What do you guys think of the death penalty? Is it ok to murder the murderers? Or should we just lock them up for life?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 25, 2003

Answers

Only mass murderers, cannibals, assassins ,and the like... should get death penalty.

Many people kill when they are angry. Others on self defense. They should not get the death penalty.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 25, 2003.

Jmj

First, I want to say again that this is a CATHOLIC forum.
Therefore, the presumption should be that the opening question means ...
"What does the Catholic Church teach about the dath penalty? Is it OK ... [etc.]

Second, I wish to encourage David O to ignore what Elpidio says on this subject. He is NOT Catholic -- not even Christian -- but he failed to mention that fact. This is very bad, because visiting guests could get the false impression that Elpidio is passing along the Catholic teaching. He is definitely NOT doing that.

Third, David O ... Don't you think that you should consult the Catholic Catechism to find out what our Church teaches on this subject? Do you not have a link to the Catechism? Use this one for a search engine, and use this one for the table of contents with links.

Fourth, David O ... You appear to be unaware of the fact that this forum has been around since January of 1998, and all the thousands of old threads are available in "archives." When you want to find out about a topic, it is best for you to go to the archives and see if it has already been discussed. Don't just blindly start a new thread, please. New threads should be for brand-new topics, so that people don't get stuck re-writing something they have already written once before (or ten times before!). How to get to the archives? Start by going to the "home page" of the forum. Then scroll down near the bottom, to the "folders" full of "Older Messages" (some of which are divided by topics, the others "uncategorized").

You are always free to "revive" an old thread by simply adding your thoughts at the bottom.
If you had gone to the archives and looked for "death penalty" and "capital punishment" just within the "titles" of the old threads, you would have found at least the following eleven threads ...

BRIEF THREADS:
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0002NC
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00170M
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005D4c
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003IER
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009Efr
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0057Gw

LONGER THREADS:
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008Qru
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AFJZ

HUGE THREE PART CONVERSATION:
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007pJA
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0082Ca
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0088lf

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

D.O. The teaching from the Church is that no one should be killed even if they killed someone. The Death Penalty may only be used if there is no other way of keeping society safe from the person. For example there are no prisons, or the person keeps getting out of prison and killing. But other than that the Church teaches that a murderer should remain in prison until natural death. This is why Euthanasia and Abortion are also wrong. Life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. And J.F. don't be so harsh on D.O. He asked a good question this time. I know there are archives but not every one uses them. Is it really that bad that this got brought up again. This is our mission. To teach everyone about the Catholic faith. Telling him to go read the archives is basically telling him that he is not welcome here and that maybe he should just go and read a book. There are many books out there on these subjects, but he chose this outlet. D.O. There is a very good book that might answer many of your questions. It is called "Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic." It is by David Currie. It was published by Ignatius Press. David holds a Masters of Divinity from Trinity International Divinity School. In this book he is writting to his fundamentalist friends explaining his conversion journey to Catholicism. It is a wonderful book. Every Catholic and Protestant should read it.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

I forgot to mention ...
At the top of the first thread of the big three-part conversation, the guy who started the thread later deleted his very large message. Don't let that discourage you. Parts of what he wrote are quoted in other people's posts in the first and second threads of that big conversation. You can get something out of the massive debate, even without the deleted material. (Actually, since I didn't fully agree with the deleted message, we may be better off without it.)
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

I believe you are incorrect when you state that the Church teaches that a convicted murderer should be imprisoned until natural death.

That is not consistant with forgiveness and reformation.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerklajwen@hot.com), June 25, 2003.

Jmj

Scott, lay off! You were foolish and very unjust to me in your message. Do you have any idea how much time and hard work I put into preparing that reply to David O??? It must have taken me an hour to find those threads, create the links, write the message, etc.. Would you bother to do that to help someone out here?

"Earn your wings" at this forum first, Scott. Then maybe I will respect your criticisms.
Even if you didn't like the way I worded my reply, don't you think that you could have shown me a little respect for what I did (either by gratitude, praise, or silence), instead of being nasty to me?

Scott, why did you start your reply by contradicting yourself?
First, you wrote: "The teaching from the Church is that no one should be killed even if they killed someone."
Actually, that is not true, as you then proceeded to explain partially:
"The Death Penalty may only be used if there is no other way of keeping society safe from the person."

Notice that I said that you corrected yourself "partially," Scott, because there is another way in which your first sentence is not accurate. You forgot that the Church also teaches that a person can kill another in self-defense -- even when the attacker has not yet "killed someone."

You wrote: "And J.F. don't be so harsh on D.O. He asked a good question this time."
I wasn't "harsh" toward David O. I was far kinder to him than he has been toward Catholics and Catholicism in recent days on other threads. And I never said that he didn't ask "a good question," so why do you pretend that I criticized his question?

You continued: "I know there are archives but not every one uses them."
Scott, you just earned an "M.O." degree -- Master of the Obvious. Why couldn't you realize that I was trying to do two things:
1. To let people (such as David O) know about the archives, if they were unaware of them.
2. To encourage/remind those who are aware of the archives to use them far more often.

You continued: "Is it really that bad that this got brought up again. This is our mission. To teach everyone about the Catholic faith. Telling him to go read the archives is basically telling him that he is not welcome here and that maybe he should just go and read a book."

It is not "bad" (in the sense of "sinful") that "this got brought up again." But I have been at the forum for 3.5 years, during which time I have seen gallons of "ink" spilt on this topic and many hours of people's time spent on it. My opinion is that it is not justifiable to RE-spend those hours and RE-spill that ink in a new thread, when the old threads are readily available. THAT'S WHY THERE ARE ARCHIVES! All the old threads could have just been deleted after aging for a month, but they were not -- for this very purpose. Let David O read a few of the old threads and then post a follow-up/reviving message on one or more of them.

Scott, it is just your imagination that makes you think I was telling him that he "is not welcome here." If I had that in mind, I wouldn't have told him to look at the archives, but merely to get lost! Come on, man, THINK before you write! [In case you haven't figured it out, I am having a VERY tough day, and I have no patience for what you have done here. Please stay off my back.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

One, If I want to ask "what does the catholic church teach about the death penalty" I'd ask it. I just wanted to hear opinions people had about that.

Two, I don't agree with what Elpidio said, but I won't ignore him because he's not a catholic. Guests would only get the impression the church teaches what Elpidio said if I would have asked "what does the catholic church teach about the death penalty.", but I didn't, I asked "What do You guys think".

Third, Catechism< /a>. It bores me to read that, and I don't consult that because I don't agree with many things it says.

Fourth, I am aware this forum has been here for a while, and I see people like Eugene who have been posting here a long time. The reason I don't go to the archives is because I want to know what currect people have to say because I can reply back to their messages, it does me no good to reply to someone who left. And if it's in the archives, people don't have to rewrite something again, just copy an paste. Frankly 1.)the archives are disorganized and 2.) I don't have time to be looking for a topic. And I sitll want to know what the 'rules' are because so many of my posts get deleted. I don't think I come close to Eugene in being offensive.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 25, 2003.

Ok, that should fix it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 25, 2003.

JFG, look what you did, you isolated his message. He did not contradict himself whatsoever. Read his 3rd sentence "For example there..."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 25, 2003.

Catholic teaching has always allowed the death penalty. Even the pope believes that...Except...he has never come across a case that warranted it.So what does that mean?

-- CarlosDeAngelo (Carlos@appleandeve.com), June 25, 2003.

Jmj

David, you wrote:
"If I want to ask 'what does the catholic church teach about the death penalty' I'd ask it. I just wanted to hear opinions people had about that."

Well, you missed my point. Let me say it again, in another form ...
If you merely want to ask peoples' opinions, then go to a "general" chatting forum, not to a Catholic discussion forum. Here, we have an obligation to give the Catholic teaching on such a life-and-death subject, not a personal opinion. Opinions about moral questions are for pagans (and for those protestants who are their own popes).

I didn't expect you, a non-Catholic, to ignore Elpidio's comment (even though I encouraged you to do so). My statement about that subject was really meant for him, not for you. If he is going to give something that contradicts the Catholic teaching (as he did) then he needs to identify himself as a non-Catholic. This is a Catholic forum.

You told why you "don't consult" the Catechism [boring, and you don't agree with it a lot]. I wish you could realize how foolish you are then, because you run into tons more flak here than by reading the Catechism. Actually, I know that the reason you don't read is that you can't argue with a book, and you can't convert a book to your faulty denomination. So you come here, where you can find a warm body or two to try to lure!

On your lazy refusal to use the archives, you said that "it does [you] no good to reply to someone who [has] left" the forum. That's just false. People revive old threads all the time. Sometimes it brings original authors back (if they get e-mail generated to them). Frequently a "current" forum contributor will speak up in defense of departed person whose opinion is attacked. You ought to give it a try.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

J.F. How did I contradict myself? I didn't say that it is never justifiable to kill someone. All I said was that "no one SHOULD be killed." I think that you will find this true. And there are instances that someone could be killed but this is not wanted. But if it has to happen than it has to. Let us pray that one of these cases never comes up. Oh and just because you have been on the forum longer doesn't mean that you know more than I do. I am here to defend just as you are. Remember the first shall be last and the last shall be first. I am a fellow Catholic but you don't seem to be able to see past your own arrogance.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Hello! For John,

I, for one, greatly appreciate your response John; those neatly formatted links will come in handy for lots of people in the future. Further, I'm sorry that the day has been rough for you. God bless.

I also understand why you supposed D.O. was interested in Church teaching--because up to now, that's the only thing he's ever talked about. IMO, you were justified in thinking that way, even if it was incorrect (I'm not entirely certain it was).

However, I have to differ on some points. First, while Scott was wrong to suggest you weren't being helpful, and his response about the death penalty wasn't precisely true, he was right to suggest that copious archive-searching isn't a prerequisite for posting. Any way you read it, "Don't just blindly start a new thread, please," is going to elicit defense. And he even gave D.O. a good book recommendation. Scott's first errors were honest mistakes, and I don't think he deserved a "lay off!" Your discussion of his self- contradiction appears to be nit-picking that could have been spared.

Second, re: your paragraph about the archives, I would like to suggest that, copious amounts of ink spilled notwitstanding, there is nothing wrong with starting new threads about old topics. Redundancy is the priviledge of Web forums. However, since Greenspun still groans under pressure, I would agree with you at least that it would have been better for D.O. to bump an old thread rather than start a new one. But how could he have known that?

And, for D.O.,

I've read numerous posts of yours, and in my view your behavior here is hostile and unwelcome, and your posts always suspect. Even if Eugene uses stronger language sometimes, it does not change the fact that you have been waging Protestant geurilla warfare on this forum for weeks. You do us injustice by holding so many threads hostage to your anti-Catholic debates.

I'm sure you realize that, in a Catholic forum, Catholic points of view will be priviledged with higher tolerance for strong language, repitition, etc. Your posts are often deleted from the Catholic Forum; please understand that this is right and proper. We are not your stocked fishing pond. That JFG, myself, and others regard you with suspicion should neither surprise or offend you.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Hi, Skoobouy.
Thanks for your compliment on the links I left , as well as your expression of concern about the rough day I had yesterday.

You wrote: "I have to differ on some points."
Well, I feel tempted to write back, explaining why you shouldn't have differed on those points, but I'll lay off, out of appreciation for (1) the nice things you said to me, (2) the well-deserved things you said to David O, and (3) the fact that you pointed out that Scott's "response about the death penalty wasn't precisely true" (contrary to his continued protestations).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.

I think the Catholic Church on the whole is against the death penalty. However when it concerns two individuals and one is trying to kill the other, the I think that the church has said that the other victim has the right to kill him/her (NOT IN COLD BLOOD) but ONLY when all possible means to a peacful outcome have been exhausted.

Alos in the Bible when the Jews are about to stone the prostitutes, the pharisees, teacher, elders, etc bring her to Jesus and aske himwhat shall they do with her. Jesus replies, "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone"

I think that should apply to today saying that NONE OF US can ever "cast the first stone" (electric chair, beheading, hanging, poisoning, castrating, etc) BECAUSE WE ARE ALL SINNERS.

...AND WE SHALL ANSWER TO GOD FOR PLAYING GOD!!!

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.

Jmj

Andrew, you wrote: "I think that should apply to today saying that NONE OF US can ever 'cast the first stone' (electric chair, beheading, hanging, poisoning, castrating, etc) BECAUSE WE ARE ALL SINNERS."

Come on. You know better than this. You cannot take that gospel narrative and translate it into a permanent ban (by Jesus) on the death penalty. The Church assures us that such was not the point that Jesus was making.

You said that "none of us can ever" inflict capital punishment. That is simply not right! (It is even contradicted by the new Catechism.) If you were right, then the Catholic Church would have been teaching a terrible error for twenty centuries.

Surely you know that the Church has approved of the death penalty (when just and really necessary) throughout most of the past 2,000 years, don't you? Do you know better than the Church?

Surely you are not going to sit there and say that over 200 popes were wrong on this, are you? If you think that all those popes were wrong about something like this, then you might as well not be Catholic, because you will have to start doubting EVERYTHING that the 200 popes have ever taught.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.

"(when just and really necessary)"

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Is it ever just or necessary to intentionally kill another human being when other alternatives exist?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Paul,

"And there lies the crux of the matter. Is it ever just or necessarry to intentionally kill another human when other alternatives exist?"

Than why did the Vatican City State have the death penalty as a punishment for anyone who attempted to assainate the Pope up until the 1960's? Did other alternatives not exist(only) 30 years ago? Why does the new Catechism differ from what you say? Did the hundreds of Popes in the past teach the Church wrong Paul?

The crux of the matter is that you are giving your opinion which is to be respected, but your opinion is not consistant with 2000 years of Catholic teaching. Or even 8 years of what our Pope has said in speeches.

-- David (David@excite.com), July 25, 2003.

The death penalty is absolutely fine with me. Catholic Tradition and Scripture are unanimously in favor of the death penalty. One only needs to read "Catholicism and Capital Punishment" by Cardinal Avery Dulles (even though he agrees with the current church position) to realize that Jesus and the apostles only spoke in favor of the death penalty. No where in Scripture is the death penalty condemned. Jesus quotes in Matthew 15:4 "He who speaks evil of father and Mother, let him surely die". He is is referring to Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9. The only thing about the death penalty that bothers me is the churche's 180 degree turn in its teaching. If does so and offers no explanation of why it is deviating from statements of prior popes and all of tradition. Even worse is the language that the church uses to describe the death penalty such as "cruel and unnecessary". If I remember correctly it is God's commandment for us to use the death penalty. If it is cruel and unnecesary, then what is that saying about God? If think the church made a prudentia, but not infallible statement on the death penalty in the catechism. I do not believe any catholic is in error for sticking with consistent tradition. If the church were to assert error on those believing in the death penalty, then I believe it is required to explain its shift in teaching in detail. They need to explain why it is ok for the church today to ignore prior popes. "Turn the other cheek" and "he without .... cast the first stone" has nothing to do with the death penalty. They deal with a message of forgiveness and self examination, not death penalty abolishment. I here these verses thrown around a lot by anti-death penalty supporters. Instead of looking at two verses that actually doesn't mean what they assert it to mean, they need to look at all of scripture. The need to read also Acts 5:1-11 to see our first Pope Peter's role in the punishment for Ananias and Sapphira for their fradulent action. In light of what I have just stated, I don't see how the current position could be what it is. I respect the Church's current position, but feel it is not compelling enough to change what was for 2000 years.

-- Gene Smit (Genea2s@cs.com), January 03, 2004.