The Vatican and the death penalty

[frommi]

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)

One cannot support the use of taking life and say they are pro-life…that’s just illogical.

Again…pro-life is not a church term…it’s a political one.

 

[Ender]

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.

I’m glad you slogged through this thread to the end and made this particular post. This is the point that has been insufficiently addressed: the requirements of justice and the retributive nature of punishment. This is why I feel that capital punishment is not only appropriate but, especially for someone like Hussein, necessary.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

One cannot support the use of taking life and say they are pro-life…that’s just illogical.

Not to anyone who has read and understood the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Again…pro-life is not a church term…it’s a political one.

And that means it’s okay for you to attack people who disagree with you and claim they are not pro-life?

 

[Windmill]

Ender, I think I mistyped your name as “Ember”. Just wanted to make sure everyone knows who I was referring to.

 

[Brendan]

One cannot support the use of taking life and say they are pro-life…that’s just illogical.

Again…pro-life is not a church term…it’s a political one.

Not true, a police office is pro-life when he uses his sidearm to stop an assailant.

A solider is pro-life when he defends a family from invaders.

And likewise, a society is pro-life when it protects itself from violent offenders.

 

[Windmill]

Someone please close this thread. It has no intellectual basis, nor any appreciation for comprehensive moral theology. It is merely aimed at irritating other people with misnomers and charged labels. It is not about Church doctrine. Otherwise, this discussion would have ended on Page 1.

 

[pnewton]

Someone please close this thread. It has no intellectual basis, nor any appreciation for comprehensive moral theology.

I do not think this characterization of everyone elses post is very charitabe, speaking of charged labels. I have found it somewhat useful and one is always free to click elsewhere, instead of asking for a conversation to end a couple of hours after your first (extensive)post.

 

[pnewton]

Again…pro-life is not a church term…it’s a political one.

It reasons like this that I have prefered the term “anti-abortion.” It is more specific and less confusing. I see no point in arguing over terms, though. The sentiment behind terms can need to be addressed, though. I think it best to give faithful Catholics the benefit of the doubt, especially on an issue like this. I know read some of the posters here for months and years. We really are all on the same side as the Church.

 

[krokal]

Someone please close this thread. It has no intellectual basis, nor any appreciation for comprehensive moral theology. It is merely aimed at irritating other people with misnomers and charged labels. It is not about Church doctrine. Otherwise, this discussion would have ended on Page 1.

You’re right, because the Catechism is pretty clear cut on when the death penalty is ok and when it isn’t.

vern:

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.

And once again, I ask “How?”

Just to clarify, it sounds like your for the death penalty but only for the most violent offenders (like those who continue to be violent in prison). If that’s the case, then would you support a large downsize in our country’s use of the death penalty since you and I both know that not everyone in prison is going to threaten a guards family. I think you have to admit that our country is a little trigger-happy when it comes to assigning the death penalty.

 

[frommi]

Let’s try some information from Bishop Aquila:

“Only a person who has rejected the basic premise of the dignity of the human person can take (certain) stances,” Aquila added. "Only a person, whether consciously or unconsciously, who takes the position that ‘I will determine the dignity of human life’ can speak about illegal immigrants in such a manner …, support so-called abortion rights or cheer when capital punishment occurs.

 

[Windmill]

At this point in the discussion, after all that has been said, I have to ask,

“What is the intent of continuing this thread?”

 

[Brendan]

Let’s try some information from Bishop Aquila:

“Only a person who has rejected the basic premise of the dignity of the human person can take (certain) stances,” Aquila added. "Only a person, whether consciously or unconsciously, who takes the position that ‘I will determine the dignity of human life’ can speak about illegal immigrants in such a manner …, support so-called abortion rights or cheer when capital punishment occurs.

I don’t think any one here cheers when capital punishment occurs, any more than we do when we hear a police officer shot someone in the line of duty, It’s a sad, but sometimes necessary occurance.

And since no one here ‘cheers’, the quote obviously doesn’t apply to this conversation.

 

[Windmill]

I would like responses to Augustine, Aquinas, Pius XII, and Trent. Or are these sources in error?

 

[Windmill]

I do not think this characterization of everyone elses post is very charitabe, speaking of charged labels. I have found it somewhat useful and one is always free to click elsewhere, instead of asking for a conversation to end a couple of hours after your first (extensive)post.

I am referring to frommi. My apologies if I sounded like I was making a blanket statement. People have the right to disagree, and I don’t think frommi is outside of his rights to be against the DP. However, his polemics are not aimed at gentlemanly discussion of facts. He is merely trying to make pro-DP ppl feel less than Catholic.

My extensive post was an attempt to bring a summary of multiple church fathers and traditional teachings to the fore in order to show that those who support the DP do have a grounding in sound doctrine. Quoting one source does no justice to the richness of teachings here. Much guidance can be gleamed.

These historical quotes still have not been commented on. Where are these sources wrong?

 

[frommi]

I don’t think any one here cheers when capital punishment occurs, any more than we do when we hear a police officer shot someone in the line of duty, It’s a sad, but sometimes necessary occurance.

And since no one here ‘cheers’, the quote obviously doesn’t apply to this conversation.

Of course the quote applies…what is so hard about seeing the connection between the death penalty and the overall right to life that we are so pround of as Catholics?

 

[frommi]

I am referring to frommi. My apologies if I sounded like I was making a blanket statement. People have the right to disagree, and I don’t think frommi is outside of his rights to be against the DP. However, his polemics are not aimed at gentlemanly discussion of facts. He is merely trying to make pro-DP ppl feel less than Catholic.

These historical quotes still have not been commented on. Where are these sources wrong?

I am not attempting to make anyone feel less Catholic…again…we are talking about a political point of view…not something catechetical.

 

[Brendan]

Of course the quote applies…what is so hard about seeing the connection between the death penalty and the overall right to life that we are so pround of as Catholics?

Are you saying that anyone here has actually CHEERED at an occurance of the Death Penalty?

If so, please back it up with proof, or take it back.

And if no one has actually “cheered”, then the quote does not apply, now does it?

And as for the Right to Life that we are truely so proud of, I have shown that Trent said that the DP might, on occasion be an excercise of the Right to Life. Do you disagree with the Catechism of Trent?

 

[Windmill]

As I quoted in my extensive post:

"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)

In the eyes of the church, the condemned does not have a “right” to life like an innocent child does. He has already forfeited it. A child has not.

 

[Windmill]

Another problem with trying to isolate this as a mere political issue is that you deny the moral aspect of the argument, and that is when we look to the Church for guidance. To accuse pro-DPers that “they do not deserve to be called ‘pro-Life’ because they are hypocrites” has no moral basis.

 

[Windmill]

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.

I was interrupted at my office when I tried to repond to this way back when.

The questioner and the answerer did not take as a given that sexual relations are occurring. Therefore, your original post about “I can say that the church allows one to take the Pill in the course of normal sexual relations” is a false assumption. This answerer from the diocese of Lincoln (who frankly states that he is not an authority on these matters) who gives his personal assesment is not indicitive of “The Church says…” The Church would say that if there are no relations, then the Pill is not contracepting adn may be offering a therapeutic effect (though many doctors now say it is merely masking the problem, and many treatments actually exist for most problems). However, if one were to start having relations, then they would be contracepting, and the Pill would not fall under the prinicple of double effect since contraception is inherently evil. Combined with the abortifacient nature of the Pill, it could never be justified.