Catholics who believe in abortion, are pro-choice, cannot receive Holy Communion.

What is the church's stand on capital punishment? As Catholics, if we believe in capital punishment are we allowed to receive communion?

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 19, 2004

Answers

The churches stand on capital punishment is pretty much the same as its stand on abortion. Read CCC 2263 to 2267.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

-- Steven Schneider (gschneiders@hotmail.com), May 19, 2004.

As Catholics, if we believe in capital punishment are we allowed to receive communion?

Yes.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 20, 2004.

Abortion (the murder of innocent babies) is inherently (in and of itself) grievious. The death penalty (the killing of those who kill innocents to prevent them from killing innocents again) is not inherently grievious. It is permissible if there is no other answer to the problem.

It is all in the Catechism:
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 20, 2004.

You need to distinguish between faith and morals. If you firmly believe (not just have doubts about) something which is contrary to the faith (for example if you don’t believe Jesus is God) you are not of the Catholic faith and should not receive communion.

Abortion and capital punishment are moral matters. In a stable modern state, capital punishment is NOT the only way “to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm”. (He can be securely imprisoned until he is no longer a danger). Hence it is immoral as is abortion. If you have undertaken, assisted in, counselled, helped to legalize, or otherwise effectively promoted abortion or capital punishment and have not repented and received absolution, you should not receive communion. However simply to mistakenly BELIEVE that something immoral is moral, without having acted on that belief, does not preclude you from communion.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 20, 2004.

Steve,

You don't know what you are talking about!

Go back and read your Catechism before you give advice. The Catechism states"... the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legetimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with gravity, the death penalty."(2266)

Now if you don't assent to what your Catechism teaches you thats your bussiness but don't give assine advice about not receiving Communion. The death penalty converts souls to God.

In order to be executed, a hardened criminal must:

(1) commit an extremely atrocious crime

(2) be caught

(3)be informed and understand his legal rights

(4)be found mentally competent

(5)be convicted

(6)be sentenced to death

(7)commit his crime in a state which employs C.P.

(8) exhaust a few million dollars in appeals and loose.

(9) not receive a stay of execution

For a unborn baby to loose his life they need

(1) be "unwanted" by one person

Did the pope not take holy Communion up until the late 1960's when the Vatican city State had the death penalty as a mandatory sentence?

Oh thats right, you will now tell us how safe prisons are now. But the safe prisons didn't stop Joe Druce from killing Father Geoghan did they?

"if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is PRAISWORTHY and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good." You know who wrote this Steven?

I'll give you a hint. St. Thomas Aquinas

-- - (David@excite.com), May 20, 2004.

I think we know who is giving the asinine advice and who hasn't read ALL of his/her Catechism. You didn't read my post properly either before firing off your missive. I said that provided the required conditions (alternative means of preventing murder, as stated in the catechism) exist, capital punishment is immoral as is (under any conditions) abortion. I did NOT say they are both EQUALLY immoral.

St Thomas Aquinas was not infallible, and he almost certainly did not live in a state where the required conditions precluding capital punishment existed. It is you who don't know what you are talking about!

Yes the Papal States once had laws permitting capital punishment (last used over 200 years ago I believe). They also had laws instituting unfair discrimination against Jews. The Church doesn't accept this as a basis for what is moral today.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 21, 2004.

Oh and why do you continue to refer to a defrocked ex-priest as "FATHER Geoghan"? Don't you accept the Church's ruling on this matter either?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 21, 2004.

CCC 2267 states: Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

I've often wondered but never asked: Are prisons today so much better than in times past, that the necessity of capital punishment is now very rare? They are probably more humane, but do they protect society any more than back in the day? Steve says "In a stable modern state, capital punishment is NOT the only way “to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm”. (He can be securely imprisoned until he is no longer a danger)" Are we to assume he could not be securely imprisoned before 1995? He can still be a danger to other prisoners, right? Has there been a change in the quality of incarceration facilities or has there been a change in philosophy? I am not trying to stir the pot. I am curious to know what anyone thinks about this.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 21, 2004.

Steve

200 or 400 years ago or 4 What does it matter?

Fact is that the Vatican City State had the death penalty as a manatory punishment until the late 1960's! Do you dispute this fact?

I know St. Thomas ain't infalliable but neither is the pope. Right?

But we both know the Catchesim is right? :-) Bingo dawg!

-- - (David@excite.com), May 21, 2004.

"David"(?) You are very confused. I am trying to give accurate advice here and you are making it difficult. I will try to address your confused and illogical questions clearly and logically.

"200 or 400 years ago or 4 What does it matter? Fact is that the Vatican City State had the death penalty as a manatory punishment until the late 1960's! Do you dispute this fact? "

Yes I do, this "fact" of yours is quite false. The death penalty has never been "manatory" or "mandatory" for any offence in the Vatican City State. The secular laws of the Vatican City State and of its legal predecessor the Papal States are certainly not, and never have been, the basis of Catholic moral teaching.

"I know St. Thomas ain't infalliable but neither is the pope. Right? But we both know the Catchesim is right? "

Wrong on both counts. The Pope is infallible. St Thomas is neither infallible nor "infalliable". The catechism is a compendium of church teaching approved by the Pope. I suggest you read it throughly before offering any more spurious "advice", much less telling others they are wrong.

The only relevance of "Catchesim" is that when this guy makes a mistake, I "Catchesim" out. :-)

Brian, I think it's fair to say that the Church recognizes the advances made in the modern science of penology. Yes, there can still be escapes from, and murders in, prison. But in spite of horror headlines, these are much less likely in well-resourced modern prisons than in former times. Yes, a fetid dungeon in medieval times was probably pretty secure (but only until the neighboring warlord conquered the castle). But it hardly was conducive to rehabilitation.

Also note that the Church is concerned with the question of the use of CP for preventing probable further crimes by the offender. It offers no justification for use of CP merely for the purposes of vengeance or deterrence of others, or as a means of scaring the offender into a last-minute conversion.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 21, 2004.

Steve tells us: [Execution] ''is immoral as is abortion. If you have undertaken, assisted in, counselled, helped to legalize, or otherwise effectively promoted abortion or capital punishment and have not repented and received absolution, you should not receive communion.'' Clearly wrong. Not even close to the truth. Not about abortion, of course. The death penalty can be just; even as a war for the right cause is just. This doesn't mean those who feel as Steve does aren't entitled to their own sensitivity. If Steve's the governor of his state; and the most callous, indecent criminal is sentenced to death; by all means Steve can grant clemency to that person. Commuting the sentence to life in prison, Or whatever.

It's unjust, however, to claim that God sees capital punishment as evil, the way He sees abortions. Just because the newest sensitivity of a theologian has it so. As David has put it, things were not always so.

We should realise as a rule that death itself is not heinous, if it serves justice. There are many things worse than dying by execution; although if the guilty man can get clemency, I'll personally congratulate that criminal. I believe in mercy because God is merciful.

If a state has no death penalty for certain crimes, the evil that can result is very obvious: criminals never get the right message. That state does not make it plain to future killers that they will have to pay with their own lives. Just for instance, Steve is warm and merciful. But there exist right now, today-- men who will not think twice about murdering him. They can do it on a whim. We know that there's some chance however; at least a few of those same ruthless people will desist from killing Steve if a death penalty bars it. We all know there's a natural law, the law of self- preservation.

How can anybody truthfully say that death for atrocious criminals is the same as abortions of innocent babies? That's impossible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 21, 2004.

Steve,

"David(?) you are very confused. I am trying to give accurate advice here and you are making it very difficult."

Its because you are WRONG! And you can't show different. The Catholic magisterium does not and never has advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. There is no official statement that denies the State the right to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases.

The Vatican city state from 1929 to 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assainate the pope. So do you think the popes from 29-69 should not have received holy Communion?

"..wrong on both counts. The pope is infalliable."

Steve do they have a classes that teach people about Catholicism in you parish? Maybe you need to go back and take a few classes and brush up. In one statement you are saying the pope is "infalliable", but in the next you completley ignore what the Catechism says about the death penalty but you acknowledge that the pope has approved the Catchesim.

"..I suggest you go back and read it throughly before offering any more spurious advice-much less telling others they are wrong."

The Catechism states:"..the traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."(2266)

Now maybe you should it, and read AGAIN before you give advice against Catholic teaching.

About your comment about Father Geoghan. I never read any where that he was not a priest anymore. Can you show me different? Can you show me that he wasn't a priest when he was killed? Or is this thinking in your mind?

The relationship of the State to the criminal is not the same as that of a victim to an assailant. Governors and judges are responsible for mainting a just public order.Their primary obligation is toward justice, but under certain conditions they may exercise clemency. In a careful discussion of this matter Pope Pius XII concluded that the State ought NOT to issue pardons except when it is morally certain that the ends of punishment have been achieved.

I'll close with a little Bible lesson for you.(Genesis 9:6) " Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image.

-- - (David@excite.com), May 21, 2004.

Steve,

The Pope is infallible.

You will likely catch a lot of grief for this, as it is an incorrect statement, although most people will know what you (probably) mean. The Pope MAY speak infallibly, but does NOT always do so! The Pope is just as capable of human error as anyone else. If you wish to clarify your statement to something about speaking definitively on faith and morals, etc, that would be helpful. John Paul stating that a hotdog is the world's best food isn't binding :-)

And I wouldn't lump CP and abortion. Abortion is ALWAYS wrong, CP may or may NOT be wrong. Clearly the two are dissimilar.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 21, 2004.

Steve, The pope is only infallable in certain situations. There is a great explination here.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.

If America didn't have such a gun mentality perhaps there wouldn't be quite as many murders committed, and consequently less need for capital punishment. It's getting to the ridiculous stage when elementary school kids are shooting each other over silly little kids arguments.

But my goodness we can't possibly interfere with the right to bear arms can we?

The land of the free!

Yeah right

-- colt45 (ggun@gunho.com), May 22, 2004.

The suggestion isn't in context here. We aren't debating guns; whether in the hands of law-abiding citizens or outlaws.

The comparison is between two modes of killing. Aborting the innocents, who have offended no one; vs. executing of criminals sentenced for a heinous crime. Gun mentality has no bearing on a court's ruling. Only a minority of murderers are even sentenced to death. Most are incarcerated. Some obtain paroles and walk the streets again.

In which case, let's hope we possess a legal weapon. It may be needed for self- defense.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 22, 2004.

Others get loose on technicalities, or sadly, have lawyers that are more interested in winning a case than in justice for all.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 22, 2004.

Will Eugene and David please READ what I actually said, not put words in my mouth because you feel like flaming someone with your knee-jerk reactions and your set-piece personal opinions on the merits of capital punishment? I certainly did NOT say that CP is “the same as” abortion. And it has nothing to do with my personal “sensitivity” or whether I would personally give clemency to a man about to be executed. I am telling MaryLu what is the Church’s position. Personally there are several sickos who I would be glad to send six feet under.

I have NOT claimed the Church “advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.” I stated the circumstances which the Church requires before it permits CP. The Church clearly thought it was unable to declare with certainty that these conditions did not exist in the Vatican City State before 1969. Hence the question whether a pope (or anyone) who participated in CP, should receive communion, did not arise. I HAVE clearly stated, Frank, that “Abortion is always wrong, CP may or may not be wrong.”

I assumed that any educated Catholic (or non-Catholic) would realise that when I refer shorthand to the Pope’s infallibility, I imply “when speaking ex cathedra concerning faith and morals”. Perhaps I over-estimated the intelligence of my readers.

MISTER Geoghan was defrocked six years ago. Your persistent reference to him as “Father” and refusal to accept correction is deeply offensive to his victims and the Church officials who took just action to defrock him.

Eugene and David, please put away your testosterone-driven egos and do not patronize and accuse of being wrong, someone who simply presents the moral truths which the Universal Church teaches. No matter how much some pretend it so, these truths are NOT identical to the political agenda of the right wing of the US Republican Party.

Brian, the Church’s stand on CP is not something that suddenly happened in 1995. (And no Eugene it wasn’t dreamt up by ONE way-out liberal theologian.) It is a consensus which has developed over centuries and especially in recent decades, both in the church and in the governments of all civilized countries (bar one) and even most of the uncivilized ones.

Eugene, it has been proven everywhere it has been studied that CP does NOT deter people from murder; if anything it’s the opposite. Both the Church and governments have realized this. In the early 19th century in England for example, there were over 200 capital crimes including pickpocketing. And yet pickpockets plied their trade among the crowds watching the public hanging of other pickpockets! Most countries have abolished or severely limited CP in modern times. Some have not had it for over 100 years. In fact in the past 50 years the total number of people executed in democratic countries other than the USA would be probably less than 100. Even most Muslim countries rarely use it. None of them exhibits the “very obvious” evil which Eugene claims results from lack of CP. The only countries with a rate of CP similar to the USA are those like Communist China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea. Not a group I’d be proud to be associated with! In any case, as I said, as far as the Church is concerned, CP for the purpose of deterrence does not even come into the question.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 23, 2004.

Steve,

You'd better rein in your OWN ego, LOL!

When you say something like: The Pope is infallible how exactly do you expect people to interpret from that that you believe the Pope MAY speak infallibly? The verb "is" is not a conditional verb! When you say "Jesus is Lord" do you mean he is SOMETIMES your Lord? Are you unaware that people claim the Pope IS infallible? How are we supposed to know what you believe? Lighten up and quit expecting people to read your mind.

Frank

P.S. Jesus Is Lord is a much stronger statement in English than Stevish.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 23, 2004.

We must marvel at the extreme audacity of this man; heaving upon us the crudest of abrasive language, ''your testosterone-driven egos,'' as if his integrity or his prestige were threatened by other men. Abuse like this is hard to understand. Dismiss all notions of his integrity; all I see is vanity.

What the hell has testosterone and ego to do with our discussion? Even a child knows there's no comparison between criminals and unborn babies. Nor is the Church's teaching on right to life remotely relevant to capital punishment. Who in the world is dependent on ''Steve 55555555555'', for a clearer understanding of either subject? Even if someone were hoping to learn something new from you, Steve-- you won't have the patience or intelligence to teach; you seem only interested in yourself.

Stop your squawking and stick to the subjects at hand. Nobody asked you for psychological profiles of other contributors to our forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 23, 2004.

Frank, I don’t know else I could say that could possibly satisfy you. David asked me “I know St. Thomas ain't infalliable but neither is the pope. Right? But we both know the Catchesim is right? :-) Bingo dawg!” How else am I supposed to answer him? If anyone is still in any doubt what papal infallibility means they need only read the excellent link Bill provided. When we say “Jesus is Lord” we imply “of the universe”. It would be absurd (not to mention idolatrous/blasphemous) to say it includes all uses of the word “Lord”. “Jesus is Lord Palmerston”?! LOL.

Eugene, if you think ''testosterone-driven egos'' is “the crudest of abrasive language”, you have forgotten what you and David said above, not to mention the further personal abuse in your same post today. I have stuck to the subject which MaryLu raised; it is you who are apparently trying to railroad it. It is you who began by inserting your misinformed "psychological profiles" about my supposed "sensitivity". I see the Moderator has deleted some of your personal abuse from other threads and has asked you to desist from it. Please comply with his request.

“Nor is the Church's teaching on right to life remotely relevant to capital punishment.” (Eugene)

- !!! No further comment needed.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 24, 2004.

I'm glad you admit it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 24, 2004.