Traditionalism and the Death Penalty

[Matt33]

Moses and the people were wandering in the wilderness. Prisons were simply tents with guards.
There is simply no reason for executions nowadays. It is not sufficient for anyone to say the inmate might kill someone in prison.

When the Church says that executions should be so rare as to be almost non-existent how does that fit in with death penalty proponents wanting to execute as many people (convicted of capital offenses) as possible and even wanting to extend this penalty to rapists and other heinous crimes.

Actually, you need some biblical knowledge. The Wandering was only 40 years, that is a drop in the bucket compared to all mosaic law. When Joshua led and set up the promised land they were instructed through Moses writing to build prison TOWNS that is where people could escape the Avenger from an accidental death that they were negligent in. They had to stay there until the Avenger died. Anyone who purposly killed an innocent could not escape the Avenger and was killed immediately.

 

[thistle]

Then how to deal with the individuals I named in my earlier post which you seem to be steadfastly ignoring? If you would like I’ll send you the names of the killers and where they are incarcerated along with an updated body count, because they haven’t stopped.

Maybe you could pay them a visit, spend some time with them, get to know them as it were.

I did read your post and I answered it already. In my opinion the fact such individuals have done that is not justification for the death penalty. The Church allows me to have such an opinion but it seems according to you I cannot or should not hold such an opinion. Am I only supposed to agree with you?

Maybe you can also answer my earlier point. How does the stand of death penalty proponents wanting to execute as many people as possible, not just for murder but other heinous crimes, square with the Church teaching that execution should be so rare as to be almost non-existent?

 

[palmas85]

I did read your post and I answered it already. In my opinion the fact such individuals have done that is not justification for the death penalty. The Church allows me to have such an opinion but it seems according to you I cannot or should not hold such an opinion. Am I only supposed to agree with you?

Maybe you can also answer my earlier point. How does the stand of death penalty proponents wanting to execute as many people as possible, not just for murder but other heinous crimes, square with the Church teaching that execution should be so rare as to be almost non-existent?

I just don’t see the logic behind your stance Thistle thats all. The people that I described are rare, in fact these men are about as bad as you can get and yet you feel that merely locking them up, when they will most certainly continue to kill while in custody is the correct thing to do? How do you justify that? How is allowing them the opportunity to continue their activities square with Church teaching? Allow them to kill until they realize it is wrong and stop on their own? I’m sure the families of the murdered officers as well as the families of the other inmates who were killed, beaten and/or sodomized by these and others just might disagree with you.

Lets remember Thistle, these crimes were committed while in custody at the most secure facilities available. They are the highest level of security and control that the State has to offer. The Church bases its position in great part on the obviously erroneous assumption that these days such behavior can be either modified or controlled by the State due to advances in the field of corrections…

Since the State is clearly unable to control or even modify the bahavior of these men, how many others have to die at their hands before it is enough?. I ask you that, how many more? That is what I don’t understand about your position on the issue. These men have proven that they cannot be controlled by the State.

As to those who propose the expansion of the death penalty to other crimes, I agree with you for the most part. The death penalty should not be applied to all. As I stated earlier I don’t see it as a catch all. It should and must be rarely applied.

However, in the case of the predators that I described, the ones who have killed on a whim or for the slightest reason, continue killing , will kill again and who actually enjoy what they do, I say they are the ones that fall within the parameters of the Churches teaching that executions be so rare as to be almost non existant.

**Note Thistle, the Church does not say now and never has said **don’t have the death penalty. It says that this extreme penalty must only be used in the most extreme cases.

I believe that the two men I described are examples of the most extreme cases and I think that very few would disagree with that.

 

[thistle]

I just don’t see the logic behind your stance Thistle thats all. The people that I described are rare, in fact these men are about as bad as you can get and yet you feel that merely locking them up, when they will most certainly continue to kill while in custody is the correct thing to do? How do you justify that? How is allowing them the opportunity to continue their activities square with Church teaching? Allow them to kill until they realize it is wrong and stop on their own? I’m sure the families of the murdered officers as well as the families of the other inmates who were killed, beaten and/or sodomized by these and others just might disagree with you.

Lets remember Thistle, these crimes were committed while in custody at the most secure facilities available. They are the highest level of security and control that the State has to offer. The Church bases its position in great part on the obviously erroneous assumption that these days such behavior can be either modified or controlled by the State due to advances in the field of corrections…

Since the State is clearly unable to control or even modify the bahavior of these men, how many others have to die at their hands before it is enough?. I ask you that, how many more? That is what I don’t understand about your position on the issue. These men have proven that they cannot be controlled by the State.

As to those who propose the expansion of the death penalty to other crimes, I agree with you for the most part. The death penalty should not be applied to all. As I stated earlier I don’t see it as a catch all. It should and must be rarely applied.

However, in the case of the predators that I described, the ones who have killed on a whim or for the slightest reason, continue killing , will kill again and who actually enjoy what they do, I say they are the ones that fall within the parameters of the Churches teaching that executions be so rare as to be almost non existant.

**Note Thistle, the Church does not say now and never has said **don’t ****have the death penalty. It says that this extreme penalty must only be used in the most extreme cases.

I believe that the two men I described are examples of the most extreme cases and I think that very few would disagree with that.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree.
I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances and as the Church allows me to take that position its not for you or anyone to suggest I am wrong. You take a different view and I respect your right to do so.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I did read your post and I answered it already. In my opinion the fact such individuals have done that is not justification for the death penalty. The Church allows me to have such an opinion but it seems according to you I cannot or should not hold such an opinion. Am I only supposed to agree with you?

Maybe you can also answer my earlier point. How does the stand of death penalty proponents wanting to execute as many people as possible, not just for murder but other heinous crimes, square with the Church teaching that execution should be so rare as to be almost non-existent?

I want to repost this as I think it addresses this question about Church teaching. It seems as if people like Cardinal Ratzinger have said that faithful Catholics can have different views on the application of the death penalty, as it is not a matter of dogma like abortion:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. …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/electi…ngerletter.htm

Cardinal Avery Dulles, in an article on the death penalty, called the judgment of the Pope on the issue “prudential”:

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft01…es/dulles.html

And thus you can have a position that does not want the death penalty applied at all, and another Catholic can take the view that is should be applied more often.

God bless.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I want to repost this as I think it addresses this question about Church teaching. It seems as if people like Cardinal Ratzinger have said that faithful Catholics can have different views on the application of the death penalty, as it is not a matter of dogma like abortion:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. …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.”

I’m familiar with the magisterial authority of various Church documents, such as papal bulls, encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc. Where can I find out what the magisterial authority of a letter printed in a newspaper that claims it was stolen copy of a private communication between the Vatican and a U.S. bishop is?

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Meanwhile…
un.org/apps/news/story.as…l&Cr1=assembly

**General Assembly committee backs global moratorium against death penalty **

15 November 2007 – A committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted today to back a resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions with a view to eventually abolishing the death penalty entirely.
The Assembly’s third committee, which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in favour of the resolution, which states “that there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable.”

ncrcafe.org/node/1507

How important has the church been?
Very important. The Catholic church, especially under John Paul II and continuing with what it’s doing now, has had a real role in accompanying this change over the last 20 years, and the Philippines is one of the cases where you see that most clearly.

We’ve worked side-by-side with Cardinal [Renato] Martino [President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace]. He gave me a short interview to be used on Nov. 30, when we had our “Cities Against the Death Penalty” event. He said something to us that has never been said at such a high level before: **“The death penalty is homicide.” **Unfortunately the media didn’t pick up on it, but the clear meaning is that you can’t answer one crime with another.

The Vatican also responded …

By ‘the Vatican,’ you mean in this case Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the nuncio of the Holy See as a Permanent Observer to the UN?
Yes. The central point was that the Holy See supports the defense of life in every circumstance, but on this very important subject we don’t want to see [the resolution] instrumentalized for other questions. It was a very interesting position. Of course, the Vatican doesn’t vote at the UN. Nevertheless, they said the defense of life is an important subject, but exactly for that reason it has to be without exceptions. In substance, the point was that the Holy See doesn’t support the way some say, ‘We have to abolish the death penalty’ but don’t care about abortion, and meanwhile those who were now proposing something against abortion were doing so to uphold the death penalty. We shouldn’t get into deciding which lives are worth defending. It was a very sharp, well-constructed position, and I thought it was quite clear.

 

[palmas85]

Well we will just have to agree to disagree.
I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances and as the Church allows me to take that position its not for you or anyone to suggest I am wrong. You take a different view and I respect your right to do so.

We will have to disagree.

Note from 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 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 nonexistent.”

You will note that the bolded portion refers specifically to the types of crimes that I portrayed. The two criminals I reported on are clearly unjust aggresors and totally uncontrollable. Non-Lethal means are clearly not sufficient in the cases of these two men. The State has not and apparently cannot stop these men from commiting crimes as they have continued to do so over the years since the murders described…

Therefore their execution fits the Churches definition of being acceptable and even necessary.

I’m sorry that you cannot see that part of the equation as it is well balanced and not totally one sided as many choose to believe.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m familiar with the magisterial authority of various Church documents, such as papal bulls, encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc. Where can I find out what the magisterial authority of a letter printed in a newspaper that claims it was stolen copy of a private communication between the Vatican and a U.S. bishop is?

Hi Just Lurking,

The letter is not actually magisterial in its content, but thanks for your wonderful sarcasm anyway as I almost thought it was a de fide dogma of the faith until you enlightened me.

It is recognized as a letter (even CWN News published it, and I consider them reliable) from Cardinal Ratzinger to Bishop McCarrick. The point is that Cardinal Ratzinger states that Catholics can have differing views on the application of the death penalty, thus revealing that he does not consider the prudential (as Cardinal Dulles calls it in the article I cited) teaching of Pope John Paul II on the application of the death penalty to be the nature of a de fide binding dogma. In fact, so much so that he states Catholics can legitimately differ on its application.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The point is that Cardinal Ratzinger states that Catholics can have differing views on the application of the death penalty,

Since the letter isn’t magisterial, I assume this means that other Catholics can disagree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on whether different views on the death penalty are legitimate. In other words, it is also a valid Catholic position to hold that only one view on the death penalty is legitimate.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We will have to disagree.

Note from 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 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 nonexistent.”

You will note that the bolded portion refers specifically to the types of crimes that I portrayed. The two criminals I reported on are clearly unjust aggresors and totally uncontrollable. Non-Lethal means are clearly not sufficient in the cases of these two men. The State has not and apparently cannot stop these men from commiting crimes as they have continued to do so over the years since the murders described…

Therefore their execution fits the Churches definition of being acceptable and even necessary.

I’m sorry that you cannot see that part of the equation as it is well balanced and not totally one sided as many choose to believe.

I agree the bolded parts quite obviously apply to the men you have described in prison. Yet what seems novel to me about the teaching is that even in the 1950’s or earlier you could still put away people for life just like today, yet you didn’t hear the Catholic Church making any sort of argument (that I am aware of) that if you can lock someone up for life you shouldn’t execute them. And that is why this teaching seems novel (which then goes into the question of the development of doctrine, in my view).

It also seems to say that if you are a nation that doesn’t have the facilities to lock someone up for life then you can execute them.

It also seems that the Church was fully aware of the “dignity of the human person” back then; it’s not as if we somehow realized this just recently.

God bless.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

I apologize if anybody posted this before.
I wanted to know myself, so here is the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
Scroll down to the paragraph after the one about the Middle Ages:
“The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisiability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.”
Pax

 

[una_fides]

I agree the bolded parts quite obviously apply to the men you have described in prison. Yet what seems novel to me about the teaching is that even in the 1950’s or earlier you could still put away people for life just like today, yet you didn’t hear the Catholic Church making any sort of argument (that I am aware of) that if you can lock someone up for life you shouldn’t execute them. And that is why this teaching seems novel (which then goes into the question of the development of doctrine, in my view).

It also seems to say that if you are a nation that doesn’t have the facilities to lock someone up for life then you can execute them.

It also seems that the Church was fully aware of the “dignity of the human person” back then; it’s not as if we somehow realized this just recently.

God bless.

You do know their was a Church around before 1950 that I’m pretty-sure also understood the dignity of human life. So much so in fact that she said that someone who willfully and unjustifiably took a human life, which is made in the image of God has, in accordance with divine command, therefore forfeited his own life. And the state, therefore, has the legitimate right to enforce the death penalty, which thereby preserves the safety of others.

 

[una_fides]

It has been demonstrated that even in the most secure facilities available to us that there are certain people who will still kill guards and other inmates, and they have no further penalties that can be applied to them since they already have life in prison without the possibility of parole. Those people have had their chance at life, and those chose to use it to murder the innocent. They already have the death sentence inevitable in the sense that we all do, as God has decided that we are all going to die one day as a result of the sin of Adam. Hastening the death of this criminal, who deserves it, will only result in good. The Church has NEVER officially mandated that we must oppose the death penalty in all instances, while she has officially sanctioned the death penalty in certain circumstances. Furthermore, the theological opinions of Pope John Paul II are NOT infallible dogma, and legitimate Catholics CAN disagree with his personal opinions, as we are under no obligation to submit our intellect or will to them. Furthermore, if it can be demonstrated that bishops of the Church have departed from previously understood dogmas of the faith, then we have the obligation instead to oppose them and their new doctrines they promulgate.

Let us all remember that at one time, the vast majority of bishops in the world believed in pure heresy: that Jesus was not God. In our modern secular and politically correct world, which relativizes truth, we must be vigilant and know the Traditional Catholic faith that has been handed to us from the apostles. My question is this: Can you find me any early Church fathers who said that the death penalty should be abolished??? I ask because they were the witnesses to Christ’s oral Tradition, which has been handed down from the apostles, and from what I understand, they supported the death penalty, plain and simple.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

You do know their was a Church around before 1950 that I’m pretty-sure also understood the dignity of human life. So much so in fact that she said that someone who willfully and unjustifiably took a human life, which is made in the image of God has, in accordance with divine command, therefore forfeited his own life. And the state, therefore, has the legitimate right to enforce the death penalty, which thereby preserves the safety of others.

Yes, I agree completely. That’s the point I was trying to make which is why I said:

“It also seems that the Church was fully aware of the “dignity of the human person” back then; it’s not as if we somehow realized this just recently.”

I probably did not speak clearly, but I meant not only “back then” (as in 1950) but before that as well.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

If Europe did away with religion long ago and as a result it has been left in a spiritually dark and debased state.

Er…what?

I was born in the UK, and I studied in Ireland. You, know that catholic country where abortion is illegal.

Then I went to live in Italy for ten years. Italian society centers around the church and the family. Cities like Assisi will overwhelm you. In any city on any street you will can a statue of Our Lady. In schools they still have the cross on classroom walls. In every bar or restaurant you can see framed pictures of Padre Pio or John Paul. A country where 90% of the population are confirmed when they turn 13! Debased!?!?

Then there is Spain…when I visited there I saw more of the same.

Poland is a very devout country and through faith helped bring down Communism!

I only ever witness Europe-bashing from Americans, so I am going to assume you are american becasue I want to address this issue that keeps coming up:

It seems to me that there is a very disturbing group of Americans that from part of the Religious Right who are very anti-European. In fact they seem to regard their country as a “Holy Land” and their religious beliefs and their nationalism are inextricably intertwined. Well there is only one Holy Land and it’s a long way from the US.

Europe is not spiritually dark. Let us examine the nationalities of the Popes.

I see all Europeans.

Europe is not a good comparison?

Tell me which couintry has the highest divorce rate, in the world. It ain’t a European country.
nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate

And the really crazy thing is, that by defending my own home (Europe) I can almost guarantee an accusation of Anti-americanism. Can you resist the urge?

In the mind of the jingoist, if one does not consider america the greates country in the world and offr Americans defference, one is an Anti-American.

Loving your own country is equatable to hating theirs.

How **dare **you describe Europe as “debased state” indeed?

I would request a retraction and even an apology but I suspect that the reponse I will get (if any) will attempt to make the one slinging insults out to be the victim.

I am so tired of this Bill O’Reilly-esque rubbish.

 

[Tommy_Joe]

It appears once again that nothing can be gained by arguing one’s opinion on a subject such as the death penalty.

I’m off to more productive discussions,…but before I go, I’d like to leave you with this little thought:

Each and every one of you know for a fact that our Father in heaven wrote these words in stone;

"Thou shalt not kill",…

So,…y’all have fun killing people, I’ll pray for you.

 

[una_fides]

I was born in the UK, and I studied in Ireland. You, know that catholic country where abortion is illegal. …
I only ever witness Europe-bashing from Americans, so I am going to assume you are american becasue I want to address this issue that keeps coming up:
It seems to me that there is a very disturbing group of Americans that from part of the Religious Right who are very anti-European. In fact they seem to regard their country as a “Holy Land” and their religious beliefs and their nationalism are inextricably intertwined. Well there is only one Holy Land and it’s a long way from the US. … How **dare **you describe Europe as “debased state” indeed?
… I am so tired of this Bill O’Reilly-esque rubbish.

My response to Mr. or Ms. Duck:

Yeesh. Didn’t mean anything personal by my statement buddy. Just stating my opinion. And for the record, I am not “anti-European,” “part of the religious Right,” or even very patriotic for that matter. I was simply repeating what I’ve heard from people both from the US and from Canada. I believe I’ve even heard it repeated on EWTN and if I actually felt the need to, I would do research to demonstrate that my opinions are shared by many and are certainly arguable to say the least. Perhaps you would like to comment on the EU and its aggressive policies to push abortion on demand to other members… or perhaps the complete secularization of politics and politicians, such as what I’ve heard in England where government officials cannot even mention God without hanging up their political career. And then there are great cities like Amsterdam, where everything goes, drugs, prostitution, you name it, it’s legal. I could continue, but at this point you are likely fuming.

I’m not saying these things to insult you or your country at all, and I’m sure there are still many great Catholic remnants in Europe. I also concede that the United States is also moving in the same direction to secularization and political correctedness, condemned by many previous popes as serious evils. For the record, I’d also say the US is presently spiritually debased as well, if that makes you feel any better.

I’d rather not fill up this forum on the death penalty on this unrelated subject. If you feel I have not sufficiently explained myself or if you would like to chat further on the matter, please send me an email on here and I’d be happy to clear things up.

Pax et charitas tecum.

 

[una_fides]

It appears once again that nothing can be gained by arguing one’s opinion on a subject such as the death penalty.

I’m off to more productive discussions,…but before I go, I’d like to leave you with this little thought:

Each and every one of you know for a fact that our Father in heaven wrote these words in stone;

"Thou shalt not kill",…

So,…y’all have fun killing people, I’ll pray for you.

Sorry to hear you go. Hope you come back to read this post some time:

What’s interesting is when you read the context of the verse you just quoted. It comes from both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Following God’s giving Moses the Decalogue in Exodus 20, Scripture then records in verse 22, “and the Lord said to Moses…”. God, who is perfect and cannot give an imperfect or immoral command, then gave moses the Old Covenant Law, in which He ascribes punishments for committing the offenses. In the following two chapters containing these commands, God ascribes the death penalty for 9 different offenses (or at least that’s how many I counted). Read it for yourself.

Thus, no faithful Catholic can say that the death penalty is evil or that if it is ever applied it is evil because God himself ascribed it, and God cannot produce evil laws. In fact, because God is good and just and holy, his commands are also good and just and holy. Thereby the apostle writes, “Wherefore the law indeed is holy: and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12).

The only way that I see that one can even attempt to get around this theological fact is to try to argue against the inerrancy and inspiration of all of sacred Scripture, which numerous church fathers, saints, and popes have upheld. Furthermore, the death penalty has been repeatedly upheld as legitimate, just, and necessary by the Church throughout her history. Granted, modern prisons can limit the number of necessary executions, but as has also been demonstrated by an amazing post earlier, for hardened criminals, the sentence of life only leads to more innocent death.

By the way, I think much can be gained by arguing different sides of issues, for without it, how does one truly know that he or she is correct in his judgments. Father Corapi said something to the effect that God has placed obvious limitations on our intelligence, but none whatsoever on our foolishness. In our limited human states, it can be so easy to go along with and adapt a view without full knowledge of a subject. Thus, the wise man will research and humbly pray for divine light, and when he reaches a conclusion he will be willing to continue to weigh the conclusions realizing that his reasoning, data, or abilities may have been flawed. We are all wandering about on this earth, and our goal must be to come to the fullness of God’s truth–not our own.

 

[una_fides]

I noticed a typo in my post in post 117 about the 3rd line down. It should have read “from the US and from Europe” not “US and from Canada.” Thanks