F
frommi
Guest
I’m not talking about abortion or euthanasia…
someone would have to tell me how someone in good conscience can support the death penalty when using the catechism as a support.
- Status
someone would have to tell me how someone in good conscience can support the death penalty when using the catechism as a support.
F
frommi
Guest
“Man cannot simply dispose of life, and therefore it should be defended from the moment of conception to natural death,” Martino said. “This position thus excludes abortion, experimentation on embryos, euthanasia and the death penalty, which are a negation of the transcendent dignity of the human person created in the image of God.”
Cardinal Martino…last December
Cardinal Martino…last December
B
bones_IV
Guest
Huh?
F
frommi
Guest
A statement by a curial cardinal made in light of the executions in Iraq
K
kencando
Guest
My question has always been why not the death penalty if the Church still supports Excommunication. Isn’t Excommunication the cutting off of Spiritual Life of the Church? Which is the worse, death of Spiritual or Mortal Life? God can forgive sins of Murder but not a sin against the Holy Spirit.
B
bones_IV
Guest
If that’s the case, then I take exception to that. Saddam was a threat to society and in this case the death penalty was just. And that statement by the Cardinal is not representative of Church teaching.
F
frommi
Guest
Then let’s go to the papal spokesmen to see what he had to say…
- “Capital punishment is always tragic news, a motive of sadness, even when it’s a case of a person guilty of grave crimes. The position of the Catholic church against the death penalty has been confirmed many times. The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice and to reconcile society. Indeed, there is the risk that, on the contrary, it may augment the spirit of revenge and sow seeds of new violence. In this dark time in the life of the Iraqi people, it can only be hoped that all the responsible parties truly will make every effort so that, in this dramatic situation, possibilities of reconciliation and peace may finally be opened.”
K
kencando
Guest
The Pope is infallable only in matters of Faith and Morals. The Pope is a human person and is capable of human error of judgment. The Pope is entitled to his opinion but may be wrong.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But since no one has advocated “killing ever person convicted,” that has no bearing on this discussion, now does it?
Those who want the death penalty abolished demand their opponents accept the guilt for the excution of an innocent man – should such a case be proven.
I think we have an equal right to demand they accept guilt whenever a previously-convicted heinous criminal kills again.
Fair’s fair.
F
frommi
Guest
Might want to send a memo to some folks around here about that.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have a lot of experience in dealing with this and have known a minority of cases where the person locked up is still a danger to the lives of others. The lives of inmates behind bars are of importance too, as are the lives of those who watch them. Some of the most brutal murders take place behind bars, but because the victim is a criminal, their life is counted as less important. In addition, many gang members will continue to plan and execute murder from behind bars.
I wonder how many who tout that we can safely look up people as a justification for eliminating the death penalty have had any experience in dealing with the worst of the worst. When the Vatican prepares its statements that move from theology to application, do they actually consult experts? If not, isn’t this a similar problem to the Galileo incident?
P
pnewton
Guest
BY reading it:
**<A href=“javascript:OpenPopupWindow(”
<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2306”)>2306
")">
[ 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.](javascript:OpenPopupWindow()
I have not yet come to abandon belief that the death penalty is needed in a limited number of cases because of personal knowledge of those I know will still be a danger to the lives of others. As long as the arguement focuses on the myth that we can safely incarcerate anyone and make sure they never harm anyone again, I have to shake my head.
If the arguement was that a murderer, and one who is still a danger, deserves to live, even knowing he will have a continuing history of violence that might result in future death, then I might be more inclined to agree. At least that would be keeping our eyes open.
**
E
estesbob
Guest
I guess Ill have to post it again:
*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."
*
I oppose the Death Pnatly, you oppose the death penalty, Benedict 16 opposes the death penalty.The Church does not.
K
krokal
Guest
The Church, for the most part, does.
For all you that disagree with the Vatican and her official public statements, you should really criticize/analyze yourself before the Pope and his advisers.
The Pope isn’t some idiot sitting on a thrown with no idea how “the real world” works. To say that he is ill-informed is absolutely ridiculous. Do you guys honestly think the the Pope doesn’t “have a clue” when it comes to things like the death penalty or recent wars? I can’t count how many times Pope Benedict was slammed because he condemned the Israel-Lebanon conflict last summer. He was written off as “not having full knowledge of the situation”, as if everyone of us does, sitting at our computers 10,000 miles away.
I’m not saying the Pope or the Vatican is perfect, but when they make a statement, it’s more than likely logical and moral.
The key words there are may be. The Pope didn’t say there is, he said there may be. You cannot make a blanket statement supporting the death penalty, that is absurd in light of Papal and Vatican statements.
What does ending the death penalty have to do with releasing people from jail? I have the feeling life imprisonment without parole would eliminate released killers from murdering more people, but that’s just a hunch.
You cannot kill someone because of something you think they might do.
E
estesbob
Guest
You can parse it all you want. To say the Church opposes the death Penalty is an incorrect stament. To say a Catholic can not in good conscience support the death penalty is also incorret. We have enough enemies of our Church trying to distort Church teaching to support their own politica agenda without Catholics doing oit to oursleves.
I tell you the problems this can cuase-The current Cathecism is the first one in History to express this much reservation about the Deah penalty. I
I
if one claims that the Church now condems the Death penatly they are claiming the Church has wnet against 2,000 years of teaching on this subject. As sure as night follows day you will soon have people telling you that since the Church changed its teachings on the death ponalty there is no reason they can not do the same on abortion ,homosexuality, female ordination, etc. By making claims about Church teachings that are not true you aide and abette those who want to tear down teachiings they do not like.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It’s so sad when a disputant attempts the lateral arabesque and slips.
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedicat XVI, of course) was talking about the death penalty in the quoted section – not just about abortion and euthanasia.
Then you have not studied the Catechism very well. The Catechism clearly accepts the principle of self-defense (as it must, since the right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life.) It recognizes that acts of collective self-defense are necessary at times – to include war and applying the death penalty. It even recognizes that public officials have the duty to protect society by the application of deadly force when necessary.
The argument is not “is the death penalty morally acceptable,” but rather, "is the death penalty necessary."
And I have offered a simple proposition – those who accept or defend the death penalty must accept blood guilt when an innocent man is executed. Those who oppose the death penalty must accept blood guilt when an innocent person is killed by a criminal who would, in earlier times, have been executed for the crimes he had already committed.
P
pnewton
Guest
When one says that the Church for the most part opposes the death penalty it would be best to qualify what that means. Surely our last two popes have for the most part opposed it. If one takes the Church in its totality, past and present, only recently has this been the case. If one looks at the faithful, I do not know of any survey and would be interested in the results. Bear in mind that you would have to look beyond the minority of Catholics that live in developed countries and include those throughout the world.
M
mlchance
Guest
There is no such thing as “‘just war’ theory.” The Church’s has a just war doctrine.
– Mark L. Chance.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
“The Church” is not a democracy. We don’t get together and vote about whether abortion is a sin, or Mary is a virgin. The Church, in its most authoratitive compliation of doctrine – the Catechism – accepts that the death penalty can be applied if circumstances warrant.
P
pig_boy
Guest
I guess I’m kind of confused about what the real argument is here. It seems rather apparent that there is not a total ban on the death penalty in the eyes of the Church. Similarly, it seems somewhat obvious that the Church would not condone the death penalty to be some common punishment, even if we only applied it to all individuals who commit first degree murder. I guess the Catechism seems clear that if there is no other way to ensure the safety of others that the death penalty is allowed.
I guess the question is when do these situations arise. I feel it is probably better to err on the side of caution being the preservation of someone’s life, even the guilty. That doesn’t mean I am opposed to the death penalty in theory, but probably in practice (unless the evidence is substantial for potential future harm). I think we need to be careful to not be so quick to simply administer the death penalty, but rather to be very judicious in its application.
I guess the question is when do these situations arise. I feel it is probably better to err on the side of caution being the preservation of someone’s life, even the guilty. That doesn’t mean I am opposed to the death penalty in theory, but probably in practice (unless the evidence is substantial for potential future harm). I think we need to be careful to not be so quick to simply administer the death penalty, but rather to be very judicious in its application.
- Status