Do any Catholic Church agree on the capital punishment as many of them seems against it. Is no Catholic Church question the view of Pope John Paul II on the capital punishment?

-- Carmen Law (carmen@boardermail.com), September 01, 2003

Answers

Your question seems unclear to me, Carmen. Can you please explain it more and give one or more examples? Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003.

Hello JFG I think the question is any Catholic governors or bishop or different Catholic school totally disagree the speech of John Paul on the capital punishment? For example, the governor Marc Raciot of Montana allow death penalty (but I dunno his reason)

-- Carmen (carmen@boardermail.com), September 03, 2003.

Jmj

Carmen, I'm still not sure what you are seeking, but I'll just mention a few things -- (probably enough to get into "hot water" with at least one or two people!). Maybe you will find the answer you need somewhere in my words.

The Catholic Church never has rejected, and never will reject, capital punishment [CP] as though it were an intrinsically evil action. God himself commanded the use of CP in pre-Christian times. However, the Church teaches that CP can be used only when the circumstances are right. At this moment in human history, there is disagreement about whether the circumstances are ever present that justify the use of CP.

Our pope, after considering the information that has been made available to him, has strongly expressed his opinion that CP is never (or almost never) justifiable in our world today. Catholics around the world, after considering the information to which they have access, have come to have differing opinions or no conclusive opinion at all.
--- Some of these people realize that they do not have enough information to arrive at a valid opinion, so they withhold judgment for now.
--- Some of these people, though, (including many bishops, some people in high government positions, some priests, some other laymen, etc.) believe that they have enough information to come to an agreement with the pope's opinion.
--- Finally, some other Catholic people (again, probably some from every walk in life) believe that they have enough information to lead them to disagree with the pope's opinion. They believe that CP is sometimes (maybe even often) justifiable today. (I assume that ex-Governor Racicot is one of this latter group.)

I have noticed that there are some people in the second group who believe that a Catholic is not permitted (under pain of sin, I think they'd say) to disagree with the pope's opinion (prudential judgment) on this subject. I am sure that these people are mistaken. They have been wrongly led to believe that the pope, in expressing his opinion on this subject, is teaching a religious doctrine -- when in reality he is not. Rather, he is doing his best to apply a religious doctrine on morality ... to a set of (presumed factual and complete) circumstances ... to arrive at prudential judgments about what are our licit and illicit options. The potentially flawed judgments made by a clergyman, even the pope, are not "teachings" -- i.e., not doctrines to which we are required to assent. I used the term, "potentially flawed," because of the possibility that the information about circumstances to which the pope has access may be erroneous or incomplete.

Please be aware of the fact that I am only trying to be fair to everyone concerned. It is not true that I like CP and want to see it inflicted. I definitely do not. I have detested CP since I was a small child, and I hope that the pope's judgment is flawless. But I am forced to acknowledge the possibility that it is flawed, so I do not condemn a government official who holds a different opinion and acts upon it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

John,

You took the words right out of my mouth. :-)(I'm just kidding)

I don't think someone could of gave a more honest answer on Catholic teaching that isn't for the use of C.P. like yourself.

As a Catholic,I would like too see the electric chair be a mandatory sentence for anyone that molests and murders a innocent child.[But this is just my opinion]

-- David (David@excite.com), September 04, 2003.

I always figured Capital Punishment was when one of these juveniles comes into the forum with their keyboard stuck on all-caps and rants something about tolerance.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Thanks, David, for your kindness. I respect your opinion too.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

As a Catholic who believes in freedom of thought and belief, I've always been against CP/death penalty. What's funny is that many Christians make a big fuss about stem-cell research and cloning, saying we must not interfere with God's providence. Yet, at the same time, they may support the death penalty....and killing a person is not interfering with the providence of God? I just don't get that. Killing is wrong. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. It is wrong. Period. That's my opinion.

-- David Dulin (davidjdulin@yahoo.com), September 11, 2003.

I look at CP not necessarily as "punishment" but as "correcting" a situation. For example, no one wants to be raped, but they are threatened with death if they don't comply. A strong person will fight back and may have to kill in self-defense. A child or an elderly person doesn't have that option. CP, in my opinion, is just doing what a totally able-bodied person would do when faced with a situation where they are faced with death or grievous bodily harm.

And in my opinion, those committing sex crimes cannot be rehabilitated--they should be in prison for life or get the death penalty. They should never be let out into society where they can hurt others.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 11, 2003.

John,

When I gave my opinion about the "electric chair" as a mandatory sentence for a child molestor, murderer. I just wanted to say that I think hanging someone would be great mandatory sentence too. It would be a lot more children not being molested if one knew he would be hanged if they violated a child.

Hanging someone is legal in two or three states. I know Charles Rodman Campell was hanged on 5'27'94, and Billy Bailey was hanged in Deleware on 1/25/96.

I believe James Riley will be hanged in Deleware if he doesn't choose his method of execution because he is still under the old law.

God bless

-- - (David@excite.com), September 11, 2003.

GT...

not that i dont agree with you about the death penalty, but let me clarify one thing you said:

And in my opinion, those committing sex crimes cannot be rehabilitated--they should be in prison for life or get the death penalty. They should never be let out into society where they can hurt others.

this statement is contrary to your faith. God can rehabilitate and use whomever He sees fit for His will.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 12, 2003.

Paul (Little Paul :-))

There is a high degree of recividism (sp?) for sex offenders. I will not argue that maybe some can find some meaningful work in prison, which changes them for the better, or be forgiven at the time of execution--God can forgive anyone who is truly sorry. But they still can stay in prison (or for the worst cases, get the death penalty).

But as for letting them back out on the streets, and thereby forcing innocent children to be prisoners in their own homes because parents are quite rightly wary of these people, when there is concrete evidence that if given the chance they will reoffend, in these particular crimes (sex offenses against all ages/sexes) I still disagree. The punishment needs to be so severe so as to prevent repeat offenders.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 12, 2003.

GT,

You can move on to my block, that's for sure! I believe they should be *forgiven*, just not allowed to repeat their crimes.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 12, 2003.

Frank, this is one article I came across (it will disappear off their site by the end of the week). The landlord who rented to these people neither lived in the same property nor even on the same street! So it was not her children who were at risk....

http://www.columbian.com/09102003/clark_co/71420.html

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 12, 2003.

As a Devout Catholic that i am, and i cannot see why any catholic would disagree with the popes teaching on capital punishment. All one needs to do is read there catechism and they will find what the popes says about CP. He is 100% against it, and if Catholics in America can rise up then CP will be stopped. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

-- Bryan Box (brbox_1807@hotmail.com), September 23, 2003.

You are mistaken, Bryan.

You wrote, speaking of the pope: "He is 100% against it ..."
He could not be "100% against it," since the Church has always taught that there can be licit applications of capital punishment. The pope does not deny this.

To be accurate, you should have written: "He has thus far been against the application of capital punishment in each death-penalty case during his reign, and he appears to think that there could be few, if any, justifiable uses of capital punishment in our world of today."

In other words, he does not (and could not) condemn CP as intrinsically immoral, because it is not. Instead, he keeps making personal, prudential judgments about whether or not CP can justifiably be used in each case. He has not forbidden anyone to disagree with those judgments. This is made clear from the fact that neither the pope nor any of his brother bishops has ever told secular leaders (responsible for deciding for the use of CP) that they have sinned or (in the case of Catholics) that they have been excommunicated.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 23, 2003.

HI, I think capital punishment, has nothing whatsoever to do with God, but with society, ever since the 'fall of man' in the book of Genesis, God sent his first punishment on Adam for disobeying him. S therefore CP Should be activated by the voice of the spirit, and not by mere human judgement.

-- Christina (laydeegospel@yahoo.co.uk), November 21, 2003.