what is the church's view on capital punishment. should it be banned? do the people deserve it? depense on the circumstances???????????

-- nathan micallef (forza_mica69@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003

Answers

Hello. This recent thread will help you.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BGo3

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 13, 2003.

Abraham, you have an accidental space between the "?" and the "m" (which prevents a successful jump to that page, if copy-and-paste is use). So I will make a link for Nathan. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Thank you J.F :)

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 14, 2003.

Admitted murderers (not crimes of passion mind you), socio-paths, Charles Manson wannabees, etc. need to leave this planet! Period. They are not human and do not deserve any human rights or respect.

Forgive them? Uh, yeah, when they are room temperature! Hang'em High! Of course, growing up in the Wild West probably has demented my viewpoint, but I like it and that's it.

Why is it Liberals want to kill babies, but spare murderers? Hmmm, haven't figure that out, have you yet? Yep, just let old Charlie Manson out and let him live next door. Maybe you will change your mind on Capital Punishment.

-- Bernard (hotrails@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

I've always found it interesting that the loudest liberal opponents of the NRA have personal body guards, live in gated communities, and often actually have concealed weapons' permits!

It's also interesting that many so-called "blue states" or democratic controlled states are simultaneously in favor of concealed weapons but against hunting... yet most crimes are not committed with hunting rifles, shotguns and so-called "assault rifles" (semi-automatic rifles with magazines holding more than 7 rounds). After all, can you imagine how obvious it would be to the cashier to see some guy shuffle in with a rifle on his shoulder?

As for capital punishment, the Church has had two things to say: one, we should continue to seek for conversion of the guilty, but we also have to be prudent (realistic) and take into account the circumstances of his danger to society.

If violent socio-paths can be safely kept locked up, we should do that. If not, and conversion seems unlikely, and they appear to be an imminent threat to others... capital punishment is acceptible.

The big distinction is this: capital punishment can only be licit for those who are morally responsible for heinous crimes and who are actively seeking to commit further mayhem and destruction. It is not a matter of societal revenge but a matter of social defense.

This is also the basis for the Just war theory. You can't licitly go to war based on revenge or convenience. But you CAN in defense of human rights and in defense of society which is threatened.

Thus the Christian armies invaded and conquered the Holy Land not in revenge for 400 years of Muslim assaults and invasions... but in defense of the holy places and pilgrims who were being raped, killed, robed, and abused. The First Crusade was not a pogrom. It was not genocide. It wasn't even a religious war: The crusaders marched through and around many Muslim cities en route without assaulting them (Beruit for example). Their goal and intent was not to wipe out Islam or kill Arabs and Jews, but to seize control of Jerusalem and allow the free and safe flow of pilgrims again.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.