You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
“The Church teaches that while it is theoretically licit to use the death penalty where no other means to protect society is available, that situation does not arise in today’s society”The Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty is clear. The Church teaches that while it is theoretically licit to use the death penalty where no other means to protect society is available, that situation does not arise in today’s society. For that reason, the death penalty as it is used today is against the Church’s teaching. Pope Francis is emphasizing that teaching, but it is not new.
The situation does arise in today society. To state otherwise is a denial of the reality of the world.
“New Jersey man completes 30-year murder sentence only to kill mother two days later”
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
"Teacher left alone with sex offender at Arizona prison before she’s stabbed, raped: report
After the last of the other inmates left, Jacob Harvey asked the teacher if she could open the bathroom and then attacked her, records show. Harvey is accused of stabbing her in the head with a pen, forcing her to the ground and raping her."
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Chilling.“The Church teaches that while it is theoretically licit to use the death penalty where no other means to protect society is available, that situation does not arise in today’s society”
The situation does arise in today society. To state otherwise is a denial of the reality of the world.
“New Jersey man completes 30-year murder sentence only to kill mother two days later”
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
"Teacher left alone with sex offender at Arizona prison before she’s stabbed, raped: report
After the last of the other inmates left, Jacob Harvey asked the teacher if she could open the bathroom and then attacked her, records show. Harvey is accused of stabbing her in the head with a pen, forcing her to the ground and raping her."
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
There are horrendous crimes some of which almost demand the retribution of the death penalty. God is in charge of the soul but doesn’t society have the obligation to mete out just punishment in order to deter crime?
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
here is the right address, nydailynews.com/news/crime/teacher-left-sex-offender-arizona-prison-stabbed-raped-report-article-1.1835720"
"Teacher left alone with sex offender at Arizona prison before she’s stabbed, raped: report
After the last of the other inmates left, Jacob Harvey asked the teacher if she could open the bathroom and then attacked her, records show. Harvey is accused of stabbing her in the head with a pen, forcing her to the ground and raping her."
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Baltimore Catechism,Chilling.
There are horrendous crimes some of which almost demand the retribution of the death penalty. God is in charge of the soul but doesn’t society have the obligation to mete out just punishment in order to deter crime?
"Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1.(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."
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Has this been taken out of the new catechism?Baltimore Catechism,
"Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1.(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."
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Very well put, ENDER. In addition, the condition of penal systems of various governments is a matter of prudential judgment and not a matter of doctrine. Which penal systems in the world have sufficiently improved. How does one know when a government’s penal system has sufficiently improved so as to not regard capital punishment as a legitimate option? The United State’s? Russia’s? Spain’s? Iraq’s? Swaziland’s? an indigenous tribe isolated in the jungles of Africa? How do we know when a particular society’s penal system has sufficiently improved? So, the Church’s position on the death penalty is based on the state of the corrections system – a position neither biblical nor theological in nature.The primary objective of punishment is not the protection of society; it is retribution, retributive justice. Capital punishment is wrong when it is unnecessary to satisfy the primary objective, not when it is unnecessary to satisfy a secondary one.
The question of whether it is necessary as a means of protection is a judgment, one which is in fact the right and responsibility of individual governments to make. The use of capital punishment may well be against the wishes of most of the current Magisterium, but it is no way against the teaching of the church.
Ender
I
irenaeus1
Guest
No, the new catechism confused the matter by making the legitimate use of the death penalty based on a subjective condition that is a matter of prudential judgment in order to determine whether the condition is met.Has this been taken out of the new catechism?
T
TMC
Guest
You have made perfectly clear over the years that this is your position. It is not that of the Church.The primary objective of punishment is not the protection of society; it is retribution, retributive justice. Capital punishment is wrong when it is unnecessary to satisfy the primary objective, not when it is unnecessary to satisfy a secondary one.
The question of whether it is necessary as a means of protection is a judgment, one which is in fact the right and responsibility of individual governments to make. The use of capital punishment may well be against the wishes of most of the current Magisterium, but it is no way against the teaching of the church.
Ender
T
TMC
Guest
Take it up with the last three Popes, it is not my position. It is theirs, and the Church’s.“The Church teaches that while it is theoretically licit to use the death penalty where no other means to protect society is available, that situation does not arise in today’s society”
The situation does arise in today society. To state otherwise is a denial of the reality of the world.
“New Jersey man completes 30-year murder sentence only to kill mother two days later”
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
"Teacher left alone with sex offender at Arizona prison before she’s stabbed, raped: report
After the last of the other inmates left, Jacob Harvey asked the teacher if she could open the bathroom and then attacked her, records show. Harvey is accused of stabbing her in the head with a pen, forcing her to the ground and raping her."
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/19/new-jersey-man-completes-30-year-murder-sentence-only-to-kill-mother-two-days-later/
P
pnewton
Guest
I find it interesting that even under the Baltimore Catechism (which was not universally promulgated by the Holy See as a sure norm for teaching) we find that the good of community is even ground with the preservation of law and order, and that* both* are required to justify the death penalty.Baltimore Catechism,
"Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1.(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."
P
pnewton
Guest
I found nothing confusing in what is said. Heck, I could diagram the sentences without ambiguity. But then I do not write “prudential judgment” in the margins of my Catechism If you find it confusing, then why not simply accept what the last three popes have been saying for the last forty years, or simply set aside the political lens?No, the new catechism confused the matter by making the legitimate use of the death penalty based on a subjective condition that is a matter of prudential judgment in order to determine whether the condition is met.
A
abucs
Guest
It will be interesting to see how many Catholic political leaders and judges will comply with Francis’ request during the year of mercy.
I suppose this leads to a debate on whether the acceptance of this request violates any ‘separation of church and state’ principle and whether such a principle is good or bad for governing.
I suppose this leads to a debate on whether the acceptance of this request violates any ‘separation of church and state’ principle and whether such a principle is good or bad for governing.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Isn’t it problematic to use the Fifth Commandment as justification for opposition to the death penalty? Weren’t Jews who followed God’s law obligated to use the death penalty? Didn’t the Catholic Church support the death penalty while explaining that the Fifth Commandment didn’t mean any killing. Taking the Fifth Commandment to mean no killing is justified seems to me to be a change in teaching. I think it would confuse non Christians and lead them to doubt the authenticity of the Catholic Church.
I have no problem with promoting the idea that modern states don’t need to use the death penalty. I do have a problem with a seeming reinterpretation of commandments.
I have no problem with promoting the idea that modern states don’t need to use the death penalty. I do have a problem with a seeming reinterpretation of commandments.
B
Brendan
Guest
One other factor pointing towards Capital Punishment being a matter of prudential judgementI find it interesting that even under the Baltimore Catechism (which was not universally promulgated by the Holy See as a sure norm for teaching) we find that the good of community is even ground with the preservation of law and order, and that* both* are required to justify the death penalty.
P
pnewton
Guest
I missed where the Baltimore Catechism used that term. My biggest objection to the use of the term is that it is empty without modifiers, like the phrase “pro-choice”. Choice needs a modifier to narrow what the choice is. Judgment needs the same modifier to defined what is being judged. Besides, if one’s idea of prudence runs counter to saints and popes, just how prudent is it really? I would think if nothing else that it would be prudent to give serious consideration to the overwhelming voice of the Church.One other factor pointing towards Capital Punishment being a matter of prudential judgement
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, It is intellectually dishonest. The commandment against killing can be used to emphasized the general principle of the value of life, which is useful in understanding the death penalty, abortion, war and euthanasia, but it does** not** forbid the death penalty. Even a simple understanding of Mosaic law shows how contradictory this is.Isn’t it problematic to use the Fifth Commandment as justification for opposition to the death penalty?
P
Peebo
Guest
It’s interesting to read that the US is up there with countries like China…North Korea…Iran…India…Arab Islamic countries…many third world African countries…while all of the civilized Catholic /Christian countries have done away with it.
criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-countries-that-still-embrace-capital-punishment.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-countries-that-still-embrace-capital-punishment.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
B
Brendan
Guest
What is ‘good of the community’ or ‘preservation of law and order’ in objective terms?I missed where the Baltimore Catechism used that term.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree that within the commandment is a value for life. It doesn’t seem very difficult to express this distinction while using the commandment as part of a case against capital punishment. I realize often it is difficult or practically impossible to be absolutely precise, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.Yes, It is intellectually dishonest. The commandment against killing can be used to emphasized the general principle of the value of life, which is useful in understanding the death penalty, abortion, war and euthanasia, but it does** not** forbid the death penalty. Even a simple understanding of Mosaic law shows how contradictory this is.
Arguments with atheists, agnostics or even fallen away Christians often revolve around them seeing huge contradictions in Christian teaching. This doesn’t help. In fact it gives me great sympathy for those who don’t want to be part of the Church because they see it as being inconsistent and therefore not holy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.