Death Penalty (poll)

[rkwright]

CatholicMax... where are you quoting St. Thomas Aquinas from? I think your cites are off [quote]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.[/quote]

Summa Part II Q 65 A2 is "Whether it is lawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves?"

Q 66 A6 is "Whether theft is a mortal sin?"

Q 64 A2 may address this issue better... "Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?"

It says the following...[quote]I answer that, 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]

Can you provide where you found your quote?

[kujo]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507593' date='Apr 23 2008, 04:54 PM']I am not condescending I am blunt and I am disgusted by many of the nonsense illogical emotional arguments.
[url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PM3PQ00&show_article=1&catnum=1"]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...=1&catnum=1[/url]
execution saves lives
[url="http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-0/119674527929570.xml&coll=5"]http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials....xml&coll=5[/url]

[url="http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070611_ap_death_penalty.html"]http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070...th_penalty.html[/url][/quote]

So, at the very least, the evidence is inconclusive. There are studies suggesting both points of view. So, I guess it is an issue of conscience. And, since mine simply can't handle executing someone we do not need to, I say we use it only the most extreme of circumstances.

And perhaps you should word your points differently so that myself and others find it easier to resist flinging a sandal at you.

Edited April 23, 2008 by kujo

[dairygirl4u2c]

catholic max is a stiff. some people are jsut like that though. we can't and shouldn't all tbe the same.

even if it did save lives though, it also costs lives as many innocent pepole are executed. it's then a numbers game as to how much you're willing to kill in order to save how many lives.

it doesn't seem as a matter of conscious like it'd save lives. i doubt if i killed someone i'd get the death penalty, i'd guess a lot time in prison or life in prison etc.

also, if it did save lives, that dosn't address that the CC teaches it to be a sin to execute criminals. if it were wrong, it'd be justifying the means. this debate should really be in the other thread about how one can defy this teaching yet not others etc. it'd seem a good catholic would want that settled.
i now it's not just that i don't know, cause people always ignore that topic, so i doube they know either.

Edited April 24, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1507693' date='Apr 23 2008, 04:36 PM']CatholicMax... where are you quoting St. Thomas Aquinas from? I think your cites are off

Summa Part II Q 65 A2 is "Whether it is lawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves?"

Q 66 A6 is "Whether theft is a mortal sin?"

Q 64 A2 may address this issue better... "Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?"

It says the following...

Can you provide where you found your quote?[/quote]
I will look for the source text as i copied and pasted it into my email. I dont like to keep bookmarks had my computer crash 1 to many times and lost it all. I am sure if you copy and paste some of the text into google you will find it

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='kujo' post='1507722' date='Apr 23 2008, 04:55 PM']So, at the very least, the evidence is inconclusive. There are studies suggesting both points of view. So, I guess it is an issue of conscience. And, since mine simply can't handle executing someone we do not need to, I say we use it only the most extreme of circumstances.

And perhaps you should word your points differently so that myself and others find it easier to resist flinging a sandal at you.[/quote]
Actually the evidence is not inconclusive. What needs to happen is you need to look at the original data, when you do that you look for slants in the data. The Stats i really trust are from the U of Colorado and the reason I trust them more than anything is because the guy that did the survey is Anti-Death penalty, and it take alot of guts to post stats you dont like, especially when they counter your side.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1508042' date='Apr 23 2008, 09:51 PM']i now it's not just that i don't know, cause people always ignore that topic, so i doube they know either.[/quote]

you aren't addressing anything that others are bringing up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. I provided multiple sources of at least comparable authority to the CCC and you ignore those, so how does that make you any different. I ignore the CCC because I ignore the novus ordo Church as a whole. So it doesn't bother me what it says. The fact remains that if the pre-Vatican II church is really a part of the Catholic Church's teaching today, then my sources are legitimate and should be dealt with.

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1508110' date='Apr 23 2008, 10:53 PM']I will look for the source text as i copied and pasted it into my email. I dont like to keep bookmarks had my computer crash 1 to many times and lost it all. I am sure if you copy and paste some of the text into google you will find it[/quote]

I did google it, and I found your quote on a geocities website. Regardless, thats not what the text actually says. The text doesn't include language that you have in the quote. In fact a substantial part of your argument relies on the line "Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." which appears no where in the actual text cited, nor the in text referring to the "killing of sinners".

The full summa can be viewed at www.newadvent.org

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1508042' date='Apr 23 2008, 09:51 PM']catholic max is a stiff. some people are jsut like that though. we can't and shouldn't all tbe the same.[/quote]

Kreeft in a talk on lewis described him this way
1. Christians are Divisive
2. Christians are Insensitive or unfeeling
3. Christians are Simplistic
4. Christians are Fanatical
5. Christians are Amateurish

The alternative list Dr. Kreeft provides

1. Christians are Confrontational instead of divisive
2. Christians are Challenging instead of unfeeling
3. Christians are Clear instead of Simplistic
4. Christians are Christocentric instead of Fanatical
5. Christians are Concrete instead of Amateurish

Or
1. Polemical
2. Honest and blunt
3. Short, to the point, and clear
4. Christocentric
5. Utterly Practical
I am not stiff i just say what i mean and mean what I say.
[quote]even if it did save lives though, it also costs lives as many innocent pepole are executed. it's then a numbers game as to how much you're willing to kill in order to save how many lives.[/quote]

Straw man argument first if your going to say MANY innocent people are executed you better start providing numbers because I have never found one study that says since its reinstitution a single innocent person has been executed. however even if 10 or 20 have that is still a strawman the question is not if innocent people are executed the question is what is Justice. Is executing a murderer Just. The Church says yes and she says it is "Paramount obedience" the fifth commandment. your argument if followed to its conclusion is still flawed we should not punish people because we might punish an innocent man. Do innocent people get punished yes and it is the moral responsibility of the state to try and correct system which allows for that, but even though innocnet people are punished it does not invalidate the justice system.
[quote]it doesn't seem as a matter of conscious like it'd save lives. i doubt if i killed someone i'd get the death penalty, i'd guess a lot time in prison or life in prison etc.[/quote]
one thing people cherish even if nothing else is their won life, common sense says people would be more willing to murder if their punishment were ONLY life in prison. Even the suicide when rational cherish their life, but the people i am talking about executing are not the irrational like the suicide but are people who plot the death of someone else.


[quote]also, if it did save lives, that dosn't address that the CC teaches it to be a sin to execute criminals. if it were wrong, it'd be justifying the means. this debate should really be in the other thread about how one can defy this teaching yet not others etc. it'd seem a good catholic would want that settled.
i now it's not just that i don't know, cause people always ignore that topic, so i doube they know either.[/quote]
[b]also, if it did save lives, that dosn't address that the CC teaches it to be a sin to execute criminals.[/b] THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THIS AND IT IS PERVERSE THAT YOU TWIST THE WORDS OF MOTHER CHURCH LIKE THAT. The Church is not the opinion of one Pope, one pope cannot come along and null the teaching of all the popes in history. it doesnt work like that and it is absurd to think so. and if that is how it works then I am not Catholic because I cannot take part in a religion which can change on a whim. you need to step back and examine the past position of the Church and interpurt John Paul II through that lenses not the other way around. stop looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I and others have sourced MANY documents (at least a half dozen or more) on the Church's teaching on the death penalty. divorce yourself form your emotions for just a second and examine this question objectively something all of you on the left of this argument are not doing. what you are calling conscious is nothing more than emotion. Fact Reason and Emotion were all walking on the edge of a mountain working their way up to the summit. Reason followed Fact and Emotion followed reason, reason turned around to see how emotion was doing and they both fell off, and only Fact remained.

I am addressing you in that other thread and I will say it again ma'am. History. History. History. One person does not get to come along and CHANGE 2 Thousand years worth of teaching. I would strongly suggest that you read the essay I published on the other [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79305&view=findpost&p=1507614"]page[/url] as it has become very clear to me that you have not read it. and i mean READ it. although i doubt if you do read it it will make one bit of difference because you want to continue to believe what you want to believe to heck with the truth. History History History History. As Catholics we believe what was taught ALWAYS EVERYWHERE BY ALL, John Paul II's opinion was not taught ALWAYS EVERYWHERE BY ALL, in fact its a very novel idea.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1508117' date='Apr 24 2008, 12:56 AM']Actually the evidence is not inconclusive. What needs to happen is you need to look at the original data, when you do that you look for slants in the data. The Stats i really trust are from the U of Colorado and the reason I trust them more than anything is because the guy that did the survey is Anti-Death penalty, and it take alot of guts to post stats you dont like, especially when they counter your side.[/quote]

I am not casting doubt on your sources. But I am saying that my course (THE CDC!!!) is valid as well. That is why they are inconclusive.

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1508132' date='Apr 23 2008, 11:19 PM']THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THIS AND IT IS PERVERSE THAT YOU TWIST THE WORDS OF MOTHER CHURCH LIKE THAT. The Church is not the opinion of one Pope, one pope cannot come along and null the teaching of all the popes in history. it doesnt work like that and it is absurd to think so. and if that is how it works then I am not Catholic because I cannot take part in a religion which can change on a whim. you need to step back and examine the past position of the Church and interpurt John Paul II through that lenses not the other way around. stop looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I and others have sourced MANY documents (at least a half dozen or more) on the Church's teaching on the death penalty. divorce yourself form your emotions for just a second and examine this question objectively something all of you on the left of this argument are not doing. what you are calling conscious is nothing more than emotion. Fact Reason and Emotion were all walking on the edge of a mountain working their way up to the summit. Reason followed Fact and Emotion followed reason, reason turned around to see how emotion was doing and they both fell off, and only Fact remained.

I am addressing you in that other thread and I will say it again ma'am. History. History. History. One person does not get to come along and CHANGE 2 Thousand years worth of teaching. I would strongly suggest that you read the essay I published on the other [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79305&view=findpost&p=1507614"]page[/url] as it has become very clear to me that you have not read it. and i mean READ it. although i doubt if you do read it it will make one bit of difference because you want to continue to believe what you want to believe to heck with the truth. History History History History. As Catholics we believe what was taught ALWAYS EVERYWHERE BY ALL, John Paul II's opinion was not taught ALWAYS EVERYWHERE BY ALL, in fact its a very novel idea.[/quote]

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.

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.

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: [quote]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.[/quote] 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; [quote]1. A criminal may be executed if juridical proof has established the moral certainty that he has committed a grave crime for which the state, in the interest of the common welfare, inflicts capital punishment, and if someone has been authorized by the state to execute the sentence[/quote]
Again the end or purpose of capital punishment is the interest of the common welfare; not justice.

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.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1508165' date='Apr 24 2008, 12:25 AM']Look at the Catechism of Trent: It does not justify the use of capital punishments in terms of justice.[/quote]

read it again: ""Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, [b]by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty[/b] 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."

Popes Pius XII and Innocent III said the same:


Pope Pius XII -
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life [b]in expiation for his guilt[/b], after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."

This is clearly referring to a punishment for the sin of the crime.

Pope Innocent III said the same:

against the Waldensians: "Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood [b]as long as one proceeds to bring [i]punishment[/i][/b] not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly" (Denzinger 425).

They are both to be taken into account. The New Testament says the same thing:

"Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: [b]an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil[/b]" (Romans 13:1-4)

[rkwright]

I had a big post with all this... but it didn't go through last night, so I'll give a shorter version. It is important to read all these quotes as a whole, and not pick out words related to justice. Remember there is a difference between doing something for the sake of justice and doing something justly. In the first the end is justice itself, while the second the end is something else, yet the means are just. You could have a just act for the sake of justice; while you could also have a just act aimed at protecting the innocent.
[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1508166' date='Apr 24 2008, 12:42 AM']read it again: ""Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, [b]by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty[/b] 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]
Judicious is referring to the type of power the state has. The state must exercise its power legally and justly; ie it must have be a legitimate state and grant a fair trial before killing some one. The effects of these actions are punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. However the next sentence and the one following is extremely important. To use this power justly, is to uphold the 5th Commandment, whose end is the preservation of life. Thus for the state to use its power justly, it must have the end, or intention, to preserve life in mind. The next line says punishments from the civil authority do tend to this end, and then it says they give security to life. It did not say the enforce justice or punish based on that. The word judicious and just use of that power, refer to exactly that; the just use of power not to the notion that justice is the end sought.
[quote]Popes Pius XII and Innocent III said the same:
Pope Pius XII -
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life [b]in expiation for his guilt[/b], after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."

This is clearly referring to a punishment for the sin of the crime.

Pope Innocent III said the same:

against the Waldensians: "Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood [b]as long as one proceeds to bring [i]punishment[/i][/b] not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly" (Denzinger 425).[/quote]
I think the Pius quote is closer to your point. But even that one does not go as far as to say that the intention or the end is the expiation for guilt; rather this is the effect.

The Innocent the III is not on point. He is saying that state executions can be a mortal sin if they are done in hatred. He does not say the purpose for which they are used for.

They are both to be taken into account. The New Testament says the same thing:
[quote]"Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: [b]an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil[/b]" (Romans 13:1-4)[/quote]

Given the Church's stand on the death penalty (which we are debating) and the Church is the only legitimate interpreter of Scared Scripture, I think we will agree that whichever way the debate comes out, this is the light that scripture should be interpreted.

The argument I'm offering goes like this: The Church has always supported Capital Punishment (as your quotes show) for the end of the preservation of life. Your quotes show that this must be done 'justly', so we must have a fair trial (I see the lines referring to the just use of power as something like a 'due process' clause). But none of the quotes show that the States intention, or reason for killing someone, should be one of punishment or justice. Rather the quotes above, and the current CCC, all agree that the end to be sought is the common good.

[goldenchild17]

okay, well I don't have anything else to say here. I disagree with your context of the documents so we'll just have to leave it at that. I think a purely communal look at punishment (i.e. simply to protect the whole) is a highly perverted idea of God's temporal justice, but if we can't agree on the sources then my word certainly is not going to be good enough, nor should it be, peace

[rkwright]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1508364' date='Apr 24 2008, 12:39 PM']okay, well I don't have anything else to say here. I disagree with your context of the documents so we'll just have to leave it at that. I think a purely communal look at punishment (i.e. simply to protect the whole) is a highly perverted idea of God's temporal justice, but if we can't agree on the sources then my word certainly is not going to be good enough, nor should it be, peace [/quote]

I think I agree with your sources, but I don't think they say what you say they do. I am up for a defense of the quotes you offer, you're smart You won't offend me, I don't argue for the sake of argument, so my mind is open given a good argument.

[rkwright]

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]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. [b]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,[/b] since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).[/quote]
[quote][b]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.[/b] 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]
[quote]An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, in relation to something else. 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. [b]Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin.[/b] 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]
[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. [b]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.[/b][/quote]

[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?