When or is the death penalty alright?

[CWBetts]

Your argument is not applicable solely to the death penalty; it is an argument against any punishment at all since in fact the woman received no punishment whatever. More to the point, unlike you, the Church has never interpreted this passage to mean that capital punishment was improper.
I’m not sure what point you’re making here. If you’re arguing against executions because they are inferior versions of the eternal form, wouldn’t that objection equally apply to positive attributes as well - like, love, justice, charity …? After all, these too are inferior versions of the eternal virtues. It seems more likely that while we are mortal we are meant to employ the tools available to us.

There is a valuable point contained in this statement: it explains that retribution means the restoration of the order of justice. Given that 2266 states that the primary objective of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense it is useful to be able to point out that what they are saying is that it is in fact retribution - justice - which is paramount.

Ender

Are you saying a life of hard labor is NOT punishment??? I just love the hypocrisy here. In support of the death penalty, you invoke Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that a difference of opinion is allowed, but the same courtesy is not extended to those who oppose the death penalty. I say we should err on the side of mercy, but you say that they MUST be executed. I still challenge anyone to show me where the death penalty is actually ENCOURAGED. There is a difference between “allowed” and “encouraged,” and truthfully, iti is discouraged in the Catechism. At any rate, I will no longer tolerate any more of your self-righteous condemnation of my point of view.

 

[CWBetts]

Oh my!! Mr Betts. Well, of course having the degree you have, you certainly know, (and it must have been an oversight on your part, with the picture and everything, and the name) that St Thomas More, the Chancellor of England, followed the laws of England, and as a Catholic, oversaw the execution of persons (the death penalty), since the death penalty was part of England law. He had no problem with it, but Mr Betts does. Maybe you ought to find another “nom de plume” that fits your opinion. Someone who might just sluff off 1,980 years of Catholic tradition and teaching because HE doesn’t like the death penalty.
…and what are you talking about?? No one is discussing the Old Testament. The Church of the Risen Jesus, the Church that he founded, based on many New Testament writings from various doctors of the church, Popes, Catechisms, who probably had more than a BA degree, (do I need to restate those authors for ya, Mr B?), and supported the death penalty for centuries.
Oh well, Im afraid you are without redemption. Oh!! so, I wanted ask you: If we had caught Hitler after WW2 and tried and convicted him at the Hague, you would have kept him alive and all…just a jail sentence…no death penalty…is that right? (Go on, …I dare you)

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same. And being the absolute scholar that you are in the realm of history, you would also ralize that technology has progressed somewhat since June 22, 1535, and that the ability to protect society from criminals does not require execution, as it did in St. Thomas’s day. I would recommend you read Utopia , wherein the “proponent of execution” you purport St Thomas to be argues against that very same thing. You, therefore are in error.

And to answer your question: Every single human being posesses an inherent degree of goodness. To suggest otherwise would to be to say that God is evil, because a being that os purely good cannot create evil. If you disagree, take it up with St. Augustine…

 

[d97c]

Oh Lord…you are constantly in the trap…St Augustine was consistent with the teachings of the Church on the death penalty. Truth hurts Mr Betts:

As Christianity became more socially acceptable and became accepted as part of the Roman establishment, theologians reassessed capital punishment and found it inoffensive. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), perhaps the most influential of the post-New Testament theologians, wrote in The City of God that “[t]he same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law…”
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)

prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Im sorry the history of the church cant be manufactured the way you want, Mr B…

Additionally, More wrote Utopia in 1516 and then in 1529 became Chancellor of England. While he wanted to limit capital punishment to certain crimes, he NEVER wrote that the death penalty should be abolished, for all crimes, and you cant show me where he did, Mr Betts ! in Utopia or anywhere else. You take Utopia and show me that. …and then tell me why he advocated the death penalty AFTER he wrote Utopia and was Chancellor of England. Facts as curious things arent they??

 

[Portrait]

Are you saying a life of hard labor is NOT punishment??? I just love the hypocrisy here. In support of the death penalty, you invoke Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that a difference of opinion is allowed, but the same courtesy is not extended to those who oppose the death penalty. I say we should err on the side of mercy, but you say that they MUST be executed. I still challenge anyone to show me where the death penalty is actually ENCOURAGED. There is a difference between “allowed” and “encouraged,” and truthfully, iti is discouraged in the Catechism. At any rate, I will no longer tolerate any more of your self-righteous condemnation of my point of view.

Dear CWBetts,

The death penalty is mandated by the Almighty Himself in Sacred Scripture:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Genesis 9: 6).

As regards the perpetuity of this divine institution, no consideration is more pertinent than this: the reason given for exacting such a penalty (or, if one will, the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man) is one that has permanent relevance and validity. Since there has been no suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God, capital punishment is as true today as it was in the days of Noah.

Moreover, to this must be added the observation that, in respect of our relations to our fellow men, no crime is as extreme and, as concerning the person who is the victim, none is as irremediable, as the crime of taking life itself. Furthermore, in no other instance of biblical jurisprudence is the reason for the infliction of a penalty stated to be that man is made in the image of God. That consideration is reserved soley for this particular crime and for the sanction by which it is penalized. Thus the institution of capital punishment for murder is in an entirely different category from tose other provisions of the Pentateuch in which putting to death was enjoined for many other offences. Not only do the time and circumstances of the institution differ; the reasons which underlie the sanction in this case are radically different. We have good reason, therefore, for maintaining that the institution is of permanent obligation. So Sacred Scripture and God Himself actually encourages, indeed demands, the death penalty for murder.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Oh Lord…you are constantly in the trap…St Augustine was consistent with the teachings of the Church on the death penalty. Truth hurts Mr Betts:

As Christianity became more socially acceptable and became accepted as part of the Roman establishment, theologians reassessed capital punishment and found it inoffensive. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), perhaps the most influential of the post-New Testament theologians, wrote in The City of God that “[t]he same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law…”
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)

prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Im sorry the history of the church cant be manufactured the way you want, Mr B…

Additionally, More wrote Utopia in 1516 and then in 1529 became Chancellor of England. While he wanted to limit capital punishment to certain crimes, he NEVER wrote that the death penalty should be abolished, for all crimes, and you cant show me where he did, Mr Betts ! in Utopia or anywhere else. You take Utopia and show me that. …and then tell me why he advocated the death penalty AFTER he wrote Utopia and was Chancellor of England. Facts as curious things arent they??

I was quoting Augustine in reference to God actively creating evil (He can’t. He is the Good). The fact remains that Capital Punishment is discouraged in the Catechism, and that Catholics are allowed to have differing opinions on the matter. However the proponents of the death penalty seem to think that freedom only is allowable for themselves, and not to those who feel mercy is the better way.

 

[Portrait]

I was quoting Augustine in reference to God actively creating evil (He can’t. He is the Good). The fact remains that Capital Punishment is discouraged in the Catechism, and that Catholics are allowed to have differing opinions on the matter. However the proponents of the death penalty seem to think that freedom only is allowable for themselves, and not to those who feel mercy is the better way.

Dear CWBetts,

The fact that our Catechism allows latitude of opinion as regards the death penalty is most unsatisfactory to say the least, especially since human life is invloved. Clarification of this issue by the Magisterium needs to be undertaken as a matter of urgency; the present ambiguity is only leading to confusion among the faithful as the present debate has clearly evinced.

In the final analysis our own subjective opinions as to what is or is not merciful are totally irrelevant to the debate; clearly if God sanctioned capital punishment, as he most certainly did (Gen. 9: 6), then it is patently evident that it cannot be inimical or contrary to any merciful considerations, otherwise we imply that God Himself was unmerciful in instituting the death penalty in the first place.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Dear CWBetts,

The fact that our Catechism allows latitude of opinion as regards the death penalty is most unsatisfactory to say the least, especially since human life is invloved. Clarification of this issue by the Magisterium needs to be undertaken as a matter of urgency; the present ambiguity is only leading to confusion among the faithful as the present debate has clearly evinced.

In the final analysis our own subjective opinions as to what is or is not merciful are totally irrelevant to the debate; clearly if God sanctioned capital punishment, as he most certainly did (Gen. 9: 6), then it is patently evident that it cannot be inimical or contrary to any merciful considerations, otherwise we imply that God Himself was unmerciful in instituting the death penalty in the first place.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Your logic is faulty. God allowed the death penalty because humanity could not live up to the ideal. It was a concession made due to the fallen nature of man. Much like the institution of the Kingdom was allowed because the ideal (theocracy under the Judges) could not be adhered to by Israel. There is a subtle difference.

 

[d97c]

I just hope Mr Betts will not want to be victorious in argument enough to state falshood or exaggerate when it comes to written works. There is just no doubt, after examining any credible writer, up to about 1980, that the Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ, approved of the use, and the reasons therefor, of capital punishment. Then the persons who wanted to change it basically said, “And now, dispite the hundreds of years of stating differently, we just are sorry we said those things, and even though we cant say the d.p. is immoral (because we said it wasnt for centuries), (that’s why the catachism says it is permitted, morally) we just dont like it anymore!”
and to that we say…“sorry dont get it.”
You know, Mr B never answered my question whether he would have denied the court in the Hague the right to execute Hitler if he had been caught and convicted. …hmmmmmmm…Do you suppose there is a real tiger in there??

 

[CWBetts]

It is a FACT, yes FACT, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty , if this is the only possible way of effectively saving 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 mre in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has of effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm–without definitively taking away the possibility of redeeming himself–the cases which execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”*
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267 (* Evangelium Vitae 56, John Paul II)

Simply put:

1. The state should have access to the death penalty.
2. The state will not use the death penalty if non-lethal means exist to protect human lives.
3. Modern states have at their disposal effective non-lethal means
   Conclusion: the application of the death penalty in modern states does not pass the restrictions imposed by the Church.

Now you have been talking quite a bit about St. Augustine and St.Thomas More in your weak attempts to defend use of the death penalty. You are overlooking a major issue: That was then, this is now. I am not suggesting morality has changed, no sir. What I am suggesting is that St. Augustine lived in the 4th century. St. Thomas More lived in the sixteenth century. The more recent of the two died nearly 500 years ago. Prison technology has changed somewhat in the last five centuries. A good deal more in the last seventeen centuries. What I am saying is that given modern prisons, I am not convinced that Augustine and More would hold the same view concerning the death penalty. In fact, I believe that St. Thomas More, known for his adherence to just treatment of all, would have been opposed to the death penalty, save extreme circumstances. If you still disagree with me, you are no longer disagreeing with me, but with the Church. The Catechism was quoted verbatim.

 

[Shin]

In fact, if I had run into such smugness as I was going through RCIA, I may well have not converted.

So are you saying you’d leave the Catholic Church over this matter? Or not have joined because of it?

This points to something you really need to consider. . which comes first.

Supernatural Faith is very important, and one flaw breaks it.

It doesn’t ultimately matter if the truth is related to a person in a way that is hard on that person, the truth is the truth. It cannot and should not always be delivered in a way that caters to that person’s emotional life.

If the devil himself tells you the truth, it’s still the truth.

The ends do not justify the means in discussions like this, and I think that has been going on somewhat here. A sign the end is being held of too high importance.

 

[remjsmom76]

The death penalty is against all of our believes. We do not take life away from anyone…not even those who have hurt inoccent people. I take the words from the bible, I believe in Genisis…when Cane killed his brother Able. Then GOD gave Cane a mark on his forehead and said anyone who killed cane…the person who kills Cane would get a punishment worse than Cane, has. That means that just because Cane killed his brother doesnt mean we can kill cane. GOD will take care of it.

 

[CWBetts]

So are you saying you’d leave the Catholic Church over this matter? Or not have joined because of it?

This points to something you really need to consider. . which comes first.

Supernatural Faith is very important, and one flaw breaks it.

It doesn’t ultimately matter if the truth is related to a person in a way that is hard on that person, the truth is the truth. It cannot and should not always be delivered in a way that caters to that person’s emotional life.

If the devil himself tells you the truth, it’s still the truth.

The ends do not justify the means in discussions like this, and I think that has been going on somewhat here. A sign the end is being held of too high importance.

When I was going through RCIA, I was looking for the Truth. I had been to plenty of faith communities that claimed to have it, but did not. To a searcher, such arrogance is detrimental. We are supposed to represent Christ. Inferring that one is an idiot is not a way to put on Christ. Neither is to question my faith as you just have. But as supporters of executions, should I be surprised at the hypocrisy and judgment?

 

[Shin]

When I was going through RCIA, I was looking for the Truth. I had been to plenty of faith communities that claimed to have it, but did not. To a searcher, such arrogance is detrimental. We are supposed to represent Christ. Inferring that one is an idiot is not a way to put on Christ. Neither is to question my faith as you just have. But as supporters of executions, should I be surprised at the hypocrisy and judgment?

You are the one who just accused someone of being so bad as to keep you from the Faith, and only shortly along the road conversion who, who seems quite pleasant…

I think we all need to take breather here.

 

[diggerdomer]

Mercy is for people who ask for it. .

Really?

In the Bible, did God show mercy only to those people who asked for it? Is that what Jesus did?

 

[fish90]

I’ve often opposed the death penalty my whole life, believing that we have a right to life and there are people like Stephen Truscott who are given the death penalty even though they are innocent (Truscott’s death sentence was commuted, thank God) but more recently, I’ve been following the news about Khalid Shiekh Mohamed and how he will get the death penalty if found guilty. There’s a part of me thinking “he deserves it” and another part of me thinking “put him in prison and make his life a living Hell”. Could the death penalty be applicable for people who commit heinous crimes such as terrorism?

Justice is a core component for supporting the death penalty. Capital punishment is just killing along the lines of military force (so long as the war is just which is determined by lawful authorities) and self defense of oneself or others within reason.

There also can be the argument that there is no nonlethal ways to keep Khalid Shiekh Mohamed confined.

The decision on whether to use the death penalty is left to the lawful authority. You have every right as a Catholic to support or oppose the death penalty*** within conditional limits and reason***.

 

[CWBetts]

You are the one who just accused someone of being so bad as to keep you from the Faith, and only shortly along the road conversion who, who seems quite pleasant…

I think we all need to take breather here.

I posted the relevant section of the Catechism, which is the POV I am espousing. If you disagree with me, you have more to be concerned about than irritating me…

 

[diggerdomer]

Justice is a core component for supporting the death penalty. Capital punishment is just killing along the lines of military force (so long as the war is just which is determined by lawful authorities) and self defense of oneself or others within reason.

There also can be the argument that there is no nonlethal ways to keep Khalid Shiekh Mohamed confined.

The decision on whether to use the death penalty is left to the lawful authority. You have every right as a Catholic to support or oppose the death penalty*** within conditional limits and reason***.

military force and the death penalty are very separate.

 

[fish90]

Really?

In the Bible, did God show mercy only to those people who asked for it? Is that what Jesus did?

I see what you are saying. Good point.

Now, if I am correct, God only forgives those who repent. Refusing to repent is the only unforgivable sin.

Let’s all get back on topic eh?

 

[fish90]

military force and the death penalty are very separate.

Those are still two instances of the moral killing of another human being which I was using to show that just killing is morally acceptable.

 

[diggerdomer]

Those are still two instances of the moral killing of another human being which I was using to show that just killing is morally acceptable.

Yes, both may be morally acceptable (though it’s also completely coherent with the Catholic tradition to completely object to either or both). The circumstances that make either morally acceptable are very different though.