F
fish90
Guest
The Council of Trent is infallible, so the death penalty must be morally legitimate. The Church cannot teach or support error. Humans during Trent’s time were humans just as much as I am, right?
- Status
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Totally right!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
What makes you think the Council of Trent is infallible? The Catholic Church doesn’t teach it is.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear CWBetts,
Have I not always maintained that we humans are made in the image of God? Moreover, would the Almighty have instituted the death penalty if “execution is treating people like animals”? Why, this is an afront to God since we infer that He was denying “the dignity that human beings must be extended” If capital punishment is uncivil and wrong in most cases then it cannot be right “in cases of absolute necessity”, for even in those rare instances it would still be a denial, on your theory, of the dignity of man. Now this is a mutually exclusive position to take up and logically inconsistent. In fact this is one of the key issues with our catechism as Para. 2260 affirms capital punishment as teaching "that remains necessary for all time, whereas 2267 only allows it in very rare cases where non-lethal means are insufficient. This is surely a knot that the Church needs to untie and resolve so as to avoid further confusion among the faithful.
Finally, in such a grave matter as the loss of a man’s life, I find it most extraordinary that God at the beginning did not differentiate between most cases and cases of absolute necessity as regards infliction of the death penalty; He simply mandated “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9: 6).
Warmest good wishes
Portrait
F
fish90
Guest
It is one of the Ecumenical Councils like Vatican I; it is infallible by its very definition from what I know.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I feel like a broken record. The LORD God, Creator of all that is, allowed the death penalty. It was not part of his Divine Plan. To say that it was changes the nature of God. If you say it was part of His Plan, then what you are truly saying is that God created man with the intent of them committing murder. This is not the case. Furthermore, if the death penalty is a command of God, why did God not demand the life of Cain, who slew his own brother. To continually insist that the death penalty in mandatory is to take a single verse (in this case Genesis 9:6) out of its larger context and to ignore the rest of divine revelation. Again, I have said that the state should have access to the death penalty in extreme circumstances, but in the west, it is all but unnecessary. THis view is consistent with both sections 2260 and 2267 of the Catechism. And I still believe that 2260 does not say what you think it says. This is because you focus on the quoted Scripture, but not on the commentary surrounding it. Read 2260 again. Read all of it. Even the commentary. Read every word. There you will see that 2260 is not addressing the death penalty directly, but the sanctity of life.
F
fish90
Guest
Please explain the bold.
Please look at: catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/death%20penalty. I do not see where you have reconciled your views with regard to the prudential judgment of CCC 2267. I ask that you do so.
The state makes the prudential judgment on whether to charge the capital punishment
Have you read this article from Catholic Answers?
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
C
CWBetts
Guest
My views are directly in line with 2267. DO not execute unless absolutely necessary. How can you say that capital punishment IS part of God’s divine plan. The bold does not need explained it is self-evident.
D
d97c
Guest
Fish, great post. Awesome article from Keating linked !
This is a great study on death penalty and deterrence!
foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,280215,00.html
…and Fish, stick with your fine argument about the meaning of ALL of the Catechism sections. You are 100% correct about the explanation. Modern, liberal interpretation of the term “necessary” is not the same as the centuries old meaning. NOWHERE in the discussion of the centuries-old support of the death penalty by the Church (founded by the LORD GOD) (that being the Roman Catholic Church) was there any discussion about “necessity” EXCEPT that is was necessary, not to prevent the bad guy from escaping from a jail cell and killing someone else, but for other reasons. What was “necessary” was that the state carry out the punishment for the reasons stated in the church’s century-old writings…(proportionality, reorder society, deter others, etc, etc, etc)
As you stated before:" God has delegated the function of executioner to the governing authorities, which by the way are ordained by God (see Romans 13: 1). St. Paul then tells us that the executioner, a servant of the state and therefore God, “does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (see verse 4). Thus God has chosen to punish felons through the agency of the state…"
So while the state doesn’t have to execute everyone convicted of murder, (age, prior offenses, psych involvement, other felony involved are all factors)I say that in certain cases, defined by state law, (since it is the “sword-bearer”), it SHOULD execute. I once again bring up Alolph Hitler. (You notice fish that noone ever says that he shouldnt have been executed if caught…no one would be that liberal----would they???)…IF we had caught the murderer of 6 million Jews, should we have executed him?? Would we have done it just to be sure he didn’t escape and kill again? Of course not! We would execute him because it is basic justice !! Justice!! …having all to do with the reasons the Catechism for years mentioned as the primary reasons…and discussed so well by you.
Keep it up bro !
This is a great study on death penalty and deterrence!
foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,280215,00.html
…and Fish, stick with your fine argument about the meaning of ALL of the Catechism sections. You are 100% correct about the explanation. Modern, liberal interpretation of the term “necessary” is not the same as the centuries old meaning. NOWHERE in the discussion of the centuries-old support of the death penalty by the Church (founded by the LORD GOD) (that being the Roman Catholic Church) was there any discussion about “necessity” EXCEPT that is was necessary, not to prevent the bad guy from escaping from a jail cell and killing someone else, but for other reasons. What was “necessary” was that the state carry out the punishment for the reasons stated in the church’s century-old writings…(proportionality, reorder society, deter others, etc, etc, etc)
As you stated before:" God has delegated the function of executioner to the governing authorities, which by the way are ordained by God (see Romans 13: 1). St. Paul then tells us that the executioner, a servant of the state and therefore God, “does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (see verse 4). Thus God has chosen to punish felons through the agency of the state…"
So while the state doesn’t have to execute everyone convicted of murder, (age, prior offenses, psych involvement, other felony involved are all factors)I say that in certain cases, defined by state law, (since it is the “sword-bearer”), it SHOULD execute. I once again bring up Alolph Hitler. (You notice fish that noone ever says that he shouldnt have been executed if caught…no one would be that liberal----would they???)…IF we had caught the murderer of 6 million Jews, should we have executed him?? Would we have done it just to be sure he didn’t escape and kill again? Of course not! We would execute him because it is basic justice !! Justice!! …having all to do with the reasons the Catechism for years mentioned as the primary reasons…and discussed so well by you.
Keep it up bro !
F
fish90
Guest
God did not intend for humans to fall from grace. How does the intentions of God relate to a condition where His intentions were never meant? Capital punishment is the punishment for a crime God never intended to happen.
Your views are certainly in line with what 2267 teaches, however, it contains a prudential opinion of John Paul the Great (we get to call him venerable tomorrow, YIPPEE!!!
). Prudential opinions do not carry infallibility. The state makes the prudential decision.The statement that recourse to the death penalty today should be “very rare, if not practically non-existent,” is a matter of prudential judgment (cf. Evangelium Vitae 56).
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/death%20penalty
Here is the other article:
*What is the bottom line? Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) or capital punishment? In short: no.
They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in section 2267. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.
You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”
You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You are free to make your own prudential determination–**but you are not free to say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is therefore a “bad Catholic.”
**
The Church does not mandate opposition to the death penalty, nor does she mandate support for it. This means that capital punishment cannot be listed as a “non-negotiable” moral issue, and that is why it is not mentioned in our “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.”
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
*Please notice the bold. It seems that you are insulting those who have a different prudential opinion than you do.
C
CWBetts
Guest
What is it that makes the vengeful supporters of the death penalty (and that is precisely what it is–vengeance) use the most extreme exceptions to prove their point? The death penalty must be the exception, not the norm.
d97c, in particular seems to be the most flippant, and the one most bent on retribution. The death penalty solves nothing. If anything, it cheapens life. No one, and I mean no one, no matter how vile, is streipped of their human dignity.
F
fish90
Guest
Thank you for your compliment. Everything that I have found regarding these issues is found by searching catholic.com.
I do think others are worthy as well. I am not that smart regarding Trent’s teachings, the Catechism or scripture.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I have never said anyone is a bad Catholic. I have not even argued for the abolition of the death penalty. I have argued that in American society, the death penalty is all but unnecessary. You have yet to present anything except for polemics and emotional pleadings (references to Hussein, bin Laden, and Hitler can in no way be called reasonable arguments). Other issues I have brought up, such as the racist application of the death penalty has been all but ignored. There are a disproportionate number of African-Americans on death row. Likewise, there are a disproportionate number of killers of Caucasians on death row. Likewise there are a disproportionate number of killers on death row who have murdered the wealthy. Until these issues are addressed, your so called “arguments” are little more than wind.God did not intend for humans to fall from grace. How does the intentions of God relate to a condition where His intentions were never meant? Capital punishment is the punishment for a crime God never intended to happen.
Your views are certainly in line with what 2267 teaches, however, it contains a prudential opinion of John Paul the Great (we get to call him venerable tomorrow, YIPPEE!!!
The statement that recourse to the death penalty today should be “very rare, if not practically non-existent,” is a matter of prudential judgment (cf. Evangelium Vitae 56).
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/death%20penalty
Here is the other article:
*What is the bottom line? Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) or capital punishment? In short: no.
They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in section 2267. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.
You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”
You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You are free to make your own prudential determination–**but you are not free to say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is therefore a “bad Catholic.”
The Church does not mandate opposition to the death penalty, nor does she mandate support for it. This means that capital punishment cannot be listed as a “non-negotiable” moral issue, and that is why it is not mentioned in our “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.”
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
*Please notice the bold. It seems that you are insulting those who have a different prudential opinion than you do.
F
fish90
Guest
CWBetts,
Once more, have you read any of the articles I have cited?
*What is the bottom line? Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) or capital punishment? In short: no.
They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in section 2267. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.
You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”
You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You are free to make your own prudential determination–but you are not free to say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is therefore a “bad Catholic.”
The Church does not mandate opposition to the death penalty, nor does she mandate support for it. This means that capital punishment cannot be listed as a “non-negotiable” moral issue, and that is why it is not mentioned in our “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.”*
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
*Please notice the bold. It seems that you are insulting those who have a different prudential opinion than you do.
Catholics can follow your view or find that the death penalty can be used more than "rarely."
C
CWBetts
Guest
Yet you refuse to offer any real defense to sheer vengeance.
F
fish90
Guest
Vengeance is not found in this matter. Lethal injection involves no pain for the individual if that is the definition you are using, Neither is justice vengeance when the judge acts without revenge.
Is their vengeance when somebody is sent to jail for life?
For the last time, I understand your position, however, this is not a perfect world. The Council of Trent identified reasons as to whether capital punishment is acceptable and the outcomes it produces. I have cited examples from this very website detailing that 2267 is a prudential opinion of John Paul the Great and how Catholics should respond to capital punishment. Just like with just war doctrine, the decision as to whether capital punishment is necessary in any situation is determined by the state.
The Church’s teaching on this matter takes effect. I have no reason to doubt as a Catholic that capital punishment is moral. No intrinsic evil is found in this method of punishment. I must submit my beliefs to the Church on all matters of faith and morals.
D
d97c
Guest
Thats it…play the race card! In case you care to look, here are the facts, because you are wrong !
First, there are more whites on death row than blacks, and always has been !
Read the facts:
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/drracetab.cfm
Second: Blacks are about 12 % of the population BUT they COMMIT , once again COMMIT, 52.2 % of all homicides !! …whites commit 45.8 % of all homicides. Here is the site !..from the U S Department of Justice. So its not surprising that since they commit over 50% of the murders, they should have a large population on death row. In fact, since there are more whites on death row, but whites COMMIT less murders than blacks, I guess I can play the race card!!
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
…and the truth shall make you FREE !!!
First, there are more whites on death row than blacks, and always has been !
Read the facts:
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/drracetab.cfm
Second: Blacks are about 12 % of the population BUT they COMMIT , once again COMMIT, 52.2 % of all homicides !! …whites commit 45.8 % of all homicides. Here is the site !..from the U S Department of Justice. So its not surprising that since they commit over 50% of the murders, they should have a large population on death row. In fact, since there are more whites on death row, but whites COMMIT less murders than blacks, I guess I can play the race card!!
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
…and the truth shall make you FREE !!!
C
CWBetts
Guest
The truth is, if you are white, and you are murdered by a black man, he will end up on death row. If you are murdered by a white man, he might und up on death row. If you are black, and you end up being mursered, you killer will in all likelihood not end up on death row. These are the facts. This does not change the fact that those who think revenge and justice is the same things insist on using exceptions as norms, and I for one am tired of the insinuations that I am somehow not a faithful Catholic because I favor mercy over barbarity.
D
d97c
Guest
Thats your opinion, not the facts. I cited the facts and cited you to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but the facts don’t bother some folks. The bottom line is that your statement that “there are a disproportionate number of Af-Ams on death row” is false. They commit 52% of the homicides and they are less than 50% of the people ON death row. Thats not opinion, thats Obama’s Justice Department that said that. Anyway, be sure to check the stats before you make an erroneous statement. That “wind” can be a hurricane.
D
d97c
Guest
I would like to ask the following to anyone on this post on the death penalty: If in fact we had caught, Hitler, and I’d like anyone to answer the question DIRECTLY, …IF we had caught Hitler, and if you had been on the jury at the Hague, assuming sufficient proof, would you have sentenced Hitler to death. (like the other Germans were.) Is there anyone who says that they would NOT have voted to execute??
Answer the question yes or no.
Answer the question yes or no.
- Status