Test the validity of your prolife position on capital punishment

[jim_orr]

Paragraph 2267 of the CCC must be read in its entirety in order to be understood properly:

Quote:

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 are 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 non-existent” [emphasis added].

The Catechism is careful to note first that the Church’s traditional teaching allows for the death penalty if execution is the only means to protect innocent lives, either within the prison system or outside the prison system. However, if non-lethal means are sufficient, the Catechism states that non-lethal means should be preferred.

The fact that super-max prison facilities are not one hundred percent fool-proof does not mean that every prisoner guilty of a capital crime is a danger to prison society or to society in general, particularly since today’s prison facilities are technologically capable of maximum security. So, while the state has recourse to the death penalty in cases that necessitate it – as the Catechism recognizes – the death penalty may not be needed in every capital case.** The Catechism demonstrates the Church’s preference for, but not its requirement of, non-lethal measures.**

All of the above is a Apologetic reply to a question I posed to them on what if the CCC is in error on its teaching on Capital Punishment. I highlighted the last sentence because I think that is probably the most important point Catholics should remember, especially those who are opposed to Capital Punishment.

But I also highlighted and initialized the heart of the matter for which I raised the issue. The Church, i.e., the bishops, thanks to Cardinal Bernardin, has made capital punishment a “prolife” issue. I argue that it is not and the very fact that it is a prudential issue according to the Church’s teaching is proof that it isn’t a '“prolife” issue.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello ricatholic,

Do any of the other readers see any corilation between cutting someone off from the body of people meaning stoning someone to death in God’s terminology?

America physically putting criminals to death or the Church spiritually putting people to death in automatic excommunication is not “violence, vengance, and revenge” as you imply. It is done for the protection of the body of the Church and the body of the country.

NAB LEV 20 Penalties for Various Sins.

**The LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him. I myself will turn against such a man and cut him off from the body of his people: for in giving his offspring to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.”**NAB MAT 5:29 Occasions of Impurity.

Jesus is speaking.
If your right eye is your trouble, gouge it out and throw it away! Better you lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna. Again if your right hand is your trouble, cut it off and throw it away! Better to lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna." NAB NUM 15:30

"But anyone who sins defiantly, whether he be a native or and alien, insults the LORD, and shall be cut off from among his people. Since he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, he must be cut off. He has only himself to blame."

**NAB MAT 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.

**INT EXO 31:14 **
“Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people .’” INT JOB 27:8

For what hope has the godless when he is cut off, when God takes away his life?NAB WIS 18:23

For when corpses had already fallen one on another in heaps, he stood in the midst and checked his anger, and cut off the way to the living. NAB EZE 14:13

Son of man, when a land sins against me by breaking faith, I stretch out my hand against it and break its staff of bread, I let famine loose upon it and cut off form it both man and beast; and even if these three men were in it, Noah, Daniel, and Job, they could only save themselves by their virtue, says the LORD God.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[ricatholic]

Steven Merten:

Hello ricatholic,

Do any of the other readers see any corilation between cutting someone off from the body of people meaning stoning someone to death in God’s terminology?

America physically putting criminals to death or the Church spiritually putting people to death in automatic excommunication is not “violence, vengance, and revenge” as you imply. It is done for the protection of the body of the Church and the body of the country.

NAB LEV 20 Penalties for Various Sins.

The LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him. I myself will turn against such a man and cut him off from the body of his people: for in giving his offspring to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name."NAB MAT 5:29 Occasions of Impurity.

Jesus is speaking.

If your right eye is your trouble, gouge it out and throw it away! Better you lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna. Again if your right hand is your trouble, cut it off and throw it away! Better to lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna."

---

…
Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

You use Matt 5 as an example of what the state can do, when Jesus in Matt 5 is talking to us about how the effects of sin can be compared to the pain and suffering we would endure if we ripped out our eye or cut off our hands.

Jesus was not saying to cut off your hand if it led you into sin, He was saying to not sin because it would be better if you cut off your hand than sin.

As to Lev., I’m glad you introduced Matt 5, because further along in Matt 5 is where Jesus makes obsolete the vengence and revenge in Lev. concerning an eye for an eye.

The whole point about capital punishment is that it contradicts much of what Jesus taught. First it is the ultimate example of a lack of forgiveness. It also contradicts what Jesus taught about the first two commandments and Jesus being in the guise of the least. It contradicts the real message in Matt 5 and the turning of the cheek.

Unfortunately what Jesus taught about forgiveness is such a difficult concept because it requires us to be truly selfless and places us in positions that require us to jetison much of what would be considered by most as reasonable feelings. But isn’t that the difference maker with Jesus anyway?

Peace

 

[Steven_Merten]

ricatholic:

As to Lev., I’m glad you introduced Matt 5, because further along in Matt 5 is where Jesus makes obsolete the vengence and revenge in Lev. concerning an eye for an eye.

The whole point about capital punishment is that it contradicts much of what Jesus taught. First it is the ultimate example of a lack of forgiveness. It also contradicts what Jesus taught about the first two commandments and Jesus being in the guise of the least. It contradicts the real message in Matt 5 and the turning of the cheek.

Unfortunately what Jesus taught about forgiveness is such a difficult concept because it requires us to be truly selfless and places us in positions that require us to jetison much of what would be considered by most as reasonable feelings. But isn’t that the difference maker with Jesus anyway?

Peace

Jesus did not give us the command to not take revenge and love your neighbor as yourself, Moses did. Jesus repeated what Moses taught.

**NAB LEV 19:17 **

"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."
Moses and God in the Old Testiment are constantly forgiving people. Moses is constantly praying for his persecutors. Moses offers up his eternal soul begging God to forgive those who persecuted him. You are very much wrong about the love, forgiveness and preaching against revenge of Old Testiment. Moses is very much like Jesus.

**EXODUS 32:30 The Atonement. **

On the next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a grave sin. I will go up to the LORD, then; perhaps I may be able to make atonement for your sin.” So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Ah, this people has indeed committed a grave sin in making a god of gold for themselves! If you would only *forgive *their sin! If you will not, then strike me out of the book that you have written."

**NAB LUKE 23:33 **

When they came to Skull Place, as it was called, **they crucified him there and the criminals as well, one on his right and the other on his left. Jesus said, **"Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing."

​

**NAB REVELATION 3:5 **

"The victor will thus be dressed in white, and** I will never erase his name from the book of life** but will acknowledge his name in the presence of my Father and of his angels.

​

**EXO 32 continued. **

The LORD answered, "Him only who has sinned against me will I strike out of my book. Now, go and lead the people whither I have told you. My angel will go before you. When it is time for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin." Thus the LORD smote the people for having had Aaron make the calf for them.

Modern peple distort Jesus. They say that Moses taught hell and damnation and Jesus taught love and forgiveness. This is a lie. Moses never taught eternal damnation and throwing people into the fires of Gehhenna, Jesus was the first (besides John the Baptist) to do so. Take a look at this site and all the times Jesus tells us who He will condemn to eternal death and those He will not forgive. www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/unforgiven.html

The thought that Moses is vengeful and Jesus is all forgiving is a lie perpentrated by modern people.
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[amarkich]

I typed a long introduction to my response, but it was deleted because of a computer error. Below is the response which I posted on a different forum some time ago. It outlines the Church’s teaching from Tradition, Scripture, and the infallible Catechism of the Council of Trent. N.B., the CCC is not infallible and cites no reference from Scripture, a Council, a Pope, or even a Saint to support its claim that bloodless means should be preferred if protection of the public can still be maintained. Here is my post:

“Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.” c.f., Genesis ix.6

“He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death.” c.f., Exodus xxi.12

Numbers XXV almost in its entirety illustrates God’s institution of the death penalty and the means by which it should be instituted. The most relevant statement in this chapter not only allows the death penalty but absolutely commands it: “Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another. And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.” c.f., Numbers xxxv.33, 34

“In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land: that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” Psalm C

“Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” c.f., Romans xiii.1-5 (emphasis added)

“He that shall lead into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” Apocalypse xiii.10

(Continued below)

 

[amarkich]

All of these verses of the Bible illustrate the right and the duty of the government to execute the guilty. It should be noted the purpose of the death penalty as found in Sacred Scripture. Is the purpose solely in order to protect the innocent? It surely is not. There is very little mention of protecting the innocent. Rather, Sacred Scripture states that the death penalty is a form of justice for an action wrongly taken against another, a punishment for guilt. This is illustrated most strongly in Numbers XXXV and implicitly in the other verses. The Roman Catechism reaffirms this concept of the death penalty, that it should be used both as a means of protecting the innocent but also as a means of instituting justice with the authority which God has given the government, c.f., Romans xiii. The Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent, gives a reaffirmation of the concept of the death penalty as given to us from God and as practiced by the Jews and recorded by Sacred Scripture. It states:

“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. (N.B., the punishment of the guilty is listed before the protection of the innocent) The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of **paramount obedience **to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” c.f., Roman Catechism, On the Fifth Commandment (emphasis added)

The Roman Catechism here clearly reaffirms the constant teaching from Scripture as well as the historical use of the death penalty by the Jews and, more importantly, in the context of the tradition of the Church. It continues the belief that the punishment of the guilty is the primary intention and effect of the death penalty and calls the execution of criminals an act in paramount obedience to the Fifth Commandment. Finally, it calls to mind the words of David, thus reaffirming the Old Testament decrees as valid teachings concerning the death penalty. The death penalty is not only allowed by the Church but is commanded. God did not only give the government the right to kill criminals, but He commanded it, as is seen in Numbers XXXV and in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. It should be noted that the comments of the new Catechism leave the idea of justice completely out of the question when considering the death penalty and that the claims made in the Catechism should be critiqued heavily for several reasons. Firstly, the new Catechism’s claim that the death penalty has been solely instituted to protect the innocent finds no origin in Church tradition or even human history. Secondly, the new Catechism provides no reference to previous Church teaching on the matter to support its claims. Thirdly, the new Catechism’s claims concerning the death penalty are simply pastoral opinions by the authors and certainly do not enjoy infallibility. Fourthly, it can be derived that the new Catechism’s decrees concerning the death penalty can be and must be rejected by faithful Catholics insofar as they are altogether unsupported, they find no precedence in even human history let alone Church tradition, and they are contrary to the teachings of a previous Catechism as well as the constant teaching of Sacred Scripture. God bless.

 

[ricatholic]

amarkich:

means of protecting the innocent but also as a means of instituting justice with the authority which God has given the government, c.f., Romans xiii. The Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent, gives a reaffirmation of the concept of the death penalty as given to us from God and as practiced by the Jews and recorded by Sacred Scripture. It states:

… the teachings of a previous Catechism as well as the constant teaching of Sacred Scripture. God bless.

If we use the justifications in Rom , then we understand why Hitler thought he was acting in God’s place. if you take Paul to mean all authority in Rom as paul said, then we have to live with all the vile , heinous, evil actions that flow from Rom.

But we know that Paul really was just talking about the enlightened Roman rulers who would have killed him sooner if Paul said that we had to follow Jesus’ teachings before that of Rome. (we still have an issue with that , in our church, don’t we).

As far as the constant teaching of sciptures, do we have to follow the dietary laws of Lev.? Since Lev is the most concerned with the vengence of justice we should make sure we abstain from that shrimp cocktail before we fry some poor bugger.

Jesus says forgive, Jesus says let he who is without sin throw the first rock, Paul says all authority comes from God, the authorities(or the crowd) say kill him, kill him!!! Perhaps Jesus’ death showed that Paul was right and Jesus was wrong.

Peace

 

[trimont]

I’ve read this thread and the Pelican Bay article with interest and will admit it’s challenging my views on this issue.

I understand the dangers related to organized criminals continuing their evil works in prison, but what about the number falsely convicted (proven later through DNA testing) and others who may repent and convert given “God’s time” in prison through a life sentence?

 

[mtr01]

trimont:

I’ve read this thread and the Pelican Bay article with interest and will admit it’s challenging my views on this issue.

I understand the dangers related to organized criminals continuing their evil works in prison, but what about the number falsely convicted (proven later through DNA testing) and others who may repent and convert given “God’s time” in prison through a life sentence?

One thing I’ve noticed about this thread is that people on either side are quoting alot of Scripture (or even the same) in order to defend their positions. This is fine, but what I’ve often observed is that when people do this, instead of deriving their views from Scripture, they are searching Scripture to support views that they already have. Thus one could say “I believe in the death penalty…and look, here are verses that support me”; while someone else could say “I don’t believe in the death penalty, and here are the verses that support me”. Unfortunately this happens anytime people appeal to private interpretations (and after all, isn’t this one of the Catholic criticisms of Protestantism?) For that reason, I think I’ll defer to the majesterium of the Church on this issue.

The Church has made it clear that the death penalty is OK in cases where it is necessary to protect the innocent. I can live with this teaching, I have no problems with it. If that’s what Rome says, then I support it. Now that being said, we certainly have a problem reconciling the Church’s teaching with the way the death penalty is applied here in the States.

It seems to me that the death penalty is applied more as a matter of “justice” than of public safety. For example, John Q. Public wakes up one morning and decides it would be fun to murder his wife and infant child then is subsequently caught. If the State decides to go for the death penalty, the argument isn’t “if Mr. Public was sentenced to life improsonment he’d still be a threat to the innocent, therefore we must protect them and commit him to death.” The argument is “he commited such a vile and heinous act that, as a matter of justice, he deserves to die.”

The latter argument is based on justice/vengeance, and is clearly contrary to Church teaching, and should not be supported by Catholics. Until the criteria for invoking the death penalty are changed, I cannot support it as it is currently applied.

 

[trimont]

mtr01:

It seems to me that the death penalty is applied more as a matter of “justice” than of public safety. For example, John Q. Public wakes up one morning and decides it would be fun to murder his wife and infant child then is subsequently caught. If the State decides to go for the death penalty, the argument isn’t “if Mr. Public was sentenced to life improsonment he’d still be a threat to the innocent, therefore we must protect them and commit him to death.” The argument is “he commited such a vile and heinous act that, as a matter of justice, he deserves to die.”

The latter argument is based on justice/vengeance, and is clearly contrary to Church teaching, and should not be supported by Catholics. Until the criteria for invoking the death penalty are changed, I cannot support it as it is currently applied.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint and understanding of this issue. It puts it in clearer and more complete perspective.

 

[jim_orr]

mtr01:

The argument is “he commited such a vile and heinous act that, as a matter of justice, he deserves to die.”
The latter argument is based on justice/vengeance, and is clearly contrary to Church teaching, and should not be supported by Catholics. Until the criteria for invoking the death penalty are changed, I cannot support it as it is currently applied.

I didn’t know that “justice” was contrary to Church teaching. Can you elaborate on this?

 

[jim_orr]

trimont:

I’ve read this thread and the Pelican Bay article with interest and will admit it’s challenging my views on this issue.
I understand the dangers related to organized criminals continuing their evil works in prison, but what about the number falsely convicted (proven later through DNA testing) and others who may repent and convert given “God’s time” in prison through a life sentence?

While it is true people who were found guilty were later found to be innocent through DNA testing. However, I do not think that there is any evidence of an innocent person being found guilty of a capital offence who was executed.

 

[pnewton]

mtr01:

The Church has made it clear that the death penalty is OK in cases where it is necessary to protect the innocent. I can live with this teaching, I have no problems with it. If that’s what Rome says, then I support it. Now that being said, we certainly have a problem reconciling the Church’s teaching with the way the death penalty is applied here in the States.

Great job of zeroing back in on the point of the original article. However protection of the innocent does not need to identify a speciifc victim. Society as a whole needs the protection of authorities.

You stated that as the motive for the death penalty as applied in the US is not in line with the purpose of protection as mentioned in the Catechism. I consider that life in prison as necessitated by case law in the US does not meet the obligation to protect the innocent.

I might be more inclined to reject the death penalty if we could get a gripe on the liberaliztion of “cruel and unusual punishment.”

 

[mtr01]

pnewton:

Great job of zeroing back in on the point of the original article. However protection of the innocent does not need to identify a speciifc victim. Society as a whole needs the protection of authorities.

You stated that as the motive for the death penalty as applied in the US is not in line with the purpose of protection as mentioned in the Catechism. I consider that life in prison as necessitated by case law in the US does not meet the obligation to protect the innocent.

This is a valid point you make. However I would suggest that you still have the burden of proof to demonstrate this is the case. From what I’ve gathered from reading this thread (if I’m wrong, please correct me) is that people are using the Pelican Bay example to generalize universally. In other words, arguing from the specific to the general. As I understand, this is faulty logic. In syllogism form the argument would look like this:

Some people sentenced to life still endanger the innocent
All people who endager the innocent should be put to death
Therefore, all people sentenced to life should be put to death.

Unfortunately, this is an unsound argument and by definition is not valid. I would maintain that the person I used as an example in my previous post would pose no further threat to society if he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

I would also suggest another argument based on the Church’s teaching that it is impermissible to commit a sin in order to do a good. The death-penalty-as-punishment is in violation of the Church’s understanding of when death should be sentenced. So even if one argues the the net result is to protect the innocent, the actual application of the punishment was an evil to begin with, and thus not permissible. I believe in Natural Law ethics, this is referred to as the “Law of Double Effect” (my Natural Law being rusty).

pnewton:

I might be more inclined to reject the death penalty if we could get a gripe on the liberaliztion of “cruel and unusual punishment.”

This is really the crux of the issue isn’t it? Personally, even though I don’t support the death-penalty-as-punishment, if a prosecutor would argue for the “protection of the innocent” as a basis for the death penalty, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be in favor of death in such an instance.

 

[jim_orr]

opps, submitted in error

 

[jim_orr]

mtr01:

From what I’ve gathered from reading this thread (if I’m wrong, please correct me) is that people are using the Pelican Bay example to generalize universally. In other words, arguing from the specific to the general. As I understand, this is faulty logic.

The teaching in the CCC 2265 is: 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.

2266The 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.

2267…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…

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…the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Pelican Bay Prison illustrates that the assumption made in this teaching, specifically in the last paragraph, is not based on facts and is a false belief that the state is capable of “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm…” Therefore, the states primary responsibility remains that which is taught in 2265:

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.

To teach that capital punishment is no longer necessary to protect the safety of society is a false teaching predicated on an assumption that the Church did not and cannot prove.

mtr01:

I would also suggest another argument based on the Church’s teaching that it is impermissible to commit a sin in order to do a good. The death-penalty-as-punishment is in violation of the Church’s understanding of when death should be sentenced. So even if one argues the net result is to protect the innocent, the actual application of the punishment was an evil to begin with, and thus not permissible. I believe in Natural Law ethics, this is referred to as the “Law of Double Effect” (my Natural Law being rusty).

The Church has never taught the administration of capital punishment is a “sin” as it is conducted here in the US. And she never will teach it. Furthermore, the Church’s “understanding of when death should be sentenced” is, itself, in need of more development before its teaching should be considered seriously.

 

[mtr01]

jim orr:

The teaching in the CCC 2265 is: 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.

2266The 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.

2267…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…

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…the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Pelican Bay Prison illustrates that the assumption made in this teaching, specifically in the last paragraph, is not based on facts and is a false belief that the state is capable of “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm…” Therefore, the states primary responsibility remains that which is taught in 2265:

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.

To teach that capital punishment is no longer necessary to protect the safety of society is a false teaching predicated on an assumption that the Church did not and cannot prove.

Again, you are engaging in the logical fallacy I illustrated above. You are saying that Pelican Bay demonstrates that in all instances those sentenced to life imprisonment are still a danger to society. I say all Pelican Bay demonstrates that in certain instances is this the case. See the syllogism I posted above. I suggest that it is your burden to prove that every single last person sentenced to life imprisonment still poses a threat to the innocent. Citing Pelican Bay is not sufficient, it illustrates the issues surrounding on subset of prisoners in one prison. And as I have stated, I would not be opposed to the death penalty for those individuals. To argue, however, that this is justification for the death penalty in total is faulty logic.

The Church has never taught the administration of capital punishment is a “sin” as it is conducted here in the US. And she never will teach it. Furthermore, the Church’s "understanding of when death should be sentenced

" is, itself, in need of more development before its teaching should be considered seriously.

Are you sure? The Church is pretty clear about when it is permissible to sentence someone to death. As I have stated it has nothing to do with some form of “the punishment must fit the crime” reasoning. It has everything to do with having no other course of action in order to protect innocent lives. Death should not be sentenced because we feel the individual has commited such a heinous act that death seems like a fitting punishment. I suggest that until you can prove that everyone who is sentenced to life imprisonment still posses a threat to innocent life, it is your understanding of when death should be sentenced that needs more developing, not the Church’s.

 

[jim_orr]

mtr01:
Again, you are engaging in the logical fallacy I illustrated above. You are saying that Pelican Bay demonstrates that in all instances those sentenced to life imprisonment are still a danger to society. The Church is the one that has come up with the statement that today’s high tech prisons are able to protect society from harm from capital offenders and as such life imprisonment is sufficient for that to be accomplished. She is wrong. Pelican 'Bay Prison is the proof that she is wrong. Therefore, the logic of her teaching is a fallacy and it is Her responsibility to prove that society can be protected from harm by the punishment she is claiming should be imposed. Pelican Bay Prison is one of the most high tech and modern prison in the US. The premise of the pope’s teaching is in error. It is proven She is in error by this report. It is not me who has to prove anything; it is the Church who is advocating the public can be protected that has to prove it is capable of being done.

 

[jim_orr]

Are you sure? The Church is pretty clear about when it is permissible to sentence someone to death. As I have stated it has nothing to do with some form of “the punishment must fit the crime” reasoning. It has everything to do with having no other course of action in order to protect innocent lives. Death should not be sentenced because we feel the individual has commited such a heinous act that death seems like a fitting punishment. I suggest that until you can prove that everyone who is sentenced to life imprisonment still posses a threat to innocent life, it is your understanding of when death should be sentenced that needs more developing, not the Church’s.I am positive.
The onerous is on you to provide the proof that the Church has taught capital punishment is a sin since you are claiming it has. It is not in the CCC. So where is the evidence of your claim?

 

[pnewton]

mtr01:

I would also suggest another argument based on the Church’s teaching that it is impermissible to commit a sin in order to do a good. The death-penalty-as-punishment is in violation of the Church’s understanding of when death should be sentenced. So even if one argues the the net result is to protect the innocent, the actual application of the punishment was an evil to begin with, and thus not permissible. I believe in Natural Law ethics, this is referred to as the “Law of Double Effect” (my Natural Law being rusty).
.

The only problem is that the implication is that the death penalty is the sin to which you refer. That is what we are debating and you can not assume the point in discussion.

But you are right, we can not execute people just to avoid life sentences. In the state of Texas, one of the requirements for imposition of the death penalty is that the prosecutor show that a convict is likely to pose a continuing threat on society.

The truth is I really am not convinced either way on the issue and have discussed it at length with three different priest. If the church would just come out against the death penalty in all cases, it sure would save me time. Until then, I’ll just continue to form my conscience on lump at a time.