Question about the death penalty

[Reformed_Rob]

I can certainly conceive that God, realizing that we thousands of years ago, had imperfect means to keep dangerous people from continuing to harm might have allowed man to execute those who could not be contained.

Hi SpiritMeadow:tiphat:

I’m only intending for friendly discussion. Not to be argumentative.

You seem to be describing, in what you say above, something that could not be intrinsically evil. I say that, because, if it were intrinsically evil, then God couldn’t have allowed it at all, right?

But that naturally brings up the question about bills of divorce because that reasoning would lead one to say that they are not intrinsically evil either, if God allowed them because of the hardness of their heart.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

But that naturally brings up the question about bills of divorce because that reasoning would lead one to say that they are not intrinsically evil either, if God allowed them because of the hardness of their heart.

Good point, as divorce is still allowed as a way for the abandoned spouse to protect themselves and the best interests of the children.

 

[pnewton]

That is not what I said. I gave an example regarding marriage. That doctrine seems to have changed. We consider it immoral to divorce, or at least to remarry. Such is considered sinful. It was not considered so in Moses time, where divorce was allowed. I can certainly conceive that God, realizing that we thousands of years ago, had imperfect means to keep dangerous people from continuing to harm might have allowed man to execute those who could not be contained. Particularly hard for a nomatic people. Today those reasons no longer apply and we are grown up enough to hand the real rule…don’t do it.

What reasons no longer apply? We still have murderers. We still have those we can not safely contain. Besides. The I do not think the analogy is apt. The law regarding bill of divorce was given to Moses and the teachin of Jesus given to the Church. To say the same applies now, or we entering a new covenant? The Church may not abandon doctrine. It can only develop a better understanding.

 

[pnewton]

I am almost done re-reading Evangelium Vitae. I think it was the first encyclical I read (because of this issue). It does not depart from the CCC and even reiterates it in regards to the death penalty. The one thing I got this time through is that in the case of murder, mercy must always be the first choice toward the murderer. This does not conflict with what I have always believed. However, if anything, going through such a wonderful treatise harderens my position. Where some may look upon the criminals, I can’t help but see the victims and the future danger. As JP II said, the killing of an innocent person is always gravely immoral. Additionally, it really ticks me off. I guess that is why I am where I am.

On a side not, the example of the mercy of God toward Cain is used throughout. We must remember, though, that for the one who murders Cain, the punishment was to be sevenfold. So while mercy is always what we should look to first, it is not absolute.

 

[TMC]

Hi SpiritMeadow:tiphat:

I’m only intending for friendly discussion. Not to be argumentative.

You seem to be describing, in what you say above, something that could not be intrinsically evil. I say that, because, if it were intrinsically evil, then God couldn’t have allowed it at all, right?

But that naturally brings up the question about bills of divorce because that reasoning would lead one to say that they are not intrinsically evil either, if God allowed them because of the hardness of their heart.

Jesus does not say that God allowed divorce, Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. Matthew 19:8 God’s ideal does not change, but man’s understanding of it can be wrong or compromised. Sometimes for a long time. 1300 years after Moses handed down this rule, Jesus is very clearly saying it has been wrong all that time.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You claim that the issue is the same, but it seems like an argument from silence. You quote Jesus referring to bills of divorce not being something that God intended from the beginning and extend that into other areas where Christ (to my knowledge) makes no such statements.

In the thread it has been proposed repeatedly that the Church has changed its position in regard to the death penalty, this proposal is incorrect. This proposal is based on extrapolation of a few statements made by Popes and the Magisterium. I was pointing out that while Moss allowed divorce by requiring only the man to state three times before witness his demand for a divorce, Jesus rebuked this teaching. On the surface this would appear to be a change in the moral teachings of God. However if you take the time to understand what Jesus said you can see the teaching did not change. What changed were the people, the people had grown to show tolerance. Jesus is explaining because of the past inherent intolerance of the people Moss allowed the divorce, but a tolerant person should not divorce, he should show tolerance to his spouse. The same is true of the Death Penalty. It was never desirable to kill, however it was more acceptable when less security existed for the innocent. Today the innocent are better protected and thus should not kill in an attempt to be secure. It is not the Church’s morality which changed; it is the level of security for innocent lives.
Hope that helps

And (again, to my knowledge), neither does any Church Father, Doctor, Council, or relevant authority.

I am no “pro-death penalty” and I truly try to know and follow the Church teachings. And because of that I really try to have a reasonable view. Lines of reasoning that force you to believe things like “any government body that ever put anyone to death committed a mortal sin” are simply not reasonable.

Concerning *“any government body that ever put anyone to death committed a mortal sin”- *This would not be reflective of my writtings, I do not know where you found such a statement.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am almost done re-reading Evangelium Vitae. I think it was the first encyclical I read (because of this issue). It does not depart from the CCC and even reiterates it in regards to the death penalty. The one thing I got this time through is that in the case of murder, mercy must always be the first choice toward the murderer. This does not conflict with what I have always believed. However, if anything, going through such a wonderful treatise harderens my position. Where some may look upon the criminals, I can’t help but see the victims and the future danger. As JP II said, the killing of an innocent person is always gravely immoral. Additionally, it really ticks me off. I guess that is why I am where I am.

On a side not, the example of the mercy of God toward Cain is used throughout. We must remember, though, that for the one who murders Cain, the punishment was to be sevenfold. So while mercy is always what we should look to first, it is not absolute.

There are other occasions. When John the Baptist was beheaded what did Jesus do? Healed the sick and feed the many. When Jesus had risen what was the fate of those who took his human life? Not a one was struck. And before them when David planned the death of Bathsheba’s husband so what was his punishment? He was prevented from the Temple. So we clearly God bypass capital punishment on multiple occasions spread throughout history.

 

[TOME]

bjmiller,
In my own mind’s eye I don’t think I was being disingenuous although I admit I am not the best communicator on this panet. I though I had expressed myself clearly that I have a hope of a “secondary effect” of changing opinion but this was a secondary purpose not my main intent. Perhaps you missed the part of the sentence you quoted because it was in paraenthesis?

I do not have the study in front of me and I cannot remember where I read it, however, I did read a study that showed on the question of the death penalty, arguments opposing the death penalty from philosophical reasoning rather than its practicality have little sway with white male Americans. I accepted the study’s finding yet I chose to attempt to change the scope of discussion focusing on a philosophical approach. I think it would have been a foolish - if not stupid - choice to make if my primary intention was to change opinion. Why would I choose an approach that I already knew was doomed to failure?

You may think that one of the primary factors of my decision is faulty and done without reason, namely, I am in diologue with those who oppose my position and these individuals are primarily white male Americans. But I thought of this as well. From what I have read most Americans who support the death penalty in this country are white. Second, the majority of conservative male Catholics are white and third from my own experience in CAF most males are white. My point is not to bring up a “Race” factor,
rather, it is to show you that in choosing the course I intend to proceed on, I am doing so not with the primary intention of changing opinions.

In the history of our Church there was a period when it was necessary for Christian to present and defend Christianity to a pagan world. The great apologist of the Church of this period were men who were firm in their faith but also were philosophers in their own right - the predominent philosophy being Platonism or Neo-Platonism. These men would diologue and argue with a full understanding of both their own positions and that of their pagan adversaries. Here, I am not suggesting that we who are involved in this discussion are adversaries - we all share the same faith and the same goal to live this faith the best we can.

However, it has become clear to me that all to often many of us present our view point without real or complete knowledge of where the other is coming from and why the other holds the opinion she or he does. I see this especially in the criticism of Pope John Paul II’s Evengelium Vitae which is centered and limited to just #56 and is ignorant of the rest of the encyclical. Because of this ignorance ( I am using here the word ignorance not in a pejorative sense - jst as lacking certain knowledge) there seems to be a lack of understanding how this encyclical is not a break from earlier Church teachings but is deeply rooted in traditional doctrine and more importantly Scripture.

In another post, I wrote that one problem with the way many of us use a catechism is we make whatever catechism we use an end rather than a beginning. Catechism are references and to use them to their fullest we should approach them by first asking what does the Church teach on a particular subject - and here is where the catechism is at its best in giving an answer - but to be Catholics who have the knowledge of our faith that Vatican II calls us to have our next question should be the simple question every child ask, “Why”? By seeking out the answer to the “Why” we really expose ourselves to the fullness of the teachings of our Catholic Faith.

What Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae and reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the DP has to be understood in the full context of the work in which it is contained.
How can we have a proper and rational diologue if we limit our knowledge of what is being discussed to a paragraph or two?

So “bj” my intention is not a change of tactic, it is rather, a response to what I think is of more importance: a fuller understanding of what our Church teaches and why. Here we have a great opportunity to study in greater depth Church doctrine on a particular topic because there is more information available to us if we have the desire, and time, to study it.

Finally, “bj” I did take some solice in the fact that the quote from Shakespeare wasn’t as imbuded with the accusation of sinister intent as other quotes you may have chosen. When I read you quote my thought was “No! It should be 'Yonder Tome has a lean and hungry look!”

 

[TOME]

Ender,
Years ago I started reading the publications of “Communio” a theological quarterly (I think it was a quarterly - but it was a while back). This publication was started by Fr Ratzinger along with Fr. Hans Urs von Bathasar and a few other theologians. Ignatius Press can trace it ancestry to this publication. Given the fact that I refered to our Holy Father as Fr. Ratzinger shows you how long ago this was. But if you read his contributions, from back in the 1970’s, those of coarse that have been translated into English, or from other contributors to “Communio” I think you will come to understand the consistency of our Holy Father’s thought as well as other theologians who have influenced the Church’s present teaching especially in lieu of the challanges we as Church face in a modern western society.

I realize that this is most likely impracticable for a number of reasons so I would suggest to you one book in particular by Cardinal Ratzinger, " Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures" (Ignatius Press, 2005). However, he also addresses this issue in other works such as “Introduction to Christianity”, “Truth and Tolerance”, “Salt of the Earth” and one of my favorites because it is several sermons given for Advent and serves for me as a good meditation duing the Advent Season, “What it Means to be Christian”. And there are his two encyclicals along with “Jesus of Nazerath”.

 

[pnewton]

There are other occasions.

I know, just like there are other occasions when God call for death, or struck some down himself.

 

[pnewton]

In the thread it has been proposed repeatedly that the Church has changed its position in regard to the death penalty, this proposal is incorrect.

Even though I am in the minority on this, I am believe you to be speaking truthfully here. I do not think the Church has reversed it’s position. However, in light of the fact that the Church at one time endorsed the death penalty and even had her own death statutes, the only conclusion is that the apparent reversal is based on the changes that have occurred in society. Most probably agree with me so far. The next step, in which I will lose some, is that if it is society that hase changed, then the opinion of the death penalty is an application of moral teaching, not direct moral teaching. This is essential because the Church can develop doctrine, but it can not white-out doctrine and write in new doctrine. I believe this is what estesbob means when he says the Church will never be absolute on the subject.

Now my quandry is that no where in any teaching of the Church, at any level have I found one shred of support for the premise that society has changed to the point that the death penalty is no longer needed. It is simply stated, as if it is a given. For all one can tell, they get their information from CNN. They would not be the first to do so.

 

[TOME]

Ray_Scheel,
First, I think in you opinion that Pope Benedict XVI would outlaw the DP doesn’t really reflect the teaching of our Holy Father through out the past several decades. One thing he has always taugh is there is to be a true change in society that change must come from within. That is there must be a personal metonia and opening of one self to God’s love and responding to God’s love in our daily life, of the members of society. Structures and laws are important especially in the defence of human life however more essential is the change that come from with in because that is only when there will be true change.

So you may be correct that if he could Benedict would outlaw the DP but I am convinced he would tell you first, this is not the role of the Church and second this would never provide the answer to the crisis we, as Catholic, face from the powers which dominate today’s culture.

 

[TOME]

Pnewton,
I read that you have almost finished re-reading Evangelium Vitae,
and maybe by now you have finished it by now. My question, or questions, then is first, did you find a continuity of what John Paul wrote with earlier teachings of the Church and more importantly Scripture? Also, did you find his discriptions of the “Culture of Death” which we as a society and Church face to be accurate?

One side note: SpiritMeadow, I agree and I do find myself too often writing about the “Culture of Death” and not enough about the “Culture of Life” that John Paul emphasizes in Evangelium Vitae will in the end be victorious and which we already see many of its fruits. I will try to work this into my opinions as well.

 

[TOME]

I have a question for all involved in this discussion. What is your reaction to Pope John Paul II teaching in Evangelium Vitae, that the view of all Catholics on the sacredness and dignity of all human persons must be radically different from that of the world’s in light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice? Do you agree with this teaching if so why, if not why not?

 

[pnewton]

Pnewton,
I read that you have almost finished re-reading Evangelium Vitae,
and maybe by now you have finished it by now. My question, or questions, then is first, did you find a continuity of what John Paul wrote with earlier teachings of the Church and more importantly Scripture? Also, did you find his discriptions of the “Culture of Death” which we as a society and Church face to be accurate?

It is without a doubt a continuation of the teaching of the Church as expressed in the CCC. I never doubted we live in a time that has a profound lack of respect for life. The victim’s side though is the blood of Abel calling out from the ground. In many (most) cases, there is room for sufficient mercy to allow the one who kills the chance to seek penance in living out his life in prison. In other cases, where Cain decides that Seth needs to be the next to go, mercy may only result in more innocent blood shed.

 

[TOME]

Pnewton,
But do you find a continuity with even earlier earlier Church teachings?

Also, when God punished Cain, we both agree God did not end Cain’s life but sent him away into the wilderness yet with a mark that prevented Cain from any further harm from others. In other words, banishment from society was the punishment Cain truly deserved.

Also, one of the great insights of modern biblical studies, that reflect a deeper understanding of anthropology (the study of man - that is the nature of man) has been the punishment we occur although attributed in scripture to the Actions of God actually are self inflicted punishments that are the result of our going against our created nature. A perfect example is Hell. Is Hell a place we are sent to by God or is it a state we create for ourselves when we, by the actions of our free will, become our own god and cut ourselves off completely from God’s Love? Could not this insight be applied to those who would attack Cain, their punishment would be seven-fold, but couldn’t this just point to the evil effect that comes from violence. Doesn’t violence beget violence? As John Paul pointed out, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away.

Just a thought or two for your consideration. (Hopefully with no mis-spellings).

 

[TOME]

As I posted earlier, I would like to move to a different perspective in our discussion, one that is more philosophical in its approach.
So I would like to propose a set of questions all based on Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”. My questios are:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the pope’s teaching that there is a “Culture of Death” that permeates our society today?
2. If there is a “Culture of Death”, does the pope accurately describe its essence and its effects on our society?
3. If there is a “Culture of Death” it is an essential part of the nature of the Church to oppose this culture and to move society towards a “Culture of Life”?
4. If there is a “Culture of Death” and it is an essential part of the nature of the Church to move society to the “Culture of Life” this transformation must begin with forming ones conscience, “With regards to the imcomparable and inviolable worth of every human life”?
5. Is the “Culture of Life” rooted in the “Gospel of Life” whose nature is described by Pope John Paul II in EV?
6. Do you agree or disagree with Pope John Paul II’s description of the “Gospel of Life” and its being rooted in the Church’s mission of Evangelization?
7. Is it a moral imperative for a Catholics’s view of life to be rooted in the sacredness and dignity of all human life, without exception, understood in the light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice? (yes I did ask this one earlier).

 

[pnewton]

Also, when God punished Cain, we both agree God did not end Cain’s life but sent him away into the wilderness yet with a mark that prevented Cain from any further harm from others. In other words, banishment from society was the punishment Cain truly deserved.

Is it what he deserved or did mercy temper the properly deserved punishment. From EV:

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15)… Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth.

Or as St. Ambrose puts it, as quoted in EV:

"Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. …

In this quote, Ambrose shows where the it is the contrition of the sinner that allows mercy to be extended.

In this regard, I do not really see the continuity in Catholic teaching. Currently restricting the use of the death penalty to instances only when it is needed to safeguard society, without regard to the exercise of justice or the contrition of the offender seems to be a new development to me. Not that it matters. In this regard I will be satisfied to restrict myself to the current Catholic teaching. It is enough that those that know much more about moral theology than I do restrict the death penalty so.

I never claim to be of superior knowledge in the area of moral theology. That is why I restrict myself only to area that I know about, to wit, can all violent criminals be safely incarcerated?

Now I will move to other questions. Violence begats violence I believe to be a slogan more than a truism. It is generally true. But other things can also begat violence. In the case of Cain, there was no previous violence to prod him to murder. Violence can also lead to peace. It was the warrior David that brought about the peace in the time of Solomon. Yet David was a man after God’s own heart. Saul had slain his thousands, yet David his tens of thousands. So we can see that in two cases the rule does not apply.

I think one way in which I differ is I see the culture of death as something larger than abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. The culture of death also reigns in inner city gangs where kids are brought up to kill for money, revenge or kicks. The culture of death exists in prisons much more fully off of death row than on it. Prisoners believe their only chance to survive is to engage in violence. Gangs form for mutual protection and quickly evolve to predator gangs where the only way in is to kill and the only way out is to die. Prison violence does not get the press from the media that executions get, but it is much more of the prison culture than executions are.

Yes, it is vital that Christians are rooted in the sacredness dignity of human life, but not just the life of the violent offenders. We must also be rooted in the respect for life of the innocent who are the prey our society, both on the street and in prisons.

 

[TOME]

Pnewton,
In regards to your first observation, I think you are asking the wrong question, I would propose the more fundamental question is what does God’s dealing with Cain tell us about God’s mercy?

As for the saying violence begets violence, rather than being a slogan or a truism, isn’t this an insight into the psychology of man? Didn’t God reveal to us in 1 John 15 tell us if we hate our brother we are a murderer? Have you ever know of an act of violence, no matter how justified, that did not produce some sort of anger or hate?

I also ask you, are such things such as abortion, euthansia, the violence in our cities and jails etc. are these causes or symptoms of the “Culture of Death”? And turning back to Cain, what was our Holy Father’s explanation why the first murder took place?

Is the essence of the sancity and dignity of every human person innate to the nature of the human person therefore cannot be removed without destroying the very being of the person or is the dignity and sancity of human life contingent on the activity of the particular individual? That is, if an individual ceases to act as a human should act and act rather like an “animal” does that person actually cease being a human? If so then what kind of animal is that person? What happens to that person’s soul? Does the soul cease to exist?

Again, how should we approach the question of human dignity and sacredness in light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice?

At this point in our discussions I am trying to stay away from particulars such as violence in the streets or prisions etc. and focus on more of the objective. This is not done out of some naive sense of the world but I think it better serves a discussion such as this, at least at the start because here I hope to clarify and articulate the moral principle from which we are making our judgements - it is better to establish such principles fromnorms rather than exceptions.

Also, we are coming up to the celebration of the feasts of St Thomas Aquinas, so in his honor the more academic and scholarly the better; St Francis DeSales who had a great motto of “Give Me Souls and Take Away the Rest” which I think is really appropriate for this discussion and my favorite saint of all Don Bosco who took the motto of the Gentleman Saint and used it as the motto for the religious order he founded and named after St Francis - The Salesians. (But I am sure we will be able to read about these three great men in the up coming days on SpriitMeadow’s web site!)

 

[pnewton]

I can not separate academic questions from reality, especially when we consider that we are dealing with an application of Catholic teaching and not just theoretical ethics. I have less desire to engage in ethics than I do applied ethics. What is best, is what works. The area of moral teaching is the area in which the Church guides us. In accord with its own teaching, the application of those guidelines are up to the legitimate authorities. I approach the subject as a citizen, not a theologian. As to, “Again, how should we approach the question of human dignity and sacredness in light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice?” This statement sounds similar to the WWJD question, which seldom is a question and usually more of a circular reasoning. In light of the *whole *gospel, we approach everything with faith. I do not see any specific application.

Since you mentioned the pashal sacrifice, I was thinking how on the cross, Didymus stated that his punishment was deserved. Jesus did not intervene or correct him, but rather rewarded his faith with the promise of paradise.