Review of: 2258-2267, ARTICLE 5, THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”: PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST, SECTION TWO: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, CHAPTER TWO: “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”, The Roman Catholic Church. Most recent amendments, copyright 2003 11 04
All Catechism text begins with the paragraph number. All else are my comments.
The biblical foundation for the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:5-6 and is based, specifically, upon “shedding blood”.
2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
Always and everywhere there is the prescribed sanction of “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”, which, is confirmed in the Council of Trent, that execution represents paramount obedience to that commandment.
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath. t>
The type of killing being discussed, here, is the illegitimate type, meaning with anger or hatred, killing innocents, as well as many others, not the just prescription of death for murder. We also have the distinction between personal obligations, as opposed to the obligation of the state to defend their citizens.
Jesus was actually raising the bar in the Sermon On The Mount, teaching that having hatred in out hearts provided the proper punishment of eternity in hell, obviously a much more severe sanction than an earthly execution for murder, which may offer the blessing of expiation of our sins, as detailed below.
As with “But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.” Matthew 5:22 NAB
With 2263, it is clear that both defense of individuals and the state are described and that both refer to the common good requirement of rendering the unjust aggressor incapable of doing harm, which can only be accomplished by death.
2264 “If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”
The degree of force needs to be considered and proportional and that, knowingly, using too much force is unlawful or illegitimate.
This must be with the consideration that we will always make some errors in this regard, unknowingly, and that if we err, we need to err on the side of protecting innocent lives, meaning an error in degree must be that which better protects the individuals and society from an unjust aggressor.
2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”
Self defense, by individuals and governments, is a grave duty responsible for defending ones own life, that of another and the lives of their citizens by government. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.
It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Living murderers harm and murder, again, way too often. They harm and murder while in prison, both in prison and outside of prion, using proxies, as well as after they escape or are improperly released (4).
Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor – by definition, the death penalty. Is that what the Church intended? I say no.
However, the Church must conclude, as reason does, that only dead unjust aggressors are “unable” to harm again and that we are “required” by the Church to render them “unable to inflict harm”.
The Church must solve the conflict between 1) we are “required” to render the unjust aggressor “unable to inflict harm” (2265), a requirement which can only be met with death and 2) that we must not use “more than necessary violence” (264). Clearly, there are differences between immediate self defense and legal incarceration or execution of criminals. However, there are also problems with the CCC instructions, here, which need to be made more clear.
2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”
The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265
2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”
Biblically, theologically, traditionally and rationally, the death penalty is “commensurate with the gravity of
the crime” of murder. It is arguable that a sentence less than death, for the crime of murder, is an abdication of” the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime” (Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:31, Council of Trent, various Popes, Saints, traditional teachings, etc., as reviewed)
There are numerous passages within the New and Old Testaments where the imposition of the death penalty, in the Words of God, Jesus, or in the context of the Holy Spirit, and within Church teachings are mandatory, proportional and/or commensurate. These works provide a foundation of death penalty imposition which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the recent writings so restricting its imposition. (Reference 2, below).
2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.”
The Catechism states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” 2266 This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.
We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime of the aggressor and hold them accountable for that crime/sin/disorder by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice, retributive justice, just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
To “redress the disorder” has variou
s relevant meanings — to make amends, to correct the imbalance, to set right, to remedy or to rectify, for individuals as well as society, even reform, all of which may be used in the context of justice, just retribution or just deserts (and similar concepts), all of which have relevance in the context of the religious.
When it comes to reform, the second sentence is important:
The reformation and correction of the offender is a hoped for, even expected, component of justice or just deserts.
However, unlike the imposition of justice or retribution, which is mandatory, the reformation and/or moral correction of the offender will be voluntarily accepted or rejected by the offender, as a consequence of free will and grace.
Retributive justice, just deserts and the like must be imposed. The correction or reform of the offender will be accepted or rejected by the offender.
The Catechism agrees, with:
2266 ending ” . . . Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.”
” . . . as far as possible . . . ” concedes that this is a sometimes proposition.
It is the same with God and his flock, as it is with parent and child. When a parent sanctions or punishes their child, they hope and often expect that such will bring about reflection, reform, redress and correction and, often, it does. It is a foundational with sanction and redress.
Therefore, the “primary” foundation must be that we impose sanction based upon the evidence that the offender is guilty of the wrongdoing and because of that wrongdoing, we impose sanction, based upon justice (and its many similar considerations) and because of that justice, we reap the benefits of that justice, which include the protection of society and many other benefits, inclusive of the hope and expectation that some offenders will seek reform/redemption/correction/expiation, as a reflection in sanction and a product of grace.
All of which are part of redress.<
A crucial element of that justice, which is reformation/correction of the offender, will always remain, a hoped for, but voluntary expression of free will by the offender, which may also provide, the immense value of expiation, when the punishment is “voluntarily accepted” (2266) by the offender.
Voluntary acceptance has four components. The offender/aggressor is guilty of the offense, the aggressor pleads guilty to the offense, the aggressor accepts the sanction imposed and the aggressor does not appeal the sanction imposed. Anything short of that appears to negate voluntary acceptance.
Expiation, a product of God’s grace, will be seized upon or rejected by the offender, based upon their own free will. It is arguable, as per Aquinas and Augustine, that the death penalty is better apt to provide that correction and is, therefore, more in tune with the eternal aspects of the wrongdoers salvation (see paragraphs/references 3 and 4 within Reference 2 and also 5, below).
Romano Amerio: “The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods.”
“This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’ ” (Paragraph 3, Reference 2)
All we can do is hope and, in some cases, expect, that beneficial reformation will be sought by the wrongdoer, although we cannot force it upon them. And, in this religious context, such reformation will result in expiation and redemption, through the grace of God.
CCC 2267 HEREAFTER, THE CATECHISM HAS SOME REAL PROBLEMS
Always and everywhere there is the prescribed sanction of “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”, which, is confirmed in the Council of Trent, that execution represents paramount obedience to that commandment.
What we have today, in 2267, is the Church making every possible effort to avoid such paramount obedience to eternal teachings and to replace that with a human reliance on prison systems.
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56.]
The problem, here, is that no such traditonal teachings exist.
“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” .” (7)
“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)
The fact that such teachings does not exist is a real problem for the Church and this radical change, which appears to have sprung out of very thin air.
Even if such teachings did exist, 2267 could hardly be more misleading.
The traditional teachings of the Church neither exclude recourse to the death penalty nor so restrict it as to make it, virtually, useless, as 2267 imagines. Much more often, biblical instruction and tradition insist on the death penalty being imposed, describes those many sins/crimes for which it shall be imposed and, otherwise, reviews the legitimacy of the death penalty.
The works of biblical scholars and theologians through today (2013) provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings in conflict with that support. This is reinforced with both the word and deeds of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit in the New Testament (see paragraphs/references 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, within Reference 2 and see also 5, below). The extraordinary limitations on the death penalty, imposed by the imaginings of 2267, conflict with reason, reality and established Church teachings.
There is an obvious conflict between:
(a) the ill conceived 2267 “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” and
(b) 2267 rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM” and 2265 the “common good” “REQUIRES” an unjust aggressor be rendered “UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM”, which is in concert with 2260 “If ANYONE sheds the blood of man, by man SHALL his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for ALL TIME” — all of which contradict (a). My CAPS for emphasis.
The contention that the new limitation in (a) above is a product of evolving doctrine is in error. It is, instead, a doctrinal disaster which conflicts with well known teachings. (review all of Reference 2, starting with 1-4, therein and see also 5, below).
It may be, properly, argued that this radical change is not a change in doctrine, but one of prudential judgement. A complete review finds it neither prudent nor an exercise of proper judgement.
Such obvious conflicts shouldn’t exist within the Catechism and show how poorly considered and constructed this subject was.
Then, 2267 continues: “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
Consider this newest recommendation:
(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:
(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)
and (a)’s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above
(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.
The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.
This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.
Another version of the Catechism the Church uses “non lethal means” instead of “bloodless means”. It reflects the exact same problems, while trying to escape that blatant contradiction to Genesis 9.
Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?
In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.
“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.” “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by Canon Lawyer R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity . . . and there is no doubt that the Church has always found the death penalty to be a commensurate punishment for murder, and other crimes, and that execution represents “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment.
With Numbers 35:31 there is: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.”
In addition, had EV been properly thought through, it would have concluded that innocents were better protected with the death penalty and was, therefore a greater defender of society and, as such EV would have not created the errors which were then wrongly put into the Catechism.
2267 continues: “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).
The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.
This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.
Cases whereby the unjust aggressors harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape or improper release are way too common – the factual opposite of the Church’s incomprehensible finding that such cases are “very rare, if not practically non existent”
The Church and Pope John Paul made no prudential judgement, here, but instead, made a factual assertion which was entirely false, likely with zero fact checking and showing little interest – a grossly irresponsible judgement.
Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.
All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent, repeatedly, when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors, over and over, again. (4)
Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)
It has always been so.
The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution.
Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?
It is as if the Church didn’t consider that executed murderers cannot harm, again, but that livings murderers can and do. Stark realities escaped the Church’s and EV’s review.
Why has the Church chosen to depend upon widely varying and error prone incarceration systems, when the reality is that so many innocents are caused further suffering by known unjust aggressors, because of the failings in those systems?
It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such suffering. (3&4)
And why has the Church done this when it commands “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” ? 2265
Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.
The only way to, humanly, make a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is to execute them. Rationally, factually, there is no other way.
STATE PROTECTION END
Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? It doesn’t appear so. If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.
“The new edition of the Catechism revises the section on capital punishment. This was not a development of doctrine. It was, however, problematic for placing a prudential judgment in a catechetical text, more problematically so t
han in an encyclical like Evangelium Vitae. Paragraph 2266 of the Catechism names the primary consideration of retribution, but No. 2267 ignores it.” “There are times when the state needs capital punishment in order to save society.” “This is Christian doctrine.” “The cogency of Catholic apologetics crumbles when reason is abandoned for sentimentality in consequence of philosophical idealism and subjectivism.”“Absolute rejection of capital punishment weakens the cogency of pro-life apologetics.” “As the Church’s teaching on contraception cannot “develop” in a way that would declare its intrinsic evil to be good, so the right of a state to execute criminals cannot “develop” so that its intrinsic good becomes evil. “ “The pastoral commentary of the Church guides moral method, but the prudential calculus, in punishment as in the declaration of war, rests in the civil government whose authority pertains to natural law and is not granted by the Church. To propose otherwise under the guise of doctrinal development would be a species of clerical triumphalism that post-Enlightenment humanists claimed to abhor.”“On Capital Punishment”, Fr. George Rutler, National Catholic Register, March 24-31, 2002.
There is a 5th, biblical instruction, theology, tradition and reason which must guide the 4 others. They aren’t mentioned, because they are a constant.
All of those foundations are better met with the death penalty than by lesser sanctions.The complaint that this Catechism has removed just retribution (and therefore, balance, redress, correction, etc.) from punishment is based upon the reality that 2267 has allowed an improper and inaccurate evaluation of secular penal standards to dominate over just retribution.
While the first sections of this section (through 2266) detail the importance of retribution, as reviewed, above, the later section (2267) provides little time for justice, which must dominate the utilitarian aspect of protection. The Church miscalculates in 2267 and fails to realize the rational reality that innocents are more protected when murderers are executed, even though the Church enforces that reality within 2265.
“While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and primarily serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice–an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” ” . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths.” (5)
“Yet the presence of two purposes–retributive and medicinal justice–ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (6)
Justice is the soul of sanction. All other results – protection, s
afety and deterrence – although beneficial and desired, are a result of sanction, not the reasons for it.
Rehabilitation/redress/correction/redemption/expiation have a foundation in just retribution, but depend upon the free will choice of the criminal who we hope will, by grace, avail themselves of those choices.
“The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566):
“The just use of this power (execution), 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.”
The Church has gone from “paramount obedience” to avoiding that obedience, by all means.
We have another obvious conflict between two standards:(a) “PARAMOUNT OBEDIENCE” to God (Trent, 1566) vs man’s accomplishments within the error prone criminal justice system (2267, Catechism, amended 2005).
There is this additional problem:
2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.
The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him (the unjust aggressor) the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)
First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a poorly written section.
Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)
The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.
All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.
The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.
It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (8)
Thus, the Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “earl
y” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.
In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.
This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.
Pope Francis states: that “capital sentences be commuted to a lesser punishment that allows for time and incentives for the reform of the offender.”(9)
Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory.”(10)
“In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (10)
Even a protestant Christian layman states the obvious:
“One offensive aspect of this objection is the puny view of God that underlies it. God may be able to turn a murderer into a Christian if we give Him 30 years to do it – but not 30 days? Only by disobeying God can we populate His Kingdom for Him? It begins to sound a little like, “Let us do evil that good may come.” (11)
“If we spare those that God has commanded us to exterminate, we can’t pretend we did it for His glory! The question once again is shown to be: What did God say? with the follow-up, Will we obey? What God said is clear: Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6) He didn’t say that to the Jews (there were no Jews yet); He said it to Noah and his family – to the entire population of the earth.” (11)
“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992
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.
sm of the Council of Trent” (1566).
Forgiveness and Murder
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
“Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
95% of Murder Victim’s Family Members Support Death Penalty
More Hurt For Victims Families
Victim’s Voices – These are the murder victims
“The DeLuna Deception: At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?”
A Refutation of the ELCA Social Statement on the Death Penalty
The following suggests that some 200,000 innocents were murdered buy those criminals the US released from custody, just since 1973, which does not include the staggering numbers of additional innocents harmed by non lethal violent crimes, such as rape and robbery.
“Of these (repeat offender state) prisoners, (imprisoned in 1991), 45% had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole.”
“When “supervised” on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children).”
This is just from a review of state (and no federal) prisoners for one year – 1991! . . .
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE:
1) THE ADDITIONAL SLAUGHTER COMMITTED BY CRIMINALS RELEASED, BUT NOT ON PAROLE OR PROBATION, NOR
2) THOSE CRIMES COMMITTED BY CRIMINALS WE CHOSE NOT TO INCARCERATE and not on probation, nor
3) Those many unsolved crimes, of which many, if not most, were commiteed by repeat offenders, nor
4) Does it include rimes commited by any federal prisoners.
“Prisons are a bargain, by any measure”, John J. DiIulio, Jr., OPINION, New York Times, 1/16/96
“At least 20 members of the security forces were killed . . .” “. . . 500 (t0 1200) prisoners had escaped from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. Most of them were senior members of al-Qaeda who had been sentenced to death . . .”
“Iraq jailbreaks: Hundreds escape in Taji and Abu Ghraib”, BBC, 22 July 2013 Last updated at 13:54 ET
U.S. correctional institutions are a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda.
“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”
” . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations.”
“Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004
“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”
16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Ira
Repeat murderer, fakes paralysis, escapes, murders, again.
23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for child rape
iv style=”color: black; “>
Governor rejects any responsibility for his own multiple failures, but blames others.
By BRIAN MONTOPOLI/CBS NEWS/ November 30, 2009, 10:50 AM
Inmate claims to be “cripple”. Surprise!
Repeat sex offender,”cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
Inmates run prison.
“The inmates literally took over ‘the asylum,’ and the detention centers became safe havens for BGF,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephen E. Vogt.”
“The Black Guerilla Family was founded in California in the 1960s but now operates nationwide in prisons and on the streets of major U.S. cities, including Baltimore. It arrived in Maryland’s prison system in the 1990s, according to the Justice Department, and is increasingly involved in narcotics trafficking, robbery, assault and homicides. By 2006, federal authorities say, the BGF had become the dominant gang at the Baltimore City Detention Center.”
“3 corrections officers indicted in Md., accused of aiding gang’s drug scheme”, Washington Post, 4/23/13
Inmate changes clothes, walks out of jail.
“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.
Inmate, double cop murderer, runs prison.
Ronell Wilson, a former New York City street gang member, sentenced to death in the execution-style slayings of 2 police officers “was permitted to treat the Metropolitan Detention Center as his own fiefdom,” U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said.
” . . . authorities revealed Wilson fathered a child with a jail guard . . .” “The judge called the killing of undercover officers James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews ‘ 1 of the most grisly and horrific crimes the city has ever seen.’ ” “Wilson proved he was remorseless by repeatedly acting out behind bars after winning an appeal”, the judge said.
5) “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty”, p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999): 511-552
6) ibid, p 522
7) “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University(Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)
8) Luke 23:39-43 “Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (NAB).
It is not about the method of earthly death, but the message of eternal salvation.
9) Pope Francis
10) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
11) Jesus and the death penalty: “They may become Christians”, Dan Popp, June 23, 2013