The Vatican and the death penalty

[krokal]

And my point is that there are cases where it is. I gave examples earlier although only the case of the California gang member was American. At any rate, you can’t just limit the argument to America. If something is immoral in America it’s immoral in Great Britain, Russia or Iran. If something is moral in America, it’s moral in Great Britain, Russia or Iran.

Not in regards to the death penalty. I mean, it all depends on the ability of the society to protect its members.

 

[Titus]

While you are correct in pointing out that Saddam was not a particularly religious person, he was helping the terrorists in quite substantial ways. At his execution the Iraqi officials did not want to take possession of him until the last moment because they were afraid someone might try to free him.

As far as using the word ‘Moslem,’ you are obviously quite wrong because I did just use it.

Evidence for this assertion?

As for Moslem, of course you did use it. But it is a very old-fashioned term, like Mohammedan. It seemed odd to me.

 

[Ender]

Catholic tradition identifies four purposes of punishment: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. The Catechism discusses only defense against the criminal in its teaching on the death penalty and given that the primary aim of punishment is retribution this is a major weakness. What is disappointing about this teaching is that it simply ignores all the prior teaching of the Church regarding punishment.

Paul VI: The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.

Pius XII: it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.

Aquinas: It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. … Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, for the expiation of his crime; and if he be not converted, it profits so as to put and end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.

Augustine: … doomed in spite of himself to die in body as he had willingly become dead in spirit, condemned even to eternal death (had not the grace of God delivered him) because he had forsaken eternal life. Whoever thinks such punishment either excessive or unjust shows his inability to measure the great iniquity of sinning where sin might so easily have been avoided.

Ender

 

[frommi]

Let me try this again…

I am not going to far, nor am I insulting anyone by saying that you can’t claim to be “pro-life” when all you are is “anti-abortion”.

It is good to be anti-abortion…it is good to protect those innocent lives…but by itself it is not enough to say you are ‘pro-life’.

How this is insulting to people I have no idea!

I highly suggest listening to the Gospel this weekend at mass…the words of Christ say it all better than I ever could.

“To you who hear I say,
love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
To the person who strikes you on one cheek,
offer the other one as well,
and from the person who takes your cloak,
do not withhold even your tunic."

Forgive forgive forgive…thats how we move toward being ‘life-giving’…and truly ‘pro-life’…not just ‘partially pro-life’

 

[Titus]

Let me try this again…

I am not going to far, nor am I insulting anyone by saying that you can’t claim to be “pro-life” when all you are is “anti-abortion”.

It is good to be anti-abortion…it is good to protect those innocent lives…but by itself it is not enough to say you are ‘pro-life’.

How this is insulting to people I have no idea!

I highly suggest listening to the Gospel this weekend at mass…the words of Christ say it all better than I ever could.

“To you who hear I say,
love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
To the person who strikes you on one cheek,
offer the other one as well,
and from the person who takes your cloak,
do not withhold even your tunic."

Forgive forgive forgive…thats how we move toward being ‘life-giving’…and truly ‘pro-life’…not just ‘partially pro-life’

1/2 of me wants to agree with you; because you are right, we need to be consistent in our message of the sanctity of life; however, the other 1/2 says that scripture sanctions the death penalty for certain extreme circumstances. A difficult question, but not difficult to see why it has caused such vigorous debate here.

 

[Peregrino]

Amen Frommi. I could split hairs all day on this issue. It really comes down to the spirit of the matter. It was a tough message to swallow 2,000 years ago and the pill is still bitter.

The message however remains the same:

Love and forgiveness for all.

 

[garysibio]

Not in regards to the death penalty. I mean, it all depends on the ability of the society to protect its members.

I believe that’s called situation ethics. As Catholics we need to reject it.

If you are so convinced that the death penalty is only a matter of vengeance when used in the USA, how can it be any different elsewhere. Is it only Americans who are vengeful?

 

[garysibio]

Evidence for this assertion?

I made two statements. Which one are you asking evidence for?

 

[garysibio]

Have you ever considered the possibility that it might not be up to you to judge others regarding their pro-life stand. Since my beliefs are in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church, if I am not pro-life than neither is the Catholic Church. It’s not up to you to decide.

 

[frommi]

Have you ever considered the possibility that it might not be up to you to judge others regarding their pro-life stand. Since my beliefs are in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church, if I am not pro-life than neither is the Catholic Church. It’s not up to you to decide.

The shepherds of the church are decidedly pro-life, as evidenced by their statements about the death penalty.

You are nothing more than anti-abortion, I applaud that…but you aren’t pro-life.

 

[garysibio]

Good post, Ender.

 

[Titus]

I made two statements. Which one are you asking evidence for?

That Saddam was substantially supporting Iraqi Islamist terrorists. (I put it in bold)

 

[Adonis33]

The shepherds of the church are decidedly pro-life, as evidenced by their statements about the death penalty.

You are nothing more than anti-abortion, I applaud that…but you aren’t pro-life.

I guess since Catholic teaching allows for the death penalty - then the Church is not “Pro-Life” , just Anti-Abortion.

I think your statement is a little insulting.

 

[frommi]

I guess since Catholic teaching allows for the death penalty - then the Church is not “Pro-Life” , just Anti-Abortion.

I think your statement is a little insulting.

The Catholic Church of 2007 is decidedly pro-life…and it works very hard to position itself in the world as such through her ministers and their statements and work to protect life.

Think of it this way…restricting ordination to Men is not an ‘infalible’ teaching…but its close…and opposition to the death penalty is the same thing.

The church is pro-life…some of her members are just anti-abortion.

 

[system]

If you are so convinced that the death penalty is only a matter of vengeance when used in the USA, how can it be any different elsewhere. Is it only Americans who are vengeful?

It’s not ONLY america, but there’s nothing to be proud of when you look at the crowd we’re in with: Yemen, Suadi Arabi, Oman, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sierra Leone…etc

Think of it - If we were to be judged on the death penalty, we would be in the Axis of Evil!

There’s an old expression that goes like this:

Show me your company and I tell you who you are.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First off, why exactly are you letting the USBP guide you in moral principles and not the Church? Just because the USBP has certain beliefs regarding the death penalty, that doesn’t mean they’re taking the correct moral position.

That’s an unfair characterization of my position. But I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming you meant to ask a serious question. Here’s what the Catechism says:

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 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.”/QUOTE]

(My emphasis.)

Note the first bolded statement – it begins with the word “if.” That means it is based on something other than faith and morals (which is the Church’s purvue.)

The Chuch cannot know of itself whether these conditions pretain – that is a matter for experience and expertise.

Now look at the red section – that is a statement, presented as fact in an area where the Kharisma of Infallibility does not extend. It is possible for the Church to be wrong here.

Now suppose real experts, with hard data come forward and show that the conditions presumed by the bolded section and claimed by the red section are not in fact realized in practice? Where does that leave us?

Secondly, I don’t think either you or I can specifically state the motives of the inmates who killed the guards that day, their specific motives, and their state of mind. I would really like to see an article or two that details the events.

-Amnesty International

And Planned Parenthood has similar data proving that abortion is a good thing.

I’ll tell you what – I’ll go into my archives and dig out a lesson I developed for a prison system – based on an actual incident. It will be a very simple, easy lesson, and you only have to answer three questions. Are you game?

 

[estesbob]

The Catholic Church of 2007 is decidedly pro-life…and it works very hard to position itself in the world as such through her ministers and their statements and work to protect life.

Think of it this way…restricting ordination to Men is not an ‘infalible’ teaching…but its close…and opposition to the death penalty is the same thing.

The church is pro-life…some of her members are just anti-abortion.

Nonesene. there is no comparison. heres what Pope John Paul II said about Female ordination:

“I declare that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this judgment is to be definitively held for all the church’s faithful.”

Now if that is not an infallible teaching I dont know what is.

 

[bones_IV]

Frommi, the fact that women can’t be priests is an infallible doctrine, St. Paul forbade women to have authority in his Churches. You’re beginning to sound like a Protestant.

 

[frommi]

Nonesene. there is no comparison. heres what Pope John Paul II said about Female ordination:

“I declare that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this judgment is to be definitively held for all the church’s faithful.”

Now if that is not an infallible teaching I dont know what is.

Not exactly…it was not a doctrine that was formally revealed…but in *Ad Tuendam Fidem *JPII talked about doctrines that were not exactly ‘infalible’ but necessary to defend the faith…women’s ordination was one of those…

So my point is…similarly…the opposition to the death penalty is ‘practically’ infalible…its not really up for debate these days in the church.

 

[estesbob]

Not exactly…it was not a doctrine that was formally revealed…but in *Ad Tuendam Fidem *JPII talked about doctrines that were not exactly ‘infalible’ but necessary to defend the faith…women’s ordination was one of those…

So my point is…similarly…the opposition to the death penalty is ‘practically’ infalible…its not really up for debate these days in the church.

I agree its not up for debate. The Cjurch accepts the legitimacy of capital Punishment as it has for its entire 2,000 plus years of existence