When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment be used?

[Ender]

Nowadays the Church (wisely, IMO) points out that the latter makes most death penalty cases unwise, because modern man has such an impoverished view of things that he cannot experience capital punishment as it is – the enactment of divine justice – but as the enactment of the collective vengeance of the mob.

I’m not sure I agree that this was a wise approach but I certainly agree that the current objection to the use of capital punishment is prudential and not doctrinal.

Capital punishment was not a concession, it was an authority explicitly delegated to man by God in the Noachide covenant, to ensure that divine justice was observed on earth without the need for God’s own dramatic intervention (which he had just assured Noah, after all, he would not do in the form of a flood again). The Church’s teaching is not that this capital punishment is a bad thing, but that the circumstances of the age make it imprudent to use it.

Good summary.

The death penalty is certainly not homicide…

Homicide simply means that one person has killed another, which accurately describes an execution. Killing in self defense is also homicide. Running someone over in your car is vehicular homicide. That it was homicide does not mean that it was immoral, although that is often the implication. All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders.

Ender

 

[New_Disciple]

The church has never justified the use of capital punishment on the basis of self defense, and there is good reason to believe such a justification is not appropriate. Aquinas addressed the issue of killing in self defense:* For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. … but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him.* (ST II-II 41,1)
How do we justify capital punishment as an act of self defense when the act is undertaken “with the fixed intention of killing” the prisoner, which is a mortal sin?
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. (Catechism of St. Thomas)
Ender

Respectfully, St. Thomas makes clear he is only referring to individual strife or “private war” not sanctioned by any authority, thus he makes no judgement on capital punishment in this statement. On the contrary, in the passage that follows he goes out of his way to distinguish strife from state action, indicating that resisters of violence brought upon them by the state can in fact be the sinful party if their resistance comes from hatred or vengeance or if they defend themselves unreasonably. What’s more to this, when he says that it is mortally sinful “if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him,” he is speaking in the context of excessive force (or, to “exceed moderation,” in his words), not legitimate self-preservation. But again, he’s talking about strife, not state action.

Moreover, as has been quoted, the legitimacy of societal self-defense as a justification for the death penalty is the viewpoint expressed by CCC 2267 (a higher authority than St. Thomas).

With respect to the modern state’s authority to dispense divine justice, I did not mean to contradict that it nominally has such authority, only that it lacks the competence to carry it out (I apologise for my incoherence - I was attempting to express my dislike for the “If God did it, so can we” justification, which can easily be abused). If, hypothetically, the state executed individuals with this purpose in mind, it might be permissible. But the fact is, modern executions have nothing to do with God’s law or with self-defense; they are always born out of vengeance or hatred which means they are, by their nature, unmerciful. Thus, capital punishment in the contemporary context will almost always (if not always) be gravely sinful.

God Bless!

 

[Ender]

Respectfully, St. Thomas makes clear he is only referring to individual strife or “private war” not sanctioned by any authority…

St. Thomas was addressing the limits of self defense, which was the point being discussed. If you believe there are different rules governing self defense for states then find something to support that position. JPII in Evangelium Vitae #55 (which leads directly into the section of capital punishment) brings up the right of individual self defense and the right of a society to defend itself and he made no distinction between them.

… thus he makes no judgement on capital punishment in this statement.

True, but he did comment on capital punishment elsewhere:*These punishments are fixed by divine law *(ST II-II 108,3)

On the contrary, in the passage that follows he goes out of his way to distinguish strife from state action, indicating that resisters of violence brought upon them by the state can in fact be the sinful party if their resistance comes from hatred or vengeance or if they defend themselves unreasonably.

Yes, even a just action becomes a sin if committed for the wrong reason, but this is an indictment of the intent, not of the act.

What’s more to this, when he says that it is mortally sinful “if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him,” he is speaking in the context of excessive force (or, to “exceed moderation,” in his words), not legitimate self-preservation. But again, he’s talking about strife, not state action.

It is true, he was speaking of the limits on an individual’s right of self defense, but what can you cite to suggest the limits are different for states? The church has always recognized three reasons justifying the killing of a person and she has always treated them as separate and distinct.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

• 1. In self-defense…*
     2. In a just war…
     *3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)

Moreover, as has been quoted, the legitimacy of societal self-defense as a justification for the death penalty is the viewpoint expressed by CCC 2267 (a higher authority than St. Thomas).

St. Thomas expressed no more than the traditional teaching of the church, which is actually more than can be said for 2267. To be accurate, 2267 does not base its position on capital punishment on the concept of self defense. Such a connection is implied but not stated. Nor is this the the only reasonable interpretation of his comments:*The Holy Father is obviously invoking the principle of double effect in the passage, for his concern is to deny that the “fatal outcome” is attributable to the self-defender’s intention; accordingly, he cites Part II-II, Question 64, Article 7 of the Summa at this point. Paragraph 56 then begins with the remark, “It is in this context that the question of capital punishment arises.” But this is false, at least historically, for the question was never considered by the Church within that context. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J.)

With respect to the modern state’s authority to dispense divine justice, I did not mean to contradict that it nominally has such authority, only that it lacks the competence to carry it out

This is not a position the church has ever taken.Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine)

But the fact is, modern executions have nothing to do with God’s law or with self-defense; they are always born out of vengeance or hatred which means they are, by their nature, unmerciful.

We are not competent to judge the intentions of others. This is uncharitable.

Thus, capital punishment in the contemporary context will almost always (if not always) be gravely sinful.

I can accept that its use may be a mistake, or that the reason a person supports it may be immoral, but neither of these conditions make capital punishment itself sinful.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment (execution) be used as a punishment for a crime?

Should rapists/pedophiles be executed?
Should murderers be executed?
Should war-criminals, mass murderers, or those who commit genocide or other crimes against humanity be executed?

Why or why not?

The question at issue is not what crimes warrant capital punishment, but whether capital punishment serves justice at all today.

The common good requires that justice be seen to be done and in a culture that experiences an entitlement to kill to serve human purposes (abortion, euthansia)… the revulsion for capital punishment is recognised as a godly reaction against the false sense of power human beings are claiming.

 

[BornInMarch]

The question at issue is not what crimes warrant capital punishment, but whether capital punishment serves justice at all today.

The common good requires that justice be seen to be done and in a culture that experiences an entitlement to kill to serve human purposes (abortion, euthansia)… the revulsion for capital punishment is recognised as a godly reaction against the false sense of power human beings are claiming.

But the people who are killed by abortion and euthanasia are innocent, where as people who are executed usually are not.

During the times of the old testament, and during a good chunk of the history of the church, murderers and rapists were put to death. I think that executions are morally justifiable as long as there are people like Rodney Alcala (a serial killer/rapist who brutally ended between 7-130 lives [yes, he is currently on death row]). Also, executions usually take enough time that the person being killed has enough time to repent if they so wish.

 

[LongingSoul]

But the people who are killed by abortion and euthanasia are innocent, where as people who are executed usually are not.

During the times of the old testament, and during a good chunk of the history of the church, murderers and rapists were put to death. I think that executions are morally justifiable as long as there are people like Rodney Alcala (a serial killer/rapist who brutally ended between 7-130 lives [yes, he is currently on death row]). Also, executions usually take enough time that the person being killed has enough time to repent if they so wish.

As Catholics, we are called to align our beliefs to the Church by letting go of preconcieved notions of the nature of capital punishment.

“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Pope John Paul II Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Pope John Paul Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

Guilt or innocence is not at issue. Those things are relative. In the middle ages people where executed for things we no longer think criminal.

In a secular society, the death penalty serves to promote problem solving by using violence. That necessitates becoming emotionally desensitized to the sight of blood, suffering, and killing; and to place little value on human life.

Think of it in the way of the scourge of smallpox. Vaccinations are a good thing in a community unfamiliar with the virus… but in communities that are exposed to the virus through rural life and exposure to the virus carried by cattle… vaccination isn’t necessary. People have a natural immuity to the virus and immunisation would cause more disease than it solves.

 

[Ender]

As Catholics, we are called to align our beliefs to the Church by letting go of preconceived notions of the nature of capital punishment.

The problem here of course is that our preconceived notions of the nature of capital punishment were formed by nearly 2000 years of church teaching.*It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” * (De Laicis, St. Bellarmine)

Guilt or innocence is not at issue. Those things are relative.

Arguments like this is where your position goes off the rails. *It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; *(Pius XI, Casti Connubi)

In a secular society, the death penalty serves to promote problem solving by using violence. That necessitates becoming emotionally desensitized to the sight of blood, suffering, and killing; and to place little value on human life.

This is at least a reasonable argument (whether it is accurate is another question) because this challenges the usefulness of capital punishment and not its morality.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The problem here of course is that our preconceived notions of the nature of capital punishment were formed by nearly 2000 years of church teaching.*It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” * (De Laicis, St. Bellarmine)
Arguments like this is where your position goes off the rails. *It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; *(Pius XI, Casti Connubi)
This is at least a reasonable argument (whether it is accurate is another question) because this challenges the usefulness of capital punishment and not its morality.

Ender

It’s so pointless to keep introducing these red herrings. The Church has spoken and we can trust her. We are all aware that capital punishment is neither intrinsically evil in the way of abortion… nor a divine command like “Keep Holy the Sabbath” which could not be abolished by human judgment.

Capital punishment serves the common good in the pursuit of justice. We cannot claim it to have divine retributive power as Crd. Dulles reminds us that “*Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.” *

The Church guides us that the death penalty is undermining the dignity of human beings and therefore not serving the common good or justice. It is good and right to abolish it in favour of non fatal sentences if the safety of the community is not at issue.

This is the guidance of the Church… the successor of Peter and representative of Christ with us today under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As Catholics we conform our beliefs to the wisdom of the Church.

 

[Ender]

It’s so pointless to keep introducing these red herrings.

Which red herring do you refer to? Pius XI or St. Bellarmine?

The Church has spoken and we can trust her.

Which is why I cite what she has said rather than provide my own personal interpretations as you do.

Capital punishment serves the common good in the pursuit of justice.

We are agreed on this.

We cannot claim it to have divine retributive power as Crd. Dulles reminds us that “*Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.” *

We are not called to provide divine retribution. The state is obligated, however, to exact retribution in this life, which is what it does whenever it punishes crimes, and the extent of that punishment is determined primarily by the severity of the crime.

The Church guides us that the death penalty is undermining the dignity of human beings and therefore not serving the common good or justice.

This is incorrect. If capital punishment “undermined” a person’s dignity, that is, if it was actually an offense against man’s dignity, then the church would have no occasion to allow it, but since she has always allowed it it cannot be contrary to man’s dignity.

We also know from God himself that this is not so inasmuch as it is precisely because of man’s dignity that the life of a man who commits murder and violates that dignity is forfeit. How can we find fault with what God has instructed us to do?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Which red herring do you refer to? Pius XI or St. Bellarmine?
Which is why I cite what she has said rather than provide my own personal interpretations as you do.
We are agreed on this.
We are not called to provide divine retribution. The state is obligated, however, to exact retribution in this life, which is what it does whenever it punishes crimes, and the extent of that punishment is determined primarily by the severity of the crime.
This is incorrect. If capital punishment “undermined” a person’s dignity, that is, if it was actually an offense against man’s dignity, then the church would have no occasion to allow it, but since she has always allowed it it cannot be contrary to man’s dignity.

We also know from God himself that this is not so inasmuch as it is precisely because of man’s dignity that the life of a man who commits murder and violates that dignity is forfeit. How can we find fault with what God has instructed us to do?

Ender

The state is not obligated to ‘exact retribution in this life’. In this life punishment redresses the disorder caused by crime, to the common good. It’s frame of reference is the common good. It askes itself ‘how does punishment serve the common good?’. For a long time, the governments of the world have moved to abolish capital punishment. Even for the crime of murder it views the death penalty as detrimental to the common good of all. Perhaps God may eventually cast a murderer into hell for his sin and the state might have such deep insight into a particular murdered as to pretty clearly know him to be godless… but that is not the criterior the state uses to condemn. The state unlike God is not invested in the moral quality of the man and his soul. The state is invested in the common good of all people. It’s pointless quoting God as saying that ‘if a man commits murder, his life is forfeit’… because you are not God or His Son or His specially chosen above normal people. The state does not quote God. The state is made up of mere mortals invested with care for the common good of all.

 

[Ender]

The state is not obligated to ‘exact retribution in this life’.

If the state has no obligation to punish crime why does the church say that they do?*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)

In this life punishment redresses the disorder caused by crime, to the common good. It’s frame of reference is the common good. It asks itself ‘how does punishment serve the common good?’.

I think I agree with this but I’m not sure who “it” is. I have repeatedly said that opposing capital punishment for prudential reasons is a valid (if not necessarily correct) position.

For a long time, the governments of the world have moved to abolish capital punishment. Even for the crime of murder it views the death penalty as detrimental to the common good of all.

For a long time the governments of the world have moved to make abortion legal. It isn’t a compelling argument to suggest that an action is moral because governments commit it.

It’s pointless quoting God as saying that ‘if a man commits murder, his life is forfeit’… because you are not God or His Son or His specially chosen above normal people.

Do you realize how far you’ve gone in attempting to defend your position? When was it ever true that quoting God was pointless?

The state does not quote God. The state is made up of mere mortals invested with care for the common good of all.

The state is charged with making prudential judgments. The church is charged with setting out moral boundaries. If you are suggesting that states increasingly ignore God and the church in making those judgments I would agree with you. It is interesting, however, to note that when the church had more influence over the thinking of states the states made more liberal use of capital punishment. The elimination of capital punishment has coincided with the secularization of the state.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The state is charged with making prudential judgments. The church is charged with setting out moral boundaries. If you are suggesting that states increasingly ignore God and the church in making those judgments I would agree with you. It is interesting, however, to note that when the church had more influence over the thinking of states the states made more liberal use of capital punishment. The elimination of capital punishment has coincided with the secularization of the state.

Ender

Your assessment of things is more in line with fundamenalist Protestantism. The Catholic position on the other hand is that capital punishment is cruel and unnecessary considering that advances in penal security afford the public a sense of security without depriving a person of their life. It is not normal or godly for human beings to experience entitlement or satisfaction in the act of killing another person. It is more normal and godly to experience relief and hope for the world, at not needing to kill a person in the course of penal justice.

This is all a great cause for hope and strengthening of faith in the grace and mercy of God. Execution is no longer necessary except where the safety of the public is at risk. This is the Catholic perspective.

 

[Ender]

Your assessment of things is more in line with fundamenalist Protestantism.

Protestant fundamentalists don’t cite the Fathers and Doctors of the church.

The Catholic position on the other hand is that capital punishment is cruel…

Catholic doctrine recognizes the legitimacy of capital punishment. If your assertion was right then it would mean the church recognizes the legitimacy of cruelty. It is more reasonable to assume your assertion is mistaken.

… and unnecessary considering that advances in penal security afford the public a sense of security without depriving a person of their life.

Deciding whether prisons offer real security or merely a false sense of security is a prudential judgment. Church doctrine is silent on this issue.

It is not normal or godly for human beings to experience entitlement or satisfaction in the act of killing another person.

We are not capable of judging the motivations or emotions of others, hence we are forbidden to make such judgments.

Execution is no longer necessary except where the safety of the public is at risk. This is the Catholic perspective.

The fact that you repeat this position does not make it correct…and Catholics have doctrines to guide them, not perspectives.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Protestant fundamentalists don’t cite the Fathers and Doctors of the church.

Oh rubbish. Your mate, Dudley Sharp does it all the time. So do the ultra traditionalist and sedavacantist Catholics. It’s done to create a divide in the Church. It’s done to make others doubt the authority of the living Church and to undermine the unity of the Communion of Saints.

Catholic doctrine recognizes the legitimacy of capital punishment. If your assertion was right then it would mean the church recognizes the legitimacy of cruelty. It is more reasonable to assume your assertion is mistaken.
Deciding whether prisons offer real security or merely a false sense of security is a prudential judgment. Church doctrine is silent on this issue.
We are not capable of judging the motivations or emotions of others, hence we are forbidden to make such judgments.
The fact that you repeat this position does not make it correct…and Catholics have doctrines to guide them, not perspectives.

Ender

If you start to ‘think with the Church’ you’ll find you can turn to 2267 and not feel any apoplexy at all.

 

[Ender]

Oh rubbish. Your mate, Dudley Sharp does it all the time.

Neither you nor I know enough about him to declare what his affiliation or beliefs are. Have the good grace not to label (libel?) a person you do not know.

It’s done to create a divide in the Church. It’s done to make others doubt the authority of the living Church and to undermine the unity of the Communion of Saints.

Citing the saints is done to undermine the unity of the Communion of Saints? I really don’t think so.

If you start to ‘think with the Church’ you’ll find you can turn to 2267 and not feel any apoplexy at all.

The difficulty you face is that you have virtually nothing to support your interpretations of what the church has actually said, and you appear to find it unfair that citations supporting my position are so abundant.

There really are a number of important issues relating to this question that would be useful and interesting to discuss. I just wish someone would join the debate who doesn’t take this quite so personally.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Neither you nor I know enough about him to declare what his affiliation or beliefs are. Have the good grace not to label (libel?) a person you do not know.
Citing the saints is done to undermine the unity of the Communion of Saints? I really don’t think so.
The difficulty you face is that you have virtually nothing to support your interpretations of what the church has actually said, and you appear to find it unfair that citations supporting my position are so abundant.

There really are a number of important issues relating to this question that would be useful and interesting to discuss. I just wish someone would join the debate who doesn’t take this quite so personally.

Ender

About a year or so ago, someone gave me an unsolicited rundown on Dudley Sharps affinities by private message. I didn’t ask for it but it seems pretty obvious to me anyway. I’ve never come across a Catholic with the perspective you guys come from before in my more than 50 years of Catholic life. It’s very much a fundamentalist perspective. I don’t really care but to say that a Protestant or anti-Catholic wouldn’t quote the Fathers in order to undermine St JPII especially… is taking us for morons. Of course people would do that.

This is the Catholic position…

CCC 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."68

We have more depth and insight into why the Church teaches this from Evangelium Vitae…

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.

Here too…

The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the “ten words” in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13); “do not slay the innocent and righteous” (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel’s later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18).

The safety and protection of the community can warrant an action as extreme as the death penalty as a last resort but absent this aspect, the inviolability of human life and the need for that to serve the common good, makes a penalty of death or torture morally repugnant.

…pto…

 

[LongingSoul]

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

1. If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment “You shall not kill” has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenceless human beings, who find their ultimate defence against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God’s commandment.

This document clearly expresses the Catholic teaching and the respect for life we are called to from the opening verses of Genesis.

We are not gods unto ourselves as Catholics and defer our personal desires and ideals to that of the Churchs magisterium, headed by the Pope. In their prayful and holy wisdom we find the movement of the Holy Spirit and the will of God.

There will never be anyone to discuss with you as you are not open to anything beyond your own judgement of truth.

 

[sw85]

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.

 

[Ender]

About a year or so ago, someone gave me an unsolicited rundown on Dudley Sharps affinities by private message.

What does someone’s personal “affinities” have to do with the accuracy of his argument? You dismissively labeled Dudley a “Protestant fundamentalist”, an example of detraction (at least in your mind) which is an offense “against the virtues of justice and charity.” Unable to respond to my arguments you then tar me with the same brush.

The problem with this approach, aside from its venality, is its irrelevancy. My statements, like yours, are either right or wrong, and my reasons for making them have no bearing whatever on their validity.

This is the Catholic position…CCC 2267 …

The Catholic position is also set out in CCC 2260, not to mention a half dozen earlier catechisms, the teachings of popes going back to Clement I, and the Fathers and Doctors. The difficulty we both face is figuring out how to accommodate these seemingly opposing sources into a consistent whole that includes all the teachings. The insistence that 2267 alone represents the totality of that teaching is not the solution.

We have more depth and insight into why the Church teaches this from Evangelium Vitae…

Well, there is less there than you suppose since EV #56 refers to CCC 2267 as the source of its position.

Here too…
The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the “ten words” in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: “You shall not kill”

To quote The Princess Bride:* “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” *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. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

The safety and protection of the community can warrant an action as extreme as the death penalty as a last resort…

Protection alone cannot justify a punishment. It is retribution that takes precedence; protection is secondary.

the inviolability of human life and the need for that to serve the common good, makes a penalty of death …morally repugnant.

Human life is not inviolable; the church has been very clear about this. And, yet again, if the death penalty is morally repugnant why does the church recognize its validity. Just above even you said it was “warranted”. How can something that is morally repugnant ever by morally justified?

Ender

 

[Ender]

This document clearly expresses the Catholic teaching and the respect for life we are called to from the opening verses of Genesis.

You want to start from the opening opening verses of Genesis? Doesn’t that include God’s position on the matter in Genesis 9:6? That seems a pretty clear expression of his teaching.

We are not gods unto ourselves as Catholics and defer our personal desires and ideals to that of the Churchs magisterium, headed by the Pope.

This has always been so…which is why it is valid to cite what all the popes have had to say on the matter.

Ender