Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Ender]

I have never stated nor implied that the death penalty is intrinsically evil but, instead, that it is unnecessary in a country with prisons and jails, therefore being overly brutal.

The existence of quality prisons doesn’t make an execution more or less brutal to the person who experiences it. The position you take is a utilitarian one: even though it’s brutal it’s acceptable if it’s thought necessary for protection.

And, at this point at least, the Church and the Catechism believe and teach the same way and no song & dance will change that-- at least at this time.

This is true, nor do I contest this, but there can be no doubt that this is a judgment, not a doctrine. Since morality does not change over time, the caveat that “at this time” the church opposes its use, makes that point perfectly clear.

 

[childinthefaith]

K, lemme cover this real quick. Certain segments of the population “take care of family.” For instance, someone hurts one of my family members, depending on the seriousness of the offense, they may ought to pray that LE gets to them before I do.
“Lone Ranger”? No. Families defending each other…others know they do, therefore bad people leave said family alone. It’s not just in the south, that is just my personal area of knowledge (not experience mind you).

Let’s adjust the perspective on that a little and consider this:

A dad has a teenage daughter whom many young men wish to take out. He makes sure that when the boy, who is required to do so first, shows up to ask permission to take that daughter out, he is cleaning a firearm, and may mention that prison food isn’t all that bad, true or not, to encourage the young man to behave himself whilst with the daughter.
This is not to say the dad would/should use the firearm if the boy misbehaves, but it is a visual and verbal deterrent that can be used. That said, if, while out, the young man rapes the daughter, he may indeed get a case of lead poisoning from the dad. That is how it goes in a lot of places, right or not.
Do I support taking the law into one’s own hands? Nope. However, let’s say you assault my wife while I’m not around…pray that LE gets to you first, and pray hard. You see what I mean?

 

[BenjaminJ]

Contrary to what Francis says, the death penalty is not against the faith. God himself has punished with death for certain sins. (Forget his name, God put to death man that pulled out during sex to prevent the woman from getting pregnant (its where our prohibition against contraception comes from)).

 

[childinthefaith]

Contrary to what Francis says, the death penalty is not against the faith. God himself has punished with death for certain sins. (Forget his name, God put to death man that pulled out during sex to prevent the woman from getting pregnant (its where our prohibition against contraception comes from))

That is a non sequitur at best. It was GOD who did the putting to death, not man, ergo it does not follow that we have the authorization to do so.

 

[BenjaminJ]

Nonsense. God has oked death penalty all through out the bible. Just because youre morally opposed doesnt make it against the faith. Neither does Franciss oppinion

 

[Ender]

That is a non sequitur at best. It was GOD who did the putting to death, not man, ergo it does not follow that we have the authorization to do so.

According to Aquinas, that right belongs to the State and to those appointed by the State.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority.

 

[Metis1]

Again, “Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone”. Clear enough to me.

 

[Ender]

Again, “Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone”. Clear enough to me.

Yes, what you have is your own personal interpretation of Scripture. What you don’t have is any concurring opinion from a pope, Father, or Doctor of the Church. In contrast to your opinion, they are virtually unanimous in holding the opposite position. As examples, here is St Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church) citing others:

Innocent I, being asked whether it was lawful for a magistrate who had been baptized, to punish by death, answered that it was entirely lawful.

St. Hilary says that it is certainly lawful to kill in two cases, if a man is fulfilling the duty of a judge, or if he is using a weapon in his own defense.

St. Jerome says, “To punish murderers, and sacrilegious men, and poisoners is not a shedding of blood, but the administration of law.”

St. Augustine, “Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill.”

Your opinion is contradicted by virtually all the Popes, Fathers, and Doctors. You might want to consider that significant.

 

[Metis1]

I’ll go with what the scriptures say, and it really is not a difficult verse at all to interpret. How others may interpret it is their business, not mine.

Plus it is consistent with other verses from Jesus, such as “Be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves”, plus numerous statements about “mercy”. I don’t interpret this as that which I want to see but that which is quite clearly written.

Where the Church probably deviated from this rather clear interpretation deals with the right of a society to protect itself, but now with prisons and jails in virtually every country in today’s world, executing people is unnecessary, brutal, and in defiant of what Jesus taught. Certainly, Pope Francis seems to think so, as well as those who revised the Catechism to reflect this reality. Thus, quoting previous popes doesn’t make sense, plus it also now defies the Catechism itself. Church teachings are dynamic, not static.

 

[Ender]

I’ll go with what the scriptures say, and it really is not a difficult verse at all to interpret.

The church’s take on what Scripture says about capital punishment is different than yours.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. (Archbishop Chaput)

Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture. (Cardinal Dulles)

It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures… (St Bellarmine)

How doth the Scripture teach that willful murder is revenged?..God’s own voice doth testify. Whoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed also, for to the image of God was man made. (St Canisius)

Finally, it is the teaching of the Council of Trent that where all the Fathers and Doctors hold one interpretation of Scripture as the proper one, Catholics are to accept it. There is no dispute that the Fathers and Doctors all had the same understanding about capital punishment.

How others may interpret it is their business, not mine.

I choose not to interpret Scripture, but to accept how it is interpreted by the Church.

 

[childinthefaith]

You know, we can think whatever we wish. We can accept whatever, or whomever’s interpretation we choose. And we can vote based on that.
However, aside from casting a ballot, we can only choose for ourselves if we personally “cast a stone.” I do not see that casting one by proxy with a ballot is quite the same as doing it with one’s own hands.

 

[JSRG]

Again, “Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone”. Clear enough to me.

First, it should be noted that John 7:53-8:11 is on shaky ground textually. The evidence indicates that it was not originally in the Bible and was probably a gloss that a scribe added into the main text later. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen (see John 21:25, not everything that Jesus did made it into the Bible), but it does mean it’s relatively shaky to try to decide a doctrine based on it.

But even if this did happen, attempting to read the passage in question as some kind of anti-death penalty message is to misunderstand its context, and I say this as someone against the death penalty.

Let’s back up a bit and understand what was going on here. The Romans occupied Israel and were the ones who normally held the power of capital punishment; the Jewish leaders couldn’t kill someone on their own. So they bring an adulteress to Jesus and asked him if she should be stoned as was stated in the Jewish Law. If he says yes, then they can tell the Romans he’s engaging in illegal activity, as the Romans were the ones to decide such things. If he says no, they can tell people that he’s disregarding the scriptures.

Jesus declines to play their game and responds with “Let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone”. This is effectively him telling them “if you’re so perfect (without sin), then why are you asking me? If you think she should be stoned, do it yourself” and therefore turning the question back onto them. Since they couldn’t actually do it without getting trouble with the Romans themselves, they had to just drop the matter and leave.

 

[Metis1]

So, because I believe in what the Pope has said, and what the Catechism now says, and also what the scriptures say Jesus said, I’m somehow wrong? OOOOOOOKKKKKKKK.

 

[Metis1]

ince they couldn’t actually do it without getting trouble with the Romans themselves, they had to just drop the matter and leave.

To be brief, the Romans couldn’t care less about Jewish Law (halacha) as long as the order was kept and the taxes paid.

The fact of the matter also is that Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness and mercy permeate the NT, thus there’s simply no reason to assume Jesus would sanction capital punishment as long as there were other alternatives that actually would allow for repentance and for the society to be safeguarded.

Therefore, capital punishment, under these conditions is unnecessary, overly brutal, unforgiving, against what the Pope, Catechism, and the Gospel states,. No twisting of scripture, the Catechism, or what the Pope has clearly stated changes what should be obvious to any objective person.

There’s nowhere else for me to go with this, so…

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

ince they couldn’t actually do it without getting trouble with the Romans themselves, they had to just drop the matter and leave.

To be brief, the Romans couldn’t care less about Jewish Law (halacha) as long as the order was kept and the taxes paid.

Sure, they didn’t care about the Jewish Law so long as the Jews weren’t killing people with it. They weren’t allowed to do that.

 

[childinthefaith]

I’ve not seen anyone address the deterrence factor in this.
Some people DO fear death, therefore the death penalty can sometimes serve as a deterrence to those who would suffer it as a result of their actions. However, if it is not enforced, it clearly has no ability to deter.

For my entire adult life, until about a few years ago, I’ve supported the death penalty 100%. Because i became a Catholic, I’m down to 99.999%.

BUT, I grew up in a world where retribution for harm against another was going to be quickly forthcoming from a family member and would likely never get to court anyway…the fear of a retribution much more painful than death from a family member to this day would keep anyone who knows the family from attempting to, or actually inflicting harm. It’s just like that.

If you’ve seen the series “Justified,” with the US Marshal from Harlan County, Kentucky, then think of the families in that series and how they may react to one of their family being killed. My folks were raised by coal miners in Harlan…I promise, real fear is a deterrent to crime, but only if the fear is grounded in real consequences.

And that is the rest of the story, good night.

 

[JSRG]

I’ve not seen anyone address the deterrence factor in this.
Some people DO fear death, therefore the death penalty can sometimes serve as a deterrence to those who would suffer it as a result of their actions. However, if it is not enforced, it clearly has no ability to deter.

Because the deterrence factor argument is nonsense. It requires that a would-be killer would actually think the following:

“Hrm, I wonder if I should kill that person. But wait, if I get caught I might get the death penalty! I won’t do it. However, if I would receive life imprisonment instead for killing them, I would totally kill that person.”

The idea of someone actually following this thought process should be self-evidently absurd.

 

[childinthefaith]

Perhaps you’ve never dealt with deadly force in person. Ok I understand your argument against me, but allow me to expand on what I said:

If someone is fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and those consequences elicit fear in that person, those consequences may act as a deterrent.

Ever burn your finger on the stove? Then you had a chance to learn from your mistake. If you had seen someone have their entire hand pinned to the stove on a burner for a number of minutes, heard their screams, saw the damage to the flesh that it did, you probably would have never touched that burner with a finger.

If someone kills another, they have chosen their actions that result in the death of another human, no matter the thought process. For that choice, there can be a potential consequence that makes a difference. We’re talking about 1st degree murder aren’t we, not manslaughter?

 

[JSRG]

Perhaps you’ve never dealt with deadly force in person. Ok I understand your argument against me, but allow me to expand on what I said:

If someone is fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and those consequences elicit fear in that person, those consequences may act as a deterrent.

Ever burn your finger on the stove? Then you had a chance to learn from your mistake. If you had seen someone have their entire hand pinned to the stove on a burner for a number of minutes, heard their screams, saw the damage to the flesh that it did, you probably would have never touched that burner with a finger.

If someone kills another, they have chosen their actions that result in the death of another human, no matter the thought process. For that choice, there can be a potential consequence that makes a difference. We’re talking about 1st degree murder aren’t we, not manslaughter?

None of that actually addresses my point.

 

[Ender]

Because the deterrence factor argument is nonsense.

What seems rather more absurd is the belief that it is only the harshest punishment that has no deterrent value. How is it that lesser penalties are sufficient to deter some but the worst punishment of all loses all its power to deter?