When or is the death penalty alright?

[Brendan]

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

No, the Ceremonial Law, the law of clean\unclean is abolished. Since those were instituted at a particular time, those were never Eternal Laws.

The Moral Law, what is moral or immoral, is unchanging. It must be so, be God is unchanging, what is an offense against God will also be so. Likewise, what was not an offense to God, likewise, will continue to be unoffensive to God.

 

[Ender]

So you’re saying the Catechism is faulty.

I am saying the Catechism contains an opinion.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Is the current Pope “faulty” when he says:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
   Here’s the link
   priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
   and based on that, I support the death penalty and the use of it in murders.

and Joe…the death penalty is a proportional response to a capital murder. …and a deterrent
prodeathpenalty.com/deterrence.htm

So, if we caught Osama and convicted him, you would be happy to see him get 3 hots and a cot for life?
Not me…Id fry him in a minute !!!

 

[Lycorth]

I feel like you put a lot of words in my mouth that I never said which I am willing to bet was not your intent.

I’m certainly not trying to. Forgive me if I did seem like I was

I don’t think throwing money at problems makes them go away. What I actually said was that I don’t think NOT wanting to pay monetarily–even if it means life instead of death–is a good response to situations. I hold this position when I talk with pro-choicers, too, who use the same argument when trying to rationalize abortion. All other points aside, (that the baby is innocent, etc) and just looked at the money aspect of things, pro-choicers will argue that unwanted children are a drain on government sources. They are a worthy “drain”, to be sure, whereas it can be argued that inmates at prisons are not worthy. However, I think that an overall mindset of “I don’t want to pay for that so let’s kill them” is a faulty mindset. That’s all I was saying. Not, “let’s throw money at it and hope it fixes itself.”

My point is that supporting the prison system and especially opposing the death penalty at the same time amounts, in large part, to wanting to throw money at a problem in order to solve it. I say that because prisons require orders of magnitude more money and man-hours than simple executions of those who do not belong in civilized society anymore. But, as ought to be obvious, my position is not even primarily influenced by the financial burden, but by the grave duty we have to protect the innocent, which has been secured much more effectively by a just application of the death penalty than by incarceration. That, and financially-speaking, it is unjust to expect the poor to pay for the support of the guilty and dangerous.

I didn’t say that forgiveness means letting someone off the hook. I **actually **said that based on my own personal experience, I can’t imagine truly forgiving someone and still wanting them dead. God said that vengeance is his; he didn’t say vengeance is up to us. And I think that is dangerous to pretend that wanting vengeance doesn’t cloud peoples’ judgements and that they don’t try to exact it themselves.

Vengeance is the Lord’s, absolutely - this is primarily about protection of the innocent and about justice, which the Church has always taught is different than vengeance. This is not about vigilantes running around executing anyone they deem a threat, but about a rightful civil authority punishing with death those who have demonstrated that they are a threat to society at large.

 

[Magdalena09]

Is the current Pope “faulty” when he says:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
   Here’s the link
   priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
   and based on that, I support the death penalty and the use of it in murders.

and Joe…the death penalty is a proportional response to a capital murder. …and a deterrent
prodeathpenalty.com/deterrence.htm

So, if we caught Osama and convicted him, you would be happy to see him get 3 hots and a cot for life?
Not me…Id fry him in a minute !!!

You could actually read my posts before making assumptions. My very first post on this thread was that Catholics have the right to hold either opinion. It doesn’t mean exploring WHY one holds the position they do, is not beneficial.

ETA: I don’t wish pain/torture/death on anyone, so yeah, I’d rather see someone–anyone–get life imprisonment (true life imprisonment) as opposed to “frying” them. However in the case of the head of a major terrorist organization, it would be dangerous to keep them alive in prison, so the (approved methods of the) death penalty could be used justly here, in my opinion.

 

[CWBetts]

You could actually read my posts before making assumptions. My very first post on this thread was that Catholics have the right to hold either opinion. It doesn’t mean exploring WHY one holds the position they do, is not beneficial.

ETA: I don’t wish pain/torture/death on anyone, so yeah, I’d rather see someone–anyone–get life imprisonment (true life imprisonment) as opposed to “frying” them. However in the case of the head of a major terrorist organization, it would be dangerous to keep them alive in prison, so the (approved methods of the) death penalty could be used justly here, in my opinion.

You must remember Magdelena, that freedom of opinion only exists for those who support the death penalty. After all they are right and we are wrong…

 

[Magdalena09]

You must remember Magdelena, that freedom of opinion only exists for those who support the death penalty. After all they are right and we are wrong…

So it would seem. lol

But I know I’m in good company… the USCCB, JPII, any many other Catholics who I trust… therefore I hold my position in confidence and good conscience. Pro-life from conception to natural death.

 

[CWBetts]

So it would seem. lol

But I know I’m in good company… the USCCB, JPII, any many other Catholics who I trust… therefore I hold my position in confidence and good conscience. Pro-life from conception to natural death.

I am right there with you.

 

[d97c]

No one says anyone on this board doesnt have the right to assert that the current catechism and Pope JP 2 didnt like the detah penalty. (practicly non existant…yadda yadda…I know the mantra)…The anti death penalty folks are the ones who fail to realize that we who support the punishment do so because of centuries of practice (when YOUR side was not accepted as current…and catechisms and popes didnt take YOUR side…) and we have the current Pope who says we have the right to advocate it and vote for people who support it. I can bring out any facts you want to justify support…and you can bring out JP 2 and the current catechism since 1980s. Ok fine…I dont deny that. So we can just continue to argue but the decision is final…the death penalty is different from abortion and euthansia…and the parish council types who discuss pro life need to be reminded of that. They know nothing of history, prudential judgment or centuries of permissible executions…under church law, much stronger than now. All you hear is how “the church” doesnt support the death penalty…if “the church” really disliked it THAT much…“the current Pope” wouldnt issue a letter saying that people of good will can disagree and vote for people who want to KEEP IT as law…so Im down with that side…and would vote for NO person who wants to abolish it.

 

[Brendan]

So it would seem. lol

But I know I’m in good company… the USCCB, JPII, any many other Catholics who I trust… therefore I hold my position in confidence and good conscience. Pro-life from conception to natural death.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding them. Not one of the people you mentioned ever denied the traditional teachings on Capital Punishment as articulated by Aquinas and the Catechism of Trent.

Cardinal Bernadine of Chicago was the author of the 'seemless garment" theory of Modern Theology. When he was asked if his theory was contrary to a Thomistic understanding of the use of the Death Penalty, he said that it was not and he fully accepted the Saint’s understanding of it’s use.

 

[Magdalena09]

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding them. Not one of the people you mentioned ever denied the traditional teachings on Capital Punishment as articulated by Aquinas and the Catechism of Trent.

Cardinal Bernadine of Chicago was the author of the 'seemless garment" theory of Modern Theology. When he was asked if his theory was contrary to a Thomistic understanding of the use of the Death Penalty, he said that it was not and he fully accepted the Saint’s understanding of it’s use.

Who said any of them denied the traditional teachings? And I didn’t either. I simply don’t support the death penalty, nor do they. Simple as that.

 

[Ender]

I didn’t say that forgiveness means letting someone off the hook. I **actually **said that based on my own personal experience, I can’t imagine truly forgiving someone and still wanting them dead.

It is not a question of wanting them dead but wanting justice, which requires punishment, and the requirement of punishment is not erased simply because the criminal is forgiven. Forgiveness does not erase the debt.

God said that vengeance is his; he didn’t say vengeance is up to us.

He did say, however, that the State has not just the right to punish criminals but the positive duty to do so.

And I think that is dangerous to pretend that wanting vengeance doesn’t cloud peoples’ judgements and that they don’t try to exact it themselves.

The individual has no right to punish the criminal but what is forbidden to the individual is the obligation of the State.

Ender

 

[Lycorth]

ETA: I don’t wish pain/torture/death on anyone, so yeah, I’d rather see someone–anyone–get life imprisonment (true life imprisonment) as opposed to “frying” them. However in the case of the head of a major terrorist organization, it would be dangerous to keep them alive in prison, so the (approved methods of the) death penalty could be used justly here, in my opinion.

Why the head of a “major terrorist organization”? Why not an individual serial rapist or serial killer? Being part of a terrorist organization doesn’t mean that that individual means more harm than someone who picks and chooses individuals to violate. Murder is murder and sin is sin - either they’re both dangerous enough to execute or neither of them are.

You must remember Magdelena, that freedom of opinion only exists for those who support the death penalty. After all they are right and we are wrong…

Yet you claim we are wrong to support the death penalty and that our opinion is “anti-life”. Sorry, that door swings both ways, buddy.

So it would seem. lol

But I know I’m in good company… the USCCB, JPII, any many other Catholics who I trust… therefore I hold my position in confidence and good conscience. Pro-life from conception to natural death.

And I stand with millions of Catholics, from popes to laity, throughout the centuries who supported the just application of the death penalty where and when necessary.

The difference is, us on the pro-death penalty side are not trying to mply that we are morally superior to our opponents, only that ours is a more practical and reasonable approach.

Nothing like bleeding heart swagger to get one’s dander up, which I suspect is behind some of the responses…

 

[CWBetts]

Why the head of a “major terrorist organization”? Why not an individual serial rapist or serial killer? Being part of a terrorist organization doesn’t mean that that individual means more harm than someone who picks and chooses individuals to violate. Murder is murder and sin is sin - either they’re both dangerous enough to execute or neither of them are.

Yet you claim we are wrong to support the death penalty and that our opinion is “anti-life”. Sorry, that door swings both ways, buddy.

And I stand with millions of Catholics, from popes to laity, throughout the centuries who supported the just application of the death penalty where and when necessary.

The difference is, us on the pro-death penalty side are not trying to mply that we are morally superior to our opponents, only that ours is a more practical and reasonable approach.

Nothing like bleeding heart swagger to get one’s dander up, which I suspect is behind some of the responses…

You have yet to establish that frequent application of the death penalty is justified in light of Catholic teaching. All of your “support” is dependant on misconstruing what Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas actually said.

 

[Lycorth]

You have yet to establish that frequent application of the death penalty is justified in light of Catholic teaching. All of your “support” is dependant on misconstruing what Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas actually said.

I have already done so, numerous times. That you choose to ignore me is not my problem nor my fault.

The words of Trent and the historical tradition of the Church are clear on the death penalty. It has a place and a legitimate use for the defense of society and the proper punishment of certain grave offenses. I will stick by tradition until death takes me or the Lord returns.

 

[Brendan]

You have yet to establish that frequent application of the death penalty is justified in light of Catholic teaching. All of your “support” is dependant on misconstruing what Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas actually said.

Besides, there is not a frequent application of the death penalty. In 2008, for example, there were 16,247 murders, with 33 executions.

That is .2% execution rate.

That certainly fits in with the CCC, which says it should be at least a rare event.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

As I understand your point in 810, you are using one part of the Catechism to show why you disagree with another part of the Catechism.

If that’s true (correct me if I misunderstand you) then I suppose I would disagree.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, the Ceremonial Law, the law of clean\unclean is abolished. Since those were instituted at a particular time, those were never Eternal Laws.

The Moral Law, what is moral or immoral, is unchanging. It must be so, be God is unchanging, what is an offense against God will also be so. Likewise, what was not an offense to God, likewise, will continue to be unoffensive to God.

And who makes those decisions?

The 10 Commandments aren’t unchanging then, right?

 

[diggerdomer]

I am saying the Catechism contains an opinion.

Ender

Well, here’s what Pope John Paul II said, in part, when officially promulgating the Catechism:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

I’m not sure he would agree that the teachings there are matters of opinion.

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

No one says anyone on this board doesnt have the right to assert that the current catechism and Pope JP 2 didnt like the detah penalty. (practicly non existant…yadda yadda…I know the mantra)…The anti death penalty folks are the ones who fail to realize that we who support the punishment do so because of centuries of practice (when YOUR side was not accepted as current…and catechisms and popes didnt take YOUR side…) and we have the current Pope who says we have the right to advocate it and vote for people who support it. I can bring out any facts you want to justify support…and you can bring out JP 2 and the current catechism since 1980s. Ok fine…I dont deny that. So we can just continue to argue but the decision is final…the death penalty is different from abortion and euthansia…and the parish council types who discuss pro life need to be reminded of that. They know nothing of history, prudential judgment or centuries of permissible executions…under church law, much stronger than now. All you hear is how “the church” doesnt support the death penalty…if “the church” really disliked it THAT much…“the current Pope” wouldnt issue a letter saying that people of good will can disagree and vote for people who want to KEEP IT as law…so Im down with that side…and would vote for NO person who wants to abolish it.

Where do you get the idea Catholics are taught to advocate the death penalty? Accept under certain conditions as morally legitimate, yes. Advocate? I don’t see where that’s taught.