Death Penalty

[Hananiah]

[quote]Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 64, art. 2.

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 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 (Ex. 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Ps. 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."

I answer that, As stated above . . ., 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 Cor. 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]

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Mar 29 2004, 09:02 PM'] Here's a question to answer your question:

When Jesus was on the cross, and was going through the process, did he condemn it? [/quote]
If he condemned his dying on the cross, we wouldn't have been saved. I'm not talking about Jesus Himself. I'm talking about a verse where he condones it. Sorry about that confusion!

Thanks and God bless.

(By the way, He does ask God to forgive them, as they knew not what they were doing. Why would He do that if they weren't doing something wrong?)

[MrsFrozen]

Here's a quote from the Catechism.

[quote]The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.[/quote]

This quote is from [url="http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html"]Catechism[/url].

Incidentally, respecting the fact that, unless extreme circumstances occur, only God has the right to give and take life is not left wing. I had a long discussion about this with my priest, and I am simply reiterating what he told me.

God bless.

Edited March 30, 2004 by MrsFrozen

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

If we were to stick strictly to scripture, then we'd find that God, in the Old Convenant told his people to go to war and kill a few nations. God, Himself sent the flood, wiping out all of humanity, save Noah and his family. Then there is the time where God actually opened up the Earth and swallowed nations of people for not following Him.

Sticking to scripture, one could come to the undeniable conclusion that God supports the death penalty, why else would He have killed those people? Afterall, He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.



Now...let's take the road of looking at history, shall we?

The death penalty has been used, both during the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant eras. In France, Spain, and also in the USA.

Here's a question. If God opposes the death penalty, then why is it still prevaliant, still supported, still in use? God, in one word, could abolish those individuals who support it? He could wipe out the Kings and Queens who uphold it. But He doesn't.

[ironmonk]

I'm Catholic, I listen to the Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2266
"Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, [b]not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty[/b]. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge."

2267
"[u][b]If bloodless means [/b][/u]are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority [i][b]should [/b][/i]limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."




If someone disagrees with the Church in this case of morality; are they really Catholic?

I know some here don't like the "tough" questions... maybe it's because they know they are wrong? If they were right, why mind any question? Why do certain questions trouble people? What about those questions trouble them? Is it really the question that troubles them or their conscience? - Questions only they can answer.

Step up if your Catholic and disagree with the Church, and change your view. If your Catholic and disagree with the Church thinking the Church is wrong in this case of morality, how can you still remain Catholic? The foundation of Catholic teaching is that the Church is infallible in cases of faith and morals. If some believe it to be a case of discipline, the fact is that the Church has the authority to set discipline, therefore the Church deems what is right or wrong at the time.


If there was no way to protect society if one man lived who did a horrible crime, then it would be necessary that the man be put to death if it will save society. God spoke - It is better that one man die so that many may live.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Mar 30 2004, 01:20 PM'] If we were to stick strictly to scripture, then we'd find that God, in the Old Convenant told his people to go to war and kill a few nations.  God, Himself sent the flood, wiping out all of humanity, save Noah and his family.  Then there is the time where God actually opened up the Earth and swallowed nations of people for not following Him.

Sticking to scripture, one could come to the undeniable conclusion that God supports the death penalty, why else would He have killed those people?  Afterall, He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.



Now...let's take the road of looking at history, shall we?

The death penalty has been used, both during the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant eras.  In France, Spain, and also in the USA. 

Here's a question.  If God opposes the death penalty, then why is it still prevaliant, still supported, still in use?  God, in one word, could abolish those individuals who support it?  He could wipe out the Kings and Queens who uphold it.  But He doesn't. [/quote]
Sorry, but this logic does not stand... i.e. If God opposed homosexuality, why else is it prevaliant?

There are only five "industrialized" countries that have the death penalty: USA, China, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Over 80 countries in the world have abandoned capital punishment, including Russia and the former countries of the Soviet Union.

The death penalty is ONLY ok when it is need to protect society. It is abused everywhere it exists.

In today's world there is almost no reason that life in prison cannot protect soceity.

200 years ago the death penalty was needed.... today with Supermax prisons it is not.

Looking at Scripture proves the Catholic Church view.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited March 30, 2004 by ironmonk

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

FYI: Just trying to get people to think

[Livin_the_MASS]

CCC 2267

[quote]Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ...[b] are very rare, if not practically non-existent.[/b][/quote]


[quote] If your Catholic and disagree with the Church thinking the Church is wrong in this case of morality, how can you still remain Catholic?[/quote]


[b]THE BOTTOM LINE[/b]

"As I mentioned above, I am excerpting only a small part of Dunnigan's article. I urge you to read the whole thing. It is well written and can be comprehended by any patient reader.

To me it demonstrates that the "Catechism" has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the "Catechism" on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.

What is the bottom line? Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) or capital punishment? In short: no.

They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in section 2267. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.

[b]You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than "rarely."

You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You are free to make your own prudential determination--but you are not free to say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is therefore a "bad Catholic."[/b]

[b][u]The Church does not mandate opposition to the death penalty, nor does she mandate support for it.[/u][/b] This means that capital punishment cannot be listed as a "non-negotiable" moral issue, and that is why it is not mentioned in our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics."

Written by: Karl Keating the rest of the article is at www.catholic.com(in search type in death penalty)

I think before such statements are made "Are you Catholic IF ?", we should get all the facts together first.

You are in the guide lines of the Church if you are for the death penalty in rare occasions or if your against it completely.

Plus Pope JPII is against the death penalty does that mean he's going against Church teaching? Of course not.

God Bless
Jason

[MrsFrozen]

Jesus renewed the old covenant and taught us to love our enemies. This does not mean that no one should be punished for their crimes. But it does mean that God is the only one who can take a life.

[quote]Here's a question.  If God opposes the death penalty, then why is it still prevaliant, still supported, still in use?  God, in one word, could abolish those individuals who support it?  He could wipe out the Kings and Queens who uphold it.  But He doesn't.[/quote]

Good question! With this method of thinking, however, we could also say that God is pro-abortion.

God bless.

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='Jason' date='Mar 30 2004, 06:05 PM'] Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the "Catechism" on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. [/quote]
Where did you get the idea that prudential judgments aren't binding on the conscience of the faithful? Canon law makes it quite clear they are just as binding as any other Church teaching.

Edited to add: Or where did Karl Keating get the idea that prudential judgments aren't binding?

Edited March 30, 2004 by PhatPhred

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='MrsFrozen' date='Mar 30 2004, 06:21 PM'][quote]Here's a question.  If God opposes the death penalty, then why is it still prevaliant, still supported, still in use?  God, in one word, could abolish those individuals who support it?  He could wipe out the Kings and Queens who uphold it.  But He doesn't.[/quote]
Good question! With this method of thinking, however, we could also say that God is pro-abortion.[/quote]
This is exactly the logic that Catholics who dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception use. Since the Church hasn't "received" the teaching, it can't be binding.

Once you start trying to justify dissent from the Church instead of trying to follow what the Church teaches, you can justify pretty much anything if you try hard enough.

[PhatPhred]

[quote]This means that capital punishment cannot be listed as a "non-negotiable" moral issue, and that is why it is not mentioned in our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics."[/quote]
Fortunately, the U.S. Catholic Bishops aren't so reluctant to follow the Holy Father's teaching, and thus have included the issue of capital punishment in [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]the real Catholic voter's guide[/url].

[Ellenita]

[quote]Since 1950, 36% of all executed "criminals" on death row have later proven innocent.[/quote]


[quote]36% whatever. If you are going to make a claim as outlandish as that you need to provide some sources.[/quote]


I would have thought that [b]ONE [/b]innocent life was [b]ONE[/b] too many - isn't their innocent blood on the hands of those who say the death penalty is acceptable? I'm thankful that the UK no longer has the death penalty. We have a legal system which has as much credibility as the US system and there are a number of people who we hung under the death penalty who have since been proved innocent too....they were of course offered post humous pardons....much good that has done them!

If there is any possibility of doubt then we are as guilty of the crime for which we are demanding their life, and so far no legal system with all it's frailities has proven to be infallible!

Edited March 31, 2004 by Ellenita

[amarkich]

[quote]Jesus renewed the old covenant and taught us to love our enemies. This does not mean that no one should be punished for their (sic) crimes. But it does mean that God is the only one who can take a life.[/quote]

This is simply not true. God has given the government the authority to take the life of criminals. This is evident in various Church documents, but irrefutably so in the Council of Trent.

"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 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, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. 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."

There are various other examples, but this one will suffice for now. The fact of the matter is that the Tradition of the Church is that the death penalty is not only permissible but it is the duty of the state, in "paramount obedience" to the Commandments. I would like someone to find a document which binds the Church that states even that the death penalty is not a redemptive act, let alone that it is forbidden! Likewise, the system should be such that we should only execute those who are surely guilty or are at least guilty to the fullest possible extent without absolute proof. The "blood of the innocent" is not on the government's hands nor is it on the voters’ hands who support the death penalty. The government is the "legitimate avenger of crime", and we are subject to it. The government is also a human institution (which derives its power from God, just to clear that up in case someone has fallen into the heresy Americanism and the Social Contract) and is therefore fallible. This is not to say that we should altogether deny the death penalty. The act of dying as an innocent man is surely as redemptive as dying as a guilty man, if not more so. He who is innocent, as long as he does not fall into Despair, which he will not if he has the Faith, will surely be rewarded for his sufferings which will remit his temporal punishment (as all suffering does, if it is offered up). With that being said, we should not act as if it is okay to condemn the innocent because it may be redemptive for them. Contrarily, we should trust in the government, the legitimate avenger of crime, to judge and punish the guilty. We should also work for a reform of the system when there is corruption, but it is undeniable that every Pope in history has supported the death penalty, up to and including the current Pope. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. I would like someone to make an equal argument against the death penalty using the Church's teaching, not their personal opinion, philosophy, or emotions. God bless.

[Livin_the_MASS]

John 14:34

I give you a new commandment: [b][u]love one another.As I have loved you, so should you love one another.[/u][/b]

[img]http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/gallery/images/09.jpg[/img]

God Bless
Jason