J
jim_orr
Guest
That still will not stop them from continuing to murder and harm innocent people. So, what is prolife about locking them up and throwing away the keys if innocent people will continue to be harmed by them?
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
How will an innocent person be murdered by a death-row inmate in the style I’m speaking of? We’re not talking about unarmed guards and playground time with the other cons here, we’re talking about severe lock-down.
M
Matt25
Guest
jim orr:
Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing *per se *: and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Aug., De Civ. Dei. xii). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (De Civ. Dei,xi). Again, the excellence of God’s works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. (Greg. Nyss., De. opif. hom.) Thus Boethius asks (De Consol. Phil., I, iv) Who can be the author of good, if God is the author of evil? As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness. (St. Aug., In Gen. as lit.) St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (De Civ. Dei, XI, xii, De Vera Relig. xliv). Lactantius uses similar arguments to oppose the dilemma, as to the omnipotence and goodness of God, which he puts into the mouth of Epicurus (De Ira Dei, xiii). St. Anselm (Monologium) connects evil with the partial manifestation of good by creation; its fullness being in God alone.
In simpler language there is this pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/evil-02.html
Many people believe that since God created all things, He must also have created evil. How did it come about if not created by God?
Obviously this is a simplistic comparison, because it doesn’t take into account the inherent energy of evil–its motivation and purpose as part of a spiritual battle. But I don’t believe that difference disqualifies the analogy.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing *per se *: and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Aug., De Civ. Dei. xii). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (De Civ. Dei,xi). Again, the excellence of God’s works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. (Greg. Nyss., De. opif. hom.) Thus Boethius asks (De Consol. Phil., I, iv) Who can be the author of good, if God is the author of evil? As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness. (St. Aug., In Gen. as lit.) St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (De Civ. Dei, XI, xii, De Vera Relig. xliv). Lactantius uses similar arguments to oppose the dilemma, as to the omnipotence and goodness of God, which he puts into the mouth of Epicurus (De Ira Dei, xiii). St. Anselm (Monologium) connects evil with the partial manifestation of good by creation; its fullness being in God alone.
In simpler language there is this pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/evil-02.html
Many people believe that since God created all things, He must also have created evil. How did it come about if not created by God?
Code:
Apologist [Greg Koukl](http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/agoodrea.htm) offers insight into this commonly asked question. He points out that evil is not a created "thing" but the absence of a thing. This analogy originated with St. Augustine and was further developed by Thomas Aquinas. Consider the issues of light or temperature. Black is not a thing; it is the absence of light. Light is a thing, made up of particles or waves. Take away the created 'thing' and the result is black--*nothing.* Temperature works the same way. Cold is not a thing, but the absence of heat, which is a created thing. Take away the element of physical motion which creates heat as we know it and you are left with cold. Cold is not created, neither is darkness. They are the absence of the created things. Evil, then, is not a created thing, but the absence of good.
J
jim_orr
Guest
J
jim_orr
Guest
M
Matt25
Guest
jim orr:
BTW if you look at the first page of the first chapter of the Holy Father’s latest book “Memory and Identity” you will see that he expresses the opinion that evil is only the absence of good. It is the Orthodox Catholic belief.
God has created all things in the Universe. God creates nothing that is evil. Therefore no human person is evil. We are not wholly defined by what we do. However wicked or heinous our deeds we are created in the image an likeness of God. We have immortal souls capable of love in the highest degree. People who do evil things are beloved of Jesus, for whom he died, precisely because they are not evil. They are only redeemable because they partake of the same human nature as you, Jesus, Mary and all the Saints.
A person does not make a once for all choice for either good or evil. At every moment of our existence we can cancel or alter previous decisions. Thus it was that the thief on the cross received the promise that he would that day be with Jesus in Paradise. Thus it was also that St Paul after persecuting Christians became Apostle to the gentiles. A person doing evil can always become a person doing good. God, and his Church, always devoutly hopes for such a conversion or metanoia to occur. It was for that reason that Our Lord’s body lay cold and stiff in a tomb this day 2000 or so years ago.
BTW if you look at the first page of the first chapter of the Holy Father’s latest book “Memory and Identity” you will see that he expresses the opinion that evil is only the absence of good. It is the Orthodox Catholic belief.
J
jim_orr
Guest
Oh, no? What do you come out of the confessional having decided?
Note that Jesus did not talk against capital punishment that the “good” criminal was receiving, who by the way said what a repentant person should say, “‘Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’”
Do you think the Gospel implies the “rebuked” criminal also was with Jesus that day in Paradise?
As for Saul, had not Jesus intervened in his life directly, he may never have become Paul.
So we have a “good” criminal, a “rebuked” criminal and a “directly converted” criminal. What happened to the “rebuked” guy? And while we are at it, what happened to Judas? As one of the twelve hand picked by Jesus, did he spend Paradise with Jesus that day? Did not each of these guys make a choice that defined who they were? Did Jesus’ “love” for “these people” result in all living in Paradise that day with him regardless of what their “choice” was?
True, but that still does not wipe out the punishment that “corresponds with the crime.” Neither the rebuked or good criminal was taken off the cross by Jesus, were they?
I don’t care what thinking it is, it is not accurate. I am not doing “good” now, and I am not doing evil. Good and evil don’t work like scientific physical properties.
Pope John Paul II is wrong saying that just as he is in his claim that because of high tech modern prisons capital punishment is no longer needed to keep innocent people safe from harm. Where is the Vatican’s evidence to support that claim? No one has produced it yet, not even you with all of your referencing on evil.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Jim Orr: The article you linked to in that thread doesn’t seem to work, so I’m afraid I can’t dig deeply into it.
If we who oppose the use of the death penalty under most current circumstances are wrong, then our proposed experiment would fail, and we would accept it. It wouldn’t be the end of the world, and it certainly wouldn’t be any worse than the current circumstances we live in.
You’ve unwittingly proved Matt25’s point. There’s a reason that Confession isn’t a one time thing
With all due respect, I think you’re really losing your grasp on this discussion. All of those people are examples of how our choices can change from day to day. A person who commits a mortal sin is not an “evil person” until they go to Confession, instantly becoming a “good person” until they screw up again. There is no innate quality about them that changes, but rather their external relationship with God. They are the same being at all times, they are simply with God or away from God. Therefore people can’t be said to be innately “good”, nor innately “evil”, because evil actions can come from those who are “good” (a person who is free from mortal sin who decides to murder), and good actions can come from those who are “evil” (a murderer who repents and goes to Confession).
No one is arguing that punishment and reparation aren’t due for crimes, even repented crimes. We are simply debating what constitutes the most just form in any given circumstance.
If we who oppose the use of the death penalty under most current circumstances are wrong, then our proposed experiment would fail, and we would accept it. It wouldn’t be the end of the world, and it certainly wouldn’t be any worse than the current circumstances we live in.
J
jim_orr
Guest
It worked when I posted it. And I just tried it again and it still worked for me. So try to “dig” again.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Again, the link doesn’t work. I’m refering to the link in the other thread, not your link *to *that thread. It’s the link called “article” that isn’t working for me. Perhaps you could simply tell me what the article is called on the website?
S
social_concern
Guest
god would not ever want a humen to punish another humen. no matter for what ever reason. never. god is capabel of punishing us has we need it. we should not presum to punish each other for him. it is evil
J
jim_orr
Guest
'Fraid not. This is what Matt said, “A person does not make a once for all choice for either good or evil.”You’ve unwittingly proved Matt25’s point. There’s a reason that Confession isn’t a one time thing
If a person does not intend to not sin again, their confession is no good. One MUST have intent and desire not to sin again and mean it. In that sense they are making “a choice once and for all.”
In addition, people do make choices to not do evil, and 90% of us do not do evil. We may still sin, but not all sin is evil. About 10% of the people do decide to do evil. So, good or evil is a choice each of us make and what we do determines what we are, good or evil.
I think not. I’ll repeat what I said above in another way for you to understand me.** Not all sin is evil. But all evil is sin**. We are talking about evil and whether there are evil people who commit evil acts that justify their execution. Ones actions determines whether one is evil or not. All evil persons can repent as did the “good” criminal" crucified along with Jesus. His repenting was recognized by Jesus and rewarded with Jesus telling him he will be with him that day in Paradise. Jesus said nothing to the “rebuked” criminal implying that he will die in his sin and go to Hell. He was evil. The “good” criminal accepted what the state was doing to he and the other criminal saying they "have been condemed justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes…"
Capital punishment is **justified **for the most heious crimes, i.e., the most evil crimes which are commited, by definition, by evil people. You commit the act - you are the act.
Correct. And I am pointing out when Jesus was given opportunities to challenge the appropriatness of capital punishment he did not do so, therefore discrediting those who argue against captial punishment on the grounds that it goes against Jesus’ teaching about love and redeption of sinners. In all instances, Jesus accepted the state’s right to execute criminals for certain offenses as has the Church from its beginning.
S
social_concern
Guest
the pope who always speeks excathadrea. has said that we are not to punish each other. we are only to somtimes protect each other from misguided poeple. there is no punishment only safty concerns so killing prisoners is not needed ever. only put them in jail if we need protection. read the catachism. it is there
J
jim_orr
Guest
I have clicked on “article” both times and it has opened. I will try another link for you.
Try this:
mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n707/a04.html
G
Ghosty
Guest
Again, no luck on the article. Is anyone else having trouble?
With all due respect and fairness, perhaps you should familiarize yourself better with basic Catholic theology before attempting to use it as an argument.
The Church does NOT teach, and has never taught, that killing a criminal is justified because of the nature of the crimes, but rather has always taught that it is justified by the duty of a government to protect its people. You are miss framing the case when you say that the state has the right to execute for “certain offenses”. Read the passage from the Council of Trent posted by Brendan. It clearly outlines the reasons for the right of execution; “because those people are evil” is not to be found there, or in any Church teaching.
Intent at the time of Confession doesn’t mean that it will hold “once and for all”. They can make a very valid Confession, and later lapse completely, embracing sin to its fullest, and turn back yet again. If it were not this way, we would not be allowed to take Confession more than once. I don’t see the slightest justification for your statements.
Where in Heaven or Earth are you getting this idea? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on sin opens with "Since sin is a moral evil…" All sin is evil. Period. It is, in fact, not all evil that is sin, because there is physical evil as well as moral. Physical evil is the lack of perfect form, moral evil is the lack of perfect morality. Since sin is an act of morally turning away from perfection, all sin is evil. Read the CCC paragraphs 310 and 311 for a bit more information on this. Let me make this very clear: if you have even the slightest venial sin on you, you are marked by evil, by a deprivation of perfect holiness. Are you ready to accept, by your statements, that you are an evil person?
With all due respect and fairness, perhaps you should familiarize yourself better with basic Catholic theology before attempting to use it as an argument.
We’re not talking about the justice of execution in Palestine in 33 A.D., we’re talking about the justice of execution in countries like the U.S. today. More accurately, we’re talking about the just application of the right of a government to execute in defense of its people.
The Church does NOT teach, and has never taught, that killing a criminal is justified because of the nature of the crimes, but rather has always taught that it is justified by the duty of a government to protect its people. You are miss framing the case when you say that the state has the right to execute for “certain offenses”. Read the passage from the Council of Trent posted by Brendan. It clearly outlines the reasons for the right of execution; “because those people are evil” is not to be found there, or in any Church teaching.
J
jim_orr
Guest
Try a Google search on Pelican Bay Prison.
If that is the point you want to hang your hat on then any Catholic’s opposition to capital punishment is not defendable on the premise of Jesus’ teaching of love and forgiveness, or it being more "prolife, or on whether people are evil (or good), or on any other religious concept that may be in vogue. In that case I’ll get off the “religiosity” reasons some are using to defend their opposition to capital punishment, because now you are playing on my field. The state cannot protect innocent people from harm, even with life imprisonment in solitary confinement in the most high tech prisons in the world, from those “good” people who do “evil things.”
Prove me wrong with facts and evidence supporting the claim of Pope John Paul II’s and the bishops’ that Matt25 is defending. We are now back at my original argument, having been distracted the past 50 or so post by religiosity topics and not the facts and evidence I am asking anti-capital punishment Catholics to supply in support of their Church’s historical recent claim that hi tech prisons in developed countries can protect innocent people from further harm. Facts - Evidence - Proof for the “claim,” not rhetoric, is what I am asking for. And I am still waiting for one Catholic to provide it.
M
Matt25
Guest
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/rdrnd06.gif States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade
In the past ten years, the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, “Yes, the Death Penalty Deters,” Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty. Click here for more information and charts.
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/rdrnd06.gif**When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. **The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/rdrnd06.gif States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade
In the past ten years, the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, “Yes, the Death Penalty Deters,” Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty. Click here for more information and charts.
Code:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MurderRateGraph.gif**States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates**http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/rdrnd06.gif**When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. **The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.
J
jim_orr
Guest
Good effort on providing an argument for your position, but no prize. The pope and bishops are not arguing the murder rates of governments with capital punishment and those without. The pope and bishops are basing their position against capital punishment on the basis that innocent people will not be harmed by capital offenders imprisoned in developed countries with hi tech prisons. The issue IS: THE STATE’S ABILITY TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM HARM CAUSED BY PRISONERS SERVING SENTENCES IN THOSE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WITH HIGH TECH PRISONS.
Their position has not been framed around murder rates vs. capital punishment but on the states’ ability to protect the safety of its citizens from captured and convicted evil doers. They have made a “claim” and based solely on a “claim,” i.e., AN ASSUMPTION, they instruct us to encourage states to change their judicial laws and end capital punishment. I am asking from those Catholics who agree with the pope and the bishops that the prisons are able to keep us safe from imprisoned criminals’ evil doings to provide the PROOF that supports their ASSUMPTION. You can’t expect us to just go along with such a major change for supposedly “moral reasons” without providing evidence to support your position, especially when there is ample and compelling evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, if the pope and bishops are basing the moral reason for abolishing capital punishment on the “prolife platform,” the real one, not the Seamless Garment one, then there is even a greater need that it be consistent with that principle, which is - the protection of innocent who life.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, I agree it’s an assumption, because that’s all it can be until tested. I’m personally arguing for a testing of this assumption, because the potential good outweighs the potential bad, and the potential bad is no worse than the bad we have now. If the hypothesis proves false, we’ve lost nothing, but if it proves correct, we’ve protected many more lives than we would if we continue at our current course. For me that’s worth the effort of trying, as any preservation of life is worth while, even that of the worst capital offender.
The Pope is not arguing for the abolition of the death penalty, and neither am I. We’re arguing for a possible relaxing of its use.
The Pope is not arguing for the abolition of the death penalty, and neither am I. We’re arguing for a possible relaxing of its use.
G
Garrison
Guest
gilliam said:
Since I returned to the Catholic faith( a miracle for me) whilst I was in a very small town, Palamos, Spain, I believe with all my heart that the death penalty only serves the powerful. Violence begets Violence. America surely represents the Violence. It is gaining in strength. Witness this poor woman, Terri, 41, being starved to death. Need I say more.
- Status