seven Reasons America Shouldn’t Execute, 2002)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Why do you believe that justice demands a life for a life but not one barbarity for another?

I answered this before: because this is not what the Church teaches. She does now, always has, and always will, however, teach this:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:6)

It’s not our right to kill him.

The Church teaches that the State does have this right.

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas, ST, II/II 108,1 ad 1)

If we keep him in prison he has the chance to atone and to perhaps avoid damnation.

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the **just *punishment of death" (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk III, ch 147)

And God grants mercy to all of us.

But not unconditionally (or hell wouldn’t exist) -

For severity is inflexible in the infliction of punishment when right reason requires it; while clemency mitigates punishment also according to right reason, when and where this is requisite. (Aquinas, ST, II/II 157,2 ad 1)

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Protecting the public does not mean that killing a murderer is just.

Here is Church teaching:

"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.

I don’t see the word “just” even being used.

The Church says that its teaching does not preclude the use of the death penalty, yet you say that such acceptance of the death penalty is not just. So, you are saying that the Church’s teachings may be unjust. Think again.

Not necessarily. You didn’t provide any links and I apologize but I don’t have the time to try to find whatever news stories you are referring to. It’s quite possible that procedures were inadequate, shortcuts were taken, and prison officials were sloppy in their work. I don’t know. It does not mean that the death penalty can now be used.

Did you not read what I’ve posted? I said, “The death penalty may be used then because there may be no reasonable way to protect the guards and other prisoners from the killer.” There may be some mitigating circumstances to spare the man from the gallows. I presume the trial will bring those out if there are and that the sentence will be in line with the verdict.

The death penalty should never be applied IMO, unless that is absolutely the only way to protect the public. And I don’t believe that a murderer cannot be put away in prison and properly guarded in order to keep the public safe. It’s not our right to kill people! Every murderer is still a human being and a child of God. Every murderer should be treated with the dignity he/she deserves simply because he/she is a human being; notice the Church teaching I quoted uses the phrase “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

The first part of this is no more than your personal opinion. Beyond that, no one denies that even a murderer is a child of God or that he or she should not be treated with dignity.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The affront to a person’s dignity comes from not holding him accountable for his crimes, which includes levying the full weight of the punishment his crimes deserve.

Here I agree. The State may certainly punish the murderer to the full extent of the punishments available to it, depending what that venue’s maximum punishment is. Mitigating and extenuating circumstances will have an impact on what the exact punishment will be.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Either a punishment is just or it is unjust but if capital punishment is unjust then how could the Church ever support it?
This is an argument that the ends justify the means … and nothing trumps justice.

Does the Church teach that “nothing trumps justice?” It is important to focus on the safety of the public. The only time the death penalty can be used is when there is no other way to keep the public safe. I doubt that ever occurs now, although it may have occured in the past.

**“The test of whether the death penalty can be used is whether society has alternative ways to protect itself, not how terrible the crime was. Life in prison without parole provides a non-lethal alternative to the death penalty. We can’t know whether God has a purpose for a person’s life, even one who has committed a terrible crime and must spend his or her life behind bars.” **

usccb.org/deathpenalty/questions_answers.shtml

The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Leo XIII, Exeunte iam anno, 1888)
Yes, it does.

Capital punishment is not just. Protecting a vulnerable public is.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
The affront to a person’s dignity comes from not holding him accountable for his crimes, which includes levying the full weight of the punishment his crimes deserve.

It may not be intrinsically evil. It may also not be just. The affront to a person’s dignity is because when a person is executed his chance to atone is aborted, and as the USCCB stated above, we don’t know what God’s plan is for a person - even if he is behind bars for life. Also, the quote you provided contained the phrase “under certain circumstances.” But you didn’t provide anything which defined what those certain circumstances are. Could they perhaps be that a person should not be subjected to capital punishment unless the public cannot be protected by any other means?

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentio, 1984)

Ender

Nothing about the death penalty being just here. This appears to be a verification of free will and I have no argument with that.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The only time the death penalty can be used is when there is no other way to keep the public safe. I doubt that ever occurs now, although it may have occured in the past.

Your doubts about the present do not amount to fact. There may be a death-penalty deserving murder being committed even as we speak.

Capital punishment is not just.

The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The Church says that its teaching does not preclude the use of the death penalty, yet you say that such acceptance of the death penalty is not just. So, you are saying that the Church’s teachings may be unjust. Think again.

I have thought again. First of all, I can’t possibly keep up with all the posts that are being thrown at me. Second of all, what I have read so far has only strengthened my position. If you truly want to change my mind, please provide Church teaching that states the death penalty is just. That’s all I’m asking for. Not implications. Actual, definitive Church teaching. Oh, and I didn’t say that acceptance of the death penalty is not just. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Did you not read what I’ve posted? I said, “The death penalty may be used then because there may be no reasonable way to protect the guards and other prisoners from the killer.” There may be some mitigating circumstances to spare the man from the gallows. I presume the trial will bring those out if there are and that the sentence will be in line with the verdict.

Yes, I read what you posted. Did you read my reply?

The first part of this is no more than your personal opinion. Beyond that, no one denies that even a murderer is a child of God or that he or she should not be treated with dignity.

Ah, I see. It’s OK for you to post your personal opinion but it’s not OK for me? OK.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Your doubts about the present do not amount to fact. There may be a death-penalty deserving murder being committed even as we speak.

The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with you.

Then please provide a quote that states so!! I mean dogma or doctrine. Not arguments for and against, not bits of quotes taken out of context. And if you do find such a quote, I will check it out, study it, and if it really states that the Church infallibly teaches that the death penalty is just and is appropriate (without the parameters that I have already posted), then I will leave the Church for once and for all, because I will have no choice. I can’t believe that God would agree with that mere mortal human beings who have the right to kill one of His precious creations.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, this is what I meant, therefore if capital punishment was just under natural law 2000 years ago it is just today.

*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, Seven Reasons America Shouldn’t Execute, 2002)

Ender

True, but only if capital punishment is not a violation of Universal Law.

And I believe it is a violation.

We do not have the right to kill people!!