When or is the death penalty alright?

[Ender]

Your argument is based on the fact that you have the hubris to say that the Catechism is wrong

Once again you avoid my argument and offer an opinion about me. If it is hubris on my part to disagree with one pope and one Catechism what is it on your part for disagreeing with a half dozen popes, three Catechisms, and the deepest thinkers the Church has produced in its 2000 years? The difference between us is that I provide an explanation for my position and you express nothing other than your preference for one section of the current Catechism over everything the Church has ever been said on the topic. I disagreed with pretty much everything Oreoracle said in his post but at least he provided a rationale for his position.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Once again you avoid my argument and offer an opinion about me. If it is hubris on my part to disagree with one pope and one Catechism what is it on your part for disagreeing with a half dozen popes, three Catechisms, and the deepest thinkers the Church has produced in its 2000 years? The difference between us is that I provide an explanation for my position and you express nothing other than your preference for one section of the current Catechism over everything the Church has ever been said on the topic. I disagreed with pretty much everything Oreoracle said in his post but at least he provided a rationale for his position.

Ender

The difference I submit to the current teaching of the Church. My rationale is consistent with the Church, and with the Scriptures. Your position is not. Period.

 

[diggerdomer]

One of the major problems with 2267

I understand you have major problems with Catholic teaching. I think people here have tried to help, I don’t think there’s anything more to add on this topic.

Best wishes.

 

[Ender]

I understand you have major problems with Catholic teaching. I think people here have tried to help, I don’t think there’s anything more to add on this topic.

I question your opinion as to which of us is more in accord with Church teaching, but I agree that there is not much more we can say to one another.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

I question your opinion as to which of us is more in accord with Church teaching, but I agree that there is not much more we can say to one another.

Ender

Which one of us outright IGNORES part of the Catechism?

 

[diggerdomer]

I question your opinion as to which of us is more in accord with Church teaching, but I agree that there is not much more we can say to one another.

Ender

I don’t claim an opinion of which of us is more in accord tihe Church teaching. I simply claim to believe what the Catechism teaches. Do you?

 

[Ender]

I don’t claim an opinion of which of us is more in accord tihe Church teaching. I simply claim to believe what the Catechism teaches. Do you?

Yes … except for those parts where it contradicts itself.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Yes … except for those parts where it contradicts itself.

Ender

I guess we all need to swear allegiance to His Holiness Pope Ender.

 

[joe_clark]

I don’t claim an opinion of which of us is more in accord tihe Church teaching. I simply claim to believe what the Catechism teaches. Do you?

Just a question I do not know the answer to and would appreciate anyones assistance.

Does the church follow and accept the rules and laws of the land without question, as in the case of the death penalty or does the church take the lead on the death penalty?
And if so, if a law is found unjust, will the church follow accordingly?

 

[CWBetts]

Just a question I do not know the answer to and would appreciate anyones assistance.

Does the church follow and accept the rules and laws of the land without question, as in the case of the death penalty or does the church take the lead on the death penalty?
And if so, if a law is found unjust, will the church follow accordingly?

As per 2267 of the Catechism, the Church discourages use of the death penalty.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just a question I do not know the answer to and would appreciate anyones assistance.

Does the church follow and accept the rules and laws of the land without question, as in the case of the death penalty or does the church take the lead on the death penalty?
And if so, if a law is found unjust, will the church follow accordingly?

No, and yes.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes … except for those parts where it contradicts itself.

Ender

Right. So…where the Church contradicts Herself, we should follow…?

 

[Ender]

Right. So…where the Church contradicts Herself, we should follow…?

The Church does not contradict herself … the Catechism, however, is in contradiction with itself and with what the Church taught for nearly two millennia.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

The Church does not contradict herself … the Catechism, however, is in contradiction with itself and with what the Church taught for nearly two millennia.

Ender

Perhaps the Catechism does not contradict itself, or the Church, but your interpretation is in error. Couldn’t that be possible?

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church does not contradict herself … the Catechism, however, is in contradiction with itself and with what the Church taught for nearly two millennia.

Ender

That makes sense…? The universal Catholic Catechism, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, contradicts itself, and yet the “Church” does not contradict herself? But isn’t it the “Church” that teaches authoritatively via the Catechism?

Wow. I’m confused. Please clarify! Thanks.

 

[fish90]

I have some questions that I would like to ask if I may.

How can the Church accept that capital punishment is allowable yet promote its extermination?

How is a prudential opinion placed within the Catechism that makes the Church’s stance on capital punishment contradictory should this be the case?

I would also like to add this statement taken from priestsforlife.org to the discussion if I may. This article has a statement about the execution of Timothy McVeigh from an archbishop. priestsforlife.org/news/01-04-02mcveighexecutionstatement.htm

Some pieces from this that I have chosen.
[Last October, Jesuit theologian Avery Cardinal Dulles traced the history of religious teaching on the death penalty through the ages and demonstrated that the Catholic Church has consistently asserted that the state has the authority to exact capital punishment and, **in principle, does so today.

“It is agreed,” Dulles said, “that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the** state has the authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death**.”]

Why is capital punishment acceptable in principle?

[The Church’s teaching about the state’s authority does not change, but the state should not exercise its right if the evil effects outweigh the good. In recent times, the death penalty does more harm than good because it feeds a frenzy for revenge, while there is no demonstrable proof that capital punishment deters violence.]

How is something the Church says is morally acceptable be evil?

In my view, I see the death penalty in a couple of ways.

First, most people do have problems with issuing such an order, yet these decisions must be made. The President does not like ordering troops to go to war yet must make the decision.

Second, when the criminal commits a horrible crime like the death penalty he/she knows the consequences. This is very similar to the student who complains to his/her teacher about the “F,” and the teachers responds “you earned it.”

Being a Christian, I must acknowledge that Pope John Paul II’s prudential opinion is in line with Christ’s teaching, however Christ gave us an infallible Church who determined capital punishment is moral. The prudential opinion seems to exclude capital punishment in this country in nearly all cases while the Holy Father allows Catholics who disagree with the implementation of capital punishment to receive Communion. Pretty confusing if you ask me.

Best,
fish90

 

[StillWondering]

Just a question I do not know the answer to and would appreciate anyones assistance.

Does the church follow and accept the rules and laws of the land without question, as in the case of the death penalty or does the church take the lead on the death penalty?
And if so, if a law is found unjust, will the church follow accordingly?

Dear Joe,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not written by politicians who are hounded by lobbyists. They are written by well trained men who spend decades of their lives dedicated to learning about canon law within the context of the total Catholic history. It’s hard to consider parts of it to be unjust unless one is as well learned as they are or blessed with incredible gifts of insight.

I am not sure if I can count on the palm of my hands that many people who are either that well versed or that gifted who did not work on the Catechism and are in good health at the time it was written. Therefore, I will give the old book the benefit of the doubt it it’s wording. It is intentionally written as such.

Sincerely,
SW

 

[StillWondering]

I have some questions that I would like to ask if I may.

How can the Church accept that capital punishment is allowable yet promote its extermination?
…
Best,
fish90

Dear Fish,

Being from Vietnam and having left the country due to war and communism, I have a perspective as to how this is possible. The world is full of broken men with broken ideologies. Not all men are broken per se and not all ideas are bad. But many are.

Personally I can see many instances of capital punishment being moral means of self defense. In the States, we may not live in a situation that warrants this. However, the Catholic Church is not limited to the United States alone. It is world wide. In countries where warlords who rule by mere mention of their name through fear, exportation or incarceration is not possible. Therefore prudent examinations of capital punishment executions must be made. Not all governments nor all judges will choose the objectively correct choice at all times. Enough will not to call people of righteousness to action. However, there will be many prisoners where this is the only means of mitigating their threat to save the lives of others in self defense.

Thus, from my experiences there are situations where capital punishment is the only way to protect the lives of others. This is not to say that we cannot promote it’s removal. We need to promote all means that lowers violence to the dignity of humanity …prudently.

As a comparison, abstinence before marriage is, has been, and will always be the goal of Catholic moral teaching. However, this does not mean the Church will forbid cohabitating partners that realizes the importance of marriage from receiving the sacramental graces from matrimony. In fact it is encouraged if the couple is honestly capable of full and faithful consent. Another example is that latin unmarried priests are forbidden from marriage. However, some men who are priest have realized they cannot live the celibate life and so may properly request to be laicized. This means that while they still have valid ordination, they will be ban from all ministry while in marriage. They cannot even be a lector when ordinary lay women and men, both married and unmarried, can. Are they sent to rot in a jail if they choose to request removal of their vows? No, but they will have serious consequences for this. The Church in his wisdom still can do so while still protecting the vows of priestly celibacy.

Consequently, the Church can still promote nations to remove their capital punishment while accepting that their are circumstances of moral executions. This is a long answer to the question, and hopefully it is a through one.

Sincerely,
SW

 

[karoleck]

I have just finished reading The Good-bye Door,the story of the first female serial killer to have been executed in the automated electrical chair in the USA-Anna Marie Hahn(raised in a catholic Bavarian family).It was of personal interest to me as she was a relation by marriage on my mother’s side of the family.I read her life story as told by Diana Britt Franklin,in the last few pages is her confession story.What was interesting about it, was her comment of the 11 of the twelve jury members who were women ,“how could they allow a small son to be dreprived of it’s mother”(the only male member voted guilty, but with mercy).The other women talked him into agreeing to vote" mercy "out of his judgement).“With mercy”,would have meant a life sentence-when selecting the jury the prosecution asked each male “would you give a death penality to a woman”-all said they would not-hence the female jury!! I think that if she was tried today she would have been examined and certified as criminally insane.(that chapter by the way goes under the title The Deadlier of the Spider species!!)
Well what has this all to do with the above thread you may ask?I would maintain a lot,St.Paul said that one of the worst faults of his Corrinthians community was that they lacked compassion!! There is a danger that our modern society and even our catholic community has the same fault! We have the great example of Pope John Paul II,pleading mercy on behalf of the person who shot him and early release from prison–what were the fruits of his “weakness”-the conversion of that mans soul!!! History has proven time after time that violence begets violence.Did bombing Iraq almost to nothing, stop violence?Our Lady at Fatima told the children that war is a punishment for sin,is not our modern western world full of sin?.The violent taking of a life as a punishment might make Governments feel alright and the press sort of points,now we are safe-- there-he or she got what was coming to them.I like the story of St.Philip Neri----a man was being taken to be executed near by and his companion said well, that so and so deserves everything that is coming to him --the saint turned to him and said “Nay but for the grace of God go I”.So I conclude that sure, the Catholic Church has a non judgemental view on The Death Penalty by “Just” Governments to protect society in extreme situations,would it not be a pity if as members of Christs’Body; as useful christian members of our society ,we did not encourage Christs’compassion on sinners?"Does anyone condemn you (to the woman who was nearly executed by the "just ones"of stoning to death) No one Lord-neither will I-sin no more"Jesus Son on David, have pity on me a sinner.

 

[joe_clark]

I have some questions that I would like to ask if I may.

How can the Church accept that capital punishment is allowable yet promote its extermination?

How is a prudential opinion placed within the Catechism that makes the Church’s stance on capital punishment contradictory should this be the case?

I would also like to add this statement taken from priestsforlife.org to the discussion if I may. This article has a statement about the execution of Timothy McVeigh from an archbishop. priestsforlife.org/news/01-04-02mcveighexecutionstatement.htm

Some pieces from this that I have chosen.
[Last October, Jesuit theologian Avery Cardinal Dulles traced the history of religious teaching on the death penalty through the ages and demonstrated that the Catholic Church has consistently asserted that the state has the authority to exact capital punishment and, **in principle, does so today

.

“It is agreed,” Dulles said, “that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the** state has the authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death**.”]

Why is capital punishment acceptable in principle?

[The Church’s teaching about the state’s authority does not change, but the state should not exercise its right if the evil effects outweigh the good. In recent times, the death penalty does more harm than good because it feeds a frenzy for revenge, while there is no demonstrable proof that capital punishment deters violence.]

How is something the Church says is morally acceptable be evil?

In my view, I see the death penalty in a couple of ways.

First, most people do have problems with issuing such an order, yet these decisions must be made. The President does not like ordering troops to go to war yet must make the decision.

Second, when the criminal commits a horrible crime like the death penalty he/she knows the consequences. This is very similar to the student who complains to his/her teacher about the “F,” and the teachers responds “you earned it.”

Being a Christian, I must acknowledge that Pope John Paul II’s prudential opinion is in line with Christ’s teaching, however Christ gave us an infallible Church who determined capital punishment is moral. The prudential opinion seems to exclude capital punishment in this country in nearly all cases while the Holy Father allows Catholics who disagree with the implementation of capital punishment to receive Communion. Pretty confusing if you ask me.

Best,
fish90

The article on Tim McViegh is well read and understood, but I do not see where the church finds it morally acceptable??. The Church recognizes the Authority, but does not readily concur with the implimentation of execution due to the illusion of benefiting society. Pope Paul saw this too and so do I. In today’s society after (name removed by moderator)risioning a dangerous person who is under your complete control, there is simply no reason to murder this person solely because there is writing on paper that says the state Can do it. To me as I read this all, in this case it clearly can only be seen as revenge. Not the kind of people we strive to become and in the process lose ourselves and our way.

I pray every day and ask the Lord to help me see what I need to see. In the confusion of the day, sometimes we miss the important things in life, like life.