Murder

[Socrates]

MURDER is wrongful or unlawful killing.

By its definition, it cannot be justified.

(What's the point of this poll?)

[toledo_jesus]

yeah, murder is the word that I was looking at. not killing.

[Guest Aluigi]

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Part III: The Fifth Commandment Thou Shall Not Kill

"Execution of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to civil authorities, to whom is entrusted the 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 punishment 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 the words of David 'In the morning I put to death all the wicked in the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.'"

Vatican II [list]
[*]“The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent [remain] intact...” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 37).
[*]“Therefore, the following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine of divine revelation” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, p. 678).
[/list]John Paul II [list]
[*] The doctrines of the council of Trent "maintain all their value"
[/list] “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.” -Pope Pius XII

“[civil authority] can pass sentence requiring the shedding of blood without mortal sin as long as it proceed to exact the penalty not from hatred, but after judicial process; not rashly, but according to the law.” Pope Innocent III

[b]"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and [i]applying [/i]the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/b]

Considering the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, we know that all who commit murder FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN LIFE. Pope John Paul II is awesome and he is right in calling upon nations to consider mercy when they can by non-lethal means keep a murderer under control. But if they do not, the execution is still ALWAYS JUSTFIED because that person has forfeited the right to his own life.

Edited December 18, 2004 by Aluigi

[qfnol31]

Actually, it's not always justified because if the state is getting vengence, then the object of the interior act of the will does not align with the object of the exterior act of the will.

[Guest Aluigi]

the execution of a murderer is just. the state can sin by not considering mercy or by doing it out of vengence, but the actual execution once it happens is just because the person deserved it. the state is not guilty of murder, the state is guilty of not being merciful, the state is guilty of being vengeful (sp?) but if the person is guilty of murder, his life is justly taken away. he did not deserve to stay alive because his life caused the death of another. the death is just, the death is good, the death cannot be considered murder (so long as the person is guilty of a grave crime.)

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Dec 18 2004, 05:14 AM'] yeah, that's what this was about

:shootme: :leave: [/quote]
Oops... when I voted I thought you actually meant murder specifically...

[Guest Aluigi]

lol.. I'm sorry but I alwaaaaaaays keep the distinction between the word "murder" and the word "kill" in my vocab and my mind so that's why I just had to answer the question for what it said, that's how I read it. i never read murder and think just killing, and i never (well maybe sometimes now that i think about it) read killing and think just murder.

anyway, i want to clarify the situation i'm describing (that the state fails to consider mercy and executes a criminal that it could contain by non-lethal means)

the STATE is not justified, it has done wrong.
the EXECUTION is justified, it is a correct action deserved by a person who has forfeited his own life by taking another's.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 18 2004, 10:41 AM'] Actually, it's not always justified because if the state is getting vengence, then the object of the interior act of the will does not align with the object of the exterior act of the will. [/quote]
State officials must not intend the execution of a criminal as an act of vengeance; but those same officials have a responsibility to maintain the common good, and that duty includes not only the obligation to protect society from further harm, but also includes the redress of grievances. Thus, in punishing a malefactor the civil authorities maintain the virtue of justice within society and serve the common good.

God bless,
Todd

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 18 2004, 07:24 AM'] Red re -do your poll and I can delete this one. [/quote]
yeah, i don't really care anymore..

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:24 PM'] State officials must not intend the execution of a criminal as an act of vengeance; but those same officials have a responsibility to maintain the common good, and that duty includes not only the obligation to protect society from further harm, but also includes the redress of grievances. Thus, in punishing a malefactor the civil authorities maintain the virtue of justice within society and serve the common good.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
I agree, but I think they should recognize their act for what it is and do it for the right reasons. If not, then no matter what their external act is, they are sinning.

[quote]the execution of a murderer is just. the state can sin by not considering mercy or by doing it out of vengence, but the actual execution once it happens is just because the person deserved it. the state is not guilty of murder, the state is guilty of not being merciful, the state is guilty of being vengeful (sp?) but if the person is guilty of murder, his life is justly taken away. he did not deserve to stay alive because his life caused the death of another. the death is just, the death is good, the death cannot be considered murder (so long as the person is guilty of a grave crime.) [/quote]

Al, read Aquinas ST.I.II.q.18 and 20. In these Thomas says that an action can be good or evil based on the object of the interior act of the will (he may use intent in translation, I'm not sure).

Here's an example: You tithe a $20 bill one week (which is about all you can afford), so this is a great act. However, it can be an evil act if you make sure your boss sitting next to you sees you tithing, while you hope he'll give you a raise because of it (so you can buy something fun for yourself). Sure, there's a great good being done, but it's an evil act anyways.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:49 PM'] I agree, but I think they should recognize their act for what it is and do it for the right reasons. If not, then no matter what their external act is, they are sinning.
[/quote]
Certainly, public officials should have a right intention in performing acts related to their office, but that is true of us all; nevertheless, civil authorities have a duty to safeguard the common good and in some cases this may require the judicious use of the death penalty.

God bless,
Todd

[qfnol31]

I agree.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 18 2004, 12:37 PM']From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Part III: The Fifth Commandment Thou Shall Not Kill

"Execution of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to civil authorities, to whom is entrusted the 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 punishment 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 the words of David 'In the morning I put to death all the wicked in the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.'"

[/quote]
Trent? Really? You're going to pull out Trent?! Still attending the Latin Mass, are we? Here's some more recent teaching:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

Don't run away from it this time Aluigi. Stand and rebut the CCC; if you can.

Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

[qfnol31]

Ouch. Trent is one of the greatest councils that ever happened. The Latin Mass is still valid and in fact, the Novus Ordo should be said in Latin, according to GIRM. The Tridentine Mass is a wonderful tool. The Church did not end, nor did it begin with Vatican II. Vatican II did not change any teachings, nor has the Magisterium. The only people who have changed the Church's teachings are under-taught lay people.

[Guest Aluigi]

did you not see right after the Trent I busted out the quote from Vatican II and Pope John Paul II who both AFFIRMED the Council of Trent in its entirety. Not to mention my quote from the current Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I do not intend to rebut the CCC, I accept and believe the CCC. I believe that when a state does not consider mercy and such it is wrong of the state. however, every murderer has forfeited their right to life, and thus would justly receive death for their crime no matter what. like in qfnol's example: the action of donating the $20 is evil because of the intention, however the Church still justly receives the $20. thank you for the example actually, it works in my favor to clarify my position.

Anyway, yeah, Vatican II started out by reafirming Trent and Vatican I, they are both infallible irreversable true Councils of the Church whose doctrines are binding upon the Church forever.

Also, the official language of the Mass in this the Roman Rite is still Latin, and Vatican II said that Latin SHOULD BE RETAINED.

cooltuba, your post reeks of chronological snobbery.

Anyway, let's look at the CCC's statement (CCC is authoritative to teach and nothing in it stands in the way of True Doctrine, but all the wording is not considered infallible and binding and needs to be interpretted by the Church in the light of her 2000 year tradition)

the operative word is SHOULD. I have time and time again said the state should limit itself to such means. In fact, I have said that for it not to limit itself to those means when it is possible without danger to society, it would be unjust on the state's part (though the execution of a murderer is always justified as the murdereer has forfeited his own life)

so the state should limit itself if possible. the statement regarding it being rare if practically non-existant is the Pope's personal observation of modern times. is the pope binding when he comments on the rarity of necessity for the death penalty? He must not be if Cardinal Ratzinger says Catholics can enjoy a legitimate diversity of opinion in regards to the application of the death penalty.

A Catholic must believe that the death penalty is a just recourse of the state. A Catholic must believe that a murderer or any criminal of grave matter deserves execution. A Catholic must believe that the state should limit itself when necessary to bloodless means.