Death Penalty (poll)

[rkwright]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zwergel88]

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

[kujo]

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

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

[goldenchild17]

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

[cmotherofpirl]

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

There seems to be a confusion as to what exactly the Catholic Church teaching in regards the Death Penalty. This confusion comes form the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself when it states the personal opinion of John Paul II in section 2267 “...If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."”. This is the opinion of the Holy Father and while it is important to show respect for his personal opinion it is not necessary to agree with him. Section 2267 begins by stating the Church position “Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,...” this is to say is and has always been the traditional teaching of the Church. The second part of the first section of paragraph 2267 “(Comma) if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”, the reason for the comma is because this is NOT traditional Church teaching. The Traditional Church teaching is that of which was elegantly put by St. Thomas Aquinas and reaffirmed by The Catechism of the council of Trent.
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 stated. “2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. ***For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion***. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."” The statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger was in response to a question about the death penalty in Evangelium Vita which is the source of the Catechism statement. It is incumbent for us to remember that while there are infallible things in the Catechism of John Paul II not everything in it is infallible, just like with the Catechism of Pius V. The standard way of stating something in the CCC is to first state the Churches official position and then to state an interpretation of that position.

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

[Lil Red]

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

[rkwright]

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

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

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

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

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

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

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

Edited April 26, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicMax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

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

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

Of course, this will not happen until things change.

Edited April 27, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1511853' date='Apr 27 2008, 04:45 PM']All of the quotes do exist though I may have gotten my sources mixed up and i have even provided a post which corrects the citations.
I am sorry what exactly does this have to do with what? I am lost by your statement. My point was that they had a version of life imprisonment which st. Thomas was not obviously advocating.
Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6 healing does appear in St. Thomas's words. I went back and looked and this is the right source if your going to use the new advent translation of this(and I will remind you that it is a translation) then i would suggest that you really look and see how different the text really is. as I have not yet looked at the latin i will provide my own translation later.[/quote]
Nope, wrong again. I am amazed by this. The cited passages have nothing to do with capital punishment. And just FYI, there is no Summa Theologica 11... its II as in 2. Healing does not appear in any of the cited passages.

Every Summa Theologica quote you have provided does not exist. Its really that simple. The one Summa Contra Gentiles quote you provided does not exist.

Until you can prove the claims you're making, well I guess theres no real debate then; just a very interesting opinion you hold.
[quote]close but not quite there, we cannot kill a man who is sinful in himself as not all sin is judge worthy of immediate death. What is being said is that all sin corrupts society however there is sin which so corrupts society that it threatens stability. The worse a sin is the more it threatens the stability of a society, when someone is sentenced for a crime it is done in an attempt to restore the "Common Good". the definition you are using for "common good" is not the proper definition which is why the statement seems so absurd. You must strike a balance between a legalistic interpretation of the words on the page
and reading into the words on the page the "Spirit" of what is being said. We must first look at the words on the page and then ask ourselves "What do they mean".[/quote]
You are the premier authority on the 'spirit' of the words St. Thomas used? When you don't quote accurate passages? I'm sorry but until you can substantiate your evidence, I'm not going to give very much weight to your idea of the 'spirit' they were written in.

Its easier to read the plain meaning of the text. When the word 'common good' arises, its easy to read that simply as 'common good'. Not some idea of retribution. Words like 'restoring' or 'retributive' don't appear in the text anywhere. Instead St. Thomas speaks in medical terms, he says quote "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,". This doesn't say anything about restoring, or retributive, or upholding justice; it simply says if a man is dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, he should be killed.
[quote]You are very close to the truth. Ask yourself this question why did St. Thomas cite his earlier section? He was attempting to make clear that if i act with the intent to take another mans life it is always wrong, that is 'except for the public authority acting for the common good'. I will remind you that the question involves the individual and not the state and thus he is making a distinction between the two. This i contend is is reason for making reference to the state. When the state executes someone it is obviously not acting in self defense as the crime has already been committed and in fact may have been committed long ago. And the person if allowed to go uncaptured for an extended period of time may turn out to be a productive member of society. Thus for the state to execute any person after the offense has already been committed cannot be self-defense.
The problem comes in that you want the text to say one thing and not another so you do not step back to ask the question what is being said and why is it being said. I agree the text is explicit it is unlawful for an individual to take a mans life, except in the case of public authority.
This post of yours was extremely emotional as evident come of your comments tones. I have made the comment that you who oppose the death penalty are on the "left" of the issue because the "right" of the issue is always the "conservative" or traditional position. and the argument here is between the traditionalists who hold that what the church has held constant cannot be changed overnight, and then the position of the "Progressives" who seek to rewrite history. Let me ask you this how many historical works on the death penalty have you read? books and articles of age more than 100 or 150 years? You are on the left of the issue which means you are on the modern side of the issue I am on the right of the issue which means that I am on the historic side of the issue it has nothing to do with politics. You are reading things in a vacuum I am not. The reason I can bring such a charge against you is because it is clear from your statements that instead of going back and reading things attempting to find out what was historically believed about what an author said you are reading texts out of the context of history(a vacuum).[/quote]

I don't see it as being anything other than Orthodox. Here are our options.
Your view = reading words into St. Thomas's writings in light of the 'spirit' they were written in, disregarding the current CCC as opinion, disregarding the USCCB statements on Capital Punishment, adhering to the 'spirit' 'Tradition' (I say spirit because I have yet to see one document that explicitly says your view).
My view= reading words of St. Thomas literally, which match up 100% perfectly with statements of CCC, USCCB.

I see the Church as being consistent throughout all of time on its teaching. I don't have to look into the spirit of things written 100's of years ago. I don't have to disregard the Church's teaching on the matter.

Your view requires people to attempt to find the spirit of St. Thomas; to disregard JPII and the current CCC; to disregard the USCCB; to play linguistic gymnastics around words like 'common good' turning them into 'restoring justice' or 'retribution'.

Ockhams Razor anyone?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1509922' date='Apr 25 2008, 06:06 PM']+J.M.J.+
and what of gang members and mob bosses who can control every aspect of their criminal organization behind bars, and also recruit new members?[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

seriously. I still don't see how my quotes don't refer to punishment either when they are directly stated as being so... but oh well

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1509283' date='Apr 24 2008, 11:21 PM']It's not so much ridiculous as it is antiquated. We don't NEED to do it because we can keep most people incarcerated without much effort (this isn't the Wild West anymore, with wooden jail cells). As I've said before, it should be reserved for the rarest of cases where keeping the convicted alive presents a significant risk to the public.[/quote]

Spoke my mind brother!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1511855' date='Apr 27 2008, 04:48 PM']I would be pro capital punishment abuse against children. If you rape, kill, or have any serious crimes such as selling drugs to children, pretty much anything about abusing children in an already illegal fashion, those people should have to face the death penalty.

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

Of course, this will not happen until things change.[/quote]

I think people with a rational and sound view of the sanctity of human life might clearly oppose your proposition. While crimes against children are by their very nature more scandalous and disordered, I would not say that they are inherently more deserving of a death penalty by any true logic. It's just we feel more angry and vengeful in the face of a more scandalous crime.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1509922' date='Apr 25 2008, 07:06 PM']+J.M.J.+
and what of gang members and mob bosses who can control every aspect of their criminal organization behind bars, and also recruit new members?[/quote]

Darn good counterpoint; this conundrum must elicit a more thought-out response...

[XIX]

I agree with Verdicus.