When or is the death penalty alright?

[CWBetts]

So at least some of the universal Catechism, promulgated authoritatively by Pope John Paul II, is not in accord with what the Catholic Church teaches?

You are right, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong? Just want to make sure I’m clear on that. Thanks.

That’s what it sound like he is saying. Some people will do anything to justify themselves when it is contrary to the teaching of the Church

 

[Ender]

I argue against its used based on the virtue of Charity

Cite where the Church makes this argument and it will have credibility; otherwise it is simply your personal opinion.

centurionguard:

By who’s opinion would YOU base such a statement?
You make it (“seem”) by your supportive argument using non-dogmatic quotes that such a moral cause where the rule of an (“Eye For An Eye”) is still intrinsically an acceptable means of justice in a primitive society that still hasn’t grown out of it’s petty selfish infancy and pride. How can anyone say unequivocally that the Death Penalty is duly supported by God? The death penalty is mans law of dealing with justice, not God’s Justice.

I don’t understand your question. All of my arguments are made using what the Church herself has said; I am not giving my opinion, I am quoting the Church.

CWBetts:

It is not up to the sate who lives and dies.

centurionguard:

Life & Death belongs to God alone, not ANY Church, not ANY Society.

The Church disagrees with you. It is certainly true that the State may abuse its authority over life and death but that authority has nonetheless been given to it.

" Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death" (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

 

[Ender]

So at least some of the universal Catechism, promulgated authoritatively by Pope John Paul II, is not in accord with what the Catholic Church teaches?

You are right, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong? Just want to make sure I’m clear on that. Thanks.

As I have said before, you are not clear on that and no matter how often you repeat this charge, it is false. Section 2267 is unique; it is an opinion and recognizing a fact is not the same as rejecting the Church.

"… the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, **it has included a prudential judgment **(the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience." (Karl Keating 2004).

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Cite where the Church makes this argument and it will have credibility; otherwise it is simply your personal opinion.
I don’t understand your question. All of my arguments are made using what the Church herself has said; I am not giving my opinion, I am quoting the Church.
The Church disagrees with you. It is certainly true that the State may abuse its authority over life and death but that authority has nonetheless been given to them.

" *Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, *to whom is entrusted power of life and death" (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

I love how you selectively quote things to make it seem to justify your bloodthirsty judgment. While I concede that the state has power of life and death (in the case of just war and protection of society) this does not give the state a blanket authority to do as it wills. The death penalty is not needed to protect society. It is up to you to prove otherwise. You will have to prove that the extra public funds would not be better put to use in other ways (such as more police). You will have to prove that the death penalty is fairly distributed among the guilty (which it is not). You will have to prove that the death penalty is effective at preventing crime by comparing the murder rates in states with and without the death penalty. Otherwise you are just spouting your own opinion.
As far as basing my opinion on the virtue of Charity: According to St. Thomas Aquinas, there are seven Acts of Charity:

1. Love: This is the love of God. The love that is displayed towards all creation because it is crated by the Source of All Good.
2. Fraternal Correction: This is correcting a brothewr in love as to prevent his soul from destruction
3. Beneficence: Doing good for its own sake. Not for reward, but because it is good.
4. Almsgiving: Giving to those in need not just of your wealth, but of your time and talents to ease the suffering of the less fortunate.
   5.Peace: More than simply avoiding conflict, true peace is being of the same heart as your neighbors. As an analogy, those periods where Israel and Palestine are not shooting at each other is not peace, but merely non-aggression. True peace is closer to the USA and the UK–we want what is best for the UK, and they want what is best for America.
5. Joy: The genuine realization that all things are a gift from God, and the resulting love of all of creation.
6. Mercy: The compassion that must be directed to all people, which comes form the recognition we are all sinners. Mercy demands we help one another come to repentance.

Notice the last one. It is very difficult for one to come to repentance if we kill them. Furthermore, it is God’s desire that all would come to repentance. Killing the guilty, when not absolutely necessary, is in direct conflict to Divine Revelation in the Scriptures.

 

[Ender]

I love how you selectively quote things to make it seem to justify your bloodthirsty judgment.

Since I am quoting the Church you need to show either that the quote is out of context or that I have misinterpreted it. If you can’t do either then you have no basis to reject either the quote or the position I base on it.

While I concede that the state has power of life and death (in the case of just war and protection of society) this does not give the state a blanket authority to do as it wills.

Clearly not, nor has anyone suggested it.

The death penalty is not needed to protect society. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

This is not my argument. I do believe that society is better protected by executing some of its worst criminals but my position is based on justice, not protection.

Otherwise you are just spouting your own opinion.

I have not made a single claim that is not based on something the Church has previously said. My opinion does not enter it.

As far as basing my opinion on the virtue of Charity: According to St. Thomas Aquinas, there are seven Acts of Charity:

I understand that you think charity is the operating principle here but there is nothing in what Aquinas wrote (here) that explains the connection between charity and punishment.

Notice the last one. It is very difficult for one to come to repentance if we kill them. Furthermore, it is God’s desire that all would come to repentance.

“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. … And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles)

Killing the guilty, when not absolutely necessary, is in direct conflict to Divine Revelation in the Scriptures.

We would surely disagree about what constitutes necessity but as far as Scripture goes, don’t overlook this one: " Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." (Gen 9:6)

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I love how you selectively quote things to make it seem to justify your bloodthirsty judgment.

Since I am quoting the Church you need to show either that the quote is out of context or that I have misinterpreted it. If you can’t do either then you have no basis to reject either the quote or the position I base on it.

Ender, I just want to say that was a very evenhanded response to the accusation of being bloodthirsty.

VC

 

[CWBetts]

Ender, I just want to say that was a very evenhanded response to the accusation of being bloodthirsty.

VC

Anyone who supports the death penalty is operating from a need for vengeance. The death penalty ignores the mercy and forgiveness that is required of us. Furthemore, from the Old Testament:

“because God did not make death, and does not delight in the death of the living” (Wis 1:13)

Nothing speaks stronger of the power of the Holy Spirit more than the repentance of the wicked. Look at the example of Saint Paul. He killed Christians. Yet he repented and God used him in a mighty way. Yet, in your mind, since he took the life of others, he deserved to be killed. This is not our place to say if someone deserves to live or die. We do not know how this person can be used by God in the future, should he come to repentance.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yet, in your mind, since he took the life of others, he deserved to be killed.

In whose mind? Mine?

VC

 

[CWBetts]

In whose mind? Mine?

VC

Any supporter of the death penalty who would make excuse for St. Paul is a hypocrite. Murder is murder. If someone like John Wayne Gacy deserved execution, then so did St. Paul. We cannot know the soul of another, therefore execution is nit to be supported. And if execution is acceptable for murder, then why not adultery? Its in the Old Testament law.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

CW, what I mean is that you said:

Look at the example of Saint Paul. He killed Christians. Yet he repented and God used him in a mighty way. ** Yet, in your** mind, since he took the life of others, he deserved to be killed. This is not our place to say if someone deserves to live or die. We do not know how this person can be used by God in the future, should he come to repentance.

I am asking if you mean me. In other words I am asking if you mean that I myself think that St. Paul deserved to be killed.

Your responses above started off by quoting me, so I am asking if the person that you are referring to when you say “in your mind” is me.

Thanks.
VC

 

[RWMorris]

Anyone who supports the death penalty is operating from a need for vengeance.

You do not know this, it is only weak speculation on your part. Even if you precede it with “IMO” it is still a statement that doesn’t stand up to reason or Tradition.

The death penalty ignores the mercy and forgiveness that is required of us. Furthemore, from the Old Testament:

“because God did not make death, and does not delight in the death of the living” (Wis 1:13)

The death penalty, along with any other punishment meated out by secular authority has nothing to do with “mercy and forgiveness.” A person can be guilty of any crime, receive our and/or God’s mercy and forgiveness, and still deserve punishment.

Nothing speaks stronger of the power of the Holy Spirit more than the repentance of the wicked. Look at the example of Saint Paul. He killed Christians. Yet he repented and God used him in a mighty way. Yet, in your mind, since he took the life of others, he deserved to be killed. This is not our place to say if someone deserves to live or die. We do not know how this person can be used by God in the future, should he come to repentance.

He did not deserve punishment under Roman Law. God used that “loop hole” and used Paul for bigger and better things. If Paul did not adequately pay the price for the evil he did during his life, he paid the price later, as we all will. Maybe he spent 64,000 years in pergatory.

 

[Ender]

"VC:

Ender, I just want to say that was a very evenhanded response to the accusation of being bloodthirsty.

Thank you.

Anyone who supports the death penalty is operating from a need for vengeance.

A more charitable interpretation would be simply that I am mistaken. Since I constantly quote Church documents it should be reasonably clear that I believe I understand what the Church is saying. In my mind, you cannot call me bloodthirsty with leveling the same charge against the Church. Besides, even if I was totally depraved it wouldn’t make my arguments wrong. My claims are either correct or incorrect and that truth is not dependent on any personal characteristics of mine. I grant that it is simpler to dismiss me than to debate me but if the only ammunition you have left to defend your position are insults then perhaps you ought to suspect that your position is not all that strong.

The death penalty ignores the mercy and forgiveness that is required of us.

The Church has always supported the right of the State to apply the death penalty. Your charge against me is also a charge against the Church.

Look at the example of Saint Paul. He killed Christians. Yet he repented and God used him in a mighty way. Yet, in your mind, since he took the life of others, he deserved to be killed.

I knew Paul persecuted Christians, I didn’t know that he killed them. In any event, God did not allow Cain to be killed for the murder of Abel so clearly there are other issues involved. Nonetheless, we are still left with Gen 9:6 (which is cited in the Catechism in 2260). What are we to do with this command that God has given us?

This is not our place to say if someone deserves to live or die. We do not know how this person can be used by God in the future, should he come to repentance.

As individuals this is true, but the State has the positive obligation to punish the wicked and the Church unarguably recognizes the right of the State over life and death.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Besides, even if I was totally depraved it wouldn’t make my arguments wrong. My claims are either correct or incorrect and that truth is not dependent on any personal characteristics of mine.

I don’t want to take us down a rabbit-hole, but this is a good point. It might be helpful to note that the immoderate desire for vengeance is impermissible in any form of punishment. So the judge or the guard or the warden who locks up someone for life, or for a year, or sentences them to house arrest, or even fines them $50 in order to vent personal feelings of anger or spite is doing something wrong. And the private individual who cheers life imprisonment, or house arrest, or a fine, and yes the Death Penalty *out of personal anger, *bloodlust, or “punishment-lust” is doing something wrong.

VC

 

[RWMorris]

I don’t want to take us down a rabbit-hole, but this is a good point. It might be helpful to note that the immoderate desire for vengeance is impermissible in any form of punishment. So the judge or the guard or the warden who locks up someone for life, or for a year, or sentences them to house arrest, or even fines them $50 in order to vent personal feelings of anger or spite is doing something wrong. And the private individual who cheers life imprisonment, or house arrest, or a fine, and yes the Death Penalty *out of personal anger, *bloodlust, or “punishment-lust” is doing something wrong.

VC

I agree with you in principle, but my human nature is weak and sinful.

 

[fish90]

Any supporter of the death penalty who would make excuse for St. Paul is a hypocrite. Murder is murder. If someone like John Wayne Gacy deserved execution, then so did St. Paul. We cannot know the soul of another, therefore execution is nit to be supported. And if execution is acceptable for murder, then why not adultery? Its in the Old Testament law.

Do you acknowledge the Church has accepted capital punishment as a lawful and moral practice?

Do you realize killing is not intrinsically evil within reason?

If not,

Are soldiers going to hell?

Is the person who kills within reason their attacker going to hell?

In my opinion and I think this is the natural law, when the Church declares something is immoral then it is always immoral and vice versa. The Church says capital punishment is moral, so it must be for all time. The state not the Church decides the punishment.

 

[centurionguard]

Cite where the Church makes this argument and it will have credibility; otherwise it is simply your personal opinion.
I don’t understand your question. All of my arguments are made using what the Church herself has said; I am not giving my opinion, I am quoting the Church.
The Church disagrees with you. It is certainly true that the State may abuse its authority over life and death but that authority has nonetheless been given to it.

" *Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, *to whom is entrusted power of life and death" (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

In society the Death Penalty “only” serves in the legitimizing of penal purposes of deterrence and retribution. In reality though, the death penalty has never been proven to be any more retributive or deterrent than the punishment of life without parole. So ultimately; for what purpose does the death penalty (“serve” and “benefit”) under the auspices of the Church upholding it’s recourse to support the death penalty in extreme cases?

Retribution has never served as a means of protecting society because it incites further hate and anger which is counter-productive upholding a true Christian attitude.

Does the Church see fit to write off certain murderers of heinous crimes to an imposed barbaric death by lethal injection, hanging, or the gas chamber because such criminals no longer fit the category of being a possible prodigal child of God?

I certainly don’t subscribe to such a harsh and partial finality even if the Church does have it’s own opinion of embracing the primitive laws of the State. I will reiterate that the Church opinion on this subject is NOT binding in Dogma. Such biased rational would be a moral debasement of character and anti-thesis in the Church’s teaching of mercy and forgiveness.

If we as God’s children boast that we have nothing identifiable with the sins of any criminal behind a jail cell, we implicitly deny our own capacity to commit evil sins and thus bring condemnation upon ourselves.

I remember a short time before Pope John Paul II died when he publicly asked the entire world for forgiveness due to mistaken acts of evil and barbaric acts of torture during the Catholic Inquisition which saw the Church put many people to death because some went against or disagreed with the Church’s teachings.

Isn’t it a laughable irony to think that we humans still have a blood-thirty taste that reverberates down through the centuries in the days of the Roman Coliseum where enemies of the state and innocent people were savagely fed to the lions to gorge and famish on. Seems we haven’t changed a hell of a lot in 2000 years. Oh sure; we just Kill in a kinder self-righteous humanistic way.

 

[diggerdomer]

As I have said before, you are not clear on that and no matter how often you repeat this charge, it is false. Section 2267 is unique; it is an opinion and recognizing a fact is not the same as rejecting the Church.

"… the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, **it has included a prudential judgment **(the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience." (Karl Keating 2004).

Ender

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes “opinions”? Which, presumably, are optional then to the faithful.

Is that right?

Thanks again for any help clarifying your stance vs. the Catechism. Sorry if I’m trying your patience by my difficulty in understanding your position.

 

[Shin]

I don’t want to take us down a rabbit-hole, but this is a good point. It might be helpful to note that the immoderate desire for vengeance is impermissible in any form of punishment. So the judge or the guard or the warden who locks up someone for life, or for a year, or sentences them to house arrest, or even fines them $50 in order to vent personal feelings of anger or spite is doing something wrong. And the private individual who cheers life imprisonment, or house arrest, or a fine, and yes the Death Penalty *out of personal anger, *bloodlust, or “punishment-lust” is doing something wrong.

VC

Not to sidetrack, yes, but it is of misunderstood these days.

‘It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4.’

St. Thomas Aquinas

Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong.

St. John Chrysostom

 

[centurionguard]

Teaching Of The U.S. Bishops On The Death Penalty
Part 1:

The Catholic bishops of the United States have provided careful guidance about this difficult issue, applying the teaching of the universal Church to our American culture. Along with the leadership assemblies of many Churches (for example. American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians), the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty. First articulated in 1974, the bishops’ position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment. Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

In their 1980 statement, the bishops begin by noting that punishment, “since it involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another,” must be justifiable. They acknowledge that the Christian tradition has for a long time recognized a government’s right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. The bishops ask, however, if capital punishment is still justifiable in the present circumstances in the United States.

In this context, the bishops enter the debate about deterrence and retribution. They acknowledge that capital punishment certainly prevents the criminal from committing more crimes, yet question whether it prevents others from doing so. Similarly, concerning retribution, the bishops support the arguments against death as an appropriate form of punishment. The bishops add that reform is a third reason given to justify punishment, but it clearly does not apply in the case of capital punishment. And so they affirm: “We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.”

The heart of the matter:

As with the debate in our wider society, it is important to move behind the discussion of deterrence and retribution to get to the heart of the bishops’ position. The statement does just that, by discussing four related values that would be promoted by the abolition of the death penalty.
First, “abolition sends a message that we can break the cycle of violence, that we need not take life for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective responses to the growth of violent crime.” The bishops recognize that crime is rooted in the complex reality of contemporary society, including those “social conditions of poverty and injustice which often provide the breeding grounds for serious crime.” More attention should go to correcting the root causes of crime than to enlarging death row.

Second, “abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God.” This belief, rooted in Scripture and consistently expressed in the social teach- ings of the Church, applies to all people, including those who have taken life.

Third, “abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life.” And so human life in all its stages is sacred, and human beings are called to care for life, that is, to exercise good stewardship and not absolute control. The bishops recognize that abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are not the same issue, but they each point to the same fundamental value: safeguarding the sanctity of life.
Fourth, “we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus.” In many ways this final point summarizes the other three: the God revealed in the life of Jesus is a God of forgiveness and redemption, of love and compassion—in a word, a God of life. The heart of the bishops’ position on the death penalty, then, is found in the gospel.

Gut-level reactions may cry out for vengeance, but Jesus’ example in the Gospels invites all to develop a new and different attitude toward violence. The bishops encourage us to embody Jesus’ message in practical and civic decisions.
Prisons, victims and more

 

[centurionguard]

Teachings Of The U.S. Bishops On The Death Penalty
Part 2:

While the gospel leads the bishops to oppose the death penalty, they also recognize the need society has to protect itself. Imprisonment will be necessary, but ought not to dehumanize the convicts. The bishops summarize what they have developed in other documents: Significant changes in the prison system are necessary to make it truly conducive to reform and rehabilitation.
In their statement on capital punishment, the bishops express special concern for the victims of violent crime and their families. “Our society should not flinch from contemplating the suffering that violent crime brings to so many when it destroys lives, shatters families and crushes the hope of the innocent.” Care for victims must be given in practical ways, such as financial assistance, pastoral care, medical and psychological treatment.

Some other difficulties directly related to the death penalty, which the statement mentions, are: 1) the death penalty removes the possibility of reform and rehabilitation; 2) there is the possibility of putting an innocent person to death; 3) carrying out the death penalty causes anguish not only for the convict’s loved ones but also for the executioners and the witnesses; 4) executions attract great publicity, much of it unhealthy; 5) there is legitimate concern that criminals are sentenced to death in a discriminatory way: It is a reasonable judgment that racist attitudes and the social consequences of racism have some influence in determining who is sentenced to die in our society. Adequate legal representation is an issue that puts poor people at a disadvantage. For many reasons, especially the message of Jesus, the U.S. bishops favor ending the death penalty.

Scripture and tradition:

The Bible is often mentioned in debates about the death penalty. Supporters quote the Exodus passage, eye for eye, while opponents appeal to Ezekiel (33:11): “As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live.” In fact, such use of the Bible (finding a “proof text” to affirm one’s point of view) is inappropriate.
Scripture scholars teach us to understand the Bible (and its individual books) in historical context: when it was written and why. Thus considered, there is an ambivalence about capital punishment in the Scriptures.

Clearly, the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the death penalty (for a much longer list of offenses than our society would be comfortable with—for example, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, idolatry). Yet, as we see in Ezekiel and many other passages, there is also an attempt to limit violence and to stress mercy. In the Christian Scriptures, Jesus’ life and teachings (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29) focus on mercy, reconciliation and redemption. (It may also be instructive to recall that Jesus’ death was itself an application of the death penalty.) The basic thrust of the Gospels supports opposition to the death penalty.

Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: “If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching.