Death Penalty

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 31 2004, 01:12 AM']The difference is that not all the Bishops are against the death penalty becasue it is NOT a matter of the faith.  It is not required of a Catholic to be against the death penalty.  The Holy Father is personally opposed to it.  Fine.  His opinion does not bind me to ignore 2000 years of Church teaching.  Canon Law does not require that I change my beliefs based on the personal opinions of anyone, even if he be the Pope.[/quote]
I see no difference between your dissent from the Church's teaching on the death penalty and other Catholics dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception. They too use the word "opinion" to dismiss valid and binding magisterial statements contained in papal encyclicals. Similarly, the traditionalists presume to judge Vatican II faulty based on their interpretation of 2000 years of Church teaching. Even Dunningan's essay contained some valid points as to doctrinal development intermixed with his dissent:

[quote]My opinion is that, to a certain extent, analyzing capital punishment in terms of legitimate defense is a proper development of doctrine, but that the Magisterium’s recent pronouncements also contain some deficiencies that require correction or clarification. [b]The recent Magisterium teaches that imposition of the death penalty is legitimate only when non-lethal means are insufficient to protect society’s legitimate interests. The previous Magisterium did not make this requirement explicit in the way that the recent Magisterium has.[/b] The chief restriction that the previous Magisterium placed on capital punishment was that it could be imposed only by legitimate civil authority and not by private persons. [b]However, there is no inconsistency between the teaching of the previous Magisterium and this new requirement that the death penalty be applied only when necessary.[/b] As a result, this new requirement appears to qualify as a legitimate development of doctrine [cf. J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878), II.V].[/quote]

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]They too use the word "opinion" to dismiss valid and binding magisterial statements contained in papal encyclicals[/quote]

There is no dogmatic statement requiring us to oppose the death penalty. If anything (which I feel is the case) we MUST [b]SUPPORT[/b] the death penalty, for the Council of Trent states that it is "in paramount obedience to the Fifth Commandment" and that it is a means of justice. Justice would not be served to remove the death penalty. God bless.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]The Pope diagrees therefore so do I.[/quote]

That is know as ultramontanism (sp?). It was not formally condemned as a heresy, but was condemned by the Church around the 1300s, I belive. I will search for more information, but I have to go right now. God bless.

[MagiDragon]

Let's see . . .

Two primary proposals seem to be evident:
1.) Support the death penalty.
2.) Declare that the death penalty is immoral.

I think we must analyze both proposals using all the tools that we have available to us: Scripture, History and Reason.

First Scripture. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Tough words. This seems to single handedly prove the case for proposition #2. Seems . . . unfortunately it doesn’t. This is a slight mistranslation of the original text. A more direct translation would be Thou Shalt Not Murder. In other words, Thou Shalt Not Kill Without Just Cause. Hmmm . . . this doesn’t simplify things much. It does, in fact change the two proposals slightly, however.

Now, if the first proposal’s proponents can prove that they *have* just cause in some case, they win. However, if the second proposal’s can prove that there is *no possible* just cause, they shall win.

Hmmm . . . anyway. . . the second tool . . . History. In the past the Church has not only allowed for capital punishment, but it has condemned some to death. Chalk one up for the supporters of capital punishment. Again, unfortunately, this proves nothing if the situation has changed. The argument can be made that it *has* in fact changed. I guess we’ll just have to move along to the next one .. .

Reason. Welllllll. … it will be a really big waste of time to write this if I don’t come to some conclusion … so let’s see where this leads .. .

Of the two arguments, one requires that we prove every case, the other requires only that we *disprove* one case. Therefore, I’m gonna go with the one that doesn’t require the rest of my life to prove. (Sorry, but I really do want to have a life at some point.)

To find a single case where a person *should* be killed, this is the objective. If it can be done, we should keep capital punishment. If not, we can say that it should be curbed for the time being and reconsidered should the case ever arise.

I assume everyone here is familiar with the concept of organized crime. you know, there’s a boss that runs the show and he orders people to do things, they do them, they get paid well. They don’t do them, they get punished. They try to turn on the boss, they die.

Now, the deal is, if a person cannot be neutralized by incarceration, they need to die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[i]That supernatural mode of conduct is a truly military tactic.

You carry on the war — the daily struggles of your interior — far from the main walls of your fortress.

And the enemy meets you there: in your small mortifications, your customary prayer, your methodical work, your plan of life: and with difficulty will he come close to the easily-scaled battlements of your castle. And if he does come, he comes exhausted. [/i]

- St. Josemaria Escriva

[MagiDragon]

oops, wasn't supposed to post that yet.

neway, the point is, if a mob boss can still get a message out of prison and order someone's death, they are still a threat to someone. by our country's laws, we're gonna have trouble completely incarcerating someone without running into the 'cruel and unusual punishment clause.' at this point, we have to kill the guy to protect the innocent.

this assessment must be slightly mollified by the fact that our job as Catholics is to get souls to heaven. Therefore, don't kill a guy that dudn't need tah die.

my personal answer then becomes, keep the death penalty, but use it only in *very* rare instances.

MagiDragon
(Or for those that would know me as a more common name: Drigani)

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Hmmm . . . anyway. . . the second tool . . . History. In the past the Church has not only allowed for capital punishment, but it has condemned some to death. Chalk one up for the supporters of capital punishment. Again, unfortunately, this proves nothing if the situation has changed. The argument can be made that it *has* in fact changed. I guess we’ll just have to move along to the next one .. .[/quote]

Faith and morals cannot change. The Church has said that death penalty is OK in the Council of Trent.

God bless.

[amarkich]

The only defense for those against the death penalty seems to lie with the words of Cardinal Newman. The only problem is that Cardinal Newman never said that the death penalty should not be used nor did he say that the death penalty is only acceptable when it is the only means of protecting the public from harm. He states that the death penalty should be used when it "protect[s] society’s legitimate interests" and non-lethal punishment does not. Society's interests are not the same as public safety or even the public good. It seems that Cardinal Newman goes beyond the idea that it should only be done when the public good will be advanced and says that it is the legitimate interests of society. Regardless of this semantic matter, the fact of this matter is that there is no development of tradition to support the crazy idea that we should only support the death penalty when it supports public safety (as in the mobster example) or not at all (which is even worse). The tradition of the Church, as well as logic, and the decree from the Council of Trent, among others, state very clearly that the ultimate cause of the death penalty is not only to protect the public safety (let alone the public good) but rather that the punishment of the guilty is also an ultimate end produced by the death penalty (it says that the ultimate end of Commandment V is to preserve the security of human life, not that this is the government's sole purpose in using the death penalty). I will quote again from this Council and until someone can give equal evidence to that of a Council of the Church, all must accept the death penalty as a judicious and advantageous practice.
[quote]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. [/quote]
With that being said, it is impossible for anyone to claim that the death penalty is not allowed, and in fact, it inclines them to thus be forced to accept it as a virtuous institution.

[popestpiusx]

Excellent post amarkich!!!

[amarkich]

Thank you very much. I tried to send you a message (popesaintpiusx), but I am unsure of whether or not it got to you. I am still not very familiar with the personal messaging system on this website. As for the topic at hand, I would love to hear some refutation for the Council of Trent and the longstanding tradition of the Church with something of equal standing (which I is technically not possible since even if there were a Council which held the opposing view, which there is not, there is no tradition to refute that supporting the death penalty, but I invite you to try). The truth of the matter is that most people who are against the death penalty are simply trying to find proofs to support their beliefs rather than seeking the truth. This is evident by the blind obedience (at least of some) to the personal opinions of clergy, as if this were valid support for the claim, while then denying the "opinions" of not only clergy but also the greatest Saints of all time, Councils of the Church, and the Tradition of the Church. This surely does not make much sense. The debate as a whole is worthless unless we can agree on the truth. Until everyone decides to look objectively at the facts, however, this will not happen. I encourage you all, therefore, to be objective in your judgments. Thank you. God bless.

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 30 2004, 10:42 PM']
How about showing love to the innocent people in society by protecting them from criminals? [/quote]
We are protected from criminals. They are in maximum security prisons.

God bless.

[popestpiusx]

Right you are amarkich! Other than some vague quotations (which have already been addressed in this thread) there is nothing other than opinion and emotion upon which a person can oppose the death penalty. Opinion and emotion are not binding.