Support the Death Penalty?

[Texas_Roofer]

There is no way that you can prove they are minuscule.
I know many who are in the prison system. What I said happened. The prisoner was beat over the head and his death was reported as natural. It was not nor will it be the last time that such deaths are covered up by politicians. Working in prisons, is very dangerous and is not helped by people who wish to look the other way and make up numbers.

so far you have documented one in six billion, that is minuscule. What if the number 10, 20 or 50 well that is 1:600,000,000 , 1:300,000,000 or 1:120,000,000 still minuscule

 

[melensdad]

Have the other people been looking at the wrong section of the Catechism? If so, please post what you are referring. And when you do, please explain why our current pope said to Americans it is a matter of legitimate disagreement. (He was not Pope when he said that in 2004.)

Look, if you feel the death penalty is a bad thing, that is up to you and is not inconsistent with the Catholic faith. However, to claim the Church teaches it is wrong is incorrect.

It would be **equally wrong **to claim the Church encourages countries to implement a death penalty.

I never claimed the Church says it is wrong. I stated (earlier in the thread, and again today, post #242) that the Church does allow it. I also stated, in different words, what the CCC states. That being that it is something to be reserved for use only under extraordinary circumstances. I suppose we could debate those circumstances?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Have the other people been looking at the wrong section of the Catechism? If so, please post what you are referring. And when you do, please explain why our current pope said to Americans it is a matter of legitimate disagreement. (He was not Pope when he said that in 2004.)

Look, if you feel the death penalty is a bad thing, that is up to you and is not inconsistent with the Catholic faith. However, to claim the Church teaches it is wrong is incorrect.

It would be **equally wrong **to claim the Church encourages countries to implement a death penalty.

The pope was speaking about a self denial of the Eucharist if you believe in the death penalty. The earlier listed statement goes a long way from supporting the death penalty or denouncing the catechism.

The USCCB statement is in a paper on stopping the death penalty. The statement is to assure supporters that their support of a death penalty is not a sign of depravity.

I do not find the interpretation represented here as adequate, that is course is my opinion

 

[Ray_Scheel]

That being that it is something to be reserved for use only under extraordinary circumstances. I suppose we could debate those circumstances?

Extraordinary probably needs to be defined. Currently, Texas has 374 offenders on Death Row, out of a total prison population of ~100,000, many of which are short time offenders, and that number excludes from consideration those on parole, probation, or some other sort of intervention. Overall, it is rather rarely used punishment even in the state infamous for its frequency using it.

OTOH, I’m actually of the opinion that the death penalty could probably be applied less frequently and still preserve the interests of the common good, but the discrepancy isn’t to the point where the current usage is clearly unreasonable either.

 

[adrift]

so far you have documented one in six billion, that is minuscule. What if the number 10, 20 or 50 well that is 1:600,000,000 , 1:300,000,000 or 1:120,000,000 still minuscule

There are six billion prisoners who die

The death penalty is a deterrent to those who would kill in prison. This type of execution in and of itself would be minuscule. How many deaths it would prevent is impossible to determine nor is it possible to determine if any deaths would occur. The use of the death penalty in these situations would indeed be rare but necessary. I wouldn’t make it blanketed. Not everyone who kills in prison should automatically have the death penalty but it should remain an option.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You’re doing a good job of arguing your position on the nature of the teaching on the death penalty and obviously I agree with what you’ve said, but I disagree with the comment you made above. It is justice that requires a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime and I believe there are times when the only punishment that meets that criterion is the death penalty.

The safety of society (including prison guards) is a serious but secondary justification and should not be the concern that determines the extent of the punishment. The primary determinate is the demand of justice.

Ender

So you are not citing either euthanasia of a sick creature, not defense of the public.
You are plainly citing vengeance, and dressing it up as justice.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We may be haggling over small things but we have different views of justice. Justice is the greatest of the virtues because it applies to all our interactions with others: “the proper matter of justice consists of those things that belong to our intercourse with other men.” (I/II 58-1) It is not at all a matter of “mere” legal remedies but is certainly not separable from them. It applies to everything we do that affects someone else.

Hi Ender,
The diiference seems not to be so much the meaning, but the weight given to different aspects of the meaning. You seem to home in on judicial correctness, while I prefer to concentrate on general correctness, which, when cited by our Lord, means Christian Charity.

**"**Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments." (I/II 87-3)
I accept that ‘proportionate’ is a reasonable approximation to ‘appropriate’ but the judgement of Solomon went further.

The punishment must be proportionate to the action, it may or may not be proportionate to the outcome.

I’m glad we can agree on this point.

There is no question of evil for evils sake.

Perhaps a bad choice of words. I meant to differentiate between punishment inflicted as retribution, or vengeance, and punishment inflicted as a firm chastisement to reform, what is described below, quoting Aquinas, as medicinal punishment.

**"**God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them."
This is OT theology. I do not say that it is obsolete, but that it needs to be seen in a new light.

Aquinas addresses the therapeutic affect of punishment. (I/II 87-6) "

Now evil is privation of good. And since man’s good is manifold, … it happens sometimes that man suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater good, … for the sake of his soul’s health and the glory of God. In such cases the loss is an evil to man, not simply but relatively; wherefore it does not answer to the name of punishment simply, but of medicinal punishment."

Ender Part I

I’ll look at that next.

 

[rpp]

The pope was speaking about a self denial of the Eucharist if you believe in the death penalty. The earlier listed statement goes a long way from supporting the death penalty or denouncing the catechism.

That is correct. And why is a politician who favors and votes for abortion rights and gay marriage not in a state where they can receive Holy Communion? Because those are very grave sins and supporting grave sinful behavior is itself a grave sin.

Both a politician who supports (presumably judicious) and one who opposes implementation of the capital punishment are not excluded from Holy Communion for either of these these positions. That is because neither position is sinful.

The USCCB statement is in a paper on stopping the death penalty. The statement is to assure supporters that their support of a death penalty is not a sign of depravity.

Because I am personally conflicted on this issue, I should read their statement.

I do not find the interpretation represented here as adequate, that is course is my opinion

Sorry, I missed the point here. Can you help me out?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I think the misunderstanding has been ours and I don’t think this is a question of “real politic” - the sinner was no less capable of repentance and healing in Aquinas’ time than in ours.

The sinner was indeed no less capable of repentance, but the resources available to the state were limited by ecconomics to crude measures. The situation in civilised countries is not comparable.

I think we misunderstood the nature of vengeance. As Aquinas defines it it is “the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned”, something that is meted out for an offense against another person. This kind of punishment is forbidden to individuals but is required of the state. We think of vengeance as evil but this is true only when it is inflicted by an individual; when it is inflicted by the state it is a necessary aspect of justice.

Aquinas is requiring the state to maintain order. He specifies methods which might be effective. He limits himself to requiring only measures of which the state is presently capable. That is the science of ‘real politic’.

The Church reveres justice which requires the punishment of the wicked which goes by the name of vengeance.

The Church reveres Justice, or Christian charity.
The Church requires that the state maintains order, so condones the use of crude measures involving vengeance, which the state calls justice. That is ‘real politic’.
I hate to get into word games and I fear that’s just where we’re headed. God said that vengeance is his - why would he claim something as his if it were inherently evil? It is crucial to make the distinction between what an individual may do and what a magistrate may do.
Vengeance is evil when it is performed by Man.
Such vengeance is blasphemy, as it belongs to the LORD.

No, it is a necessity contained within the concept of justice.

We here disagree. I maintain that it is an imperfect tool the state uses to maintain order. It is part of the tool box of ‘real politic’ which the Church is forced to condone for want of better.

Ender Part II

 

[Ender]

So is the rest of the CCC “ordinary” or is it “prudential” because it seems to me it is either all one, or all the other. I don’t think that the CCC is a ‘pick and choose’ sort of document where we can believe some of it is one thing and some of it is someting completely different. Basically I’m saying its black & white, no shades of gray.

Clearly the catechism is not completely prudential; no one would argue that, and I understand your hesitance to believe that there is anything prudential in it but the argument that the section on the death penalty is prudential is not mine - it is the only reasonable interpretation of the comments of Ratzinger and the USCCB and was explicitly declared so by Dulles.

I’m not asking anyone to accept this claim as mine. If you disagree with it address yourself to the comments from Dulles et al.

Ender

 

[Ender]

**Aquinas: “**God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.”
This is OT theology. I do not say that it is obsolete, but that it needs to be seen in a new light.

Christian ethics have not changed in 2000 years; there is no new revelation available now that was unavailable to Aquinas. This is not OT theology, it was then and is now what the Church teaches. If you can reference a document that refutes this I would like to read it. It is quite a charge to claim that the brightest light in Christian theology was too dim to understand the concept of justice.

The Church requires that the state maintains order, so condones the use of crude measures involving vengeance, which the state calls justice. That is ‘real politic’.

Aquinas has a somewhat higher regard for legal justice: “If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person.”

Vengeance is evil when it is performed by Man.
Such vengeance is blasphemy, as it belongs to the LORD.

It is evil when performed by an individual, it is an obligation of the state who act as God’s ministers on earth. “Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death.” (Dulles)

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That is correct. And why is a politician who favors and votes for abortion rights and gay marriage not in a state where they can receive Holy Communion? Because those are very grave sins and supporting grave sinful behavior is itself a grave sin.

Both a politician who supports (presumably judicious) and one who opposes implementation of the capital punishment are not excluded from Holy Communion for either of these these positions. That is because neither position is sinful.

did you consider the politician “acts” on these issues through voting? Maybe that is why the the Pontiff did not need to question the butcher, janitor, etc

 

[rpp]

did you consider the politician “acts” on these issues through voting? Maybe that is why the the Pontiff did not need to question the butcher, janitor, etc

Again, I do not understand your answer.

Additionally, you have not explained another cryptic statement in a previous post.

It seems to me that perhaps others are correct, you cannot answer directly because you want to claim the Church teaches something it does not.

Again, I repeat, if you want to oppose the death penalty, that is a matter of conscience. But one cannot rightly claim the Church teaches that.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Again, I do not understand your answer.

Additionally, you have not explained another cryptic statement in a previous post.

It seems to me that perhaps others are correct, you cannot answer directly because you want to claim the Church teaches something it does not.

Again, I repeat, if you want to oppose the death penalty, that is a matter of conscience. But one cannot rightly claim the Church teaches that.

There are other possibilities, may be the questions are insincere and bated? May be the questions were answered! When I write that the standard requires an imminent danger and the return response states or implies a complete ban, then I have no culpability. It is simply not my issue when the writer cannot comprehend the difference in those statements.

 

[agangbern]

Again, I do not understand your answer.

Additionally, you have not explained another cryptic statement in a previous post.

It seems to me that perhaps others are correct, you cannot answer directly because you want to claim the Church teaches something it does not.

Again, I repeat, if you want to oppose the death penalty, that is a matter of conscience. But one cannot rightly claim the Church teaches that.

The Catholic Church, I assure you, opposes death penalty!

 

[Amolibri]

The Catholic Church, I assure you, opposes death penalty!

Here we go again!!! (I’d advise you to read the rest of this thread, please.)

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Aquinas: “God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.”
This is OT theology. I do not say that it is obsolete, but that it needs to be seen in a new light.

You misread what I wrote.
I was not imputing the wisdom of Aquinas, but stating only that the environment has changed.
In the days of Aquinas,imprisonment was rare, it was only a holding procedure while justice was decided. Available punishments ranged from a penance, a period in the stocks, mild to severe flogging, and execution. Imprisonment was reserved for important persons who could be usefully held for ransom.

Aquinas has a somewhat higher regard for legal justice: “If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person.”

He speaks well, but his judgement is necessarily coloured by the status quo.

It is evil when performed by an individual, it is an obligation of the state who act as God’s ministers on earth.

The idea that the state acted ‘in vicario Dei’ went down the tubes with the head of King Charles Stewart.

“Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death.” (Dulles)

Yet Mother Church now insists that ALL countries with the necessary resources to do other than inflict capital punishment, should examine whether their infliction thereof is truly necessary, and be prepared to answer for their true motives in case of continuing so to do.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

Yet Mother Church now insists that ALL countries with the necessary resources to do other than inflict capital punishment, should examine whether their infliction thereof is truly necessary, and be prepared to answer for their true motives in case of continuing so to do.

Thank you, Dave.

 

[Ender]

Except for your last comment below, your positions are directly contradicted by the Church.

The OT theology has G_d as a vengeful judge, NT theology sees G_d as a Loving Father. The Former was quick to wrath, the latter patient unto the last day.

(JPII 1984) “In the Psalms and in the preaching of the Prophets, the name merciful is perhaps the one most often given to the Lord, in contrast to the persistent cliché whereby the God of the Old Testament is presented above all as severe and vengeful.”

In the days of Aquinas,imprisonment was rare, it was only a holding procedure while justice was decided. … Imprisonment was reserved for important persons who could be usefully held for ransom.

(JPII 2000) “Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history.”

The idea that the state acted ‘in vicario Dei’ went down the tubes with the head of King Charles Stewart.

(CCC 1898) "Every human community needs an authority to govern it. … The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.”

Yet Mother Church now insists that ALL countries with the necessary resources to do other than inflict capital punishment

An opinion, even of a pope, does not constitute Church teaching. It is incorrect to imply that JPII’s prudential judgment on the use of the death penalty is a binding moral obligation; it is a recommendation, nothing more.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Except for your last comment below,

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
The OT theology has G_d as a vengeful judge, NT theology sees G_d as a Loving Father. The Former was quick to wrath, the latter patient unto the last day.

Yes, if you look in the OT, you can find wisdom leading to the New Covenant, likewise in the new testament, you can find a longing for the older order.
Reading the Pentateuch, however, which is the repository for Jewish LAW, and by implication, the forerunner of ours. G_d is portrayed as a stern judge, sometimes seen as vengeful.

(JPII 2000) “Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history.”

This is taken out of context, and is generally false.
Imprisonment was generally used as a holding measure prior to judgement and sentence.
You are wallowing in deliberate falseness to cling to any other idea.

(CCC 1898) "Every human community needs an authority to govern it. … The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.”

So G_d appointed Adolf Hitler, General Franco, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, and Saddam Hussain.
Perhaps then GWB should be arrained for complicity in the murder of G_ds appointed ruler of Iraq?
Of course this is a ridiculous argument. It cannot be pushed to logical extremes. It only represents a general truth. The generality of the institution is necessary, but that puts no blessing on how the institution behaves.

An opinion, even of a pope, does not constitute Church teaching. It is incorrect to imply that JPII’s prudential judgment on the use of the death penalty is a binding moral obligation; it is a recommendation, nothing more.

A prudential judgement, is a judgement on what is prudent.
It does not bind you to be prudent, but it condemns you as foolish if you choose to be imprudent.

Ender