- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
This is not new. The Vatican has always supported anti-death penalty legislation. She also hasn’t changed Church teaching on the matter:
Note that this is not different from the wording in the current Catechism. The Church allows capital punishment but does not see the need for it today.
What I do find odd about the report is the “universal moratorium” comment. Who is to impose and enforce this universal moratorium? The UN? The same UN who wants to impose a global right to abortion?
B
Brad
Guest
Just curious.
Who is “The Vatican”?
Who is “The Vatican”?
F
Freshman88
Guest
I’m curious, why isn’t there a need for it today? And what justified it in previous times?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Imminent danger is needed, today usually incarceration can be used to remove imminent danger. If a condition exist with no practical means to remove imminent danger then you could used capital punishment to protect future victums
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I’m in Texas, and like everything else, DP is bigger and badder here than anyplace else. I have no problem with the death penalty for truly capital horrific crimes perpetrated by someone in whom there is no other way to protect society. My objections are these:
as DP is currently used it means supporting the person in prison in max security, the most expensive option, for up to 20-30 years until appeals are exhausted. sitting on death row for 20 years is cruel and inhumane. If the DP is the judgement it should be swift. allow 6-12 weeks for mandatory appeals, then carry out the sentence.
My other objection goes much deeper. It is now routine for long term prisoners including death row inmates to be released when DNA or other evidence proves they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been convicted.
Until the criminal justice system improves in policy and practice so that we can be sure of the guilt of the convict, we cannot use DP.
as DP is currently used it means supporting the person in prison in max security, the most expensive option, for up to 20-30 years until appeals are exhausted. sitting on death row for 20 years is cruel and inhumane. If the DP is the judgement it should be swift. allow 6-12 weeks for mandatory appeals, then carry out the sentence.
My other objection goes much deeper. It is now routine for long term prisoners including death row inmates to be released when DNA or other evidence proves they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been convicted.
Until the criminal justice system improves in policy and practice so that we can be sure of the guilt of the convict, we cannot use DP.
C
CathCentrist
Guest
The problem is believeing there is no other way to protect society. Once locked up, that statement is not true.
God forbid anyone in my family ever was murdered. I would hope I wouldnt call for the Dp, but I know one thing. I would never for the course of my life pray for that murderers salvation - or damnation. I’d be neutral and expect God to accept that as my exchange for not calling for that persons execution. Thats all I could or would give and I would hope thats enough cause it would have to be.
God forbid anyone in my family ever was murdered. I would hope I wouldnt call for the Dp, but I know one thing. I would never for the course of my life pray for that murderers salvation - or damnation. I’d be neutral and expect God to accept that as my exchange for not calling for that persons execution. Thats all I could or would give and I would hope thats enough cause it would have to be.
K
krokal
Guest
I realize this, my point is that a lot of Catholics don’t know the Vatican feels this way, and they still go on supporting the death penalty in America like it’s a necessity to protect our society.
R
rlg94086
Guest
My point was that the Catechism allows Catholics to support the death penalty - although the Church teaches that it should be rare or non-existant. Personally, while I would like it to be much more rare (i.e. close to non-existant), I do understand some of the arguments explaining why it is still needed.
E
Ender
Guest
Both of these statements are incorrect as demonstrated by the fact that the Vatican State itself had the death penalty until the mid 1960’s.
There is a need for it today and it has nothing to do with the protection of society. The Catechism in 2267 states that the death penalty is only justified if it is required to protect the public, but in 2266 it states both that the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the sin and that the state has not just the right but the obligation to punish the offender in proportion to the gravity of the crime. I believe these were the concepts understood in the past that caused the Church to accept the necessity of the death penalty.
It is important to use every reasonable means to ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted but this does not mean we need perfection. There is always some risk of executing an innocent person (although despite the obvious propaganda benefit no case in the US has so far been identified) but it is also necessary to look at the impact of not executing the guilty. Since Britain repudiated its death penalty in the mid 1960’s, 138 people are known to have been murdered by killers released from prison. Downgrading the punishment for the most depraved killers results in downgrading the punishment for the less heinous ones as well. You can’t justify using at the benefits of eliminating the death penalty (no possibility of executing an innocent person) without addressing its costs as well. In Britain that cost has been quite high.
Ender
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
gravity of crime does not necessarily equal capital punishment
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6
R
rlg94086
Guest
Sorry I misspoke…since I wasn’t born until 1965, it has been always for me.
Anyway, your correction does not change the rest of my points.
E
estesbob
Guest
A Catholic can in good conscience support the Death Penalty. The Vatican has made this clear,
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Murders in prison are not unknown. I have on occasioin cited Tommy Silvestein, who successfully planned, coordinated and carried out the murder of two corrections officers in the “Supermax” at Marion, IL, at a time when he was on 23-hour-a-day lockdown and had supposedly no communication with his fellow inmates.
We can also cite many murders commited by people who have been released from prison, but who would have received the death penalty in an earlier time.
The Church’s position the death penalty is phrased as an “if-then” statement. And the subject matter covered by the “if” is not within the expertise of the Church.
We can also cite many murders commited by people who have been released from prison, but who would have received the death penalty in an earlier time.
The Church’s position the death penalty is phrased as an “if-then” statement. And the subject matter covered by the “if” is not within the expertise of the Church.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I think you are correct however I would not consider killing ever person convicted because one of them might be the next “Tommy Silvestein” or because one of them might kill again.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I think that’s the meaning of “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The Catechism speaks of “the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense *incapable of doing harm.” *Apparently, in the case of the most heinous murderers, the state doesn’t really have that yet.
F
frommi
Guest
That’s quite a leap…the teaching of the church seems to be that it can only be supported in situations where there are no other options (much like ‘just war’ theory).
B
bones_IV
Guest
Where?
E
estesbob
Guest
No leap at all:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
**Cardinal Ratzinger
**
F
frommi
Guest
Read the prior posts…read where your beloved JPII talked about the need for the death penalty being ‘practically non-existent’
- Status