Murder

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Dec 18 2004, 05:14 AM'] yeah, that's what this was about

:shootme: :leave: [/quote]
Oops... when I voted I thought you actually meant murder specifically...

[Guest Aluigi]

lol.. I'm sorry but I alwaaaaaaays keep the distinction between the word "murder" and the word "kill" in my vocab and my mind so that's why I just had to answer the question for what it said, that's how I read it. i never read murder and think just killing, and i never (well maybe sometimes now that i think about it) read killing and think just murder.

anyway, i want to clarify the situation i'm describing (that the state fails to consider mercy and executes a criminal that it could contain by non-lethal means)

the STATE is not justified, it has done wrong.
the EXECUTION is justified, it is a correct action deserved by a person who has forfeited his own life by taking another's.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 18 2004, 10:41 AM'] Actually, it's not always justified because if the state is getting vengence, then the object of the interior act of the will does not align with the object of the exterior act of the will. [/quote]
State officials must not intend the execution of a criminal as an act of vengeance; but those same officials have a responsibility to maintain the common good, and that duty includes not only the obligation to protect society from further harm, but also includes the redress of grievances. Thus, in punishing a malefactor the civil authorities maintain the virtue of justice within society and serve the common good.

God bless,
Todd

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 18 2004, 07:24 AM'] Red re -do your poll and I can delete this one. [/quote]
yeah, i don't really care anymore..

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:24 PM'] State officials must not intend the execution of a criminal as an act of vengeance; but those same officials have a responsibility to maintain the common good, and that duty includes not only the obligation to protect society from further harm, but also includes the redress of grievances. Thus, in punishing a malefactor the civil authorities maintain the virtue of justice within society and serve the common good.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
I agree, but I think they should recognize their act for what it is and do it for the right reasons. If not, then no matter what their external act is, they are sinning.

[quote]the execution of a murderer is just. the state can sin by not considering mercy or by doing it out of vengence, but the actual execution once it happens is just because the person deserved it. the state is not guilty of murder, the state is guilty of not being merciful, the state is guilty of being vengeful (sp?) but if the person is guilty of murder, his life is justly taken away. he did not deserve to stay alive because his life caused the death of another. the death is just, the death is good, the death cannot be considered murder (so long as the person is guilty of a grave crime.) [/quote]

Al, read Aquinas ST.I.II.q.18 and 20. In these Thomas says that an action can be good or evil based on the object of the interior act of the will (he may use intent in translation, I'm not sure).

Here's an example: You tithe a $20 bill one week (which is about all you can afford), so this is a great act. However, it can be an evil act if you make sure your boss sitting next to you sees you tithing, while you hope he'll give you a raise because of it (so you can buy something fun for yourself). Sure, there's a great good being done, but it's an evil act anyways.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:49 PM'] I agree, but I think they should recognize their act for what it is and do it for the right reasons. If not, then no matter what their external act is, they are sinning.
[/quote]
Certainly, public officials should have a right intention in performing acts related to their office, but that is true of us all; nevertheless, civil authorities have a duty to safeguard the common good and in some cases this may require the judicious use of the death penalty.

God bless,
Todd

[qfnol31]

I agree.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 18 2004, 12:37 PM']From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Part III: The Fifth Commandment Thou Shall Not Kill

"Execution of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to civil authorities, to whom is entrusted the 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 punishment 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 the words of David 'In the morning I put to death all the wicked in the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.'"

[/quote]
Trent? Really? You're going to pull out Trent?! Still attending the Latin Mass, are we? Here's some more recent teaching:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, 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.' [68]

Don't run away from it this time Aluigi. Stand and rebut the CCC; if you can.

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.

[qfnol31]

Ouch. Trent is one of the greatest councils that ever happened. The Latin Mass is still valid and in fact, the Novus Ordo should be said in Latin, according to GIRM. The Tridentine Mass is a wonderful tool. The Church did not end, nor did it begin with Vatican II. Vatican II did not change any teachings, nor has the Magisterium. The only people who have changed the Church's teachings are under-taught lay people.

[Guest Aluigi]

did you not see right after the Trent I busted out the quote from Vatican II and Pope John Paul II who both AFFIRMED the Council of Trent in its entirety. Not to mention my quote from the current Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I do not intend to rebut the CCC, I accept and believe the CCC. I believe that when a state does not consider mercy and such it is wrong of the state. however, every murderer has forfeited their right to life, and thus would justly receive death for their crime no matter what. like in qfnol's example: the action of donating the $20 is evil because of the intention, however the Church still justly receives the $20. thank you for the example actually, it works in my favor to clarify my position.

Anyway, yeah, Vatican II started out by reafirming Trent and Vatican I, they are both infallible irreversable true Councils of the Church whose doctrines are binding upon the Church forever.

Also, the official language of the Mass in this the Roman Rite is still Latin, and Vatican II said that Latin SHOULD BE RETAINED.

cooltuba, your post reeks of chronological snobbery.

Anyway, let's look at the CCC's statement (CCC is authoritative to teach and nothing in it stands in the way of True Doctrine, but all the wording is not considered infallible and binding and needs to be interpretted by the Church in the light of her 2000 year tradition)

the operative word is SHOULD. I have time and time again said the state should limit itself to such means. In fact, I have said that for it not to limit itself to those means when it is possible without danger to society, it would be unjust on the state's part (though the execution of a murderer is always justified as the murdereer has forfeited his own life)

so the state should limit itself if possible. the statement regarding it being rare if practically non-existant is the Pope's personal observation of modern times. is the pope binding when he comments on the rarity of necessity for the death penalty? He must not be if Cardinal Ratzinger says Catholics can enjoy a legitimate diversity of opinion in regards to the application of the death penalty.

A Catholic must believe that the death penalty is a just recourse of the state. A Catholic must believe that a murderer or any criminal of grave matter deserves execution. A Catholic must believe that the state should limit itself when necessary to bloodless means.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 19 2004, 01:50 AM'] Ouch. Trent is one of the greatest councils that ever happened. The Latin Mass is still valid and in fact, the Novus Ordo should be said in Latin, according to GIRM. The Tridentine Mass is a wonderful tool. The Church did not end, nor did it begin with Vatican II. Vatican II did not change any teachings, nor has the Magisterium. The only people who have changed the Church's teachings are under-taught lay people.

[/quote]
I'm not questioning the validity of Trent, just the validity of it's teachings reguarding capital punishment. The times have changed, and the state (at least in non-third world situations) is capable of keeping violent criminals seperate from the general population. In the time of Trent, prisions were much less capable of holding ingenius prisioners. Vatican II gives a more current teaching taking into account the advances modern technology (not even modern by today's standards) has taken to reduce the likelihood of escape by violent criminals.

Of course there are certain situations where the Latin is still the best tool to worship (I sing the Ave Maria at Evening Prayer every Sunday night). But to fufill your Sabbath obligation with the Trinidine Mass every Sunday is not in line with Church teaching. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got in Seminary.

Please don't insinuate that I am an "undertaught lay-person". I'm certainly a lay-person, but I am not under-taught.

[qfnol31]

I don't mean to insinuate that you're an under-taught layperson. That was a comment about most of the Church who blames the Magisterium for the problems today, which I cannot see you being.

Trent on capital punishment is dealing with faith and/or morals. It's not something that can really be changed.

Actually, the Tridentine Mass is perfectly acceptable with permission.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 19 2004, 03:32 AM'] I don't mean to insinuate that you're an under-taught layperson. That was a comment about most of the Church who blames the Magisterium for the problems today, which I cannot see you being.

Trent on capital punishment is dealing with faith and/or morals. It's not something that can really be changed.

Actually, the Tridentine Mass is perfectly acceptable with permission. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification.

The Tridentine Mass is acceptable [i[with permission[/i]. I realize that permission is granted quite freely, but the fact remains that it is not the norm.

I'll comment more thoroughly tomorrow; I'm beat, and I've got to get up in a mere 5 hours for Mass.

Until tomorrow,

Tim

[Phatmasser777]

QF. You dont require 'permission' to go to a Latin Mass.

[Apotheoun]

The Second Vatican Council must be read in the light of the Church's living tradition; in other words, it must be read in the light of all that came before it, including the Council of Trent.

[RandomProddy]

Murder is illegal killing, so no. Killing an be perfectly ok. For example, it's ok to kill a fish if you intend to eat it.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:17 AM'] QF. You dont require 'permission' to go to a Latin Mass. [/quote]
Parishes require permission to perform the Latin mass.

[Guest Aluigi]

the Mass you attend now in the vernacular is a translation from the Latin Novus Ordo Missae, and the norm for even THAT mass is Latin. Vernacular is an allowance. But yes, the Novus Ordo is the norm in the Roman Church (though technically the norm is it in Latin)

Trent still stands on Captial Punishment. Pius XII was pretty close to our times. Pope John Paul II and Vatican II affirm Trent. The Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that we can have differing opinions regarding the application of the death penalty. We cannot have differing opinions on the doctrine about it, that it is justly reveived by anyone who has committed a grave crime, that the state [i]should[/i] consider mercy if non-lethal means are available to it, but because we can have differing opinions about the application of it we do not all have to agree that the cases are rare if non-existant. I donno, I think they might be somewhat rare, but not as rare as many people think and certainly they will never be non-existant because some ppl will remain violent even in prison and if you immobilize them for the rest of their life and feed them through a feeding tube so they can't be violent, that's cruel and unusual torture. there are always people who will continue to be violent even in prison, and technology will never get to the point (unless it gets to the point of giving them cruel and unusual punishment to keep them non-violent) where absolutely everyone can be practically and easily taken care of by non-lethal means.

The fact remains that I believe is a matter of Catholic Doctrine, that anyone who has committed a grave crime against the state would justly receive capital punishment if it was given to them by the state.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 19 2004, 09:44 AM'] [. . .] but because we can have differing opinions about the application of it we do not all have to agree that the cases are rare if non-existant.  [. . .] [/quote]
Correct. The traditional doctrine of the Church on this matter cannot be changed, because it is a [i]de fide tenenda[/i] teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The State has a twofold duty in protecting the common good of society: (1) it must render the criminal harmless, and (2) it must redress the wrong done by the criminal through punishment. As far as the first point is concerned, keeping a person in jail for life may suffice to protect society from further harm, but as far as the second point is concerned, the State may have a duty to execute a criminal in order to redress the wrong done by him. Moreover, if the criminal accepts his punishment willingly, the punishment inflicted takes on an expiatory value and may actually help to bring him to salvation in Christ.

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 17 2004, 09:00 PM'] I agree. [/quote]
So do I.