Death Penalty

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 29 2005, 02:10 PM'] the principle of forfeiture is part of the natural law [/quote]
sorry bro, this whole idea is new to me. i need to see some proof or somethin....

[Guest Aluigi]

I was hopin Apotheon would help in the proof department. I do know for a fact that according to natural law a person whose life threatens the life of another forfeits his own life. In the Christian Tradition homicide [b]is[/b] suicide.

[Benedict]

From [url="http://faculty.washington.edu/himma/phil338/lect3.htm"]Kretzmann's Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex[/url] (An Unjust Law is not Law)
[quote]VIII. Qualifying Principles.  But if there are no exceptions, what do we do when values appear to come into conflict?  Natural law admits two qualifying principles that helps in cases where values appear to conflict:

1.  Principle of forfeiture.  Sometimes we find ourselves in a situation in which we are forced to override the natural value of another person’s life when we are being attacked.  If we do nothing, we allow ourselves to be killed; if we defend ourselves, we kill someone else.  According to the principle of forfeiture, a person who threatens the life of an innocent person forfeits his or her own right to life.  Not only can the principle of forfeiture be used to justify self-defense, it can also be used to justify war and capital punishment.  [/quote]

A short bout of research found many affirmations of its existence in the natural law but not too many "proofs".

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 29 2005, 11:40 AM'] where has the Church ever taught that a murderer forfeits his right to life? for some reason, my entire being rejects that idea..... [/quote]
As Scripture says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image." [Gen. 9:6] The power of the sword has been given to the State in order to execute criminals, and this is clear from what St. Paul said while he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience." [Romans 13:1-5]

[Apotheoun]

The death penalty has been discussed in a large number of threads in the Debate Table since I became a member of Phatmass back in June of 2004. Those interested in revisiting what has already been said on this topic can click on the links below:

This link is to a particular thread discussing the death penalty (the thread is 7 pages long):

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=15261"]Is the Death Penalty ever necessary in our Society[/url]

A link to the thread on the Scott Peterson trial (the thread is 6 pages long):

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=25575"]Scott Peterson Death Sentence[/url]

This link is to a search page which includes a large number of threads dealing with this topic:

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=74e5aecdb27d9973d380ab6be05c887d&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=death+penalty"]Threads on the Death Penalty[/url]

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

What Todd is basically saying is that this topic has been beat to death a thousand times.

[phatcatholic]

i agree that it can be used..................i just think the instances are extremely rare

[phatcatholic]

this is exactly how i feel about it, from the [i]First Things[/i] article entitled [url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html"][b]"Catholicism and Capital Punishment"[/b][/url] by Avery Cardinal Dulles:[list]The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt.
[/list]the entire article is very helpful.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

also this, from the same article:[list]The Catholic magisterium in recent years has become increasingly vocal in opposing the practice of capital punishment. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system,” cases in which the execution of the offender would be absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Again at St. Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it was “both cruel and unnecessary.” The bishops of many countries have spoken to the same effect.

The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.
[/list]

[crusader1234]

I agree with Phatcatholic and JPII on this one.

[crusader1234]

I agree with Phatcatholic and JPII on this one.

[phatcatholic]

i think the main point is this: we must agree that the State has the right to use capital punishment. however, as Ratzinger pointed out, we can disagree on when it should be used.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 29 2005, 09:45 PM'] also this, from the same article:[list]The Catholic magisterium in recent years has become increasingly vocal in opposing the practice of capital punishment. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system,” cases in which the execution of the offender would be absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Again at St. Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it was “both cruel and unnecessary.” The bishops of many countries have spoken to the same effect.

The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

[/list] [/quote]
As the author of the article admits, this is a prudential judgment of the Pope and so no Catholic is required to assent to it, for as Cardinal Ratzinger has so eloquently said, "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." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [u]Letter to the U.S. Bishops[/u], no. 3] Thus, I disagree with the Pope on this issue, because I do not think that the penal system in Western countries has improved, in fact quite the opposite has happened, and in most cases they have disintegrated through a system of parole, which has brought death and destruction to the personal lives of countless thousands of innocent citizens who have been victimized by the actions of criminals released from prison time and again. I believe in the traditional doctrine of Church which holds that capital punishment, as a part of the immutable natural moral law and divine revelation, is perfectly licit and is in some cases necessary for the maintenance of the common good. As I have said before, no power on earth can alter the natural moral law or divine revelation, not even the Pope or an ecumenical council of all the bishops of the Church. Thus, in opposition to the prudential judgments of the Pope and the various bishops conferences I support the moral law established by God, holding that the State, as God's servant in maintaining the common good, has a right and in some cases a duty to execute a criminal convicted of the crime of murder and sacrilege.

God bless,
Todd

[phatcatholic]

Todd...............no one is disagreeing with you on the utilization of capital punishment as a right and duty of the State. the "prudential judgments of the Pope and the various bishops conferences" don't disagree with you either. where we disagree is on when it should be applied. we are allowed to disagree on this. so, just as you are justified in disagreeing w/ the pope when he says that it should "rarely, if ever" be used in the US, i am justified in agreeing with him.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 30 2005, 05:30 AM'] Todd...............no one is disagreeing with you on the utilization of capital punishment as a right and duty of the State. the "prudential judgments of the Pope and the various bishops conferences" don't disagree with you either. where we disagree is on when it should be applied. we are allowed to disagree on this. so, just as you are justified in disagreeing w/ the pope when he says that it should "rarely, if ever" be used in the US, i am justified in agreeing with him. [/quote]
I am simply clarifying the issue by reminding people that it is [i]de fide[/i] that the State has the right, and in some cases the duty, to execute a criminal, and that to go beyond the prudential order and say that the death penalty is comparable to the murder of an innocent man, or abortion, or euthanasia is heresy.

God bless,
Todd