Death Penalty

[the_rev]

Does the Catholic Church teach if you believe in the dealth penalty, then you are not in full communion with the church?

Someone in our dioceses newspaper wrote in about Gonzealez as a Catholic who is to be the next Attorney General for the Us who believes in the deaht penalty, the individual stated that Bishop Burke will refuse him communion now.

Is this true?

If it is, I then will recant my position on the death penalty.

[Guest Aluigi]

Nope, not true at all. If Burke did that, he'd be disobeying the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[quote]3. 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.[/quote]
-Cardinal Ratzinger

[the_rev]

However, I am still recanting my position on the death penalty.

[phatcatholic]

its all pretty straight-forward:[list][b]2265 [/b]Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

[b]2266 [/b]The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

[b]2267 [/b]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 to 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 definitely 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 nonexistent."68
[/list]hypothetically, it could be licitly applied............but it is highly unlikely in a society such as ours.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited January 29, 2005 by phatcatholic

[MagiDragon]

true, but i still believe the death penalty is a good thing. I don't think it should be used often, (Maybe a few times a decade in a country the size of the U.S.) but i think it's something that we shouldn't take away from the government.

My main fear with removal of the death penalty is the mob. A Mob boss could order someone killed from jail, and still be a threat to society even if he's locked up. Aside from that, i don't think there is much use for it in modern society.

Peace,
Joe

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='the_rev' date='Jan 28 2005, 11:27 PM'] However, I am still recanting my position on the death penalty. [/quote]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the death penalty. It, like all things, can be abused. But in and of itself is perfectly fine, or more precisely, morally neutral.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Jan 28 2005, 11:57 PM'] true, but i still believe the death penalty is a good thing. I don't think it should be used often, (Maybe a few times a decade in a country the size of the U.S.) but i think it's something that we shouldn't take away from the government.

[/quote]
The moral value of the death penalty does not depend upon the frequency of its application, but the individual circumstances surrounding each individual case.

[Apotheoun]

The death penalty is a part of the moral law and the State has the right, and in some cases the duty, to judiciously apply it.

God bless,
Todd

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 29 2005, 12:10 AM'] The death penalty is a part of the moral law and the State has the right, and in some cases the duty, to judiciously apply it.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
do you think that it can ever be used in the United States?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 29 2005, 12:34 AM'] do you think that it can ever be used in the United States? [/quote]
Yes.

[Guest Aluigi]

Phatcatholic, the Catechism you quoted contained a quote from Pope John Paul II. The CDF has clarified that such opinions about its application in the modern world are opinions of the Holy Father and not even binding as teaching to Catholics. The binding teaching here is that the state has just recourse to it and that people who commit grave crimes such as murder have forfeited the right to their own life. Thus, anyone truly guilty of a grave crime if they are executed they are justly executed. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinions as to whether we should now use non-lethal means et cetera.

But as PSPX once alerted me, the modern situation is not really that different. There have always been non-lethal means available. Thus I stand by the use of the death penalty. The state ought to consider mercy, but I fully support the execution of any and all murderers and commit their souls to God's mercy.

[dtofdh]

My mother and I debate about this issue. She insists that Pope John Paul II has declared the death penalty inpermissible under Humanae Vitae... Is this correct?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dtofdh' date='Jan 29 2005, 10:41 AM'] My mother and I debate about this issue.  She insists that Pope John Paul II has declared the death penalty inpermissible under Humanae Vitae... Is this correct? [/quote]
No, it is not correct. The power of the State to use the death penalty is a part of the natural moral law and divine revelation, and so no power on earth, not even the Church's Magisterium can forbid its judicious use. In the encyclical letter [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u] the Pope has asked civil authorities to show mercy and when possible to limit themselves to non-lethal means in punishing criminals, but the Pope cannot declare the use of the death penalty to be immoral. Thus, the State remains free to use the death penalty when it is deemed necessary, both to defend society from an aggressor and to restore justice thereby maintaining the common good.

God bless,
Todd

[phatcatholic]

where has the Church ever taught that a murderer forfeits his right to life? for some reason, my entire being rejects that idea.....

[Guest Aluigi]

the principle of forfeiture is part of the natural law