Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[iamrefreshed]

So are you suggesting the Pope is stating that the CCC is wrong? And everyone who agrees with the pope about the death penalty is going against the CCC as well?

The Pope is saying that he believes there is nearly always a better solution available than the death penalty. He never did, nor will he ever, state the CCC is wrong.

Therefore, the Pope believes the death penalty can be used when conditions exist.

If he believes the death penalty is immoral why does he not state so infallibly?

 

[stanczyk]

In that case why couldn’t they just cut off their hands? I mean we are talking about the possibility of confining someone to a cell where they would have almost zero human contact for the duration of their lives, if that were not possible is it then somehow more moral to physically mutilate them in such a way that they would then be incapacitated and no longer a threat to society?

Well, in those days without advance medical care, cutting off somebody’s hand was practically a death sentence anyway.

But I see what you mean, even in ancient times it is hard to come up with a morally permissible use of the death penalty. It is almost impossible to come up with an example that meets the criteria of the Catechism, even when pressed. Morally permissible executions are, as John Paul II said, practically nonexistent.

 

[pnewton]

If this second part is true, then you, in fact, disagree with both Benedict and the Blessed John Paul II.

Yes, but the disagreement is not on a matter of faith and morals. That is why the Holy Father has stated that the death penalty and abortion are not equivalent and that Catholics in good standing may disagree an application of the latter. Therefore when you state:

So, anybody who advocates the death penalty is in contradiction of the holy father, and advocating for murder. It’s not any different than those who oppose the Church on abortion.

…it is *you *that are in blatant opposition to the Holy Father. So pardon me if I do not accept either your claim to logic in this matter or your moral high road. This would be a far better discussion if we actually stick to Church teaching and quit trying to water it down to promote the death penalty or crank it up to demonize all who see a continued need for the death penalty.

 

[pnewton]

As for being uncharitable to the opposing argument, I suppose I am. But I do not feel the slightest compunction about being uncharitable to arguments in favor of the death penalty.

Yet when you accuse others of being in blatant opposition to the Holy Father, those who dearly love him and our faith, your lack of charity goes beyond the arguments and hits at people.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Yet when you accuse others of being in blatant opposition to the Holy Father, those who dearly love him and our faith, your lack of charity goes beyond the arguments and hits at people.

Obedience is usually the greatest stumbling block to faith.

 

[pnewton]

It would be permissible when an alternative such as incarceration does not exist. This was the case in Biblical times, for example

. And in 1900+ years of the Church. Your references to ancient history are not reflective of the history of Church teaching, or of the history of crime and punishment.

But since we now have the means to effectively incarcerate even the most dangerous criminals,…

Do we? Isn’t this the crux of the problem. My opinion is that we do not. The Holy Father has his opinion, as do you. This question, however, is simply not a matter of faith or morals.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Well, in those days without advance medical care, cutting off somebody’s hand was practically a death sentence anyway.

But I see what you mean, even in ancient times it is hard to come up with a morally permissible use of the death penalty. It is almost impossible to come up with an example that meets the criteria of the Catechism, even when pressed. Morally permissible executions are, as John Paul II said, practically nonexistent.

I think opposition to the death penalty should come up with a list of punishments and how they should be carried out so that people like me could support those over the death penalty.

Solitary confinement can not be on that list.

They should keep in mind that there are things worse than death.

 

[pnewton]

Obedience is usually the greatest stumbling block to faith.

How does obedience apply to this topic? No one has suggested that we disobey the Holy Father.

 

[stanczyk]

I think opposition to the death penalty should come up with a list of punishments and how they should be carried out so that people like me could support those over the death penalty.

Solitary confinement can not be on that list.

They should keep in mind that there are things worse than death.

You’re being entirely arbitrary. The Catechism, on the other hand, is very clear. There must be no other possibility the defend society in order for the death penalty to be morally permissible.

 

[iamrefreshed]

How does obedience apply to this topic? No one has suggested that we disobey the Holy Father.

No, but some have suggested that following the opinions of the Holy Father supercede our obedience to the CCC.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

even in ancient times it is hard to come up with a morally permissible use of the death penalty. It is almost impossible to come up with an example that meets the criteria of the Catechism, even when pressed. Morally permissible executions are, as John Paul II said, practically nonexistent.

I’m not sure I understand your position, perhaps you can clarify? Do you hold that there never was or is, or can be, a morally permissible use of the Death Penalty? You had made a distinction, I believe, between a “gratuitous use” of the death penalty and a justified use. Is the justified use completely abstract? You can’t come up with one example of how it would work?

Thanks again,
VC

 

[bbarrick8383]

You’re being entirely arbitrary. The Catechism, on the other hand, is very clear. There must be no other possibility the defend society in order for the death penalty to be morally permissible.

No, I’m being realistic.

The road to banning the death penalty lies with solutions. You can’t just oppose something and convince people without providing them an alternative. If you want to convince me that their are alternatives to the death penalty that fit the crimes, then list them.

 

[stanczyk]

I’m not sure I understand your position, perhaps you can clarify? Do you hold that there never was or is, or can be, a morally permissible use of the Death Penalty? You had made a distinction, I believe, between a “gratuitous use” of the death penalty and a justified use. Is the justified use completely abstract? You can’t come up with one example of how it would work?

Thanks again,
VC

No, I’m not saying that. Specifically, during Biblical times it was acceptable, we know that much from scripture. But what I mean is that it is hard for me to imagine.

In the days of ancient desert nomads, the death penalty was clearly justified, even for what we would consider minor crimes today. But in modern times we have advanced beyond that, and it can no longer be justified under practically any circumstances.

 

[stanczyk]

No, I’m being realistic.

The road to banning the death penalty lies with solutions. You can’t just oppose something and convince people without providing them an alternative. If you want to convince me that their are alternatives to the death penalty that fit the crimes, then list them.

The solution is incarceration, and in the case of especially dangerous offenders, isolation. How am I supposed to reason with you when you have arbitrarily ruled out the best solution for complying with the Catechism?

 

[Trader]

I think opposition to the death penalty should come up with a list of punishments and how they should be carried out so that people like me could support those over the death penalty.

Solitary confinement can not be on that list.

They should keep in mind that there are things worse than death.

So is the practice in the USSR of keeping prisoners heavily drugged. It is an offense against human dignity and precludes the ability to repent.

I also would like to know what punishment stanczyk would substitute for a criminal who murders a prison guard while already serving a life sentence for another murder. It happens even in advanced countries and proves that our modern systems cannot prevent a really evil person from doing further harm. Should such a serious crime go unpunished when we have the means to execute him with minimal pain? What kind of justice would that be?

 

[Langdell]

. Do we? Isn’t this the crux of the problem. My opinion is that we do not. The Holy Father has his opinion, as do you. This question, however, is simply not a matter of faith or morals.

Just to clarify, pnewton, do you disagree with the CCC on this issue? Because if you do, that position makes sense to me. (It’s not one that I hold, but it makes sense.) On the other hand, I’m having trouble seeing how a position accepting of the death penalty in a civilized country today is consistent with the CCC.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

No, I’m not saying that. Specifically, during Biblical times it was acceptable, we know that much from scripture. But what I mean is that it is hard for me to imagine.

In the days of ancient desert nomads, the death penalty was clearly justified, even for what we would consider minor crimes today. But in modern times we have advanced beyond that, and it can no longer be justified under practically any circumstances.

Do you think then that when the CCC speaks of the state having legitimate recourse to the death penalty it was referring to ancient nomadic desert tribes?

I’m puzzled. Was there ever a time, say, after Pentecost, that there was legitimate use of or could have been a legitimate use of the death penalty?

And, in addition can you (or anyone?) conceive of a time or place – fictional or future – where capital punishment is legitimately used. If so, can you describe what it would look like?

VC

 

[stanczyk]

So is the practice in the USSR of keeping prisoners heavily drugged. It is an offense against human dignity and precludes the ability to repent.

I also would like to know what punishment stanczyk would substitute for a criminal who murders a prison guard while already serving a life sentence for another murder. It happens even in advanced countries and proves that our modern systems cannot prevent a really evil person from doing further harm. Should such a serious crime go unpunished when we have the means to execute him with minimal pain? What kind of justice would that be?

You don’t have to ask me, thankfully, since the Catechism is so very clear on the matter. Punishment is not even a consideration, it is merely a question of whether an alternative besides death is available in order to defend society. This is always the case because of incarceration and solitary confinement. It is very simple, and it is unfortunate to see Catholics working so hard to justify something so contrary to human dignity as the gratuitous use of capital punishment.

 

[stanczyk]

Do you think then that when the CCC speaks of the state having legitimate recourse to the death penalty it was referring to ancient nomadic desert tribes?

I’m puzzled. Was there ever a time, say, after Pentecost, that there was legitimate use of or could have been a legitimate use of the death penalty?

And, in addition can you (or anyone?) conceive of a time or place – fictional or future – where capital punishment is legitimately used. If so, can you describe what it would look like?

VC

I’m not sure why you’re stuck on this. We should really be using our imagination to think of alternatives to the death penalty, rather than thinking of those incredibly rare situations where it is morally permissible.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m not sure why you’re stuck on this. We should really be using our imagination to think of alternatives to the death penalty, rather than thinking of those incredibly rare situations where it is morally permissible.

I ask because the Catechism seems to contemplate a situation. Also, I am getting a sense (though, please correct me!) that you may hold that there never was a legitimate use of the death penalty after, say, the Nativity?

Additionally, since there at least seems to be a legitimate use, I’m wondering what that is. You’ve spoken before of the legitimate use of killing. It’s useful to know how that works. Since there seems to be some (mysterious?) legitimate use of the death penalty, I would think that we would at least be able to discuss how it would be so, and under what real conditions and how it would be implemented. If for no other reason this would show how rare it is and give us a clue of how all the non-legitimate uses fall short and where.

VC