The Vatican and the death penalty

[krokal]

“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.

And what I’m trying to say is that today, the circumstances are very limited, and “practically non-existent” to quote the Catechism and Pope John Paul II.

estesbob:

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 said for the most part, the Church opposes the death penalty. Is there something about that you don’t understand? I didn’t say the Church opposes the death penalty, I said the Church opposes the death penalty for the most part

How dare you excuse me a trying to distort church teaching! What exactly do you not understand about the Catechism’s, Evangelium Vitae’s, Pope John Paul’s, and Pope Benedict XVI’s opposition to the death penalty in most cases?

estesbob:

If one claims that the Church now condems the Death penatly they are claiming the Church has gone against 2,000 years of teaching on this subject.

When did I say the church condemns the death penalty in every single situation? I’m not claiming what you’re accusing me of.

 

[pnewton]

“The Church” is not a democracy. We don’t get together and vote about whether abortion is a sin, or Mary is a virgin.

Of course not. I didn’t say it was. I was just asking for a clarifying definition of statements like “I said for the most part, the Church opposes the death penalty.” I think I understand what krokal is saying now, with his last post.

 

[frommi]

“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.

The concept of sensus fidelum would disagree with your assertion…we are not a democracy but the faithful have an ability to influence doctrine and its influence through the work of the holy spirit.

And you’re selective reading of the catechism is quite interesting…since you say “circumstances warrant” but the church has spoken quite definitively that those circumstances don’t exist.

 

[bones_IV]

The concept of sensus fidelum would disagree with your assertion…we are not a democracy but the faithful have an ability to influence doctrine and its influence through the work of the holy spirit.

And you’re selective reading of the catechism is quite interesting…since you say “circumstances warrant” but the church has spoken quite definitively that those circumstances don’t exist.

And 2+2=3 is the same thing as 2+2=4 right? Please.

 

[frommi]

And 2+2=3 is the same thing as 2+2=4 right? Please.

Do you have anything constructive to offer? Or is just these random meanderings that add nothing to the conversation but serve to put up a smoke screen to cover up your inability to synthesize original thoughts?

 

[pnewton]

And you’re selective reading of the catechism is quite interesting…since you say “circumstances warrant” but the church has spoken quite definitively that those circumstances don’t exist.

Where? And sensuum fidelum does not necessarily override the catechism, even if it did exist. I don’t think it does, though. What evidence to you have that the faithful of the Church agree with you?

 

[frommi]

Where? And sensuum fidelum does not necessarily override the catechism, even if it did exist. I don’t think it does, though. What evidence to you have that the faithful of the Church agree with you?

There are a good number of us who are quite dedicated to the protection of all life…from conception to natural death…

The death penalty violates that.

 

[pnewton]

There are a good number of us who are quite dedicated to the protection of all life…from conception to natural death…

I am to. The death penalty can also protect that. But “quite a few of us” does not constitute any sense of the faithful.

 

[frommi]

I am to. The death penalty can also protect that. But “quite a few of us” does not constitute any sense of the faithful.

I don’t know that we can know the sense of the faithful…my response to vern was just that the church is not a pure authoritarian ‘yes father’ regime…it’s more complex.

The death penalty makes it seem like the right to life is contingent

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

I would like to share my views as a former corrections officer at River bend Maximum security Inst. in Nashville home of Tennessee’s death row.

When I first started working their a wise old CO told a bunch of us new CO over lunch one day that no matter what your views on capital punishment are , if you work in a prison for 6 months or more it will change.

And he was right. I started as pro capital punishment and ended up as against it. A classmate from the academy started out as against capital punishment and after about a year volunteered for the "strap down team "

Second I noticed in reading the post of this thread there is little if no discussion on the effect the death penalty has on those who must carry it out.
That is one of the reason I am against it because it forces CO
who have had contact with the condemned over years to carry out the execution.

In my opinion capital punishment should only be used on those who kill while in prison because the state has a duty to protect the safety of prison staff and fellow inmates.

 

[garysibio]

I’m curious, why isn’t there a need for it today? And what justified it in previous times?

I think there are still times today when the death penalty is not only justifiable but necessary although there are very few. There are several people whose executions prevented more deaths. Saddam Hussein was one of these. If he had lived, someone would have eventually tried to do something to get him set free that would result in more deaths. The same will be true if and when we capture Usama bin Laden. There was also a recent case in which the man who was executed - I forget his name - was the founder of one of Los Angeles’ street gangs. Even though he was in prison, he was still running the gang and ordering executions. Ideally they could have put him in isolation but then the ACLU or some other group trying to bring about the destruction of western civilization, would have found some judge on their side to get him out because isolation harshes his mellow. But, other than the extreme cases like that, I believe the Church is correct to say that we shouldn’t execute criminals. On the other hand, we have to get back to the idea that prison is a punishment, and that we aren’t reforming anyone. Able-bodied prisoners should be made to earn their own food, for example. Those of us who aren’t in prison don’t get a free ride, why should they?

 

[Ender]

First, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is neither infallible nor ordinary, rather it is prudential; this is why Ratzinger said Catholics may legitimately disagree. This understanding was echoed by the USCCB in their letter “The Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death” (2005): “The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation …” Finally, it was explicitely stated by Cardinal Avery Dulles in an article on the death penalty (2001): “In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church”. So, while the teaching is clear on the death penalty, it is not binding.

Second, I think it is a poor argument to claim that the only reason for executing someone is to protect society (CCC 2267) because the protection of society is not the primary aim of punishment, rather it is the demands of justice that must first be satisfied. The aspect of the death penalty as just punishment has been ignored.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

The concept of sensus fidelum would disagree with your assertion…we are not a democracy but the faithful have an ability to influence doctrine and its influence through the work of the holy spirit.

And you’re selective reading of the catechism is quite interesting.

Ah, selective, is it?

Just what part of the Catechism did I not post that you consider relevant?

There are two paragraphs in the Catechism that directly address the death penalty. I posted both. Here they are again.

2266 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 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

…since you say “circumstances warrant” but the church has spoken quite definitively that those circumstances don’t exist

Look at the paragraphs I quoted above and tell me where they say “quite definitively that those circumstances don’t exist.”

The bolded section says something different.

And allow me to point out, the Khrisma of Infallibility extends to faith and morals – not to penology, criminology, the stock market or the weather.

 

[bones_IV]

Frommi, please. It seems you have a very faulty understanding of Catholicism.

 

[estesbob]

The concept of sensus fidelum would disagree with your assertion…we are not a democracy but the faithful have an ability to influence doctrine and its influence through the work of the holy spirit.

And you’re selective reading of the catechism is quite interesting…since you say “circumstances warrant” but the church has spoken quite definitively that those circumstances don’t exist.

Only in your mind. Cardinal Ratzinger specifically said it is OK for Catholics to support the death penatly. You keep waiving your private interpertation of the CC around like the sword of excalibur.

 

[frommi]

Frommi, please. It seems you have a very faulty understanding of Catholicism.

Really?

I’m still not quite sure how you’ve come to that conclusion.

I’m waiting…

 

[frommi]

Only in your mind. Cardinal Ratzinger specifically said it is OK for Catholics to support the death penatly. You keep waiving your private interpertation of the CC around like the sword of excalibur.

He never said it was ‘ok’ to support the death penalty…that makes it sound like something that can be relativized…something that no truth exists in.

All I hear is that we should follow the lead of our bishops…and many of our bishops have come forward and made clear statements about the respect for life from conception to natural death…

The only reason people would say you can support the death penalty is out of a fear that we might actually start supporting the idea of a seamless garment…but that would be bad because then a lot of you would never find anyone to vote for…

 

[pnewton]

The only reason people would say you can support the death penalty is out of a fear that we might actually start supporting the idea of a seamless garmen

Not I. Perhaps you missed my reason above, but it was non-political. I follow the Catholic teaching that it is permissible fo rthe protection of society, as a final resort. I only disagree with some church leaders as to the whether the contditions are met or not. This is a debatable matter and subject to judgement.

If this was a matter of truth and not judgement, then the Church would be a contradiction. Did you know that Vatican City used to have a death penalty?

 

[bones_IV]

Really?

I’m still not quite sure how you’ve come to that conclusion.

I’m waiting…

You’re waiving around your interpretation of the death penalty and saying it’s intrinsically evil. Wonder were you got your training.

 

[garysibio]

Second, I think it is a poor argument to claim that the only reason for executing someone is to protect society (CCC 2267) because the protection of society is not the primary aim of punishment, rather it is the demands of justice that must first be satisfied. The aspect of the death penalty as just punishment has been ignored.

Ender,

It’s not the death penalty of nothing. Justice can still be satisfied without butting the person to death. Being locked in a small cage for the rest of your life is not pleasant, nor should it be. (I’m not promoting cruelty but getting rid of the TVs, workout rooms, etc.) The death penalty should be used to protect society from individuals from whom we cannot be protected from in a non-lethal manner.