Support the Death Penalty?

[Ray_Scheel]

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.

I this context, prudence advises us to place the most weight in the decisions of those who (while operating in a reasonable approximation of just authority) actually have the details of information and topical expertise necessary to make that decision. As brilliant as JP II was in theology, he simply did not have the access to knowledge of the technical expertise to know what the resources of modern prisons were and whether the sustainable resources in place really did render the capital punishment effectively unnecessary in particular parts of the world.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I this context, prudence advises us to place the most weight in the decisions of those who (while operating in a reasonable approximation of just authority) actually have the details of information and topical expertise necessary to make that decision. As brilliant as JP II was in theology, he simply did not have the access to knowledge of the technical expertise to know what the resources of modern prisons were and whether the sustainable resources in place really did render the capital punishment effectively unnecessary in particular parts of the world.

Here is a useful link for a difinitive basis for judgement:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=15

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Here is a useful link for a difinitive basis for judgement:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=15

Yes, this summary in the section of that document titled The Place of Prudential Judgement: lays it out very succinctly:

It is, I think, unfortunate that this prudential judgement was added to the Catechism. No matter how valuable it may be, the protection of the Holy Spirit does not apply to it, nor can such judgements ever be part of the Church’s Magisterium. The Church has no special gift for discerning the capabilities of the modern age in comparison with past ages, the quality of the world’s penitentiaries, or —to return to the main point—what is necessary for the protection of the public safety. For this reason, her opinions on this subject do not properly belong in catechisms.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Yes, this summary in the section of that document titled The Place of Prudential Judgement: lays it out very succinctly:

It is, I think, unfortunate that this prudential judgement was added to the Catechism. No matter how valuable it may be, the protection of the Holy Spirit does not apply to it, nor can such judgements ever be part of the Church’s Magisterium. The Church has no special gift for discerning the capabilities of the modern age in comparison with past ages, the quality of the world’s penitentiaries, or —to return to the main point—what is necessary for the protection of the public safety. For this reason, her opinions on this subject do not properly belong in catechisms.

Nevertheless it is there in the catechism.
Take it or leave it.
But if you leave it, you are cherry picking the catechism, so you are then a heretic.
I’m ok on that point, I came here a heretic.
But what about you?

 

[Ender]

“Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history.” JPII

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.

You should be more careful with your allegations. Since you don’t even know what document I was quoting you have no clue as to whether this sentence was out of context or not. It is rash judgment to assume that it is simply because it so completely contradicts your claim. I have posted the link so you can read the entire document if you choose. It is a message of JPII for the jubilee in prisons 2000 addressed to those suffering the punishment of imprisonment. It seemed relevant to me.

As to whether my acceptance of the pope’s view of the history of imprisonment constitutes “wallowing in deliberate falseness” I am content to let others form their own opinions - of both of us.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...s/hf_jp-ii_mes_20000630_jubilprisoners_en.htm

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history.” JPII

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
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.

Unfortunately, the link you gave me did not work.
As for my assertions about the history of imprisonment, I speak as a citizen of a country with a history dating back to Roman times.
For the common man, imprisonment was not a punishment. There were no prisons in history. There was the village ‘lock-up’, for the detention of persons awaiting judgement or sentence. There were a few cells in various castles and government centres, but there were no penitentiaries until the NINETEENTH century, but that is where your history starts.
Sentence as I said before, consisted of from penance, to a period in the stocks, or a flogging, or death.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Nevertheless it is there in the catechism.
Take it or leave it.
But if you leave it, you are cherry picking the catechism, so you are then a heretic.
I’m ok on that point, I came here a heretic.
But what about you?

So, what exactly was your purpose in citing that source, you know, the one you yourself described as “a useful link for a difinitive basis for judgement”, if you did not think it was useful for that purpose? I’m thinking you posted the citation without reading it carefully in a cute attempt to try to look like you had backup for the position you were taking, and missed that it actually said the*** exact opposite*** of what you thought. Awaiting your further clarification on this flip-flopping, since right now it looks like you are just trying to disrupt a thread you don’t have a real interest in trying to understand the fine points of…

 

[nomolos]

Can you still be a follower of Christ if you do support the death penalty?

 

[rpp]

Can you still be a follower of Christ if you do support the death penalty?

Sure. That Catholic Church has always followed Christ and it permits the death penalty.

 

[rpp]

Unfortunately, the link you gave me did not work.
As for my assertions about the history of imprisonment, I speak as a citizen of a country with a history dating back to Roman times.
For the common man, imprisonment was not a punishment. There were no prisons in history. There was the village ‘lock-up’, for the detention of persons awaiting judgement or sentence. There were a few cells in various castles and government centres, but there were no penitentiaries until the NINETEENTH century, but that is where your history starts.
Sentence as I said before, consisted of from penance, to a period in the stocks, or a flogging, or death.

Your kidding here, right? Have you never read the “Man in the Iron Mask” or the “Count of Monte Cristo”? What about the notorious prison in Paris, the Bastille whose fall signaled in 1789 signaled the beginning of the French Revolution. People were heald in the Bastille for decades. What about Roman prisons? The Apostle Paul was imprisoned by the Romans after they grew tired of his house arrest in Rome. The Apostle John was exiled to the penal island of Patmos.

While it is true to say that early jails were used only for holding as most punishment was corporal, it is pretty clear that the Romans were the first to have a prison system with something like penitentiaries.

 

[mlchance]

Have you never read the “Man in the Iron Mask” or the “Count of Monte Cristo”?

Works of fiction.

What about the notorious prison in Paris, the Bastille whose fall signaled in 1789 signaled the beginning of the French Revolution. People were heald in the Bastille for decades.

The Bastille was quite nice as far as prisons of the time went. The revolutionaries stormed it to steal gunpowder, not rescue the few relatively well-kept prisoners. BTW, the infamous “man in the iron mask” actually wore a velvet mask, and he was quite well treated.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[nomolos]

Sure. That Catholic Church has always followed Christ and it permits the death penalty.

If that was the case then why did he not allow the pharasies to stone Mary Magdalen, for she commited a sin that was punishable by death by stonning

 

[rpp]

Works of fiction.

True, but if prisons did not exist, it seems unlikely the authors would have invented them.

The Bastille was quite nice as far as prisons of the time went. The revolutionaries stormed it to steal gunpowder, not rescue the few relatively well-kept prisoners. BTW, the infamous “man in the iron mask” actually wore a velvet mask, and he was quite well treated.



– Mark L. Chance.

Okay, does the wink there mean you realize that the Bastille was not just a fort but a fortress prison that was a house of horrors for the inmates?

 

[rpp]

If that was the case then why did he not allow the pharasies to stone Mary Magdalen, for she commited a sin that was punishable by death by stonning

First, we do not know who the woman caught in adultery was.

Second, the Lord did this to teach us a lesson.

Third, what I stated has been endlessly confirmed among the more that 275 previous posts on this thread.

Forth, please capitalize personal pronouns referring the the Lord. I think He deserves it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So, what exactly was your purpose in citing that source, you know, the one you yourself described as “a useful link for a difinitive basis for judgement”, if you did not think it was useful for that purpose? I’m thinking you posted the citation without reading it carefully in a cute attempt to try to look like you had backup for the position you were taking, and missed that it actually said the*** exact opposite*** of what you thought. Awaiting your further clarification on this flip-flopping, since right now it looks like you are just trying to disrupt a thread you don’t have a real interest in trying to understand the fine points of…

As a heretic, looking in, I understand that in order to dissolve my heresy, I have to accept the rules, and the rules are laid out in the catechism. I may find some points difficult, and may question them. I may choose to disobey them, but I may not teach contrary to them, That is heresy.
Yes the article shows both sides of the argument.
But the bottom line is that the relevant section is in the catechism, and that is the end of the story.
Take it: or leave it.
Catholicism is obedience. You may question, you might disobey, but you must not teach contrarywise: that is heresy.
At least, that is my understanding.

 

[mlchance]

Okay, does the wink there mean you realize that the Bastille was not just a fort but a fortress prison that was a house of horrors for the inmates?

Not at all. By the time of the storming of Bastille, it was used to house gunpowder and a half-dozen aristocratic inmates, two of whom were insane. Throughout the 18th century, it never housed more than 40 inmates. In addition to aristocrats, who were kept in something approaching luxury, it also sometimes housed dissidents suspected of publishing treasonous literature, such as when Voltaire was kept there briefly twice.

The “house of horrors” Bastille is a product of fiction writers and revolutionary propaganda seeking to justify the widespread murdering, looting, and raping that led to the Reign of Terror.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[nomolos]

First, we do not know who the woman caught in adultery was.

Second, the Lord did this to teach us a lesson.

Third, what I stated has been endlessly confirmed among the more that 275 previous posts on this thread.

Forth, please capitalize personal pronouns referring the the Lord. I think He deserves it.

What lesson would that be? I though HE was teaching about forgiveness. Regardles if it was Mary M. she still commited a sin that was punishable by death.
Also King David broke Gods law that was also punishable by death, yet God forgave him also.
Is man above God to choose if a sinful person is to be condemed to death?

 

[rpp]

Not at all. By the time of the storming of Bastille, it was used to house gunpowder and a half-dozen aristocratic inmates, two of whom were insane. Throughout the 18th century, it never housed more than 40 inmates. In addition to aristocrats, who were kept in something approaching luxury, it also sometimes housed dissidents suspected of publishing treasonous literature, such as when Voltaire was kept there briefly twice.

The “house of horrors” Bastille is a product of fiction writers and revolutionary propaganda seeking to justify the widespread murdering, looting, and raping that led to the Reign of Terror.

– Mark L. Chance.

I realize that much of our (English speaking people) history comes from England, and France was an enemy of England since before the Reformation. Therefore, it would not surprise me to learn that many aspects of the French history are, well, inaccurate. Can you cite a source or link? I am very interested.

(I have always loved Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities by he was always prone to exaggeration.)

 

[rpp]

What lesson would that be? I though HE was teaching about forgiveness. Regardles if it was Mary M. she still commited a sin that was punishable by death.
Also King David broke Gods law that was also punishable by death, yet God forgave him also.
Is man above God to choose if a sinful person is to be condemed to death?

And what about Ananias and Sapphira, who the Apostle Peter slew, via the power of God, for withholding their riches from the early Church and lying about it?

God does forgive those who repent.

What of the unrepentant?

But again, one cannot claim that the Catholic teaches that the Death penalty is wrong. You are free to believe we have reasonable alternatives to it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Unfortunately, the link you gave me did not work.
As for my assertions about the history of imprisonment, I speak as a citizen of a country with a history dating back to Roman times.
For the common man, imprisonment was not a punishment. There were no prisons in history. There was the village ‘lock-up’, for the detention of persons awaiting judgement or sentence. There were a few cells in various castles and government centres, but there were no penitentiaries until the NINETEENTH century, but that is where your history starts.
Sentence as I said before, consisted of from penance, to a period in the stocks, or a flogging, or death.

Actually I omitted a couple of possible sentences used in Rome. They were slavery, and the arena, which lies somewhere between death and slavery.
Prison was reserved for people of means, or who were politically important, and could be usefully held for ransom. A man of straw got very short shrift. As for penal colonies under Rome, they were slave labour camps, and can be compared with Dachau.