Question about the death penalty

[Texas_Roofer]

As they say “ And there you go?”

Punishment has four purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection. Protection (self-defense) is the only one of the four addressed by 2267. Regrettably it is not the primary purpose of punishment so you end up in the situation where it is now morally permissible to execute someone based on what he may do while it it no longer permitted to execute him based on what he has actually done.

Others believe long prison sentences achieve retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection. Additionally we believe God CAN punish him for what he has done.

The primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the sin - retribution.

loss of liberty is a form of retribution

The state has the right and duty to apply a penalty proportionate to the seriousness of the crime.

as years of incarceration?

No punishment will restore the life of the murdered person; does this mean that no punishment should be applied?

Nor will additional killings

Other punishments are available but no other punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime of willful murder.

really my life would not be a shadow of the current life if I were incarcerated

No matter how contrite the sinner he is still guilty of the crime and that still requires punishment in order for the debt to be paid. Nor even does forgiveness cancel the debt.

Ender

That is correct so no one is proposing zero retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection. The argument is which forms should be used

 

[pnewton]

While I agree that a good deal of interfamily murder is reduced to a lessor offense, certainly not all is nor possibly most. At least from my experiences most were drug related or family related. The point is that the justification of the DP being to deter others, it simply has never been proven applicable.

Then if you were just using my post as a starting point, I apologize. I agree that manslaughter, or as it often called, second degree murder, should never be eligible for the death penalty. There may be some deterent, but it only be minimal and always unprovable.

To continue, I do not attempt to change anyone’s mind, with the exception to understand how one can respect life and still believe in the death penalty.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then if you were just using my post as a starting point, I apologize. I agree that manslaughter, or as it often called, second degree murder, should never be eligible for the death penalty. There may be some deterent, but it only be minimal and always unprovable.

I’m not sure to what you allude in the first sentence. As to the rest: let me just make this correction for you. Murder 1 which is the only one that can lead to a death penalty crime is either premeditated, or done in the perpetration of some other stated crime/s. Murder II is typically a murder without premeditation, occuring quickly and without time to think. Manslaughter is divided into Volutary and Involuntary. Voluntary usually refers to a inherently dangerous act being done with a reasonable belief it will or can lead to death or serious bodily injury. Involuntary mansl.typically refers to an act lawful in itself, but done in a negligent manner sufficient that the person had reason to believe it could cause death or serious bodily injury. State laws may vary to a degree, but those are the general breakdowns. Only the first is usually subject to capital punishment.

To continue, I do not attempt to change anyone’s mind, with the exception to understand how one can respect life and still believe in the death penalty.

I admit I do hope to change a mind or two, failing that, I wish Church teaching stated correctly I guess. Hopefully through this process, we arrive at least at what some of us conclude is correct.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Two criteria. First, to have actually commited a murder, not contributed to one, but to have pulled the trigger, so to speak. This shows capacity. Second, to have a propensity to commit murder again, showing an on-going danger to society. This could be either a second murder, a history of other violence, or the member of a group in which he has pledged to kill. This second idea eliminates the majority of those who commit murder.

I’m not sure to what you allude in the first sentence. As to the rest: let me just make this correction for you. Murder 1 which is the only one that can lead to a death penalty crime is either premeditated, or done in the perpetration of some other stated crime/s. Murder II is typically a murder without premeditation, occuring quickly and without time to think. Manslaughter is divided into Volutary and Involuntary. Voluntary usually refers to a inherently dangerous act being done with a reasonable belief it will or can lead to death or serious bodily injury. Involuntary mansl.typically refers to an act lawful in itself, but done in a negligent manner sufficient that the person had reason to believe it could cause death or serious bodily injury. State laws may vary to a degree, but those are the general breakdowns. Only the first is usually subject to capital punishment.

I admit I do hope to change a mind or two, failing that, I wish Church teaching stated correctly I guess. Hopefully through this process, we arrive at least at what some of us conclude is correct.

At this point pnewton is echoing the catechism. The only minor issue is a need to publicly explain how each planned execution has reached a standard acceptable to reasonable Catholics. Mind you that some will disagree if the standard is met, and some will maintain we should improve the incarceration method until the future danger is reduced. This public communication may lead to the elimination of the conditions which concern pnewton and others

 

[SoCalRC]

Accusing someone of trying to be “more Catholic than the Pope” is judging them, especially when your reason for making that accusation in the first place is that you cannot actually find a instance of Church teaching to back up your presumption that the Church has formally revoked the State’s authority under natural law to utilize the death penalty for punishment. It has not done so. It CANNOT do so. End of story if theological truth is unchanging and the Catholic Church never formally teaches error.

You seem to be confused. I cannot judge the spiritual implications of your beliefs, but you are asserting that the Church’s position, that suitable applications are not just “rare” but “practically nonexistant” is an incorrect moral application of Church teaching.

However, the application has Papal Authority (EVANGELIUM VITAE) and is included in the Catechism (collegial support). Further, it has local collegial support in the US (USCCB).

You appear to be attempting to both promote the concept of infalliblity via the ordinary and universal Magesterium, while simultaneously rejecting the Primacy of the Church. Alas, you can’t have it both ways. It is not for us each to decide what each Church teaching means in moral context of the whole faith, that is the Magesterium’s Holy responsibility. And the ultimate authority on application of Church teachings is the Vicar of Christ.

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

Interestingly, the moral authority of the Magesterium is also expressly spelled out in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which you just quoted from to support your position. So you are seemingly rejecting your own citations of authority.

Again, it is not my place to say or judge how this reflects on you as a person. But it certainly seems reasonable to point out that you are assigning yourself moral authority on the application of Catholic teaching in excess of the Pope.

 

[SoCalRC]

The only minor issue is a need to publicly explain how each planned execution has reached a standard acceptable to reasonable Catholics.

First, it isn’t minor. We have it on Papal authority that the teaching is closely related to abortion and euthanasia.

Second, Catholicism is not a democracy, convincing some number of “reasonable” Catholics has no theological meaning. The Magesterium would have to be convinced.

Like the Faith, we cannot pick and choose from the Catechism. The Heirarchy of the Church and it’s Holy obligations is spelled out in Part One, where the Nicene Creed is broken down one line at a time.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

But it certainly seems reasonable to point out that you are assigning yourself moral authority on the application of Catholic teaching in excess of the Pope.

Incorrect. I am assigning authority to the State that the Church has formally taught belongs to the State, and have provided numerous citations of where and how it has done so. You are attempting to reassign that authority to the pope on a presumption that JP II must have meant to do so in order for you to be able to declare binding your reading of his opinion on a related topic.

 

[Walking_Home]

Pope Benedict XVI then Card. 2004

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?RecNum=6041

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

 

[pnewton]

Like the Faith, we cannot pick and choose from the Catechism. The Heirarchy of the Church and it’s Holy obligations is spelled out in Part One, where the Nicene Creed is broken down one line at a time.

Yes, but the Catechism also explicitly states that the death penalty is valid and allows for belief in a rare use of it. The language on abortion, on the other hand, is unequivical.

By the way, even the Holy Father called the use of the death penalty an catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?RecNum=6041

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment

As an application, it is not a teaching on faith and morals in which we are bound. Texas Roofer said something I think was insightful. The Church is unlikely to ever announce the death penalty to wrong in all situations (and thus evil). To do so would undermine the consistent teaching of the Church. What is being done is to state that civilization is advanced enough and civilized enough to no longer need the death penalty. It is this judgement of the current state of prison technology and civiliaztion with which one might disagree.

 

[TOME]

I would like to change the perspective of this discussion and offer a few points I would like all to consider and comment on if you tink what I write is worthy of comment.

I think the discussion has limited itself too much on that actual question of the Church’s present teaching on the Death Penalty. I hope by now I have been clear that I agree with the Church’s teachings and I would add this has been my opinion long before Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” or the publication of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

Here is why I think we should broaden the perspective of our conversation and I would like to move our diologue to a different perspective with several question. Why did Pope John Paul II write what he wrote about the Death Penalty in "Evangelium Vitae? Why was the Church’s position on the Death Penalty stated as it was in the Catechism? How familiar are we with the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (especially his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger) in regards to the challanges the Church’s moral teachings by modern society? How familiar are we with the fundamental changes in modern society, brought on as the result of the “Enlightment” as identified by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the implications of these changes on the moral outlook of every Catholic? How many of us agree with Pope John Paul II that we are living in a society permeated by the “Culture of Death” and Pope Benedict XVI that today’s culture functions under the “Dictatorship of Revelativism” (and how many of us understand what is meant by these two terms)?

I offer these questions not so much as a round about way of changing opinions (although this would be a desired secondary effect) but I think if we are going to discuss the wisdom, if not validity, of the current Catholic Church’s teachings on the Death Penalty then these questions, I hope, will challange us to take a look at the reasoning that went into these teachings, my thought is it is not enough just to know what was said by why it was said and after all, each of our opinions are expressions of a moral choice we have made but a choice of conscience must be an informed choice if we are to follow the traditional teachings of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

I understand what is meant by the culture of death. I remember Francis Schaeffer wrote extensively about it. However, the laws we have are but one aspect and perhaps not the most important part of our culture. I think what is considered popular entertainment is also a serious problem. I remember that Yahoo had an article this week of the most anticipated video games of 2008. One of the ones listed was the next Grand Theft Auto. Movies are bloodier, games are more violent. We have entered an era where kids periodically respond to bullies by gunning down class mates.

Then when we turn to crime, especially among the young, there seems a drastic drop in respect for life. Shooting a rival gang member and ending their life may be nothing bigger to them than a chance to show off. I do not know if on balance that the death penalty degrades the value of life or elevates it. It seems that as the death penalty has become less common, life has become cheaper, not that there is a causality. But it could be that if we took murder more seriously then we would strike a blow against the culture of death.

 

[TOME]

Pnewton,
I think it is important that we who are involved in this discussion read and become very familiar with the writings of our popes and for this particular topic Pope John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae”.

Also, in his introductory letter to the Catechism Pope John Paul II wrote several times that the catechism itself is an important reference and that it contains both the new and old because, “The faith is the same yet the source of ever new light”. I think we tend to make the Catechism an end in itself and not a beginning of our study and inquiry which what a reference actually is. This is one of the reasons why I think it is important for we as Catholics to go beyond just what a catechism (be it the Catechism of Trent or the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and expand our understanding. If we do this then I think our discussion here will benefit each of us as individuals and as a group of good catholics seeking a deeper understanding of our living faith.

 

[bjmiller100753]

I offer these questions not so much as a round about way of changing opinions…

I had promised myself I was going to stay out of this thread but I could not stop myself. I find this statement disingenuous. You have been very clear and adamant re: your opposition to the DP. I don’t think it would be a stretch to say you have been trying to sway proponents of the DP to your position. Obviously the head-on approach wasn’t so successful if you look at the posts of those who hold an opinion opposite to yours. So now you change tactics to a subtler form of argumentation. It is my opinion that you are attempting to do exactly what it is you say you are not attempting to do. As Shakespeare said, “Methinks thou dost protest too much*.”*

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Pnewton,
I think it is important that we who are involved in this discussion read and become very familiar with the writings of our popes and for this particular topic Pope John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae”.

Also, in his introductory letter to the Catechism Pope John Paul II wrote several times that the catechism itself is an important reference and that it contains both the new and old because, “The faith is the same yet the source of ever new light”. I think we tend to make the Catechism an end in itself and not a beginning of our study and inquiry which what a reference actually is. This is one of the reasons why I think it is important for we as Catholics to go beyond just what a catechism (be it the Catechism of Trent or the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and expand our understanding. If we do this then I think our discussion here will benefit each of us as individuals and as a group of good catholics seeking a deeper understanding of our living faith.

It seems to me at least as I have researched this and other issues, that the clear import of JPII and I would believe Benedict himself, that there is a “culture of Life,” if you will, expressed, and this is now seen as a very broad term. We typically refer to it as protecting and giving dignity to life from conception to natural death. Natural death of course, presupposes no DP I would assume, since execution can in no way be considered “natural”. What I also find, is that the term is broadened to include all issues that impact the dignity of the human person, such things as food, shelter, education, health care, decent work and conditions are all part of this package. We are to work for all these things, isolating, none I would argue in favor of some one or more. But that is not all, genocide, racism, terrorism also impact the dignity of the individual and are also included I would argue. That is the import of EV as I read it anyway.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I had promised myself I was going to stay out of this thread but I could not stop myself. I find this statement disingenuous. You have been very clear and adamant re: your opposition to the DP. I don’t think it would be a stretch to say you have been trying to sway proponents of the DP to your position. Obviously the head-on approach wasn’t so successful if you look at the posts of those who hold an opinion opposite to yours. So now you change tactics to a subtler form of argumentation. It is my opinion that you are attempting to do exactly what it is you say you are not attempting to do. As Shakespeare said, “Methinks thou dost protest too much*.”*

Wow, that was surely not necessary. You act like he is trying to convince people to rob banks or something. Most of the world considers the death penalty barbaric. The Coliseum is lit every time a person is executed in this country as a protest against it. Executions in this country are carried in papers throughout Europe. We are losing the battle of being a moral compass to the world by this action. I think your criticism of Tome most unfortunate and unfair. He upholds the level of discussion here better than most, certainly than me.

 

[mlchance]

Executions in this country are carried in papers throughout Europe. We are losing the battle of being a moral compass to the world by this action.

Well, if Europeans – who brought us such well-thought-out moral compasses as the Reign of Terror, decades of racist imperialism, Marxism, and fascism – are offended…



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Executions in this country are carried in papers throughout Europe. We are losing the battle of being a moral compass to the world by this action.

Last I heard, the Christians in Europe, including Italy, had essentially quit going to church. Europe has show it has no interest in battles of the moral compass going on Stateside, as they steadily contracept their societies into oblivion. Truth in moral matters is rarely popular, trying to establish what is true through a popularity contest when the fact don’t match what is popular simply does not work.

 

[Ender]

How familiar are we with the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (especially his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger) in regards to the challanges the Church’s moral teachings by modern society?

Other than his letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004 I’m unaware of what Cardinal Ratzinger has written that would be relevant to this discussion. Can you cite some specific documents?

How familiar are we with the fundamental changes in modern society, brought on as the result of the “Enlightment” as identified by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the implications of these changes on the moral outlook of every Catholic?

This one gives me pause. If moral values are timeless then we must accept that they do not change regardless of how societies change. I am open to the belief that the harm or benefit of an execution can change with time but not that the fundamental morality of the death penalty changes.

How many of us agree with Pope John Paul II that we are living in a society permeated by the “Culture of Death” and Pope Benedict XVI that today’s culture functions under the “Dictatorship of Revelativism” (and how many of us understand what is meant by these two terms)?

There are some arguments being made that executions contribute to the culture of death (JPII’s position) but most arguments in this forum challenge their morality. I might be persuaded by the former but surely not by the latter.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Last I heard, the Christians in Europe, including Italy, had essentially quit going to church. Europe has show it has no interest in battles of the moral compass going on Stateside, as they steadily contracept their societies into oblivion. Truth in moral matters is rarely popular, trying to establish what is true through a popularity contest when the fact don’t match what is popular simply does not work.

Their cultures had been degraded to the extent that the only way they can try to claim the moral high ground is to criticize the US.

 

[bjmiller100753]

Wow, that was surely not necessary.

I merely made an observation, You are certainly entitled to disagree with my observation or the fact that I made any observation at all.

You act like he is trying to convince people to rob banks or something.

Now talk about a comment that was not necessary. I merely make an observation about TOME’s methodology of debate (not about him personally or his position within that debate) and you accuse me of something that is 100% patently untrue.

I think your criticism of Tome most unfortunate and unfair. He upholds the level of discussion here better than most, certainly than me.

Again, my criticism was not of TOME although that is obviously your interpretation. Again, my criticism was of a statement he made within this debate. My observation could very well be 100% wrong but it is still my observation. Clearly I’ve done something against the forum rules and I will expect to be reprimanded by a thread administrator shortly. FWIW, I also find TOME’s posts to be thought provoking and well written.