Test the validity of your prolife position on capital punishment

[The_Barrister]

jim orr:

It is curious that those who would defend their belief opposing capital punishment on the political forum are less willing to confront the validity of their belief on the apologetics forum. It is either a mindset that says don’t confuse me with the facts, or the political nature of the issue is more important to them than its spiritual dimension.

Okay, I’ll bite.

Let us turn to the Passion in general, and Calvary in particular. There, Jesus - an innocent - is condemned to death. Then, he is nailed to the cross between two guilty men, left to die.

Jesus is confronted with capital punishment of both the innocent and the guilty. Does he chastise the government or the soldiers for condemning and killing the two guilty men? No. Did he have the opportunity to do so? Yes.

Turning to John 19:10-11, we see that he rebukes Pilate for killing him, but does not say that Pilate does not have the *authority * to kill him - in fact, Jesus acknowledges that Pilate *does * have the authority, but that the authority comes to the ruler from God:
So Pilate *said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?”

Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."How is one to interpret this? I think it is fair to say that Pilate (the government) has the *authority * to carry out capital punishment, but that Pilate (the government) *sinned * by executing a man for *political * reasons, not for his guilt (but those who delivered him for execution have the greater sin).

Jesus never says that capital punishment is impermissible, even when confronted with the very act. He did not turn to either thief and say “It was wrong for the state to carry out capital punishment upon you.” But, he did indicate that God’s grace would be given to the thief who asked for it.

Where else in the Bible is Jesus confronted by an alleged evil act and he does not speak out against it? When did he ever hesitate to speak out against an evil?

 

[martino]

I am certainly not scared to challenge any view that I hold, actually they are generally tested before I hold them. I am pro-life, and I am not against capital punishment; I am not sure if I am who you wish to challenge. I read the article and dont really see how it was supposed to challenge my views. The article had nothing to do with the death penalty and my views were neither changed nor challenged, so I suppose I missed the point of your thread (unless i am not whom you were aiming). Although the article is neutral on the death penalty issue, it would at the very least support those who want tougher sentencing for some of these criminals (including the death penalty). That scenario only affirms those that believe in the death penalty, but I dont know how that would challenge those who are against. I can only assume that you are in favor of capital punishment and wish to challenge pro-lifers that are against it. What is the connection between the death penalty and pro-life. What does this artice have to do with either?

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Catechism:

Legitimate defense

[2263](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2263.htm’) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

[2264](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2264.htm’) Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 [2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

[2266](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if 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, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[dcmac]

Mike, as Catholics we are supposed to oppose murder… not killing. The Hebrew word is murder… not kill. Killing is and always has been allowed for varying circumstances, i.e.: self defense, just war, etc. The difference between murder and killing is a big difference and one that has been lost in the English speaking world. Just food for thought.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future Maronite priest,

Donnchadh

 

[jim_orr]

martino:

. What is the connection between the death penalty and pro-life. What does this artice(l) have to do with either?

You asked a lot of good questions. I’ll use your last one to try and sort it out.

Although the Church retains its historical teaching in the Catechism on capital punishment, Pope John Paul II has modified it in such a way that he believes that capital punishment is no longer necessary for the protection of society because of advanced penal systems in the more developed countries. He advocates life imprisonment instead because it “better correspond(s) to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (CCC.n.2267).

Furthermore, Pope John Paul II “amended the Catechism to emphasize that the use of capital punishment contributes to the growth of the ‘culture of death’ within society.” In essence, it is more “prolife” to allow the capital offender to live since there is no public safety reason to do otherwise.

The Holy Father’s teaching is: “What empowers the state to exercise the right to execute is not the degree of harm a crime inflicts per se but the inability of a society to protect itself by any other means. As contemporary society has the means to remove those guilty of capital offenses by life imprisonment, the Holy Father (says) that the state’s right to exercise capital punishment is practically non-existent. In short, even though Church teaching affirms the state’s right to execute those guilty of capital offenses, it is not in harmony with that same teaching to exercise this right given our contemporary penal system.”(quotes from Catholics and Capital Punishment in The Veritas Series presented by thee Knights of Columbus)

Many Catholics believe the Church is against Capital Punishment and the assumption in the Church teaching on the subject lends itself to that conclusion. The ground for that teaching and belief is that advanced penal systems are able to protect society from the aggressors. This is an assumption the Church made about the capabilities of the penal systems. The Church has never provided evidence to support their understanding on prison security. If capital punishment is a “prolife” issue, as the pope and bishops are making it, then the Church needs to provide the evidence to show why they believe modern prisons are full-proof in eliminating the danger to society. This article provides evidence that modern prisons are not able to protect society to the degree the Church leadership believes. The article linked above on Pelican Bay prison debunks the basis for considering capital punishment a prolife issue. It does so because in no prolife teaching of the Church (abortion and euthanasia) does she allow the killing of innocent life for any reason no matter how heart wrenching the situation.

This is important because in many Catholics’ minds the teaching of the Church is used to justify their civic responsibility of voting for candidates that support abortion and oppose capital punishment. The bishops state that no party truly represents Catholic teaching thereby leaving it up to the Catholic voter to vote their conscience. If the teaching is in error it contributes to the error in Catholic thinking that they are voting as best they can with a properly formed conscience.

 

[jim_orr]

buffalo:

The Catholic Catechism:

Buffalo, so after reading the article on Pelican Bay what is your conclusion on what the Catechism teaches concerning the appropriateness of Capital Punishment?

 

[DrCat]

dcmac:

Mike, as Catholics we are supposed to oppose murder… not killing. The Hebrew word is murder… not kill. Killing is and always has been allowed for varying circumstances, i.e.: self defense, just war, etc. The difference between murder and killing is a big difference and one that has been lost in the English speaking world. Just food for thought.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future Maronite priest,

Donnchadh

Along the same lines, I remember my professor in a course on The Old Testament back in my undergraduate years telling us that the word we use for kill used to be slay, and kill was synonymous with murder. So if God had meant to prohibit ALL killing, He would have said “Thou shalt not slay” instead of “Thou shalt not kill”. Killing in war and in capital punishment was slaying, taking an innocent life (murder) was killing.

Don’t know how true it is, but it sounds reasonable to me.

John

 

[jim_orr]

The Barrister:

Jesus never says that capital punishment is impermissible, even when confronted with the very act.
Where else in the Bible is Jesus confronted by an alleged evil act and he does not speak out against it? When did he ever hesitate to speak out against an evil?

Here is another opportunity for Jesus to have addressed the wrongness of capital punishment and he didn’t - John 8, A Woman Caught in Adultery. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery directly to Jesus and said:

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? They said this to test him…”

 

[Steven_Merten]

jim orr:

Here is another opportunity for Jesus to have addressed the wrongness of capital punishment and he didn’t - John 8, A Woman Caught in Adultery. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery directly to Jesus and said:

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? They said this to test him…”

Hello Jim Orr,

You missed a couple.

NAB MARK 7:9

He went on to say: **“You have made a fine art of setting aside God’s commandment in the interests of keeping your traditions! **For example, Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and in another place, 'Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.’ Yet you declare, ‘If a person says to his father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is korban’ (that is, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. **That is the way you nullify God’s word in favor of the traditions you have handed on.” **(MAT 15:1-20)

**NAB MATTHEW 18:5 **

Jesus is speaking. **"Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna. **

To “cut off” a portion of the body is language used in Old Testament to describe Capital Punishment. Moses is to “cut off” (meaning stone to death) that portion of the body of people which leads the body of people astray through sin. Jesus certianly knew the relationship of His language to “cut off” a part of the body and throw it into gehenna was related to Mosaic stonings.

Jesus tells His Church that if Her hand is her undoing, cut it off and throw it into Gehenna. Better the body of the Church enter heaven with one foot or one hand than to have the whole body of the Church go to hell. Apostolic Succesors are commanded by Jesus not to let the whole body of the Church go to hell.

Jesus swears to the Apostles that anyone that they hold bound to their sins on earth, he will hold bound to their sins in heaven. We know that anyone who Jesus holds bound to their sins in heaven, goes to hell. So the Church can litterally cut off the portion of the body of people who harm the Church and cast them into Gehenna.

**NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”
I can show you all the scriptures relating to Church enforced Spiritual capital punishment. Please visit Throwing Stones.
geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[ricatholic]

Those references in the post preceeding this are about Jesus telling us to behave better, it isn’t about us punishing others.

His direct words on capital punishment were that he who is without sin can cast the first stone. That is pretty clear in its meaning.

Peace

 

[martino]

jim orr:

Furthermore, Pope John Paul II “amended the Catechism to emphasize that the use of capital punishment contributes to the growth of the ‘culture of death’ within society.” In essence, it is more “prolife” to allow the capital offender to live since there is no public safety reason to do otherwise.

The Holy Father’s teaching is: “What empowers the state to exercise the right to execute is not the degree of harm a crime inflicts per se but the inability of a society to protect itself by any other means. As contemporary society has the means to remove those guilty of capital offenses by life imprisonment, the Holy Father (says) that the state’s right to exercise capital punishment is practically non-existent. In short, even though Church teaching affirms the state’s right to execute those guilty of capital offenses, it is not in harmony with that same teaching to exercise this right given our contemporary penal system.”(quotes from Catholics and Capital Punishment in The Veritas Series presented by thee Knights of Columbus)

Many Catholics believe the Church is against Capital Punishment and the assumption in the Church teaching on the subject lends itself to that conclusion. The ground for that teaching and belief is that advanced penal systems are able to protect society from the aggressors. This is an assumption the Church made about the capabilities of the penal systems. The Church has never provided evidence to support their understanding on prison security. If capital punishment is a “prolife” issue, as the pope and bishops are making it, then the Church needs to provide the evidence to show why they believe modern prisons are full-proof in eliminating the danger to society. This article provides evidence that modern prisons are not able to protect society to the degree the Church leadership believes. The article linked above on Pelican Bay prison debunks the basis for considering capital punishment a prolife issue. It does so because in no prolife teaching of the Church (abortion and euthanasia) does she allow the killing of innocent life for any reason no matter how heart wrenching the situation.

This is important because in many Catholics’ minds the teaching of the Church is used to justify their civic responsibility of voting for candidates that support abortion and oppose capital punishment. The bishops state that no party truly represents Catholic teaching thereby leaving it up to the Catholic voter to vote their conscience. If the teaching is in error it contributes to the error in Catholic thinking that they are voting as best they can with a properly formed conscience.

Any Catholic that knows their faith would know that the Church has an all out ban on abortion but has no such ban on capital punishment. That is true no matter what the pope says he believes about the modern day penal system. I agree that if the Church wants to make a pro-life issue out of the death penalty then they would have to provide the evidence that our prision system can and does protect us from these criminals.

So in conclusion, the reason that I was not challenged is because I am for the death penalty and yet remain pro-life. Those who are against the death penalty should be able to support that position with proof that we can be safe from all criminals, no matter how vicious, by letting them live the remainder of their natural lives within our prisons. This article could be used as proof that we are not safe from these killers until they are laid to rest, and the sooner the better!

 

[Steven_Merten]

ricatholic:

Those references in the post preceeding this are about Jesus telling us to behave better, it isn’t about us punishing others.

His direct words on capital punishment were that he who is without sin can cast the first stone. That is pretty clear in its meaning.

Peace

Hello ricatholic,

I have a poll going on another link on Cahtolic Answers forums. Over half of those taking the poll, believe that the Church punishment of excommunication, if unreconciled, spiritually puts souls to eternal death.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8628

If you had to choose between the State taking your physical life or Pope John Paul II excommunicating your soul to spiritual death, which would you choose? Which is more deadly?

At the web site Throwing Stones you can see Christ’s words authorizing Apostolic Successors to use the spiritually deadly sword of His mouth. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic:

Those references in the post preceeding this are about Jesus telling us to behave better, it isn’t about us punishing others.
His direct words on capital punishment were that he who is without sin can cast the first stone. That is pretty clear in its meaning.

.I think it is pretty clear, also. You will notice, Jesus was being tested and did not say that it was wrong for them to punish the person for the violation of the law. Nor did He say that the punishment was morally wrong, either. He said, he** without** sin cast the first stone. He knew up until that time that the Jews knew they were all sinners and that there was no way for their sins to be forgiven. Therefore, they knew that they all had sins.

Also, He was dealing with a mob-justice, so to speak, situation, not a governmental, impartial, neutral entity that is sinless under the circumstances. Therefore, Jesus, under direct challenge to capital punishment did not disallow it. He disallowed the manner in which it was being carried out. Today, the manner in which a defendant is tried is not by a mob, but a neutral, sinless, government, and when found guilty of a capital offense and is executed, the execution is done by an impartial, neutral, sinless government. That is why nobody involved with such trials and executions are charged with sins by the Church. And they never will be.

 

[ricatholic]

jim orr:

.I think it is pretty clear, also. You will notice, Jesus was being tested and did not say that it was wrong for them to punish the person for the violation of the law. Nor did He say that the punishment was morally wrong, either. He said, he** without** sin cast the first stone. He knew up until that time that the Jews knew they were all sinners and that there was no way for their sins to be forgiven. Therefore, they knew that they all had sins.

Also, He was dealing with a mob-justice, so to speak, situation, not a governmental, impartial, neutral entity that is sinless under the circumstances. Therefore, Jesus, under direct challenge to capital punishment did not disallow it. He disallowed the manner in which it was being carried out. Today, the manner in which a defendant is tried is not by a mob, but a neutral, sinless, government, and when found guilty of a capital offense and is executed, the execution is done by an impartial, neutral, sinless government. That is why nobody involved with such trials and executions are charged with sins by the Church. And they never will be.

Right, the man that pulls the switch is without sin, or is your neutral sinless government like a robot that can actually do things without the imput of man.

So by your reasoning I guess we can say abortion is OK because a neutral sinless government says it is OK, perhaps Paul would agree with you since he said all authorities get their authority from God.

Peace

 

[buffalo]

jim orr:

Buffalo, so after reading the article on Pelican Bay what is your conclusion on what the Catechism teaches concerning the appropriateness of Capital Punishment?

What is Pelican Bay?

 

[jim_orr]

buffalo:

What is Pelican Bay?

One of the newest, maximum security prisons in the country.

 

[pnewton]

The incident of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery has never been viewed as a condemnation of capital punishment. This is a twentieth century retro-reading. The church has historically recognized the necessity of capital punishment and supported it within strict guidelines.

Not that the government is a “robot” but rather that law must be established for the protection of society and its citizen. You can derive from this incident that Jesus did not approve of killing this woman for the sin of adultry 2000 years ago. Prior to that, God recognized the need to protect his people from immorality even to the point of using capital punishment.

The arguement is whether or not capital punishment is necessary today, given our level of technology and ability to incarcerate for life. It is a prudential judgement and open to debate on those terms. But one can not accurately say looking on the totality of scripture that capital punishment is and always has been wrong.

Finally, buffalo, on the very first post you will see an article on a state of the art, max security prison in California.

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic:

Right, the man that pulls the switch is without sin, or is your neutral sinless government like a robot that can actually do things without the imput of man.

All associated with the trial of a defendant charged with a capital offense and the carrying out of the verdict are sinless according to our Church.

ricatholic:

So by your reasoning I guess we can say abortion is OK because a neutral sinless government says it is OK, perhaps Paul would agree with you since he said all authorities get their authority from God.

All associated with the procurement of an abortion, although legal at this time, commit grave sin, i.e., mortal sin, and if any are a Catholic they are automatically** excommunicated according to our Church.**

I don’t know how more plain to make it.

 

[Fortiterinre]

I am very impressed with the sophisticated, theological debate of this thread–THIS is what I look for on these forums! Does anyone else remember Cardinal O’Connor (RIP) of New York talking about this quite directly some years ago? I think it was an address to NYPD widows of those killed in action, and I remember him saying that those who were violent in prison deserved capital punisment, period. It wasn’t parsed, it was pretty direct. If I were a better researcher I would be able to find it, but I never have. I am impressed with the emphasis on prudential judgment–I might disagree with Cardinal O’Connor, it depends on the situation I have control over or can make judgments about. Some would argue that based on the current condition of American prisons, where it seems easy for those incarcerated in maximum security to continue violent offenses, capital punishment should right now be far from non-existent.

 

[ricatholic]

All associated with the trial of a defendant charged with a capital offense and the carrying out of the verdict are sinless according to our Church.

All associated with the procurement of an abortion, although legal at this time, commit grave sin, i.e., mortal sin, and if any are a Catholic they are automatically** excommunicated according to our Church.**

I don’t know how more plain to make it.

Oh thats right, I forgot that the binding of loosing of sins applied to what Jesus taught. The non -sinlessness of the crowd with rocks in their hands was changed by the wisdom of the church to sinlessness.

How stupid of me to think that the clarity of what Jesus said was just an illusion, despite how it blatantly contradicted the laws and appropriate responses laid down in lev about adultery.

Jesus wouldn’t really have had the guts to suggest that revenge and vengence were concepts to be jetisoned by His followers.

Unfortunately for us, Jesus standards are so high that we constantly water them down to suit our purposes. I guess I should be gratefull that the church has sanctioned the watering down so that we can keep our OT sensibilities and remain Christians.

Peace