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

[RichardsPlanet]

And it is a tragedy. A blot of sin.

t is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.” These words of John Paul II emphasize how the Church is touched by the sin of her children. She is holy in being made so by the Father through the sacrifice of the Son and the gift of the Spirit. She is also in a certain sense sinner, in really taking upon herself the sin of those whom she has generated in Baptism. This is analogous to the way Christ Jesus took on the sin of the world - MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION:THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

 

[RichardsPlanet]

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)

Your quote is fragmentary.

The complete quote is:

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. 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. I personally support this position.

Catholicism and Capital Punishment

 

[RichardsPlanet]

Well the pope did tell Martin Luther that he was wrong to assert that burning heretics at the stake is against God’s will.

You would have to get me a quote for that, otherwise I will consider it “gossip”.

Nevertheless, Pope John Paul II did ask for forgiveness of the sins of its sons and daughters:

Because of the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us. Yet we too, sons and daughters of the Church, have sinned and have hindered the Bride of Christ from shining forth in all her beauty. Our sin has impeded the Spirit’s working in the hearts of many people. Our meagre faith has meant that many have lapsed into apathy and been driven away from a true encounter with Christ.

As the Successor of Peter, I ask that in this year of mercy the Church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her Lord, should kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters. All have sinned and none can claim righteousness before God (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46). Let it be said once more without fear: “We have sinned” (Jer 3:25), but let us keep alive the certainty that “where sin increased, grace abounded even more” (Rom 5:20).

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/docs/documents/hf_jp-ii_doc_30111998_bolla-jubilee_en.html

 

[o_mlly]

In US history, the number of mass murders had been very few, until the time (about 1972) when the Supreme court ruled on doing away with capital punishment and it became more and more difficult to impose capital punishment.

We all know that correlation does not imply causation. One could also just as easily assert: "In US history, the number of mass murders had been very few, until the time (about 1972) when the " courts removed the crucifix from the classrooms.

 

[Spyridon]

This is a technicality because the Inquisition handed people over to the state knowing full well that they would be executed.

Yeah, and so did the Russian Church in the 17th century.

What’s your point?

 

[rcwitness]

It is contained in Exsurge Domine.

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

In condemning the errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X listed some of them in this papal bull. Number 33 says:

“That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

 

[RichardsPlanet]

You do note that there is an against in that declaration:

In condemning the errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X listed some of them in this papal bull. Number 33 says:

“That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, I did. What do you take this as?

 

[RichardsPlanet]

Oops! My bad. I thought those were assertions from the Pope, not Luther’s statements the Pope disagreed with.

There may be an argument that Pope Leo X’s implied claim that burning heretics is the will of the Spirit may go against earlier Church claims and practices regarding heretics:

Pope Leo the Great:

the Church was content with a spiritual sentence on the part of its bishops and was averse to the shedding of blood

Or St. Augustine:

[W]e do not seek to revenge ourselves in this world; nor ought the things which we suffer to reduce us to such distress of mind as to leave no room in our memory for the precepts in regard to this which we have received from Him for whose truth and in whose name we suffer; we “love our enemies,” and we “pray for them.” It is not their death, but their deliverance from error, that we seek to accomplish by the help of the terror of judges and of laws,

 

[Ender]

Can you demonstrate that Clement is talking about execution in this world?

Actually no. I went back and reread that entire section, and I’ll grant that that comment is ambiguous. The other citations, however, are not.

 

[Ender]

AlNg:

This is what Holy Scripture says. “God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you.”
Do you believe that it is just to repay with affliction those who afflict you? Or is it wrong to do so?

It is wrong to do so!

Why did you cut out the verse which says it is the Lord and His angels who will do this???

It is wrong for the individual to punish the wicked, but the State has a duty to punish them. It is not that punishment is of itself wrong, it is that it must be done by the State, and not by the citizen.

The individual is prohibited from punishing. The State is obligated to do so.

 

[Ender]

The Fourth Lateran Council decreed:

This hardly sows approval for the death penalty - indeed, it is more of a distancing. It does accept that legitimate civil authorities may do so…

That’s been my point: the church teaches that the State does in fact have a legitimate right to apply capital punishment.

One might argue that the Church “closed her eyes and turned away”, but now has decided to speak up in opposition against something that has always been unjust.

I am amazed that you can so readily accept that the church not only taught error for 2000 years, but knew it was error and still proclaimed it.

The punishment may not exceed the disorder (following lex talionis - which Augustine called the imperfect law of the Pharisees), but it does not have to equal it.

The punishment does not have to be identical to the crime, but it does have to be of equivalent severity. To do less is unjust.

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

 

[Ender]

Your quote is fragmentary.

The complete quote is…

My quote was less than yours, but nothing in yours changes in any way the part I cited. Let me also point out that, even though Dulles agreed with JPII that capital punishment ought not be used, he recognized that that position was prudential. That’s the key issue: capital punishment is as just today as it ever was. JPII was saying not that its use was immoral, but only that it was unwise.

 

[rcwitness]

I dont think he was saying it is merely “unwise” but that when unnecessary, it is wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

What is the right thing to do here CAF?

In addition to the quote from the Catechim, which others have posted here, Pope Francis recently said:

One has to strongly affirm that condemnation to the death penalty is an inhuman measure that humiliates personal dignity, in whatever form it is carried out. And [it] is, of itself, contrary to the Gospel, because it is freely decided to suppress a human life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator, and of which, in the final analysis, God alone is the true judge and guarantor.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

I am amazed that you can so readily accept that the church not only taught error for 2000 years, but knew it was error and still proclaimed it.

Then you would be failing to recall all I have written regarding this matter. I have always said (if it was relevant to the response) the Church acknowledges the legitimacy of capital punishment by the state. I stated a speculative argument that someone might make. If it was my argument I would have written I argue …

Nevertheless, the statement about the Church closing her eyes echoes what Athenagoras wrote (around 177CE):

[W]e cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; … to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him… How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? - A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 35.

As can be noted, even if it is just, it is repugnant to Christians.

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

You keep quoting this as your defense (and I have quoted it too), but you omit the next part (or give the appearance of arguing against it as though it is not part of the authentic faith):

2267 f this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

My quote was less than yours, but nothing in yours changes in any way the part I cited.

No, it does not change the part you cited. However, your quote was fragmentary and decidedly one sided.

JPII was saying not that its use was immoral, but only that it was unwise.

You keep trying to push aside the prudential. The prudential comes first in application, and if it is not possible, then capital punishment may be applied.

But to argue in a manner that suggests the the prudential is a nice to have but can be dispensed with is curious reading of the Catechism - to say the least.

I am not denying the right and duty of the state to inflict penalties. However, capital punishment is to be applied if there is no other means of effectively safeguarding the populace.

Are you arguing that the current Catechism is inauthentic in its teaching?

 

[Ender]

You keep quoting this as your defense (and I have quoted it too), but you omit the next part (or give the appearance of arguing against it as though it is not part of the authentic faith):

2267 f this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means.

Those are two separate and distinct concepts. The part I cited is in 2266 and addresses two points: that it is the State that has both the right and the duty to punish the wicked, and that the punishment must be comparable with the severity of the crime.

My problem with 2267 is that it ignores what was just said in 2266. It bases its opposition to capital punishment on the grounds that it is not needed to satisfy the secondary objective of protection as if the primary objective was irrelevant.

 

[Ender]

You keep trying to push aside the prudential. The prudential comes first in application, and if it is not possible, then capital punishment may be applied.

I don’t think this is Dulles’ position. Later in that document he clarifies this point:

Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion

But to argue in a manner that suggests the the prudential is a nice to have but can be dispensed with is curious reading of the Catechism - to say the least.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Dulles)

I am not denying the right and duty of the state to inflict penalties. However, capital punishment is to be applied if there is no other means of effectively safeguarding the populace.

Are you arguing that the current Catechism is inauthentic in its teaching?

I am arguing it was unfortunate that the writers of the catechism saw fit to include a prudential judgment.

Parenthetically, in the ambiguities of the exhortation on conscience, we may be paying a price for the problematic way that a prudential opinion against capital punishment was edited into the Catechism. (Fr. George Rutler)

 

[Russell_SA]

Once they are apprehended and a trial is in place. The government should never have the option to kill their citizens once they are captured. If someone want’s to have a gun fight with the police and die in that gun fight, fine by me. But if they surrender peacefully and go through due process, the government should never have an option to kill these people.