When or is the death penalty alright?

[CWBetts]

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.

Again, you use the most extreme possible example and present it as the norm. This is not a good defense. What if I were to ask if a death row inmate displayed genuine conversion, and prison guards, the warden, and even the victim’s family begged for the sentence to be commuted to life without parole, should the person still be executed? Unfortunately this is not hypothetical. It happened in Texas. This person was still executed. I will not entertain ant of your hypotheticals. My situation was not a “what if” tilizing the most notorious murderer in history. This was a real person who was in reality murdered. She was a benefit to the prison she was in. She counseled other inmates. But the need for “justice” outweighed any of this in the eyes of the governor.

 

[d97c]

Regarding Hitler, your failure to answer the question may indicate there is hope ! It’s a simple question. Separate it. Look at it. Answer it. Courage now ! If we had caught Hitler, and you had been on the jury at the Hague, Mister C W Betts, sir, would you, if the proof were there, and he was convicted, have voted for execution??
(Jeopardy theme song playing…tic, tic, tic )


and if the unlikely answer is NO, why not ?

 

[d97c]

Of course you wont “entertain” any hypos regarding Hitler,because you know that your excusing Hitler makes your arguments very weak. To you, blowing up the world wouldnt justify the death penalty. And by the way, Hitler facts are barely hypothetical, because if we had caught him, he would have been convicted and then he would have been fried, like he should have been, if caught.
Ask the 6 million Jews about “sensitivities”

 

[CWBetts]

Regarding Hitler, your failure to answer the question may indicate there is hope ! It’s a simple question. Separate it. Look at it. Answer it. Courage now ! If we had caught Hitler, and you had been on the jury at the Hague, Mister C W Betts, sir, would you, if the proof were there, and he was convicted, have voted for execution??
(Jeopardy theme song playing…tic, tic, tic )


and if the unlikely answer is NO, why not ?

Your hypothetical is not applicable. As I said before, you are using an example based on one of the most notorious killers in history. This is not a good defense. If you want to use Hitler as an example fine, but that means that the world should have been virtually execution free since 1945. Sure execute the true madmen…What about the hundreds who are executed in the United States who fall well short of the madman status? I feel you have no answer…

 

[CWBetts]

Of course you wont “entertain” any hypos regarding Hitler,because you know that your excusing Hitler makes your arguments very weak. To you, blowing up the world wouldnt justify the death penalty. And by the way, Hitler facts are barely hypothetical, because if we had caught him, he would have been convicted and then he would have been fried, like he should have been, if caught.
Ask the 6 million Jews about “sensitivities”

You flatly ignored my REAL situation. Someone who was executed, despite strong evedence of reform. I guess her life didn’t matter to you, because you are so much more of a human that she was.

 

[CWBetts]

I am going to use very small words to make sure everyone understands:

1> The death penalty should not be completely done away with, for use in unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances would be for the “Hitlers” of the world.
2> Most execution s are not carried out on “Hitlers.” There are actually very few with capable of that level of evil in the world.
3> I am no less faithful than those who support the death penalty. Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI) says so.
4> I feel it is more in line with the life ethic to oppose the death penalty (my own priest and my Christian Moral Principles instructor, also a priest, agrees)
5> I have not once tried to argue my point by presenting an extreme case as the norm (like Hitler or Hussein), unlike my rivals.
6> I believe that the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person. I base this belief on Scriptures and CCC 2267. If you disagree, I really don’t care. My opinion is just as valid as your own, and I will not be put down for it.
7> For those of you who have been attacking me personally and my position with claims that are side issues, I will no longer respond to your idiotic rants.

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear CWBetts,

To say that God “allowed” the death penalty is only your personal interpretation; Genesis 9: 6 is ,undeniably, an express command to inflict capital punishment for pre-meditated murder and has always been so understood by both Catholic and Protestant exegetes.

Sorry, but I have not ignored the wider context of divine revelation since I have shown how Genesis 9: 6 is consonant with the teaching of the N.T., specifically Romans 13: 1-4. It is indisputable that St. Paul was decidedly of the opinion that capital punishment had the divine approval and that God had invested the state with the authority to administer it when necessary. Moreover, nowhere in the teaching of our Lord do we read that capital punishment for murder was to be rescinded under the new economy. This of course could never happen since man can never cease to be made in the image of God, therefore the whole rationale for capital punishment has continuing validity to the end of time. Since the murder of ones fellow man is an outrage against God, the death penalty will always be the fitting punishment for this most heinous crime; indeed it is man being an image bearer of God that calls for such a severe penalty. Thus the exponents of the death penalty actually value the sanctity of life more highly than do abolitionists, as they acknowledge the divine image in man and the gravity of killing another made in that image.

Regarding the case of Cain it should be remembered that this was prior to the divine mandate given to Noah in Genesis 9: 6, so his case is somewhat unique.

Respecting 2260 of the CCC, it is because of the sanctity of life that the death penalty will always be demanded for murder - it is the only fitting punishment for such a heinious crime against God.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Dear CWBetts,

To say that God “allowed” the death penalty is only your personal interpretation; Genesis 9: 6 is ,undeniably, an express command to inflict capital punishment for pre-meditated murder and has always been so understood by both Catholic and Protestant exegetes.

Sorry, but I have not ignored the wider context of divine revelation since I have shown how Genesis 9: 6 is consonant with the teaching of the N.T., specifically Romans 13: 1-4. It is indisputable that St. Paul was decidedly of the opinion that capital punishment had the divine approval and that God had invested the state with the authority to administer it when necessary. Moreover, nowhere in the teaching of our Lord do we read that capital punishment for murder was to be rescinded under the new economy. This of course could never happen since man can never cease to be made in the image of God, therefore the whole rationale for capital punishment has continuing validity to the end of time. Since the murder of ones fellow man is an outrage against God, the death penalty will always be the fitting punishment for this most heinous crime; indeed it is man being an image bearer of God that calls for such a severe penalty. Thus the exponents of the death penalty actually value the sanctity of life more highly than do abolitionists, as they acknowledge the divine image in man and the gravity of killing another made in that image.

Regarding the case of Cain it should be remembered that this was prior to the divine mandate given to Noah in Genesis 9: 6, so his case is somewhat unique.

Respecting 2260 of the CCC, it is because of the sanctity of life that the death penalty will always be demanded for murder - it is the only fitting punishment for such a heinious crime against God.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

This post is an exaple of a “contortionist”–one who will take anything, and as evidenced not even the Scriptures are sacred, and twist them to say what he wants.

 

[d97c]

Oh well…on to a new thread. Your ridiculous arguments, your crybaby responses and your pompous nature is getting old. You dish it out but you can’t take it. You are the king of the personal attack, the snide remark, especially when someone bests you. When you get out of “academe,” hit the streets, you will get experience in real life, and will gain knowledge.

 

[CWBetts]

Oh well…on to a new thread. Your ridiculous arguments, your crybaby responses and your pompous nature is getting old. You dish it out but you can’t take it. You are the king of the personal attack, the snide remark, especially when someone bests you. When you get out of “academe,” hit the streets, you will get experience in real life, and will gain knowledge.

That is a poor excuse to play God

 

[CWBetts]

Oh well…on to a new thread. Your ridiculous arguments, your crybaby responses and your pompous nature is getting old. You dish it out but you can’t take it. You are the king of the personal attack, the snide remark, especially when someone bests you. When you get out of “academe,” hit the streets, you will get experience in real life, and will gain knowledge.

You presume much. I have been in the “real world” Personal attack, no. I attack POSITIONS. It is you, my friend who have insulted my knowledge of the faith. Trust me I study. One parting point, when Jesus said “Love your neighbor” He meant that we aren’t supposed to kill them!

 

[Ender]

1> The death penalty should not be completely done away with, for use in unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances would be for the “Hitlers” of the world.
…
6> I believe that the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person.

If the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of man then why do you support it in any circumstance, even the most unusual? I don’t have this problem because I don’t believe that it is contrary to man’s dignity (a vague phrase who’s meaning is not clear to me), but you surely cannot complain, when I suggest we should use the death penalty more often, that it is contrary to man’s dignity since that “fact” doesn’t bar you from advocating it. Either the “dignity of man” prohibits capital punishment or it doesn’t. It’s a “sauce for the goose” kind of thing.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

If the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of man then why do you support it in any circumstance, even the most unusual? I don’t have this problem because I don’t believe that it is contrary to man’s dignity (a vague phrase who’s meaning is not clear to me), but you surely cannot complain, when I suggest we should use the death penalty more often, that it is contrary to man’s dignity since that “fact” doesn’t bar you from advocating it. Either the “dignity of man” prohibits capital punishment or it doesn’t. It’s a “sauce for the goose” kind of thing.

Ender

It is all about the common good. The death penalty should ONLY be used when there is no other way to protect society. As for “dignity of the human person”, it means that all of us, even the most vile, are created in the image and likeness of God. It is fully explaind in the Catechism, but this would require you to read beyond 2260.

 

[Portrait]

It is all about the common good. The death penalty should ONLY be used when there is no other way to protect society. As for “dignity of the human person”, it means that all of us, even the most vile, are created in the image and likeness of God. It is fully explaind in the Catechism, but this would require you to read beyond 2260.

Dear CWBetts,

The protection of society per se is an inadaquate grounds to justify the death penalty; its primary purpose is to redress the outrage against God in who’s image man is made. Thus the retributive element, nowadays frequently and erroneously equated with vengeance, is a key aspect of capital punishment and cannot be dispensed with no matter how objectionable modern liberals may happen to find it.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CWBetts]

Dear CWBetts,

The protection of society per se is an inadaquate grounds to justify the death penalty; its primary purpose is to redress the outrage against God in who’s image man is made. Thus the retributive element, nowadays frequently and erroneously equated with vengeance, is a key aspect of capital punishment and cannot be dispensed with no matter how objectionable modern liberals may happen to find it.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Wow. Most people consider me opinion. I would appreciate it if you would not attempt tp force your interpretation on me. Just because you lack respect for the writings of the Venerable John Paul II, does not mean I should be forced into your error.

 

[diggerdomer]

It is one of the Ecumenical Councils like Vatican I; it is infallible by its very definition from what I know.

Ecumenical Councils may or may not teach infallibly. that’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[fish90]

I am going to use very small words to make sure everyone understands:

1> The death penalty should not be completely done away with, for use in unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances would be for the “Hitlers” of the world.
2> Most execution s are not carried out on “Hitlers.” There are actually very few with capable of that level of evil in the world.
3> I am no less faithful than those who support the death penalty. Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI) says so.
4> I feel it is more in line with the life ethic to oppose the death penalty (my own priest and my Christian Moral Principles instructor, also a priest, agrees)
5> I have not once tried to argue my point by presenting an extreme case as the norm (like Hitler or Hussein), unlike my rivals.
6> I believe that the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person. I base this belief on Scriptures and CCC 2267. If you disagree, I really don’t care. My opinion is just as valid as your own, and I will not be put down for it.
7> For those of you who have been attacking me personally and my position with claims that are side issues, I will no longer respond to your idiotic rants.

1.) The Council of Trent still gave reasons in favor of the death penalty other than for unusual exceptions.
2.) What are you trying to get at here?
3.) Correct
4.) Feelings are irrelevant, but I will yield your position is correct with regard to the Church’s teaching yet this decision is made by the state. Priests and even bishops are not infallible on their own especially when interpreting the prudential judgment of John Paul the Great.
5.) I have not checked this.
6.) I think you have to be careful with this. The Church throughout its history finds that capital punishment is morally neutral. If the Church has accepted capital punishment as morally neutral and has sentenced criminals, does She really accept your position?
7.) Please let have this happen on both sides.

Oh and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[fish90]

Ecumenical Councils may or may not teach infallibly. that’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

Do you have any evidence?

I took this position since a teaching on the death penalty would fall under faith and morals. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

I would have voted not to.

 

[diggerdomer]

Do you have any evidence?

I took this position since a teaching on the death penalty would fall under faith and morals. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

Yes. The Catechism and Canon Law.

What evidence do you have that says every teaching of an ecumenical council is taught infallibly?