Death Penalty (poll)

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1508165' date='Apr 24 2008, 12:25 AM']And yet you cast aside the current Catechism's teachings as merely 'opinion'.

I am not convinced by your essay. Ratzinger's quote says the application of the death penalty is debatable. Thats exactly what the words of the CCC say when they say "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."" That is open to debate.[/quote]

and the problem with what you are saying is as has been brought up before you are ignoring what previous Popes and Councils and Saints have said to follow an emotional whim. Ratzingers quote could not be more clear the fact that you are refusing to accept reality has put you on my ignore list. Once you refuse to accept reality there is nothing more that can be done. I will answer the rest of your post in hopes that you will stop hardening your heart to the Truth of God.

[quote]You provide quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas which are flat out false. In fact Aquinas talks in terms of cutting off disordered members of the body only when necessary. Aquinas uses words 'for the common good', and does not put it in terms of killing for the sake of justice.[/quote]

St. Thomas Aquinas: "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution [b]for the healing[/b] and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

"Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty" (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52), "It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)." Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree "that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death" (First Things, May 2001). Moreover, Cardinal Dulles admits that opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches." "Anglican theologian Oliver O'Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is "almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty" ("The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae," in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219)." ("Capital Punishment, Justice, and Timothy McVeigh", Keith Pavlischek. The Center For Public Justice, May 21, 2001, www(dot)cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$444

St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)

The specific quote from St Thomas i am looking for I am not yet able to find but I will find it however these should speak loud and clear.
[quote]The other quotes provided in this thread are of little help to you either... The provide that the state has a right to death penalty, no one is disagreeing on that point. In fact that is what the CCC currently says. However they all put it in terms of the 'common good'. Look at the Catechism of Trent: It does not justify the use of capital punishments in terms of justice. In fact the word justice doesn't even appear in that quote. The phrase 'just use' appears, but this is hardly the same as justice.
Fr. Jone's Moral Theology says the same thing;
Again the end or purpose of capital punishment is the interest of the common welfare; not justice.[/quote]

firstly you are playing games Just use implies that there is Justice. Just because something says Just use instead of justice does not mean that it does not 1 imply justice and 2 does not directly speak to justice. what is the definition of Just use? We as Catholics know that our punishment in this life must fit our offense or we will have to finish our reparation in the next life. When a priest gives a "light" penance in confession he is not being merciful he is committing an unjust act. and to say anything else is to play games if you do not directly confront the evidence and stop playing the "post-V II Church" "pre-V II" I will ignore you. what ONE pope says nose not null 2 thousand years of teaching. You must address the fact that John Paul II opinion as it is stated in the CCC which Ratzinger makes clear this opinion is NOT binding and therefore holds no more weight than the private opinion of a theologian. and the private opinion of a theologian must be measured against the previous teaching of the Church period.


so let me unpack this for you since you seem to reject the truth in a way in which you are not able to escape its obviousness

"The just use of this power (execution) far from involving the crime of murder is an act paramount obedience to this (5th)commandment which prohibits murder. The Catechism of the Council of Trent."
The just use of execution is PARAMOUNT(superior to all others, at the hight of, climax of) obedience to the fifth commandment. Just use means that the person has done something to merit this punishment not simply that it is a way to separate him from the rest of the community. If you execute someone who does not deserve the death penalty this violates the Just use. this text is very clearly saying there are things which warrant the death penalty. If we can agree that there are acts which warrant the death penalty (which is a prerequisite for it to be just) then we can also say that to deny the proper punishment is Paramount disobedience to the 5th commandment.


Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: "if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die." Acts 25:11. "Very clearly this constitutes an acknowledgment on the part of the inspired apostle that the state continued to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice, just as it did from the days of Noah (Gen 9:6)".

"Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of [u][b]rational justice[/b][/u]." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEATHPEN.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEATHPEN.HTM[/url]
[quote]The only reason, from Aquinas, Catechism of Trent, Fr. Jone, and the current CCC where capital punishment may be used is for the common good. None of these documents mention killing the criminal simply for justice. The CCC mentions that in todays time, the common good can be protected without killing the criminal. Without that being in place, the CCC quote that the use is 'very rare, if not practically non-existent' makes sense in the light of all of tradition.[/quote]
No it does not the tradition of the Church (and i am speaking of the tradition of the Church when it comes to punishment in general) is that the most perfect, proper, and fitting punishment is the one which should be awarded any offender of any crime. This is why executing a thief is unjust while executing a murderer is just (the good thief was not actually a thief that is a very bad translation). The tradition of the Church is truly a just wage you should pay someone properly in accordance to the work they have done be it good or bad, this payment is not restricted to money.

Now if you continue to take a "post Vatican II stance" then our conversation has ended however if you acknowledge that the church before and after Vatican II are the same church and that Vatican II and the popes during and after do not contain the authority to abrogate the past teaching of the Church we can continue to dialog.

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities,[b] to whom is entrusted power of life and death[/b], by the legal and [b]judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent[/b]. 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 punishments inflicted by the civil authority, [b]which is the legitimate avenger of crime,[/b] naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life [b]by repressing outrage and violence.[/b] Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” -- CATECHISM OF TRENT

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1509074' date='Apr 24 2008, 08:24 PM']golden and CatholicMax... how do you get around Aquinas on this? Summa II Q 64, A2, 3, 6, 7.

Tell me where in these 4 passages, the first three on capital punishment and the third on self defense, that Aquinas says taking a life (or attempting to take it in the case of self defense) means the person has lost his right to life?[/quote]

I don't try to get around it. I take the whole of the Church's teaching on the matter together, I don't take one theologian or one pope or one document and say that that is what is the teaching. St. Thomas says this, and has a valid point. Pope Pius says such a person has lost the right to life and I believe that as well. Does St. Thomas say that a guilty person has NOT lost his right to life? I don't see that anywhere. I don't see St. Thomas denying anywhere that capital punishment can be used as a means of punishment, he just isn't focusing on this aspect of it. He is simply addressing a different means of capital punishment, the aspect of the common good which is a valid aspect, but not the only one. You however seem to be denying Pius in exchange for Thomas. There's no need to do that when it can be accepted that both are valid parts of the teaching.

Take an example of three theologians A, B, and C. A says the Father is God. B says the Son is God. C says the Holy Ghost is God. Does A contradict B and C because A says the Father is God and the others say the Son/Holy Ghost? No, they are all simply affirming separate truths regarding the Trinity. They are all saying different things, none of which contradict the others. All of them are right, and yet they are all saying different things.

I see this issue as the same type of concept. St. Thomas addresses the common good aspect of Capital Punishment (as do some others). Pope Pius (and I contend some others do as well) addresses the punishment aspect of it. Neither of them are contradicting the other. Thomas doesn't say the punishment aspect is invalid and Pius doesn't say the common good aspect is invalid. This is a both/and situation, not either/or.

Edited April 25, 2008 by goldenchild17

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1509074' date='Apr 24 2008, 08:24 PM']golden and CatholicMax... how do you get around Aquinas on this? Summa II Q 64, A2, 3, 6, 7.

Tell me where in these 4 passages, the first three on capital punishment and the third on self defense, that Aquinas says taking a life (or attempting to take it in the case of self defense) means the person has lost his right to life?[/quote]
[quote]As stated above (Article 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).[/quote]
where you are getting snagged up is here "safeguard the common good" you are taking safeguard as a strictly utilitarian tool which is why your improper form of justice permits mere separation, however we know that they did have life in prison then as people were put on house arrest for the rest of their life(locked in towers so forth). however what you are ignoring is that safeguard the common good is more than just removing the bad but it is also healing the damage that was done through p roper implementation of justice.

[quote]As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community's welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.[/quote] again you are taking a strictly utilitarian definition of welfare, what I am proposing is that proper justice is a part of the welfare as the execution is to HEAL(st. Thomas's word) the damage done.

[quote]An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, [b]in relation to something else[/b]. [i]If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. [/i][b]Nevertheless[/b], as stated above (Article 2) [b]the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good,[/b] which is corrupted by sin. On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.[/quote]

there are two parts which are here so let me do away with the first part

An individual man may be considered in two ways: first...secondly, [b]in relation to something else[/b]. ..., as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in [b]relation to the common good[/b], which is corrupted by sin. On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly... If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. ... On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

Part of what he says relates to the first part of what he says relates to the second. You however are choosing the way of the protestant and selectively reading the text in a hermeneutic of destruction.

[quote]I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.[/quote]

Self defense and the Death penalty are not related to one another (which is part of your problem you want them to be related). The reason the state can carry out the death penalty is because it is an act paramount justice, any other reason and the death penalty is an invalid punishment. you are equating to things which are not equal.

[quote]But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, [b]except for the public authority acting for the common good[/b], as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, [b]except for such as have public authority[/b], who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, [b]refer this to the public good[/b], as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.[/quote] everything before but does not apply to what is being said after but. now if we take my definition of common good as above there is no conflict.

[CatholicMax]

I am simply disgusted at the emotionalism (worship of the emotion) which is perverting church teaching here. You on the left of this issue (as i have said before) need to step back divorce yourself form your emotions for a bit and examine the evidence objectively instead of emotionally.

[rkwright]

First off, you need to chill out a bit. Putting people on your ignore list because they disagree with you is not useful to anyone. Its pretty much ignorance. Secondly I don't play the Vatican II card anywhere, so don't say that if I take a Vatican II stance our discussion is done. In my view the Church is one and the same, and has always held that the purpose of Capital Punishment is for the common good only. Trent says that, Aquinas says that, CCC says that. Third, the 'reality' is that in your reading of the text Ratzinger has said that there can be legitimate diversity of opinion. You use this quote, but certainly don't live it; stating that I have lost sense of reality and that I have lost sight of the truth. Fourth, you need to be clear on what I am arguing here. I am [b]not[/b] arguing that the Church is against Capital Punishment. I am arguing that the Church teaches the only end to which Capital Punishment is directed is for the defense of the common good. Keep that in mind as I respond to your post.
[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1509169' date='Apr 24 2008, 09:37 PM']and the problem with what you are saying is as has been brought up before you are ignoring what previous Popes and Councils and Saints have said to follow an emotional whim. Ratzingers quote could not be more clear the fact that you are refusing to accept reality has put you on my ignore list. Once you refuse to accept reality there is nothing more that can be done. I will answer the rest of your post in hopes that you will stop hardening your heart to the Truth of God.
St. Thomas Aquinas: "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution [b]for the healing[/b] and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.[/quote]
This quote, as cited, is an outright fabrication. Aquinas never said such things.
[quote]"Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty" (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52), "It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)." Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree "that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death" (First Things, May 2001). Moreover, Cardinal Dulles admits that opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches." "Anglican theologian Oliver O'Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is "almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty" ("The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae," in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219)." ("Capital Punishment, Justice, and Timothy McVeigh", Keith Pavlischek. The Center For Public Justice, May 21, 2001, www(dot)cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$444[/quote]
Agreed, remember exactly what I am arguing... I never say that the death penalty is morally licit. It can be essentially just, depending on the circumstances. Certainly no one would claim the death penalty is just without a fair trial.
[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.[/quote]
This quote, again as cited, is a fabrication. You really, really need to check your sources. 146 of Book III says nothing of this. The cited portion reads as follows[quote]That Sins are punished also by the experience of something Painful

PUNISHMENT ought to be proportionate to the fault. But in a fault not only is there an aversion of the mind from the last end, but also an undue conversion of it to other objects as ends. Not only then should the sinner be punished by exclusion from the end, but also by other things turning to his pain.
2. No one is afraid to lose what he does not desire to gain. They then who have their will turned away from their last end, have no fear of being shut out from it. Consequently that mere exclusion would not be enough to call them off from sinning. Some other punishment then must be employed, which sinners may fear.

3. One who puts to undue use the means to a certain end, not only is deprived of the end, but incurs some other hurt besides. Thus inordinate taking of food not only does not bring health, but further induces sickness. But whoever sets up his rest in creatures does not use them as he ought: he does not refer them to their last end. Not only then ought he to be punished by going without happiness, but also by experiencing some pain from creatures.

Hence divine Scripture not only threatens sinners with exclusion from glory, but also with affliction in other ways. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire (Matt. xxv, 41). He shall rain nets on sinners: fire and brimstone and the breath of stormy winds shall be the portion of their cup (Ps. x, 7).*[/quote]
While this portion speaks to punishment, the next line, 147, is more specific to capital punishment. The important part reads as follows. [quote]4. Good stands in no need of evil, but the other way about (Chap. XI). Whatever then is of necessity for the preservation of good, cannot be of itself evil.* But for the preservation of concord among men it is necessary for penalties to be inflicted on the wicked.

5. The common good is better than the good of the individual. There fore some particular good must be withdrawn for the preservation of the common good. But the life of certain pestilent fellows is a hindrance to the common good, that is, to the concord of human society. Such persons therefore are to be withdrawn by death from the society of men.*[/quote]
Again Aquinas is clear, from this quote, and the 4 from the Summa Theologica that all point to a 'common good' reason for Capital Punishment.
[quote]Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)

The specific quote from St Thomas i am looking for I am not yet able to find but I will find it however these should speak loud and clear.[/quote]
Keep looking, you won't find it...

[quote]firstly you are playing games Just use implies that there is Justice. Just because something says Just use instead of justice does not mean that it does not 1 imply justice and 2 does not directly speak to justice. what is the definition of Just use? We as Catholics know that our punishment in this life must fit our offense or we will have to finish our reparation in the next life. When a priest gives a "light" penance in confession he is not being merciful he is committing an unjust act. and to say anything else is to play games if you do not directly confront the evidence and stop playing the "post-V II Church" "pre-V II" I will ignore you. what ONE pope says nose not null 2 thousand years of teaching. You must address the fact that John Paul II opinion as it is stated in the CCC which Ratzinger makes clear this opinion is NOT binding and therefore holds no more weight than the private opinion of a theologian. and the private opinion of a theologian must be measured against the previous teaching of the Church period.
so let me unpack this for you since you seem to reject the truth in a way in which you are not able to escape its obviousness[/quote] No real argument here, just some red herrings. I haven't played the pre-post Vatican Card. I'm playing the 'you're not reading pre-or-post Vatican II right' card.
[quote]"The just use of this power (execution) far from involving the crime of murder is an act paramount obedience to this (5th)commandment which prohibits murder. The Catechism of the Council of Trent."
The just use of execution is PARAMOUNT(superior to all others, at the hight of, climax of) obedience to the fifth commandment. Just use means that the person has done something to merit this punishment not simply that it is a way to separate him from the rest of the community. If you execute someone who does not deserve the death penalty this violates the Just use. this text is very clearly saying there are things which warrant the death penalty. If we can agree that there are acts which warrant the death penalty (which is a prerequisite for it to be just) then we can also say that to deny the proper punishment is Paramount disobedience to the 5th commandment.[/quote] Funny how you leave out the very next line that says the Fifth Commandment's end is the preservation of life. So the just use of execution is paramount to the preservation of life. Hmm... that looks EXACTLY what I've been arguing. When you define 'just use' as meriting the punishment and not the common good, you nullify the rest of the document; you make the document contradict itself. Silly! Where did you get that definition of 'just use' btw? If justice is the only thing that is required for obedience to the 5th Commandment, why is the 5th Commandment ordered to the preservation of life?
[quote]Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: "if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die." Acts 25:11. "Very clearly this constitutes an acknowledgment on the part of the inspired apostle that the state continued to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice, just as it did from the days of Noah (Gen 9:6)".

"Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of [u][b]rational justice[/b][/u]." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEATHPEN.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEATHPEN.HTM[/url]

No it does not the tradition of the Church (and i am speaking of the tradition of the Church when it comes to punishment in general) is that the most perfect, proper, and fitting punishment is the one which should be awarded any offender of any crime. This is why executing a thief is unjust while executing a murderer is just (the good thief was not actually a thief that is a very bad translation). The tradition of the Church is truly a just wage you should pay someone properly in accordance to the work they have done be it good or bad, this payment is not restricted to money.[/quote]
You're right, except that the end of justice does not make murder just. Only the preservation of the common good makes it just. Thats what Aquinas says, thats what Trent says, thats what the CCC says.

Why can't you find a single quote that says 'the purpose of Capital Punishment is to uphold justice'? Why do all the quotes presented deal with the preservation of the common good? If this is such an obvious teaching, why is it so obscure, or hard to find? Why do all the quotes mention preservation of the common good, Aquinas X5, Trent says upholding the 5th Commandment, which is the preservation of life, Innocent XIII, and the current CCC? Why do all these mention common good, and yet none say Capital Punishment is ordered to justice alone?

It is very easy to see the continued teaching throughout all time in this way. The only time Capital Punishment is just is when the end sought is the preservation of the common good. That fits every quote posted here. Your interpretation requires you to explicitly dismiss JPII and Aquinas, and possibly Trent.
[quote]Now if you continue to take a "post Vatican II stance" then our conversation has ended however if you acknowledge that the church before and after Vatican II are the same church and that Vatican II and the popes during and after do not contain the authority to abrogate the past teaching of the Church we can continue to dialog.

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities,[b] to whom is entrusted power of life and death[/b], by the legal and [b]judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent[/b]. 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 punishments inflicted by the civil authority, [b]which is the legitimate avenger of crime,[/b] naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life [b]by repressing outrage and violence.[/b] Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” -- CATECHISM OF TRENT[/quote]
I responded to that above, but you've included the full quote here, and even bolded some. See how the end of the commandment is preservation and security of life? See how the punishments naturally tend toward this end since they give security to life?

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1509193' date='Apr 24 2008, 10:01 PM']where you are getting snagged up is here "safeguard the common good" you are taking safeguard as a strictly utilitarian tool which is why your improper form of justice permits mere separation, however we know that they did have life in prison then as people were put on house arrest for the rest of their life(locked in towers so forth). however what you are ignoring is that safeguard the common good is more than just removing the bad but it is also healing the damage that was done through p roper implementation of justice.[/quote]
Aquinas said what he said, regardless of the times.

[quote]again you are taking a strictly utilitarian definition of welfare, what I am proposing is that proper justice is a part of the welfare as the execution is to HEAL(st. Thomas's word) the damage done.[/quote]
Heal doesn't appear in St. Thomas words. Where is the basis of your definition, why should we accept it? If the quote, read plainly on its face, says for the common good. It doesn't speak of killing someone for justice.
[quote]there are two parts which are here so let me do away with the first part

An individual man may be considered in two ways: first...secondly, [b]in relation to something else[/b]. ..., as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in [b]relation to the common good[/b], which is corrupted by sin. On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly... If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. ... On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

Part of what he says relates to the first part of what he says relates to the second. You however are choosing the way of the protestant and selectively reading the text in a hermeneutic of destruction.[/quote]
What are you talking about? We cannot kill a man, even if he is sinful in himself (1st part), but if it is ordered to the common good it would be ok (2nd part).
[quote]Self defense and the Death penalty are not related to one another (which is part of your problem you want them to be related). The reason the state can carry out the death penalty is because it is an act paramount justice, any other reason and the death penalty is an invalid punishment. you are equating to things which are not equal.

everything before but does not apply to what is being said after but. now if we take my definition of common good as above there is no conflict.[/quote]
I'm having a really hard time understanding your argument here. Self-Defense doesn't apply, but in the Self-Defense section, Aquinas mentions the Capital Punishment section! Thus it is on point! He says that 'It is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good'. It doesn't get much more explicit than that! He goes on to say that all killings, even in self-defense, if the intention is to kill the man are wrong. Aquinas is saying earlier that self-defense should be motivated by the preservation of ones life, not intending to kill the other person.

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1509196' date='Apr 24 2008, 10:07 PM']I am simply disgusted at the emotionalism (worship of the emotion) which is perverting church teaching here. You on the left of this issue (as i have said before) need to step back divorce yourself form your emotions for a bit and examine the evidence objectively instead of emotionally.[/quote]
Who said 'left'? Why the political connotations here? I'm not emotional at all, I'm surprised that maybe you are getting that way.

[zwergel88]

The death penalty is ridiculous. The idea that we could judge and condemn another human being is absurd.

[kujo]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1509278' date='Apr 25 2008, 01:16 AM']The death penalty is ridiculous. The idea that we could judge and condemn another human being is absurd.[/quote]

It's not so much ridiculous as it is antiquated. We don't NEED to do it because we can keep most people incarcerated without much effort (this isn't the Wild West anymore, with wooden jail cells). As I've said before, it should be reserved for the rarest of cases where keeping the convicted alive presents a significant risk to the public.

[goldenchild17]

well everybody. I think it might be time for me to bow out of this one. I accept the common good aspect that you guys are promoting, but I just can't wrap my brain around how you can say that punishment is not also part of the equation. I don't see any of these quotes specifically saying that either aspect is wrong. This being so, I don't understand how we can reject one and pick the other when they are both presented as options. But I guess that's just me. peace

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507614' date='Apr 23 2008, 05:12 PM']CMP
The Death Penalty

There seems to be a confusion as to what exactly the Catholic Church teaching in regards the Death Penalty. This confusion comes form the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself when it states the personal opinion of John Paul II in section 2267 “...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."”. This is the opinion of the Holy Father and while it is important to show respect for his personal opinion it is not necessary to agree with him. Section 2267 begins by stating the Church position “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,...” this is to say is and has always been the traditional teaching of the Church. The second part of the first section of paragraph 2267 “(Comma) if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”, the reason for the comma is because this is NOT traditional Church teaching. The Traditional Church teaching is that of which was elegantly put by St. Thomas Aquinas and reaffirmed by The Catechism of the council of Trent.
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 stated. “2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "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."” The statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger was in response to a question about the death penalty in Evangelium Vita which is the source of the Catechism statement. It is incumbent for us to remember that while there are infallible things in the Catechism of John Paul II not everything in it is infallible, just like with the Catechism of Pius V. The standard way of stating something in the CCC is to first state the Churches official position and then to state an interpretation of that position.

This is why Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.". Even in regards St. Ambrose position it should not be perverted as some have tried to, as to imply he was against the death penalty. His position was that the Church should not pronounce these sentences and his reasoning was wise, he did not want the Church to be involved in an area he saw the state was the fit party to decide “render unto Ceaser”. Cardinal Avery goes on to say "Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he
proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. ".
To gain a deeper appropriation and understanding for John Paul II opinion on the death penalty we must examine the context in which he said it as well as his reasons for saying it, and then see how it can be harmonized with Catholic tradition if it can be. Reading is more than looking at the words on a page it is understanding what the author is saying, why he is saying it, what he means by it, and internalizing it. John Paul II is a European Pope, he is a Pope who experienced and lived through World War II, and this is going to greatly affect his view of things. If one does not understand the post war mindset of Europe he cannot understand either John Paul II or our current Pope. To summarize the experience is that of an abusive State Government who executed anyone at will for any reason(This is contrary Church teaching), being mindful of this abuse John Paul II went to the other extreme taking a personal view of extreme limition of when the death penalty can be applied. His philosophy also seems to create what is standard in Christian philosophy the false dichotomy between Justice and Mercy implying they are some how opposed. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this clear when he says “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to... exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals”. It should be made clear that Justice and Mercy cannot be opposed to one another and to imply that they can is absurd as it violates the dignity of God as well as the Philosophical Law of non-contradiction. If God is as we believe Perfect Mercy and Perfect Justice then for the two to be opposed to one another at any time makes God an absurdity, and as absurdities cannot be real God then could not exist.
Mercy and Justice then are not opposed to one another at anytime but are in truth different perspectives of the same thing. When someone feeds the poor it is as true to say “He is being merciful” as it is to say “He is being just”. When you punish someone fairly for an offense they have committed it is equally true to say “That judge is being Just” as it is to say “That judge is being Merciful”, as by giving the offender his just punishment the judge is not only restoring the dignity stolen from the offended party but is also restoring the dignity of the offender. One can also say that the Judge is being merciful in prescribing a just punishment no matter how harsh as it not only helps to repair the temporal damage done but also the spiritual damage, this is to say simply it will reduce the time needed in purgatory for the repartition of the offense.
The problem with John Paul II philosophical approach to the death penalty is that it is overly pragmatic on the part of the offender and deals only with his physical good, assuming and presuming that it is good, and does not examine the deeper question of “Is it good”. The approach also seems to more troublesomely ignore the physical, psychological, and spiritual good of those individuals affected by the actions of the murder. This is to say that his only concern seems to be again that of the murderer, and only that of what he perceives as the immediate material good of said individual without ever examining if in fact it is his immediate good at all. This approach seems to create in imbalance as well as an injustice in that it revictimizes the immediate victim (the man killed), as well as the other parties(Family, Neighbors, and the Larger Society in gerneral). I will expand on this last statement later.
Defining Justice and Mercy
Mercy by its very definition is not “reduction of a penalty owed”, in its Latin form (merced-, merces,) mercy means price paid, wages. Where as Justice means to “Pay someone their due” or “to Pay what is owed”. Mercy and Justice then are far from being contrary to one another but instead are brothers.
If someone is Just they will then they will seek justice, this means that if someone commits an offense they seek that due payment be given that man. If however they are the offender and they are just they will seek out their own justice. They will demand that proper punishment be given to them and will accept nothing less than their own perfect justice not only to repair the physical damage they have done but the Spiritual, and psychological, sense as well. The question then arises of how forgiveness fits into the world of the Just man. Forgiveness does not mean ignoring the offense forgiven as part of what the Just man seeks in his own justice is forgiveness of his offense. As Catholics this concept is easily understood as when we go to confession we are forgiven but given penance, this is because part of forgiveness is penance. When a Just man however forgives an offense against him and does not seek immediate reparation this should not be confused as saying “I do not wish this man be punished”, but rather “I leave it to God that what is owed him will be given in this life of the next”. It should also be understand that nothing compels the Just man to act heroically in this way.
The Churches traditional teaching is stated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent when it says “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.”. The reason Pius V can say this should be self evident, however with the dulling of the modern mind to such an extent as it is things which should be self evident are no longer. Then to demonstrate the reason for saying this let us examine the two types of murder and punishment that are due justly to them. First is the crime of passion, this crime is one which is committed in the heat of the moment. As an example the man who murders his wife and her lover moments after finding them in bed together. This action which was done in the moment without thought should receive sever punishment however as it was not done with full cognition it would be unjust to ask for his death.
The deliberate murderer however who plots the death of another especially over a period of time is not only guilty of showing the up most contempt for human life but demonstrates an awareness of his actions. We must then ask “what is the just punishment for deliberate murder”, as part of paying what is due is in fact reparation what then can be sufficiently demanded of a deliberate murderer? It must be established that if the murderer were to die ten thousand times that this would not repair the damage done as unlike stealing a set amount of money or killing someones pig each human life has infinitively unique value. Knowing then that death is the ultimate punishment, it is the climax of human existence as we move from an existence in which we can turn to or from God, to an existence in which we are either eternally turning to God(purgatory/Heaven) or eternally moving from God(Hell). It must also be established that when an offense is committed murder or otherwise there is always some imperfection in the ability to pay back what is due in reparation. For example if I were to kill your dog I may have to pay for another Dog however the sentimental value you gave to that creature can never be reproduced. I cannot give you back your dog.
Having established the above principles we can understand why it would appear that when justice is carried out the authorities may be inclined to demand more than what was taken. For example if I steal your grandmothers ring from you, even if it is returned to you there is still a stain on it because of my defilement of the object. My punishment may then not only require returning the object but also to spend time in jail, this “added” punishment is meant to attempt a restoration or polishing of the stain. The death penalty works the same way, while it is true that the death of the offender does is not a perfect reparation it is the most perfect reparation possible. Having been guilty of robbing another man of what is uniquely his and can never be restored to him it is only just that the offender forfeit what is his and can never be restored to him. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas says "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6. What is quantitatively irreparable(a human life stolen) is able have some reparation.
False Arguments
There is common among today a false argument that seems to be prevalent among many even among those who are brilliant thinkers. This falseness comes from the pragmatism which seems to have overtaken our modern world. While I myself am a pragmatists I try to avoid the mistake of many by only considering one individuals pragmatic circumstance. In the case of the death penalty as I have said John Paul II mistake is that he only considers the murderer and does not seem to take into account the individual victims. It creates an injustice because it takes the wellbeing of an individual who has forfeited his right by a conscious act of his free will by saying “I know the punishment for my actions and accept them”, and values him higher than the victims.
The false arguments are as follows: The death penalty is nothing more than vengeance killings on the part of the family. The death penalty is bad because it does not allow the person the opportunity to turn to God. In the first there is a sever logical fallacy, that is namely it is not the family who prescribes the death penalty but the state. The state does not nor should it execute a man who has committed murder on the grounds that it is proper vengeance for the family. The state Acting with the Authority of God(The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21) rightly punishes the individual in order that “healing and preservation of the common good” be allowed. It is beyond the authority of any individual acting on his own behalf to murder a murderer. Only a valid state sharing in the Authority of God and the representatives of that state may declare execution as the fit punishment. The reason for doing so is not one of “Vengeance” as is ignorantly and falsely claimed but one of restoring order and peace.
The second false argument mentioned is that it does not permit the individual sufficient time to repent of their deeds. This again is a fallacy for as St. Thomas Aquinas points out “...They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146. There two other things which must be considered, namely that if the individual has hardened his heart to the point of rejecting repentance even in the face of death it can with good faith and reason be presumed that given more time the individual would only harden his heart more firmly against God. This speaks directly to “Is it good the man be let to live”, of which the answer when taken in light of this must be no as it permits him to turn further from God. Secondly if in fact more time would permit them to turn to God it must not be questioned or doubted that God being perfectly merciful and just would in his judgment either delay the execution of the man or take into account this opening.
There is one final false argument on the part of the pragmatist, this false argument does the most violence to justice of any kind. The pragmatist is operating from the false presumption that the offender must be repentant of his actions. Are the souls in hell repentant? Repentance is not required for justice to be carried out neither on a human level nor on a Divine level. It should always be desired by man and is always desired by God that the individual be repentant of his action of his wrongdoing, it is however not required. If I steal $300 from you I do not first have to be repentant before I return said money to you, and it would be absurd if such a thing were required. It is the duty of the state and those in charge of the state to will the good of every individual this includes the salvation of his soul. Therefore it is not only of the utmost importance that the state provide the individual with adequate catechists and spiritual formation but it is required by the Moral Law. If the individual persists in his defiance of God again no amount of time will turn him to God, and this is only a stronger case for his punishment. It is impermissible to allow such a man who has committed the ultimate crime against God and man(murder is a form of blaspheme) to continue in being as the very fact that he is allowed to continue to live demonstrates to the spiritual detriment of the community at large that such an attitude is not only permitted but acceptable.
It must always be taken into consideration that the death penalty is not exercised on behalf of the immediate victim (the man killed), nor his loved ones (family and friends), but on behalf of the entire Society which is why it is the State who determines the use of the death penalty. It is to restore the imbalance which is created by murder. When the state denies proper justice to any crime it then demonstrates a level of permissiveness toward that crime, this is why Pius V says it is “Paramount obedience” for the state to carry out the death penalty. To allow the individual to continue to live even if in prison creates injustice which will only beget more injustice. Imagine not sending a rapist to jail because it might interferer with their rehabilitation. It happens today and the reason is because of states reluctance to carryout the necessary just punishments.
One Final point
There can be no clear or good argument made for life imprison over the death penalty except for this which has been heard often by those who advocate the death penalty “I think it is better for them to spend life in jail where they can suffer more. Death ends it all.” this is neither Just nor merciful it is cruel and the person needs to examine themselves very carefully. It is true that someone who accepts the punishment of the death penalty may need to spend little to no time in purgatory for the offenses they have committed it should not be mistake that they are somehow getting a get out of jail free card. Death is the ultimate temporal punishment given by God himself to mankind, it takes a heroic action to completely embrace ones execution. He enters heaven at no small price, as he in his act becomes the good thief saying to Christ “I deserve this but you do not I ask only that you remember me in paradise”.
It should be clear then by now that the Churches official teaching on the death penalty is that it is not only permissible but necessary. John Paul II can be taken in conformity with traditional Church teaching if we take his situation in the CCC 2267 to mean that “When the state can legitimately find a reason for deferment to life in prison such as a crime of passion or mental retardation such actions should always be preferred.”, Any other interpretation is not only a perversion of Church teaching but an act of subversion of God and a legitimate state.[/quote]
A+

[Lil Red]

[quote name='kujo' post='1509283' date='Apr 24 2008, 10:21 PM']It's not so much ridiculous as it is antiquated. We don't NEED to do it because we can keep most people incarcerated without much effort (this isn't the Wild West anymore, with wooden jail cells). As I've said before, it should be reserved for the rarest of cases where keeping the convicted alive presents a significant risk to the public.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
and what of gang members and mob bosses who can control every aspect of their criminal organization behind bars, and also recruit new members?

[rkwright]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1509893' date='Apr 25 2008, 06:45 PM']A+[/quote]

lol A+! I've never heard of giving an A+ for using fabricated quotes. None of the quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas actually exist, they're fabricated!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]There can be no clear or good argument made for life imprison over the death penalty except for this which has been heard often by those who advocate the death penalty “I think it is better for them to spend life in jail where they can suffer more. Death ends it all.” this is neither Just nor merciful it is cruel and the person needs to examine themselves very carefully.[/quote]

plus, the supposed A+ article says things that are only trying to rationalize that they want to kill and fulfill their blood lust. the above quote is a rationalize to justify the blood lust. it may be true, but don't tell me they are executing them out of compassion....

the only eason she gave it an A is because it's a long, smart SOUNDING article, that attempts to justify her preconceived position.

it didn't even address very well how you could disagree with teh catechism. i mean, it might not be something that's infallible, but i don't see how that's clearly teh case.

my impression is, history has many views, and then the CC comes along and says which view is right, regarding its past beleivers. the death penalty varied, but now they're speaking out. death penalty has always been allowed, and still is.... only now it's being clarifed as only rarely shold it be done.
maybe the only way to know for sure if it's a firm believe, is to wait until the current teaching becomes more solidified, i guess. i could concede taht it's possibliy not infallible, and not yet solidified enough.

Edited April 26, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1510127' date='Apr 25 2008, 10:03 PM']lol A+! I've never heard of giving an A+ for using fabricated quotes. None of the quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas actually exist, they're fabricated![/quote]

All of the quotes do exist though I may have gotten my sources mixed up and i have even provided a post which corrects the citations.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1509258' date='Apr 24 2008, 11:00 PM']Aquinas said what he said, regardless of the times.[/quote]

I am sorry what exactly does this have to do with what? I am lost by your statement. My point was that they had a version of life imprisonment which st. Thomas was not obviously advocating.

[quote]Heal doesn't appear in St. Thomas words. Where is the basis of your definition, why should we accept it? If the quote, read plainly on its face, says for the common good. It doesn't speak of killing someone for justice.[/quote]

Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6 healing does appear in St. Thomas's words. I went back and looked and this is the right source if your going to use the new advent translation of this(and I will remind you that it is a translation) then i would suggest that you really look and see how different the text really is. as I have not yet looked at the latin i will provide my own translation later.

[quote]What are you talking about? We cannot kill a man, even if he is sinful in himself (1st part), but if it is ordered to the common good it would be ok (2nd part).[/quote]

close but not quite there, we cannot kill a man who is sinful in himself as not all sin is judge worthy of immediate death. What is being said is that all sin corrupts society however there is sin which so corrupts society that it threatens stability. The worse a sin is the more it threatens the stability of a society, when someone is sentenced for a crime it is done in an attempt to restore the "Common Good". the definition you are using for "common good" is not the proper definition which is why the statement seems so absurd. You must strike a balance between a legalistic interpretation of the words on the page
and reading into the words on the page the "Spirit" of what is being said. We must first look at the words on the page and then ask ourselves "What do they mean".

[quote]I'm having a really hard time understanding your argument here. Self-Defense doesn't apply, but in the Self-Defense section, Aquinas mentions the Capital Punishment section! Thus it is on point! He says that 'It is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good'. It doesn't get much more explicit than that! He goes on to say that all killings, even in self-defense, if the intention is to kill the man are wrong. Aquinas is saying earlier that self-defense should be motivated by the preservation of ones life, not intending to kill the other person.[/quote]


You are very close to the truth. Ask yourself this question why did St. Thomas cite his earlier section? He was attempting to make clear that if i act with the intent to take another mans life it is always wrong, that is 'except for the public authority acting for the common good'. I will remind you that the question involves the individual and not the state and thus he is making a distinction between the two. This i contend is is reason for making reference to the state. When the state executes someone it is obviously not acting in self defense as the crime has already been committed and in fact may have been committed long ago. And the person if allowed to go uncaptured for an extended period of time may turn out to be a productive member of society. Thus for the state to execute any person after the offense has already been committed cannot be self-defense.
The problem comes in that you want the text to say one thing and not another so you do not step back to ask the question what is being said and why is it being said. I agree the text is explicit it is unlawful for an individual to take a mans life, except in the case of public authority.

[quote]"Who said 'left'? Why the political connotations here? I'm not emotional at all, I'm surprised that maybe you are getting that way.[/quote]

This post of yours was extremely emotional as evident come of your comments tones. I have made the comment that you who oppose the death penalty are on the "left" of the issue because the "right" of the issue is always the "conservative" or traditional position. and the argument here is between the traditionalists who hold that what the church has held constant cannot be changed overnight, and then the position of the "Progressives" who seek to rewrite history. Let me ask you this how many historical works on the death penalty have you read? books and articles of age more than 100 or 150 years? You are on the left of the issue which means you are on the modern side of the issue I am on the right of the issue which means that I am on the historic side of the issue it has nothing to do with politics. You are reading things in a vacuum I am not. The reason I can bring such a charge against you is because it is clear from your statements that instead of going back and reading things attempting to find out what was historically believed about what an author said you are reading texts out of the context of history(a vacuum).

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

I would be pro capital punishment abuse against children. If you rape, kill, or have any serious crimes such as selling drugs to children, pretty much anything about abusing children in an already illegal fashion, those people should have to face the death penalty.

Great news, nobody would ever oppose that, and children's right organizations would probably applaud the government.

Of course, this will not happen until things change.

Edited April 27, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero