Capital punishment

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

how do you reconcile the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas with Those of John Paul II on the death Penalty?
[quote]Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?

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]

[Myles Domini]

John Paul II was a Thomist and taught Thomist philosophy as a University Proffessor in Poland. Throughout his life he always held the Angelic Doctor in esteem and his teaching on the death penalty does not work against St Thomas answer on this question. As I understand it, His Holiness John Paul II supported the rights of states to put people to death when neccessity demanded it. However, he thought that the circumstances in certain M.E.D.C's meant that the death penalty was unneccessary for protecting the common good given alternative avenues for the punishment of criminals and the protection of the common good. In essentials I think John Paul was correct in his appraisal of the situation. However, I also believe that due to the degenerate and increasingly amoral Western world in which we live we might again encounter the need for the death penalty before too long.

INXC
Myles
PS) Supporting the death penalty does not render the seamless garment of life. There is valid theological justification for putting criminals to death pending on circumstance whereas there is never a valid reason for something like euthanasia

[Cam42]

Sam,

Look at the threads on capital punishment, then look to the Catechism.

There was just a long thread on this.

[quote name='CCC #2267']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 are 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 non-existent."[/quote]

Very Thomistic.

Then look to Evangelium Vitae and Ecclesia in America.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thanks guys!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 1 2005, 07:59 PM']On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live";
[right][snapback]807641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
what about Gandalf?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:52 PM'] what about Gandalf?
[right][snapback]807692[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Radagast

He is my favorite of the Istari.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:52 PM'] what about Gandalf?
[right][snapback]807692[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


it says that you qutoed me. i never said that

[Aloysius]

it meant to quote you quoting aquinas ;-)

haha and yeah, what they all said, JPII is very thomistic here, the developement is proposing that while all executions of criminals guilty of grave crimes are just, there is a higher good that can be served in not executing them. the phrase in the CCC that says it is "more in keeping..." clearly infers that executing them is also in keeping with the dignity of the human person-- but not executing them is MORE in keeping. if the execution of grave criminals was ever not in keeping with human dignity, the Catechism would not have put in "more". but the fact that it is more puts a duty on the state to do the greatest good, which would be not executing them in instances when non-lethal means are sufficient.

I beseech anyone who has disagreed with me in the past on this issue: I am well aware I have slightly altered my position. there is no need to gloat.

[Jaime]

No gloating Al. Just more respect for you

Not because your opinion is closer to mine. The respect is for your allowing your views to grow and to say so.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:56 PM']it meant to quote you quoting aquinas ;-)

haha and yeah, what they all said, JPII is very thomistic here, the developement is proposing that while all executions of criminals guilty of grave crimes are just, there is a higher good that can be served in not executing them.  the phrase in the CCC that says it is "more in keeping..." clearly infers that executing them is also in keeping with the dignity of the human person-- but not executing them is MORE in keeping.  if the execution of grave criminals was ever not in keeping with human dignity, the Catechism would not have put in "more".  but the fact that it is more puts a duty on the state to do the greatest good, which would be not executing them in instances when non-lethal means are sufficient.

I beseech anyone who has disagreed with me in the past on this issue: I am well aware I have slightly altered my position.  there is no need to gloat.
[right][snapback]807756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Jaime]

Bar none the funniest line I've heard supporting the death penalty comes from Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report

[quote]"Sadly even my own religion, Catholicism is against the death penalty.  What hypocrites!! You wouldn't even have a religion if it wasn't for capital punishment"[/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 2 2005, 11:32 AM']Bar none the funniest line I've heard supporting the death penalty comes from Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report
[quote]"Sadly even my own religion, Catholicism is against the death penalty.  What hypocrites!! You wouldn't even have a religion if it wasn't for capital punishment"[/quote][right][snapback]808438[/snapback][/right][/quote]

[Aloysius]

lol I saw that last night!

I never knew he was Catholic though, I wonder how orthodox he is? (unless he was just doing his parody of Bill O'Reilly and isn't really Catholic)

I've never seen him make any too offensive jokes or anything, hmmm

remember when we used to have the Catholic celeb ratings at phatmass?

[tojo]

Well, since his whole thing is to be a weird goofy smart aleck, it would be hard to determine his actual beliefs, I should think.

[Aloysius]

it could probably be discovered whether he attends mass weekly...