Your Response to Those Who State You Cannot Be 100% Pro-Life & For the Death Penalty?

[Latin_Catholic_1]

PLAL:

Your Response to Those Who State You Cannot Be 100% Pro-Life & For the Death Penalty

My response to them is that they’re right.

Abortion, euthanasia and death penalty are all attacks on human life.

Every supporter of one of those evils, undermines the true value of human life, in one way or another.

And if you’re wondering about the Church’s teaching: self-defense is permitted (both: individual and collective) ; this excludes the cases of unnecessary death-penalty, like in the States.

Bottomline is: abortion & euthanasia can never be an option; death penalty can be an option, “the lesser evil”, only in cases of absolute necessity (like in a poor country, where safe correctional facilities are non-existent).

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

For those who contend that even the risk of executing one innocent person means we may not ever employ the death penalty: are you willing to follow that conclusion into a total renunciation of just war? There’s always a risk that at least one non-combatant will enter harm’s way in the course of a war.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

Andreas Hofer:

For those who contend that even the risk of executing one innocent person means we may not ever employ the death penalty: are you willing to follow that conclusion into a total renunciation of just war? There’s always a risk that at least one non-combatant will enter harm’s way in the course of a war.

Just war is collective self-defense.

Look at my previous message.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

vern humphrey:

I suggest you look up Tommy Silverstein on the web.

Silverstein was in super-max, at Marion, when he cooked up and carried out a plan to kill several corrections officers on the same day. Two corrections officers were killed – by men who were on 23-hours a day lockdown in a super-max and supposedly unable to communicate with each other.

Silverstein had committed two previous murders, one of them in prison. At the time, there was no death penalty in this country, so Silverstein got a third life sentence.

He is currently in Leavenworth, watching his guards’ every move. I notice no one opposed to the death penalty has ever stepped forward and said, "I will guard Silverstein. No one else need risk his life – * I* will see to it he gets showers, haircuts and medical attention.

Grave individual cases** have nothing to do** with principles.

If that would be the case, then I could argue that because there exists a 13-year old raped & pregnant girl, abortion should be legal.

Outrageous individual cases are supposed to appeal to irrational emotions, so we do away with our principles.

I know –as a matter of principle– that killing the unborn of the raped girl will do nothing to fix the situation (no matter how angry she is, or her parents are, or how much vengeance they want) and I know –as principle– that establishing death-penalty that *will kill * hundreds of poor innocent people (just because they’re poor, minority, and can’t get “a Hollywood defense”) is completely wrong.

So, if you ask: will you guard Silverstein?

I’ll tell you: will you be the parent of a 13-year old raped & pregnant girl?

Bottomline is:

No one ever said life is easy: all we can do is have faith, live by our principles and hope for the best.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Latin_Catholic:

Grave individual cases** have nothing to do** with principles.

The heck they don’t!! Look at what the Catechism says on the death penalty – it stresses the grave cases.

Latin_Catholic:

If that would be the case, then I could argue that because there exists a 13-year old raped & pregnant girl, abortion should be legal.

Only if you assumed that abortion was a permissible solution to her problems. Do you assert that it is?

Latin_Catholic:

Outrageous individual cases are supposed to appeal to irrational emotions, so we do away with our principles.

Not at all. The Catechism says,

**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.

Latin_Catholic:

I know –as a matter of principle– that killing the unborn of the raped girl will do nothing to fix the situation (no matter how angry she is, or her parents are, or how much vengeance they want) and I know –as principle– that establishing death-penalty that *will kill * hundreds of poor innocent people (just because they’re poor, minority, and can’t get “a Hollywood defense”) is completely wrong.

Actually, you are applying the idea of principle wrongly. You are assuming you can apply “will it fix the problem” as the “principle” covering abortion. And that’s wrong – the principle is the sanctity of human life.

In the case of the death penalty, the Church looks at the sanctity of human life and sees that it also embraces self-defense. It further sees that some people (those in authority) have a duty to act in severe cases.

It is for this reason the Church says death penalty is allowable, but ought to be reserved for the gravest cases.

Latin_Catholic:

So, if you ask: will you guard Silverstein?

I’ll tell you: will you be the parent of a 13-year old raped & pregnant girl?

My answer, of course, is yes. In my family we have a tradition of caring for foster children and adopting foundlings (such as my Aunt Josephine who was left abandoned with a note.)

Now, at this stage in my life I might do a dis-service by taking in a child, since I can no longer reasonably expect to live to see such a child reach maturity. But I would not turn away a 13-year old raped and pregnant girl.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

vern humphrey:

The heck they don’t!! Look at what the Catechism says on the death penalty – it stresses the grave cases.

Church’s doctrine on death penalty obviously refers to whole legal systems within whole countries.

In the U.S., there are all the proper conditions to avoid death penalty.

However, if there’s a country where the regular, general situation* is a grave case as a whole*, then death-penalty is an option for that country.

Not so in the U.S.

Remember death-penalty is always an evil, even when it becomes “the lesser evil”. If it is always an evil, then you must always try to avoid it by all means possible.

( *And pro-death ppl usually don’t try to avoid it by all means possible; quite the contrary: they encourage it * )

 

[vern_humphrey]

Latin_Catholic:

Church’s doctrine on death penalty obviously refers to whole legal systems within whole countries.

So you say. Tell me more – how is the death penalty acceptable in one “whole country’s” leagal system and not another’s?

Be careful. There is a trap here.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Latin_Catholic:

In the U.S., there are all the proper conditions to avoid death penalty.

So you say. Are you willing to guard and care for Tommy Silverstein?

Latin_Catholic:

However, if there’s a country where the regular, general situation* is a grave case as a whole*, then death-penalty is an option for that country.

Tell me more. Explain what determines “country where the regular, general situation* is a grave case as a whole?”*

Be careful. There is a trap here.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Latin_Catholic:

Remember death-penalty is always an evil, even when it becomes “the lesser evil”. If it is always an evil, then you must always try to avoid it by all means possible.

( And pro-death ppl usually don’t try to avoid it by all means possible; quite the contrary: they encourage it

)

Are you accusing me of something?

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

I see…

I believe you’ll always end up saying “there’s enough reason for death-penalty” even if there’s none, just because you’re in favor of it.

Since I know you think there’s “nothing wrong” with death penalty, then I see no reason for this debate (because you do not accept the premise of it: that death penalty is always an evil, even if it can be “the lesser evil” at grave circumstances).

Free of sin ?

Throw the first stone !

(and remember she was guilty: no mistake there)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Latin_Catholic:

I see…

I believe you’ll always end up saying “there’s enough reason for death-penalty” even if there’s none, just because you’re in favor of it.

If is a violation of the rules to question other people’s motives.

Latin_Catholic:

Since I know you think there’s “nothing wrong” with death penalty, then I see no reason for this debate (because you do not accept the premise of it: that death penalty is always an evil, even if it can be “the lesser evil” at grave circumstances).

When you do the mind-reading act, you should do us the courtesy of wearing a turban and gazing into a chrystal ball.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

I know pro-death ppl tactics.

Talk with a little sarcasm; talk with a little humor; avoid issues as much as you can.

Of course, they do not want ppl to realize how serious this problem really is.

Here’s a hint: monster Silverstein killed 2 persons while in prison; monster State has killed hundreds upon hundreds through “legal” killing while in prison.

Abolish unnecessary, unjust death penalty in the States now !

 

[JSmitty2005]

The death penalty is neither “evil” nor “pro-death” nor part of the “Culture of Death.” If it were any one of these things, then the Church would not allow it. However, the Church most certainly does allow it and always has. I don’t understand why there’s a debate on this issue when the Church has said that faithful Catholics can be on either side of this issue. I can understand that some feel as though they need to oppose capital punishment in order to be more consistently pro-life (don’t murder the innocent or kill the guilty) despite the fact that I disagree. And I can obviously agree with those that say that the death penalty is necessary to maintain justice in our society and to rid our society of evil men (don’t murder the innocent, but the guilty can be killed for their own actions). The thing that really gets me, though, are these people that are against capitial punishment, war, etc. and yet support abortion!!! I just don’t understand them.

 

[Oliviad]

Remember the malefactors crucified with CHRIST:
if death is at hand, what will be the wait for repentance if it’s ever going to happen? The average sinner puts off Good just because there seems to be time on his sinful hands. The average sinner in a car accident thinks about the shortness of life, and, if he’s ever going to repent, often does right then - or at least begins to, until his heart stops beating so fast.
While it is good for there to be many religious leaders who only bear the Mercy of CHRIST to arrest the hearts of all with the intensity of GOD’s Love, that does not negate the responsibilities of others to execute Justice, according to an extraordinary stewardship from GOD, whereby he who kills the image of GOD has consequences. Since there are those that are willing to commit attrocities against those that wouldn’t even wish vengeance back upon them, we require a system that threatens the lives of those unjustly threatening the lives of others, on condition of their carrying out their criminal threats. A known death penalty prevents some crimes, or at least slows down the attempts. And whosoever so desires to perpetrate an attrocity, even at a known, avoidable risk to his own life - does he not walk knowingly and freely into his doom?

 

[asiancatholic]

I am anti-abortion but i am for the death penalty.

one question which I hope to receive your feedback is.

Assuming a person is a known drug runner, and one day he is caught with the procession of more than 1kg or pound of drugs. Do you think by just mearly sentence him to jail will deter other drug runners?

Frankly in my opinion the best ways to stop these is having a death penalty which I believe will deter those would be drug runner.

Thank you

(my appologies for my bad english-not my first language and appologies for my lack of understanding of US law on Drug)

p.s base on these movie i watch on US drug things- it seems the penalty of having drug is minimal.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

JSmitty2005:

The death penalty is neither “evil”

Yes, it is.

Evil is the absence of good.

It is evil to have to kill someone, even if the party is guilty.

If it is not, why Jesus bothered with it (death penalty for the guilty) ?

If it is in the Gospel, it believe is relevant enough.

nor “pro-death” nor part of the “Culture of Death.”

Again, it is.

The term “culture of death” refers to the culture where death becomes the “right” solution for a problem, whether is a criminal problem, a health problem, an emotional problem or something else.

So, it’s pretty clear death penalty is -whether we like it or not- part of the culture of death.

If it were any one of these things, then the Church would not allow it.

And the Church does not “allow it” !

The Church teaches death penalty can be “morally permissible” at times, when it is the lesser evil.

Lesser evil means it directly avoids a bigger evil (for example: civil war or etc…).

I don’t understand why there’s a debate on this issue when the Church has said that faithful Catholics can be on either side of this issue.

That is not the Church’s position.

The catholic position is that we should avoid evil when possible.

In the U.S. it is (more than) possible to avoid the evil of death penalty, so it is not a “morally neutral” problem in here.

You have to keep in mind the Church is addressing the whole world when referring to death penalty, not just the U.S.

So, while death penalty may be a morally viable measure for a country in Africa that is affected by civil war or all kinds of other evils, it’s obviously not the same situation here in the U.S.

I can understand that some feel as though they need to oppose capital punishment in order to be more consistently pro-life (don’t murder the innocent or kill the guilty) despite the fact that I disagree.

You better !

And I can obviously agree with those that say that the death penalty is necessary to maintain justice in our society and to rid our society of evil men

Maybe you can learn death penalty obviously doesn’t work.

It’s proven fact violence (illegal, legal or otherwise) just produces more violence.

This is a proven fact even recognized by anti-christian philosopher Nietszche.

He says that when the criminal observes the State is as ruthless as he is, he feels no guilt whatsoever (see: Genealogy of Moral).

In order for the criminal to feel guilty, he has to realize society and the State truly respect human rights and so on.

If you do not create a proper understanding of right and wrong, the most disturbed individuals won’t be able to understand the distinction; not even the obvious ones.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Latin_Catholic:

Maybe you can learn death penalty obviously doesn’t work.

It’s proven fact violence (illegal, legal or otherwise) just produces more violence.

So we were wrong to use violence against Hitler?

Latin_Catholic:

This is a proven fact even recognized by anti-christian philosopher Nietszche.

That doesn’t make sense. A fact is a fact, regardless of who recognizes it.

Latin_Catholic:

He says that when the criminal observes the State is as ruthless as he is, he feels no guilt whatsoever (see: Genealogy of Moral).

This is called “appeal to authority” not “presenting the facts.” Nietzche’s opinions aren’t any more valid here than anyone else’s.

Latin_Catholic:

In order for the criminal to feel guilty, he has to realize society and the State truly respect human rights and so on.

Prisons are filled with people who have committed horrible crimes and who don’t feel guilty. A criminal’s attitudes and values are not due to the presense or absense of the death penalty, but to their own anti-social personalities.

Latin_Catholic:

If you do not create a proper understanding of right and wrong, the most disturbed individuals won’t be able to understand the distinction; not even the obvious ones.

The typical violent criminal won’t feel guilty or “reform” no matter what you do.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Latin_Catholic:

And the Church does not “allow it” !

Is that so?

In 1210, Pope Innocent III maintained against the Waldensians: “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

From The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago, from 1899:
“The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment.”

As recently as the 1952, Pope Pius XII reiterated the constant Catholic doctrine:
“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.”

 

[777]

JSmitty2005:

Is that so?

In 1210, Pope Innocent III maintained against the Waldensians: “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the evil of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

From The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago, from 1899:
“The officers of revenge, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to revenge . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he/she who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he/she must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of the world demands it. Human world is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save the world with hatred. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates vengence on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth in order to please the secular. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve revenge”

As recently as the 1952, Pope Pius XII reiterated the constant Catholic doctrine:
“Even when it is a question of the revenge murder of a man/woman condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his/her crime, he/she has deprived himself of the right to live.”

Bull. Not 'nuff proof.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

vern humphrey:

So we were wrong to use violence against Hitler?

Nope.

What I said was: “violence produces more violence”.

What you have to ask to yourself is:

“Does that principle stands true for WWII?”

I’m sure you’ll find the right answer.

That doesn’t make sense. A fact is a fact, regardless of who recognizes it.

That is correct.

So a whole lot of people (christians, anti-christians, so on) recognize death penalty is no deterrent at all.

Quite the contrary: “violence produces more violence”.

This is called “appeal to authority” not “presenting the facts.” Nietzche’s opinions aren’t any more valid here than anyone else’s.

Again, I agree.

When a whole lot of different people with whole lot different ideologies recognize the same fact, there must be some truth to it !

A criminal’s attitudes and values are not due to the presense or absense of the death penalty, but to their own anti-social personalities.

So can we finally put to rest the argument that death penalty somehow works as a deterrent ?.

Can we?

The typical violent criminal won’t feel guilty or “reform” no matter what you do.

This sounds to me like total personal guess (not that there’s anything wrong with personal-guessing on things).

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

JSmitty2005:

Is that so?

In 1210, Pope Innocent III maintained against the Waldensians: “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

From The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago, from 1899:
“The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment.”

As recently as the 1952, Pope Pius XII reiterated the constant Catholic doctrine:
“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.”

The Doctrine** justifies ** the use of death penalty when the circumstances require it.

That doesn’t mean the Church “allows it”, because no evil is really “morally allowed”; it can be justified, though.

What the Church does allow is individual or collective self-defense, and that defense will not always end up in an evil (and when it does, that evil was not “allowed” but justified).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Latin_Catholic:

Nope.

What I said was: “violence produces more violence”.

What you have to ask to yourself is:

“Does that principle stands true for WWII?”

I’m sure you’ll find the right answer.

Well, it’s not a principle, but a platitude. And it doesn’t hold true – Hitler had to be stopped, and there was only one way to stop him.

Latin_Catholic:

That is correct.

So a whole lot of people (christians, anti-christians, so on) recognize death penalty is no deterrent at all.

Quite the contrary: “violence produces more violence”.

Not necessarily – note that when Nazi Germany fell, the Holocaust stopped. Similarly, when Japan surrendered the equally grisly killing in China stopped.

Latin_Catholic:

Again, I agree.

When a whole lot of different people with whole lot different ideologies recognize the same fact, there must be some truth to it !

And when everyone believed the world was flat, did that make it true?

Latin_Catholic:

So can we finally put to rest the argument that death penalty somehow works as a deterrent ?.

Can we?

What’s your point – that a person who has been executed can get up and kill again?

Latin_Catholic:

This sounds to me like total personal guess (not that there’s anything wrong with personal-guessing on things).

There’s a lot more to it than that - a lot of work has been done with pschopathic personalities. And no one has ever claimed to have “cured” a psychopath.