When or is the death penalty alright?

[Ender]

Gen 9:6 is just as much an excuse for vigilantism as it is a mandate for state sanctioned capital punishment.

I think this is silly, but if you believe it to be true then you must also believe that the Church is sanctioning vigilantism since the Church cites Gen 9:6 in the Catechism (2260) and it is the Church that says this teaching is true for all time.

In fact, the Church teaches that the individual has no authority to punish another person; that authority is vested exclusively in the State. I will point out again: 2260 is the Church acknowledging God’s command; this is not some opinion of my own. I merely quote the Church.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

I think this is silly, but if you believe it to be true then you must also believe that the Church is sanctioning vigilantism since the Church cites Gen 9:6 in the Catechism (2260) and it is the Church that says this teaching is true for all time.

In fact, the Church teaches that the individual has no authority to punish another person; that authority is vested exclusively in the State. I will point out again: 2260 is the Church acknowledging God’s command; this is not some opinion of my own. I merely quote the Church.

Ender

There is nothing in the text of Genesis 9:6 that describes who has the right to execute a murderer. In truth I have never once argued that it should be banned, but merely that given modern correctional technology, it should not be used. Which is consistent with both 2260 and 2267, as opposed to your view, which is consistent with 2260, but complete;y ignores 2267. It is that simple. If you say you are going to be faithful to the Church, you have to be faithful to ALL of it.

 

[diggerdomer]

If this is so then on what basis do you object to capital punishment since 2260 quotes Gen 9:6 - which is where God mandates the execution of murderers - and adds that this command is true for all time?

Ender

See 2267. I accept that as much as I accept 2260. I think that’s our difference, I accept both.

In the Old Testament God also mandates the execution of adulterers. Tiger Woods is probably glad we don’t enforce that!

 

[d97c]

Anyone who says that the Church teaches that the state can’t punish another person for murdering another citizen needs to read St Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas’ defense of the death penalty is well known.

The common good is of greater value than the particular good of an individual. Therefore the particular good of the individual may be sacrificed to the common good. The life of certain pestiferous individuals hinders the common good, which is the concord of human society. Such individuals, therefore, must be removed by death from society.

St. Thomas argued in favor of capital punishment using the analogy of amputating a diseased limb for the well-being of the whole body. Thus, Aquinas treats the State as an organic body from which a diseased member may be amputated for the good of the whole.

roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm

 

[CWBetts]

Anyone who says that the Church teaches that the state can’t punish another person for murdering another citizen needs to read St Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas’ defense of the death penalty is well known.

The common good is of greater value than the particular good of an individual. Therefore the particular good of the individual may be sacrificed to the common good. The life of certain pestiferous individuals hinders the common good, which is the concord of human society. Such individuals, therefore, must be removed by death from society.

St. Thomas argued in favor of capital punishment using the analogy of amputating a diseased limb for the well-being of the whole body. Thus, Aquinas treats the State as an organic body from which a diseased member may be amputated for the good of the whole.

roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm

Again, I never said it should be abolished. I just said in todays age it is not needed (as it was in the days of St. Thomas)

 

[Portrait]

Gen 9:6 is just as much an excuse for vigilantism as it is a mandate for state sanctioned capital punishment.

Dear CWBetts,

Unless I am mistaken you appear to be implying that by instituting the death penalty for pre-meditated murder God was encouraging vigilantism. The very thought that an all holy God would abet people undertaking their own law enforcement without the legal authority that He Himself ordained (see Romans 13: 1-5) is, surely, an untenable and utterly preposterous position, to say nothing of being an affront to the Almighty, since we imply that He was unwise in instituting capital punishement.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Dear CWBetts,

Unless I am mistaken you appear to be implying that by instituting the death penalty for pre-meditated murder God was encouraging vigilantism. The very thought that an all holy God would abet people undertaking their own law enforcement without the legal authority that He Himself ordained (see Romans 13: 1-5) is, surely, an untenable and utterly preposterous position, to say nothing of being an affront to the Almighty, since we imply that He was unwise in instituting capital punishement.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

I find it indefensible how eager you are to execute

 

[Ender]

There is nothing in the text of Genesis 9:6 that describes who has the right to execute a murderer.

What is not in Gen 9:6 is not relevant; it’s what is in that passage that matters and the command it gives is unequivocal.

In truth I have never once argued that it should be banned, but merely that given modern correctional technology, it should not be used. Which is consistent with both 2260 and 2267, as opposed to your view, which is consistent with 2260, but complete;y ignores 2267. It is that simple. If you say you are going to be faithful to the Church, you have to be faithful to ALL of it.

The inconsistency is this: 2260 says that murderers should be executed, 2267 says no one should be. Beyond that, God’s command in 2260 is based on the nature of man being made in God’s image while in 2267 JPII bases his recommendation on his perception that society is sufficiently protected without executions. Given that we cannot both execute and not execute the same person it would seem obvious that we cannot satisfy both 2260 and 2267.

2266 states that justice is the primary objective of punishment. 2267 ignores justice and speaks solely about protection. Talk about modern states having outgrown the need for capital punishment misses the point that the Church has always considered capital punishment just and, given that justice has nothing whatever to do with protection, if it was just in the past it is just today. What, then, is the argument that we should not impose the just punishment?

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

What is not in Gen 9:6 is not relevant; it’s what is in that passage that matters and the command it gives is unequivocal.
The inconsistency is this: 2260 says that murderers should be executed, 2267 says no one should be. Beyond that, God’s command in 2260 is based on the nature of man being made in God’s image while in 2267 JPII bases his recommendation on his perception that society is sufficiently protected without executions. Given that we cannot both execute and not execute the same person it would seem obvious that we cannot satisfy both 2260 and 2267.

2266 states that justice is the primary objective of punishment. 2267 ignores justice and speaks solely about protection. Talk about modern states having outgrown the need for capital punishment misses the point that the Church has always considered capital punishment just and, given that justice has nothing whatever to do with protection, if it was just in the past it is just today. What, then, is the argument that we should not impose the just punishment?

Ender

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, is righteous enough to say that another does not deserve to live. You cannot identify yourself as true to the faith, because you have decided in your own that the Catechism is wrong. Do not deny it. That is EXACTLY what you have done. You have declared yourself holy enough to pass judgment on all who disagree with you, and have the nerve to hide behind a misinterpretation of what you believe the Catechism says. Worse yet, you expect all to submit to exactly what you say. If we disagree, we are ignorant of the Church. It is time for you to get of your high horse, and admit that you cannot simply ignore a paragraph of the Catechism for no other reason than it does not allow you to deem others unworthy of life.

 

[fish90]

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, is righteous enough to say that another does not deserve to live. You cannot identify yourself as true to the faith, because you have decided in your own that the Catechism is wrong. Do not deny it. That is EXACTLY what you have done. You have declared yourself holy enough to pass judgment on all who disagree with you, and have the nerve to hide behind a misinterpretation of what you believe the Catechism says. Worse yet, you expect all to submit to exactly what you say. If we disagree, we are ignorant of the Church. It is time for you to get of your high horse, and admit that you cannot simply ignore a paragraph of the Catechism for no other reason than it does not allow you to deem others unworthy of life.

The state has that authority.

 

[CWBetts]

The state has that authority.

So the state can set whatever criteria it wants for who does and does not deserve to live? I think not.

 

[Ender]

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, is righteous enough to say that another does not deserve to live.

*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” *(Pius XII)

You cannot identify yourself as true to the faith, because you have decided in your own that the Catechism is wrong.

The Catechism has put us in the position of having to choose between conflicting directives. 2260 says murderers should be executed; 2267 says they should not. I am unable to determine how to do both.

You have declared yourself holy enough to pass judgment on all who disagree with you, and have the nerve to hide behind a misinterpretation of what you believe the Catechism says.

What part of 2260 do you believe I have misconstrued? For that matter, what parts of 2266 and 2267 have I misconstrued? You have not responded to any of the arguments I made; you have contented yourself with insults, which may be satisfying to you but are not convincing to me.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” *(Pius XII)
The Catechism has put us in the position of having to choose between conflicting directives. 2260 says murderers should be executed; 2267 says they should not. I am unable to determine how to do both.
What part of 2260 do you believe I have misconstrued? For that matter, what parts of 2266 and 2267 have I misconstrued? You have not responded to any of the arguments I made; you have contented yourself with insults, which may be satisfying to you but are not convincing to me.

Ender

I have finished taking your word on what 2260 of the CCC says, and you have been misrepresenting it my friend. Color me stunned. The point of 2260 is to really drive home the point that life is sacred. It is not a directive to execute. Sometimes it helps to read the whole thing, instead of just the parts that support your views when taken out of context. You should be ashamed.

 

[Ender]

I have finished taking your word on what 2260 of the CCC says, and you have been misrepresenting it my friend. Color me stunned

Break it down for me:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

What does that mean? The Catechism provides a helpful clue:* “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.”* Updating the phrase to modern English would yield: “Whoever takes a man’s life, by man shall his life be taken.”

The point of 2260 is to really drive home the point that life is sacred.

It is because of the sacredness of life - because he is made in the image of God - that the penalty for murder is so severe.

It is not a directive to execute. Sometimes it helps to read the whole thing, instead of just the parts that support your views when taken out of context.

Here is the Council of Trent - apparently taking things out of context as well:

The just use of this power {capital punishment}, far from involving the crime of murder,** is an act of*** paramount obedience** to this Commandment which prohibits murder.*

It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Council of Trent that the execution of the wicked is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth Commandment. I understand that you completely disagree with my conclusions but you’ve provided nothing to support your position. Why do you castigate me for accepting the conclusion of one of the most important councils in Church history?

Ender

 

[fish90]

So the state can set whatever criteria it wants for who does and does not deserve to live? I think not.

The restrictions have already been discussed previously, but I will repeat them.

1.) The crime must be grave.
2.) Guilt must be confirmed.
3.) The state must decide whether capital punishment is justifiable while taking into consideration non-lethal methods.

Please remember a Catholic who supports the death penalty within reason has as good of a stance as you do in the Church.

Best Wishes,
fish90

 

[Portrait]

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, is righteous enough to say that another does not deserve to live. You cannot identify yourself as true to the faith, because you have decided in your own that the Catechism is wrong. Do not deny it. That is EXACTLY what you have done. You have declared yourself holy enough to pass judgment on all who disagree with you, and have the nerve to hide behind a misinterpretation of what you believe the Catechism says. Worse yet, you expect all to submit to exactly what you say. If we disagree, we are ignorant of the Church. It is time for you to get of your high horse, and admit that you cannot simply ignore a paragraph of the Catechism for no other reason than it does not allow you to deem others unworthy of life.

Dear CWBetts,

The issue is not whether or not anyone is “righteous” enough to inflict the death penalty upon a fellow human, but whether God has authorised a mere fellow human to so inflict it when necessary to redress an outrage against the divine majesty. Now clearly when God originally instituted the death penalty He was fully cognizant of the fact that, as regards man, there was none righteous in the sense that none was without sin. Nevertheless, this did not present an insuperable problem for Him as Genesis 9: 6 makes abundantly clear: it is manifestly obvious that He had to delegate the function of executioner to man, notwithstanding his sins and moral imperfections. As St. Paul remarks in the Epistle to the Romans the human executioner “does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13: 4, emphasis mine). It should also be remembered that the governing authorities, of which the executioner is a mere servant, “have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13: 1). By parity of reasoning when a judge in a court of law passes sentence upon the defendant in the dock he does so as a servant of the state, not as a perfectly righteous man, not even, necessarily, as a man of moral rectitude, but that is no bar as regards his office as judge. In an imperfect world someone has to legislate, andminister the law and, yes, pass sentence, including capital punishment, on the wrongdoer.

With respect to your comment about my being “eager to execute”, nothing could be further from the truth. In common, I suspect, with all Christian exponents of capital punishment, I regard it as a real tragedy when a man or woman must forfeit their lives to satisfy the demands of divine justice. How could any Christian take a perverse delight in seeing a man sentenced to death, why the very thought is inconceivable. However, if the prospect of the death penalty is instrumental in leading a condemned man to seek the Sacrament of Pennance and the remission of his mortal sins then I rejoice exceedingly. Is it not almost next to certain, assuming that man’s repentance was sincere, that he will after death enter into the life everalasting, or Purgatory at any rate?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Break it down for me:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

What does that mean? The Catechism provides a helpful clue:* “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.”* Updating the phrase to modern English would yield: “Whoever takes a man’s life, by man shall his life be taken.”
It is because of the sacredness of life - because he is made in the image of God - that the penalty for murder is so severe.
Here is the Council of Trent - apparently taking things out of context as well:

The just use of this power {capital punishment}*, far from involving the crime of murder,** is an act of***** paramount obedience** to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Council of Trent that the execution of the wicked is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth Commandment. I understand that you completely disagree with my conclusions but you’ve provided nothing to support your position. Why do you castigate me for accepting the conclusion of one of the most important councils in Church history?

Ender

There is no mandate for capital punishment (which is what you contend). There is only allowance. Show me the mandate.

 

[Portrait]

There is no mandate for capital punishment (which is what you contend). There is only allowance. Show me the mandate.

Dear CWBetts,

Without wishing to repeat myself ad nauseum, the sanction for the death penalty is Genesis 9: 6 and this is of continuing validity since man cannot cease to be made in the image of God. It is this that distinguishes it from other offences such as adultery. Moreover, there is no evidence, in either the Old or N.T., to sugest that the death penalty for murder has been abrogated and this is consistent with the fact that it is perpetually valid.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Dear CWBetts,

Without wishing to repeat myself ad nauseum, the sanction for the death penalty is Genesis 9: 6 and this is of continuing validity since man cannot cease to be made in the image of God. It is this that distinguishes it from other offences such as adultery. Moreover, there is no evidence, in either the Old or N.T., to sugest that the death penalty for murder has been abrogated and this is consistent with the fact that it is perpetually valid.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

It is a sanction. It is essentially permission. It is not a command. If it were a command, then Jesus could not have said “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” You are confusing permission with command.

 

[Ender]

It is a sanction. It is essentially permission. It is not a command. If it were a command, then Jesus could not have said “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” You are confusing permission with command.

You give permission by saying “you may” do something; “you shall” do something is a command. Do you think the phrase “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” is merely a suggestion? If it is not, then how is the phrase “by man shall his blood be shed” any less of a command?

Christ’s statement about mercy was directed to the individual as was his command to turn the other cheek. That, however, is not the directive given to states; their obligation is to impose punishments commensurate with the severity of crimes. I do not suggest that states should not show mercy when mercy is called for but the individual and the state have very different rights and duties.

Ender