Can A Devout Catholic?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1289233346' post='2185772']
[color="#800080"]Are you saying that if I kill someone who I know is evil, say an abortion doctor, I am morally within my rights? Should I be put to death? What if I killed someone I knew personally and he/she was being evil towards me, having an affair with my spouse, abusing my kids, etc..., do I have a moral right to kill him/her?

What are the courts for?

Janice[/color]
[/quote]

Let me clarify: the wickedness of the person is not the issue. Protecting life and limb is the issue. The deliberate and unjust killing of a human who does not pose a grave threat to life, limb or property is murder. Even an insane person, who is not morally culpable, may be killed, if, by some bizzare and almost impossible set of circumstances, he were not able to be restrained from harming other people. We do not kill petty thieves or adulterers.

Morally speaking, in and of itself, the court process is not always morally required. Let me explain. For example, if someone is trying to kill a loved one, you are not obliged to wait until A) the victim is killed, B) The cops finally show up 6 minutes [i]after[/i] the victim is killed, C) the aggressor has been arrested, read his "rights," and D) he is found guilty, before you shoot him. You can just shoot him. The point of de Lugo's argument was that sometimes, just sometimes, someone will not stop his attacks until he is killed, and thus, it is moral to intend to kill him, rather than temporarily stop him. Perhaps a good example would be the two thugs in Connecticut, who had a violent rap sheet a mile long. In and out of courts perhaps 20 times between the two of them, for serious crimes. Then, one nice sunny day, while both of them were out on parole, they broke into a man's house, nearly beat him to death, tied him up, then raped his wife and his two daughters, aged 11 and 17. After they were done with the wife, they shot her, then doused her in gasoline and set her corpse on fire. The smoke inhalation killed the daughters. So the two daughters had the opportunity, thanks to the court system, to have their father beaten, their mother raped and killed before their eyes, whereupon they were also raped, then asphyxiated by the smoke emanating from their burning mother, while they were tied to the bed. Maybe the thugs crossed the line just [i]that one time. [/i][i] [/i]But more likely, they should have been shot and deliberately killed somewhere along their sordid criminal careers, in light of the hard fact that most violent criminals are repeat offenders, and many of them are on parole, just like the two aforementioned swine.

So . . . what [i]are[/i] the courts for? In this day and age, the courts seem to exist for the purpose of making money and letting violent felons go free to rape and pillage. In an [i]ideal [/i]world, courts would exist to A) give a calm opportunity, after an incident, for all parties to present evidence in a case in which the facts are not obvious, thus preventing lynch mobs, and B) validate the justice of an act by a disinterested and rational peer/community review, forestalling distrust, bitterness or revenge by the party, or the family of the party, who was found to be at fault in a matter.

The death penalty is not to punish someone for being "evil." It would be phenomenally arrogant to think that men could justly punish another man for his sins. That's God's job, not man's job. The death penalty is to prevent an obviously dangerous person from harming other individuals. When courts do not do their jobs, the individual has the right to protect himself and others from what will likely be a recidivist animal. A criminal is either put in a cage or in the ground for the same reason a rabid dog is: he poses a real and grave threat to the safety of other people. Not because he's a "bad dog," or "that will show him and other bad dogs what happens to bad dogs."

Ever heard of Bernie Goetz? Not a stellar example of what one should say in the course of defending oneself, but the public support of what the man did was tremendous, and all charges against him were dropped. The courts were slapping such screwdriver-wielding thugs on the wrists and turning them back on the streets, and the New York crime rate reflected that fact.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289238222' post='2185782']
Let me clarify: the evilness of the person is not the point. Protecting life and limb is the issue. The deliberate and unjust killing of a human who does not pose a grave threat to life, limb or property is murder. We do not kill petty thieves or adulterers.

Morally speaking, in and of itself, the court process is not always morally required. Let me explain. For example, if someone is trying to kill a loved one, you are not obliged to wait until A) the victim is killed, B) The cops finally show up 6 minutes [i]after[/i] the victim is killed, C) the aggressor has been arrested, read his "rights," and D) he is found guilty, before you shoot him. You can just shoot him. The point of de Lugo's argument was that sometimes, just sometimes, someone will not stop his attacks until he is killed, and thus, it is moral to intend to kill him, rather than temporarily stop him. Perhaps a good example would be the two thugs in Connecticut, who had a violent rap sheet a mile long. In and out of courts perhaps 20 times between the two of them for serious crimes. Then, one nice sunny day, while both of them were out on parole, they broke into a man's house, nearly beat him to death, tied him up, then raped his wife and his two daughters, aged 17 and 11. After they were done with the wife, they shot her, then doused her in gasoline and set her corpse on fire. The smoke inhalation killed the daughters. So they had the opportunity, thanks to the court system, to have their father beaten, their mother raped and killed before their eyes, they were also raped, then asphyxiated by the smoke emanating from their burning mother, while they were tied to the bed. Maybe they crossed the line just [i]that one time. [/i]But more likely, they should have been shot and killed somewhere along their sordid criminal careers, in light of the hard fact that most violent criminals are repeat offenders, and many of them are on parole, such as the two aforementioned swine.

So . . . what [i]are[/i] the courts for? In this day and age, the courts seem to exist for the purpose of making money and letting violent felons go free to rape and pillage. In an [i]ideal [/i]world, courts would exist to A) give a calm opportunity, after the fact for all parties to present evidence in a case in which the facts are not obvious, thus preventing lynch mobs, and B) validate the justice of an act by a disinterested and rational peer/community review, forestalling bitterness or revenge by the party, or the family of the party, who was found to be at fault in a matter.

The death penalty is not to punish someone for being "evil." It would be phenomenally arrogant to think that men could justly punish another man for his sins. That's God's job, not man's job. The death penalty is to prevent an obviously dangerous person from harming other individuals. When courts do not do their jobs, the individual has the right to protect himself and others from what will likely be a recidivist animal. A criminal is either put in a cage or in the ground for the same reason a rabid dog is: he poses a real and grave threat to the safety of other people.

Ever heard of Bernie Goetz? Not a stellar example of what one should say in the course of defending oneself, but the public support of what the man did was tremendous, and all charges against him were dropped. The courts were slapping such screwdriver-wielding thugs on the wrists and turning them back on the streets, and the New York crime rate reflected that fact.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


[color="#800080"]Thank you for that explanation, Stern. I do not agree with everything you said. But some of what you said makes sense. I am of the firm belief that the death penalty is wrong. I am of the firm belief that ALL life is sacred, not just that of innocent people. IOW, as long as someone has a breath left in his lungs, he can be changed by God's grace to become one of God's anointed ones.

Bless those who curse you. Love those who persecute you.

Tell me, when did the early Christians take arms against those who were killing them or worse?

Janice[/color]

[Winchester]

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1289238873' post='2185785']
[color="#800080"]I am of the firm belief that ALL life is sacred, not just that of innocent people.[/color]
[/quote]Including prison guards?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1289238873' post='2185785']
[color="#800080"]Thank you for that explanation, Stern. I do not agree with everything you said. But some of what you said makes sense. I am of the firm belief that the death penalty is wrong. I am of the firm belief that ALL life is sacred, not just that of innocent people. IOW, as long as someone has a breath left in his lungs, he can be changed by God's grace to become one of God's anointed ones.

Bless those who curse you. Love those who persecute you.

Tell me, when did the early Christians take arms against those who were killing them or worse?

Janice[/color]
[/quote]

I don't like executions. For visceral reasons, first off. It is an unnatural act. Secondly, I despise the way in which it is inflicted while intending to "punishing guilt," to "serve as a warning," and plain revenge. If the aggressor can be kept in prison without harming, which they can, probably 95% of the time, they should. But then, solitary confinement is often a fate worse than death. Prisoners in solitary routinely go insane from lack of social interaction.

One can use violence against someone one loves. But one must only do it for a just reason.

I don't know when early Christians first took arms against those who were killing them. The first documented case is probably around the time of Constantine. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself or others. As the Catechism says, it can even be a duty. But I see where you are coming from, and agree that when it comes to a question of the [i]faith,[/i] being a martyr is far more efficacious for all involved than using violence to oppose the aggressor. But sometimes, as I said, self-defense is a [i]duty[/i]. Parents of families, rape, etc.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289240032' post='2185792']
I don't like executions. For visceral reasons, first off. It is an unnatural act. Secondly, I despise the way in which it is inflicted while intending to "punishing guilt," to "serve as a warning," and plain revenge. If the aggressor can be kept in prison without harming, which they can, probably 95% of the time, they should. But then, solitary confinement is often a fate worse than death. Prisoners in solitary routinely go insane from lack of social interaction.

One can use violence against someone one loves. But one must only do it for a just reason.

I don't know when early Christians first took arms against those who were killing them. The first documented case is probably around the time of Constantine. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself or others. As the Catechism says, it can even be a duty. But I see where you are coming from, and agree that when it comes to a question of the [i]faith,[/i] being a martyr is far more efficacious for all involved than using violence to oppose the aggressor. But sometimes, as I said, self-defense is a [i]duty[/i]. Parents of families, rape, etc.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


[color="#800080"]I agree. There are definitely times that demand a parent to defend one's offspring. Though that does not always translate into violence. In fact, sometimes just taking a child out of a situation will do the same. Sure, the person may go on to hurt another child, which is why pressing charges is of the utmost importance.

Yes, sometimes, rarely in the part of the world in which I live, one does have to take up arms, or at least using fisticuffs, to defend one's loved ones.

Janice[/color]

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289239815' post='2185791']
Including prison guards?
[/quote]
I felt sorry for the guards who took part in the execution I witnessed, especially the one who passed out cold when the execution went wrong.

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1289245601' post='2185814']
I felt sorry for the guards who took part in the execution I witnessed, especially the one who passed out cold when the execution went wrong.
[/quote]
I'm speaking more of the danger guards face if violent criminals are never executed.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289245958' post='2185816']
I'm speaking more of the danger guards face if violent criminals are never executed.
[/quote]
I know. The problem is that even if every murderer is executed, their jobs will still be dangerous.

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1289246880' post='2185818']
I know. The problem is that even if every murderer is executed, their jobs will still be dangerous.
[/quote]
I'll take less dangerous for the win, Alex.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289218274' post='2185738']
[font="Arial"]
[size="3"]Does this mean that an "authorized" executioner is or is not allowed to intend to kill the perpetrator? Does the principle of double effect really apply when someone takes an axe to someone's neck and cuts off his head, but doesn't "intend" to kill him, merely to "stop" him? If an executioner tapes a grenade to someone, can it be said that the natural evil of his being blown to bits is an "effect" of the grenade, but not a means to the end? St. Thomas believed that the "magistrate," even in the heat of the moment, was allowed to intend to kill, but that Joe Average was not. This case is not comparable to an ectopic pregnancy. The good of the safety of the individuals in society comes about by the [i]direct[/i] [i]means[/i] of the death of the criminal.[/size][/font][/quote]
[font="Arial"][size="3"]
The Civil Authorities only have the power and right to carry out Capital Punishment on a person guilty of a capital crime. Civilians do not have the right to carry out Capital Punishment. An executioner acts as an arm of the Civil Authority.

[/size][/font] [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289218274' post='2185738'][font="Arial"][size="3"]Cardinal John de Lugo reasoned that it [i]is[/i] moral to intend the death of an unjust aggressor, given certain circumstances. "We may intend whatever is necessary for the defense of our life. Sometimes the striking of blows alone is insufficient for this purpose, but the death of the adversary is necessary. His stubbornness is such that he will not cease from attacking you, either by himself or others, unless he dies. Therefore you can intend his death, not merely as the striking of a blow [from which death may follow] but as death, because it is useful to your safety not otherwise than as death. . . The death of the aggressor is not merely connected with another means that is intended, but it itself, and as death, is useful and judged necessary to your defense." [i]--De Justitia et Jure. [/i][/size][/font][/quote]
[font="Arial"][size="3"][i]
[/i]Yes an individual may intend to kill if it is the [u]only way[/u] to subdue the aggressor.

[/size][/font]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289247504' post='2185822']
I'll take less dangerous for the win, Alex.
[/quote]

Either way it would be secondary, the primary purpose of Capital Punishment is Punishment.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289245958' post='2185816']
I'm speaking more of the danger guards face if violent criminals are never executed.
[/quote]
Petty thieves are just as capable of violence when locked up as murderers! The prison guard could be their first victim, so you want execution for all prisoners?
Guards, Soldiers and law enforcers are in danger, but they chose their career. Some for honourable reasons, many because they like the danger and excitement and some even enjoy the power that they have over people and the confrontation. The victims of crime mostly don't have a choice about their safety.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1289250654' post='2185830']
[font="Arial"] [/font][font="Arial"][size="3"][i]
[/i]Yes an individual may intend to kill if it is [b]apparently[/b] the [u]only way[/u] to subdue the aggressor.

[/size][/font]
[/quote]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1289250747' post='2185831']
Either way it would be secondary, the primary purpose of Capital Punishment is Punishment.
[/quote]

I think that is not unlike saying, "The primary purpose of pre-Raphaelite art is art." Art is not for its own sake, contrary to what MGM may have on its logo. It explains nothing. What exactly [i]is[/i] punishment? (As used by men?)

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289252704' post='2185837']
I think that is not unlike saying, "The primary purpose of pre-Raphaelite art is art." Art is not for its own sake, contrary to what MGM may have on its logo. It explains nothing. What exactly [i]is[/i] punishment? (As used by men?)

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

It means that its primary purpose is to punish, to redress the disorder introduced by the offense.

Edited November 8, 2010 by KnightofChrist