Support the Death Penalty?

[Ender]

If ‘Life Imprisonment’ truly mean Life Imprisonment in a secure setting, then there’d be little use for the death penalty … If the public, the common good, can be protected in that way, it should be sufficient.

I think “use” is the wrong way to address the death penalty; this is primarily a moral question, not a practical one. The key issue is justice, not the protection of society, and from that perspective the proper question is whether the death penalty is ever required to meet the demands of justice. I believe that all other questions, despite their relevance, are subordinate to this. In my mind there are circumstances where the crime is sufficient not only to warrant execution but to demand it.

That too would alow for a longer life for any criminal who was guilty of such maximum (deadly) crimes and with that would (could) come a greater opportunity for repentance.

A longer life would allow for more time to repent but a specific execution date would provide for more motivation to do so.

Ender

 

[marci]

I think “use” is the wrong way to address the death penalty; this is primarily a moral question, not a practical one. The key issue is justice, not the protection of society, and from that perspective the proper question is whether the death penalty is ever required to meet the demands of justice. I believe that all other questions, despite their relevance, are subordinate to this. In my mind there are circumstances where the crime is sufficient not only to warrant execution but to demand it.

Ender

It is my understanding that this was the position the church took for eons concerning the use of the death penalty. I can’t remember which pope’s encyclical I read, maybe Pius the XII? It seems that the church has definately changed it’s mind on this issue.

 

[catharina]

It is my understanding that this was the position the church took for eons concerning the use of the death penalty. I can’t remember which pope’s encyclical I read, maybe Pius the XII? It seems that the church has definately changed it’s mind on this issue.

Marci, my point exactly; I agree with you. I think the Church has addressed the present (the here-and-now) as to security of prisons for those who would pose added risk to society and has said, accordingly, that the use of the death penalty is to insure no further crimes by dangerous individuals - not to act as a punish-er. Like you, I haven’t references at hand but I seem to remember clear advice from Pope Jon Paul II that stated exactly that. (No one has proved capable of escaping from a super-max prison.)

Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I agree, but there may be some things missing

1. The Death Penalty is about us not the criminal. Some kill potential criminals, think about that
2. Justice means for you to do what is right in this regard. Legal justice is for the government’s legal system to do what is right.
3. many confuse vengence which they think is justice. Justice never requires death or torture, those are acts of vengence.

In summary it is not the harsh treatment we give, it is the internal change in the criminal.

=============catechism===========================
Satisfaction

1459
Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

1460
The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt2.htm

 

[Ray_Scheel]

(No one has proved capable of escaping from a super-max prison.)

~ This might require some defining, as we had an escapee from our death row get over the outside fence just a few years ago. we have since built a brand new facility for them that is even more secure than our super-max facilities, but where Death Row was still meets the “Super-Max” criteria…

 

[Ender]

"marci:

It seems that the church has definately changed it’s mind on this issue.

Think about that statement for a minute … the Church doesn’t get to change her mind about moral issues because she is not the creator of moral standards. “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or arbiter of this norm.” (Veritatis splendor) What has happened is that JPII issued a statement of his opinion about the use of the death penalty. His was a utilitarian observation and did not address the moral nature of the death penalty, which, as he would have been to first to acknowledge (he after all wrote Veritatis splendor) was not his to change.

I think the Church has addressed the present (the here-and-now) as to security of prisons for those who would pose added risk to society and has said, accordingly, that the use of the death penalty is to insure no further crimes by dangerous individuals - not to act as a punish-er.

The Church gets to pronounce on moral issues, the security of prisons is not such an issue. One of the more unfortunate aspects of JPII’s comments on the death penalty is that they changed the discussion from the moral nature of punishment to the utility and efficiency of incarceration, but the appropriateness of capital punishment is a moral issue, not a practical one.

Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.

The state is the minister of the Lord; things that are forbidden to the individual are often required of the state. You might ponder why, if vengeance is evil, God claims it as his.

Ender

 

[marci]

I found it, it was Pope Pius V. In the catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), “executions are acts of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment.” (Thou shalt not murder, sometimes improperly translated as “kill” instead of “murder”). The defending society standard is not the only consideration, there is a mandate to require punishment for murder.

Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death.

In Matthew 5:17-22, Jesus states that He has come "not to abolish the law and the prophets…but to fulfill them."

There is a great article about this issue below. The article demonstrates the clear change in teaching on the death penalty and the erroneous modern teaching which conflicts with the entire church history, teaching, papal encyclicals, and writings of the saints such as Aquinas and Augustine.

www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/25/pope-john-paul-ii-a-prodeath-penalty-essay.aspx

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.

…
The state is the minister of the Lord; things that are forbidden to the individual are often required of the state. You might ponder why, if vengeance is evil, God claims it as his.

Ender

Absolutely wrong

The state is in a violation of Natural Moral Law if it sets as an objective vengeance. All state law is only just only when aligned with Natural Moral Law. The Lord removing vengeance from us does not mean the Lord will deliver vengeance to the offender, it means it is in the Lord’s power and authority not ours.

 

[marci]

Absolutely wrong

The state is in a violation of Natural Moral Law if it sets as an objective vengeance. All state law is only just only when aligned with Natural Moral Law. The Lord removing vengeance from us does not mean the Lord will deliver vengeance to the offender, it means it is in the Lord’s power and authority not ours.

Texas Roofer, read the link in my post. The state is not in violation of natural law. Punishment for murder is justified, and prior to 1995 was considered the paramount issue, not protection of society.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer, read the link in my post. The state is not in violation of natural law. Punishment for murder is justified, and prior to 1995 was considered the paramount issue, not protection of society.

The article is poorly written, and practically void of research, this is unfortunately the new waive in society. The article confuses license with duty, an idea outside the author’s current capabilities.

Btw, FYI- I used to support the death penalty

 

[Ender]

Texas Roofer, read the link in my post. The state is not in violation of natural law. Punishment for murder is justified, and prior to 1995 was considered the paramount issue, not protection of society.

The article you referenced contained a number of very strong points, thank you for posting it. There were two I especially liked.

*“Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.”

*If protecting society is the concern that trumps all others - with the implication that we should use the minimum means necessary to do so - then on what grounds would we inflict any punishment at all on someone who was no threat to kill again? We have exchanged the concept that one ought to be punished for the sin he has committed for one that punishes to eliminate sins that might be committed in the future. This is not the standard conception of justice.

*“Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?” (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis

*This is the point that is lost in the discussion of the utility of prisons: if a prisoner does not deserve a particular punishment based on the crime he committed then no other beneficial outcome of the punishment can justify imposing it. This is true of imposing both too much or too little punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The state is in a violation of Natural Moral Law if it sets as an objective vengeance. All state law is only just only when aligned with Natural Moral Law. The Lord removing vengeance from us does not mean the Lord will deliver vengeance to the offender, it means it is in the Lord’s power and authority not ours.

Provide a citation to support your position, and by citation I don’t mean a proof text from the bible but a Church document, an encyclical, a quote from Aquinas or the early fathers - anything that explains the Church’s understanding that agrees with your comments.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Provide a citation to support your position, and by citation I don’t mean a proof text from the bible but a Church document, an encyclical, a quote from Aquinas or the early fathers - anything that explains the Church’s understanding that agrees with your comments.

Ender

Like in catechism 1959- “it provides the necessary basis for the civil law” Of course you have to understand the writings here is a link scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Like in catechism 1959- “it provides the necessary basis for the civil law” Of course you have to understand the writings here is a link scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

That explains the basis of link between natural and civil law, but that is not the position for which you were asked to provide a citation to support, namely that “The state is in a violation of Natural Moral Law if it sets as an objective vengeance.” Please provide a citation of the caliber Ender specified specifically supporting that claim of yours.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That explains the basis of link between natural and civil law, but that is not the position for which you were asked to provide a citation to support, namely that “The state is in a violation of Natural Moral Law if it sets as an objective vengeance.” Please provide a citation of the caliber Ender specified specifically supporting that claim of yours.

Grasping more straws? The eariler poster cited scripture concerning vengeance, the later post cited the catechism aligning Natural Moral Law and Civil Law. So 1 + 1 = 2 The catechism requires Civil Law use Natural Moral Law as the base, Natural Moral Law does not include vengeance per scripture. uh were done.

btw if you understood post #413 you would not have asked this question

 

[catharina]

The state is the minister of the Lord; things that are forbidden to the individual are often required of the state. You might ponder why, if vengeance is evil, God claims it as his.

In all things, God the Almighty, Creator and Author of Life, is the one most offended by sin. In no way do I choose to ponder if the vengeance of God is an “evil” nor should anyone consider such a thing or suggest it to others.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Grasping more straws?

No, just pointing out your habit of providing citations that have nothing to do with the position you’ve been asked to cite (or worse, actually suggest the opposite of your conclusions) and your continuing inability to provide any citation from Church teaching to back up your claims along that line

The eariler poster cited scripture concerning vengeance, the later post cited the catechism aligning Natural Moral Law and Civil Law. So 1 + 1 = 2 The catechism requires Civil Law use Natural Moral Law as the base, Natural Moral Law does not include vengeance per scripture. uh were done.

And this was the part that you are proof-texting, to the exclusion of several previously cited Church documents that do not support your interpretation. Aside from your personal interpretation that Scripture excludes the State from imposing capital punishment for reasons that include deterrence by your equivocation that punishment=vengeance under “Natural Moral Law”, you have consistently refused to point to teaching documents endorsing that cascade of conclusions. I’m not even sure I disagree with you on this particular point (that is, not using the DP when truly safe storage is possible), but the broad and very innovative assertions about fundamental theology concepts you are coming up in order to support your the conclusion simply can’t ride on your personal interpretation of a couple of proof-texts and a section of the CCC that has been broadly clarified as being prudential in nature rather than a shift in official Catholic teaching.

btw if you understood post #413 you would not have asked this question

Your post 413 was your response to a challenge to explain or retract a personal attack you made against Ender, to which I agree with RPP’s description of being both factually incorrect and a serious distortion. The part that stood out to me was that the strongest thing you could come up to defend the personal attack with was to allege anyone who didn’t accept your cascade of unsupported conclusions was “ignorant”, and that the only alternatives to your conclusion were “ugly” - which combined with your unapologetic use of personal attacks highlight the trademarks of an approach based on logical fallacies and arguing from emotion. I have no trouble understanding that someone is trying to bully their opposition into submission with thinly veiled insults and false personal allegations, I just don’t accept that behavior as a legitimate way to advance a position in a discussion.

 

[marci]

The article is poorly written, and practically void of research, this is unfortunately the new waive in society. The article confuses license with duty, an idea outside the author’s current capabilities.

Btw, FYI- I used to support the death penalty

Did you read the same article? He referenced the Council of Trent, Pius V, Aquinas and Augustine. Read the documents concerning capital punishment from the Council of Trent and then try to defend your argument. You can’t.

The article argues that modern teaching of capital punishment is not theologically based nor is it scripturally based. It, rather, is based upon social science. After reading just a bit of the numerous historical documents on this issue, one could never walk away with the conclusion that capital punishment is not justifed, or aligned with moral law for that matter.

Your opinion about the death penalty is your opinion. Pope John Paul’s opinion was also his personal opinion, not excathera.
And if you try to tell me that I must believe this personal opinion, then I will tell you that I cannot, unless I discount the teachings of Pius V and the Council of Trent. Since the church doesn’t change it’s teaching, that would be impossible.

 

[Ender]

In all things, God the Almighty, Creator and Author of Life, is the one most offended by sin. In no way do I choose to ponder if the vengeance of God is an “evil” nor should anyone consider such a thing or suggest it to others.

I asked that question to make a point: I think modern society has lost the proper understanding of vengeance. We think of it as a failure to follow Christ’s command to return good for evil since vengeance is returning evil for evil, but this fails to account for the necessity of rendering punishment for evil.

Webster defines avenge as: *“to exact satisfaction for (a wrong) by punishing the wrongdoer.” *Surely no one can argue that one who commits a crime should not be punished but if you accept that crime deserves punishment then you must also accept that crimes must be avenged.

Here are Aquinas’s thoughts on vengeance (don’t overlook the part where he describes vengeance as a virtue):

“Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.”

*“Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing,… But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances.”

“The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor.” *

Regarding the last point above, we tend to lump the two wrongs together (wrongs against ourselves and wrongs against others) and feel that we have an obligation to behave the same way in both instances but that is not correct. Thus it is quite reasonable for a father to forgive the man who has murdered his son (for the injury to the father) and at the same time support the man’s execution (for his injury to the son).

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, just pointing out your habit of providing citations that have nothing to do with the position you’ve been asked to cite (or worse, actually suggest the opposite of your conclusions) and **your **continuing inability to provide any citation from Church teaching to back up **your **claims along that line

the citations are from the catechism

And this was the part that you are proof-texting, to the exclusion of several previously cited Church documents

Is this the 22 page paper call for a stop to Capital punishment which is representated as:

1. calling for support of the death penalty
2. calling the catechism as a cafeteria document which Catholics can pick and choose from
3. calling for a rejection of the Church teaching
   This is the Church document to which you refer?

that do not support **your **interpretation. Aside from your personal interpretation that Scripture excludes the State from imposing capital punishment for reasons that include deterrence by your equivocation that punishment=vengeance under “Natural Moral Law”, you have consistently refused to point to teaching documents endorsing that cascade of conclusions.

actually scripture and catechism were listed both are Church documents. It is Church documents which are being dismissed not my interpretations

I’m not even sure **I **disagree with you on this particular point (that is, not using the DP when truly safe storage is possible), but the broad and very innovative assertions about fundamental theology concepts you are coming up in order to support **your **the conclusion simply can’t ride on **your **personal interpretation of a couple of proof-texts and a section of the CCC that has been broadly clarified as being prudential in nature

Actually no one has shown any part of the catechism to be “prudential” No Church document has yet been listed claiming any section of the catechism is “prudential” or which section should be considered as such

rather than a shift in official Catholic teaching.

again the scripture and catechism are official teaching, A look at the definition of catechism may help

**Your **post 413 was your response to a challenge to explain or retract a personal attack you made against Ender, to which I agree with RPP’s description of being both factually incorrect and a serious distortion. The part that stood out to me was that the strongest thing you could come up to

was a review of the subject matter of the cited document

defend the personal attack with was to allege anyone who didn’t accept your cascade of unsupported conclusions was “ignorant”, and that the only alternatives to **your **conclusion were “ugly” - which combined with your unapologetic use of personal attacks highlight the trademarks of an approach based on logical fallacies and arguing from emotion.

actually post 413 points out the synchronization between the referenced documents and the Church teaching, which was clearly misrepresented. “Ignorance” has a meaning, if the poster who chose to mislead others to believe these cited documents called for Catholics to “reject” or lower catholic teachings to “prudential” (cafeteria standards) then the “ignorance” would not constitute direct sin as defined by the catechism. The real issue here is why the “rejection” and “prudential” documents were not posted

**I **have no trouble understanding that someone is trying to bully their opposition into submission with thinly veiled insults and false personal allegations, I just don’t accept that behavior as a legitimate way to advance a position in a discussion.

Is that 25 personal pronouns? in place of references to show a prudential catechism? a rejection of Church teaching on the death penalty by Ratzinger or the USCCB? These items if listed would be “a legitimate way to advance a position”.