Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
Why do I bother. St. Paul clearly speaks about the state having the sword (the ability to execute) from God. That is straight from the new testament.
The State has the right and grave duty to tend to justice through punishment of crime. It is not forbidden, that if the common good and public safety are at risk, for the State to resort to Capital punishment. Should those conditions not exist, the practice of Capital Punisment may be 'cruel and unnecessary'."May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
Further, you clearly have no idea what double effect is. In every instance of the punishment of death, the death of the wrongdoer is intended
From the New Catholic Encyclopedia...Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act.
(1) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
(2) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
(3) The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
(4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things."
This teaching from the CCC is applying the principles of double effect in every detail..."2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68"
You are also a sophist. Note, the CCC passage you quote clearly says "INNOCENT"
no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being
Again, in the death penalty death is not "beside the intention" rather unlike self-defense. If a man attacks me, and I hit him to save myself, and he dies from the blow, his death is not intended by me. Were he to have gone unconscious, or been subdued, my intent is just as fulfilled. But in the death penalty, the death of the not-innocent, but wrongdoer, is intended and were a person not to die, but, say, be rendered a parapelgic, that would be a failure.
the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way
of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Your assertion that we are all "innocent in this context" is blatantly wrong. That is absolute nonsense.
Look, you clearly have no studied knowledge of theology. It is fine to defer to the Catechism in what it actually says. No one has denied that. But when you make incredibly ridiculous assertions over and beyond that, and often advocate modernistic heresy in doing so (as if dogma or the sense of the doctrine change), you should not be suprised that people cease to be civil with you.
If this line meant by innocent, all and every, then the death penalty would never, ever be allowed. Nor would war be allowed. Under any circumstance whatsoever. Doesn't matter if it is a psycho about to kill every human being on earth, and rape every child, by your argument you can intend deadly force against him. Which is nonsense. Clearly, by innocent we mean just that. Otherwise, why does the Catechism, inter alia, mention the need to determine the guilt, the reatus, of the party before the punishment of death (poena mortis) may be administered? How stupid would it be to say that but mean, by some sort of secret gnostic meaning that no one can even be guilty?
The dignity of the human being justifies his immunity from death (unless the public safety is at risk), as a sentence arising out of the right and grave duty of the State to punish those who commit crimes. Every person is marked with the blood of the Lamb therefore bloodless but just sentences are demanded and required and in every western country that abandoned capital punishment as 'cruel and unnecessary' in the age we live in, bloodless sentences continue to be regarded as the right and grave duty of the State.
From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995. "This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)
These are the urgings and guidance of a saintly Pope of our time and another deeply learned in theological things new Pope of our times. They carry the same authority and validity as every other Pope and theologian who has made pronouncements on this topic through history.