Posted on 03/23/2005 12:34:45 PM PST by siunevada
Why didn't you cut and paste the whole of it instead of just a snip-it out of context?
Uh, because the rest doesn't say anything substantially different?
but "as it is useful to others."
That's my position (and that of JP II) right there. Sinners can be killed by public authority when the killing is useful to and directed towards the common good.
Just go read what he says about the just killing of heretics.
Yes, let's go read what St. Thomas said:
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (II-II q. 11 a. 3)
Here again we find the traditional position: capital punishment is to be used when the common good, the defense of society, requires.
But if that doesn't show St. Thomas' position clearly to you, some more quotes:
Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners. (II-II q. 108 a. 3 ad. 1)
All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. (II-II q. 108 a. 3 ad. 2)
The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners "according to the truth" (Rom. ii, 2). Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity. Hence according to the present judgment the pain of death is not inflicted for theft which does not inflict an irreparable harm, except when it is aggravated by some grave circumstance, as in the case of sacrilege which is the theft of a sacred thing, of peculation, which is theft of common property, as Augustine states (Tract. 1, super Joan.), and of kidnaping which is stealing a man, for which the pain of death is inflicted (Exod. xxi. 16). (II-II q. 66 a. 6 ad. 2)
Who does that NOT sound like?
Why don't you tell me? It sure doesn't sound like JP II, who says on the one hand:
The negative moral precepts, which declare that the choice of certain actions is morally unacceptable, have an absolute value for human freedom: they are valid always and everywhere, without exception. They make it clear that the choice of certain ways of acting is radically incompatible with the love of God and with the dignity of the person created in his image. Such choices cannot be redeemed by the goodness of any intention or of any consequence; they are irrevocably opposed to the bond between persons; they contradict the fundamental decision to direct one's life to God. (EV 75)
But on the other:
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. (EV 56)
Clearly, if the death penalty is licit, then it is not contrary to human dignity, from which flows the right to life. JP II teaches clearly, if implicitly, the same as Pius XII:
Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.
No, I'm just getting started, but it's Good Friday for crying out loud so the rest will have to wait. Why don't you go do something useful with what is left of it.
Firstly for many, many years I was a strong supporter of the death penalty.
I am still thinking about it but I'm having doubts.
Firstly everything I've seen (and admit, it could be fake stuff created by anti-death penalty groups) but with the costs of appeals it's less expensive to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Secondly I'd prefer that no one burn in hell forever, even the worst scum when they could be saved. If we execute someone, even when it's entirely justified and permitted, we're limiting their opportunity for salvation. I don't know if that's cultural conditioning but the thought of denying the possibility of salvation, when none of us are truly worthy of it, is worrisome to me.
Even without any possibility of parole I still worry about the safety of correctional officers that have to deal with prisoners that have "nothing to lose" with life sentences so I'm not fully "there" yet, but I am having my doubts.
Interesting points. Regarding the opportunity for salvation, I consider that facing execution would be an excellent opportunity for focusing the mind on God's existence, and repentence for the crimes committed. It is also justice, and has support not only in the Bible but other scriptures as well.
Regarding the cost of appeals, that's all nonsense as well. The ACLU and anti-death penalty agitators are the only reason there are 20 years of appeals.
Executions should be public, by witnessing such deaths, those who are involved or might be involved in crime will definitely think about it.
Interesting points. Regarding the opportunity for salvation, I consider that facing execution would be an excellent opportunity for focusing the mind on God's existence, and repentence for the crimes committed. It is also justice, and has support not only in the Bible but other scriptures as well.
Regarding the cost of appeals, that's all nonsense as well. The ACLU and anti-death penalty agitators are the only reason there are 20 years of appeals.
Executions should be public, by witnessing such deaths, those who are involved or might be involved in crime will definitely think about it.
Sorry for the duplicate. It's happened a few times today...
But even so after the government (effectively) killed Terri Schindler I started thinking; do we want the all knowing, wise and efficient state to kill people on our behalf outside of justified war? This is the same state that does such a great job of securing our borders, issuing driver's licenses and wisely spending the money they squeeze from us. Oh, and don't forget juries that award hundreds of millions of dollars for spilled coffee or an out of control DA (and yes, they do exist, have one right here in Travis County, TX and he gets reelected year after year).
I don't know why appeals take so long in some states; in Texas and Florida the average time to execution is something like 8 years. In California it's 20. I suspect it has more to do with the procedure in each state than it does with the commie anti-American crowd, but then maybe those procedures were set up by those elected by those same wise jurors.
Just don't buy that criminals will ever think about the consequences of their crimes before the fact. No amount of public executions is going to change that or at least historically in France and England it never did. Obviously executions will ensure that the person being executed will ever prey on society again and that's not a Bad Thing, but on balance I'm still uneasy about a lot of aspects of it.
Do appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on it however, it's a difficult issue for me as I have many decades of being on the execution side and I'm rusty at changing my mind on anything!
The American bishops had better take a cold shower and get down to the business at hand. America is in a meltdown mode, a condition that's been exacerbated by the lackluster American bishops themselves!
Get back to basics and let God sort out the souls of the filthy murderers!
It would be interesting to do some historical research and look at executions and whether they reduce future crime to due to deterrence.
Long ago history might not give us a clue, since crimes that would now be considered very minor were capital offenses in previous times.
Comparing murder rates, or rape rates? In this country rape used to be a captial crime a couple of generations ago; it is not now and there are many more rapes. Of course, sexual morality has also gone down the drain and women are in situations commonly that they used not to be.
At the very least, those executed will never commit another crime, and often "life imprisonment" means 15 or fewer years.
I am highly in favor of public beatings and less prison time. The DA of this county who recently retired told me that the only thing that will really work to curb much crime is public canings, as in Singapore. But people won't go for it.
At the very least, prison should be hard time - work should be mandatory, no lolling about the cell with nothing to do except get into more trouble. And why are drugs a problem in jails? Prison guards must be bringing them in. The whole system is rotten.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.