F
frommi
Guest
I didn’t know we were keeping score on points here.
What is the correct terminology that should be used when the catechism says “This can happen if the following conditions are in place”…is it a test? is it a lottery?
- Status
What is the correct terminology that should be used when the catechism says “This can happen if the following conditions are in place”…is it a test? is it a lottery?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It is a guide top Catholic morality in areas where the Church is not competent to determine if the conditions exist or not.
It is not a test, nor does it give you the authority to put your fellow Catholics to the test.
F
frommi
Guest
It seems to me that you just have a hard time imagining a world where the conditions don’t exist. A thirst for vengeance is clouding judgment.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I agree with you whole-heartedly. If the Church forbade the death penalty in all circumstances, I would obey.
But the Church does not say that – it makes opposition to the death penalty conditional on circumstances where the Kharisma of Infallibility does not extend.
Indeed, you can read the Catechism both ways in this matter. The Church also says we have a right – and sometimes a duty – to defend ourselves and others, even at the cost of taking the life of an unjust aggressor.
To attack people who point out that the conditions in prisons and in our justice system as a whole do not meet the ideal the Church hopes for is, in my opinion, unwarranted.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I see your problem – we are not discussing the Imaginary World, but the Real World.
Your arrogance and disdain for others is clouding your judgement.
F
frommi
Guest
Then advocate for fixing the prison system…which would be a pro-life position that avoids the need for the brutality of the death penalty.
W
Windmill
Guest
I can’t believe I read this entire thread.
frommi, you stand behind your assertion that you are merely pointing out that someone cannot claim to be pro-life and pro-DP at the same time. However, you are trying to make a point that people who support the DP (such as Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Alfonsus Liguori, and many popes) are not pro-life, and that labelling implies that they are lumped in the same camp as the pro-abortionists. I cannot understand your purpose in labelling people with charged labels and then claim surprise when they fire back with Church tradition on the same subject.
I believe Ember answered the contentions of frommi very well. I think the Church’s tradition speaks very solidly for the DP, and that there should not be any labelling going on here when the church gives people the right to have disagreements on this issue.
St. AugustineThe same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.
(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)
St. Thomas Aquinas
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). ….
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2).
more below
frommi, you stand behind your assertion that you are merely pointing out that someone cannot claim to be pro-life and pro-DP at the same time. However, you are trying to make a point that people who support the DP (such as Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Alfonsus Liguori, and many popes) are not pro-life, and that labelling implies that they are lumped in the same camp as the pro-abortionists. I cannot understand your purpose in labelling people with charged labels and then claim surprise when they fire back with Church tradition on the same subject.
I believe Ember answered the contentions of frommi very well. I think the Church’s tradition speaks very solidly for the DP, and that there should not be any labelling going on here when the church gives people the right to have disagreements on this issue.
St. AugustineThe same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.
(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)
St. Thomas Aquinas
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). ….
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2).
more below
W
Windmill
Guest
The present pope has expressed his personal opinion in Evangelium
Vitae and in the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae (the Novus Ordo
catechism) that “modern penology” has developed to the point
that the death penalty should virtually never be used. Of course, the
pope has a right to his personal opinion, but it is in no way a general
teaching of faith or morals of the Church. It would be somewhat akin to
the pope expressing a personal opinion on astronomy.
The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as
represented, e.g., in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all
Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of Pope
Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon its
members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of the
common good: (1) primarily, to vindicate the moral order and expiate the
crime, (2) secondarily, to defend itself, (3) to deter other would-be
offenders, and (4) to reform the criminal or deter future crime.
Pope Pius XII, in an address (“Ce Premier Congress”) on the moral
limits of medical research and treatment to the First International Congress
of Histopathology of the Nervous System, held in Rome on September 13, 1952,
contrasted the right to life with the benefit of life in the case of a justly
condemned criminal: "Even when there is question of a person condemned to
death, the state does not take away the right of the individual to life.
It is then reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person
of the benefit of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, by his
crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life. (Acta Apostolicae
Sedis XLIV (1952), p. 787)
The dogmatic Council of Trent decreed: “[well founded is] the right
and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of
penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases
of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the
taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal
some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the
balance of justice. Of such “vindictive” punishment, Pope Pius XII
stated: “It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of
principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth,
such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation,
provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy”
(Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67).
Given these purposes, an execution may take place if the following
conditions are met: (a) the guilt of the prisoner is certain; (b) the
crime is of major gravity; (c) the penalty is to be inflicted, after due
process, by state authority, not by private individuals or by lynching,
and (d) the prisoner is given the opportunity to make his peace with
God.
Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential
judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital
punishment for its own protection. To say that it is wrong per se or
never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.
A Catholicm may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church
doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory. However, the state may always
choose to commute the deserved penalty.
Vitae and in the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae (the Novus Ordo
catechism) that “modern penology” has developed to the point
that the death penalty should virtually never be used. Of course, the
pope has a right to his personal opinion, but it is in no way a general
teaching of faith or morals of the Church. It would be somewhat akin to
the pope expressing a personal opinion on astronomy.
The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as
represented, e.g., in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all
Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of Pope
Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon its
members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of the
common good: (1) primarily, to vindicate the moral order and expiate the
crime, (2) secondarily, to defend itself, (3) to deter other would-be
offenders, and (4) to reform the criminal or deter future crime.
Pope Pius XII, in an address (“Ce Premier Congress”) on the moral
limits of medical research and treatment to the First International Congress
of Histopathology of the Nervous System, held in Rome on September 13, 1952,
contrasted the right to life with the benefit of life in the case of a justly
condemned criminal: "Even when there is question of a person condemned to
death, the state does not take away the right of the individual to life.
It is then reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person
of the benefit of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, by his
crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life. (Acta Apostolicae
Sedis XLIV (1952), p. 787)
The dogmatic Council of Trent decreed: “[well founded is] the right
and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of
penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases
of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the
taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal
some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the
balance of justice. Of such “vindictive” punishment, Pope Pius XII
stated: “It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of
principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth,
such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation,
provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy”
(Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67).
Given these purposes, an execution may take place if the following
conditions are met: (a) the guilt of the prisoner is certain; (b) the
crime is of major gravity; (c) the penalty is to be inflicted, after due
process, by state authority, not by private individuals or by lynching,
and (d) the prisoner is given the opportunity to make his peace with
God.
Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential
judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital
punishment for its own protection. To say that it is wrong per se or
never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.
A Catholicm may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church
doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory. However, the state may always
choose to commute the deserved penalty.
W
Windmill
Guest
It should be noted that heinous criminals are not innocent persons
(like unborn children), but are objectively guilty in natural law of
grave crimes against the common weal. As Pope Pius XII explained it:
“Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the
state does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. It then falls
to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life
in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived
himself of his right to life.”
Our Lord Himself confirms this power of capital punishment in the
interview with Pilate before His crucifixion:
Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? Knowest
thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to
release thee? Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power
against me, UNLESS IT WERE GIVEN THEE FROM ABOVE… (John 19:10-
11/DR)
He also seems to speak of the appropriateness of capital punishment
in another passage: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones
that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about
his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew
18:6/DR).
The principle is also represented in the words of St. Dismas, the
Good Thief on the cross beside Christ, who was being crucified for robbery
(the Rheims and Confraternity versions translate the Greek “kakourgon” in
Luke 23:39 as “robbers,” but it is really more general than that;
“malefactors” would be the literal translation or, more generally,
“criminals”). He says to his fellow criminal on the other side of Christ:
Dost not even thou fear God, seeing that thou art under the same
sentence? AND WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT OUR
DEEDS DESERVED, but this man has done nothing wrong."
(Luke 23:40-41).
(like unborn children), but are objectively guilty in natural law of
grave crimes against the common weal. As Pope Pius XII explained it:
“Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the
state does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. It then falls
to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life
in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived
himself of his right to life.”
Our Lord Himself confirms this power of capital punishment in the
interview with Pilate before His crucifixion:
Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? Knowest
thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to
release thee? Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power
against me, UNLESS IT WERE GIVEN THEE FROM ABOVE… (John 19:10-
11/DR)
He also seems to speak of the appropriateness of capital punishment
in another passage: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones
that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about
his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew
18:6/DR).
The principle is also represented in the words of St. Dismas, the
Good Thief on the cross beside Christ, who was being crucified for robbery
(the Rheims and Confraternity versions translate the Greek “kakourgon” in
Luke 23:39 as “robbers,” but it is really more general than that;
“malefactors” would be the literal translation or, more generally,
“criminals”). He says to his fellow criminal on the other side of Christ:
Dost not even thou fear God, seeing that thou art under the same
sentence? AND WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT OUR
DEEDS DESERVED, but this man has done nothing wrong."
(Luke 23:40-41).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I must have missed the post where you laid out in detail your plan for “fixing the prison system.”
Such expertise I have with prisons is mostly based on working training contracts for prisons. That has led me to understand that one must know what one is talking about before one can begin to “fix the prison system.”
P
pig_boy
Guest
I assume this is the relevant section of the Catechism:
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.”
It seems that the first part would seem to indicate that our burden for executing an individual would have to rise above the burden for criminal conviction. It says that after the “guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” we may then resort to the death penalty. This seems to be a higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So just because someone would be convicted of murder in the United States, does not mean that the use of the death penalty would therefore fit within this section of the Catechism.
Also, the statement follows that it has to be the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” This statement combined with the remainder of this section seems to indicate that executing someone in our society would rarely, if ever, be considered moral. Obviously, every situation depends on a case by case analysis, but it seems that the default should always be for the preservation of the individual’s life. We should have confidence that our prison system can properly detain individuals so that they no longer pose a threat.
I can make the statement that the Catholic Church allows individuals to support the use of the death penalty. I can also make the statement that the Catholic Church allows individuals to use birth control pills in the course of their normal sexual relations. Both statements would be correct. However, the issue is obviously greater than that and requires much more thought to be put into it.
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.”
It seems that the first part would seem to indicate that our burden for executing an individual would have to rise above the burden for criminal conviction. It says that after the “guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” we may then resort to the death penalty. This seems to be a higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So just because someone would be convicted of murder in the United States, does not mean that the use of the death penalty would therefore fit within this section of the Catechism.
Also, the statement follows that it has to be the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” This statement combined with the remainder of this section seems to indicate that executing someone in our society would rarely, if ever, be considered moral. Obviously, every situation depends on a case by case analysis, but it seems that the default should always be for the preservation of the individual’s life. We should have confidence that our prison system can properly detain individuals so that they no longer pose a threat.
I can make the statement that the Catholic Church allows individuals to support the use of the death penalty. I can also make the statement that the Catholic Church allows individuals to use birth control pills in the course of their normal sexual relations. Both statements would be correct. However, the issue is obviously greater than that and requires much more thought to be put into it.
W
Windmill
Guest
I would ask you to clarify this.
F
frommi
Guest
I think we could all agree that our prisons need to become better places of rehabilitation as opposed to a place that hardens a criminal.I must have missed the post where you laid out in detail your plan for “fixing the prison system.”
Such expertise I have with prisons is mostly based on working training contracts for prisons. That has led me to understand that one must know what one is talking about before one can begin to “fix the prison system.”
F
frommi
Guest
I think JPII did a good job of explaining it recently:
Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide"
Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide"
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I took courses in Criminology from a man who was the Chief of Sociology in a state prison system (and he was a good, practicing Catholic.) He used to say, “Before you try to rehabilitate someone, make sure he was habilitated to begin with.”
As a man with a long experience in prisons, his point was that rehabilitation may well be a goal, but it is one we are a long way from acheving – especially in the case of the most violent offenders.
K
krokal
Guest
I actually like the litmus test analogy and I don’t really see how it’s “illogical” and “false”. The Catechism sets the guidelines for whether or not its appropriate to execute someone, therefore it is a test of sorts. In the United States especially, the implementation of the death penalty seems to fail the Church’s “litmus test”.
vern:
Again, however:
I don’t really see how having the death penalty makes our society any safer. You’re going to have to demonstrate to me how having the death penalty deters crime. I’ve already shown you graphs from which one can logically conclude that the death penalty is not a deterrent and isn’t making our society safer.
Again, however:
P
pig_boy
Guest
Here’s the Diocese of Lincoln website where I read it. Obviously it isn’t a statement from the Magisterium.
dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/birth/#6
Go to the question"Is it wrong to take the pill for non-contraceptive purposes?"
It probably doesn’t seem prudent to use the pill except in the most dire of situations, but similarly, the Catechism does not really seem to condone the use of the death penalty except for the most dire of situations.
L
Lance
Guest
I believe the church does allow for the death penalty, however I find it much easier to be fully pro-life by being anti death penalty. Unlike abortion, the church leaves it up to each of us to make up our own mind. Do I believe the people who are pro death penalty in America are wrong? Yes. Do I believe they are evil or mean uncaring people? No! We have different opinions, that’s why they make Chevies and Fords.
B
Brendan
Guest
One can support the just use of Capital Punishment and be pro life. In fact, by the very definition of “just use” it would be a REQUIREMENT to be fully “pro life”
After all, the just use of Captial Punishment is act of obedience to the 5th Commandment. (Per the Cathechism of Trent)
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It is not a litmus test. When used outside its proper field (chemistry), the term “litmus test” means “test of ideological purity.” The Church does not use its teaching on self-defense, war, or the death penalty to rule who is or who is not a Catholic. Instead, the Church sets up practical considerations – and those considedrations are outside the Kharisma of Infallibility.
You cannot say someone is not a Catholic, or less Catholic, or not pro-life it that person points out that the ideal situation in penology envisioned by the Chruch does not exist.
The death penalty is not necessary a general deterrant to crime, but it surely deters the person who suffers it. Similarly, assigning the death penalty to perple who murder police, or Corrections Officers does have an impact on the safety of people who hold those dangerous jobs – and therefore redounds to make us all safer.
- Status