Certainly it is possible but you have provided no argument to convince me that I am wrong. Most of your responses are directed at me and not the reasons I give in support of my position. Even if I was as arrogant and blood thirsty as you presume it wouldn’t make my argument invalid. My explanations are either correct or incorrect and nothing about me personally has any effect on determining which.Perhaps the Catechism does not contradict itself, or the Church, but your interpretation is in error. Couldn’t that be possible?
Of course he does.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”
That is of course a sinful impulse. Don’t give into it.and another part of me thinking “put him in prison and make his life a living Hell”.
Easy. There are plenty of things that are legitimate under extreme circumstances, but are not in themselves desirable things. There are other things that are intrinsically evil and may not be done under any circumstances whatsoever. Killing people who deserve it is in the first category.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?
I don’t see why. It seems to me that you are too easily confused.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.
I think that’s a weak argument. Scripture seems pretty clear that human authorities do have the right to execute, delegated them by God. And Catholic Tradition is much clearer on that point.What right have we erring mortals to send a soul to (possibly) hell?
This was a thoughtful post but I have a problem with what you said above. The Catechism, in 2267, puts the defense of society as the justification for capital punishment and restricts executions to only those instances where other means are ineffective for that purpose, but the defense of society is only a secondary objective of punishment; the primary objective is justice. In arguing about whether the death penalty does or does not provide additional protecton we have completely lost sight of why we punish people at all. Sin merits punishment; it is that simple.Personally I can see many instances of capital punishment being moral means of self defense. … 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.
I agree that we should execute only those who deserve it, but saying this recognizes that in fact, by their actions, some people merit the death penalty as the just punishment. I’m sure we will disagree over when it is or is not necessary but we can get into that later.We should kill *only *those who deserve it *and then *only when necessary.
I’m not sure I understand this point. Aquinas recognized punishment as an evil - but he defined evil very carefully so this is not a question of doing evil so that good may come from it. If you meant to say that the Church no longer sees the punishment of evil as necessary (as good?) then I disagree. The Church has not changed her position on this point; she taught this both before and after St. Thomas and teaches it today.This is a break from the traditional, Thomist view that the punishment of evil is simply a good.
This raises another interesting question: is it appropriate to show mercy in every instance or should this be determined on a case by case basis?And that, as you rightly point out, is a good reason to show mercy and restraint whenever possible, even toward people whose actions deserve death.
You fail to read. I tire of repeating my self ad nauseum. You are wrong because you ignore the larger context of pretty much everything you quote. If you go to the Scriptures, you will see that Jesus is actually critical of the practice of execution.Certainly it is possible but you have provided no argument to convince me that I am wrong. Most of your responses are directed at me and not the reasons I give in support of my position. Even if I was as arrogant and blood thirsty as you presume it wouldn’t make my argument invalid. My explanations are either correct or incorrect and nothing about me personally has any effect on determining which.
Ender
Why the personal digs? So quick to judge…There are really great arguements in this thread and wonderful quotes from Cannon Law as well as saintly people of the past.I did look up “carlbetts”.blogspot and got a laugh about the different approaches to threads by people that were mentioned.But I really cannot see the point of a parallel debate on a different personal webpage.It seems to me like " carlbetts" wants to play on his terms or not at all?Sure you are going to get all sorts of angles in arguements and even uncharitable nasty comments(this thread is open to the world!);but I wonder is the person of "calbetts"so insecure in the fact that truth stands on it’s own and will always win regardless of eroneous or futile reasoning.Does he want to be always right or just to know the Truth?(even a stopped clock is right twice each day!)
One of the dangers I think in quoting past comments of saints, is that we cannot always apply the pratical conclusions that they made then, to the present times.St.Thomas Aquinas has the principles right ,but he would not have known about “electronic or camera survelliance of prisoners etc”.There is also a development of the practical enacting out of Church Teaching-that was what Vatican II really spells out in it’s teachings, say in the document of The Church in the Modern World.
The other point in argueing about the death penality is that it can become an abstract type of exercise.Here are two concrete pratical examples about this topic ,one a few years back and the other one twenty years ago.Both new governments had every reason to call a War crimes commission and some could argue a death penality could have applied in Justice for the common good.The countries were Poland and East Timor.After throwing off communism in Poland,the very Catholic Leadership,under the advise of Pope John Paul II and other Catholic Polish clergy decided not to bring any charges agaist anyone and start off with a clean slate–in other words the Government showed the world what Catholics believe–that Mercy and Forgiveness-- hence Love in Christ is even better than Justice!(sure they paid a price for this mercy, as the former communists had all the wealth and property),but slowly the Polish Government now has shed that yoke.Justice could have filled to overflowing prisons and graveyards in Poland-even outdoing the prison populations of the western world! I can say the same for the lovely, holy.gentle and poor (though rich in faith)Catholic peoples of East Timor,it even had the effect of converting ‘‘Gorilla’’ Fighters who were communist backed to becoming catholics again.
I remember a seminarian ten years back saying how he thought that his Clerical Professor(now a Bishop) was a “modernist” for teaching that the practical aspects of the death penalty has changed in the Church Teachings.I believe that the seminarian was wrong, because there is a real shift towards clemancy and mercy ,which in my view is Christ like.I like a lot on this thread were well taught about the Church Teachings on the Death Penality and the principles of a just war so I can see where some threads are coming from,but hey get over it and move where The Holy Spirit is leading-embrace The Love of Christ in His Divine Mercy as He reveals His Heart to St.Faustina-Christ urges us to show an act of Mercy each day.
I disagree. Sin is not that simple. Sin also merits reconciliation, conversion, and forgiveness.Sin merits punishment; it is that simple.
Perhaps, but not the way you may suppose.Am I correct to say this understanding is very similar to the just war doctrine?
Your claim here is incorrect; the Church had never prior to 1994 tied the use of capital punishment primarily to protection. It’s use has always been grounded on the need for justice. Given that there is a justice component involved with just war doctrine, in that sense they are similar.In the case of capital punishment, the reasons for its use as illustrated throughout Church history are not to be used if nonlethal methods are available.
Aquinas was right about the principles involved and those principles are unaffected by the passage of time and the enhancements of technology. Having said that, and as regards especially your example of Poland, there are times when it is necessary to give practical considerations more weight than in normal conditions. The peaceful restoration of the Polish state was advanced by a blanket amnesty. I think this is what JPII had in mind with his comments about the use of the death penalty: in our current climate it does more harm than good. I don’t share that opinion but I certainly understand it.One of the dangers I think in quoting past comments of saints, is that we cannot always apply the pratical conclusions that they made then, to the present times.St.Thomas Aquinas has the principles right ,but he would not have known about “electronic or camera survelliance of prisoners etc”.There is also a development of the practical enacting out of Church Teaching-that was what Vatican II really spells out in it’s teachings, say in the document of The Church in the Modern World.
Do you believe that everyone should automatically receive mercy or do you believe that that its use should be conditional?the Government showed the world what Catholics believe–that Mercy and Forgiveness-- hence Love in Christ is even better than Justice!
God is merciful. Everyone should have access to God’s mercy.Do you believe that everyone should automatically receive mercy or do you believe that that its use should be conditional?
Ender
Ender,the Church had never prior to 1994 tied the use of capital punishment primarily to protection. It’s use has always been grounded on the need for justice.
Ender
1863 *Venial **sin *weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment.I disagree. Sin is not that simple. Sin also merits reconciliation, conversion, and forgiveness.
2266 *Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.And, where punishment may be “merited” as you say, isn’t that God’s prerogative?
How is life in prison without the chance of parole not punishment?1863 *Venial **sin ***weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment.
2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
Ender
And where does the Church teach that the death penalty is commensurate, objectively, with a given grave crime?1863 *Venial **sin ***weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment.
2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
Ender
This is a good question.And where does the Church teach that the death penalty is commensurate, objectively, with a given grave crime?
Clearly it is punishment and very severe punishment at that but the question is whether for some crimes only the most severe punishment is adequate (commensurate).How is life in prison without the chance of parole not punishment?