When or is the death penalty alright?

[Magdalena09]

I don’t remember seeing where Ender claimed that right for himself, but rather for the State.

And yes, the State DOES have the right to act in the place of God. The Holy Spirit said so through Paul

Romans 13:3-4

I looked up Romans 13 for context, and the very first few sentences interested me. It says those in authority are put there by God, and that whoever opposes authority opposes what God has appointed. If this is true, does this mean Obama is appointed by God and that we should not oppose him?

I feel like this may not be the case, and perhaps Romans 13 is talking about specific authority figures, and not authority in general. I guess I need to read all of Romans again and see.

 

[CWBetts]

Your statement is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Catechism of Trent On the 5th Commandment - Execution Of Criminals

Also, in reference to my post above, note that Trent reinforces what St. Paul wrote about the State being the legitimate avenger of crime

Note that the use of the death penalty must be “just.” In modern society it is not in most cases as per 2267 of the CCC.

 

[Brendan]

Note that the use of the death penalty must be “just.” In modern society it is not in most cases as per 2267 of the CCC.

And where does the CCC put the responsibility on determining if the conditions are met?

 

[Brendan]

I looked up Romans 13 for context, and the very first few sentences interested me. It says those in authority are put there by God, and that whoever opposes authority opposes what God has appointed. If this is true, does this mean Obama is appointed by God and that we should not oppose him?

I feel like this may not be the case, and perhaps Romans 13 is talking about specific authority figures, and not authority in general. I guess I need to read all of Romans again and see.

Romans 13 is pretty clear on what it considers an ‘authority’ - “The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

We do have an obligation to give to Cesear what is Cesear’s, and this includes the recognition that when they punish the wrongdoer (as defined by the Church, since the civil authority has no authority to bind morals) , they do so as an agent of God.

 

[Magdalena09]

Your statement is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Catechism of Trent On the 5th Commandment - Execution Of Criminals

Also, in reference to my post above, note that Trent reinforces what St. Paul wrote about the State being the legitimate avenger of crime

I have a question, since we know that that Church does not contradict herself, how do you reconcile that with the CCC which states quite explicitly that "
2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

?

 

[CWBetts]

And where does the CCC put the responsibility on determining if the conditions are met?

It is the responsibility of the authorities, however, the state has failed in this. The legitimate use of the death penalty is rare. Most uses of the death penalty are unjust in that other means exist to punish the guilty and protect society. It is not our place to play God. God is the author of life, and God alone may take it. The sate does not have the right to apply the death penalty as it sees fit, just as the state may not wage war as it sees fit.

 

[Magdalena09]

I found it interesting also that in the footnotes of Romans 13 on the USCCB site it doesn’t mention justice anywhere but instead mentions doing what is necessary to protect society.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans13.htm

 

[CWBetts]

Romans 13 is pretty clear on what it considers an ‘authority’ - “The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

We do have an obligation to give to Cesear what is Cesear’s, and this includes the recognition that when they punish the wrongdoer (as defined by the Church, since the civil authority has no authority to bind morals) , they do so as an agent of God.

Wrong. To “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is an exhortation to obey the law, even those we do not like for personal reasons. It is not to say we are not to oppose the government due to injustice. You try to give the state too much power, my friend

 

[Brendan]

I have a question, since we know that that Church does not contradict herself, how do you reconcile that with the CCC which states quite explicitly that "
2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

?

Who determines if the non lethal means provide sufficent defense for society?

As far as the USCCB statement, the use of the death penalty does not take away the possibility of the offender redeeming himself. Rather, it actually assists in the process.

Case is point, Timothy McVeigh. He was baptized Catholic, but never really practiced the Faith. On death row, he requested and recieved Sacramental Absolution, and also recieved Last Rites ( absolution, Communion and the Apostolic Blessiing) just before his execution.

Here is Cardinal Avery Dulles on the subject

Capital punishment does not reintegrate the criminal into society; rather, it cuts off any possible rehabilitation. The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God.

So the Cardinal’s point is that, it certainly does not integrate the criminal back into society, or rehabilitate the criminal from a social perspective, but often brings about a reconcillation with God. Which is, of course, the goal of every Christian.

 

[Brendan]

Wrong. To “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is an exhortation to obey the law, even those we do not like for personal reasons. It is not to say we are not to oppose the government due to injustice. You try to give the state too much power, my friend

We certainly do not follow the State when it commits injustice. But that is independant of the Death Penalty ( or is independant if the accused was wrongly convicted).

If they HAD commited the crime, then they have deprived themselves of their right to life and the act of Justice is to give them what they are due.

It can be an act of Mercy to forbear from Justice, which is what the CCC asks, but that is different from the D.P. being an injustice.

 

[Magdalena09]

Who determines if the non lethal means provide sufficent defense for society?

As far as the USCCB statement, the use of the death penalty does not take away the possibility of the offender redeeming himself. Rather, it actually assists in the process.

Case is point, Timothy McVeigh. He was baptized Catholic, but never really practiced the Faith. On death row, he requested and recieved Sacramental Absolution, and also recieved Last Rites ( absolution, Communion and the Apostolic Blessiing) just before his execution.

Here is Cardinal Avery Dulles on the subject

So the Cardinal’s point is that, it certainly does not integrate the criminal back into society, or rehabilitate the criminal from a social perspective, but often brings about a reconcillation with God. Which is, of course, the goal of every Christian.

I believe you asked someone else that question and they gave a sufficient response.

Conversion of others (evangelism) is of course the goal of every Christian, but are there statistics somewhere that show whether death row inmates have a “higher percentage” of conversion as opposed to non-death row inmates?? I don’t believe in holding a gun to someone’s head in order to get them to convert…

 

[Brendan]

I believe you asked someone else that question and they gave a sufficient response.

Conversion of others (evangelism) is of course the goal of every Christian, but are there statistics somewhere that show whether death row inmates have a “higher percentage” of conversion as opposed to non-death row inmates?? I don’t believe in holding a gun to someone’s head in order to get them to convert…

Do you doubt Cardinal Avery? He states that there is a large body of Christian literature proposing that.

If you are unfamilar with Cardinal Avery, he was a priest that Pope John Paul II elevated to the Red Hat for his particular skill as a theologian. It is incredibly rare in modern times for someone who is not already an archbishop to be elevated to the College, but Pope John Paul elevated a priest. He was offered Episcopal ordination, but declined, stating that episcopal duties would detract from his scholarship work.

As far as conversions at the point of a gun, that is not happening. Rather, and as is common, those facing their mortality tend to turn towards God. This is true in hospices, foxholes AND on death row.

 

[Magdalena09]

Do you doubt Cardinal Avery? He states that there is a large body of Christian literature proposing that.

If you are unfamilar with Cardinal Avery, he was a priest that Pope John Paul II elevated to the Red Hat for his particular skill as a theologian. It is incredibly rare in modern times for someone who is not already an archbishop to be elevated to the College, but Pope John Paul elevated a priest. He was offered Episcopal ordination, but declined, stating that episcopal duties would detract from his scholarship work.

As far as conversions at the point of a gun, that is not happening. Rather, and as is common, those facing their mortality tend to turn towards God. This is true in hospices, foxholes AND on death row.

I did not gather from the quote you gave the he was suggesting conversion is MORE likely on death row than life imprisonment, rather that it is possible. If you know of literature that supports what I asked about, by all means I would love to read it.

 

[diggerdomer]

How can it be for a wrong reason if God commanded it to be done?

So…everything “God commanded” (as you say) in the Old Testament is still valid?

 

[diggerdomer]

Set 2267 aside for a moment and think about what the Church teaches on justice and punishment.

Wait…set aside part of the Catechism to think about what the Church teaches? Are you serious?

I’ve always thought that the purpose of the universal Catholic Catechism was to help ensure that all teaching and catechetics was done faithfully to the Catholic Church. Sorry, I can’t simply set it aside (unless you’re interested in a purely hypothetical and speculative conversation divorced from the real lived faith of Catholics).

If you disagree with me you need to do more than simply state “you’re wrong”.

I am not saying you are wrong. I just don’t see that your opinions coincide with Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

If you are a human being, the question of whether it protects society is where the conversation eventually funnels to. It is and should be the question answered BEFORE we continue to execute human beings.

Protecting society is a secondary objective of punishment. The first question should be whether the punishment satisfies the primary objective.

Why take someone out of society, lock them up and protect said society, only to strap someone down and murder them because written words on a page says you can?

If Church teaching is no more than words on a page then why would I believe in God and why would I care whether or not someone died?

The death penalty is not working.

If you don’t know the primary objective of punishment then you don’t know whether or not it is working or not.

The death penalty does not and never detered others from killing.

Deterrence is also a secondary objective.

If protecting society is not the reason we engage in the death penalty, then someone please tell me why?

To satisfy the primary objective of all punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Since you talk of “God’s justice”, I take thaqt to mean that you feel that you have the right to act in the place of God.

Which one of those quotes do you ascribe to me? I didn’t talk about God’s justice, three popes and the greatest theologian in Church history did. Do their statements become suspect simply because I am the one who quoted them? If you disagree with them then just say so but don’t pretend that you are disagreeing with me, because those comments are not mine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have a question, since we know that that Church does not contradict herself, how do you reconcile [Trent] with [2267]

They cannot be reconciled; they are mutually exclusive perspectives on the use of the death penalty. 2267, however, is the prudential opinion of JPII and as such does not constitute Church doctrine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Wait…set aside part of the Catechism to think about what the Church teaches? Are you serious?

All I meant was that I wanted to discuss solely the topics of justice and punishment without trying to apply them to the death penalty, which would distract us from the debate I’d like to have. If you would, go back to #810, reread what I said, and (ignoring the death penalty which is a special case) tell me if you agree or disagree with what I said there.

Ender

 

[Magdalena09]

They cannot be reconciled; they are mutually exclusive perspectives on the use of the death penalty. 2267, however, is the prudential opinion of JPII and as such does not constitute Church doctrine.

Ender

So you’re saying the Catechism is faulty.