When or is the death penalty alright?

[fish90]

A perfect world would not involve either of those.

We really need the Magisterium to teach about this matter minus the “prudential judgment” (if this is true) or “opinions” of bishops.

 

[Ender]

Are you saying a life of hard labor is NOT punishment???

Of course it is punishment but the Catechism states that a just punishment must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. 2267 simply ignores that obligation. Beyond that there is still 2260 to contend with.

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 have so far disputed your arguments, not your right to hold a different position.

I say we should err on the side of mercy, but you say that they MUST be executed.

The question of the application of mercy is certainly something that must be considered and there are times when it would be appropriate to commute a death sentence to some lesser penalty. I do not, however, believe that it would be appropriate to lessen everyone’s punishment in the name of mercy.

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.

The Catechism in 2260 repeats the words of Genesis 9:6* “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”* It seems pretty clear what those words mean and the Church has always understood them in a straightforward way. It is not that this passage encourages the death penalty, rather it commands it. I accept that there will be exceptions and that not everyone who murders someone should be executed, but I cannot get past the fact that the Church even today recognizes that this command still applies, as 2260 ends with* “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”*

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Of course it is punishment but the Catechism states that a just punishment must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. 2267 simply ignores that obligation. Beyond that there is still 2260 to contend with.
I have so far disputed your arguments, not your right to hold a different position.
The question of the application of mercy is certainly something that must be considered and there are times when it would be appropriate to commute a death sentence to some lesser penalty. I do not, however, believe that it would be appropriate to lessen everyone’s punishment in the name of mercy.
The Catechism in 2260 repeats the words of Genesis 9:6* “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”* It seems pretty clear what those words mean and the Church has always understood them in a straightforward way. It is not that this passage encourages the death penalty, rather it commands it. I accept that there will be exceptions and that not everyone who murders someone should be executed, but I cannot get past the fact that the Church even today recognizes that this command still applies, as 2260 ends with* “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”*

Ender

You cannot simply say that 2267 carries no weight. It refines the teaching in that while the state should have recourse if absolutely necessary, that cases where is is absolutely necessary is quite rare.

 

[Shin]

military force and the death penalty are very separate.

Why do you say that?

As far as I can tell not really, they’re habitually addressed together, and based on the same principle of authority being able to execute such decisions.

It’s an incredibly interesting subject really. I have yet to explore fully how many things authority can do that those without it cannot.

 

[diggerdomer]

A perfect world would not involve either of those.

We really need the Magisterium to teach about this matter minus the “prudential judgment” (if this is true) or “opinions” of bishops.

Fortunately, the Catechism is where they do this.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why do you say that?

Because the Church does.

 

[cassini]

Who introduced the death penalty for man? Answer: God
Did Jesus ever forbid legal authority to administer the death penalty? Answer no.
The death penalty is thus legal (Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s). The only concern of the Church would be to teach that it must be just and legal.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic of this thread is the death penalty, stop the personal insults or the thread will be closed.

 

[fish90]

Fortunately, the Catechism is where they do this.

What are the conditions in which bloodless means are available? I can possibly think of many ways the authority could use bloodless means in order to imprison offenders in the past.

 

[fish90]

“The Rock” seems to find a prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210eye.asp

Creating False Controversy

*Whenever some orthodox Catholic (such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia) differs from a prudential judgment (such as the preference voiced by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae that the death penalty only be inflicted when absolutely necessary), the American media react as though the Church is coming apart at the seams and “even conservative Catholics are cafeteria Catholics who defy Rome.” And so, of course, we are told that Catholics are “free” to believe anything about anything so long as it doesn’t violate their consciences and that this proves “conservatives” don’t listen when Rome tries to tell us what to think, so why should Catholic abortion supporters, et cetera.

Not quite. John Paul is proposing a prudential judgment in his teaching on the death penalty, not a binding doctrine. Scalia’s job requires him to try to think with the U.S. Constitution. His faith requires him to think with the Church. John Paul does not condemn the death penalty as intrinsically evil. Catholic faith does not say that those who implement the death penalty are doing something that is intrinsically gravely sinful (assuming, of course, the crime being punished is one worthy of death). In short, there is no parallel with abortion, which is always gravely sinful because it is the taking of innocent human life.*

 

[jackinbox]

I wonder how many pro-death penalty Catholics agree with these comments from the Vatican:

**Vatican calls Saddam execution ‘tragic’

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican on Saturday condemned the execution of Saddam Hussein as a “tragic” event and warned that it risked fomenting a spirit of vendetta and sowing fresh violence in Iraq.

“A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes,” said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi.

“The position of the Church (against capital punishment) has been restated often,” he said.

The Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment today is unjustifiable because modern society has developed ways of protecting society from further crimes by the guilty party and that because only God can end a life.

“The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence,” he said.

The Vatican, which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said Saddam’s execution would likely worsen the situation on the ground.

“In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation.”

Saddam was hanged for crimes against humanity in Baghdad at dawn, a dramatic, violent end for a leader who ruled Iraq by fear for three decades before he was toppled by a U.S. invasion four years ago.

The war in Iraq was the cause for one of the biggest rifts between the Vatican and the United States government.

In the build-up to the invasion in 2003, the late Pope John Paul sent senior cardinals to U.S. President George W. Bush urging him not to invade and to Saddam urging him to abide by international resolutions.

Relations worsened after Saddam was captured in 2003, when the Pope’s justice minister, Cardinal Renato Martino, criticised the United States military for treating the former Iraqi leader “like a cow”. **

 

[centurionguard]

I wonder how many pro-death penalty Catholics agree with these comments from the Vatican:

**Vatican calls Saddam execution ‘tragic’

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican on Saturday condemned the execution of Saddam Hussein as a “tragic” event and warned that it risked fomenting a spirit of vendetta and sowing fresh violence in Iraq.

“A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes,” said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi.

“The position of the Church (against capital punishment) has been restated often,” he said.

The Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment today is unjustifiable because modern society has developed ways of protecting society from further crimes by the guilty party and that because only God can end a life.

“The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence,” he said.

The Vatican, which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said Saddam’s execution would likely worsen the situation on the ground.

“In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation.”

Saddam was hanged for crimes against humanity in Baghdad at dawn, a dramatic, violent end for a leader who ruled Iraq by fear for three decades before he was toppled by a U.S. invasion four years ago.

The war in Iraq was the cause for one of the biggest rifts between the Vatican and the United States government.

In the build-up to the invasion in 2003, the late Pope John Paul sent senior cardinals to U.S. President George W. Bush urging him not to invade and to Saddam urging him to abide by international resolutions.

Relations worsened after Saddam was captured in 2003, when the Pope’s justice minister, Cardinal Renato Martino, criticised the United States military for treating the former Iraqi leader “like a cow”. **

Interesting Post:

Quote:**when the Pope’s justice minister, Cardinal Renato Martino, criticised the United States military for treating the former Iraqi leader “like a cow”**Unquote:

Regrettably; it would seem that all countries at war are guilty of not abiding by the Geneva Convention or only when it suits them in their best interests.

 

[ahollars]

Really?

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

Yes, as a matter of fact He did. In every healing miracle that Jesus performed, the person was not healed until they had professed their belief in Him, with the one exception being the casting out of demons. Go ahead and look them up. It’s true every time. Have fun verifying that.

Don’t ask a question if you don’t want to hear the answer.

 

[Ender]

You cannot simply say that 2267 carries no weight. It refines the teaching in that while the state should have recourse if absolutely necessary, that cases where is is absolutely necessary is quite rare.

Nor have I said this; I have maintained that 2267 is a prudential opinion and therefore not binding. It is, still, the opinion of a pope and deserves to be taken very seriously … which I have done by hours of research into what the Church has taught on this and related subjects. The result of my investigation has led me to disagree with that opinion. Nor in fact has it refined any teaching as there was never anything like it before to be refined. It was an invention, not a refinement.

The Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment today is unjustifiable because modern society has developed ways of protecting society from further crimes by the guilty party and that because only God can end a life. (Vatican comments on the execution of Saddam Hussein)

This comment is actually quite disturbing. If the Vatican rejects even the execution of Hussein as unjustifiable then they have essentially said that capital punishment is never under any circumstances justifiable and this makes the comments in 2267 disingenuous. Iraq is not now and certainly was even less so at the time of his execution, a modern society. Leaving Hussein alive would have been the cause of untold attempts to free him and had one of those attempts succeeded the chaos could have unraveled a country that is far from being raveled to this day. Opposition to Saddam’s execution on the basis of 2267 is incomprehensible.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Nor have I said this; I have maintained that 2267 is a prudential opinion and therefore not binding. It is, still, the opinion of a pope and deserves to be taken very seriously … which I have done by hours of research into what the Church has taught on this and related subjects. The result of my investigation has led me to disagree with that opinion. Nor in fact has it refined any teaching as there was never anything like it before to be refined. It was an invention, not a refinement.
This comment is actually quite disturbing. If the Vatican rejects even the execution of Hussein as unjustifiable then they have essentially said that capital punishment is never under any circumstances justifiable and this makes the comments in 2267 disingenuous. Iraq is not now and certainly was even less so at the time of his execution, a modern society. Leaving Hussein alive would have been the cause of untold attempts to free him and had one of those attempts succeeded the chaos could have unraveled a country that is far from being raveled to this day. Opposition to Saddam’s execution on the basis of 2267 is incomprehensible.

Ender

When did I mention Hussein? This is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Ender]

When did I mention Hussein? This is intellectually dishonest.

The comments were not meant to imply any connection between what you had said and what the Vatican had said; they were two separate issues I was addressing. Obviously that distinction wasn’t made clear; I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Ender

 

[John_Pascendi]

Well, On that fateful day Jesus heard the story of the thief and forgave him but did not NOT…commute his sentence…He allowed the state to execute him. Jesus also condemned child molestors,recall that story of how He developed a unique way of using a millstone re: child molestors…that 'they should have a millstone wrapped around their necks and tossed into the nearest stream!"…capital punishment is ,in many ways ,an act of mercy…for we taxpayers right off. It takes some $100,000 dollars to feed,clothe and house a murderer,a year…imagine how many soups this could serve in a soup kitchen!!! Plus what if a murderer that you let be a prisoner instead of execution and he murders lets say a prison guard…is it not your fault also???It sounds sooo noble to say lets forgive them all and letem wine and dine in prison for 30 years…yes and we see them on teevee limping into court,head down and looking so sad…no photos of the lives lost by this demon tho in that same court!..The lives lost who never had a chance to be here on earth,walk on silky grass in the springtime or see a child laugh and giggle…no…lets all feel sorry for this poor ole man as he shuffles along. Capital punishment is like pulling weeds out of the garden of life…allowing other plants and vegetables to grow strong and healthy!..amen and amen…Pas (and if an 'innocent ’ one is wrongly sentenced after extensive trial then God will receive him or her and forgive all concerned)

 

[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.

Dear CWBetts,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

If you read my previous posting (No. 244) you will see that the death penalty was sanctioned not because “It was a concession made due to the fallen nature of man” but rather because man was made in the image of God (see Gen. 9: 6). When violence in the form of murder is done to a fellow man, it is in effect an outrage against the Almighty. Just as an act of desecration to nation’s flag is tantamount to an attack on the nation itself, so an attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty. As H.C. Leupold has noted, the act of killing “lays profane hands on that which is divine”.

Now since there has been no abrogation (and indeed neither can there be) of man’s being made in the image of God, the entire rationale for the death penalty, given by God, is as true today as it was in the days of Noah. Thus the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity. As yet no posters on this thread have been able to refute this biblical mandate and neither will they be able to unless they wish to repudiate Sacred Scripture itself.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[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.

Dear CWBetts,

If God mandated capital punishment, which no one would seriously deny, then it is surely manifestly reasonble to draw the inference that the death penalty cannot be inimical or contrary to any notions of mercy or compassion that we may happen to subjectively embrace . To assert that it is so contrary to mercy or compassion is tantamount to stating that God Himself is not merciful or compassionate - perish the thought. That surely is not “faulty logic” but, on the contrary, a very compelling and cogent argument in favour of capital punishment.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[centurionguard]

Dear CW Betts,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

If you read my previous posting (No. 244) you will see that the death penalty was sanctioned not because “It was a concession made due to the fallen nature of man” but rather because man was made in the image of God (see Gen. 9: 6). When violence in the form of murder is done to a fellow man, it is in effect an outrage against the Almighty. Just as an act of desecration to nation’s flag is tantamount to an attack on the nation itself, so an attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty. As H.C. Leupold has noted, the act of killing “lays profane hands on that which is divine”.

Now since there has been no abrogation (and indeed neither can there be) of man’s being made in the image of God, the entire rationale for the death penalty, given by God, is as true today as it was in the days of Noah. Thus the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity. As yet no posters on this thread have been able to refute this biblical mandate and neither will they be able to unless they wish to repudiate Sacred Scripture itself.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

As yet no posters on this thread have been able to refute this biblical mandate and neither will they be able to unless they wish to repudiate Sacred Scripture itself.

Strange; but unless I’m missing something I see no biblical mandates at all with the exception of lay people claiming to be scholars and theologians taking scripture passages out of context and asserting absolutes.