When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment be used?

[Ender]

Ender, your patience in these discussions, in hearing over and over again the exact same and intensely personal accusations and the exact same refusal to grapple with the concrete content of your arguments without ever sinking to the same level, is truly inspirational.

Well, it is impossible to dig through the writings of the church without having at least some of it rub off in the process. It’s not like we haven’t been warned: “Forgive us our trespasses…” and all.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender, your patience in these discussions, in hearing over and over again the exact same and intensely personal accusations and the exact same refusal to grapple with the concrete content of your arguments without ever sinking to the same level, is truly inspirational.

You most probably haven’t caught the years of discussion that I have foolishly continued to be drawn into with this person that have lead to this point. I have unfortunately developed a real dislike for the person and will in future just ignore posts he directs towards me rather than attempt any further futile discussions.

 

[d97c]

Pope Benedict said the following, in regards the right of any catholic to support the death penalty.
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals,** it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."**

So…since previous Popes…for centuries…supported the right…and yes the DUTY to enact justice by capital punishment, I agree with thoses Popes, and those writers like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and most recently Pope Pius XII.
Here’sthe link
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Benedict said the following, in regards the right of any catholic to support the death penalty.
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals,** it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."**

So…since previous Popes…for centuries…supported the right…and yes the DUTY to enact justice by capital punishment, I agree with thoses Popes, and those writers like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and most recently Pope Pius XII.
Here’sthe link
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

That’s right. This is not where the argument lies. While everyone agrees that in the past and in other unforeseeable circumstances the unfortunate use of death as a punishment is necessary to serve the common good. The Church is saying that nowadays, it is doing more harm than good and should be abolished. Now fair enough if some say that the statistics show it actually is a good deterrent or that there are still some criminals that can’t be adequately restrained by the system and its good outweighs its negative. I don’t argue that route because as the Church says people can legitimately hold this view.

What I’m arguing against is the view that capital punishment is a ‘divine command’ to effect divine retribution for some sins and is a default institution of human justice. That position either denies that human justice serves the *common good *as determined by the state according to its authority. Or it relies on accepting that while abolition serves the common good, we are existing under an inferior justice not in keeping with divine justice. It sees abolition as a time of mourning for human justice than a time of rejoicing for human justice.

I’m countering with the view that capital punishment is permissable only when it serves mans dignity as per Genesis 9:6. If the common good and therefore the dignity of man is not served by its use, it is imperative that it slips from use in human justice.

 

[d97c]

IF we had caught Adolph Hitler, should he have been executed if tried and convicted??

 

[LongingSoul]

IF we had caught Adolph Hitler, should he have been executed if tried and convicted??

As I’ve said before, I believe that Osama Bin Ladens death would have come under St Augustines description of a special commission.

"The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. "

Hitler would no doubt have received the death penalty at Nuremberg since Goering and others did. Justice warranted this special court and its special circumstances.

 

[d97c]

St Augustine said
The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, 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 public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.

(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)

There is no doubt that the term “general law” above is more accurately interpreted as the law passed by the people’s representatives through the vote of those people (majority)supporting the death penalty. You certainly cant be arguing that Hitler’s execution would have been only justified because of some special law of genocide or some special Neurenberg prosecution (or whatever you meant) …but maybe you think Timothy McVeigh’s (Oklahoma City bombing) execution was not justified…(not the Hitler millions or a genocide law??) and Mc Veigh having been executed under Oklahoma’s capital punishment law)…
The “representatives of public authority” are those representatives who do the will of those who elect them…and those executioners hired by that authority who effect the penalty.
The best argument I believe is that Augustine and Aquinas meant what I argue they meant --and that is that the Church for centuries, up to about 1980, held that the state had the right to pass laws ( enact cap pun laws) and then hire the persons who execute the convicted. There was no restriction on some special statute—which is how you want to limit the application.
The addition to the argument by the post-1980 Popes of some requirement of “protection” from the individual criminal (as if emphasizing that whether Mr X broke out of the pen is the most important criteria of whether cap pun is allowed)and which according to them is the linchpin in the issue----- is a matter of prudential judgment…a judgment which I do not make because I follow the teachings of the church for centuries—It is justice and the duty of the state to enact the ultimate penalty, not whether the prison can hold the bad guy!

 

[LongingSoul]

The addition to the argument by the post-1980 Popes of some requirement of “protection” from the individual criminal (as if emphasizing that whether Mr X broke out of the pen is the most important criteria of whether cap pun is allowed)and which according to them is the linchpin in the issue----- is a matter of prudential judgment…a judgment which I do not make because I follow the teachings of the church for centuries—It is justice and the duty of the state to enact the ultimate penalty, not whether the prison can hold the bad guy!

I don’t recognise any dividing line between post-1980 Popes and pre-1980 Popes as being legitimate. The Church is the same Church now as it was 2000 years ago. When a living Pope speaks he speaks for the whole Church and I certainly don’t believe that Augustine and Aquinas would be warring with the current Pope if they were alive today.

Around the world the death penalty has gradually been dropped from law as not humane or reflective of human dignity. Up until recently this has happened independently of much Church contribution. The Church obviously recognises this falling out of favour as a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit and her teachings have taken on some urgency so that people are not harbouring any false beliefs about it.

She acknowledges that the State has the right to decide on capital punishment within general law if needed to serve justice according to the common good.

Since human justice must serve the common good, if a punishment is harmful to that, it is right and proper to abandon it in favour of a more fitting punishment otherwise it no longer serves true justice.

In the past it was accepted as necessary not just by biblical cultures but by many non biblical cultures through history. By natural law it has served a role in human justice. Aquinas said… "The Old Law is distinct from the natural law, not as being altogether different from it, but as something added thereto. For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law presuppose the natural law. " - Summa Theologica.

What is happening here is that the strong movement to abolish capital punishment from general law around the world is arising from the natural needs of justice and the Church as is and always has been her place, is confirming that this movement is indeed one of true justice in the eyes of God.

People mistakenly feel that capital punishment is a divine command because they are not remembering that the Old Law* presupposed *natural law. The Old Law did not create natural law.

The argument that abolishing capital punishment is some sort of unfortunate suspension of Divine Law rather than completely in keeping with Divine Law, is misguided. The Church emphasises the exception of peoples protection as the only grounds for considering it because natural law allows for it on that basis. That can be understood through reason. The Church emphasising beyond that that the dignity of the human being is the goal of justice.

Pope Benedict XVI shows this in a 2009 address…* “It cannot be overemphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness. Governments must enact laws and public policies that take into account the high value that a human being has at every moment of existence. In this context, I joyfully welcome the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings.”
Pope Benedict XVI, July 10, 2009*

 

[d97c]

You cant deny that prior Popes…and by the way…even the Vatican itself…supported the death penalty…in fact HAD it as an option until 1969. The bottom line is that it is an insult when these parish “Social Justice” types act like you are committing mortal sin if you say you support the death penalty. When , lets say, P Pius Xll was Pope, it was allowed, supported, just like it was for CENTURIES !..and I support it !!
I think these recent Popes are wrong, and as Pope Benedict said,(see my previous post) it is not the same as allowing and supporting abortion…which a Catholic CANNOT DO!

"The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope. Pope Pius XII, in an important allocution to medical experts, declared that it was reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of their crimes. "
firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

 

[d97c]

Pius XII, in a further clarification of the standard argument, holds that when the State, acting by its ministerial power, uses the death penalty, it does not exercise dominion over human life but only recognizes that the criminal, by a kind of moral suicide, has deprived himself of the right to life. In the Pope’s words,

“Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.”—POPE Pius XII

 

[LongingSoul]

You cant deny that prior Popes…and by the way…even the Vatican itself…supported the death penalty…in fact HAD it as an option until 1969. The bottom line is that it is an insult when these parish “Social Justice” types act like you are committing mortal sin if you say you support the death penalty. When , lets say, P Pius Xll was Pope, it was allowed, supported, just like it was for CENTURIES !..and I support it !!
I think these recent Popes are wrong, and as Pope Benedict said,(see my previous post) it is not the same as allowing and supporting abortion…which a Catholic CANNOT DO!

I think that you are doing your faith a disservice by taking the stance "recent Popes are wrong’. The Papacy is not a political party or a social institution that a Catholic can freely reject in that way. Her constituents are the souls of mankind and her laws serve eternal happiness. The state on the other hand serves the life of society and its laws serve the common good. When the Church contributes to the life of the world, it is concerned by how the attitudes and beliefs that support social structures, affect the immortal soul and eternal happiness of people. You can see that from this address from StJPII…

*“We are still a long way from the time when our conscience can be certain of having done everything possible to prevent crime and to control it effectively so that it no longer does harm and, at the same time, to offer to those who commit crimes a way of redeeming themselves and making a positive return to society. If all those in some way involved in the problem tried to develop this line of thought, perhaps humanity as a whole could take a great step forward in creating a more serene and peaceful society.”*Pope John Paul II, July 9, 2000

See how he is addressing the attitude around capital punishment in order that it properly serve justice.

As you said a Catholic is free to disagree on the application of the death penalty and many in the US do genuinely feel that the common good is being served by it. However it is wrong to imply that it has some intrinsically holy nature that serves justice regardless of how its use impacts on the life of the community. It is perfectly fine to let it disappear from penal law altogether without resulting in a diminished version of justice. In fact that attitude has been perfectly in keeping with other highly humane turns of event like the institution of social welfare and the legal rejection of many forms of discrimination that were never godly. Regardless of the flaws and failings in the application of those ideals, they can be easily seen as movements of the Holy Spirit in society towards a more godly society.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pius XII, in a further clarification of the standard argument, holds that when the State, acting by its ministerial power, uses the death penalty, it does not exercise dominion over human life but only recognizes that the criminal, by a kind of moral suicide, has deprived himself of the right to life. In the Pope’s words,

“Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.”—POPE Pius XII

This is in keeping with the role of the Church ministering to the age that Pope Pius XII led. Capital punishment was part of penal law and served justice. Man, less technologically advanced and more ruled by Christian thought had not had the opportunity as yet to develop attitudes that stemmed from mans sense of dominion over the life and death. Advances in mass education and science and technology have caused a moral dilemma for himself that didn’t actually exist to this extent before.

Read Evangelium Vitae from start to finish and it clearly explains how the changes in society have warranted a different approach to the way social structures support the soul of man and the common good.

"Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the quality of life and to ecology, especially in more developed societies, where people’s expectations are no longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search for an overall improvement of living conditions. Especially significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection on issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread development of bioethics is promoting more reflection and dialogue-between believers and non-believers, as well as between followers of different religions- on ethical problems, including fundamental issues pertaining to human life.

1. This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the “culture of death” and the “culture of life”. We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life."

We can’t view the Church as something lifeless like a library of facts. It is a living entity travelling through time with mankind constantly pointing to the moral way in service of the goal of mans eternal happiness. Her doctrines and dogmas are unchanging but as man and the world change, we see them from different perspectives. That is necessary in order that we continually stay on the one path guided by the one true Church.

Instead of clinging to a belief or attitude that makes us state “the Popes are wrong”, we need to be trying to understand what unchanging esteemed principle is served by our laws which alter in service of that principle. The desire for bloodless means to execute justice in human society has arisen from the good in man and the Church affirms this movement as in line with the Holy Spirit.

 

[d97c]

Your attitude is that if the Popes since around 1980 and after, say it, it must be enlightened. You ever read anything written before then? Of course you do. Read the Catachisms prior to then. All support the right of the state to inflict a just… JUST … punishment. I’m extremely pleased that John Paul 2 made it clear that the state still has that right, based on prior teachings, to do that. He simply says that it ought not to. I disagree. It should. It ought to. In some situations, like the Oklahoma City bombing guy , to keep McVeigh alive after conviction and appeal is not a just punishment . It is showing the highest disrespect for the innocent lives brutally massacred , snuffed out, obliterated , by the killer. You would be happy having McVeigh fed , clothed , given medical care, interviewed by press, watching tv in the pen----- all at taxpayers expense . That shows no sense of proportionality. Well, there ya go. I would have executed Hitler if he had been caught. Under ANY law. And if a man kidnaps a woman and rapes and murderers her and dumps her body in a ditch and then writes a letter to her family mocking their grief ( which is a case I had as a prosecutor. ) ANY other punishment would have been a mockery of Justice . I can , and will always support the right if the state to execute that horrible human being who did that.

 

[teeboy]

Q. When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment be used?

A. When there exists no other means to protect society from the convicted.

 

[LongingSoul]

Your attitude is that if the Popes since around 1980 and after, say it, it must be enlightened. You ever read anything written before then? Of course you do. Read the Catachisms prior to then. All support the right of the state to inflict a just… JUST … punishment. I’m extremely pleased that John Paul 2 made it clear that the state still has that right, based on prior teachings, to do that. He simply says that it ought not to. I disagree. It should. It ought to. In some situations, like the Oklahoma City bombing guy , to keep McVeigh alive after conviction and appeal is not a just punishment . It is showing the highest disrespect for the innocent lives brutally massacred , snuffed out, obliterated , by the killer. You would be happy having McVeigh fed , clothed , given medical care, interviewed by press, watching tv in the pen----- all at taxpayers expense . That shows no sense of proportionality. Well, there ya go. I would have executed Hitler if he had been caught. Under ANY law. And if a man kidnaps a woman and rapes and murderers her and dumps her body in a ditch and then writes a letter to her family mocking their grief ( which is a case I had as a prosecutor. ) ANY other punishment would have been a mockery of Justice . I can , and will always support the right if the state to execute that horrible human being who did that.

I live in a place where the death penalty was abolished 100 years ago. There are still cases of unbelievably horrible crime where people want life to mean life and throw away the key but mostly the thought of killing the criminal feels like sinking to a level of vengeance more in keeping with jungle law. Giving a person the chance to reform and redeem themselves seems more in keeping with justice being seen to be done than killing them to appease the wrath of a few.

The Church being the ultimate advocate of the New Testament principles of Christ has to speak up for true justice and her recognition of the unworthiness of the death penalty in the current environment, should be accepted by all Christians. The State of course must act from its concern for the common good and this may take time to come in line with the truly Christian way.

 

[teeboy]

I live in a place where the death penalty was abolished 100 years ago. There are still cases of unbelievably horrible crime where people want life to mean life and throw away the key but mostly the thought of killing the criminal feels like sinking to a level of vengeance more in keeping with jungle law. Giving a person the chance to reform and redeem themselves seems more in keeping with justice being seen to be done than killing them to appease the wrath of a few.

The Church being the ultimate advocate of the New Testament principles of Christ has to speak up for true justice and her recognition of the unworthiness of the death penalty in the current environment, should be accepted by all Christians. The State of course must act from its concern for the common good and this may take time to come in line with the truly Christian way.

Pope Benedict wrote that the virtue of Justice is grounded in mercy. The Gospel is about forgiveness of sins.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Benedict wrote that the virtue of Justice is grounded in mercy. The Gospel is about forgiveness of sins.

Yes that is a very true statement of faith. I also find it helpful to delve deeper into Aquinas’ way of seeing justice develop out of the natural goodness of mortal man. For example, his use of the human body and amputation of a limb as an analogy for the justification of a death penalty behooves us to stay true to reason as well as faith in our beliefs.

Man can understand and appreciate the organic unity of mankind or the society men exist within, by contemplating the human being and human nature. It makes sense that as humans we have grown more connected and feel a greater responsibility to each other, the more obvious our original unity becomes through advances in science. Each limb regardless of how removed it is from the others, was once an inseparable part of one microscopic organism. As a body of society, our sense of sharing in the blame and shame of some of the sins of each other can be appreciated by accepting our original unity and share in the defects that injure unity. Where this human desire to be merciful crosses into the life of the spirit is through the Cross of Christ who made the ultimate sacrifice to atone for our ‘defects’ and sins.

If we don’t show mercy where the human experience impels us, we are effectively denying the sacrifice of Christ which opened the way to heaven for us.

 

[d97c]

I would hate to have you decide when to protect me or any other American. You have confused the nature of “mercy.” Under your belief, NONE of the Nazis who were executed for killing 6 million Jews deserved that punishment. You would change the tradition of the church that allowed the execution. The Catholic church had NO problem with executing Nazis after W W II. The Pope supported it. You have internal trouble with NOT allowing the execution of Hitler , had we captured him. I guess you also think that dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was wrong too. The Pope also supported that action. Your concept of what is “just” leaves a lot to be desired.
OH…by the way…do you think the Popes of the hundreds of years prior to John Paul 2 were “wrong.” Those who supported the death penalty? Were they wrong? You apparently have a problem with the term “wrong.” …or will you some other language to reach the same conclusion?
When Christ was on the Cross, and the robbers crucified next to him said their crime deserved what they were getting, (the death penalty)Christ had the perfect chance to say…“your crime does not deserve this penalty.” He never said that.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would hate to have you decide when to protect me or any other American. You have confused the nature of “mercy.” Under your belief, NONE of the Nazis who were executed for killing 6 million Jews deserved that punishment. You would change the tradition of the church that allowed the execution. The Catholic church had NO problem with executing Nazis after W W II. The Pope supported it. You have internal trouble with NOT allowing the execution of Hitler , had we captured him. I guess you also think that dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was wrong too. The Pope also supported that action. Your concept of what is “just” leaves a lot to be desired.
OH…by the way…do you think the Popes of the hundreds of years prior to John Paul 2 were “wrong.” Those who supported the death penalty? Were they wrong? You apparently have a problem with the term “wrong.” …or will you some other language to reach the same conclusion?
When Christ was on the Cross, and the robbers crucified next to him said their crime deserved what they were getting, (the death penalty)Christ had the perfect chance to say…“your crime does not deserve this penalty.” He never said that.

When I was a baby I used to wear a diaper to deal with a necessary process of the body. Now that I’m grown and matured I have a much more hygenic and inoffensive way of dealing with that same process. I don’t look back and say I was ‘wrong’ as a baby to use such a method.

When people had infections of the body in the past, often the only solution was amputation of a limb in order that the rest of the body is preserved. Nowadays with antibiotics, it is rarely necessary to resort to amputation. The disease can be treated successfully while preserving the wholeness of the body. We don’t look back and say amputations are unnecessary now so that made them unnecessary and wrong in the past.

It’s the same with capital punishment. It serves a purpose to an important human process. It is not inherently necessary to that process and can actually be detrimental to that process if retained when a better option can achieve that proper purpose.

 

[d97c]

My goodness! That baby example was a real stretch. As a baby , he or she COULDNT have done anything EXCEPT use a diaper. I don’t need to go into detail!
But… There are plenty of reasons in recent church history and scandals to conclude that the passing of time and lack of common sense and discipline have resulted in the shape the church is in today. The previous centuries, when the church and Popes and Doctors of the Church all thought it necessary and correct to have the death penalty , were certainly "before " today, but to automatically conclude that today is better, is that value judgement I have a right not to make. As I have shown, Vatican City had the death penalty until 1969 .