next »

CatholiChat

Bible

Catechism

Catholic Encyclopedia

Today's Readings

Advanced search

[ec2kadm]

Rich
Monday, June 11, 2001 - 07:02 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our quest for justice we use the death penalty in an attempt to restore the imbalance that exists, when someone commits murder. However, the death penalty does not bring closure, nor does it bring peace to the victim's families, nor does it return their loved ones. As Christians we are taught that vengance is for God alone. Why do we continue the circle of violence by trying to stop murders by killing the murderer? Only love can triumph over evil. As Christians, the only choice we have is life without parole for those who commit these heinous crimes. Today's execution of Timothy McVeigh only puts us closer to the same level as him. How can we profess that all life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death if we allow the death penalty? It only shows the world that we too do not value human life that much, that revenge is the ultimate end to us. Most of the European countries have abolished the death penalty. Why are we holding out this barbaric practice? We have all read that the death penalty is not a deterent and that many who have been senctenced to it, have been proven through DNA tests to actually be innocent. God is and should remain the Author of all life.

Of course, it is easy for anyone to say all this if we do not have a family member who was the victim of murder. It is very difficult for a surviving family member to forgive the offender. However with God's graces, it can be done. This is shone by one of the fathers of the victims of the Oklahoma bombing, who goes around the country lecturing against the death penalty. Many people are joining the movement to write up a paper saying that if they are murdered, asking the judge not to seek the death penalty. To me this is a supreme act of love. Then again, Christ asks us to do no less than to love others unconditionally.

Rich


Linda
Monday, June 11, 2001 - 08:59 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right on Rich! You are so right. I heard on the news
today that the US and Japan are the only two civilized
nations with the death penalty, and that 88% of the
deaths occur in USA, Iran, Iraq, and China. Kinda sad to
be put in same categories with those Godless nations. I
pray for all victims of the death penalty including the
victims of the crime, the families, and the criminal. I
only pray Tim McVeigh was able to make his peace with
our Lord and ask for true forgiveness before his death.
May Christ have mercy on all who have anything to do
with this horrible act of death!


Linda
Monday, June 11, 2001 - 06:58 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to 5pm news-Channel 7, Boston,Ê Timothy McVeigh, while strapped into his guerney, DID ASK and DID RECEIVE the LAST RITES, the Sacrament of the Sick.Ê Let us pray he did REPENT before our MERCIFUL GOD, with a CONTRITE HEART, and CONVERSION.
Ê
FOR THE SAKE OF HIS SORROWFUL PASSION, HAVE MERCY ON US AND ON THE WHOLE WORLD.
Love and peace to all!


Greg Kirnie
Monday, August 20, 2001 - 11:14 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people tell me it is "Christian" to support the death penalty. That if you don't support it you automatically lose your "Christian" designation. They quote the "eye for an eye" thing until it becomes a political catch phrase. At the same time, they treat the Sermon on the Mount as some kind of liberal propaganda. More and more people have the tendency to follow these Christian right leaders at the expense of following Christ.


Rich (Rich)
Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 04:00 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

Well said! The problem lies in that many people search the bible looking only for passages which support what they already believe. We simply can't use certain passages as "proof texts" and then ignore the rest of the bible. But we must look at these passages and compare them to the rest of the bible message, then compare them to Church Teachings. I have a quote that comes to mind here which I use often:

"Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is
complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join
to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the
very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation
upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in
different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it
as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius
in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another,
Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and
Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because
of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for
the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in
accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church
Catholic." --St.VINCENT OF LERINS (AD 434)


All we need to do, to see how false is this sort of mentality of those who quote the "eye for an eye", is to look at divorce in the bible. When Jesus was confronted on the subject on how it was permitted in the past, Jesus replied, "Because you were so hard to teach". This says it all, that God never wanted divorce, that divorce was never God's will and never will be, but permitted it in the past in the OT because "they were so hard to teach". The same can be applied with this eye for an eye mentality and how it squares with the Sermon on the Mount.


Robert Stout
Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 02:43 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting additional note on an eye-for-an-eye in the Old Testament: It was never intended as a prescription for punishing those who offended you (i.e., "You poked out my eye, so I must poke out yours."). It was actually meant to put a limit on any retaliation. Up until then, the de facto rule was "you poked out my eye, I go and kill your whole family."
I was an advocate for the death penalty until the Holy Father pointed out the folly of such a course. It really caused me to do some re-thinking and I have reversed my earlier position.
The death penalty can only be used when there is no other alternative with which to protect society and, in today's environment, it is hard to find situation where there does not exist a suitable alternative.
 
 
 
SarahLu   Posted: Feb 22 2005, 09:06 PM 
 
Rich,
I agree with you 100 percent that we should not have death penalty anywhere on earth. Jail is the answer. The rest is up to God.

Praise God!
SarahLu   

[jon316white]

When I was young and away from the Church I was a firm believer of an "eye for an eye". I would have supported public hangings. Now that I am firmly into middle age and closer to our God I have softened considerably. I believe a lifetime in a cell is the worst punishment a person can receive. I no longer support the death penality. However, a criminal has created the circumstances that has brought him to death row. He must accept the fact that his actions brought him to death row. God allows all the senarios concerning the death penality to exist all according to his will. Maybe he is waiting for mankind to change it. The Bible says we must honor our goverment and authorities. So until our laws change we must accept the fact that execution is part of our society and understand why it is with us. I support our goverment even though it has the death penalty. Someday I hope it does not.

[cajunrick]

I believe a lifetime in a cell is the worst punishment a person can receive. I no longer support the death penality.

I am a bit conflicted about the death penalty.  I agree that life in a cell is worse from the standpoint of punishment, and I don't think the death penalty should ever be used for punishment. 

I do believe, however, that there are certain extreme circumstances in which society needs protection from the worst offenders.  I would include mass murderers, terrorist murderers, those who kill while in prison, those who escape and commit violent felonies while out, those who rape and murder children, etc.  Some people cannot be rehabilitated (or do not choose to be), and I believe society has an obligation to protect itself that trumps the right of the individual.  I think it is outrageous that a murderer can get out in a few years, while someone like Scooter Libby can face a sentence of 235 years (if that was his possible sentence; I really didn't play that close attention) when he never harmed anyone.  Paris Hilton should not be in jail; she should be working for minimum wage (or less) in a hospital emergency room cleaning up the bloody linens from victims of drunk drivers, and watching the authorities tell their children how they died.

But having said that, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would vote to put someone to death, and I am pretty certain I could never pull the switch myself.  That's why I say I'm conflicted.