Voting for pro death penalty president?

[childinthefaith]

None of that actually addresses my point.

Ok, sorry.

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?

I completely agree. If someone fears life imprisonment, why would they not fear death? I personally would prefer the latter to the former, but I’m not a criminal making a choice about doing a crime that might incur either…

But seriously, if the death penalty is not a deterrence, why consider any sentence a deterrent? IMO, that would kind of gut the entire sense of a justice system. I mean really, if a penalty for crime is of zero deterrence, what would you recommend?

 

[Metis1]

There’s simply no evidence of that as the application of halacha was not in the Roman interest, plus executing another Jew was pretty much doing the Romans a favor. The evidence for this in general is the Roman allowance for the Great Sanhedrin to exist and function as long as it didn’t create any trouble for them.

Also, the stoning of Steven can be used as another example.

 

[ioannes_pius]

These two killings are fundamentally different.

 

[Ender]

Actually, determining whether the changes going back to JPII represent doctrinal development or prudential judgment is the most significant issue regarding capital punishment. Unless you can satisfactorily answer this you cannot claim to hold a coherent position.

Unless you strongly oppose the doctrinal developments that we have seen in the Church ( à la the “no Novus Ordo Missae ought to be permitted”, “communion on tongue is the only acceptable option”-types), then the distinction that you are drawing comes off as pretty pedantic.

This suggests I don’t believe doctrine can develop, which is not at all true, but whether doctrine has developed with regard to these topics is totally irrelevant to the question of whether, and how, it has developed with regard to capital punishment.

“The last three successors to Peter have felt that a federal punishment of murdering someone who murdered someone else is not good practice, but I see no problem with it.”

The church has very explicitly rejected this formulation.

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.” (St Bellarmine - one of many such citations)

But that sounds like vigilanteism; taking the law into one’s own hands.

And the church has very clearly rejected this approach, but she is also very clear about the distinction between what is valid for the State versus what the individual may do.

Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: ‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ (Aquinas ST II-II 64,3)

The key point here is that revenge (punishment) is forbidden to the individual, but is the obligation of the State, and it is a mistake to take the restrictions and duties placed on the individual and apply them to the State as if there was no difference between them.

 

[Ender]

There’s simply no evidence of that as the application of halacha was not in the Roman interest, plus executing another Jew was pretty much doing the Romans a favor. The evidence for this in general is the Roman allowance for the Great Sanhedrin to exist and function as long as it didn’t create any trouble for them.

Find even one example of a Father or Doctor of the Church who used this incident to oppose capital punishment. You will not find any (other than perhaps Tertullian) because they were virtually unanimous in recognizing the moral validity of capital punishment. Your interpretation is your own; it has no support.

St. Ambrose addressed the point, and it is noteworthy that, opposed as he was to its use, never claimed it was immoral.

Much agitated has ever been the question, and very famous this acquittal of that woman who in the Gospel according to John was brought to Christ accused of adultery. The stratagem which the equivocating Jews devised was this, that in case of the Lord Jesus acquitting her contrary to the Law, His sentence might be convicted of being at variance with the Law, but if she were to be condemned according to the Law, the Grace of Christ might seem to be made void. (Letters #26,2)

In Letter #25, responding to a Christian judge who asked for his opinion on capital punishment, he said this:

You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not.

He opposed its use but recognized it was a morally valid punishment. He is a Doctor of the Church who lived only three centuries after Christ. Are you really comfortable asserting that your understanding of that passage is right, and he got it all wrong?

 

[Metis1]

Some just don’t get the simple fact that the application of teachings can change with changing conditions.

Also, the Church is universal, thus ideal conditions throughout the world may not exist at any given point in time. Plus, the fact is that the Church tends to move very slowly on important matters.

 

[ioannes_pius]

One of them is not always a wrong. The other is an intrinsic wrong.

 

[Ender]

Some just don’t get the simple fact that the application of teachings can change with changing conditions.

This is true, and it is the very definition of a prudential judgment, which has been my point all along.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. (Cardinal Dulles)

Given that the teachings on capital punishment going back to JPII involve prudential judgments they do not require our assent. We are not morally required to agree with them.

“To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” (Cardinal Dulles)

 

[Metis1]

The Catholic Church is not the Gestapo, therefore one doesn’t have to agree with much of anything.

 

[childinthefaith]

It is indeed vigilante justice. And my kin understand it, respect it, and fear it. We also behave ourselves to avoid it.

“Batman” is a good ways beyond what i’m talking about. I am simply saying that some “families take care of their families” is how my people phrase it. Certainly not legal, nor do I condone it, but it is what it is, and it does still happen, and it does still exist as a valid deterrent in some areas.

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Church is not the Gestapo, therefore one doesn’t have to agree with much of anything.

We are obligated to assent to doctrines; we are not obligated to assent to opinions (judgments).

 

[Metis1]

So, the Pope says capital punishment is basically immoral when there are other options, as does the Catechism, as Jesus did when he said that he whom is without sin should cast the first stone, but then somehow they can all be virtually blown off and that’s somehow acceptable? Sorry, but taking such a position smacks much more of secular politics based on revenge than applied Catholic teachings, and no amount of “theological gymnastics” can turn this wrong into a right.

IOW, one should not excuse that which is inexcusable, and if there’s any question about that then let me recommend that the questioner should ask his/her priest and not take it upon themselves to try and justify what they want to justify. If there was any doubt about what to do, one should always lean in the direction of what the consensus of the Church currently teaches, and we now know what that is.

However, if one wants to ignore the teachings of the Church, that’s clearly their choice.

 

[Ender]

So, the Pope says capital punishment is basically immoral when there are other options…

No, he actually didn’t say that. You just acknowledged this yourself when you said that what was changing was the application of the doctrines. How they should be applied in specific circumstances is a judgment, and while one’s judgment may be correct or incorrect, being wrong is not immoral.

…as does the Catechism…

The weight of a teaching doesn’t come from its being included in the Catechism; it is derived entirely from its original source

…as Jesus did when he said that he whom is without sin should cast the first stone…

No, as without justification you believe despite the lack of any evidence to support you. I’ll say it again: the Fathers and Doctors of the church as well as popes for two millennia have never made that connection. Just you.

IOW, one should not excuse that which is inexcusable…

That which is inexcusable or that which the church supported for 2000 years? Not exactly sure how you explain that these are the same things.

If there was any doubt about what to do, one should always lean in the direction of what the consensus of the Church currently teaches, and we now know what that is.

“Consensus” and “current” are not words that play well with “doctrine.” You have the former, but there is no evidence you recognize the latter.

However, if one wants to ignore the teachings of the Church, that’s clearly their choice.

What is being ignored is the rather unambiguous evidence that I’ve provided, none of which has been rebutted. Let me repeat just one citation to make the point:

“To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.”

 

[Metis1]

VERY well said, imo, and I 100% agree with you.

And cutting through the “theological gymnastics” that some prefer to play, common sense should tell anyone that if one can take a “do no harm” position versus one built on revenge, that’s a far more humane and Christ-like option. People, including murders, can and have repented, and our Church is built on the idea of repentance and forgiveness, not state-sponsored revenge.

 

[Ender]

And cutting through the “theological gymnastics” that some prefer to play…

By “theological gymnastics” you appear to mean citing what the church and her great theologians have said on the subject. Rather than dismiss them you really should recognize their significance.

…common sense should tell anyone that if one can take a “do no harm” position versus one built on revenge, that’s a far more humane and Christ-like option.

What you dismissively term revenge is more accurately called justice. Your position would oppose all punishment; it does not distinguish one form from another. Life in prison surely does not meet the “do no harm” criterion. More significantly it leaves no justification for the existence of hell. Your position would mean God himself was not humane and Christ-like.

People, including murders, can and have repented…

“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." (Aquinas SCG ch. 147)

…our Church is built on the idea of repentance and forgiveness, not state-sponsored revenge.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?

A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism)

 

[Metis1]

“Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

IOW, I believe in what the Pope, the Church, and Jesus clearly have spoken, and I don’t accept what some people may twist and turn by using past statements that we made under different conditions in order to try and justify revenge. What God decides to do is up to God, thus I don’t think we should be trying to play God.

And if one continues to play this game, then it also begs the question as to whether they’re willing to do the same with the issue of abortion, thus possibly also using twists and turns and previous historical statements in order to try and justify that as well, and I have seen people do just that.

 

[Ender]

“Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

We don’t. We execute people who murder people to show that murder is wrong.

Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ 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)

IOW, I believe in what the Pope, the Church, and Jesus clearly have spoken…

The pope’s statement is regrettably ambiguous, the church’s statements are quite clear but you ignore anything more than two years old, and your interpretation of Jesus’ words are yours alone.

I don’t accept what some people may twist and turn by using past statements that we made under different conditions in order to try and justify revenge.

You use “revenge” as a cover to avoid discussing an issue, but if God himself avenges sin (“Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Rom 12:19) perhaps we should understand punishment not as an act of hatred but as one of justice.

Nor do “different times” change the relationship between sin, punishment, and justice.

This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’. (Pius XII)

And if one continues to play this game, then it also begs the question as to whether they’re willing to do the same with the issue of abortion, thus possibly also using twists and turns and previous historical statements in order to try and justify that as well, and I have seen people do just that.

Abortion is a different topic, and what other people have said about it is irrelevant to the arguments I have presented regarding capital punishment, arguments I make not so much to advance capital punishment as to defend the church. She is done a great disservice when it is argued that doctrines expressed by the Fathers and Doctors were meaningful only for their time, and don’t apply to us with our more enlightened understanding. Even worse is the idea that what was taught as truth before can become error today, as if there was no eternal truth that can be proclaimed.

 

[Kei]

I think the popes through the last pontificates have indicated that the death penalty should not be used today. This seems like a prudential decision and is a tad different from saying that it is intrinsically wrong.
However, given their prudential sayings, it would be wise to definitely consider them and consent to them at least to a certain degree.
Not all moral decisions are equal, and so there should be other considerations upon the politician (even including what their opponent proposes).

 

[jofa]

As a Catholic, and since the Church has no definitive teaching on this, I am Pro-Death Penalty.
I have seen instances in which conversion and repentance came about specifically, it seemed, due to the murderer facing their own imminent death. I am very much against the way they have people on death row for decades, however. Leaving a window of time for appeals is necessary, but not for decades.
Just my opinion.

 

[Ender]

“Kill” is a generic term that applies widely; “execute” is a more specific form of killing that includes the context.

As stated earlier, it would really help if you stopped playing word games, using mental gymnastics, etc.

You wouldn’t have complained about my substitution if you didn’t prefer the harsher implication that accompanies “kill”. How is it that you accuse me of playing word games by using the more accurate term rather than Metis who apparently chose the less accurate term because of its connotation?

The trouble here is that people will claim that the state murdering a murderer…

You can accuse me of word games and then say something like this? To be clear, the church has rather explicitly rejected this characterization.

Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. (Augustne, City of God)

You don’t know if some of those in the Early Church did or not. There was a lot of pacifism early on in the Church (prior to Catholicism being legalised), so it wouldn’t surprise me.

It would surprise those who know something about this.

From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist. Two names especially stand out that wrote belligerently against all war, and therefore espoused universal pacifism. Tertullian, 160-220, and Lactantius, 240-320 also fought strenuously against capital punishment of condemned criminals. At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. (Fr. John A. Hardon, 1998)