When or is the death penalty alright?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Name me one church doctrine that has changed, not relating to science because paragraph 159 of the catechism the shows the need of reason to be with faith. It’s through sacred tradition that we have kept our beliefs in tact.
 
Cup_o_Joe said:
Name me one church doctrine that has changed, not relating to science because paragraph 159 of the catechism the shows the need of reason to be with faith. It’s through sacred tradition that we have kept our beliefs in tact.
Click to expand...
Who are you asking?
 
Gift_from_God said:
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?
Click to expand...
The death penalty is not necessarily “unjust” for certain crimes, mainly murder. If someone murdered you in cold blood, why should he keep his own life? He showed contempt for your life, therefore in terms of sheer justice, he has no right to keep his own.

However the main reason for banning the death penalty in my opinion is that innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. Better ten guity men rot in jail than that one innocent person be killed.

Finally there is the possibility the killer might repent. Although this doesn’t do anything to bring back the dead person or persons.

The Church’s other argument is that the state now has the means to almost ensure that the offenders don’t escape. On the other hand, this sometimes means that hardened criminals share the same prison as relatively “soft” criminals. I know a bloke who spent 15 years in prison. He told me he was raped a number of times, and “hated men”. He’s a Christian now, but he paid a high price for “reformation”.

That’s something that doesn’t appear in discussions about prison life, and I think it should be a prime consideration in prison reform. I think there should be very high security prisons set aside for the real hard boys, so they can be kept separate from those who are new, relatively innocent, or in there on minor charges.

And apparently the old-fashioned penality of solitary confinement is very effective with the great majority of even hard prisoners. My old Protestant pastor was a prison chaplain for a while, and he told me he was amazed at the effect a stint of solitary confinement had on even the most hardened criminals. No torture - just sheer isolation.
 
wrong, slavery in the old days was a contract between poor and rich, the poor would work for the wealthy and their family would be given food and shelter. That type of slavery is mentioned in the bible several times in parables and there is nothing morally wrong with that type of work. But when it comes to abusive slavery, the church has ALWAYS made a stand against it.
 
Cup_o_Joe said:
wrong, slavery in the old days was a contract between poor and rich, the poor would work for the wealthy and their family would be given food and shelter. That type of slavery is mentioned in the bible several times in parables and there is nothing morally wrong with that type of work. But when it comes to abusive slavery, the church has ALWAYS made a stand against it.
Click to expand...
When, prior to the 19th century, did the Church make a stand against abusive slavery? In practice. Even in the 19th century I’m not aware of an overwhelming Church response against institutional slavery as practiced at the time.

Anyway, that point may be tangential. The main point is that Church teaching always adapts to the times, cultures, needs, etc. of its contemporary situation.

Back to the topic at hand, what the Church taught about the death penalty in one time and age may or may not be the same as required by the Gospel in a different time and age. Whether it took 10, or 100, or 1000 years for Church teaching to evolve, based on contemporary times and needs, is really not significant…is it?
 
Portrait said:
Dear Ender,

You are quite correct in stating that the current teaching in the Catechism is a mess - it should be revisited without delay and the confusion resolved. It is incredible that so many posters either cannot see this or are in denial regarding it.

Portrait
Click to expand...
There is Catechism and there is common sense.

Some have suggested that the Death Penalty is morally neutral when the identity and the guilt of the suspect are confirmed, the crime is severe and there are no other nonlethal ways to do justice.

This would be wrong. I can, if you want, and you know there are numerous cases were the defendant was found GUILTY as sin and was sentenced to death and resided on death row. The family of the deceased were smiling saying we recieved JUSTICE today and the police were thankful that the animal was off the street and will get what he deserved.

Thankfully it takes a long time to kill’em. These cases I speak of are the ones where DNA was checked say after 10 to 20 years and guess what, they were telling the truth and were innocent. In some cases they located the right person for the crime.

Now here is the obvious problem. If the sentence was carried out quickly, the justice system to include law enforcement, the court, the jury and all in society who condone the death penalty, all would have murdered a innocent man, without intent. Hey who cares, he had a lawyer, right? I’ve heard it all before.

I was in the affirmative for the death penalty at one time, but have since changed my position and have controlled my feelings and anger toward a alleged criminal. Peace is the peace I give you and the peace you accept.
 
diggerdomer said:
When, prior to the 19th century, did the Church make a stand against abusive slavery? In practice. Even in the 19th century I’m not aware of an overwhelming Church response against institutional slavery as practiced at the time.

Anyway, that point may be tangential. The main point is that Church teaching always adapts to the times, cultures, needs, etc. of its contemporary situation.

Back to the topic at hand, what the Church taught about the death penalty in one time and age may or may not be the same as required by the Gospel in a different time and age. Whether it took 10, or 100, or 1000 years for Church teaching to evolve, based on contemporary times and needs, is really not significant…is it?
Click to expand...
Please read these posts from The Rock.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

I hope this helps.
 
diggerdomer said:
The main point is that Church teaching always adapts to the times, cultures, needs, etc. of its contemporary situation.
Click to expand...
Not exactly.

CCC 1958 *The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history
  • Ender
 
joe_clark said:
There is Catechism and there is common sense.

Some have suggested that the Death Penalty is morally neutral when the identity and the guilt of the suspect are confirmed, the crime is severe and there are no other nonlethal ways to do justice.

This would be wrong.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: you are saying the current Catechism is wrong because it does not prohibit executions in all circumstances?
I was in the affirmative for the death penalty at one time, but have since changed my position and have controlled my feelings and anger toward a alleged criminal. Peace is the peace I give you and the peace you accept.
Click to expand...
Neither your peace nor the anger of others are relevant to the question of whether it is or is not just to execute a murderer.

Ender
 
I is the teaching of the Church that the death penalty in its proper place is morally acceptable, it is in fact a great problem and a sin to deny it.

What does this sin do? It places the people who commit it in moral judgement over the Catholic Church herself, condemning her, her Popes, her Doctors, her saints, etc. for exercising and believing in the death penalty.

It takes a position of moral superiority not based on the teachings of the Church, which are of God, but on sentimentality… and it makes religion out of sentimentality.

That is truly the devil’s own work, to take that position. There are a number of cults that use this to try to make converts from the Church.

The harm of it easily can be seen today as people shirk and shun the Catholic Church’s past, believing in moral evils where there were none – because the evil in fact, is in their own selves and condemnation of the just laws of Christ.

Ultimately this sentimentality makes one desire to condemn God Himself and all the times He has exercised His justice in the death penalty – which in fact, ultimately, He exercises sooner or later upon every human being.

Which is why we must not be squeamish about it. We need to have our hearts and wills united with the Lord’s, in life and in death. 🙂

I really hope more people study the ‘punishment’ side of it and understand the place punishment has in Catholic teaching, not merely in the death penalty but as a consequence for all sin in a lesser way requiring penance.
 
Shin said:
I is the teaching of the Church that the death penalty in its proper place is morally acceptable, it is in fact a great problem and a sin to deny it.

What does this sin do? It places the people who commit it in moral judgement over the Catholic Church herself, condemning her, her Popes, her Doctors, her saints, etc. for exercising and believing in the death penalty.

It takes a position of moral superiority not based on the teachings of the Church, which are of God, but on sentimentality… and it makes religion out of sentimentality.

That is truly the devil’s own work, to take that position. There are a number of cults that use this to try to make converts from the Church.

The harm of it easily can be seen today as people shirk and shun the Catholic Church’s past, believing in moral evils where there were none – because the evil in fact, is in their own selves and condemnation of the just laws of Christ.

Ultimately this sentimentality makes one desire to condemn God Himself and all the times He has exercised His justice in the death penalty – which in fact, ultimately, He exercises sooner or later upon every human being.

Which is why we must not be squeamish about it. We need to have our hearts and wills united with the Lord’s, in life and in death. 🙂

I really hope more people study the ‘punishment’ side of it and understand the place punishment has in Catholic teaching, not merely in the death penalty but as a consequence for all sin in a lesser way requiring penance.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Church teaches the death penalty is acceptable because it’s needed as punishment? If so…where does the Church teach that? Thanks for any clarification.
 
diggerdomer said:
Interesting. But Papal pronouncements didn’t seem to have a PRACTICAL effect on the whole Church, i.e. all the faithful. Did they? Were Catholics at these times listening to and adhering to those teachings? Did priests/parishes adhere to them?
Click to expand...
I do not have all the answers; I hope someone can help you out. Please remember that everything the Pope says today is not followed as it should.
 
diggerdomer said:
Are you saying the Church teaches the death penalty is acceptable because it’s needed as punishment? If so…where does the Church teach that? Thanks for any clarification.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

3 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

A. It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defence of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT : “Thou shalt not kill” . . .

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas:

The Execution of Criminals.–Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.”[5] It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.”[6] And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.”[7] To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”[8] 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.”[9] 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. [10]
  1. Deut., xxxii. 39.
  2. Prov., viii. 15.
  3. Rom., xiii. 4.
  4. Exod., xxii. 18.
  5. Rom. vi. 23.
  6. Killing in a just war and killing by accident are among the other exceptions to this Commandment. The soldier is guiltless who in a just war takes the life of an enemy, provided that he is not actuated by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire to serve the interests of his country. . . . Again, death caused, not by intent or design, but by accident, is not murder" (“Roman Catechism,” “loc. cit.,” 5-6).
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church:

WHAT DOES THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT FORBID?

. . . It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence; **God himself wishes malefactors to be punished. **
  1. It is lawful in self-defence to kill an unjust aggressor, when there is no other means at hand for saving your own life. . . It is also commonly held by theologians, by St. Antonine and by St. Thomas, that it is lawful to kill a robber who, after being admonished to desist, obstinately perseveres in the robbery; and they ground their doctrine on the following passage in Exodus: If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die, he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." But this decision is to be admitted only when the theft is very considerable ; and, as several theologians hold, only when the owner or his family would be reduced to great want and inconvenience if he permitted the robbery. Theologians also teach that it is lawful to kill a person who attempts to violate your chastity, if you have no other means of preserving it.
  2. It is lawful to kill enemies in a just war; and even in a war when its justice is doubtful, if you are commanded by your own sovereign.
 
Generally, I view the fact that the Vatican still has a guillotine, even though it is rather dusty as one of the best testimonies in favor of the death penalty that we have. 🙂

But frankly, the whole history of the Church is full of instances where the death penalty is imposed as punishment for a crime, not merely for the protection of society, and this justly and approvedly by the Popes and ecclesiastics.

Often enough it is a great sign of mercy when clemency is granted to those on the way, but without justice there is no mercy, and so it is not something that should always be done.

All sin requires punishment and penance, either in this life or the next. The more in this life, the less in the next.
 
Shin said:
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

3 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

A. It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defence of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT : “Thou shalt not kill” . . .

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas:

The Execution of Criminals.–Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.”[5] It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.”[6] And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.”[7] To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”[8] 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.”[9] 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. [10]
  1. Deut., xxxii. 39.
  2. Prov., viii. 15.
  3. Rom., xiii. 4.
  4. Exod., xxii. 18.
  5. Rom. vi. 23.
  6. Killing in a just war and killing by accident are among the other exceptions to this Commandment. The soldier is guiltless who in a just war takes the life of an enemy, provided that he is not actuated by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire to serve the interests of his country. . . . Again, death caused, not by intent or design, but by accident, is not murder" (“Roman Catechism,” “loc. cit.,” 5-6).
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church:

WHAT DOES THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT FORBID?

. . . It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence; **God himself wishes malefactors to be punished. **
  1. It is lawful in self-defence to kill an unjust aggressor, when there is no other means at hand for saving your own life. . . It is also commonly held by theologians, by St. Antonine and by St. Thomas, that it is lawful to kill a robber who, after being admonished to desist, obstinately perseveres in the robbery; and they ground their doctrine on the following passage in Exodus: If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die, he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." But this decision is to be admitted only when the theft is very considerable ; and, as several theologians hold, only when the owner or his family would be reduced to great want and inconvenience if he permitted the robbery. Theologians also teach that it is lawful to kill a person who attempts to violate your chastity, if you have no other means of preserving it.
  2. It is lawful to kill enemies in a just war; and even in a war when its justice is doubtful, if you are commanded by your own sovereign.
Click to expand...
So…what is your answer to my question? I’m asking what the Church teaches, not something that only Trent or Pius X taught. Can you give a direct answer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top