T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I do not need to dismiss any of the catechism, or scripture
- Status
D
d97c
Guest
Dont be torn…the Pope says that Catholics can disagree over the death penalty…but NOT or abortion. Its quite clear.
He says
"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
He says
"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
R
royal_archer
Guest
Please reconsider your reasons in light of these considerations:
“-The death penalty is the only permanent way of keeping criminals off the streets” This is solving the wrong problem. It is not appropriate to kill someone because the government penal and justice system is failing to do it’s job. Stricter sentancing, better security, and more efficient jail systems would be the more appropriate approach.
“-Criminals become more dangerous while in prison” This is because our penal systems are warehouses instead of reform systems.
“-When their sentence is up, or when they are out on parole, they tend to kill or rape again.” When a wild animal kills, no one blames the animals, he blame those responsible for protecting the public from those threats. If a person is dangerous and are let out on the street, then those who allowed the person back into society need to be taken to task. One also needs to ask why someone would be motivated to committ a crime after being in jail? if our penal institutions were not so luxurious maybe people would not be so inclined to do something that would result in them going back.
As others have said the death penalty is acceptable as a last resort but not as a convenience. Using the reasons you state above may be more a matter of convenience than necesity.
E
Ender
Guest
If the death penalty is appropriate at all it is appropriate only if it is necessary as a matter of just retribution for a crime. Whether or not it provides protection is irrelevant if the answer to the first question is no. All considerations other than retribution focus on something that may or may not happen in the future and simply have no bearing on what degree of punishment is proper for a crime that has already been committed.
Ender
R
royal_archer
Guest
As a punnishment, the death penalty lets many on death row off easy. There are more efficient methods that would offer more just retribution.
E
Ender
Guest
I suppose if one believes that existence ends with death this position could make sense. As Catholics, however, we believe that physical death is simply the beginning of eternal life and I feel quite sure that no one will escape his just retribution at that point. God himself has identified the just punishment for murder; I think we should be content with that.
Ender
R
royal_archer
Guest
I agree as to retribution. As for detterence, some do not fear the death penalty or life in prison but would be detered by other means. For instance if it were known that any person caught supporting a terrorist act would be forced to live in a cell with a pig and minimal sanitation, you may find some would be more dettered.
C
CCWMarine
Guest
I too support the death penalty. The Church teaches the DP should only be used as a last resort when society cannot be protected from the acts of the criminal by any other means. Yet, I’ve read of several cases where a member of a gang would order "hits’ from prison on a rival or the rival’s family. Prison gangs have far reaching arms that control criminal activity both inside and outside the prison walls. I believe the DP can be fairly and judiciously applied and is warranted in the US even now. Having said that, I am willing to modify my DP views to include the possibility that the DP be outlawed if certain changes are made to the penal codes to accommodate the teachings of the Church.
I suggest a new capital punishment called “Isolated Life”. Isolated Life is a life sentence without possibility of parole with no human contact until natural death occurs. The prisoner would receive nutrition, hydration and basic medical care for the remainder of his life. There would be no human interaction to include nearly none with his jailers, no reading material and no outside contact at all. This would truly be a fate worse than death for the most heinous of crimes but would allow for personal redemption should the prisoner so choose. This also negates the possibility of an innocent person being put to death. I believe we can address the basic human dignity teachings of the Church while making the Isolated Life sentence one of deterrence and penance for the worst of the worst crimes against society.
I suggest a new capital punishment called “Isolated Life”. Isolated Life is a life sentence without possibility of parole with no human contact until natural death occurs. The prisoner would receive nutrition, hydration and basic medical care for the remainder of his life. There would be no human interaction to include nearly none with his jailers, no reading material and no outside contact at all. This would truly be a fate worse than death for the most heinous of crimes but would allow for personal redemption should the prisoner so choose. This also negates the possibility of an innocent person being put to death. I believe we can address the basic human dignity teachings of the Church while making the Isolated Life sentence one of deterrence and penance for the worst of the worst crimes against society.
E
Ender
Guest
This is the current opinion about the appropriate use of capital punishment in today’s society - it does more harm than good. What the Church actually teaches, however, is that the punishment must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime and that obligation has nothing whatever to do with the protection of society. By focusing on protection against future crimes the entire concept of securing justice for the crime actually committed is completely lost, but it is justice, not protection, that is the primary objective of all punishment, and it is justice (retribution), not protection, that justifies punishment.
Clearly the opinion that modern prisons are sufficient to protect society is a position that is impossible to defend against the actual facts of the matter.
I’m sure it would be possible to devise punishments that, given the choice, would lead the prisoner to choose death but that’s not really the point either. The issue is to apply the punishment that fits the crime and in the case of murder the Church has been clear on what that punishment should be: the life of the murderer. The Church has always based her position on Gen 9:6 and does not back away from that position even today (see CCC 2260). Regarding repentance, someone even on death row would have years to reach that decision *“And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Aquinas)
Finally, and this is a point that is completely lost when the discussion of punishment focuses on security rather than retribution, we have to address the issue of expiation.
"Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not."
A man cannot escape the consequences of his sin and if he is not sufficiently punished in this life he will have to endure punishment in the next. A person sentenced to death, who freely accepts his punishment, erases the debt he owes and enters the next life free of that sin.
Ender
T
teak421
Guest
Is the DP justice or revenge? Can justice be served with other means? What if a mistake is done… can’t exactly take it back. I was also pro DP, but after study I’ve changed my mind.
- Michael
C
catholictiger
Guest
Here are my reasons:
there are other ways example solitary confinement
do they continue to do the evil they did before this or does prison stop it, if they do continue the evil put them in solitary confinement until they stop
then the prison system didn’t do its job but saying to kill these people is just stoping evil with another evil.
E
Ender
Guest
Punishment is about justice and the use of the death penalty as punishment is neither more nor less an act of revenge than is a prison sentence.
Justice demands that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime so your question is a good one. Is there a punishment other than execution that is commensurate with the crime of murder? To answer yes is to misunderstand the severity of the crime.
And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood {murder}, He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (Catechism of Trent)
An innocent person may very well be executed - although incidences of this actually happening are rare to nonexistent - but there is no doubt that innocent people will die when the guilty are not executed and incidences of this happening are common.
Ender
T
teak421
Guest
I respectfully reject your final argument that “no doubt” more innocent people will die if we do not use the DP.
- You have stated no facts to back that up, but what you think… so right away I reject it.
BUT on a logical view - You assume that the only way to protect people is the DP. That is flawed… If the goal is to protect innocent people the how to protect them can be done through a variety of means, including the DP but not exclusivity the DP. There are many other forms of punishment that will meet your goal of protection without killing a person such as life without parole.
- Michael
Y
yosephdaviyd
Guest
Hey Jack
I am late like a one legged turtle jumping into this, and I see you received lots of information already, but I have a new article up that you might be interested in reading. Comments and feedback are always welcomed!
Three Reasons Why Capital Punishment is Always Evil
associatedcontent.com/article/5786442/three_reasons_why_capital_punishment.html?cat=75
God Bless!
A
Adeodatus
Guest
That article savors of heresy. The author claims that the DP is intrinsically evil. And yet it is commanded in Holy Scripture at various points.
The use of the DP should be limited, and one hopes that it will never again be necessary. But it is not intrinsically evil and Catholics are not required to oppose it in all cases.
T
teak421
Guest
ALWAYS evil is not what the Church teaches, so I agree. They strongly suggest not using it, but they do not say ALWAYS.
- Michael
Y
yosephdaviyd
Guest
Well obviously it is not ‘heresy’ - you might want to revisit what that word means and use it less judiciously with your fellow Catholics. There is a clear difference between heresy and faithful dissent. Study the history of moral theology in the Church before you go around calling people heretics!!!
Throughout the article I uphold what the Church teaches and clearly state that CP is not contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.But what I offer, in the spirit of In Evangelium Vitae is call all of us to a higher standard of the respect and dignity of all human life, from the womb to the tomb.
And I ask you NEVER to give up on anyone, because God will never give up on you. Everyday that a person has to live is yet another day that Christ can enter that person’s heart through some event, but when you slay a person for vengance or as earthy justice rendered, you give up on them and effectively tell them that you don’t desire God to move upon their heart.
And yes, I beleive that it is always evil to not give God the opportunity to enter a person’s heart.
Y
yosephdaviyd
Guest
Moreover,
Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote in 2004 that,
if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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
You can call me a lot of things - liar, thief, adulterer, murderer, convertor, and etc., and I will be happy and humble to hear it all, but don’t call me a heretic!
E
Ender
Guest
This is not a question of morality but of statistics and the statistics are on my side of the argument.
By no means is this my argument. My comment was in response to the issue raised about the execution of the innocent.
Well, first of all, the primary objective of punishment is not protection; it is justice. Protection is a bonus; it is not the objective.
No. Again, if you look at prison statistics it would be obvious that society is not fully protected simply because dangerous felons are locked up.
Ender
T
teak421
Guest
An innocent person may very well be executed - although incidences of this actually happening are rare to nonexistent - but there is no doubt that innocent people will die when the guilty are not executed and incidences of this happening are common.
Above is your comment from your first reply to me… Please carefully read your statement that you put forward… You said:
Above is your comment from your first reply to me… Please carefully read your statement that you put forward… You said:
- No doubt that innocent people will die when the guilty are not executed
- The incidences of this happening are common.
- Explain WHY you believe that statement when a convicted criminal can be put into prison for life without parole? Thus, protecting society. Where you are making a huge mistake is saying: innocent people die IF criminal NOT executed. I reject that completely because we can protect society with other means BESIDES the DP.
- Please provide actual stats, not your personal opinion. How do you know this to be true? How was your opinion formed?
- Michael
- Status