Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?

[Ender]

The interpretation I advocate (besides being a literal interpretation) is in harmony with all the bishops who have offered comments on capital punishment since EV publication in 1995. In the 23 years ensuing, do you have one bishop that supports your interpretation?

Other than Ratzinger and Dulles whom I’ve already cited there are these:

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. (USCCB, 2005)

While this would be a strange position to take on a doctrinal matter it is very consistent with what is allowed regarding practical judgments.

" If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue.” (Bishop James Conley, 2016)

“The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion” (Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016)

I think it should be apparent that the position that 2267 is a prudential judgment has solid support among the bishops.

 

[Ender]

The comment above says rightly that Jesus would speak against abortion, against the death penalty, and to that I would add: against euthanasia. Undeniably, Jesus is pro-life on all counts.

I don’t presume to know what Jesus would do, but it is clear that he had the opportunity to speak out against capital punishment in his day and never did. Beyond that he taught several parables where the person in authority punished with death those who offended against him. Finally, he upbraided the Pharisees for this:

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ (Mt 15:3-4)

Why would we assume that Jesus would be against capital punishment when the church has from her beginning acknowledged the right of States to employ it? Why wouldn’t the opposite assumption be more obvious: that what the church believed actually aligns with what Christ really taught?

 

[Crocus]

I think it should be apparent that the position that 2267 is a prudential judgment has solid support among the bishops.

I would acknowledge that support, yet qualify it as being in line with what Jesus said about allowing lawful practices, for the time being, “due to your hardness of heart.”

The new law is: Love God with your whole heart; love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[o_mlly]

Other than Ratzinger and Dulles whom I’ve already cited there are these:

Ratzinger affirmed no doctrinal problems contra Ender.

Dulles agrees with the prudential judgement that “bloodless means” are available and disallows the death penalty.

Your other citations ((USCCB, 2005, Bishop James Conley, 2016, Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016), do not support your claim that one who affirms the prudential judgement that “bloodless means” are available may invoke the death penalty. They do, as I do, support that a Catholic is in good standing who supports the death penalty iff he does not believe “bloodless means” are available.

 

[Ender]

Ratzinger affirmed no doctrinal problems contra Ender.

I wish you would read more carefully. I don’t hold there are any doctrinal problems either because 2267 is prudential, not doctrinal. If it was doctrinal then there would be problems, not least of which would be the repudiation of doctrines going back unchanged for 2000 years.

Dulles agrees with the prudential judgement that “bloodless means” are available and disallows the death penalty.

No, Dulles believed that the opposition to the use of capital punishment was prudential.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

Your other citations ((USCCB, 2005, Bishop James Conley, 2016, Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016), do not support your claim that one who affirms the prudential judgement that “bloodless means” are available may invoke the death penalty.

Gomez’s statement that governments are being urged to “exercise their discretion” means exactly that. His comment had nothing to do with whether “bloodless means” are available. That is assumed.

 

[Ender]

I would acknowledge that support, yet qualify it as being in line with what Jesus said about allowing lawful practices, for the time being, “due to your hardness of heart.”

The new law is: Love God with your whole heart; love your neighbor as yourself.

Why do you presume that the church has only now, after 2000 years, come to understand the new law of love? Don’t you recognize the implication of your comments?

 

[Crocus]

Why do you presume that the church has only now, after 2000 years, come to understand the new law of love? Don’t you recognize the implication of your comments?

It’s not that I think “the church has only now, after 2000 years, come to understand” Christ’s law of love, rather we who make up the church are slow to realize it. That is what teaching is about, building, correcting, affirming.

 

[o_mlly]

No, Dulles believed that the opposition to the use of capital punishment was prudential.

I also wish you would read more carefully. In his summary, Dulles’ concludes in points 6 and 7 that the teaching in 2267 are doctrinal, not prudential.

In a brief compass I have touched on numerous and complex problems. To indicate what I have tried to establish, I should like to propose, as a final summary, ten theses that encapsulate the Church’s doctrine, as I understand it. …

1. The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.
2. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

 

[AlNg]

The comment above says rightly that Jesus would speak against abortion, against the death penalty,

Would he have been against the Inquisition?

Inquisition, that was then, this is now,

So the natural law does change with the times and with the culture?

 

[Crocus]

I made no comment about the Inquisition, or about natural law. I think it is off topic. I’m sure there is a document about this subject on this website.

 

[AlNg]

I made no comment about the Inquisition, or about natural law. I think it is off topic.

I thought that the topic was the death penalty. You claim the death penalty is against what Jesus would teach about it. This raises some questions:

1. The Church was not against the death penalty in the past. Does the natural law change.
2. The law in the past said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
   Exodus 21: 24
3. In the New Testament it says
   “God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,”
4. Is Jesus against innocent people defending themselves against murderers? There have been an increasing number of school shootings since support for the capital punishment has weakened, Should society try to prevent these murders? Will executing more people who threaten to murder innocent children decrease the number of murders of school children?

 

[omgriley]

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. --Gen 9:6

I’m not sure why so many on here are not in favor of capital punishment, a wholly Catholic position.

If Cruz gets life in prison (which is not as bad as it’s made out to be), then it will be proof that society judges crimes of mass murder to be equal to crimes of one murder, attempted murder, rape, child rape, sex trafficking, national treason, drug dealing (possession and trafficking), financial fraud, racketeering, armed bank robbery (even if no one was harmed) and kidnapping.

All of these crimes will land a person in prison for life. So if the punishment fits the crime, the logical question then becomes how can we justify (no pun intended) the obvious gross inequality in serving justice?

From a morally Catholic point of view, capital punishment is not merely a matter of protecting the general population from an unrepentant aggressor. It’s a matter of just retribution that what we take unlawfully we are obliged to give back to the fullest extent possible. If I steal $50 from grandma, then I can’t just give back $25 and call it a day.

If one commits murder then he is obliged to give retribution to the fullest extent that he can and then commit the rest to God’s Mercy. Since once cannot undo the murder (I’m talking cold blooded, 1st degree) they have committed, then they must give retribution in some other way which is allows justice to be fulfilled to best it can be, e.g. Capital Punishment. This obviously isn’t in every single case, but it should at least be the norm. This is why for centuries the Catholic Church actually had an official executioner.

Furthermore, it is a matter of mercy to execute a criminal (such as Cruz). Samuel Johnson once said “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” The principle, of course, being that when one knows the exact hour and minute of their death, they can focus themselves, prepare for their judgement before God, and repent and die with a clean conscience.

 

[AlNg]

-Gen 9:6

According to my Bible, that is Almighty God talking?

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,”

 

[tweedlealice]

Salutations
My head is spinning! This topic has taken off w deep scholars who are well read. I like the Death penalty. I know innocent men have been executed. That is a good reason, not to have DP.
I was told the Bishops in America, came out w a decision for NO DP. I had to come to grips w that. That’s where, would Jesus…
Simple concept. Jesus is forgiving and merciful but , also fair in Judgement. God cares about the soul of the guilty. LWOP allows time for guilty to reconcile w GOD.
What a thread
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[Crocus]

The law in the past said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Is Jesus against innocent people defending themselves against murderers?

Should society try to prevent these murders?

The link to the CCC is in my post up thread, and at top of the thread. It addresses the issue from a number of perspectives.

The old law of an eye for an eye, specified that no more than the damages of the original offence were to apply as a penalty.

The old law, yet unfulfilled by Christ’s redemption, was already a step in the direction the Church leads us today, regarding issues of life, human dignity, self defence and protection of society.

A compassionate society is a safer one. Society can do much to improve health & education, reduce poverty, treat mental illness, strengthen families, reform the prison system. Our dignity is served as well, by removing the violence of the death penalty from our midst.

 

[AlNg]

Our dignity is served as well, by removing the violence of the death penalty from our midst.

What did God mean when He said: "“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” (Gen 9:6).
Should we follow the commandments of God?

 

[o_mlly]

Gomez’s statement that governments are being urged to “exercise their discretion” means exactly that. His comment had nothing to do with whether “bloodless means” are available. That is assumed.

Archbishop Gomez article entitled, “It’s time to end the death penalty” does not support your position. One who has the right but ought not exercise that right uses discretion. For example, the designated driver uses his discretion and does not drink alcohol recognizing his obligation for the safety of others.

Bishop Conley restated the Catholic principle on the sacredness of individual consciences, i.e. the invincibly ignorant are not culpable for their errors. In a follow-up article, the bishop’s office published, Catholic bishop says death penalty advocates took his words out of context writing, The Church teaches that we should work to protect public safety without resorting to execution."

The USCCB hardly supports your position as well. As in all her doctrinal teaching, the Church proposes, she not impose the truth. She does not judge or condemn. Only God who knows one’s heart can judge the person. In the article, the bishops support 2267 unequivocally as written.

 

[Ender]

In his summary, Dulles’ concludes in points 6 and 7 that the teaching in 2267 are doctrinal, not prudential.

1. The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.
2. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

Point 6 was never at issue. I think everyone acknowledges that the State has the right to use capital punishment.

Point 7 actually says what I think 2267 says: don’t use capital punishment if it isn’t absolutely necessary. Notice though, Dulles refers to the “purposes of punishment” rather than “to protect the safety of persons”. I can agree with Dulles even as I disagree with 2267, because the “purposes of punishment” include retribution and the expiation of the sin as the primary objective. That is, it includes what 2267 omits.

So no, Dulles’ comments cause me no problems at all. I think his explanation is exactly what 2267 is trying to communicate, but unfortunately doesn’t.

 

[o_mlly]

So no, Dulles’ comments cause me no problems at all. I think his explanation is exactly what 2267 is trying to communicate, but unfortunately doesn’t.

Catholics who dismiss the teachings on the development of doctrine in EV and the 1997 Catechism as merely advisory have made their case and we ought to assume their intentions are noble.

The understanding of the moral use of capital punishment has been closing with the last 3 pontiffs. The task of the present Magisterium, therefore, is to put forth new language that dispels the arguments that proponents of capital punishment offer as justification for rendering the recent teachings as merely op-ed pieces from Rome. I think such an effort is underway.

The new language will, of course, be another restatement of the traditional teaching just as I think St. JPII did in EV. The CP proponents arguments from the purposes of punishment seem weak and their scriptural arguments even weaker. I think the grist to defeat these argument will be forthcoming from the Vatican.

CP proponent’s argument from traditional teaching must be addressed as well. An area for illumination may be the traditional necessity of full knowledge of identity and guilt. The order of knowledge and the order of reality are never fully conformed. Further, the commensurate argument on the need to satisfy justice with a commensurate punishment to the crime presupposes knowledge of the reality of exactly what that commensurate punishment is which is impossible as no one knows God’s justice. Stay tuned.

 

[Crocus]

Our dignity is served as well, by removing the violence of the death penalty from our midst.

What did God mean when He said: "“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” (Gen 9:6).

Should we follow the commandments of God?

Jesus said He came not to abolish the law, but to perfect it; also, the greatest of the commandments are two: love God, love your neighbor.

“… for God made man in His own image.” (the rest of Gen 9:6)

The CCC is guiding us to reject “shedding the (life) blood” of even our enemies, in favour of the more difficult choice of love. Choose life. Our human dignity depends on it.