Torn over the death penalty

[Ender]

Well obviously it is not ‘heresy’ - you might want to revisit what that word means and use it less judiciously with your fellow Catholics.

It is not quite so obvious to me that the word is used incorrectly.

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith…” (CCC 2089)

The question here is whether the Church teaching that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil is something which must be believed, and I tend to think that it is. This is a fairly strong statement from Archbishop Chaput:

"The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity."

The question of what denial constitutes heresy is theoretically interesting and that’s how I regard it with respect to your position. Your argument is either valid or invalid and whether it is or isn’t heretical doesn’t - for me - make any difference in how I would respond to it.

Ender

 

[yosephdaviyd]

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

1. Most people in prison are in there for drug related crimes -using or selling - they are not dangerous to anyone other than themselves.
2. Justice cannot be rightly rendered by man. Man’s ‘justice’ is always flawed. Just look to Jesus on the Cross receiving the death penalty, John the Baptist receiving the death penalty, the Holy Innocents receiving the death penalty, Christian martyrs up and down history, even today - being killed by the death penalty.

Yeah, it’s easy to say YAY I support the death penalty, but for a Christian to support it quite odd indeed. For, your Lord was killed by it. Your martyrs were killed by it. Christians in the Middle East and Africa are being killed by it.

Yeah, it’s easy to say YAY I support the death penalty until you have found yourself in need of mercy and crying out to God who know you deserve to have justice rendered on your, but decides to hear your cry and lift you up.

Stop giving up on people! God does not give up on you! Be human!

 

[Ender]

1. No doubt that innocent people will die when the guilty are not executed
2. The incidences of this happening are common.

Let’s look at each statement closely:

1. 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.
2. Please provide actual stats, not your personal opinion. How do you know this to be true? How was your opinion formed?

I’m going to hold off answering this in the hope that Dudley Sharp still monitors this thread. He’s the master of statistics relating to capital punishment. Briefly, however, as long as killers escape custody, kill other guards, kill other prisoners, and can order hits on civilians from prison, the notion that society is completely protected is a fantasy.

Ender

 

[teak421]

I’m going to hold off answering this in the hope that Dudley Sharp still monitors this thread. He’s the master of statistics relating to capital punishment. Briefly, however, as long as killers escape custody, kill other guards, kill other prisoners, and can order hits on civilians from prison, the notion that society is completely protected is a fantasy.

Ender

So, out of all of the prisoners who have the sentence of life without parole how many have escaped and killed members of society? Then, once we get that number, we will get a percentage of people with life sentences who have harmed society… If that number is less than .5 percent, would you consider changing your mind on the DP? Or, what percentage would it take?

• Michael

 

[yosephdaviyd]

It is not quite so obvious to me that the word is used incorrectly.

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith…” (CCC 2089)

The question here is whether the Church teaching that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil is something which must be believed, and I tend to think that it is. This is a fairly strong statement from Archbishop Chaput:

"The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity."

The question of what denial constitutes heresy is theoretically interesting and that’s how I regard it with respect to your position. Your argument is either valid or invalid and whether it is or isn’t heretical doesn’t - for me - make any difference in how I would respond to it.

Ender

Thanks for the response.

The reason why I pointed to Catholic Moral theology, which is quite distinct from the Deposit of Faith or Apostolic teachings is that Moral theology has an evolutionary aspect to it. That is simply to say, that what we thought was right at one time we now know that isn’t right (e.g., the manner of execution of the inquisition - crusades - Jew ghettos), or what we thought was wrong at one time in history we now know that it is permissible, or what we didn’t know was wrong at one time we now know is wrong (bio ethics is a hot area for this).

Also in context of the article, which you should have read in full if you are responding to it - clearly states that I believe in what the Church teaches; and that is what makes it ‘faithful’ dissent - to hold what the Church teaches is true, while simultaneously calling it to a higher standard. That is what every true reformer of the Catholic Church has done. That is how we move the Church along and purify her.

I have no doubt that one day in the future the Church will stop supporting the death penalty and the ‘so-called’ just war doctrine. The Church is steadily becoming more and more counter cultural, more pure, more like Christ. Therefore, in the future She will truly represent the Prince of Peace and Mercy.

 

[teak421]

Thanks for the response.

The reason why I pointed to Catholic Moral theology, which is quite distinct from the Deposit of Faith or Apostolic teachings is that Moral theology has an evolutionary aspect to it. That is simply to say, that what we thought was right at one time we now know that isn’t right (e.g., the manner of execution of the inquisition - crusades - Jew ghettos), or what we thought was wrong at one time in history we now know that it is permissible, or what we didn’t know was wrong at one time we now know is wrong (bio ethics is a hot area for this).

Also in context of the article, which you should have read in full if you are responding to it - clearly states that I believe in what the Church teaches; and that is what makes it ‘faithful’ dissent - to hold what the Church teaches is true, while simultaneously calling it to a higher standard. That is what every true reformer of the Catholic Church has done. That is how we move the Church along and purify her.

I have no doubt that one day in the future the Church will stop supporting the death penalty and the ‘so-called’ just war doctrine. The Church is steadily becoming more and more counter cultural, more pure, more like Christ. Therefore, in the future She will truly represent the Prince of Peace and Mercy.

Are you suggesting that when the Church drops their Just War Policy and their support for very limited use of CP that they will truly represent the Prince of Peace. Don’t they represent the Price of Peace now???

• Michael

 

[yosephdaviyd]

Are you suggesting that when the Church drops their Just War Policy and their support for very limited use of CP that they will truly represent the Prince of Peace. Don’t they represent the Price of Peace now???

• Michael

As I said, if you look at the Church over the centuries, She has been constantly becoming better, more pure, more simple, smaller, more humble. The same can be said about the man who occupies the Peterine Ministry - the Pope has been becoming more and more like Christ; inasmuch as He is already In Christ. Simply put, God is not done purifying and shaping His Church or Peter yet. She is always in the process of becoming the Bride of Christ, inasmuch as She is already the Bride of Christ.

In the dispatch of her three duties; that is, (1) To proclaim the word of God; (2) To celebrate the Sacraments; and (3) To perform works of Charity, the Church will always get better, not worse, at these three things. She will always grow in deeper understanding of the Deposit of Faith and Her clearer understanding leads to a clearer explanation, and that is precisely what She has to elucidates upon at Her councils.

So if you look at the Church as the life of one person, or even the Pope as the life of one man, what you see is a lump of clay on the Potter’s Wheel being reshaped, broken down, shaped again. And what you will see, should you see, at the end of this age is a Bride radically different than you had saw in the beginning and Bride much more radically different than what you see now, inasmuch as you see the same Bride now that you will see then. This is the beauty and mystery that you only find in the TRUE Church of Christ.

 

[teak421]

As I said, if you look at the Church over the centuries, She has been constantly becoming better, more pure, more simple, smaller, more humble. The same can be said about the man who occupies the Peterine Ministry - the Pope has been becoming more and more like Christ; inasmuch as He is already In Christ. Simply put, God is not done purifying and shaping His Church or Peter yet. She is always in the process of becoming the Bride of Christ, inasmuch as She is already the Bride of Christ.

In the dispatch of her three duties; that is, (1) To proclaim the word of God; (2) To celebrate the Sacraments; and (3) To perform works of Charity, the Church will always get better, not worse, at these three things. She will always grow in deeper understanding of the Deposit of Faith and Her clearer understanding leads to a clearer explanation, and that is precisely what She has to elucidates upon at Her councils.

So if you look at the Church as the life of one person, or even the Pope as the life of one man, what you see is a lump of clay on the Potter’s Wheel being reshaped, broken down, shaped again. And what you will see, should you see, at the end of this age is a Bride radically different than you had saw in the beginning and Bride much more radically different than what you see now, inasmuch as you see the same Bride now that you will see then. This is the beauty and mystery that you only find in the TRUE Church of Christ.

I understand your point of view and I agree with it. Thank you for helping me understand.

• Michael

 

[d97c]

Yosepf…The Pope made this statement recently (in terms of Papal History)…do you you agree with this statement he made??
I mean it’s “recent”…

"…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 agree with that “better” “more pure” and “simple” statement?

iand by the way, is the world - wide, post Vatican II priest sexual scandal an example of the “more pure” “more simple” 21st Cebtury Catholic Church???

 

[yosephdaviyd]

Yosepf…The Pope made this statement recently (in terms of Papal History)…do you you agree with this statement he made??
I mean it’s “recent”…

"…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 agree with that “better” “more pure” and “simple” statement?

iand by the way, is the world - wide, post Vatican II priest sexual scandal an example of the “more pure” “more simple” 21st Cebtury Catholic Church???

Yup, that is exactly what I quoted a few messages ago (page 3 of this string). That statement right there from Benedict while he was still a Cardinal in charge of the CDF demonstrates an evolution in Catholic Moral Theology. You consider the history and the men who helped to shape the teachings of the Church on the ‘so-called’ Just War doctrine, the manner in which they entered the question of whether war can be ‘just’ or not was specific to their time. That is, what Augustine knew as war is radically different from ‘war’ today.

Today war is all about objectification - we do not even see the faces of the people we kill. It is not personalized. The atomic bomb was dropped on babies and women. That is objectification and that is how war is now. Also, it seems to me that Augustine entered the discussion from the point of few that war is inevitable. I don’t accept that surrender. I believe love is inevitable. If we Christians were out there doing the things that Christ commanded us to do, then there would be a lot less wars - bottom line. So, inasmuch as the Church collected the thoughts of the Fathers and make ‘just war’ a doctrine - I believe that Christ demands more love from us.

It is sort of like the issue of divorce that Jesus talked about. The reason why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus said, is because your hearts were hardened. In the same way, I believe that the only reason why the Church allows for war and capital punishment now is because our hearts are hardened. We don’t want to forgive and love when love and forgiveness is hard. We are quitters. We give up on each other.

The Church has gone as far as it can go on abortion and euthanasia - they can never be justified, but it recognizes a diversity of opinions on war and capital punishment.

Moral Theology suggests that laws that we are not ready to accept will not be accepted. This is the problem we saw with Humane Vitae and the problem with Roe/Wade. So, with War and CP, when our hearts are ready I am sure God will move His Church to call for a higher standard of love and forgiveness, but this post even here at CA proves that our hearts are too hard to accept such a radical call to love and forgiveness right now.

 

[Ender]

So, out of all of the prisoners who have the sentence of life without parole how many have escaped and killed members of society? Then, once we get that number, we will get a percentage of people with life sentences who have harmed society… If that number is less than .5 percent, would you consider changing your mind on the DP? Or, what percentage would it take?

The issue was raised concerning the execution of innocent people. My response was that more innocent people will die if the guilty are not executed so the absolute numbers are not that important; what is significant is the ratio of the two: innocents executed vs innocents murdered.

This is not an easy calculation to make. After a fair amount of Googling I managed to find some Canadian statistics on the number of civilians killed by people who had been sent to prison once for killing and been released. Adjusting for the difference in size between the Canadian and US populations, if we had similar rates we would see about 45 people a year killed by repeat killers. This number doesn’t include the murders of guards or other prisoners or those killed by escapees.

Balanced against those numbers, if innocent people have been executed (and even those organizations which claim this don’t claim that the numbers are large) it might occur once every 4-5 years. Comparing nothing more than the numbers involved it seems clear that more innocents will die if no murderer is executed than will if more are executed.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have no doubt that one day in the future the Church will stop supporting the death penalty and the ‘so-called’ just war doctrine. The Church is steadily becoming more and more counter cultural, more pure, more like Christ. Therefore, in the future She will truly represent the Prince of Peace and Mercy.

I remember an argument just like this from a priest holding that his position on the acceptability of homosexual behavior was the real moral position and he would just have to wait for the Church to catch up with him. I don’t think you have any understanding at all about why the Church holds her position on capital punishment or why Abp. Chaput would say* “The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.”* Nor is he alone in the belief that her position will never change:

If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

The Church is no more likely to declare that capital punishment is intrinsically evil than she is to declare that women may become priests.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Three Reasons Why Capital Punishment is Always Evil
associatedcontent.com/article/5786442/three_reasons_why_capital_punishment.html?cat=75

1. Capital punishment is never fool-proof

This claim is simply wrong; there are those whose guilt is known beyond any doubt whatsoever - e.g. Sirhan Sirhan. If you want to argue that the death penalty should not be used because of concerns for executing the innocent, fine, but that is not a moral argument, it is a prudential one and therefore does not support your contention that capital punishment is evil. This point contributes nothing whatever to the question of whether Sirhan should have been executed.

2. Capital punishment is always unnecessary
“It is never necessary to kill criminals to keep the public safe.”

This completely misses the point: the primary objective of punishment is not the protection of society, it is retributive justice. The goal punishment seeks first is not keeping the public safe, it is redressing the disorder caused by the crime. The necessity of capital punishment needs to be seen as the necessity to render justice.

3. Capital punishment inveighs against the desire of God

First, your citations from Matthew and Timothy pertain to the obligations of the individual which are entirely different from the obligations of the State. Specifically, the individual is forbidden to punish the guilty and the State is obligated to do so.

Second, the Church has never cited those passages to explain her position on capital punishment. The interpretation is yours alone, which might be valid for a Protestant but is surely not valid for Catholics.

Third, you have ignored those passages which the Church cites to explain her position, specifically Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4.

Finally, this point has been considered, and a different conclusion reached:

“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. 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)

Ender

 

[yosephdaviyd]

Thanks for the discussion Ender - there is no middle ground here. You are a man of hard heart. As I said above:

1. Justice cannot be rightly rendered by man. Man’s ‘justice’ is always flawed. Just look to Jesus on the Cross receiving the death penalty, John the Baptist receiving the death penalty, the Holy Innocents receiving the death penalty, Christian martyrs up and down history, even today - being killed by the death penalty.

Yeah, it’s easy to say YAY I support the death penalty, but for a Christian to support it quite odd indeed. For, your Lord was killed by it. Your martyrs were killed by it. Christians in the Middle East and Africa are being killed by it.

Yeah, it’s easy to say YAY I support the death penalty until you have found yourself in need of mercy and crying out to God who know you deserve to have justice rendered on your, but decides to hear your cry and lift you up.

Stop giving up on people! God does not give up on you! Be human!

One day you may find yourself near death and need of mercy and everyone wanted your head. I’ve been there - Jesus had mercy on me and brought me out even when I didn’t deserve anything from Him who I hated and mocked. So if you ever find yourself in that place and the mercy of God brings you out - you heart will not be so hard and unforgiving as it is now.

Thank you and God Bless!

 

[Ender]

You are a man of hard heart.

The debate should be over the validity of my arguments, not the presumed hardness of my heart.

1. Justice cannot be rightly rendered by man. Man’s ‘justice’ is always flawed.

This is no argument that we shouldn’t do the best we can; this is an argument that justice is irrelevant. The fact that man cannot dispense perfect justice doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try to any more than the fact that man is a sinner doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t strive for perfection. You really don’t seem to value justice. The Church holds it in much higher regard.

Yeah, it’s easy to say YAY I support the death penalty, but for a Christian to support it quite odd indeed.

This is a criticism of 2000 years of Church teaching. You need to realize that it is not me you are condemning but the Church; I am simply repeating her arguments.

Yeah, it’s easy to say YAY I support the death penalty until you have found yourself in need of mercy and crying out to God who know you deserve to have justice rendered on your, but decides to hear your cry and lift you up.

This is also a misunderstanding of mercy, not to mention expiation.

Stop giving up on people! God does not give up on you! Be human!

This is a charge without anything to support it. God does not give up on us but he does hold us accountable for our actions and obliges us to do the same.

Ender

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

There is a criminal case going on currently in Connecticuit.

2 men held a family hostage, stole $15,000, beat the father unconscious, raped the wife, raped the daughters, the daughters were 17 and 11 and set the home on fire.

The only one to survive was the father.

I wonder what justice is due to this man? How can these 2 “men” possibly pay for this crime?

Another case that leaves me speechless is the murder of little Jessica Lunsford…

She was stolen out of her own bed, sexually assaulted repeatedly, kept away from her family. Finally the kidnapper told her, “I’m bringing you home now.” Only to bury her alive. Can we imagine the terror of a child to die this way.

I understand that the criminal died in jail. But how much jail time would have been enough for justice for that little girl?

 

[d97c]

Yosepf…you accuse Ender of having a “hard heart” and not being “human.” Well, that’s quite a value judgement on your part. Where is your Christian kindness to another poster?
When you discuss your opinions, it is quite clear you have not read anything about the history of your church with regard to the death penalty or you dont understand it. You just FEEL bad about the death penalty. Let me explain something to you—God’s mercy on a soul is different from the state’s “mercy” on a convicted murderer. God might have mercy on the soul of Adolph Hitler. We dont know do we?? BUT JUSTICE for Hitler is not to keep him alive (if he had been captured.) We do know that for centuries, the church said the state had the right and duty…yes DUTY, to exact the proportional punishment for a crime of murder…like Hitler murdering 6 million Jews.
Under your theories, mercy means NO PUNISHMENT…How can support of the death penalty be “odd” (your word) when both the history and tradition ( as quoted and instructed over and over here), along with the current Pope says that support of the death penalty is quite consistent with what a Catholic may believe? Did the previous Popes,…plus Aquinas, Augustine, prior catachisms etc, etc,show a “hard heart” for centuries… of course not—thats why a Catholic may accept the death penalty and vote for politicians who want to keep it !!..

 

[yosephdaviyd]

The debate should be over the validity of my arguments, not the presumed hardness of my heart.

This is no argument that we shouldn’t do the best we can; this is an argument that justice is irrelevant. The fact that man cannot dispense perfect justice doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try to any more than the fact that man is a sinner doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t strive for perfection. You really don’t seem to value justice. The Church holds it in much higher regard.

This is a criticism of 2000 years of Church teaching. You need to realize that it is not me you are condemning but the Church; I am simply repeating her arguments.

This is also a misunderstanding of mercy, not to mention expiation.

This is a charge without anything to support it. God does not give up on us but he does hold us accountable for our actions and obliges us to do the same.

Ender

No, this is not just a matter of stating what the Church :“permits” (quite different that obligates) for you. You actually do not believe in mercy for the worst of sinners. That means that you do not know who you are and what you are deserving of. This is not a matter of what the Church PERMITS for GOVERNMENTS, it 'seems; to me that you would be happy to be an executioner. And if you are not willing to be the one to put another human to death, rethink your position about championing it at all. For, inasmuch as this is what the Church PERMITS for WORLDLY GOVERNMENTS I doubt the Pope would ever pull the switch to kill a person on death row.

I believe what the Church teaches because I understand it, but my conscience holds me to a higher standard and the Church has no problem with that. I also understand that I am worthy of Hell, but because God was/is merciful with me and didn’t give up on me - I will never support the premature death of anyone. But that is exactly what we do when we kill humans - we effectively say, “You do not deserve Jesus”. For, if we did believe that every human being needs to come into the knowledge of truth - we would give them every opportunity.

Moreover, there is a matter of self-responsibility here. If we Christians were doing what we are suppose to be doing then there would be less people on death row, because they would have had to Gospel effectively taught to them and would have loved as Christ loves, rather than hate as Satan hates. See, there is a spiritual component here that you are ignoring.

You and I and every other Christian are responsible as watchmen for every person on death row right now. That we failed to love them in the beginning does not mean that we cannot love them now. Love never dies, does not hold grudges, does not kill people because they are sinners.

You can sit there and type what our Church PERMITS for GOVERNMENTS all day, but I offer you Jesus’ teaching on love and 1 Cor 13. For everything is permissible, but is not beneficial, said Saint Paul.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

Yosepf…you accuse Ender of having a “hard heart” and not being “human.” Well, that’s quite a value judgement on your part. Where is your Christian kindness to another poster?
When you discuss your opinions, it is quite clear you have not read anything about the history of your church with regard to the death penalty or you dont understand it. You just FEEL bad about the death penalty. Let me explain something to you—God’s mercy on a soul is different from the state’s “mercy” on a convicted murderer. God might have mercy on the soul of Adolph Hitler. We dont know do we?? BUT JUSTICE for Hitler is not to keep him alive (if he had been captured.) We do know that for centuries, the church said the state had the right and duty…yes DUTY, to exact the proportional punishment for a crime of murder…like Hitler murdering 6 million Jews.
Under your theories, mercy means NO PUNISHMENT…How can support of the death penalty be “odd” (your word) when both the history and tradition ( as quoted and instructed over and over here), along with the current Pope says that support of the death penalty is quite consistent with what a Catholic may believe? Did the previous Popes,…plus Aquinas, Augustine, prior catachisms etc, etc,show a “hard heart” for centuries… of course not—thats why a Catholic may accept the death penalty and vote for politicians who want to keep it !!..

1. It is Yoseph, not Yosef
2. Let Ender defend himself. We both agreed already that we both believe in what the Church teaches, but he wants to continue, so now I am making inquiries into his heart and conscience.
3. Man cannot render justice. I’ve met innocent people on death row. Jesus and thousands of Christian martyrs, even today, are victims of capital punishment. If I lived in some countries, i would be dead by now because of public proclamation of the faith.
4. Concerning your last question, read my previous post - I’ve already talked about all of that.
5. Thanks

 

[Ender]

You actually do not believe in mercy for the worst of sinners. That means that you do not know who you are and what you are deserving of.

I have made no comment about mercy - other than that you don’t seem to understand it - so you have no idea what I believe. This is an example of rash judgment. You seem to forget that punishment itself is an offering of mercy.
*
“In this process God’s mercy comes to his aid in special ways. The temporal punishment itself serves as “medicine” to the extent that the person allows it to challenge him to undertake his own profound conversion. This is the meaning of the “satisfaction” required in the sacrament of Penance.”* (JPII)

As Augustine said in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount:

"Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy."

For, inasmuch as this is what the Church PERMITS for WORLDLY GOVERNMENTS I doubt the Pope would ever pull the switch to kill a person on death row.

I’m sure he would not but it is entirely beside the point, which is whether it is appropriate for the State to do so.

*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; *(Augustine)

I believe what the Church teaches because I understand it, but my conscience holds me to a higher standard and the Church has no problem with that.

A higher standard? Is that like being holier than the Pope?

I will never support the premature death of anyone. But that is exactly what we do when we kill humans - we effectively say, “You do not deserve Jesus”. For, if we did believe that every human being needs to come into the knowledge of truth - we would give them every opportunity.

Once again, you accuse the Church of *“effectively say[ing] You do not deserve Jesus.” *

See, there is a spiritual component here that you are ignoring.

I’m not ignoring anything; I am quoting the Church. Deal with what she says.

Love never dies, does not hold grudges, does not kill people because they are sinners.

We are held accountable for our crimes. It is in fact that only by holding someone accountable for his sins that we acknowledge that the individual is in fact free.

“it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.” (JPII)

Ender