Capital Punishment in the USA

[Jaime]

From the Holy See's declaration to the first World Congress on the Death Penalty

[quote]It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.[/quote]


I'm sorry you were saying something about "carrying the Church's terms FAR PAST what they are stated to be"?

[Aloysius]

I'm talking about the terms of discussion among orthodox Catholics, not the terms related to the specific positions-- as in who can rightfully hold what positions. sorry about the confusion, terms was the incorrect word.

[qfnol31]

Holy See isn't quite the same as the Church.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 6 2005, 02:01 PM']Holy See isn't quite the same as the Church. 
[right][snapback]780329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In the fact that the Church is all of its members, I guess you are correct.

HOWEVER

The Holy See speaks for the Church.

[qfnol31]

It does, but it also speaks for itself as a private country.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 6 2005, 02:13 PM']It does, but it also speaks for itself as a private country.
[right][snapback]780334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So are you actually suggesting that its opinion on this matter is irrelevant?

[Aloysius]

He was referring to the quote you offered, which since it says it was an address to some sort of "world congress," would be speaking for the Vatican City State, not the Roman Catholic Church.

Unless you suppose the Roman Catholic Church sits down at political conferences as an equal to other states in the world...

[qfnol31]

It's somewhat, if what Pope Benedict said a year ago applies, that there can be legitimate diversity on the application of the death penalty.

If the Holy See says that it wants to eradicate all uses of the death penalty, and this speaks for the whole Church, then Cardinal Ratzinger was in error, and so I am. If it does not speak for the whole Church, but rather as a sovreign country, then I am still allowed to hold a differing opinion on the individual application.

[Socrates]

Here's what the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, says about the Death Penalty.

[quote]Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Matthew 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.

Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.

Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and "we wish our friends to live and to exist," according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."

I answer that, As stated above (1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Prov. 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). [/quote]
([i]Summa Theologica: Secunda Secundae Partis: 64[/i])

[Jaime]

Fine folks here is the whole thing

[quote]The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are "cruel and unnecessary". This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that "it is time to abolish the death penalty".

It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity. [/quote]

You want to split hairs between the Holy See as the governmental body of the Church and its role in defending and defining the faith? Please...

You wanted "real proof" that the Church is against the death penalty.

Refute the proof.

[qfnol31]

I'll split the hairs about what is Magisterial and what is not.

By the way, as proof I only mention Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.

I'll argue this after coffee and Mass and Leibniz, however.

[Jaime]

And Socrates, thanks for posting Aquinas's argument. They back up my argument (and the Church's) 100%.

I'm glad to see we're arguing the same side on this one.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 02:59 PM']And Socrates, thanks for posting Aquinas's argument.  They back up my argument (and the Church's) 100%. 

I'm glad to see we're arguing the same side on this one.
[right][snapback]780382[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Obviously you didn't read the entire quote. (You must have just read the "objections" to the death penalty which St. Thomas refutes.)\

[quote]Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. [b]When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death[/b].

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. [b]This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others[/b], while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Prov. 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, [b]yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful[/b], as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). [/quote]

[Jaime]

Oh I read it. But the meaning must have escaped you if you don't get that it backs up mine and the Church's stance.


You even highlighted the correct portions that back up my argument.



What is Aquinas saying in those arguments? He consistently talks about the protection of the innocent, who are dangerious to others etc. That is what the Church's stance is as well. The Church has never strayed away from the protection of the innocent. But in today's world, the protection of the innocent does not require the death of the guilty. The guilty can be removed from society with no worry about future harm.

Aquinas's arguments are correct. If the innocent need protection, the guilty can be put to death.

You've argued my point well.

Edited November 6, 2005 by jaime

[Aloysius]

I asked for real proof that the magisterial church requires Catholics to believe that in the modern world most grave criminals are not deserving of the death penalty. I would be really surprised if the Church that has authority to teach on faith or morals began to teach that most criminals today shouldn't receive the death penalty. It's just as likely to happen as the Church beginning to teach that most mortal sins in the world are not culpably committed, it's just not something that can be thus generalized or taught-- it deals with factors outside of faith and morals.